Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Randy X · 07-01-2003, 12:36 AM

Hi everyone, i'm Christ and i'm new around here.I'm a proud athiest, and am glad to be around such intellegent folks.

I would love for you guys to disect this little "story" made by someone else that I found on another forum.

Quote:

My Rant on ATheism ...

Why do Atheists ALWAYS believe that their religion is the One True Faith and that more than any other Cult they (the Atheists) have a lock on the Truth?

That�s what all Religions claim � a monopoly on the Truth.

Of course Atheists are going to try and up the ante. According to them they are so above the other �religions�, that their religion isn�t even a �religion�. Instead it is a magical thing called �science� (all together now � Oooooo!)

In �science� there is no �God�. Instead the Atheists have replaced him with a supernatural, magical, non-conscious, mystery force/machine-thingy that none of them can really explain, but rest assured they are correct, because their religion (oops, I meant their �science�) is more True than your silly superstitious nonsense! You are just some nitwit Theist, where they are a magically special A-Theist with unexplainable �free will� powers.

You see according to most A-Theists, you are crazy for believing in �God� based on no evidence, but it is perfectly logical (i.e. illogical and hypocritical) to believe in �free will� by defying all the available and obvious evidence. Of course one wonders if there is no �free will� and the entire history of this universe was preordained by the Laws of Physics and the Initial State at the Time of the �Big Bang�, then why on Earth did the A-Theists magical non-conscious sky-monster make us in the first place? Just so we could watch what was going on and not do anything about it? If all we can do is watch helplessly, then why on Earth did the universe create us? Kind of what you would call a �major contradiction� if the non-conscious mystery force is really as non-conscious as what the A-Theists claim?

Look, here�s what the A-Theists are trying to tell you. They aren�t really saying that �God� isn�t conscious (the source of TLOP) they are really trying to say that YOU are NOT conscious. I mean, how can you be according to their views? How can YOU be more conscious than the thing that made you, and controls your every single action cradle to grave? You can�t be, you have to be less conscious than the non-conscious mystery force. In other words, according to A-Theism you have to be less conscious than the Non-conscious laws of physics.

Really all that the A-Theists have done is to take that old line in the Bible (about not making any idols of God) and ratcheted it up a couple of notches. Not only are the A-Theists NOT going to make any idols of their �God�, but they aren�t even going to talk about him at all, and when they do, they are going to pretend that he is not even conscious. In other words, the A-Theists want to pretend that Machines make minds, instead of the other way around (the way that makes sense).

A-Theists have a �God�. They are forced to pay their God lip-service too. If not they can�t remain A-Theists for very long, at least not without looking foolish. The God of the A-Theists is �free willy�. There is no evidence that �free willy� exist, ergo I do not believe in �free willy�. I guess that makes me an A-A-Theist. I lack-a-belief in what the A-Theist believes.

As for �Science� (Logic) well, the A-Theists want to pretend that it is a recent invention that they just discovered, but this only further illustrates the utter dishonesty of the position. The fact is that �Science� has been around for a long, long, long, time, and from its very beginning Science and Religion have gone hand in hand.

Just who do the A-Theists think did ALL of the early astronomy work? Was Newton an A-Theist? How about Copernicus? Galileo? Kepler? How about the Druids who build Stonehedge? Or the Egyptians who built the pyramids, or the Maya or Inca who build observatories all over South America? The fact is that almost all of what the A-Theists want to claim as their own was discovered by men who were NOT A-THEISTS, and who if fact utterly rejected A-Theism! Name ONE great scientific discovery made by an A-Theist. I bet you cannot. A-Theism is a religion of pessimism, and pessimist never accomplish much of anything.

Please give your thoughts and show any faults and inconsistencies.

Regards

TiredJim · 07-01-2003, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christ
Of course Atheists are going to try and up the ante. According to them they are so above the other �religions�, that their religion isn�t even a �religion�. Instead it is a magical thing called �science� (all together now � Oooooo!)

Science is based off observation and experimentation and improvement, whereas religion is based off rigid adherence to what was already said.

Quote:

In �science� there is no �God�. Instead the Atheists have replaced him with a supernatural, magical, non-conscious, mystery force/machine-thingy that none of them can really explain, but rest assured they are correct, because their religion (oops, I meant their �science�) is more True than your silly superstitious nonsense! You are just some nitwit Theist, where they are a magically special A-Theist with unexplainable �free will� powers.

What the hell is he even talking about here? "Supernatural, magical, non-concious, mystery force?" What is that referring to? Does he even know what science is?

Quote:

You see according to most A-Theists, you are crazy for believing in �God� based on no evidence, but it is perfectly logical (i.e. illogical and hypocritical) to believe in �free will� by defying all the available and obvious evidence.

I think the fact that I am currently making decisions about what to type is "obvious evidence" that free will exists. Granted, it could all be an illusion, but there isn't any evidence (obvious or otherwise) towards that, and so there's no reason to believe it.

Quote:

Of course one wonders if there is no �free will� and the entire history of this universe was preordained by the Laws of Physics and the Initial State at the Time of the �Big Bang�, then why on Earth did the A-Theists magical non-conscious sky-monster make us in the first place? Just so we could watch what was going on and not do anything about it? If all we can do is watch helplessly, then why on Earth did the universe create us? Kind of what you would call a �major contradiction� if the non-conscious mystery force is really as non-conscious as what the A-Theists claim?

This guy is an idiot and he doesn't know what he's talking about. If atheists believed the universe was "created for a reason," then that would mean there is a creator (ie a god). The next couple paragraphs are more complete bile that aren't even worth discussing because this kid clearly needs to read up more before talking again. Or, he could just drive himself into a wall and save us all from having to deal with him ever again.

Quote:

As for �Science� (Logic) well, the A-Theists want to pretend that it is a recent invention that they just discovered, but this only further illustrates the utter dishonesty of the position. The fact is that �Science� has been around for a long, long, long, time, and from its very beginning Science and Religion have gone hand in hand.

Just who do the A-Theists think did ALL of the early astronomy work? Was Newton an A-Theist? How about Copernicus? Galileo? Kepler? How about the Druids who build Stonehedge? Or the Egyptians who built the pyramids, or the Maya or Inca who build observatories all over South America? The fact is that almost all of what the A-Theists want to claim as their own was discovered by men who were NOT A-THEISTS, and who if fact utterly rejected A-Theism! Name ONE great scientific discovery made by an A-Theist. I bet you cannot. A-Theism is a religion of pessimism, and pessimist never accomplish much of anything.

It's hilarious that he says religion and science have been side and side and then mentions copernicus and galileo. Copernicus' theories were forbidden by the Catholic Church for being immoral and dangerous, and Galileo was found guilty of heresy.

I'm sure there are others here would could better make a laundry list of atheist scientists, but I'll start: Hawkings.

Jinto · 07-01-2003, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Hi everyone, i'm Christ and i'm new around here.I'm a proud athiest, and am glad to be around such intellegent folks

An atheist who calls himself Christ? What's wrong with this picture?

personal comment deleted- Jobar

Quote:

Why do Atheists ALWAYS believe that their religion is the One True Faith and that more than any other Cult they (the Atheists) have a lock on the Truth?

Simple: we don't. I hereby congratulate you on starting out your rant with an egregious strawman. Aside from Kent Hovind, I don't think I've ever seen someone begin misrepresenting their opponent so quickly.

Oh, and for anyone who is genuinely confused, atheism is not a cult, we do not have faith, and we make no claims on having The Truth�.

Quote:

That�s what all Religions claim � a monopoly on the Truth

And since we don't claim that, I really don't see your point. Perhaps you are confusing truth (as in, grass is green) with Truth (a set of fundamental truths not subject to change by contradictory evidence). We only have the former.

Quote:

Of course Atheists are going to try and up the ante. According to them they are so above the other �religions�, that their religion isn�t even a �religion�. Instead it is a magical thing called �science� (all together now � Oooooo!)

And when you understand what science means, you will understand that it is no more magical than observing that grass is green.

Quote:

In �science� there is no �God�. Instead the Atheists have replaced him with a supernatural, magical, non-conscious, mystery force/machine-thingy that none of them can really explain, but rest assured they are correct, because their religion (oops, I meant their �science�) is more True than your silly superstitious nonsense! You are just some nitwit Theist, where they are a magically special A-Theist with unexplainable �free will� powers.

Science (not atheism) has found no evidence of a God. Atheism infers the logical conclusion. As for supernatural, since science rejects a-priori the supernatural (insofar as it cannot be integrated into an expanded definition of natural), the magical, and the Force, I can only conclude that I was correct in assuming that you have no understanding of science.

Oh, and most atheists do not believe in free will. That's the Christian excuse for their God creating people who do evil things.

Quote:

You see according to most A-Theists, you are crazy for believing in �God� based on no evidence, but it is perfectly logical (i.e. illogical and hypocritical) to believe in �free will� by defying all the available and obvious evidence. Of course one wonders if there is no �free will� and the entire history of this universe was preordained by the Laws of Physics and the Initial State at the Time of the �Big Bang�, then why on Earth did the A-Theists magical non-conscious sky-monster make us in the first place? Just so we could watch what was going on and not do anything about it? If all we can do is watch helplessly, then why on Earth did the universe create us? Kind of what you would call a �major contradiction� if the non-conscious mystery force is really as non-conscious as what the A-Theists claim?

Most atheists do not believe in free will. And as for why we were created in the first place, good question. Why did your magical sky-monster create us in the first place? You're arguing my position FOR me, doofus.

Quote:

Look, here�s what the A-Theists are trying to tell you. They aren�t really saying that �God� isn�t conscious (the source of TLOP)

Correct. We are saying God doesn't exist in the first place.

Quote:

they are really trying to say that YOU are NOT conscious. I mean, how can you be according to their views? How can YOU be more conscious than the thing that made you, and controls your every single action cradle to grave? You can�t be, you have to be less conscious than the non-conscious mystery force. In other words, according to A-Theism you have to be less conscious than the Non-conscious laws of physics

We atheists are saying that WATER is NOT wet. I mean, how can it be according to our views? How can WATER be more wet than the things that made it (hydrogen and oxygen), and determine it's every property? It can't be, water has to be less wet than hydrogen and oxygen. In other words, according to A-theism water has to be less wet than the non-wet gases hydrogen and oxygen.

The moral of this story is: it's not the matter, it's the configuration, stupid.

Quote:

Really all that the A-Theists have done is to take that old line in the Bible (about not making any idols of God) and ratcheted it up a couple of notches. Not only are the A-Theists NOT going to make any idols of their �God�, but they aren�t even going to talk about him at all, and when they do, they are going to pretend that he is not even conscious. In other words, the A-Theists want to pretend that Machines make minds, instead of the other way around (the way that makes sense).

We don't have a God. Really, are you so indunated into your cow-belief that you can't believe that anybody doesn't have a cow? (sacred cow) And by the way, you are a machine. And no, the other way around does not make sense, because minds are not capable of reorganizing physical matter. Telekenesis does not work. It is hands and arms that build machines, and they are physical. It is neurons that signal the muscles in those hands and arms to contract. It is the brain that sends signals through the nerves to the muscles. If the mind is anything other than brain activity, then how can it possibly have ANY influence on the real world? I remind you, at risk of repeating myself, and being redundant, and saying the same thing again, that telekenesis does not work.

Quote:

A-Theists have a �God�. They are forced to pay their God lip-service too. If not they can�t remain A-Theists for very long, at least not without looking foolish. The God of the A-Theists is �free willy�. There is no evidence that �free willy� exist, ergo I do not believe in �free willy�. I guess that makes me an A-A-Theist. I lack-a-belief in what the A-Theist believes

To use a quote that I have been saving for a while now: that is BULLSHIT!

Quote:

As for �Science� (Logic) well, the A-Theists want to pretend that it is a recent invention that they just discovered, but this only further illustrates the utter dishonesty of the position. The fact is that �Science� has been around for a long, long, long, time, and from its very beginning Science and Religion have gone hand in hand.

I have never heard of an atheist that claims science is a recent phenomenon, and I would smack him if I did. Perhaps you are confusing us with scientology, whose followers are correct when they tell us it is a recent invention.

Quote:

Just who do the A-Theists think did ALL of the early astronomy work? Was Newton an A-Theist? How about Copernicus? Galileo? Kepler? How about the Druids who build Stonehedge? Or the Egyptians who built the pyramids, or the Maya or Inca who build observatories all over South America? The fact is that almost all of what the A-Theists want to claim as their own was discovered by men who were NOT A-THEISTS, and who if fact utterly rejected A-Theism! Name ONE great scientific discovery made by an A-Theist. I bet you cannot. A-Theism is a religion of pessimism, and pessimist never accomplish much of anything.

As TiredJim mentioned, it's interesting that you should point out Galileo and Copernicus...

Oh, and please substanitate your idiocy that atheism entails pessimism.

Nic Hautamaki · 07-01-2003, 02:40 AM

Modern Anthropology has a pretty good idea of where and how religion came to be about. Actually it can be explained by simple evolutionary theory.

Imagine 2 groups of 'cave men' (term used only because it's easy to type and univerally recognised) such that one group, A, is non religious, and a second group, B, is religious.

Religion, to a cave man, is going to be only the most basic belief in the supernatural, probably more a set of traditions than anything. It could have arisen in that particular tribe by any number of natural phenomena. Perhaps an unusually intelligent/creative dominant male. Perhaps over generations meaningless customs acquired meaning merely through repetition, and after enough time had passed, passed into the realm of spiritual tradition. One theory is that the ability to have a concept of spirituality actually arose only with cro-magnon man and was one distinguishing feature between him and neanderthal man.

In any case, Religion came to exist in one tribe, and not in the other. The religious tribe practices customs such as burying their dead, staying in at night, etc, that while having a religious subtext, are actually just common sense survival techniques. The difference is that with the idea of nasty spirits out to get you, the motivation is stronger to abide by them.

Thus the religious tribe was more successful. Using their superiour skill set, they were able to overcome the opposing tribe and dominate the area.

The pattern was repeated throughout history, with every group or society having some level of spirituality. There is an optimum level of spirituality to have in every situation. Too little or too much is detrimental to the health of the society as compared to just right. Therefore the amount which societies believed (and believe) in God had (and has) a direct relation to how much belief is the optimum amount in a society vs society context.

The idea of religion almost certainly originated as a survival tool and has evolved from there to it's present form.

As an atheist it's my view and my hope that religion is no longer relevant to our present society, and that the evolutionarily optimum level of spirituality approaches 0. The christians at least seem to be losing ground to the active atheists, and the people who just don't care, and hopefully the trend continues. It's my view that at this stage, religion presents more problems than solutions to societies problems, even though in the past, religion was a valid evolutionary tool.

The_Unknown_Banana · 07-01-2003, 03:48 AM

I've personally never heard such a lot of bullcrap in just one anti-atheist argument before (re. Christ's post). Good luck trying to talk any sense to that one.

Vylo · 07-01-2003, 04:15 AM

Quote:

The fact is that �Science� has been around for a long, long, long, time

True, but if I remember the statistic correctly, 90 % of all scientists in all of history are alive today.

Randy X · 07-01-2003, 10:16 AM

It might seem strange to use the alias Christ, but i assure you that i was pressed for time, and needed a name that NO-ONE would use

Jinto, these were not my words, so i hope that you don't think that it was written by me.

I wanted to know if this guy was serious messed up or not.Seems like he is.

I've debated with this individual and he seems to think that everything is pre-determined.How does one proof if free-will actually exists?

Regards

Jobar · 07-01-2003, 10:20 AM

ATTENTION!

Some of the posts on this page, made in response to the theist rant which Christ (

) quoted, include insults direct which would have me kickin' ass and takin' names were the writer actually posting here, instead of just being quoted.

Mark ye well, I do not *disagree* with the opinions expressed- however, expressing these opinions, in these ways, do not make the contentions made by this theist any more wrong than they already are. EoG is NOT just atheists and theists screaming "BULLSHIT!!" at each other! I, and all the other mods and admins here, require that only ideas and not people be attacked.

Even when the ideas *are* bullshit.

Jobar, moderator.

Randy X · 07-01-2003, 10:21 AM

Sorry this will be the last time that i bring this up, but this is my reply to an individual on another forum.

The question is

Please explain how it is a logically inconsistant definition made by Athiests? Moreover, explain how it is a trick?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His answer :

It is an old trick of the Atheists to use a Logically Inconsistent definition of terms like Omnipotent, or Omniscient to proffer a bogus proof for the non-existence of God.

For example, if God is truly �unbound� by rules (if God is Truly ALL-Powerful), then please explain how God is able to create a rock so heavy that not even She herself can manipulate someone into lifting it for Her?

Either God (the Goddess) cannot create such a rock (violating Her Omnipotence), or She cannot lift the rock (violating Her Omnipotence). It seems as if you are trying to create a Catch-22 situation for God?

If the best �God� you can come up with is a self-contradictory one than it is no wonder you don�t believe in �God�. I don�t believe in 4-sided triangles for the same reason, although I have the good-sense not to go around bragging about.

Could you guys give any thoughts? Again, this would be the last time that i bring it up.

Regards

Jobar · 07-01-2003, 11:01 AM

Christ, let me say again I think your screen name is kickass, and I laugh out loud every time I use it!

Your interlocutor's comments on "Atheist's definitions" are simply wrong, because we are using definitions offered by theists. The way he would be handled were he on this forum would be to ask him just how *he* would define God, for purposes of discussion. Then we would proceed to demonstrate that his own definitions- assuming he offered them- are just as nonsensical as the standard apologist's definitions.

In fact, if you could get this guy to come here- not much chance, I realize- you should. We'd all have to choke back the jeers and laughter, but we don't often get people saying that *atheists* define God!

07-01-2003, 02:40 AM	#4
Nic Hautamaki Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Surrey, BC, Canada Posts: 27	the origin of religion is pretty well theorised Modern Anthropology has a pretty good idea of where and how religion came to be about. Actually it can be explained by simple evolutionary theory. Imagine 2 groups of 'cave men' (term used only because it's easy to type and univerally recognised) such that one group, A, is non religious, and a second group, B, is religious. Religion, to a cave man, is going to be only the most basic belief in the supernatural, probably more a set of traditions than anything. It could have arisen in that particular tribe by any number of natural phenomena. Perhaps an unusually intelligent/creative dominant male. Perhaps over generations meaningless customs acquired meaning merely through repetition, and after enough time had passed, passed into the realm of spiritual tradition. One theory is that the ability to have a concept of spirituality actually arose only with cro-magnon man and was one distinguishing feature between him and neanderthal man. In any case, Religion came to exist in one tribe, and not in the other. The religious tribe practices customs such as burying their dead, staying in at night, etc, that while having a religious subtext, are actually just common sense survival techniques. The difference is that with the idea of nasty spirits out to get you, the motivation is stronger to abide by them. Thus the religious tribe was more successful. Using their superiour skill set, they were able to overcome the opposing tribe and dominate the area. The pattern was repeated throughout history, with every group or society having some level of spirituality. There is an optimum level of spirituality to have in every situation. Too little or too much is detrimental to the health of the society as compared to just right. Therefore the amount which societies believed (and believe) in God had (and has) a direct relation to how much belief is the optimum amount in a society vs society context. The idea of religion almost certainly originated as a survival tool and has evolved from there to it's present form. As an atheist it's my view and my hope that religion is no longer relevant to our present society, and that the evolutionarily optimum level of spirituality approaches 0. The christians at least seem to be losing ground to the active atheists, and the people who just don't care, and hopefully the trend continues. It's my view that at this stage, religion presents more problems than solutions to societies problems, even though in the past, religion was a valid evolutionary tool.

07-01-2003, 10:20 AM	#8
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	ATTENTION! Some of the posts on this page, made in response to the theist rant which Christ () quoted, include insults direct which would have me kickin' ass and takin' names were the writer actually posting here, instead of just being quoted. Mark ye well, I do not disagree with the opinions expressed- however, expressing these opinions, in these ways, do not make the contentions made by this theist any more wrong than they already are. EoG is NOT just atheists and theists screaming "BULLSHIT!!" at each other! I, and all the other mods and admins here, require that only ideas and not people be attacked. Even when the ideas are bullshit. Jobar, moderator.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2003, 03:48 AM	#5
The_Unknown_Banana Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 179	I've personally never heard such a lot of bullcrap in just one anti-atheist argument before (re. Christ's post). Good luck trying to talk any sense to that one.

07-01-2003, 10:16 AM	#7
Randy X Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South Africa Posts: 258	It might seem strange to use the alias Christ, but i assure you that i was pressed for time, and needed a name that NO-ONE would use Jinto, these were not my words, so i hope that you don't think that it was written by me. I wanted to know if this guy was serious messed up or not.Seems like he is. I've debated with this individual and he seems to think that everything is pre-determined.How does one proof if free-will actually exists? Regards

07-01-2003, 10:21 AM	#9
Randy X Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South Africa Posts: 258	Sorry this will be the last time that i bring this up, but this is my reply to an individual on another forum. The question is Please explain how it is a logically inconsistant definition made by Athiests? Moreover, explain how it is a trick? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- His answer : It is an old trick of the Atheists to use a Logically Inconsistent definition of terms like Omnipotent, or Omniscient to proffer a bogus proof for the non-existence of God. For example, if God is truly �unbound� by rules (if God is Truly ALL-Powerful), then please explain how God is able to create a rock so heavy that not even She herself can manipulate someone into lifting it for Her? Either God (the Goddess) cannot create such a rock (violating Her Omnipotence), or She cannot lift the rock (violating Her Omnipotence). It seems as if you are trying to create a Catch-22 situation for God? If the best �God� you can come up with is a self-contradictory one than it is no wonder you don�t believe in �God�. I don�t believe in 4-sided triangles for the same reason, although I have the good-sense not to go around bragging about. Could you guys give any thoughts? Again, this would be the last time that i bring it up. Regards

07-01-2003, 11:01 AM	#10
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Christ, let me say again I think your screen name is kickass, and I laugh out loud every time I use it! Your interlocutor's comments on "Atheist's definitions" are simply wrong, because we are using definitions offered by theists. The way he would be handled were he on this forum would be to ask him just how he would define God, for purposes of discussion. Then we would proceed to demonstrate that his own definitions- assuming he offered them- are just as nonsensical as the standard apologist's definitions. In fact, if you could get this guy to come here- not much chance, I realize- you should. We'd all have to choke back the jeers and laughter, but we don't often get people saying that atheists define God!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.