• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Atheism is a superstition."

epix said:
Your attempt to credit science with success due to its marriage to atheism, which is non-existent in reality, is . . . well, I leave the conclusion to you.
Click to expand...


There was no attempt to do that in that post. Your logical fallacies are becoming exceedingly obvious. :D
 
As usual , I hate to be the party crasher, but you all seem to forget that this was not a "well constructed argument aimed at atheist" but it was an "argument aimed at belief reinforcement among the believer" which emans it mostly does not matter if the argument is bad, as long as the people in the target group (the believer) can pat each other in the back and point the finger laughing at the "poor schmuck" outside the group (the atheist).

Just sayin'
 
Nihilianth said:
I think it's stupid for atheists to deride theists.

It is equally as stupid for theists to deride atheists.

'Nuff said.
Click to expand...


When the derision isfounded , it is not stupid.

Derision from atheist toward theist is not always well founded, and thus stupid, but some is really well founded.

I have yet to see a theist deriding atheist in general having *any* good point whatsoever.
 
Aepervius said:
When the derision isfounded , it is not stupid.

Derision from atheist toward theist is not always well founded, and thus stupid, but some is really well founded.

I have yet to see a theist deriding atheist in general having *any* good point whatsoever.
Click to expand...

And my point has been proven. :rolleyes:

It is dumb to deride anyone for any reason whether they believe in something or not. If someone wants to believe in God, who cares? Let them. If someone doesn't want to believe in God, again, who cares? Let them. There is a neat littler term called "tolerance" that Western societies aim to protect with various governmental and social oversights. Namely: Human rights documents.

If a theist wants to preach out loud, again, so what? No need to start any sort of debate to try to "prove" them wrong. You have the education system where you can teach all the latest and greatest scientific theories. But if the student wants to continue believing in God, and that the world is flat, who cares? That's his prerogative, especially once they are out of school. So long as the student is IN school, and they know about the scientific theories, how to read and write, a bit about history, and so forth, then the education system did it's job in arming that person for a decent life. It is ultimately up to the person to make their own choices.
 
I think we have pretty well seen that all belief does not result in benign outcomes.
 
Kopji said:
I think we have pretty well seen that all belief does not result in benign outcomes.
Click to expand...

Neither has all "non-beliefs."

There is a reason why religion is protected both by and from the state at the same time.

If is protected by the state, so that those who are theists can practice their religion freely, free of harassment. It is protected from the state, so those who are atheists don't have to be coerced into practicing anything at all.
 
Nihilianth said:
And my point has been proven. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Classic tactic on forum. Trollish actually. At the first answer contradicting you jsut say "my point was proven". The trick is to make reader think one point was proven, without providing evidence. A post contradicting and discussing your point is *not* evidence of your point. That does not bode well for your argument to use this sort of ridiculous rethorical tactic.

It is dumb to deride anyone for any reason whether they believe in something or not. If someone wants to believe in God, who cares? Let them. If someone doesn't want to believe in God, again, who cares? Let them. There is a neat littler term called "tolerance" that Western societies aim to protect with various governmental and social oversights. Namely: Human rights documents.
Click to expand...

Congratulation on constructing your strawman. Did I say they must be derided for what they believe ? No. I did not mention for what believer should be derided. DId I say we should be intolerant of other ? No. Another strawman.

From all I care every believer can have faith in anything even if I find it personally ridiculous. as long as they keep it personal. But it is not in effect what happens. Even in our westerm secular countries, there are numerous attempt to influence unduly law , education, and social life toward religion. This is what I will deride , to the umpteenth time.

If a theist wants to preach out loud, again, so what?
Click to expand...

Ha so ! Believer are allowed to preach. But Atheist can't ?

No need to start any sort of debate to try to "prove" them wrong.
Click to expand...

So we have to be tolerant of other preaching we will land in hell, but we cannot preach that this is baseless ?

Tolerance is a two way street.
By your own definition any preacher saying atheist will "land in hell" or even "is wrong" *IS* intolerant.

You have the education system where you can teach all the latest and greatest scientific theories. But if the student wants to continue believing in God, and that the world is flat, who cares?
Click to expand...

As long as it is a personal belief , I don't care. It is the right of everyone to believe something stupid. But as soon as they start proselythism to my fellow folk, or try to change education to add their stupid stuff I will fight.

That you give more levy to the faithful than to the non faithful is more telling IMHO.

TL;DR version : believer are publicly ridiculed for their proselythism and undue attempt of influence on public life, not for their personal belief.
 
Last edited:
Just for point of interest - here is the Einstein quote in full.

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind the we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

-Albert Einstein, The World As I See It
[Source: Ideas and Opinions pp. 11-12]
Click to expand...
 
Gawdzilla said:
You make quote-mining sound like a bad thing. What about all those quote-miners that risk their lives every day so you can have a nice piece of stupidity to rip apart? Would you stomp to the depths they do to provide us with our daily chuckles and guffaws? Oh, I don't think so. You probably think those just magically appear on the forum, without any blood being shed or lives being lost. Well, my friend, I dare you to go Googling by yourself some time! Copying random quotes without bothering to learn the context is dangerous, dirty and stupid work. Normal people just can't do it, it takes a special breed of fool to even want to try it.

You should be ashamed of yourself, really.

;)
Click to expand...

You mine sixteen quotes,
And what do you get?
Another day older
And lacking in wit.
Saint Peter don't you call me
'Cos I can't go.
I've got to expose
The NWO.
 
Aepervius said:
As usual , I hate to be the party crasher, but you all seem to forget that this was not a "well constructed argument aimed at atheist" but it was an "argument aimed at belief reinforcement among the believer" which emans it mostly does not matter if the argument is bad, as long as the people in the target group (the believer) can pat each other in the back and point the finger laughing at the "poor schmuck" outside the group (the atheist).
Click to expand...
And, the author makes a living selling this swill to the gullible. Essentially he is the Christian version of a self-help guru. I'm not sure it's even a safe bet that he actually believes what he's spewing. It would certainly be a waste of time debating with him.
 
Aepervius said:
Classic tactic on forum. Trollish actually. At the first answer contradicting you jsut say "my point was proven". The trick is to make reader think one point was proven, without providing evidence. A post contradicting and discussing your point is *not* evidence of your point. That does not bode well for your argument to use this sort of ridiculous rethorical tactic.



Congratulation on constructing your strawman. Did I say they must be derided for what they believe ? No. I did not mention for what believer should be derided. DId I say we should be intolerant of other ? No. Another strawman.

From all I care every believer can have faith in anything even if I find it personally ridiculous. as long as they keep it personal. But it is not in effect what happens. Even in our westerm secular countries, there are numerous attempt to influence unduly law , education, and social life toward religion. This is what I will deride , to the umpteenth time.



Ha so ! Believer are allowed to preach. But Atheist can't ?



So we have to be tolerant of other preaching we will land in hell, but we cannot preach that this is baseless ?

Tolerance is a two way street.
By your own definition any preacher saying atheist will "land in hell" or even "is wrong" *IS* intolerant.



As long as it is a personal belief , I don't care. It is the right of everyone to believe something stupid. But as soon as they start proselythism to my fellow folk, or try to change education to add their stupid stuff I will fight.

That you give more levy to the faithful than to the non faithful is more telling IMHO.

TL;DR version : believer are publicly ridiculed for their proselythism and undue attempt of influence on public life, not for their personal belief.
Click to expand...

yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah.

Christians believe in God. Christians believe it is their duty to help lead people to Christ. The United States of America has this neat little thing called "The Constitution," which protects such things as freedom of speech and religion.

The vast majority of Christians don't get all up in your face about God. some do, yes. And they can be quite obnoxious, I agree. Most atheists don't get up in your face about "the magic skydady." But when they do, it is equally as obnoxious.

Your straw men are piling up ever so high. As is the obnoxiousness of talking about the obnoxiousness of Christianity.

If I would have to guess, I would probably say the number of threads started in this forum hating (or making fun of) religions is probably higher than the number of threads started by theists. It probably doesn't matter, for starting a thread just for the sake of harassment is probably one of the most ignorant things that goes on around here. Both sides are guilty of it.
 
Last edited:
Bikewer said:
Geez.... Has the author of this bit of drivel not heard of the scientific method?
Click to expand...

The frustrating thing is that he got so close:
We can't reduce the whole of reality to what our senses tell us for the simple reason that our senses are notorious for lying to us. Our senses tell us that the world is flat, and yet it's not. Our senses tell us that the world is chaotic, and yet we know that on both a micro and a macro level, it's incredibly organized. Our senses tell us that we're stationary, and yet we're really moving at incredible speeds. We just can't see it.
Click to expand...


Small inaccuracies in that passage aside, how do we know that our senses lie to us, if not for the scientific method?
 
epix said:
Your attempt to credit science with success due to its marriage to atheism, which is non-existent in reality, is . . . well, I leave the conclusion to you.
Click to expand...
Science is successful DUE to atheism? Are you daft?

You have that backward. The scientific process is not the same as the conclusions one arrives at using the scientific process. It's following the scientific process, which is a proven successful approach to understanding the Universe, that leads one to conclude gods are mythical beings.

I realize you don't accept the evidence that leads to the conclusion your god is a mythical being. But I bet you recognize other gods people believe in are mythical like Zeus and Thor and Pele.
 
Aepervius said:
...it was an "argument aimed at belief reinforcement among the believer" which emans it mostly does not matter if the argument is bad, as long as the people in the target group (the believer) can pat each other in the back and point the finger laughing at the "poor schmuck" outside the group (the atheist).

Just sayin'
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that is the common perception here with the exception of a threatened theist or 2.

You've elaborated on what I said, "theists try to equate science with religion", by discussing the motive they might have for doing so.

IE, yes, I believe you are correct.
 
Nihilianth said:
...
It is dumb to deride anyone for any reason whether they believe in something or not. If someone wants to believe in God, who cares? Let them. If someone doesn't want to believe in God, again, who cares? Let them. There is a neat littler term called "tolerance" that Western societies aim to protect with various governmental and social oversights. Namely: Human rights documents.

If a theist wants to preach out loud, again, so what? No need to start any sort of debate to try to "prove" them wrong. You have the education system where you can teach all the latest and greatest scientific theories. But if the student wants to continue believing in God, and that the world is flat, who cares? That's his prerogative, especially once they are out of school. So long as the student is IN school, and they know about the scientific theories, how to read and write, a bit about history, and so forth, then the education system did it's job in arming that person for a decent life. It is ultimately up to the person to make their own choices.
Click to expand...
Deriding the arguer rather than the argument aside (because I would agree with that matter), I take issue with your "who cares" statement.

I care that people learn better critical thinking skills. I care that unfounded beliefs decrease in society and the scientific process becomes increasingly more common as the preferred method of understanding the Universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom