News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Catholic Church "Miracles"

Started by Paolo, December 07, 2020, 12:58:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

aitm

Fucking anti-stamp collectors......they are evil....probably kick puppies....oh who am I kidding...probably kick babies....
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Mike Cl

Quote from: Paolo on February 26, 2021, 05:14:36 AM
I don't know. A friend of mine claimed that I shouldn't give much attention to atheism since it's a ''ideology for bums''. I merely automatically parroted his expression, without giving it much thought. You think it doesn't make sense to describe atheism as an ideology? Why?
Look at that phrase:   ''ideology for bums''. 

Here is a definition of 'ideology'.
1. the body of doctrine or thought that guides an individual, social movement, institution, or group.
2. such a body forming a political or social program, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
4. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
5. a philosophical system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.

From the above definition(s), atheism does not exist.  I am an atheist.  I do not belong to any social movement, institution or group that consists of a systematic way of thinking (or believing) about anything.  The ONLY common link I share with other atheists is that none of us believe in any gods.  It seems to me that the term 'atheism' was created by theists and used to attack those who don't believe in god.  All religions have a view that their 'ism' is the only correct one, so all enemies are attached with an 'ism' to provide an us vs them way to view all others. 

What is a 'bum'?  I view it as another label for a poor (in the economic sense) person.  My grandfather was a bum for probably a decade or so--he rode the rails between Seattle and Portland, doing odd jobs, or begging, for his food.  When he married and got a 'regular' job, he stopped being a bum.  Your buddy probably sees a 'bum' as something else, but not good.  Being a bum or not, has no bearing on being an atheist--or not. 

Paolo, be more skeptical of the labels your friends use.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Hydra009

#317
Quote from: Paolo on February 26, 2021, 05:14:36 AM
I don't know. A friend of mine claimed that I shouldn't give much attention to atheism since it's a ''ideology for bums''. I merely automatically parroted his expression, without giving it much thought. You think it doesn't make sense to describe atheism as an ideology? Why?
Theists, by definition, believe in one or more god(s).  Atheists, by definition, do not.  While Christians or Muslims or Hindus by definition subscribe to a system of beliefs inherent to their religion (aka believe the religion's central tenets), atheists do not because their term is essentially a catch-all term for everyone who isn't a theist.

drunkenshoe

#318
Quote from: SGOS on February 26, 2021, 07:24:33 AM
What is the ideology of people who don't collect stamps?

They were pin collectors. It was called 'Little moments' after their prophet Stanley Howler's moments. Apparently, some still do collect, not sure. They are called pinheads.

After the events of Going Postal, Howler converted to collecting stamps.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Simon Moon

#319
Quote from: Paolo on February 26, 2021, 05:14:36 AM
I don't know. A friend of mine claimed that I shouldn't give much attention to atheism since it's a ''ideology for bums''. I merely automatically parroted his expression, without giving it much thought. You think it doesn't make sense to describe atheism as an ideology? Why?

Maybe you should not listen to your ignorant friend, and start thinking for yourself....

But how could atheism possibly be an ideology?

It has no: doctrine, leaders, dogma, rules, etc. The only thing that all atheists could be said to have in common with each other, is that we are not convinced that a god or gods exist. Full stop.   

As far as your friend's use of the term "bums", that is just an ad hominem, and less than useless to the conversation.

Let me make a late edit: Atheism is not even a worldview, let alone an ideology.
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

Paolo

#320
Quote from: Simon Moon on February 27, 2021, 01:13:44 PM
Maybe you should not listen to your ignorant friend, and start thinking for yourself....

But how could atheism possibly be an ideology?

It has no: doctrine, leaders, dogma, rules, etc. The only thing that all atheists could be said to have in common with each other, is that we are not convinced that a god or gods exist. Full stop.   

As far as your friend's use of the term "bums", that is just an ad hominem, and less than useless to the conversation.

Let me make a late edit: Atheism is not even a worldview, let alone an ideology.

A fellow Portuguese atheist has written the following (my translation):

''In a comment to my previous post, Carlos Soares wrote that ''Atheism is an ideology, like any other''. He is partly correct. Some things that people refer when they call me atheist are my attitude of not worshipping anything, not having faith and not recognize anything whatsoever as divine. That, I admit, is as much ideological as having faith or worshipping some divinity, at least in the sense of ideology as a ''worldview''. In both cases, the believer and the atheist have a normative set of what's the best attitude to have. However, Carlos is mistaken to think that atheism is an ideology ''like any other''. In specific, it is very different from religious ideologies''.

He then goes on to explain those supposed differences, but I will not translate the whole post (for now). The original is titled ''It is ideology, but not like the other'', and can be found here: https://ktreta.blogspot.com/2014/04/e-ideologia-mas-nao-como-outra.html.

Happy reading/researching.

Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: Paolo on March 01, 2021, 01:25:18 AM
A fellow Portuguese atheist has written the following (my translation):

''In a comment to my previous post, Carlos Soares wrote that ''Atheism is an ideology, like any other''. He is partly correct. Some things that people refer when they call me atheist are my attitude of not worshipping anything, not having faith and not recognize anything whatsoever as divine. That, I admit, is as much ideological as having faith or worshipping some divinity, at least in the sense of ideology as a ''worldview''. In both cases, the believer and the atheist have a normative set of what's the best attitude to have. However, Carlos is mistaken to think that atheism is an ideology ''like any other''. In specific, it is very different from religious ideologies''.

He then goes on to explain those supposed differences, but I will not translate the whole post (for now). The original is titled ''It is ideology, but not like the other'', and can be found here: https://ktreta.blogspot.com/2014/04/e-ideologia-mas-nao-como-outra.html.

Happy reading/researching.

Still don't see what 'ideals' this supposed ideology would hold.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Hydra009

#322
Seems a lot like an example of a "I know you are, but what am I" debate tactic - where one projects one's own weaknesses on their opponent in the hopes that the audience sees them in the same light.

Most highly religious people are rather famously ideologically-driven, with heated debates on matters of dogma large and small.  There may have even been a war or two about it.

Saying that atheists are driven by a similar "normative set" (whatever that means) is merely an attempt to draw a false equivalence.  And again, we have yet to see any of these beliefs described in detail, which is rather telling.

Paolo

Not related to the current subject at hand, but do you guys know whether Charles Darwin was racist?
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

SGOS

We have Republicans, Democrats, and anarchists, socialists, and Libertarians all holding parts of their corresponding ideologies right here in the forum, but atheism is not an ideology.  It serves no purpose and has no goals.  It's about as formless and boring as anything could be, and it wouldn't even be a thing without theism.  We would be nothing more than people with a wide variety of different interests and opposing ideologies, none of which would have anything to do with having faith or worshiping anything. Atheism is nothing instead of something.  This confounds theists to no end.  How could anything they fear and despise so much be nothing?  It has to be something, otherwise they would be wasting all that fear and hate on nothing. They lack the imagination to see anything less than black and white.  They believe everyone has to love God or hate God, and theists do both, but it is beyond their comprehension that atheists do neither.  They see atheists as ideologists, and they can't even define the ideology they imagine, because much to their consternation, nothing is there.

drunkenshoe

#325
Paolo, 'ideology' is Not some evil form of alien life that escaped from some portal into our world. :lol:

But first, atheism is not an ideology. Ideology is not some idea itself either. It doesn't develop from mind or consciousnes by thought, but arise as a result of people's interactions, relations with the real, material world. It is the [study of] set of ideas shaped by those conditions, forces whatever you call it. So ideologies are based on action based political, economical and so social theories and most importantly intertwined with the LAW in a very complex way. When you offer/defend an ideology, you offer a political point of view which is FUNCTIONAL in terms of social, economical, political, legal institutions in a society.

Theism is something believed. A theist is not in the way into believing into something, he had already believed init at some point in the past. He recognises a divine power and mostly through religion, he believes in god's only authority, that his rules and laws cannot be questioned, criticised or replaced. Exactly like monarchy, oligarchy, right wing politics, dictatorships...which are the extension of theistic, religous systems, they generally dictate that social, economical, political, legal instutions in society must serve under god's rules. God is the only and absolute source of power and the clergy has the absolute power on people from how/what they should eat, shit, listen, watch, fuck, dress... So it is an archaic dysfunctional 'ideology'. It offers an origin, a source to its right of power.

The irony is, in modern societies where the basic human rights and the secular LAW is established and functional, individuals often talk out of their asses about ideologies as some evil conspiracy theories because in those societies exactly because of democratic ideology, there are no consequences of these actions. They're protected by the law system developed under the democratic ideology itself. The discussion about what do the capitalist ideologies actually contribute to these conditions in terms of apolitical discourse is another story. Because to be alienated from the concept of ideology, esp. capitalist-religous ideologies to the point of not being able to see that you can't live outside of an ideology in a human society is astonishing.

For example, in the absence of the general understanding of the democratic ideology which equals to the presence of fascistic, religous ideologies, the problems of personal opinions, religous debates, political discussion and criticism in any terms are easily remedied by a stone used repeteadly on a human skull. Nobody cares about your death unless you are a functional part of the system, there is no [secular] law.

Atheism is lack of belief in gods or deities...It does not dictate/offer any political, social, economical, legal solutions. It's not a system. The reason that it's become attached to certain ideologies like communism, socialism...blah blah because Marxism -which is not an ideology but philosophical theory- offers the criticism of the system from the point of concept of power in a nutshell and illustrates it with 'current' economical, political and social conditions which gave birth to certain kind of ideologies, various kind of philosophical systems and other theories. God, king, aristocracy, burjoise, middle class, working class, slavery...These are all attached to the concept of power. I.e: A policy declared before modern state by some monarchy is not a 'policy'  -doesn't matter how 'modern' it sounds or how many magna cartas they have- because monarchies do not make policies for people. People are not people, they are subjects. Do we need to go into laicisim and secularism from here?

According to Marx, ideologies exist in societies with class division. So yeah we all live in societies built on capitalist, oligarchic, religous ideologies, some with a smidge of democracy, some with a healthy bit enough to tip things over. There is no such thing as living outside of some ideology. 

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

aitm

Quote from: Paolo on March 01, 2021, 02:38:40 AM
Not related to the current subject at hand, but do you guys know whether Charles Darwin was racist?
Probably most likely. Perhaps not as much as most. We know his nephew was.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on March 01, 2021, 04:18:38 AM
We have Republicans, Democrats, and anarchists, socialists, and Libertarians all holding parts of their corresponding ideologies right here in the forum, but atheism is not an ideology.  It serves no purpose and has no goals.  It's about as formless and boring as anything could be, and it wouldn't even be a thing without theism.  We would be nothing more than people with a wide variety of different interests and opposing ideologies, none of which would have anything to do with having faith or worshiping anything. Atheism is nothing instead of something.  This confounds theists to no end.  How could anything they fear and despise so much be nothing?  It has to be something, otherwise they would be wasting all that fear and hate on nothing. They lack the imagination to see anything less than black and white.  They believe everyone has to love God or hate God, and theists do both, but it is beyond their comprehension that atheists do neither.  They see atheists as ideologists, and they can't even define the ideology they imagine, because much to their consternation, nothing is there.
'Like'--where's the Like button--I keep pushing it. But yeah, the above!!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

Was Darwin a racist, and does evolution promote racism? â€" #DarwinDay (Hint … No)

https://www.skeptical-science.com/people/darwin-racist-evolution-promote-racism-darwinday2015/

A claim often asserted by some is that not only does Evolution endorse and promote racism, but also that Charles Darwin himself was a racist and openly labelled native Africans and Australians, as a savage, sub-species.

In fact, some have even attempted to incarnate this belief within law. In 2001 , US State Representative Sharon Broome of Louisiana proposed a resolution to condemn “Darwinist ideology” as racist:

BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and approve racist practices.

Link: http://www.legis.state.la.us/leg_docs/01RS/CVT3/OUT/0000IGY1.PDF

This racist claim is quite pervasive in some strands of belief, if you google the term, “Darwin The racist” you will receive a flood of almost half a million hits â€" and that is quite frankly insane.

So, how can we possibly get to the truth here? Well, lets simplify things a bit and split the accusation into two specific questions:

Was Darwin himself racist?
Does Natural Selection promote, or support racist thinking?
An initial temptation to grasp might be speculation that Darwin, like many others during the nineteenth century, held a view about the supremacy of the white race, but to do so would not be historically correct, because he was in fact an abolitionist and openly opposed the already existing eugenic concepts.

So what was Darwin’s view?

Upon reading, we quickly discover that he opposed the popular racist discourse and instead proposed that all human beings were the same species, and viewed the differences between human races as superficial. In fact he was quite unique in that respect, and  made no distinction between biological races but instead emphasised how similar we all were underneath the superficial differences such as skin or hair colour. Note also that he views all, regardless of external differences, to have essentially the same mind.

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate â€" The Descent of Man, Chapter VII

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2300

This is a complete revolution, and was quite contrary to the popular thinking of that time, he clearly did not believe that “savages” were savage by birth, as many people did in his time, but rather that all people were relatively equal, and that the  differences between civilized Europeans and tribal peoples were due to knowledge and instruction.

So, the short answer to the question was Darwin racist is -------no!!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Hydra009

Quote from: Paolo on March 01, 2021, 02:38:40 AMNot related to the current subject at hand, but do you guys know whether Charles Darwin was racist?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?