Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > General Chit Chat About Atheism

General Chit Chat About Atheism Something on your mind?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 12th June 2016, 06:59 PM
lorikeet lorikeet is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 6
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

Delusion = religion
Reply With Quote
Like Banjo liked this post
  #12  
Old 12th June 2016, 07:48 PM
Xeno's Avatar
Xeno Xeno is offline
Extant
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Altitude 700 m
Posts: 8,552
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

On re-reading the thread after it popped up with the latest post, I realised there was a bit here that I would like to repeat for its clarity.
Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
And now I see the problem. The author of this article thinks that atheists have prophets, and is arguing like he thinks this is an issue of theology. He thinks that the Prophet Dawkins has misrepresented the Prophets Einstein and Newton.

Newsflash for the gallery: No. That's not how this works.

Yes, many of us have a great respect for those who have advanced our empirical understanding of existence, and often will refer to the work of those who have had large impacts, such as Einstein, Newton, Watson, Kepler, Higgs, and even Dawkins, ... But those cats ain't prophets, yo.

Prophets don't exist.
__________________
There are no good arguments for gods.
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare liked this post
  #13  
Old 13th June 2016, 04:39 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 17,319
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

Science is all about prophesy. But instead of growing hair and living alone on a mountain, scientists construct descriptive and predictive models about natural phenomena, and then destructively test them. That is the nature of scientific prophesy, and it works pretty damn good, most of the time. Far better than baying at teh moon or praying.

Scientists make predictions, which are high level, high quality prophesies! Nowt magic about them. Just the least delusional human thinking ever.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 13th June 2016, 05:43 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

Dire; truly awful.

'bethinking'?

More like benavelplumbing
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 19th June 2016, 03:30 PM
katrina katrina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 42
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

Quote:
142857 said View Post
This article makes a number of errors.

Cherry-picking of quotes is one example. For every quote by Einstein that can be take out of context to appear to support the theist world view, I can probably find 10 that appear to say the opposite. In reality Einstein believed in a personal God about as much as I do.

And Darwin: "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God." Neither have most atheists that I have encountered. This is only meaningful to those who are not atheists and yet insist that they know what atheists do and don't believe better than atheists do.

It also makes the error of implying lack of or absence of evidence when that is clearly not the case:


There is actually ample evidence that atheists are "better behaved" than religious people. I suspect that Dawkins meant "I have no evidence to hand" when he said that.

Statistically atheists make up 0.07% of the US prison population, for example:
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-an...ent-its-prison

//edit: this is correlation rather than causation, of course. Circumstantial evidence in other words.
Why would Richard Dawkins admit that he had no evidence, if he really meant that he had no evidence to hand?

It seems to me very misleading to then cite the 2013 US federal prison affiliation figures in support of your sweeping assertion that atheists are better behaved than religious people. The article itself supplies ample explanation of why it is incorrect to do so.

The author, Dan Arel, himself concludes that “while the Christian Right is wrong to claim any ownership of morality in this country based on its personally held religious beliefs, it would be wrong for atheists to do the same. Of course, race and poverty play a much greater role in our penal system than anyone’s religion, and it would not appear that any religion, or lack thereof, plays any significant role in the majority of crimes committed.”

It appears that these figures were first proclaimed by Hemant Mehta on the patheos site.

But he too highlights a number of qualifications. These include the way ‘that 17% of prisoners reported no religious preference. They’re not necessarily atheists and may even believe in a higher power. We really don’t know. 3% were “Other” and 3.44% were “Unknown.” We can’t assume these people are atheists or Christian or anything else. However, if you combined the Atheist/No Religious Preference groups and lumped them together as “Nones,” as some sociologists do, you’d get 17% of the prison population… I’m not sure that tells you anything useful, though, because of the murkiness of the labels.’

From the first I thought the .07% figure impossibly low.

Turning instead by way of comparison to some earlier UK data from the UK Govt. archives, we see a far more realistic picture of 32 percent for those who professed no religion, the fastest growing group in fact.

The PDF’s main introductory points follow:

• In 2000, the largest group of prison inmates were Anglicans, who formed
39% of the prison population. Next in size was the group with No religion
(32%), followed by Roman Catholics at 17% and Muslims at 7% of the
prison population. Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs each accounted for
around a half of one percent of the population.

• Prisoners with No religion were the fastest growing group of the prison
population. This group more than doubled in size, growing by 181%
between 1993 and 2000; the prison population as a whole grew by 55%
over the same period.

• The number of Muslims in prison doubled between 1993 and 2000. The
population of Buddhists, although relatively very small, also grew faster
than average, increasing by 60% over the same period.

• The number of all Christians grew more slowly than the average over this
period, falling from 75% of the total population in 1993 to 59.5% in 2000.
The fastest growing Christian denomination in prisons was Roman
Catholicism, whose adherents accounted for approximately one sixth of the
prison population in each year between 1993 and 2000, but whose actual
numbers grew by 45% over this period.

• Inmates with No religion were most likely to be young (under 30 years)
white males on short sentences (of less than three years).


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...s/hosb1501.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 19th June 2016, 08:17 PM
Daniel87's Avatar
Daniel87 Daniel87 is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Perth, Wa
Posts: 70
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

All these survey's rely on self reporting probably why dawkins didn't make a bold claim that he couldn't support with shit evidence.

'Better behaved' is wide open to interpretation. I wouldn't like to measure someones moral worth based on the prison system as we like america love to lock up our minority's.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
__________________
Marx was wrong. Religion is not the opiate of the people. Opium suggests something soporific, numbing, dulling. Too often religion has been an aphrodisiac for horror, a Benzedrine for bestiality. At its best it has lifted spirits and raised spires. At its worst it has turned entire civilizations into cemeteries.- Phillip Adams
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 19th June 2016, 10:13 PM
Strato's Avatar
Strato Strato is online now
If only!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Bellarine, Geelong.
Posts: 4,624
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

Quote:
Xeno said View Post
Quote:
Strato said View Post
...strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, which I always thought a quaint and irritating figure of speech by Christ.
You give undue credit to the possibility any person nominally JC said any such thing, given even the supposed 'Q' document was not recorded until one or two decades after the nominal zealot's death and Matthew itself was written by someone else about forty years later than that, apparently drawing on 'Q' and Mark.

I am using a bc.edu source and have this or similar information in other places and books.
Yes indeed Zeno. I have read Raphael Lataster and am aware of the absence of any evidence, hence creds for a historical Jesus, let alone a Christ as examined under the discipline of scholarly historiography. I should have said. One must be careful.

It's right that you didn't let an assumption of a real Jesus go uncalled. That the traditional testament for a Jesus is completely unauthenticated, found to be spurious, fabricated is radically important.

It's a seismic revelation.
__________________
You have been kissing the hand of someone who is not circumcised - you are better off kissing a goat's arse.
Habib Huhsin Alathas.
Reply With Quote
Thank Xeno thanked this post
  #18  
Old 19th June 2016, 10:18 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is offline
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,835
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

Quote:
Strato said View Post
Quote:
Xeno said View Post
Quote:
Strato said View Post
...strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, which I always thought a quaint and irritating figure of speech by Christ.
You give undue credit to the possibility any person nominally JC said any such thing, given even the supposed 'Q' document was not recorded until one or two decades after the nominal zealot's death and Matthew itself was written by someone else about forty years later than that, apparently drawing on 'Q' and Mark.

I am using a bc.edu source and have this or similar information in other places and books.
Yes indeed Zeno. I have read Raphael Lataster and am aware of the absence of any evidence, hence creds for a historical Jesus, let alone a Christ as examined under the discipline of scholarly historiography. I should have said. One must be careful.

It's right that you didn't let an assumption of a real Jesus go uncalled. That the traditional testament for a Jesus is completely unauthenticated, found to be spurious, fabricated is radically important.

It's a seismic revelation.
I still don't see why it matters at all.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3
goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 20th June 2016, 05:18 AM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,007
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

Okay, self-reporting of atheism among prisoners is probably not the best evidence. I dare say, though, that if self-identifying atheists were massively over-represented in prisons rather than massively under-represented you wouldn't see quite as many people bending over backwards trying to claim that the statistic was somehow meaningless.

Here is an article that makes a broader case (although it does also reference prison population statistics):
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...m-and-religion

Another (although it's a bit short on providing the hard stats and the link to the original study doesn't work):
http://www.nairaland.com/121066/pred...s-lowest-crime

In fact there are no shortage of articles out there showing similar correlations.

Of course correlation is not causation, and it is difficult to prove that atheism makes you more moral or less likely to act in ways that society considers less moral. But the fact that people on both sides of the debate have to tie themselves into knots trying to explain why the statistics that appear to show that atheists are more moral are not as conclusive as they might appear to be at first glance does tend indicate that religion is not a prerequisite for moral behaviour by any stretch.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 20th June 2016, 10:17 AM
Xeno's Avatar
Xeno Xeno is offline
Extant
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Altitude 700 m
Posts: 8,552
Default Re: The Delusions of Atheists

Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
I still don't see why it matters at all.
I assume you mean by "it", "who or what was jesus, if anything". My view is that it is pretty immaterial as an argument regarding theism when discussing with a theist directly, but still not an assumption which should be allowed through unchecked where there is a bystander whose attention may be lax.
__________________
There are no good arguments for gods.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.