Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

[Darat]

To be fair, "arrogance" is a relative term and if we assume that what would effect other people the most is when arrogance is relative to other people, that particular Christian belief would mean that all people are equally special and would go hand in hand with loving your neighbour as yourself. I don't see how that would be arrogant.

The kind of anti-theist, confrontational atheists who are sure they're right can certainly come across as pretty arrogant. It's not uncommon to see arguments suggesting that they hold a more intellectual position than theists.

That said, bwinwright's posts are hardly the best example of humility .

As you say arrogance is generally a relative thing however I do find it hard to understand how a position that denies over 5 billion people "salvation" because they do not (in part) accept the religious authority of one entirely human being can be described as anything but arrogant?

 

[Diamond]

I'm personally baffled at the idea that atheism is such an all-encompassing philosophy that includes evolution, cosmological origins and the universal laws of nature, when it does none of those things.

Atheism is simply a statement that there is no god or gods and no organizing, invisible intelligence. Nothing more. The evidence is lacking, and therefore it is legitimate to suspend or withhold belief in such a concept until that evidence presents itself.

Atheism, in and of itself, says nothing about evolution or cosmology or the veracity of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection or why the cosmological constants appear to be so tuned that life on Earth is possible.

Its not surprising therefore that none of the board atheists is impressed by the OP at all.

 

[bellonax]

Well, I rather enjoyed this thread. I'm assuming it's over now, as you guys seem to have scared off the OP?

 

[Robin]

To be fair, "arrogance" is a relative term and if we assume that what would effect other people the most is when arrogance is relative to other people, that particular Christian belief would mean that all people are equally special and would go hand in hand with loving your neighbour as yourself. I don't see how that would be arrogant.

The kind of anti-theist, confrontational atheists who are sure they're right can certainly come across as pretty arrogant. It's not uncommon to see arguments suggesting that they hold a more intellectual position than theists.

That said, bwinwright's posts are hardly the best example of humility .

Let me stipulate that just about every Christian I know is egalitarian, inclusive and has an attitude of gentle self-deprecation, I never intended to suggest they are arrogant, beyond the Falwell style nut-jobs.

 

[lionking]

Well, I rather enjoyed this thread. I'm assuming it's over now, as you guys seem to have scared off the OP?

Yup, I think this is the last thing we will hear from bwinwright here.

 

[Darat]

I do wonder if what is often labelled "arrogance" is in fact confidence, so a confident religious person extolling their faith may be labelled arrogant by someone who doesn't share that particular faith, and the converse for confident non-faith holders.

 

[paximperium]

Yup, I think this is the last thing we will hear from bwinwright here.

...or he will show up, post once about how closed minded and mean all the atheist are and claim some sort of moral victory.

 

[Jeff Corey]

In post #13, he asked, "Teach me. please."
Maybe we did.


























































Naaaaah.

 

[gentlehorse]

A Dog looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and takes me on walks; she must be God."
A Cat looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and brushes my fur; I must be God"

A cat looks at its owner:
"She feeds me, loves me and brushes my fur. If she were smaller I would eat her."

 

[Tricky]

I do wonder if what is often labelled "arrogance" is in fact confidence, so a confident religious person extolling their faith may be labelled arrogant by someone who doesn't share that particular faith, and the converse for confident non-faith holders.

What is arrogance is to assume that there is a power that has the responsibility of controlling the universe, but that He listens to your every prayer.

"Yeah, well I was talking with God the other day and I told him, 'Hey Big G, those atheiests sure are arrogant, ain't they?' and God says like, 'Yeah, I'm gonna smite 'em big time.'"

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist.

Oh? Dawkins certainly does.



And I kinda thought He didn't need further definition, as the Bible portrays Him quite clearly.

 

[bokonon]

Yup, I think this is the last thing we will hear from bwinwright here.

Hmmmm, joined Jan 2008, 49 posts. I haven't had a look at the others to see if he's a wham-bam-go-on-the-lam troll, but I suspect he'll be back.

ETA: Just had a look at a line or two of his first 50 posts. He's a twoofer with an interest in Jesuits, Freemasons, and Illuminati, who gave kudos to Mayday. He took a long break in posting between January and September. Maybe he only has access to a computer when he visits his mom. He'll be back...

 

[technoextreme]

Hmmmm, joined Jan 2008, 49 posts. I haven't had a look at the others to see if he's a wham-bam-go-on-the-lam troll, but I suspect he'll be back.

ETA: Just had a look at a line or two of his first 50 posts. He's a twoofer with an interest in Jesuits, Freemasons, and Illuminati, who gave kudos to Mayday. He took a long break in posting between January and September. Maybe he only has access to a computer when he visits his mom. He'll be back...

He's back and basically saying the same exact drivel.

 

[Beerina]

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.

The default position for those making a claim is to prove their claim. It is on the shoulders of those claiming a god exists to make that claim.

None has ever done so. Therefore it is improper to conclude a god exists.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists.

When a god has omnipotence, to claim everything is part of it or not becomes academic, as it could switch the state of everything back and forth at will, and connect them to each other and itself in any way it wants, at will.

Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

Yes. But here you start to make an error. That something is connected in some way, and your theory that God and stuff are connected in some way, does not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that is the same connection.

The religious hate the Finite Spaghetti Monster because they see it as mocking their religion. But it's really a philosophical tool. Here's how it works:

I could just as easily claim the Finite Spaghetti Monster uses his magical noodley appendages to connect everything to everything else. And quantum mechanics show everything is connected.

"Right?"

You see where your argument goes?

If, in fact, everything is one

...because of quantum mechanics, which has nothing to do with any proposed god...

then in addition to this omnipresence

Quantum mechanics is not a godly omnipresence.

this stuff, let's call it God

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's call quantum mechanics "God".

must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right?

No. Quantum mechanics, sorry, "God", is well defined scientifically. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence.

Now, as far as being all-knowing or omniscient, hell, that's a question of faith or speculation, right?

Quantum mechanics is neither omnipotent nor all-powerful nor all-knowing nor omniscient.

You're now piling additional properties onto quantum mechanics based on previous properties you've claimed for it, and none have anything to do with quantum mechanics just because quantum mechanics suggests many things are connected.

And that's only for entangled particles, anyway.

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture

So far...

just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

I have a serious question for you. When, not if, humans can create their own organisms by custom-designing DNA, and even later, not using DNA at all, your argument will thus fall apart. At that point, you must reject religion.

I hypothesize you, or your descendents, will not, and instead move the goalposts and claim something like, "Well, humans can't create atoms, yet."

Which they have. They've even created artificial atoms called "quantum dots", where they trap an electron in a very tiny space, similar to the tiny space of an atomic orbit, and it is forced, by quantum mechanics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, to adopt energy level-like behavior. Modern cheap laser pointers use this.

So what's your fallback position after that?



Please respond and don't just be a driveby poster.

 

[bwinwright]

Just how do you KNOW all this?

Isn't it meaningless to talk about an 'organising intelligence of which everything consists'? If it is everything, what is it organising?

Also, the universe only appears orderly to us, because we are products of the order. The apparent symmetries are the results of universal rules. The movements of astral bodies are determined by physics, not divine geometry.

Universal rules? Doesn't it require intelligence to make rules? Just how do you know physics isn't divine? You sound crazy to me.

 

[paximperium]

Universal rules? Doesn't it require intelligence to make rules?

As per our arbitrary and incomplete understanding of the universe, yes there are the laws of nature. That's all they are INCOMPLETE MAN-MADE LAWS that good old humans develop..you know by studying and exploring instead of "god did it" as a useless answer.

Just how do you know physics isn't divine?

Why don't you prove it? You're the one claiming it.

You sound crazy to me.

Substanceless post and he finishes it off with an ad hominem. Pathetic.

You will of course notice how he cherry picks only the posts he feels like answering. A coward as well.

 

[bwinwright]

Isn't it meaningless to talk about an 'organising intelligence of which everything consists'? If it is everything, what is it organising?

Also, the universe only appears orderly to us, because we are products of the order. The apparent symmetries are the results of universal rules. The movements of astral bodies are determined by physics, not divine geometry.

The default position for those making a claim is to prove their claim. It is on the shoulders of those claiming a god exists to make that claim.

None has ever done so. Therefore it is improper to conclude a god exists.

Yes, it really is that simple.




When a god has omnipotence, to claim everything is part of it or not becomes academic, as it could switch the state of everything back and forth at will, and connect them to each other and itself in any way it wants, at will.



Yes. But here you start to make an error. That something is connected in some way, and your theory that God and stuff are connected in some way, does not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that is the same connection.

The religious hate the Finite Spaghetti Monster because they see it as mocking their religion. But it's really a philosophical tool. Here's how it works:

I could just as easily claim the Finite Spaghetti Monster uses his magical noodley appendages to connect everything to everything else. And quantum mechanics show everything is connected.

"Right?"

You see where your argument goes?




...because of quantum mechanics, which has nothing to do with any proposed god...



Quantum mechanics is not a godly omnipresence.



Ok, for the sake of argument, let's call quantum mechanics "God".



No. Quantum mechanics, sorry, "God", is well defined scientifically. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence.



Quantum mechanics is neither omnipotent nor all-powerful nor all-knowing nor omniscient.

You're now piling additional properties onto quantum mechanics based on previous properties you've claimed for it, and none have anything to do with quantum mechanics just because quantum mechanics suggests many things are connected.

And that's only for entangled particles, anyway.




So far...



I have a serious question for you. When, not if, humans can create their own organisms by custom-designing DNA, and even later, not using DNA at all, your argument will thus fall apart. At that point, you must reject religion.

I hypothesize you, or your descendents, will not, and instead move the goalposts and claim something like, "Well, humans can't create atoms, yet."

Which they have. They've even created artificial atoms called "quantum dots", where they trap an electron in a very tiny space, similar to the tiny space of an atomic orbit, and it is forced, by quantum mechanics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, to adopt energy level-like behavior. Modern cheap laser pointers use this.

So what's your fallback position after that?



Please respond and don't just be a driveby poster.

I appreciate what you are saying but how can you be so sure quantum physics isn't intelligent? How can you make such positive statements about things you can't possibly know. I am simply speculating that since everything is connected, per Albert Einstein and the TOE folks, why can't it all be super-intelligent?

I mean why is everyone arguing about this? You say Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence? Well, does it have anything to do with omnipresence? Of course it does. How can you separate any of it when its all one?

Just think about it...Just suppose ALL "IS" ONE, then what? Not only will you be denying the existence of an omnipresent and omnipotent oneness, but you will be denying your own existence, because you consist of this oneness, 100%, right?

 

[Mashuna]

I appreciate what you are saying but how can you be so sure quantum physics isn't intelligent? How can you make such positive statements about things you can't possibly know. I am simply speculating that since everything is connected, per Albert Einstein and the TOE folks, why can't it all be super-intelligent?

You're not simply speculating though, are you? You're saying you're right, and that people who disagree with you are mentally ill.

:
I mean why is everyone arguing about this? You say Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with omnipotence? Well, does it have anything to do with omnipresence? Of course it does. How can you separate any of it when its all one?

Well, we're mainly arguing over it because it's gibberish.

How can we separate omnipresence from omnipotence? Very easily, as they're entirely different. How can you conflate them?

Just think about it...Just suppose ALL "IS" ONE, then what? Not only will you be denying the existence of an omnipresent and omnipotent oneness, but you will be denying your own existence, because you consist of this oneness, 100%, right?

No.

 

[bwinwright]

As per our arbitrary and incomplete understanding of the universe, yes there are the laws of nature. That's all they are INCOMPLETE MAN-MADE LAWS that good old humans develop..you know by studying and exploring instead of "god did it" as a useless answer.


Why don't you prove it? You're the one claiming it.


Substanceless post and he finishes it off with an ad hominem. Pathetic.

You will of course notice how he cherry picks only the posts he feels like answering. A coward as well.

Paxim, you're a mighty judgmental sort, aren't you? As far as your man-made laws go, can you tell me which man created the LAW of ATTRACTION? Or, Paxim, did we just observe NATURE and say, "Wow, look at that! That Mother Nature sure is one organized and capable intelligence and power, isn't she?

Paxim, I don't know why you're so angry. Perhaps you had a bad experience in a confessional booth? Is that what made you an atheist?

I just prefer to think rationally about this thing we call NATURE. If it is all ONE, it must be intelligent, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be one, right? Then, I'd have to believe in Separation, wouldn't I?

Ever thought that this ONENESS is indifferent to you and me? That, it simply allows us to create whatever experience we choose and doesn't really care one way or another? Perhaps, this oneness is all about Freedom of Choice?

Regardless, I love you.

 

[bwinwright]

He's back and basically saying the same exact drivel.

Techno, you also seem to be an angry person, liberal with the put-downs and insults. Personally, treating others that way always makes me feel bad. Some believe such ill feeling are the primary cause of ill health. Please be careful. Try to be a little more loving, OK?


Anyway, I just want you to think about that little ACORN. Just imagine, one tiny little acorn already knows what that big oak tree inside looks like..AND.. that single little acorn also knows it can be all that's necessary to produce a THOUSAND forests of mighty OAKS. Isn't that an example of some pretty extraordinary intelligent design? Or , would you just attribute this to random, blind luck?