An almost perfect athiest movie, till the end.

etheroperative-33324 »

People create these theories so they can come to a better understanding of how people think, as a Psychologist you should understand this, also no theory is ever error-proof. I can't speak for all Militant Athiests, but I believe it to be ignorant to think someone can completely understand the mind of another with total certainty, all we truly can do is speculate. I called you a mindreader, because of what you said...

You're also a Hypocrite since you did literally the same Thing with me and with all Religious People, rmemeber? So why do you get to talk about how Religious People Think?

If you really meant this, then the vast majority of your complaints about Religion and what Religious beleif does and how harmful or silly it is, or how it's Irrationa to beleive it, colapses.


But you pjly applythis when someone applis it to Militant Atheism.






"The only Reaosn Militant Atheists find Religiosu beleifs wrong and hamrmful is becaue their own fom fo Religion has made that a DOgma, to excue the Holy Sacrmnt of mockign others"

As you can see you don't leave this open to any other possibilities, you clearly expressed that this was the ONLY way Athiests think...

This is what I mean. I clearly stated in my last post to you that I don't Think all Atheists Think this way. I make a very definitive distinction between an Atheist and a Militant Atheist who goes about mocking Religion. Butm its a trope in modern Militant Atheism that all Religious Peopel see all Atheits as the same and this is a flaw to Religious Peopels Thinking. The Irony is, it also means you aren't really talking about what I've said, you apply a generalisation to me I never made.


And you crtainly aven't proven me to me wrong.

Therefore you must know the mind of every Athiest.

I know the general appeal to the Militant Atheist Movement, and how Group DYnamics work, and how modern Militant Atheism applies to this.


That's not Atheism in general.

I did assume you believed in god,

It's God, not god. Again, God is used in this sentence as a name. Dont tell me its not a name, because you don't say a god, or even the god, it's just god. You are identifying a specific entity. This makes it a name grammatically. Why do so many Militant Atheists feel they have to break grmmar rues to show off their Atheism?

and anyone that believes in a god must know his/her/its/thier mind,

No, they don't have to. In fact, this doens't logically follow. Most CHristians, for example, make it clear that the Mind of Gdod is not knowble to Man, and so do Hindus, Muslims, and Jews. Sayign all peopel whp beleivein a god must also know the idn of said god is contradictory to the obvious evidence that they deny that they do. It also doens't make sense in flat terms. Beleiving that God exists does not mean you beleive ou know The Midn Of God, any more so than beleivign another Man exists grants that to you about them.


But it is irnic that you are tellign me what Theists Think then you just blasted me for knowign the midn of all Atheists with the sarcastic Midnreader trope.

how else would you be able to know/obey/follow a God if you knew nothing about them?

So your only choice is know the Mind of God, or know nothing about God at all?


God can exist, and tell you what he wants you to do, without you knowgn hs Mind.

Which is why it seemed to be an almost obvious assumption to make... Do you not believe in a God?

Does it matter at this point? Because Theist or Atheist my arguments are the same.

Do I think scientists with religious faith compartmentalize? Well what is faith? Do you need proof to have faith?

A better question is, if you have proof can you still have Faith?

I know the stock definiion in Militant Atheism for Faith is beleif without evidence but Faith actually comes from the Latin Root Fidese, and means To Trust. Faith is a synonym for Trust. Faith doen't actually mean beleiving in something without evidence. Anythign you Trust you also have Faith in.

This includes Science. If you Trust Science, then youhave Faiht in Science.

My understand is no, you do not need proof to have faith.

WHich is irrelevant to what Faith actually is.

So without empirical evidence would it be wise for a scientist to make a positive assertion?

You see, this is where your argument breaks down. You say that Proof is not needed to have Faith. You then equate Proof and evidence, even thouhg the two aren;t the same Thing. You also assume that scn eyou don't need proof to have Faith, this means that Faith must be beleif wihtout proof at all.


But again, Faith justmeans Trust. If you beleive in Evolution you have Faith in it, regardless of evidence. In fact, if you beleive the Sun exists and the Earths rotation will create Daytime for you at certain itervals, you have Faith in that, too.


Faith doens't mean beleif without proof, or even beleif without evidence, it means Trust.



The old cobbler of no evidence for God's existence is also not a very solid one since there is Evidence, and literally all the Arguments for God's existence, even the watered down Aquinian "five" arguments that Atheist website slove ot sya have been refuted are based on Evidence.



Just because its become a DOgma that no evidenc exists for God's existence or any Religious CLaim doens;t mwan this is actually True.

No it would not, the scientific method does not come to faith based conclusions.

Yes it does. By definition.

Just because the word Faith is demonised by modern Militant Atheusm, and modern society tends ot associate Faith to Religion and to Think of Science as somehow the opposie of religion doens;t mean the COnclusions we reach in Scince arne't Faith in the actual sence. It just means peopel arw igorant of what Faith even is.

So when we witness a Scientist settle on a faith based decision, it is only natural to assume they are compartmentalizing,

It's so natural that it took till 2006 for peopel to realise this, when Richard Dawkisn said so in "The God Delusion". I'm sorry, but this isn't some Self Evidnet Truth, tis a claim made withotu evidence by Richard Dawkisn that became popular.


It's also nonsense, givne that even if we accept the ludecrous claim that Faith is beleif without evidence, we still don't arrive at the idea of a Scienstist who is religious compartmentalising. COmpartmentalisation means you shelter oen set of thoughts from another, and what you're descriing is thats omoen who works in Science is also holign to beleifs they have no evidence for. That's not compartmentalisation at all.

since they seem not to apply the scientific method to thier own faith based claims.

There are literally Millions of Books on the topic of applyign Scientific Methodology to the study of Religiou Claims.


Francis Collins wrote one, for example.

Or what about This Title?


https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Science-Gifford-Lectures-Barbour/dp/0060609389/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1481202775&sr=8-2&keywords=religion+and+science


Or this one?


https://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-Introduction-Gary-Ferngren/dp/0801870380/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1481202775&sr=8-4&keywords=religion+and+science


Or This one?


https://www.amazon.com/When-Science-Meets-Religion-Strangers-ebook/dp/B00AHC9PZM/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1481202775&sr=8-5&keywords=religion+and+science


I can, of coruse, go on and on and on and on and on.


There are also enture books on Sicnetific Evidence for God's existence, and Max Plank even did an Equation he said proved God existed.


DOn't you Think its about Time we acknolwedge this, instead of persistign in the idea of "Faith based claims" beign a rejection of SDcience as they have no Evidence?

Because that's not a seriosu discussion, and doens;t rflect the Reality of the actual debate.

How do we know they aren't using the scientific method? Simply because no empirical evidence of God's existence has ever been presented by them...

This is a Free book if you have Kindle.


https://www.amazon.com/God-Scientific-Evidence-Gods-Existence-ebook/dp/B00XFQXZ7Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481203063&sr=8-1&keywords=scientific+evidence+for+god%27s+existence


You can also read this. It's by Franis COllins. A Biologist who headed uo the Human Genome Projext.


https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1481203063&sr=8-7&keywords=scientific+evidence+for+god%27s+existence


Or you can look at this.



https://www.amazon.com/God-Evidence-Hard-Scientific-Existence/dp/1447819896/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1481203063&sr=8-3&keywords=scientific+evidence+for+god%27s+existence


If this isn't enough, I can find a few Thousand more TItle s on AMazon on this topic.



Again, I know its a DOgma of the modern Militant Atheist Religion that there is no Evidence for Gods existence, but the claim is clearly not True.


In fact, it scontradictory since peopel make arguments for God's exisence all th Time. If Faith really were beleif without evidnece, then why do peopel make arguments for God's existence at all? WHy not just say "I know God exists because I have faith!" and be doen with it? Even bad arguments rly on some form of basic Logic and evidence.


The No Eidence for God trope is just lay at this point.

So yes it seems Scientists with religious faith must separate thier faith from thier scientific work. As the scientific method is not compatible and quite contradictory to faith based reasoning.

There is no such hing as Faith-based Reasoing. Faith is applied after a conclusio is reached. Faith means Trust, or COnfidence, it doens't mean beleif withotu evidnece and is not a synonym in this context with Religion.

Hench the assumption of compartmentalization. Can I say this applies to all religious scientists? Of course not, as I can imagine a multitude of other factors influencing ones choice to identify with any ideological group. No less, its a reasonable theory and I don't see how its hypocritical to assert the idea.

It's hypocritial because you don't have any evidence for it and you are assertign it as if its True to a broad category of people in general, whilst condemnign me for the same.

I would think people in your field of work would be completely dependent on psychoanalysis

You do know that Freud has few followers these days, Right?

There aere onky 35 Trainign Centres int he US for it, nd onky about 3000 Graduates per year.

Most modern sycholigusts do not use Psychoanalysis.

, and would unabashedly entertain all manner of theory.

Er, Psychoanalysis isn't about entertainign al manner of Theory, its about the beleif in the three divisions ofthe Mind, the Id, Ego, and SUperego, and how early CHildhood exiernces shape who you arw enturely, and how we can assess modern behavious via examinaton of those behaviours.

The next argument you mentioned Athiests use is the idea that people are Religious because it brings emotional comfort. Well does religion bring comfort to people? It might have some degree of truth to it, does it not?

This is the point where I'd like to address the fact that you missed my point. I was notign how Militant Atheists such as yruself use the sme arguments ovr and over and over again, nd how its obviosu that you're just repeatign Dogmas. But you missed that.


ALso, Religious beleifs can brign comfort, but they don't always. Ar eyou arugng that the onlyReaosn anyoen chooes to be Religiou is becuase of COmfort?

Thats clealrynot True.

When I myself was a Christian I know I found a great deal of comfort in the idea of an afterlife for example. I don't think its the only reason one would be religious, but I can imagine it factoring in to some degree.

Yes bu, COmfort can also lead one to Atheism. However, if I were to argue that th eonly reason anyone was an Atheist was comfort, that'd be really shallow, which was my point.


Well, that and how I'd heard all this rubbish before.




Beliefs define who a person is, and for another, you'd not be saying it if this had not become popular to say in the modern Atheist Community, right before the line about how mockery is OK. Do you Think mocking someones beliefs is somehow not mocking them for holding them? Mockery is not respect.

I don't think you understand respect very well,

Quiet the contrary.

its not up to you decide if I respect you or not, that is my decision to make.

If you mock mybeleifs you mock me personally, so any repsect you clai to have is moot.

What you preceive as Mockery, may in fact be the respect I have for you, its all a matter of perspective.

When you cal someone delusional for beleivign in an invisible sky fairy, that;s ot a matter fo pespective, that's an insult.

It doesn't matter if what I say makes you feel better or worse, my respect for you is not reliant on how good I can make you feel.

WHich isn't my point. I never broguht up feeling. I broguth up that mockery is not a sign of Respect. You can mock soemoen and they might have no emotional reaction at all, it's still not respect.

My respect for you depends on how I feel about you.

And if you mock me, or anyoen relaly, for the beleifs I or anyoen holds, then how fdoes that translate to Respect?

Respect is not abotu feelings.

Can you tell me how I have disrespected you also, I would like to know what it is exactly I'm saying that's mocks you so.

This is about a modern trend in Atheists Mockign Religious people, not abotu how you've spoken to me.

I'm just trying to be honest, I'm not here to insult people.

You are literaly defending insultign people as valid. Thats' what Mockery of Religion is, its insultign pepel who follow it.

That's my point.

We should be able to respectfully disagree with each other... Which is what I was saying from the beginning,

No, it wasn't. You said mockery of Relgiion was jstified. Do I have to quote you on it?




What I've said is that modern Militant Atheism, not Atheism itself Midn you, but modern Militsant Atheism is based more around giving the Militant Atheist an enemy to fight agaisnt and feel superior too, in order to both facilitate {Poltical and SOcial Change, and to give personal emotional satisfaction too as tearign down Religion as Irrational and Religious Peopel as delusional for followign it allows the Militant Atheist to feel like a special snowflake in how superior he is to he Religious People and how much smarter and better he is.

Is it not possible Militant Athiests aggressively promote and share thier ideas because they care?

No, its not. Read the literature.

Maybe such passion arises from being deeply wounded oneself,

Richard Dawkisn popularised a lot of these argumwnrs and claims to have been an Atheistsicne CHildhood. Bertrand Russel did the same thing and also didn't grow up staunchly harmed by Religiosu beleif. Lets drop that pretext.

maybe this Militant Athiest is only trying to help others from making the same mistakes his did,

By callign others delusional and addign a sob sory of how hurt you were that reads liek an Evangelical testemonial, nd is clealry mor einfleunced by other Testamonials from Atheits you have read in the same community than yoru own exernces?


Becuse I've seen peopel elave CHrstainiry and become Atheists who don;t feel the need ot go on and on abou hwo they wee lied ot or how they wasted so uch of their lives, and even appeciated Frienshsips and Life Lessons nd hwo they heloed the Ommunity. I've also seen Atheists become Chrstain.


I dont doubg that soem Militant Atheists were harmed by their background, but most werent. Most had normal, regular Life erinces, and just decided to retroacively interpet those as harmful in roder to jistify lashign out and to fit into their new community.

its not about hate and mockery,

Actually, it is. Read Skeptvis eb or Skeptics Annotted Bible or Evil Bible. Its all about Hatred. read "The God Delusion" or "The End OF Faith" or even Acharya S.

It's all abut Hatred.

it might be that this Militant Athiest finds life so amazing, so lovely, that it actually pains him to imagine others sqaundering it in favor of a fairy tale.

Yeah how are they squanerign it, exactly? Does beign a Muslim, for example, mean you are incapable of appreciatign Family and Friends? Does bign Jewish mean you can't enjoy a Nice Vacation? Does beign a CHistain mean youcan't make valuable contributions to society? They arne;t squnderign their lives at all.

But clalign their beleifs Fairy Tales does insult them, and its aother stock argment I've heard a Million Times. why shoudl I look at you callign Reigion Fairy Tales and Tink your' somehow not a sterptypical Militant Atheist who does nothign but mock others baed on premade arugment syou pulled fromt he Net? You talk abotu hwo its a reaosnable Assumption to think Religious Sinetists must comaprtmentalise, but seem to ignore why I do the same here?


You didn't come upwith the Fairy Tale nsult all on yoru own, you got it from others. Its a repeated claim you parrot back.


You arne't dgn this becaus eyou are saddened at peoepl wastgn their life because they beelifvei a Firy Tal, you are doign this becuase callign their bleifs a Firy Tale makes you feel empored and you hope to add to yor numebrs to mockign them.

Am I not allowed to think you wrong and your fairy tale evil?

You dn't really Tink that, though. You're just repeatign the Dogmas of yoru own Fairy Tale.


Its not liek you have any real arguments.

Hell, you dont' even undestand Christainity, despite havign been one.

If I am allowed this thought, might my cause actually be one of benelovence? Why can't you see this? Can't you see it might not be all about some cheap vain power tripping thrill?

You called my beleifs and those of others a Firy tale so, no, I can't see that as benevolent.

I see it as cheap insult, and a cheap insult that's not even yorus, but one youjust pulled ff the shelf of the Public Library of Atheist Insults.


You not only come off as arrogant, Hateful, and intolerant, but also as a Midnless drone fr sayign that. Why don't you see that?




ANd at what point did I say they weren't? Oh, you're just Reading My mind right now. You are tellign me what I Think and how I feel.

Well, I guess Atheists have that ability. Its only wrogn when the Religiosu do it, right?

You were alleging people become Militant Athiest so they can mock others.

No, I'm asseting that Militant Atheistm forsters Hatred because this is an easy way to get the changes in society and beleifs it wants, by offerign empowerment to those who follow it.


I also have evidence to back that claim by the very insults you have used here.


What evidnce have you presented?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

My bad, I thought you replied to him.

reply share

add reply

formatting help