Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Atheist
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(4)
Message 25 of 365 (651083)
02-04-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chuck77
02-04-2012 6:01 AM


10. You vigorously deny the existence of God, yet you frequently blame Him for all the "evils" in the world, all the natural disasters, and everything else under the sun that is wrong in modern society.
But it would be a sign of a sophisticated debater who can both deny the existence of God while also being able to point out that one of the consequences of the existence of God would be its moral culpability in the creation and perpetuation of evil.
9. You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when creationists say that people were created in the image and likeness of God, but you have no problem with the evolutionist claim that we all evolved from slime by a cosmic accident.
I've never come across such a creature. Furthermore, I see nothing that is either insulting or dehumanizing about being a human that is descended from non-humans.
8. You criticize fundamental Christians who believe the Bible, and say that it can't possibly be true because it's just a book written by mere men, yet you never question any of Darwin's writings or Richard Dawkins' books.
Yep that would be foolish, but I have yet to see an atheist that believes in the infallibility of the written word of Darwin or Dawkins.
7. You can't seem to understand the primary differences between fundamental Muslims and fundamental Christians (hint: strap-on TNT. Plus - Muhammad says, kill innocent people and yourself if you love me. Jesus Christ said, I’ll die for you because I love you).
I would say that it would be a sign of a foolish Christian who supposes that a fundamentalist Muslim believes killing innocents is justified. I know some fundamentalist Muslims and they are adamant that killing innocent people is not only unjustified but a grotesque sin that will result in the burning in hell of the transgressor.
There are extremist Muslims that believe it is justified to kill people that I, as a humanist, consider innocent (but they themselves believe are suitably guilty). But then, there are extremist Christians who have murdered, or supported murder and torture of people that as a humanist, I consider to be innocent (but who they consider to be murderers (such as doctors that perform abortions), or heathens (such as with the Inquisition)).
6. You say the Bible is full of fairytales and fables, yet you believe all life forms including plants, trees, insects, birds, fish, reptiles and mammals evolved from one species into another - As if evolution isn’t the biggest fairytale of them all.
I don't think that the Bible constitutes a fairy tale, though some aspects of it are clearly in the same form as fables (talking animals and moral points to make through metaphor, allusion and analogy etc). Evolution isn't a fairy tale, it contains no princesses, no supernatural elements and no fairies. It is also not a fable since it has no moral point to make and has no animals speaking human languages or any other hallmarks of fairytales and fables.
I would say that calling an observed and evidentially supported process a work of fiction designed to impart some moral statement or teach some other important life lesson would be the work of a foolish theist.
5. You laugh at the Supernatural, even though scientists have calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes to be estimated less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,ooo power — But you find nothing wrong with believing that billions of years full of random mutations would result in the impossible.
Scientists have calculated no such thing. Since we have yet to learn exactly how life originated, it is impossible to calculate the probability of that event occurring.
I have not met an atheist that thought there was nothing wrong with billions of years of random mutations resulting in the impossible. I have met many atheists who agree that mutations along with selection pressures can result in the improbable over long time scales.
4. You accuse fundamental Christians of being intolerant, judgmental and hateful, while you foam at the mouth calling them freaking lunatics, ignorant, weak-minded, stupid fundies, and hateful bigots.
I fail to see what is foolish about getting upset that some subset of people are generally intolerant, judgemental and hateful. Surely we should be upset that there are such people. At best you might succeed in a charge of hypocrisy here, though I don't think it is hateful or intolerant to say someone is hateful and intolerant.
3. You ignore scientific concepts like cause and effect, and you don't realize that a closed system can be defined however the observer wants, so you throw out technological phrases to try to ignore the implications of thermodynamics by saying the laws of physics are not set in stone.
Cause and effect is a philosophical concept (called determinism), not a scientific one. I've never met an atheist that ignores determinism. From the rest of the rant, it appears you might be upset that some atheists draw a distinction between observations of things within the universe applying to the universe itself. I don't think that making this distinction implies a person is foolish.
But I've long since given up trying to understand anti-evolutionists when they bring upthermodynamics since it almost universally foolish, and this point does not seem to be an exception to this rule.
2. While all evidence, logic and reasoning point to a Creator and absolute truth, you prefer to hide behind relativism and a theory of evolution which does not, in fact, describe the creation of the universe at all, or why concepts of good and evil or morality exist.
The evidence/logic/reasoning does not point to a Creator. That would be the position of an atheist, not just our hypothetical foolish atheist.
Atheists are very vocal in trying to tell people that the theory of evolution is nothing to do with the creation of the universe and it is foolish theists that see this as being somehow problematic. Though evolution (along with its mathematical cousin, Game Theory) has successfully explained why good and evil exists. Start a thread, I'll be happy to educate on the matter.
1. *Atheism fails to adequately explain the existence of eternal, unchanging truths, for it rejects the existence of an eternal unchanging mind. Atheism cannot offer man any eternal significance whatsoever. Temporary meaning in life is insufficient, for our accomplishments die with the death of the universe -- there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of God.
I'm not sure why this is a sign of someone being a foolish atheist, it seems to be a criticism of atheism in general.
Anyway, atheism not only fails to explain the 'existence of eternal, unchanging truths' it also fails to explain the 'existence of temporal, changing truths'. It does this because atheism is not an explanation of anything. It is the lack of belief in deities, for whatever reason.
Atheism doesn't offer meaning or morality, but neither does theism.
Atheistic philosophies can provide those things, just as theistic philosophies can. But simply theism tells us nothing about meaning or morality or significance or purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chuck77, posted 02-04-2012 6:01 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 02-04-2012 11:44 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 32 of 365 (651100)
02-04-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
02-04-2012 9:09 AM


believing in the absence of evidence
My question is...what does a "typical" atheist believe in? (as far as where everything came from)
What do you mean by everything?
If you mean 'the universe' then there are many possibilities, some more hopeful than others.
But if I was to propose say, a Brane World, as the origins for the universe you'd probably then ask 'But where did the Brane World come from?'
And so we find ourselves either at an infinite regress where every answer is simply responded to with 'but where did answer n come from?' or we must accept there is some brute fact or facts where there is no prior facts to explain or justify them.
Theists find themselves in exactly the same position when they bring this up.
The bottom line is, there is no better theory of how the universe came to be that has any bearing in reality than a Creator.
But that's not the bottom line at all, for a start 'A creator did it' is no theory at all - it explains nothing whatsoever. Furthermore, where did the Creator come from? If you insist that this is one of the brute facts mentioned above, then you should be able to see things from an atheist point of view:
Given the lack of evidence supporting one hypothetical brute fact over another, the atheist decides to not believe in any of them. Why commit? The atheist does not feel motivated to plug the gaps of knowledge by making leaps of faith to one proposed answer or another.
This is a difficult position for many theists to understand. As I infer from your statement
It may well be true that belief in God or gods is silly, ignorant, or foolish...but what do we have left? Certainly not chance.
It may be a brute fact that entropy increases, and as an inevitable consequence of that brute fact universes are created (a sort of Lawrence Krauss type position), or any other number of hypothetical brute facts one can dare to imagine.
But the thing is, an atheist may well have chosen to believe one or the other, they may just as easily have taken an agnostic approach: Withholding belief in any proposition. So if you were to ask them if they believe the God proposition, they'd say no - therefore atheist. But likewise if you asked them if they thought the atheistic idea above was true, they'd also answer 'no' - therefore perhaps being Akraussians).
On the whole, my experience is that plenty of atheists have their favourite notions about the nature of reality and its origins, but most will openly admit that even if they believe one idea or grouping of ideas, it is speculative.
The theist's belief is much more adamant, and often comes along with various random bits of culturally acquired dogma. The argument 'it must have come from somewhere - so why not a god?' does not get you to the theistic position, which almost always makes many further assertions. At best it gets you to deism, but really when closely examined it should lead to atheism. The answer to the question is:
I don't know, and neither do you.
Or less snappily: I don't believe things without evidence; there is no evidence supporting any claimant definitively (and some claimants are completely evidence free), therefore I don't believe in any proposition. The mere fact that this happens to include 'God' means I am often called an atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 02-04-2012 9:09 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 02-04-2012 4:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 44 of 365 (651135)
02-04-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
02-04-2012 4:49 PM


Re: believing in the absence of evidence
Your problem is that here at EvC if one is to participate in science, one must commit to your not empirical theories acceptable only by atheists, agnostics and evolutionist ceationists.
Nobody is being forced to commit to any 'not empirical theories' in order to participate.
Mmm, But the EvC science fora implies that you do have evidence and none other do.
If you are advancing a position in the science fora you are fair game for people demanding evidence to support said position. I don't see why having evidence for one idea means to imply that nobody else has evidence in support of their position.
We are not in the science fora, and my entire point was about the problems in believing in speculative non-evidentially supported notions about the origins of everything - even atheistic ones.
Science alleges that Energy is eternal, having no beginning or ending according to 1LoT.
The first law of thermodynamics is basically the observation that within the observable universe energy is not created or destroyed. There is no evidence that this law applies to the universe itself. Maybe it does, but we don't really know, do we?
Only an eternal operative source of energy explains it.
I see no reason to accept your assertion, nor do I see how an 'eternal operative source of energy' explains anything. I refer you back to the Lawrence Krauss video I linked to if you want to learn about a non-religious explanation. (Abe: Actually I think I was thinking of This talk by Sean Caroll (That's the introduction, the meat of the talk is in part 2))
It is further supported by observable phenomena relative to the existence of the supernatural as has been shown.
If it has been shown, it wasn't to me.
there is no physical scientific evidence of either the alleged singularity zero event emerging into the alleged expansion of alleged time/space.
There is significant and overwhelming support for Relativity.
I'm wondering if you read anything that I wrote; since Relativity and the Big Bang were not really related to anything I said. I was talking about what atheists believe about where 'everything' comes from. I was not talking about the early stages of the observable universe. Maybe it turns out that the singularity is the brute fact of the universe, but personally I don't think that's the case and I don't think that is a consensus view among modern physicists; It's a consequence of purely relativistic thinking and we're fairly sure that Relativity doesn't describe all of reality.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 02-04-2012 4:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 72 of 365 (651207)
02-05-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Chuck77
02-05-2012 2:23 AM


Re: The debate
Well, i'm not sure where to start. To many responces.
Sorry for contributing to that
This site needs more Creationists. Anyone know why no Creationists stick around here?
For the same reason that big name Creationists tend to avoid written debates like the plague, I'd imagine. The medium allows anybody to take the time to do some research and supply supporting links for their position. This biases against those who have no research or evidence to support them.
My opinion is because the moderation is so bad and doesn't allow for debate
And I'm sure you are willing and able to provide supporting links to back up your opinion? It's all a matter of record here, after all.
That I can't understand. You want Scientific evidence from peer reviwed or whatever from Scientists who are against Creationism?
Actually, we are perfectly content to debate peer reviewed work from scientists who are for creationism. It's just unfortunate for you that these are like hen's teeth, and given their rarity we evolutionists are already familiar with most of them and have not found them persuasive.
So when I provide Creationist' evidence it isn't good enough.
I'm 100% certain that when evolutionists post evidence in support of evolution that this has not proved 'good enough' for you, either.
I would have gotten around to presenting the evidence Creations have but it can't ever get there because of the complete and utter bias this site has.
Others have commented that no amount of bias can prevent you from presenting the evidence. The worse case around here is that moderators are editing or deleting your posts to removed presented material - and if that was your charge I'm sure you'd have ample evidence to back it up.
This latest post of yours seems to be an inflammatory attack copy-pasted from elsewhere rather than a stellar contribution towards the overall discussion.
It's such a great debate site with great moderation supposedly, that it only lets one side of the debate express itself?
Nope - it lets both sides express itself. It does not allow either side to engage in posting unupported assertions, repeat themselves over and over again, post copy and pastes without attribution. Actually it does allow all of that, it just discourages it.
If you are going to claim you have evidence to support creationism, you will be expected to present that evidence along with your argument as to way it is evidence that supports one particular view over another. If you can't handle that, and evidence seems to be suggesting that creationists generally can't, then I suggest you move from written debate to spoken debate. There's more scope in a spoken debate to, as Billy Flynn would say, engage in a bit of Razzle Dazzle. The Gish Gallop, for example, is much more effective in spoken debates where the opponent simply does not have the time to research and address all the spurious claim being made.
Why can't Creationists express themselves here without being shot down?
I've been shot down plenty of times at this forum. It comes with the territory of expressing viewpoints that are contrary to other's views. It comes with the territory of debate. If you can't handle people taking shots at you, get out of the sky.
Do you want our views and evidence or not? The answer is no, you don't.
Actually, yes. We don't want, however, your constant whining about how unfair it is that people are free to respond the supposed evidence and views in a negative or rebuttal-orientated way. Your views are not sacred, they are not immune from criticism.
It's obvious this site isn't about learning thru discussion because if it was the non-Creationists here would be willing to learn about our sides views and accept our arguments on the entire forum, not just in certain sections.
Those who believe that science supports creationism are welcome to the science fora to put their views forward. It is just, I'm sure, an unfortunate set of circumstances that have meant that those that have so far tried have been unable to keep the argument up - or have resorted to non-scientific reasoning to try and support their position.
If the Creationist is not willing to accept evolution and it's explanations those Creationists are considered ignorant and unwilling to learn.
The charge of ignorance is often put up when a creationist is ignorant of some facet of evolution or logic or what have you.
The unwilling to learn charge is given when, despite having been corrected on said facet of evolution, the creationists continue to make erroneous statements about evolution.
t's unfortunate that Creationists aren't allowed to argue/debate their positions here the way they want to.
Unfortunately, it seems that the majority want to be able to debate using Gish Gallops, hit and run tactics, by creating grotesque strawmen and other dishonest tactics that work in spoken debates. If you'd like to debate in a more honest and open way - you'll be perfectly welcomed here.
And even if you don't, we'll probably allow you to stay, but there may be some mocking.
It's Percy's site, who is an evolutionist. His rules. It took me to long to realize no Creationists are allowed to be themselves here.
If there were such a thing as a creationist who argues in good faith, who didn't spend large quantities of time complaining about how unfair things are around here, who presents evidence for creation and attempts to muster an argument around that, who understands evolution and argues against actual evolution rather than some bizarre strawman -- I'm sure we'd allow them to be themselves.
Unfortunately, so many creationists just don't live up to those kind of standards. You seemed to have started off looking like you were such a creationist, but over time that image has been tarnished.
Ask Buz, Mazzy and all the Creationist members who either left or are currently suspended.
They all tend to say the same things. They should be entitled to bring up the perceived problems with dinosaur/bird evolution in a thread about the origins of humans. They should be able to bring up thermodynamics and complexity in a thread about whale evolution. They want to say that the Bible contradicts Darwin and that prophecy disproves Einstein in a scientific debate about cytochrome c.
In short - they want to be able to have free reign over the forum - they want the debate rules applied so as it favours them, their tactics and their style. The alternative is appreciating the rules of the site and adjusting ones style to accommodate those rules.
You have been made a moderator, you have been given access to the moderator forum. Buz was given moderator status. This is because your alternative viewpoint is desired. You use your platform instead to post generalised complaints, rather than raise specific problems with suggestion on how you feel they should be handled and why.
If you want to see a biased forum, try evolutionfairytale.com. How many evolutionists have been made moderator over there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Chuck77, posted 02-05-2012 2:23 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 152 of 365 (651945)
02-11-2012 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Trixie
02-10-2012 1:31 PM


foolish atheists
How can they blame a (from their point of view) non-existent being for all the ills of the world? I suggest you have a wee think about this because it's a nonsensical position to hold.
In all fairness - someone that holds both that a person does not exist and that they are also to blame for something...is a fool. If that person happens to be God, then they are a foolish atheist. Exactly as advertised.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Trixie, posted 02-10-2012 1:31 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Chuck77, posted 02-11-2012 6:38 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 165 of 365 (651960)
02-11-2012 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Chuck77
02-11-2012 6:38 AM


Re: foolish atheists
Holy smokes. Some clarity on the 153rd post.
But as I pointed out earlier
quote:
But it would be a sign of a sophisticated debater who can both deny the existence of God while also being able to point out that one of the consequences of the existence of God would be its moral culpability in the creation and perpetuation of evil.
And it would be a sign of a foolish theist that gets confused on this point. One should not confuse 'if God exists, then he is morally culpable for evil' with 'God exists and is morally culpable'. And time and again I've seen theists get confused on this issue, even though it appears quite obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Chuck77, posted 02-11-2012 6:38 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Chuck77, posted 02-11-2012 7:03 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 167 of 365 (651964)
02-11-2012 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Chuck77
02-11-2012 7:03 AM


Re: foolish atheists
Obviously I know one can argue against what we believe and not have to believe the one we believe exists in order to argue against it. I know this Modulous. Have I accused anyone here- one single person- of doing this?
I'm simply pointing out that in almost 100% of cases where you find an atheist who is suggesting that God is morally culpable - it is not because the atheist actually believes that God exists.
As such, in almost 100% of cases where an atheist is accused of foolishness for making this mistake, the mistake is actually being made by a theist who cannot quite grasp that the atheist is taking god's existence as a given or as hypothetically shown - for the purposes of debate.
Whether you have ever made this error I do not know. If you thought this particular point was anything other than a triviality, you may have done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Chuck77, posted 02-11-2012 7:03 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Chuck77, posted 02-11-2012 7:23 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 175 of 365 (651981)
02-11-2012 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Chuck77
02-11-2012 7:23 AM


Re: foolish atheists
Geez, of course I can assure you i know this. Did you think I didn't?
I had no idea whether you knew it. It wasn't just for your benefit that I say it, but for our mutual readers too.
Edited by Modulous, : changed tense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Chuck77, posted 02-11-2012 7:23 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024