JackBizzle:



This guy ehh....you can lie for the catholic church.


The article tying the vatican to fronting for mafia money is what? It is a lie abi?

mtchew.

Read the article. It's unproven.

Next?!

JackBizzle:

And I would say that he is wrong. Atheism is just the disbelief in God. It is pretty much empty after that. In reality, there is no such thing as "atheist philosophy".


It would be like saying there are people that do not believe in fairies. We call them A-fairiests. Would there be anything like a-fairiest philosophy? No!! So why is there now atheist philosophy?

Why should your definition/understanding of Atheism supercede the definition/understanding of another Atheist.

Are you the Grand Mufti or General Overseer of the religion of Atheism?

Atheism has given zero to mankind. It's useless.

mmsen:

Atheism is not a body of work or a collection of books, fairytales or even a creed. It is the absence of belief in the numerous mythical gods that mankind has created.

No matter how you baptize it, Atheism has contributed zero to mankind. It's useless.

mmsen:

Many people who have not bought into the lie of religion (some of whom have been forced to bow to the power of the church in order to access their vast resources) have dedicated their lives to finding out about the world, hence why we have modern health care and other scientific discoveries that the church has deemed heretical (Galileo for example).

Galileo was a Catholic till death. Try again.

mmsen:


The Catholic Church is one of the world's wealthiest organizations - giving something back to the sheep that they loot every week by way of emotional robbery is not something that should be praised. What they do is akin to a carjacker giving his victim bus fare to get home.

Charity has little or nothing to do with wealth. St Maximillian Kolbe gave his life for a stranger in Auschwitz concentration camp. He didn't do that charity with money or for money. He did it for love. Love that your bitter empty self cannot fathom. Mother Teresa gave up everything to help the poor, derided and abandoned. She even had to fight her superiors to allow her do it fully. She had zero money to start with and zero money in the end. There are millions of examples.

CoolUsername:


It allows people break out of indoctrination and have an identity of their own

There are many Atheists (tens of millions) that are/were indoctrinated to worship leaders like Kim Jong Un, Stalin and follow the doctrine imposed on them.

CoolUsername:



. No self-flagellation to purge sin or anything like that. Nobody is perfect, so there's no such thing is papal infallibility, no book is perfect, nothing is above criticism.

There are millions of Atheists that believe that scientists and their journals are perfect.

CoolUsername:



If we don't check ourselves, we become trapped in our views, too jaded to listen to differing opinions and that's wrong.

I check myself and listen to differing opinions. Do you?

In summary: you still can't mention any tangible benefit of Atheism to humans.

JackBizzle:



I never said that there's an afterlife. I don't like this your strawman method of arguing. I stated that the villagers gave the terminally ill to the herbalist to help them pass on to the afterlife- the villagers believe it, while I do not.

Oh, so even the hospice you claim (without proof) is in your village wasn't run by atheists.

Goes to buttress my point that Atheism is useless to humanity.

italo:


There are many Atheists (tens of millions) that are/were indoctrinated to worship leaders like Kim Jong Un, Stalin and follow the doctrine imposed on them.

There are millions of Atheists that believe that scientists and their journals are perfect.



I check myself and listen to differing opinions. Do you?

In summary: you still can't mention any tangible benefit of Atheism to humans.

People being indoctrinated to worship leaders is not atheism, there are no gods in atheism.

And tell me who thinks science journals are perfect. You cant just make a baseless claim.

We have atheist charities ad atheist havens in several countries.

CoolUsername:


People being indoctrinated to worship leaders is not atheism, there are no gods in atheism.

You said Atheism "allows people break out of indoctrination and have an identity of their own."

False! There are tens millions of Atheists that are indoctrinated!

Face it.

CoolUsername:


And tell me who thinks science journals are perfect. You cant just make a baseless claim.

There are many of them here who would accept anything that is backed by peer-reviewed science journals and reject anything not backed by such. That's implicitly saying it's perfect.

CoolUsername:


We have atheist charities ad atheist havens in several countries.

Lol...when atheists worship a dictator, you distance them from Atheism; when they have charities, you associate them with Atheism.

You're always dubious.

italo:

You said Atheism "allows people break out of indoctrination and have an identity of their own."

False! There are tens millions of Atheists that are indoctrinated!

Face it.

I've always thought that most atheists dropped out from one faith or the other but I may be wrong.

The thing is that you aren't citing credible sources. You're far too emotional-minded for unbiased discussion.

italo:

There are many of them here who would accept anything that is backed by peer-reviewed science journals and reject anything not backed by such. That's implicitly saying it's perfect.

I don't see how accepting a conclusion that is backed up by empirical evidence and has been endorsed by others using empirical methods when you can't come up with a better conclusion, means it's perfect.

italo:

Lol...when atheists worship a dictator, you distance them from Atheism; when they have charities, you associate them with Atheism.

You're always dubious.

You understand the meaning of atheism, right? Worship has no place in it. Don't give the term a new meaning to suit your cause.

Please try to remain emotionally detached so that you can argue honestly.

CoolUsername:


I've always thought that most atheists dropped out from one faith or the other but I may be wrong.

The thing is that you aren't citing credible sources. You're far too emotional-minded for unbiased discussion.

You want me to give you credible sources to show that millions of North Korean Atheists are indoctrinated? You don't know that yet? In what corner of oblivion do you live?

Are you really ignorant of it or just being dishonest?

CoolUsername:


I don't see how accepting a conclusion that is backed up by empirical evidence and has been endorsed by others using empirical methods when you can't come up with a better conclusion, means it's perfect.

I don't see how accepting a teaching that is backed by spiritual evidence as perfect and has been endorsed by others using spiritual methods when you can't come up with a better conclusion, is wrong

CoolUsername:



You understand the meaning of atheism, right? Worship has no place in it. Don't give the term a new meaning to suit your cause.

Please try to remain emotionally detached so that you can argue honestly.

Then why are North Korean Atheists worshipping Kim Jong Un?

And who said "worship" has no place in Atheism? Tell me who said so? Show me the meaning?

Does "charity" have a place in Atheism? Show me the definition that says so.

italo:

You said Atheism "allows people break out of indoctrination and have an identity of their own."

False! There are tens millions of Atheists that are indoctrinated!

Face it.

This is where I agree with you. Atheism does not stop one from being indoctrinated.

The problem is that atheism itself is not indoctrination, however, christianity itself is indoctrination

JackBizzle:



This is where I agree with you. Atheism does not stop one from being indoctrinated.

The problem is that atheism itself is not indoctrination, however, christianity itself is indoctrination

Atheism also involves a lot of indoctrination. No o e exemplifies this more than atheists themselves who try to indoctrinate others with books into their way of thinking. For anyone to believe that atheism, is not a belief or philosophy that indoctrinated simply because it involves a lack of belief, takes a special kind of fool.

italo:


Oh, so even the hospice you claim (without proof) is in your village wasn't run by atheists.

Goes to buttress my point that Atheism is useless to humanity.

Of course! Atheism is useless in theory!

What do you think I have been trying to say?


You don't believe in fairies. You are an a-fairiest. But do you refer to yourself as an "a-fairiest"? No. There is no need for the word "a-fairiest"- you are not defined by your disbelief in fairies. Why then should there be the word "atheist"?
===========================================================


That being said, christians were not the first to do hospices. So your original claim about the catholic church inventing hospices is a lie.

UyiIredia:


Atheism also involves a lot of indoctrination. No o e exemplifies this more than atheists themselves who try to indoctrinate others with books into their way of thinking. For anyone to believe that atheism, is not a belief or philosophy that indoctrinated simply because it involves a lack of belief, takes a special kind of fool.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3413837_martin_jpeg09c3d75fb8eb84869c9b62883caea1cc


Does atheism have any creed or central doctrines? How can it then contain indoctrination?

italo:


Why should your definition/understanding of Atheism supercede the definition/understanding of another Atheist.

Are you the Grand Mufti or General Overseer of the religion of Atheism?

Atheism has given zero to mankind. It's useless.

If he said that there is atheist philosophy, then is wrong.


When two atheists debate, the right person is decided by logic.

When two christians debate, there is no right person is either decided by the pastor, or convoluted logic of the bible

JackBizzle:



www.nairaland.com/attachments/3413837_martin_jpeg09c3d75fb8eb84869c9b62883caea1cc


Does atheism have any creed or central doctrines? How can it then contain indoctrination?

Materialism is the creed of atheism and skepticism is its doctrine.

UyiIredia:


Materialism is the creed of atheism and skepticism is its doctrine.

Buddhism is Atheistic but far from Materialistic.

The bible says 'test all spirits' so I would say that skepticism is part of it's doctrine.

I think that the behaviour of the children in this other article can be explained already by other research (Milgram experiment) that proves that when told to do something by an authority figure people are more likely to lose their natural empathy. The common thread is that once you have an authority for your actions outside of yourself, you are more likely to be a nasty person, but when you take responsibility for your own actions you're more likely to be a kinder person.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYLCy5PVgM

wiegraf:


thank you kind ser. It does indeed clear things up. He seems to be suggesting we atheists were about as widespread then as we are now, and that is certainly not a common (or accepted historically, I presume, read: I dunno) notion. But he does seem to have data to back him up.

And this article from that site, perfect for a reasonable troll discussion

UyiIredia:


Materialism is the creed of atheism and skepticism is its doctrine.

we have spiritual atheists ala Folykaze
we have buddhists who are atheists that shun materialism
we even have secular environmentalists that shun materialism


Skepticism can not be a doctrine. It is the opposite of having a doctrine. Not all atheists are skeptics. There is no doctrine in atheism.


Go and sleep

italo:



No matter how you baptize it, Atheism has contributed zero to mankind. It's useless.


Galileo was a Catholic till death. Try again.



Charity has little or nothing to do with wealth. St Maximillian Kolbe gave his life for a stranger in Auschwitz concentration camp. He didn't do that charity with money or for money. He did it for love. Love that your bitter empty self cannot fathom. Mother Teresa gave up everything to help the poor, derided and abandoned. She even had to fight her superiors to allow her do it fully. She had zero money to start with and zero money in the end. There are millions of examples.

Where did I say anything about Galileo's faith? Please do not intentionally misread what I write. I notice it is a preferred tactic of yours to avoid the truth.

(April 12)On this day in 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculano da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII,begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy.

As to Mother Theresa, I dare you to read 'The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa In Theory and Practice' by Christopher Hitchens:
[b]
As editor of The Lancet, perhaps the world's leading med­ical journal, Dr Fox was professionally interested in, and qualified to pronounce upon, the standards of care. The opening paragraphs of his report in the journal's 17 September 1994 issue also make it clear that he paid his visit with every expectation of being favourably impressed. Indeed, his tone of slightly raised-eyebrow politeness never deserts him:

"I saw a young man who had been admitted in poor shape with high fever, and the drugs pre­scribed had been tetracycline and paracetamol. Later a visiting doctor diagnosed probable malaria and sub­stituted chloroquine. Could not someone have looked at a blood film? Investigations, I was told, are seldom permissible. How about simple algorithms that might help the sisters and volunteers distinguish the curable from the incurable? Again no. Such sys­tematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Teresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materi­alism: the sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor . . . . Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong anal­
gesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer."

Bear in mind that Mother Teresa's global income is more than enough to outfit several first-class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so, and indeed to run instead a haphazard and cranky institution which would expose itself to litigation and protest were it run by any branch of the medical profession, is a deliberate one. The point is not the honest relief of suffering but the promul­gation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection. Mother Teresa (who herself, it should be noted, has checked into some of the finest and costliest clinics and hospitals in the West during her bouts with heart trouble and old age) once gave this game away in a filmed interview. She described a person who was in the last agonies of cancer and suffering unbearable pain. With a smile, Mother Teresa told the camera what she told this terminal patient: ' You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.'[/b]

I see with your introduction of a single Catholic friar into the equation that you choose to ignore the overriding behavior of the mother church whose dogma helped to stoke the flames of anti-Semitism for centuries and who benefited financially at the expense of the persecuted Jews during the Holocaust. For which I point back to my initial metaphor of a carjacker stealing a vehicle at gun point, then giving the victim some loose change for a bus journey home - that is the Catholic Church, in essence.

italo:


You want me to give you credible sources to show that millions of North Korean Atheists are indoctrinated? You don't know that yet? In what corner of oblivion do you live?

Are you really ignorant of it or just being dishonest?

You're the one showing signs of dishonesty here, wanting to be worshiped as a god is not atheism. It's just a more brutal version what Jesus did. He's making himself a deity and banning all competing religions. So how is that atheism?

italo:



I don't see how accepting a teaching that is backed by spiritual evidence as perfect and has been endorsed by others using spiritual methods when you can't come up with a better conclusion, is wrong

Your 'spiritual evidence' has no place in the real world, it doesn't do things that can't possibly be faked (such as regrowing the limbs of amputees), it doesn't feed the hungry, it doesn't stop children from being raped, it doesn't build cars, planes, or rockets, -at least scientific theories can be put into practice, thereby giving science credibility- and finally, it hasn't stopped climate change that threatens to end the world as we know it in the near future.

italo:

Then why are North Korean Atheists worshipping Kim Jong Un?

And who said "worship" has no place in Atheism? Tell me who said so? Show me the meaning?

From Google:
atheism - /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Do you thoroughly read through your comments before posting? How can you call people that clearly worship a man as a deity atheists? It's disingenuous.

italo:

Does "charity" have a place in Atheism? Show me the definition that says so.

Maybe you should ask these guys:
hubpages.com/politics/Atheist-Charities-2

Maybe you should ask Mark Zuckerburg, who gave almost all he has to charity.

EDIT: Added a more credible source.

JackBizzle:



we have spiritual atheists ala Folykaze
we have buddhists who are atheists that shun materialism
we even have secular environmentalists that shun materialism


Skepticism can not be a doctrine. It is the opposite of having a doctrine. Not all atheists are skeptics. There is no doctrine in atheism.


Go and sleep

So what ? By materialism I mean the belief that the material world is all that exists. Even Buddhist atheists and secular environmentalists subscribe to that. Maybe even FOLYKAZE.

UyiIredia:


So what ? By materialism I mean the belief that the material world is all that exists. Even Buddhist atheists and secular environmentalists subscribe to that. Maybe even FOLYKAZE.

What is a non-material world?


Even heaven is material. The 72 virgins are what? Mammy water succubus? Are virgins not women?

What about the mansions in heaven? Gold paved roads? Waterfalls of wine? Angels with wings?

JackBizzle:



What is a non-material world?


Even heaven is material. The 72 virgins are what? Mammy water succubus? Are virgins not women?

What about the mansions in heaven? Gold paved roads? Waterfalls of wine? Angels with wings?

But they are not of the material world we are in that's why we say they are immaterial. Cause they can't be observed from here.

UyiIredia:


But they are not of the material world we are in that's why we say they are immaterial. Cause they can't be observed from here.

That is a very silly notion.


A house is a material thing.

A virgin is a woman, which is a material thing.

A gate (golden gates of heaven) is a material thing.


What is a non-material world? Define it with examples

UyiIredia:


But they are not of the material world we are in that's why we say they are immaterial. Cause they can't be observed from here.

LOL! Good lord. You got a good chuckle out of me here. I cannot observe the Forbidden city in China from where I am. Does that mean that the forbidden city is immaterial?

That is the best definition of immateriality, that which cannot be observed from here!!

JackBizzle:




What is a non-material world? Define it with examples

He has defined it. It is that which cannot be observed from here.

PastorAIO:

He has defined it. It is that which cannot be observed from here.

lol what a funny definition

JackBizzle:



www.nairaland.com/attachments/3413837_martin_jpeg09c3d75fb8eb84869c9b62883caea1cc


Does atheism have any creed or central doctrines? How can it then contain indoctrination?

Isn't the believe in the non existence of any God a creed or a doctrine all who identify as atheist must believe?

Geist:
Isn't the believe in the non existence of any God a creed or a doctrine all who identify as atheist must believe?

Atheism is the disbelief in God. A lack of belief.

So, what you are arguing is that a lack of belief is a creed/doctrine.


Do you believe in fairies? No. Is that disbelief in fairies now a creed/doctrine?

JackBizzle:



Atheism is the disbelief in God. A lack of belief.

So, what you are arguing is that a lack of belief is a creed/doctrine.


Do you believe in fairies? No. Is that disbelief in fairies now a creed/doctrine?

Is a lack of believe in God any different from the believe in the non existence of God? Your disbelieve in a narrow sense is still a believe in the opposite. So yes my lack of believe in fairies is in fact a believe in it's none existence and is very well a creed.

Geist:
Is a lack of believe in God any different from the believe in the non existence of God? Your disbelieve in a narrow sense is still a believe in the opposite. So yes my lack of believe in fairies is in fact a believe in it's none existence and is very well a creed.

That is quite idiotic, for lack of a better word.

Disbelief and belief are opposites. How can you then turn a disbelief into a belief? How can a disbelief in God become a belief?


Belief entails a positive thought towards something - e.g. "I believe in Manchester United", "We believe in strenght"

It is ridiculous to then have belief entailing a positive thought towards a negative/nothing e.g. "I believe in not Manchester united"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because something is grammatically correct, it does not follow that it is also logically correct.


I do not believe in God's existence- logically and grammatically correct
I disbelieve in God's existence- logically and grammatically correct
I believe in the non-existence of God- grammatically correct but illogical.

PastorAIO:


LOL! Good lord. You got a good chuckle out of me here. I cannot observe the Forbidden city in China from where I am. Does that mean that the forbidden city is immaterial?

That is the best definition of immateriality, that which cannot be observed from here!!

I didn't say something that can't be observed I said something that doesn't exist in the material world. Your definition tallies with what I wrote.