1712 replies to this topic

[xks201]

Religion goes way back past that lol...think cave man days of them drawing animals on the wall and stuff and hoping for food. And guys I am not bagging on religion. I am just saying that the evidence of it was way before Paul.

Edited by xks201, 13 March 2014 - 10:39 PM.

[johnross47]

So what if Paul experienced what he did in an epileptic fit? Surely you don't think that all religious ideation during a seizure in the brain is valid proof of gods? Without his experience Christianity would not even exist...

No I don't think mental illness is the cause of religious experience. Now let me ask you, do Atheists experience mental illness. Is a seizure proof of Atheism? Without mental illness and problems with father figures, Atheism would not even exist.

There is not much doubt that illness is the cause of some experiences attributed to religion. Whether such experiences, that relate to anything real, exist, is another question.

[johnross47]

I don't think the bicameral stuff makes much sense. We're essentially identical genetically to people who lived 3000 years ago.

And a lot longer than that. Religion is where old theories go when they die in the real world.

This is not about religion, it is an atheist's view of the mind. Don't you think they need tp give evidence for mind and consciousness? Evidence, not assertion.

As usual it's not cl;ear exactly what you mean. As for an atheist, or non religious view of mind you only have to look at the whole set of publications in neuro-psychology over the last twenty years or so, and some thinkers before that. You always give us improbable reading tasks; try that lot for a start then come and argue about it.

What is the point of the extreme bold text above? You introduced a dead theory and seem to object to my comment about it. Tough.

[xks201]

Platypus, I do not know specific years where human evolution happened in terms of pre frontal cortex development off the top of my head. I do know that nowadays schizophrenics and people with various mental diseases have been found to differ in the main metabolites of their brains. I read in one study (sorry if I cannot remember the link at the moment but if needed I will find it) showing schizophrenics had a high amount of lactate metabolism (end byproduct). Schizophrenics have a lot of energy in general.

I actually used to work in a mental hospital (security work while pursuing my chem degree) and I was amazed at how intelligent these people were. Truly amazed. You would find people who could memorize textbooks and baffle you with their genius. Some scientists argue that many of us are schizophrenic to various degrees. Psychiatric definitions sometimes obfuscate the lines of mental illness.

[shadowhawk]

So what if Paul experienced what he did in an epileptic fit? Surely you don't think that all religious ideation during a seizure in the brain is valid proof of gods? Without his experience Christianity would not even exist...

No I don't think mental illness is the cause of religious experience. Now let me ask you, do Atheists experience mental illness. Is a seizure proof of Atheism? Without mental illness and problems with father figures, Atheism would not even exist.

There is not much doubt that illness is the cause of some experiences attributed to religion. Whether such experiences, that relate to anything real, exist, is another question.

The same may be said for Atheism. So what.

I don't think the bicameral stuff makes much sense. We're essentially identical genetically to people who lived 3000 years ago.

And a lot longer than that. Religion is where old theories go when they die in the real world.

This is not about religion, it is an atheist's view of the mind. Don't you think they need tp give evidence for mind and consciousness? Evidence, not assertion.

As usual it's not cl;ear exactly what you mean. As for an atheist, or non religious view of mind you only have to look at the whole set of publications in neuro-psychology over the last twenty years or so, and some thinkers before that. You always give us improbable reading tasks; try that lot for a start then come and argue about it.

What is the point of the extreme bold text above? You introduced a dead theory and seem to object to my comment about it. Tough.

You were the one who said it. Your point as related to the topic is...

[shadowhawk]

Who here is glad that Atheism is true?

[platypus]

So what if Paul experienced what he did in an epileptic fit? Surely you don't think that all religious ideation during a seizure in the brain is valid proof of gods? Without his experience Christianity would not even exist...

No I don't think mental illness is the cause of religious experience.

Mental illness and religious beliefs are related, there's no denying that:

https://en.wikipedia...igious_delusion

The question is, are there non-delusional religious beliefs about deities

"In one study of 193 people who had previously been admitted to hospital and subsequently diagnosed with schizophrenia, 24% were found to have religious delusions."

"Examples from a study in Lithuania with 295 subjects, showed that the most common religious delusion amongst women were of being a saint and amongst men of being God.^[20]"

Edited by platypus, 14 March 2014 - 07:34 AM.

[johnross47]

So what if Paul experienced what he did in an epileptic fit? Surely you don't think that all religious ideation during a seizure in the brain is valid proof of gods? Without his experience Christianity would not even exist...

No I don't think mental illness is the cause of religious experience. Now let me ask you, do Atheists experience mental illness. Is a seizure proof of Atheism? Without mental illness and problems with father figures, Atheism would not even exist.

There is not much doubt that illness is the cause of some experiences attributed to religion. Whether such experiences, that relate to anything real, exist, is another question.

The same may be said for Atheism. So what.

I don't think the bicameral stuff makes much sense. We're essentially identical genetically to people who lived 3000 years ago.

And a lot longer than that. Religion is where old theories go when they die in the real world.

This is not about religion, it is an atheist's view of the mind. Don't you think they need tp give evidence for mind and consciousness? Evidence, not assertion.

As usual it's not cl;ear exactly what you mean. As for an atheist, or non religious view of mind you only have to look at the whole set of publications in neuro-psychology over the last twenty years or so, and some thinkers before that. You always give us improbable reading tasks; try that lot for a start then come and argue about it.

What is the point of the extreme bold text above? You introduced a dead theory and seem to object to my comment about it. Tough.

You were the one who said it. Your point as related to the topic is...

It's a simple sarcastic comment on the way religion clings to old theories long after they have been abandoned by everyone else.

[johnross47]

So what if Paul experienced what he did in an epileptic fit? Surely you don't think that all religious ideation during a seizure in the brain is valid proof of gods? Without his experience Christianity would not even exist...

No I don't think mental illness is the cause of religious experience.

Mental illness and religious beliefs are related, there's no denying that:

https://en.wikipedia...igious_delusion

The question is, are there non-delusional religious beliefs about deities

"In one study of 193 people who had previously been admitted to hospital and subsequently diagnosed with schizophrenia, 24% were found to have religious delusions."

"Examples from a study in Lithuania with 295 subjects, showed that the most common religious delusion amongst women were of being a saint and amongst men of being God.^[20]"

I think the significant point is not so much that some mentally ill people have religious delusions, but that some religions incorporate the products of those delusions into their beliefs. This process does not seem to occur in non-religious belief systems, or, when it does, the ideas are eventually discarded. Religions are very slow to get rid of anything, possibly because they don't normally test ideas against reality. If you are looking for mystery why would you look for evidence?

[DukeNukem]

Who here is glad that Atheism is true?

Off-topic.

But in my case, it's not a matter of being glad or not. It's a matter of accepting the truth.

If gods were true, then I would gladly accept that reality. However, if gods were true, I would hope that they would not be slacker gods, and that they would actually lift a finger to protect innocent people from unnecessary, horrible deaths. For example, a real god could have easily prevented 1000's of deaths on 9/11, by having the leaders of that plan die in a car wreck, or the terrorists get caught at airport security. Simple!

But we live in a reality without gods, and so these insane criminal acts happen, as do acts of nature like killer hurricanes and earthquakes, not to mention all the unnecessary deaths to babies and children (sickness, falling into pools, gun shootings, etc.), or events like the Holocaust.

[shadowhawk]

Who here is glad that Atheism is true?

Off-topic.

But in my case, it's not a matter of being glad or not. It's a matter of accepting the truth.

If gods were true, then I would gladly accept that reality. However, if gods were true, I would hope that they would not be slacker gods, and that they would actually lift a finger to protect innocent people from unnecessary, horrible deaths. For example, a real god could have easily prevented 1000's of deaths on 9/11, by having the leaders of that plan die in a car wreck, or the terrorists get caught at airport security. Simple!

But we live in a reality without gods, and so these insane criminal acts happen, as do acts of nature like killer hurricanes and earthquakes, not to mention all the unnecessary deaths to babies and children (sickness, falling into pools, gun shootings, etc.), or events like the Holocaust.

Not off topic. My follow up question would have been why. You have come up with the problem of evil. Is this right? Finally, evidence.

[shadowhawk]

DOES EVIL EXIST???

One for the professor...

Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

The University professor challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!" "God created everything?" The professor asked. "Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460? F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name -- Albert Einstein


GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?
IS IT EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?
Yes, I don't have evidence of this story but don't miss the question.

Edited by shadowhawk, 14 March 2014 - 06:52 PM.

[johnross47]

Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment.

[shadowhawk]

Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment.

I love the way you argue. Never any content.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Again:
GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?
IS IT EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?

Edited by shadowhawk, 14 March 2014 - 08:59 PM.

[johnross47]

Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment.

I love the way you argue. Never any content.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Again:
GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?
IS IT EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?

Stories with rigged questions that allow "clever" answers, are a speciality of religious folks: that is why I said, "Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment" . Its so obviously rigged that it's just an insult to the readers intelligence.

As for your question "GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?" it's just pointless. If you regard evil as a specifically religious concept then obviously it doesn't exist, but if you regard it as just a degree of badness, then it does. It's all a matter of how you are using the word; what you mean by it. Like everything else in the world it can't be evidence for atheism; that only exists as a concept in the deluded minds of insecure believers.

[shadowhawk]

Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment.

I love the way you argue. Never any content.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Again:
GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?
IS IT EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?

Stories with rigged questions that allow "clever" answers, are a speciality of religious folks: that is why I said, "Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment" . Its so obviously rigged that it's just an insult to the readers intelligence.

As for your question "GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?" it's just pointless. If you regard evil as a specifically religious concept then obviously it doesn't exist, but if you regard it as just a degree of badness, then it does. It's all a matter of how you are using the word; what you mean by it. Like everything else in the world it can't be evidence for atheism; that only exists as a concept in the deluded minds of insecure believers.

DukeNukem http://www.longecity...540#entry649575 seemed to think evil was a real problem. But, you think I rigged the problem to insult the readers intelligence!!!!!!!!!!!

You do not think evil is evidence for Atheism. Tell this to DukeNukem so he gives up presenting it. However I agree with you somewhat on this point.. Define "badness," as opposed to, "evil." Don't rigg the answer and for once please do answer.

[johnross47]

Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment.

I love the way you argue. Never any content.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Again:
GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?
IS IT EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?

Stories with rigged questions that allow "clever" answers, are a speciality of religious folks: that is why I said, "Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment" . Its so obviously rigged that it's just an insult to the readers intelligence.

As for your question "GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?" it's just pointless. If you regard evil as a specifically religious concept then obviously it doesn't exist, but if you regard it as just a degree of badness, then it does. It's all a matter of how you are using the word; what you mean by it. Like everything else in the world it can't be evidence for atheism; that only exists as a concept in the deluded minds of insecure believers.

DukeNukem http://www.longecity...540#entry649575 seemed to think evil was a real problem. But, you think I rigged the problem to insult the readers intelligence!!!!!!!!!!!

You do not think evil is evidence for Atheism. Tell this to DukeNukem so he gives up presenting it. However I agree with you somewhat on this point.. Define "badness," as opposed to, "evil." Don't rigg the answer and for once please do answer.

There is no evidence for atheism, just as there is no evidence for any of the gods. The second part of the last sentence is the reason people are atheists or agnostics.

Evil is not a problem for atheist or agnostics because they are not an organised body with an agreed doctrine on the causes of evil. They can define and explain evil events in terms of whatever science they know, just as religious people could if they didn't think they already know the answer. I used the word "badness" just to avoid the word "evil", since I wanted to avoid the religious connotations. What is regarded as good or bad varies from time to time and between societies, but it is generally used to describe acts seen as harmful or offensive to others or to society as a whole. Non religious people might use evil to denote a particularly strong degree of badness or a person who is overwhelmingly bad, whereas religions often use it to mean being fundamentally opposed to god or god's will. It is a case where it is appropriate for one's view of another's position to be coloured by knowledge of their religion or lack of it.

[shadowhawk]

Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment.

I love the way you argue. Never any content.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Again:
GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?
IS IT EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?

Stories with rigged questions that allow "clever" answers, are a speciality of religious folks: that is why I said, "Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment" . Its so obviously rigged that it's just an insult to the readers intelligence.

As for your question "GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?" it's just pointless. If you regard evil as a specifically religious concept then obviously it doesn't exist, but if you regard it as just a degree of badness, then it does. It's all a matter of how you are using the word; what you mean by it. Like everything else in the world it can't be evidence for atheism; that only exists as a concept in the deluded minds of insecure believers.

DukeNukem http://www.longecity...540#entry649575 seemed to think evil was a real problem. But, you think I rigged the problem to insult the readers intelligence!!!!!!!!!!!

You do not think evil is evidence for Atheism. Tell this to DukeNukem so he gives up presenting it. However I agree with you somewhat on this point.. Define "badness," as opposed to, "evil." Don't rigg the answer and for once please do answer.

There is no evidence for atheism, just as there is no evidence for any of the gods. The second part of the last sentence is the reason people are atheists or agnostics.

Evil is not a problem for atheist or agnostics because they are not an organised body with an agreed doctrine on the causes of evil. They can define and explain evil events in terms of whatever science they know, just as religious people could if they didn't think they already know the answer. I used the word "badness" just to avoid the word "evil", since I wanted to avoid the religious connotations. What is regarded as good or bad varies from time to time and between societies, but it is generally used to describe acts seen as harmful or offensive to others or to society as a whole. Non religious people might use evil to denote a particularly strong degree of badness or a person who is overwhelmingly bad, whereas religions often use it to mean being fundamentally opposed to god or god's will. It is a case where it is appropriate for one's view of another's position to be coloured by knowledge of their religion or lack of it.

Obviously your answer to the topic “is there evidence for atheism,” is no. In your view there is no evidence. OK, one vote for no.

Evil is not a problem for atheists either. Why?
1. Because they are not an organized body with a doctrine of evil.
2. Science can define evil.
3. .Badness is another term for evil which has religious connotations.
4. What is evil, is relative to time and society.

Response:
1. Atheists are organized, have positions and even churches. Governments have been officially atheistic.
2. What is a scientific definition of evil?
3. If “badness,” is another term for “evil,” is evil another term for badness? Is badness no problem for Atheists but evil is?
4. If what is evil, is relative to time and society, than Nazism is not evil! I can think of many other examples. It is not even bad. Hope you don’t get control of the ovens.

Is Atheism rational? If so, upon what basis. How can you trust your evolved brain when it has not finished evolving to define badness. Perhaps it changes from time and place.

[xks201]

Evil is not relative. Relativism is evil.

[shadowhawk]

Evil is not relative. Relativism is evil.

So you disagree with johnross47? Is it a problem for Atheists?

[xks201]

I explain evil based on what is bad for us. It becomes a complicated concept that is incapable of proof if you see everything as relative. Then there is no truth.

I do disagree with John. I don't think I need proof to be an atheist. There is no objective proof for god and that is my proof it doesn't exist. I was raised Christian..ironically.

You guys can run logical circles all day for or against God but in the end I don't think that philosophy of using the longest route from point a to point b is going to help anyone live a better life which I think is the point of philosophy...to enhance thought.

Edited by xks201, 15 March 2014 - 09:53 PM.

[johnross47]

I explain evil based on what is bad for us. It becomes a complicated concept that is incapable of proof if you see everything as relative. Then there is no truth.

I do disagree with John. I don't think I need proof to be an atheist. There is no objective proof for god and that is my proof it doesn't exist. I was raised Christian..ironically.

You guys can run logical circles all day for or against God but in the end I don't think that philosophy of using the longest route from point a to point b is going to help anyone live a better life which I think is the point of philosophy...to enhance thought.

You seem not to have read very closely. I have repeated over and over that there could not be proof for atheism; it is just a rejection of the proposition of a god. I was raised very christian....learned vast screeds of religious nonsense, but grew up.

[johnross47]

Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment.

I love the way you argue. Never any content.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Again:
GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?
IS IT EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?

Stories with rigged questions that allow "clever" answers, are a speciality of religious folks: that is why I said, "Silly beyond any need for analysis or further comment" . Its so obviously rigged that it's just an insult to the readers intelligence.

As for your question "GIVEN ATHEISM, DOES EVIL EXIST?" it's just pointless. If you regard evil as a specifically religious concept then obviously it doesn't exist, but if you regard it as just a degree of badness, then it does. It's all a matter of how you are using the word; what you mean by it. Like everything else in the world it can't be evidence for atheism; that only exists as a concept in the deluded minds of insecure believers.

DukeNukem http://www.longecity...540#entry649575 seemed to think evil was a real problem. But, you think I rigged the problem to insult the readers intelligence!!!!!!!!!!!

You do not think evil is evidence for Atheism. Tell this to DukeNukem so he gives up presenting it. However I agree with you somewhat on this point.. Define "badness," as opposed to, "evil." Don't rigg the answer and for once please do answer.

There is no evidence for atheism, just as there is no evidence for any of the gods. The second part of the last sentence is the reason people are atheists or agnostics.

Evil is not a problem for atheist or agnostics because they are not an organised body with an agreed doctrine on the causes of evil. They can define and explain evil events in terms of whatever science they know, just as religious people could if they didn't think they already know the answer. I used the word "badness" just to avoid the word "evil", since I wanted to avoid the religious connotations. What is regarded as good or bad varies from time to time and between societies, but it is generally used to describe acts seen as harmful or offensive to others or to society as a whole. Non religious people might use evil to denote a particularly strong degree of badness or a person who is overwhelmingly bad, whereas religions often use it to mean being fundamentally opposed to god or god's will. It is a case where it is appropriate for one's view of another's position to be coloured by knowledge of their religion or lack of it.

Obviously your answer to the topic “is there evidence for atheism,” is no. In your view there is no evidence. OK, one vote for no.

Evil is not a problem for atheists either. Why?
1. Because they are not an organized body with a doctrine of evil.
2. Science can define evil.
3. .Badness is another term for evil which has religious connotations.
4. What is evil, is relative to time and society.

Response:
1. Atheists are organized, have positions and even churches. Governments have been officially atheistic.
2. What is a scientific definition of evil?
3. If “badness,” is another term for “evil,” is evil another term for badness? Is badness no problem for Atheists but evil is?
4. If what is evil, is relative to time and society, than Nazism is not evil! I can think of many other examples. It is not even bad. Hope you don’t get control of the ovens.

Is Atheism rational? If so, upon what basis. How can you trust your evolved brain when it has not finished evolving to define badness. Perhaps it changes from time and place.

Why do you go to so much trouble to misrepresent what people say? I said that atheist are not an organised group, so they can't be said to have a position on anything because they don't exist as a formal group with an agreed group view. The fact that some anti-religionists, such as Stalin, who was educated in a seminary, controlled governments, does not make atheists an organised group. I did not say that science can define evil; I said that people can use science to define evil, which is not the same thing; evil, outside of religion, ( and within) is essentially a socially defined construct and anthropology throws a great deal of light on variations of interpretations of the concept.. Your comments on badness/evil terminology are a waste of time. Point four is potentially sensible, but it does depend on what you plan to do with it next.
Atheist are not organised. Some atheists have been organised but most are not. Response 2 might be an interesting topic. response 3 is gibberish. Response 4 is an illogical non sequiteur. You must be desperate.

Your conclusion suggests you don't understand evolution or the mind.

[xks201]

Yes sorry I am on my smartphone and have not read the entire thread. I'm sure I agree with you more than disagree given our similar backgrounds.

[johnross47]

Yes sorry I am on my smartphone and have not read the entire thread. I'm sure I agree with you more than disagree given our similar backgrounds.

Reading the whole sorry topic is not the most rewarding thing you could do with your time. I frequently ask myself why I carry on, but basically I hate to see sophistry and misrepresentation getting away with it. The topic itself has some interesting aspects but they are often shouted down by SH and get lost in the noise and fury. Always glad to see somebody else taking part.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: Why do you go to so much trouble to misrepresent what people say? I said that atheist are not an organised group, so they can't be said to have a position on anything because they don't exist as a formal group with an agreed group view. The fact that some anti-religionists, such as Stalin, who was educated in a seminary, controlled governments, does not make atheists an organised group.
I did not say that science can define evil; I said that people can use science to define evil, which is not the same thing; evil, outside of religion, ( and within) is essentially a socially defined construct and anthropology throws a great deal of light on variations of interpretations of the concept.. Your comments on badness/evil terminology are a waste of time. Point four is potentially sensible, but it does depend on what you plan to do with it next.
Atheist are not organised. Some atheists have been organised but most are not. Response 2 might be an interesting topic. response 3 is gibberish. Response 4 is an illogical non sequiteur. You must be desperate.

Your conclusion suggests you don't understand evolution or the mind.
============================================================
shadowhawk:
1. I said Atheists have all kinds of organized groups. Whole societies have been officially atheist. You say, “Atheists are not organized.” Then you contradict yourself again saying, “Some atheists have been organized but most are not.” I must not understand evolution of the mind because this sure does appear to be changing.

2. Science is a method not a position. Both religious and non religious can engage in it and have. Science cannot be used to define evil and has been used by both the evil and the good. Science, as a method is limited to physical things.

3. You dismiss three and four's argument. You are the one who came up with “badness,” as a replacement for evil, not me. I think it is nonsense. Question 3 still stands brought up by you..

4. You are the one who said evil does not exist, and given atheism, I agree. You said, “What is evil, is relative to time and society.” So I asked you about Hitler. You them said this question was a illogical non sequitur. Bull. What nonsense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is your post and my questions again.
http://www.longecity...540#entry649813
1. Atheists are organized, have positions and even churches. Governments have been officially atheistic.
2. What is a scientific definition of evil?
3. If “badness,” is another term for “evil,” is evil another term for badness? Is badness no problem for Atheists but evil is?
4. If what is evil, is relative to time and society, than Nazism is not evil! I can think of many other examples. It is not even bad. Hope you don’t get control of the ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DID I MISREPRESENT YOU?

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 March 2014 - 06:20 PM.

[johnross47]

johnross47: Why do you go to so much trouble to misrepresent what people say? I said that atheist are not an organised group, so they can't be said to have a position on anything because they don't exist as a formal group with an agreed group view. The fact that some anti-religionists, such as Stalin, who was educated in a seminary, controlled governments, does not make atheists an organised group.
I did not say that science can define evil; I said that people can use science to define evil, which is not the same thing; evil, outside of religion, ( and within) is essentially a socially defined construct and anthropology throws a great deal of light on variations of interpretations of the concept.. Your comments on badness/evil terminology are a waste of time. Point four is potentially sensible, but it does depend on what you plan to do with it next.
Atheist are not organised. Some atheists have been organised but most are not. Response 2 might be an interesting topic. response 3 is gibberish. Response 4 is an illogical non sequiteur. You must be desperate.

Your conclusion suggests you don't understand evolution or the mind.
============================================================
shadowhawk:
1. I said Atheists have all kinds of organized groups. Whole societies have been officially atheist. You say, “Atheists are not organized.” Then you contradict yourself again saying, “Some atheists have been organized but most are not.” I must not understand evolution of the mind because this sure does appear to be changing.

2. Science is a method not a position. Both religious and non religious can engage in it and have. Science cannot be used to define evil and has been used by both the evil and the good. Science, as a method is limited to physical things.

3. You dismiss three and four's argument. You are the one who came up with “badness,” as a replacement for evil, not me. I think it is nonsense. Question 3 still stands brought up by you..

4. You are the one who said evil does not exist, and given atheism, I agree. You said, “What is evil, is relative to time and society.” So I asked you about Hitler. You them said this question was a illogical non sequitur. Bull. What nonsense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is your post and my questions again.
http://www.longecity...540#entry649813
1. Atheists are organized, have positions and even churches. Governments have been officially atheistic.
2. What is a scientific definition of evil?
3. If “badness,” is another term for “evil,” is evil another term for badness? Is badness no problem for Atheists but evil is?
4. If what is evil, is relative to time and society, than Nazism is not evil! I can think of many other examples. It is not even bad. Hope you don’t get control of the ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DID I MISREPRESENT YOU?

You practically always misrepresent everyone.

There are some groups of atheist people but that is not the same thing as atheists being organised. 99% or more are not part of any organised groups. There have recently been some small groups setting up meetings where they do entertaining and inspiring things, but they are very small in numbers. Most atheists don't organise because it just isn't a big feature of their lives; it's like expecting non-stamp-collectors to be organised, or non-fishermen. Just like demanding proof of atheism this is a very silly and ultimately dishonest demand.

I doubt if there is a scientific definition of evil. A scientific person, such as a sociologist or anthropologist might try to find some consensus on what evil is, but it's not really got anything to do with science as such, or with atheism. Another inappropriate demand.

As I said before, I used badness to avoid the word evil in a particular sentence; it was an issue of expression not an attempt to make the words equivalent. Outside of religious uses of the word many people do use evil as a degree of badness. Neither badness nor evil are special problems for atheists. Why should they be? They aren't special problems for vegitarians or naturists. Just because you want them to be a problem to suit your own view of the world, does not make them a problem. They can be explained in exactly the same way that all issues of morality can be explained in terms of evolution and social interactions. It is religion that has a problem with evil.

What is regarded as evil clearly does vary with time and society. That is an observable fact and not something open to your logic chopping. Crucifixion was once regarded as normal and proper, as was torture, and marrying nine year old girls off to old men. Some people still regard those things as acceptable. As for your cheap twisted insult about the ovens; I expect everyone else will think it beneath contempt just as I do.

[shadowhawk]

i don't think I misrepresented you.

[johnross47]

i don't think I misrepresented you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19y2YJMa_NA&feature=em-uploademail

You misrepresent everybody all the time: it's the only way you can pretend to have an argument. If you acknowledged what people are really saying your own case would be revealed as irrelevant nonsense.

Your video clip is about as honest and relevant as saying that all catholics are paedophiles.

I have said over and over that I am not an atheist but you simply carry on regardless trying to argue as if I said I am. I am agnostic with a tendency to think that the religious case is very weak and atheism is more likely to be a sound position, but basically I say that we do not, and currently cannot, know. Whatever the source of the universe was it is very unlikely to resemble your god.

[shadowhawk]

i don't think I misrepresented you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19y2YJMa_NA&feature=em-uploademail

You misrepresent everybody all the time: it's the only way you can pretend to have an argument. If you acknowledged what people are really saying your own case would be revealed as irrelevant nonsense.

Your video clip is about as honest and relevant as saying that all catholics are paedophiles.

I have said over and over that I am not an atheist but you simply carry on regardless trying to argue as if I said I am. I am agnostic with a tendency to think that the religious case is very weak and atheism is more likely to be a sound position, but basically I say that we do not, and currently cannot, know. Whatever the source of the universe was it is very unlikely to resemble your god.

Good. An agnostic in "Is there evidence for Atheism," attacking Theism.