Irrational Atheists
-
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.
-
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.
-
From the cliff notes It seems I agree with him, Except exchange "christians" for "anyone who actually believes there is an omnipotent being"
-
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.
Aww poor Ilion, getting so angry and defensive whenever someone talks about atheism. It must be too much for your little mind to bear to think about going through life not believing in a sky-daddy lovingly watching over you, that's the only thing that gives meaning to your pitiful life.
Ilíon wrote:
Nevertheless, the question you need to face has to do with what you're going to do about *your* irrationality.
Haha you're trying as hard as you can and all you manage to come up with are the same empty claims that you have been repeating, almost word for word, for the last several months. :laugh: Jesus must be embarrassed by you if he does exist.
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
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
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
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.
No offense, but this isn't it and you know it. I'm Catholic, and Christian theology in public life is predominately Protestant. There is much in recent history to support bad blood between our sects, yet I don't get upset at the idea of some sliver of Protestant theology making its way into the lives of kids. Because I know that I can take them to Mass and they forget all about it. A ten-minute talk with your kids, one time, would head all of the attempted religious indoctrination off at the pass. What you're upset about is the implication by religious people that you are lacking. That you are evil. News flash: you probably are lacking and you probably are evil. If you're not, then get over it. Life is too short to worry about whether or not some person you've never met thinks you're going to imaginary Hell.
-
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
Ilíon wrote:
However, I demonstated that he is an idiot.
There's your delusions of grandeur again. :laugh:
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
Not only did I read and understand it, I largely agree with it. However, there is a huge difference between me agreeing with it and the universe agreeing with it.
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.
In the first few paragraphs he imposes his own, incorrect, definition of Christianity, entirely fails to define the God he's talking about, obviously becuase he can't but that's another matter and then uses an argument domain transition to invalidate an argument which imposes an implicit limit on the definition he has failed to give. Sucha limit being in direct contradiction with the sense of the argument he's trying to invalidate. (i.e he's using an unstated false definition of God to undermine an argument about God based on an entirely different definition) No further reading is necessary to determine that the man is a self deluded fool quite happy to redefine and requilify the entire universe in relation to his own ideas and then make utterly meaningless declarations about his belief or otherwise in an idea that he made up in the first place. :doh: Why would anyone care further what he thinks. :rolleyes:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
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.
No offense, but this isn't it and you know it. I'm Catholic, and Christian theology in public life is predominately Protestant. There is much in recent history to support bad blood between our sects, yet I don't get upset at the idea of some sliver of Protestant theology making its way into the lives of kids. Because I know that I can take them to Mass and they forget all about it. A ten-minute talk with your kids, one time, would head all of the attempted religious indoctrination off at the pass. What you're upset about is the implication by religious people that you are lacking. That you are evil. News flash: you probably are lacking and you probably are evil. If you're not, then get over it. Life is too short to worry about whether or not some person you've never met thinks you're going to imaginary Hell.
You made good points, but the matter goes even deeper and exposes (once again) the *irrationality* and illogic of the 'atheist' (generic) ... and also exposes the fact that he (generic) doesn't merely "lack belief that there is a God," that he is not indifferent to the issue; that, in fact, he (generic) is every bit the "theist" that you and I are, but that he hates God, whereas you and I are trying to love God. Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children [ignoring the small matters: 1) that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness, 2) it's *impossible* to force anyone to be a Christian]. For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter. From their *own* claimed point of view we see that it is an act of irrationality to oppose *any* religion (per se). Apparently, they don't believe what they believe.
-
In the first few paragraphs he imposes his own, incorrect, definition of Christianity, entirely fails to define the God he's talking about, obviously becuase he can't but that's another matter and then uses an argument domain transition to invalidate an argument which imposes an implicit limit on the definition he has failed to give. Sucha limit being in direct contradiction with the sense of the argument he's trying to invalidate. (i.e he's using an unstated false definition of God to undermine an argument about God based on an entirely different definition) No further reading is necessary to determine that the man is a self deluded fool quite happy to redefine and requilify the entire universe in relation to his own ideas and then make utterly meaningless declarations about his belief or otherwise in an idea that he made up in the first place. :doh: Why would anyone care further what he thinks. :rolleyes:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
... No further reading is necessary to determine that the man is a self deluded fool quite happy to redefine and requilify the entire universe in relation to his own ideas and then make utterly meaningless declarations about his belief or otherwise in an idea that he made up in the first place.
As I'm constantly pointing out, our 'atheists' are *illogical* and *irrational* -- and they like it that way. To more simply summarize the idea expressed in the part of your post I didn't quote: "Nearly every 'atheist,' when he tries to present an argument against God, produces an argument against Zeus, and then declares himself done."
-
You made good points, but the matter goes even deeper and exposes (once again) the *irrationality* and illogic of the 'atheist' (generic) ... and also exposes the fact that he (generic) doesn't merely "lack belief that there is a God," that he is not indifferent to the issue; that, in fact, he (generic) is every bit the "theist" that you and I are, but that he hates God, whereas you and I are trying to love God. Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children [ignoring the small matters: 1) that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness, 2) it's *impossible* to force anyone to be a Christian]. For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter. From their *own* claimed point of view we see that it is an act of irrationality to oppose *any* religion (per se). Apparently, they don't believe what they believe.
Ilíon wrote:
Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children
So since atheists do not believe in God, they should not care that children are forcibly indoctrinated to believe in God? Excellent argument!
Ilíon wrote:
he (generic) is every bit the "theist" that you and I are, but that he hates God, whereas you and I are trying to love God.
You are literally unable to comprehend that someone could not believe in God, but yet you imagine yourself to be logical, and imagine yourself to win debates with atheists. You are absolutely pathetic and laughable. :laugh:
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
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
Ah yes, here comes the little peep from the peanut-gallery apologist crowd. Good job, thanks for coming out. Don't call us, we'll call you.
-
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.
Ilíon wrote:
Why I Am Not A Christian (Cliff's Notes Version) by Bertrand Russell Christians are stoopid! The End.
Looks like you're trying as hard as you can to prove him right.
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion