What topic in politics OR religion can possibly have a good ending?
Yeah, but even as the article itself isn´t so insulting to the honest reader, the topic sure is "in your face".
I prefer not to be so confrontational myself.
Yeah, I know what you mean Wes. But hey... that's politics and religion. It is not for nothing that they say these are the 2 things you should never discuss in polite company.
#1835026 - 03/27/0906:23 AMRe: Why atheism is a "Mental Handicap"
[Re: DeepAtSea]
Crux Australis
Permanent Resident
Registered: 09/22/05
Posts: 9749
Loc: Emerald City, Land of Oz
My original post was against atheism as a philosophy and not anyone in particular.
The same goes for threads against Christianity. I have no problem with attacks against Christianity however tedious they may be. Personal attacks however are crossing the line.
#1835032 - 03/27/0906:37 AMRe: Why atheism is a "Mental Handicap"
[Re: Crux Australis]
DeepAtSea
The Pornographer
Registered: 07/10/07
Posts: 26304
Loc: On SP Blacklist
Originally Posted By: Crux Australis
The same goes for threads against Christianity.
you're right , i don't believe in any god or divinity but attack against christians, muslims, jews or the other faiths doesn't respect the forum rules.
i) Personal attacks against other members, or attacks based on race, religion, political affiliation or sexual orientation are prohibited.
dbl you need to edit the thread title and to clean offensive answer (and also the first topic by Crux Australis) against atheism.
Atheism isn't a religion... well, at least not according to atheists.
Also, you have to keep in mind that this section, separated from the rest of SP, IS a RELIGION section wherein RELIGION is DEBATED. And debates on religion (and politics) will always be more heated, more rancorous, and more volatile than discussing hot chicks or the latest tv shows.
I am trying to avoid, with every fiber of my being, censoring ANY ONE'S posts.
These are serious topics with serious consequences for real people and we have to expect that some people have very firm, even fixed, positions on the wide variety of issues debated here.
Some here believe Christianity is a myth and harmful to society, other's that atheism is a fool's paradise and harmful to society, and still others who take no position on theism or atheism.
I would prefer that the debate remain civil and respectful of others opinions - but I've been doing this for too long to expect that those conditions would prevail.
And I have been granted a much wider berth in applying certain rules in recognition of the volatility of the subject matter here.
So, in the interests of free speech, I have preferred to not censor.
If, after considering this post, anyone here thinks I should be censoring, please let me know. Send me a PM with your thoughts on this and why I should consider censoring speech here.
Notice how I avoided using the word “Retarded?” I’ve seen that many conservatives have developed a sudden hyper-sensitivity for the disabled this week, so I’ve opted to tread lightly.
The truth is that atheism is literally a “retarded” philosophy in the sense that it is very “late to the table” in its thinking. Atheists will tell you that religion impedes the progress of man. To that I say “Poppycock!”, and that atheism has no place in a civilized society. Think I’m wrong? Let me know, amigos.
…Yes, I used the word “poppycock,” and no I don’t wear a monocle.
The biggest problem with atheism is that it’s a philosophy which, at its very core, diminishes the value of life. If we were simply spawned from a puddle of gook, human life has no intrinsic value. Human worth is ultimately left up to societal circumstances, and that’s never a good thing… Especially if said society is Hollywood.
Ah, Hollywood. It is a silly place. It’s also the largest gathering of practicing atheists around. Whether these folks claim to believe in “God” or not, their religion is hedonism with their ultimate nirvana being self-pleasure. They hold themselves accountable to no one. Not to their spouses (as displayed by the divorce rate), not to themselves (as displayed by the constant substance abuse and self-destructive behavior) and certainly not to God.
I don’t care how many times you thank “the spirit in the sky” at an awards ceremony; if you’re living your life answerable to nobody, you’re an atheist.
Hollywood also follows lockstep with atheism in being an elitist group that believes it holds “all the answers.” To be an atheist, is to say that there is nothing that can’t be explained by current science. “We MUST know that God is an impossibility… Because we know everything.” Is it illogical? Of course. There are holes in the religion of atheism more cavernous than Julia Roberts cakehole, folks. But who really cares? Since when has Hollywood given a damn about logic? Just like atheists, as far as Hollywood is concerned; “As long as your worldview doesn’t affect my ability to do what I want, when I want, regardless of cause and effect… We’re good, compadre!”
Atheism of course works well with Hollywood liberalism from a social standpoint. Morally speaking, when human life is deemed to serve no greater purpose, topics such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research become non-issues. These outlooks always sit well with the Hollywood folk who would love nothing more than to live their lives consequence free, with the absence of any finger-pointing judgment.
Atheists out there, am I wrong? I can’t say that I fully grasp your thought process, so feel free to slap me around here.
I’m not saying that there aren’t some decent atheists out there, so don’t get me wrong. I am saying however, that when you employ a philosophy which forces you to become a product of your environment, you better be damn sure that it’s the right environment… And if you look around to find that Sean Penn is an integral part of your surroundings, you can bet that you’re on the wrong track.
The problems you're having are predicated on the fundamental errors you make concerning atheism. I'll explain.
You refer to atheism as a philosophy. It is nothing of the kind. It is not a philosophy-nor a religion, despite the attempts of many theists to classify it as such-due to the fact that it has no doctrine, dogma, rules, standards, practices, rituals, prescribed morality or prescribed ethics. Atheism is nothing more than the individual's acknowledgment that he or she lacks belief in any kind of god or deity. That's it. Period. There's nothing else to it.
Further, atheism is certainly not "late to the table". Atheism has been with us since the time of the Classical Greeks.
You then state if humanity evolved from "goop" then human life has no intrinsic value, yet you don't say why. The more pertinent question is why do we need an external deity in order to give intrinsic value to human life? Why can't an individual find intrinsic value for human value through the process of human experience and living the human condition?
It seems the majority of your argument revolves around Hollywood stereotypes who, according to you, lead lives that are little more than the lives of self-centered, hedonistic, pleasure seekers who also identify themselves as atheists; therefore, all atheists are self-centered hedonists. This is the "Hasty Generalization" fallacy and it is commonly used in argumentation. For example, someone might say a person is black and sells drugs; therefore all black people sell drugs.
I don't know any atheist who thinks he has all the answers and everything can be explained by current science...this appears to be another Hasty Generalization. However, the vast majority of atheists I know feel that no question is unsolvable forever and that though the answer may not exist today, that doesn't mean it won't exist tomorrow.
Finally, atheism does not "force" someone to become a product of their environment. EVERYONE is a product of his or her environment to some degree. What you really seem to be taking exception with is the fact that an atheist does not turn to some external intelligence to get answers or guidance but rather seeks answers within the realm of the human experience and condition.
That being said, let me rephrase something you wrote....if you are going to be the product of some external deity, god or intelligence, than you better be damn sure it's the right one.
equating hollywood with atheism is just ridiculous. Such simple minded slop this post is. we were all atheists until someone invented religion. take everything that has ever been believed by religions - and it all stems from ignorance. when science proves some religious dogma to be bullshit, the religion just changes their rules. or , as they do today, they just cover their ears and chant so they can't hear the truth, because they apparently can't 'handle the truth'
Look it's simple. I don't steal other people's [censored] because I'd feel bad if I hurt them. I don't need any made up invisible man to care about my fellow human beings.
Atheism is also the belief, no matter what certainly a person believe in. Probably this person dislikes church as it is, but vice changing religion, say, from Christianity to Protestantism, he or she goes into believing nothing in the way of religion. So it`s very unfair to say a person is mentally deranged or morally handicapped just because he denies participating in any kind of worship.
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Very simply, if I know how Atheism is defined in the article, Atheism is not intended to be a complete philosophy, or a way to live a life.
So it is not surprising that it doesn't function as such, or is seen as "retarded" or a "mental handicap" when attempt is made to force it into that role.
I hadn't seen these posts when I wrote the above, but it applies to the first, and to a similar version of the second, if I know how atheism is defined:
Originally Posted By: CruxAustralis
My original post was against atheism as a philosophy and not anyone in particular.
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Atheism is as old as man. And it has proved completely unsuccessful at maintaining a civil society. History will attest to this fact without exception.
However, as in the text in the next section, you're over simplifying, if I know what you mean. No, while not facts, conclusion, is supported by all facts of history.
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Religion is a VITAL component of civilized society.
Rather, speaking in the context in which you are writing (which is not a universal context), ideology is a vital component of civilized society.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
What topic in politics OR religion can possibly have a good ending? 
or a "mental handicap" when attempt is made to force it into that role.
Previous Topic
Index
