Atheism

@failures art,

Quote:

I didn't say anything about intelligence. I spoke only about belief.

Surely a high, fine and discriminating intelligence is required to see through the delusions of the credulous fools who believe in superstitious nonsense and who, according to polls, constitute 90+% of Americans. How would one know they are fools without being more intelligent unless one was considering the matter one-dimensionally?

In case you are not aware of it fa we are not even close to discussing the real issues. The clue to those is who is lined up on which side. And the most likely explanation why bearing in mind that it won't usually be admitted and will take the finished position today without reference to it's root and growth.

2 Replies

@spendius,

call me when "we" are ready to get to the real issues, will you...?

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

They are a bit too delicate for this forum Rockie. How else explain the 150 year long fuss? It would have been settled long ago if there were no delicate matters to consider. Isn't that obvious? Individual atheism has nothing to do with the collective version. And promoting atheism promotes the collective version.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Surely a high, fine and discriminating intelligence is required to see through the delusions of the credulous fools who believe in superstitious nonsense and who, according to polls, constitute 90+% of Americans.

But when institutionalized from birth, religious loyalty is not a matter of critical intellect. In fact, it is thrust upon the masses prior to such things as intellect has formed. Religion is seeded in the emotional soil of a person, not the rational. That is why perfectly intelligent people will still cling religion.

The opposite can not be said: That without the indoctrination, a person could arrive independently in a religion given intellect and emotion.

Quote:

The clue to those is who is lined up on which side.

What a divisive outlook on life. Perfectly boring and perfectly cliche.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

But when institutionalized from birth, religious loyalty is not a matter of critical intellect.

Is that not the point? 300+ million critical intellects might be ruinous. We can afford a few. A few are harmless these days. Especially when they have no blue-prints for the future and are too stupid and bigoted to recognise that that's the first thing they need.

Are critical intellects in favour of the family and private property and inheritance and courtship rituals and nationality and eating dog and pornography and drug taking? The only thing critical intellects seem to be agreed upon is that critical intellects are superior people and that it is necessary to remind everyone of it at every opportunity.

The critical intellect is based upon the success of religious loyalty. A parasite of it. A large scientific establishment has only a few scientists in it. The support logistics are down to the average American who, according to polls, is religious. And watch how those few scientists erect class signifiers. I have seen them pay more attention to the outward signs of their status than to their science. Not that they show any of that in their promo videos. The bog cleaners, the electricians, the plumbers, the washers up, the tea trolley ladies etc are all cleared out of the way when the cameras come in to show us the bottles, test tubes and centrifuges where the "suck it and see" science takes place which is going to save all our lives.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Spendi wrote:

And watch how those few scientists erect class signifiers. I have seen them pay more attention to the outward signs of their status than to their science.

You have been doing so these last years Spendi, you told us that you were one of them..

0 Replies

@spendius,

Man, are you a jaded individual. I worked in research science labs for fifteen years and don't corroborate your view. I do admit that funding is less now for pure research by such as NIH, and more by big pharma, but I still read about plenty of scientists who are progressing well.

Back to the atheist conversation this thread is meant to be about, when insistent diversionists aren't being fed:

I'm in the middle of reading a strong book, The Edge of the Storm, by Agustin Yanez, in translation.
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/yanedg.html
"An English translation of the greatest work of a man regarded by many as Mexico's most important novelist. The scene, a small village in the hill region of Jalisco; the time, the twenty months preceding the Revolution of 1910."

Aspects of the religious culture of the town at the center of the work remind me of my childhood and adolescence (40's-50's) - the closed circle of familiarity based on religion, the heavy emphasis on scrupulosity, the manifest fear of sexual pleasure, the morbid dread of somehow sinning. My experience was lightweight in comparison to that of this village, but I have not been so brought back to remember those days in decades now. The village experience as a whole is deeply fascinating as changes occur and information is clarified.
Fantastic writing.

It's a heavy book, but I'll go so far as to recommend it highly.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Is that not the point? 300+ million critical intellects might be ruinous.

Ruinous to what? Religion orthodoxy? Ask Mr. Joseph Lister.

spendius wrote:

We can afford a few. A few are harmless these days. Especially when they have no blue-prints for the future and are too stupid and bigoted to recognise that that's the first thing they need.

Atheists are no-less interested in future development. The only people who seem uninterested in a blueprint for the future are those waiting for rapture.

spendius wrote:

The only thing critical intellects seem to be agreed upon is that critical intellects are superior people and that it is necessary to remind everyone of it at every opportunity.

This is your narrative.

spendius wrote:

The critical intellect is based upon the success of religious loyalty. A parasite of it.

Funny that you should not write that religious loyalty is the based on the success of critical intellect. For your world view to work, the world must spin the other way dear bar fly.

spendius wrote:

A large scientific establishment has only a few scientists in it. The support logistics are down to the average American who, according to polls, is religious. And watch how those few scientists erect class signifiers. I have seen them pay more attention to the outward signs of their status than to their science. Not that they show any of that in their promo videos. The bog cleaners, the electricians, the plumbers, the washers up, the tea trolley ladies etc are all cleared out of the way when the cameras come in to show us the bottles, test tubes and centrifuges where the "suck it and see" science takes place which is going to save all our lives.

Word salad. No dressing.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

This is your narrative.

No. It is your's fa. That's why you failed to bring a critical intellect to bear on my question.

Quote:

Are critical intellects in favour of the family and private property and inheritance and courtship rituals and nationality and eating dog and pornography and drug taking?

Talking about a critical intellect isn't proof of having one as so many on here seem to think it is. I offered you 8 subjects to exercise a critical intellect on and you have ducked it. I could easy find you more. Democracy. The NFL. Media. Female dress.

Give me an idea what you mean by critical intellect and what one is for.

Would you, for example, ask osso what the research establishment did, and what the procedures it used were, before coming to any conclusion regarding the credibility of her remarks. Or do the words "research science labs" do it all for you? And what was her role. An ex-bottle washer could have truthfully said what she said.

1 Reply

@spendius,

"Your question" was irrelevant. The answer is that critical intellect do not force people to accept the same views on family, private property, inheritance, courtship, nationality, pornography, or pharmaceuticals.

Critical intellect is having made ones own conclusions on these things not having accepted what is demanded as the correct answer on them. The critical intellect of two individuals may lead them to radically different views.

This is why I said that intelligence was not a part of it. Only belief. I don't think being an atheist makes a person smarter. It applies no imperative at all to change anything. A person's morals may remain the same or become radically different. Atheism deals with the concept of belief, not intelligence.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Why io makes this topic into soylent green says less about atheism, and more about how he views the human race.

If that was the only thing you got from the soylent green comment you are in denial about the true nature of atheism. Why wouldn't atheists use soylent green ? It makes scientific sense...unless they are so scared of dying they want to live in denial. This means putting off death and thoughts of it by any means possible.

Are we to believe atheists are the lovely people ? They never start wars, they live in total harmony, they never live for the here and now but are always kind and considerate, never saying a bad word about anyone.....lovely people, atheists...in their own minds anyway.

Quote:

Both individuals, however, represent the kinds of obstacles atheists encounter in daily life.

An obstacle that you seek out on the internet....(wipes away tear).....that is a pretty big obstacle !

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Quote:

actually, Spendi, the catholic church is the business model for corporate America. and part of why we are in over our heads...

I doubt if business is reliant on charity.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Atheism is not about abortion, sex, birth control, divorce (marriage for that matter), adultery, sexuality, eugenics, or gender roles.

But there is a link . In the same way there is a link with religion of rejecting those things.

Quote:

It's a lack of belief. Nothing more.

The human mind doesnt work like that...neither its decision making nor its memory.

1 Reply

Speew-pen-dis.

Quote....The God of the Old Testament looks to be the God of the evolutionists to me.

The New Testament represents the Christian way of life which is counter to every principle of evolution and obviously so. It is the foundation stone of modern science which flowered under Christian guidance however imperfect that was and which was dealing with all the circumstances existing at the time rather than with a few lines in a magazine which offer no evidence for the assertions and never will be able to do.

Your belief in the Bible is astonishing.... Unquote

80 % of the USA population need to know there were two God's in their bibble, you should go over there and start up another sect, you'd become a millionaire in no time.

When I went to school at Comedown outside Bath in Somerset, the English teacher's punishment.. after the ruler was to learn a verse of Kings in the Bibble and repeat it the next day... Consequently it's the only bit I ever have read out of your book of science and the only other bit's I ever read are to the one's posted that are the beliefs of one's like yourself.... I don't know anything about your God or any other Gods that happen to be hanging around now or in the past and am not at the least bit interested, accept when I read about the one's that do.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

Obviously, this is the expression of your own troubled view of sexuality.

Ahhh...so it is not hump everything you can, it is "sexuality"....well that sounds much nicer....

Quote:

Atheists don't need to promote anything, just assert their way of life, different from hypocrite religionists..

Yet here they are promoting atheism.....

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

That without the indoctrination, a person could arrive independently in a religion given intellect and emotion.

I see you know as much about the early church as you do about the human mind. Never heard of Doubting Thomas ? Many of the early church leaders came from atheism and brought excellent minds with them. It still happens today, you are just riddled with cliches and generalisations.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Why io makes this topic into soylent green says less about atheism, and more about how he views the human race.
If that was the only thing you got from the soylent green comment you are in denial about the true nature of atheism. Why wouldn't atheists use soylent green ? It makes scientific sense...unless they are so scared of dying they want to live in denial. This means putting off death and thoughts of it by any means possible.

Atheism doesn't have a "nature." The lack of belief in god does not force a belief in anything else. Your reductionist assumptions about what morals an atheist must adopt are incorrect. I have no desire for any of these things, and that does not make me any less an atheist.

Ionus wrote:

Are we to believe atheists are the lovely people ? They never start wars, they live in total harmony, they never live for the here and now but are always kind and considerate, never saying a bad word about anyone.....lovely people, atheists...in their own minds anyway.

I don't want to you believe anything about atheists based solely on them being atheists. Evaluate each person independent of their belief by their actions. Atheists may do good things, they may do bad things. Who here said that atheists are incapable of bad things?

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Both individuals, however, represent the kinds of obstacles atheists encounter in daily life.
An obstacle that you seek out on the internet....(wipes away tear).....that is a pretty big obstacle !

I said you represent the kinds of obstacles I encounter in real life (read: offline). You aren't the first or last person who will harass and project things upon me, be it online or otherwise. You also won't be the last to refuse any answer that defies your narrative on what an atheist is and what they believe (or rather don't).

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Atheism is not about abortion, sex, birth control, divorce (marriage for that matter), adultery, sexuality, eugenics, or gender roles.
But there is a link . In the same way there is a link with religion of rejecting those things.

Untrue. In fact, perfectly untrue in that to "reject" any one of these things is not necessary to reject all of them (theist or atheist). There is no link. I know atheists who have very diverse thoughts and feelings on all of these topics.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
It's a lack of belief. Nothing more.
The human mind doesn't work like that...neither its decision making nor its memory.

You keep saying things about how the human mind "works" and "doesn't work." If you plan to do this, back it up. I'm positive you'll find no peer-reviewed study to support your own made-up concept on how the human brain functions. Neither psychology, nor cognitive science supports anything you've said about how the brain works. Rather we see that the brain works by associative binary systems. This is why indoctrination at such young ages is so potent. We also are learning things about mirror neurons that are challenging many of the ideas we have about human nature being inherently selfish.

We see that humans are not programmed to be as vile as the Christian ethos has said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Rather, that we are empathetic creatures.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
That without the indoctrination, a person could arrive independently in a religion given intellect and emotion.
I see you know as much about the early church as you do about the human mind. Never heard of Doubting Thomas ? Many of the early church leaders came from atheism and brought excellent minds with them. It still happens today, you are just riddled with cliches and generalisations.

The irony is in that Doubting Thomas was not an atheist. He doubted Jesus's resurection. That does not make him an atheist. The added irony here is that you use this as a claim that I don't know about the early church, or at least as much as you do (or think you do). This is the latest gem in your crown of ignorance.

Your reply to me still doesn't address what I said. I specifically said "without indoctrination." The test is not the early church, whom members were very much being told what to believe. Take a person isolated from religious institution, and see if they independently arrive at any known religion solely by the means of their intellect and emotions. They won't. At best, they will create a religion of their own. This would demonstrate divergence, not convergence on religion being a product of intellect. Religion requires indoctrination. There is no logical path to any of the world's religions.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I love it extremely good! Thanks for sharing.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know