Total Posts:277|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What actually drives atheism?

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I hear the same thing from atheists ALL the time about their atheism. Typically, is that they were ardent and studious Christians (or whatever) and that they just got curious you see, and started asking question that their studious and enraptured acceptance of religion could not answer and that this drove them away from religion and God - it was rationalism and a desire to challenge that drove them to atheism ...

And yet that narrative has serious flaws in almost all cases.

First off, when pressed, many atheists have a difficult time actually explaining what it was that drove them to begin questioning. This image of studiously pious student encountering biblical passages should illicit a studious explanation of how they thoroughly grasped the theological construct, and what lead them to reject it. Instead, we very often find atheists lacking even the basic of the religion they rejected, and the thinking that drove them away is often not even intelligible. This STRONGLY indicates that there view of religion was 'educated' elsewhere.

Second, when you do get to the point where the 'flaws' that atheists tend to site in justifying their questions seem ... oddly similar. Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation? Is it any wonder that they site the exact same passages of the Old Testament, often completely unaware of the context in which violence is being death - conditions that, when pressed, many atheists actually support (the ethics of Patton in war for example). Rarely do we see atheists grapple with the issues of discernment and judgement in a comprehensive manner, even though the canard of avoiding judgement is often deployed. The richer context of discernment and the texts about accountability and compassion in judgement often come as a complete shock to many atheists. This once again belies the narrative to study and point toward 'something else'.

Three, there seems to be an almost ritualistic chant to atheism these days in which religion is presented as irrational. Once again, the major supportive claims of religion are often wholly misunderstood and entirely unknown to most atheists - when pressed about what supporting works they have examined, most cannot get past Mere Christianity and even then they rarely get what that argument is correct. There is a drum beat about science, but rarely is there any actual demonstration of science. The idea that science is rejected by religion even as major apologetic works embrace it once again belies the 'studious' nature of atheists whose rejection of religion was born of rational questions. It once again, STRONGLY point to an alternate explanation.

http://rationalwiki.org...

So that is just ONE EXAMPLE of many atheist organizations out there that are hurling what I would term atheist doctrine out there. IMHO, it is these organizations that drive the atheist view point, and not the studious examination of religion. Indeed, the criticism of atheism's lack of understanding is quite common:

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don"t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

http://www.lrb.co.uk...

Ergo the question, is it time to stop pretending that atheism is driven by 'study' and 'skepticism'? Is it time to start treating atheism for what it appears to be? The result of a deliberate indoctrination campaign?
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:35:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I first questioned my religion when I was as young as 10 years old. 4-5 years later, I approached religion from a completely different angle - through an evangelical point of view - but I was never fully convinced. I was an off and on agnostic / superficially religious, slowly turning atheist. Now, at 25, I finally found my faith - just like that.

Let the atheists claim that believers don't look for answers. I know personally that a true search will only lead to God.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:37:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll write up some arguments for you to sink your teeth into:

1. God, especially Yahweh, Fails Occum's Razor

A priori, given any two competing hypothesis the hypothesis that makes fewer extraneous assumptions is more likely to be true. In the case of most deistic-type gods, this implies an additional mind entity, which itself a complicated entity.

Therefore a cause with a mind is less rational a priori than a cause without a mind.

2. Evil

The good & evil in the world can be explained equally well with a perfectly evil diety. And all the arguments justifying good and evil can be flipped for an evil god. Therefore God's good character is irrational and extraneous. Furthermore, the ontological argument argues for an all good entity. If this is true than it also argues separately got an all perfectly anti-good entity, with the net effect of cancelling out anything an all-good God does.

You can also use the argument for possibility that a God does not exist, therefore does not exist in one universe, therefore an all encompassing God does not exist

3. Argument from reduction

Just made this one up, and is more of a brute force argument. Everything in nature is increasingly demonstrated to be reducible to simpler and simpler processes. Life, planets, stars, the physical laws. All these come from progressively simpler stuff as demonstrated by science. To the point where it could conceivable come ex nihilo, or at the very least a God is unnecessary. Pretty much proving a negative by going through the search space with a fine toothed comb.

4. Divine Hiddenness

A weak argument, but atheism makes the prediction we will not see or experience God with any instrument, or observation. Theism makes a 'maybe prediction'. So far the former has empirically held. No telescope has seen one.

I'll stop there for now.. I got some philosophical stuff I could bring up later maybe.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:38:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And yes, I agree with you. I noticed it myself. Atheists like to claim that they're searching for answers themselves, but their journey to atheism (if we can call it that) is mostly guided and not a personal revelation.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:04:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:37:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I'll write up some arguments for you to sink your teeth into:

1. God, especially Yahweh, Fails Occum's Razor

Oh, its actually simpler to believe that nothing came form nothing to no reason and everything just farted itself into existence?

That is a point you will find on atheist web sites, not the result of study of religion.


A priori, given any two competing hypothesis the hypothesis that makes fewer extraneous assumptions is more likely to be true. In the case of most deistic-type gods, this implies an additional mind entity, which itself a complicated entity.

And your assumptions are fewer how?

You assume knowledge of the Occum's Razor means its proven?

2. Evil

The good & evil in the world can be explained equally well with a perfectly evil diety. And all the arguments justifying good and evil can be flipped for an evil god. Therefore God's good character is irrational and extraneous. Furthermore, the ontological argument argues for an all good entity. If this is true than it also argues separately got an all perfectly anti-good entity, with the net effect of cancelling out anything an all-good God does.

Once again, indoctrination - the Problem of evil and why suffering exists is addressed in EVERY major religion to the point that it satisfy's its adherents and has for thousands of years. ONLY atheists see to think there is some great proof here ...

Yet an evil God would not run things the same, any more than evil men don;t run their empire the same as just men. Stalin and George Washington did not create the same society.

The argument is not only indoctrinated, its flawed.


3. Argument from reduction

Just made this one up, and is more of a brute force argument. Everything in nature is increasingly demonstrated to be reducible to simpler and simpler processes. Life, planets, stars, the physical laws. All these come from progressively simpler stuff as demonstrated by science. To the point where it could conceivable come ex nihilo, or at the very least a God is unnecessary. Pretty much proving a negative by going through the search space with a fine toothed comb.

Well, study quantum mechanics. And no, you did not just make that argument up, it exists on atheist propaganda.

http://www.colorado.edu...

Glad you 'think' you just made it up.


4. Divine Hiddenness

A weak argument, but atheism makes the prediction we will not see or experience God with any instrument, or observation. Theism makes a 'maybe prediction'. So far the former has empirically held. No telescope has seen one.

I'll stop there for now.. I got some philosophical stuff I could bring up later maybe.

So far we predict miracles, and we see and document them.

http://listverse.com...

And what you are again doing is avoiding the obvious.

Not only did you fail to start a thread to meet your supposed challenge, you completely and totally missed the point of this one:

YOU did not arrive at these confusions by studiously examining religion and its claims, you arrived at these conclusions by perusing atheist web sites and unquestionably taking whatever they said as gospel.

You are, like most atheists, learned about atheism - and, like most atheists, completely bereft of knowledge on religious claims.

Indeed, you do not even start with basics of the claim in order to disprove it, instead relying on 'proofs' from an abstract God, and at NO POINT do you even bother to reference the specific claims of the Christian God you are so desperate to disprove.

EVERY argument you put here has been made and there is a rebuttal ALREADY made within the field of apologetics.

You have demonstrated NOTHING more than the fact that you have chosen to indoctrinate yourself with that which confirms your biases.

Somehow, the one who knows that there are two sides and has studied and can easily identify the claims of BOTH sides, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, is the dumber?

The point of this thread is that atheists don't know anywhere near what they think they do about religion. Its not religion you rejected, its atheism you guys blindly accepted.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:16:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You should be careful about sweeping generalization. I know quite a few atheists who deconverted, painfully, after long and sustained study. Not all atheists are of the new atheist ilk.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:04:05 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:37:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I'll write up some arguments for you to sink your teeth into:

1. God, especially Yahweh, Fails Occum's Razor

Oh, its actually simpler to believe that nothing came form nothing to no reason and everything just farted itself into existence?

1. Show some debate etiquette and basic manners
2. Strawman
3. I would happily formally debate you on creation ex nihilo (without a God)


A priori, given any two competing hypothesis the hypothesis that makes fewer extraneous assumptions is more likely to be true. In the case of most deistic-type gods, this implies an additional mind entity, which itself a complicated entity.

And your assumptions are fewer how?

Cause with a mind is more than cause without a mind. Also the Christian God has many other associated attributes, the mind is the bare minimum I'm attacking.

It's like me saying, in this box is a crayon, and you saying it's specifically a green crayon with black stripes. My claim of just a crayon is more likely to be true a priori.

You assume knowledge of the Occum's Razor means its proven?


2. Evil

The good & evil in the world can be explained equally well with a perfectly evil diety. And all the arguments justifying good and evil can be flipped for an evil god. Therefore God's good character is irrational and extraneous. Furthermore, the ontological argument argues for an all good entity. If this is true than it also argues separately got an all perfectly anti-good entity, with the net effect of cancelling out anything an all-good God does.

Once again, indoctrination - the Problem of evil and why suffering exists is addressed in EVERY major religion to the point that it satisfy's its adherents and has for thousands of years. ONLY atheists see to think there is some great proof here ...

Yet an evil God would not run things the same, any more than evil men don;t run their empire the same as just men. Stalin and George Washington did not create the same society.

The argument is not only indoctrinated, its flawed.

You haven't provided a rebuttal or even an argument sans a diatribe, so I will ignore it.

3. Argument from reduction

Just made this one up, and is more of a brute force argument. Everything in nature is increasingly demonstrated to be reducible to simpler and simpler processes. Life, planets, stars, the physical laws. All these come from progressively simpler stuff as demonstrated by science. To the point where it could conceivable come ex nihilo, or at the very least a God is unnecessary. Pretty much proving a negative by going through the search space with a fine toothed comb.

Well, study quantum mechanics. And no, you did not just make that argument up, it exists on atheist propaganda.

http://www.colorado.edu...

Seems you read the 'atheist propaganda' more than I do.

Glad you 'think' you just made it up.

Making personal attacks now? Your manners are rather disgraceful for someone who claims to be a Christian.


4. Divine Hiddenness

A weak argument, but atheism makes the prediction we will not see or experience God with any instrument, or observation. Theism makes a 'maybe prediction'. So far the former has empirically held. No telescope has seen one.

I'll stop there for now.. I got some philosophical stuff I could bring up later maybe.

So far we predict miracles, and we see and document them.

http://listverse.com...

Perhaps you should present these 1 by 1 and defend them. As only 1 is needed to demonstrate God if true.

And what you are again doing is avoiding the obvious.

Not only did you fail to start a thread to meet your supposed challenge, you completely and totally missed the point of this one:

I thought this thread WAS the challenge, lol. I didn't read any of your first post. You said to make a thread, I come back 5 mins later and saw you made it and thought 'oh thanks!

<Diatribe>'

YOU did not arrive at these confusions by studiously examining religion and its claims, you arrived at these conclusions by perusing atheist web sites and unquestionably taking whatever they said as gospel.

You are suddenly omniscient now?

You are, like most atheists, learned about atheism - and, like most atheists, completely bereft of knowledge on religious claims.

Indeed, you do not even start with basics of the claim in order to disprove it, instead relying on 'proofs' from an abstract God, and at NO POINT do you even bother to reference the specific claims of the Christian God you are so desperate to disprove.

EVERY argument you put here has been made and there is a rebuttal ALREADY made within the field of apologetics.

You have demonstrated NOTHING more than the fact that you have chosen to indoctrinate yourself with that which confirms your biases.

Somehow, the one who knows that there are two sides and has studied and can easily identify the claims of BOTH sides, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, is the dumber?

The point of this thread is that atheists don't know anywhere near what they think they do about religion. Its not religion you rejected, its atheism you guys blindly accepted.

</Diatribe>

I made the mistake on the thread, I could paste it into a new forum topic if you would like. But I expect better forum manners and etiquette if I do. The other Christians here are perfectly capable of making their points whilst remaining perfectly civil, I am sure you can do the same. Thanks.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:21:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:35:20 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
I first questioned my religion when I was as young as 10 years old. 4-5 years later, I approached religion from a completely different angle - through an evangelical point of view - but I was never fully convinced. I was an off and on agnostic / superficially religious, slowly turning atheist. Now, at 25, I finally found my faith - just like that.

Let the atheists claim that believers don't look for answers. I know personally that a true search will only lead to God.

I am a former atheist.

What lead me steadily away from atheism? Actual study of religion.

Its very hard to adhere to something that is continuously wrong about things, and seems to embrace straw men over the reality. That does not mean that all religious claims are perfect, far from it, but it does mean that religious claims should be examined and discussed based on merit rater than straw men.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:23:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:16:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You should be careful about sweeping generalization. I know quite a few atheists who deconverted, painfully, after long and sustained study. Not all atheists are of the new atheist ilk.

Hence the word MOST.

I am a former atheist. My conversion was not particularly painful, but it is insightful of what many atheists claim - particularly when you press them about their knowledge of the religion they reject.

Claiming 'pain' and equating it with knowledge of scripture is not the same thing.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:40:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:19:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


I made the mistake on the thread, I could paste it into a new forum topic if you would like. But I expect better forum manners and etiquette if I do. The other Christians here are perfectly capable of making their points whilst remaining perfectly civil, I am sure you can do the same. Thanks.

This is your reply? A bunch of petulance and judgement?

This is why I will not formally debate you, you get emotional and angry, not to mention but hurt and hypocritical, rather than support your claims.

Indeed, you jumped in arrogantly, clearly having not even bothered to read the OP, and insisted on YOUR desire for a debate about what you wanted! Which you haven pursued in THREE SEPARATE VENUES!

Not only are you invited to share YOUR proof, but you start out with one of the most common indoctrinations of atheism: Occam' Razor.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

Tell us all kiddo, if Occam's Razor supports atheism, then why is there no argument from statistics in atheism? Why is in not found on ANY atheist website? Why is there instead the rejection of statistics? Rater than the presentation of statistics?

http://ravingatheist.com...

As you can see, when atheists DO attempt to do it, not only is it laced with common atheist propaganda, its clearly off kilter based on statistical and SCIENCE based application of what it takes to create life as we know it!

Yet somehow, the statisticallly LESS probable case is the MORE BETTER proof? Odd?

Oh wait, you use less assumptions? You do? Could you list out the ones that we use verses the ones you use? Did you do that?

http://rationalwiki.org...'s_razor

Oh look, your presentation follow RationalWiki's presentation and does not actually delve into the actual argument, which has been thoroughly rejected in argumentation by a wide audience.

Do we need to talk about the ALTERNATE to God? The Multiverse? And you want to start talking about assumptions and complexity? Oddly, THAT Is not mentioned in the Ration Wiki, or any other atheist propaganda on the subject. Its oddly absent YOUR atheistic evidence as well ... odd how that works.

Of course the problem here is not the you were indoctrinated, its that there has been an etiquette violation by someone pointing out this out ...

Its a debate forum, your atheisms is fair game kiddo. You don't get to run around pissing on everyone else's faith and then getting your panties in a bunch because someone strikes out at your faith choice.

So let me also be clear, until you can grow a little thick skin and some maturity, I really don;t feel like engaging with someone who wants a set of standards for him, that DEMANDS respect and the ability to lecture about conduct, and another for people he deems worthy of criticism.

I's much rather you simply drop the emotive blather and just support a position.

If its hard? Because you just took what atheists sold you? Tough crap. Welcome to debate, where you actually have to support your claims kiddo.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:45:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:23:16 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:16:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You should be careful about sweeping generalization. I know quite a few atheists who deconverted, painfully, after long and sustained study. Not all atheists are of the new atheist ilk.

Hence the word MOST.

I am a former atheist. My conversion was not particularly painful, but it is insightful of what many atheists claim - particularly when you press them about their knowledge of the religion they reject.

Claiming 'pain' and equating it with knowledge of scripture is not the same thing.

Geezuz H. Krriste brother neutral. Does a person have to know much about being an axe murderer to reject the lifestyle? What in hell does anyone have to know about religious superstitious beliefs to reject it as nonsense? If I listen to any religious crackpot telling us that Darwinian theory has no credibility then I don't need to know anything more about religion to know that I should waste time on learning about it.

And when some 'come lately' like you comes up with some new theories that try to fit science by offerering pseudo-science such as ID then it's a pretty safe bet that we shouldn't waste time on it.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:49:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:40:14 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:19:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


I made the mistake on the thread, I could paste it into a new forum topic if you would like. But I expect better forum manners and etiquette if I do. The other Christians here are perfectly capable of making their points whilst remaining perfectly civil, I am sure you can do the same. Thanks.

This is your reply? A bunch of petulance and judgement?

This is why I will not formally debate you, you get emotional and angry, not to mention but hurt and hypocritical, rather than support your claims.

Tu quoque, sir.

Indeed, you jumped in arrogantly, clearly having not even bothered to read the OP, and insisted on YOUR desire for a debate about what you wanted! Which you haven pursued in THREE SEPARATE VENUES!

I already said I didn't read the OP, I already explained why i posed here. But clearly you didn't read my post either because you would know that. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Not only are you invited to share YOUR proof, but you start out with one of the most common indoctrinations of atheism: Occam' Razor.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

Tell us all kiddo, if Occam's Razor supports atheism, then why is there no argument from statistics in atheism? Why is in not found on ANY atheist website? Why is there instead the rejection of statistics? Rater than the presentation of statistics?

You seem not to be interested in engaging the arguments I posted. And you seem to be too lazy to actually articulate your own arguments other than pasting links. So I don't see why I should put in the effort to looking at them if I am not recieving the same courtesy.

http://ravingatheist.com...

As you can see, when atheists DO attempt to do it, not only is it laced with common atheist propaganda, its clearly off kilter based on statistical and SCIENCE based application of what it takes to create life as we know it!

Yet somehow, the statisticallly LESS probable case is the MORE BETTER proof? Odd?

I never made this argument.. and I'm not even going to open this page because of that.

Oh wait, you use less assumptions? You do? Could you list out the ones that we use verses the ones you use? Did you do that?

http://rationalwiki.org...'s_razor

Oh look, your presentation follow RationalWiki's presentation and does not actually delve into the actual argument, which has been thoroughly rejected in argumentation by a wide audience.

Huh? You do know Occum's razor is a commonly used philosophical razor used in mainstream philosophy, right? It's not an atheist tool. And I specifically said 'a priori' with the argument, as this changes once you start adding evidence and other arguments to the mix.

Do we need to talk about the ALTERNATE to God? The Multiverse? And you want to start talking about assumptions and complexity? Oddly, THAT Is not mentioned in the Ration Wiki, or any other atheist propaganda on the subject. Its oddly absent YOUR atheistic evidence as well ... odd how that works.

Of course the problem here is not the you were indoctrinated, its that there has been an etiquette violation by someone pointing out this out ...

Its a debate forum, your atheisms is fair game kiddo. You don't get to run around pissing on everyone else's faith and then getting your panties in a bunch because someone strikes out at your faith choice.

So let me also be clear, until you can grow a little thick skin and some maturity, I really don;t feel like engaging with someone who wants a set of standards for him, that DEMANDS respect and the ability to lecture about conduct, and another for people he deems worthy of criticism.

I's much rather you simply drop the emotive blather and just support a position.

If its hard? Because you just took what atheists sold you? Tough crap. Welcome to debate, where you actually have to support your claims kiddo.

Lol, looks like I'm wasting my time. You clearly are not interested in discussion and only interested in rhetoric. I'm done here then, call me when you learn to talk like an adult.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:54:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:49:28 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:40:14 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:19:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


I made the mistake on the thread, I could paste it into a new forum topic if you would like. But I expect better forum manners and etiquette if I do. The other Christians here are perfectly capable of making their points whilst remaining perfectly civil, I am sure you can do the same. Thanks.

This is your reply? A bunch of petulance and judgement?

This is why I will not formally debate you, you get emotional and angry, not to mention but hurt and hypocritical, rather than support your claims.

Tu quoque, sir.

Indeed, you jumped in arrogantly, clearly having not even bothered to read the OP, and insisted on YOUR desire for a debate about what you wanted! Which you haven pursued in THREE SEPARATE VENUES!

I already said I didn't read the OP, I already explained why i posed here. But clearly you didn't read my post either because you would know that. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Not only are you invited to share YOUR proof, but you start out with one of the most common indoctrinations of atheism: Occam' Razor.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

Tell us all kiddo, if Occam's Razor supports atheism, then why is there no argument from statistics in atheism? Why is in not found on ANY atheist website? Why is there instead the rejection of statistics? Rater than the presentation of statistics?

You seem not to be interested in engaging the arguments I posted. And you seem to be too lazy to actually articulate your own arguments other than pasting links. So I don't see why I should put in the effort to looking at them if I am not recieving the same courtesy.

http://ravingatheist.com...

As you can see, when atheists DO attempt to do it, not only is it laced with common atheist propaganda, its clearly off kilter based on statistical and SCIENCE based application of what it takes to create life as we know it!

Yet somehow, the statisticallly LESS probable case is the MORE BETTER proof? Odd?

I never made this argument.. and I'm not even going to open this page because of that.

Oh wait, you use less assumptions? You do? Could you list out the ones that we use verses the ones you use? Did you do that?

http://rationalwiki.org...'s_razor

Oh look, your presentation follow RationalWiki's presentation and does not actually delve into the actual argument, which has been thoroughly rejected in argumentation by a wide audience.

Huh? You do know Occum's razor is a commonly used philosophical razor used in mainstream philosophy, right? It's not an atheist tool. And I specifically said 'a priori' with the argument, as this changes once you start adding evidence and other arguments to the mix.

Do we need to talk about the ALTERNATE to God? The Multiverse? And you want to start talking about assumptions and complexity? Oddly, THAT Is not mentioned in the Ration Wiki, or any other atheist propaganda on the subject. Its oddly absent YOUR atheistic evidence as well ... odd how that works.

Of course the problem here is not the you were indoctrinated, its that there has been an etiquette violation by someone pointing out this out ...

Its a debate forum, your atheisms is fair game kiddo. You don't get to run around pissing on everyone else's faith and then getting your panties in a bunch because someone strikes out at your faith choice.

So let me also be clear, until you can grow a little thick skin and some maturity, I really don;t feel like engaging with someone who wants a set of standards for him, that DEMANDS respect and the ability to lecture about conduct, and another for people he deems worthy of criticism.

I's much rather you simply drop the emotive blather and just support a position.

If its hard? Because you just took what atheists sold you? Tough crap. Welcome to debate, where you actually have to support your claims kiddo.

Lol, looks like I'm wasting my time. You clearly are not interested in discussion and only interested in rhetoric. I'm done here then, call me when you learn to talk like an adult.

Don't be too critical of brother neutral, he's carrying the whole load himself until he gets all the other no-mind religious indoctrinated up to speed on his modern day religion that can 'sort of' stand beside evolution and the big bang. Sort of!

Right now it's all quite baffling to the rest of the sky fairy believers.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 8:02:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM, neutral wrote:
I hear the same thing from atheists ALL the time about their atheism. Typically, is that they were ardent and studious Christians (or whatever) and that they just got curious you see, and started asking question that their studious and enraptured acceptance of religion could not answer and that this drove them away from religion and God - it was rationalism and a desire to challenge that drove them to atheism ...

And some of us just eventually looked at what evidence we had and realized that we have about as much evidence for God as we do for Santa Claus. In addition, your implied definition of atheist is inaccurate: an atheist simply lacks belief in any gods, and that's it.

And yet that narrative has serious flaws in almost all cases.

First off, when pressed, many atheists have a difficult time actually explaining what it was that drove them to begin questioning. This image of studiously pious student encountering biblical passages should illicit a studious explanation of how they thoroughly grasped the theological construct, and what lead them to reject it. Instead, we very often find atheists lacking even the basic of the religion they rejected, and the thinking that drove them away is often not even intelligible. This STRONGLY indicates that there view of religion was 'educated' elsewhere.

I don't think that this makes a good point against atheists, considering how very few theists chose their view through extended thought as opposed to listening to someone else preach at them.

Second, when you do get to the point where the 'flaws' that atheists tend to site in justifying their questions seem ... oddly similar. Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation? Is it any wonder that they site the exact same passages of the Old Testament, often completely unaware of the context in which violence is being death - conditions that, when pressed, many atheists actually support (the ethics of Patton in war for example). Rarely do we see atheists grapple with the issues of discernment and judgement in a comprehensive manner, even though the canard of avoiding judgement is often deployed. The richer context of discernment and the texts about accountability and compassion in judgement often come as a complete shock to many atheists. This once again belies the narrative to study and point toward 'something else'.

Again, apologetics also has its own finite set of arguments. After a certain point, all arguments for or against a subject boil down to the same thing. Look at the arguments for any issue, and you'll find that you could list every unique argument. Either your logic extends here and everyone is indoctrinated into their point of view on every single issue and nobody is capable of any independent thought on anything, or your logic is bad.

Three, there seems to be an almost ritualistic chant to atheism these days in which religion is presented as irrational. Once again, the major supportive claims of religion are often wholly misunderstood and entirely unknown to most atheists - when pressed about what supporting works they have examined, most cannot get past Mere Christianity and even then they rarely get what that argument is correct. There is a drum beat about science, but rarely is there any actual demonstration of science.

Please tell me you're joking.

The idea that science is rejected by religion even as major apologetic works embrace it once again belies the 'studious' nature of atheists whose rejection of religion was born of rational questions. It once again, STRONGLY point to an alternate explanation.

If by "embrace" you mean "cherry pick and twist to its own ends in a desperate attempt to shoehorn religion into science", then you are at least partially correct.

http://rationalwiki.org...

So that is just ONE EXAMPLE of many atheist organizations out there that are hurling what I would term atheist doctrine out there. IMHO, it is these organizations that drive the atheist view point, and not the studious examination of religion. Indeed, the criticism of atheism's lack of understanding is quite common:

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don"t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

http://www.lrb.co.uk...

So an inverse argument from authority is what you've built up to? It doesn't matter at all whether an argument comes from someone who has researched both sides or even either side - if an argument is valid, it is valid, if it isn't, it isn't.

Ergo the question, is it time to stop pretending that atheism is driven by 'study' and 'skepticism'? Is it time to start treating atheism for what it appears to be? The result of a deliberate indoctrination campaign?

If you posit atheism as something that people are indoctrinated into, then I should be able to use this same fact against you, since theism is quite open about this fact. I really don't see how you can win either way in this.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 8:22:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:23:16 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:16:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You should be careful about sweeping generalization. I know quite a few atheists who deconverted, painfully, after long and sustained study. Not all atheists are of the new atheist ilk.

Hence the word MOST.


How would you show that?

I am a former atheist.

So am I.

My conversion was not particularly painful, but it is insightful of what many atheists claim - particularly when you press them about their knowledge of the religion they reject.

Claiming 'pain' and equating it with knowledge of scripture is not the same thing.

I didn't do any such thing.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 9:34:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:38:55 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
And yes, I agree with you. I noticed it myself. Atheists like to claim that they're searching for answers themselves, but their journey to atheism (if we can call it that) is mostly guided and not a personal revelation.

guided by what?
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:45:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First off, I'm not even an atheist, I'm a nonreligious agnostic theist, but your immaturity and bad logic hurt me to read.

At 4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM, neutral wrote:
I hear the same thing from atheists ALL the time about their atheism. Typically, is that they were ardent and studious Christians (or whatever) and that they just got curious you see, and started asking question that their studious and enraptured acceptance of religion could not answer and that this drove them away from religion and God - it was rationalism and a desire to challenge that drove them to atheism ...

And yet that narrative has serious flaws in almost all cases.

First off, when pressed, many atheists have a difficult time actually explaining what it was that drove them to begin questioning. This image of studiously pious student encountering biblical passages should illicit a studious explanation of how they thoroughly grasped the theological construct, and what lead them to reject it. Instead, we very often find atheists lacking even the basic of the religion they rejected, and the thinking that drove them away is often not even intelligible. This STRONGLY indicates that there view of religion was 'educated' elsewhere.


To your first point(s), there are tons of studies that show that former-Christians who are now atheists have significantly more knowledge of christian texts than actual christians do.

I have no idea how you think that atheists were "educated" to be atheists. Even if you hold that atheism is a positive claim in the same way that theism is a positive claim (which isn't true, but I'll grant it because I don't even need to argue it to prove you wrong), how exactly did this child you speak of who was presented RELIGIOUS texts "taught" atheism? They wouldn't have derived atheism from anyone but themselves. Some people are indoctrinated into every worldview, but the vast majority of atheists came to it on their OWN, because who would have "taught" them? The entire western world used to be religious, now much of it is secularized. No one "taught" them to break from religion except themselves.

Second, when you do get to the point where the 'flaws' that atheists tend to site in justifying their questions seem ... oddly similar.:

You get to the point where the "defenses" that apologists pose for their faith seem... oddly similar.

Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation? Is it any wonder that they site the exact same passages of the Old Testament, often completely unaware of the context in which violence is being death - conditions that, when pressed, many atheists actually support (the ethics of Patton in war for example).

They don't "insist" on a literal interpretation, THEISTS insist on a literal interpretation and atheists respond; you're unreasonably warping the issue. Granted, some (reasonable) theists don't interpret, say, Genesis literally, but the majority do. Look at all the theists who say that the Bible is the true "word of God".

I didn't realize Patton committed genocide of an entire race of people ruthlessly to wipe them off the face of the earth, including pregnant women and young children for the sins of their fathers. (2 Samuel, genocide of the Amalekites, if I remember their name correctly)

Rarely do we see atheists grapple with the issues of discernment and judgement in a comprehensive manner, even though the canard of avoiding judgement is often deployed. The richer context of discernment and the texts about accountability and compassion in judgement often come as a complete shock to many atheists. This once again belies the narrative to study and point toward 'something else'. :

The New Testament poses a God with "discernment" and "accountability" and "compassion in judgement". I don't know where you get that this comes as a "complete shock" to many atheists. The problem is the inherent contradiction between this and the passages of hatred and bigotry in the Bible.

Three, there seems to be an almost ritualistic chant to atheism these days in which religion is presented as irrational. Once again, the major supportive claims of religion are often wholly misunderstood and entirely unknown to most atheists - when pressed about what supporting works they have examined, most cannot get past Mere Christianity and even then they rarely get what that argument is correct. There is a drum beat about science, but rarely is there any actual demonstration of science. The idea that science is rejected by religion even as major apologetic works embrace it once again belies the 'studious' nature of atheists whose rejection of religion was born of rational questions. It once again, STRONGLY point to an alternate explanation.


I'm sorry you feel this way, but you paint atheists in general as being as stupid and mindless as a very, very small minority of them. I might as well paint Muslims as Allah-shouting kamikaze pilots, or Christians as racist bigots who picket grave sites.

http://rationalwiki.org...


So that is just ONE EXAMPLE of many atheist organizations out there that are hurling what I would term atheist doctrine out there. IMHO, it is these organizations that drive the atheist view point, and not the studious examination of religion. Indeed, the criticism of atheism's lack of understanding is quite common:


"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don"t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

http://www.lrb.co.uk...

Ergo the question, is it time to stop pretending that atheism is driven by 'study' and 'skepticism'? Is it time to start treating atheism for what it appears to be? The result of a deliberate indoctrination campaign?

Yes, atheism is a giant indoctrination campaign. Clearly the movement that was birthed in the Enlightenment out of reasonable doubt and skepticism of dogmas and theological claims is now, suddenly, in the modern world, a giant sham posited by people to... do what exactly?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:03:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM, neutral wrote:
I hear the same thing from atheists ALL the time about their atheism. Typically, is that they were ardent and studious Christians (or whatever) and that they just got curious you see, and started asking question that their studious and enraptured acceptance of religion could not answer and that this drove them away from religion and God - it was rationalism and a desire to challenge that drove them to atheism ...

And yet that narrative has serious flaws in almost all cases.

First off, when pressed, many atheists have a difficult time actually explaining what it was that drove them to begin questioning. This image of studiously pious student encountering biblical passages should illicit a studious explanation of how they thoroughly grasped the theological construct, and what lead them to reject it. Instead, we very often find atheists lacking even the basic of the religion they rejected, and the thinking that drove them away is often not even intelligible. This STRONGLY indicates that there view of religion was 'educated' elsewhere.

Second, when you do get to the point where the 'flaws' that atheists tend to site in justifying their questions seem ... oddly similar. Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation? Is it any wonder that they site the exact same passages of the Old Testament, often completely unaware of the context in which violence is being death - conditions that, when pressed, many atheists actually support (the ethics of Patton in war for example). Rarely do we see atheists grapple with the issues of discernment and judgement in a comprehensive manner, even though the canard of avoiding judgement is often deployed. The richer context of discernment and the texts about accountability and compassion in judgement often come as a complete shock to many atheists. This once again belies the narrative to study and point toward 'something else'.

Three, there seems to be an almost ritualistic chant to atheism these days in which religion is presented as irrational. Once again, the major supportive claims of religion are often wholly misunderstood and entirely unknown to most atheists - when pressed about what supporting works they have examined, most cannot get past Mere Christianity and even then they rarely get what that argument is correct. There is a drum beat about science, but rarely is there any actual demonstration of science. The idea that science is rejected by religion even as major apologetic works embrace it once again belies the 'studious' nature of atheists whose rejection of religion was born of rational questions. It once again, STRONGLY point to an alternate explanation.

http://rationalwiki.org...

So that is just ONE EXAMPLE of many atheist organizations out there that are hurling what I would term atheist doctrine out there. IMHO, it is these organizations that drive the atheist view point, and not the studious examination of religion. Indeed, the criticism of atheism's lack of understanding is quite common:

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don"t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

http://www.lrb.co.uk...

Ergo the question, is it time to stop pretending that atheism is driven by 'study' and 'skepticism'? Is it time to start treating atheism for what it appears to be? The result of a deliberate indoctrination campaign?

When thinking of this I can't help but be reminded of the fact that the first sin was supposedly to partake of the knowledge of both good and evil. Today one very big argument seems to be that higher learning (more knowledge of good and evil) is what comes between people and their earlier beliefs. I can only wonder if and how the two are related.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:34:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM, neutral wrote:
Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation?

So genesis is not to be read literally? Is this your claim? The story of A&E is not literally true?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 12:11:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:54:12 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:49:28 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:40:14 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:19:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


I made the mistake on the thread, I could paste it into a new forum topic if you would like. But I expect better forum manners and etiquette if I do. The other Christians here are perfectly capable of making their points whilst remaining perfectly civil, I am sure you can do the same. Thanks.

This is your reply? A bunch of petulance and judgement?

This is why I will not formally debate you, you get emotional and angry, not to mention but hurt and hypocritical, rather than support your claims.

Tu quoque, sir.

Indeed, you jumped in arrogantly, clearly having not even bothered to read the OP, and insisted on YOUR desire for a debate about what you wanted! Which you haven pursued in THREE SEPARATE VENUES!

I already said I didn't read the OP, I already explained why i posed here. But clearly you didn't read my post either because you would know that. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Not only are you invited to share YOUR proof, but you start out with one of the most common indoctrinations of atheism: Occam' Razor.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com...

Tell us all kiddo, if Occam's Razor supports atheism, then why is there no argument from statistics in atheism? Why is in not found on ANY atheist website? Why is there instead the rejection of statistics? Rater than the presentation of statistics?

You seem not to be interested in engaging the arguments I posted. And you seem to be too lazy to actually articulate your own arguments other than pasting links. So I don't see why I should put in the effort to looking at them if I am not recieving the same courtesy.

http://ravingatheist.com...

As you can see, when atheists DO attempt to do it, not only is it laced with common atheist propaganda, its clearly off kilter based on statistical and SCIENCE based application of what it takes to create life as we know it!

Yet somehow, the statisticallly LESS probable case is the MORE BETTER proof? Odd?

I never made this argument.. and I'm not even going to open this page because of that.

Oh wait, you use less assumptions? You do? Could you list out the ones that we use verses the ones you use? Did you do that?

http://rationalwiki.org...'s_razor

Oh look, your presentation follow RationalWiki's presentation and does not actually delve into the actual argument, which has been thoroughly rejected in argumentation by a wide audience.

Huh? You do know Occum's razor is a commonly used philosophical razor used in mainstream philosophy, right? It's not an atheist tool. And I specifically said 'a priori' with the argument, as this changes once you start adding evidence and other arguments to the mix.

Do we need to talk about the ALTERNATE to God? The Multiverse? And you want to start talking about assumptions and complexity? Oddly, THAT Is not mentioned in the Ration Wiki, or any other atheist propaganda on the subject. Its oddly absent YOUR atheistic evidence as well ... odd how that works.

Of course the problem here is not the you were indoctrinated, its that there has been an etiquette violation by someone pointing out this out ...

Its a debate forum, your atheisms is fair game kiddo. You don't get to run around pissing on everyone else's faith and then getting your panties in a bunch because someone strikes out at your faith choice.

So let me also be clear, until you can grow a little thick skin and some maturity, I really don;t feel like engaging with someone who wants a set of standards for him, that DEMANDS respect and the ability to lecture about conduct, and another for people he deems worthy of criticism.

I's much rather you simply drop the emotive blather and just support a position.

If its hard? Because you just took what atheists sold you? Tough crap. Welcome to debate, where you actually have to support your claims kiddo.

Lol, looks like I'm wasting my time. You clearly are not interested in discussion and only interested in rhetoric. I'm done here then, call me when you learn to talk like an adult.

Don't be too critical of brother neutral, he's carrying the whole load himself until he gets all the other no-mind religious indoctrinated up to speed on his modern day religion that can 'sort of' stand beside evolution and the big bang. Sort of!

Right now it's all quite baffling to the rest of the sky fairy believers.

You actually believe that religious people believe in a sky fairy?

You are even stupider than I thought you were.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 2:19:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:49:28 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I already said I didn't read the OP, I already explained why i posed here. But clearly you didn't read my post either because you would know that. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

You seem not to be interested in engaging the arguments I posted. And you seem to be too lazy to actually articulate your own arguments other than pasting links. So I don't see why I should put in the effort to looking at them if I am not recieving the same courtesy.


Lol, looks like I'm wasting my time. You clearly are not interested in discussion and only interested in rhetoric. I'm done here then, call me when you learn to talk like an adult.

It look alike you have a bunch of petulant emotional excuses.

You dumped Occam's Razor out, its rebutted WITH citations, and here you are screaming like an unruly teenager and hurling accusations.

Clearly, you are demonstrating how it was logic and reason tat drove your conclusions.

Thankfully, you are 'done' here and we don't have to be subjected to any more of these abusive accusations that somehow means atheists are all studious ad pious monks whose reason, rather than clearly demonstrated emotionalism and indoctrination, are the reason they left religion ...

Wait ... that criticism is accurate and you have no way to rebut it? Therefore .... it means the people who notice it are the ones who are idiots?

Thankfully, you are done - Praise God!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 2:33:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 8:22:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:23:16 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:16:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You should be careful about sweeping generalization. I know quite a few atheists who deconverted, painfully, after long and sustained study. Not all atheists are of the new atheist ilk.

Hence the word MOST.


How would you show that?

I am a former atheist.

So am I.

My conversion was not particularly painful, but it is insightful of what many atheists claim - particularly when you press them about their knowledge of the religion they reject.

Claiming 'pain' and equating it with knowledge of scripture is not the same thing.

I didn't do any such thing.

I know that because I have talked to a LOT of atheists, because, JUST LIKE you rather than lay out the theological construct that lead them away from religion ... we get silly excuses instead.

You may want to address the meat of the argument, rather than toss out how painful it is - while claiming you meant nothing by the pain? Odd claim.

#1 - atheists claim mastery of scripture and religious concepts, yet rather routinely get the basics wrong.

#2 - they, with rare exceptions, lay out the theological case that drove them away, often sighting Hitchens or Dawkins as their intellectual force, failing to notice (due to #1) that the resonation of religion is mightily flawed by both authors. And if Hitchens and Dawkins are the driving force, not studious examination and study of theology ... guess what that means?

#3 - The proofs that atheists use are all the same. Proof like Agnostic atheism are not simply arrived at through study, indeed, the base illogic of pretending to not claim what one is obviously claiming and thus denying there is a burn of proof is highly silly - so silly NO OTHER GROUP anywhere uses it - not even the flat earth society. As Occam proof above from S so helpfully demonstrates, the arguments are often presented EXACTLY the same way as they are in atheist sources. There appears to have been little thought actually put into what is essentially an internet cut and paste ... followed by anger when someone rebuts it effectively.

#4 - There is that whole anger thingy that atheists are famous for! Running around screaming that religious people are irrational, should be classified as mental health issues, are sociopaths, evil that poisons everything. Does that sound like a conclusion that would come from studying Christian Scripture? What Jesus was saying? Or does that sound like someone who has been coached by a deliberately scoped, and heavily biased narrative?

But you tell me, the closest historical ideology that I have come across to that form of atheism is Social Darwinism - was that a concept that was taught? Or just arrived upon in mass through study? Which is why its no longer the case correct?

Simply put, a person might disagree with scripture if they actually studied it. They would not come away so rabidly obsessed with the belief that everyone else is flawed. That is a point of view that can only arise through steady indoctrination.

So the question remains atheist, why should we pretend that the rabid nihilism sweeping atheism these days is the result of study rather than indoctrination? There are many good atheists out there, but they can barely get a word in edge wise among all the hysterics.

Indeed, just yesterday, while scanning a thread, out of no where comes the claim that ALL religions and ALL cults have the same genesis! When confronted with actual comparisons? That particular atheist angrily folded - he had no choice, as its rather tough to claim that Charles Manson and the Manson Family have followed the EXACT same trajectory as .... the Buddha and Buddhism.

How indeed did one arrive at such a silly, pretentious claim? By studying scripture? Religions? Cults? Or was that just an indoctrinated bit of prejudice?

At what point can we start calling a spade a spade?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 2:44:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:34:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM, neutral wrote:
Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation?

So genesis is not to be read literally? Is this your claim? The story of A&E is not literally true?

WOW! Just WOW!

#1 - MOST Christian churches DO NOT take a literal reading of genesis.

#2 - The CLAIM, in plain old English at that, was that atheists INSIST that it be treated that way ... and here you are doing just that.

So tell me atheist, why, other than through indoctrination, have you arrived at a point of contention that requires genesis to be viewed in a manner that met churches do not? It would CLEARLY not have been through study of one of these churches and their claims that drove your atheism.

Indeed, the angry ritual that prevents one from understanding the point so badly that he confirms the point would indeed point to indoctrination - the deliberate wiping up of emotional frenzy rather than rationalism.

Indeed, for guys that love to nit pick and attack religion while pretending that its 'rationalism' you guys seem highly emotional quite quickly?

Its a simply enough question, why pretend you have not been indoctrinated? Roundabout confirming you have been? Well, that is just silly.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 2:55:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:03:44 PM, Idealist wrote:


When thinking of this I can't help but be reminded of the fact that the first sin was supposedly to partake of the knowledge of both good and evil. Today one very big argument seems to be that higher learning (more knowledge of good and evil) is what comes between people and their earlier beliefs. I can only wonder if and how the two are related.

And it is knowledge of good and evil that was necessary, the very reason all this was created - that we may learn and grow more like God.

There is nothing to fear from reason and study, quite the opposite. And that is the point being made here: Actual study of scripture does not support the claims that atheists are making.

Its is 'science' or 'scripture' that drives atheism, its been a deliberate campaign of advertising and information dissemination that are driving atheism. Fortunately, its a horribly poor case, and when examined ... falls apart quite quickly.

The standards of logic? Sure, lets examine the claims ... and when we do? Logic does not support say, Occam's Razor and its claim from atheism.

Science? Seems to be integrating just fin in Apologetics and is certainly not disproving God is it?

Religion is starting wars? Is it? Then why are the major conflicts these days NOT religious? Ukraine a religious thing? Syria about religion or is that about empowered tribes and disenfranchised tribes? Is what is happening in Egypt a religious or political struggle? Venezuela? Somali Pirates driven by religion are they?

And where there is a religious angle, is there any serious examination of why? Like Al Shabab which facilitates the flow of money and men to an organization that would otherwise collapse when its criminal extortion efforts exhausted the relatively barren landscape of Somalia (which happened when they induced famine a few years back).

How has the 30 Years War shaped the political-religious reality, particularly in the West?

Not like you will find good, strong comments from atheists on these things will you?

A little learning is far more dangerous to the extremists atheist positions than it is to any religion.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 3:07:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:45:01 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
First off, I'm not even an atheist, I'm a nonreligious agnostic theist, but your immaturity and bad logic hurt me to read.


Yes, atheism is a giant indoctrination campaign. Clearly the movement that was birthed in the Enlightenment out of reasonable doubt and skepticism of dogmas and theological claims is now, suddenly, in the modern world, a giant sham posited by people to... do what exactly?

Really? You call yourself an non-religious agnostic theist .... really? And you question the logic of others? So you don't believe in God do you? And the total irrationality of claiming that you don't know (and cannot know) but are leaning anyway? Obviously you can use inductive logic if you go from a position of unable to know to leaning - that is what probability based logic is for.

And what pray tell, other than the practiced sermon actually drove your skepticism of theological claims? An appeal to the Enlightenment? That is interesting because the Enlightenment is laced with RELIGIOUS ideas.

That would include, oddly, the use of the inductive approach toward understanding God.

"A major shift took place in the world of science with the development of the ideas of such people as Francis Bacon (1561-1627). Bacon, an English philosopher and statesman, abandoned the classical deductive way of understanding nature handed down from Aristotle, championing instead an experimental, inductive approach. He rejected the authority of tradition, and provided "a method of experiment and induction that seemed to offer an infallible means of distinguishing truth and error."

http://www.probe.org...

and if you are going to get your history correct, you may want to go back to Aristotle and Plato, who among others, gave us that Problem of Evil thingy that atheists are so enraptured with but which doesn't disprove God and only forces religion to explain why suffering exists.

Guess what atheistic adherents to the PoE NEVER do? Actually address the major religious rebuttals and explanations of suffering - from Buddhism to Christainity and everything in between.

By all means, explain how the spirit of the Enlightenment allows atheists to not question the claims of the Problem of Evil as pitched by atheism and completely fail to examine the counters?

The Hegelian dialectic demands at least a cursory examination of the rebuttal does it not? And that is what we would expect at the very least from those claiming it was rigor and study that drove them. Its absent entirely that and just about every other claim made against religion by atheists these days.

So again, why pretend that you position, merely because you mention the Enlightenment, but do not explain how this makes atheisms criticism the result of the study of religion, is the result of the study of religion?

Indeed, the very claim bears the hall mark of having studied the GENESIS OF ATHEISM rather than religion as so often claimed, correct?
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 3:14:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 2:44:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:34:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM, neutral wrote:
Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation?

So genesis is not to be read literally? Is this your claim? The story of A&E is not literally true?

WOW! Just WOW!

#1 - MOST Christian churches DO NOT take a literal reading of genesis.

#2 - The CLAIM, in plain old English at that, was that atheists INSIST that it be treated that way ... and here you are doing just that.

So tell me atheist, why, other than through indoctrination, have you arrived at a point of contention that requires genesis to be viewed in a manner that met churches do not?
I have no idea what a "met" church is but never mind.

Get someone to explain this "?" symbol to you and then explain to yourself how a sentence ending with that symbol should not be confused with a contention. There's a good little fella.
It would CLEARLY not have been through study of one of these churches and their claims that drove your atheism.
As I mentioned I have no idea what a "met" church is, so you must be right.
Indeed, the angry ritual that prevents one from understanding the point so badly that he confirms the point would indeed point to indoctrination - the deliberate wiping up of emotional frenzy rather than rationalism.
It's obvious that you have a great list of words available to you, but you need to learn how to string those words together into a coherent sentence.

Perhaps if you limit yourself to words of two syllables or less until you get the hang of it.
Indeed, for guys that love to nit pick and attack religion while pretending that its 'rationalism' you guys seem highly emotional quite quickly?
I see, asking you questions is "you guys seem highly emotional quite quickly" in whatever passes for reality in your worldview.

I have no idea what you are saying, because you don't communicate in coherent English sentences.
Its a simply enough question, why pretend you have not been indoctrinated? Roundabout confirming you have been? Well, that is just silly.
This is even worse than the rest of your incomprehensible post, so I'll leave it to you.

But while you are here, what was the point of jesus' sacrifice?

A friendly heads up, that is a question not a claim.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 3:15:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 8:02:31 PM, drhead wrote:


If you posit atheism as something that people are indoctrinated into, then I should be able to use this same fact against you, since theism is quite open about this fact. I really don't see how you can win either way in this.

Sure, you could ask the question, and be given an answer, correct?

The problem here is that I am a covert. I was an atheist who started to question atheism, specifically why I was treating intelligent and capable, honorable and kind, people like they were beneath me (behavior you see quite commonly on this forum from atheists, correct?)

The question was why?

So, I actually examined the cases made. At the end of the journey I am Christian.

I was appalled to see that cases like Hitchens and Dawkins were so deliberately misleading, for example, and have a tough time supporting positions that I know are basely inaccurate.

Atheism is, in reality, simply a weak inductive argument.

Conversely, historical Jesus, whether you accept him as the Son of God or not, is quite real and accurate. And what he says? Is incredibly compelling. Charity? Honor? Selflessness? Purpose? Forgiveness? Love? Kindness? These are quite compelling. They are QUITE defensible.

Atheists scream that these are not the property of religion, which is true, but there are no atheist best sellers talking about these things - they are simply talking about how screwed up religion is where they all fail to mention those aspects of religion entirely - which we find to be quite valuable?

Simply put, the case for these things is made eloquently and completely by Jesus. Its a position that may be indoctrinated, but it is a position that I can defend with passion and with logic.

Atheism cannot. Indoctrination is bad when we are indoctrinated into indefensible positions.

Like the aforementioned claim from an atheist, just dumped into this forum, that ALL religions and ALL cults start exactly the same way, that Buddha and Charles Manson were identical.

That is not a position that was arrived at by studying either of those, and the only other way it could have come into being was through indoctrination.

So why are atheists indoctrinating in this manner?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 3:23:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 3:14:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/19/2014 2:44:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:34:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM, neutral wrote:
Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation?

So genesis is not to be read literally? Is this your claim? The story of A&E is not literally true?

WOW! Just WOW!

#1 - MOST Christian churches DO NOT take a literal reading of genesis.

#2 - The CLAIM, in plain old English at that, was that atheists INSIST that it be treated that way ... and here you are doing just that.

So tell me atheist, why, other than through indoctrination, have you arrived at a point of contention that requires genesis to be viewed in a manner that met churches do not?
I have no idea what a "met" church is but never mind.

Get someone to explain this "?" symbol to you and then explain to yourself how a sentence ending with that symbol should not be confused with a contention. There's a good little fella.
It would CLEARLY not have been through study of one of these churches and their claims that drove your atheism.
As I mentioned I have no idea what a "met" church is, so you must be right.
Indeed, the angry ritual that prevents one from understanding the point so badly that he confirms the point would indeed point to indoctrination - the deliberate wiping up of emotional frenzy rather than rationalism.
It's obvious that you have a great list of words available to you, but you need to learn how to string those words together into a coherent sentence.

Perhaps if you limit yourself to words of two syllables or less until you get the hang of it.
Indeed, for guys that love to nit pick and attack religion while pretending that its 'rationalism' you guys seem highly emotional quite quickly?
I see, asking you questions is "you guys seem highly emotional quite quickly" in whatever passes for reality in your worldview.

I have no idea what you are saying, because you don't communicate in coherent English sentences.
Its a simply enough question, why pretend you have not been indoctrinated? Roundabout confirming you have been? Well, that is just silly.
This is even worse than the rest of your incomprehensible post, so I'll leave it to you.

But while you are here, what was the point of jesus' sacrifice?

A friendly heads up, that is a question not a claim.

So, not only are ... still ... rude.

You are unfamiliar with the concept of atonement?

Once again, you really seem to struggle with this whole debate thingy don't you? If you are unfamiliar with such a major concept like atonement, then clearly it was not study of this concept that drove you away.

Otherwise, rather than being an angry atheist with a 'burning' question, you would have been able to simply sit down and state what you beef is with atonement. But you are so ignorant of the concept that you cannot even explain it well enough to examine why YOU ostensibly already rejected it.

Nope, you need ME to first explain the concept so that YOU can find any old excuse to eject it?

http://www.atheistrev.com...

Amazing, THAT one doesn't get atonement correct either.

http://conversationalatheist.com...

Neither does that one ... which fundamentally messes up God's Plan of Salvation too boot.

http://www.newadvent.org...

As you can clearly see, the religious position is FAR more encompassing and explanative,

So if it were actual study, rather than simple conformation bias, that drove us, we would OBVIOUSLY be at least informed about the better evidenced and explained position than the one that makes egregious errors on the subject it criticizes.

You appear to be hell bent on proving that you were indeed indoctrinated by these atheist sites and STILL haven't bothered to even look at what it is you reject on the faith that atheists who slam religion are just all honorable ... and all religious rebuttal MUST be dishonest, eh?

That kind of indoctrination, that squelches rationalism and legitimate questioning, is dangerous. Cultish.

Bt you explain to us why, with your position so logical and rational, that so many of you get angry when you are asked questions? Isn't that anger and ready resort to insult about STOPPING the skeptical process rather than engaging in it?

As I said, dangerous form of indoctrination that excuses such behavior.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 3:28:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 3:15:19 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 8:02:31 PM, drhead wrote:


If you posit atheism as something that people are indoctrinated into, then I should be able to use this same fact against you, since theism is quite open about this fact. I really don't see how you can win either way in this.

Sure, you could ask the question, and be given an answer, correct?

The problem here is that I am a covert. I was an atheist who started to question atheism, specifically why I was treating intelligent and capable, honorable and kind, people like they were beneath me (behavior you see quite commonly on this forum from atheists, correct?)

The question was why?

So, I actually examined the cases made. At the end of the journey I am Christian.

I was appalled to see that cases like Hitchens and Dawkins were so deliberately misleading, for example, and have a tough time supporting positions that I know are basely inaccurate.

Atheism is, in reality, simply a weak inductive argument.

Conversely, historical Jesus, whether you accept him as the Son of God or not, is quite real and accurate. And what he says? Is incredibly compelling. Charity? Honor? Selflessness? Purpose? Forgiveness? Love? Kindness? These are quite compelling. They are QUITE defensible.

Atheists scream that these are not the property of religion, which is true, but there are no atheist best sellers talking about these things - they are simply talking about how screwed up religion is where they all fail to mention those aspects of religion entirely - which we find to be quite valuable?

Simply put, the case for these things is made eloquently and completely by Jesus. Its a position that may be indoctrinated, but it is a position that I can defend with passion and with logic.

Atheism cannot. Indoctrination is bad when we are indoctrinated into indefensible positions.

Like the aforementioned claim from an atheist, just dumped into this forum, that ALL religions and ALL cults start exactly the same way, that Buddha and Charles Manson were identical.

That is not a position that was arrived at by studying either of those, and the only other way it could have come into being was through indoctrination.

So why are atheists indoctrinating in this manner?

Hey airmax1227 this post actually screams out for emoticons.

*********************************SCREAMS******************************************
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 3:36:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 3:23:45 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/19/2014 3:14:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/19/2014 2:44:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:34:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:19:12 PM, neutral wrote:
Is it any wonder that atheists are stuck on Genesis and that they insist on a literal interpretation?

So genesis is not to be read literally? Is this your claim? The story of A&E is not literally true?

WOW! Just WOW!

#1 - MOST Christian churches DO NOT take a literal reading of genesis.

#2 - The CLAIM, in plain old English at that, was that atheists INSIST that it be treated that way ... and here you are doing just that.

So tell me atheist, why, other than through indoctrination, have you arrived at a point of contention that requires genesis to be viewed in a manner that met churches do not?
I have no idea what a "met" church is but never mind.

Get someone to explain this "?" symbol to you and then explain to yourself how a sentence ending with that symbol should not be confused with a contention. There's a good little fella.
It would CLEARLY not have been through study of one of these churches and their claims that drove your atheism.
As I mentioned I have no idea what a "met" church is, so you must be right.
Indeed, the angry ritual that prevents one from understanding the point so badly that he confirms the point would indeed point to indoctrination - the deliberate wiping up of emotional frenzy rather than rationalism.
It's obvious that you have a great list of words available to you, but you need to learn how to string those words together into a coherent sentence.

Perhaps if you limit yourself to words of two syllables or less until you get the hang of it.
Indeed, for guys that love to nit pick and attack religion while pretending that its 'rationalism' you guys seem highly emotional quite quickly?
I see, asking you questions is "you guys seem highly emotional quite quickly" in whatever passes for reality in your worldview.

I have no idea what you are saying, because you don't communicate in coherent English sentences.
Its a simply enough question, why pretend you have not been indoctrinated? Roundabout confirming you have been? Well, that is just silly.
This is even worse than the rest of your incomprehensible post, so I'll leave it to you.

But while you are here, what was the point of jesus' sacrifice?

A friendly heads up, that is a question not a claim.

So, not only are ... still ... rude.

You are unfamiliar with the concept of atonement?

Once again, you really seem to struggle with this whole debate thingy don't you? If you are unfamiliar with such a major concept like atonement, then clearly it was not study of this concept that drove you away.

Otherwise, rather than being an angry atheist with a 'burning' question, you would have been able to simply sit down and state what you beef is with atonement. But you are so ignorant of the concept that you cannot even explain it well enough to examine why YOU ostensibly already rejected it.

Nope, you need ME to first explain the concept so that YOU can find any old excuse to eject it?

http://www.atheistrev.com...

Amazing, THAT one doesn't get atonement correct either.

http://conversationalatheist.com...

Neither does that one ... which fundamentally messes up God's Plan of Salvation too boot.

http://www.newadvent.org...

As you can clearly see, the religious position is FAR more encompassing and explanative,

So if it were actual study, rather than simple conformation bias, that drove us, we would OBVIOUSLY be at least informed about the better evidenced and explained position than the one that makes egregious errors on the subject it criticizes.

You appear to be hell bent on proving that you were indeed indoctrinated by these atheist sites and STILL haven't bothered to even look at what it is you reject on the faith that atheists who slam religion are just all honorable ... and all religious rebuttal MUST be dishonest, eh?

That kind of indoctrination, that squelches rationalism and legitimate questioning, is dangerous. Cultish.

Bt you explain to us why, with your position so logical and rational, that so many of you get angry when you are asked questions? Isn't that anger and ready resort to insult about STOPPING the skeptical process rather than engaging in it?

As I said, dangerous form of indoctrination that excuses such behavior.

You really don't understand how to write a coherent sentence do you?

The simplest of questions is viewed by you as a personal attack by satan or whoever it is you think I am and you then react with your trademark hate and vitriol of whatever it is you think the question meant. WOW

Next post.