PDA

View Full Version : Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining



FlaGator
05-17-2009, 02:59 PM
From the L.A. Times of all places and right on the money with the criticism of "superstar" atheists.


Ican't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.

My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?

Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ("Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as "God Is for Suckers," "God Is Imaginary" and "God Is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.

First off, there's atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us 'cuz we don't believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics (a group despised as wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists' failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall.


Read the whole thing here (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allen17-2009may17,0,491082.story?track=rss)

patriot45
05-17-2009, 03:45 PM
hehe!


and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.

Ad nauseum!

I won't mention names! :D

JB
05-17-2009, 04:28 PM
Here's my simple take on it:

If I'm wrong, I'll have been wrong for about 75 years and will never even know that I was wrong.

If the atheist is wrong, he'll be wrong for eternity and will know about it every day (or however time is or isn't measured).

I would suggest to them that it is better to err on the side of caution. :D

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 04:35 PM
Here's my simple take on it:

If I'm wrong, I'll have been wrong for about 75 years and will never even know that I was wrong.

If the atheist is wrong, he'll be wrong for eternity and will know about it every day (or however time is or isn't measured).

I would suggest to them that it is better to err on the side of caution. :D

Ah, Pascal's Wager. Another way of looking at it is you may be wasting the only 75 years you'll ever get.

djones520
05-17-2009, 04:35 PM
I don't believe people Atheists are hated because we don't believe in God. We're hated because of other asshat Atheists giving the rest of us a bad name.

JB
05-17-2009, 04:41 PM
Another way of looking at it is you may be wasting the only 75 years you'll ever get.Consider it a minimum investment in the largest payout ever.

And it's not wasted if I enjoy it.

Like you and renting women.

Shannon
05-17-2009, 04:44 PM
Ah, Pascal's Wager. Another way of looking at it is you may be wasting the only 75 years you'll ever get.

I fight with my mom on a daily basis because she has become a "born again" and fears for my soul if I'm not baptized.I already know where I'm going if Heaven and Hell exist. No point in changing anything now.

JB
05-17-2009, 04:48 PM
I fight with my mom on a daily basis because she has become a "born again" and fears for my soul if I'm not baptized.I already know where I'm going if Heaven and Hell exist. No point in changing anything now.She's not appealing to you on your level.

If you had advance knowledge that once you got to hell you immediately gained 400 pounds, I'm sure you would be getting that water poured over your head by this evening.

lacarnut
05-17-2009, 04:49 PM
There is hope after all for the LA Times. A voice in the wilderness of liberal journalism. Scary!

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 04:50 PM
Consider it a minimum investment in the largest payout ever.

And it's not wasted if I enjoy it.

Like you and renting women.

Renting women is merely a hobby. Like stamp collecting.

I'm also not sure how sincere belief is if it's based upon a risk/reward matrix. :D

MrsSmith
05-17-2009, 06:23 PM
The best thing about being a Christian is the joy that is added to life. It's no wonder atheists are such sour people, they lack the heart of joy that comes with Christ.

djones520
05-17-2009, 06:26 PM
The best thing about being a Christian is the joy that is added to life. It's no wonder atheists are such sour people, they lack the heart of joy that comes with Christ.

Oh get real. :rolleyes: I have plenty of joy in my life.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 06:28 PM
The best thing about being a Christian is the joy that is added to life. It's no wonder atheists are such sour people, they lack the heart of joy that comes with Christ.

Really? I hadn't noticed that. Hamps for example seems to enjoy life a lot. I don't know about wilbur personally, but his intellectual pursuits in many fields seem to give him a great deal of satisfaction. As for me, well I'm not sour about much in life at all. Life is what it is, with its pleasure and its pains.

OTOH, I've noticed that extremely religious people are always concerned with the behaviour of others, which can't be all that much fun with all of the sin in the world.

MrsSmith
05-17-2009, 06:33 PM
Really? I hadn't noticed that. Hamps for example seems to enjoy life a lot. I don't know about wilbur personally, but his intellectual pursuits in many fields seem to give him a great deal of satisfaction. As for me, well I'm not sour about much in life at all. Life is what it is, with its pleasure and its pains.

OTOH, I've noticed that extremely religious people are always concerned with the behaviour of others, which can't be all that much fun with all of the sin in the world.

I didn't say you all had no joy. Sinning is fun...for a while. It's just that the joy of Christ is better, more satisfying.

djones520
05-17-2009, 06:34 PM
I didn't say you all had no joy. Sinning is fun...for a while. It's just that the joy of Christ is better, more satisfying.

Do you have any idea how insulting your manner is? It's almost as bad as the time my Mother In Law told my wife I was the worst mistake she ever made in her life just because I'm an atheist.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 06:38 PM
I didn't say you all had no joy. Sinning is fun...for a while. It's just that the joy of Christ is better, more satisfying.

No, you said atheists were "sour people." I said I didn't notice any of us being "sour," unless of course disagreeing with the extremely religious is being "sour." In fact, the sourest person on this board might be the most extremely religious...

Shannon
05-17-2009, 06:45 PM
She's not appealing to you on your level.

If you had advance knowledge that once you got to hell you immediately gained 400 pounds, I'm sure you would be getting that water poured over your head by this evening.

That doesn't really happen, does it?:eek:;)

Shannon
05-17-2009, 06:47 PM
Do you have any idea how insulting your manner is? It's almost as bad as the time my Mother In Law told my wife I was the worst mistake she ever made in her life just because I'm an atheist.

I do not consider her insulting in any manner. She has a very strong religious belief. You clearly do not.

MrsSmith
05-17-2009, 06:48 PM
Do you have any idea how insulting your manner is? It's almost as bad as the time my Mother In Law told my wife I was the worst mistake she ever made in her life just because I'm an atheist.

Hmmmm...now, how many people really get angry with someone for saying that they're happier with {something} than without? I'm sorry you find it insulting that I'm happy. :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
05-17-2009, 06:49 PM
No, you said atheists were "sour people." I said I didn't notice any of us being "sour," unless of course disagreeing with the extremely religious is being "sour." In fact, the sourest person on this board might be the most extremely religious...

Not sour? You don't read what you write very often, I take it. I'm sure there's a Freudian reason for your current name.

djones520
05-17-2009, 06:55 PM
Hmmmm...now, how many people really get angry with someone for saying that they're happier with {something} than without? I'm sorry you find it insulting that I'm happy. :rolleyes:

You first state that Atheists are sour people, then go on to say that our joy comes from sin. That is what is insulting. I also find it rather pretentious that you can claim that your life is so much more fulfilling then mine is simply because you believe something differant then I do.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 06:55 PM
Not sour? You don't read what you write very often, I take it. I'm sure there's a Freudian reason for your current name.

Nope, not sour. Sour is constantly worrying about others' sins. Actually, I'm quite a fun guy and I certainly enjoy flitting about, both in cyber and real space. Other peoples' "sins" ain't my business.

MrsSmith
05-17-2009, 06:58 PM
You first state that Atheists are sour people, then go on to say that our joy comes from sin. That is what is insulting. I also find it rather pretentious that you can claim that your life is so much more fulfilling then mine is simply because you believe something differant then I do.

My life is far more fulfilling with Christ than it was without Him, and I am completely postive that would be true for any human. It's not an insult, it's a fact.

MrsSmith
05-17-2009, 06:59 PM
Nope, not sour. Sour is constantly worrying about others' sins. Actually, I'm quite a fun guy and I certainly enjoy flitting about, both in cyber and real space. Other peoples' "sins" ain't my business.

You're a fun guy? Seriously? I guess I've never noticed that, in any of your incarnations here... :confused:

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 07:04 PM
You're a fun guy? Seriously? I guess I've never noticed that, in any of your incarnations here... :confused:

Oh, I think that all but the Christian matawa would say I'm a fun guy. They might not like me and that's fair enough. But not fun? Doubtful.

MrsSmith
05-17-2009, 07:05 PM
Oh, I think that all but the Christian matawa would say I'm a fun guy. They might not like me and that's fair enough. But not fun? Doubtful.

Well, at least you have a high opinion of yourself. :D

lacarnut
05-17-2009, 07:48 PM
Well, at least you have a high opinion of yourself. :D

You know what they call people whose life is consumed by fun/pleasure? Heathens:)

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 07:51 PM
You know what they call people whose life is consumed by fun/pleasure? Heathens:)

What do they call those people who are consumed by worrying about other people's fun/pleasure? Whacky-whackies. :D

Space Gravy
05-17-2009, 08:27 PM
As an agnostic I must say I really enjoy watching the two extremes go at it.

hazlnut
05-17-2009, 08:30 PM
Not sour? You don't read what you write very often, I take it. I'm sure there's a Freudian reason for your current name.

Klosett envy?

Rockntractor
05-17-2009, 08:49 PM
I have noticed that water closet has been a lot nicer the past couple of days. He even posted a sunday thought for the day which I thought was nice. I think it is because he hs been reading the bible because of the recent gay thread. keep it up.You are making it harder and harder to insult you.I'm thinking there may be a human inside that cold white porcelain exterior.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/wToilet-Planter-2jpgw180h240.jpg?t=1242607330

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 08:52 PM
I have noticed that water closet has been a lot nicer the past couple of days. He even posted a sunday thought for the day which I thought was nice. I think it is because he hs been reading the bible because of the recent gay thread. keep it up.You are making it harder and harder to insult you.I'm thinking there may be a human inside that cold white porcelain exterior.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/wToilet-Planter-2jpgw180h240.jpg?t=1242607330

hehehehehe :D Someone should probably pm Rockntractor.

Shannon
05-17-2009, 09:09 PM
hehehehehe :D Someone should probably pm Rockntractor.

Nope. I think that's friggin hilarious.

Rockntractor
05-17-2009, 09:19 PM
Nope. I think that's friggin hilarious.
Ok. What the inside joke tatorette.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 09:20 PM
Ok. What the inside joke tatorette.

It's not particularly "inside." After all, the Water Closet is usually outside. :D

Rockntractor
05-17-2009, 09:23 PM
It's not particularly "inside." After all, the Water Closet is usually outside. :D
I'm just a poor dumb redneck clingen to my guns and relijun I won't figure it out.

Water Closet
05-17-2009, 09:43 PM
I'm just a poor dumb redneck clingen to my guns and relijun I won't figure it out.

Use the search facility for threads with "Sunday" in their title.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 12:07 AM
Oh get real. :rolleyes: I have plenty of joy in my life.

But you can't really compare the two can you? I have walked on both paths and though I had joy before being a Christian, I have more now and the promise of infinite joy to come. I don't think anyone was saying that you don't have happiness and joy in your life and if that satisfies you then good, but you could experience much more that joy if you chose to. Besides joy in this world is a fleeting thing. There are things that are more important from an emotional stand point and one of the, and is most important to me, is spiritual peace.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 12:13 AM
Renting women is merely a hobby. Like stamp collecting.

I'm also not sure how sincere belief is if it's based upon a risk/reward matrix. :D

But it is also selfish behavior. You have know idea if there is long term mental health damage to the woman (and there is evidence that there is) but you don't care as long as you get your satisfaction today. Yes, she consents but how often have people agreed with certain behavior only to regret it latter on in life. Just think, you wilfully contribute to that regret but I suppose that it doesn't matter to you. There are people who consented to do drugs years ago and now have fried brains as a result. They regret those years but there is no way to reverse what has been done.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 12:15 AM
I fight with my mom on a daily basis because she has become a "born again" and fears for my soul if I'm not baptized.I already know where I'm going if Heaven and Hell exist. No point in changing anything now.

That is about the most ignorant thing I've read in a long time. I hope you are joking.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 12:24 AM
No, you said atheists were "sour people." I said I didn't notice any of us being "sour," unless of course disagreeing with the extremely religious is being "sour." In fact, the sourest person on this board might be the most extremely religious...

Read some of the books mentioned in the article, especially stuff by Dawkins. Whether you like it or not those people are the face of atheism and the contribute heavily to the impressions that folks have. I personally think that Hamps and possibly Djones are the only truth atheist on the site because they could careless what Christians think and believe. I'm really surprised the Djones has weighted in on this. The rest of the atheists on CU live up to the article to a tee. Overly concerned and obsessed with every nuance of Christian belief and not satisfied with watching us making our "mistake" but wanting us to know why we are making are mistake. They have get involved on every thread that deals with faith and people of faith. They are drawn to the conversations like moths to a flame. They aren't happy with their non belief but want others to stop believing too. This makes suspect their underlying motivation and true devotion to their beliefs.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 12:29 AM
Nope, not sour. Sour is constantly worrying about others' sins. Actually, I'm quite a fun guy and I certainly enjoy flitting about, both in cyber and real space. Other peoples' "sins" ain't my business.

But apparently other peoples beliefs are your business since you are are criticizing a Christian view of atheism. What is the difference between worrying about other peoples sins and worrying about other peoples beliefs? It's exactly the same thing and a bit disingenuous to blame one group of people for doing the exact same thing that you are guilty of, don't you think?

wilbur
05-18-2009, 12:33 AM
From the L.A. Times of all places and right on the money with the criticism of "superstar" atheists.


I find it ironic, what a yawner this article was, when a core claim in the article is that atheists are the boring ones. A dozen articles, virtually indistinguishable to this one, are published every single day. Its not even clear what the overall argument is... seems more a disorganized collection of poor rhetorical jabs against straw-men. And for an article that claims the atheists are the whiney ones.... well...

Honestly, raise the bar a little FlaGator... this isnt worthy.

What she doesn't seem to realize... or probably does, but is motivated by a little anger herself, is that theists have been engaged seriously and soberly.. their best arguments have been considered and rebutted, and are debated all the time. From their philosophical arguments, to their scientific arguments, to their historical arguments... they have all been debated seriously, by the people she mentions. If she chooses to ignore this, its her loss.

Its sad that people here seem to fall for such dishonest tripe.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 12:40 AM
I find it ironic, what a yawner this article was, when a core claim in the article is that atheists are the boring ones. A dozen articles, virtually indistinguishable to this one, are published every single day. Its not even clear what the overall argument is... seems more a disorganized collection of poor rhetorical jabs against straw-men. And for an article that claims the atheists are the whiney ones.... well...

Honestly, raise the bar a little FlaGator... this isnt worthy.

What she doesn't seem to realize... or probably does, but is motivated by a little anger herself, is that theists have been engaged seriously and soberly.. their best arguments have been considered and rebutted, and are debated all the time. If she chooses to ignore this, its her loss.

Its sad that people here seem to fall for such dishonest tripe.

Well if you found it so boring then why comment? It sure created a lot of posts between the time I posted it and the time I first replied (35). You find it dishonest because it negatively portrays your point of view. That, however, doesn't make it dishonest. The nature of your reply causes me to thing that it struck a nerve with you and isn't as big of a yawner as you would have us believe.

wilbur
05-18-2009, 01:12 AM
Well if you found it so boring then why comment? It sure created a lot of posts between the time I posted it and the time I first replied (35). You find it dishonest because it negatively portrays your point of view. That, however, doesn't make it dishonest. The nature of your reply causes me to thing that it struck a nerve with you and isn't as big of a yawner as you would have us believe.

I replied, because it dismays me.. and please... leave the armchair psychology behind FlaGator. Your not-so-subtle innuendo's that try to speak to the "hidden" motivations of me and others is pretty tacky (not to mention, wrong). While we all indulge in a little "tackiness" (or worse) from time to time, this sort of thing has become a staple of your m.o. lately. If nothing else, I endeavor to be intellectually honest.

If you think that was an accurate portrayal of the claims or character of the atheists she chastises... you haven't read or understood the material or the arguments yourself with an honest eye.

If there is some more narrow point in the article you think is especially powerful or accurate, pull it out and lets analyze it.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 06:54 AM
I replied, because it dismays me.. and please... leave the armchair psychology behind FlaGator. Your not-so-subtle innuendo's that try to speak to the "hidden" motivations of me and others is pretty tacky (not to mention, wrong). While we all indulge in a little "tackiness" (or worse) from time to time, this sort of thing has become a staple of your m.o. lately. If nothing else, I endeavor to be intellectually honest.

If you think that was an accurate portrayal of the claims or character of the atheists she chastises... you haven't read or understood the material or the arguments yourself with an honest eye.

If there is some more narrow point in the article you think is especially powerful or accurate, pull it out and lets analyze it.

By some odd chance, I thought of you will reading it. Not the part about being boring but the part about the discussion points of atheists. As for the armchair psychology I am not sure of your motiviations, but I will state that once again you attempt to redirect the conversation by teling me what methods I can and can't use discussing thing. Since it bothers you, again I believe it is because I have struck a nerve.

Intellectually honest? I believe that you avoid that like the plague. There was this issue a month or so back when confronted with the words of Thomas Jefferson you invited the OP to the dome to discuss it and to my knowledge you never showed up nor continued the discussion on the original thread. That was intellectually honest? I myself I presented you with scenerios that you have attempted to knock down with strawmen instead of answering the question out right.

What point is it to pick out a narrow point and debate it when you will either use a strawman, you will attempt to invalidate the evidence presented to you or try to redirect the topic to one you are more comfortable dealing with.

Oh and one last thing, I find it ironic that you obviously have no understanding of the material and information you glean from the Bible, but that doesn't hinder you in the least on commenting on it or using it out of context to make some point or another but then you accuse me of not grasping the atheistic material I have read and thus I can't have understand it. Pot and Kettle?

You want a specific point how about this one, many atheists play the victim card using Christians as their persecutors because their views aren't accepted by a larger audience? Lets start with that and see if you can stick to it and not build a strawman or debase any sources that I may use to validate my postion. Also no reframing the topic as you like to do?

Water Closet
05-18-2009, 06:56 AM
But it is also selfish behavior. You have know idea if there is long term mental health damage to the woman (and there is evidence that there is) but you don't care as long as you get your satisfaction today. Yes, she consents but how often have people agreed with certain behavior only to regret it latter on in life. Just think, you wilfully contribute to that regret but I suppose that it doesn't matter to you. There are people who consented to do drugs years ago and now have fried brains as a result. They regret those years but there is no way to reverse what has been done.

FlaGator, in our capatalistic society, how many professions involve both physical and emotional risk significantly higher than prostitution? Further, while prostitution does involve some physical risk, most of that is due to the illegality of the profession.

Tell me, do you fret after all of those other occupations or only that subset that involves "sin?" Do you worry about the risks coal miners take when you turn on your lights? Do you worry about the risks North Atlantic fishermen take when you eat halibut? Probably not, because they're not "sinners?"

Water Closet
05-18-2009, 06:59 AM
Read some of the books mentioned in the article, especially stuff by Dawkins. Whether you like it or not those people are the face of atheism and the contribute heavily to the impressions that folks have. I personally think that Hamps and possibly Djones are the only truth atheist on the site because they could careless what Christians think and believe. I'm really surprised the Djones has weighted in on this. The rest of the atheists on CU live up to the article to a tee. Overly concerned and obsessed with every nuance of Christian belief and not satisfied with watching us making our "mistake" but wanting us to know why we are making are mistake. They have get involved on every thread that deals with faith and people of faith. They are drawn to the conversations like moths to a flame. They aren't happy with their non belief but want others to stop believing too. This makes suspect their underlying motivation and true devotion to their beliefs.

Actually, I only entered the conversation in response to JB's reference to Pascal's Wager which I believe is a pretty poor rationalization for faith. At that point, the ever-sour Mrs.Smith entered to offend all us happy-go-lucky atheists.

Water Closet
05-18-2009, 07:01 AM
But apparently other peoples beliefs are your business since you are are criticizing a Christian view of atheism. What is the difference between worrying about other peoples sins and worrying about other peoples beliefs? It's exactly the same thing and a bit disingenuous to blame one group of people for doing the exact same thing that you are guilty of, don't you think?

That is a very, very odd comment since you began the thread by posting an OP characterizing atheists as "whiners." Then, when atheists respond, they are the ones worrying about other peoples beliefs? :confused:

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 07:21 AM
FlaGator, in our capatalistic society, how many professions involve both physical and emotional risk significantly higher than prostitution? Further, while prostitution does involve some physical risk, most of that is due to the illegality of the profession.

Tell me, do you fret after all of those other occupations or only that subset that involves "sin?" Do you worry about the risks coal miners take when you turn on your lights? Do you worry about the risks North Atlantic fishermen take when you eat halibut? Probably not, because they're not "sinners?"

I see your point, but this seems to be a bit different. I can't explain why exactly and I feel it goes beyond my moral objections. I've worked with ex hookers and call girls and they all have psychological scares that go behind what coal miners and other high risk jobs. BTW, I do wonder how coal miners could do their job safer. You would have to talk with these girls and guys after they have given up the profession to understand what I mean. There is something broken about them that they themselves have trouble identifying. Maybe they were broken people before they went in to the profession but I know that their line of work didn't help them.

I don't really care if other people choose to sin. I will state my objections to a particular sin if it is the topic of conversation but a person can do anything he or she chooses. However, I do feel bad for the men and women who sold themselves for the pleasure of others and are now having difficulty dealing with their pasts.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 07:24 AM
Actually, I only entered the conversation in response to JB's reference to Pascal's Wager which I believe is a pretty poor rationalization for faith. At that point, the ever-sour Mrs.Smith entered to offend all us happy-go-lucky atheists.

Pascal himself thought it a poor rationalization of faith because God knows if you are doing it because you love Him or just to save yourself. Still it raises valid questions concerning what people want out of life and causes people to think about these questions and that is what Pascal's Wager is really all about... in my opinion.

Water Closet
05-18-2009, 07:27 AM
I see your point, but this seems to be a bit different. I can't explain why exactly and I feel it goes beyond my moral objections. I've worked with ex hookers and call girls and they all have psychological scares that go behind what coal miners and other high risk jobs. BTW, I do wonder how coal miners could do their job safer. You would have to talk with these girls and guys after they have given up the profession to understand what I mean. There is something broken about them that they themselves have trouble identifying. Maybe they were broken people before they went in to the profession but I know that their line of work didn't help them.

I don't really care if other people choose to sin. I will state my objections to a particular sin if it is the topic of conversation but a person can do anything he or she chooses. However, I do feel bad for the men and women who sold themselves for the pleasure of others and are now having difficulty dealing with their pasts.

I have personally known many active and retired escorts. Of the retired ones, some seem still affected by their past experiences, most don't. Your characterization is of these women is completely different than my own experience. Perhaps we have known a different strata of the profession.

As to your comment "a person can do anything he or she chooses," unfortunately if she chooses to be an escort society can put her into jail for her choice.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 07:30 AM
That is a very, very odd comment since you began the thread by posting an OP characterizing atheists as "whiners." Then, when atheists respond, they are the ones worrying about other peoples beliefs? :confused:

Actually I do find it odd because why should they care what believers think about them? In their minds we are stupid and delusional. Does one try to be rational with a schizophrenic or does one just let him have is delusion?

I wasn't really referring to this specific thread. I was hoping the Atheists wouild join in a conversation. In my quoted comment I was more referring to the way wilbur jumps in with both feet every time the words "Christian" or "morality" is mentioned in a thread. He can't let one go by with out getting involved and often becoming the center of the conversation.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 07:35 AM
I have personally known many active and retired escorts. Of the retired ones, some seem still affected by their past experiences, most don't. Your characterization is of these women is completely different than my own experience. Perhaps we have known a different strata of the profession.

As to your comment "a person can do anything he or she chooses," unfortunately if she chooses to be an escort society can put her into jail for her choice.

I guess I should have qualified that with "as far as I am concerned". I treat this stuff the same way s I deal with with the drunks in A.A. If they want to drink themselves to death then that is fine by me, I'll pray for them but if they want help I'm more than willing and happy to help.

Water Closet
05-18-2009, 07:53 AM
I guess I should have qualified that with "as far as I am concerned". I treat this stuff the same way s I deal with with the drunks in A.A. If they want to drink themselves to death then that is fine by me, I'll pray for them but if they want help I'm more than willing and happy to help.

Well, you only compared prostitutes to drunks. I guess that's better than some previous posters who tended to associate them with murderers, rapists, and thieves.

Sonnabend
05-18-2009, 08:09 AM
Well, you only compared prostitutes to drunks. I guess that's better than some previous posters who tended to associate them with murderers, rapists, and thieves.

I think I would be very safe in saying that. when it comes to prostitutes, you are beyond doubt CU's resident expert emeritus.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 12:07 PM
Well, you only compared prostitutes to drunks. I guess that's better than some previous posters who tended to associate them with murderers, rapists, and thieves.

I wasn't comparing prostitutes to drunks, I was saying that rather than judging people's as sinners I deal with them who are looking to get sober. If they are interested in helpI speak up, if they want to stay drunks well that's fine too. Now if if the topic is a particular vice then I will put my two cents in. I'm not telling anyone to stop doing what they are doing, I'm just giving my point of view.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 12:09 PM
Note to wilbur, if you reply and I don't respond back it is because I am in meetings all afternoon at work and I have a Vestry meeting this evening that may run late.

wilbur
05-18-2009, 01:16 PM
By some odd chance, I thought of you will reading it. Not the part about being boring but the part about the discussion points of atheists. As for the armchair psychology I am not sure of your motiviations, but I will state that once again you attempt to redirect the conversation by teling me what methods I can and can't use discussing thing. Since it bothers you, again I believe it is because I have struck a nerve.

Well here, I'll tell you my motivations and the source of my dismay... which is the observation of the laxidasical filter you and others here use when consuming information that seems to confirm your most desired beliefs... conversely, in other scenarios we observe an uncharacteristic rabid hyper-skepticism when it comes to issues that threaten those beliefs (global warming for example, homosexuality etc). If its some small victory to you to "strike" a nerve, the by all means consider it struck... but do so with the consideration that it simply signals exasperation at your (and others here) own failings to wield any consistent standard with which to analyze and corroborate new information, and is not at the behest of any compelling argument or point from you or the article. But you do seem to think such faux victories are meaningful in some way, for whatever reasons I can't fathom.

As for the article content, yet it was boring, since its a template that gets used daily. Although, it would be the first time I saw Hitchens and "boring" used together... one thing no honest person could ever accuse Hitchens of, I don't think... and as if theist philosophy is the pinnacle of action packed entertainment. Its amazing to me that you think an article, which was barely more that a giant straw-man/ad hominem was in any way compelling or "on the mark".



Oh and one last thing, I find it ironic that you obviously have no understanding of the material and information you glean from the Bible, but that doesn't hinder you in the least on commenting on it or using it out of context to make some point or another but then you accuse me of not grasping the atheistic material I have read and thus I can't have understand it. Pot and Kettle?


I understand the Bible, and apologetics far better than you give me credit for.. and my knowledge of the arguments that are used in modern theology, as offered up by some of the more notable contemporary theologians/philosophers, in many respects, seems to surpass your own.... evidenced, in part, by your apparent fondness for the gutted and disgraced 'they died for a lie' argument (although most historical arguments for the resurrection don't get much better).

As for the Thomas Jefferson and founding fathers discussions... I can't really be intellectually dishonest in a thread I have yet to participate in, can I? Given the amount of typing it will take for me to even explain my premises enough, simply to approach a point from which to launch an intelligible discussion with those of such a radically different worldview, and the likely density of the conversation to follow, it is simply one daunting frustration I have, as of yet, not found the energy to subject myself too. Maybe I will get to it one day, maybe I won't.



You want a specific point how about this one, many atheists play the victim card using Christians as their persecutors because their views aren't accepted by a larger audience?


I'm sure some do... but what is the point here? We can trade anecdotes all day... say for every aggressive act of the ACLU against the religious, I can match your bet with a real case of theist bullying or something similar, and raise you another, ad nauseam... but it won't prove much of anything.

The authors, speakers, and 'superstars' of atheism certainly have cited demographics and statistics that illustrate just how severely against the grain all of it is, but what you call victimization is merely the honest appraisal of the current situation. You might see "victimization" in something like the "coming out" campaign that's run by Richard Dawkins... but he developed it precisely because of the letters and communications he's received from people who have expressed how difficult it was for them.

The author simply wants to label any forceful criticism and activism as "victimization". Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others arent "do-nothings" who go around suing people like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.. they are engaging in debates, furthering the discourse, and in general, being productive advocates for the noble goals of reasonableness and godlessness. Quite the contrast with true professional victimeers, like Sharpton and Jackson.



Lets start with that and see if you can stick to it and not build a strawman or debase any sources that I may use to validate my postion.

Your comment about 'debasing the sources' unreasonable demand on any discussion. Attacking the credibility of a source is valid, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the source isnt credible.

noonwitch
05-18-2009, 01:26 PM
But it is also selfish behavior. You have know idea if there is long term mental health damage to the woman (and there is evidence that there is) but you don't care as long as you get your satisfaction today. Yes, she consents but how often have people agreed with certain behavior only to regret it latter on in life. Just think, you wilfully contribute to that regret but I suppose that it doesn't matter to you. There are people who consented to do drugs years ago and now have fried brains as a result. They regret those years but there is no way to reverse what has been done.


A woman (or man, for that matter) who is a prostitute learned very young that her sexuality is a marketable commodity. She probably didn't learn that in school.

Yes, women who are prostitutes frequently have drug problems. So do women who were sexually abused as children.

This is not an example from real-world prostitution, but has anyone looked at the eyes of the women featured in Hustler's "Beaver Hunt"? It is one of the saddest things I've seen. It's where boyfriends take photos of the women spreading her privates, and send them in to be printed in the magazine (for those who never have seen a copy of Hustler). The women all look intoxicated, and many look very sad.

lacarnut
05-18-2009, 01:41 PM
has anyone looked at the eyes of the women featured in Hustler's "Beaver Hunt"? It is one of the saddest things I've seen. It's where boyfriends take photos of the women spreading her privates, and send them in to be printed in the magazine (for those who never have seen a copy of Hustler). The women all look intoxicated, and many look very sad.

No, I have not seen a Hustler magazine in over 30 years. If I did, I would not be looking at her eyes. :)

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 02:06 PM
Well here, I'll tell you my motivations and the source of my dismay... which is the observation of the laxidasical filter you and others here use when consuming information that seems to confirm your most desired beliefs... then apply an uncharacteristic rabid hyper-skepticism when it comes to issues that are detrimental to your worldview (global warming for example, homosexuality etc). If its some small victory to you to "strike" a nerve, the by all means consider it struck... but do so with the consideration that it simply signals exasperation at your (and others here) own failings to wield any consistent standard with which to analyze and corroborate new information, and is not at the behest of any compelling argument or point from you or the article. But you do seem to think such faux victories are meaningful in some way, for whatever reasons I can't fathom.

You say this like you are not guilty of the exact same thing. When evidence is provided to you that seems to tip one of your sacred cows you then put up your little strawmen and then knock them down and you consider that a satisfying victory.



As for the article content, yet it was boring, since its a template that gets used daily. Although, it would be the first time I saw Hitchens and "boring" used together... one thing no honest person could ever accuse Hitchens of, I don't think... and as if theist philosophy is the pinnacle of action packed entertainment. Its amazing to me that you think an article, which was barely more that a giant straw-man/ad hominem was in any way compelling or "on the mark".

Hitchens is entertaining but then again he's a practicing drunk. Dawkings is arrogant with no reason for his arrogance. The rest are just boring to listen to.




I understand the Bible, and apologetics far better than you give me credit for.. and my knowledge of the arguments that are used in modern theology, as offered up by some of the more notable contemporary theologians/philosophers, in many respects, seems to surpass your own.... evidenced, in part, by your apparent fondness for the gutted and disgraced 'they died for a lie' argument (although most historical arguments for the resurrection don't get much better).

Then you do a very poor job of stating your case because when I read your responses to things Biblical they demonstrate a great lack of comprehension. If the they died for a lie argument as been gutted then present evidence of it. You don't like it because you can't answer it as you wish with out seeming completely irrational. Here you try to reframe the argument as something below your intelligence.



As for the Thomas Jefferson and founding fathers discussions... I can't really be intellectually dishonest in a thread I have yet to participate in, can I? Given the amount of typing it will take for me to even explain my premises enough, simply to approach a point from which to launch a coherent discussion, and the likely density of the conversation to follow, it is simply one daunting frustration I have, as of yet, not found the energy to subject myself too. Maybe I will get to it one day, maybe I won't.

Then why call someone to the 'Dome and then not show up. It seemed that you talked a good game to CS but you were incapable of backing that argument up with facts. Now you use the lamest excuse ever, it would take to much effort. :rolleyes: I'm sure everyone here will agree that you have in fact no evidence to dispute CS's arguement but you are unable to admit your wrong. You have never admitted your wrong, you just disappear from the conversation.



I'm sure some do... but what is the point here? We can trade anecdotes all day... say for every aggressive act of the ACLU against the religious, I can match your bet with a real case of theist bullying or something similar, and raise you another, ad nauseam... but it won't prove much of anything.

The authors, speakers, and 'superstars' of atheism certainly have cited demographics and statistics that illustrate just how severely against the grain all of it is, but what you call victimization is merely the honest appraisal of the current situation. You might see "victimization" in something like the "coming out" campaign that's run by Richard Dawkins... but he developed it precisely because of the letters and communications he's received from people who have expressed how difficult it was for them.

The author simply wants to label any forceful criticism and activism as "victimization". Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others arent "do-nothings" who go around suing people like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.. they are engaging in debates, furthering the discourse, and in general, being productive advocates for the noble goals of reasonableness and godlessness. Quite the contrast with true professional victimeers, like Sharpton and Jackson.



Your comment about 'debasing the sources' unreasonable demand on any discussion. Attacking the credibility of a source is valid, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the source isnt credible.

What does Sharpton or Jackson have to do with this? Is this an attempt to redefine the topic I suggested? Did I not suggest that this is one of the things you do to avoid debating a topic you're not comfortable with? You do this and don't even seem to be aware that you are doing it.

What about Dawkins, he goes around renting space on the sides of buses because he can't get an audience outside the Christian community to save is life. In his book the God Delusion he uses that same tired "the Christians suppress us" argument that the author of the article mentions. He's a Professor at one of the most prestigious schools in the world and he claims atheist are held back because of their beliefs? Give me a freeking break.

Now instead of us getting personal let's just stick to this topic. If you feel we should continue the personal stuff then I'm game. You choose.

wilbur
05-18-2009, 03:21 PM
What does Sharpton or Jackson have to do with this? Is this an attempt to redefine the topic I suggested? Did I not suggest that this is one of the things you do to avoid debating a topic you're not comfortable with? You do this and don't even seem to be aware that you are doing it.


Both are examples of people who truly "play the victim card", that is all.



What about Dawkins, he goes around renting space on the sides of buses because he can't get an audience outside the Christian community to save is life.

You've got your facts mixed up about the bus campaign... Dawkins did not start it. It was a grassroots effort that was response to an already prevalent Christian bus campaign. In many cities, the bus campaign has faced outright rejection, and attempts at censorship (through lawsuits) on the part of theists. One guy even tried to get the ad campaign dropped on grounds of Briton's "truth in advertising" laws... claiming that the statement "There probably is no God" is false advertising.

The following is from: http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/faq/




How did the Atheist Bus Campaign start?

The campaign began when comedy writer Ariane Sherine saw an advert on a London bus featuring the Bible quote, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find Faith on this Earth?” [sic]. A website URL ran underneath the quote, and when Sherine visited the site she learned that, as a non-believer, she would be “condemned to everlasting separation from God and then spend all eternity in torment in hell”.

Unsettled that religious groups were allowed to advertise websites which warned that the non-religious would face torture at the end of their lives, Sherine pitched and began to write a comment piece for The Guardian’s Cif (Comment is free) website, called Atheists - Gimme Five. As part of her research for the piece, she called the Advertising Standards Authority, but was told that the website advertised wasn’t part of their remit. At the end of her article, keen to suggest a solution, she proposed:

[if all atheists reading this] contribute 5, it’s possible that we can fund a much-needed atheist London bus ad with the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and [enjoy] your life.”

To Sherine’s surprise and excitement, the majority of reader comments under the article were very positive and enthusiastic about the idea, with dozens of commenters offering to contribute to the campaign.

Political blogger Jon Worth read the piece, thought the proposal was a smart and sweet idea, and emailed Sherine asking if he could set up a Pledgebank page, where readers could pledge to donate to the campaign. The Pledgebank link was placed in the comments of the original article, and although the piece was archived after three days, dozens of blogs picked up on the idea and it spread across the internet.



This woman Sherine, got it the whole thing off the ground.. When Dawkins heard of it, he provided support in the form of donations from his foundation, publicity, and of course his persona.

All the bus campaigns have been basically supported entirely by donations from atheist citizens.



In his book the God Delusion he uses that same tired "the Christians suppress us" argument that the author of the article mentions. He's a Professor at one of the most prestigious schools in the world and he claims atheist are held back because of their beliefs? Give me a freeking break.


I have never heard him claim he is 'held back' by theism. Got some specific examples from the book?

But.... As a a prominent professor of evolutionary biology though, it is quite fair to say he has had to deal head on with the militant biblical literalists for his entire career, even when not on the offensive for atheism... it is no exaggeration to say that those literalists actually believe, with all their hearts, that the theory of evolution is one of the most masterful and dangerous of lies birthed by their forsworn enemy... Satan. And they do attack biology and evolution, and the practitioners with-in the field, with all the zealotry, vitriol and tenacity such a belief must inspire. The author in the article tries to be dismissive of this and simply distracts us with the fact that Catholics don't necessarily have a problem with evolution (though many do)... but fails to ignore the biblical literalists who believe otherwise... and they are no small contingent (actually, the majority in this country). So... if anyone is actually justified in either claiming to be the target of Christian attacks, or justified in going on the offensive against theism, it would be Dawkins.

Gingersnap
05-18-2009, 04:42 PM
The author in the article tries to be dismissive of this and simply distracts us with the fact that Catholics don't necessarily have a problem with evolution (though many do)... but fails to ignore the biblical literalists who believe otherwise... and they are no small contingent (actually, the majority in this country).

Actually, they seem to be about 1 in 3 adults and that's not a majority. Moreover, I'm fairly certain that number drops quite a bit in scientific and academic circles - the only circles where criticism of atheism (if he encountered any) would have any impact on a guy like Dawkins.

FlaGator
05-18-2009, 05:41 PM
I am dropping out of this conversation, the reasons are my own. I do wish to apologize to anyone I may have offended, particularly wilbur. I read my last post and I am more than a little ashamed at some of my remarks and more than that, my mental attitude. I may not post for a bit. I will be around as a mod but I think I need to take a spiritual breather and not engage in conversations.

Peace,
G

BadCat
05-18-2009, 05:50 PM
I am dropping out of this conversation, the reasons are my own. I do wish to apologize to anyone I may have offended, particularly wilbur. I read my last post and I am more than a little ashamed at some of my remarks and more than that, my mental attitude. I may not post for a bit. I will be around as a mod but I think I need to take a spiritual breather and not engage in conversations.

Peace,
G

Conversing with moonbats will do that to you, my friend.

Water Closet
05-18-2009, 06:18 PM
Conversing with moonbats will do that to you, my friend.

FlaGator is my friend. But I can't overlook that he is the one who started a thread entitled " Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining" and then complains that atheists attack thiests! :confused:

wilbur
05-18-2009, 08:07 PM
Actually, they seem to be about 1 in 3 adults and that's not a majority.

Re-reading my post I see it was unclear, but I was actually trying to say they are the majority within Christianity, in the US.... the author made it sound like there was no Christian dispute with evolutionary biology, and that atheists are unnecessarily droning on and on about it for no good reason. Other statistics put the number at around 44% (of the total population) that believe in creationism.



Moreover, I'm fairly certain that number drops quite a bit in scientific and academic circles - the only circles where criticism of atheism (if he encountered any) would have any impact on a guy like Dawkins.

Well, earlier in his career he engaged the creationists, interviewing with them, or debated them directly. After having his words misrepresented one too many times, he felt that it was futile and changed strategy. Thats when he turned to promoting the naturalist worldview directly, where he felt the most difference could be made.

The problem has never been with the scientists or academia, where evolution, "old earth" geology (and more) enjoy a consensus that one might as well call unanimous. Its always been in the high school, elementary school and other public spheres that this battle has been fought. It was evolution that drew the ire of creationists, not atheism.