"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
Prior art, by about 1800 years.
Does sound more Darwinian than Lamarckian, though, true, and accurately capturing the eventual social controversy. Got to catch them all.
But yes, to state your position accurately, per the DSM, any viewpoint that is held by a majority of one's culture cannot be a "delusion", by definition. This is not limited to religions.
It can be wrong, it cannot be a delusion. Using delusional definitions of "delusion" does not alter this.
Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my mysteries that I tell my mysteries. Do not let your left (hand) know what your right (hand) is doing."
The New Covenant and it's applicability is the entirety of the writings of the Apostle Paul, which constitutes the doctrinal core of the entire New Testament. If there is an issue of who hasn't "seriously studied", that issue isn't mine.
It is indeed the case that the OT Law has been superseded in deference to the methodology Jesus himself stated--"love God and your neighbor as yourself, upon this the entire Law and Prophets hang". Being superseded, however, does not mean its content is discarded as reference, which remains fully valid in determining what should be done, -provided proper contextual application is done-. It "passes away" in no more of a sense than physics "passes away" when we apply its principles to a present-day application.
This, "love God and your neighbor as yourself" is the present-day "meta rule" for which the entire cultural and legal content of the OT is to be read and applied toward. There are numerous specific examples of this Jesus performed, such as rejecting the misapplication by the religious "authorities" of the time demanding that he not rescue an injured animal because it would be "working on the Sabbath". Arguable literal correspondence to the text, complete ignorance of the intent and purpose. Jesus corrected that directly.
It amazes me that anyone with even a child's comprehension of even political documents, such as the U.S. Constitution, still insists on such an obvious False Dichotomy equivalent to "Do you accept the Constitution, or do you reject it entirely by applying it in any way other than how I personally interpret the Constitution's intent?" Stop this erroneous argument. Rejecting that in fact the Constitution is the document defining the U.S. legal and structural system is not in question, nor is there an issue of whether it has "passed away", nor can it be discarded. The question is one of interpretation of how it is to be applied, to a current time and context. If you can grasp that, you can grasp this stance on the OT. I'll assume you need some time to grasp this obviousness, and it isn't just direct intellectual dishonesty when you are discussing the particular topic of the bible, using reasoning you apply to nothing else whatsoever.
It is you who are "cherry-picking", and compounding it with cherry-picking the interpretation you feel is worst.
Jesus said not a "jot or tiddle" would "pass away" until "all was fulfilled". And that he came to fulfill it. Therefore, the Old Covenant was superseded by he New Covenant when he did so, via substitutionary atonement on the cross, that is, when "it is finished". You can claim your view is the mainstream on representing Christianity, but that is merely your inaccurate claim.
Noting that, the OT laws and cultural specifications went a very long way to maintaining a culturally-distinct surviving society under extremely negative conditions. Virtually all other cultures from that time period have ceased to exist. Perhaps, if nothing else, you can acknowledge that these specification have been very effective in a Darwinian or "meme" sense? We'll leave aside the fact that per the only thing you have to judge with, evolution, you have no supportable basis to object to anything. You object to religious norms because of... assimilated religion norms, which you misapply. Your worldview has nothing.
But then, while we're having anachronistic fun with impossible alternate economic and social structures, do you think people living around 0 B.C. should have been entitled to 401k plans, too?
Agreed. Atheism is not a religion, it is nothing, like "off". To be specific, it's a Reification Fallacy. "Not-X" is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is.
Why is it that atheists consistently react so vigorously against someone pointing out what we both agree on, then?
Simply going by the evidence. Secular philosophy has been working on some basic objective supportable axioms for morality for 2500 years--still zero consensus among the competing (equally unbacked) models.
Have five atheists write down their "top 5" ethical premises, put them in a hat, and draw them out. There will be a nearly 0% correlation.
So, what we have in practice is a hyper-simplistically rendered single axiom--some variant of the Golden Rule, as directly stolen from theism, and unsupportable -within the context of atheism- as destroyed by a single question... "why is that the correct action, objectively"?
To suggest atheism has, or reasonably can have, an actual consistent moral system is to admit entire ignorance of the field and history. Start simple--with the "is-ought problem". What one should do is not derivable from a description of material existence. Provably so. And that's all your worldview has to derive axioms from.
The evidence of history and logic demonstrates atheism can't, and won't, address ethics in a meaningful way, ever. But that's okay, because that's exactly what you want. An utterly empty and plagiarized pseudo-ethics you can ignore any time you feel like it, while wrapping yourselves in an equally empty claim to having "ethics" that has no actual content other than the mere word itself.
"Destruction of the enemy" is a fools errand intended simply to get people to sacrifice their interests for the "leader's" benefit.
Legitimate response to challenges is producing better and more appealing products. Offering better terms and incentives to the people doing that for you, is the legitimate way to do that. Painting the "others" attempting to do the same as the enemy adds nothing of value.
"But that's not a Platonic Ideal, because your idea of an apple is stored in your brain and is a separate object from mine."
Okay. Seems to me you are just asserting your conclusion. How do you -know- there is not an "ideal apple" toward which our understanding tends toward, apart from a specific (and entirely variable in every brain) neurological representation?
"No, we don't have the same model of an apple. We both have our own models located in our separate brains. Those models are similar because they were constructed by entities - us - who share almost all of our evolutionary history, about a set of objects - apples - produced by entities - apple trees - which also share almost all of their evolutionary history. While one can speculate about an universal ideal of an apple, such ideal isn't actually necessary to explain the similarities of our models."
Agreed, it isn't necessary, but you've done only handwaving invoking "evolution" in a passingly-specific explanatory way here.
We used to have presentation based on comprehensible, objective metrics.
Like, "most read", or "highest rated".
Now, we get "trending". What exactly is "trending"? Apparently, terminology intended to suggest most followed statistically, but wide open to interjection of whatever subjective criteria or advertising profit the site may wish.
Give me back terms and criteria that mean something. I want my old Internet back.
You are just asserting that it isn't a Platonic Ideal by means of simply saying it isn't.
While your perspective can be maintained, at puts you into the historically alternative Aristotelian position, it does not refute Plato. Ultimately, we interact coherently on the topic insofar as we have the -same- model of "apple", and it is not merely an arbitrary and subjective mental construct. How such models arise, naturally, is a matter of very long-standing discussion.
This argument works better adding in a Platonic notion of ideal Forms.
If you recognize an apple by relative approximation to a definitional "apple" model, then one can argue you could not determine what is and is not an apple without the reference entity actually objectively existing.
Similar here with "greatness", as applied to more mundane entities. But still, a thought experiment, not a proof.
More mainstream would be, say, the universe is designed not to reveal the evidence (more precisely, "proof", as this logically necessitates forced conversion, and there is in fact evidence) to those who are not intended to (yet) have it.
So, it may be "indistinguishable" to you--that does not make it indistinguishable.
Okay, we're clearly at an impasse--claiming peer-reviewed, quantified, eye-witness accounts of what theism predicts being what happens post-death is not evidence, is, well, simply you lying, and/or failing to understand what "evidence" is.
I do hope you resolve your confusion on basic evolutionary theory, and your bizarre notion that abstract concepts have specific genetic representations that can be selected for or against. It does correspond to your overall inability to grasp that scientific materialism is insufficient for a coherent position on your part (as thoroughly demonstrated by the Logical Positivism movement, should you choose to investigate knowing something about it, as a "logician").
I do hope also you come to understand that characterization is not an argument, and call it "fairy tales" as many times as you like, you'll simply demonstrate yourself an incompetent who thinks he can counter evidence and massively greater demographic adherence by silly fiat.
There are no ad hominems, there are only questions you still fail to answer. That's what will remain of this discussion, available for the wider reader, as you are an irrelevancy. I hope you'll fix your nonsensical and self-contradictory worldview. If not, well, others will, and we agree on what awaits you.
No, they are not convoluted nonsense, you are simply evading responding to clear questions in a manner that directly disqualifies you from your self-proclaimed status as a "logician".
To recap:
1. Do you acknowledge a distinction between "evidence" and "proof"?
2. Do you acknowledge the existence of evidence for theism? Peer-reviewed evidence was provided as published in among the most respected medical journals in existence earlier in the thread. Refusing to acknowledge evidence as evidence does not change the definition of "evidence". Having an alternate explanation forwarded for evidence does not make it then non-evidence.
3. By what possible means do you know there is "no evidence" anyone has encountered, as this is tantamount to a claim of psychic powers? A person can know "what happened at the corner of State and Main at 2 AM". It is impossible for anyone to know that nobody knows. In this case and regarding theistic evidence, your claim is directly epistemologically and logically invalid, universally.
4. What difference does it possibly make what the "trend" is? You all die off regardless. You may as well cite a statistical increase in the number of people born with brown eyes. In neither case does it have any effect on the outcomes per our respective worldviews. Invoke your preferred statistic, see if it helps you from your own biological end.
5. Do you acknowledge that there is literally nothing you can reference from a material-reductionist standpoint as something regarding atheism that can "survive"? I'll avoid going down the more direct route of addressing your whole viewpoint as a reification fallacy, "logician", and pointing out that not-X is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is... including "theism". Simply answer the question. State what it is in existence you are claiming will survive in 150 years, so we can measure its existence empirically.
You continue to evade these basic questions. Because, you have no way to address them without self-contradiction. Self-contradiction usually avoiding by "logicians", except, apparently, ones with as much motivated bias as you. Why so strident in insisting on your own annihilation?
Yes, true, most atheists don't resort to a stream of nonsensical ad hominems in lieu of actually rebutting any points. That is, they aren't direct knowing continual liars.
You are.
I will continue to be successful in my career short term. Long term, you will die off, and we'll collect everything. There is nothing you can do about this.
You didn't answer my question in the other sub-thread. Is there no aspect of evolution you accept?
Worked on a port of an asset management package written in DOS to Windows 3.1 and OS/2 in the early 90's, coding C++ for both.
I remember a sales guy wanted to impress with its multitasking capabilities by running installers of 4 applications at once, with another half-dozen running concurrently. It ground to a swapping halt. Still, using it overall, quite impressive capabilities on that front for the time, probably rivaled only by the Amiga in terms the consumer-level arena. Preferred coding for it over Windows MFC, as well.
Regrettably, by 2005 when working at IBM, I encountered no evidence it had ever existed. Windows and Linux boxes only, and the topic never brought up. Seems that history could have gone quite differently, with the right resources at the right time.
We cannot "die out". Largely because, death has nil effect on us.
I understand you do not accept this. So, for the sake of argument, I am arguing from your worldview. There is absolutely no possibility you won't "die out", according to you yourself. In the unlikely event your worldview expands beyond 50%, it makes no difference. In the final analysis, if nothing else, entropy guarantees you will die out, as an inescapable attribute of your own worldview.
You are stuck on your own quasi-mystical, but in your case ridiculous, notion that somehow you, and every atheist you know, will not die out. That somehow, some "spirit of atheism" surviving means you still exist in contradiction to the direct scientific facts. Every atheist alive today will be dead in 150 years. Fast forward to then, every atheist then alive will be dead in another 150 years. Rinse, repeat.
So what is it you are expecting not to "die out", and what does that have to do with you?
Until you can contend with the fact that contrary to your wishful thinking, "survival of the fittest" means survival of nothing but information, and my metaphysics supports that having actual continuing value, and yours does not, you will get nowhere. You'll stay nowhere until you... die out, as you rabidly choose to every day.
Until then, work on comprehending what "evidence" and "proof" mean, decide if you want the forced conversion logically necessitated by providing the latter to you, and hone those psychic powers of knowing what evidence everyone else on the planet has not received. They may be of some temporary usefulness. Very temporary.
Look, atheism is vastly outnumbered by theism demographically. In conjunction with that, it has even less representation politically.
We are not "dying off". I am limiting myself entirely to your terms, in which case you are a tiny minority protected entirely by -our- norms. By your terms, as the preponderant subculture, there is no reason you can name we shouldn't simply kill you all off to expand our dominance over resources. Be clear here. You live because of our ethical norms, as you try to destroy them. That is why, this isn't even a religious thing--you are an offense to logic and all notions of positive value, objectively, philosophically, with religion or without. You are pure parasite.
There is no "bile" here. These are -your- required conclusions. This is -you-, according to -you-. You simply refuse to draw the logically-required conclusions, temporarily blocking logic and reality from your consciousness, as you know, not as a matter of my opinion, but as objective fact, you should not exist. Thank the grace of theists that you do, for no justification you can name.
I'm not upset in the least. Yes, there's a demographic increase. There's also a demographic increase in failing economies and 35 million deaths due to STD's. Are you suggesting that number of adherents determines what is true?
I do have to ask, because with your circular logic denial that even when presented with peer-reviewed evidence, it isn't evidence because it's theistic, your basic capability to discern what evidence is, is highly dubious. Then you use "evidence" and "proof" interchangably, as if that were valid in any context whatsoever. Yes, we both already know that you will switch your expectations from "evidence" to "proof" precisely to the degree that you can no longer deny there is evidence.
I sincerely hope you are fully aware you are just straight-out lying when you do this. Otherwise, your mind is simply defective. I suppose, I should expect that to be the case due to your claim there is "no evidence" which could only be arrived at by you having psychic powers to review all evidence received to everyone else on Earth, and determine its absence.
You are irrational. You are dishonest. Provably so, by your own words. You will by eliminated, undeniably, by both your worldview and mine. That will be the thoroughly appropriate outcome.
No, it is your position that has no possibility of any outcome but your mass-elimination, according to you. Whatever your demographic percentage may be in 20 years, immediate following result: evolution eliminates every single one of you. It is you who is living in a provable "fairy tale", at least you weren't as pathetic in your statement as Hitchens' final e-mail to his followers, as his own DNA ironically and appropriately ate him, that he'd "be with them in spirit". No, he's just gone, because there is nothing else for him according to everything he argued for.
Slashdot Mirror
"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
Prior art, by about 1800 years.
Does sound more Darwinian than Lamarckian, though, true, and accurately capturing the eventual social controversy. Got to catch them all.
Mainly not a delusion by virtue of being true.
But yes, to state your position accurately, per the DSM, any viewpoint that is held by a majority of one's culture cannot be a "delusion", by definition. This is not limited to religions.
It can be wrong, it cannot be a delusion. Using delusional definitions of "delusion" does not alter this.
Your scope of "as time is passing" seems rather inappropriately restricted.
I assume you mean Copernicus' ideas, and that you're excluding Galileo's ideas of God's existence, which he never repudiated.
And that you're excluding that the same Catholicism has accepted evolution for a long time now.
But other than that.
Fascism is fascism, even when the fascist got the most votes.
Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my mysteries that I tell my mysteries. Do not let your left (hand) know what your right (hand) is doing."
--Thomas
The New Covenant and it's applicability is the entirety of the writings of the Apostle Paul, which constitutes the doctrinal core of the entire New Testament. If there is an issue of who hasn't "seriously studied", that issue isn't mine.
It is indeed the case that the OT Law has been superseded in deference to the methodology Jesus himself stated--"love God and your neighbor as yourself, upon this the entire Law and Prophets hang". Being superseded, however, does not mean its content is discarded as reference, which remains fully valid in determining what should be done, -provided proper contextual application is done-. It "passes away" in no more of a sense than physics "passes away" when we apply its principles to a present-day application.
This, "love God and your neighbor as yourself" is the present-day "meta rule" for which the entire cultural and legal content of the OT is to be read and applied toward. There are numerous specific examples of this Jesus performed, such as rejecting the misapplication by the religious "authorities" of the time demanding that he not rescue an injured animal because it would be "working on the Sabbath". Arguable literal correspondence to the text, complete ignorance of the intent and purpose. Jesus corrected that directly.
It amazes me that anyone with even a child's comprehension of even political documents, such as the U.S. Constitution, still insists on such an obvious False Dichotomy equivalent to "Do you accept the Constitution, or do you reject it entirely by applying it in any way other than how I personally interpret the Constitution's intent?" Stop this erroneous argument. Rejecting that in fact the Constitution is the document defining the U.S. legal and structural system is not in question, nor is there an issue of whether it has "passed away", nor can it be discarded. The question is one of interpretation of how it is to be applied, to a current time and context. If you can grasp that, you can grasp this stance on the OT. I'll assume you need some time to grasp this obviousness, and it isn't just direct intellectual dishonesty when you are discussing the particular topic of the bible, using reasoning you apply to nothing else whatsoever.
It is you who are "cherry-picking", and compounding it with cherry-picking the interpretation you feel is worst.
Jesus said not a "jot or tiddle" would "pass away" until "all was fulfilled". And that he came to fulfill it. Therefore, the Old Covenant was superseded by he New Covenant when he did so, via substitutionary atonement on the cross, that is, when "it is finished". You can claim your view is the mainstream on representing Christianity, but that is merely your inaccurate claim.
Noting that, the OT laws and cultural specifications went a very long way to maintaining a culturally-distinct surviving society under extremely negative conditions. Virtually all other cultures from that time period have ceased to exist. Perhaps, if nothing else, you can acknowledge that these specification have been very effective in a Darwinian or "meme" sense? We'll leave aside the fact that per the only thing you have to judge with, evolution, you have no supportable basis to object to anything. You object to religious norms because of... assimilated religion norms, which you misapply. Your worldview has nothing.
But then, while we're having anachronistic fun with impossible alternate economic and social structures, do you think people living around 0 B.C. should have been entitled to 401k plans, too?
Agreed. Atheism is not a religion, it is nothing, like "off". To be specific, it's a Reification Fallacy. "Not-X" is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is.
Why is it that atheists consistently react so vigorously against someone pointing out what we both agree on, then?
"So... anything else you don't believe in?"
--Robert Downey Jr. as Steve Lopez, The Soloist
Simply going by the evidence. Secular philosophy has been working on some basic objective supportable axioms for morality for 2500 years--still zero consensus among the competing (equally unbacked) models.
Have five atheists write down their "top 5" ethical premises, put them in a hat, and draw them out. There will be a nearly 0% correlation.
So, what we have in practice is a hyper-simplistically rendered single axiom--some variant of the Golden Rule, as directly stolen from theism, and unsupportable -within the context of atheism- as destroyed by a single question... "why is that the correct action, objectively"?
To suggest atheism has, or reasonably can have, an actual consistent moral system is to admit entire ignorance of the field and history. Start simple--with the "is-ought problem". What one should do is not derivable from a description of material existence. Provably so. And that's all your worldview has to derive axioms from.
The evidence of history and logic demonstrates atheism can't, and won't, address ethics in a meaningful way, ever. But that's okay, because that's exactly what you want. An utterly empty and plagiarized pseudo-ethics you can ignore any time you feel like it, while wrapping yourselves in an equally empty claim to having "ethics" that has no actual content other than the mere word itself.
"Destruction of the enemy" is a fools errand intended simply to get people to sacrifice their interests for the "leader's" benefit.
Legitimate response to challenges is producing better and more appealing products. Offering better terms and incentives to the people doing that for you, is the legitimate way to do that. Painting the "others" attempting to do the same as the enemy adds nothing of value.
"But that's not a Platonic Ideal, because your idea of an apple is stored in your brain and is a separate object from mine."
Okay. Seems to me you are just asserting your conclusion. How do you -know- there is not an "ideal apple" toward which our understanding tends toward, apart from a specific (and entirely variable in every brain) neurological representation?
Again, you can take that position--it's very common within the currently-popular material-reductionist paradigm, but that doesn't prove it. Here is a nice introductory-level presentation of the scope of the issue you are addressing.
"No, we don't have the same model of an apple. We both have our own models located in our separate brains. Those models are similar because they were constructed by entities - us - who share almost all of our evolutionary history, about a set of objects - apples - produced by entities - apple trees - which also share almost all of their evolutionary history. While one can speculate about an universal ideal of an apple, such ideal isn't actually necessary to explain the similarities of our models."
Agreed, it isn't necessary, but you've done only handwaving invoking "evolution" in a passingly-specific explanatory way here.
We used to have presentation based on comprehensible, objective metrics.
Like, "most read", or "highest rated".
Now, we get "trending". What exactly is "trending"? Apparently, terminology intended to suggest most followed statistically, but wide open to interjection of whatever subjective criteria or advertising profit the site may wish.
Give me back terms and criteria that mean something. I want my old Internet back.
You are just asserting that it isn't a Platonic Ideal by means of simply saying it isn't.
While your perspective can be maintained, at puts you into the historically alternative Aristotelian position, it does not refute Plato. Ultimately, we interact coherently on the topic insofar as we have the -same- model of "apple", and it is not merely an arbitrary and subjective mental construct. How such models arise, naturally, is a matter of very long-standing discussion.
This argument works better adding in a Platonic notion of ideal Forms.
If you recognize an apple by relative approximation to a definitional "apple" model, then one can argue you could not determine what is and is not an apple without the reference entity actually objectively existing.
Similar here with "greatness", as applied to more mundane entities. But still, a thought experiment, not a proof.
More mainstream would be, say, the universe is designed not to reveal the evidence (more precisely, "proof", as this logically necessitates forced conversion, and there is in fact evidence) to those who are not intended to (yet) have it.
So, it may be "indistinguishable" to you--that does not make it indistinguishable.
Okay, we're clearly at an impasse--claiming peer-reviewed, quantified, eye-witness accounts of what theism predicts being what happens post-death is not evidence, is, well, simply you lying, and/or failing to understand what "evidence" is.
I do hope you resolve your confusion on basic evolutionary theory, and your bizarre notion that abstract concepts have specific genetic representations that can be selected for or against. It does correspond to your overall inability to grasp that scientific materialism is insufficient for a coherent position on your part (as thoroughly demonstrated by the Logical Positivism movement, should you choose to investigate knowing something about it, as a "logician").
I do hope also you come to understand that characterization is not an argument, and call it "fairy tales" as many times as you like, you'll simply demonstrate yourself an incompetent who thinks he can counter evidence and massively greater demographic adherence by silly fiat.
There are no ad hominems, there are only questions you still fail to answer. That's what will remain of this discussion, available for the wider reader, as you are an irrelevancy. I hope you'll fix your nonsensical and self-contradictory worldview. If not, well, others will, and we agree on what awaits you.
No, they are not convoluted nonsense, you are simply evading responding to clear questions in a manner that directly disqualifies you from your self-proclaimed status as a "logician".
To recap:
1. Do you acknowledge a distinction between "evidence" and "proof"?
2. Do you acknowledge the existence of evidence for theism? Peer-reviewed evidence was provided as published in among the most respected medical journals in existence earlier in the thread. Refusing to acknowledge evidence as evidence does not change the definition of "evidence". Having an alternate explanation forwarded for evidence does not make it then non-evidence.
3. By what possible means do you know there is "no evidence" anyone has encountered, as this is tantamount to a claim of psychic powers? A person can know "what happened at the corner of State and Main at 2 AM". It is impossible for anyone to know that nobody knows. In this case and regarding theistic evidence, your claim is directly epistemologically and logically invalid, universally.
4. What difference does it possibly make what the "trend" is? You all die off regardless. You may as well cite a statistical increase in the number of people born with brown eyes. In neither case does it have any effect on the outcomes per our respective worldviews. Invoke your preferred statistic, see if it helps you from your own biological end.
5. Do you acknowledge that there is literally nothing you can reference from a material-reductionist standpoint as something regarding atheism that can "survive"? I'll avoid going down the more direct route of addressing your whole viewpoint as a reification fallacy, "logician", and pointing out that not-X is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is... including "theism". Simply answer the question. State what it is in existence you are claiming will survive in 150 years, so we can measure its existence empirically.
You continue to evade these basic questions. Because, you have no way to address them without self-contradiction. Self-contradiction usually avoiding by "logicians", except, apparently, ones with as much motivated bias as you. Why so strident in insisting on your own annihilation?
Yes, true, most atheists don't resort to a stream of nonsensical ad hominems in lieu of actually rebutting any points. That is, they aren't direct knowing continual liars.
You are.
I will continue to be successful in my career short term. Long term, you will die off, and we'll collect everything. There is nothing you can do about this.
You didn't answer my question in the other sub-thread. Is there no aspect of evolution you accept?
Worked on a port of an asset management package written in DOS to Windows 3.1 and OS/2 in the early 90's, coding C++ for both.
I remember a sales guy wanted to impress with its multitasking capabilities by running installers of 4 applications at once, with another half-dozen running concurrently. It ground to a swapping halt. Still, using it overall, quite impressive capabilities on that front for the time, probably rivaled only by the Amiga in terms the consumer-level arena. Preferred coding for it over Windows MFC, as well.
Regrettably, by 2005 when working at IBM, I encountered no evidence it had ever existed. Windows and Linux boxes only, and the topic never brought up. Seems that history could have gone quite differently, with the right resources at the right time.
So, tell us ahead of time. Does your SO appreciate humor?
We cannot "die out". Largely because, death has nil effect on us.
I understand you do not accept this. So, for the sake of argument, I am arguing from your worldview. There is absolutely no possibility you won't "die out", according to you yourself. In the unlikely event your worldview expands beyond 50%, it makes no difference. In the final analysis, if nothing else, entropy guarantees you will die out, as an inescapable attribute of your own worldview.
You are stuck on your own quasi-mystical, but in your case ridiculous, notion that somehow you, and every atheist you know, will not die out. That somehow, some "spirit of atheism" surviving means you still exist in contradiction to the direct scientific facts. Every atheist alive today will be dead in 150 years. Fast forward to then, every atheist then alive will be dead in another 150 years. Rinse, repeat.
So what is it you are expecting not to "die out", and what does that have to do with you?
Until you can contend with the fact that contrary to your wishful thinking, "survival of the fittest" means survival of nothing but information, and my metaphysics supports that having actual continuing value, and yours does not, you will get nowhere. You'll stay nowhere until you... die out, as you rabidly choose to every day.
Until then, work on comprehending what "evidence" and "proof" mean, decide if you want the forced conversion logically necessitated by providing the latter to you, and hone those psychic powers of knowing what evidence everyone else on the planet has not received. They may be of some temporary usefulness. Very temporary.
Look, atheism is vastly outnumbered by theism demographically. In conjunction with that, it has even less representation politically.
We are not "dying off". I am limiting myself entirely to your terms, in which case you are a tiny minority protected entirely by -our- norms. By your terms, as the preponderant subculture, there is no reason you can name we shouldn't simply kill you all off to expand our dominance over resources. Be clear here. You live because of our ethical norms, as you try to destroy them. That is why, this isn't even a religious thing--you are an offense to logic and all notions of positive value, objectively, philosophically, with religion or without. You are pure parasite.
There is no "bile" here. These are -your- required conclusions. This is -you-, according to -you-. You simply refuse to draw the logically-required conclusions, temporarily blocking logic and reality from your consciousness, as you know, not as a matter of my opinion, but as objective fact, you should not exist. Thank the grace of theists that you do, for no justification you can name.
I'm not upset in the least. Yes, there's a demographic increase. There's also a demographic increase in failing economies and 35 million deaths due to STD's. Are you suggesting that number of adherents determines what is true?
I do have to ask, because with your circular logic denial that even when presented with peer-reviewed evidence, it isn't evidence because it's theistic, your basic capability to discern what evidence is, is highly dubious. Then you use "evidence" and "proof" interchangably, as if that were valid in any context whatsoever. Yes, we both already know that you will switch your expectations from "evidence" to "proof" precisely to the degree that you can no longer deny there is evidence.
I sincerely hope you are fully aware you are just straight-out lying when you do this. Otherwise, your mind is simply defective. I suppose, I should expect that to be the case due to your claim there is "no evidence" which could only be arrived at by you having psychic powers to review all evidence received to everyone else on Earth, and determine its absence.
You are irrational. You are dishonest. Provably so, by your own words. You will by eliminated, undeniably, by both your worldview and mine. That will be the thoroughly appropriate outcome.
Oh, here you go. Every technology you use, and every scientific framework, founded by theists. Looks productive to me.
No, it is your position that has no possibility of any outcome but your mass-elimination, according to you. Whatever your demographic percentage may be in 20 years, immediate following result: evolution eliminates every single one of you. It is you who is living in a provable "fairy tale", at least you weren't as pathetic in your statement as Hitchens' final e-mail to his followers, as his own DNA ironically and appropriately ate him, that he'd "be with them in spirit". No, he's just gone, because there is nothing else for him according to everything he argued for.