Atheism Thread

[realitybites]

Gregory House on Religion...

 

[realitybites]

 

[That swede again]

And still you call their enemies nutters. There are no atheists in the trenches. It is easy to be one when sat with a bowl of popcorn watching a film. Glad to know you're the same as me when scratching away the layers on your surface.

 

[Qvist]

And still you call their enemies nutters. There are no atheists in the trenches. It is easy to be one when sat with a bowl of popcorn watching a film. Glad to know you're the same as me when scratching away the layers on your surface.

1. Why wouldn't she call their enemies (by which I assume you mean fundamentalist christians) nutters? From a secular point of view, religious fundamentalism is the problem.

2. There is absolutely no reason to assume there are no atheists in the trenches. There certainly is no shortage of atheists who have been in the trenches. And apart from anything else, no one has any way of proving that there aren't any.

That tired old tripe however says a lot about the people who employ it. Firstly, their apparent lack of concern that they are using an assertion that is entirely implausible and logically ridiculous (it's not even theoretically possible to prove the point right). Secondly, their willingness to nevertheless voice it as if it was self-evidently true, rather than self-evidently preposterous. Thirdly, their entirely misplaced belief that if it was true, it would say something positive about their belief system. As opposed to implicitly arguing that a lot of people would need to be scared out of their wits before they begin to entertain the proposition you are offering them.

3. It's not particularly daunting to be a believer either, when you're sitting down with a bowl of popcorn.

4. I'm pretty sure she's not the same as you, mystified though I am by what you mean with your talk of scratching away layers.

 

[That swede again]

1. Why wouldn't she call their enemies (by which I assume you mean fundamentalist christians) nutters? From a secular point of view, religious fundamentalism is the problem.

2. There is absolutely no reason to assume there are no atheists in the trenches. There certainly is no shortage of atheists who have been in the trenches. And apart from anything else, no one has any way of proving that there aren't any.

That tired old tripe however says a lot about the people who employ it. Firstly, their apparent lack of concern that they are using an assertion that is entirely implausible and logically ridiculous (it's not even theoretically possible to prove the point right). Secondly, their willingness to nevertheless voice it as if it was self-evidently true, rather than self-evidently preposterous. Thirdly, their entirely misplaced belief that if it was true, it would say something positive about their belief system. As opposed to implicitly arguing that a lot of people would need to be scared out of their wits before they begin to entertain the proposition you are offering them.

3. It's not particularly daunting to be a believer either, when you're sitting down with a bowl of popcorn.

4. I'm pretty sure she's not the same as you, mystified though I am by what you mean with your talk of scratching away layers.

I was not talking about christians but her attack on what she labels racists. People that get labelled that for questioning islam. It seems she does as well which made me feel she is not that different from me and many others that question it.

Agnostic is all you can be cause there is no evidence for or against the concept of God. Atheists are to me just angry weak people that wasn't breastfed and had too many broken toys. They want to be against it as it is fashionable but I would say that I understand americans being against religion cause that place is just crazy.

There are no atheists in the trenches believe you me. They only exist where there is peace and calm and comfort and where their inner beliefs have been replaced by material things and the kick of the latest fix.

 

[Qvist]

I was not talking about christians but her attack on what she labels racists. People that get labelled that for questioning islam. It seems she does as well which made me feel she is not that different from me and many others that question it.

Agnostic is all you can be cause there is no evidence for or against the concept of God. Atheists are to me just angry weak people that wasn't breastfed and had too many broken toys. They want to be against it as it is fashionable but I would say that I understand americans being against religion cause that place is just crazy.

There are no atheists in the trenches believe you me. They only exist where there is peace and calm and comfort and where their inner beliefs have been replaced by material things and the kick of the latest fix.

I don't think that requires any further comment from me. Anyone who thinks he can have his points taken seriously without any arguments, but purely through appeal to his own non-existent authority obviously has a bit too much of a reality gap to be accessible to discussion.

 

[Peterb]

I don't think that requires any further comment from me. Anyone who thinks he can have his points taken seriously without any arguments, but purely through appeal to his own non-existent authority obviously has a bit too much of a reality gap to be accessible to discussion.

Qvist, good to see you here again. I was tempted to respond to Urban myself but your post, succint and to the point said it better than I ever could.

 

[That swede again]

I don't think that requires any further comment from me. Anyone who thinks he can have his points taken seriously without any arguments, but purely through appeal to his own non-existent authority obviously has a bit too much of a reality gap to be accessible to discussion.

I think you just sawed off the Qvist (tree branch) you were sitting on. I am used to this argument from political correct left wing people who always need to deny other peoples views and experiences but whenever you do that to them they cannot handle it. I am agnostic and would never be so full of myself as to deny the existance of God or a higher power. This has just become as trendy as it was being an anarchist in the past and atheism and anarchism both share the fact they are impossible to defend. It is like making your mind up without being prepared to take the consequences of it. Most people I know that are atheist were once anarchists and there is some sort of romance about it that I will never accept and I find it silly. People are hurt by religion and their dogmas but denying everything is just like hiding your head in the sand.

 

[Qvist]

I think you just sawed off the Qvist (tree branch) you were sitting on. I am used to this argument from political correct left wing people who always need to deny other peoples views and experiences but whenever you do that to them they cannot handle it.

Strawman, and hardly even that. Attribution of dishonest motives and intellectual dysfunctionality on the basis of belonging to a group ("political "left") which in fact you have no basis for concluding that I belong to (and which I do not in fact belong to), and by virtue simply of disagreeing with you. Difficult really to sink much lower than that in terms of dysfunctional argument.

I am agnostic and would never be so full of myself as to deny the existance of God or a higher power.

Characterisation, not argument. Assumes that which is to be proven.

This has just become as trendy as it was being an anarchist in the past and atheism and anarchism both share the fact they are impossible to defend.

A comparison that is irrelevant as well as groundless, to which is added an assertion which is unbacked by any argument.

It is like making your mind up without being prepared to take the consequences of it.

Actually your best point, but only in the way that it is so unclear that it is theoreticallly conceivable that it might represent a meaningful argument, if only you could be bothered to make it.

Most people I know that are atheist were once anarchists and there is some sort of romance about it that I will never accept and I find it silly.

Pointless generalisation from personal experience with an arbitrary group, backed again by unbacked characterisation in lieu of argument.

People are hurt by religion and their dogmas but denying everything is just like hiding your head in the sand.

An unproven assertion, used to back up a totally unconnected analogy.

I'm impressed. You actually managed to write a whole post of some considerable length that does not contain a single statement that qualifies as a meaningful argument in some way. And by that I don't mean anything as ambitious as a point that says something valid about reality, but simply something that technically qualifies as even a bad argument. Put differently, your post, technically speaking and without even taking into consideration your views, consists of 100% bullshit.

 

[That swede again]

Strawman, and hardly even that. Attribution of dishonest motives and intellectual dysfunctionality on the basis of belonging to a group ("political "left") which in fact you have no basis for concluding that I belong to (and which I do not in fact belong to), and by virtue simply of disagreeing with you. Difficult really to sink much lower than that in terms of dysfunctional argument.

Characterisation, not argument. Assumes that which is to be proven.



A comparison that is irrelevant as well as groundless, to which is added an assertion which is unbacked by any argument.



Actually your best point, but only in the way that it is so unclear that it is theoreticallly conceivable that it might represent a meaningful argument, if only you could be bothered to make it.



Pointless generalisation from personal experience with an arbitrary group, backed again by unbacked characterisation in lieu of argument.



An unproven assertion, used to back up a totally unconnected analogy.

I'm impressed. You actually managed to write a whole post of some considerable length that does not contain a single statement that qualifies as a meaningful argument in some way. And by that I don't mean anything as ambitious as a point that says something valid about reality, but simply something that technically qualifies as even a bad argument. Put differently, your post, technically speaking and without even taking into consideration your views, consists of 100% bullshit.

Kvist from Wikipedia "Kvist är en typ av utskott (gren)"

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvist


I think the time is now to stop debating between people that already made their minds up. Denying what you do not know and cannot prove is not there is just insanity. Atheist are angry and bullied and in need of a hug.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Qvist, I see that you are just as anonymous as the anonymous posters you want to ban from here cause I could not find your real name or your home address when clicking on your username here. I cannot see any difference between your registered account and that of someone not having registered. I know it is off-topic but they closed that thread so sorry about that.

 

[Qvist]

Kvist from Wikipedia "Kvist är en typ av utskott (gren)"

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvist


I think the time is now to stop debating between people that already made their minds up. Denying what you do not know and cannot prove is not there is just insanity. Atheist are angry and bullied and in need of a hug.

Well no, it's not insanity. It's on the contrary basic rationality which we apply every day. It is not usually possible to prove that anything does not exist. I have never seen proof that there is not a marzipan moon somewhere in the universe and it is not logically possible to prove that there isn't one, but that does not mean that if you argue that there is one, I have to take that seriously. If you want to argue that something exists, then you need to prove that it does. And if you can't, there is no good reason to think that it does. Otherwise, virtually anything anyone could imagine would have the same status as the most solidly proven proposition, and you would have to believe that anything that is imaginable exists.

Come on, this is basic logic, something virtually every ten-year old understands intuitively. And don't flatter yourself that this is a debate between two people who have already made their mind up. So far you haven't made any propositions that could be debated.

 

[Qvist]

Hey Qvist, I see that you are just as anonymous as the anonymous posters you want to ban from here cause I could not find your real name or your home address when clicking on your username here. I cannot see any difference between your registered account and that of someone not having registered. I know it is off-topic but they closed that thread so sorry about that.

Well, at least I use the same username consistently, rather than pretend I am someone else in order to make a vague threat. Mods might perhaps want to have a look at that?

 

[That swede again]

Oh Qvist, you are so much better than me and you know so many things but this is what you do with all the points you got at university. If only Steve Jobs learned from your example and did not waste it all on something completely meaningless.

The thing your kind will never understand is that people like me despise you whatever your views are and even if they are correct. People that despise cannot hate. I wonder why I got stuck with this boring issue that does not interest me at all but I guess I got sick and tired of atheists feeling sorry for themselves and always craving attention. Celebrate that the pope called it a day instead and take heart from that. A Qvist is a weak little branch that wants to be more than it is.

 

[Kewpie]

For your interest

Well, at least I use the same username consistently, rather than pretend I am someone else in order to make a vague threat. Mods might perhaps want to have a look at that?

You have given two options:

- set ignore function for all anonymous posts
- do not use ignore function, keep debating

Yeah, as you guessed the same troll made the above post.
This proves that "That Swede again" is a coward.
Site administrator and moderators do not find any problem here.

 

[That swede again]

Re: For your interest

You have given two options:

- set ignore function for all anonymous posts
- do not use ignore function, keep debating

Yeah, as you guessed the same troll made the above post.
This proves that "That Swede again" is a coward.
Site administrator and moderators do not find any problem here.

Meeeaaaaaaoooooooowww

 

[Anonymous]

Well, at least I use the same username consistently, rather than pretend I am someone else in order to make a vague threat. Mods might perhaps want to have a look at that?

The point was that I cannot find any private details about you which means you are as anonymous as those staying anonymous. It seems you are scared somehow and I do not know why but maybe you should get some help for it. I have no use of your name or address as I would never want to deal with you in any shape or form so relax and be full of yourself.

 

[That swede again]

Re: For your interest

You have given two options:

- set ignore function for all anonymous posts
- do not use ignore function, keep debating

Yeah, as you guessed the same troll made the above post.
This proves that "That Swede again" is a coward.
Site administrator and moderators do not find any problem here.

Or maybe I filled in the verification wrong and also forgot to fill in username which is set to "Anonymous". I don't care anyhow cause Kewpie hates me cause she feels I am racist and she is probably a left wing taliban as she met Aung San Suu Kyi so that says it all. Aung should be in house arrest still for her crimes against her sovereign country.


---Urbanus

 

[That swede again]

The point was that I cannot find any private details about you which means you are as anonymous as those staying anonymous. It seems you are scared somehow and I do not know why but maybe you should get some help for it. I have no use of your name or address as I would never want to deal with you in any shape or form so relax and be full of yourself.

Note how I chose to write that as "Anonymous" to hit home the point even more. Registered users are as anonymous as those staying anonymous. The only benefit from being registered is that other people can reply to that person cause as anonymous you can get mixed up with others writing as anonymous.


---Urbanus

 

[realitybites]

And still you call their enemies nutters. There are no atheists in the trenches. It is easy to be one when sat with a bowl of popcorn watching a film. Glad to know you're the same as me when scratching away the layers on your surface.

I called right wing racists-nutters. I did not call people who are opposed to the subjugation of women-nutters. The point of the picture is to illustrate Somalia prior to religious fundamentalism taking hold and after. It has NOTHING to do with race, ethnicity, or nationality. It is ALL about religion.