Contradictions in atheism

Anyone else want to endorse Neutral's loopy "Some atheists were rude to me, so atheism is contradictory!" manifesto?

(The Unibomber has got nothing on Neutral.)

 

Yes, the total inability of an atheist to support their thesis is CLEARLY my intellectual disgrace.

What was my thesis? DO you enjoy proving me correct?

 

Well, I see this thread has digressed to the point of debating the difference in the meanings of 'belief" and "believe". I truly wonder if any of the non-theists can actually explain such a difference, since they claim to hold no belief in god or gods or God.

 

Oh look, serial dishonesty.

Go ahead and quote me saying that. I dare you - in fact I triple dog dare you.

Not only are atheists failing to support their own thesis, but we are now in the imaginary world of deliberately insulting strawmen.

My thesis is quite clearly, as has been spelled out repeatedly, that atheism is emotional.

What do athtards read? Some atheists are rude therefore atheism is contradictory?

THat nullity would be an example of a DELIBERATE misrepresentation. I will expect you to hold one of your own accountable - I certainly won't hold my breath in expectation of an atheist applying a standard though.

 

LOL, now you're just contradicting yourself. First you tried to claim that he said being an atheist was vile. Now you're claiming he said that you are vile for calling him an atheist.

In addition to being self-contradictory, neither are correct.

What he actually said, was that your attempts to call him an atheist were vile. Your words, Neutral - your words are vile, the way you present yourself.

LOL, clearly.

 

I have NEVER deliberately misrepresented anything from anyone. I despise dishonesty, and I would never engage in it. EVER.

Perhaps instead you should reflect on yourself.

 

If you only you understood, you know applied logic, that canging the position of a word in a sentence doesn't fundamentally alter the rules of logic, we'd get soemwhere - but as atheism is emotional, that isn't likely to happen.

Indeed, if there is DEFINITIVELY no God, well, there is a certain evidence taril that should lead to taht conclusion - and it should be pretty strong.

If there is PROBABLY no God, well, that would reqire a preponderanec of the evidence case - i.e. we would expect to find evidence of God here, and we don;t find any. Indeed, you are QUITE DEFINITIVE that there is no evidence in support of this claim - but you cannot explain to us how you reached that definitive conclusion in support of that statement.

We also have the fact that something cannot be both improbable and indeterminate. It is a failure to stake out a position - nothing more than that.

ONLY YOU have to accept your excuses. IN a debate forum, the failure to support something is failure. Yours.

Rules of logic - use them.

Yep, you jumped into a debate where, once again, several atheists are making the silly claim that atheism is the result of 'reality' and evidence. Yet when presented?

Is atheism a faith or not? Simple test - and we already know how you answered, don;t we?

But when called, you are just being misquoted, bullied, misrepresented, a Jew being chased by Nazis, Superman in Kryponite cave.

So atheism is undefineable? That is what that statement says. If you cannot define YOUR thesis statement, then your position is beyond illogical - its nincompoopery at its finest.

Stake out a position and defend it.

Once again, try godandscience.org.

Of course, your utter failure to preduce anything means that people should accept it? In fact, it everyone else NOT presenting evidence? Even AFTER they have done so for you hundreds of times?

Its simple lying, an ostrich, to avoid what we already know - science can neither prove nor disprove God.

So we change thesis statements again, and shift the burden of proof onto theism to use evidence? Evidence then when presented is serially ignored?

Again, two competing thesis:

#1 Atheism is logical.

#2 Atheism is emotional.

The utter failure to demonstrate a logical proof, but a bunch of sill ass accusations proves one of those thesis statements correct.

That does not mean that a person has no hobbies does it.

Saying there are no black holes when the evidence strongly suggests it because you cannot fly up and touch one is obviously not a correct form of logical arguementation. Its what you are doing.

You claim logic supports your position - lets see it. Stamp collecting has no bearing on the evidential record for God.

No, you said there was ZERO evidence.

Furthermore, you have set no standard other than your opinion about what is and is not evidence - and we ZERO evidence or observations from your side.

It emotion - not evidence that guides you. Pretty simple.

Yep, using the rules of logic makes me dishonest - because you fail to present evidence or support your thesis statements and I don't jump into your arms tell narcissus how incredible he is?

That pretty much defines arrogance kiddo.

Also, nice ad hom attack and blatant dodge of the whole point.

So you have under taken no investigative process to formulate your own opinion on the subject.

Yep that equals emotion.

You have no cirteria.

Indeed, you claim that there is NO evidence is now contradicted by your new standard - which is what I predicted would happen.

ROFL.

Yep, its not arrogant to say that no one understand a position for which you cannot even define a thesis statement.

You are clearly not saying, "You are stupid!"

NO arroagnce here!

Yep, its very insane to say, "Stop lying about my faith," and correcting errors.

Indeed, its insane to challenge any atheism because their position is so logical that no atheist can use the standard logical position to define it and support it.

.... this failure is because other people are dishonest.

Athtarded isn't it?

 

You just did above. You just ripped a partial quote, half a sentence actually, and deliberately presented it as a false representation of what I was saying.

You don;t despise dishonesty, you embrace it, and then accuse others of it as if this excuses your behavior?

Haven't we talked abou this?

 

Pretty simple thesis question atheists:

Is atheism the result of logic or emotion.

My thesis is the later - there are several atheists who appear to have totally blown their stack who disagree.

Support your thesis atheists. Not mine.

 

Nope, the context of what I stated is very clear when written - its why you deliberately did not quote all of it.

Because you cannot - so we get this instead - as always.

There is no attempt about it. He's an atheist.

There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. SO callilng him an atheist does not make me vile does it? Which is exactly what I said.

Somehow I am not saying what I am saying? And can indeed be quoted saying?

How does this make atheism logical?

Right. It doesn't.

 

Hey nullity: what gives.???? why no response to this posting above? Are you aware of the distinctive difference?

 

"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, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that 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. Humankind is on its own."

http://atheists.org/atheism

What they are saying is…nothing exists there is no God. Not…there might not be…there can not be…..I kinda doubt it. They are operating from the viewpoint…there is no God. "THERE ARE NO FORCES, PHENOMENA OR ENTITIES WHICH EXIST." That is a factual statement professing the belief that THERE IS NO GOD. WE ARE ON OUR OWN….NO GOD. They are not saying….well maybe…they say NO.

This organization meets, organizes and is active promoting their views. They do this just like people who go to church or attends bible studies do. They have an agenda that reflects their worldview. They seek to make changes to law…they are outspoken in their actions.

I have not been here long enough to know how other posters define atheism. You tell me not to fall into their trap…if they define atheism as I have then I am aligned with their views. I do not feel I am in a trap…I have read done research…on this and what different atheists believe…and they state…there is no God. Which is something they can not logically do…it is impossible.

An agnostic on the other hand leaves the possibility that there might be a God…they say they do not know.

 

Atheist and Agnostic Society…read what they do….exactly what churches do…they promote their worldview….which is life apart from a God they state as fact does not exist. As I said this is impossible to do.

“We are committed to making atheism visible in the community as a rational, responsible voice for secular morality.”

This is a worldview…like Christianity or Islam or Judaism.

“Fostering a secular society requires attention to many specific goals, but three goals in particular represent the focus of our activities: 1. an end to the influence that religion and pseudoscience have on public policy, 2. an end to the privileged position that religion and pseudoscience continue to enjoy in many societies, 3. an end to the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever, whether the nonbeliever describes her/himself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker or skeptic.” Publications: Point of Inquiry podcast, videos on a variety of topics, multiple magazines."

They have an agenda and goals…and a plan of actions. And they say that Christians should not promote their worldview and try to influence people. They are doing the same thing. They want people to accept and live by the lifestyle they put into place. Notice they say….'" an end".

They organize, they meet, publish…preach…..

THEY WANT TO ERADICATE GOD FROM SOCIETY.

http://atheistandagnostic.wordpress.com/resources/national-organizations/

 

One side tit then the other side tat.....then a barrage of tits for tats follows. But where does this all leads to? Nowhere, for in the end no one is convinced that the other side is in error. When are some Christians going to learn to stop casting their pearls before the proverbial swine? Because all they are going to do is trample it.

Matthew 7:6 (MontgomeryNT)
6 "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine; lest in turn they trample them under their feet, and then turn and attack you."

Why aren’t we listing to what Jesus said? Is our ego that big that we have to win every argument or try to get back at the person by coming up with something to hit them over the head?

 

Well, when the thesis is determining whether or not atheism is logical or emotional?

The fact that so many atheists lose their minds rather than produce evidence or some kind of civilized, rational thought process would very much be the goal.

Now, if I were deliberatey baiting them that would be one thing.

But when all you say is, "Defend your thesis and I will defend mine," and we get emotional havoc?

Thesis: Atheism is emotional.

Proof: Utter lack of evidence or investigative processes to corroberate, highly emotional arguementation, science leads to agnosticism not atheism, atheists refuse to acknowledge the faith requirement .... etc.

Accurate predictions in behavior when confronted with requirement for proof of strong atheist claims (You are a liar because you believe, moron, whatever):

#1 - agnostic atheism, the theory that atheism is undefineable (except by atheists in secret) and thus has no burden of proof - so ... will inevitably come up. It did.

#2 - Attempts to shift the burden of proof. Atheism, driven by evidence requires ... your evidence, not theirs. That came up.

#3 - Accusations of bigotry will come up. They did.

#4 - Accusations of deliberate misquoting, lying, or both will come up. They did.

#5 - changing goal posts will be seen, as in the supported thesis will shift - everything from "What am I saying," to, "Atheism has no thesis!"

#6 - No evidence presented will be acknowledged. Indeed they continue to support their logical position by demanding your logic for them to disreagrd by whatever standard pops into their head.

#7 - No evidence in support of the position will be presented. We wait.

Normally at this point you would rebut the common arguementation, but there is LITERALLY nothing to rebut, there are just spurious accusations to defend against. To be fair a few atheists do eventually make a case, but the best they get is doubt .... and when they realize that running around calling people liars and worse based on their faith alone is silly? They stop.

Ergo, in conlcusion, atheism is a HIGHLY emotional position, and the proof of that reality is all over this thread.

Indeed, all you have to do to set far too many atheists off is ask them to actually defend their position. When they can't? They get angry.

But when they get angry - that is what actually plants the seed of doubt. People are, at some level, logical. The seed is planted, their failure manifest. At some point, they will have to deal with the repeated failure to explain their own faith and how that leads them to lose their mind.

Or not.

Its still fun watching smarmy egoists running around talking about how intelligent they are be reduced to spittle hurling rage monsters by simple stating, "Please support your thesis."

After all, my thesis is that these chaps are rather more emotional than logical, and it appears that I am right. Funny thing is, the Bible predicts this end

 

Did Jesus do those things? Did He command us to go around and argue and try to convince people that have already made up their minds? How many times did Jesus say we should beat someone over the head with our belief? I would like to see a show how many former atheist that became convinced to believe in God as a result of arguing with Christians? Or how many atheist here that are even more convinced that there is no God as a result of reasoning with Christians?

Arguments come from a carnal mind and not from God.

 

Its a debate forum.

And yes, when people straight up lied to Jesus about the Father, he does correct them - see the Pharisees.

I am a former atheist, and the seeds are planted in many ways.

Its a debate forum. And allowing the unchecked spread of straight up lies and leaving unchecked the abuse of Christians is not exactly what Jesus had in mind either is it?

Why is it that BOTH atheists and some Christians like to pretend that debate is only an option for atheists? Why is it that both sides will watch atheists lose their minds and then say its the Christians fault?

Unfortunately, the Bible is pretty clear about what to do about serial rage monsters, its caste them out. Well, we don't have that power on this forum, and thus we are left with exposing their arguements as utterly without merit.

And, as you know, faith is a deeply personal matter, and those who define themselves by being better than everyone else? Well, they REALLY don't like it when they are wrong.

You tell me whose fault it is that an entire group of people who defines themselves as being unemotional and rational, driven by logic, can be so easily reduced to screaming insults and tirades?

And when the thesis they are rebutting is that they are emotional rather than logical? Once again, whose fault is that?

No one has to stand there and allow other people to straight up lie about another person's faith. And when correcting the lies results in the liar exploding?

How about we start holding atheists accountable for their actions and their constrant refrain of superior morality? That would be nice.

But really, what are you trying to accomplish by saying don't debate on a debate forum?

 

WTF? No, that's not at all what my statement said. Of course atheism is definable. It has been defined for you countless times.

Fine. Here is my thesis:

You are unable to adequately support your own thesis. As such, there is no logical or rational reason for me to accept it.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I (as well as other atheists) have not changed anything. We've been saying the same things consistently. The burden was always yours (theists) since you are making the claim that a god exists (an no, atheists are not making a claim that a god does not exist).

Not at first. It was evaluated and dismissed as inadequate. Now that you keep repeating it, yes, it's ignored.

Bad analogy. That's not what I'm doing, since there actually is a lot of evidence for black holes.

No difference. If you present some thing "A" as evidence in support of proposition "P", but upon examination, "A" does not qualify as such, then it is not evidence.

Setting aside the fact that you don't, that's not what I said.

Of course I have. Again, not what I said.

Sure I do - scientific, empirical, testable, repeatable, falsifiable (of course, to be scientific evidence the others are already required, but I am specifically mentioning them separately because they are important, and some aren't aware of that fact).

Except there is no contradiction. As I explained above, if something you present as evidence does not hold up under examination, then it is no longer considered to be evidence.

In other words, what you present as evidence, is not actually evidence.

Straw man. I didn't say no one understood it - I said YOU didn't understand it.

And you seem surprised when I point out that you are blatantly dishonest.

I've never said that - but if you want to make that claim all on your own, I'm certainly not going to stop you.

What?? Nothing has been about your faith. The discussion has been about atheism - about which you keep lying.

Again, I never said anything about anyone else. YOU are dishonest.

 

Except that he told you he's not an atheist. So there's that.

 

Because I choose to no longer participate in your sophistic word games.

 

But you seem to have glossed over or missed the important part:

"Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity"

The rest is their particular interpretation of that, which not everyone agrees on. The only common factor between all atheists is "the lack of belief in a deity".

But so do atheists, at least the honest ones, which seem to be the majority. I am an atheist, and I leave the for the possibility that there might be a god (non-specific). I just see no evidence/reason to believe so.

Again, agnosticism is separate from theism/atheism - it is not a "third option", even though it is sometimes used that way. In addition to being an atheist, I am also agnostic - I do not know if a god exists or not.

 

sounds like a religion to me. A religion that wants to proselytize and convert, even aggressively so...much like.......................ISLAM.

I'm sure Atheists are involved in loads of good works seeing as how they're so moral. What would those be?

 

As I said, some atheists have an agenda and goals, but most do not. These agendas and goals are not a part of atheism itself, but rather additional views held by specific people.

The concept of atheism is not as complicated as that.

 

When you all make teh same arguements ... and tehse arguements are ALL found on multiple atheist web sites and informational dumps .... its a pretty tough stance to indicate that each individual atheist, rugged bear meat, cave dwelling individualist that they may be, all arrived at the exact same points of arguementation independantly and free of influence and association that effects EVERY other human being.

Indeed, the fact that MOST atheists automatically default to atheist version of creationism, agnostic atheism, is but one case in point.

When the VAST MAJORITY of atheists running around talking about how logical atheism is are reduced to heedy tears and insults rather than simple arguementation in support of a thesis?

Its not complicated at all.

You go ahead and define atheism and support it. But what is chronincally dishonest is to be repeatedly argueing as strong atheist and then complaining that no one else can figure out what is afoot because they are not defining atheism correctly.

Neither are atheists - atheism seems instead to be whatever is best at that particular time to bugger some Christian - and that isn't atheism at all, its nihilism.

 

An awful lot of atheists tell me they are not atheists.

Yet they run around insulting Christians as delusional morons and bad mouth religion as 'imaginary'.

Really, he's just another agnostic - with very strong atheist tendancies that sound a lot like strong atheism - or ... another agnostic atheist.

The fact that someone is getting pinned down when teh arguements of strong atheism are exposed by claiing it is someone else, no sir not them - not an atheist, is extremely dishonorable.

And quite frankly, the fact that someone says they are something, doesn't mean you have to accept it when it is obviously patently dishonest.

If a white man walked up and claimed he was a black man, I would not call him a black man either.

And atheists, if you are proud enough to run around abusing and deriding people based on their faith, then you ought not to take offense when people correctly point out that you don;t believe in God and that makes you an atheist.

If being called an atheist offends you? Don;t act like one.

There is nothing wrong with atheism, which I keep saying, but there is certainly something wrong with abandoning reasoning and logic to run around bashing and devaluing people based solely on a faith choice and cronic victimization.

The funny thing is, atheists scream and hollar when I do this to them, but the same atheists who scream and hollar when I defend Christians pat me on the back when I defend Muslims and Jews.

Its the SAME standard. Multi-culturalism, secularism, FREEDOM of religion, tolerance, compassion, etc. compel honest people to expunge lies and tawdry prejudices based on irrational sterotypes.

So, to simplfy, atheism cannot be disproven, it is a valid choice to explore - honestly. The nihilistic tendancies in atheism are easy to disprove and indeed should be. Justas the prejudicial anti-Islamic or Anti-Semetic trite should be disproven.

Pretty simple concept isn't it? But then, that is the power of allowing objective standards to guide you.