[Merged]Atheism is a really bogus philosophy

[Marquis de Carabas]

So what happened to the promise to become an atheist? Does bwinwright dispute that a snowflake satisfies the challenge?

To dispute it would require that he acknowledge it was ever said. Don't hold your breath.

I'm telling my goats to mind the bridge.

 

[bignickel]

Originally Posted by bignickel
It's called Unintelligent Direction, and it's the driving force behind Evolution and other processes of nature.

Order through Unintelligent Direction:
Heavy stones go the bottom of river beds, light stones to the top.
The river stream that turns from straight to more and more curving with each passing year.
The hair bunnies under my bed (look... if you dare)

Unintelligent Direction almost sounds like a trick. I hear all the order out of disorder, the intelligent out of the non-intelligent stuff, but all of it sounds absolutely crazy. Regardless of appearances, doesn't it all have to be the result of some form of intelligence.
(SNIP)
Atheists are trying so hard to say that order can exist without intelligent direction, but it just can't be sold. Why? because it's false.

You asked for order coming from non-intelligence. I provided 3 examples. Then you tried to shift the goalposts to evolution. What, so I can provide more examples, and have you move the goalposts yet again? No thanks.

You provided a challenge that something could not be done, I showed how it can. You lose. Time to pose a different challenge.

(Since it's obvious that you're not actually responding to my content, but just hitting the quote button and banging away, I suggest you respond to Tricky from now on, since he
1. expresses these things more concisely then me
2. has great taste in food.)

 

[Tricky]

To dispute it would require that he acknowledge it was ever said. Don't hold your breath.

I'm telling my goats to mind the bridge.

Gruff love, man.

 

[joobz]

Gruff love, man.

The crime dog? What's he got to do with it?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The crime dog? What's he got to do with it?

Take a bite out of intelligent design.

 

[Vic Vega]

Thanks Vic. Nice guitar you have there.


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

That's Steve Gaines. One of my guitar heroes. He and his sister died in a plane crash. They were both in Lynyrd Skynyrd; she was a backup singer in the band. He was a monster player and a great singer, too.

I do have a guitar that looks just like it, though!

 

[ImproperUsername]

I am not religious enough to satisfy the expectations of the 'saved' but after having hung out with 'atheists' for awhile I decided that many of the ones I knew were very negative, hostile people. I don't feel comfortable in the company of extremists from either faction. Perhaps that is a character flaw. If so, it is one I can live with.

 

[Tricky]

That's Steve Gaines. One of my guitar heroes. He and his sister died in a plane crash. They were both in Lynyrd Skynyrd; she was a backup singer in the band. He was a monster player and a great singer, too.

I do have a guitar that looks just like it, though!

Ah! Skynyrd was indeed a great group (except for the song "Sweet Home Alabama" which, in Alabama, was played about ten times a day by every radio station of every format until I wanted to throttle whoever wrote it.)

But I remember the tragedy. At the time there was some woo going around that the song That Smell had been some sort of message from God. ("The smell of death's around you.")

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

 

[Tricky]

I am not religious enough to satisfy the expectations of the 'saved' but after having hung out with 'atheists' for awhile I decided that many of the ones I knew were very negative, hostile people. I don't feel comfortable in the company of extremists from either faction. Perhaps that is a character flaw. If so, it is one I can live with.

It is quite likely that you were unaware of many of the atheists you hung out with. Most of them are unassuming and (in the real world) never mention their atheism or discuss it unless asked specifically. The ones who do make a point of bringing it up tend to be like the Christians who want to "testify" for you. They have an agenda. But be aware that saying something like, "I don't believe there is a force for good in the universe," may sound negative, but it really isn't.

I might say to myself, "That Christian is so negative that all he can talk about is how sinners go to hell." It's probably not true, but it's what I remember about him. It is easy to regard anyone who disagrees with me as "negative", but I really know that is just my way of telling myself, "they are wrong". It's not the same thing.

 

[KingMerv00]

I am not religious enough to satisfy the expectations of the 'saved' but after having hung out with 'atheists' for awhile I decided that many of the ones I knew were very negative, hostile people. I don't feel comfortable in the company of extremists from either faction. Perhaps that is a character flaw. If so, it is one I can live with.

Two questions:

Why is "atheists" in quotes?

How can you be an atheist extremist?

 

[bwinwright]

ORDER EXISTS without intelligent direction?

Yet another astounding display of ignorance from bwinwright


One is not an atheist to avoid being associated with religion. That's just one of the fringe benefits.


The name is irrelevant. Believing that some great TOTO exists is ludicrous.



The FACT is, ORDER exists.


What can an eagle do that man can't? Grow feathers and a beak? Man can fly, man can see long distances with telescopes, man can eat bunnies.

And last I checked, man can reproduce quite easily. Some might say too easily.



365.2422 days is your example for intelligence? Any intelligent being would have simply shifted earths orbit one way or the other to make an even 365 or 366 days. Then we could have displensed with leap years.

You see, Spindrift, you say ORDER EXISTS without explaining how this can be possible without intelligent direction. Law and order CAN NOT EXIST "without" having first been established by or always existing with the intelligence this orderliness is subject to.

The Law of Attraction means that life produces life like itself. This also appears to be true in the realm of human thought and emotion as well. That is, one's experience is the product of one's habitual thoughts and feelings.

Atheists seem to believe that this ORDER, this Law of Attraction, exists but was not the product of any form of intelligence? If you will agree that intelligence exists now, then you must also agree that intelligence has "always" existed...or you believe that this something we call intelligence came from nothing? Intelligence can not come from non-intelligence. This is the atheist's primary error.

 

[Henners]

The Law of Attraction means that life produces life like itself.

The Law of Semicephaly means that anyone with half a brain can ignore batty bonkers like that.

 

[bwinwright]

Atheists are just such show-offs to me.

I feel so lost after reading this post. All these new thoughts I am hearing about for the first time. None of these statements have be talked about in this forum before.

Oh, wait.

bwinwright- If you are really looking for some input on this topic this is the place to be. If you want to learn and gain knowledge this is the place to be. There are very smart people on this forum who will help you. Hopefully you are open to criticism of your post.

My opinion is that you are just going to post and run or post and become a atheist vs.christian thread. Prove me wrong.

Look, based on every definition I've ever seen about atheism, which is defined as the doctrine or "belief" that there is no God, I simply feel one must have some serious psychological problems to label their self this way.

In my experience, virtually every person calling himself or herself an atheist is someone who is trying to either thumb their nose at organized religions, which is fine with me, or is trying to pretend that they are far more intelligent than all those stupid people who believe in a higher form of intelligence.

To deny the existence of a God, or the wisdom and power responsible for our earth and all the life on it, is to "BELIEVE" that LAW & ORDER did not and does not require intelligent direction. It also means that you must "believe" that something can come from nothing. For these reasons, I find anyone who calls their self an atheist to be someone who is just showing off, playing some kind of dorky game.

Imagine if this higher power is omnipresent, like the Buddhists believe and call Dharmakaya, like the Hindu believe and call Brahman, like the Taoists believe and call The Tao, like Einstein believed and called The Unified Field, this would mean that YOU are made of this "stuff" we call God, 100%, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't it then seem somewhat ludicrous for you to deny the existence of yourself?

 

[KingMerv00]

1)Spiders aren't intelligent.
2)Spiderwebs are complex.
3)Spiders create spiderwebs.
4)Complexity doesn't need intelligence.

I know what you are thinking: "But who created the spider?" (Not relevant but I'll answer it anyway.)

See #4. The complexity of the spider was created by another non-intelligent force...evolution.

 

[Henners]

It also means that you must "believe" that something can come from nothing

Of course, "believing" that I come from nothing is so much bigger a hurdle than "believing" that an incredibly more powerful being did.

Try thinking it through, for pity's sake.

Dumb incredulity is not any kind of argument other than a stupid one.

 

[joobz]

You see, Spindrift, you say ORDER EXISTS without explaining how this can be possible without intelligent direction.

Bwinwright, this statement is patently false. Multiple examples of order arising from nothing. Your refusal to aknoweldge it doesn't make them go away. either explain why those examples are wrong or accept the fact that your entire premise in nonsense.
Shall we recape
1.) Snowflakes
2.) spherical planetary shapes
3.) pulsars
4.) oil/water phase seperation
5.) Lipid bilayers
6.) micelles
7.) spinodal decomposition
8.) crystal structures( Face center cubics, hexagonal, body center cubics, etc.)

Law and order CAN NOT EXIST "without" having first been established by or always existing with the intelligence this orderliness is subject to.

You are saying law (in the legal sense) is the same as a physical law. This is nonsense.
you are also saying that order (in the social sense) is the same as pattern emergence. this is also nonsense.

The word bit can mean, a single digital data value (o or zero), or it can be the past tense of bite.
However I would never claim that if I was bit by my dog, my informational status in my brain increased by 1 bit.
To exchange the alternate meanings of words to support your argument is a logical fallacy (can't remember the smarmy word for it).

The Law of Attraction means that life produces life like itself. This also appears to be true in the realm of human thought and emotion as well. That is, one's experience is the product of one's habitual thoughts and feelings.

I guess the intelligence who wrote the law of attraction forgot to tell that "law" to electrostatic interactions (the strongest intermolecular force).

Atheists seem to believe that this ORDER, this Law of Attraction, exists but was not the product of any form of intelligence?

your law is silly and nonsensical. But order can and does arise without intelligence.

If you will agree that intelligence exists now, then you must also agree that intelligence has "always" existed...or you believe that this something we call intelligence came from nothing?

Intelligence can not come from non-intelligence. This is the atheist's primary error.

Allright, let's pretend this argument makes sense. That there is such a thing as a law of attraction and that intelligence must come from intelligence.
According to your law, intelligence produces intelligence like itself. We know that human intelligence is fleeting (we die). So, too, must be the intelligence that we come from.

Therefore, since the source of our intelliegence isn't eternal, what created that intelligence? Are you seeing the inherent logical problem your argument results in?

Let's do another example: If you believe a teapot exists now, you must believe that a teapot has always existed. Are you going to claim that a teapot came from nothing?

If you believe that nylon eating bacteria exists now, you must believe that nylon eating bacteria has always existed. Are you going to claim that nylon eating bacteria came from nothing?

If you believe that [insert anything] exists now, you must believe that [insert anything] has always existed. Are you going to claim that [insert anything] came from nothing?


Really, any value for [insert anything] would still make that statement a logical error. Premise two doesn't follow from premise one. and the question asked always has the answer: Yes, it is possible that xxx came from nothing, where nothing is defined as not previously existing.
Really, the only value for [insert anything] which could be true is if
[insert anything]=sum total of matter and energy
even then, you'd need to change the wording to remove the logic error.

 

[Hokulele]

Taoists do not believe in a higher power. "Tao" is generally translated as the "way" or the "path", and does not refer to anything intelligent. Traditional Taoists tend to either animism (poly-theism), ancestor worship, or atheism. There is no "god" to a Taoist.

 

[Olowkow]

Look, based on every definition I've ever seen about atheism, which is defined as the doctrine or "belief" that there is no God,

No. Atheism = "Absence of belief in deities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In my experience, virtually every person calling himself or herself an atheist is someone who is trying to either thumb their nose at organized religions, which is fine with me, or is trying to pretend that they are far more intelligent than all those stupid people who believe in a higher form of intelligence.

No. Not pretending.

For these reasons, I find anyone who calls their self an atheist to be someone who is just showing off, playing some kind of dorky game.

We are not seeking you out. You posted the thread.

Wouldn't it then seem somewhat ludicrous for you to deny the existence of yourself?

Sigh....You are welcome to believe what you want. Just realize that there is nothing wrong with changing your views down the road. If your belief in god is important to you, why hang out with non believers?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Sigh.... bwinwright isn't here to have an honest discussion about atheism. He reguritates the same fallacious "arguments" over and over even after they've been shown to be fallacies. He ignores or will not give a straight answer to posts that refute him. Like DOC, Plumjam, Radrook, Kurious Kathy, Jesus Freak, and 1inChrist before him, he's only here to witness for his faith and score points with the deity that only exists in his own deluded imagination.

So just add him to our list of religionist trolls and move on.

 

[arthwollipot]

Look, based on every definition I've ever seen about atheism, which is defined as the doctrine or "belief" that there is no God, I simply feel one must have some serious psychological problems to label their self this way.

Then your sources are deficient, or innacurate. Atheism is not a doctrine, and it is not a belief.

Would you say that darkness is a kind of light? That not collecting stamps is a hobby? Or that "bald" is a hairstyle?

Atheists lack a belief in a deity. In fact, you are an atheist too. You lack a belief in the existence of Zeus. Your lack of belief in Zeus is exactly the same as my lack of belief in the God of the Bible.

Examine your lack of belief in Zeus for a moment or two. Think to yourself why you don't believe in Zeus. They're the reasons I don't believe in God.