[Merged]Atheism is a really bogus philosophy

[joobz]

It didn't take long to discover that this site is to atheism what the Catholic church is to homosexuals.

Interesting way to win over your audience.

However, the comparison is flawed. Skepticism isn't against atheism. Catholics is against homosexuality.
Where as catholics would feel obligated to hide thier homosexuality on account of being catholic; skeptics have no obligation to hide thier atheism on account of skepticism.

This point alone shows that your thinking is rather muddled and irrational, which severely hurts your credibility.

In my experience, atheists always seem to be people nobody likes very much, so they had to be different by claiming to be an atheist, to justify why nobody likes them.

I'm willing to bet you don't know many atheists (or of all the people you know, don't know whose an atheist) to make such a generalization. In other words, you are guilty of confirmation bias further indicating that you are not a very rational individual.

I agree with Neale Boortz, the radio talk show host from Atlanta, regarding atheism. He says that no rational person could possibly be an atheist.

While I disagree with Neale on this point(if indeed he holds this view), of the many conservative talk show hosts, I find him to be a rather rational person. Indeed, I find myself agreeing with him (or at least enjoying his self-depricating humor). For instance, here's an excerpt from his website.

from a peice entitled: Why people think conservatives are idiots.(bolding mine)

Well .. there's more. Sunday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution tells us about another website, this one run by Andrew Schlafly, the son of Phyllis Schlafly. Conservapedia pushes the creationism theme with revelations that dinosaurs and humans roamed the Earth at the same time.[video] You'll also learn that atheism has led to a large increase in bestiality. But once again you'll learn that not only is the Earth standing still, but it's actually flat ... and sitting still in space while everything revolves around it.
Tell me .. how do you counter the "conservatives are ignorant" argument, and how do you manage to recruit more people to the cause of lower taxes, less government and more individual responsibility when you have people running around loose calling themselves conservatives, getting elected to office as conservatives, and running websites as conservatives all the while telling us that the earth does not spin on its axis and does not revolve around the Sun .. and that everything in the known universe revolves around the Earth?
If true conservatives want a sustained movement that just might save individualism, freedom and economic liberty --- they had better jettison these zealot nut-cases .... and FAST.
This all sure makes me glad to be a Libertarian.

As such, I highly doubt you would get Boortz to agree with you and your opinion. It seems you fall into the class of conservative which he would call zealot nutcase.

Of course, I can understand labeling yourself an atheist to avoid the perception that you may be associated with an organized religion. Of course, simply telling people how you feel about organized religion should suffice.

this isn't the reason why people are atheists.

However, this idea that there is no God, or a form of intelligence capable of producing orderliness which dramatically transcends man's demonstrated capabilities, is absolutely ludicrous to me. Why?

Because to deny the existence of such an intelligence necessarily means one must believe orderliness does not require intelligent direction. This is the primary error in the philosophy of atheism.

AS your primary reason, it is factually wrong.
Crystal structures are the best example, and do not need to go any further to prove you wrong.

The problem with claiming to be an atheist, totally rejecting the idea of some transcendent, super-powerful, even ineffable form of intelligence simply because nobody can show you a Polaroid of this being, your PROOF, YOUR FACTS, you are essentially telling this "stuff", whatever it is, that you don't need it or want it at all. Why? Because, to the atheist, this "stuff" doesn't even exist. The ultimate in arrogance comes from the depth of ignorance, doesn't it?

You are the best proof of your last sentence.

let me ask you the most basic of questions:
If the universe's complexity is so vast as to require an intelligence to create it, what do you think is needed to create THAT intelligence? In other words, from your own argument, you have displayed a logical contradiction. Not suprizing considering you have demonstrated no ability to think rationally.

Outside of what you call NATURE, which the atheist believes just happened as a result of some kind of cosmic luck, can any of you really smart people give me just one example or orderliness that did not require intelligent direction?

crystals
pulsars
spherical planets (why are they always spherical?)
Rainbows
oil water phase seperations


Shall I go on?
Well, I guess I don't need to.. as you said:

The ultimate in arrogance comes from the depth of ignorance, doesn't it?

yes it does. I suggest you stop being ignorant.

 

[six7s]

then we'll be superior

Superior to what?

 

[Mister Earl]

It didn't take long to discover that this site is to atheism what the Catholic church is to homosexuals. In my experience, atheists always seem to be people nobody likes very much, so they had to be different by claiming to be an atheist, to justify why nobody likes them.

Are you in a postition of authority (I.E., expert on atheism) to say that all atheists are unlikeable to all people?

I agree with Neale Boortz, the radio talk show host from Atlanta, regarding atheism. He says that no rational person could possibly be an atheist.

I counter that no rational person should believe utterly in imaginary omnipotent beings that people exist merely because other people tell them to.

Of course, I can understand labeling yourself an atheist to avoid the perception that you may be associated with an organized religion. Of course, simply telling people how you feel about organized religion should suffice.

I don't believe in any omnipotent "god". I am an atheist. I don't belong to any organized religion. Atheism isn't a religion, but the lack of one.

However, this idea that there is no God, or a form of intelligence capable of producing orderliness which dramatically transcends man's demonstrated capabilities, is absolutely ludicrous to me. Why?

Beats me. Why does the concept that we weren't magically sprung into being so threatening to you?

Because to deny the existence of such an intelligence necessarily means one must believe orderliness does not require intelligent direction. This is the primary error in the philosophy of atheism.

I can bake a cake without invoking a god. Disorder to tasty order at 350 degrees for sixty minutes.

The problem with claiming to be an atheist, totally rejecting the idea of some transcendent, super-powerful, even ineffable form of intelligence simply because nobody can show you a Polaroid of this being, your PROOF, YOUR FACTS, you are essentially telling this "stuff", whatever it is, that you don't need it or want it at all.

I like to think of it more like this. Joining a religion requires that it becomes the focus of your life. Every action you take revolves around the dogma you've subscribed to. The mere say-so of others is not enough proof for me to alter the course of life I've chosen for myself.

Why? Because, to the atheist, this "stuff" doesn't even exist. The ultimate in arrogance comes from the depth of ignorance, doesn't it?

I think demanding that everyone MUST do what you tell them to, and then saying "Because I told you to!" is far more arrogant than letting people believe what they want to. "If you don't believe like I do, then you're evil/going to hell/will be killed!" You don't consider this arrogant in any way? I'm not saying YOU necessarily do this, but it can easily be argued that this is the standard religion program.

Outside of what you call NATURE, which the atheist believes just happened as a result of some kind of cosmic luck, can any of you really smart people give me just one example or orderliness that did not require intelligent direction?

Can humans be considered intelligent and with direction, under your rules? I just made a cake.

 

[Tricky]

Great post,

Thanks Vic. Nice guitar you have there.

...though I fear you have wasted your time. He's not listening.

That's okay. You were listening, so it wasn't wasted.

 

[Tricky]

BTW, some nice "picture jaspers" here. They look like they had to be hand-painted, but they are just natural patterns of microcrystalline quartz coming out of solution with various other minerals, each of which give them different colors. Because the minerals have different crystallization pressures and temperatures, the anisotropies in the solution lead to different locations for their precipitation.

But most of us just say, "Wow! What a pretty rock!"

 

[the PC apeman]

Oooh. pretty. Er, I mean... God put those rocks there. Or was it the Devil?

 

[Beerina]

You'll also learn that atheism has led to a large increase in bestiality.

He says this like it's a bad thing.

 

[six7s]

Oooh. pretty. Er, I mean... God put those rocks there. Or was it the Devil?

It wos Trikcy! anD tHheir nott rox!!!111eleventy111!!!

 

[Cello Man]

(snip)...In my experience, atheists always seem to be people nobody likes very much, so they had to be different by claiming to be an atheist, to justify why nobody likes them...(snip)

Wow! Thanks for illuminating that point. I never would have known what really goes on in my own head were it not for you being here to tell me. Since your totally unbiased experience carries so much weight, I guess that means that my healthy self esteem and loving relationships are all lies. I guess all the people who claim to like me, including my wife, friends, and family are all lying to me. Even my four year old nephew is only pretending to love his uncle.

Or you could simply be horribly wrong. I'm going with the latter guess.

 

[joobz]

He says this like it's a bad thing.

That wasn't him saying that. It was him reading off the claims of a fundie website.

Actually, he was making fun of the fundies.

 

[Mister Agenda]

It didn't take long to discover that this site is to atheism what the Catholic church is to homosexuals. In my experience, atheists always seem to be people nobody likes very much, so they had to be different by claiming to be an atheist, to justify why nobody likes them.

I agree with Neale Boortz, the radio talk show host from Atlanta, regarding atheism. He says that no rational person could possibly be an atheist.

Of course, I can understand labeling yourself an atheist to avoid the perception that you may be associated with an organized religion. Of course, simply telling people how you feel about organized religion should suffice.

However, this idea that there is no God, or a form of intelligence capable of producing orderliness which dramatically transcends man's demonstrated capabilities, is absolutely ludicrous to me. Why?

Because to deny the existence of such an intelligence necessarily means one must believe orderliness does not require intelligent direction. This is the primary error in the philosophy of atheism.

The problem with claiming to be an atheist, totally rejecting the idea of some transcendent, super-powerful, even ineffable form of intelligence simply because nobody can show you a Polaroid of this being, your PROOF, YOUR FACTS, you are essentially telling this "stuff", whatever it is, that you don't need it or want it at all. Why? Because, to the atheist, this "stuff" doesn't even exist. The ultimate in arrogance comes from the depth of ignorance, doesn't it?

Outside of what you call NATURE, which the atheist believes just happened as a result of some kind of cosmic luck, can any of you really smart people give me just one example or orderliness that did not require intelligent direction?

Hi, Bwin! Glad to see you're not a drive-by. I see from another post that you're feeling a little put-upon from smart-alecky replies. As you may have guessed, we're not saints, and your post is very insulting, so I have trouble understanding how you can ask us to treat you more nicely without apologizing for that, and keep a straight face.

You said nobody likes us. You said we use the atheist label as an excuse for why nobody likes us. You said we're not rational people. You called us arrogant and ignorant in the same sentence. Yet you want us to treat you with kid gloves? OK. I can do that, even though you've said nothing that merits being treated gently.

I won't give you examples of orderliness in nature that are the result of mindless forces. You've already got plenty of those.

I will go into more detail on the argument from incredulity, and why it is a fallacy, because you may have never heard of it. An argument from incredulity is a variation of the argument from ignorance, in which it is claimed that something is true because we do not know it is not true. The difference in the argument from incredulity is that something is claimed to be true because the person making the claim cannot comprehend any alternate explanation. This argument could also be called the argument from lack of comprehension, or argument from lack of imagination.

When you state your reason for regarding atheism as irrational is that YOU cannot fathom how order can exist without intelligent direction, you haven't said anything about order or intelligent direction or rationality. You've only made a statement about your ability to understand.

Now that you have numerous examples of spontaneous order not requiring any intelligent direction, and you know what the flaw in your main argument is, I look forward to seeing an intellectually honest response from you.

And if you can find it in your heart to do the right thing, an apology would be nice.

 

[ravdin]

Now that you have numerous examples of spontaneous order not requiring any intelligent direction, and you know what the flaw in your main argument is, I look forward to seeing an intellectually honest response from you.

Impossible! I am unable to imagine an intellectually honest post from the OP. Therefore, it definitely won't happen.

 

[six7s]

I won't give you examples of orderliness in nature that are the result of mindless forces. You've already got plenty of those

Fairy nuff too!

I have a hunch that, in the confusion from merging threads, this might have been overlooked

I don't know what you mean, probably cos I can't think of an "example of orderliness, outside of nature"

Please provide an example and I'll try to provide an answer

Anyone care to enlighten me?

I will go into more detail on the argument from incredulity...

10 out of 10 for sincere intent

I look forward to seeing an intellectually honest response from you

Me too!

And if you can find it in your heart to do the right thing, an apology would be nice.

I think one, at least, has been offered already:

Sorry. I am an old fart and computer challenged

Clearly, most of you think I am a damned fool for believing order requires intelligent direction

I'm ignorant about many things

I realize most of you think I'm incredibly ignorant and you are correct. , especially when it comes to responding to various comments about my threads. I don't want you to think I'm posting a thread, then running from it. I plead ignorance with regard to the technology I'm using. Hopefully, I'll learn how to do what comes so easy to most of you. I was born in the 40's and am computer-challenged. Sorry.

 

[Darkhole]

Double cheeseburger and a large fry. Hurry up, I ain't got all day.

Ahhh, yours. Working on it.

 

[bwinwright]

It's easy to be sarcastic, but can you answer the question?

Wow, we've never ever heard any of that before. You have produced completely original and profound thinking, that we'll be sure to examine in detail. Thank you so much for enlightening us... [/sarcasm]

Joe Ellison, I hear you but I am absolutely convinced that order requires intelligent direction. You say it doesn't? Explain, if you can, please.

 

[Tricky]

Joe Ellison, I hear you but I am absolutely convinced that order requires intelligent direction. You say it doesn't? Explain, if you can, please.

I gave you an example above of how order can come naturally from disorder without intelligence. It is an example that can be shown in a few seconds. Imagine all the order that can arise naturally given billions of years.

Now as to being absolutely convinced, that's your choice, but when someone is really absolutely convinced, that means that no evidence will sway them. I hope that is not the case with you, because there is plenty of evidence of order arising without intelligence.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Joe Ellison, I hear you but I am absolutely convinced that order requires intelligent direction. You say it doesn't? Explain, if you can, please.

How about reading the explanations you've already been given instead of asking the same question over and over again?

 

[bwinwright]

I apologize for insulting you. I actually love and like you

Hi, Bwin! Glad to see you're not a drive-by. I see from another post that you're feeling a little put-upon from smart-alecky replies. As you may have guessed, we're not saints, and your post is very insulting, so I have trouble understanding how you can ask us to treat you more nicely without apologizing for that, and keep a straight face.

You said nobody likes us. You said we use the atheist label as an excuse for why nobody likes us. You said we're not rational people. You called us arrogant and ignorant in the same sentence. Yet you want us to treat you with kid gloves? OK. I can do that, even though you've said nothing that merits being treated gently.

I won't give you examples of orderliness in nature that are the result of mindless forces. You've already got plenty of those.

I will go into more detail on the argument from incredulity, and why it is a fallacy, because you may have never heard of it. An argument from incredulity is a variation of the argument from ignorance, in which it is claimed that something is true because we do not know it is not true. The difference in the argument from incredulity is that something is claimed to be true because the person making the claim cannot comprehend any alternate explanation. This argument could also be called the argument from lack of comprehension, or argument from lack of imagination.

When you state your reason for regarding atheism as irrational is that YOU cannot fathom how order can exist without intelligent direction, you haven't said anything about order or intelligent direction or rationality. You've only made a statement about your ability to understand.

Now that you have numerous examples of spontaneous order not requiring any intelligent direction, and you know what the flaw in your main argument is, I look forward to seeing an intellectually honest response from you.

And if you can find it in your heart to do the right thing, an apology would be nice.

Mister Agenda, I've never heard the incredulity argument before but it sounds extremely sophisticated, even awe inspiring to me, honestly! My question is, "How can something so sophisticated and awe inspiring come from nothing? I honestly do not believe something can come from nothing, do you really? Explain, please. I'm hungry for your wisdom. Seriously! I am.

 

[Tricky]

The "argument from personal incredulity" is not particularly sophisticated. It merely states that the fact a person finds something impossible does not constitue a rational argument against it.

I could say, for example, "I honestly do not believe that the US would ever elect a woman president." Is that a rational argument to support the belief that they won't? No, of course not. It only means I don't believe it.

 

[Father Dagon]

However, to suggest you do not believe in an intelligence and power which dramatically transcends that of mankind is, to me, ludicrous. Maybe this intelligence and power is really called TOTO or something else. However, to deny that it exists is absolutely ridiculous. Why ridiculous?

Oh noes! Call the entity anything but TOTO. Beacuse TOTO is not a band that you are supposed to like. The word on the street is that they make really crappy music.

To deny the existence of an intelligence which is both wiser and more powerful than man means you must believe that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. The FACT is, this is impossible!

Fun with jars:

1. Fill a jar to 2/3 with equal parts of pearls in four different colors. Shake. See the pretty patterns.
2. Fill a jar to 2/3 with gravel. Shake. See how the larger pebbles amass at the top.