Atheism

A
R
T

I supposed that is intended as satire. It's pretty weak. That's not atheism, it's anti-theism.

Your reply kind of validates the double standard the video addresses. The video doesn't directly address the validity of either atheism or theism (although you can certainly assume how the creator feels), but rather addresses the perception of the same activities given different beliefs.

A
R
T

That's bullshit--my response "validates" nothing, rather, it points out that, regardless of the point of view of the person who produced it, a dichotomy is identified which is not in the nature of views of an atheist. Someone who anti-theist might care about such a comparison, and a theist might care about such a comparison--but it's nothing to do with an atheist.

As someone who gets these comparisons thrown at you frequently, for which you (predictably) object (and rightfully so), I find it amusing that the irony here evades you.

A
R
T

Actually, i don't pay much attention to horseshit like that, and i suspect that you would be hard pressed to find many examples of either someone making such a comparison to me, or of my objection to it. I see a lot of bullshit peddled about the excellence of theism, no doubt--but i ignore 90% or more of it. I've hardly posted in this thread since the trolls Spurious and Anus have trashed it, and there's a pair who constantly attempt to assert that atheists have no moral compass, and no basis for a moral outlook.

I don't see any irony in that, i just see heavy-handed anti-theist propaganda. I'm on record in these fora for years pointing out that when it comes blood and death and war, politics and economics trump religion every time. Religion is far less important in the world than either the theist or the anti-thesists would have us believe. Nope, i don't see any irony there at all, just lame, puerile propaganda.

There's an hilarious and silly ad at the bottom of my page which has "C0-estist" in large red letters, and than a picture of the chrsitian "ichthus" fish and the so-called atheist picture of a legged fish with Darwin written within the lozenge. Frankly, there's nobody better qualified to co-exist than an atheist, someone who essentially doesn't care what others believe.

Know thyself, Set.


Yes, and they employ many of the double standards the video discusses. The idea that


The irony is in you calling it "heavy-handed anti-theistic propaganda" because it's a video about how atheists actions are evaluated as being exactly this no matter what.

The video doesn't assert that atheists are better people either. It talks about the narratives applied to the same actions given different people. The message is that the knife cuts both ways. You play into this double standard by seeing this as being "heavy handed."

It's quite fair, and it doesn't shy away from theists doing good things, or atheists doing bad things. It only addresses how these things get double standards.


I don't disagree. This isn't addressed in the video. This is a red herring.


The only thing lame is the animation and audio production in my opinion.

What is the message of the "propaganda," Set. I'd like to see well you think you get it. I'd like to evaluate what you think the video says, versus what it actually says.

If you're up for that.

A
R
T

I do know myself, clown, which is why your pomposity only serves to make you look more ridiculous than you usually do--no mean feat, that. Both you and the idiot who made that video are ascribing to an entire class of people (generally speaking, theists; but, from the symbolism, specficially christians) a set of arguments which are convenient to your argument. There's a name for that, and the name is straw man fallacy. There would only actually be any irony involved if you could show that the simple-minded anti-theist contentions of that vid are undeniably typical of all orthodox theistic canons. Good luck with that. So your vid doesn't talk about any narrative other than the one the author of the video has acribed (without substantiation) to theists in order to be in a position to sneer at them. Which is why i consider the author of that tripe to be not an atheist, but an anti-theist.

I mentioned what i've post about religion in these fora not with reference to the video--and it doesn't constitute a red herring. It is a refutation of your bullshit claim to the effect: "As someone who gets these comparisons thrown at you frequently, for which you (predictably) object (and rightfully so), I find it amusing that the irony here evades you." That's a load of horseshit, and just like your claims here about theists, and those made in the vid, unsubtantiated.



Is this supposed to be English? What is it supposed to mean?

The video is obviously peddling a propagandistic claim that theists (specifically christians) have a judgmental double-standard which is routinely applied to atheists. However, this is nothing more than bald assertion on the part of the maker of the video. Absent substantiation that such points of view form a part of the orthodox canon of all theistic world views, it's just so much blather.

Yeah, right!





A child could figure out the missing word. Is this part of how well you "know" yourself? Do you realize how many typos/word omissions/word misuses you have in your posts?

See, you don't even know how dumb you are or very possibly, you're using something you understand perfectly as a cudgel to try to advance your position.

Ohhhh, you read the next paragraph and you see that Set goes on, hardly missing a beat, to show that he understood perfectly.

It's pretty apparent that you don't know how dumb you are.

After wading through 60% of your post where you throughly burn through text, I finally arrive at a reply to what I asked you to do. Point to something specific that you think the video says.

We agree that the video makes this claim.


You however seem to think that the claim is "much blather." lets see if I can provide some support to the claim that these double standards exist in theistic circles. Wanna play?

The video addresses:

1) Wealth and Poverty
2) Health and wellness
3) Criminal activity
4) Youth and coming to age

I then would have the challenge to present that religious narratives exist that:

1a) Religious wealthy people are rewarded and earn their money through hard work.
1b) Atheistic wealthy people use evil and bad means to gain their money.
2a) Religious people who are ill are having their faith tested.
2b) Atheist people who are ill are being punished.
3a) Religious criminals aren't really religious.
3b) Atheist criminals break the law do to their lack of morals/belief in god.
4a) That young religious individuals are on a life long path/track.
4b) That young atheists are just in a phase.

How hard do you think it would be for me to find materials that support that these sentiments are promoted in theistic orgs/media?

Your call. I'm more than willing to explore whether or not this is actually a strawman or not. The truth is, I don't think you actually disagree. I'm curious to see if you're interested in putting your ante on the table, or if you're just typing with your ego and getting glass-jaw indignant like usual.

A
Ready to play.
T

EDITED

I believe you are spot on, but I would also apply those same inconsistencies to politics.

You forgot the word 'in' so your whole reply is junk, Art. Try again.

Sincerely,
Setanta

I got the edit in on time. Thank you. I'm an awful typer and when I start going faster I often take my eyes off the screen and look down at keys. I'm a hell of a lot better than I was when I first started posting on A2K. I still make errors, but I think I've improved.

A
R
Typing

None of us are perfect in spelling or grammar; I wouldn't put too much weight on criticisms when we fail once in a great while.

Which must be the ultimate heresy in societies the existence of which is dependent on beliefs. The computer on which the statement is made is an outgrowth of the discoveries of a Jesuit priest looking for God.

Thus the statement made on this machine is also incomprehensible. Said in conversation it is merely heretical. Simply thought, and not said, is of no consequence to a society built on and conditioned by beliefs. Even the KGB didn't care what people thought and cared only about what they voiced.

And it's pretty reasonable too. Until you find out that everything you have comes from a belief system. I can't remember but I might have said the same thing once upon a time. Not now though. It was only when it percolated my thick skull that what we have, what primitive religions had too, were the effects of a belief system. And that if you mess with the beliefs you will mess with the effects.

The case to be made by real atheists is that the messing with the belief will produce better effects and there's a voting public with a track record of liking better effects out there and the White House is there for the taking. If the case can be made.

Social consequences. The subject the pro-evolution lobby have in a locked box in a darkened room with a sign on the door--IGNORE.

All the rest is petti-fogging self indulgence. A sort of flounce in a taffeta tutu done by a watching angel in a school Nativity play.

Oh, I know. It's just something that I'm actively trying to improve on. I'm grateful to have these errors pointed out so I can correct them (if I can).

A
R
T

I've noticed that, Art. You must have have taken Pom or Gargamel's remedial writing class or you've been spending weekends poring over your Strunk & White.

The above, from, Post: # 4,562,860

http://able2know.org/topic/170277-1

===================

And yet you, Setanta, have the temerity to write,

I'm under no obligation to do what you aks me to do. I only addressed your silly question because of the incomprehensible sentence which preceded it which seemed to suggest that i'd not addressed the content of the video, even though i had already done so.

I don't think, i state that the inferential claim of the video is so much blather. Your burden of proof is not that some clown would say things like that, but that such silliness constitutes the orthodox canon of the theistic world view. The video doesn't say that some poor fools think like that--absent any qualification, it's clear intent is to say that these are the core beliefs of all theists (or at least christians, as once again, that is the symbolism used). Going out and finding some simple-minded hateful christian who thinks like that won't subtantiate the global charge made in the video against all theists (christians). Unless and until you (or the author of the video) can substantiate that such points of view are universal to orthodox theistic canons, it's a straw man. You don't get to set you standards so low as to prove that some theists are simple-minded fools--that can be said of any class of people, including anti-theists like the one who made the video, or atheists. Absent specifying qualification, the author of the video has damned all theists for points of view which he or she has not shown all theist to adhere to.

I actually do disagree that all theists are so simple-minded, or so hateful.

Don't kid yourself though, and don't try to armor your argument by suggesting that i'm indignant. This is a mere discussion, a talking shop. None of it is important. My position is clear, and nothing for me to get angry about. The vidoe is one long, ill-considered straw man.