atheism sucks

Taliesyn
Posts: 2
Joined: 2012-12-17
User is offlineOffline
atheism sucks

Just stumbled across this thread and wow, just wow.

Please tell me, why are all atheists so irrational?

Your hatred is disturbing and highly revealing of your psychological illnesses; but your irrational and illogical beliefs and ideas are just so incredibly bad.

The very name of this site is an insult to intelligence. Rational response? You're kidding right?  Since when does atheism support rationality?

Given that under atheism rationality is nothing but electrochemical movement in a couple of pounds of meat.

Yet none of you ever sees how self-evident this is.  Why?

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
"Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe."
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."

"The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'".

If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the "epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true."

Until you finally open your deeply closed minds and figure this out, you will remain in your utterly futile, inane worldview. One that believes - obligatorily - that nothing created everything, that you yourselves are futile accidents moving to oblivion with zero raison d'être.  An idea that has no foundations in reason or logic - obvious since in your view reason and logic are nothing but the movement of atoms and have no real existence - whether you like it or not that is the only conclusion possible in atheism.

Your worldview has no meaning - including the purely arbitrary pseudo-meaning that the movement of atoms in your brain fools you into thinking you give it.

This of course necessarily means that you yourselves are meaningless as well.

Morals are a mere illusion (except when someone offends you).

In Cricks famous words, "The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis:

So why should anyone care what your pacts of neurons are doing? They certainly cannot be assigned values of true or false - so why the hell are you even here debating?!

Quite obviously there are other personal subjective reasons than anything remotely close to "rational" -which, by your own ideas, necessarily means you are not.

Atheism is as bad as Islam for stupidity passing as knowledge. You're so proud of yourselves for thinking yourselves "free thinkers" - which again, under atheism, isn't even possible, for how does the movement of atoms - determined only by the laws of physics and chemistry, never you, in 2 pounds of meat constitute free undetermined thought? It does not and cannot.

Harris is now happily foolishly claiming that free will doesn't exist and yet believes he wrote this claim freely!!

You guys are unreal.

Proof of God?

Sure: for 1 proof - go look at shCherbak's Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code.

It is now clearly impossible that nature alone could have made DNA - an intelligence was and is required and only a supreme intelligence can explain it.

You lose.

Oh and while I'm here, I agree with you on one point - we should remove all those nasty laws and such that religion "imposes" upon you against your will.

So here's where that must begin:

1st we will force the big chiefs to remove all imposition of weekends upon all atheists.

Saturday = Sabbath and Sunday = Lord's day.  That must be so troubling to you to have to take days off from work. So now you shall all work 7 days/week. No more religious holidays imposed upon you.

2md we will remove all other religious holidays f4rom your rights - why should you poor atheist be forced to take Xmas holidays, Easter and such, off for vacation time that you really don't need or want since this is all religious stuff that you've thus far has little or no choice on - poor you.

3rd we will remove all Judeo/Christian oriented values from your poor persecuted atheist lives - say we stat with the right to life, then on to the right to be free - why that anyway? Who said anyone should be free? 

Then on to the right to private property - who started that foolish concept?

Or the right to self-determination - where's that come from?

Well I could go on and on and that one point but you get the idea - we'll get to it as soon as possible so you poor oppressed atheist brats can work 365 days then on to the other impositions of rights etc.

Oh and while some of you  crappy thinkers are looking for rebuttals in your "meat" I must mention this:

"Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior." -Vox Day

Now that I've got you all insecure, nervous and really angry, go running to your high priests Dawkins, Harris, et al. and your local web philosopher ignoramus know-nothings and cry unto these pathetic little gods for help.

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Yawn... way to rant there

Yawn... way to rant there skimpy. Smiling "atheism sucks" he says, "... I've got you all insecure, nervous and really angry..." he says.

Smiling I doubt that we operate from the same epistemic paradigm.  The only way you would make me really angry is by imposing your brain washed drivel on other people.  You may rant and call me whatever you wish otherwise.  You're just acting as a typical theist would act, insecure, nervous and really angry Smiling

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
So far, Taliesyn

Taliesyn wrote:

Just stumbled across this thread and wow, just wow.

Please tell me, why are all atheists so irrational?

Your hatred is disturbing and highly revealing of your psychological illnesses; but your irrational and illogical beliefs and ideas are just so incredibly bad.

The very name of this site is an insult to intelligence. Rational response? You're kidding right?  Since when does atheism support rationality?

Given that under atheism rationality is nothing but electrochemical movement in a couple of pounds of meat.

Yet none of you ever sees how self-evident this is.  Why?

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
"Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe."
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."

"The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'".

If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the "epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true."

Until you finally open your deeply closed minds and figure this out, you will remain in your utterly futile, inane worldview. One that believes - obligatorily - that nothing created everything, that you yourselves are futile accidents moving to oblivion with zero raison d'être.  An idea that has no foundations in reason or logic - obvious since in your view reason and logic are nothing but the movement of atoms and have no real existence - whether you like it or not that is the only conclusion possible in atheism.

Your worldview has no meaning - including the purely arbitrary pseudo-meaning that the movement of atoms in your brain fools you into thinking you give it.

This of course necessarily means that you yourselves are meaningless as well.

Morals are a mere illusion (except when someone offends you).

In Cricks famous words, "The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis:

So why should anyone care what your pacts of neurons are doing? They certainly cannot be assigned values of true or false - so why the hell are you even here debating?!

Quite obviously there are other personal subjective reasons than anything remotely close to "rational" -which, by your own ideas, necessarily means you are not.

Atheism is as bad as Islam for stupidity passing as knowledge. You're so proud of yourselves for thinking yourselves "free thinkers" - which again, under atheism, isn't even possible, for how does the movement of atoms - determined only by the laws of physics and chemistry, never you, in 2 pounds of meat constitute free undetermined thought? It does not and cannot.

Harris is now happily foolishly claiming that free will doesn't exist and yet believes he wrote this claim freely!!

You guys are unreal.

Proof of God?

Sure: for 1 proof - go look at shCherbak's Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code.

It is now clearly impossible that nature alone could have made DNA - an intelligence was and is required and only a supreme intelligence can explain it.

You lose.

Oh and while I'm here, I agree with you on one point - we should remove all those nasty laws and such that religion "imposes" upon you against your will.

So here's where that must begin:

1st we will force the big chiefs to remove all imposition of weekends upon all atheists.

Saturday = Sabbath and Sunday = Lord's day.  That must be so troubling to you to have to take days off from work. So now you shall all work 7 days/week. No more religious holidays imposed upon you.

2md we will remove all other religious holidays f4rom your rights - why should you poor atheist be forced to take Xmas holidays, Easter and such, off for vacation time that you really don't need or want since this is all religious stuff that you've thus far has little or no choice on - poor you.

3rd we will remove all Judeo/Christian oriented values from your poor persecuted atheist lives - say we stat with the right to life, then on to the right to be free - why that anyway? Who said anyone should be free? 

Then on to the right to private property - who started that foolish concept?

Or the right to self-determination - where's that come from?

Well I could go on and on and that one point but you get the idea - we'll get to it as soon as possible so you poor oppressed atheist brats can work 365 days then on to the other impositions of rights etc.

Oh and while some of you  crappy thinkers are looking for rebuttals in your "meat" I must mention this:

"Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior." -Vox Day

Now that I've got you all insecure, nervous and really angry, go running to your high priests Dawkins, Harris, et al. and your local web philosopher ignoramus know-nothings and cry unto these pathetic little gods for help.

 

 

your multifariously fallacious 'argument' seems to be that without god there is no meaning and no basis for meaning and no basis for the human behaviours we label moral and no 'free will' and all this because your brain wants to imagine a 'certainty' it has no ability to confirm. Your fallacious appeal to consequence/complexity/authority/ignorance does not constitute a clear case for the existence of an undefined supernatural being, nor does it propose a framework for this assertion's objective intrusion into the material world.

You conveniently ignore the fact that from the perspective of human context it's not possible to tell what the 'meaning' of the universe might be. We can see no further than visible light's ability to reach our sensors. And you fail to address the fact existence in this place allows us to propose subjective meanings based on sensory experiences that we can value for their own sake. You can have no comprehension of fundamental truths but in their place you propose bald assertions and quote gormless appeals to incredulity as if these actually express meaning.

As for borrowed ethics, it was the authors of your cult that stole the source of positive social behaviours from humankind and sought to trademark decency and sympathy and kindness, while denigrating and degrading people. Your ideological forbears on the basis of no evidence created a false dichotomy that insisted only in the acceptance of the dominion of raw power built on the infliction of unending pain could humans save love from genetic evil.

As a fallibilist I am content with not knowing the entire truth about things. But I grant what I currently consider biochemical sense data primacy on the basis it has kept me and my direct ancestors alive for 3.5 billion years, an inexplicable, magical quantum continuity that vibrates with meaning for the collection of particles my memory labels me

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Taliesyn wrote:Then on to

Taliesyn wrote:

Then on to the right to private property - who started that foolish concept?

Or the right to self-determination - where's that come from?

PEOPLE

 

Taliesyn wrote:

Well I could go on and on and that one point but you get the idea - we'll get to it as soon as possible so you poor oppressed atheist brats can work 365 days then on to the other impositions of rights

You are a very nasty, unpleasant person. Also, your post is evidence against your position: only an incompetent or malicious designer would make a universe like the one we live in.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Taliesyn

Taliesyn, do you have an ACTUAL argument to refute the position of Atheism ? Do you have something other than strawmans and ad homs ?

If not, then I conclude your just spewing a bunch of bullshit rhetoric, which makes you an intellectually dishonest pain in the ass that has nothing of substance for a debate and has to resort to personal attacks and sweeping generalizations to support his/her position.

IOW. You FAIL at debating.

“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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Taliesyn wrote:Just stumbled

Taliesyn wrote:

Just stumbled across this thread and wow, just wow.

Please tell me, why are all atheists so irrational?

Your hatred is disturbing and highly revealing of your psychological illnesses; but your irrational and illogical beliefs and ideas are just so incredibly bad.

The very name of this site is an insult to intelligence. Rational response? You're kidding right?  Since when does atheism support rationality?

Given that under atheism rationality is nothing but electrochemical movement in a couple of pounds of meat.

Yet none of you ever sees how self-evident this is.  Why?

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
"Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe."
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."

"The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'".

If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the "epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true."

Until you finally open your deeply closed minds and figure this out, you will remain in your utterly futile, inane worldview. One that believes - obligatorily - that nothing created everything, that you yourselves are futile accidents moving to oblivion with zero raison d'être.  An idea that has no foundations in reason or logic - obvious since in your view reason and logic are nothing but the movement of atoms and have no real existence - whether you like it or not that is the only conclusion possible in atheism.

Your worldview has no meaning - including the purely arbitrary pseudo-meaning that the movement of atoms in your brain fools you into thinking you give it.

This of course necessarily means that you yourselves are meaningless as well.

Morals are a mere illusion (except when someone offends you).

In Cricks famous words, "The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis:

So why should anyone care what your pacts of neurons are doing? They certainly cannot be assigned values of true or false - so why the hell are you even here debating?!

Quite obviously there are other personal subjective reasons than anything remotely close to "rational" -which, by your own ideas, necessarily means you are not.

Atheism is as bad as Islam for stupidity passing as knowledge. You're so proud of yourselves for thinking yourselves "free thinkers" - which again, under atheism, isn't even possible, for how does the movement of atoms - determined only by the laws of physics and chemistry, never you, in 2 pounds of meat constitute free undetermined thought? It does not and cannot.

Harris is now happily foolishly claiming that free will doesn't exist and yet believes he wrote this claim freely!!

You guys are unreal.

Proof of God?

Sure: for 1 proof - go look at shCherbak's Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code.

It is now clearly impossible that nature alone could have made DNA - an intelligence was and is required and only a supreme intelligence can explain it.

You lose.

Oh and while I'm here, I agree with you on one point - we should remove all those nasty laws and such that religion "imposes" upon you against your will.

So here's where that must begin:

1st we will force the big chiefs to remove all imposition of weekends upon all atheists.

Saturday = Sabbath and Sunday = Lord's day.  That must be so troubling to you to have to take days off from work. So now you shall all work 7 days/week. No more religious holidays imposed upon you.

2md we will remove all other religious holidays f4rom your rights - why should you poor atheist be forced to take Xmas holidays, Easter and such, off for vacation time that you really don't need or want since this is all religious stuff that you've thus far has little or no choice on - poor you.

3rd we will remove all Judeo/Christian oriented values from your poor persecuted atheist lives - say we stat with the right to life, then on to the right to be free - why that anyway? Who said anyone should be free? 

Then on to the right to private property - who started that foolish concept?

Or the right to self-determination - where's that come from?

Well I could go on and on and that one point but you get the idea - we'll get to it as soon as possible so you poor oppressed atheist brats can work 365 days then on to the other impositions of rights etc.

Oh and while some of you  crappy thinkers are looking for rebuttals in your "meat" I must mention this:

"Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior." -Vox Day

Now that I've got you all insecure, nervous and really angry, go running to your high priests Dawkins, Harris, et al. and your local web philosopher ignoramus know-nothings and cry unto these pathetic little gods for help.

 

Would you care to debate us or are you merely here for a childish hit and run so you can point it out to your friends and say "Look guys, I stood up to those evil people".

Sorry to disappoint you. We don't barbecue kittens and we wont kidnap your women or kids. And all of us here have family members and or friends and co workers to some degree that have some sort of god belief.

So if you are done with your childish tirade, you are welcome to stay and debate, but preaching and trolling doesn't sit well with anyone here and you wont have an enjoyable stay if you do.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Have you loved your neighbor today ?

  Re:: Have you loved your neighbor today ?

 To :: The OP

  Next time you are visiting a Christian Online Forum, exchanged the word "atheism" with the word "christian-ity" in the title, as an experiment, to find how many minutes it takes the Mods to not allow you to remain there (ever again)? 

AE wrote:
Your fallacious appeal to consequence/complexity/authority/ignorance does not constitute a clear case for the existence of an undefined supernatural being ..

  .. Well, There's that then.

 

{Brian37 wrote}

Brian37 wrote:
Atheists wont kidnap your women or kids. And all of us here have family members and or friends and co workers to some degree that have some sort of god belief.

 Have you ever gotten to  know any Atheists ?  Broad-brush you are painting with.  (To paraphrase the great Billy Barty) "Wee" people .. didn't leap from the pages of a storybook or from an enchanted forest. We are sons and daughters. We have doctors, nurses, just about every field covered. ¬Billy Barty

(Billy Barty was a lessor American Actor and cinema star, who had Dwarfism being only 3' 81/2" tall, he was one of the Founders of Little People of America).

PDW wrote:
The perpetual shifting in god concepts by jefferyalex is devilishly clever as it's much harder to hit a constantly moving target.

 PDW once said to Jefferyalex.

 p.s. -- Always keep 'em guessing 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.

harleysportster wrote:

IOW. You FAIL at debating.

Creative & Culture » Social Life »Modern Manners » General Etiquette  http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-fight-a-duel-3


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I smell a big ugly troll. 

I smell a big ugly troll.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13181
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yet another theist retard

Yet another theist retard describes themselves instead of their opposition. Yawn indeed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Taliesyn wrote:Just stumbled

Oh dear, neverposttothe forum from an Ipad. What a mess that made. :/

 

Taliesyn wrote:

Just stumbled across this thread and wow, just wow.

which thread is that? Pardon, but it's not completely self evident from your starting of a new one to which thread you are referring.

Taliesyn wrote:

Your hatred is disturbing and highly revealing of your psychological illnesses; but your irrational and illogical beliefs and ideas are just so incredibly bad.

Given that under atheism rationality is nothing but electrochemical movement in a couple of pounds of meat.

Yet none of you ever sees how self-evident this is.  Why?

The naturalist obtains the real universe from the concepts you're straw manning there, not this pale obfuscation which you've substituted. Complex interaction of varied electrochemical impulses from diverse regions of the 2lbs might combine to form an entity with a higher order nature. This is not outside of possibility. It is just unfortunate that you have allowed your own hatred to blind you from the full wealth of ideas offered by those who have not surrendered their minds to dogma.

Taliesyn wrote:
;Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Creatures without eyes might hear, feel, touch, and from these other senses deduce from that a state utterly analogous to darkness exists. Then a creature with eyes might argue " you can not know this!". But has he even considered what they claim to know? His eyes to informed him about darkness and they don't have any!

Taliesyn wrote:


"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
"Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe."
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."

But it isn't telling us the inference is invalid, it is suggesting that the inference may be invalid and so we do not fix ourselves dogmatically to believing it, but simply utilise it unto its usefulness.

Taliesyn wrote:
"The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'".

If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the "epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true."


Indeed. Though that does not preclude it being regarded for the purpose of finding its truthfulness. Testing it, as we do in science through experimental conditions to take it from the abstract imagining of our random 2 lbs of meat and put it at the mercy of the real world. The tractability of materialism is then revealed to us when our thoughts are either denied or supported by the results.

 

Taliesyn wrote:

Until you finally open your deeply closed minds and figure this out, you will remain in your utterly futile, inane worldview. One that believes - obligatorily - that nothing created everything, that you yourselves are futile accidents moving to oblivion with zero raison d'être.  An idea that has no foundations in reason or logic - obvious since in your view reason and logic are nothing but the movement of atoms and have no real existence - whether you like it or not that is the only conclusion possible in atheism.

Your worldview has no meaning - including the purely arbitrary pseudo-meaning that the movement of atoms in your brain fools you into thinking you give it.

This of course necessarily means that you yourselves are meaningless as well.

Morals are a mere illusion (except when someone offends you).

In Cricks famous words, "The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis:

So why should anyone care what your pacts of neurons are doing? They certainly cannot be assigned values of true or false - so why the hell are you even here debating?!

RRS is here because, quite frankly, the other side is shouting long, loud and unrelentingly for the return of the dark ages to society and it's all we can do to just say you'll have to go through us to get there.

Taliesyn wrote:

Atheism is as bad as Islam for stupidity passing as knowledge.

I love how you throw in this unsupported assertion, naively assuming that I won't feel the need to question your basis for it, I mean it's Islam, right? The epitome of evil, nobody cares if you slander people who call themselves Islamic cause theyre bad by default.

Sorry, not me. All people are people in my book, and if you feel the need to say something derisive, be decent enough to back it up with reason. Don't rely on propaganda as your argument, not everyone is that ignorant.

Taliesyn wrote:
You're so proud of yourselves for thinking yourselves "free thinkers" - which again, under atheism, isn't even possible, for how does the movement of atoms - determined only by the laws of physics and chemistry, never you, in 2 pounds of meat constitute free undetermined thought? It does not and cannot.

Harris is now happily foolishly claiming that free will doesn't exist and yet believes he wrote this claim freely!!

You guys are unreal.

Proof of God?

Sure: for 1 proof - go look at shCherbak's Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code.

It is now clearly impossible that nature alone could have made DNA - an intelligence was and is required and only a supreme intelligence can explain it.

You lose.

Er.... What? Can you provide any actual argument to that claim or is the appeal to his authority it? Cause that's not counting for much here, friend. WhoTF is Cherbak when he's home, anyway?

Taliesyn wrote:

So here's where that must begin:

1st we will force the big chiefs to remove all imposition of weekends upon all atheists.

Saturday = Sabbath and Sunday = Lord's day.  That must be so troubling to you to have to take days off from work. So now you shall all work 7 days/week. No more religious holidays imposed upon you.

2md we will remove all other religious holidays f4rom your rights - why should you poor atheist be forced to take Xmas holidays, Easter and such, off for vacation time that you really don't need or want since this is all religious stuff that you've thus far has little or no choice on - poor you.

Go ahead, no problem, we'll happily arrange our own secular resting rituals like summer break, labour day... That sort of thing. Will you also be removing religion from the laws governing the health and well-being of females and those regarding personal relationships, at all?

 

Taliesyn wrote:

3rd we will remove all Judeo/Christian oriented values from your poor persecuted atheist lives - say we stat with the right to life,

Que? Right to life? A judeo Christian value? What history books have you been reading, love? You have been misled.

Taliesyn wrote:
then on to the right to be free - why that anyway? Who said anyone should be free? 

Who indeed?

Taliesyn wrote:
Then on to the right to private property - who started that foolish concept?

Meh you can have that, anyway, regardless that your holy man preached no such thing, in any case. Go figure.

Taliesyn wrote:
Or the right to self-determination - where's that come from?

Oh gawd, do you even know?

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Taliesyn

Eloise wrote:

Taliesyn wrote:
"The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'".

If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the "epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true."


Indeed. Though that does not preclude it being regarded for the purpose of finding its truthfulness. Testing it, as we do in science through experimental conditions to take it from the abstract imagining of our random 2 lbs of meat and put it at the mercy of the real world. The tractability of materialism is then revealed to us when our thoughts are either denied or supported by the results.

 

how 'bout that, el?  a shit-for-brains stumbles on prasanghika madhyamika, and dismisses it out of hand.

 

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Eloise

Hey Eloise, where have you been ?

Good to see you back and posting !


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Eloise

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Taliesyn wrote:
"The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'".

If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the "epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true."


Indeed. Though that does not preclude it being regarded for the purpose of finding its truthfulness. Testing it, as we do in science through experimental conditions to take it from the abstract imagining of our random 2 lbs of meat and put it at the mercy of the real world. The tractability of materialism is then revealed to us when our thoughts are either denied or supported by the results.

 

how 'bout that, el?  a shit-for-brains stumbles on prasanghika madhyamika, and dismisses it out of hand.

 

 

 

anyhow, after giving things an inordinate amount of thought over the years, i've come to the conclusion that absolute negation, a la nagarjuna and his commentators, is the only viable ontology (or anti-ontology, i should say).

madhyamika is not nihilism, by the way.  it's just the refusal to assign absolute, unconditioned, independent existence to any thing (by which i mean dharma).  it is "panta rhei" writ large (and in sanskrit).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Eloise

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Taliesyn wrote:
"The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'".

If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the "epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true."


Indeed. Though that does not preclude it being regarded for the purpose of finding its truthfulness. Testing it, as we do in science through experimental conditions to take it from the abstract imagining of our random 2 lbs of meat and put it at the mercy of the real world. The tractability of materialism is then revealed to us when our thoughts are either denied or supported by the results.

 

how 'bout that, el?  a shit-for-brains stumbles on prasanghika madhyamika, and dismisses it out of hand.

 

 

Yeah, E.K. I do wonder for those who do not find the removal of certainty liberating. Just what would they rather, then?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Yeah, E.K. I do

Eloise wrote:

Yeah, E.K. I do wonder for those who do not find the removal of certainty liberating. Just what would they rather, then?

the problem is, they do find it liberating, and liberation is fucking scary.  until you cross the threshold.  then you just kinda go, "shit, that was it?"  (or so i'm told.  i admit, i haven't crossed the threshold yet, nor will i likely in this life.  ahem, not that i endorse reincarnation or anything.)

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Hey

harleysportster wrote:

Hey Eloise, where have you been ?

Good to see you back and posting !

 

Hi Harleysportster Smiling I have a brief break from work over the New Year and felt like taking a little of it to get into some old past times.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:iwbiek

iwbiek wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Taliesyn wrote:
"The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'".

If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the "epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true."


Indeed. Though that does not preclude it being regarded for the purpose of finding its truthfulness. Testing it, as we do in science through experimental conditions to take it from the abstract imagining of our random 2 lbs of meat and put it at the mercy of the real world. The tractability of materialism is then revealed to us when our thoughts are either denied or supported by the results.

 

how 'bout that, el?  a shit-for-brains stumbles on prasanghika madhyamika, and dismisses it out of hand.

 

 

 

anyhow, after giving things an inordinate amount of thought over the years, i've come to the conclusion that absolute negation, a la nagarjuna and his commentators, is the only viable ontology (or anti-ontology, i should say).

madhyamika is not nihilism, by the way.  it's just the refusal to assign absolute, unconditioned, independent existence to any thing (by which i mean dharma).  it is "panta rhei" writ large (and in sanskrit).

 

You know I favour Heraclitus, of course Smiling . Though I see it less as flow of the river and more as the illimitable molecular cohesion the very water itself.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:You know I

Eloise wrote:

You know I favour Heraclitus, of course Smiling . Though I see it less as flow of the river and more as the illimitable molecular cohesion the very water itself.

which puts you squarely in the sautrantika position, whether you know it or not. 

your position is very attractive, but i have to stop short of saying "it is so."  don't feel bad, i do that with every position.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:which thread is

Eloise wrote:

which thread is that? Pardon, but it's not completely self evident from your starting of a new one to which thread you are referring

Oh, Taliesyn originally posted his comment in a small thread in the "Biblical Errancy" sub-forum. It was moved here because it had nothing to do with the topic of that thread.

 

Your reputation here for intelligence is quite well-deserved, Eloise. I can see why people are glad to have you back. 

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: You know I

Eloise wrote:

 

You know I favour Heraclitus, of course Smiling . Though I see it less as flow of the river and more as the illimitable molecular cohesion the very water itself.

Eloise - welcome back. Good to see you again.

 

Question:

λóγος 

Heraclitus states, “All things come into being according to the Logos” (Frg. 1). In the book of John  “All things came into being through Him”, i.e. the Logos (1:3). Is this clear plagiarism by the gospel writer?

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Eloise

ex-minister wrote:

Eloise wrote:

 

You know I favour Heraclitus, of course Smiling . Though I see it less as flow of the river and more as the illimitable molecular cohesion the very water itself.

Eloise - welcome back. Good to see you again.

 

Question:

λóγος 

Heraclitus states, “All things come into being according to the Logos” (Frg. 1). In the book of John  “All things came into being through Him”, i.e. the Logos (1:3). Is this clear plagiarism by the gospel writer?

 

 

i'm sure el can answer that more or less definitively, since my interests left greece for india long ago, but my own foggy memories of my days as a religion and classical studies double major tells me that creation through the logos (or the closely related sophia) is hardly unique either to heraclitus or the writer of john.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Good to hear your voice

 

again Eloise. As you can see, the numbats are still loose in the top paddock. 

 


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
That damned Logos - there's a lot of it about

iwbiek wrote:
my own foggy memories of my days as a religion and classical studies double major tells me that creation through the logos (or the closely related sophia) is hardly unique either to heraclitus or the writer of john.

Everywhere one looks there is the Logos and the closer I look at it, the more elusive it seems. It certainly seems to be fundamental to ancient thought.

The first known Greek use of it seems to be Heraclitus (c535-c475 BCE), but other cultures have the same sort of idea.

For example, Ptah in ancient Egypt speaks things into existence and Thoth is also associated with the Logos.

We also have Philo for a Jewish Logos and the Platonists and Neo-Platonists have Hermes representing Thoth.

John, famously for the Christian Logos, but also possibly Luke.

See http://www.maat.sofiatopia.org/memphis.htm#a8 and http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/what-did-lukes-eyewitnesses-see/

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:iwbiek wrote:my own

x wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
my own foggy memories of my days as a religion and classical studies double major tells me that creation through the logos (or the closely related sophia) is hardly unique either to heraclitus or the writer of john.

Everywhere one looks there is the Logos and the closer I look at it, the more elusive it seems. It certainly seems to be fundamental to ancient thought.

The first known Greek use of it seems to be Heraclitus (c535-c475 BCE), but other cultures have the same sort of idea.

For example, Ptah in ancient Egypt speaks things into existence and Thoth is also associated with the Logos.

We also have Philo for a Jewish Logos and the Platonists and Neo-Platonists have Hermes representing Thoth.

John, famously for the Christian Logos, but also possibly Luke.

See http://www.maat.sofiatopia.org/memphis.htm#a8 and http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/what-did-lukes-eyewitnesses-see/

 

 

and the first few chapters of proverbs reference the creation of the world through wisdom, who, if i remember correctly, is described there as a daughter of god.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Eloise wrote:
...

Creatures without eyes might hear, feel, touch, and from these other senses deduce from that a state utterly analogous to darkness exists. Then a creature with eyes might argue " you can not know this!". But has he even considered what they claim to know? His eyes to informed him about darkness and they don't have any!...

1) There is nothing like obedience to the gods. It is only to people who claim to know what the gods want.

2) Everything always goes back to the veracity and integrity of the person claiming to know but for all we know that person was a common crook and scumbag.

3) The people who make grandiose claims about the people in group 2 are the people in group 1 who benefit from the claim.

4) It always comes down to, as you say, people claiming to know things which they have no ability to know.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ex-minister wrote:

Eloise wrote:

You know I favour Heraclitus, of course Smiling . Though I see it less as flow of the river and more as the illimitable molecular cohesion the very water itself.

Eloise - welcome back. Good to see you again.

Question:

λóγος 

Heraclitus states, “All things come into being according to the Logos” (Frg. 1). In the book of John  “All things came into being through Him”, i.e. the Logos (1:3). Is this clear plagiarism by the gospel writer?

Selective translation is used to cover plagerism. "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with god." That is sort of what opens the gospel of John if I remember correctly.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13181
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Hey

harleysportster wrote:

Hey Eloise, where have you been ?

Good to see you back and posting !

QFT. Always nice to see a veteran return, however briefly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.