QUESTIONS AJ777 refuses to answer.

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
To be fair it's difficult to

To be fair it's difficult to debate with theists who have come here to preach sermons and make unevidenced claims, but who then refuse address people's responses. AJ777 is a point in case, but there have been others.

All one can really do is point out how dishonest he is being in not answering. The reason for his reticence is not hard to imagine.

@AJ777 Why do you think it is immoral to torture children, as you claimed?

Why does your deity in the bible torture and even murder children and babies?

Please list at least three objective morals that your deity has not violated?

Sapporo's picture
Unless @AJ777 puts forward an

Unless @AJ777 puts forward an argument for his assertion, there is no debate.

Sheldon's picture
Correct, Hitchens's razor -

Correct, Hitchens's razor - slash.

AJ777's picture
Which assertion again please?

Which assertion again please?

Sapporo's picture
AJ777: Which assertion again

AJ777: Which assertion again please?

You may find it helpful to read the first post in this thread.

AJ777's picture
Sapporo, a definition of a

Sapporo, a definition of a worldview is a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it. The belief that God does or does not exist fundamentally affects how one relates to the universe. On atheism if God does not exist humans are merely one species of animals among many with no objective purpose for living. On Christianity humans were created in the image of God for the purpose of enjoying and glorifying Him forever. These differences shape two ways to view the world.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Sapporo, a definition of a worldview is a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it. The belief that God does or does not exist fundamentally affects how one relates to the universe. On atheism if God does not exist humans are merely one species of animals among many with no objective purpose for living. On Christianity humans were created in the image of God for the purpose of enjoying and glorifying Him forever. These differences shape two ways to view the world.

And that answers the OP (QUESTIONS AJ777 refuses to answer.) how?

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
No one has said atheism doesn

No one has said atheism doesn't affect a world view, but it is not a world view. Atheism is the absence of lack of just one belief, nothing more.

"humans are merely one species of animals among many with no objective purpose for living."

The first part is axiomatic, and supported by overwhelming objective evidence, can you demonstrate any objective evidence that human lives have an over arching purpose that other animals don't? It sounds like a pretty arrogant belief to me, and I have never seen any objective evidence for the claim.

"These differences shape two ways to view the world."

They can, but only one of them is a worldview, as it comes with dogma, and a set of doctrinal beliefs, atheism does not.

Talyyn's picture
The objective purpose for

The objective purpose for living, for humans, is the same as any of other lifeforms on this planet: to perpetuate its own existence...

Sheldon's picture
Precisely, don't theists find

Precisely, don't theists find it odd that a deity supposedly created everything with us in mind yet felt obliged to take billions of years before creating our solar system, and then despite our solar system being around 3.5 billion years old, humans have only existed for 200k years at most.

Doesn't it seem odd their deity would use 94% of the same DNA for humans as chimpanzees? When do they think their deity put souls into humans? I mean do they think Neanderthals have souls? There is some evidence that early humans and Neanderthals may have interbred, did their offspring have half a soul?

arakish's picture
"atheism world view"

"atheism world view"

That is another deeply hated statement those creatard theists are saying. There is no such thing as an "atheist world view."

Sheldon stated it perfectly: "No one has said atheism doesn't affect a world view, but it is not a world view. Atheism is the absence of lack of just one belief, nothing more."

And I am putting that one in the file ARFavQuotes.html.

rmfr

Calilasseia's picture
Oh dear. so many errors in

Oh dear. so many errors in one small paragraph.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

Sapporo, a definition of a worldview is a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it.

For once, a start without error. But unfortunately, it goes downhill from here ...

The belief that God does or does not exist fundamentally affects how one relates to the universe.

Except that, oops, you're already into the fatuous (not to mention, duplicitous) supernaturalist fabrication that atheism is a "belief". It isn't.

Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of nothing more than a suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. Being suspicious of your assertions, does not mean affirming the contrary assertions, because, wait for it, it's possible to be equally suspicious of both assertions. Furthermore, one central principle of discourse that is recognised here by many others, though not apparently by you, is that assertions, when presented, possess the status "truth value unknown". It will be necessary, in the interests of rigour, to state explicitly that an assertion possesses a truth value by dint of the fact that every assertion constitutes a proposition, but when first presented and in the absence of test, the precise truth value in question remains unknown. Applying this central principle to supernaturalist assertions isn't "belief", but the very antithesis of "belief", particularly as practised by supernaturalists.

Just because some assertions are contained within a mythology that, for reasons best known to yourself, you have decided somehow dictates how the universe and its contents operate, regardless of how frequently real world data disagrees with this, doesn't mean that those assertions are in any way deserving of special, privileged treatment exempting them from the above central principle of discourse. I know that supernaturalists like to pretend that their favourite mythologies arise from a fantastic special source, and that as a corollary, they think the assertions in question are "sacred", and therefore to be protected from even the most elementary levels of scrutiny, but this pretence merely makes those of us who paid attention in the relevant classes point and laugh.

But, and here's an essential difference which is telling here, the moment genuine data eliminating the epistemological deficit I've expounded above becomes available, I and others, upon learning of the validity of the conclusions arising from said data, modify our views in accordance with the analysis in question. Unlike a good few supernaturalists, who are on public record as stating that no amount of evidence will lead them to reject their favourite mythologies, if said evidence leads to a robust conclusion that the assertions of their mythologies are wrong. Perhaps the most embarrassing example of this in action, was when Bill Nye engaged with creationist Ken Ham, and both were asked "what would make you change your mind?" Bill Nye replied immediately "Evidence". Ken Ham said "Nothing".

On atheism if God does not exist humans are merely one species of animals among many with no objective purpose for living.

This is disingenuous nonsense on several grounds. First of all, the view of humans as being united with the rest of the biosphere didn't come from "atheism", it came from biological research, including biological research that was conducted in some cases, by individuals who openly and publicly stated that they were adherents of your mythology. Indeed, one early instance of that biological research came from none other than Linnaeus, whose family included numerous generations of Lutheran ministers. On the basis of comparative anatomy, a discipline he did much to advance alongside his much more famous taxonomic work, Linnaeus wanted to place humans and chimpanzees in the same taxonomic Genus, because he regarded the two species as sufficiently close, on an anatomical basis, to warrant such a placement. Unfortunately, his wish to follow the data was subject to much negative impact by interfering theologians. This is documented in a letter he wrote to a fellow naturalist, Johann Georg Gmelin, on 25th February 1747. The original Latin text of the letter reads as follows:

Non placet, quod Hominem inter ant[h]ropomorpha collocaverim, sed homo noscit se ipsum. Removeamus vocabula. Mihi perinde erit, quo nomine utamur. Sed quaero a Te et Toto orbe differentiam genericam inter hominem et Simiam, quae ex principiis Historiae naturalis. Ego certissime nullam novi. Utinam aliquis mihi unicam diceret! Si vocassem hominem simiam vel vice versa omnes in me conjecissem theologos. Debuissem forte ex lege artis.

The English translation reads as follows:

It does not please (you) that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.

Full text of the letter available at the University of Uppsala's website, devoted to the Linnaean Correspondence, here.

That lament came from a man whose family background included several generations of Lutheran ministers.

Also, I note with interest that prior to his work on hominid fossils, Louis Leakey, father of Richard Leakey, initially intended upon graduation from Cambridge, to set out to East Africa as a missionary. This was the individual who added Paranthropus to the list of hominid taxa.

So the idea that acceptance of the scientifc data pointing to humans being an integral part of the biosphere, somehow involves "atheism", is flushed down the toilet once again by the data.

Second, your assertion is disingenuous, because it relies yet again on repeatedly destroyed supernaturalist canards, such as "atheism is a belief" (wrong - see above), and that atheism purportedly involves treating certain ideas as "axioms" about the world (it doesn't).

Meanwhile, on the matter of "objective purpose for living", I've yet to see one demonstrated that applies universally to all members of the human species. There are plenty of assertions in this vein, but doubtless you would disagree in the strongest terms possible with, for example, Muslim assertions that the purpose for living is to be a servant of Allah.

On Christianity humans were created in the image of God for the purpose of enjoying and glorifying Him forever.

How dreadful. To be eternal sycophants to a cosmic Donald Trump. Blech.

These differences shape two ways to view the world.

Except that once again, "atheism" doesn't generate scientific conclusions about the universe and its contents, as derived from relevant empirical data. That's what we pay scientists to provide. Do learn this elementary lesson once and for all.

Calilasseia's picture
Meanwhile, the following:

Meanwhile, the following:

humans are merely one species of animals among many

is disturbingly revealing about the religious attitude to the biosphere. Leave aside the narcissistic need to be regarded as "special", which is itself a pointer to some serious clinical issues surrounding the relevant mindset, though the idea that being "created" simply in order to provide a limitless supply of butt-lickers for a cosmic Donald Trump, doesn't correspond with any definition of "special" that I'm aware of. Instead, let us concentrate for a moment on how the Abrahamic religions view the rest of the biosphere, namely as a plaything to be exploited, whose members are, when not exploitable, to be shunned and regarded as "dirty". What a sick, twisted and warped view of our biological cousins! Instead of regarding the biosphere as a majestic entity worthy of intensive study and understanding, the prevailing view extant in the relevant mythologies, treats the biosphere as little more than a supplier of burgers and fries. Indeed, the whole business of purportedly "unclean" animals that results in the absurdities and hilarities of parts of Leviticus, where biological ignorance is displayed on a scale that should be an embarrassment to anyone treating this mythology as something other than camp fire entertainment for nomads, points to what can only be described as a florid psychosis.

That psychosis manifests itself most floridly of all, in the species of religious comedy known as creationism, in which any suggestion that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, as the scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates, is regarded with the same revulsion as if one had just sprayed these people with agricultural effluent. Yet no such revulsion is exhibited at the thought of being the products of a cheap conjuring trick with some dirt by a mythological magic man. Likewise, the disconnect between regarding themselves as "special", yet seeing nothing even slightly disturbing in the utterly feculent tale of rampant biocide that is the "global flood" fantasy, including the purported destruction of untold millions of humans because they failed to be sufficiently fawning and obsequious toward the cosmic Donald Trump, humans who presumably shared the same illusion of being "special" prior to extermination, is of a nature that would be considered clinically diagnosable, if it were not shielded from proper consideration by declarations of the "sacred" and "religious" nature of the horror story in question.

But if there is one idea that the Abrahamic religions have brought to the table of the human condition with inhuman relish, it is the idea that those who do not conform are unfit to live, and are to be extirpated wholesale. "Conform or die" is probably the one contribution from these religions that has proven to possess more staying power than any other, not least because it gives assorted reprobates and sociopaths the perfect excuse to unleash their darkest desires. What better excuse for unleashing mass death and suffering can one have, than to regard the business of slaughter as a "holy mission" sanctioned by a magic entity? That frankly diseased tale of mass extermination, which creationists in particular possess a frankly warped love of, and which has become in recent years fertile ground for an entire generation of self-enriching charlatans, building corporate businesses catering to the pestilential affection for this fantasy on the part of uneducated and polydactylous products of recursive genealogy, is quite possibly the most singularly chilling product of the entire Abrahamic mythological enterprise.

Without this antecedent birthing of the notion of wholesale annihilation of "enemies" on the part of the Abrahamic religions, political ideologies co-opting this notion would have needed to invent it themselves, but even those ideologies purportedly rejecting the requisite mythologies, found that ancient product thereof to be a very useful gift, even if those ideologies offered not one iota of thanks for deliverance thereof. "Conform or die", pursued ruthlessly by adherents of the mythologies in past times, saw its most deadly flowering when borrowed by others in an age where technology permitted efficient killing, but only the truly deluded would think that the same efficiency would not have been relished by those past practitioners, hampered only by history and inferior tools.

Of course, the mindset hasn't restricted itself to internecine warfare between human sectarian groupings. With undisguised glee, other species have been pursued to extinction, either on the basis that they constitute "vermin", or because they were literally exploited to death. With, of course, the added spicing of the emergence of killing for "sport", a pursuit in past times reserved with particular fervour by the rich and powerful, as another means of delivering a very Earthly political message, of which fox hunting in England is possibly the most efflorescent and gangrenous manifestation. Of course, when the requisite ecosystem changes brought their own, interesting consequences, the pre-scientific, mythology-driven response was to resort to more of the same, and to this day, calls on the part of the scientifically literate to rethink this approach have a habit of being rejected most violently, in those quarters where the Abrahamic "conform or die" legacy has been most vigorously propagated, particularly where the consequences have yet to be properly felt. Sadly, whilst many of the most enthusiastic pursuers of the "plunder at will" mentality arising from this source will reap the whirlwind they have sown, the collateral damage will be hideous.

Quite simply, the next time you hear someone say "I didn't come from no monkeys", be very wary of the mindset on display.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.