Atheism

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am not a child...and I wish you would stop treating me like one.

Frank this bothers me a bit. It seems that you have never read where I have stated that I think you are a gentleman and also a very logical intellectual "even though I do not see eye to eye with you at times.

So you said you prefer to go with non theist? Before you answer my next question would you watch at least the first few minutes of this video that talks about being anti religion?

The question.... "drum roll"............. Do you find something wrong with being an anti religionists? If I were to take it a step further would it be wrong to be anti Jew, anti Christian, anti Islamic and so forth because of the books that they say are inspired by god and are the absolute truth according to god?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
I am not a child...and I wish you would stop treating me like one.

Frank this bothers me a bit. It seems that you have never read where I have stated that I think you are a gentleman and also a very logical intellectual "even though I do not see eye to eye with you at times.

So you said you prefer to go with non theist? Before you answer my next question would you watch at least the first few minutes of this video that talks about being anti religion?

The question.... "drum roll"............. Do you find something wrong with being an anti religionists? If I were to take it a step further would it be wrong to be anti Jew, anti Christian, anti Islamic and so forth because of the books that they say are inspired by god and are the absolute truth according to god?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ9OyxAiehk&list=FLAJfDidJyukTekgSRZrjadw&index=14[/youtube]

I am not going to watch any videos—there are way too many offered in place of personal debate.

If there is something said in that video that you suppose relates to or impacts on what we have discussed…just summarize it.

I enjoy discussing various topics with all sorts of people…you included. But lately our discussions, RL, seem to dissolve into a series of questions from you that appear to be motivated by some sort of attempt to get me to say something you can attack…rather than to further a discussion.

And since all of those attempts eventually fail…you end up introducing fairies, pixies, elves, unicorns, and leprechauns.

It gets tiring. I try to be reasonable and respectful to everyone…and always have tried to do so with you. But at some point that kind of activity on your part becomes less than tolerable.

If you want to discuss things with me…discuss them. Don’t come at me with myriad questions…and this fairy, elves nonsense.

I am interested in possible scenarios to explain or describe REALITY. In my opinion, that other nonsense is crap, but I am willing to be persuaded differently. Do it like a man…not like someone treating someone else like a child…and we can have an interesting discussion.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Is there empirical evidence for there being no atheists in foxholes?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am not going to watch any videos—there are way too many offered in place of personal debate.

If there is something said in that video that you suppose relates to or impacts on what we have discussed…just summarize it.

When I asked you to watch only the first few minutes of that video don't you think that I might have been trying to summarizer the question?

Quote:

If there is something said in that video that you suppose relates to or impacts on what we have discussed…just summarize it.

I thought that I did that but if I did not please forgive me for not having the ability that you do.

Quote:

RL, seem to dissolve into a series of questions from you that appear to be motivated by some sort of attempt to get me to say something you can attack…rather than to further a discussion.

No frank that is not my approach and I wish that you did not hold such beliefs.

I like asking questions of you because I think you are capable of giving answers that I have not thought of.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

It's evidence gained through observation of actual atheists in a combat environment. I'll grant that they aren't actually in foxholes in that photo, but the foxhole bit is euphemistic in the first place.

But all that's a red herring, anyway. There is a photo of self-proclaimed atheists in a war zone. You deny the evidence. Just like creationists deny fossil evidence. It doesn't fit your preferred version of reality, so you simply deny it away. If you can deny empirical evidence, there's no way words will change your mind.

1 Reply

These people who don't exist have organized: http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

1 Reply

@FBM,

I don't think anybody is disputing that there are atheists in foxholes. I imagine there are as many in proportion to the number of atheists in the population. Probably more because foxholes are inhabited by younger people.

It's a banal point. It is not being disputed. So why the song and dance?

What we want is evidence that the picture was taken in a war zone, that the participants were soldiers and that they had experienced the foxhole situation. Convincing oneself that one would continue to declare one's atheism in a foxhole situation in the extreme case, and it has to be extreme to make your point, whilst having a discussion in the PX, or lying in bed, is neither here nor there.

Short of that we are being asked to "believe" in the picture's authenticity. Despite our knowledge that atheists are organised and mounting propaganda campaigns with what's left of the money collected for the cause after the offices have been suitably furnished and salaries disbursed.

You're asking us to be hard-bitten, cynical and challenging about religion and if we get hard-bitten, cynical and challenging about the picture you get all petulant and worked up.

Have you ever heard of the Zinoview letter FB? This is Able 2 Know.

You're a discredit to atheism. It deserves a better argument than that. We actually have no evidence that you didn't deliberately set out to make atheism look odious and ridiculous.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You haven't been reading the thread, have you? Laughing

1 Reply

@FBM,

I read all the threads I go on.

I know there's a theory first proposed by Mr Evelyn Waugh after a long stay in the US, and agreed to by Aldous Huxley on living there, that Americans are so polite that they think it in bad taste to actually be caught listening to what they are saying. That it is nosey-parkering.

I remember thinking when I first read of this theory how extraordinary it was and deserving of further thought. I have personally addressed a number of ladies in pubs who later proved that they hadn't been listening to me. On the philosophy of the Oracle for example. Or the wisdom of our membership of the EEC.

When I saw Mr Obarmy promise to close GITM in 100 days the theory told me that he wasn't expecting anybody to be listening. And the same with doing something about guns. Bill O'Reilly explaining how the world is going to come to an end if we don't make him Supreme Leader.

It was the extension of the idea to a whole population rather than just a few young laidies who had had a few that excited my interest. The morning after I mean.

It struck me one day that Americans are so enamoured of their accents that they have a need to exercise them for their own sake's and thus they would need to say things out loud to provide this music to the ears even though they had nothing to say. They obviously can't exercise their accents, which I must admit are quite attractive, except for ones like that in The Man With Two Brains and some of the "This Is A FOX EXTRA Presentation" ones, within the confines of their private quarters as they would then be talking to themselves. And everybody knows what that's a sign of.

It might have been Martin Sheen's voice when he was in a faked foxhole but I think it is more likely my noticing that people here with posh accents did make a considerable effort to be speaking irrespective of whether they had anything to say.

"You haven't been reading the thread, have you? " is a case in point. The incredulity in the expression implies that I have made a faux pas to be reading the thread and I'm sorry for it but being English I can't help it.

So you, FB, present one extreme and I present the other. And the truth is somewhere in between. That Americans tend to not listening to what anybody says more than Englishmen do. Which is confirmed by my experience on A2K.

I trust you haven't been reading my posts. I only write them for the sheer joy of appreciating my skills in literary expression. As the theory I am referring to would expect. The thought than anybody is reading them with any degree of attention is mortifying.

Those involved in the provenance of the picture, and those who approve of it, are making a confession too. If they didn't expect us to be looking at it they should not have published it. We all know what it is they are aligning themselves up with.

1 Reply

@spendius,

tl;dr

1 Reply

@FBM,

As Jane Austen explained somewhere in each of her books, once an idea is taken up it is natural to bend every circumstance to it. And there are many circumstances which might be bent to the task of supporting almost any idea.

To understand the situation properly it is thus necessary to go back to where the idea was taken up rather than paying attention to the circumstances carefully chosen to reinforce it. Taking up the idea causes selection of the circumstances which give it validity and rejection of those that undermine it.

Suppose the beautiful heiress of a wealthy fundie family was giving one the green light. What a fool such a young man would be if he declared his atheism when asking her father for her hand in marriage whilst she is praying in another room that her father approves of her choice.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Still no taste for red herring. My advice: be relevant. Failing that, be interesting.

It's just advice. You're free to take it or leave it, of course. Smile

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa, responding to reasoning logic, wrote:

I am not going to watch any videos—there are way too many offered in place of personal debate.

If there is something said in that video that you suppose relates to or impacts on what we have discussed…just summarize it.

I enjoy discussing various topics with all sorts of people…you included. But lately our discussions, RL, seem to dissolve into a series of questions from you that appear to be motivated by some sort of attempt to get me to say something you can attack…rather than to further a discussion.

And since all of those attempts eventually fail…you end up introducing fairies, pixies, elves, unicorns, and leprechauns.

It gets tiring. I try to be reasonable and respectful to everyone…and always have tried to do so with you. But at some point that kind of activity on your part becomes less than tolerable.

If you want to discuss things with me…discuss them. Don’t come at me with myriad questions…and this fairy, elves nonsense.

I am interested in possible scenarios to explain or describe REALITY. In my opinion, that other nonsense is crap, but I am willing to be persuaded differently. Do it like a man…

Well said, Frank

2 Replies

@neologist,

It is one thing to explain REALITY if pre-conceptions of it already exist. It is quite another thing if they don't.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Still no taste for red herring. My advice: be relevant. Failing that, be interesting.

It's just advice. You're free to take it or leave it, of course.

And unfortunately...red herring is being served up in heaping batches.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa, responding to reasoning logic, wrote:
I am not going to watch any videos—there are way too many offered in place of personal debate.

If there is something said in that video that you suppose relates to or impacts on what we have discussed…just summarize it.

I enjoy discussing various topics with all sorts of people…you included. But lately our discussions, RL, seem to dissolve into a series of questions from you that appear to be motivated by some sort of attempt to get me to say something you can attack…rather than to further a discussion.

And since all of those attempts eventually fail…you end up introducing fairies, pixies, elves, unicorns, and leprechauns.

It gets tiring. I try to be reasonable and respectful to everyone…and always have tried to do so with you. But at some point that kind of activity on your part becomes less than tolerable.

If you want to discuss things with me…discuss them. Don’t come at me with myriad questions…and this fairy, elves nonsense.

I am interested in possible scenarios to explain or describe REALITY. In my opinion, that other nonsense is crap, but I am willing to be persuaded differently. Do it like a man…

Well said, Frank

Thank you, Neo. I hope RL and I can get this behind us.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You should take it yourself FB. There has been neither relevance nor interest, nor indeed, effort, in your recent posts.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And unfortunately...red herring is being served up in heaping batches.

Would it be too much to ask you to specify what that means Frank? I do so hope that a red herring is not simply an argument you don't agree with.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Is there empirical evidence for there being no atheists in foxholes?

Not that I know of.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Thank you, Neo. I hope RL and I can get this behind us.

It's all cool with me Frank and please do consider our conversation behind us, that was about how some theists and atheists consider themselves as anti religionists.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know