A good example of why athiests suck

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Some choice are "free will" but really aren't choices at all. Intellectual honesty demands some things be held as true regardless of how much one wills it. No matter how hard I try I cannot be a flat earther, and many atheists and agnostics profess that level of choice. The choice was to accept the evidence and the consequences, the conclusion is no choice at all.. "I didn't change willingly, I went fighting and kicking" is a common refrain for those who have de-converted.

This is a position brilliantly addressed by Eagleton. You are accepting evidence under a particular set of ideological circumstances, ie. liberal humanism. You also are not addressing other types of evidence presented by theologians such as Thomas Aquineas or Maimonides.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by photon

Some choice are "free will" but really aren't choices at all. Intellectual honesty demands some things be held as true regardless of how much one wills it. No matter how hard I try I cannot be a flat earther, and many atheists and agnostics profess that level of choice. The choice was to accept the evidence and the consequences, the conclusion is no choice at all.. "I didn't change willingly, I went fighting and kicking" is a common refrain for those who have de-converted.

Yes, but we are now getting into a debate surrounding faith. And that takes us down the same path as every other thread CP has had that involves religion and would crush the debate over the evolution of symbols.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Furthermore, the choice of religion or set of beliefs is not always the same in every context. I would argue that it is conceivably much more difficult to "choose" to adopt a form of secular rationalism in a Muslim country. Our own cultural gravitation towards secularism has rendered this choice a much more natural one, and not necessarily one that each of us would make in a different context.

That's true. If I had been raised in a more liberal branch of Christianity rather than the word of faith evangelical movement I wouldn't have had the cognitive dissonance of inerrancy and reality and might have changed differently.. leaning more towards deism or something.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, but we are now getting into a debate surrounding faith. And that takes us down the same path as every other thread CP has had that involves religion and would crush the debate over the evolution of symbols.

Well, let's look at it from the original subject's position. We have instituted new symbols, mainly technocratic and ideological ones, in the place of religious symbols. Things like Progress, Human Rights, Universal Knowledge, and Rationality.

My problem with almost every atheist that I have ever met is that they are completely unaware of this; opting for photon and other's basic position that they arrived at atheism or agnosticism because they just "examined the evidence."

Heck, I have yet to hear one of them repeat Nietzsche's maxim regarding religion which is that substituting an omnipotent humanity for an omnipotent God really doesn't change things that much.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by photon

I disagree that it's completely lacking on these forums, I always try to be careful to be specific about what I am discussing without casting a wide net, and I've noticed some others that try to do the same.

And sometimes it makes sense to speak about the whole religious group, if you are discussing a property which is common to all of those in that group. That's the difficulty with atheists, the only unifying property among them is the absence of something, which makes it very difficult to use to group together.

I'm not trying to single you out but would you agree that the ignorance of some can cast a bad light on the rest? And can it be that way on the other side with religious groups? One group or sect does something that casts a bad light on other religious groups? That is my point.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that they are. The ICRC allows the use of the Star of David (or any other symbol) inside in non-combat situations. However, good luck convincing a war crimes tribunal that a nation that attacks a caravan sporting the Red Crystal with any of the Star of David, cross or crescent inside was fair game because they weren't flying a technically protected flag.

The main point is that the Red Crystal was adopted to appeal to one nation that objected to both the Red Cross and Red Crescent on religious grounds, and that one nation is likely the only that will adopt it. The symbolism may be intended to be non-religious, but to borrow your line, the Red Crystal is likely to quickly come to represent "oh, here comes first aid from a country with Jewish roots".

In short, the secular meaning is likely to be replaced with a quasi-religious one.

LOL. It's either a religious symbol or it isn't. It isn't.

Hence the need to replace all the various religion-based symbols and perhaps the name of the organization itself.

[bcb]

Back to the original topic, the whole issue of a cross as a public memorial doesn't offend me, except if the person they are memorializing isn't Christian. For example, if one of those patrolman were Jewish, and if I were a member of his family, I'd politely ask that a different sort of memorial be erected. Of course, I can only imagine the hue and cry, the letters to the editor, hate mail, etc saying that we should just 'live with' the Cross.

So basically, IMO, putting up the crosses was a non malicious, goodwill gesture, but if a family member was upset by it, it should come down.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

LOL. It's either a religious symbol or it isn't. It isn't.

Not per se, no. But this symbol stands a good chance of becoming tied to a single religion/culture, which is tantamount to the same thing.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is a position brilliantly addressed by Eagleton. You are accepting evidence under a particular set of ideological circumstances, ie. liberal humanism. You also are not addressing other types of evidence presented by theologians such as Thomas Aquineas or Maimonides.

So I can't accept a flat earth because I supposedly accept evidence under a particular set of ideological circumstances? If I only changed those ideological circumstances then I could believe in a flat earth? I suppose, as long as those ideological circumstances included "believe whatevertheheckifeellike".

Don't presume too much, I don't claim to be an atheist and my rejection of Christianity isn't necessarily a rejection of all forms of god. And my rejection of most forms of a god isn't based in simple evidence.

Give me an example of the kind of evidence you are talking about, one that would be under a different sent of ideological circumstances.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

So I can't accept a flat earth because I supposedly accept evidence under a particular set of ideological circumstances? If I only changed those ideological circumstances then I could believe in a flat earth? I suppose, as long as those ideological circumstances included "believe whatevertheheckifeellike".

Don't presume too much, I don't claim to be an atheist and my rejection of Christianity isn't necessarily a rejection of all forms of god. And my rejection of most forms of a god isn't based in simple evidence.

Give me an example of the kind of evidence you are talking about, one that would be under a different sent of ideological circumstances.

I didn't presume you were an atheist, but was just using you as a general example.

The evidence as to whether or not there is a flat-earth is frankly irrelevant to any perspective other than a technological one. To extend this to spiritual or political beliefs is a mistake that many atheists or agnostics make.

The idea that evidence and only 100% material evidence can constitute any worldview is a complete falsehood and is exactly what I mean when I say most atheists or even skeptics buy their atheism/sketicism on the cheap.

Let's begin my explanation with a question, "Do you believe in moral progress?"

[HPLovecraft]

Oh Lord.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not per se, no. But this symbol stands a good chance of becoming tied to a single religion/culture, which is tantamount to the same thing.

It has allowed another country to formally join the international aid community, which is a good thing. More folks helping out other folks. In what way is it an idiotic decision?

If the cross that the Red Cross uses as their logo didn't have Christian connotations, the Muslims and Jews would also use it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Atheist-haters suck

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

My problem with almost every atheist that I have ever met is that they are completely unaware of this; opting for photon and other's basic position that they arrived at atheism or agnosticism because they just "examined the evidence."

So just because someone uses rationality then Rationality becomes a symbol that represents omnipotent humanity?

Baloney, you use rational thought in every post you make, every decision you make, every action you take, but do you accuse yourself of arriving at the position you are at because you use rational thought?

There are plenty of atheists and agnostics that have arrived at their positions by other means than simply examining the evidence.

I reject god as defined by evangelicals based on an inerrant bible based on evidence, because that's all that's required.

I reject many other definitions of god because of both evidence and other philosophical reasons.

Some definitions I don't reject at all.

You spend a lot of time saying why things are wrong, but never explain why they are wrong or what would be the replacement right.

Originally Posted by peter12

Heck, I have yet to hear one of them repeat Nietzsche's maxim regarding religion which is that substituting an omnipotent humanity for an omnipotent God really doesn't change things that much.

Maybe because they don't think humanity is omnipotent? I sure don't.

Originally Posted by Finny61

I'm not trying to single you out but would you agree that the ignorance of some can cast a bad light on the rest? And can it be that way on the other side with religious groups? One group or sect does something that casts a bad light on other religious groups? That is my point.

Sure, but the question is is it actually correct to group a set of people in the first place to have the light cast on? Or is the grouping only in the eye of the person doing the grouping. Christians are a self professed group with common values and beliefs, and if one does something that goes against one of those beliefs it can cast a bad light on the rest.

Atheists aren't a self professed group though. So really the only action that could legitimately cast a bad light on atheists as a group would be to believe in god lol. Or do something bad in the name of not having a belief in god I guess. Otherwise if an atheist is being a jerk, it makes as much sense to group him to together with other atheists and say they're casting a bad light on atheists as it does to group everyone in a thread that doesn't have a beard and say they're casting a bad light on the beardless.

That's why it's better to stick to a specific issue, so rather than me saying "Christians suck" I'd rather say "Christians who advocate death to homosexuals (based on their flavour of Christianity) suck".

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

The evidence as to whether or not there is a flat-earth is frankly irrelevant to any perspective other than a technological one. To extend this to spiritual or political beliefs is a mistake that many atheists or agnostics make.

Why is it a mistake? I'm not saying it isn't a mistake, my beliefs aren't only informed by physical evidence, but why would it be a mistake?

Originally Posted by peter12

The idea that evidence and only 100% material evidence can constitute any worldview is a complete falsehood and is exactly what I mean when I say most atheists or even skeptics buy their atheism/sketicism on the cheap.

Why is it a falsehood? What in a worldview demands anything other than material?

Originally Posted by peter12

Let's begin my explanation with a question, "Do you believe in moral progress?"

This is probably a trap, but sure.

Heading out to supper now, be back later.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

So just because someone uses rationality then Rationality becomes a symbol that represents omnipotent humanity?

Baloney, you use rational thought in every post you make, every decision you make, every action you take, but do you accuse yourself of arriving at the position you are at because you use rational thought?

There are plenty of atheists and agnostics that have arrived at their positions by other means than simply examining the evidence.

I reject god as defined by evangelicals based on an inerrant bible based on evidence, because that's all that's required.

I reject many other definitions of god because of both evidence and other philosophical reasons.

Some definitions I don't reject at all.

You spend a lot of time saying why things are wrong, but never explain why they are wrong or what would be the replacement right.

Maybe because they don't think humanity is omnipotent? I sure don't.

Sometimes the best way to argue is to argue with the audience not your opponent.

What is your symbolism then? You are remarkably coy whenever this discussion comes up. As for my own position, I spend lots of time saying why I think things are wrong, I may not talk about replacements because frankly, I think it's a little premature in this discussions to bring up whatever is supposed to "replace" our secular humanism.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by bcb

So basically, IMO, putting up the crosses was a non malicious, goodwill gesture, but if a family member was upset by it, it should come down.

I disagree. I think it's an ostentatious display using maudlin sentiments to impose religious beliefs on public space.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

It has allowed another country to formally join the international aid community, which is a good thing. More folks helping out other folks. In what way is it an idiotic decision?

You will have to ask HOZ that, as it was his assertion, not mine.

If the cross that the Red Cross uses as their logo didn't have Christian connotations, the Muslims and Jews would also use it.

Not disagreeing. Israel and the various Muslim states retain a much higher religious focus within their societies, so it is natural that the evolution of symbols away from their earlier religious meanings will be considerably slower than societies that are more secular in nature.

[peter12]

Why is it a falsehood? What in a worldview demands anything other than material?

This is probably a trap, but sure.

It's not a trap at all. What evidence supports the belief in moral progress?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Let's begin my explanation with a question, "Do you believe in moral progress?"

I believe morality is a human construct. I don't really believe in the idea of moral progress I guess.

However if we all realized morality was a human construct I believe that would be progress