Atheism As A Valid Worldview

AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheism As A Valid Worldview

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview; from its non sensical view of morality to its inability to make sense of knowledge, rationality, science, how did it ever get so deeply entrenched in our minds. Its destroys the very foundation of civilization. It's too harmful to allow any longer. We should call it out! Who's with me?

AtheismIsNonsense

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
One opponent at a time please: BOB?

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

__________________________________________________________

treat2 wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. (just in case) Hi Matt! Hate us so much you can't live without us?

Yeah!

If it makes you feel better to think that I'm Matt, you can call me matt2. And Christians don't hate atheists, we hate falsehood and blind ignorant faith.

Are we on BOB?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Vastet, I just wanted to comment on this, I think it's FUNNY. When I sit out under the sun for example, I feel the heat of the sun's rays, some of the UV rays are "cooking" my skin, giving me a tan. I don't know about you but I would say that I'm sensing it. In fact it can be measured and reproduced so how does it fall under my definition of Immaterial?

I may respond to your other other comments. But if you can read my other posts for answers that I may not have directly addressed to you. I'm only one person in this thread.

 

I've not bothered to read the rest of this thread because it was boring me but I wanted to add this in... WRONG!

 

The head you feel from the sun has nothing to do with UV rays.  The bit that's heating your skin, that's cooking you?  That my friend is IR.  We have no way of detecting UV with our senses.  We can see the tan it gives us but, without expensive equipment and experiment, we have no way of detecting UV.

 

So no, you aren't sensing UV.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply to MichaelMcF

I concede the argument regarding "sensing" UV rays; nevertheless they are "physical" because with "expensive equipment and experiment" we can detect them and/or reproduce them.

Do you care to continue the discussion? To discuss the the validity of materialist views especially in regards to human intelligence, argumentation, logic, morality, science, knowledge, and all the rest?

I wouldn't blame you if you choose not to considering that these discussions expose the materialist worldview (including evolution) to be ridiculous  because of its arbitrary, inconsistent, and contradictory nature.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

 

THIS IS ADDRESSING ALL MATERIALIST/PHYSICALIST ATHEISTS WHO THINK TODANGST IS THEIR SAVIOR FROM THE TAGers

 

Seems like you're quite concerned about my argument.

 

Quote:

I can only conclude that todangst or Dennis McKinsey have never ever engaged in dialog with an apologists who uses this argument or has purposefully left out the proof or justification he’s provided. Anyone should be able to see what’s quoted by todangst is the claim of the apologist, not his arguments. For anyone of you to suggest that I’ve made assertions and have not backed them up was either asleep while reading my posts or is blatantly ignorant of what I write.

I’ve demonstrated countless times how atheism leads to foolishness with respect to rationality and morality. I’ve shown inconsistencies and contradictions within a typical physicalist worldview of an atheist (which many of you are) speaking about the absurdity of arriving at logic, rationality, morality (as if it meant anything), love, hope, etc when all you have to work with are molecules in motion; matter/energy in whatever configuration obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry. Like weeds grow, so the mind of man does what it does by the laws of physics. In addition, it is blind superstition to assume that inorganic matter by some mechanical reconfiguration can give rise to organic matter.

You've not given any argument here, just a bunch of assertions.

Quote:

You can’t account for the origin of the physical universe. 

 

1) It's not necesssary to do so, to show the errors in TAG.

2) If you want cosmology, I can give you citations of what cosmologists say, and they do demonstrate that there are scientific explanations for the origin of our universe.

 

Quote:

Morality is relative to the atheist

Morality is consequentialism or simple prudence, to the theist.

    

I don't see any actual response to my TAG response yet. In fact, you don't demonstrate an understanding of my argument.  Please take one point next time, and give a brief reply.

 

Quote:

Central to the position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of natural revelation. The world was created by the word of God (Gen. 1:3 John 1:3, Col. 1

 

Again, this is not a response to my argument.

 

todangst wrote:
TAG is a Naked Assertion that relies on Incoherent Terms

TAG claims that one must presuppose 'god' in order to come to certain conclusions, but this claim is proven nonsensical when one considers that TAG is incoherent: it relies on incoherent terms. Terms such as "immaterial' and "transcendent' and "god' are purely negative terms without any ontological status.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term

TAG is a Naked Assertion that Relies on Incoherent terms, and violates the Concepts of Contingency and Necessity.

TAG offers up a confusion: While 'god' cannot be defined in positive terms, secondary traits assigned to 'god' such as 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' can be examined independently. And it follows from the definitions of these secondary traits that anything created and sustained by an 'omnipotent creator' would exist contingently, as omnipotence obviates necessity by definition. Yet tautologies are necessarily true. How can a tautology be contingently true and necessarily true, at the same time?

TAG is a Naked Assertion that Relies on Incoherent terms, and violates the Concepts of Contingency and Necessity as well as Basic Ontology

Quote:

My critique of physicalist/materialist atheism above should convince demonstrate to you that it’s not a naked assertion.

No, it does not.

 

What your words demonstrate (I can't refer to your post as a response, as it isn't one) is that you aren't able to follow my argument, let alone issue a response.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:


I wouldn't blame you if you choose not to considering that these discussions expose the materialist worldview (including evolution) to be ridiculous  because of its arbitrary, inconsistent, and contradictory nature.


It is the theistic "worldview" that fits this description. I must put the term "worldview' in quotes seeing as there really is no such thing as a theist worldview... seeing as theistic terms are incoherent, you must actually steal from materialism.

 

I prove this here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/quotgodquot_incoherent_term

and here

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

 

To make any coherent reference, you must steal from materialism.

 

In addition, you reference cosmology in an earlier thread. Modern cosmology also shows that theistic arguments for creation are equally nonsensical:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

If you choose to respond to any of these points, please: keep your responses brief. You have as yet to demonstrate an ability to even follow my arguments, so your responses so far are a waste of time. A brief response will allow me to correct your basic errors before we continue.

 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Response to todangst #204 & 205 & Only one opponent please!

todangst wrote:
Seems like you're quite concerned about my argument.

and you concerning my presence here

todangst wrote:
You've not given any argument here, just a bunch of assertions...

It is the theistic "worldview" that fits this description. I must put the term "worldview' in quotes seeing as there really is no such thing as a theist worldview...

I would have to agree with you, there's no general theist worldview. I've never claim there was (how convenient that you have glazed over so much of what I've written). I'm a Christian and to defend some general theistic view would be inconsistent with what I hold to be true.

todangst wrote:
seeing as theistic terms are incoherent, you must actually steal from materialism.

you would know about naked assertions wouldn't you.

please explain; because I have accused materialist of doing that with the Christian theistic worldview. If materialist atheism were true (1) human thoughts and rationality are nothing more than complex chemical reactions automatically (involuntarily) occurring in the brain of man so that in theory there's really no such thing as human intelligence just simply what is (as weeds grow so the "mind" of man does whatever it does by the laws of science). That itself should make impossible the "voluntary" science that you practice, the voluntary moral judgments that you pass, and the  voluntary side you choose in this discussion. However even granting you voluntary thoughts and behavior, you still have to contend with (2) morality that is relative; nothing is ever really wrong or right because it's all relative. The rape and torture of small children is neither right nor wrong depending on the attitudes of those with power and/or in authority. That's what you get when theirs no obligatory authority.

What is truth in a purely materialist world? According to some of you, (3) truth is at best probability yet somehow you can arbitrarily chose to ignore this rule and make such "truth" claims as God is impossible or the supernatural is impossible. Your claims on knowledge are inconsistent with your pronouncements. I think I would have more respect for you if you said that Christian truth claims were highly improbable, that would at least be consistent with your claims on knowledge.

todangst wrote:
In addition, you reference cosmology in an earlier thread. Modern cosmology also shows that theistic arguments for creation are equally nonsensical:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

please explain how appealing to cosmology that is in favor of atheistic claims proves anything. It's like saying, here are my standards that you must follow in order to prove anything. These standards are favorable to my argument, so however you argue your point it will not be accepted. Now I've appealed to reason and logic in this entire discussion (you may not agree with that statement, but you'll have to prove that I've violated logic and sound reason otherwise you'd only be making a naked assertion).

Just so you know what I've been doing is proving materialist atheism (including evolution) to be arbitrary, inconsistent, and contradictory in light of it's own assumptions and what we observe in the physical world.

todangst wrote:
If you want cosmology, I can give you citations of what cosmologists say, and they do demonstrate that there are scientific explanations for the origin of our universe.

Please do and remember no naked assertions.

todangst wrote:
Morality is consequentialism or simple prudence, to the theist.

that's an interesting opinion

todangst wrote:
I don't see any actual response to my TAG response yet. In fact, you don't demonstrate an understanding of my argument.  Please take one point next time, and give a brief reply.

I think I answered them appropriately. If a group of paragraphs equate to one naked assertion. I'll respond to the group of paragraphs as a single point if it makes sense to.

todangst wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Central to the position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of natural revelation. The world was created by the word of God (Gen. 1:3 John 1:3, Col. 1

Again, this is not a response to my argument.

This was an addition to my argument. My argument was that your atheism (your materialist view of the universe) cannot account for the things you do in the physical world (reason, do science, make moral judgments). I provided an explanation like the one above which I'm sure you'll either claim is irrelevant to the discussion, totally dodging it, give some "begging the question answer", or appeal to humble ignorance.

I then followed by explaining the claims made in the scriptures regarding the physical world.

Just a fair warning; know what the Christian's theory of knowledge is and your own before you respond.

todanst wrote:
I prove this here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/quotgodquot_incoherent_term

and here

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts...

What your words demonstrate (I can't refer to your post as a response, as it isn't one) is that you aren't able to follow my argument, let alone issue a response....

If you choose to respond to any of these points, please: keep your responses brief. You have as yet to demonstrate an ability to even follow my arguments, so your responses so far are a waste of time. A brief response will allow me to correct your basic errors before we continue.

Please todangst, enlighten your followers and me one more time and explain it again please. Don't make me chase down your unproven assumptions (whichever those are - I'm sure I'll get to read them when you disclose them) in an attempt to prove your arguments. 

so far you've done little of correcting, only bring in more of your unproven assumptions and/or make more claims and attempts to prove them by more assumptions.

Let's begin with you explaining cosmology, explaining where I failed to answer your argument, and respond to my objection regarding involuntary thoughts and behavior in a physical only universe.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote: 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 

and you concerning my presence here

Not really, you don't seem to even have arguments.

 

Quote:

I would have to agree with you, there's no general theist worldview.

 

I said there can't be a theist worldview, period, as theism as supernaturalism is incoherent. You must steal from the concept of materialism.

 

todangst wrote:
seeing as theistic terms are incoherent, you must actually steal from materialism.

Quote:

you would know about naked assertions wouldn't you.

 

Please stop your lying. I've put this argument forward for you already in my citations.

 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

todangst wrote:
In addition, you reference cosmology in an earlier thread. Modern cosmology also shows that theistic arguments for creation are equally nonsensical:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

please explain how appealing to cosmology that is in favor of atheistic claims proves anything.

Is that the best you've got? I'm guessing you can't be bothered to actually read a book on cosmology...

 

To answer your question: It proves that science has a coherent view of cosmology, whereas religion does not.

 

Quote:

Just so you know what I've been doing is proving materialist atheism (including evolution) to be arbitrary, inconsistent, and contradictory 

No, you have not.

However, I prove that this is true of theism, by demonstrating that your terms are incoherent. Read my citations.

 

todangst wrote:
If you want cosmology, I can give you citations of what cosmologists say, and they do demonstrate that there are scientific explanations for the origin of our universe.

Quote:

Please do and remember no naked assertions.

I leave the naked assertions to you, as you are an expert on the matter.

 

todangst wrote:
Morality is consequentialism or simple prudence, to the theist.

Quote:

that's an interesting opinion

No, it is demonstrated fact. I cited research in my post:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/christians_must_steal_secular_morality

 

If it is really a surprise to you that moral development requires internalization of moral rules and empathy, then you are not capable of entering into this discussion.

 

todangst wrote:
I don't see any actual response to my TAG response yet. In fact, you don't demonstrate an understanding of my argument.  Please take one point next time, and give a brief reply.

Quote:

I think I answered them appropriately.

 

Delusions don't count.

 

arument on cosmology:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

arguments demonstrating that 'god', 'supernaturalism' and 'immateriality' are incoherent.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

http://www.rationalresponders.com/quotgodquot_incoherent_term

 

 

Again, you don't seem capable of grasping the arguments, and you've lied several times about me providing naked assertions.  Please provide brief responses to my arguments, or post elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Response to todangst #207 & 208 & Only one opponent please!

So this is the great todangst and his arguments. It's so laughable. Using standards that favor his worldview of materialism to disprove a conflicting worldview.

A worldview that if true would (1) make human thoughts and rationality nothing more than complex chemical reactions automatically (involuntarily) occurring in the brain of man so that in theory there's really no such thing as human intelligence just simply what is (as weeds grow so the "mind" of man does whatever it does by the laws of science). That itself should make impossible the "voluntary" science that you practice, the voluntary moral judgments that you pass, and the  voluntary side you choose in this discussion. However even granting you voluntary thoughts and behavior, you still have to contend with (2) morality that is relative; nothing is ever really wrong or right because it's all relative. The rape and torture of small children is neither right nor wrong depending on the attitudes of those with power and/or in authority. That's what you get when theirs no obligatory authority.

What is truth in a purely materialist world? According to some of you, (3) truth is at best probability yet somehow you can arbitrarily chose to ignore this rule and make such "truth" claims as God is impossible or the supernatural is impossible. Your claims on knowledge are inconsistent with your pronouncements. I think I would have more respect for you if you said that Christian truth claims were highly improbable, that would at least be consistent with your claims on knowledge.

I predicted that you would dodge the objection.

Whether your claims against me are true or not (I argue the latter), this objection is still here.

todangst wrote:
Not really, you don't seem to even have arguments...

...cosmology...It proves that science has a coherent view of cosmology, whereas religion does not...

I said there can't be a theist worldview, period, as theism as supernaturalism is incoherent. You must steal from the concept of materialism...

Please stop your lying. I've put this argument forward for you already in my citations...

However, I prove that this is true of theism, by demonstrating that your terms are incoherent. Read my citations...

I leave the naked assertions to you, as you are an expert on the matter...

Delusions don't count.

arument on cosmology:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

arguments demonstrating that 'god', 'supernaturalism' and 'immateriality' are incoherent.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

http://www.rationalresponders.com/quotgodquot_incoherent_term...

Again, you don't seem capable of grasping the arguments, and you've lied several times about me providing naked assertions.  Please provide brief responses to my arguments, or post elsewhere...

First of all, Mr. beg the question, why must I subject myself to your anti-religious, pro-physical only view of the universe standards?

I don't need to pull anything like what you're doing to disprove materialism/evolution. My objection that you conveniently dodged is based on your own materialist assumption (that the universe is only physical). Your own assumption is hanging your own materialist view of the universe (theory of evolution not excluded).

Again as I've stated these standards that you subject religion to are biased and I am by no means obligated to accept them. Now I have appealed to logic and have shown the logical outcome of a physical only universe subject to immutable laws results in involuntary bio-electrochemical reactions (regardless of complexity) thus rendering human rationality, argumentation, science, morality, and all the related things that humans do, involuntary and therefore, meaningless. Now you can reject logic and I'll happily move on.

And by the way, because your claims are supported by biased standards that I'm under no obligation to accept, they remain unproven pronouncements and therefore naked assertions.

todangst wrote:
No, it is demonstrated fact. I cited research in my post: 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/christians_must_steal_secular_morality...

If it is really a surprise to you that moral development requires internalization of moral rules and empathy, then you are not capable of entering into this discussion...

Says who? You? Who made you the "authority" on morality to say what it is and what it isn't? Begging the question as usual.

And those numbered reasons you gave; you use an arbitrary moral standard to morally judge the standard that "God" imposes on the world. Once again, if morality is relative how dare you judge someone else (granted you don't believe that God exists, I'll say for the sake of argument that they're my morals. Again how dare you be so judgmental and to judge me). Begging the question (regarding your standard to be the standard to accept over all the rest) and not only that contradicting yourself; if morality is whatever man makes it, it doesn't matter if the majority agrees, the minority, and certainly not the individual, you shouldn't (based on the concept moral relativism) condemn anyone for what they chose. Once you start reasoning why aspects of  your standard are superior against somebody else's, you've already contradicted the idea of moral relativism.

todangst wrote:
Again, you don't seem capable of grasping the arguments, and you've lied several times about me providing naked assertions.  Please provide brief responses to my arguments, or post elsewhere.

The sad thing is I do, but it's as I pointed out, based on biased standards that I'm not obligated to accept (on that basis, your assertions are naked - unproven pronouncements). I pointed out that regardless of whether your arguments are proven to be right (I say they're not), you have to answer how in an materialist universe, a materialist view of the universe, you can have argumentation, science, morality, and all the rest if human thoughts and actions are involuntary (molecules in motion)? Remember this objection was formulated based on your own materialist worldview's assumptions.

_____________________________________________________________________

No rush to respond immediately. Take your time to respond to the objection if you decide not to dodge it this time around. I'll be busy so if I don't respond in a few days don't be upset. Also this may be personal, but what is your profession? Are you a chemist, biologist, physicist, surgeon, etc?

One last question, who's that a picture of (your account picture)?

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AiN, you seem to have taken

AiN, you seem to have taken a lot of space to say "Todangst's views are biased because they don't agree with mine".

Please stop projecting your dodges on him and respond - thanks. I'm actually interested in this topic.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Side reply to jcgadfly #210 (discussion with todangst)

Are you a fan of todangst?

I felt a need to respond lest he read this and think you're right and waste another round with gibberish.

jcgadfly wrote:
AiN, you seem to have taken a lot of space to say "Todangst's views are biased because they don't agree with mine".

Please stop projecting your dodges on him and respond - thanks. I'm actually interested in this topic.

if todangst wants to I'll bring some of the "proof" from those link to show you that they're nothing more than the opinions of other anti religious pro physical only atheists.

I on the other have used materialist's own assumptions about the universe and put it to the test. I've used logic and deduced that if the universe is only physical and immutable laws are what govern the physical, then everything and all things are the result of involuntary chemical reactions.

And I have pointed out that if his claims about religious talk are incoherent because of reasons given by anti religious/pro physical only advocates; whether it is true or not (I claim it's not) he has a problem with his theory (the assumptions of his theory).

He will not be able to answer the question unless he either concedes that the universe is comprised on non physical things also or that the "laws" that govern the universe are not always uniform.

Now I've read from people in this thread already that choice/"voluntary" will is illusory. Does todangst agree with this? Do you? If you do it doesn't help your case to disprove what I've been saying about the materialist view; that it makes all human thoughts and behaviors to be involuntary and therefore rendering reason, argumentation, science, morality, the study of history meaningless. What happens in the universe is simply what happens; it's involuntary.

Take it a step further and we would have to conclude that the iPhone G3 (or any invention of man) was involuntarily made; matter made it.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Are

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Are you a fan of todangst?

I felt a need to respond lest he read this and think you're right and waste another round with gibberish.

jcgadfly wrote:
AiN, you seem to have taken a lot of space to say "Todangst's views are biased because they don't agree with mine".

Please stop projecting your dodges on him and respond - thanks. I'm actually interested in this topic.

if todangst wants to I'll bring some of the "proof" from those link to show you that they're nothing more than the opinions of other anti religious pro physical only atheists.

I on the other have used materialist's own assumptions about the universe and put it to the test. I've used logic and deduced that if the universe is only physical and immutable laws are what govern the physical, then everything and all things are the result of involuntary chemical reactions.

And I have pointed out that if his claims about religious talk are incoherent because of reasons given by anti religious/pro physical only advocates; whether it is true or not (I claim it's not) he has a problem with his theory (the assumptions of his theory).

He will not be able to answer the question unless he either concedes that the universe is comprised on non physical things also or that the "laws" that govern the universe are not always uniform.

Now I've read from people in this thread already that choice/"voluntary" will is illusory. Does todangst agree with this? Do you? If you do it doesn't help your case to disprove what I've been saying about the materialist view; that it makes all human thoughts and behaviors to be involuntary and therefore rendering reason, argumentation, science, morality, the study of history meaningless. What happens in the universe is simply what happens; it's involuntary.

Take it a step further and we would have to conclude that the iPhone G3 (or any invention of man) was involuntarily made; matter made it.

So you've used what you think are the "materialist's own assumptions" - have you actually spoken to materialists or just going by what your pastor told you?

Me, I'd settle for you giving me an example of one of the nonphysical things that also makes up the universe - got any?

Also, the non uniformity of the laws (if that is the case) does more damage to your god - the same yesterday, today and forever, my backside. Theists need the immutable laws because they posit an immutable god in most cases.

Volition is not illusory - the Christian concept of an omniscient god giving humans free will/moral agency is where the dispute comes in. If you have an omniscient God who knows what you are going to do before you do it. can you really make choices? Not sure where Tod sits on this.

I can make choices so having an all-knowing sky-father who knows what I'm going to do makes no sense to me.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:pro

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

pro physical

Awesome. I want that on a t-shirt.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:If

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

__________________________________________________________

treat2 wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. (just in case) Hi Matt! Hate us so much you can't live without us?

Yeah!

If it makes you feel better to think that I'm Matt, you can call me matt2. And Christians don't hate atheists, we hate falsehood and blind ignorant faith.

Are we on BOB?

One of our more frequent sock-puppet makers likes to post crap similar to yours - forgive my suspicions. He claims he hates the RRS but continually makes sock-puppets here.

You hate falsehood? Good! Could you get some of your more established leadership to quit spreading it?

Blind ignorant faith? How can you hate what is a tenet of your religion? The god of the Bible can only operate under the conditions of unquestioning faith and absolute obedience - can't get much more blind and ignorant than that, can you? Is your god not the god of the Bible?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Side reply to jcgadfly #212 (discussion with todangst)

After this exchange, let's not reply anymore. I'm waiting for todangst. Unless he wants you to speak for him, I have no qualms with that. A materialist is a materialist to me; whatever the position they take, it's refutable. This, I'm confident of.

________________________________________________________

jcgadfly wrote:
So you've used what you think are the "materialist's own assumptions" - have you actually spoken to materialists or just going by what your pastor told you?"

Are you denying the two points made that the universe is physical and that immutable laws govern the physical (is todangst going to deny these two points)?

jcgadfly wrote:
Me, I'd settle for you giving me an example of one of the nonphysical things that also makes up the universe - got any?

the laws of logic:

The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological; if they were we might have different societies that use different laws of logic. It might be appropriate in some societies to say both my car is in the parking lot and it's not the case that my car is in the parking lot. That is to say there are certain societies that have a convention that says "go ahead contradict yourselves". There are in a sense subgroups within our own society that might think that way. Thieves have a tendency to say this not my wallet but it's not the case that it's not my wallet. They might engage in contradiction like that, but I don't think any of us would want to accept it.

The laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal, they are invariant, they are not material in nature.

The laws of logic are abstract entities; non individual or universal in character they are not materialistic. As universal they are not experienced to be true, there may be experiences whereby the laws of logic are used but no one has universal experience, no has tried every possible instance of the law of logic. As invariant they don’t fit into what most materialist tells us about the constantly changing nature of the world.

In the Christian theistic worldview universal invariant abstract entities such as the laws of logic can exist.

Within the Christian theistic worldview you cannot contradict yourself because to so do you engage in the nature of lying and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it.

The question for you materialist is: How can there be laws of logic in a materialist universe and how are they justified.

jcgadfly wrote:
Also, the non uniformity of the laws (if that is the case) does more damage to your god - the same yesterday, today and forever, my backside. Theists need the immutable laws because they posit an immutable god in most cases.

You don't believe this and I don't expect you to given your presupposed notion of the physical and your denial of God, but because God is not physical, such laws that apply to the physical cannot apply to him. Furthermore, the "laws" (imposed on the physical) that we observe are the result of God's sovereign governing of His physical creation. God is a law unto Himself. Again you may not believe it but it's the logical proceeding of the claim "all things were made by God and are sustained by Him".

The "mind" of man is not "physical". Now don't confuse the mind with the gray matter in the skull although man does often use the two interchangeably.

From the creaturely understanding of the Creator, God purposes and doesn't change His mind, He doesn't lie (He's perfectly coherent), He doesn't add or subtract anything to or from himself (knowledge, experience, etc) to be more or less complete, etc. So yes He is in that sense, immutable.

jcgadfly wrote:
Volition is not illusory - the Christian concept of an omniscient god giving humans free will/moral agency is where the dispute comes in. If you have an omniscient God who knows what you are going to do before you do it. can you really make choices? Not sure where Tod sits on this.

If the world is only physical and immutable laws govern the physical world then yes, one would have to deduce that volition is impossible.

That is why the majority of people on planet earth are theists. From a Christians explanation, its because God created the universe and sustains and imposes His sovereign governing so that no part of the universe is devoid of His revelation coupled with the claim that He created man in His image. Just as God has volition, is absolutely coherent, and is triune (possessing personality) so we have volition, have personalities, and reason & make moral judgments (when reason and morality is properly used, there's the absence of contradictions and inconsistencies, and falsehood). Man cannot hide from Him because he cannot hide from himself.

Now how God controls everything but at the same allows man to possess free will is something God knows and can accomplish. We don't know how it's done, we can't know how it's done because of our finite nature, and we don't need to know - to function and the epistemology that arises from this "setup" agrees with it. His knowledge is primary, our can only be a reflective/receptive reconstruction of His primary knowledge. He reveals knowledge to us through the created order, through us by virtue of being made in his image, and by supernatural revelation (His word - prophetic, written, or living - Jesus Christ).

jcgadfly wrote:
I can make choices so having an all-knowing sky-father who knows what I'm going to do makes no sense to me.

Of course you would think like this because in your own eyes, you're autonomous, you yourself are the point of reference for all prediction - whether it be knowledge, morality, etc and reject the necessary conditions that God provides to even know anything at all.

____________________________________________________

Again you don't believe this and I don't expect you to considering your anti religious pro physical only view of the universe; however each Christian claim complements each other and does not contradict each other and does not contradict anything we observe in the physical world.

Note I have not spoken in detail about a lot of other things like morality, science, etc so you'll get the chance to find contradictions (it won't happen though) within my worldview.

However I have already presented you with a problem that arises from you worldview's claims.

A worldview that if true would (1) make human thoughts and rationality nothing more than complex chemical reactions automatically (involuntarily) occurring in the brain of man so that in theory there's really no such thing as human intelligence just simply what is (as weeds grow so the "mind" of man does whatever it does by the laws of science). That itself should make impossible the "voluntary" science that you practice, the voluntary moral judgments that you pass, and the  voluntary side you choose in this discussion. However even granting you voluntary thoughts and behavior, you still have to contend with (2) morality that is relative; nothing is ever really wrong or right because it's all relative. The rape and torture of small children is neither right nor wrong depending on the attitudes of those with power and/or in authority. That's what you get when theirs no obligatory authority.

What is truth in a purely materialist world? According to some of you, (3) truth is at best probability yet somehow you can arbitrarily chose to ignore this rule and make such "truth" claims as God is impossible or the supernatural is impossible. Your claims on knowledge are inconsistent with your pronouncements. I think I would have more respect for you if you said that Christian truth claims were highly improbable, that would at least be consistent with your claims on knowledge.

Try not to dodge it.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You open to PMs?

You open to PMs?


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Side reply to jcgadfly #216 (discussion with todangst)

You'll have to explain to me what PMs are. Popular Mechanics? I'm not familiar with this acronym.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You'll have to explain to me what PMs are. Popular Mechanics? I'm not familiar with this acronym.

Private Messages

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You'll have to explain to me what PMs are. Popular Mechanics? I'm not familiar with this acronym.

Private Messages

No fair. I was reading this.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I foresee, with my awesome

I foresee, with my awesome foretelling powers, that we will not get any actual responses from AIN to the arguments put forth by todangst. Instead, we will get more of the same, endless spouting of platitudes whose "definitions" are being questioned in the first place. For has it not been written;

Truly I tell you, delusions of grandeur make it much less likely that the individual infected will really respond to arguments. Especially among individuals who think that repeating assertions somehow constitues "proving" or "dealing with" something. Blessed are the hypocrites, for they will unfazed call the arguments of others "laughable" while offering nothing of substance, not even a hint to suggest they understand the position they try to argue against. Such individuals, so pompous they cannot recognize they hold a strawman view, will not inherit the Earth, but at most a position at a third rate Christian "college". There they shall be happy and revel in the glory of being the tallest midget at an intellectually suicidal circus.

-The lost Gospel of Jebus, chapter 1:5-7

 

So it shall be, according to Scripture.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:jcgadfly

Anonymouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You'll have to explain to me what PMs are. Popular Mechanics? I'm not familiar with this acronym.

Private Messages

No fair. I was reading this.

He's not going to talk to me until/unless he hears from Tod so I figured I'd try to keep the thread on something like a track.

Besides, I've no experience in this I just have more questions than answers.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Side reply to KSMB #220 (discussion with todangst)

You really have no reason to be arrogant pie chart. You have no response to the objection put forth; one that shows the utter foolishness of materialist views.

As for the proof that todangst offers, they're opinions and reasons given by himself and materialists that either use a view of cosmology that is anti religious or a moral standard that they conveniently adopt to judge the morality presented in Scripture ( which begs the question). If you can't see the problem in this then you are a freak, not of the science variety).

As for the objection put forth by me, it's a logical deduction of materialism given it's own assumptions. Materialism hangs itself.

________________________________________________

BTW jcgadfly PMs are fine if no one else objects. I don't think Anonymouse has anything to fear. I don't think todangst has disappeared, he's probably busy with something else for the moment. He'll be back.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I don't think Anonymouse has anything to fear.

Yay !


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
And behold, for that which

And behold, for that which was foretold has come to pass. Praise Jebus.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Hi,

I'll answer your questions, but I need to know something about you first.

 

just testing how to use the quote function

 

Are you a material atheist, meaning, you believe the universe to be material in nature, nothing immaterial exist?

If not can you explain?

Most evolutionists for example ought to be material atheist and not any other type of atheist.

yo

If you don't agree with this, explain please?


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:You

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You really have no reason to be arrogant pie chart. You have no response to the objection put forth; one that shows the utter foolishness of materialist views.

 

testing testing

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

As for the proof that todangst offers, they're opinions and reasons given by himself and materialists that either use a view of cosmology that is anti religious or a moral standard that they conveniently adopt to judge the morality presented in Scripture ( which begs the question). If you can't see the problem in this then you are a freak, not of the science variety).

 

hello

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I haven't stuck my head in

I haven't stuck my head in this topic since I was restricted to PS3 typing. Doesn't look like anything intelligent or accurate ever came from this particular tool of theism. Hardly a surprise. Also not too surprised he gave up. I owned him completely, and others did just as good of a job. Still, I may have one or two things more to say when I get my hands on a PC.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.