Contradictions in atheism

Heh .. atheism only seems to get complex with its own absence.

 

Sometimes you don't seem to put much thought into what you say.

All he told you was what he is not. He never mentioned what he is. I'll let you try and figure out why that distinction is important.

Aside from that, I'm not going to talk about this particular subject again (someone else's beliefs). It's starting to feel too close to speaking for him, which I am not comfortable with.

 

Yes, he did.

Apparently, you don't read what I write.

As I said, MANY atheists do what revol does, which is argue like they are striong atheists and then claim they are not atheists - even though they do not believe in God - which drives them to act like strong atheists.

Its actions that lead me to classify someone - not whatever excuse they rationalize themselves at. And when MULTIPLE posters see someone acting like a strong atheist and said atheist gets pissy because he's being called something that is not an insult, but a classification? Who cares?

As I have said in other settings, when Anne Heche chooses to classify herself as a lesbian when she is having sex exclusively with a man, with whom she now has children, than this would be an example of what revol is doing.

It would also be a reminder about proof and what you and I keep disagreeing about. Evidence.

I am not an atheist because ... er, I say so.

Or you are an atheist because you preach like one, act like one, smell like one, and you don't believe in God.

Which one is accurate?

But to instantly brand every disagreement lying?

Well, as an officer, you'd be amazed at how many times I have had Soldiers attempt to lie to me, and every single one of them swears they are not lying even as they lie. We hold people accountable for what they do, not what they say.

Funny how that objective standard drives my classification of both atheists and sexuality, eh? That is how standards work.

 

If you leave open the door to the possibility then you are an agnostic. Both of those national and global Atheistic organizations do not operate from the vantage point that you are operating from. You could not do to an organizational meeting and talk about the "maybe God does exist". Their goals and they spelled them out in their websites include bullet pointed items.

Do the terms atheist and agnosticism…are they the same in definition? Every dictionary I have looked at show them as different.

 

No, they do not have the same definition, which I have already explained.

Atheism deals with belief (specifically, the lack of), while agnosticism deals with knowledge. Two separate concepts.

 

Are you suggesting that Atheists hold no belief in knowledge?

 

Why acceopt their ridiculous classifications? Am I an 'anti-flat-earther'? No - just a normal educated person. Fundamentalists have no shame and no honesty. as far as I can see, and will not take part in any discussion outside their own fixed terms. Leave 'em to rot.

 

What does any of that have to do with my question that you responded to?

 

I haven't the faintest idea. I was just getting bored with all this tedious posturing.

 

OK.. I can relate to that feeling.

 

No.

And you wonder why I refuse to respond to your ridiculous sophistry.

 

But you are responding so my technique in expressing myself, must not be too "ridiculous".

 

So by that logic then, I suppose it's ok for me to describe Christianity as something that it's not? Because that's exactly what's being advocated here in regards to atheism.

In that case, I don't want to hear any complaining the next time someone describes Christianity as "the belief in an imaginary mean old wizard who lives in the sky" (for example).

If every actual atheist tells you that your views about atheism are incorrect, maybe you should listen to them. Do you go to the doctor and spend the whole visit arguing with him about how his diagnosis is wrong?

 

Contradictions in the Bible diminishes Christianity as a whole your "Contradictions in athemism" just diminishes that individual author or group who published it. Your example is equivalent to me posting things about the 700 club or KKK for Christ while titling the thread "Contradictions in the Bible." Unless you find a document Atheist must prescribe to be atheist (like Christ is the son of god and the bible is gods word), one is not be like the other.

 

Then stop it, and the feeling will go.

 

You seemingly have a problem understanding the dynamics of communication. In order for you to respond to me, you have to have read the posting that I made and therefore your comments would be addressing those points of my posting. Subsequently, you are in fact responding to my "nonsense" (as you would refer to those postings). Who is "N... er..."? I never encountered such a person.

 

Thread is slowing down, and I'm a glutton for punishment, so I'll go back a day and respond to this ...

That would be terrible. Good thing no one has done that then, eh? I hope you're not going to lie about me and claim I did.

Of course it is. Just as screaming "You(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s!" at a group of gays would be a personal insult. Screaming personal attacks at a group doesn't magically make it not a personal attack.

Cool, an atheist conspiracy! MWAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA!

Irrelevant. "Permissable by the mods" does not define "personal attack." The mods only define board policy, not common English. Plenty of types of personal attacks are allowed by board policy.

And we show it, and you run, and then you go into your victim act.

Here, I'm going to repost what you ran from before. See if you can address it this time, instead of turning tail and going berserk with insults. That made it look like you knew you couldn't address the issue, and you probably don't want that. I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding, and you're not really as gutless as you look, so I'll give you another shot.

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.

Thus, I determine the standard Christian definition of God violates logic, and therefore can not exist.

But you are a bigot. If someone constantly screamed "YOU(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)S!" at all gays, they would obviously be bigots. You constantly scream "ATHTARDS!" at all atheists, so you are obviously a bigot.

You mean back it up _again_, so you can run away _again_.

You still need to show why your mythological figure should get special treatment in regards to standards of evidence, but every other mythological figure in the universe should not get the same such special treatment.

Justify your double standard. Or just continue to behave like your crying baby photo.

 

Let me make it very clear how the english language works.

Vile in this example is an adverb that is used to modify the verb attempts, therefore your attempts were vile and nothing more..... How I wrote this is exactly how I meant it. Regardless of this fact, isn't it important that we seek to understand the meaning of what is being said?
You started out by saying that I was claiming that atheists were vile, now you have declared that I am calling you vile for calling me an atheist...... Neither one is factual.
What you have demonstrated, clearly contradicts the basic fundamentals of the english language.......
What is your objective here?
How am I left to respond to you?
I am either left to conclude that it is your intent alone to be contentious; or that you lack an education of the basic understanding of the english language.
Your actions on this forum offer nothing, and serve nobody including yourself.
I has become increasingly difficult to be diplomatic here in how I respond to you.
I truly desire to have a meaningful discussion with you, it is consistently met with contention.... If you continue to do so, you have only succeeded in proving yourself to be unworthy of a response or any discussion.

 

No joke, there is such a conspiracy. See here:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-....,cf.osb&fp=782384432d316272&biw=1024&bih=558

and especially this one.
http://www.una-westtriangle.org/hrc/

That line of thought deserves a whole thread all by itself, whereupon initiation of such a thread, I firmly believe the thread would be immediately deleted. But that is just my personal opinion.

 

I mean that the term defines you in religious thought-patterns. I do not choose to be so defined, because it gets in the way of thinking seriously about what is usable in the various belief-patterns. Just reacting to them negatively isn't much better than just doing what some preacherman tells you, in my own view anyway.

 

Why? Because you suggested that I 'stop it'? That would be placing my own being under the dictates that you prescribe. What a ridiculous way for anyone to live their own life... by the dictates of others? Be real.

 

And just what do you think you are doing when you run around telling people that they believe in imaginary beings and that 'reality' drives you?

Oh, you didn't use that exact phrase, so clearly there is no issue with the behavior of atheists.

It does according to the forum rules and repeated moderator guidance. And as atheists have no problem doing it, I have no problem following the same rules in return.

You take a good hard look at which one of us is whining about 'personal' insults.

Yep, when atheists do the same things as religion - well, built in excuse.

You are making excuses. THis has been debated, and when atheists do this - as we see - there is NO acknowledgement of their own failures on this one. But the SAME STANDARD applied to them is a personal insult?

Hypocrisy is all this is. Take it up with the mods whiner.

No, you claim it, but if teh ego gets out the way, we have the reality that people can read.

You've done nothing but act silly. Which is proof apparently that atheism is logical? Nice.

Oh, I should ignore your silly ass personal pot shots and treat this like a mature response?

He could, but why would he? You are speaking to God's intent, which as an atheist, you clearly know nothing about.

AGAIN, how does that make atheist logical?

Right, it doesn't.

Nope, once again, omipotence means he can do anything or nothing. You, just as I stated earlier, put a boundary on omnipotence and just eliminated it.

You defeated your own arguement.

Thus, you ignored the rebuttal I ALREADY made to this, while claiming it is me ignoring your stuff? Quite the opposite.

Funny how evidence works.

I don;t scream that at all atheists. I say that about athtards who take all rebuttal as an attack. That you are emotionally incapable of making that difference is YOUR problem, as is the double standard on personal insults which we see once again.

But a self worshipper can never acknowledge fault ... so.

Which of us is running?

The fact tha trational people are able to classify thing correctly, and having laid this out for you with repeated examples (which you say I am not doing), I believe an actual rebuttal rather than just broken record propoganda and accusations would be in order.

YOur thesis is that athism is logical - and once again, we see the abject failure to support a simple thesis statement.

But we do enjoy insult hurling emotionalists constantly argueing about how their insults are not insults but having read the word athtard somewhere are automatically cape wearing super victims.

Therefore, because atheists are cape wearing super victims who swill out insults and childish accusations, atheism is logical

Thank you for continuing the strengthen my case.

 

Nothing ego centric or personal about lecturing someone about how the enlglish language works.

YOu cannot support a simple thesis and are blowing your stack. You have no one to blame but you kiddo.

Who the hell wants to discuss ANYTHING with a whiney super victim whose idea of a discussion is lecturing people about the English language?

Make your excuses and slink back to your corner. MAssage that ego and think that you are smart when in fact all you display is ill manners and anger.

The trite above is not logic atheists - but we see it all the time.

BTW - what makes you an atheist is that you don't believe in God. That you run around calling religious people stupid, illogical, and prone to imaginary flights of fancy.

That is offensive to you, but you can call people vile and disgusting human beings? And not a single civil atheist will bat an eye?

Looks a LOT like an emotional anger fest as opposed to logic doesn't it?

Also looks a LOT like hypocrisy.

Back to your corner to dry the eyes.

 

There are plenty, but every time I put them out there, even as atheist argue the same thing, they claim they do not represent atheism.

In fact, its what the OP does.

Whatever excuse you atheists can come up with, as long as nothing is EVER your fault.

 

Lots of people tell me I believe irrational things, yet oddly, I don't go into a victimhood tantrum over it and declare that they've insulted me. Only you act that way. Most people accept criticism, even harsh criticism, like grownups, and don't call it a personal attack.

Excellent! For the first time ever, you attempt an actual response! Let's throw a party! We need to encourage this. I knew you had it in you.

The problem with your response is that, by your "we can't know God's intent" dodge, you turn Christianity into a sort of Agnosticism. Either god is knowable or unknowable, which is it?

If God is knowable -- bound by logic -- then that leads to contradictions that show God can't exist.

And if God is not bound by logic, you can't know anything. Thus, when God says "be excellent to each other", he might really mean "eat each others' brains". God as Cthulhu, more or less.

And no, you don't get to use special pleading. You know, saying "God is knowable when I want that, and God is unknowable when I want that." Pick one or the other.

Now, unlike you, I'm consistent. I always require logic of gods.

So again, you're declaring God is outside logic, which makes any knowledge of God impossible, since all such knowledge is based on logic.

Nope. I'm not the one unsure as to whether gods are bound by logic or not.

I imagine few others will agree with you that "screaming abuse" constitutes a valid rebuttal.

Since you evaded my other question, that's my cue to ask it again.

Why do your think your mythological figure should get special treatment in regards to standards of evidence, but every other mythological figure in the universe should not get the same such special treatment? Justify your double standard.

And no, "YOU ATHEISTS ARE IRRATIONAL" is not a valid answer to that. All answers are responses, but not all responses are answers (to paraphrase G'Kar).