Atheist A.C. Grayling, in his book The God Argument, makes this argument:
“Atheism is to theism as not stamp-collecting is to stamp-collecting.”
According to Grayling, 'not being a stamp-collector' merely
“denotes only the open-ended and negative state of not collecting stamps”. [By analogy, not being a theist] “does not even begin to enter the domain of discourse in which these beliefs have their life and content”.Grayling recaps a perennial modern atheist argument: atheism entails no positive beliefs. It is merely the denial of the existence of gods.
Bullshit.
Atheism in the West (I will ignore atheist beliefs in the East) entails a very specific body of positive atheist doctrine.
All atheists believe:
1) Philosophical naturalism.
2) Darwinism (some variant of it).
3) Human beings are qualitatively no different from animals.
4) There is no transcendent purpose to life.
5) Human existence ends at death.
6) There is no individual personal accountability after death for evil committed in life.
7) There is no objective moral law (i.e. moral law that transcends human opinion).
The list can go on and on-- feel free to add to the atheist Nicene Creed.
Atheists deny the obvious positive nature of their beliefs for rhetorical reasons: they wish to disparage religious belief as practiced in the world without having to explain atheist belief as practiced in the world. Tarring the Catholic Church with the Spanish Inquisition loses some of it's punch when the tar is applied by Pol Pot's bed-mates.
It's fair to say that atheists probably share more positive beliefs in common than Christians do. A liberal atheist in Washington D.C. would ascribe to basically the same metaphysical nostrums listed above as a Marxist atheist in Moscow or a libertarian atheist in Silicon Valley. Atheists differ politically, but they march in metaphysical goose-step.
In contrast, a conservative Southern Baptist minister probably holds metaphysical views that are quite different from a liberal Anglican priest, including major differences on Christ's divinity, virgin birth, resurrection as well as on Darwinism and the nature of moral law and accountability after death.
In contrast, a conservative Southern Baptist minister probably holds metaphysical views that are quite different from a liberal Anglican priest, including major differences on Christ's divinity, virgin birth, resurrection as well as on Darwinism and the nature of moral law and accountability after death.
Atheism entails a remarkably consistent metaphysical cannon, shared without variation by Ayn Rand and Lucretius and Madelyn Murray O'Hare and Karl Marx and Martin Bormann and Richard Dawkins and the herd of 'freethinkers' of every epoch and at every point of the political and cultural spectrum.
The lock-step consistency of atheist metaphysical dogma is without parallel in any religion.
Atheism is most emphatically not merely the absence of belief in gods. Atheism is a very specific positive ideology-- a rigid dogma. No gods. No transcendence. No transcendent purpose. No life after death. No accountability after death. No objective moral law. No other religion manifests such consistency of dogma across cultures, nations and generations.
Atheist ideology has been of momentous consequence since it first gained control of a nation-state in 1792. The 20th century was the century of State Atheism.
Atheism is a much more tenacious system of dogma than Christianity.
The lock-step consistency of atheist metaphysical dogma is without parallel in any religion.
Atheism is most emphatically not merely the absence of belief in gods. Atheism is a very specific positive ideology-- a rigid dogma. No gods. No transcendence. No transcendent purpose. No life after death. No accountability after death. No objective moral law. No other religion manifests such consistency of dogma across cultures, nations and generations.
Atheist ideology has been of momentous consequence since it first gained control of a nation-state in 1792. The 20th century was the century of State Atheism.
Atheism is a much more tenacious system of dogma than Christianity.
HT: Jerry Coyne
Michael,
ReplyDeleteAC Grayling's book isn't being released in America till March 14 (I have it on pre-order) so it appears that you're basing this thread on British reviews - including one by Christopher Hitchins' dumber brother Peter.
A considerable improvement over your previous form. Including reading no more than the title of an article in Scientific American from May 4, 2009; 'Should DDT be used to combat malaria'. And not being able to read the subtitle; 'DDT should be used 'with caution' in combating malaria, a panel of scientists report today'. Before you went off, frothing at the mouth, repeating 'it's an outrage'.
Agreed; Christians vary widely, ranging from the sane to the batshit crazy, like you.
Atheists just state that there's no evidence for the existence of a god. If you want to provide some evidence, then do so. But first of all, define what sort of god you believe in.
For a Thomist, you seem to believe in the most Un-Thomistic god possible. Aquinas' God would be compatible with any cosmology you care to consider. The God you seem to believe in, one with whom you can have conversations and engage in question and answer sessions (such as 'was the Garden of Eden literally true?'. Really?)
The atheist assertion is that there is no evidence for the existence of god(s). And atheists accept that there's no afterlife, so misdeeds have to be addressed in this lifetime (there's no other) - not left to a mythical afterlife. Morality is a human invention devised to benefit societies not individuals.
Beyond these core beliefs, atheists vary. There's no consensus about anything else on your list. And atheists vary vastly regarding political ideology. As do Christians.
I take issue with number two, belief in Darwinism.
ReplyDeleteI knew an atheist once who told me that he believed there were some holes in the theory of evolution and so he wasn't completely sold on it. He didn't tell me what those holes were and I didn't ask. This particular atheist was a superlibertarian and a devotee of the late Ayn Rand. A lot of libertarians are in fact atheists, like Penn Jillette. And while I can agree with libertarians on some things, I think this particular libertarian was a bit of an ideologue.
He also said that while he may not be sold on Darwinism, he's definitely sold on social Darwinism. I couldn't disagree more. Social Darwinism is not for me.
JQ
Oh, and another thing: Atheists existed before Darwin. I must assume that an atheist who never heard of Darwin or his ideas could not possibly subscribe to them.
DeleteAccording to Richard Dawkins, such an atheist could not possibly have been intellectually fulfilled, but he could have existed.
"Although atheism may have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
I suppose such atheists stumbled around aimlessly their whole lives, looking for that last piece of the puzzle that confirmed what they already knew: there is no God.
JQ
I would add to (2) that atheists by and large accept Newton's laws and quantum mechanics.
Delete(3) is wrong: I, for one, think that humans are qualitatively different from animals in their ability to think. I would say that we are related to animals by ancestry.
Hoo
So you accept virtually all of my points.
DeleteAtheism is a very specific set of beliefs, actually more consistent than other dogma, such as that of Christianity.
I don't accept "virtually all of your points."
DeleteIf my sarcasm wasn't already obvious, I shall state explicitly that I regard (2) as silly. It's a correlation that does not necessarily imply causation. Atheists tend to be more educated than theists on average, so they do not tend to reject science.
As I have already made clear, I do not accept (3). I find myself disagreeing with (7), but that's a long story, so I did not indicate that above.
So I accept 4 out of 7 points. Back to the drawing board, doctor!
Hoo
Why are so many atheists (the majority) so pseudo-intellectual & seemingly incapable of anything near clear thinking?
DeleteBy the way JQ, Darwinism IS social Darwinism.
Atheists only have 2 options for life origins:
1 -Darwinism and/or some derivative that still requires evolutionism
2 -Panspermia (which STILL requires a Darwinian style macro evolution)
There IS nothing else.
Atheists also have ONLY ONE option for the origins of the universe i.e. "nothing created everything."
And worse is that they have the gall to call this patent idiocy "science".
Always like a blind man denying the existence of color because they cannot see proof of it!
Same old story: Atheists denying the necessary logical conclusions of atheism!
It's ubiquitous. The modern atheist rarely understands his own position. Rather, he pretends its mere a "lack of belief".
This is everywhere on every forum.
Evidence, logic, reason, proof - none of that matters to them. They will remain in their dark purposeless little holes no matter what the evidence says, no matter what reason says and no matter what real science says!
As D.Adam's character in "Hitchhikers Guide ..", they virtually say, "I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it!"
Sad.
Numbers three through seven on your list are not positive beliefs, there are rejections of positive beliefs (and not all atheists believe them anyway). One and two are positive, but there are plenty of examples of atheists that reject them as JQ pointed out (and no I will not provide you with examples of things that can be found by any halfway intelligent person with five minutes and access to a computer).
ReplyDelete@JQ and anon:
ReplyDeleteYour points about Darwinism are why I qualified it with "or some variant of it". Atheists attribute life to an undirected material process, most commonly (since 1860) Darwinism.
My overall point stands. Atheist metaphysical beliefs are explicit, almost universally held by atheists, and held much more consistently and dogmatically than beliefs of the major religions.
This cheap effort by atheists to deny that they actually believe anything is a risible attempt to evade accountability for the invariably catastrophic consequences of atheism in practice, expecially State Atheism.
By "positive" beliefs I don't mean "affirmative" beliefs. I mean "positive" in the sense of formal and clearly expressed.
DeleteNumbers 3 through 7 are all explicit, formal and clearly expressed corollaries of atheism.
"Atheist metaphysical beliefs are explicit, almost universally held by atheists..."
DeleteCompare with Egnor's original claim in his post:
"All atheists believe..."
You are making progress, slowly, in admitting that you were mistaken. You still have a long way to go, but it's a start
See, atheists don't know how to speak in consistent terms. Somebody previously defined as "The atheist assertion is that there is no evidence for the existence of god(s)." But theists and agnostics can assert that as well. It implies more than a finding that there is not hard evidence for an existence of God it implies a personal decision that it is sufficient basis not to believe. But the atheist doesn't even notice the jump from a common point that could be held by theistic agnostics like myself, neutral agnostics (who do not self-describe as "atheists"), or theists granting certain meanings of the sense "evidence" for the sake of honest argument.
DeleteAnd then one of you says that *7* is simply the default lack of belief of a objective moral law (myself, I prefer "Independent Moral Law"). Suggesting that it has the same default status that all disputes of positive claims do. So given that a disposition to a set of facts was the natural outcome of citing those set of facts--and even presupposed within the citation, why does it matter that certain atheists disagree about what I call "Independent Moral Law", is there hard-fast evidence for it, or isn't there?
Whether or not Sam Harris is an atheist that believes that Bhuddism is "scientific" is beside the case of whether or not Bhuddism is scientific. Here, you'll also find that "evidence" for the case of Bhuddism as scientific is questionable--thus the Default Nuh-uh is either the right choice here or the wrong choice. Would it matter that there were people who didn't believe in God, and thus instantial atheists, but who suspected that the policy of Default Nuh-uh was valid? If so, what various atheists believe threatens the validity of methodological atheism itself.
Myself, I stick with what I call "methodological atheism". It makes much more sense than anything you guys say. When you create a structure to discount *beliefs* over the facts on the ground, *why* do many of you never seem to drag who *believes* what about a godless world into the question. Does it even matter?
Is "well I think there *is* evidence," even a valid point? If that's true, even the strongest conviction that there is absolutely NO evidence of God depends on what one costrues as evidence. As you guys go to great lengths to sell that it is only the next logical step to disbelieve, weakening the sense of "evidence" in terms of the Default Nuh-uh, only makes you silly when you state so blandly that there is a profound lack of anything somebody would conclude as evidence specifically about God that does not in some shade reflect social beliefs and behaviors.
What about a meta-Nuh-uh? What about that you haven't shown me that a lack of evidence matters. Atheists tend to believe in very specific things about what makes up this symbol "evidence". Where's their evidence that this and only this comprises as "evidence"? Does the default disbelief of a construct work here? No. You have to believe certain things about the nature of evidence--before you can get to justifying the Default Nuh-uh. Thus proving that it's not in anyway any special validity of default denial, but zeal for a particular definition of terms.
Very few atheists who are in the moment seem to understand all the leaping about that is required by du jour atheism. Actually, I can't say I've met a one. Only recovering atheists and categorical atheists can begin to piece together where they began swallowing the whole hairball that is popular atheism.
Oh, and that howler of "atheism is an ideology" again! Haven't you disavowed it once or twice already? Like boomerang, it returns to head you in the head time and again.
ReplyDeleteHoo
Atheism is obviously an ideology-- on fundamental metaphysical beliefs, more dogmatic than Christianity.
DeleteI made the argument quite clearly in my post. There's no honest disagreement. Atheists hold to a very specific and consistent set of metaphysical beliefs.
Read on, doctor. The most important information is further down.
DeleteHoo
@Hoo:
DeleteHas atheism had an impact on the world?
I can play that game!
DeleteHas science had an impact on the world?
Bonus questions: does that make science an ideology?
Hoo
Of course science is an ideology-- the scientific method, empiricism, methodological naturalism, etc.
DeleteWhy do you obsess over this "ideology" crap?
Why not admit the obvious: atheism necessarily entails certain beliefs, and the impact of those beliefs on humanity and the world are legitimate topics for discussion.
Why are you trying so hard to preclude discussion of the impact of atheism?
Egnor: Why do you obsess over this "ideology" crap?
DeleteCrap is right, but it ain't my crap. It's all yours. You obsess over it. You can't distinguish a worldview from an ideology. And you has just declared science to be an ideology—merely because it has made an impact on the world! This is just so, so stupid!
Doc, the Chicxulub asteroid has an impact on the world. Does that make it an ideology? LOL
Hoo
The Chicxulub impact is an apt metaphor for the impact of atheism in the 20th century.
DeleteYou're a fine example of why I have no respect whatsoever for atheism. Your ideology is wrong and even idiotic, and you don't even have the minimal intellectual honesty to discuss its obvious impact on the world.
Neitzsche-- who was that rare atheist who wasn't a fool-- understood the truth: atheism is a radical ideological reconfiguration of human existence. He predicted much of the amoral and tribal violence of 20th century, and there is much more to come.
You can hate atheism with your heart, doc. (I know you do.) That stil does not make atheism an ideology. It is a worldview. Understand the difference? I don't think so.
DeleteHoo
And one more hideous contradiction. A person cannot subscribe to two ideologies at once. Here I am, a scientist and an atheist. If both are ideologies, which one am I beholden to?
DeleteKeep those lols coming, doctor.
Hoo
[And one more hideous contradiction. A person cannot subscribe to two ideologies at once.]
DeleteWhat?
[You can hate atheism with your heart, doc.]
DeleteYep. And everytime I discuss it with an atheist, my disdain grows.
You guys really are vile.
Your disdain grows every time because you make a fool of yourself every time. A simple recipe to avoid raising your blood pressure is to stop making a fool of yourself.
DeleteHoo
Why can't a person subscribe to two ideologies at once?
DeleteAlso, science isn't an ideology, it's a method for seeking truth. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. There's no contradiction there, but it isn't two ideologies. It isn't even one ideology. But even if it were two ideologies, it would still be possible to hold both at the same time.
Ben
Ben,
DeleteBecause an ideology is "integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program." You have to get behind one such program. It makes no sense to support two or more.
Hoo
Ben: "Also, science isn't an ideology, it's a method for seeking truth."
DeleteActually, the one thing that 'Science!' most definately is not is "a method for seeking truth". Perhaps it was the intention 400 years ago that 'natural philosophy' be "a method for seeking truth", but after the (atheistic) positivists of the 19th century and especially the (atheistic) logical positivists of the 20th century had worked their magic of fetishizing 'natural philosophy' into an adjunct to atheism, modern sceince does not even deal in truth. These days, modern sceince is about controlling the world -- and, it is especially about providing employment opportunities to "scientists"-- irrespective of whether the theories are actually true, or frequently are even logical.
Any statement coming out of 'science' may be true, or may not be true ... but in neither case can 'science' tell you which it is.
Hoo (where do they fabricate guys like this? Oh, the public school sys., right) hypocritically talks about "hate" -the way all atheists do when attempting to squirm out of being backed against the wall- yet reveals it himself in his own language.
DeleteThen, having nothing better to do, reverts to playing word games and big fuss -much ado about nothing. Ideology vs worldview. Duh.
Hoo, you're making "a fool of yourself". The doctors orders are "A simple recipe to avoid raising your blood pressure is to stop making a fool of yourself."
99% of atheists give a bad reputation to the rest
;-)
Egnor: It's fair to say that atheists probably share more positive beliefs in common than Christians do.
ReplyDeleteYou've eked out 7 points on which atheists purportedly agree. I have knocked the number down to 4.
Now take the Nicene Creed. It lists 7 key points on which all Christians are presumably in agreement. Doesn't that indicate that Christianity is more of a dogma?
Hoo
It was sly of Egnor to ignore atheism based on Eastern philosophies, since that would knock that number down to probably 1 at most.
DeleteEastern atheists have all sorts of supernatural beliefs, and are commonly syncretists, incorporating local pagan worship in their ideology.
DeleteWestern atheists are a quite distinct, and metaphysically dogmatic, group.
As a Christian, what kind of a problem have you got with dogma? Is that a dirty word in Catholic circle?
DeleteHoo
I love dogma. It's just distilled truth, as understood by the believer.
DeleteI merely point out that you have dogma, like I do. Your dogma is obvious-- no afterlife, no God, no supernatural, no transcendent purposes, no transcendent accountability, etc.
You would be much more credible if you'd just admit it, and defend your dogma, as well as the impact your dogma has had on mankind.
Michael,
DeleteSo you've changed 'ideology' to 'dogma'. That's an improvement, I suppose. Dogma can change, of course. The Nicene Creed came about because Constantine was concerned that there was no single accepted creed of early Christianity, and he wanted one to establish a state church to unite his empire. Which he proceeded to do.
If you insist that atheism has dogma; that there's no evidence for the existence of god(s), then the dogma can be easily overthrown - just provide adequate evidence for the existence of god(s).
But first of all, you have to define your concept of God. Your concept appears inconsistent and incoherent, particularly with Aquinas' concept.
Ed Feser criticized Richard Dawkins for apparently not reading the hundreds of pages after the 5 ways in 'Summa Theologia' (perhaps, although Dawkins does appear to be aware of Thomas' description). You seem to be completely ignorant of Aquinas' description, insisting that God is an entity with whom one can engage in conversation and ask questions (such as, 'was the story of the Garden of Eden literally true? Really?).
Egnor: "I merely point out that you have dogma, like I do. Your dogma is obvious-- no afterlife, no God, no supernatural, no transcendent purposes, no transcendent accountability, etc."
DeleteA dogma is an official statement of core beliefs. Rejection of a religious dogma is heresy that could result in nontrivial consequences, e.g. expulsion from the church.
In contrast, I am free to share the core atheist beliefs that you listed and I am free to reject them wholly or in part. I do not belong to any atheist organization. No one will ostracize me if I do not hold to these beliefs. It's my own internal business.
So atheist beliefs are not a dogma. There is no official statement of atheist beliefs. There are beliefs shared by most atheists, but that does not make them into a dogma.
Hoo
Atheists have institutions in which they are not free to contradict dogma.
DeleteAnnouncing at the Politburo meeting that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior would get you a nice dacha in Siberia in the mid-20th century. In the 21st century, declaring that God is the intelligent Designer at a faculty meeting of the Department of Evolutionary Biology will likely affect your tenure process.
The secular consequences of any of these atheist acts of heresy far exceed in severity the secular consequences of announcing to your confessor that you don't believe in God.
Not a good example, doc. A member of the Politburo would be expelled from the Politburo, but he would not be expelled from atheism.
DeleteIn fact, he would voluntarily renounce atheism by declaring Jesus Christ his Lord and Savior.
Two errors in one example! Keep up the good work, Sir.
Hoo
[A member of the Politburo would be expelled from the Politburo, but he would not be expelled from atheism.]
DeleteNeither do people get expelled from Christianity.
People get expelled from institutions. From atheist institutions, like the Politburo or the Khmer Rouge or the CPUSA, or from Christian institutions, like the Catholic Church.
That was my point, wasn't it?
DeleteChristianity has its organizations such as the Vatican, which pronounce the official dogma. Atheism has no such organizations. There is no official atheist teaching, no atheist dogma. I do not belong to any atheist structure, whereas you do—as a Catholic. Try do denounce the Catholic dogma, you will get booted from your church. In contrast, I need not agree with other atheists on anything.
The analogy fails on so many levels.
Hoo
Michael,
Delete'... declaring that God is the Intelligent Designer...'
Well, we all know that, don't we? The fiction that the Intelligent Designer could have been an extraterrestrial intelligence was just a ploy by ID proponents who wished to get ID taught in schools, despite conflicting with the constitution.
Attaining tenure at a university is difficult. Candidates have to demonstrate that they produce results. A scientist in an evolutionary biology department who believes in Intelligent Design, that 'God did something somewhere somewhen, for unknown reasons and by unknown mechanisms', isn't going to produce much if at all any results.
There are religious scientists. Ken Miller, for one, who has stated that ID is not only bad science, but also bad theology, making God into a serial incompetent creator, allowing species to go extinct, and then replacing them with species which are almost but not quite the same.
Or Robert Asher, who wrote 'Evolution and Belief. Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist' (next on my list of books to read), who's currently at Cambridge University, but did his PhD at Stony Brook University. He says he cheered when ID went down in flames in Dover - a well deserved fate for the pseudoscience it is.
No, sorry, the actual Constitution prohibits the official establishment of a religion by Congress. Teaching that the universe was created by an intelligent designer is not a violation. That's the imaginary Constitution that we've deluded ourselves into accepting.
Delete--Francisca S.
Hoo, the halls of Congress are filled with people who have denounced Catholic doctrine and have not been booted from the Church.
Delete--Francisca S.
Give us some names and denouncement quotes, Francisca.
DeleteHoo
"... Neither do people get expelled from Christianity.
DeletePeople get expelled from institutions. ..."
These people have an amazing capacity for "misunderstanding", don't they?
"Grayling recaps a perennial modern atheist argument: atheism entails no positive beliefs. It is merely the denial of the existence of gods."
ReplyDeleteActually, that second sentence is exactly what Grayling and his ilk are trying to pretend they don't believe-and-assert.
The issue of whether there is a Creator-God is The First Question, because all other questions we may ask about reality, and therefore all other answers we may learn, follow from the answer we give to this question. Thus, if we answer it incorrectly, we must have an incorrect understanding of reality.
The seven atheist beliefs you listed, and numerous others you didn't, all are logically entailed in the denial that God is.
Sometimes atheists need to be reminded that atheism isn't a religion.
ReplyDeletehttp://firstchurchofatheism.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?_r=0
Ben
Being an atheist and being proud of it is like having a brain tumor and being proud of it!
ReplyDeleteThese guys really do have a problem in the "cogito" department...
Michael,
ReplyDeleteSo have you read AC Grayling's book yet? Possible, publishers often release advance copies to selected reviewers, but unlikely, since you're unlikely to be a 'selected reviewer', with your significant problems with reading comprehension, and it's not being released till March 14.
I assume you've based your thread on one or two reviews you've read, and not attributed. Is that plagiarism?
I take it you'll be writing another thread after you've read it?
At least I tend to look at the books or authors you recommend, if only to read the sample Amazon provides for the Kindle, which is usually enough to assess its merits. I read all of Rodney Stark's 'the Triumph of Christianity' and found it noncontroversial. All of 'War Against the Weak' - ditto. I started one of NT Wright's books on Jesus and similar myths, and found the 150 page sample (of 850 pages) unconvincing and deleted it.
What is philosophical naturalism?
ReplyDelete--Francisca S.
Francisca:
DeletePhilosophical naturalism is the belief that the only thing that exists is the natural world (the universe). There are no supernatural things (no God, no heaven, no hell, etc).
It is part of the worldview of atheists, almost by definition.
Francisca:
DeleteIn comparison, methodological naturalism is the belief that in science we can only consider causes and effects in the natural world, and we cannot consider things outside of the natural world, whether or not they exist.
Most scientists would probably consider themselves methodological naturalists. Nearly all atheists are philosophical naturalists.
Thank you.
Delete--Francisca S.
At the same time, 'methodological naturalism' does always seem to merge into 'philosophical naturalism'. Especially for these pretend-atheists.
DeleteFor, after all, if 'methodological naturalism' were simply a way to "do science" and can be kept separate from 'philosophical naturalism', then likewise, 'methodological designism' is simply another way to "do science" and can be kept separate from 'philosophical designism'.
This was a stupid post.
ReplyDeleteAtheism, being a negation of religious (as in, magical) thinking, rejects the magical concepts of religion. This doesn't mean that the rejection of things such as an afterlife and miracles are separate, disconnected points of dogma that we must all agree on. The rejection of magic implies an inherited rejection of an indeterminate amount of other things (such as yet un-proposed magical theories like a transparent snapper called bert who lives in my armpit).
This is a point so simple, that you really have to be wallowing deep in the mires of hatred of atheists in order to not think of it.
Egnor. Wallow.
@anon:
DeleteYou believe that everything came from nothing and that life just came out of the mud.
And you accuse me of believing in magic?
[The rejection of magic implies an inherited rejection of an indeterminate amount of other things (such as yet un-proposed magical theories like a transparent snapper called bert who lives in my armpit).]
You believe that you and bert share a common great-great---great grandfather.
I'm not the crazy one.
Ditto to M Egnor's response.
DeleteSadly the disciples of the "new atheists" (who aren't even as smart as the old ones), cannot even see their glaring errors they make at every turn of phrase.
Obviously "anonymous" can't see this "point so simple".
One intelligent response to this anonymous' typical atheist stupidity is ->"This was a stupid post", anon.
Neither of your responses addressed my own. I am truly sorry to have tried to reason with such fanatical bigots who will never, ever see reason.
DeleteMy faith in the human race is now in the negative. I shall buy a boat and float upon the seas and leave this insane human race behind me.
Ciao.
Oh, Anonymous, please don't go... was it something we said?
DeleteWhy would atheism entail that everything came from nothing? Another strawman of yours?
DeleteSebastianS,
Delete'Everything from nothing' is based on the misconception that the Universe is 'something'. If you add the energy implied in ordinary matter (4-5%), ordinary energy (less than 0.01%), dark matter (24%), dark energy (72%) and neutrinos, to the negative energy of gravity, then it exactly balances out and comes to a net overall energy of zero.
The Universe is, in fact, 'nothing'. And nothing came from nothing, not something came from nothing.
"Atheism, being a negation of religious (as in, magical) thinking, rejects the magical concepts of religion."
DeleteOnce again a knee-jerk, off-the-cuff remark from an atheists calls into view the conflict in the often-used dodge "Secular Religion", because I'm sure he's going to have to twist "magical" to fit the "Secular Religion" of Marxism under the banner of "magical thinking".
You know, I too am a "not stamp collector". And I too spend inordinate amounts of my time and energy on organizing and thinking about my "not stamp collection" and denouncing "stamp collecting" and trying to brow-beat others to join me in "not stamp collecting".
ReplyDeleteIt all makes sense. You really need to lay off Grayling and his ilk, Mr Egnor! You meanie!
You should start an about.com page not-stamp-collecting.about.com. You could have pictures of elephants and human waste, because their not stamp collecting--you could even fill every page with pictures *of* stamp collectors, as long as you make it clear that you're not among the collectors. You can even show yourself admiring the stamps--but as you don't own any, you're not collecting.
DeleteI just wonder how a "one-less collection" argument could be formulated. You don't collect stamps, but you do collect model cars. I don't collect anything, thus I simply collect one-less item than you do.
The fun part would be in the forum, where people would accuse you of actually being a stamp-collector for showing pages and pages of stamp-collecting, and that you're only giving the irrational stamp collectors a pretense of respectability. And some would ask what's the use of having pages and pages about not stamp-collecting, if you have pages and pages about stamp collectors and conventions.
But of course that could even out with the forum content where they could discuss that stamp-collectors have killed more people than non-stamp-collectors--and if you count the tail as a leg--er I mean a certain group of murderous non-stamp-collectors as somehow categorically stamp-collectors, you've just reinforced your point (the atheist way!).
Dr. Egnor,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you are dealing with people who are severely inferior to your level of intelligence, rationality and general knowledge -as usual.
What do atheists know of the rationality they claim for themselves really?
Precious little.
Most of them can't even figure out that if -according to atheism- rationality itself is the result of non rational processes and "thought is a property or function of matter" (American Atheists org.), that there is no reason to believe in any true rationality at all.
As Lewis so aptly stated,
"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."
"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'".
-C.S. Lewis
Sadly either these atheists aren't smart enough to attain the proper logical conclusions of their own dogma or they merely do what all atheists do when confronted with facts -deny deny deny.
Unreal that Hoo & cie, can't find anything better than caviling and quibbling as rebuttals to the obvious truth you've pointed out here.
Strangely enough, many atheists don't like the implications of their own beliefs, therefore they pretend those implications don't exist -usually hiding behind some form or other of the new & inane "lack of belief" crap arg.
Thanks for having the guts to tell it like it is no matter the vain and so often stupid accusations leveled against you.
I for one truly appreciate it.
"If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable." ~A. Plantinga
"Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow's ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys..." James M. Gillis
Gary H,
DeleteI'm currently reading Robert Asher's 'Evolution and Belief. Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist'. Asher did his PhD at Stony Brook University and is currently the curator of vertebrates in the Museum of Zoology at Cambridge University (museums are a very good place to discover new fossils, because so many have been collected and never described).
His main point is the trap of confusing agency and cause. Evolution is the cause of the great diversity of species on Earth (at least 1.5 million and possibly 10 million) and the 99.9% of species that have gone extinct. God (in his opinion) is the agent who set it in progress. He uses Aquinas' analogy; the hammer is the cause of the nail being hammered into the wood, the carpenter is the agent.
He reckons that insisting that God couldn't have done it this way is presumptive and restricting God's powers.
I don't recommend the book; it's very technical, unless you want to learn about chorio-allantoic and chorio-vitelline placentas or the evolution of multibone lower jaws of reptiles and birds (which are actually just 'reptiles') into the single jaw bones and middle ear ossicles (modified jaw bones) of mammals.
But then again, I was an atheist for decades before I understood evolution. 'Darwinism' however Egnor defines it, didn't cause me to stop believing and going to church when my parents allowed it. I just decided that Christianity was incoherent and not worth believing.
Well bach, your decision was seriously misguided and dead wrong. It is atheism that is incoherent and not worth monkey spit. As we've shown here multiple times.
ReplyDeleteJust on the level of simple logic it is completely incoherent and self-contradicting.
Add its glaring contradictions of science and its necessary parasitic morality as well as its many faulty internal constructs that simply do not and cannot work.
Evolution is the atheist's origins myth.
It is necessary to atheism and the Nazis (not all atheists) for example or the officially atheist governments, all used Darwinism as their scientific justification and basis for their whole scheme.
The worst is that if atheism & Darwinism were true, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything they did or believed. They were merely, in their minds, carrying out Darwin's prophecy, believing they were helping nature through artificial selection.
That is undeniable.
Darwinism in this discussion is a side-point, the main one being atheism.
Atheist prof. Will Provine stated, "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.".
The worst is that, that's what Darwinism really is -an engine for atheism- not science at all, since Darwin wished to rid science of God. Makes perfect sense. He had to find a theory that would boost the engine of atheism to accomplish that and evolutionism was the best way to do that.
Had precious little to do with science, since Darwin knew he had no empirical evidence for anything but trivial adaptation -which every creationist of the day already knew & accepted before Darwin ever heard of it!
Darwin was a materialist that hid his true beliefs from the public. His real goal was to rid science of God (The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, Benjamin Wiker).
You unfortunately, for whatever psychological reasons you chose atheism- certainly had nothing to do with science, logic or reason- chose the incoherent losing camp.
The worst is that you abandoned the very well supported -by facts- Christianity, for the utterly worthless, foolish and incoherent atheism. Atheism, an idea that -if true- doesn't even matter.
Sad.
You really ought to reconsider the facts, start thinking straight -I would strongly suggest you ask God for help in this since you've been blinded by deep cognitive dissonance- and then wake up and smell the ever fresh beautiful aromas of truth.
Bach said,
ReplyDelete"The fiction that the Intelligent Designer could have been an extraterrestrial intelligence was just a ploy by ID proponents who wished to get ID taught in schools"
The atheist parrot parrots again everything he's been brainwashed into believing -and that without him even knowing it.
This salient codswallop on "ID = biblical creationism" is still being spewed out of the mouths of atheists today?!
"Brainwashed" is the only possible explanation for such vehement obstinacy in believing and spreading lies.
Like as if ID is something new.
It happens to be the worlds oldest "scientific" origins theory.
Long before Darwin existed the great majority of scientists were creationists and/or IDists.
The difference is fundamental. But I no longer expect any stupid atheist to figure that out. You atheists can't see the difference between "nothing" and "something", so hey what a surprise huh! Duh
Tell us bach, you've never heard of William Paley I suppose?
How about David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Albert Einstein, Heisenberg, Godel, and a few 1000s of other ID believers of the past that were not creationists!?
Your parroted party line statement is so ludicrous I'm amazed anyone is still deceived by it.
Listen up -here's a real tough 1 for ya- Muslims are IDists & creationists but not Christians! Duh.
Anyone on the planet that sees the obvious design in nature is inherently an IDist. Duh
Whether many are also biblical creationists is another side question because clearly millions are not.
As usual I see that American atheists are still the stupidest atheists in the world.
This is all too difficult for the poor Darwinian fundamentalist sheep to figure out I suppose.
We'll have to find something more down to the level of pre-schoolers before any of you athies will ever get anything right.
Facts do not matter to atheists, evidence does not matter to atheists, only the swill of atheist dogma prevails in their bigoted brains.
You just proved this again.
Bachfiend said, "ID taught in schools, despite conflicting with the constitution."
ReplyDeleteSo to finish with bachfiend's inane parroting of his party line's fave BS:
1. Believe it or not the Constitution says nothing of separation of church and state. Nor does it's clear intent mean having no religious ideas taught in schools. On the contrary.
So this is yet another dishonest, lying atheist-created myth.
And even if it really did, we'd have to immediately shove materialism, Darwinism and atheism out of every public school in America, right out on its filthy little hypocrites ass.
Why? These are all religions!!
Secular Humanism IS a RELIGION -yet it not only pervades every public class room in the US, the whole system is run by secular humanists
-ie atheist missionaries whose main goal is to mold society in their own image.
Easy to prove.
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith ...
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort,..."
2. Believe it or not bach, America isn't the only nation on earth. My nation has a constitution but very different from the US one. Dozens of other nations as well. None of the others is exactly the same as the US.
Now, because of this, again believe it or not bach, the whole idea -that you hypocritical atheists are always harping on- "separation of church and state" (again not even in your Constitution), is a laughing stock for the rest of the world.
Pretty much every one else on earth sees that the catch-phrase "sep. church & state" is not only bogus since not even in your Const. but sees that it has nothing to do with teaching the truth in school, whether it be deemed religious or scientific.
This is not hard.
Thus the only conclusion is that you & your humanist priests are dishonest hypocrites or, that all and one are just deeply self-deceived dummies.
I suggest you change your pseudonym to just "fiend", fits the reality of your true character much better.
People like you are never interested in truth, only whatever ideology, dogma and philosophy suits your selfishness.
I am an atheist, and I do not believe, I think! Thus your statement that 'all atheists believe...' is incorrect. Atheists who believe are little better than theists!
ReplyDeleteAnon said, "I am an atheist, and I do not believe, I think!"
ReplyDeleteWhy do atheists everywhere claim this bogus statement as though 95% of the rest of the world doesn't think.
Talk about arrogance and pride.
Well, that's what you "think" you're doing but in reality you're not thinking at all. If you were, you'd know atheism is logically untenable.
Atheism is a logical absurdity in itself.
Also, all atheists "believe" there is no God.
Like you they all think they're atheists because of reason, logic and of course "science" None of which is the whole truth
Indeed, science opposes & ruins atheism.
Everyone believes something.
You believe theres no God.
You pretend its because you think.
Sadly, under atheism, thought is unreliable & unsure.
You really don't want there to be a God, so you're just following the atheist herd.
You were told religion & God were bunk, you read a book, you had a bad experience with religion and the religious....
Possibly all of the above.
Whatever, it is not reasonable to be an atheist, quite the contrary. So thinking is not the basis of your atheism.
Every atheist has reasons to believe there's no God.
But thinking, logic and evidence are NEVER the real reasons.
All true reason, all proper logic and all the evidence says loud and clear, "there is a God".
You just choose to deny all evidence whatsoever, often without even understanding it, and then you ignore it.
Then, you hide the truth from yourself by giving yourself a pseudo-intellectual excuse that doesn't even make sense under atheist dogma.
>The lock-step consistency of atheist metaphysical dogma is without parallel in any religion.
ReplyDeleteThat's simply because it's based on observation and rational thought. It's consistent not because it's manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.
Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).
"That's simply because it's based on observation and rational thought."
ReplyDeleteWhy are atheists always so blind to reality and void of any genuine logic?
Tell us, oh rational one, what observation are you referring to exactly?
Which observation is it that proves there is no God or even no supernatural?
None whatsoever & you know it well too; therefore you're doubly guilty -of both willful stupidity and fraud.
What rational thought are you pretending here?
Where is the rational thought that proves atheism?
Atheism denies the very reality of rationality itself by relegating all thought to mere materialism.
"If naturalism [atheism] were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
Simple.
Atheism according to atheists, "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, ... there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be"
My, such a slew of glaring self contradictions in such a small paragraph is amazing!
They claim that "nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter"
Can they prove this? Using their own feeble methodologies?
No, of course not, and they themselves say so!!
If, by default, you cannot posit any supernatural existence then how on earth could you ever possibly "know" that there is no such thing!?
A child could see through such blatant stupidity, but not the well potty-trained atheist!
A wiser man (ex-atheist) 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'"
This undoes the self contradicting atheist statement on thought, in one single simple phrase.
He adds, "If he is honest,... 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." ... In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true"
"You are nothing but a pack of neurons", said atheist Francis Crick.
So tell us, why should anyone give a crap about what your neurons are doing?
Under atheism you're just a slab of animated meat.
Rationality cannot be defined as meat.
The sooner you finally use your brain to figure out that, if atheism is true, then you really are nothing but animated meat, the sooner you might get free from the abject intellectual poverty of atheism.
"It's consistent not because it's manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality."
Atheism isn't even consistent with itself!! wake up and smell the oxymorons!
Atheism IS denial of reality.
"Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown). "
Absolutely wrong again and again merely parroting what some poor twit said on some atheist web site.
You were raised on humanism and you swallowed its ubiquitous lies and propaganda. You're bound in the snares of its multitudinous idiocies, all while thinking yourself to be "free" and a "thinker".
Packs of neurons can neither be free nor thinkers.
Atheism rational?! rotfl
You, like all atheists, are exactly like the man born blind that denies the existence of light and color because he himself cannot see it, and then you claim this is "rational"!
Think on that and maybe you'll start really thinking for the 1st time in your life.
Hell! The troll doesn't even know what 'dogma' means ... but then, they never do, do they?
DeleteHey you're right, Gary !!! "Which observation is it that proves there is no God or even no supernatural?"
DeleteWhich observation proves that there are no invisible little green men actually pulling our strings ?
Which observations proves that the Dead aren't alive as invisible ghosts?
Which observations proves that our toys aren't actually alive and with a will of their own when we are not looking?
None.
It's only that it is VERY improbable.
It is only that there is way more probability that observable facts are caused by observable facts, than by invisible little green men, living dead ghosts and other "supernatural" invisible forces.
It is only that the burden of the proof lies on the one who claims - especially when they claim that observable facts are caused by invisible, "supernatural" forces -, not the other way around.
It is only that in rational thinking (which, as your post evidences, religious people understand very little about), when you have two possible explanations of a phenomenon, one simple that relies on the same order of phenomena (like: natrual phenomena are caused by natural phenomena), one complicated that relies on another and altogether undemonstrable order of phenomena (like: natural phenomena are caused by invisible supernatural phenomena), the simpler explanation acquires a much greater degree of probability, unless proven otherwise.
It is only that thus far, wherever religious traditions had claimed that invisible forces were at play, they have ALWAYS been proven wrong.
Illnesses are sent on us by the wrath of God ??? NO, STUPIDS, they are caused by microbes, viruses and other genetic disorders !!
The universe was created in six days? NO, STUPIDS, it was created over zillons of light years!
Mankind appeared all at once on the 6th day? NO, STUPIDS, it developped from apes over hundred thousands years.
etc., etc., etc.
We do not yet have all the answers to how the observable, hard world functions, how it developped and reached its present, observable state? Sure we don't: knowledge is a huge, thick wall, and we're still digging, and probably will be for zillion years.
But so far, to every question for which religious traditions had given supernatural, invisble answers, it has been found that the answers were material, natural. Just pursue the tend.... that's logical, rational thinking. Saying: "well, sure, religion has so far ALWAYS been proven wrong, but there is a hard core that ultimately WILL be proven right", that's irrational, illogical thinking.
Lie what? That the universe was created by some immense, ungraspable "intelligence"? By a man with a white beard? That this "intelligence" has created life and our small human intelligences on only ONE planet in the whole universe? And that it is observing and controlling and judging all our acts and behaviors and thoughts? That small flickers of that immense intelligence inhabit our bodies which we call "soul" and that, after the death of our bodies, will join again that immense intelligence?
Boy, the stupidy of all this crap is truly bemusing.
But note: Not that it's necessarily untrue... It's no more necessarily untrue than claiming that our strings are pulled by invisible little green men, or that the conjunction of the stars and planets determines our destiny... In the realm of imagination anything goes...
It's just that it is very, very improbable. So improbable in fact that if someone wanted to establishe a government or rule your lives and behaviors based on the asssumption that little invisible green men pull our strings, he'd probably be put in a mental asylum and under heavy medication.
See my point ?
Poor Gary. "You, like all atheists, are exactly like the man born blind that denies the existence of light and color because he himself cannot see it, and then you claim this is "rational"!"
DeleteWe're all born blind, you just like everybody else. Some of us - the rationalist atheists - are groping around with all their other senses, touch, hearing, tasting, and trying to map whatever they can of the world around them. You, the "religious", are imagining what may be the world way beyond. You are imagining immense forests of blue, green, yellow, skies of pink, seas of purple inhabited by immense creatures.... you are imagining whatever a blind imagination can come up with.
And who can prove your "wrong"?
And who can prove you "right"?
In the meanwhile, we blind atheist rationalists are groping around with the rest of our available senses trying to map the real world surrounding us, and helping even YOU dreaming fantasists to avoid bumping against every wall.
Yeah, you bet, atheists are true believers. And you forgot some of their creeds: they believe that the earth is round; they believe that it revolves around the sun; the believe that 2 + 2 makes 4. They believe that illnesses are caused by microbes and viruses, they believe that Abraham Lincoln was murdered by John Wilkes Booth. They believe in hard, demonstable facts, not fiction, fantasy and superstition. Everybody's religious.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWow Ed, I'm overwhelmed by your profound wisdom and brilliant answers. I have no answers before such depth of knowledge and powerful arguments. Not really. You parrot your masters well. Verbatim in fact. Like every other atheist clone on the planet. Do you seriously think your "points" have never been seen before here dozens of times? All parroted from new atheist gurus who tell you what to believe and what to say when confronted by people who actually think for themselves. Every new atheist drone crawling the web hands out the same tired old nonsense responses, copy/pasted from the Dawkins Manual of Canned Responses to Smarter Theists. You will probably not accept being proved wrong, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to watching you all run away or just repeating endless denial of facts. Amusing perhaps, in some way, but tragically sad. So let's dig in then: "Which observation proves that there are no invisible little green men actually pulling our strings ? [blah blah same old amateur philosopher nonsense we're all so tired of from the ignoramus new atheist crowd] ..." That last one - Which observations proves that our toys aren't actually alive and with a will of their own when we are not looking?" - is ludicrous and short-sighted and so your answer "None" is just as revealing of your own level of thinking. In reality a simple camera in the room would be observation enough. But no, you're all fired up when posting this trash so you were unable to think of that simple answer a child could have seen. Strange that you FAIL to realize that NO ONE is proposing any such existences or phenomena anyway. So why are you making such a glaring slew of errors of equivocation, false analogies and category mistakes?? I bet you don't even know what those are right? Of course not, else you would never have posted such junk thinking, so common among web atheist wannabe experts these days. Maybe you should look those terms up? Get informed on logical errors before embarrassing yourself further with such nonsense arguments? So. Seeing your questions are completely irrelevant, only demonstrating deep ignorance and incompetence on the philosophical level, your own answer is also just as irrelevant. "It is only that there is way more probability that observable facts are caused by observable facts, than by invisible little green men, living dead ghosts and other "supernatural" invisible forces" Very poor philosophy and thinking again. Understandable since this is the material you copy/paste and parrot from your fave incompetent atheist sites. Again, all your questions were irrelevant, your analogies dead wrong and very childish, so its no wonder you're so mistaken on the rest as well. On the refute the rest of your bad thinking next...
DeleteHmm, formatting not working? Whatever, on to your other errors "It is only that the burden of the proof lies on the one who claims - especially when they claim that observable facts are caused by invisible, "supernatural" forces -, not the other way around." Sigh. Here we go again on one of the OTHER fundamental, yet ubiquitous even after decades of refutation, mistakes new atheists are perpetually shoveling out. Atheism in claiming "there is no god" is making a knowledge claim. A positive claim to knowledge of a universal negative. Here's your deep deep error - ALL knowledge claims come with a burden of proof. Sorry, you can whine against that till your cows come home, it will not change the facts. Claiming "there is no god", a glaring claim to knowledge of a universal negative, you DO have a burden of proof. So where is your proof of this universal negative? Where is the evidence? Now here's another thing you unthinking, irrational atheists always FAIL so miserably to see - WE DON'T CARE IF YOU HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF OR NOT, PROVE IT ANYWAY! If you're so bloody sure - as you are - that there is no supernatural cause to the universe and that therefore NOTHING created everything, then you must certainly have an enormous amount of evidence or knowledge that supports your claim to such knowledge. So where is it? Oh! You have nothing of the kind? What a surprise! But then HOW can you be a logical atheist? Since, that "nothing" that you have as evidence of the truth of your position, means that you can ONLY be an atheist by blind faith alone! Here's one reason why all that is true and why you are so shortsighted and irrational here. Atheists have no other option but to claim the universe created itself out of nothing. Which is of course utterly absurd since "nothing" is nonexistence, the absence of anything, and thus has no properties and thus cannot do anything at all. If it is absurd to claim "nothing created everything" - as your new atheist TV evangelists are now doing, then how does atheism explain the existence of the universe? The ONLY other option is supernatural. This is not hard Eddy. "It is only that in rational thinking (which, as your post evidences, religious people understand very little about)," Allow my to me regurgitate on that little piece of nonsense since I just proved that you are the irrational "religious" person here. Atheism is a religion. Here's where you spout the standard tripe "not playing tennis is a sport, blah blah" nonsense. ;) Sorry, you're totally wrong there as well: Secular Humanism is atheism is materialism - is religion. Atheists now have their own churches. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/atheists-churches-nonbelievers-find-a-sunday-morning-connection_n_3096949.html Or right here http://youtu.be/egFaJXFTBbw See also http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ They claim to have 1000s of "ordained ministers". Get your head out of the sand and start smelling the lies you follow so devoutly. "when you have two possible explanations of a phenomenon..." Wow again. Such a slew of wasted words and space. I have bad news for you Ed, CREATIONISTS - NOT ATHEISTS - invented the scientific method! Duh Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon, R. Boyle, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Townes, Kelvin, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Faraday, Werner von Braun, Marconi, AE Wilder-Smith... ALL men with deeply held Christian religious views! So why are you, an irrational, unthinking and deeply ignorant atheist, attempting to explain a creationist-founded method to a creationist? When you, as an atheist could never have developed any such rational method based on atheist beliefs? You new atheists are the most ignorant dullards in the world today. Always totally ignorant of who invented what and when and intellectually bankrupt on the rules of reason and logic. On to the next tasty morsel of irrational junk you posted...
Delete"every question for which religious traditions had given supernatural, invisble answers, it has been found that the answers were material, natural" Wrong. Your knowledge of history is appallingly weak and error laden. "..Saying: "well, sure, religion has so far ALWAYS been proven wrong, but there is a hard core that ultimately WILL be proven right", that's irrational, illogical thinking." Allow me to correct your deep willful ignorance again. Besides being incredibly stupid and ignorance-based, this statement is actually hilarious, coming from any atheist. So here's the facts on your inane atheism: In atheism you are NOTHING BUT A BAG OF MEAT! How is meat moral or rational? Why should anyone care a rats ass what any bag of animated meat "thinks"? There is NO reason. ie. You don't understand the idiocy of your own position! You cannot be rational as a bag of meat Ed, sorry, but a child knows this! - "Like what? That the universe was created by some immense, ungraspable "intelligence"? By a man with a white beard? " Do you ever read the idiocy you post Ed? Nope. Tell us oh wise all knowing atheist dupe, where did you ever read of any theist claiming anything of "a man with a beard"? Seriously. Are you showing your stupidity on purpose or its just oozing forth on its own? "That this "intelligence" has created life and our small human intelligences on only ONE planet in the whole universe? And that it is observing and controlling and judging all our acts and behaviors and thoughts? ... Boy, the stupidy of all this crap is truly bemusing." Well gee, seeing as how you have no grounds for even believing yourself rational, yet do, I'm rather bemused at your glaring lack of rational thinking here. The salient idiocies you drool forth, all while clearly thinking yourself superior in intelligence, but aren't. You are a walking self-contradiction. Your "only one planet" statement is interesting indeed. Groundless and very thoughtless as usual, but interesting. Here's proof: Do you have evidence or proof that life exists elsewhere? I'd love to see this and so would the entire rest of the planet. So please, in order to make your inane drone style statement you must have knowledge no one else possesses. So show it. Show us proof of life elsewhere and the matter will be forever settled. Otherwise how can you claim with such appalling condescension that claiming there's only life here is in fact "bemusing crap". Next time, try not to stick your big clumsy feet in your big irrational mouth please. As for your equally mindless, clueless "controlling our acts" - I know of no theist that believes any such trash. Certainly not to be found in any religious foundational book I know of. Your seriously misguided drivel continues with ... "soul... death of body..." Here again, you must have proof that the now over 10 million documented cases of NDE's, with endless examples of subjects - including hard line atheists - finding themselves in heaven or hell; must all be nothing but what? Near death chemically-induced hallucinations? dreams? Do you have evidence of this? Seeing as how well known high level surgeons and other doctors all know of incidents that are completely inexplicable on a purely materialist grounds? Well gee, allow me to inform you that you know nothing of which you speak. And oh, FYI dead people do not and cannot hallucinate or dream or experience thought of any kind. Duh. What can we conclude from your fatuous whinings? You're an irrational ignoramus with a psychotic irrational belief system, acute cognitive dissonance & some psychological disorder that must be hard to pronounce.
DeleteOn to your last bit of irrational tripe. "Yeah, you bet, atheists are true believers. And you forgot some of their creeds ..they believe that the earth is round; they believe that it revolves around the sun; the believe that 2 + 2 makes 4. They believe that illnesses are caused by microbes and viruses, they believe that Abraham Lincoln was murdered by John Wilkes Booth. They believe in hard, demonstable facts, not fiction, fantasy and superstition. Everybody's religious." LOL No Ed, you believe nothing is something, and that its so powerful it can create an entire universe - space/time included. That's fiction, fantasy and in fact irrational stupidity. And that's you. They also believe that they are rational, even though nothing but bags of animate chemicals. And how do they know this? Because they think they can test the reality factor of their brains, using their brains. Duh. Sorry. They also believe they can be moral even though morality doesn't and cannot exist under atheism's logical implications. Bags of meat are not and cannot be moral. They also believe themselves intellectually superior to theists but all of the above proves just how terribly blind and unthinking they really are. They also believe they have no free will, and yet they act as though their atheism is a freely chosen disbelief based on logic and evidence, all while claiming free choice doesn't exist, not are you who you think you are since all is predetermined by your genetics - since you're just a pack of neurons, a bag of genes and DNA. They also believe in an invisible, unobservable, untestable multiverse, in which all things exist somewhere in some universe among the infinite universes. No evidence, no proof no facts needed. Just blind stupid faith. Strangely enough these same incompetent dullards accuse theists of these very errors. Bundles of living automatons with zero rational thought. Rational thought doesn't exist in bags of soulless meat, sorry. You have been seriously duped and you swallowed it all - no questions, intelligence or logic allowed. Repentance of your arrogance and rebellion against God is what you need. Otherwise you are just another dolt fulfilling the words, "For, from the very creation of the world, His invisible perfections—namely His eternal power and divine nature—have been rendered intelligible and clearly visible by His works, so that these men are without excuse. For when they had come to know God, they did not give Him glory as God nor render Him thanks, but they became absorbed in useless discussions, and their senseless minds were darkened. While boasting of their wisdom they became utter fools," The word fools here, is the Greek moraino - ie. morons. Take the hint. You seriously need a change of mind and heart.
Delete"(I will ignore atheist beliefs in the East)"
ReplyDeleteWhy? Does the existance of Budhism and Raelienism contradict your idea that everyone who lacks belief in a god or God believes the exact same thing?
"1) Philosophical naturalism."
That doesn't even make sense.
"2) Darwinism (some variant of it)."
What about Raeliens?
"3) Human beings are qualitatively no different from animals."
Uh huh
"4) There is no transcendent purpose to life.
That's philosophy not science you idiot. Philosophy is the subject Atheists disagree on more than anything.
"5) Human existence ends at death.
What about Buddhists? HA!
"6) There is no individual personal accountability after death for evil committed in life.
Buddhists
"7) There is no objective moral law (i.e. moral law that transcends human opinion).
Objectivists.
The list can go on and on-- feel free to add to the atheist Nicene Creed.
Atheists deny the obvious positive nature of their beliefs for rhetorical reasons: they wish to disparage religious belief as practiced in the world without having to explain atheist belief as practiced in the world.
What "practice"? We don't worship anything. Well, buddists and raeliens do.
"Tarring the Catholic Church with the Spanish Inquisition loses some of it's punch when the tar is applied by Pol Pot's bed-mates."
There is a difference between communism and Atheism you moron.
"It's fair to say that atheists probably share more positive beliefs in common than Christians do."
No
"A liberal atheist in Washington D.C."
AH HA! YOU JUST ADMITTED THERE ARE LIBERAL ATHEISTS! Atheists vary in politics! Not all of us are commies, therefore conflating atheism with communism is fallacious.
"would ascribe to basically the same metaphysical nostrums listed above as a Marxist atheist in Moscow or a libertarian atheist in Silicon Valley."
Wow... You... I can't believe how casually you contradicted yourself. You mentioned communism and libertarianism in the same sentence while accusing all Atheists of believing the same thing. I... ... ...I don't even know how to make fun of you for that.
"Atheists differ politically, but they march in metaphysical goose-step."
Metaphysics is philosophy. Atheists disagree on philosophy. I've lost friends over whether or not you can get an aught from an is. YOU CAN!!!
"In contrast, a conservative Southern Baptist minister probably holds metaphysical views that are quite different from a liberal Anglican priest, including major differences on Christ's divinity, virgin birth, resurrection as well as on Darwinism and the nature of moral law and accountability after death. "
Now I'm confused. You're BRAGGING about how much Christians contradict each other?
"No gods. No transcendence."
buddhists
"No transcendent purpose."
We disagree on that more than anything
"No life after death."
Some of us believe in ghosts
"No accountability after death."
buddhists
" No objective moral law."
Objectivism
"No other religion manifests such consistency of dogma across cultures, nations and generations."
You're wrong about every single thing you just said.
"Atheist ideology has been of momentous consequence since it first gained control of a nation-state in 1792."
Atheism is even older than that, but the word is Ancient Greek.
" The 20th century was the century of State Atheism."
Hitler was a Christian you fucktard. Also, 1797 was 103 years before the 20th century.
"Atheism is a much more tenacious system of dogma than Christianity."
You are a closed-minded hypocrite.
You're an amazingly blind little fellow De Ha.
DeleteDeeply ignorant, disagreeable, irrational and like most new atheists, incapable of reasoning logically beyond a first degree inference.
"Hitler was a Christian you fucktard."
Normally I, and every decently informed historian, on earth would be ROTFL at such a ridiculously misinformed statement.
Do you ever bother to check your shit before posting it?
Nope.
Allow me to help you again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-german.html
http://wikispooks.com/w/images/a/a8/Hitler_Table_Talk.pdf
How about I, much better informed theist quote Hitler too huh?
"I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie. . .",
"Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity".
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it."
Oops. You're owned.
Better check your facts before posting your shite and embarrassing yourself like this next time.
How about atheist Goebbels ? Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted: "The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
So much for your pitifully wrong claims about Hitler and Nazis being Christians.
I just proved that you're the true "fucktard".
"You are a closed-minded hypocrite. "
Typical atheist projection and rather glaring self-contradiction.
Tell us genius, what is morally wrong with hypocrisy under atheism?
Atheist answer : NOTHING because "ethics is an illusion fobbed off on by our genes..." -E.O. Wilson, Michael Ruse.
Nothing because, as your atheist TV evangelists and priests state, "Evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) *no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent*."
“No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there any absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life”. -Will Provine, late atheist professor of biology at Cornell University
Your idol Dawkins wrote the same thing, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, NO PURPOSE, NO EVIL AND NO GOOD. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." - R. Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), 133
So once again, your willful ignorance and irrational thinking have betrayed you here. Need more quotes from your own atheist pastors and gurus? They are in great abundance.
Ergo - in atheism hypocrisy is not a moral wrong at all, since there is no such thing as evil, as Dawkins et al. wrote. Funny that you FAILED to grasp that inevitable implication of atheism huh?
Atheism can't have objective morality because there is simply no foundation for ethics and thus atheists cannot appeal to ANY moral law for making ANY moral judgment whatsoever - including hypocrisy.
Nothing wrong with hypocrisy under atheism you poor hypocrite.
You see, I as a theist, have every reason to call you a hypocrite since I do have an objective moral law to appeal to, to invoke against you.
Atheism, the most incoherent, logically absurd ideology ever conceived by men wanting to escape the reality of God.
"You have never heard of Weak Atheists"
ReplyDeleteNo such thing. You're an atheist or you aren't. There's no middle road. This is not hard.
"atheist agnostics,"
No such thing - Atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism. Ergo - You do not even grasp the basics.
"humanism, objectivism, moral relativism, Nietzsche, Kant, Raelienism, Budhism, Scientology, Truthists, the Dawkin's scale, Solipsism, Ayn Rand, or people who believe in ghosts."
Blah blah, so many variations on religious themes and irrelevant here.
The Dawkins scale? LOL!
"The ONLY thing we all have in common is a lack of belief in a god or gods, and we vary on THAT!"
Atheism is anything but a "lack of belief".
Besides being a new definition of atheism designed solely to allow the new atheist disciples to feel they have no burden of proof, the new atheist claim that atheism is mere lack of belief is incredibly shortsighted and dishonest.
It is not a lack or absence (except of reason and sense), is it a chosen position not to believe all the evidence presented for a God; mountains of evidence. The atheist dismisses all evidence and denies its validity. That is no lack of belief, but a positive choice to refuse evidence.
Dismissal and denial are not intelligent responses to evidence presented for deism or theism.
If atheism were indeed a mere lack of belief, it would be nothing more than a passive psychological state of mind. Is it? So you're an atheist by no choice of your own? No reason, rationality, no thinking, no nothing involved in your poor condition? You lack belief like you lack vitamin C? lol
Will you pretend you made no such choice? Atheists ubiquitously claim their belief is based on reason, logic and rationality. If atheism were a passive lack of belief, then cats, dogs and even rocks are atheists.
A religion does not need to claim any deity. Buddhism is a religion, yet has no god. Atheism too is religion.
The fact that there are now atheist "churches", with "pastors", ordained "ministers" who perform marriages etc etc., is also strong proof that atheism is religion.
The First Church of atheism now claims to have over 10000 "ordained ministers" and has chapters ie churches.
Not a religion belief and not a religion huh? Oops. Just plain dead wrong.
Looks like you are the unthinking soul that just swallowed everything the irrational high priests of incompetent, intellectually bankrupt, atheism shoved down your throat - no competence attempted for asking questions or checking the facts or even just thinking for yourself allowed.
You are a docile, easily duped sheep De Ha.
So your "fucking moron" comment is forgiven. Especially since according to atheism, you are nothing but a bag of chemicals (A. Cashmore), with no free will to choose your own beliefs (Harris, Hood, Provine, Atkins, Crick...).
Oh and you have no real rationality since rationality is dependent upon free will. Too bad NONE of you high priests ever figure that out huh? They have come to the correct logical implication of atheism on morality - it "is an illusion" of the brain and doesn't correspond to anything real - but none of them are smart enough to see that the same conclusion applies to rationality and for identical reasons.
So you are not rational and never will be. You simply "dance to you DNA" atheistically and I theistically and therefore no one can ever be a "moron" or "genius" or rational at all.
Hmm, I feel pity for you. Such a waste. Such a bleak, depressing, ugly feckless worldview as that and to think you didn't even choose it. That is truly tragic.