1. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240977 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 11:12 am

Hmm, it seems no one will see my point, so I will just make it in the most clear way I can and be on my way:

I think it is disgraceful and cowardly to measure religion by its worst adherents rather than giving it the benefit of the doubt to analyze what it should be while simultaneously only measuring atheism by what it should be and ignoring its worst adherents.

It is not a fair measure.

I am not one to defend theists in most circumstances, however if those who call themselves atheists are not acting fairly and rationally I will point it out. I need not skew the evidence in favor of atheism to not believe in god; the truth is sufficient.

In a debate between Hitchens and D'Sousa all the atheists applaud Hitchens and conclude that he "won" the debate while all the theists applaud D'Sousa and think he "won." Neither side is looking for the truth, they are both engaging in a confirmation bias. The last debate with Hitchens and D'Sousa I saw was disappointing, I was impressed with D'Sousa who made many good points, of course not changing my mind, but rather than address those points Hitchens played childishly assuming he was right regardless of what evidence was presented.

Such tactics are shameful. If we refuse to give our opponents arguments the same credit and weight that we give our own then we have no grounds on which to call ourselves the rational thinkers or clear thinkers. If we balk at any criticism of our views rather than address them fairly we will not sway any theists.

I'm rather sick of watching atheists pat each other on the back while they grow complacent in their perceived superiority. It is childish and disgraceful.

And on that heart warming note I think I will be leaving this group for a while.

2. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240968 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 11:02 am

"Unless you can come up with doctrines and motivations that arise from atheism"

No matter what someone responds to that challenge you will undoubtedly say that it is not a doctrine or motivation of true atheism.

The fact that the similarity to the theist tactic of claiming that those who fight wars in the name of religion are not following the true doctrine of religion, the fact that this similarity eludes you is sad.

3. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240965 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:59 am

Apathy, I think you framed my view fairly.

"'Can someone act, purely in the name of atheism?' "

They SHOULDN'T no. But CAN they? Yes people certainly can, as the satirical future in south park demonstrated.

4. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240964 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:57 am

Yes Steve, but in responding to someone singling out blondes as the violent ones it is reasonable to point out that brown haired people are just the same.

John Locke:
"atheists dont commit crimes, start wars etc in the name of atheism but for other reasons, so thereby atheism isnt the area up for criticism."

Now your missing the starting point of the discussion. It came out of an episode of South Park where various atheist factions DID start a war in the name of atheism. Of course it was satire and not factual. But to say that they have no grounds to make a satire warning of possible futures is crazy.

5. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240960 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:53 am

My overall point in this thread recently has been that atheists will thrown stones at religions saying that religion causes war and suffering, but as soon as someone says that atheists will fight wars in the absence or religion suddenly some atheists call foul saying that atheism is immune to such criticism.

That is a cheap and disingenuous way out of a debate against religion, it is a cowardly tactic that does not put rationality first.

6. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240958 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:50 am

Yes but if someone were going around saying "blondes are violent, blondes fight over everything. There will never be peace in the world until we eliminate all the blondes" then a blonde would be more than justified in pointing out that "even without blondes brown haired people would find something to fight about."

Christopher Hitchens makes his entire debates about the evils of religions and works to attribute all the worlds atrocities to religion. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that it is fair game for someone to point out that atheists would fight too.

7. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240953 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:44 am

Does it make sense?

Well it depends on the context. If someone might believe that people with brown hair don't like apples then yes, it makes perfect sense.

Could you imagine a brown haired person, even if they didn't know the context, getting offended at such a statement and feeling the need to fight against it? I can't.

8. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240951 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:38 am

I hope that no one thinks I am just trying to pick a fight, but I think this is a worthy area of discourse. I did not imagine in a million years that my initial statement would be met with such hostility.

I think it is worth asking where that hostility comes from. Why does having the word atheist in the same sentence with fighting get everyone all pissy about definitions?

9. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240950 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:33 am

So should we deny the truth value of true statements just so we can avoid giving Robertson ammunition?

I wont. I don't have any chills or shivers in reading or saying the statement "without religion atheists would still fight" versus "without religion people would still fight". I suspect I don't because I don't elevate "atheist" above what it is. I don't claim that atheists are any different than other people or are immune to human nature.

Aside from a desire to deny that atheists are just as human as anyone else I cannot imagine why the first of the above two statements would cause any discomfort.

10. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240947 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:28 am

Saying "Without fairies Afairieists would still fight" is a valid statement.

It does not link afairiests with fighting, it undoes the necessary and sufficient linkage between fairies and fighting.

11. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240945 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:25 am

Peace make up your mind. You just above said that the rule I referred to that the position that was immune to criticism was the definition of atheism. Now you agree with my definition.

Can't have it both ways.

12. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240942 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:23 am

If you agree that the statement is true but you object to using the word atheists in it then you are the one hanging additional meaning on the word.

13. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240939 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:21 am

"They pointed out that even without religion atheists would still fight."

Do you doubt the truth of that statement? Or just its construction?

If I said: "Without religion people would still fight" Would you have a problem with that?

Well guess what, people without religion are called atheist. Therefore "without religion [people without religion who can rightly be called] atheists would still fight"

14. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240938 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:18 am

I don't give a damn about proscribed behaviors, where did that crap come from?

"It's the definition of atheism." The definition of atheism is that it is a position that is immune to criticism?

Holy shit, this whole time I thought it meant I didn't believe in any deities or supernatural powers. Turns out it means I'm an arrogant prick. I guess I'm not an atheist.

15. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240932 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:08 am

Steve you have earn a good amount of respect from me, but yes if you believe that I'd apply it to you as well.

How can anyone enter into rational argument against a theist when you come in with your own rule that your position is immune to criticism? It's a one way shoot out, you get to criticize theists but they are not justified in criticizing you?

If thats the case I say it is cowardly. Logical discourse will lead us to truth, and if your view is so fragile that it cannot be subjected to scrutiny then I want no part in it. I am open to being proven wrong, anyone who is not is as dogmatic as any theist.

16. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240924 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 9:55 am

Peace your a coward.

You're worse than theists. You DEFINE atheism as something that cannot be criticized. It is above our outside of a reality that can be discussed or criticized.

Perhaps I am not an atheist then, I am a critical thinker; and if you are unable or unwilling to self evaluate and critique your own views then you are either a liar or deluded, or both. You have defined atheism as something that can never be criticized as a means of fighting of any criticism with a cheap "thats not about atheism" excuse.

You use atheism as more of a crutch than the religious use god. If you cannot meet critique with logic I have nothing more to say to you.

17. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240917 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 9:36 am

"Atheism is a simple concept: the absence of belief in any god. How any atheist acts says nothing about the truth or falsity of this position."

Yeah heres another simple concept:

Atheists still fight in the absence of religion. An observable fact. I never claimed that that said anything about Atheism as a doctrine or whatever the hell you may want to call it. I just observed that it was a fact.

I am not in the habit of covering up facts because some two faced scum bag theist might be hanging in the shadows watching what I say.

Grow a spine and don't live in fear of a moron's criticism. Personally I have nothing to hide.

18. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240914 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 9:27 am

So we have to pretend that atheists are perfect so that a moron will not have crap to put in his book?

Fuck that, I will not defend your ideology with lies. Stop making a religion out of atheism.

19. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240910 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 9:22 am

Well by that logic no point could ever be made against atheism.

Geesh, don't read so much into it. They pointed out that even without religion atheists would still fight. That is an observable fact.

It says nothing about "atheism" because your making a negative definition out of atheism just like theists do with the "not my god" excuse.

20. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240908 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 9:20 am

...managed to escape that state. I simply don't think that our residual instincts are, on their own, enough to have got us this far. It was our reason that did that.

21. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240904 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 9:14 am

Makes sense. I didn't see it as a straw-man as I did not see them satirizing the same argument as you.

You seem to think they were satirizing the idea that no religion means no war. I simply saw them pointing out the fact that even without religion we'd still find reasons to kill each other. A subtle difference yes, but I didn't see that they were making the assumption about an atheist's argument.

22. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240903 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 9:12 am

"Ethics should be a collaboration, not a personal assertion"

Can we have that put in the text books? Well said.

23. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240901 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 9:07 am

"If they made at least ONE valid point against RD and atheism"

I dunno about their points on RD, but on atheism: Wasn't that the episode with the various atheist groups in the future fighting wars about nonsense?

If we get rid of religion atheists will still find other banal ideas to fight about. Just browse through the other threads here, I'm involved in several such arguments.

If that was the same episode I'd say they did make one valid point against atheism.

24. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240669 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 8:43 pm

You get what you pay for.

Other lobbies have interest groups funding them. Did any of you contribute to the secular america lobby? If you did then you can complain.

"our lobbyist is stiff..."

Our? She's not my lobbyist. Don't get me wrong I'm glad she's out there doing what she does, but I don't sign her checks.

25. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240649 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 7:14 pm

"I agree with others that say it makes you look rather petty."

Wow. I must look REALLY petty then.

"So why are you arguing so vociferously?"

He has actually seemed fairly reserved and polite in his questions about whether this should be considered funny.

Personally I'm with you on Colbert being a satirical genus, and I disagree with RD's criticisms, but saying they make him look petty and vociferous? Damn, its his website, why should he refrain from chiming in with his views when we have all been pretty unrestrained in expressing ours?

26. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240643 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 6:46 pm

"meme theory is nothing more than a useful metaphor, an interpretational device...it's not science"

*Sigh of relief*

I'm glad someone else brought that up. I'm rather tired of fighting that battle.

Very useful metaphor indeed, but not science.

27. Friend or Foe? Crows Never Forget a Face, It Seems

Comment #240642 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 6:42 pm

If crows are so d--- smart, why do they

mistake a scarecrow for a real person?

28. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240628 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Decius,

You answered my concern well, thank you.

Your earlier post did not seem clear as it seemed to claim that science alone could prescribe that one ought not engage in incest or that incest was bad.

"Isn't it most likely uncontroversial, by now, that health is preferable to sickness, or are the philosophers still debating over that one? "

I'd agree that is uncontroversial, but I will point out that the preference of health to sickness cannot be made (only informed) by science. Science can tell us what the consequences of various actions or decisions may be; it cannot tell us which consequences should be sought after.

29. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240626 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Gregonomic,

I think you posted the wrong link. That wasn't a theist and Colbert didn't make him look foolish. In fact that guest seemed to get the most in and stood up well to Colbert.

EDIT: When I clicked the same link again I got a different video.... This seems to be the one you were referring to.

30. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240595 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Debacles I'd agree with your analysis of my hatred of dane cook. He's the guy at the bar who's convinced his shit don't stink even when everyone can smell him coming a mile away.

As opposed to the greats like Carlin, who's main idea is that EVERYONE'S shit stinks. Were all the same, we're all human.

31. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240582 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Isn't asking someone their permission to be parodied a form of ass kissing?

32. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240570 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 3:35 pm

"Dane Cook's standup"

Ahh, I'm glad I'm not alone. Everything about him just rubs me the wrong way. Actually I think it's his odd body language, quite arrogant. I can't laugh at him, or even smirk. If I even see him on TV I just get angry. It's the strangest thing as I can see how irrational and inexplicable it is, but I just feel something close to rage whenever I see him.

33. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240507 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 2:34 pm

"film Lost in Translation"

*groan* bringing back memories of the two hours I could have spent watching grass grow.

34. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240501 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 2:28 pm

"I very much doubt that your insane intellectual dishonesty will allow you to respond to any of those questions. "

I can respond to all of them:

Your "An" v. "Mine" distinction is beside the point. No one cares that much about your views, the debate in this thread has been about whether or not there can be a objective morality at all. It displays your arrogance however that you must assume it is all about you. It is not difficult to understand that distinction no. Is it difficult for you to understand that we cannot debate whether or not there is AN absolute moral system by taking as a premise that there is AN absolute moral system?

Only your morality is absolute? No, in fact I think you have one of the most subjective moralities I have ever encountered. If you find a view pleasing then you judge it to be objectively absolutely moral, if you find it displeasing you judge it to be absolutely objectively immoral. The views and arguments of others cannot dent your determination.

35. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240492 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Fanusi:

but any discussion, any argument about morality must take as its basis the premise that there is an absolute morality

You state the rule to debating your moral view is that we must first accept your moral rule

How many times do I have to say that I don't say that?

36. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240487 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Quine, your personal affiliations with cats has no business being on this site.

:o)

Sorry couldn't resist that one.

37. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240475 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 2:01 pm

"any argument about morality must take as its basis the premise that there is an absolute morality"

Not true. By making that statement you are rejecting the work of a significant portion, if not a majority, of moral philosophers. And this is the false dichotomy you continually set up then subsequently deny when you are confronted on it.

Debating with you is like trying to slice water. Quit being a slimy weasel long enough to address the issues at hand... wait, you cant.

You are like the theist trying to debate the existence of god with the rule for the debate: any discussion of reality must take as its basis the premise that god exists.

If you cannot wrap your small mind around any views other than your own that is one thing; but to deny that any other views exist simply because you cannot wrap your mind around them is arrogant and unproductive.

You state the rule to debating your moral view is that we must first accept your moral rule. Fuck that.

38. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240464 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Ex~

Perhaps she isn't the MOST eloquent and quick witted atheist out there, but she is a lobbyist not a professional debater, giver her a little slack.

Colbert is good at what he does, and what he does is tear apart any person who he interviews. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that Colbert could not pwn on his own show.

39. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240459 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm

"If there's no absolutes - how is any answer possible?"

Geesh. Read your own posts Fanusi, you're like a broken record:

1) There is either absolute morality or no morality
2) I never said there was absolute morality or no morality
3) repeat 1 and 2 indefinitely.

Make up your damn mind and get back to us. Are you playing with that crappy dichotomy or not?

40. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240455 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Steven Colbert, Steve Martin, and Diacanu...

41. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240453 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Personally I compare Steven Colbert's comic style to Steve Martin. Neither of them are known for great lines or great jokes, but rather the delivery and the whole hearted commitment to a completely ridiculous sketch without a moment of doubt or hesitation.

Perhaps the greatest laugh I have ever had was in the movie "My Blue Heaven" where Steve Martin does the joke "What's the difference between a light bulb and a pregnant lady? ..." And old joke that has never been that funny, but I nearly fell out of my chair when he did it.

42. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240443 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:39 pm

No I am doing so on the premise that there is some standard or measure by which you are arrogant and closed minded. But as it turns out there is nothing that can measure something that extreme.

No one has denied that answers are possible. Its just that no one here is willing to accept your answers simply because you repeat them the most.

43. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240439 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:33 pm

"And as for singing "God Bless America" all the way through!..."

A couple lines certainly could make a point if that was his intent. But plowing through the whole thing is the type of over reacting, over done work that Steven is known for.

I certainly don't think his humor is for everyone. But personally I find him quite entertaining.

Similarly with the "Oh Darwin" joke, its not funny in itself, but Steven's delivery of it makes it good for a laugh for some.

44. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240435 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:29 pm

"how very... absolutist. You're not invoking absolutes, are you?"

Even if someone was speaking in absolutes about something not at all related to morality it does not mean there must be moral absolutes. Now your dichotomy has expanded to be either your moral system or complete nihilism in all areas?

I've got an absolute for you:

You're an absolute fuck wit.

45. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240423 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:15 pm

"Letting her have any control in the interview would have put her above all the other lobbyists"

True, but a bit sad that the only fair and unbiased political reports in america are on comedy central.

46. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240398 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Stand in the corner.... but bring your laptop, cause that was hilarious!

47. God Only SEEMS Nonexistent!

Comment #240383 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 12:24 pm

"That video for all the world looks exactly like a Christian video because it simply states their beliefs."

Yes Poe's Law has raised the bar for religious satire hasn't it. I'm not sure that it is even possible to satirize religion by these standards.

Perhaps when I am very old and have nothing to loose I'll dope up on every hallucinogen and mind altering drug I can find, give myself a home lobotomy with a screw driver then sit down with a pen and paper. I MAY be able to scribble down something nonsensical enough to actually qualify as a satire of religion.

But then again I could end up with a crowd of followers a couple thousand years after my death.

48. Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon

Comment #240368 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 12:10 pm

"Here I am sitting in another continent and I'm justifiably worried about what this could turn into"

Oh come on, it's not that bad. It's not like one day our president is going to decide to go on a rampage trampling through other countries due to nothing but his religious ideals and his superiority complex.

Oh wait. Never mind, you can be worried.

49. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240360 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 11:43 am

"So it's not clear? Science just "suggests" incest is bad."

No only the theists will give you crap about buggering your brother.

While the post was in jest, for clarity sake I do not claim that science can even "suggest" that incest is bad. Science can only predict likely outcomes of incest. Whether or not those outcomes are considered good bad or indifferent is a question of ethics that science cannot in any way inform.

Science can say: If you want healthy kids, incest is bad.
or: If you want theist kids, incest is good.

Science cannot say or even suggest which of those is "good."

50. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240354 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 11:38 am

Good luck Quine, while I haven't read everything by Lewis I have yet to read anything that warrants a refutation. I simply haven't seen any logic in his writing.

CS Lewis was an amazing author, I will not take that from him. If you're looking for wonderful fiction he is high on the list, but analyzing his logic... well there is just nothing to analyze.