RRS is responsible for this... burn in hell!!

berserkerich
berserkerich's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-09-04
User is offlineOffline
RRS is responsible for this... burn in hell!!

Ha! Ever since I befriended RRS on myspace I've been getting more and more ridiculous mail from some of my religious friends. It's hard enough maintaining those friendships and then excrement like this comes along. This one by far takes the cake for being completely inane. I would apologize for the length, but I had nothing to do with this absurd garbage. You'll notice at no point there is a solid justification for their argument and using logic many of their own statements disprove their own stance. If you want to stab your eyes out with forks, read on.

THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM

So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a former atheist myself, I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.

No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?

You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!

THE IRRATIONALITY OF ATHEISM

Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something unprovable is hardly rational! You might reply: But I can t disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists, but the existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We'll get to that later.) The atheistic position, on the other hand, is logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, logically, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there is no God.1 In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity, let's simply consider ethics.

NO PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR ETHICS

Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong. If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples. If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference.

IS COLLECTIVE TRADITION AN ETHICAL BASE?

Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right? If one believes God gave the law You shall not murder, the answer is obvious. Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard? Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil? One can try to argue that it isn't just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer.

WHAT ABOUT HUMAN SURVIVAL

What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results.

FEELINGS, NOTHING MORE THAN FEELINGS...

What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!

I've met many atheists who are judgmental of religious people who have committed great atrocities, but upon what basis? Does this make any sense? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference. Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much sense as a dog lover's disdain of those who prefer cats! How silly. Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. They simply cannot do it. Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy!

Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who don't want to believe in the true God. Thank God there is an amnesty program for rebels and atheists! (More on that later.)

SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH

A wise rabbi, the Apostle Paul, wrote:

The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise they became fools2...

God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer. Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and a God who has a perfect moral standard. The truth is, if you are an atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don't want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you are accountable. You don't like God and are trying to hide from Him. You need not feel this way. God has provided a way back for you.

How do we know God exists? Unless we begin with the assumption that he does, we can't know anything else exists! Unless we presuppose that God created us with the ability to know things through sensory experience and reason, we have no philosophical basis for trusting either. Philosophically speaking, unless we know a wise God gave us our senses, how can we know everything isn't an illusion? As for reason, we can't prove the validity of reason without using reason! We must assume what we are trying to prove in order to prove it. All human reasoning is circular, but when we leave God out of the circle we are left like a dog chasing its tail without any hope of catching it! Without beginning with the philosophical presupposition that a God who has spoken to mankind exists, we are doomed to reason in circles with no way of knowing how to discern truth.

As for positive proof, there is the communication of God to mankind. Moses received the Law at Sinai. This was attested by great miracles witnessed by millions. The Hebrew prophets foretold the rise and fall of nations and spoke of the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish Bible.3 His resurrection is historically documented, having been witnessed by the early Messianic Jewish believers who recorded their testimonies and were willing to die for what they knew to be true.4

Many have asked: Does life have meaning? Why do I exist? There is abundant meaning to life when we know the Living God. Frankly, atheism is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose and excitement. On what basis does human life have value? Each of us was created in God's image and therefore each individual is of great value.

AMNESTY FOR ATHEISTS

Good news! There is hope for atheists! After the Vietnam War there were many expatriate Americans living in Canada and other places. An amnesty program was established to welcome these people home. The message was: Come back home. All is forgiven. You will be received back with open arms. God also has an amnesty program. The true God is both just and loving. His justice demands that our rebellion be punished. His love provided a means to fulfill this justice and restore us to a right relationship with him. This is where the Messiah comes in. Out of love for us, God took on a human nature and visited earth to take upon himself the punishment we deserve for our lawbreaking. Jesus died as a substitute for rebels to pay the penalty of those who deserve it, whether religious or atheistic. There is a judgement day coming, and God has proven this to us by raising Jesus from the dead. You have this choice: let the Messiah take your punishment or take it yourself. The choice seems obvious to me! Why turn down a free gift? What a great amnesty program! God wants each of us to admit we are wrong, receive the payment He has provided, and come in with our hands up letting Him rule over our lives. He promises to renew us, to enable us to live a new life in His service, and to let us experience His presence forever. God calls atheists to come back home, spiritually speaking. All can be forgiven, even atheism. God calls atheists to turn from their rebellion and to trust the Living God through his Messiah, Jesus.

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

If you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence. His awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you won't want to believe it! Are you still open-minded enough for more information? Maybe you'd like to get together with someone for a friendly and relaxed talk about these things. Maybe you are intrigued, but wish some more in-depth reading. We are happy to help.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Does your "friend" want to

Does your "friend" want to come on our radio show? We always push theist friends, of atheist friends to the front of the line. I wish I had time for a line by line disection... the first paragraph alone looked juicy.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


cbenard
cbenard's picture
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-04-16
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Does your

Sapient wrote:
Does your "friend" want to come on our radio show?

Dont' bother. It's copied.

See other google matches.

It appears to be written originally by Professor Fred Klett.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Fred said, "If humanity is

Fred said, "If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference."

That's correct, That is what we have. The idea that our ethics are from a stone tablet is absurd.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


berserkerich
berserkerich's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-09-04
User is offlineOffline
Yeah it's copied, and like

Yeah it's copied, and like many theists he doesn't have the balls to ever discuss these things in detail. He can only forward junk mail. I'd have to say my favorite part in this is how the author uses his argument... to support his argument!


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
cbenard wrote: Dont' bother.

cbenard wrote:

Dont' bother. It's copied.

It appears to be written originally by Professor Fred Klett.

I just spoke to Fred for about 2 hours. He might record an episode with us this weekend. We had a great conversation, and he seemed very open to adjusting his piece to remove the first paragraph strawman insinuating that all atheists claim to hold 100% that a god can't exist.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


cbenard
cbenard's picture
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-04-16
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I just spoke

Sapient wrote:
I just spoke to Fred for about 2 hours. He might record an episode with us this weekend. We had a great conversation, and he seemed very open to adjusting his piece to remove the first paragraph strawman insinuating that all atheists claim to hold 100% that a god can't exist.

Excellent. I can't wait to hear it. You guys need a central StickAm page so I know when you're going to be on.


reason_passion
Rational VIP!
Posts: 158
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
cosmological argument

Does this guy even know that the cosmological argument that he is using, made famous by Aquinas and later tweeked by Leibniz and Descartes (among others), isn't taken seriously by most modern christian apologists?

Already pointed out was the fact that he uses what he hopes to prove, the existence of god, as the argument to prove that god exists. Clearly ridiculous.

Also pointed out by sapient was the fact of his spurious argument for assuming that atheism is about the positive belief that god doesn't exist, as if we assume we know what god is to begin with. This is classic apologetical redefining the enemy to defeat him. The entire point here is that the very concept of god is bogus, there's no definition and hence nobody really knows what it is that is being discussed.

What I am sure will be pointed out in the interview is that the cosmological argument begins with the a-rational and ends with the logically necessary. This is the true problem with the concept of god, not that it's irrational, but that it has nothing to do with rationality. Hence, all anyone has to do is create a term, have it include by definition the necessity of its existence and then posit that it must be so. Kant pointed out here, rightly, that existence is not a predicate. Either a term points to something existing or it doesn't, the term itself does not necessitate such no matter the desire to have it so.

As to the rest of his arguments, they're typical emotionalism parading itself as being intellectually honest. For someone who believes that reason and logic are in no way capable of proving the existence of god, he sure spends a lot of time arguing using reason as an assumed sufficient basis.

Every one of your relationships to man and to nature must be a definite expression of your real, individual life corresponding to the object of your will. -Erich Fromm


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:cbenard

Sapient wrote:
cbenard wrote:

Dont' bother. It's copied.

It appears to be written originally by Professor Fred Klett.

I just spoke to Fred for about 2 hours. He might record an episode with us this weekend. We had a great conversation, and he seemed very open to adjusting his piece to remove the first paragraph strawman insinuating that all atheists claim to hold 100% that a god can't exist.

Good. I noticed that erroneous implication in his very first sentence. Interesting that he comes right out of the gate with a strawman, and continues throughout the post.

I wrote a refutation of his nonsense years ago, but most everyone here could duplicate it on his own... every claim he makes is either a ridiculously embarrassing strawman pointing to his ignorance, or a projection of the faults of theism....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: I wrote a

todangst wrote:

I wrote a refutation of his nonsense years ago, but most everyone here could duplicate it on his own... every claim he makes is either a ridiculously embarrassing strawman pointing to his ignorance, or a projection of the faults of theism....

Do you still have access to it? I'd love to see it, feel free to post it here.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


andy1982211
andy1982211's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2006-09-02
User is offlineOffline
Ok first off, I find it

Ok first off, I find it obsured that someone could even try to say that with out a god, our world would be made in the image of Hitler and other crazy fanatics.
I did not get my morals and beliefs from 10 broad based rules on a piece of stone, handed over by a burning bush.
I am a good person because I want to be a good person. Plain and simple. Do I believe that murder is wrong. That depends. Murder of innocent people is very wrong.
Slavery is another thing that I believe is wrong.
Yet through out christianity's history you will find murder and slavery.
Just starting with when they first came to america. There are history books full of times and places where it accured.
The killings of Native Americans just because they felt they were superior to them and they were "godless brutals"
Then later on in american history we have the burnings of "witches".
So if god passed down the 10 commandments for his people to follow, why were they killing and inslaving innocent people?
It continues on to this day. The only differnce is it is usually called something different. The fact remains that christians are still killing people that they deem less superior.
To me this is hypicrital and for someone to come along and say that without god's rules our world would be crap. Is just a bunch of B.S. If his followers are killing and inslaving innocent people in his name, I think that if we didn't have people that believed the truth. This world would be controlled soley by one religious group or we would be in constant war over which religious group was going to be in control.
Can't wait to hear your debate with the moron who wrote that crap.
Until Next Time

-Andy


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:todangst

Sapient wrote:
todangst wrote:

I wrote a refutation of his nonsense years ago, but most everyone here could duplicate it on his own... every claim he makes is either a ridiculously embarrassing strawman pointing to his ignorance, or a projection of the faults of theism....

Do you still have access to it? I'd love to see it, feel free to post it here.


I wrote a response on infidelguy a few years ago. I've changed my opinion on a few minor points, so here's my slightly revised reseponse:

Quote:

THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM

So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god... but this writer seems to imply that atheism = strong atheism.

Quote:
As a former atheist myself, I won't condemn you.

Ah, the old "I was an atheist" ploy. This nonsense is always easy to refute - because the 'former atheist' will go on to make claims about atheism that demonstrate that he doesn't have a clue as to what atheism really is...

So, my instincts are screaming "bullshit" here. Considering how illogical and ignorant this piece appears to be concerning atheism, I doubt this guy was actually an atheist, whoever he was...

Quote:

How could I? Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand,

They have. It is pretty heroic to face death fears head on and, at the same time, admit that one does not know all the answers to all the mysteries of the universe.

Quote:

but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there?

Be sure to take count of how many times this theist reverses reality and projects out the flaws of theism onto the 'atheist'.

Why would an atheist have difficulty 'facing up' to the possibility that he can live forever in bliss? What would be scary would be facing up to the possibility that death is final.

Counting the statement above, this is the second time that this theist has either purposely or accidently gotten things backwards. Let's keep a count from now on...

Quote:

I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.

I will count this as the third projection - a person who takes something on faith is hardly being "intellectually honest". Taking a position on faith is the ultimate example of intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:

No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe.

And now we reach number projection number 4. A theist holds to belief based on dogma - dogmatic thinking is prejudging the issue by definition.

Quote:

There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence.

Yes, and we call these folks 'christians'

Although, to be fair, they no longer believe in something as ridiculous as a flat earth. They just believe in things like talking snakes, flaming swords, and boats that can carry all the animals on earth....

Here we have projection number 5.

Quote:

There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?

This mindset is called dogmatism. Now, what system of thought openly embraces dogma?

Here we have projection number 6

Quote:

You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together.

There are parts of the bible that supposedly endorse reason, but there are for more important parts that actively attack reason and laud faith, so this argument here is simply disengenuos... it commits the unfair debate tactic of selective citation.

Quote:

He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny;

So, he wants us to reason out his existence, but he refuses submit himself to rational review. So how can it be that he wants us to 'reason' out his existence?

Sounds to me that this is just a cop out apologists soothe themselves with after their latest apologetic fails.

If one considers this claim seriously, one is led to the logical conclusion that tat an all powerful being cannot be somehow 'put out' by proving he exists is self refuting. I don't recall ever having a problem proving I existed, have you?

How much easier would it be for a 'god' then?

If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent he both wants to, and must, make himself known. He could make his existence axiomatic. The fact that he doesn't is quite troubling for the apologist, which is precisely why they are forced into self refutation like "god wants us to reason him out, but he refuses to 'submit' himself to this horrible investigation'

If you think about that... doesn't that really speak to the mindset of the apologist? To him, having to prove that god exists is a burden, a pain, a struggle, an impossibility It irritates the apologist that he can't back up his claims, so he projects out his frustration on a 'god' who finds it a terrible burden to prove he exists.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how it's a burden to prove my existence... I tend to do it automatically... just by... existing...

Projection number 7

Quote:

to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements.

It's perverse to want to know if god exists? Again, it seems more likely that our apologist friend finds it very vexing to prove his god exists, and he's imagining that his imaginary friend feels the same way!

Number 8

Quote:

THE IRRATIONALITY OF ATHEISM

Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something unprovable is hardly rational!

Let's count the errors! (New list)

1) Only strong atheism holds that god does not exist.
2) They claim that one cannot prove a negative (the implication here) is false. If a specific god is said to possess contradictory characteristics, then the concept is false and cannot be reasonably said to exist.
3) Just because something is not disproven does not mean that it is reasonable to hold that it exists.
4) (provincial) If this 'god' is beyond disproof, then how is he not beyond reason , beyond proof?

Quote:

You might reply: But I can t disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists, but the existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential.

If so, you'd think that this theist would just offer his proof already.

Quote:

The atheistic position, on the other hand, is logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality.

No, no, no. Not this again. This claim just demonstrates the basic ignorance of logic possesed by the apologist. This shows that this person never was an atheist. He doesn't know what atheism is.

If I am going to debate someone over their philosophical stance, I'd at least learn what it is first, before the debate.

This claim commits several errors.

1) It confuses atheism for strong atheism
2) it again endorses the false claim that you can't prove a negative.

Quote:

NO PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR ETHICS
. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong.

So? I can already guess what follows: the false dichotomy of 'either there is objective morality or we fall into chaos"

Quote:

If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples.

Which are just fine for an intersubjective moral system.

Which, the theist himself must steal from, if he is to hold that some moral actions are less moral than others, or if he is to hold humans as a value onto themselves.... and theists DO this.... in sharp contradiction to their supposed foundation of morals, the bible. which holds that all sins lead to damnation, and that man is worthless.

Quote:

If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference.

What is it about theists that they really want to debate you over
1) evolution or 2) morality?

Actually, with a god all we have is obedience and punishment - the most immature of moral standards, not the best. And we also have the aforementioned problems.

As Spinoza wrote, a moral action is one that is done for it's intrinsic value, not for rewards and punishments. At any rate, the whole "without god, there are no morals' is just the fallacy of arguing to adverse consequences. If all we have is subjective human morals, than that is all we have. The fact that this is "distressing" to some is of no consequence as to the question of whether god exists.

Ok, I gotta stop for now. This guy will need my website entry on morality, and a lesson in how morality and logic works... if anyone else wants to pick up the ball, and continue, please proceed....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Todangst, you did great as

Todangst, you did great as usual. Ok... some updates...

He added a very teeny tiny wittle footnote to his piece: http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm

(scroll WAYYYYY down)

After hearing the shows I sent him he was "pretty disgusted with the general attitude" saw us as "extremely arrogant and far from open minded free thinkers." He has many reservations obviously about coming on the show. So we'll see. He didn't say he was bailing out however I don't think he'll end up appearing from the vibe of the rest of the email.

At least we got that teeny tiny itty bitty wittle afterthought footnote!!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Todangst, you

Sapient wrote:
Todangst, you did great as usual. Ok... some updates...

He added a very teeny tiny wittle footnote to his piece: http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm

(scroll WAYYYYY down)

Yes, I saw that he finally learned about strong and weak atheism, however he needs to radically revise his argument if this is the case!

Quote:
After hearing the shows I sent him he was "pretty disgusted with the general attitude" saw us as "extremely arrogant and far from open minded free thinkers."

In other words, he projected his flaws onto you.... the guy is an assclown.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


berserkerich
berserkerich's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-09-04
User is offlineOffline
Interesting commentary

Interesting commentary todangst.

For anyone with theist friends on MySpace, don't be surprised if you see this slaphappy non-sense come your way.


Elegy
Elegy's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2006-08-01
User is offlineOffline
my friend is an atheist but

my friend is an atheist but he's making fun of me.

todangst is awesome Cool


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Elegy wrote:my friend is an

Elegy wrote:
my friend is an atheist but he's making fun of me.

todangst is awesome Cool

Thanks. I am glad I am appreciate here. Since I've been banned from infidelguy by 'buckster' for 'talking to someone I wasn't allowed to talk to" I'll probably be posting here more often for awhile....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


reason_passion
Rational VIP!
Posts: 158
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
appreciation

Of course you're appreciated here todangst. I've always enjoyed your stuff.

Most of the points were already covered by todangst on this guy's ridiculous rant and pointing out the projections made is a good tactic. We all have to remember that it is the theist who has to prove something and it is the theist who is the true hard skeptic. Once we get him to agree that reason and/or sense perception is logically necessary and sufficient to prove anything, faith fails as an alternative.

Only one issue related to the guy's convoluted usage of the cosmological argument, though i already posted it earlier, but here it is again.

reason_passion wrote:
The cosmological argument begins with the a-rational and ends with the logically necessary. This is the true problem with the concept of god, not that it's irrational, but that it has nothing to do with rationality. Hence, all anyone has to do is create a term, have it include by definition the necessity of its existence and then posit that it must be so. Kant pointed out here, rightly, that existence is not a predicate. Either a term points to something existing or it doesn't, the term itself does not necessitate such no matter the desire to have it so.

This is, of course, a short criticism but it goes to the heart of the problem. Anybody interested in a thorough smackdown should read Bertrand Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy", specifically the sections concerning Aquinas and Kant.

Every one of your relationships to man and to nature must be a definite expression of your real, individual life corresponding to the object of your will. -Erich Fromm