Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Atheism is insane

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) writes | about a year and a half ago

User Journal 35

Or maybe it is just the New Atheists, who rarely are skeptical enough about their own arguments.

Or maybe it is just the New Atheists, who rarely are skeptical enough about their own arguments.

cancel ×

35 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331387)

That article seems to be written by a Catholic who has as little understanding of a reasoned Atheist as he claims most Atheists do of Catholics.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331887)

It is hard to have a concept of a reasoned atheist when so, so many of them are completely unreasonable. Every single one of his complaints, is a reason why I reject atheism- it is hard to respect people who claim to be empirical, and then reject 99% of empirical evidence.

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333893)

That's because many of the reasoned Atheists aren't interested in debate. The only ones who are are the ones where their Atheism *defines* who they are.

Just like Evangelicals or Catholics, there are a good many who are just interested in getting on with their daily lives and not engaging in frustrating, time-wasting arguments.

This problem is exacerbated on the Internet, where every argument seems to be highly polarized. One of the consequences of anonymous speech is a dehumanizing of the participants. It is easier to demonize and trivialize the reasoning of a faceless opponent as opposed to someone you can see, hear and know.

In short, I have a life. That life doesn't normally leave room for existential arguments that have little bearing on my day-to-day activities. Sometimes it does, but for the most part, no.

Since I'm home with the flu, I'll bite. What empirical evidence are you referring to? If it is Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs of God's Existence, I'll pass, thank you. They're logical constructs, not empirical evidence.

1 - 3 are simple restating of the same argument, just in slightly different form.

4 I'd argue with his premise. Many of the acts committed by God in the Old Testament don't fit my definition of "good" by any stretch. Changing the definition of "what God does *defines* what is good" is circular logic and invalid.

5 is just downright wrong. Because *HE* (and many untrained people) can't conceive of the process whereby complexity arises from simplicity over time doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It means he can't grasp it with his limited experience.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333973)

From that direction the work Fr. Robert Spitzer has been doing in cosmology and quantum mechanics has much to say. But true- he *starts* with Aquinas, and works his way up from there. Oh, and if you're thinking he's just another Bible Beater, well, I don't think your average creationist agrees with his interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

He covered all of your objections in his book _New Proofs for the Existence of God_.

But I was thinking more about the fact that over the last 2000 years, the Church has done a LOT of original research into objective morality. So much so that it is hard for me to believe that one atheist, working alone with no outside references, could possibly duplicate that work. It is slightly easier to believe in a group of atheists doing so, until you examine their conclusions and compare them to the rest of that moral research. Gay marriage and abortion don't compare to monogamous heterosexuality for maintaining the species; in fact, they look kind of like booby prizes for guessing wrong (God says, oh, so you're going to ignore tradition as data and commit genetic suicide? Well, as a consolation I'll give you a FUN life- sin is always its own reward in the short term).

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334029)

That could be interesting. I'll add it to my list.

Homosexual marriage isn't a threat to the species, considering only about 3.5% of the population on average is gay. The other 96.5% trump them, from a species standpoint.

And you imply by the statement "guessing wrong" that homosexuality is a *choice*. It isn't. There was no point in these people's lives where they consciously decided "I think I'll stick to having sex with the same gender. Mmmm, boy, is that hot."

You need to come to grips with several things.

1. God made them that way, it isn't a choice.

2. Who are you, in your limited understanding, to say there is no genetic advantage to a small population of homosexuals?

Considering throughout history homosexuals have successfully reproduced, I question your premise that it is even a limited threat.

Stop assuming we know all the answers and accept that some things are going to remain unknown for a good deal of time -- if not forever.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334173)

I've yet to see proof of either #1 or #2. Some interesting studies that the sisters of gay men are hyper-fertile, but other than that....no, I haven't seen proof that "they are born that way", nor any absolute proof that there is a genetic advantage to *having no children*.

This is a prime example of the secular culture being not nearly as skeptical as the conservative religions, and in fact- jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based entirely on emotion, politics, and outright bribery of researchers.

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337819)

I've seen too much information on suicides, and had friends in school who took that route after not being able to handle being gay. From everything I've seen, if this was a "choice", they would have "unchosen" in a heartbeat.

Sexual orientation isn't set at birth. That hormonal development and transformation known as puberty plays a very big role. There is more to life than just simple genetics and environment.

And your statements about "absolute proof" are the ones that lack skepticism. I doubt anything short of God himself coming down and saying "knock it off, that is part of My master plan that you don't comprehend" would you change.

In fact, using your logic, the existence of homosexuality can be taken as evidence for EVOLUTION and not God. Since God wouldn't create them that way, they must have EVOLVED that way -- even if you don't know exactly why.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43338605)

"That hormonal development and transformation known as puberty plays a very big role"

I agree- Especially with this. Personal experience during puberty plays a huge role- so huge that the biggest mistake the RCC ever made was allowing homosexuals to become priests back in the 1950s and 1960s (this wasn't official, but many seminaries encouraged it).

I see no way for innate homosexuality to have evolved. At all. It's almost as if saying the mule evolved instead of being the result of intelligent meddling with animal husbandry.

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43338801)

I see no way for innate homosexuality to have evolved.

That is your fundamental problem. YOU see no way for it to have evolved, so therefore it shouldn't have. This is the point I'm trying to make. We don't have all the answers, but that doesn't mean we simply reject a premise or stop looking.

Think of how much we thought we knew scientifically back in 1900, and how little it looks like today. Now realize that no matter how much we think we know now, it is nothing compared to what we will understand 100 years from now.

Stop saying "we don't understand it NOW so therefore, it must be WRONG". Lighten up. Give it some time.

You haven't made a credible argument that what 3.5% of the population wants to do in a relationship standpoint will significantly impact the species. Until you can do that, you aren't going to convert anyone who isn't already part of your choir.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43341051)

1900 I can see. 1920 I can't. There haven't been many significant developments in physics since then.

The problem isn't me converting people who aren't part of my choir. It is them converting people who aren't a part of their choir. If, as you said before, experience during puberty is part of the picture, and if, as I claim, a mutation that results in no offspring can't possibly have a genetic cause, then that 3.5% today, is not going to stay 3.5% after this fight. Especially if you start demonizing heterosexuals (which is already occurring).

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43341363)

You're not taking into account that throughout history homosexuals have successfully reproduced.

And we're talking at odds about the role of puberty. I'm not implying that improper association at the time makes someone gay. That is, hanging out with boys gets you confused to like boys, etc.

I'm saying it is a biochemical change, as is puberty, that goes one direction instead of another. That 3.5% of the time nature gets is "wrong", if you will. I put "wrong" in quotes because I'm not convinced there isn't some hidden genetic benefit. X-linked chromosomes or some such. I'm not a geneticist.

So, no, being near gay people during puberty doesn't confuse you into being gay yourself. Thus, no, the general percentage of the population that is gay isn't going to increase because of gay marriage. Homosexuality isn't contagious.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342509)

"You're not taking into account that throughout history homosexuals have successfully reproduced."

Really? Can you show me one case, anywhere, of homosexual only reproduction in higher mammals? Don't just limit it to humans. And don't include situations where an opposite gender was either tricked into or paid to be involved.

"So, no, being near gay people during puberty doesn't confuse you into being gay yourself."

Not being near gay people no. Being *actively recruited* by gay people, quite possibly yes. And I've seen enough of that active recruitment, including the current Teen Outreach Program of the Department of Health and Human Services, to see that it is possible.

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342789)

"homosexuals only" -- who says it needs to be "only"? And why is being paid or tricked a problem? All that counts is success rate.

There are noted examples of European Royalty -- English and Spanish come to mind -- who have successfully produced heirs when the kings were as gay as gay can be.

As for "recruitment", I don't put any stock into it as long-term successful. Gay isn't a choice.

Besides, I think it is more than offset by the heterosexual recruitment effort. See, for example, Marcus Bachmann. If he's not "converted" gay, I'm the Queen of England.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343549)

""homosexuals only" -- who says it needs to be "only"?"

You claimed that throughout history, homosexuals have reproduced. To be truly homosexual, one can only have sex with the same gender. Thus your own words imply only.

Being paid or tricked is a problem due to the usage of human beings as slaves.

"There are noted examples of European Royalty -- English and Spanish come to mind -- who have successfully produced heirs when the kings were as gay as gay can be."

And there's a reason why the Guillotine was invented.

As for Marcus Bachman- "Bachmann and her husband have five children (Lucas, Harrison, Elisa, Caroline, and Sophia).", which proves him to be heterosexual. So no.

It isn't a choice- your earliest sexual experiences set your orientation.

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343637)

That's just sillyness.

The Guillotine was invented in 1700s France. Kings like Edward II of England, Juan II of Spain and Enrique IV of Spain were CENTURIES prior to that.

http://www.gaylib.com/text/igay9.htm [gaylib.com]

While I don't consider that link to be authoritative, it would be a good place to start.

Your definition of "if they reproduced, they're hetero" is a joke. It reminds me of a WKRP in Cincinnati episode where Herb was seduced by a woman who later revealed herself to have been a man when they knew each other in high school. He spends the entire episode wondering if he is gay, since he enjoyed it.

As for your last sentence -- please provide me with the ABSOLUTE PROOF you were requesting of me earlier. Nice double-standard there.

Homosexual doesn't mean impotent.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43349271)

The absolute proof is quite obvious. Two sperm or two egg do not conception make. It is your need to prove otherwise before I will accept homosexual marriage. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, it is up to you to provide the extraordinary evidence that a homosexual union can produce children in and of itself.

The rest is just oath breaking, and raising children in such a way that it directly harms the children; divorce always does.

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43349313)

I never claimed such. I claimed that homosexual males have reproduced with females as needed throughout history.

I do not accept your definition of "if he get it to work once, he isn't a homo". If a guy wants other guys, and spends years having sex with other guys, but needs children and has sex with a woman once or twice -- he is still gay.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43350583)

" I claimed that homosexual males have reproduced with females as needed throughout history."

Then there is no need for gay marriage, is there? Since homosexual males can marry females, there's no need at all for homosexual marriage.

"I do not accept your definition of "if he get it to work once, he isn't a homo". If a guy wants other guys, and spends years having sex with other guys, but needs children and has sex with a woman once or twice -- he is still gay."

The difference being that there's no need for such a man to be married to other gays- and there IS a need for him to be married to the female he produced children with. Therefore, you've just removed any rational and non-emotional need for gay marriage, as well as eliminated homosexuality as a reason for divorce.

Re:Nope (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43350891)

Producing children is not the only reason for marriage.

Re:Nope (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43368677)

It's the only reason anybody other than the couple involved needs to be worried about or concerned with. Anything more is government intrusion into private business that is better done with *talking to everybody involved*. We outsource far too much of our personal duty to government as is.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43450271)

1900 I can see. 1920 I can't.

We warned you about drinking the methyl moonshine.

What is 'god'? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332587)

You know, aside from the deification and anthropomorphism of the laws of physics and all its manifestations, and man's attempt to rationalize/justify his authority?

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332771)

No, those are *creations* of God. God is what exists before/outside of the laws of physics and all its manifestations and before any naked ape stood up in Africa and tried to rationalize authority.

Which is what TFA is about. If you're just revolting against people telling you what to do, you never get to the idea that maybe authority doesn't need justification because what they're telling you to do is what any rational and wise being would be doing anyway. And rejecting God on the basis of his creation is no different than rejecting Job's Apple because of the Newton.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333093)

I reject man's authority. There's nothing to be done about the natural law. And I reject man's gods. Your institution represents a god of man. They are not men of god any more than the rest of us and have no right to impose anything.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333201)

Nope, sorry, you don't get to decide that. You need to PROVE it. You need to prove that your way is better, before expecting us all to follow it. Prove that rejecting authority does anything other than create a system of the biggest gun wins.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333911)

That doesn't mean God is "true", it just means the Church was the most effective system at explaining hard problems to simple people.

"Because God says so! You don't question God, do you (heretic)? Now get back to work and stop pestering me!"

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334001)

So why would I think that atheists could come up with a better way to explain hard problems to simple people?

But I would point out that fustakrakich's objection wasn't the how the Church promotes it, atheists are just as guilty of burning heretics as anybody else. It was the mere authority to begin with. His problem isn't with God, it is with authority- of any sort, including scientific.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334055)

So why would I think that atheists could come up with a better way to explain hard problems to simple people?

There are a lot of hard, complex problems that can't be reduced. Look at Genesis. It deals with the creation of the Earth, Universe and Man in a couple of paragraphs. Compare that to college textbooks on geology, ecology, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc. Now think of just how effective the system would be if we replaced Genesis with those tomes.

Not everything has a simple answer.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334179)

And thus, ultimately, the need for religion. Less than 7% of the human species has a college degree. The more complex answers are NOT more effective, as shown by the demographic decline.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334387)

Yes, but we weren't discussing need, we were discussing truth.

I will not argue with the need, as it does exist.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333913)

My way is better for me. You live how you wish. You don't have to follow anybody or anything, and I wouldn't expect you to. But don't force me into your death march. You don't get to decide THAT, except by your gun. Authority is precisely a system of the biggest guns wins. That's is its very essence. Without the weapon there can be no imposition of authority. They are a matched set, absolutely, completely, utterly inseparable. It is nature is in its purest form. And it is sub-human, like those who cling to it, proof positive of our animal nature. Every single scientific study has come to the same conclusion on the effect of authority on the naked ape. It will invariably be abused. It is the prime inhibitor of all human progress in all of its endeavors. Its creates scarcity among abundance. It is an elemental source of all human suffering.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334011)

"My way is better for me. "

So you're not human? What specific genetic mutation has allowed you to live the species?

Authority exists *precisely* because it is better for the species. Weapons evolved to make us stronger and better able to survive. Weapons and authority are human. We aren't a bunch of cats.

Re:What is 'god'? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334093)

So you're not human?

A tiny bit more than the monkeys who cling to power, flinging their atomic poo.

Authority is 'might makes right'. Proof positive that strong muscles prevail over strong intellect and basic respect.

We aren't a bunch of cats.

I'll believe that the moment we quit acting like them.

Style vs. Substance (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334235)

Unfortunately for them different sects of Christians read the Bible differently. What might discomfit a Fundamentalist has no impact on a Catholic who has 2000 years of teaching as to the many ways in which a Biblical passage can be interpreted.

I'll grant that there areas of worship that are subject to stylistic preference, but tampering with the substance of the Gospel is just a no-go. Pray for the return of Christ, and a needful round of clock-cleaning (to include my own).

It's just irrational, ... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334659)

...like theism.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>