The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

S

shima

New member
>>1. just beacause it's raining doesn't mean that it's raining<<

Well, if you can actually SHOW that it rains. Unfortunately, religionists have never been able to show that it rains.

>>2. ignorance IS bliss<<

Hmmm, I wonder who's ignorance you are talking about. Religionists think that atheists are ignorant, while atheists think religionists are ignorant.

>>3. when in doubt, argue<<

What else should you do when in doubt? Trust to faith?

>>4. when arguing, YOU make the rules<<

Actually, the rules about logical arguementation are already established and have nothing to do with being an atheist or not. Unfortunately for religionists, it means that they cannot produce any logical arguements about the correctness of their religion.

>>5. if you break the rules, change them<<

That would apply to religionists as well.

So far, there's not been anything specifically linked to atheists.
 
R

RogerB

New member
So far, there's not been anything specifically linked to atheists.
Click to expand...

I could show you multiple direct correlations but you wouldn't:

a. read them, or
b. believe them, or
if all else fails,
c. see them
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by RogerB
I could show you multiple direct correlations but you wouldn't:

a. read them, or
b. believe them, or
if all else fails,
c. see them
Click to expand...

How convenient, now you don't even have to go to the effort of presenting a coherent argument with substantiating detail! :doh:

It would appear that a good rule when discussing things with religionists is ignore everything after the word "but". ;)
 
R

RogerB

New member
It would appear that a good rule when discussing things with religionists is ignore everything after the word "but".
Click to expand...

There's another rule for atheists in there somewhere. The keyword would be "ignore".
 
S

shima

New member
>>I think I've got it:

10. ignore truth<<

Yes, religionists tend to ignore the truth about science. They simply alter what a scientific theory states and then claim that the theory isn't true. Then they claim that, because science is "obviously" incorrect, the story described in their preferred holy text MUST be true.

On the other hand, science is using the slow and painstaking method of experimental verification combined with theoretical predictions, hypothesising and mathematics to obtain usefull information.

Whem comparing these two methods, its pretty obvious that science is working constructively to obtain more information on how the universe works, while religionism does nothing more than restate the myth in their holy text over and over and over and over again without a single shred of evidence to back it up.
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Rogerdodger,

Selective quotations will get you in trouble. You forgot the qualifying pronoun in your quote. Shima wrote: "their holy text". I suppose he could have included the word "allegedly", but that would have been redundant. :rolleyes:
 
Z Man

Z Man

New member
Zakath,

You're a hypocrite. You believe in God if you did when you were a pastor. You can't just dis-believe. It's not a choice, it's a gift.
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Z Man
Zakath,

You're a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
No, a hypocrite is someone who professes beliefs, claims, or feelings that one does not hold. I'm an honest man, and that appears to threaten you for some reason. :confused:

You believe in God if you did when you were a pastor. You can't just dis-believe. It's not a choice, it's a gift.
Click to expand...
I did believe at some time in the past; but no longer do so. When one's theology becomes incapable of dealing with the real world, perhaps it's time to reevaluate that theology, Z Man. :think:
 
Z Man

Z Man

New member
Originally posted by Zakath
No, a hypocrite is someone who professes beliefs, claims, or feelings that one does not hold. I'm an honest man, and that appears to threaten you for some reason. :confused:
Click to expand...
You're an Atheist, therefore, you are a hypocrite. If you believed before, you still do, which makes you anything but an atheist. If you are a true atheist now, you always were...
I did believe at some time in the past; but no longer do so. When one's theology becomes incapable of dealing with the real world, perhaps it's time to reevaluate that theology, Z Man. :think:
Click to expand...
What is real? How do you define real? ..... The truth is, that which does not last forever is not real...
 
S

shima

New member
Actually Zakath, I stated "their preferred holy text". Preferred being the operative word here.....

But I don't have to tell you that I don't believe that their "holy text" is completely and absolutely true.

RogerB
>>The truth is, that which does not last forever is not real...<<

The Sun doesn't last forever, neither will the Earth or even me. Does that mean that NONE of them are real?
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Z Man
You're an Atheist, therefore, you are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
his is an example of "argumentum ad nauseum" another logical fallacy from that list I referred you to the other day. Merely repeating the same argument over and over does not make it any more sensible, Z Man.:nono:

If you believed before, you still do, which makes you anything but an atheist. If you are a true atheist now, you always were...
Click to expand...
Your philosophy and theology are incomplete or outright false, since they cannot deal with how real humans act. I'd suggest you try thinking about things instead of blindingly accepting what you've heard from a pulpit or read somewhere...

What is real? How do you define real? .....
Click to expand...
Real, in a philosophical sense, means: "Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. "

For example, the computer upon which I type this message is real.

The truth is, that which does not last forever is not real...
Click to expand...
Ah, another Christian philologist, making up new definitions for words to suit your theology. :freak:

Your definition of "truth" isn't the same as mine.
Truth: noun
  • 1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
    2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
    3. Sincerity; integrity.
    4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
    5. a. Reality; actuality.
    5. b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)
Click to expand...

If we cannot communicate in plain English, how do you expect to convey a convincing argument?
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by shima
Actually Zakath, I stated "their preferred holy text". Preferred being the operative word here.....
Click to expand...

The post the dodger was referring to was, I think, this one:

[/i]"Whem comparing these two methods, its pretty obvious that science is working constructively to obtain more information on how the universe works, while religionism does nothing more than restate the myth in their holy text over and over and over and over again without a single shred of evidence to back it up."[/i] - (emphasis mine - Z)

That's why I made the comment. ;)

But I don't have to tell you that I don't believe that their "holy text" is completely and absolutely true.
Click to expand...
OK. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top