Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Hierarchy of angels

2011-04-07T12:17:18Z

MasterSivers: /* Christian Hierarchy */

{{religion-stub}}

== Christian Hierarchy ==
There have been several suggested, some separated into three separate heirarchies, called ''choirs'':

*St. Thomas Aquinas in ''Summa Theologica'' (1225–1274):
1. [[Seraphim]], [[Cherubim]], and [[Thrones]];
2. [[Dominations]], [[Virtues]], and [[Powers]];
3. [[Principalities]], [[Archangel]]s, and [[Angel]]s.

== Judaic Hierarchy ==
The Judaic hierarchy has ten ranks of angels.

1. [[Chayot]] Ha Kodesh/Hayyoth
2. [[Ophanim]]
3. [[Erelim]]
4. [[Hashmallim]]
5. Seraphim
6. [[Malakhim]]
7. [[Elohim]]
8. [[Bene Elohim]]
9. Cherubim
10. [[Ishim]]/Issim

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Hierarchy of angels

2011-04-07T12:13:52Z

MasterSivers: /* Judaic Hierarchy */

{{religion-stub}}

== Christian Hierarchy ==
There have been several suggested, some separated into three separate heirarchies, called ''choirs'':

*St. Thomas Aquinas in ''Summa Theologica'' (1225–1274):
1. [[Seraphim]], [[Cherubim]], and [[Thrones]];
2. [[Dominations]], [[Virtues]], and [[Powers]];
3. [[Principalities]], [[Archangels]], and [[Angel]]s.

== Judaic Hierarchy ==
The Judaic hierarchy has ten ranks of angels.

1. [[Chayot]] Ha Kodesh/Hayyoth
2. [[Ophanim]]
3. [[Erelim]]
4. [[Hashmallim]]
5. Seraphim
6. [[Malakhim]]
7. [[Elohim]]
8. [[Bene Elohim]]
9. Cherubim
10. [[Ishim]]/Issim

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Hierarchy of angels

2011-04-07T12:13:27Z

MasterSivers: /* Judaic Hierarchy */

{{religion-stub}}

== Christian Hierarchy ==
There have been several suggested, some separated into three separate heirarchies, called ''choirs'':

*St. Thomas Aquinas in ''Summa Theologica'' (1225–1274):
1. [[Seraphim]], [[Cherubim]], and [[Thrones]];
2. [[Dominations]], [[Virtues]], and [[Powers]];
3. [[Principalities]], [[Archangels]], and [[Angel]]s.

== Judaic Hierarchy ==
The Judaic hierarchy has ten ranks of angels.

1. [[Chayot]] Ha Kodesh/Hayyoth
2. [[Ophanim]]
3. [[Erelim]]
4. [[Hashmallim]]
5. [[Seraphim]]
6. [[Malakhim]]
7. [[Elohim]]
8. [[Bene Elohim]]
9. Cherubim
10. [[Ishim]]/Issim

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Hierarchy of angels

2011-04-07T11:41:47Z

MasterSivers: Added two Judaic Hierarchies

{{religion-stub}}

== Christian Hierarchy ==
There have been several suggested, some separated into three separate heirarchies, called ''choirs'':

*St. Thomas Aquinas in ''Summa Theologica'' (1225–1274):
1. [[Seraphim]], [[Cherubim]], and [[Thrones]];
2. [[Dominations]], [[Virtues]], and [[Powers]];
3. [[Principalities]], [[Archangels]], and [[Angel]]s.

== Judaic Hierarchy ==
I have found two separate, and I'll add them both.

1. [[Chayot]] Ha Kodesh
2. [[Ophanim]]
3. [[Erelim]]
4. [[Hashmallim]]
5. [[Seraphim]]
6. [[Malakhim]]
7. [[Elohim]]
8. [[Bene Elohim]]
9. [[Cherubim]]
10. [[Ishim]]

1. [[Hayyoth]]
2. [[Ophanim]]
3. [[Erelim]]
4. [[Hasmalim]]
5. [[Elohim]]
6. [[Bene Elohim]]
7. [[Cherubim]]
8. [[Issim]]

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Hierarchy of angels

2011-04-07T11:27:13Z

MasterSivers: /* Christian Hierarchy */

Hierarchy of angels

2011-04-07T11:26:27Z

MasterSivers: Page started, by no means finished.

{{religion-stub}}

== Christian Hierarchy ==
There have been several suggested, some separated into three separate heirarchies, separated into ''choirs'':

*St. Thomas Aquinas in ''Summa Theologica'' (1225–1274):
1. [[Seraphim]], [[Cherubim]], and [[Thrones]];
2. [[Dominations]], [[Virtues]], and [[Powers]];
3. [[Principalities]], [[Archangels]], and [[Angel]]s.

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Angel

2011-04-07T11:09:01Z

MasterSivers: Added a lot of information

{{religion-stub}}
In [[Christian]] mythology, an '''angel''' came to mean a benevolent [[spirit]] created by [[God]]. In [[Judaism]] however, it meant literally a ''messenger of God'' which could apparently be applied to both human messengers or supernatural messengers depending on the context. The Hebrew word for angel means "messenger", as does the Greek word ἄγγελος (ahn-geh-los) the word from which the English word is ultimately derived. In both mythologies and a few others, there is more or less a [[hierarchy of angels]], although they are not the same and have occasionally changed depending on the author. Many of them only existing in extra-biblical literature.

They perform various tasks, like delivering messages from God to man, acting as executioners and warriors, and protecting humans from harm, and telling God that he is [[holy]].

==Individual angels==
Only two Angels are mentioned by name in the Christian Bible: [[Gabriel]] and [[Michael]]. However in the [[Apocryphal books]] there are five more: Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and Jerahmeel.

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Angel

2011-04-06T00:29:05Z

MasterSivers:

Should we perhaps make a separate category for the different rankings of the “levels” of Angel (for lack of a better term). Like Cherubim, Seraphim, and the others that are mentioned in Jewish texts?
--[[User:MasterSivers|MasterSivers]] 19:29, 5 April 2011 (CDT)

Appeal to pity

2011-04-03T01:55:20Z

MasterSivers: damn typo

{{argument-stub}}

==Description==
An '''appeal to pity''' a.k.a. ''Ad Misericordiam'' is a fallacy where one supports their claim with the intent of causing the emotion of pity in the place of real evidence.

==Examples==
*A theist mother claiming on her potential deathbed due to some medical problems, “Christ is the only way to true salvation, I want you to know that because I am not always going to be able to be here to tell you so. Why would I lie to you now as I lie here dying?”

*An office supervisor goes to fire an incompetent employee, who replies “You can't fire me! My wife left me last week, my dog just died and I have medical bills to pay!”

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to pity

2011-04-03T01:54:46Z

MasterSivers: Added example

{{argument-stub}}

==Description==
An '''appeal to pity''' a.k.a. ''Ad Misericordiam'' is a fallacy where one supports their claim with the intent of causing the emotion of pity in the place of real evidence.

==Examples==
*A theist mother claiming on her potential deathbed due to some medical problems, “Christ is the only way to true salvation, I want you to know that because I am not always going to be able to be here to tell you so. Why would I lie to you now as I lie here dying?”

*An office supervisor goes to fire an incompetent employee, who replies “You can't fire me! My wife let me last week, my dog just died and I have medical bills to pay!”

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Science keeps changing

2011-04-01T10:38:51Z

MasterSivers: /* Counter Apologetics */ Changed “We don't” to “Science doesn't”

==Overview==

Some people criticize the [[reliability]] of [[Science]] because it "keeps changing". They ask, "How can we rely on science when it keeps changing its mind?" Additionally, other examples of the supposed unreliability of science are brought up:

* Different [[studies]] keep contradicting each other about whether table salt is healthy, or not.
* Everything science [[knowledge|knows]] now will be proven wrong, eventually. So why rely on it now?

The [[Bible]], on the other hand, is lauded as an ever unchanging set of knowledge, [[Biblical reliability|and thus, reliable]].

==Counter Apologetics==

In order to understand this issue, it must first be understood what this nebulous "change" is, that the objectors speak of. There's two different kinds of "changing":

# '''Updating''' - A process of learning and improving where the knowledge or object is changed into a ''better'' state.
# '''Resetting''' - A process of replacing the knowledge or object with a completely new, and contradictory set of knowledge or objects.

Science gets accused of #2, when it's really doing #1.

* Science doesn't consider computer technology unreliable because they're changed to be faster, with more memory.
* Science doesn't consider a cook unreliable because he/she learned how to prepare a particular meal faster and more healthily.
* Science doesn't consider an archer to be unreliable because he/she found a new way to increase his/her [[precision]] at hitting the bulls-eye.

To criticize science for changing is to criticize ''the very act of learning''. That's what it is, after all - an ongoing activity of learning about the [[universe]], and how it works. Of course science isn't going to gain 100% of all knowledge in zero-time. When science changes, it isn't so much that it was ''wrong'' before, so much as it wasn't ''completely right''. When it makes an update, now it's ''more right''.

It's like trying to bring an overhead projector into focus using a knob. One turns the knob to change the focus. It'll often take several iterations of adjusting the knob, and checking the status of the focus of the image, before ''converging to the correct answer''. Even if one overshoots the desired rotation of the knob a couple times, generally the image becomes more and more sharp, until it's satisfactorily readable. We wouldn't deny the ability to bring sharply display the image because we had to ''change'' the focus a few times. That would be silly.

For a real-life example, [[Newtonian mechanics]] is a model for things like projectile motion, but it was fairly primitive. [[General relativity]], as a new and improved scientific [[theory]], explains Newtonian mechanics, ''and more''. It expands on the prior theory. In fact, we still use Newtonian mechanics, and teach in schools, because it works great within its proper context - even though it's understood to be incomplete as far as explaining motion in the universe.

Unlike claims to other sources of knowledge, such as the Bible, the [[scientific method]] can [[verify]], [[testable|test]] and generally correct its own mistakes, if it makes any, whereas if the Bible is wrong about a particular claim, it's wrong forever.

Science has taken us to the moon, created incredibly fast and sophisticated computer technology, annihilated Small Pox from the face of the planet, and duplicated the nuclear fusion process of the sun. What advanced knowledge has the Bible accurately claimed? Some say plenty, [[Scientific statements in the bible|but that is debatable]].

Appeal to fear

2011-03-31T05:25:24Z

MasterSivers:

#REDIRECT[[Argumentum ad baculum]]

Scare tactics

2011-03-31T05:24:38Z

MasterSivers:

#REDIRECT[[Argumentum ad baculum]]

Appeal to force

2011-03-31T05:23:52Z

MasterSivers:

#REDIRECT[[Argumentum ad baculum]]

Appeal to force

2011-03-31T05:23:14Z

MasterSivers:

#REDIRECT[[Argumentum ad baculum]

Argumentum ad baculum

2011-03-31T05:21:43Z

MasterSivers: Enhanced description/definition, added alternative name(s) for the fallacy

{{argument-stub}}

'''Argumentum ad baculum''' or ''argument from force'' (a.k.a. ''appeal to force, scare tactics, or appeal to fear'') is the [[fallacy]] committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force, causing fear which thus brings about the acceptance of a claim.

==Examples==
* "Give me all your money or I'll kill you."
* "If you don't believe in [[God]], you'll go to [[hell]] when you die."
* "If you [[apostasy|stop believing]] in [[Islam]], [[Sharia]] law says you must be killed."
* Chile's national motto "Por la razón o la fuerza" translates as "By right or might"

==Counterarguments==
This is an [[emotional]] argument, not a [[logical]] one. The person making the threat is making no argument for the truth of their claim. This fallacy is related to the [[argument from adverse consequences]] (the adverse consequence in question being punishment).

Since this technique is an attempt to intimidate or frighten the target of the argument, it is a variety of the [[appeal to emotion]].

Today, many people feel uncomfortable making such direct threats as the ones listed in the examples. However, believers still often make veiled threats, such as "don't you ever worry about what'll happen to you when you die?" Others, such as [[Ray Comfort]], have no such problems with it, and explicitly use the argument-in fact, it may be their foremost one. Comfort directly compares it with capital punishment, God having the power to commute the sentence if you will believe and beg forgiveness. This reminds people uncomfortably of Mafia dons or courts in totalitarian states, for instance the Soviet Union or People's Republic of China, which had the mechanism written into their system.

==See also==
* [[Pascal's wager]]

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to spite

2011-03-31T05:06:40Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}

==Description==
An '''appeal to spite''' is a fallacy in which spite is substituted for evidence when an “argument” is made against a claim. When successful, it manipulates the listener to question where and/or with whom their trust lies.

==Examples==
* Jack claims that the Earth is round and provides a picture from space as evidence. Frank, a flat-earther then causes you to question your trust in Jack, because Jack once used his Photoshop skills to create a fake photo which he asserted was an actual picture as a joke.

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to spite

2011-03-31T04:50:50Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}

==Description==
An '''appeal to spite''' is a fallacy in which spite is substituted for evidence when an “argument” is made against a claim.

==Examples==

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Template:False relevance

2011-03-31T04:49:09Z

MasterSivers: Added Appeal to spite to Appeals

{{Navbox|name = False relevance
|borderstyle={{{borderstyle|border:1px solid grey;" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"}}}
|titlestyle = background:#DCFFCF;
|title=[[Logical fallacies#False relevance|False relevance]]
|groupstyle = background:#E9FFDA;

|group1=Appeals
|list1=''[[Appeal to authority]]'' · ''[[Appeal to consequences]]'' · ''[[Appeal to emotion]]'' · ''[[Appeal to motive]]'' · ''[[Appeal to novelty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Appeal to pity]]'' · ''[[Appeal to popularity]]'' · ''[[Appeal to poverty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to spite]]'' · ''[[Appeal to wealth]]'' · ''[[Sentimental fallacy]]'' · ''[[Argumentum ad baculum]]''

|group2=[[Ad hominem]]
|list2=''[[Ad hominem abusive]]'' · ''[[Reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' · ''[[Judgmental language]]'' · ''[[Straw man]]'' · ''[[Tu quoque]]''

|group3=Genetic Fallacies
|list3=''[[Genetic fallacy]]'' · ''[[Chronological snobbery]]'' · ''[[Association fallacy]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]''

}}

Appeal to pity

2011-03-31T04:47:36Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}

==Description==
An '''appeal to pity''' a.k.a. ''Ad Misericordiam'' is a fallacy where one supports their claim with the intent of causing the emotion of pity in the place of real evidence.

==Examples==
*A theist mother claiming on her potential deathbed due to some medical problems, “Christ is the only way to true salvation, I want you to know that because I am not always going to be able to be here to tell you so. Why would I lie to you now as I lie here dying?”

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Ad Misericordiam

2011-03-31T04:42:09Z

MasterSivers: Made page redirect to appropriate page

#REDIRECT[[Appeal to pity]]

User talk:MasterSivers

2011-03-31T03:38:10Z

MasterSivers: Posted Message from dumb Christian bitch and my response.

==Discussions with Theists==
''So this girl that is a friend of a friend messages me the following on Facebook because I commented negatively on my friend's pro-Christian status.''

feel free to explain yourself... I can see that you are atheist according to facebook and I wonder why? Isn't there soo much proof to show that there must be AT least some form of higher power??... Now, i have a few friends who have become atheist because of the way they have been treated by other Christians. I, myself, admit that there are some Christians out there who are soo judgmental and think of themselves as if they were the big deal. I generally despise those type of people. and find this quite disappointing... :/ and religion overall has become this struggle of defining what rules you need to follow and what things you need to do to in order to be "safe" or "spiritual," in my opinion I think religion itself has missed the point of building a personal relationship with Jesus. To a certain extent is simple... There are so many things to say but this is my little "speech" for tonight. now, i would be glad to hear/ read what you have to say so feel free. I will take no offense to what you say, I promise. OH remember also that I am not perfect and all knowing so I might not even have answers to questions that you might ask... :)

'''My response to this'''

I disagree with your friends' becoming atheists on account of the way they were treated. That's not typical of most of us who have actually thought about it. Most of us actually just require evidence that is demonstrable. There is no evidence of a Gods' existence one way or another. You believe because you want to, or it makes you feel good, but you don't actually KNOW that God is there. If you do claim to KNOW that God is there, then I'd have to ask you HOW you KNOW He is there. You are an atheist too, if you are being honest, to every other of the THOUSANDS of other Gods that have ever been worshiped by people on this planet. The difference between us is I go one God further. Don't you think it's quite arrogant of you to claim that YOUR GOD is the ONE TRUE God? Except you're not really claiming that because none of you worship your God anymore... Most of you worship Jesus: A man. ‘But he's also God,’ one might claim and indeed he does say that “My father and I are one,” but they are still separate beings. Catholics believe that he LITERALLY is God in the flesh, but that's even more ridiculous to me. Basically what it gets down to it, you are believing in God, because somebody else told you to, and if you don't you'll get to burn for eternity in a place called Hell, which didn't exist in the Old Testament by the way. I wonder if that has something to do with your Zombie Holy Man Jesus.

I said, that your God has a sense of humor, because if your religion is at all true... Which if we're going by the bible, it is clearly not the case. It has been blasted out of the water every single time in terms of standing up on its on in science. I digress... If your religion is true, then your God must have a sense of humor, because he requires that you believe in Him with no evidence, except a book, which has countless other books just like it, and is not backed up historically by any other culture anywhere at any time BUT WAIT IT GETS BETTER! He also requires that you obey him and his rules without question and also makes it such that you could do this without realizing it (at least if we pick and choose like all modern Christians do), but still get sent to Hell because you didn't accept Christ.

Your God is an idiot too. It's funny how he didn't have any knowledge beyond that of the people of the age huh? Anyways, any ALL KNOWING ALL POWERFUL being that makes a system as such that evil wins by default is absolutely evil himself or just plain fucking batshit stupid.
(You can not be both omniscient and omnipotent, it doesn't work. You would have to be one or the other, and you think your God is both and also omnipresent [presuming you're a typical Christian]). Look, just take into consideration that there are 30,000 different sects of Christianity alone. And YOU think YOUR flavor is right? Cute.

I know based on the bible, that your God is evil. He kills more people and causes far more suffering than Lucifer/Satan, and for very poor reasons if any at all. The God of the Old Testament is completely abhorrent, and very obviously NOT all powerful like He and Christians, claim He is. He made us in his image, correct? He saw that we were “good” as with everything else he created out of nothing (which you can neither demonstrate nor prove, and even if you could, you would then have to explain how God got here), am I right? And He is all-knowing and everywhere at all times yes? Then He KNEW when He made humans that the serpent would trick Eve into eating of the forbidden fruit (which you would think would not exist at all, or be far out of reach of the humans, were your God truly loving), so if He knew we would fall, and MADE IT SUCH THAT WE HAD TO, then your God is the evil one. No God of mine, is one that would have me apologize to Him for being the way He supposedly made me, and expect me to live up to a standard that we will NEVER be able to stand up to. That is EVIL. No person should be told that they aren't good enough, not ever, no matter what. If you tell me that I am full of sin by being simply born, then FUCK YOU. You are the one casting judgment on me before I have even done anything or even laid eyes upon you. And don't hide behind your BOOK and say it's your God's judgment, not yours, because IF YOU BE OF HIM AND ALL OF HIS LAW, THEN YOU TAKE IT AS YOUR OWN BY DEFAULT.

You claim you build a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but you do not and will NEVER have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. See, the thing with relationships, PERSONAL, relationships, is that they have to be two-way. You can't one-way street that motherfucker. You could say that his words from fuck-all are where you draw this “relationship” from, but that is still not a relationship. You need to be able to ask the other person in the relationship questions, which you can do, but they also must be able to answer, which Jesus cannot in all cases. If you do hear a voice in your head when you pray, I seriously suggest you get help, because that is a serious mental illness.

And I know that no matter what I say, it's not going to rock the boat with your belief, with all probability. That's also why I didn't put anything on that status anymore. (The main reason was that I didn't wish to hurt anybody.) The problem with you people is that you don't listen to any other point of view, at least not openly. You aren't going to question your faith because of me using logic. This is because it is founded deep in your psyche, and emotion. I recommend you read the bible cover to cover, and don't make excuses for your God when he claims the lives of innocent people.

No just person/being, takes the life of someone for another persons' crimes. That is exactly what you claim Jesus did. I believe that if there is a God, then good people will receive reward, and I also believe that God would look better on somebody like me, who takes their actions in the course of his life as my own. I DID THAT. I cannot say that I did not. And if I was wrong, then I should take the punishment I deserve. However, your God punishes us for eternity for finite crimes. That's also Evil. You however, believe that as long as you accept Jesus, that you will get into heaven, because he's already taken your sins on himself. Well, that's cute, but where's your accountability? Also, this was done thousands of years ago, you had no say in the matter, so to say that anybody owes Jesus anything is complete and utter bullshit. If the God of the Bible turns out to be the true God, I would sooner spit in His face, than worship Him: though I would be an Atheist no more, because He clearly exists. I would rather BURN IN HELL FOREVER, than BOW before such a disgusting being with no respect for human life whatsoever and a moral code that both you and I, are superior to.

If you believe that your God is always loving, then explain why He kills at all. I just can't see how death and destruction is GOOD. How is it good for those He destroyed? Find the good in being killed and tortured for all eternity and justify how the larger percent OF THE WORLD, is destined to be burned forever. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WONDERFUL PEOPLE WHO DESERVE NOTHING BUT LOVE AND RESPECT GET TO GO TO HELL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WORSHIP YOUR MAGIC SKY-DADDY?!? I'm sorry if I seem a little angry, but I am and have every right to be. Some of my friends believe as you do, and this holds back our friendship. I think we can both agree that if I were to tell you that: you are worthless and will never live up to the expectations of Charles the invisible intangible pink unicorn in my back yard, whom I worship because of the UNICORNIUM (a holy book which explains the awesome nature of Charles), and that Charles will punish you forever and ever after you die without end unless you accept him as your savior and the best looking unicorn in all of the world; I think then we can agree that you would probably take offense and get upset at me at suggesting that there was something wrong with you which you could not even control, AND you'd probably find my belief in Charles to be absolutely ludicrous. That is how I feel about your beliefs and your religion.

I will never tell my children from the day they emerge from the womb of their mother, that they deserve to be punished and are evil and deserve death. I won't tell them that EVER. You may not tell them that at that age, but some do, and even if you don't tell them, it's what your fucking BOOK says. The thing is, you are like most other Christians. You pick and choose the things you like, and skip skip skip over the things you don't. Like that God endorses slavery, rape, murder, and many other evil repugnant acts that you and I are both well beyond supporting. You may claim that I take things out of context, or I didn't read it right. But your God should have been smart enough to make sure to make anything in His ONE TRUE book was written SO WELL that ANYBODY could understand EXACTLY what He meant EVERY TIME. So that there is no disagreement over the exact meaning of this verse here, and this person says it is Z, and this person says it was not Z doesn't ever happen.

If your God gave a shit about us, He might have AT LEAST, done so much as to give us a book that is unquestionably well-written in ANY language and completely impervious and unnecessary for interpretation in the slightest.

Your religion might have more merit if you were all the same brand of Christianity, but as I said, 30,000 different sects (I think it might actually be around 38,000 now, but I know 30,000 has been long since reached). I just cannot believe that anybody still finds the need to believe in fairy tales. Why do adults fight over invisible friends? I am sorry, but I am an adult, and I require testable, empirical, or demonstrable evidence before I am going to claim something to be true or not true, beyond that, I withhold my judgment, even if I will die before any real answer is revealed.

I'm a strong atheist (gnostic atheist) where Yahweh and Christianity, Islam, or Judaism are concerned. However, I am a weak atheist (agnostic atheist) to a God whose properties we do not know and cannot test, but we know Yahweh's properties, Allah's properties, etc...

You can go ahead and think you're better than me and call me a fool. You see, I get a kick out of the foolish calling me a fool. You've been fooled by your religion. Nothing should ever ask you to take your belief in your heart over evidence to the contrary. And that is what faith does. Faith is by definition, Blind Faith. As Martin Luther once said, „Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders”.

I don't hate you, nor do I hate Christians individually. I do however despise your religion and what it does to people. And no, not everything is bad, religion does do some good for people, but it does so many times with lies and deceit, and I cannot stand by something that so obviously poisons people. I will tell the truth, even if it hurts somebody's feelings. *Although, in certain situations I will withhold the truth until a more opportune time. (For instance if my grandma didn't know I was an atheist, and she had just had a heart attack and was still weak and vulnerable, I would for her sake not reveal it just then or avoid the question.)*

When I am dead, I am dead. Period. I don't want to live forever. I don't know who thought that up to be a good idea. Seriously, do you want that? I want an end. I don't wish to always be around. I just want to live the one life I have the best I can, make best life I can, spend it with the love of my life, have children, watch them grow and maybe even see grandchildren someday, and eventually die. Would you deny me that because I am not like you? Because I would never deny a person anything because they're not an Atheist.

I believe in people having equal worth in this world, but I do also believe in everybody having superior abilities to one another, but somewhere they cancel out. (For instance one person is an excellent cook but can't make anything useful other than food to save their life, somebody else can't cook anything to save their life, but they can build some useful tools and such.)

Perhaps your friends became atheists for more reasons than just being treated badly, if you ask me, that was just the nudge out the door that they needed to be honest with themselves. After all, many people are closet atheists. At one time, I would have been such that I would have told people that I believed in God for the sake of friendship, because it is a community thing too that people are involved in church etc... However, now I would not. There was also a time when I believed in a higher power, but I now realize that what I really feel when I look at some of the more beautiful aspects of this planet we call Earth, is just the tie that I have with nature and the Earth itself. But I can feel the beauty of a meadow on the edge of a forest on a nice sunny day without the need for a God to be behind it. Yeah, it is what you might call spiritual, but spiritual is not necessarily related to God. It's a feeling. Heightened senses, and the ecstasy of life in your mind, all without the use of drugs, and yeah... This happens. I feel it just thinking about my clearing in the woods with my Johanna where we dance together and are at peace with each other and in nature, but there is no God there and that doesn't make it sad for me. It would do the opposite in fact. I can't imagine the stress you feel knowing that you're constantly being critiqued by an all powerful being that rules you with an iron fist so tight that he'd turn you into salt just for looking back at your former home.

We are ants, and God has a magnifying glass. I said God has a sense of humor. That is because, to God we are nothing more than mindless playthings, an afterthought. At least if you're correct. At least in the bible, God did shit that was demonstrable. Now, when a person breaks any of the ten commandments (or 600-something if you want to be technical) nothing happens, even when they directly provoke God. Nothing happens.

We, us, you, me, people, human beings... We are the ones who matter, who are important, and who make the difference. Not some magical force that was originally intended to explain how the world works like most myths have. Seriously now. We are the ones who have to take responsibility for ourselves, and this world. God isn't going to do it for us because He doesn't exist or is so far beyond us that we are literally as a cell is to us.

I don't really have any questions for you outright. If you want to ask me that's fine. I only ask questions because I try to get people to think, but it fails. You make special excuses for your religion, where in other parts of your life you would not. It's okay to worship somebody who has killed more people than any one person every could. It's okay that this being sends you to a place where you can be burned and suffer for all eternity for finite crimes. It's okay that this God allowed evil to exist... It's okay to forsake other people on the basis of belief alone...

And if you think it's okay for you to do those things, then we cannot be truly at peace with one another, not even individually, unless both parties are ignorant of the others' beliefs. Your religion forbids it.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings or insulted you personally (although it was likely your religion I was insulting, or hypothetically speaking) in any way as that was not my goal.

You did ask for this. I do hope you'll respond and at least tell me you read this, because I sat here for like two hours. I would at least appreciate that you respond somehow.

''This is how she responded to ALL of that.''

Hey James, i got your message and I will get back to you as soon as possibly i just need to find time this weekend to re read your message and answer it. I am glad you put your time and effort into this, and to be fair I will do that as well. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me.

'''She has YET to get back to me and it's been weeks. I WIN.'''

Template:Formal fallacies

2011-03-31T03:24:53Z

MasterSivers: Removed duplicate Argument from fallacy

{{Navbox|name = Formal fallacies
|borderstyle={{{borderstyle|border:1px solid grey;" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"}}}
|titlestyle = background:#DCFFCF;
|title=[[Formal fallacies]]
|groupstyle = background:#E9FFDA;

|group1=Propositional logic
|list1=''[[Affirming a disjunct]]'' · ''[[Affirming the consequent]]'' · ''[[Argument from fallacy]]'' · ''[[False dilemma]]''

|group2=Quantificational logic
|list2=''[[Existential fallacy]]'' · ''[[Illicit conversion]]'' · ''[[Proof by example]]'' · ''[[Quantifier shift]]''

|group3=Syllogistic
|list3=''[[Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise]]'' · ''[[Exclusive premises]]'' · ''[[Necessity]]'' · ''[[Four-term Fallacy]]'' · ''[[Illicit major]]'' · ''[[Illicit minor]]'' · ''[[Undistributed middle]]''

}}

Template:False relevance

2011-03-31T03:22:20Z

MasterSivers: Added Appeal to pity to Appeals

{{Navbox|name = False relevance
|borderstyle={{{borderstyle|border:1px solid grey;" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"}}}
|titlestyle = background:#DCFFCF;
|title=[[Logical fallacies#False relevance|False relevance]]
|groupstyle = background:#E9FFDA;

|group1=Appeals
|list1=''[[Appeal to authority]]'' · ''[[Appeal to consequences]]'' · ''[[Appeal to emotion]]'' · ''[[Appeal to motive]]'' · ''[[Appeal to novelty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Appeal to pity]]'' · ''[[Appeal to popularity]]'' · ''[[Appeal to poverty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to wealth]]'' · ''[[Sentimental fallacy]]'' · ''[[Argumentum ad baculum]]''

|group2=[[Ad hominem]]
|list2=''[[Ad hominem abusive]]'' · ''[[Reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' · ''[[Judgmental language]]'' · ''[[Straw man]]'' · ''[[Tu quoque]]''

|group3=Genetic Fallacies
|list3=''[[Genetic fallacy]]'' · ''[[Chronological snobbery]]'' · ''[[Association fallacy]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]''

}}

Appeal to pity

2011-03-31T03:20:56Z

MasterSivers: /* Examples */

{{argument-stub}}

An '''appeal to pity''' a.k.a. ''Ad Misericordiam'' is a fallacy where one supports their claim with the intent of causing the emotion of pity in the place of real evidence.

==Examples==
*A theist mother claiming on her potential deathbed due to some medical problems, “Christ is the only way to true salvation, I want you to know that because I am not always going to be able to be here to tell you so. Why would I lie to you now as I lie here dying?”

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to pity

2011-03-31T03:19:35Z

MasterSivers: Created.

{{argument-stub}}

An '''appeal to pity''' a.k.a. ''Ad Misericordiam'' is a fallacy where one supports their claim with the intent of causing the emotion of pity in the place of real evidence.

==Examples==
*A theist mother claiming on her potential deathbed due to some medical problems, “Christ is the only way to true salvation, I want you to know that because I am not always going to be able to be here to tell you so. Why would I lie to you?”

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Template:False relevance

2011-03-31T02:57:05Z

MasterSivers: Added Appeal to popularity to Appeals.

{{Navbox|name = False relevance
|borderstyle={{{borderstyle|border:1px solid grey;" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"}}}
|titlestyle = background:#DCFFCF;
|title=[[Logical fallacies#False relevance|False relevance]]
|groupstyle = background:#E9FFDA;

|group1=Appeals
|list1=''[[Appeal to authority]]'' · ''[[Appeal to consequences]]'' · ''[[Appeal to emotion]]'' · ''[[Appeal to motive]]'' · ''[[Appeal to novelty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Appeal to popularity]]'' · ''[[Appeal to poverty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to wealth]]'' · ''[[Sentimental fallacy]]'' · ''[[Argumentum ad baculum]]''

|group2=[[Ad hominem]]
|list2=''[[Ad hominem abusive]]'' · ''[[Reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' · ''[[Judgmental language]]'' · ''[[Straw man]]'' · ''[[Tu quoque]]''

|group3=Genetic Fallacies
|list3=''[[Genetic fallacy]]'' · ''[[Chronological snobbery]]'' · ''[[Association fallacy]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]''

}}

Appeal to popularity

2011-03-31T02:45:55Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}

An '''appeal to popularity''' is very similar to an [[Appeal_to_emotion|appeal to emotion]] in that it targets emotions; The difference being that it does not focus on the listener's emotions, and instead focuses on what the majority of people think or the popular position to take with regards to the claim. The arguer then uses this to try and persuade the listener to change their mind and/or conform.

==Example==
*Classic example: Somebody tries to convince their friend to try smoking by asserting that all the cool kids do it.

*Advertisements that make the claim that: Everybody's doing/using/eating [insert product name here].

*"2.1 Billion [[Christian]]s can't be wrong."

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

User talk:MasterSivers

2011-03-31T02:37:54Z

MasterSivers: Removed redundant data.

If anybody has any questions or whatever for me, you could post here too...
--[[User:MasterSivers|MasterSivers]] 21:37, 30 March 2011 (CDT)

User:MasterSivers

2011-03-31T02:36:16Z

MasterSivers: Made

MasterSivers, or James Sivers is a 20 year old male from Minnesota. His story of his “fall” to Atheism, as many ill-informed/ignorant people is probably not all that unique.

MasterSivers can be contacted on his Facebook page: [http://www.facebook.com/James.Sivers FB-MasterSivers] or can be e-mailed at: djinni13@gmail.com

----

User talk:MasterSivers

2011-03-31T02:23:51Z

MasterSivers: Started

Where one can get ahold of me —
My facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/James.Sivers
My email address: djinni13@gmail.com

----

Appeal to popularity

2011-03-30T19:10:22Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}

An '''appeal to popularity''' is very similar to an [[Appeal_to_emotion|appeal to emotion]] in that it targets emotions; The difference being that it does not focus on the listener's emotions, and instead focuses on what the majority of people think or the popular position to take with regards to the claim. The arguer then uses this to try and persuade the listener to change their mind and/or conform.

==Example==
*Classic example: Somebody tries to convince their friend to try smoking by asserting that all the cool kids do it.

*Advertisements that make the claim that: Everybody's doing/using/eating [insert product name here].

--[[User:MasterSivers|MasterSivers]] 14:07, 30 March 2011 (CDT)

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to popularity

2011-03-30T19:07:13Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}

An '''appeal to popularity''' is very similar to an [[Appeal_to_emotion|appeal to emotion]] in that it targets emotions; The difference being that it does not focus on the listener's emotions, and instead focuses on what the majority of people think or the popular position to take with regards to the claim. The arguer then uses this to try and persuade the listener to change their mind and/or conform.

==Example==
*Classic example: Somebody tries to convince their friend to try smoking by asserting that all the cool kids do it.

*Advertisements that make the claim that: Everybody's doing/using/eating [insert product name here].

--[[User:MasterSivers|MasterSivers]] 14:07, 30 March 2011 (CDT)

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to popularity

2011-03-30T19:02:57Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}

An '''appeal to popularity''' is very similar to an [[Appeal_to_emotion|appeal to emotion]] in that it targets emotions; The difference being that it does not focus on the listener's emotions, and instead focuses on what the majority of people think or the popular position to take with regards to the claim. The arguer then uses this to try and persuade the listener to change their mind and/or conform.

==Example==
*Classic example: Somebody tries to convince their friend to try smoking by asserting that all the cool kids do it.

*Advertisements that make the claim that: Everybody's doing/using/eating [insert product name here].

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to popularity

2011-03-30T18:17:55Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}

An '''appeal to popularity''' is very similar to an [[Appeal_to_emotion|appeal to emotion]] in that it targets emotions; The difference being that it does not focus on the listener's emotions, and instead focuses on what the majority of people think or the popular position to take with regards to the claim. The arguer then uses this to try and persuade the listener to change their mind and/or conform.

==Example==
*Classic example: Somebody tries to convince their friend to try smoking by asserting that all the cool kids do it.

*Advertisements that make the claim that: Everybody's doing/using/eating [insert product name here].

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to emotion

2011-03-30T17:44:16Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}
[[Image:SMBC-20081103.gif|thumb|''Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal'' cartoon illustrating the fallacy of appeal to emotion.]]

An '''appeal to emotion''' is an argument tactic that is very similar to an [[Appeal to popularity|appeal to popularity]] which attempts to circumvent [[rational]] thought in the hopes of “supporting” a conclusion with an [[emotion]]al response in the place of real evidence. Many times, this fallacy is committed in concert with other fallacies as well. ''i.e.'' [[Ad_hominem|Ad Hominem]]

==Example==

*"Aren't you afraid to go to [[hell]] when you die?"

The above statement appeals to the listener's emotion of fear, but [[Begging the question|begs the question]] by assuming that hell exists in the first place.

*"[[Hitler]] was an [[evil]] [[atheist]]; you don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"

The [[premise]] of this argument is faulty; Hitler was actually a devout [[Catholic]]. Even if the premise were granted, however, the attempted link between atheism and Nazism relies on an [[Enthymeme|enthymeme]] (missing premise).

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Appeal to emotion

2011-03-30T17:41:36Z

MasterSivers:

{{argument-stub}}
[[Image:SMBC-20081103.gif|thumb|''Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal'' cartoon illustrating the fallacy of appeal to emotion.]]

An '''appeal to emotion''' is an argument tactic that is very similar to an [[appeal to popularity]] which attempts to circumvent [[rational]] thought in the hopes of “supporting” a conclusion with an [[emotion]]al response in the place of real evidence. Many times, this fallacy is committed in concert with other fallacies as well. ''i.e.'' [[Ad_hominem|Ad Hominem]]

==Example==

*"Aren't you afraid to go to [[hell]] when you die?"

The above statement appeals to the listener's emotion of fear, but [[Begging the question|begs the question]] by assuming that hell exists in the first place.

*"[[Hitler]] was an [[evil]] [[atheist]]; you don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"

The [[premise]] of this argument is faulty; Hitler was actually a devout [[Catholic]]. Even if the premise were granted, however, the attempted link between atheism and Nazism relies on an [[Enthymeme|enthymeme]] (missing premise).

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

You just want to sin

2011-03-28T18:38:42Z

MasterSivers:

This argument is made against [[Atheist]]s as an attempt to point out their (potential) fear of living the religious lifestyles, and is related to the accusation that [[Atheists are just in denial]].

The best way to counter it are the following:

1. Ignore it, it's not really an argument to begin with

2. Agree to it with sarcasm, once again it's not an argument, or at least not a good one.

[[Theist]]s sin all the time, their belief system is based on faith alone, or at least some of them believe that. Some of them claim that without religion there are no morals, even though there have been countless immoral acts done at the hands of religion. The [[Protestant]] [[Christian]] religion doesn't have regulations about being moral, to them you just have to pray your sins away, so in a sense, with religion there are still immoral things.

The Holocaust, Jihad, the Crusades, the time of reform in Europe after the middle ages and during the middle ages, are fine examples of what harm religion can lead to.

[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics

2011-03-28T18:28:28Z

MasterSivers: /* Appeals to solipsism */

[[Image:Button_commonobjections.png|right|Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]]

==Overview==
==Categories==
With the growing rise of ''"new atheism"'', non-believers have seen an increasing hostility from theists. Common criticisms of atheism and counter-apologetic arguments are made to support the theist's position. These usually fall into one of three categories.

===Appeals to emotion===
Since the removal of mandatory prayer in American schools, atheism has been the focus of an increased political and media reaction in the form of fear and smear campaigns. These appeals to emotion have been escalating in frequency, coming from politicians such as Monique Davis, who stated that, "It is dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists."
* [[Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?]]
* [[Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs?]]
* [[Why do atheists inspire such hatred?]]
* [[What about all the good things religion has given us?]]
* [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler was an atheist]]
* [[Stalin was an atheist]]
* [[Mao was an atheist]]
* [[Pol Pot was an atheist]]

===Straw men===
The most common argument against atheism and counter-apologetics from the theistic ranks, is probably a straw man depiction of the atheist position. These can range from misrepresentations of evolution such as leading questions like, "if we came from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around today,"; assertions that science is as much of a religious faith as Christianity; and/or misrepresentations about atheism and secular humanism being synonymous with immorality, communism, and/or mass murder.
* [[You are a communist]]
* [[So you believe in nothing?]]
* [[You just want to sin]]
* [[It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe]]
* [[Atheists worship materialism]]
* [[Science is a faith]]
* [[Atheism is a religion]]
* [[Atheism is based on faith]]
* [[The Purpose and Meaning of life]]
* [[Atheists believe that everything is an accident]]
* [[Atheists are just in denial]]

Often, these straw man arguments result in accusations of [[Atheist hypocrisy|atheist hypocrisy]].

===Appeals to solipsism===
Perhaps the most interesting of the three categories is the ever increasing problem of appeals to solipsism. The idea that we can't know everything (or anything, depending on how far the arguer wishes to take it), and thus we can never completely rule god out. It constitutes a ‘god of the gaps’ argument. However, this line of argument raises more questions than it solves if we take this assertion to its ultimate conclusion: i.e. from “we can't know everything,” or that, “we can't know anything for certain,” yields “how can we claim to know anything about god?”
* [[What are your qualifications?]]
* [[God can't be defined]]
* [[Science can't touch god]]
* [[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]
* [[That might be true for you, but its not true for me]]
* [[Religion is another way of knowing]]
* [[Faith is a virtue]]
* [[Infinite regression of skepticism|You'd have to be skeptical of skepticism, ad infinitum]]

== Related Articles ==

[[Is Theistic Religion A Consolation?]]

{{Common objections}}

Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics

2011-03-28T18:20:50Z

MasterSivers: /* Straw men */

[[Image:Button_commonobjections.png|right|Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]]

==Overview==
==Categories==
With the growing rise of ''"new atheism"'', non-believers have seen an increasing hostility from theists. Common criticisms of atheism and counter-apologetic arguments are made to support the theist's position. These usually fall into one of three categories.

===Appeals to emotion===
Since the removal of mandatory prayer in American schools, atheism has been the focus of an increased political and media reaction in the form of fear and smear campaigns. These appeals to emotion have been escalating in frequency, coming from politicians such as Monique Davis, who stated that, "It is dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists."
* [[Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?]]
* [[Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs?]]
* [[Why do atheists inspire such hatred?]]
* [[What about all the good things religion has given us?]]
* [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler was an atheist]]
* [[Stalin was an atheist]]
* [[Mao was an atheist]]
* [[Pol Pot was an atheist]]

===Straw men===
The most common argument against atheism and counter-apologetics from the theistic ranks, is probably a straw man depiction of the atheist position. These can range from misrepresentations of evolution such as leading questions like, "if we came from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around today,"; assertions that science is as much of a religious faith as Christianity; and/or misrepresentations about atheism and secular humanism being synonymous with immorality, communism, and/or mass murder.
* [[You are a communist]]
* [[So you believe in nothing?]]
* [[You just want to sin]]
* [[It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe]]
* [[Atheists worship materialism]]
* [[Science is a faith]]
* [[Atheism is a religion]]
* [[Atheism is based on faith]]
* [[The Purpose and Meaning of life]]
* [[Atheists believe that everything is an accident]]
* [[Atheists are just in denial]]

Often, these straw man arguments result in accusations of [[Atheist hypocrisy|atheist hypocrisy]].

===Appeals to solipsism===
Perhaps the most interesting of the three categories is the increasing problem of appeals to solipsism. The idea that we can't know everything (or anything, depending on how far the arguer wishes to take it), and thus we can never completely rule god out. It constitutes a 'god of the gaps' argument. However, this line of argument would seem to create more questions than it solves. If we take this assertion to its ultimate conclusion, i.e. that "''we can't know everything''," or that, "''we can't know anything for certain''," then how can we claim to know anything about god?
* [[What are your qualifications?]]
* [[God can't be defined]]
* [[Science can't touch god]]
* [[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]
* [[That might be true for you, but its not true for me]]
* [[Religion is another way of knowing]]
* [[Faith is a virtue]]
* [[Infinite regression of skepticism|You'd have to be skeptical of skepticism, ad infinitum]]

== Related Articles ==

[[Is Theistic Religion A Consolation?]]

{{Common objections}}

Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics

2011-03-28T18:20:19Z

MasterSivers: /* Straw men */

[[Image:Button_commonobjections.png|right|Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]]

==Overview==
==Categories==
With the growing rise of ''"new atheism"'', non-believers have seen an increasing hostility from theists. Common criticisms of atheism and counter-apologetic arguments are made to support the theist's position. These usually fall into one of three categories.

===Appeals to emotion===
Since the removal of mandatory prayer in American schools, atheism has been the focus of an increased political and media reaction in the form of fear and smear campaigns. These appeals to emotion have been escalating in frequency, coming from politicians such as Monique Davis, who stated that, "It is dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists."
* [[Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?]]
* [[Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs?]]
* [[Why do atheists inspire such hatred?]]
* [[What about all the good things religion has given us?]]
* [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler was an atheist]]
* [[Stalin was an atheist]]
* [[Mao was an atheist]]
* [[Pol Pot was an atheist]]

===Straw men===
The most common argument against atheism and counter-apologetics from the theistic ranks, is probably a straw man depiction of the atheist position. These can range from misrepresentations of evolution such as leading questions like, "if we came from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around today,"; assertions that science is as much of a religious faith as Christianity; and/or misrepresentations about atheism and secular humanism being synonymous with immorality, communism, and/or mass murder.
* [[You are a communist]]
* [[So you believe in nothing?]]
* [[You just want to sin]]
* [[It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe]]
* [[Atheists worship materialism]]
* [[Science is a faith]]
* [[Atheism is a religion]]
* [[Atheism is based on faith]]
* [[The Purpose and Meaning of life]]
* [[Atheists believe that everything is an accident]]
* [[Atheists are just in denial]]

Often, these strawman arguments result in accusations of [[Atheist hypocrisy|atheist hypocrisy]].

===Appeals to solipsism===
Perhaps the most interesting of the three categories is the increasing problem of appeals to solipsism. The idea that we can't know everything (or anything, depending on how far the arguer wishes to take it), and thus we can never completely rule god out. It constitutes a 'god of the gaps' argument. However, this line of argument would seem to create more questions than it solves. If we take this assertion to its ultimate conclusion, i.e. that "''we can't know everything''," or that, "''we can't know anything for certain''," then how can we claim to know anything about god?
* [[What are your qualifications?]]
* [[God can't be defined]]
* [[Science can't touch god]]
* [[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]
* [[That might be true for you, but its not true for me]]
* [[Religion is another way of knowing]]
* [[Faith is a virtue]]
* [[Infinite regression of skepticism|You'd have to be skeptical of skepticism, ad infinitum]]

== Related Articles ==

[[Is Theistic Religion A Consolation?]]

{{Common objections}}

Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics

2011-03-28T18:13:35Z

MasterSivers: /* Appeals to emotion */

[[Image:Button_commonobjections.png|right|Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]]

==Overview==
==Categories==
With the growing rise of ''"new atheism"'', non-believers have seen an increasing hostility from theists. Common criticisms of atheism and counter-apologetic arguments are made to support the theist's position. These usually fall into one of three categories.

===Appeals to emotion===
Since the removal of mandatory prayer in American schools, atheism has been the focus of an increased political and media reaction in the form of fear and smear campaigns. These appeals to emotion have been escalating in frequency, coming from politicians such as Monique Davis, who stated that, "It is dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists."
* [[Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?]]
* [[Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs?]]
* [[Why do atheists inspire such hatred?]]
* [[What about all the good things religion has given us?]]
* [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler was an atheist]]
* [[Stalin was an atheist]]
* [[Mao was an atheist]]
* [[Pol Pot was an atheist]]

===Straw men===
Probably the most common argument against atheism and counter-apologetics from the theistic ranks, is straw man depictions of the atheist position. These can range from misrepresentations of evolution such as leading questions like "if we came from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around today" or assertions that science is as much of a religious faith as Christianity, or misrepresentations about atheism and secular humanism being synonymous with immorality, communism or mass murder.
* [[You are a communist]]
* [[So you believe in nothing?]]
* [[You just want to sin]]
* [[It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe]]
* [[Atheists worship materialism]]
* [[Science is a faith]]
* [[Atheism is a religion]]
* [[Atheism is based on faith]]
* [[The Purpose and Meaning of life]]
* [[Atheists believe that everything is an accident]]
* [[Atheists are just in denial]]

Often, these strawman arguments result in accusations of [[Atheist hypocrisy|atheist hypocrisy]].

===Appeals to solipsism===
Perhaps the most interesting of the three categories is the increasing problem of appeals to solipsism. The idea that we can't know everything (or anything, depending on how far the arguer wishes to take it), and thus we can never completely rule god out. It constitutes a 'god of the gaps' argument. However, this line of argument would seem to create more questions than it solves. If we take this assertion to its ultimate conclusion, i.e. that "''we can't know everything''," or that, "''we can't know anything for certain''," then how can we claim to know anything about god?
* [[What are your qualifications?]]
* [[God can't be defined]]
* [[Science can't touch god]]
* [[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]
* [[That might be true for you, but its not true for me]]
* [[Religion is another way of knowing]]
* [[Faith is a virtue]]
* [[Infinite regression of skepticism|You'd have to be skeptical of skepticism, ad infinitum]]

== Related Articles ==

[[Is Theistic Religion A Consolation?]]

{{Common objections}}

Why do atheists inspire such hatred?

2011-03-28T18:03:06Z

MasterSivers: /* Discussion */

The question, "'''Why do atheists inspire such hatred?'''" was the on-screen title of a televised discussion segment[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU] hosted by [[Wikipedia:Paula Zahn|Paula Zahn]], which aired on [[Wikipedia:CNN|CNN]] on Jan 31, 2007. The discussion followed a prerecorded piece[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiyJzWy3CDQ] about two atheist families who say they were discriminated against because of their beliefs (or lack thereof).

==The segment==

The panelists, all of whom were theists (two [[Christian]]s and a [[Jew]]), included:
* [[Wikipedia:Karen Hunter|Karen Hunter]], identified as a "Pulitzer Prize winner"
* [[Wikipedia:Debbie Schlussel|Debbie Schlussel]], "Atty. & conservative columnist"
* [[Wikipedia:Steven A. Smith|Steven A. Smith]], "ESPN analyst"

The questions asked by Zahn in the segment were:
# So, do you think atheists should keep their religious beliefs secret?
# Are any of you [panelists] going to defend them here tonight?
# What happened to "[[love thy neighbor]]" and that we should able to practice [[free speech]]?
# How do you believe they [atheists] are imposing their beliefs?
# When you look at the statistics that [[atheists are the most hated of all the minorities]], above gays... [Okay, not a question, but a comment. All the panelists seemed not to believe the statistics were accurate.]
# Can you explain to me where you feel the assault, when [[97% of the folks in this country claim to worship some kind of god]], so you have 1 to 3 percent of this population that doesn't believe in God — who are they hurting?

Although some reasonable statements were made, each panelist raised several points that were clearly incorrect or misleading, or based on various [[fallacies]]. The following remarks are paraphrased in many cases, but try to adhere to the intent of the speakers.

; Points raised by Karen Hunter
* [[So you believe in nothing?|Atheists believe in "nothing".]]
* "When does it end? I mean, we [[school prayer|took prayer out of schools]]. What else do they want?"
* Atheists don't have good [[Wikipedia:public relations|PR]] or marketing.
* If atheists had "[[Wikipedia:Hallmark card|Hallmark cards]]", maybe they wouldn't feel so left out.
* Atheists "need to shut up" and "let people do what they do", and "stay in their [place]" [the actual word used is not intelligible, but the meaning is clear from the context].
* Atheists are "[[wikipedia:crying wolf|crying wolf]] all the time".
* Taking prayer out of schools left a lack of [[morality]] in schools.
* Prayer was "taken out of schools" because "an atheist went to court". [In fact, regarding the two most relevant [[Supreme Court]] cases, ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' involved nine parents of students in New Hyde Park, New York, and the case ''[[Abington Township School District v. Schempp]]'' was brought by a [[Unitarian Universalist]] resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania.]
* If you don't want prayer in school, then don't pray.
* You can't pick an atheist out of a crowd. [True, but presented as an argument against the statistics that indicate atheists are the "most hated of all the minorities".]
* According to the latest [[Wikipedia:Harris poll|Harris poll]], [[nonbelievers constitute about 8 to 12 percent of the population]].
* Atheists aren't hurting anyone, and I don't personally have any problem with atheists.
* Atheists shouldn't "[[impose on my rights]]" to have prayer in schools, say the [[Pledge of Allegiance]], or honor my God.

; Points raised by Debbie Schlussel
* [[Atheists discriminate against those who are religious]] [more than the other way around].
* [[America is a Christian nation]].
* Atheists don't complain about cases of religion in school settings when the religion being promoted is [[Islam]].
* Atheists are "the [[intolerant]] ones".
* [[Freedom of religion]] does not mean [[freedom from religion]].
* "Obnoxious" [[Michael Newdow]] took his [[Pledge of Allegiance]] case to the Supreme Court, while his child [on whose behalf the case was brought] "didn't know what was going on". [In fact, Newdow won in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so it was the school district who appealed the case to the Supreme Court.]
* In [[Atheism in Europe|Europe]], there are more atheists, they have "lost God", and "the Church is not that strong".
* "Europe is becoming [[Islamist]], it's fast falling, and intolerance is increasing."
* The United States has not become "like Europe" because "we have strong Christians, and because atheists are not strong".

; Points raised by Steven Smith
* You are entitled to believe what you want, as long as you aren't imposing your beliefs on other people. [The first reasonable argument presented in the discussion.]
* Atheists mainly encounter problems in "[[Wikipedia:Red state|red states]]", not in places like [[Wikipedia:New York City|New York City]].
* [[Everyone I know loves the Lord]].
* Atheists don't "need to shut up" because "there's a whole bunch of people in this world that we can look at and say they need to shut up, and they certainly don't". [An odd argument, to be sure.]
* I don't believe that [[atheists are the most hated minority]] group.
* Atheists want to take "[[under God]]" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, saying that's a Christian thing, but what if you're a [[Muslim]]? What if you're somebody of a different belief? If we're "inclusionary", why don't we include all things? But we're not, and that's my point. [The exact argument being presented here is not clear, but it should be pointed out that while the phrase "under God" was originally supposed to refer to the Christian god, in fact [[Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same god]].]

During the latter stages of the discussion, a wall-sized monitor in the background was displaying the question, "Are atheist tactics too [[militant atheism|militant]]?"

==Discussion==

As pointed out by [[Matt Dillahunty]] on [[The Non-Prophets]], instead of "Why do atheists inspire such hatred?", the question should have been phrased, "Why do some people hate atheists?"

Atheism doesn't "inspire" hatred. In fact, atheism doesn't have anything to do with hatred or love, war or peace. It is simply rejection of theist claims.

Some atheists do in fact unleash "hate" against theists, but that is not part of the "teachings" of atheism (mainly because there are no teachings), and such atheists are not acting on their "atheist beliefs" (i.e., the lack of belief in any gods) but upon other beliefs separate from, but perhaps compatible with their atheism.

On the other hand, one could easily turn the question around and ask, "Why does ''religion'' inspire such hatred?" This question not only makes more sense than the original one, it has several possible answers:
# Indoctrination
# Religious forms of nationalism
# Divisiveness
# Competition
# Prejudice

Religion has spread a lot of hate not only around the globe, but also down the generations. Not only are atheists targeted, but other theists who do not share the beliefs of other theists. (In fact, the minority theist group is often labeled as "atheists" by the dominant one.)

[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]
[[Category:Television and radio shows]]
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]