Contradictions in atheism

Yep, calling someone who repeatedly claims the mantel fo reality - and then fails to produce the goods while acting like a snob - arrogant is JUST a vile slur.

Its not accurate for what is being dished out by atheists in the least?

Well, as long as you atheists have your excuses in place - all is well in the world of castigation, blame, and double standard.

So, you are, exactly as charged, launching vicious personal attacks rather than displaying the evidence you think conclusively proves that atheism is the result of logic rather than emotion.

Your evidence is the charge that I am bigoted for thinking the vicious personal attacks that inevitably flow from atheists when asked for evidence indicates science rather than arrogance and emotion?

Thank you for proving the point - again.

You are not the first atheist to waltz in arrogantly and call people delusional, and when confronted, respond like a super victim.

Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy and dogmatic accusation.

No, there is not. THis is standard atheist propoganda.

In omnipotent anything is possible. As soon as you say its impossible - you are no longer talking about omnipotence.

THis has absolutely nothing to do with science or evidence and is a philosophical extention of your faith - nothing more.

That is fully, because other atheists are calling these, accurately logical fallacies.

Lets see if it works.

Grass if green, therefor God is real.

Oh wait, comparing two non-analgous things with different standards of evidence means that they are both true? Well, teh opposite must be true, since grass in not blue, there must be no God?

THe evidence for God is not the same as Santa.

All you are saying is, "I think God is a fanatsy like something else, therefore it is true." It is a snobbish, arrogant opinion that is quite frankly insulting - and is most definitely not the result of logic - indeed it cannot be, its a fallacy.

Of course, its not the fact that this is a highly insulting fallacy that matters, its that pointing this out is bigotry and you are victim, correct?

As are ALL the other atheists who use this, even after it is rebutted and exposed for the fallacy it it - indeed, one would think that at some point, atheists driven by facts would JUST once intervene when one of teh poropgandist fools uses this insulting tactic?

Nope, because it is not about logic - its about self worship.

No, you are excusing your own insults because the criticism stings, and you simply lack the strength to be honest with yourself. And since you have already deominzed us as delusional and sub-human, well, we see the natural extension of such logic right above do we not?

You hate, that is YOUR problem. Your words are YOUR responsibility. But you are victim ... so its all good.

No, you can prove a negative. Indeed, Santa makes testable claims like living on the North Pole, and we have the North Pole mapped.

Now he's invisible right? Unfortuantely, Santa makes no such claim, and when this happens it becomes a known arguement from absurdity - another logical fallacy. Yet atheists continue to use it anyway? What a shock.

God claims miracles. Are there none? Hmmmm....

Amazing what happens when you ACTUALLY use logic rather than fallacies isn't it?

Do I? Could you show me that, or in addition to your logical fallacies above, you are now defining who we defien things? Or did you just ignore the massive amount of evidence, albeit inconclusive, that supports the probability of God?

More excuses - what a shock.

More facts avoided.

Yep, the one launching the personal attacks, hurling double standards and accusations, presenting known fallacies and indoctrinated trite whiel foaming at the mouth at any rebuttal has scored a bullseye?

The only one unhinged is you kiddo. Any anger you sense is yours alone - so please deal with your own issues and stop projecting on others to excuse your own behavioral issues.

Personal responsibility is indeed a challenge for many atheists.

Yep, if you confront an atheist lying about your faith, you are not setting the record staright - you hate atheists, who apparently hate facts.

Why are so many atheists accusatory ********s?

I think Jesus approves of people correcting out right lies about him.

I think he is saddening by pentulent little emotionalists who attempt to use faith as a weapon of abuse against those who stand up to blatant internet bullies.

Another angry atheist presents the standard indoctrinated, unthinking trite of atheism. Just as easily reduced to personal attacks and teh standard insults that we have come to expect from atheism.

But of course, seeing this pattern - well, everytime - rather than science? Clearly its not reflective of the wide sceintific support of atheism that is more elusive than Santa.

 

Atheists most certainly do have their Bibles. There is the Skeptics annotated bible that uses the bible to list the discrepancies that they think they see IN the bible. These people have a much stronger dogma than christians in that they believe what they believe in spite of what is obvious in the world.

 

Yep, clearly, having laid it out the self cancelling standards of atheism, I clearly have no idea what circular logic is - because you say so.

Another emotional excuse, one that is arrogant as all hell as well. What a shock.

Well, you don;t have one of those.

And yes, that would be a doctrinal basis.

We have presented cases in support of our claims - it is atheists that present wild excuses rather than the REALITY that they claim supports their position and makes everyone else delusional.

Funny how you guys claim the mantel of evidence, and yet cannot present anything ... well, except excuses to not present anything other than denial and insults.

What a shock, eh?

I have yet to see a single fact from any of the insult swilling atheists, whose opinions are apparently facts.

Do you see why thelogians consder you guys to be self worshippers? Your opinions are facts? You guys make narcissus proud.

Because you say so - nice self worshipping rebuttal.

Sounds like someone who is angry that facts disagree with his faith, eh?

Interesting how quickly your standard of judgement change.

Oh, on that you would be wrong. There is a little PM function, and we see what drives atheism quite clearly.

"I wish you and yoru facts would go away!"

Let me remind you tiger, it was atheists, just like you, that formed little bullying clans of athards who formed literal organized flame bait groups that were broken up when a group of us stood up to the bullies and they lost their minds - most are now banned as a result of the resulting temper tantrums that were thrown when people stood up to them and refused to tolerate their abusive trite.

So, atheism is driven by the reality of .... just go away I hate you!

No emotion there - at all. Clearly anyone who thinks so just hates atheism.

 

Isn't 'atheism' just another fundamentalist sect, limited in the same way? Dawkins certainly reads like that to me. If you accept other people's definitions of your opinions, you accept their world. A mistake, surely?

 

When you all make the same arguements Iolo, its not Dawkin's fault.

 

What arguments do I make?

 

the same as every other atheist.

Indeed, you are doing the same thing I JUST pointed out.

Its not like you have never made a post on this forum, and indeed, it isn't hard to see the threads and overapping arguementation, indeed the often word for word similarities in the ... well, at this point I would call them statements not arguements, that atheists make.

That includes you, as indeed that question is asked by atheists, who have hundreds of posts in this section, as if it isn't in and of itself the problem?

What arguements ARE you making? And if YOU don't know ... whose fault is that?

Indeed, its why I so often have to remind atheists about the concept of a thesis statement, and why, having seen how quickly most atheists will simply chang etheir thesis in mid sentence, I have come to conclude that atheism is extremely emotional.

Indeed thesis A: Reality, logic, and evidence drive atheism ...

Rapidly becomes and entirely different thesis when someone asks for the support of that thesis:

Neutral is bigot!

YOU tell me what that means when every self congraulatory atheist waltzing around caling people delusional is responding like that within seconds of being asked for the natural proof of their thesis statement? As logic dictates no less.

How many times do we have to see atheists reduced to screaming insults and chronic vicimization, in sharp contrast to actual logical arguementation, before we can corrrectly conclude that it is emotion that is driving this nonsensical behavior?

Yet that thesis statement is simply bigotry?

Well, perhaps you understand why fewer and fewer people are able to trust atheists.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

Whose fault is it when someone is highly insulting and derisive, dihonestly so, about someone else's faith? Whose fault is it that any questionng of their faith is met by vicious emotionalism?

And do you think such behavior does not have consequences? Or is the fact that atheists call it logic mean that the temper tantrums are not happening - nor are the consequences of those tantrums?

 

Well, there seems to be a lot of strong feeling there, but no quotation from me, is there? Don't you think you are projecting stuff?

 

Poor, poor Neutral... To live his life believing he is the last christian being assaulted days and nights by hordes of rabbid and evil atheist...

Say, Neutral, how is that paranoia thing going on for you?

 

Going to pretend you're not frothing about "athtards" now? Not very smart or honest of you.

Could you point to these vicious personal attacks? You seem to be confused about what a personal attack is. Let me clarify it for you:

"Athtards" = personal attack.

"atheist a*****es" = personal attack

Pointing out your reprehensible behavior = not a personal attack.

<many hysterical insults deleted. I prefer actual discussion.>

That's nice. But given I never said ominipotence is impossible, you're arguing against a strawman.

If god is omnipotent, then as you said, anything is possible. Therefore, he could create a world without evil that still allowed free choice. He does not do so, meaning he deliberately allows evil for no purpose, and that contradicts omnibenevolence.

And if god is omniscient, then he knows exactly what I will do, therefore I _must_ do it. Even if I think I have free will, I don't, because I _must_ do what god knows I will do. Therefore, omniscience contradicts free will.

Unsupported opinion on your part. Don't just claim it; present your evidence for god. Remember, screaming hatred at atheists doesn't count as evidence for god.

Special pleading fallacy on your part. You can't just declare "but my case is different!" and stomp off in a huff. Show _why_ your case is different than the Santa Claus case.

You also need to explain why you don't obey your own standards in regards to Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Cthulhu and every other god out there. After all, you say you can't just discard them as a fantasy, but you _do_ discard them as a fantasy. That massive raging hypocritical double standard on your part invalidates your whole "but you can't just dismiss it as a fantasy!" argument.

But Santa is magic. He lives in our hearts. And people all over the world believe in him. And the love of Santa drives people to do beautiful things. And many miracles are associated with Santa.

Argument from absurdity is most certainly _not_ a logical fallacy. I don't know where you got the crazy idea that it was. From here, it looks like you saw that my argument from absurdity destroyed your argument, so you simply stomped your widdle foot and raged that it couldn't be valid.

Both theists and Santaists make wild unprovable claims about why their pet mythological figure doesn't have to obey the standard rules of evidence. What makes you different from a Santaist in that respect? If you can't say, then argument from absurdity shoots down your claims

Then, as we keep asking, post this evidence. If you did, it would be for the first time.

Yep, no personal attacks from you, right? You're just one big cuddly teddy bear of rationality, being unjustifiably picked on by those mean atheists.

 

Whose fault is it that you are unaware of your own arguementation?

Nice arguement.

 

I see. Squealing and getting the "athtards" censored because they humiliated poor innocent you was obviously one of the proudest moments of your life. Nicely done. I'm sure you got some high-fives for that from your fellow victims.

Anyways, thanks for the background. We're starting to see just how far back the victimhood complex goes. Keep talking and let it all out; we're here to help.

 

Agh, I see, so saying that athtards use a certain kind of arguementation is a personal attack ... however, your repeated and direct attack on me are all fully excused.

Running around calling other people, based solely on their religion, delusional idiots is not personal in the slightest.

Calling people who are overwhelmingly atheists who behave like idiots athtards is a personal attack?

Agh, I see, MORE double standards. Your insult laden diatribes are not personal in the slightest. Someocalling insult laden diatribes and direct personal attacks athtarded is a direct personal attack?

Maybe you should ask teh overwhelmingly atheist moderator staff whether or not that is permissable? Because we've had this discussion, and you are indeed allowed to call groups anything you want.

Its why you get away with teh slanderous BS of calling people, based solely on their religion, delusional. BUT, you see the word athtard and are somehow automatically a victim? Of hypocrisy maybe.

YOU, indeed several strong atheists (who are no doubt actually agnostic atheists) claimed that it was REALITY that drove your atheism. Now, EVERY single one of you is reduced to petty excuse and insults - that is of course written by you BUT NEVER your fault?

That is indeed the reallity of atheism.

And when some says, "OK, its reality and logic that drives atheism, lets see it ..."

And within minutes the lot of you is screaming "BIGOT!" and "EVERYONE WANTS YOU TO GO AWAY!" ... "I HATE YOU!"



That is indeed the reality of atheism. Its what we got.

Its YOUR thesis - back it up.

But when all we get is insult laden excuses and double standards? That is indeed telling of the support of atheism.

Given the "How dare you disagree with ME," mentality - not only is that clearly extremely arrogant, but given the hysterical resort to emotionalism so often encountered when asking atheists for an actual logical proof?

Well, taht looks like a problem for atheism. And when the lot of you are reduced to angry curmudgeon status? Whose fault is that?

You show no respect but demand it? How is that working out for you? Why do you think it should work out for you? Even as it fails for everyone else?

So good luck living your life by that ... double standard.

So, yes, its pretty damb athtarded to run around a religion forum calling everyone delusional when you have no proof to back up such a deliberately insulting claim.

But you don;t like it when that behavior is called athtarded?

Noted. Fix your behavior before you go on the condescending lecture series please.

 

Who is humiliated?

Atheists behaving badly are classified as athtarded and lose the mind they are not using ... and clearly we are the humiliated one?

Amazing, another total failure to support his simple thesis statement about the logic of his position.

Not his fault though ... never is.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/227304-idea-regarding-atheism-12.html#post1060804040

I love the double standards.

Its down right athtarded.

How many times do we have to see this thin skinned BS before we are allowed to say that it is emotion driving this behavior? Nah, everyone who sees it is just a bigot.

 

Atheism….

Atheism makes the statement that there is NO GOD. No one can make a statement like this…because it would require all the knowledge in the universe. No one has that or ever will. At best someone is agnostic…they highly doubt by all observation but they don't know.

Their views however are religious because they have a worldview…they organize and they have an agenda. If you visit sites like this one…the majority of debaters in religion are so called those who call themselves atheists.
If one denies….God….why debate it…why spend the majority of your time with people who you think are idiots for believing in God?

It takes faith to believe in both.

 

It's quite odd when the bully somehow claims himself to be a victim when those who he bullies stand up against him.

 

And MORE support for the thesis that atheism is driven by logic and evidence

I mean, its not like a group of immature, angry posters, are failing to produce evidence and attacking ... yet another ... person for daring to ask that question and take them to task ... why logical reasoning is actually bullying to them.

Atheism is supported by ... YOU ARE A BULLY!!!!????

Now, that is down right athtarded.

Too bad its the best atheists seem to be able to muster.

 

A logical reminder to the increasingly emotional atheists ...

#1 - YOUR thesis statement is that it is logic and evidence that drives your atheism.

#2 - MY thesis is that atheism is driven by arrogance and emotion.

As you all blow your stack - whose thesis is being proven correct?

Funny how that works, eh?

 

Atheism

It would help if the OP actually KNEW what Atheism.

This thread reminds of another thread about Evolution. The OP on that thread thinks Evolution IS Speciation. The OP doesn't understand that Evolution LEADS to Speciation.

It would be nice if the religious nut-jobs, the creationist wack-jobs, and the fear mongering christians actually knew what the hell they were talking about, instead of making thread after thread after thread of complete nonsense.

 

No, it doesn't. It makes the statement that one lacks a belief in god.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism deals with the concept of belief while agnosticism relates to knowledge (which you touched on).

It is an common mistake when people consider agnosticism to be a third option, in addition to theism and atheism, but it's not - it's separate. It is even entirely possible to be agnostic and theist, which means that you believe a god exists, but realize that you do not or cannot know if that god actually exists.

Please, do not fall into the same trap as some other posters. There are a small few who have this warped view of atheism and agnosticism and all their illogical arguments step from this simple misconception. One which could be easily corrected, but for some reason, they fight tooth and nail not to.

This may be true of some atheists, but it does not describe the majority.

No. As explained above, atheism is not a belief, but specifically the rejection of a belief. There is no faith involved in atheism.

 

Yes, atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

One cannot conclude that the evidence is both conclusive and inconclusive. It is not possible. Even preponderance is indicative in a mutually exclusive way. Something canot be improbable and yet indeterminate can it?

And you atheists are certain - certain enough to running around calling other posters delusional, and yet here we see the excuse of agnostic atheism - which should just be accepted despite its face illogic.

Do you understand why there are no agnostic-theists? And why no one appears to be dishonest enough to make such a claim? Especially after calling atheists delusional?

Just remember, no one but YOU has to accept your excuses.

 

That is just nonsense, lad. Sober up and answer the question.

 

Why do I have to answer your questions?

You are in teh middle of a debate in which atheists are making the exact same arguements they always make - including saying, "I am not making that arguement," which is exactly what I predicted.

Here you are argueing that you are not making ANY of those arguements, which was EXACTLY what I predicted to ane even greater degree.

What else do I have to prove?

 

If you only had to prove yourself, what would you have to argue about?
What would any of us have to argue about?

 

Wait, who's the victim here?