Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.

You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.

Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?

Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

Interesting read. However, since I have never attempted to tell anyone else that they should abandon their theistic beliefs, or that being a theist was morally inferior, or, in any other way tried to "convert" anyone to atheism, I don't really see what the article has to do with me.

Every post I have made on this forum has been to defend myself against an attack on my choice to be an atheist.

And whether you want to acknowledge it, or not to tell an entire group that they are intellectually inferior (dead end) is an attack. So, don't bother insisting that you have not attacked anyone. Because the fact is you have. You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't make you innocent; it just makes you dishonest.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

How would someone like you even begin to know what honesty is when you are so clearly self deluded?

See? That's an attack. And unfounded. This would be why I either mock you or ignore you. Because every time I give you the benefit of a respectful answer, you can't help being a dick. Do feel free to fuck off.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I'll bet Czerno is a real nice guy and very intelligent too......in a parallel universe.

 

[Czernobog]

I'll bet Czerno is a real nice guy and very intelligent too......in a parallel universe.

...and fuck off again.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I'll bet Czerno is a real nice guy and very intelligent too......in a parallel universe.

...and fuck off again.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Thank you, I'll do that.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Now that Professor Czerno has given everyone a comprehensive lesson in theoretical quantum physics, we can now say with complete certainty that a parallel universe where God does exist could never be possible.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I don't want you pop culture atheists to spend much time thinking about post #745. You might hurt yourselves.

 

[Tuatara]

Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playing

And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.

Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.

You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.

Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?

Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?
http://www.alternet.org/story/143674/are_the_"new_atheists"_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists

I thought you were talking about people here on this forum. I asked you what post and you told me to read.

Let's take a look at you link, shall we. First I see a lot of mudslinging before any evidence has been given

They are as close minded as they seem to be almost pathologically certain of their beliefs

The New Atheist movement is being led by several egomaniac intolerant fundamentalists

men who discredit whatever they're selling by their tawdry proselytizing and commercial opportunism combined with absurdly big egos and a deadly certainty that they and only they are right

egoistical internet-savvy swami posing in hagiographic photos while collecting birthday greetings and good wishes from his deluded (not terribly bright) followers.

I can see why you like him. The insults come fast and furious. Lets look at his argument shall we.
He talks about Richard Dawkins selling merchandise on his site and then goes into these comments:

Rich also gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “Excellent. Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed I have to order two more.” Another satisfied customer writes, “I love it, but you should really consider offering a Scarlet A necklace.” The next reviewer gives it only four stars, but moving on, Yvonne gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “It looked awesome on my black bag.” Luke gives the pin Five Stars! too and notes, “Great product. I actually turned mine into a pendant by bending the pin and attaching a wire loop.” Then we get back into four star territory: “This is great, but I would much rather have it as a necklace.”

Really??? Is this really worthy of attention for anyone who is trying to assert that Atheists are as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Oh wait, here comes the poison. He then goes on to state: "The comment that most interested me was the one from Rich: “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.” That really brought back the memories."
Again “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”
The whole sentence is double quoted so I'm not sure if the memories part is from Rich or the author of the piece.

There you have it. Atheists are just as bad as Christian Fundamentalists because one Atheist on a Richard Dawkins site back in 2008 stated “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”

So half way through this article The author finally goes after Dawkins. After he throws out tons of more insults of course. Let's look at the first.

But what Dawkins says he’s most proud of is the part of his web-site called “Convert’s Corner” where, as he told Bill Maher in an in-terview on Maher’s TV show in 2008, “You can go and read all the testimonies of people who have been converted!” Then he said, “When I’m on my deathbed I’ll have a tape recorder switched on because people like me are victims of malicious stories after they’re dead of people saying they had a deathbed conversion when they didn’t.” Maher looked a bit puzzled, so Dawkins explained that he suspects creationists may already be plotting to do this to him and pointed out that “they now claim Darwin had a deathbed conversion.”

Dawkins is correct about this. I have actually seen it in many of his debates. People also claimed Hitchens would have a deathbed conversion. He didn't. I remember myself on a few Creationist sites that they claimed Darwin had a deathbed conversion. So what Dawkins is saying is true. Why is the author even talking about this?

Let's see what happens next.

When Maher asked Dawkins about The God Delusion, Dawkins said little about the book’s content but exclaimed, “It’s sold a million and a half copies!” Then Maher, like an enthusiastic puppy scampering around a big dog, yelped, “And now it’s in paperback, it will be even more available!” Maher paused to take a breath then added, “I’m your biggest fan!” Then Dawkins, slipping into his rock star mode, explained that he has so many fans because “I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”

First of all, let's get rid of the quote mining. Maher' s exact words were "Thanks for joining us and I don't have to tell you how big a fan I am" The colorful language and jabs really shows a lot of immaturity with this author also. Dawkins is asked why the success with his book and he comments that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens books have similar sales and then responds with "“I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”
How is that comment in any way shape or form similar to being as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

I could post some quotes by these Fundamentalists
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” -Richard Furman
“Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.” –Jimmy Swaggart
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." -Jerry Falwell
“Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” –Rev. Joseph Morecraft

2 quotes by Ted Hagger
“We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.”
“A fantasy of mine is to have an orgy with about six young college guys ranging from 18 to 22 in age.”

So you think Richard Dawkins and other Atheists are on par with Christian Fundamentalists?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.

Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.

You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.

Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?

Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?
http://www.alternet.org/story/143674/are_the_"new_atheists"_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists

I thought you were talking about people here on this forum. I asked you what post and you told me to read.

Let's take a look at you link, shall we. First I see a lot of mudslinging before any evidence has been given

They are as close minded as they seem to be almost pathologically certain of their beliefs

The New Atheist movement is being led by several egomaniac intolerant fundamentalists

men who discredit whatever they're selling by their tawdry proselytizing and commercial opportunism combined with absurdly big egos and a deadly certainty that they and only they are right

egoistical internet-savvy swami posing in hagiographic photos while collecting birthday greetings and good wishes from his deluded (not terribly bright) followers.

I can see why you like him. The insults come fast and furious. Lets look at his argument shall we.
He talks about Richard Dawkins selling merchandise on his site and then goes into these comments:

Rich also gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “Excellent. Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed I have to order two more.” Another satisfied customer writes, “I love it, but you should really consider offering a Scarlet A necklace.” The next reviewer gives it only four stars, but moving on, Yvonne gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “It looked awesome on my black bag.” Luke gives the pin Five Stars! too and notes, “Great product. I actually turned mine into a pendant by bending the pin and attaching a wire loop.” Then we get back into four star territory: “This is great, but I would much rather have it as a necklace.”

Really??? Is this really worthy of attention for anyone who is trying to assert that Atheists are as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Oh wait, here comes the poison. He then goes on to state: "The comment that most interested me was the one from Rich: “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.” That really brought back the memories."
Again “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”
The whole sentence is double quoted so I'm not sure if the memories part is from Rich or the author of the piece.

There you have it. Atheists are just as bad as Christian Fundamentalists because one Atheist on a Richard Dawkins site back in 2008 stated “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”

So half way through this article The author finally goes after Dawkins. After he throws out tons of more insults of course. Let's look at the first.

But what Dawkins says he’s most proud of is the part of his web-site called “Convert’s Corner” where, as he told Bill Maher in an in-terview on Maher’s TV show in 2008, “You can go and read all the testimonies of people who have been converted!” Then he said, “When I’m on my deathbed I’ll have a tape recorder switched on because people like me are victims of malicious stories after they’re dead of people saying they had a deathbed conversion when they didn’t.” Maher looked a bit puzzled, so Dawkins explained that he suspects creationists may already be plotting to do this to him and pointed out that “they now claim Darwin had a deathbed conversion.”

Dawkins is correct about this. I have actually seen it in many of his debates. People also claimed Hitchens would have a deathbed conversion. He didn't. I remember myself on a few Creationist sites that they claimed Darwin had a deathbed conversion. So what Dawkins is saying is true. Why is the author even talking about this?

Let's see what happens next.

When Maher asked Dawkins about The God Delusion, Dawkins said little about the book’s content but exclaimed, “It’s sold a million and a half copies!” Then Maher, like an enthusiastic puppy scampering around a big dog, yelped, “And now it’s in paperback, it will be even more available!” Maher paused to take a breath then added, “I’m your biggest fan!” Then Dawkins, slipping into his rock star mode, explained that he has so many fans because “I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”

First of all, let's get rid of the quote mining. Maher' s exact words were "Thanks for joining us and I don't have to tell you how big a fan I am" The colorful language and jabs really shows a lot of immaturity with this author also. Dawkins is asked why the success with his book and he comments that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens books have similar sales and then responds with "“I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”
How is that comment in any way shape or form similar to being as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

I could post some quotes by these Fundamentalists
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” -Richard Furman
“Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.” –Jimmy Swaggart
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." -Jerry Falwell
“Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” –Rev. Joseph Morecraft

2 quotes by Ted Hagger
“We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.”
“A fantasy of mine is to have an orgy with about six young college guys ranging from 18 to 22 in age.”

So you think Richard Dawkins and other Atheists are on par with Christian Fundamentalists?

Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists? Maybe not. He merely provides superficial pop culture atheists with the impression of having a persuasive argument. Clearly atheists are every bit as intolerant as anyone else.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Here are some typical examples of the kind of idiots spawned by the likes of Dawkins.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Let's see if I can help you atheist scholars with your problem. Assuming you can learn.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Atheists need lots of help.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Statistically atheists tend to be more dull and boring than the average per capita.

 

[sealybobo]

Of course you are afraid of death. Normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises.

Dumb is spending your workday blogging from work. Predictable surprises await.

Of course I'm not afraid of death. Because there is nothing to be afraid of. Are you afraid of death?

And how about those theoretical physics you keep referring to. Have you seen a parallel universe lately? You must have because how could they be possible otherwise.

You really don't think these things through, do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Feel free to elaborate professor. This should be good.

Nah. I'm having more fun watching you expose your ignorance. By all means, don't let me stop you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Im glad you aren't elaborating for someone who's not even listening to you. Don't jump through his hoops.

 

[rdean]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Because magical creation and "Noah's Ark" as literal history are so very intellectual.

 

[sealybobo]

You must tell us how you managed it, sometime...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What do you mean? It can't exist if you didn't know about it. Right?

You're the one talking about stupidworld. I thought, based on your posts, you we're telling us all where you're from.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Of course if parallel universes don't exist, and mainstream theoretical physics are bull shit, then there couldn't possibly be anything besides what you see. Someone should let Michio Kaku know about your astounding conclusions.

Not my conclusions.

Suddenly so neutral. I wonder why?

It's your turn to pontificate your illusions

 

[sealybobo]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Because magical creation and "Noah's Ark" as literal history are so very intellectual.

And without those fables they have nuthin

 

[sealybobo]

Let's try listening to a reasonable, intelligent atheist explain why you're having this problem with communication. Maybe he can be a model for how your arguments should be constructed, but only if you want them to be compelling and interesting arguments.

I think it is you that should listen to him. Not once have I've seen Sam Harris degrade his opponents. You have instigated this several times here.

While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side. Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.

I don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.

It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..

You still need to

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.

I don't disagree with CA. Atheists don't have beliefs per se. They have arguments against others having beliefs. God can no more be creation than a painter can be a painting. Looking for proof of God's existence won't be found in the natural world as God is a supernatural being who is not part of our space and time. Atheists require scientific proof of God's existence. That just isn't possible. The best we can do with science is to study what He has created and use that as indirect evidence for His existence. Atheists reject that concept. They argue that we cannot assume that God exists before we can use what He has created as evidence. The problem with that is that it is exactly backwards. That's not even how science works. Science begins by making observations and then formulating an idea of why it is the way it is and then they test that. Atheists on the other hand refuse to test its validity and instead use critical theory arguments to criticize what they don't believe to validate what they do believe. Which by the way can never be proven in the way they want because God is a supernatural being. They have a false belief that they are being critical thinkers but they are not. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you do believe to test its validity. So... atheists don't have beliefs (i.e. critical thinking). They have arguments (i.e. critical theory) against the beliefs of others, but in no way do they have a belief system that they can test. The reality is that believing or not believing is based on a leap of faith. Interestingly enough, the definition of faith is having trust in something. Atheists have trust in nothing.

Atheists have trust in reason. If I told you the dog down the street told me to shop at Walmart, you and hopefully everyone else would believe I was crazy... or hallucinating, or I was on drugs. But if a holy book talks about a snake or a donkey that talks people don't even give it a second guess. Now I'm not saying every Christian takes all of the bible literally but many do.

And if the talking snake isn't true neither is the virgin birth

 

[sealybobo]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

For the historic record, here's where mischaracterizations begin. Post # 70. False and misleading assumptions based on conjecture. When did I mention God?

You keep saying " when did I mention God". Isn't he what the thread is about?

 

[sealybobo]

I'll bet Czerno is a real nice guy and very intelligent too......in a parallel universe.

And this one

 

[hobelim]

No, whatever preacher influenced you as a child told you to just believe. Thats not what I am suggesting.

I am not saying for you to just believe in God and then you will feel good. I am not suggesting that you must join a religion or accept the existence of God without any evidence. That would be a scam.

Obviously your mind has been affected by your experiences with religion. You say you will never believe in God absent of evidence. I wouldn't either. You say you work on what you observe but then dismiss my suggestion to purify your thoughts so that you might actually be capable of observing evidence of God.


As a scientist would you conduct an experiment to determine the truth of something without first sterilizing and calibrating the instruments that will be used to test the theory and measure the results?

Can a scientist rely on any conclusion based on what was seen through a filthy lens?


Purify your mind and you will see God, not as a figment of an unrestrained imagination but as a living being whose existence is absolute.

That's just it; evidence either exists, or it doesn't. It doesn't require a pure heart to be seen. I don't need a pure heart, or mind, to see the evidence of gravity. I need only drop a ball. I can be as pure as a saint, or as vile as a paedophile, and the evidence will be exactly the same.

Nothing that requires the "right mind-set" to experience is real, nor objective. Guess what? If I take the right drugs I'll hear God's voice. That isn't real, either.

Either God exists, and there is objective evidence to support that claim, or he doesn't, and there isn't.

And if such objective evidence exists, that means, by definition, that it is observable by everyone, period. Full stop. Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your logic is impeccable except you haven't included in your speculations that for a living being to qualify as God it would have to be incorporeal. Microscopes, telescopes, test tubes and beakers are consequently worthless.

For a human being to accurately perceive that which is incorporeal he would have to purify what is incorporeal in him, the conscious mind.

For everyone to have hold of objective evidence everyone would just have to stop screwing up each others minds.

Its a jungle out there.....Get real.

There's another word for what you are descibing - imagined. Gracvity is "incorporeal" as you put it. There is nothing to see, touch,taste, or smell. Yet, it is possible to observe gravity in action. It is posible to test for the existence of gravity, and to repeat the effects of gravity, and no "purity of spirit" necessary. Either a thing exists, or it doesn't. If it only exists for those "in the right mind-set" then it isn't real; it is the product of one's imagination.

No, gravity is not incorporeal. Gravity is a force directly related and connected to matter in the material universe.

Let me put it this way. If a person wants to understand calculous, they must apply their mind to learn it. If a person does not do what is necessary to learn, they will never understand calculous.

Only those who do, will. Its as simple as that.


In the same way I told you the way to prepare your mind in order to be capable of seeing God.. If you do not take the steps necessary God will remain hidden from you,not because he is not there, but because you have chosen to remain blind.

I see this all the time from theists. It complete BS. Most atheists were at one time religious. Some of them believed in God for many years. So now tell me, especially after you know now this, who has chosen to remain blind?

who has chosen to remain blind?

Apparently many believers and unbelievers alike who continue to argue with each other over what scripture is not about.