Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The 4 horseman :Atheist Agenda


  • Please log in to reply
305 replies to this topic

#31    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 12 June 2013 - 05:32 PM

View PostMr. Miyagi, on 12 June 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Maybe, I dunno. I'd say that they aren't for the most part if that's the intention of the OP. I just don't like the misrepresentation of the opinions expressed in the first two video(s).

I'd agree with you, I have no interest in banning all faiths.




#32    Irrelevant

Irrelevant

    Apparition

  • Closed
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 June 2013 - 05:39 PM

Yes let's,

The question is: what is the Atheist Agenda? A) to shake people out of there faith

How? Because the Atheist Agenda believe they have the brains to defeat those who choose religion of secularism, only they conceded defeat , when in there debate/brains failed them to do so. Conceding defeat.

There's 2 hours of discussion that leads this group who decide at the end they can do this ( shake peoples belief there is a God," shake people out of there faith")  they come to this conclusion because in there words there " smart enough" but as is shown they weren't. Hitchens was the least willing to try this and thought it likely they would fail, as he knew it was going to be far more difficult to do than Dawkins..who suggested it might be easy.

If this can't answer your question, a simple overview of these events in there origins and outcomes, then I can't answer your question as it seams your ignoring what the purpose of this group was , that being " to shake people out of there belief" something Dawkins has been trying to do for a long time with his endless books,  shall I list there titles?







#33    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 12 June 2013 - 05:44 PM

View PostIrrelevant, on 12 June 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Yes let's,

The question is: what is the Atheist Agenda? A) to shake people out of there faith

How? Because the Atheist Agenda believe they have the brains to defeat those who choose religion of secularism, only they conceded defeat , when in there debate/brains failed them to do so. Conceding defeat.

There's 2 hours of discussion that leads this group who decide at the end they can do this ( shake peoples belief there is a God," shake people out of there faith")  they come to this conclusion because in there words there " smart enough" but as is shown they weren't. Hitchens was the least willing to try this and thought it likely they would fail, as he knew it was going to be far more difficult to do than Dawkins..who suggested it might be easy.

If this can't answer your question, a simple overview of these events in there origins and outcomes, then I can't answer your question as it seams your ignoring what the purpose of this group was , that being " to shake people out of there belief" something Dawkins has been trying to do for a long time with his endless books,  shall I list there titles?

Where do the Atheists that do not agree with this fit in Irrelevant? One has to use care in over generalizing, IMO




#34    Irrelevant

Irrelevant

    Apparition

  • Closed
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 June 2013 - 05:50 PM

Btw, what you believe to me is irrelevant..It's not my business. However, the videos in this  thread show that when the ideas being put forward by the leaders of Atheism ( there is no God, and other aspects about the benefit of organised religion )  they do not succeed when tested in a debate format and conceded defeat.



#35    Mr. Miyagi

Mr. Miyagi

    "His Dudeness"

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,626 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2009
  • Gender:Male

  • "..."

Posted 12 June 2013 - 05:53 PM

View PostIrrelevant, on 12 June 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Yes let's,

The question is: what is the Atheist Agenda? A) to shake people out of there faith

How? Because the Atheist Agenda believe they have the brains to defeat those who choose religion of secularism, only they conceded defeat , when in there debate/brains failed them to do so. Conceding defeat.

There's 2 hours of discussion that leads this group who decide at the end they can do this ( shake peoples belief there is a God," shake people out of there faith")  they come to this conclusion because in there words there " smart enough" but as is shown they weren't. Hitchens was the least willing to try this and thought it likely they would fail, as he knew it was going to be far more difficult to do than Dawkins..who suggested it might be easy.

If this can't answer your question, a simple overview of these events in there origins and outcomes, then I can't answer your question as it seams your ignoring what the purpose of this group was , that being " to shake people out of there belief" something Dawkins has been trying to do for a long time with his endless books,  shall I list there titles?

In what way does that equate to the "destruction of all faiths"? Something that you stated was the conclusion of their discussions when the very videos that you posted do not display that attitude. In fact, early on in the video I think it's stated that they want them to be held accountable in the same way as any other business. I believe a comparrison is made in the regard of accountability with how a pharmaceutical company would be held accountable. That equates to the destruction of all faiths in your opinion?  how can you think this, particularly when the video shows that at least Hitch would be opposed to that and that the others feel that such a thing would be impossible? I've heard Dawkins showing appreciation for some of the things that religion has influinced in the past. Architecture for example. I don't think the people in this video are quite as insidious as you're making them out to be for whatever reason.

So is your goal here to ask Atheists if they wish for the destruction of all faiths? I'd say you'll get an overwhelming  "no" in that regard honestly. If that was was the intention of your OP, then why the need to intentionally distort thje views presented in the videos?


#36    Mr. Miyagi

Mr. Miyagi

    "His Dudeness"

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,626 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2009
  • Gender:Male

  • "..."

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:01 PM

View PostIrrelevant, on 12 June 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Btw, what you believe to me is irrelevant..It's not my business. However, the videos in this  thread show that when the ideas being put forward by the leaders of Atheism ( there is no God, and other aspects about the benefit of organised religion )  they do not succeed when tested in a debate format and conceded defeat.

In what way do they not hold up? This boils down to two different philosiphical views. The only convincing argument for the existence of a god that can be made is an ontological one. the propblem is an ontological argument can be made for anything. (Flying sphagetti monster for instance). In order to convince an Atheist of the existence of a god, one would need an epistimological case. As of now, there only exist holy texts in this regard for which no case can be made for their divine origin as of yet. What you get is the religious displaying ontological evidence that an Atheist cannot refute (nor can a theist refute the evidence for the FSM either) and the theist's holy books (epistimological) not being convincing to a nonbeliever. It's the classic stalemate. Meh.


#37    Irrelevant

Irrelevant

    Apparition

  • Closed
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:01 PM

View PostSherapy, on 12 June 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:



Where do the Atheists that do not agree with this fit in Irrelevant? One has to use care in over generalizing, IMO

These men claim at the end of the second video to be the leaders of atheistic thought.  
The reality is that at this time they failed to achieve there desire.

It's not been suggested its the desire of all Atheists ( most Id assume couldn't care less about something they don't believe in)


#38    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:02 PM

View PostIrrelevant, on 12 June 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Btw, what you believe to me is irrelevant..It's not my business. However, the videos in this  thread show that when the ideas being put forward by the leaders of Atheism ( there is no God, and other aspects about the benefit of organised religion )  they do not succeed when tested in a debate format and conceded defeat.

Then why did you start a thread?




#39    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:07 PM

View PostIrrelevant, on 12 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

These men claim at the end of the second video to be the leaders of atheistic thought.  
The reality is that at this time they failed to achieve there desire.

It's not been suggested its the desire of all Atheists ( most Id assume couldn't care less about something they don't believe in)

I do not look to them to define my Atheism. and neither does Mr. Miagi, both of us are more then willing to share with you how we see things while at the same time not professing to be Atheistic leaders.

Edited by Sherapy, 12 June 2013 - 07:02 PM.




#40    Mr. Miyagi

Mr. Miyagi

    "His Dudeness"

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,626 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2009
  • Gender:Male

  • "..."

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:09 PM

View PostIrrelevant, on 12 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

These men claim at the end of the second video to be the leaders of atheistic thought.  
The reality is that at this time they failed to achieve there desire.

It's not been suggested its the desire of all Atheists ( most Id assume couldn't care less about something they don't believe in)
\

How so? You mentioned that their desire is to "shake people's faith" You're saying they haven't done that? I'd disagree there. However, if you are stating that they have not achieved "the destruction of all faiths" I thought we'd established that this never was stated and in is fact is not a goal of the men involved in the discussion in the videos you posted. If you still make the assertion that "the destruction of all faiths" is their goal, then I ask again to please point out at what point during the video did they say such a thing.

Thanks.

Edited by Mr. Miyagi, 12 June 2013 - 06:11 PM.


#41    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:34 PM

View PostMr. Miyagi, on 12 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

. As of now, there only exist holy texts in this regard for which no case can be made for their divine origin as of yet. What you get is the religious displaying ontological evidence that an Atheist cannot refute (nor can a theist refute the evidence for the FSM either) and the theist's holy books (epistimological) not being convincing to a nonbeliever. It's the classic stalemate. Meh.

I hear ya, I agree it's a stalemate as far as being able to convince anyone to change their position, but I don't know that it's a stalemate as far as the status of the debate.  I'm most likely biased, but to me many of the arguments for their god's existence involve either inconsistency or special pleading on the part of the believer.  If they are going to say that an experience they had is the evidence, then to be consistent they should allow in everyone else's experiences, which will be tough since some are contradictory.  If they want to provide holy books as evidence, then allow in all the holy books.  If they want to say 'you just have to have faith', then to be consistent they should let in everyone's faith.  But they do not, and I have yet to hear a very convincing IMO reason why not.

I'm sure I'll never understand it, I can review and compare why I believe in certain obvious physical things and the reasons I believe they exist are exactly the same as the believer's.  But when it comes to God, I don't think that epistemology is being adhered to that was just used to demonstrate why the sun exists for example.  I can't think of anything I believe in, and definitely not to that level of certainty, based upon 'faith' or the 'reasoning' why believers believe in their specific god.  I'll again admit I'm biased and am of course going to think I'm being consistent; if I'm not being consistent in how I evaluate the truth of something, I wish it could be pointed out though.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#42    supervike

supervike

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,491 posts
  • Joined:16 May 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:38 PM

View PostIrrelevant, on 12 June 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Can Atheist triumph over the Religion, if so how?


For me, the answer is simple.


It doesn't matter.

I don't care what any one else believes, and what gets them through the day.  I don't look down on them for such beliefs, and I don't feel it's my duty to convince them to believe otherwise.

I have become what I call a 'reluctant' atheist.  I really wish there was a power that guided, protected, and ultimately cared for us all.  But, I just don't believe it, and it is being dishonest to pretend I do.

However, if you want to believe that, I've no beef with it.

Edited by supervike, 12 June 2013 - 06:38 PM.


#43    HerNibs

HerNibs

    Grand Duchess Anaesthesia

  • Member
  • 12,208 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Colorado

  • Endless repetition does not make something true.

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:43 PM

View PostIrrelevant, on 12 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

These men claim at the end of the second video to be the leaders of atheistic thought.  
The reality is that at this time they failed to achieve there desire.

It's not been suggested its the desire of all Atheists ( most Id assume couldn't care less about something they don't believe in)

Leaders?  Agenda?  Did I miss an "All the Atheists" meeting?


There may be "notable", "famous" and "infamous" atheists but there would have to be a cohesive group in order for there to be leaders.  There may be "groups" that congregate and discuss and debate but there are no "leaders" like there is in most religions.  

Other than all of us not "believing" in a deity...not much in common.  There is no "holy book", "holy rules" and "edicts" we must abide by.

Back to the videos.  Ok, bunch of guys discussing how to get rid of religion.  (I didn't and won't watch the videos)

I don't (and most atheists I know) don't care what you believe in, just keep it out of the government, don't judge others based on your "beliefs" and don't hurt others in any way.

Nibs

Just because it is a mystery to YOU doesn't make it unexplained.

STORM - a must watch - caution, some profanity and may cause you to experience reason.

#44    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:55 PM

Hitchens looks pretty spry for a dead guy.

Genuine debate lost a pearl in that one.

Good, honest book about dying by Christopher Hitchens: Mortality, Hachette Book Group: New York, 2012. (An atheist faces down impending death. He died in 2012.)

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#45    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 June 2013 - 06:58 PM

View PostHerNibs, on 12 June 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

Leaders?  Agenda?  Did I miss an "All the Atheists" meeting?

It was the one where they handed out our Atheist membership cards.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users