Bitcoin Forum

~Karl Marx - Famous atheist

 :D

Typical religious BS attack to atheism

Just to provide some balance.  ;) You mad?

This has nothing to do with atheism...

Did I took things out of context? oh  ::)

I don't know, did you?

But you clearly mislabeled your topic...

But atheist people aren't truth by definition? Because that's how they are arguing...
So Karl Marx should be truth. Oh great atheist leader!

What the fuck are you talking about?

Like we should believe anything written in religious books  ::)

If you attack atheism at least tell something that's worth it, right now you,re just throwing sentences in a post trying to make it looks bad.

Had a bad day???

No no, I was just trying to re-balance some debate.

So let's get some food for though. Do you people think that Hitler and Karl Marx that was both atheists could have let their beliefs system influence their political decisions? I think it could be very hard to dissociate both. Maybe atheism in some form can be dangerous to humankind? Ex USSR was a nation wide atheism country. Still, we all know how they turned out.

I don't know

with all the holy wars that happened in the past and happening today, you can't really put atheism to that level. The number of crimes commited in the name of god (no matter which one), exceding by far the number of crime commited by atheist (not in the name of it).

Dude seriously?!

Atheism has no content, it is not a belief system, it is not a doctrine, it isn't even a thing!

BTW, Hitler was Roman Catholic.

I think you should review your history. Crusade wars didn't count for 1% of all historic wars. Plus, it is well known that religion was only used as a front because the real motive was to find Salomon's gold hidden somewhere in Jerusalem. It is the same for today. Religion is always a front to hide true reason focused on money/power. But let religion debate aside. I want this topic to focus on atheism.

Which he was born not his adulthood belief system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Religion_under_Hitler

You think atheism is not a belief system? Let me tell you that it is, like any other. It means you believe in nothing. It is still beliefs as it can't be proven.
Atheism is more profound that you might think.

Karl Marx is the reason you have a two day weekend, and the reason why your children won't be working at factories at age 12

Why don't you prove that these quotes are, indeed, "BS"

"Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex."

Look at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and red state conservative America.

Republicans love treating women like shit, and for the past decade have been the most backwards, least progressive political party.

No wars were created in the name of atheism but in the name of god yes.

And you can't start a thread on atheism and hope no one will talk about religion. If you start by bashing atheism, you don't want to discuss you want people approving your point, which shows that its worthless.

No christians were massively killed by jews.
Christians didn't killed native american because they didn't believe in the same god as them
 ::)
yep we need to focus on atheism because it's bad

There's no content in not believing in bigfoot, in unicorns, in fairies, it is not a doctrine not believing in these things the same way there's no content in not believing in gods, same thing.

What you seem to be referring there is called Nihilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism).

Here are a few quotes from Mein Kampf:





Well, just read the book.

True but atheist countries have shown they can easily start wars anyway. So saying stopping religion will stop wars isn't quite correct.


I'm not stopping you for criticizing religions on other threads. This one is for atheism.


Those are real example of religious act of violence (I wouldn't call the first one war though) but I can bring much more historical wars that were also not religious.


I'm not focusing on atheism because it's bad.
Criticism is good for everything no?  I think philosopher Plato would agree with me on this one.

I heard all that liberal buzz about a "Republican War on Women" was all made up.    Probably to distract people from real issues.   What do you think?

Oh, and Karl Marx and factories and child labor?  I kind of think automation had a lot to do with that.

Um... Yes? Do you disagree with this or something?

I have some points on this, but first some words on atheism and religion:

Religion provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents.
"Many, perhaps most, religions are a-theisms in that they do not include a god-concept at all. Surprisingly, atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy, of religion but is the most common form of religion."
--Chapter 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1hbaAHsAlUC&pg=PA209&dq=%22Atheism+and+Secularity%22+surprisingly&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sZYjVNayOdGvigL67YCQAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Atheism%20and%20Secularity%22%20surprisingly&f=false)

OK, my main point here is the second one:
The three major fallacies underlying God Is Not Great:
1) that conflict fought in the name of religion is really always about faith
2) that "it is ultimately possible to know with confidence what is right and what is wrong without acknowledging the existence of God"
3) that "atheist states are not actually atheist".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rage_Against_God

Remember,
"Atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy, of religion".

SO,

As soon as an atheist affirms that they intend to love thy neighbor as thyself, and to do this with all of his/her mind and heart, then the discussion changes dramatically. After all, there are many different types of atheism (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487).

Man's desire to rule the world is as old as his presence on the earth. The "New" World Order is actually the same old plan for world domination.
Can any intelligent person look at world events today and believe these things are taking place by accident? There are good atheist behaviors and bad atheist behaviors; you will know them by their fruits.

All people are atheists. True atheists, though, believe in one less god than, say, Christians. ;)
Atheists are self-sufficient in their moral reference framework - they don't require a constant threat of punishment by an imaginary being to behave within civilised bounds.
Oh, and about atheism=religion argument. I believe (note the use of the word, btw ;) ) that I already given this quote: "Atheism is a religion in much the same way as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

You see this is why I'm an Anarchist, far easier to just tell God to fuck off whether he exists or not rather than argue with religious people all the time about whether or not he exists in the first place.

i have a hard time labelling myself as an atheist - i just see it as a religion for people who don't believe in god.

:)
I usually don't argue with them - rather pointless. Whenever I do so, I do it for fun, for my own amusement. It's the burden of the religious people to prove god's existence and to stage repeatable experiments to that end. Atheists can just sit back.

By your words, you are an agnostic, by the way.


See my comment above about the stamps ;)

I don't believe in great many things. Does it mean that I am a disciple of a million different religions?

Those Karl Marx quotes are completely unrelated to atheism.

"Absence of belief, even active rejection of a belief, is not itself a belief."

However, if you have your own unique beliefs, then you are plainly a church (religion).
Who is to say you are not an ecclesiastical authority?

"There are only two consistent positions on the god question."

"Presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"

All dignity consists in thought and intent defines the man.

I do not have faith in man's humanist intent. Who would benefit from man taking control of man's destiny?

http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/644092_399965236738628_425417960_n.jpg?w=610
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/Still-Starving-vaccines-Africa.jpg
http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/nwo-19-billgatesvaccine1.jpeg?w=350&h=200&crop=1

According to atheist Hitchens, "the order to love thy neighbour 'as thyself' is too extreme and too strenuous to be obeyed".

This ideology is pure evil, and it actually underpins the monetary enslavement system.

Yes I am, whether or not god exists or not is irrelevant to me, it's the fact that he and also his followers are a bunch of violent cunts that affects my belief system, I haven't even gone into the fact that the new testament pretty much advocates child abuse yet and already religious people are having a fit :P lol. I'm interested in seeing some actual scientific evidence of god existing from these so called worshippers but so far the only responses they have given amount to "Just trust me I know" and "Because I say he exists".

At this point, sun worship is a more legitimate religion than Christianity or Islam ever will be, it's also far more logical, I kind of like Buddhism as well because it basically revolves around not giving a fuck about things rather than worshipping anything or having lots of rigid rules but there you go, some people are just stupid, even the greek gods made far more sense than the religions of today.

Saying Atheism is a religion is like labelling 'off' a tv channel.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

Atheism is the practice of intellectual honesty - a state of mind toxic to theism.

"agnostic" means nothing more than "rational", for to use reason is to follow the facts and only the facts, to base conclusions only on what can be demonstrated or detected in some way, and to refrain from "jumping to conclusions" on the basis of personal preference, emotion, or "faith".
--Yet another quote from "Atheism and Secularity", Chapter 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1hbaAHsAlUC&pg=PA209&dq=%22Atheism+and+Secularity%22+surprisingly&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sZYjVNayOdGvigL67YCQAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Atheism%20and%20Secularity%22%20surprisingly&f=false)

There is no spectrum between atheism and theism and no third position; observe that while you were saying that, you were not believing in god(s).

There is evidence for survival of the personality (after death), so what force is causing that? Humanism?

An honest atheist would admit to all of these things:

The correct answer is "We don't know" I notice that religious people love to lecture other people about jumping to conclusions the majority of their beliefs come from precisely jumping to conclusions. Also, there's a difference between acknowledging a god's existence and whether people believe in it or not. I think he's a cunt and I would never worship him, but if someone provided me with substantial evidence to prove he exists then I'd acknowledge that. As an already existing example of this relating to my Anarchism, democratic governments are supposed to exist to govern and represent the will of the people, but do I believe in that? No because I have plenty of historical and mathematical evidence that suggests otherwise, adding to this I already have lots of people who have the same belief as me.

So the same logic can easily be applied to God's, but so far, not only do I not believe in anything he or mainly his followers have to say, I have also seen very little realistic peer reviewed evidence that he actually exists in the first place, those are just the facts and denial and several centuries of brainwashing doesn't make it any more true and don't bother trying to sugar coat it because that's what it is, brainwashing, I feel the same way about public schools that teach history by the way and don't let children form their own opinions or do their own research on things by the way.

The difference between me and a theist or even an Athiest is this, I have the balls to admit when I don't know something, but the things I have seen and I do know about God make me reject the belief system utterly, why would I want to take part in a religion that advocates child abuse, the oppression of women and homosexuals and the genocide of non-believers?

This is talking about how technology is making people "useless" by putting them out of jobs, in other words, machines replacing human jobs.  For example, bank tellers, cashiers (the solution to the minimum wage question), receptionists, telephone operators, mail carriers, travel agents, typists, newspaper reporters, telemarketers,


Let's take you back to a time where computers were a luxury. A time where the concept of a USB drive the size of your thumb was laughable, a time where eight inched floppy drives would hold a few kilobytes of data. This was also a time where the social position of women was inferior, as they lacked the right to vote, earned only sixty percent of what men did on the same fields, could not produce contracts like wills, even control their earnings! Marital rape was legal, men could have sex with their wives whenever they wanted, with or without the consent of his wife, birth control was illegal, causing the man to have full control over wanting to have children. Now, fast forward fifty years, and you notice how social progress has improved. We have better human rights, more social progress for all citizens, as opposed to patriarchal states such as Saudi Arabia.  


2% of America (the corporations) control 50% of the stock market, these corporations pay no taxes, pay poverty wages, and are constantly buying elections. These corporations control the poor, by capitalizing on what they eat (Monsanto), their water (Nestle), their shelter (there are more vacant houses in the hands of the rich than homeless people in some states), what they wear (shit, this one is so obvious, I don't even have to explain) by exploiting South East Asian children to have them build your Nikes.


This is pretty self explanatory


I fail to see your point by quoting Marx and pointing out his atheism.

It would have been more relevant to quote
"Religion is the opiate of masses"

^To clarify, it is US Government at all levels (in the form of various shell corporations) that controls most of the US stock market. Reference CAFR1.com.

That answer is only your answer, which you arrived at by looking at specific information, to the exclusion of other information, using a limited frame of reference. In an effort to stimulate your curiosity, I provide these facts:

The "law of free will" simply states that you will get what you search for, and that you cannot be given something you are not looking for.

It is fact that neither humanism nor materialism can explain the evidence for survival, so they are not adequate. An honest intellectual will never be satisfied with humanism's non-explanation for this evidence. The content of a communication can certainly aid in determining the source, and indeed it has (http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml)!

No amount of uncertainty should permit the premature acceptance of 'explanations', which includes the answer "we don't know". Curiosity will eventually lead to something worth believing in: real, comprehensive knowledge. An adequate worldview will always incorporate both the golden rule and all available evidence.

No there isn't. Nobody comes back from death, because they would not have been dead, they would have been another state, best described as 'dying'. Claims towards there being 'proof' of consciousness existing while 'brain dead' ignore the fact that electrical and neurochemical signals are still active to some degree, even if close to complete brain death. Dream-like experiences are reported, but that would be expected considering we have similar social cues that tend to paint the descriptions to match common expectations.

All claims regarding supposed 'real' experiences 'after death' are either simply subjective anecdote or outright lie. Often it is a combination of the two, which tends to manifest as a combination of vague recall of imagery and sensation interwoven with wishful thinking and descriptive narrative.

The notion of the human 'spirit' is something that exists solely in our imagination. Just because billions of people are conditioned from childhood to believe in dualism, again purely on the basis of repeated baseless assertion, does not make it a fact.

You can't prove anything by way of general consensus.

Pretty sure there is evidence daily that contradicts that.

So what? We are talking about the personality, not the body. I linked to 40 cases; how many of them were you familiar with before posting that garbage?

As I mentioned, the content of a communication can certainly aid in determining the source.

Your 'explanations' are both premature and inadequate; if you like, we can go through cases one-by-one.

Pretty sure there is evidence that the personality survives physical death, which would indicate that identity ('you') is much broader in scope than generally believed.

You sound angry, yet your reply is absent reason or objective evidence, merely obfuscation of the original claim by trying to redefine it by another name and talking about links which clearly are not able to withstand critical analysis otherwise they would be global news.

Clearly your claim towards the 'personality' existing after death references dualism, whatever you want to label the same thing that is also known as the human 'soul'

There's no reason to believe you existed before this life and there is no reason to believe you will exist after it, either. If you existed before this life, but have no memory of it, then the 'you' that has grown from birth and identified yourself with all that you have experienced, would not be the 'you' that is often claimed preceded this life, rendering assertion towards sentience prior to this existence absurd as you might as well be talking about someone else who existed prior to this life.

If you simply remember that atheism is a religion, and Karl Marx's version is simply a branch of the religion of atheism, everything fits into place like it should.

:)

Except that Atheism is not a religion, hence the name.

It is the absence of theism. Theists are the ones proposing the existence of something for which they have no evidence, that's called playing pretend *real* hard.

Atheism existed long before Karl Marx

Atheism is defined by people who are hiding part of the definition. Atheism IS a religion.  :)

Just like the tree exists before the branch (does it?).  :)

You do know that simply repeating the same erroneous assertion isn't going to eventually make it correct, right?

Courtesy of the late and most definitely great Carl Sagan:

A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you.  Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.  There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say.  I lead you to my garage.  You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely.  "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."  And so on.  I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?  If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?  Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.  Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.  What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.  The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.  You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me.  The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind.  But then, why am I taking it so seriously?  Maybe I need help.  At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.  Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded.  So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage.  You merely put it on hold.  Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you.  Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise.  The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch.  Your infrared detector reads off-scale.  The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you.  No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me.  Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive.  All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence.  None of us is a lunatic.  We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on.  I'd rather it not be true, I tell you.  But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported.  But they're never made when a skeptic is looking.  An alternative explanation presents itself.  On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked.  Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath.  But again, other possibilities exist.  We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons.  Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling.  Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

I am frustrated that you consistently bring up so much irrelevant information.

Again, here are 40 documented cases for which the fraud explanation fails to stand:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

You should not prematurely make a conclusion prior to seeing the evidence. The evidence will always outweigh any presumption, no matter how well-justified.

Here are some cases to start off our discussion; I hope you will provide an adequate explanation that takes into account all of the facts, as would be expected in any investigation:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_51-75/case56_soule-soul.pdf
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_8-25/case19_policeman-painter.pdf

Proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing the survival hypothesis. The Physical Universe Hypothesis does not address any of this anomalous phenomena.

I found some of your general concerns addressed here:
http://atransc.org/theory/survival_hypothesis.htm

Atheism is an element of many, if not most religions.


That does not mean atheism is a belief. It is a position which stakes a claim on the god-question.

You guys are so lucky that Karl Marx was an atheist. You wouldn't know the evils of the adulterous association of church and state otherwise.

Man still doesn't recognize the evils of bank and state and the atheistic materialism that underlies that system of enslavement.

Atheistic materialism? You mean like the church refusing to pay taxes?

I am talking about the internationalist bankers (money-changers) who set up the tax-slavery system in the first place. Are you making the connection?

You pretend there exists no evidence for survival.

Actually, all humanists (and presumably all atheists) necessarily dis-believe the survival hypothesis, in spite of the evidence. This means that they are prejudiced, not rational.

Finally! A thread about NOTHING. Let's discuss NOTHING then!
Pick quotes of Atheists doesn't quite add up to nothing, as those quotes are usually not linked to religion or widely or even accept between Atheists.

Let me quote the Atheist Bible/Quran/Torah (Yes, we have a 3-in-one book):


Those words are just amazing, aren't they? They sum pretty much everything G.O.D. told humanity so far.

Could someone answer this question?


I guess the answer is "nothing".
 ;)

Ah so these international banker conspirators are atheists now? Is it finally time, after 2000+ years, for the Jews to have a break from this accusation, in favor or atheists, in the minds of conspiracy theorists?

That's a loaded question; let me ask you a better one:

Do you recognize the evils of the adulterous association of bank and state and the atheistic materialism that underlies that system of enslavement?

Do you think any of this would have happened if Zionist bankers had respect for the golden rule?

It is so strange to me that any reference to such bankers is sneeringly disposed of as 'conspiracy theory' or 'anti-semitism', given the history of central banks.

The Rothschilds have made huge sums of money since they began lending to royalty, particularly for wars which they themselves influenced or even started. They then moved on to making even more money by setting up central banks in each country.

He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here...
Ezekiel 8:6

I am particularly appalled that research in the US showed atheists to be less trusted than rapists.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

Yes, 'tis indeed a stunning notion to comprehend the extent of theist conditioning in demonising the absence of theist belief in a person to the degree that a convicted rapist would be considered more trustworthy.

No. Theism is about staking a claim on a wildly speculative proposition, atheism is simply the act of not accepting that proposition as worthy of consideration because it is entirely absent reason or evidence.

I don't have to go around describing myself as 'Aunicornist' if I do not believe in unicorns. It is not considered a 'stake' being claimed if I reject your unfounded assertions towards an invisible pink teapot orbiting Mars, or any number of arbitrarily dreamed up concepts our imagination is capable of.

I am not surprised by the degree of intellectual dishonesty theists end up posting in their frothing nonsense defending their subjective beliefs, or attacking our lack of same, after all, they have been conditioned to live in a near-constant, and stressful, state of denial and dishonesty, within their own minds to the extent they believe the gilded cage their thoughts live in is a wondrous place to be, absent belief that it is even possible to find any happiness outside of the abusive relationship they maintain with an all-powerful imaginary patriarch who lives in their heads. 'He' loves them and through all the pain and suffering, they know that 'He' only lets it happen because he loves them so very very much.

Back in biblical times there were plenty of 'Messiahs', 'Prophets' and such, declaring themselves to either be god, of god, or possessing of some unique insight into god, along with vast numbers of ill-educated people who readily latched on to anyone who could claim to explain the meaning of life to them. 'Jesus' wasn't special, he was just another guy with a messianic complex, albeit his tended to be more about loving each other, much the way that, say, someone like David Ike is today, as being the resolution to all our problems.

Trouble is, Jesus wasn't expected to die, at the very least his delusional followers thought he'd be coming back to finish the job of defeating the Roman oppressors. Oppressors not because they were Christian, by the way, oppressors because they were not Roman. Christianity does tend to paint itself as the ever-suffering victim, claiming they were persecuted by the Romans but there is no evidence to suggest the Romans were picking on them any more than they picked on anyone else who wasn't a Roman.

Still, never let facts get in the way of a good story, especially one that can persuade people to buy in to your scheme promising 'ultimate reward' . . . after death.

Sometimes Atheism is found in people that couldn't find anything else.
Maybe they just didn't find his spiritual way.

^^^ That is such a tired and empty sentiment.

Most modern atheists were raised in an environment which conditioned them to believe in some ooky-spooky paranormal 'spiritual' dualism, those that were brought up with parents who chose to maintain an intellectual honesty to their child-raising are a fortunate few.

Most modern atheists are former conditioned theists who persistently sought to challenge the fallacious argument and dishonesty employed by theism because theist belief is incapable of rationally explaining the world around them and is generally in constant conflict with its own claimed values and contradictions. This often achieved through a long process of investigation, evaluation and eventual rejection. Not because they couldn't 'find' god, but because the argument being used to suggest such were clearly dishonest or delusional.

We are more than able to chart the psychosocial development of the establishment of belief systems and their related symbolism and ritual, so in that you, as a theist, can happily dismiss Thor and Zeuss and Ra or the thousands and thousands of gods claimed by theism throughout human history and even currently, why would you choose, then, to ignore the fact that your theism is rooted in *exactly* the same fallacious thought process that the belief systems you so readily dismiss, are, or were?

If atheism is a religion then bald is a haircut.

Karl Marx isn't originator of atheism. However, Marx and some other philosophers such as Lenin, Stalin were pioneers in the development of new state model based on dialectical materialism. This conception was derived from works which were done by Hegel, Heraclitus, Aristotle and some others.

If Marxism is based on atheism, is cronyism based on theism?

It was presumed correct until the beginning of 20 century, but later this statement has been disproved. Secular state isn't necessary for the socialist economy. Reverse is also true, it's possible to implement market economy while keeping dialectical materialism as the foundation of official ideology.

There is a christian socialism and christian communism, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

These ideologies are very similar with secular socialism/communism, the most Christian communists/socialists share the conclusions but not the underlying premises of Marxist communists/socialists.

EDIT: copy&paste fix

Christians are not wise enough to embrace socialism. They're stuck in Bronze Aged conservatism.

The most of them maybe. However, significant part of modern socialists and communists are actually christian rather than secular socialists/communists. Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of CPRF, for example. He officially stated that his views on the communism were derived from the Gospel. ::)

Indeed. Jesus was a socialist who gave free healthcare (healed the sick and resurrected some guy), fed the poor (the fish and bread), and discouraged exactly what the churches are doing (stealing).

Better to believe in something speculative, than something which is false.
Eller has convincingly shown (http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1hbaAHsAlUC&pg=PA121&dq=%22Atheism+and+Secularity%22+claim&hl=en&sa=X&ei=740lVPzNLtKqogTpt4GoBg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Atheism%20and%20Secularity%22%20claim&f=false) that atheists are humanists and I have already shown that humanism, which disputes the survival hypothesis, is inadequate and thus, contrary to evidence/facts; you do not even dispute this. Conclusion: Humanism/Atheism is a false idol.
Any questions?


How are you going to convince me that atheism/humanism is not contrary to the facts? Are you going to argue that a humanist can believe in reincarnation?

"Atheism is actually a very humble claim, that there is no reason to conclude that there is any such thing as god(s) and therefore that it is inadvisable and impermissible to jump to such a conclusion."
--Atheism and Secularity, Chapter 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1hbaAHsAlUC&pg=PA121&dq=%22Atheism+and+Secularity%22+claim&hl=en&sa=X&ei=740lVPzNLtKqogTpt4GoBg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Atheism%20and%20Secularity%22%20claim&f=false)

There is no reason? I will give one:

A good reason to conclude god(s) is the strong evidence favoring the survival hypothesis, which is contrary to humanism, and indicates that all atheists (humanists) are wrong in their evaluation of the facts relating to human personality.

That's not materialism, that's theft!

There is no legitimate evidence whatsoever to believe this "survival hypothesis".

The content of a communication can certainly aid in determining the source.

Your claim is both premature and inadequately-supported; no different from a presumption.


Again, here are 40 documented cases for which the fraud explanation fails to stand:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

You should not prematurely make a conclusion prior to seeing the evidence. The evidence will always outweigh any presumption, no matter how well-justified.

Here are some cases to start off our discussion; I hope you will provide an adequate explanation that takes into account all of the facts, as would be expected in any investigation:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_51-75/case56_soule-soul.pdf
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_8-25/case19_policeman-painter.pdf

Proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing the survival hypothesis. The Physical Universe Hypothesis does not address any of this anomalous phenomena.

I found some moar hard evidence here:
http://atransc.org/theory/survival_hypothesis.htm

Do you think any of this theft, violence, slavery, deception, etc. would have happened if Zionist bankers had respect for the golden rule?

Do you think any of this would have happened if Zionist bankers were not greedy materialists?

Let me get this right. Karl Marx is kind of a dick, So that means there is a God?

I think many people feels intimidated by atheists because they have no clue what atheists stand for. Atheism is not accepting God(s) or at least the ones described on the bullshi... Sorry... Holy books.
Absolutely nothing else.
I'm a "pro-life" atheist for an instance, I'm also more liberal than communist... And other atheists may be the exact opposite.

What golden rule are you referring?

It's hard to believe that a man can be defined by nothing but atheism; talk about a lack of self-actualization!

Presumably,all atheists are humanists; also, all humanists reject the survival hypothesis.

Any of them. The golden rule is the law and the rest is mere interpretation.

http://www.harryhiker.com/poster.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v8qtZ3I5AM

I'm glad you brought that up. People are complicated and since atheism only means a lack of belief in a God, there is no one atheism. I also have problems with abortion. Not because God wills it, but because it is a human life at stake.

That "golden rule" has a huge flaw!
I wouldn't risk say that to a masochist... you probably won't like to be treated the way he likes to be treated.
The corrected version should be around; "Do to others the equivalent in goodness you wish from them.", but you have to adapt what is goodness or not to others in a per case basis.

Typical desperate attempt to ignore the objectively reasoned position being presented and, instead, simply throw multiple stories of the ooky and the spooky in our direction, demanding we consider each and every case.

James Randi has a million dollar prize that nobody has ever successfully claimed.

No 'psychic' has ever been able to demonstrate a 'paranormal' ability under properly controlled conditions. Not one.

On the other hand, there are vast numbers of cases proving them to be narcissistic attention-seeking frauds. Or just greedy money grubbing frauds. Or . . .

Well, you get the idea, they are all frauds. Each and every one of them. Throwing a shit-ton of 'well what about this . . .' links at us isn't a reasonable way to present an argument, you are, instead, completely avoiding the reasoned positions being presented to you and reposting the same deflection/diversion statements that are generally meaningless.

The burden of proof for your claims lies with you. You cannot dishonestly ignore that fact by responding with questions and demands we debunk each and every one of your shonky stories that, were they to have any reasonable degree of evidential quality, would not dwell solely in the domain of the 'spiritual' community.

Typical dualism-believing behaviour, whether it be religion or it's shape-shifting twin 'spiritualism', you respond to requests for a valid objectively-reasoned argument to be presented, with that which is barely a degree above Bill O'Reilly "Tide goes in, tide goes out . . .you can't explain that" assertion.

Even if talking about something in nature we don't yet fully understand, science says, "we do not fully understand yet". You don't get to simply make crap up and claim it to be worth equal consideration as an explanation, which is what theists and 'spiritualists' do.

Learn to present an intellectually honest argument, absent fallacious reasoning or outright dishonest deflection or diversion.

cryptodevil,
You never adequately addressed the evidence. That means that you do not deny it. In law, he who does not deny, admits; this maxim fits our debate nicely since you did not set forth a reasonable denial for any piece of evidence. Instead, you presumed that it was all worthless, with no regard for the burden associated with such a blanket denial. How are you able to deny documented research with mere presumptions and without a rational basis?

I typed up a reply to the rest of your post and have saved it in case I need to refer to it. Needless to say, your presumptions cause you to make numerous false and/or misleading statements.

Kindly refer to the evidence, or admit that it is too powerful for you to even attempt to explain.

Come up with an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, purge yourself of presumptions, and open your mind if you want to have a discussion with me. Otherwise, your failure to observe any evidentiary fact whatsoever is proof of your intellectual bankruptcy.

You are simply not aware of the consequences of your claim that all psychic phenomena is a fraud. It is quite an extraordinary claim, and I suspect you will realize this once you evaluate the brief pieces of evidence that I linked to.

 :)

I'm wondering at this point whether your dishonest argument is the result of intentional deception or that you are so conditioned that you actually cannot see the dishonesty in your fallacious 'reasoning'.

There is a valid, objective argument to be made for the survival hypothesis, and it is certainly true that many classes of phenomena unite in establishing the proof.

How do you know that what I post is intellectual fraud if you have not looked at the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained?

How will you know if I have proven something without looking at the evidence?

Do you understand how elaborate your fraud explanations would have to be to explain these cases? Any reasoned intellectual would demand extraordinary evidence of a very high caliber for intellectual fraud of such scale.

At this point, it is your choice to respond to me or not; we can go our separate ways and be perfectly happy with the "amount" of evidence we have examined at present. That would be great!

 :)

Please see my edit:

To discuss two cases is not a really big deal, dude!  :P

You can feel free to present the extraordinary proof of your blanket statement (maybe I missed it in your post), but absent such proof I will need you to justify the consequences of your claim and blanket statement with some extraordinary evidence (of alleged widespread intellectual fraud that evades detection).

Yeah, I'm sure you'd be happy to claim that your assertions are on equal footing with objectively reasoned positions.

Let me make this real simple for you. When debating, you cannot simply point to a raft of stories claiming evidence of the ooky and the spooky and demand that we debunk them for you.

Your role in this debate is to present a well reasoned position that consists of objective data able to withstand critical analysis.

Links to shonky anecdotal tales does not qualify. That isn't 'presenting your case', that is putting the burden on us to disprove something that is not reliable data in the first place.

Post data that is not subjective or anecdotal and then it can be properly considered. We aren't the ones making a claim for something, you are, so you have to describe a reasonable hypothesis that is grounded in objectivity, not fantasy and wishful thinking from a website that is devoted to the desperate act of pretending it has evidence that we still exist as a sentient consciousness after total brain death.

Why is a professor's documented research classified as an anectdotal tale?

I had presumed that reputable professors' research gets the benefit of the doubt in intellectual circles. Was I wrong? If so, then why should we presume fraud instead of basic validity?

You ever heard of the 'Appeal to authority' fallacy?

It's when someone claims a position to be reasonable on the basis that a person supporting said position is highly qualified in some degree.

Just because someone has a PhD is does not render all they claim to be valid or reasonable.



Present actual data. Present a position. You cannot simply defer to a website consisting of unreliable data and questionable anecdotal tales.

To be sure, I can totally defer to anything and you can choose to disengage at that point.

I will not pick quantitative data to present here. I will point you to some good researchers and websites, and the rest I will do at my pleasure. You mine the data; I am not your ASIC.

From what I can tell, quantitative data is found here and elsewhere on this site:
http://atransc.org/theory/survival_hypothesis.htm
This claim is mentioned--maybe it will interest you, and you will engage the data, or maybe not:

I am not appealing to authority; rather, I am demanding that you show that a respected researcher (e.g. Hyslop) is a serial fraudster, as you have claimed, since this is quite an extraordinary and elaborate claim.

If you don't rely on fraud then you still have to provide an explicit doubt; you cannot imply that there could be unknown methodological flaws in the experiments since it is impossible for any scientist to defend his work against that type of criticism. One of Hyslop's cases for your reference:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_51-75/case56_soule-soul.pdf

If you think my use of "experiment" is too broad, then find quantitative studies on your own; this case study is seen to be powerful evidence once you purge yourself of elaborate presumptions such as deception on the part of the researcher. I will gladly discuss the controls and methods for this case, and attempt to refute any alleged flaws.

In no other field of science would a positive experimental result be criticized because there might be sources of errors that no one can think of. Consider this before posting or repeating any further criticism.

These aren't evidence of anything. Roll some dice a million times, and you will come out with a few very unlikely combinations. It's just a matter of statistics that you'll end up with a few coincidences, a few unbelievable stories. And of course such stories mostly get exaggerated and overplayed, if not outright invented, in sources like the ones you cite. None of the effects you presume to claim have ever been demonstrated in a controlled environment, through no lack of trying, and everything else is unreliable anecdote.

Again, you cannot demand that someone else present the data, you have to as you are the one asserting something to be true. Rambling subjective tales peppered with pseudo-scientific fallacious statements do not qualify as data.


No, that is not quantitative data, it is misrepresentative and dishonest.
Let me give you an example:


The first half of the first sentence consists of a reference to 'anomalous' voices and images. Well 'anomalous' suggests that which is being experienced by a person is not to be expected, namely, aural and visual halucinations or dreams, which is exactly what is to be expected given that our brains provide us with aural and visual sensory experiences when we are asleep, so unconscious and/or dying brains are just as likely to induce similar.

The second half of the first sentence relies on the dishonest use of the described 'fact' to run on into an assertion that is stated as accepted fact, when it is not. The 'mundane' explanations, that which explains without needing to resort to the 'paranormal', have indeed explained the existence of the aural and visual experiences of the unconscious and/or dying.

The second sentence references images of a 'discarnate' person, well that describes a person without a physical form, otherwise known as, an imagined one.

The third and final sentence is just so epically dishonest that it unintentionally discredits its own argument. There is no evidence for the existence of paranormal 'EVP', none. This means that, considering the sentence ends by stating that this 'EVP' "provides most of the supporting evidence for survival", we can readily disregard any claims towards there being anything like sufficient reasoning or evidence for 'survival'.


Now, as I already said, in that I am not sure if you are genuinely unaware of the intellectually dishonest methods you employ to assert your side of the argument, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Firstly, you are appealing to authority, because you want the assertions made by this 'respected' researcher to be accepted because he is 'respected', not because you are citing a valid methodology employed by him in his research.

Let me give you an example:
Christians and Muslims and Hindus and many other believers in the ooky and the spooky, like to cite the instances of 'respected' scientists, who work in various fields but who possess personal belief systems similar to their own, yet may have achieved great successes in their work, leading to the false argument that, because they are scientists, then their belief systems must, therefore, have some degree of validity.

Wrong.

Personal beliefs are, exactly that, opinions without sufficient data for them to qualify as fact and are often wildly speculative and baseless perceptions arising from psychological conditioning that prevents them from recognising the important difference between the reality they are capable of applying critical thinking to in their work and the 'special pleading' that they require of their beliefs, meaning they demand their personal beliefs not be held to the same standard of analysis as, well, everything we know about reality.

For you to then dishonestly claim that I said he was a 'serial fraudster' and to quickly tack on that I must provide for extraordinary evidence to support this 'elaborate claim', leads me to suspect you are being intentionally deflective and merely resorting to the same tactic you have employed from the beginning, asserting something to be accepted fact and then demanding that your opponent in this debate have to then go off and hunt through a haystack of dubious 'data' and fallacious reasoning in order to debunk each and every piece of it.


I'm not implying there could be unknown methodological flaws in the experiments, I'm saying that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the methodology employed is entirely flawed. I can confidently state this because, if these experiments could actually withstand critical analysis from the actual scientific community, it would be GLOBAL news of staggering proportion.


No, again you ask for me to go through the information in these cases when it is you who needs to be able to prove sufficient controls and methodology for the experiment concerned to be considered of sufficient high standard for the results to be considered objective and reasonable.


Firstly, it's not 'science', it's pseudoscience, relying on erroneous and dishonest presentation of experimental data that is grossly flawed from the start.

Secondly, actually you are wrong, in EVERY field of science, positive experimental results are absolutely criticised through peer-review if the data cannot be considered reliable indications of what is concluded.

One final thing, regarding all these Doctorates bandied about by the proponents of that site, Psychology is not a science any more than Philosophy is.

I must admit, the study linking religiosity and IQ, if that's what we're talking about here, was severely flawed because it was more of a link between poverty, access to education, nutrition, and IQ

Search for that claim that they are making and you will find there the data to back it up. A maxim of law is "No one can rightly understand any part until he has read the whole again and again". So you have to go to the source and review the data, because that is where the data is located. I reference its entirety.

I do not understand how a perception itself can be "baseless", since there was a valid methodology employed which did lead to obscure statements later confirmed as valid. As far as valid methodologies go, case studies have their own validity. Quantitative methods also exist.\

For example, Dr. Hodgson was so far from being credulous that he detected and exposed many spurious phenomena, so his psychological conditioning was sound. It is not clear how perceptions can be baseless in someone of sound mind.

Intelligent interaction with an aware personality included direct response to questions, comments about local activity and reference to prior activity. If these are baseless perceptions, then it strains the mind to imagine how they were concocted without deception on the part of the skeptical researcher.

"While it is tempting to contrive exotic alternative explanations, at some level of complexity, it becomes simpler to include this example amongst the collection of experiences indicating survival."

This is from a public debate with Rupert Sheldrake on telepathy - where we note the skeptic's refusal even to watch a relevant clip that Sheldrake was showing to support his case. Some of the links are broken but available on archive.org
Unengaged, implausible, illogical (http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2008/12/unengaged-implausible-illogical.html)

Theocracies doesn't cultivate IQ. But you are linking it backwards, the status of a country is a reflect of its people. If its people is dumb it will remain in the shit.
Patronize them and blame US, as if it got to what is by magic, improves nothing, it's just the typical loser excuse.

Those reforms were going to happen whether or not.

P.S the reason we have 2 day weekends is because of Sunday for Christians and Saturday the Sabbath for Jews not because of some commie but because of religion so your welcome.

Why do skeptics agree to a protocol, only to dismiss it so casually when it is precisely fulfilled? See linked reference below...

I notice the usual Humean claims about witness unreliability, that people get confused, or forget things, or exaggerate. This doesn't begin to account for the detailed visual descriptions recorded by a variety of researchers.


If you do understand the context, such explanations are utterly lame - the desperate gambit of a clever defense lawyer with a patently guilty client and nothing to lose.

It's very hard to understand how a serious minded, objective person could take these sorts of 'explanations' at all seriously. One is left with the feeling that they are permissible because the alternative is just so flat out impossible that virtually any alternative scenario will do, no matter how implausible.

A good link to get an idea of the context.
Unengaged, implausible, illogical (http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2008/12/unengaged-implausible-illogical.html)

That is the most convincing argument for me. NEVER EVEN ONE TIME IN HISTORY did anyone ever demonstrate any kind of psychic ability. Not one damn time! What does that tell me? I'll even thrown in a bitcoin with James Randi's offer of a million dollars. For those not familiar with him, he is the worlds greatest psychic and the first to tell you that it is all bull shit. He has a hilarious act that shows how easy it is to convince people that he can read minds or predict the future. It is a skill and an art that involves understanding how people think rather than anything supernatural.
It's weird to me that people can believe something that has never even been done once. If you think he's wrong, simply show it and your a millionaire! Plus one BTC from me!

What Dank is going to do it LOL.

Well, Randi's bonds may be worthless (nobody knows who is the underwriter)... But if you will promise to pay one bitcoin, I will surely provide a reference to confirm that this demonstration historically took place to your satisfaction; first let's confirm we are on the same page and that the evidence will be acceptable:

Can you agree that carrying out experiments with psychics on television with a very precisely determined pre-agreed protocol, followed exactly, and getting highly significant results, would be one such example/demonstration?

At that point, would skeptics have any cause for refusing to accept the results as valid?

People will do anything for money. especially scam idiots.

Historically, Mohammed flew up to heaven for a visit on a mythical animal. That is what some say anyway. Any demonstration must be done under controlled conditions. That is what makes it a scientific experiment vs. a TV show. The million dollar challenge states that "Only an actual performance of the stated nature and
scope, within the agreed upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not acceptable."

The benchmark will also be a lot higher than "highly significant results". Mr. Randi can produce those results by trickery alone. When I saw him debunking horoscopes, the audience (by show of hands) scored him at 90+% when they read their personalized star chart. That is until he asked them to look at the star chart of the person next to them. They were all identical charts of course.  

There are lots of TV shows that feature such stuff. Scientist do not watch TV to make discoveries. The person will have to state what they think they can do, then do it under controlled conditions. That means no audience, no one else in the room. They will not even be allowed in the room before the demonstration. These are important factors. James Randi knows all the tricks about having a mole in the audience, for example.
You can find an application on his website. It is straightforward. But again, no one has ever passed the test or any controlled test. Ever.

Application: http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

Oh, and here is a show about him and what he does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFAvH8m8aI

I wonder how much acid someone has to take to get any "physic ability's".

On a side note here some real research getting impressive results on the global consciousness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvJfkI5NVc)