Wouldn't that make a god, bipolar?

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wouldn't that make a god, bipolar?

The god that's talked about in the bible certainly is manic, and prone to severe mood swings.

He comes off as a petulant tyrannical infantile.

What's with all his out of control rage issues?

He'd get arrested in this world.

 

And he would be a piss poor designer of anything practical.

Is that why he's supposedly jealous of other gods?

Because he just couldn't measure up in comparison?

So he'd create a band of fanboys and groupies that elect him #1?

 

Ya, that's some champ.

Whadda hero!

 

If he wanted his creations to follow a pattern, why would he design in a mechanism that could arbitrarily override his original pattern?

Just so he could get pissy over something?

That's retarded.

 

Ya, talk about working in 'mysterious' ways.

 

Is that an apologists euphemism for being drunk, or retarded?

What a drama queen.

Who would want to put up with that ch1t, let alone sign up for that?

 

And why is it that he wouldn't be able to control his emotions, and just 'get over it', when we do what we like?

What would have been his issue?

 

We didn't ask to be born, and we certainly didn't ask for free will. So why get pissy over something he would have been responsible for making us have?

As Hitchens says, "Of course I have free will. I had no choice!"

 

And if he gave us a gift (life), why would he want something in return?

Isn't "It's better to give than receive" supposed to be a virtue ?

 

Why justification for being petty, and wanting something in return, would he have?

 

That's not doing something out of the goodness of your heart.

 

It doesn't sound like he would actually have much heart at all.

 

The dude sounds like he'd have a lot of anger, some real dysfunction going on, and severe control issues.

 

And where would he get off on hurting people that aren't strong enough to put up a fight?

He'd be beating up on women and children?

Real tough guy.

Sound like he'd be a complete fcuking douchebag.

 

It sounds like this dude would be completely out of control, of his emotions, and actions.

 

Things that we humans are supposed to learn to control.

Sound like he would have been able to learn to be more 'human', and that he should take guidance from us.

And apologize to all of us for being so despicable, and all the insane ch1t he'd have done to us.

 

I don't think he'd be man enough.

 

He really would need to piss off, and leave the minions alone, if he were real. And I'm glad he's not, and just a fairy tale.

They could use some better role models.

 

Why aren't those minions looking at how we (humans) are infinitely better 'beings' than a freak like that would be?

WTF?

 

Glad he's not real.

That would be a nightmare...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
I have noticed

I have noticed that there are so many kinds of contradiction to any type of god belief, that it can get almost humorous to watch all the little loopholes and tricks that theists will come up with to explain all of the gaps. Which in itself is a contradiction, because most theists say that god is a mystery and unknowable, yet they provide all these explanations to fit their unknowable mystery.

The biblical type of theists are pretty easy to refute since all of their holy scripture contradicts itself and their only explanation to me for this has always been " Well, your just reading it all wrong,". Hmm, so it doesn't say what it really says ?

Comically enough, there are no shortage of people that tell me the bible is the absolute word of god, but when I bring up some really evil cruelty on the part of their god, I get 'Well, that is in the Old Testament,". Ahh, I see, so the Old Testament is no good, right ? So you admit that one half of the bible is totally useless for deciding morals. Oddly enough, the Ten Commandments that Christians swear by as the cornerstone for society, is in the Old Testament.

The "spiritual but not religious" theists are just as bad if not worse at times. I have encountered a few that honestly need to put the dope down and stop priding themselves on being great visionaries for having all of these supposedly clever little explanations for why god behaves the way that he does.

The other night, I was watching this documentary on the Black Metal scene that exploded in Sweden and Norway back in the 1990's.

I am watching one of these musicians going on and on about "God is within the lifeforce of things, god is in nature, I am god and the devil encompassed". OH GIVE ME A BREAK ! I wanted to yell at the tv, your just trying to come up with some sort of original spin idea for a ridiculously stupid concept. Get real.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 I'm a closet fan of Anne

 I'm a closet fan of Anne Rice (ya ya, I'm lame).  About the jealous god thing, I think it was her that was implying that gods literally feed off of worship.  I'm thinking of 'Servant of the Bones'.  So in order for a God like being to survive, they must have people worshiping them.  I found it an interesting idea, and a well drawn conclusion of the 'jealous god' statement.  She also had some interesting ideas about immortality and I found her a good writer.  

So much time wasted, reading hers and Stephen King's books, I will never get back.  Oh well, we all have our regrets.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: I'm a closet

Ktulu wrote:

 I'm a closet fan of Anne Rice (ya ya, I'm lame).  About the jealous god thing, I think it was her that was implying that gods literally feed off of worship.  I'm thinking of 'Servant of the Bones'.  So in order for a God like being to survive, they must have people worshiping them.  I found it an interesting idea, and a well drawn conclusion of the 'jealous god' statement.  She also had some interesting ideas about immortality and I found her a good writer.  

So much time wasted, reading hers and Stephen King's books, I will never get back.  Oh well, we all have our regrets.

I used to be a pretty huge fan of Anne Rice as well back in the day. The Vampire Chronicles, the Mayfair Witches, Ramses and the Servant of the Bones were all really great books. At least, they were for me at that time. I don't know how I would approach a work like Memnoch the Devil if I were to pick it up today.

But her facebook page has gone starkly insane.

Woman posts all sorts of deists/universalist nonsense all of the time.

I do somewhat miss the Anne Rice that gave us the concept of Lestat and his "Savage Garden". But she went from being supposedly Atheist, then after the death of Stan Rice she went ultra-religious, and now she is on this kick of " God is all but I hate organized religion".

Please Anne, sit back down at the typewriter and give us some godless stories of vampires that love some and kill others again already.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I used

harleysportster wrote:

I used to be a pretty huge fan of Anne Rice as well back in the day. The Vampire Chronicles, the Mayfair Witches, Ramses and the Servant of the Bones were all really great books. At least, they were for me at that time. I don't know how I would approach a work like Memnoch the Devil if I were to pick it up today.

But her facebook page has gone starkly insane.

Woman posts all sorts of deists/universalist nonsense all of the time.

I do somewhat miss the Anne Rice that gave us the concept of Lestat and his "Savage Garden". But she went from being supposedly Atheist, then after the death of Stan Rice she went ultra-religious, and now she is on this kick of " God is all but I hate organized religion".

Please Anne, sit back down at the typewriter and give us some godless stories of vampires that love some and kill others again already.

I always try to make a distinction between the person and the artist.  It's a lot more difficult with an author because so much of their belief system is exposed in their work.  I don't doubt she's a nutcase, but I like the way she writes.  I try not to have any 'idols' anyways, and it has nothing to do with the bible Smiling.  It's just a realization that we are all individuals and as a sum, almost all the same.  I may admire what some people have accomplished or a certain trait, but I aways stop short of admiring the individual.  It's one of the reason's I never really 'got' pop culture.  I never understood people's fascination with celebrities of any kind.  As a kid I found it very curious and had to fake it most times just to fit in.  "Remember, we're all unique, just like snowflakes"  -Demotivational poster.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I started reading CS Lewis'

I started reading CS Lewis' Space Trilogy', but the final volume, "That Hideous Strength", was one of the few novels I actually failed to finish, because the Christian theology that inspired much of the plot became just too obtrusive, to me at least, for my 'suspension of critical faculties' , a necessity for Sci-Fi and Fantasy works, to be maintained.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I try to make a

Ktulu wrote:

I try to make a distinction between the person and the artist.  It's a lot more difficult with an author because so much of their belief system is exposed in their work.  I don't doubt she's a nutcase, but I like the way she writes.  I try not to have any 'idols' anyways, and it has nothing to do with the bible Smiling.  It's just a realization that we are all individuals and as a sum, almost all the same.  I may admire what some people have accomplished or a certain trait, but I aways stop short of admiring the individual.  It's one of the reason's I never really 'got' pop culture.  I never understood people's fascination with celebrities of any kind.  As a kid I found it very curious and had to fake it most times just to fit in.  "Remember, we're all unique, just like snowflakes"  -Demotivational poster.

I agree on that one.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I started

BobSpence1 wrote:

I started reading CS Lewis' Space Trilogy', but the final volume, "That Hideous Strength", was one of the few novels I actually failed to finish, because the Christian theology that inspired much of the plot became just too obtrusive, to me at least, for my 'suspension of critical faculties' , a necessity for Sci-Fi and Fantasy works, to be maintained.

Last Christmas, I had my sister visiting with her two children, my niece and nephew.

I offered to take them to a movie at one point and allowed the kids to pick the show.

Of course, they picked The Voyage of Dawn Treader, the film adaptation of Lewis's book.

I noticed the young kid character that everyone is supposed to dislike was the kid that scorned make-believe and following made-up imaginary friends.

He was the "bad" kid that needed to learn the so-called lesson.

While I said nothing to anyone else about this, I was sitting there shaking my head and semi-chuckling at a sly bit of Lewis propaganda.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
 The reason I started this

 

The reason I started this thread, was after noticing all the theist scholars would dissect these ancient writings to the last word, and still completely miss the boat, on the overall big picture. They can't see the forest for the trees, to put it poetically.

 

The horror aspect of the bible, and the contrast between the 'messages' in it's allegory, always made the book comical to me, when contrasted with the 'in the final analysis' morals of the story.

It's a cognitively dissonant 'good cop/bad cop' routine, with one character being both. So, god would be a split personality.

And then they want to talk about 'opening up your heart to god'.

 

The irony in that advice is comical.

If one had an uncle like this god, I'd hope my parents would keep the nutjob away from me.

I guess the double irony for me, is that the writers of these books, weren't very bright in defining their characters, and then attempting to make the hero, the very same one as the master villain.

 But then again, we have to keep in perspective what the intelligence level among the population was back a few thousand years ago.

If you look at some Bell curves for modern 21st century industrialized nations, you'll see that roughly 33% of the population is in the IQ range of 85-100.

13% of the population is in the 70-85 IQ range. And over 2% is in the range considered mentally challenged, between 55-70 IQ.

So, if you sum those percentages up, that's 48% of people in a modern industrialized nation, with a government mandated school system to make literate, and educate children, that find themselves in the lower end of the IQ scale.

Imagine what the distributions would have looked like back 2000 yrs ago, and imagine how low the levels of general knowledge of simple things, the vastness of the world these people had no clue about, and factor in the highly superstitious nature of the cultures back then.

It's no wonder that the contradictions and dissonances with reality of the books written, were not that critical of an issue.

I mean, take a continent like Australia, with it's very unique animal kingdom. Imagine if these Jews ever saw Australian wildlife, or an Asian panda, or a someone were to show up with a Komodo dragon?

They'd freak.

They'd think they were shapeshifting demons or something.

So, in that context, I can fully understand everyday average people thinking that these books had truth in them.

And to some degree, I can even understand average preschool children being convinced, if they were exposed to these stories. Especially when they're introduced as 'historical' accounts.

But, being believable to adults of the 20th and 21st centuries?

It's quite a phenomena.

Imagine what the history books in the 30th century will make of the 20th and 21st century cultures and religion, based on poor comic book fantasies still being perpetuated 2000 yrs after they were written.

I mean, do any theists think Spiderman could actually exist?

He's much more plausible than a god would could be a creator of the universe.

 

Could the atheists who began as theists contribute to perhaps sharing how they came about being convinced that these stories were authentically historic and viable, in order to shed some light for me?

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I started reading CS Lewis' Space Trilogy', but the final volume, "That Hideous Strength", was one of the few novels I actually failed to finish, because the Christian theology that inspired much of the plot became just too obtrusive, to me at least, for my 'suspension of critical faculties' , a necessity for Sci-Fi and Fantasy works, to be maintained.

Last Christmas, I had my sister visiting with her two children, my niece and nephew.

I offered to take them to a movie at one point and allowed the kids to pick the show.

Of course, they picked The Voyage of Dawn Treader, the film adaptation of Lewis's book.

I noticed the young kid character that everyone is supposed to dislike was the kid that scorned make-believe and following made-up imaginary friends.

He was the "bad" kid that needed to learn the so-called lesson.

While I said nothing to anyone else about this, I was sitting there shaking my head and semi-chuckling at a sly bit of Lewis propaganda.

 

This is a ridiculously common meme in Hollywood.  Science is bad, technology is a tool for evil, those who doubt are flawed, those who have faith are heroic.  Children's movies and adult stuff.  It isn't usually overtly religious, but it encourages religion in a back handed way.  The assumptions of dualism combined with individualism, maybe.

 

Even stuff I really enjoy, like Star Wars, has that message.  Honestly that is one of the things I love about Star Trek...the absence of overt faith, outside of the 'faith' that humans could overcome obstacles.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Could the

redneF wrote:

Could the atheists who began as theists contribute to perhaps sharing how they came about being convinced that these stories were authentically historic and viable, in order to shed some light for me?

Well, you're taught from birth.  What chance does a kid have?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:redneF

mellestad wrote:

redneF wrote:

Could the atheists who began as theists contribute to perhaps sharing how they came about being convinced that these stories were authentically historic and viable, in order to shed some light for me?

Well, you're taught from birth.  What chance does a kid have?

 

To elaborate on that, you might be assuming there is some sort of overt thought process involved.  There isn't.  Typically you are taught things at such a young age they become axioms central to your identity.  If you begin to doubt or ask questions those surrounding you will bury you with rationalizations and justifications and all of them are terribly easy to latch on to.  Remember that at the core theism is an emotional argument.  Who doesn't want to be immortal?  Who doesn't fear death?  When you are raised as a theist you also typically have assumptions about the nature of God, you have assumptions about dualism, you have no rigorous idea about critical thinking...it isn't a one time thing either.  It is often constant.  I was indoctrinated all day long throughout my entire school-age life.

Plus there is enormous social pressure to conform and be a 'good person'.

 

Religion as a meme is brutally effective, even for the intelligent people.  That is one of the reasons I have a more moderate tone, because I understand the process, I've been there.  Religious people aren't any more stupid than atheists, they are just in the throes of powerful indoctrination.  If you went back in time and snatched them away from their mothers at birth and transplanted them to a place where they could get a good education and be raised without all the theism, they'd be fine.

---------------------------

As far as how I 'got out of it'...I don't know.  I'd like to think it was a rational process but it might be more innate than that.  I remember being in grade school when I 'accepted Jesus into my heart'.  This acceptance came about by my teachers leading us in group prayer with that being a punch-line.  I remember seeing the words and feeling...nothing.  The fact that this was not a wondrous experience was a surprise to me and I was maybe...7 years old?

I still believed though.  I'd have nightmares about Hell.  I would pray to God for help when in distress.  I'd feel extreme guilt about 'sinning'.  I remember being panicked when my brother did something I thought was wrong and being pretty much in tears...I think I told him, "what are you doing, you might go to Hell!" or something like that and he just blew me off...I was distraught about that.  I wasn't terribly devout though, mainly because I was never diligent about anything when I was a kid.  I didn't have overt doubts though, it never occurred to me that God might not exist.  Not once, that I can remember.  I was a very intelligent kid though, always asking questions.  Being around me must have been exhausting, I was always asking, "Why?"  "Why?"  "Why?"

Once I hit my upper-teens I started to have real doubts.  Not about God or dualism mind you, but about the nature of theism as it had been taught to me.  I'd never read any counter-apologetics or apologetics but I remember having very emotional arguments with friends about my instinctive take on the problem of evil and the concept of Hell.  I remember being confused about certain aspects of moral law.  If I had brought this stuff up with someone skilled in apologetics I might never have become an atheist...I doubt I could have dealt with obscure and twisting word-games.  Needless to say, everything was, "Why?" "Why?"  "Why?"  No-one had answers that satisfied me.

Eventually I became very disenfranchised with the Christian God and I started researching other religions, trying to be objective.  The objective part is what killed me.  The more I studied the more I realized they all looked the same.  I remember looking into Wicca at one point and although I really liked the ethics of it and I was very, very attracted to the rituals (I grew up as Lutheran and I loved fantasy stories), the magic...well, it was absurd.  It was *all* absurd.  Every time I investigated a religion it just turned into bullshit and unfounded assumptions.

 

So, I started thinking maybe it isn't possible to know.  I became an agnostic and that started a new round of research, but now I was reading the real stuff.  Apologetics, counter-apologetics, all that jazz...real heavy stuff I'd never even heard of.  I'd read something anti-religious then I'd go find the counter-argument, back and forth, back and forth.

The first real atheist website I can remember visiting was http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ I remember reading through it and 'discovering' that there were other people who had the same doubts and thoughts as me.  It was amazing.

Eventually, I self identified as an atheist.  I was still very passionate about studying the arguments though...I'm guessing it is because I still have leftover thought patterns from theism.  I still catch myself sometimes, and if I want to I can 'think like a theist'.  I don't like to though...it feels good, then it feels horrible, if that makes sense.

 

I started debating theists, both strangers and a few friends.  I honestly don't remember how I found the RRS.

 

This whole process took a long time.  Ten years maybe?  Agnostic-theist probably took a year or two.  It wasn't a fun journey.  I'm far happier now though.  As my sig says, life, the universe and everything makes a lot more sense now.

---------------

TL;dr--  Somehow, I got the idea in my head that the things people were telling me didn't make sense.  Somehow, I started researching theistic claims with a skeptical eye.  Somehow I had a passion for learning that drove me to research even when it was highly unpleasant emotionally.

I really don't know why my thinking process was different from that of my peers.  My brother is a deist because he's too lazy to go the extra mile.  He thought about it one day, decided there was no personal God, and past that he doesn't care so he never pushed any further.  Maybe that means there is a genetic component that makes us more skeptical.  Maybe all the hard sci-fi I read did it.  Maybe that initial surprise when I was 7 years old was a seed that took hold somewhere deep.  Maybe my dad unwittingly taught me more about being open-minded than he did about religion.  Maybe it was because although I feared God, I never 'loved' God (Hmm).  I've thought about it a lot, but I can't pin down any one thing.  Maybe there is no one thing.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for that, mellestad.I

Thanks for that, mellestad.

I have little doubt that former theists are so forthcoming, that it will resonate with theists who struggle with the inconsistencies in the scriptures, and how science is providing more and more evidence that we are not, in fact, 'designed' by an intelligence, at all, and that we did evolve by mutation from simpler origins, and by natural selection, to more complex forms.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: This is a

mellestad wrote:

 

This is a ridiculously common meme in Hollywood.  Science is bad, technology is a tool for evil, those who doubt are flawed, those who have faith are heroic.  Children's movies and adult stuff.  It isn't usually overtly religious, but it encourages religion in a back handed way.  The assumptions of dualism combined with individualism, maybe.

 

Even stuff I really enjoy, like Star Wars, has that message.  Honestly that is one of the things I love about Star Trek...the absence of overt faith, outside of the 'faith' that humans could overcome obstacles.

I have noticed that as well. What amazes me these days is how many people actually fall for the whole "faith" message in Hollywood films.

I can't remember the name of the movie, but there was a line where actor Michael Caine says " Believe in something, it does not have to be real, just BELIEVE in it,". The girl that I was dating at the time told me that the line gave her goosebumps because it was so good. Needless to say, she thought I was being real negative when I said that I thought that would be a horrible way to live your life. I told her I only spoke from experience.

Funny, the current person that I live with loves that medical tv drama House. Our hero Dr. House is a very cynical, misanthropic, hard-core dude with no real belief in anything other than "logic". (Ahh yes, believing only in reality makes one so mean and miserable right ? Laughing out loud ) But every so often,  they have to throw in some silly "miracle" episode where "faith in spiritual nonsense" proves itself to be beyond logic and reason and our "hero" House is supposed to be left without an answer. SIGH.

I have noticed that this seems to be a more prevalent type of meme in Hollywood and American television  than other countries. I am lucky enough to have access to loads of international cinema through Netflix and find that these types of themes do not seem to occur as much in European and Asian cinema.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Thanks for

redneF wrote:

Thanks for that, mellestad.

I have little doubt that former theists are so forthcoming, that it will resonate with theists who struggle with the inconsistencies in the scriptures, and how science is providing more and more evidence that we are not, in fact, 'designed' by an intelligence, at all, and that we did evolve by mutation from simpler origins, and by natural selection, to more complex forms.

It will inevitably be offset by atheists, such as Antony Flew, converting to belief in God--despite the supposed 'inconsistencies' in the scriptures, or the supposed scientific evidence for naturalism, or the evidence for evolution.

I find your post to be incredibly rude, and it just makes atheists look like petulant little children.  If you really want to advance your position, then you need to be respectful.  Otherwise, you do nothing more than perpetuate the commonly perceived notion that atheists are just angry recalcitrant twits.

From what I can see, all you are doing is dressing up and pretending that your Christopher Hitchens--whose material, mind you, is hardly sophisticated or scholarly.  Perhaps you should read some Bertrand Russell, or Quentin Smith.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:  Could the

redneF wrote:

  

Could the atheists who began as theists contribute to perhaps sharing how they came about being convinced that these stories were authentically historic and viable, in order to shed some light for me?

 

Kinda like Mellestad was stating, I was born into it and never knew of anything outside of theistic thinking for much of my life.

To be perfectly honest, science was always so heavily scorned and put down by the "faithful" in the congregations that I grew up in, that I never thought to really question that.

Whenever I expressed curiousity about history, I was always told " My boy, the scientists would have you to believe that we are all here by accident, look around you, does this complex world looked like it could have all happened by accident ?,".

Now, of course that is a childish argument, but for a small child, that made so much sense that I never thought too deeply about it afterward.

I was pretty much indoctrinated from childhood up to believe in the scriptures, dislike knowledge for that was an enemy to the faith, and see anyone that questioned the faith as "someone that did not want to serve god" . I was taught that so much, that it was almost like an inherent reaction to anything outside of the faith to avert, dislike and hate it.

Had it not been for so much personal tragedy and suffering in my life that NONE of the priests, the cult-like family, the so-called friends or anyone else could provide answers to, I sometimes wonder if I could have ever broken free of that delusion.

My religion taught penance, suffering, more penance, more suffering and after that, even more penance and suffering. I spent hours and hours and hours praying and pleading and begging. All to no avail of course because there was nothing there listening.

THEN, when bad things continued to happen, I was told that this was god's way of punishing me for my doubts, this was god's way of testing my faith.

For a long time after leaving the church, there really was not much rational thought behind the idea of god. I simply hated the word and anyone that associated with it.

So I went for that whole New Age Mumbo-Jumbo stuff (kinda like what Mellestad was referring to earlier). I found nothing at the bottom of that stuff. All I found was a bunch of lost people ferverently hoping that the universe was filled with some sort of loving energy, here to protect us all of the time. Utter bunk.

It finally occurred to me that the whole thing was useless.

It was actually the scientific community of mainstream Atheists like Dawkins and Stenger that perked my interests enough to start cracking open the science books and looking for explanations.

What I read there just made so much sense to me, I could not believe that I could have ever swallowed the nonsense that had been preached to me my whole life.

The most important thing that I have ever learned from deconversion, was to never accept assertions and dogmatic crap as an absolute. Simply because someone is espousing it does not make it so.

I no longer think of faith as a virtue at all. I think of it as a poison.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Thanks for that, mellestad.

I have little doubt that former theists are so forthcoming, that it will resonate with theists who struggle with the inconsistencies in the scriptures, and how science is providing more and more evidence that we are not, in fact, 'designed' by an intelligence, at all, and that we did evolve by mutation from simpler origins, and by natural selection, to more complex forms.

It will inevitably be offset by atheists, such as Antony Flew, converting to belief in God--despite the supposed 'inconsistencies' in the scriptures, or the supposed scientific evidence for naturalism, or the evidence for evolution.

I find your post to be incredibly rude, and it just makes atheists look like petulant little children.  If you really want to advance your position, then you need to be respectful.  Otherwise, you do nothing more than perpetuate the commonly perceived notion that atheists are just angry recalcitrant twits.

From what I can see, all you are doing is dressing up and pretending that your Christopher Hitchens--whose material, mind you, is hardly sophisticated or scholarly.  Perhaps you should read some Bertrand Russell, or Quentin Smith.

 

 

I've always thought you need both voices.  Mockery works, but you need overwhelming mockery.  When a person can return to the shelter of a peer group then mockery probably just reinforces belief.

 

Why do people bring up Flew so much?  He became a deist who didn't believe in an afterlife and started stumping for intelligent design.  Deism is just atheism-light and intelligent design is just silly in light of what we know.  I would hope there are better converts to hold as an example.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:It will

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

It will inevitably be offset by atheists, such as Antony Flew, converting to belief in God--despite the supposed 'inconsistencies' in the scriptures, or the supposed scientific evidence for naturalism, or the evidence for evolution.

Which proves absolutely nothing

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I find your post to be incredibly rude, and it just makes atheists look like petulant little children.  If you really want to advance your position, then you need to be respectful.  Otherwise, you do nothing more than perpetuate the commonly perceived notion that atheists are just angry recalcitrant twits.

Yet you have not offered one single rebuttal of his post, your just using ad hominems and strawmen

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

From what I can see, all you are doing is dressing up and pretending that your Christopher Hitchens--whose material, mind you, is hardly sophisticated or scholarly.  Perhaps you should read some Bertrand Russell, or Quentin Smith. 

Perhaps you should learn to actually formulate some sort of argument if you are in disagreement with what he is saying, other than ridiculing and ad hominems. Who is really being petulant, sulky and childish here ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:I find

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I find your post to be incredibly rude

I don't care about your petulant emotions.

So, sharing them with me, is moot.

I'm immune to indignation. The hackneyed (appeal to emotion ) "look at the 'boo boo' you did to my poor wittle heart, you big bad meany".

If you're this emotionally fragile, put a helmet on, and get on the short bus.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
...and it just makes atheists look like petulant little children. 

Having the balls to speak my mind in front of people, no matter what their little 'freak outs' are going to be, idicates that I was way more 'adult' than many adults, even when I was a child.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
If you really want to advance your position, then you need to be respectful. 

No, you're quite mistaken.

Stuff your condescending sermons and lecturing where the sun don't shine, and use them on someone who feels beneath you. I'll never be that person.

I was properly educated. Not indoctrinated.

I don't have to do anything of the sort.

Respect is something you earn from people.

I'm not trying to earn respect. I'm not concerned with winning your vote.

I don't care about you, at all. You're miniscule to me, as an individual.

Insignificant.

Stop being butthurt about you're not getting respect from people, to me.

I don't care about people who's only apparent skill is whining, b1tching and moaning.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Otherwise, you do nothing more than perpetuate the commonly perceived notion that atheists are just angry recalcitrant twits.

It's incredibly ignorant ( retarded, basically) to assert that non believers have anything in common with each other but not (drinking the koolaid) adopting a god delusion.

That's like grouping people who don't eat peanut butter because they're allergic to peanuts, and trying to project that they 'feel' angry and are 'recalcitrant', and 'twits' for not eating peanut butter.

How ignorantly, and myopically bigoted you are.

You're a militant fool, basically.

Go drink some more koolaid.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
From what I can see, all you are doing is dressing up and pretending that your Christopher Hitchens--whose material, mind you, is hardly sophisticated or scholarly. 

You're free to put down the koolaid, and put away your pathetic hackneyed knee jerk petulance, and demolish me in a debate with your sophisticated intelligence, anytime you're ready to, Sherlock Shakespeare.

I made some observations about how mentally and emotionally unstable a christian god would be, if he were as written about in ancient literature.

Debate me.

Man up, boy...

 

Bring it.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I've always

mellestad wrote:

I've always thought you need both voices.  Mockery works, but you need overwhelming mockery.  When a person can return to the shelter of a peer group then mockery probably just reinforces belief.

Why do people bring up Flew so much?  He became a deist who didn't believe in an afterlife and started stumping for intelligent design.  Deism is just atheism-light and intelligent design is just silly in light of what we know.  I would hope there are better converts to hold as an example.

Actually, deism is the complete antithesis of atheism; deists believe in God, atheists do not.  So it is just silly to claim that Flew is somehow closer to atheism than he is to theism.  Anyway, more converts:

Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, Edith Stein, and Alister McGrath.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I find your post to be incredibly rude

I don't care about your petulant emotions.

So, sharing them with me, is moot.

I'm immune to indignation. The hackneyed (appeal to emotion ) "look at the 'boo boo' you did to my poor wittle heart, you big bad meany".

If you're this emotionally fragile, put a helmet on, and get on the short bus.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
...and it just makes atheists look like petulant little children. 

Having the balls to speak my mind in front of people, no matter what their little 'freak outs' are going to be, idicates that I was way more 'adult' than many adults, even when I was a child.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
If you really want to advance your position, then you need to be respectful. 

No, you're quite mistaken.

Stuff your condescending sermons and lecturing where the sun don't shine, and use them on someone who feels beneath you. I'll never be that person.

I was properly educated. Not indoctrinated.

I don't have to do anything of the sort.

Respect is something you earn from people.

I'm not trying to earn respect. I'm not concerned with winning your vote.

I don't care about you, at all. You're miniscule to me, as an individual.

Insignificant.

Stop being butthurt about you're not getting respect from people, to me.

I don't care about people who's only apparent skill is whining, b1tching and moaning.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Otherwise, you do nothing more than perpetuate the commonly perceived notion that atheists are just angry recalcitrant twits.

It's incredibly ignorant ( retarded, basically) to assert that non believers have anything in common with each other but not (drinking the koolaid) adopting a god delusion.

That's like grouping people who don't eat peanut butter because they're allergic to peanuts, and trying to project that they 'feel' angry and are 'recalcitrant', and 'twits' for not eating peanut butter.

How ignorantly, and myopically bigoted you are.

You're a militant fool, basically.

Go drink some more koolaid.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
From what I can see, all you are doing is dressing up and pretending that your Christopher Hitchens--whose material, mind you, is hardly sophisticated or scholarly. 

You're free to put down the koolaid, and put away your pathetic hackneyed knee jerk petulance, and demolish me in a debate with your sophisticated intelligence, anytime you're ready to, Sherlock Shakespeare.

I made some observations about how mentally and emotionally unstable a christian god would be, if he were as written about in ancient literature.

Debate me.

I have come to the conclusion that you are posting all of this from the computer lab at the mental institution; is this the thanks you give them for allowing them to have your straight jacket off?

Anyway, what would you like to debate about?  


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Is this what you consider a

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I have come to the conclusion...

Do you come to conclusions in a sophisticated manner? Or just by sheer imagination?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that you are posting all of this from the computer lab at the mental institution

What actual evidence would there be of any of that being reality?

It sounds like a false assertion, and a simple ad hominem.

Those aren't considered sophisticated.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

...is this the thanks you give them for allowing them to have your straight jacket off?

This is an inference out of your imagination, and your fantasy.

And an insult.

Nothing sophisticated about that.

Any retarded person can do that. Just like becoming religious.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Anyway, what would you like to debate about?  

Evidence for the existence of a god, of course.

 

 

Are your posts what you consider sophisticated debate?

Are you able to provide a sophisticated debate, or are you only willing to run your mouth?

 

I'm challenging you, and any and all theists, to a sophisticated debate.

Will (any or all of) you accept?

.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I've always thought you need both voices.  Mockery works, but you need overwhelming mockery.  When a person can return to the shelter of a peer group then mockery probably just reinforces belief.

Why do people bring up Flew so much?  He became a deist who didn't believe in an afterlife and started stumping for intelligent design.  Deism is just atheism-light and intelligent design is just silly in light of what we know.  I would hope there are better converts to hold as an example.

Actually, deism is the complete antithesis of atheism; deists believe in God, atheists do not.  So it is just silly to claim that Flew is somehow closer to atheism than he is to theism.  Anyway, more converts:

Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, Edith Stein, and Alister McGrath.

 

In definition?  Sure.  In pragmatic reality?  Hardly.  If you want to argue your point on a technicality, that's fine.  I suppose I should expect that from your username.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Actually, deism is the complete antithesis of atheism; deists believe in God, atheists do not.  So it is just silly to claim that Flew is somehow closer to atheism than he is to theism.  Anyway, more converts:

Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, Edith Stein, and Alister McGrath.

Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority and appeal to accomplishment fallacies.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Actually, deism is the complete antithesis of atheism; deists believe in God, atheists do not.  So it is just silly to claim that Flew is somehow closer to atheism than he is to theism.  Anyway, more converts:

Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, Edith Stein, and Alister McGrath.

Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority and appeal to accomplishment fallacies.

Show me where I did any of those things.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Do you come to

redneF wrote:

Do you come to conclusions in a sophisticated manner? Or just by sheer imagination?

Via the idiocy of your posts (though I'm torn between idiocy and lunacy--if the latter, then I apologize for being so insensitive).

Quote:
Evidence for the existence of a god, of course.

Okay.  

Would you agree that if I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then I will have presented sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

 

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

...

Would you agree that if I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then I will have presented sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

 

 

No because you can come up with rational premise which makes the conclusion  rational but not a proof or necessarily true. I posted this elsewhere and will do so here. Plantinga is acknowledged the leading Christian philosopher of this era.

 

Plantinga does not think his ontolgical argument proves God.  He believes his argument is rational and therefore believes it is rational to speak of god.

Plantinga himself agrees: the “victorious” modal ontological argument is not a proof of the existence of a being which possesses maximal greatness. But how, then, is it “victorious”? Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion.” (Plantinga (1974, 221)).

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Via the

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Via the idiocy of your posts

Another ad hominem, and an assertion without a sophisticated analysis.

You're drole...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
(though I'm torn between idiocy and lunacy--if the latter, then I apologize for being so insensitive).

I don't require any apology.

You can call me any name in the book. It doesn't matter to me.

In the real world, I have people much more intelligent than you for breakfast, and can decide their fates to a great degree.

I can fire them, and get them fired, and sent home to boo hoo into their bibles looking for a way to feed their automaton children.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Okay.  

Would you agree that if I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then I will have presented sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

You don't make the rules, boy.

I do.

A simple yes or no, is all that's required.

Take your chances, if you have the courage of your convictions, and the confidence you project that you are able to distinguish between a sophisticated argument, and an intellectually retarded one.

I will single handedly debate any, and all theists.

You can come up with your own arguments, anyone who you otherwise respect, or quote from any of the most well known apologetics, on the 'proof' that a god exists.

I will debate any 'arguments'.

I don't care who makes the 'arguments'.

 

Will you be the first to rise up to the challenge, or are you going to continue to try and justify your reluctance to do so?

Simple questions.

I'd like simple answers.

Bring it...

 

.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

TGBaker wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

...

Would you agree that if I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then I will have presented sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

 

 

No because you can come up with rational premise which makes the conclusion  rational but not a proof or necessarily true. I posted this elsewhere and will do so here.

That was not my question.  My question pertained to a deductively valid argument whose premises are true--not merely 'rational'.

But to follow up on what you said, are you claiming that your standard for sufficient evidence is 100% absolute certainty?  

 


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Via the idiocy of your posts

Another ad hominem, and an assertion without a sophisticated analysis.

You're drole...

That your posts are idiotic is a matter of fact.  Labeling them as such is not ad hominem anymore than it is ad hominem for Simon Cowell to tell some deluded singer that she cannot sing.

Quote:
You don't make the rules, boy.

I do.

I did not put forward any rules.  I simply asked you a question.

Do you have an answer?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Via the idiocy of your posts

Another ad hominem, and an assertion without a sophisticated analysis.

You're drole...

That your posts are idiotic is a matter of fact.  

To present only your opinion as a 'fact', is not only dishonest, but demonstrates that you arbitrarily use incompatible words, interchangeably, which undermines your analysis of what you qualify as a sophisticated argument.

That's intellectually retarded.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Labeling them as such is not ad hominem anymore than it is ad hominem for Simon Cowell to tell some deluded singer that she cannot sing.

I'm sure you're convinced that this is analogous to your previous vacuous claims.

Which is the reason I can easily alter the course of the lives of people much more intellectually sophisticated than you, and put people I want, in their position.

So, continue dreaming. It makes it easier for people like me, to put people like you where you belong. At the bottom of the rung.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I did not put forward any rules.  

Of course not, you were not in control.

I was.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I simply asked you a question.

No.

You're throwing a red herring in to cover up the fact that you are attempting to evade my challenge to you for a sophisticated debate.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Do you have an answer?

I answered you.

I told you that you could take your chances.

 

Now answer me.

Will you debate me?

Yes, or no.

 

Or continue with your reluctance to do so?

I'm even stacking the deck in your favour, as I will debate you, and any other theist, or theistic arguments, single handedly.

Yes, or no, are the only options that you need to consider to the question I ask, if you are willing to debate me.

 

Which one?

Yes?

No?

.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Actually, deism is the complete antithesis of atheism; deists believe in God, atheists do not.  So it is just silly to claim that Flew is somehow closer to atheism than he is to theism.  Anyway, more converts:

Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, Edith Stein, and Alister McGrath.

Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority and appeal to accomplishment fallacies.

Show me where I did any of those things.

Simply because certain famous people have converted to religion or theism fails to prove that religion is true.

Simply using famous names is an attempt to do the above mentioned fallacies. Look up their meanings and you'll see exactly what I mean.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

...

Would you agree that if I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then I will have presented sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

 

 

No because you can come up with rational premise which makes the conclusion  rational but not a proof or necessarily true. I posted this elsewhere and will do so here.

That was not my question.  My question pertained to a deductively valid argument whose premises are true--not merely 'rational'.

But to follow up on what you said, are you claiming that your standard for sufficient evidence is 100% absolute certainty?  

 

The premise of Plantinga is logically true. The conclusion is not necessarily true in the sense of a real world in that the possible world in which the entity exists may not exist.

  1. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
  2. (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness

I guess define what you mean by true... in a scientific sense?, historical sense? Where was I claiming my standard for sufficient evidence to be 100% absolute certainty?  It certainly should be in the realm of believable, clear and convincing,  testable. I was long influenced by Robert Almeder's Blind Utopian Realism: An Essay on Human Knowledge and Science.  In philosophy you can create all sorts of constructs and systems that hold up as true but do not correspond to the real world. I'll take science over philosophy and theology any day.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Via the idiocy of your posts

Another ad hominem, and an assertion without a sophisticated analysis.

You're drole...

That your posts are idiotic is a matter of fact.  Labeling them as such is not ad hominem anymore than it is ad hominem for Simon Cowell to tell some deluded singer that she cannot sing.

Quote:
You don't make the rules, boy.

I do.

I did not put forward any rules.  I simply asked you a question.

Do you have an answer?

You made the claim that you could argue for and prove god. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate where Atheism fails. Either demonstrate this or I will take the road to the famous Hitchens quote : That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Actually, deism is the complete antithesis of atheism; deists believe in God, atheists do not.  So it is just silly to claim that Flew is somehow closer to atheism than he is to theism.  Anyway, more converts:

Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, Edith Stein, and Alister McGrath.

Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority and appeal to accomplishment fallacies.

Show me where I did any of those things.

Simply because certain famous people have converted to religion or theism fails to prove that religion is true.

I never said that it did.

Quote:
Simply using famous names is an attempt to do the above mentioned fallacies. Look up their meanings and you'll see exactly what I mean.

I know the meanings of fallacies; I have a degree in philosophy.  So your claim is that by simply mentioning the names, I am trying to prove that religion is true because they converted from atheism?  Exactly how did you make that inference?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:That

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

That your posts are idiotic is a matter of fact.  Labeling them as such is not ad hominem anymore than it is ad hominem for Simon Cowell to tell some deluded singer that she cannot sing.

 

Nope, not the same thing at all. You are making assertions and attacks but thus far have not presented any evidence to refute any of redneF's statements. Therefore, you are only arguing through attacks and ridicule. You are not stating a subjective opinion.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I did not put forward any rules.  I simply asked you a question.

Do you have an answer?

Either provide some evidence that your assertions are true or they will just be dismissed by me as another baseless claim not worth paying attention to.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I guess define

TGBaker wrote:

I guess define what you mean by true...

There is no ambiguity here; 'true' only has one meaning, and it ranges over science, history, philosophy, mathematics, sociology, and so on.  Please do not make silly requests.

Quote:
Where was I claiming my standard for sufficient evidence to be 100% absolute certainty?

My original statement was a question; I asked the original poster if he would accept as sufficient evidence a sound argument concluding that God exists.  In response, you said that it would not be sufficient evidence because premises that are rational are not necessarily true.  Ignoring the fact that this does not even address my question, I would assume by that statement that you do not accept as sufficient evidence premises that are merely rational.  So your only other option seems to be 100% absolute certainty.  Feel free to clarify what you meant.

Quote:
 In philosophy you can create all sorts of constructs and systems that hold up as true but do not correspond to the real world. I'll take science over philosophy and theology any day.

Um, no.  If, in philosophy, you construct a sound argument where the conclusion is, say, 'there are stars in the sky'.... then it necessarily follows that, in the real world, there are stars in the sky.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:I know

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I know the meanings of fallacies; I have a degree in philosophy.  So your claim is that by simply mentioning the names, I am trying to prove that religion is true because they converted from atheism?  Exactly how did you make that inference?

A degree in philosophy, wow. I am real impressed.

You made the assertion originally that by one Atheist converting it would "offset" anything. Then you threw out more names a few posts later. What were you attempting to do ? How was it relevant to the topic at hand ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Nope,

harleysportster wrote:

Nope, not the same thing at all. You are making assertions and attacks but thus far have not presented any evidence to refute any of redneF's statements. Therefore, you are only arguing through attacks and ridicule. You are not stating a subjective opinion.

It's not an assertion.  I guarantee that if I printed out his posts and displayed them to a few people off the street, they would conclude either that this guy is a mental patient, or he is a recalcitrant little punk.

Quote:
Either provide some evidence that your assertions are true or they will just be dismissed by me as another baseless claim not worth paying attention to.

I'm trying to assess his standards of evidence, which is why I posed the question.  It was not at all unreasonable to ask if he would accept a sound argument concluding God's existence as proof.  If someone demands evidence for God, then I think it is reasonable to ask... 'Would you accept X as evidence?'


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I know the meanings of fallacies; I have a degree in philosophy.  So your claim is that by simply mentioning the names, I am trying to prove that religion is true because they converted from atheism?  Exactly how did you make that inference?

A degree in philosophy, wow. I am real impressed.

You made the assertion originally that by one Atheist converting it would "offset" anything. Then you threw out more names a few posts later. What were you attempting to do ? How was it relevant to the topic at hand ?

That was in response to his initial assertion regarding converts to atheism.  It was meant to show that his position could easily be reversed.  Moreover, I did not mention one atheist, or two atheists, and so forth.  You are now just putting words in my mouth.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:A

harleysportster wrote:

A degree in philosophy, wow. I am real impressed.

I'm sure you jest.

His real talents are in hackneyed theist filibustering, red herrings, ad hominens, equivocations, intentionally becoming obtuse, arbitrarily dismissive, trolling, cowardice, and most of all, insecurity. 

IOW, a typical, garden variety theist, who like to posture and run his mouth, and then cower when challenged.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I guess define what you mean by true...

There is no ambiguity here; 'true' only has one meaning, and it ranges over science, history, philosophy, mathematics, sociology, and so on.  Please do not make silly requests.

Quote:
Where was I claiming my standard for sufficient evidence to be 100% absolute certainty?

My original statement was a question; I asked the original poster if he would accept as sufficient evidence a sound argument concluding that God exists.  In response, you said that it would not be sufficient evidence because premises that are rational are not necessarily true.  Ignoring the fact that this does not even address my question, I would assume by that statement that you do not accept as sufficient evidence premises that are merely rational.  So your only other option seems to be 100% absolute certainty.  Feel free to clarify what you meant.

Quote:
 In philosophy you can create all sorts of constructs and systems that hold up as true but do not correspond to the real world. I'll take science over philosophy and theology any day.

Um, no.  If, in philosophy, you construct a sound argument where the conclusion is, say, 'there are stars in the sky'.... then it necessarily follows that, in the real world, there are stars in the sky.

 

I think I pointed out there is a distinction between logical truths and actual truths.  Do you really have a degree in philosophy?  Um, no you can construct a sound argument and it not entail the real world.  Zeno's paradoxes still haunt your supposed discipline.  Modal logic can construct all sorts of true statements about possible worlds.  Some might even supervene on the real world.  I answered your question but I guess it did not sink in.... 

The premise of Plantinga is logically true. The conclusion is not necessarily true in the sense of a real world in that the possible world in which the entity exists may not exist.

  1. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
  2. (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness

I guess define what you mean by true... in a scientific sense?, historical sense? Where was I claiming my standard for sufficient evidence to be 100% absolute certainty?  It certainly should be in the realm of believable, clear and convincing,  testable. I was long influenced by Robert Almeder's Blind Utopian Realism: An Essay on Human Knowledge and Science.  In philosophy you can create all sorts of constructs and systems that hold up as true but do not correspond to the real world. I'll take science over philosophy and theology any day.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: It's

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 

It's not an assertion.  I guarantee that if I printed out his posts and displayed them to a few people off the street, they would conclude either that this guy is a mental patient, or he is a recalcitrant little punk.

Look at what we have here, another assertion. You are still using ignorantium ad populum if your using " a few people of the street" to prove what is right or wrong. What if you showed it to five members of the Westboro Baptist Church ? Would that make those five correct ?

 

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I'm trying to assess his standards of evidence, which is why I posed the question.  It was not at all unreasonable to ask if he would accept a sound argument concluding God's existence as proof.  If someone demands evidence for God, then I think it is reasonable to ask... 'Would you accept X as evidence?'

A sound argument is not evidence. It is just a philosophical exercise. Philosophy falls pretty flat in the face of raw empirical scientific data.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:That

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

That was in response to his initial assertion regarding converts to atheism.  It was meant to show that his position could easily be reversed.  Moreover, I did not mention one atheist, or two atheists, and so forth.  You are now just putting words in my mouth.

Mentioning Anthony Flew, CS Lewis, Edith Stein and Lee Strobel does not "inevitably offset" (your words) anything. That does not easily reverse his position. It was an attempt to invalidate the position by tossing famous names around. It doesn't prove anything.  

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think I

TGBaker wrote:

I think I pointed out there is a distinction between logical truths and actual truths.

Give me an example of a logical truth, and then give me an example of an actual truth; because, as it stands, I have no clue what you are talking about right now.

Quote:
Do you really have a degree in philosophy?

Yes I do.  I graduated in 2005.  Granted, it's only an undergrad, but a degree is a degree.  As it stands, I am merely an enthusiast, and I study these issues on my own time.  If anything, my bachelors in philosophy planted the proper seeds for me to be able to go further with my studies.  You can question my credentials all you'd like, but I can look in the mirror and be proud of what I've accomplished.  

Quote:
Um, no you can construct a sound argument and it not entail the real world.

Of course you can.  For example, if the conclusion of the argument is 'therefore, unicorns exist in some possible world', then you have a sound argument where the conclusion does not pertain to the actual world.  Conversely, if the argument concludes 'God exists in the actual world', then it means that God exists in the actual world.

Quote:
Zeno's paradoxes still haunt your supposed discipline.

Are you kidding me?

First of all, they were not sound arguments.  Sound arguments require that the premises are true, and that the form of the argument is valid.  Firstly, Zeno's arguments were not formalized, for they were presented in the form of a dialogue (which was written by Plato approximately 100 years after Zeno died).  Secondly, Zeno failed to discern between actual infinities and potential infinities, an issue that Aristotle was quick to pick up on.  In essence, refuting Zeno did not even have to wait for mathematicians to formalize their notions of an infinite series; Aristotle resolved his paradoxes over 2,000 years ago.

Quote:
Modal logic can construct all sorts of true statements about possible worlds.  Some might even supervene on the real world.  I answered your question but I guess it did not sink in....

My question pertained specifically to issue of God's existence in the actual world, such that if the argument is sound and the conclusion is 'God exists', then it necessarily follows that God exists.

Quote:
The premise of Plantinga is logically true. The conclusion is not necessarily true in the sense of a real world in that the possible world in which the entity exists may not exist.

The ontology of possible worlds is not an issue here; even if they do not actually exist, the argument is still valid.  For Plantinga, possible worlds are nothing more than maximal descriptions of some reality or other.  Possible worlds include at least one false description, whereas the actual world includes only true descriptions.  What Platinga argues is that for every maximal description of reality that you can given, God is included in those descriptions insofar as the notion of a maximally great being is one that is maximally excellent in every possible world.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Nope, not the same thing at all. You are making assertions and attacks but thus far have not presented any evidence to refute any of redneF's statements. Therefore, you are only arguing through attacks and ridicule. You are not stating a subjective opinion.

It's not an assertion.  I guarantee that if I printed out his posts and displayed them to a few people off the street, they would conclude either that this guy is a mental patient, or he is a recalcitrant little punk.

And you'd only undermine your basis for posturing as one who understands what a sophisticated argument is.

I could just as easily find a few people off the street who would conclude that you have a pvssy instead of a dick.

Your level of sophistry isn't even compelling by the standards of a pre schooler.

And I can prove that, as well.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I'm trying to assess his standards of evidence, which is why I posed the question.  It was not at all unreasonable to ask if he would accept a sound argument concluding God's existence as proof.  If someone demands evidence for God, then I think it is reasonable to ask... 'Would you accept X as evidence?'

No.

You're displaying a reluctance to either accept, or decline my numerous direct challenges asking whether you would debate with me.

We can easily conclude that you are an insecure pvssy, who simply prefers to run his mouth with his arbitrary, retarded methods of 'reasoning'.

 

Stop derailing this thread.

I pissed all over your imaginery god.

I characterized him as a petulant dysfuntional idiot.

 

This is your chance to shine, and to score some great brownie points with your imaginary pvssy god.

 

Man up, boy, or STFU and piss off.

 

Yes, or no, to my challenge, tough guy.

 

Yes or no?

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:A

harleysportster wrote:

A sound argument is not evidence. It is just a philosophical exercise. Philosophy falls pretty flat in the face of raw empirical scientific data.

I need to point out that we are engaging in a discussion right now--a discussion where you are attempting to apply logic in order to defeat my position.  But evidently, we can just disregard it; it's only a philosophical exercise, and it falls flat on its face compared to scientific data.

Since we can just disavow logic, I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate because porcupines drive whiter over chicken legs.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

That was in response to his initial assertion regarding converts to atheism.  It was meant to show that his position could easily be reversed.  Moreover, I did not mention one atheist, or two atheists, and so forth.  You are now just putting words in my mouth.

Mentioning Anthony Flew, CS Lewis, Edith Stein and Lee Strobel does not "inevitably offset" (your words) anything. That does not easily reverse his position. It was an attempt to invalidate the position by tossing famous names around. It doesn't prove anything.  

But apparently, just unqualifiably declaring 'It doesn't prove anything' is sufficient proof.

How long are we going to continue this?  I really have better things to do with my time.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Since

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Since we can just disavow logic, I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate because porcupines drive whiter over chicken legs.

Pvssy.

 

Piss off then, boy, if you don't wanna play a man's game.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Since we can just disavow logic, I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate because porcupines drive whiter over chicken legs.

Pvssy.

You're the one who can't even say the word without masking the 'u'.  

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Yes I

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Yes I do.  I graduated in 2005.  Granted, it's only an undergrad, but a degree is a degree.  As it stands, I am merely an enthusiast, and I study these issues on my own time.  If anything, my bachelors in philosophy planted the proper seeds for me to be able to go further with my studies.  You can question my credentials all you'd like, but I can look in the mirror and be proud of what I've accomplished.  

Argument from authority fallacy.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno