Atheism

@ossobuco,

Quote:

I was strongly taught religion as a child, and, while I am not sorry about it, even at all, up until I got to high school, the nuns at my high school were basically nuts, which I didn't figure out until some time later.

The chances are that they were all over 30 and Auberon Waugh said that all women over thirty are nuts and he was entitled to assert who is nuts just as much as you are osso. He's has sold more books though.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I think it's ironic and comical that theists and those who defend them would demand empirical evidence for anything whatsoever, considering the claims they make. Laughing

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I'm one who cried at the cathedral Guadalupe, for the wrong reasons.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

I made a huge mistake and addressed this quote below to the wrong person because I was distracted by the nagging of the woman who I love but it was directed at you ossobuco.

Quote:

You seem to be very educated in my opinion, Just think of how many others who know what mores mean. Please do not get me wrong because I do not know how truly you know or care about ethics but in my opinion there are probably less than 1% of the earth's population that are familiar with that word.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Is there such a thing as a momentarily theistic atheist?

I don't know. Voltaire was one, according to reports. Pascal put it in writing.

According to the polls there is likely about 9 times more theists in foxholes than atheists. I should think that relying on atheists in fox-holes would likely lose the battle.

Have you considered that it might only be the frenzy to draw attention to the self: an impossibility for normal people unless they are very good at something else, which only a very few are?

Having been abducted by aliens, and, hopefully, having been gang-raped by them, is another method although somewhat less popular. Outrageous hair styles are alright but they need to be worn all the time.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

ethics vary with ethicists.
I'm pretty simple, just a reader, often wrong.

Mores, a lot of people know that word - I don't read sociology as such (enough trouble with the news) and have no idea if that is a word out of fashion, maybe it is.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The photo, InfraBlue, is being used to refute a totally non-empirical assertion by theist...namely, that there are no atheists in foxholes.

Who has asserted such a ridiculous idea on this thread. Why do you look under some stones rather than look at your fellow posters?

People on this thread can't be expected to answer for the gratuituous and self serving assertions of absent parties.

You laugh Frank. It serves every purpose.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Mores, a lot of people know that word - I don't read sociology as such (enough trouble with the news) and have no idea if that is a word out of fashion, maybe it is.

Mores may be out of fashion. The definition continues to be relevant.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Is there such a thing as a momentarily theistic atheist?

Maybe not empirically but I have read where atheist who were schizophrenic and did not take their medicine heard god talking to them and were theist for a moment in time and I also heard reports from them that they thought that they were divine, Jesus, or God at times.
I have seen some people who thought that they were abducted by aliens and thought they were the devil as well. Our brains are very complex and there is a lot of talk on this subject if you do have an interest.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Mores, a lot of people know that word

Maybe in your circle but how big is your circle compared to the rest of humanity?

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Mores may be out of fashion. The definition continues to be relevant.

Please go in depth?

0 Replies

@spendius,

I only vaguely remember Evelyn, much less Audobon (Auberon).

When I say nuts, I mean, for example my religion teacher as a sophomore. Pleasure in marriage was a mortal sin.

Now that I'm a lot older, I wonder who she was before all that and what happened to her.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The photo, InfraBlue, is being used to refute a totally non-empirical assertion by theist...namely, that there are no atheists in foxholes.

Who has asserted such a ridiculous idea on this thread.

Would it have to be on this thread. Have you never heard the statement before.

Why do you do this?

Why so many red herrings?

Quote:

You laugh Frank. It serves every purpose.

Indeed it does, Spendius. I see you have made your election...and sticking with this lesser persona has won.

Hell of a victory.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Now that I'm a lot older, I wonder who she was before all that and what happened to her.

I can not be for certain but if I were to guess she was a woman who meant no harm to others but the ideologies that were indoctrinated to her from spendius's leaders in the long dark robes caused a conflict in the balance of her life.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I think it's ironic and comical that theists and those who defend them would demand empirical evidence for anything whatsoever, considering the claims they make.

In regard to this particular claim, though, I don't know of any theists, or their defenders for that matter, who demand empirical evidence.

Do you?

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

FBM wrote:
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.

That evidence is suspect.

Quote:
Just like creationists deny fossil evidence.

Fossil evidence is empirical. Soldiers holding signs proclaiming themselves to be atheists in foxholes isn't.

Quote:
It doesn't fit your preferred version of reality, so you simply deny it away.

What's my "preferred version of reality", exactly?

Quote:
If you can deny empirical evidence, there's no way words will change your mind.

Once again, assertions are not empirical evidence.

2 Replies

@FBM,

They may or may not be atheists. They are clearly not in a foxhole or any other situation in which their lives are in immediate danger.

Proves nothing, one way or the other.

1 Reply

@roger,

I agree that it proves nothing one way or another, but if you doubt groups of people in a war zone who profess to be atheists, it's pretty incredible that you'd believe something as far-fetched as the existence of an invisible being that created and controls everything, cares for you personally and tells you how to live. If theists held themselves to the same criteria for proof, where would they stand? Sounds like special pleading, doesn't it?

There are gobs of people in the military who claim that there are atheists in foxholes. They're there. It's reasonable to give more weight to what they say than to people who aren't there.

http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/
http://ffrf.org/outreach/atheists-in-foxholes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/16/atheism-religion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-hutson/no-atheists-in-foxholes-research_b_1508326.html

etc, etc.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Agree - without checking out the links, which I seldom do.

1 Reply

@roger,

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know