I do not need your permission for how I think

I've noticed something here recently; and in some forums, this is something that the staff have actually complained about themselves, in the stickies.

While I am well aware of the rule against naming names, there are a number of exceptionally vicious, mean-spirited, nihilistic atheists inhabiting this forum. The lack of integrity of these individuals, by itself, is not the major issue, however. The more difficult problem is the fact that said people have an automatic assumption that it is mandatory, for everyone else on this forum, to adhere to their own, entirely arbitrary standards of logic.

Atheists have no inherent right, to tell anyone else how to think.

If you believe that the way in which I think, is illogical to the point of being outright schizophrenic, that's fine. I do not care, and I should not be forced to care by aggressive, abusive behaviour on your part. Some of you will immediately begin crying about how Christians try and dictate how you should think, and what you should believe, and before you ask, no, I don't condone it when they do that either.

It is just as wrong for a Christian to try and tell me what to think and believe, involuntarily, as it is for Atheists to do so.

"But we've got Science on our side!"



So? Christians make exactly the same claim about the Bible being inerrant and God-breathed. Islamist fanatics think that we should murder everyone who doesn't want Sharia Law.

"But that's different! They're deluded! Science is provable!"

Provability is not the issue here. Fanatical, self-righteous bigotry is. If there is one thing I've noticed about the sort of trolls that I'm talking about in this post, it is that they will go to literally any lengths in order to justify their behaviour. They will scream censorship; they will use any other bogus, superficially plausible rationale that they can get their hands on.

"But the slogan of ATS is Deny Ignorance!"

Maybe it shouldn't be, then. I'm not being flippant here; I'm deadly serious. If you interpret this site's slogan, as justification for ideological, and even ontological authoritarianism, then maybe said slogan does need to change.

Some will doubtless object to the above, on the basis that if we were to do so, the entire analytical quality of ATS would go into systemic decline; but I would suggest that that has already happened, and it has actually happened in direct proportion to the rise of the debunkers. The people who so abusively, vitriolically shut down anyone who they think is irrational, to the point of following them through multiple threads and harassing them, such that people who might have otherwise posted, become too intimidated to do so.

A lot of the debunkers that we've got here, don't contribute to denying ignorance. What they really seek to deny, as I've said before, is any communication or mention whatsoever, for ideas or beliefs that they don't consider to meet their own intellectual standards. So this isn't about denying ignorance; what I'm talking about actually increases ignorance, via seeking to silence anyone who disagrees.

The other point here, is the behaviour that these people exhibit, relative to their claim of being "free thinkers." In the case of the group that I'm describing here, the term "free thinker," can be considered doublespeak. It describes the exact opposite of what it claims; mental, intellectual, ideological, ontological fascism.

If, as an example, you want to argue with me about whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, in the public forum, by talking about what you consider to be the available evidence, then that is one thing. If, on the other hand, you feel a need to chase and harass me through multiple threads with disparate subject matter, regurgitating material of mine from other sites, and repeatedly demanding personal information which you can then use as a basis for personally attacking me, as opposed to any specific argument, then that is something else entirely.

I think that there are a number of topics on this forum, which certain people do not want discussed. I think the acceptable disguise for said people, has become a veneer or facade of logic and reverence for science. I think said people are genuinely evil, to put it bluntly, and that they will quite happily employ literally any means at their disposal to squelch conversation about any ideas, events, or beliefs which they feel opposed to, all the while attempting to use said bogus rationalism as a shield to hide behind.

I want to serve said people notice. I know who you are, and I know what you are. If you want to consider me your enemy, I openly invite you to do so. The more you attack me, the more public exposure I am going to give your methods of doing so.

Game on.

You can believe whatever you want. You can believe that you breathe sand. However, if you try telling anyone else that breathing sand is OK, someone is going to put a stop to that right away.

reply to post by petrus4


Star and Flag

Rise above it Petrus.


Dont let it get to you.

Believe what you want to believe. Have an open mind though.

And Never give up,on your beliefs.


Peace

Click here for more information.

Are you talking about 9/11 or some religious topics? Don't mix them, I would advise.

BTW: I will always disallow specific people their way of disallowing EVERYONE to counterspeak of religious topics - if your believe can't take a beating, don't step into a discussion with sentences about how God does this and that, being better than other gods (without proof or example) and so on.

Originally posted by DaTroof
You can believe whatever you want. You can believe that you breathe sand. However, if you try telling anyone else that breathing sand is OK, someone is going to put a stop to that right away.

I'm not asking for the ability to do that. That would be hypocritical, given what I have said.

reply to post by petrus4


If people are following you,harassing you through out different threads,that is against T&C.

Alert the Mods.

People will disagree with you. Everyone has their own opinions though. When it becomes personal,you have EVERY right to let staff know.

A bit rich, don't you think? You have just described religion and the religious.

Athiests can have their day in the sun - religion has been too dominant for too long.

I think this should be posted in the rant forum.

reply to post by Garfee


Actually, I think OP's little rant there perfectly describes a portion of both the religious element here at ATS as well as the "athiest" element. Which is funny because the criteria at ATS for you to be considered an athiest is to not believe in Christianity. Half of the people being generalized into being atheists would be better described as agnostic.

But OP clearly said it applies to both sides and he doesn't agree with either, all of us should be able to agree with that point.

But if people are following you from thread to thread harrassing you, alert the mods, it's as simple as that. But you've gone way beyond that, and actually called them evil. Went so far as to say, pretty self importantly I might add, that these people aren't even here to debunk, they are just here to shut you up. Stop and think of what has happened to make you have that type of view of other people based solely on their opinions.

Maybe you should explain the harassment.. You said they repost old statements of yours. Are they relevant? Do they play into the thread in question, possibly showing an earlier statement or precedent?

People are opinionated, some people feel the need to "convince" others their opinion is the correct one, they will follow threads on a given subject because they like listening to themselves speak. This in and of itself is hardly harassment.

reply to post by petrus4

Atheists have no inherent right, to tell anyone else how to think.

That's a two way road.The christians in this site and in real life are doing it all the time.
Knowledge and belief are not the same thing.When i have proof that the Earth is round you cannot come and tell me that is flat,because your religious book says so(it's an example don't take it literally).Or when i have seen relics of dinosaurs you come and tell me that they never exited,because the bible don't mention them and what was found was placed there by Satan.Even if i wanted to believe in your god that alone is something that can meke me start running away.

I usually don't get involved in theological debates,unless there are facts distorted to the convenience of the religious faith.

Besides when you write your opinion on a public forum,you must expect (and welcome) the opposite opinion.Otherwise what's the purpose of creating a thread if you want everyone to agree with you?

Name calling and harrashment is a work for the Mods,so if that's the case alert them and they will take care of the problem.

Originally posted by Phantom traveller
reply to post by petrus4

 

Atheists have no inherent right, to tell anyone else how to think.

That's a two way road.The christians in this site and in real life are doing it all the time.

Did you notice that I explicitly stated that, or are you cherrypicking?

Knowledge and belief are not the same thing.When i have proof that the Earth is round you cannot come and tell me that is flat,because your religious book says so(it's an example don't take it literally).

I addressed this as well. Provability is irrelevant. This isn't about whether or not someone else is correct or incorrect; it's about someone else's right to be what you think is incorrect, regardless.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Garfee

 

Maybe you should explain the harassment.. You said they repost old statements of yours. Are they relevant? Do they play into the thread in question, possibly showing an earlier statement or precedent?

It was a video of mine from YouTube, and it had nothing to do with the thread in which it was posted.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Garfee

 

Maybe you should explain the harassment.. You said they repost old statements of yours. Are they relevant? Do they play into the thread in question, possibly showing an earlier statement or precedent?

It was a video of mine from YouTube, and it had nothing to do with the thread in which it was posted.

In that case, Id alert a Mod and let them investigate it a little. There are so many people here Im sure its hard to keep track of all of the annoyances, give em a hand by alerting them.

reply to post by petrus4


Now that's the sort of rant I like.

Well thought out and posted.

But you've been around for a bit and you know that as soon as summer rolls around and school lets out, the trolls will arrive enmasse.

I feel bad for the Mods during those months.

Science doesn't tell you how to think.

Religion does.

Science tells you to base your conclusions on what can be observed and tested and to base your conclusions on what the results of the tests show.

Religion makes claims and tells you you must believe in those claims and follow them blindly and to obey and that these rules apply to everybody, even the non religious.

Boy do you have some issues with science.

Science is not perfect and it does make mistakes.

And really it's individual scientists that you should have problems with, not science overall. They are only fallible humans. When you blast science you are making huge generalizations and saying that everybody is like this, which is just not true. Many scientists are actually far more open minded than the religious, they just want to find out for themselves if something is real through testing and observation. That is the key. Most people can't seem to understand this.

But science is not a religion.

But I do agree with you on one aspect of your irrational rant. I am tired of people telling me that I must believe the same thing as them or I am a monster or a jerk or whatever insult or ridicule they lavish upon me.

But they are the ones who are the real fools because they can't help themselves and can't think for themselves.

Still, science has accomplished a lot of good.

you realize without science there would be no computers and forums like these for you to rant on, don't you?

So really, science does deserve a lot more respect than religion.


But there are a lot of arrogant people on both sides. It is those people that you have to watch out for.

As for me, I will still go with science rather than blind belief.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Science doesn't tell you how to think.

Unfortunately, it kind of does. You are speaking of a science that does not exist in the real world. At a practical level, where science interacts with people, it is often as blatantly destructive as religion can be. One of the problems with the religion vs. science debate, as I see it, is that both sides see their own positions as pure and the other as corrupted. Just a quick example. A Christian will say the religion is about peace and justice where the detractor will point out the Inquisition as the reality of Christianity. In return, the Christian says, well, people are only human and that's an aberration, not true Christianity.

The same thing happens the other way around. You will say that "science" is pure and a pursuit of truth and self-correcting. The detractor will say, well, what about this global warming fiasco? It's a complete perversion of science and further, implementing the "solution" is going to kill and hurt a lot of people. When people say "the science is settled" they are no better than the Inquisition. The scientist will counter that science will win out in the end.

The problem is what happens in the meantime.

Science accuses religion of telling people how to think. Get away from the superficial mythology for a moment and you will see that this is true, but from a religious standpoint, that's not a bad thing. Religion attempts to teach morality. We can debate what is moral all you want, but the point remains that religion attempts to teach "moral character" and a "right" way to live: Charity, love to fellow Man, Ten Commandments, that sort of thing.

Science, on the other hand, does not deal with morality. Truth is its only goal, and if that results in the ability to produce atomic bombs and artificial plagues, science will attempt to shun responsibility for such things saying science itself is pure, but humans chose to use that knowledge for their own ends. Science pretends to not be cuplable for providing such things.

Both science and religion tend to overstep their boundaries. Religion will often try to force its version of morality on everyone, which doesn't go over too well. And science will often try to force its version of reality on everyone, which doesn't go over too well either.

The fact is that science does not understand religion. For example, science will say it's obvious the Earth is over 6,016 years old, therefore religion is wrong. Check. It's obvious Adam & Eve did not exist, therefore religion is wrong. Check. It's obvious Noah's flood didn't happen, therefore religion is wrong. Uh, wait a sec.

Science does not understand metaphors. At least it says it doesn't. (Has anyone ever seen a quark or a string?) There actually (probably) WAS a Flood, though not quite like Noah's description. It's an old, old tale picked up by the Bible, and just about every other mythology in the world. Noah's story is not the Truth, but it is a reflection of truth that science is too proud to admit.

And what about this Resurrection thing? Science is quick to scoff. In fact, if truth be known, the seminaries tend to think the same thing! Just don't tell anybody, OK? Jesus was a charismatic man with a message. That's what a lot of seminarians have come to believe. So they're kind of on the side of science. Who would have thought?

But what if, just what if science was wrong about the Resurrection? I mean, SCIENTIFICALLY wrong? After all, in the era of Newtonian Mechanics science would not admit to quarks, strings, Branes, 11 dimensions, and the Multi-verse. What if technically and scientifically, ascension were possible? The problem is that science only can deal with what it thinks it knows to be true (which may not, in fact, be true at all, such as global warming), but it has a blind eye toward the future. It doesn't know what the next breakthrough will be, the next paradigm because science is the very definition of thinking inside the box.

To the Scientist I say Religion is trying to provide a moral way of life. It actually expresses many Truths about reality, but is often couched in metaphor and myth. You are too superficial in your condemnation of religion. You are impatient and unwilling to decode religion's language. It has been around a lot longer than you have and you would benefit by treating it more benignly. Religion has a different way of looking at things, but is not your enemy

To the Religionist I say Science is a very fast, very smart, very young idiot savant that has no moral compass, but it can do amazing feats that can save and improve our lives. If you're smart enough, you can guide science to discover the deep truths you believe, though you may have to change your own interpretation of them. Science is very intelligent, but it is not wise. Science is not your enemy.

And to find the Truth, you must merge.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Science doesn't tell you how to think.

Richard Dawkins does. James Randi does. Those men claim to speak for science.

So do a number of the people in this forum. Atheists claim a territorial monopoly on science. They behave as though rather than being something entirely impartial, science is something that belongs exclusively to them; and then they delude themselves that they're being altruistic by trying to spread their bigotry, while mislabelling it science.

It's Christian evangelism all over again. The one difference...the one difference...and this is what atheists always pounce on...is that they are not physically violent. They claim that this makes them vastly morally superior to Christians; but given the degree of viciousness and psychological abuse that I've observed some atheists and materialistic agnostics engaging in, I really feel that that is a lie. It's more like they are doing the bare minimum that they need to, in order to be able to call themselves non-violent, while still being as aggressive as they can get away with.

Personally, I have a problem with both science and religion. It seems to me, both are created in secret (in a laboratory or some other inhuman, inhospitable place) and unleashed upon an unsuspecting humanity without any thought to ethics, morality, or any other consideration. And they both usually end up causing more problems than they actually solve. Just sayin ...

Well said, bro. ;D

Christians are all like "Don't tell me my God is false, you're going to Hell!"
Athiest are all like "Pshht, there is no proof of your God, my science is infallible!"
Muslims are all like "INFIDEEEEELLL!"

-.-

Pretty childish, I reckon.

Originally posted by petrus4

"But the slogan of ATS is Deny Ignorance!"

Maybe it shouldn't be, then. I'm not being flippant here; I'm deadly serious. If you interpret this site's slogan, as justification for ideological, and even ontological authoritarianism, then maybe said slogan does need to change.

I have always disliked that slogan. To start with, it's not grammatically a good slogan, because "Deny Ignorance" could be taken to mean we're going to have a policy here of not admitting our ignorance.

But if taken to mean we're about not allowing ignorance to exist, that's a rather grandiose stance, and speaking of "flippant," a rather flippant one, as well. I think it sets a bad tone.