Irrational Atheists
-
Russell?
AndyKEnZ wrote:
If there is an educated response provide the link and I'll read it.
Right! :rolleyes: Since Russell didn't say anything new, and since you 'atheists' (and quite explicitly your "New Atheism" pretend arguments) still are but recycling Russell, you might try reading the book you can download for free at: The Irrational Atheist[^] This book isn't about converting you to Christianity; it's about demonstrating the vacuousness of the "arguments" you folk like. And, if it make you feel any better, Vox Day has his own irrationality (as do we all) ... he is, or at least thinks he is, a libertarian. Nevertheless, the question you need to face has to do with what you're going to do about *your* irrationality.
Ilíon wrote:
vacuousness of the "arguments" you folk like.
If god exists he is unknowable, and if he doesnt he is unknowable, so you might as well live and believe he doesnt exists since it makes no difference. Personally, I see no evidence at all there is a god in the sense of a benign, powerfull, wise over lord. Justice and compasion are man made. There could be some form of life energy which we are part of and which we share with everything around us. But there is only suspicion but no proof of it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Russell?
AndyKEnZ wrote:
If there is an educated response provide the link and I'll read it.
Right! :rolleyes: Since Russell didn't say anything new, and since you 'atheists' (and quite explicitly your "New Atheism" pretend arguments) still are but recycling Russell, you might try reading the book you can download for free at: The Irrational Atheist[^] This book isn't about converting you to Christianity; it's about demonstrating the vacuousness of the "arguments" you folk like. And, if it make you feel any better, Vox Day has his own irrationality (as do we all) ... he is, or at least thinks he is, a libertarian. Nevertheless, the question you need to face has to do with what you're going to do about *your* irrationality.
Why don't you answer Ravel in the thread below? I thought not.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
From 'The Irrational Atheist'... "I don’t care if you go to Hell. God does, assuming He exists, or He wouldn’t have bothered sending His Son to save you from it. Jesus Christ does, too, if you’ll accept for the sake of argument that he went to all the trouble of incarnating as a man, dying on the cross, and being resurrected from the dead in order to hand you a Get Out of Hell Free card." and this cobblers is supposed make me recant and accept that you have a clue? It's risible. Why is it that atheists are quite happy for you to believe in your god nonsense but we can't not-believe? How very selfish and unchristian of you.
Whoa.. the idiot called you an idiot. That's easily worth 20 notches on the IQ scale. :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Russell?
AndyKEnZ wrote:
If there is an educated response provide the link and I'll read it.
Right! :rolleyes: Since Russell didn't say anything new, and since you 'atheists' (and quite explicitly your "New Atheism" pretend arguments) still are but recycling Russell, you might try reading the book you can download for free at: The Irrational Atheist[^] This book isn't about converting you to Christianity; it's about demonstrating the vacuousness of the "arguments" you folk like. And, if it make you feel any better, Vox Day has his own irrationality (as do we all) ... he is, or at least thinks he is, a libertarian. Nevertheless, the question you need to face has to do with what you're going to do about *your* irrationality.
It is rather typical of humanist eliteism to assume that the universe, which has not yet revealed itself to even be understandable to the human mind, is some how obligated to conform to the rationality of Russell. I should think that a truly rational mind would be capable of tolerating the notion that the universe is not so obligated.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Couldn't help smile when a I saw some dolt call atheists irrational, perhaps they should read this: http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html[^] Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell If there is an educated response provide the link and I'll read it.
-
Only read the first few sentences ... it's interresting that he calls Musulmans "Mohammedans"; as a direct comparison to Christians instead of Catholics.
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
-
Whoa.. the idiot called you an idiot. That's easily worth 20 notches on the IQ scale. :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Whoa.. the idiot called you an idiot.
No idiot called him an idiot. However, I demonstated that he is an idiot. Or, at any rate, that he is more than willing to act the idiot. And that's really the same thing, isn't it? If you could think, you'd not constantly find yourself having these problems
-
It is rather typical of humanist eliteism to assume that the universe, which has not yet revealed itself to even be understandable to the human mind, is some how obligated to conform to the rationality of Russell. I should think that a truly rational mind would be capable of tolerating the notion that the universe is not so obligated.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
You have either x) not read it or y) completely misunderstood it.
You know, I know, we all know that *you* would never accept this as the response to or refutation of your God-hatred. But then, you people "do" neither logical nor intellectual consistency.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Whoa.. the idiot called you an idiot.
No idiot called him an idiot. However, I demonstated that he is an idiot. Or, at any rate, that he is more than willing to act the idiot. And that's really the same thing, isn't it? If you could think, you'd not constantly find yourself having these problems
Answer Ravel instead, fool.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
You have either x) not read it or y) completely misunderstood it.
You know, I know, we all know that *you* would never accept this as the response to or refutation of your God-hatred. But then, you people "do" neither logical nor intellectual consistency.
Ilíon wrote:
your God-hatred
How can one harbor hatred for something in which one does not believe?
-
Answer Ravel instead, fool.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Answer Ravel instead, fool.
That post is actually funny if you read it in Mr. T's voice. :laugh:
-
Ilíon wrote:
your God-hatred
How can one harbor hatred for something in which one does not believe?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
How can one harbor hatred for something in which one does not believe?
Now, perhaps, you begin to understand why I generally write 'atheist,' rather than atheist (i.e. with the quote marks rahter than without). Clearly, most of the so-called atheists one encounters (and emphatically here at CP) do, in fact, hate God. Look at it this way: I don't believe Ganesh exists. But I'm wholly indifferent to Ganesh. The same cannot be said of our 'atheists' -- they are generally more obsessed with God than are most of the people who claim to believe in God.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
How can one harbor hatred for something in which one does not believe?
Now, perhaps, you begin to understand why I generally write 'atheist,' rather than atheist (i.e. with the quote marks rahter than without). Clearly, most of the so-called atheists one encounters (and emphatically here at CP) do, in fact, hate God. Look at it this way: I don't believe Ganesh exists. But I'm wholly indifferent to Ganesh. The same cannot be said of our 'atheists' -- they are generally more obsessed with God than are most of the people who claim to believe in God.
Ilíon wrote:
Clearly, most of the so-called atheists one encounters (and emphatically here at CP) do, in fact, hate God.
I don't think I've ever seen hatred directed toward God. That seems kind of silly. I mean, from their point of view, what has an imaginary being ever done to them? No, I see the antipathy displayed almost exclusively as contempt directed at believers who, again and again, promote their faith as rational, ignoring the fact that, if it were fundamentally supported by rational thought, it would require no faith.
Ilíon wrote:
Look at it this way: I don't believe Ganesh exists. But I'm wholly indifferent to Ganesh. The same cannot be said of our 'atheists' -- they are generally more obsessed with God than are most of the people who claim to believe in God.
I suspect that has somewhat more to do with the fact that no one is trying to encourage your kids to pray to Ganesh in school.
modified on Friday, February 22, 2008 10:14 AM
-
The man starts out his foreword by laying *his* cards on the table ... so that they can then be ignored because they are irrelevant to his topic ... and you imagine it's a "Gotcha!" What an absolute idiot you are.
He's basing his arguments on circular reasoning: I expect more of you and if the best you can do to retort is to call me an idiot then I pity any religion that would have you as a member.
-
He's basing his arguments on circular reasoning: I expect more of you and if the best you can do to retort is to call me an idiot then I pity any religion that would have you as a member.
Day is not engaging in circular argumentation. Though, he does expose an amazing amount of it coming from the "New Atheiets."
digital man wrote:
if the best you can do to retort is to call me an idiot then I pity any religion that would have you as a member.
Oh! You poor thing! You *act* like an idiot ... would you rather I call you a liar? because, after all, intellectual dishonesty *also* quite well explains the content of your post ... and then want to whine when I point it out?
-
J4amieC wrote:
my ADD wont allow me to read all that... is there cliff notes?
Why I Am Not A Christian (Cliff's Notes Version) by Bertrand Russell Christians are stoopid! The End.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
You have either x) not read it or y) completely misunderstood it.
You know, I know, we all know that *you* would never accept this as the response to or refutation of your God-hatred. But then, you people "do" neither logical nor intellectual consistency.
-
Day is not engaging in circular argumentation. Though, he does expose an amazing amount of it coming from the "New Atheiets."
digital man wrote:
if the best you can do to retort is to call me an idiot then I pity any religion that would have you as a member.
Oh! You poor thing! You *act* like an idiot ... would you rather I call you a liar? because, after all, intellectual dishonesty *also* quite well explains the content of your post ... and then want to whine when I point it out?
I tell you what, let's just ignore each other: I thought you were getting rational but you're not. Shame: have a nice life and I hope your god walks with you.