ATHEIST INTELLECTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES
IF Atheists believe their position is based on logic and/or evidence, and is therefore rational,
THEN they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief;
ELSE they are not what they claim to be.
ATHEIST DEFINITION AND REDEFINITION
Many Atheists now claim “not to have any god theories”, a claim which is intended to help themselves avoid having to support their own position: they know they cannot. They are, however, subject to the following:
IF creating entity theories exist, THEN either a person has heard of creating entity theories, or has not.
IF a person has not heard of creating entity theories, THEN he likely has no such theories himself. (this is ignorance, not Atheism).
IF a person has heard of God/creating entity theories, THEN one of the following applies:"
(Read More)
Sorry, I got bored reading that effluent flood of witless demands made by a fucking moron.
ReplyDeleteDan, you do know that Stan is not actually a xian, right? During his debate with me, he said that the bible was fictional. He uses that word a lot when he argues with me as to why atheists argue against a being that we regard as fictional, but then at one point (you'll have to go to his site from the links in my post, as I don't quote that part of his spiel) he says that he regards the bible as fictional.
ReplyDeleteI should note that I keep posting links to his blog so that people can see in context, his side of the debate.
DeleteAs an aside, Stan is apparently not an actual xian, but just some kind of theist (he never says what kind though so he never has to defend his beliefs) who just really, really hates athiests.
Is this the quote from Stan, you speak of?
Delete"Second, hell cannot be acknowledged as a threat by anyone who is not already a believer. So hell cannot make a believer by use of threat out of someone who thinks it is a fiction."
Or this one?
Delete"Kindly re-read your comment. You have no moral basis, and no moral authority. You are criticizing a being which is fictional in your mind."
Dan...do you even bother to read the context of those things? I explained to the guy exactly why I criticize a being who's fictional in my mind: The actions of those who believe that such a being is real!
DeleteAs for "moral basis and moral authority"? Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't need it.
Speaking of context: Dan doesn't seem to care that this "Stan" guy doesn't seem to believe in the bible either. =
DeleteAgain, barely asserted claims cannot be taken seriously without evidence. How ironic I have to say this to an Atheist even. You're being silly Reynolds, don't you even realize that?
DeleteEither document your claims, or scream in your bathroom mirror.
Dan...It is what Stan himself said.
DeleteJust do a "search" for "fictional" on that page and you'll find it. He also speaks of xians in the third person:
I don't claim to know the motivation of any Christian, much less all of them: that is your claim. Where is your evidence? You know the motivation of all Christians, how? The fictional book called the bible is your evidence?
I deal with that bullshit charge of not knowing the motivations of believers, right in the first post here:
Scroll down to
(Stan:
You presume to know the motives of non-Atheists; you do not. )
(My reply:
Care to explain just why the bible has rewards for xian believers then, Stan?
stuff from the bible
Ex: 2 Corinthians 5:10
Ex: 1 Corinthians 3:8
Ex: Revelation 22:12
Ex: Revelation 2:23
Ex: Mark 10:29-30)
Wait....isn't providing evidence for asserted claims our advice to you? You don't document your claims, you just assert them. Like "we all know that god exists" or "our ability to reason is proof of god", etc?
And Dan, as usual, ignores the point that I had made in the debate. Whatever.
You're so silly. He was saying that from your worldview's perspective. But you know that, and try to rail more against whatever disagrees with your beliefs.
DeleteDo you have a girlfriend? Oh, never mind.
Dan...my worldview had nothing to do with it. You asked me to back up my claim. My claim was that Stan himself had said that he claimed the bible was fictional. Read the context please.
DeleteMy worldview has nothing to do with it. He wanted me to back up my claim of knowing the motives of bible-believers. I used the bible.
Could you stop being dense for one fucking second? Or are you just dodging?
D.A.N. said (quoting Stan)...
Delete"Second, hell cannot be acknowledged as a threat by anyone who is not already a believer.
This is, of course, incorrect. It is eminently possible to acknowledge an implied threat regardless of whether you take that threat seriously or not.
So hell cannot make a believer by use of threat out of someone who thinks it is a fiction."
In which case why keep making the threat? I expect you (or Stan) will claim that you're not making the threat, merely spreading God's word. But, of course, that word contains the threat. A threat that Stan acknowledges can't possibly bring people to belief. Pointless.
Hmm. I just dropped by here out of curiosity. I see that Reynold has not changed a bit, still misinterpreting and then arguing his misinterpretation as the only possible one.
DeleteReynold, you have no idea what I think about the Bible; what you wish to argue is your false reading and noncomprehension, and taken out of context, too. False arguments and your inability to admit your errrors was what got you booted from my blog.
freddies-dead, your interpretation leaves out the key words, presumably to allow you to have an argument against your false reading, not the actual statement. The key words are ...acknowledge"as a threat". If you don't believe in hell, then it cannot be a threat, it is an empty concept like vampires, witches and Evil, none of which exist in the Atheist concept of the universe. No Christian can condemn anyone to hell, only the (non-existent) God could do that: no threat there. But you are right, the threat of hell has no effect on people who are materialists to the core. When Atheists die, they are worm fodder because they are material only, with no non-material component, nothing other than molecules and heat.
Given that, what does it matter what Atheists think? Even Charles Darwin acknowledged that inconsistency in Atheist thinking processes.
Stan
Stan said...
Deletefreddies-dead, your interpretation leaves out the key words, presumably to allow you to have an argument against your false reading, not the actual statement.
I left out nothing.
The key words are ...acknowledge"as a threat".
And I dealt with those words. Christians use Hell "as a threat" and I can acknowledge them doing so whilst at the same time feeling that the threat itself has no actual basis in reality.
If you don't believe in hell, then it cannot be a threat, it is an empty concept like vampires, witches and Evil, none of which exist in the Atheist concept of the universe.
Rubbish. Of course it's a threat. The whole idea is for those that do not believe as certain Christians do to fear going to the Hell those Christians claim exists. It's the intent that makes it a threat. That atheists find the threat unpersuasive does not change that intent.
No Christian can condemn anyone to hell, only the (non-existent) God could do that: no threat there.
Non sequitur, I never claimed any Christians could. It's still a threat though. Believe as the Christian does or spend an eternity in torment. The intent is quite clear.
But you are right, the threat of hell has no effect on people who are materialists to the core.
So you concede it's a threat. Thank you.
When Atheists die, they are worm fodder because they are material only, with no non-material component, nothing other than molecules and heat.
Given that, what does it matter what Atheists think? Even Charles Darwin acknowledged that inconsistency in Atheist thinking processes.
Stan
Do you have a citation for that claim about Darwin?
I especially liked this part at the bottom:
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, in the case of emotional responses, moral objections or personal attacks, such comments will not be posted.
Which would pretty much eliminate the entire post if the author followed the same rule for himself.
All I can say is that if the author of this drivel was indeed an atheist for 40 years, he sucked at it. This is an example of the Ray Comfort technique: create a totally ridiculous statement of your opponent's position and have them attack that, thereby cleverly avoiding the necessity of defending your own position.
At least Comfort says what his own position is. Stan never does as far as I saw. He refuses to say just what his own beliefs are, thus shielding him from having to defend it.
DeleteIf he ever did explain what his own views were, I sure as hell never saw it in any correspondence I had with him, even during the debate.
Mikev6,
DeleteMerely claiming that something is ridiculous has no meaning. If you wish to analyze the article, then do so. But by making no actual logical case against it, you show that you actually have no case to make. It is so typical of Atheist attacks to denigrate without any specifics. This is obviously because they hate what they read, but can't deny it.
Reynold, you are correct for once. Atheists don't want to talk about the void that is Atheism, the void that is Atheist morality, the void that is Atheist philosophy. They want to attack ecclesiasticism. So the point of my blog is to demonstrate the empty void that is Atheism, and not allow the Red Herrings of Atheist attacks on the Other.
Stan
DeleteHmm. I just dropped by here out of curiosity. I see that Reynold has not changed a bit, still misinterpreting and then arguing his misinterpretation as the only possible one.
Reynold, you have no idea what I think about the Bible;...
You said it was fictional. Whatever.
...what you wish to argue is your false reading and noncomprehension, and taken out of context, too. False arguments and your inability to admit your errors was what got you booted from my blog.
I was booted from there? Meh. As for your claims, let those who read the debate between us decide.
When it comes to "misrepresentations", let's see your post right here:
Lie 1:
It is so typical of Atheist attacks to denigrate without any specifics. This is obviously because they hate what they read, but can't deny it.
In various atheist blogs, to give one quick, easy place for you to look, they do give specific reasons as to why they don't like theism.
And none of it has to do with your claim here. (FSTDT link so you can read actual atheist responses to your statement, which the site itself links to).
Some examples of why atheists don't like theism:
PZ Myers hates that apologists are for genocide
Catholic cardinal said that atheists are "not fully human".
No one would like being constantly demonized as you do to atheists on your blog, Stan. No one, not even Vox Day comes close to your level of bigotry.
Lie 2:
Atheists don't want to talk about the void that is Atheism, the void that is Atheist morality, the void that is Atheist philosophy.
Oh? Atheist philosophy is a "void"? Tell that to this philosopher. Just look on the labels on the side and see just how much of a "void" there is in atheist philosophy by how many tags/posts there are dealing with it.
Lie 3:
Atheists don't want to talk about the void that is atheism,...
Atheists don't want to talk about atheism? In our debate" I gave links to where atheists do talk about atheism. Really, all you have to do is open your eyes and LOOK, there are atheist blogs and forums all over the place on the net.
Lie 4:
...the void that is Atheist morality...
And no...atheist morality is not a void.
Again, check out Stephen Law's site for the labels on the left hand side such as:
morality depends on religion? (8)
morality depends on religion? "moral argument for god" (1)
where he talks about how no "god" is necessary for morality.
4 lies by you, Stan.
Stan has zero interest in "analyzing" atheism, he just wants to demonize it.
For example: no matter that I brought up 3 studies that show that atheists are sometimes more generous than "theists", Stan ignored those and instead focussed on ONE study (by Barna, a religious group) that said otherwise.
I forgot: In the Rational wiki post about atheism that's in my previous comment they also talk about morality.
DeleteI'll also point out that Stan has no problems ascribing motives to atheists yet he takes umbrage when I dare to use xianity's own bible as evidence of what motivates them.
Stan also refuses to say just what his views are; he just blasts away at atheism no matter how bullshit his claims are. Not only a proven liar (see above comment), but a coward.
Ah, "misrepresentations" about others? Here then is a misrepresentation that Stan did to me (besides the stuff in his comment here):
DeleteIn our "debate" Stan said that I claimed that I spoke for all atheists. I never made that claim. I outright rejected that claim. Stan kept on insisting that I made that claim.
I invite anyone to bloody find where I claimed to speak for all atheists in that debate. See the SFN link in my earlier post.
Or in any place on that guy's blog, really. Again, see the SFN links.
DeleteHappy New Year - BTW
ReplyDelete>THEN they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief;
- The top atheist apologists go out of their way to avoid logic and logical principles. This offers a lot of implications in and of itself. If anyone doubts this, just do a search for Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Law, PZ Myers, etc. with respect to logic. Then search for William Lane Craig with respect to logic. What do you find? The top theist apologists do seem to incorporate logical principles in their arguments and demonstrate the use of those principles.
Rick Warden said...
DeleteHappy New Year - BTW
And a happy new year to you too.
>THEN they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief;
- The top atheist apologists go out of their way to avoid logic and logical principles.
In your opinion. Unless, of course, you have a study where the data supports your claim, in which case please cite it. After all, if atheists should be compelled to provide their evidence why shouldn't you?
This offers a lot of implications in and of itself.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your assertion is, in fact, true, what implications do you think this offers. No need for an exhaustive list. As you think there are lots just the highlights will do.
If anyone doubts this, just do a search for Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Law, PZ Myers, etc. with respect to logic.
I've read quite a bit from those names that you mention and must say that my experience differs considerably from your assertion. Indeed, each of them seems to put quite an emphasis on using logic and reason when making their statements. Time for you to cite your data Rick, otherwise it's just the 2 of us comparing anecdotes.
Then search for William Lane Craig with respect to logic. What do you find? The top theist apologists do seem to incorporate logical principles in their arguments and demonstrate the use of those principles.
And again, citation needed ... unless you're happy to use baseless assertions and anecdotal evidence in your arguments - which seems to contradict the statement from Stan that you highlighted in the first place?
Edited for grammar and typos.
Another missive from the Bizarro World that Rick 'Up is Down' Warden lives in.
DeleteSo Alex, how're you doing? This is why I spend more time on my course and on Skyrim!
DeleteI'm good! How are you? Yeah I can see why you do that! We could literally walk away for 20 years, come back, and Dan wouldn't have learned a single solitary fucking thing - he'd still be felching Sye and dodging direct questions.
DeletePart of the reason for that is that theists, lacking any direct evidence for their ideas, have tried to use logical arguments instead, usually as a poor substitute. So I'd partially agree with your comment, except that it says far more about weaknesses in the theistic position than the atheistic one.
DeleteApart from the obvious statistical issues with research by Google keywords alone.
The top theist apologists do seem to incorporate logical principles in their arguments and demonstrate the use of those principles.
DeleteWL Craig uses simplistic reasoning that appeals to you. Stephen Law uses logic constantly, just not in the premise-premise-conclusion form you prefer.
Let's see you defend your claims here, where you don't control the discourse, Rick.
Billy Craig and Dinesh D'Souza are very well versed in logic and fallacy, which disturbs me when they knowingly and willfully argue fallaciously.
DeleteHappy New Year Dan!
ReplyDeleteSarah,
DeleteThanks, you too. Welcome back to the fray. It has been a while, hasn't it? Good to see you're still around hacking away at your beliefs. :7)
Shannon is growing up fast I will assume. My 5 sure are.
Yes she is, thanks for asking! She's being educated by the Catholics, and is starting to have her own questions - no doubt she'll be on here soon enough, haha.
DeleteIf I catch her being as rude as some of these young whippersnappers on here though...! ;)
Glad your lot are thriving. I'll try to pop round a bit more often :)
Stan:
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Mike did not say your position (which you don't really identify) was ridiculous. He said that the straw-man you present of your "opponent" is ridiculous.
I was raised in a secular environment. As an adult, through the internet and the Jehovah's Witness' visits to my doorstep, I was exposed to some of the many religions of the world. I haven't bought into any of them. What was I supposed to prove again?
ReplyDeleteAs Dan has, like a MASSIVE COWARD, now closed the comments on the previous thread, I have to reply here -
ReplyDeleteDan's reply before locking the thread was so vile and off beam that I had to respond
"">>rather a 'dork' than a deluded, self deceiving moron who knowingly lies to his children...again, as I said before, none of your damned business.
Yes, you claim I lie to my children, and I am sure I have at one point in their lives although I cannot think of anything."
When did you last tell them evolution wasn't true, or that your particular version of your particular god existed? That's when you last lied to them.
"But more importantly, IF you did have children, you deny their existence ALSO!!! Either that or you're incredibly ashamed of them. Sad really."
What. The. FUCK.
How is telling you that my family situation being none of your business the same as DENYING the EXISTENCE of children??? You FUCKING DIRT BAG Dan, you should be fucking ashamed of yourself.
"Bringing my children up and threatening their livelihood is beyond low, but exposes you as a person, so I tolerate it."
Again - WHAT. THE. FUCK. When have I EVER 'threatened [the] livelihood' of you children?? That's a pretty extreme allegation there, Dick Dan. All I've done is point out that your lies to them now will almost certainly end up biting you in the arse later in life.
"Denying that you have children, or refusal to talk about yours, after threatening mine, is an entire category of low that all are here to see."
You brain is broken if you think that what you have described matches reality in any way at all. I'm starting to think that you're not only entirely devoid of faith (as pvblivs so rightly claims) but that you're also on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
As I see it you have two issues to apologise about here -
1. I have never in the recent conversation made a statement either positive or negative about whether or not I have children (and have explicitly stated the reality of my situation elsewhere) - so how you extrapolate that into denying the existence of anyone is entirely beyond me.
2. I have never ever 'threatened' your children - that is a grotesque and jawdroppingly offensive accusation, and one that you need to fucking retract.
Dan, you've plumbed new depths here.
I think that what Dan is saying is that denying his god is somehow logically the same as denying oneself. Therefore it's the same as denying your children. He's done that before but I forget the reasoning behind it.
DeleteAlex, you threatened to call protective service to come for my children. I closed comments for the first time EVER at this blog because of you bringing my kids into the conversation. A line crossed. OBVIOUSLY you do not have any, otherwise you would not make such such threats.
DeleteI thought you said you were going away for 6 more months? Who is LYING now.
"As Dan has, like a MASSIVE COWARD, now closed the comments on the previous thread, I have to reply here - "
ReplyDeleteNonsense, Alex, I have opened a thread on my own blog specifically to address the very issues Dan is running away from.
Yea, go over where comments are thrown into spam. Goodbye.
DeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteI was addressing Alex. You can go run and hide if you like. Besides, you are quite aware that even when Wordpress decides your comments are spam, I rescue them from the spam folder. Your comments are there for all to see. I'm sorry Wordpress has sent your comments to spam (mostly because it means more effort on my part -- although sometimes I think Wordpress has a point.)
Alex did not threaten to call CPS for your children. He did say that he thought they would be better off if someone did. But CPS generally requires some verifiable abuse; and they don't consider being a fundamentalist christian to count. Besides, as I recall, he is in Great Britain somewhere and couldn't call CPS on you anyway.
"Who is LYING now."
You are. Alex was gone for a while. And I don't recall that he said he wouldn't ever be back, just that he was taking a break.
In any event, if you want to answer Alex's questions, you can do so here, or you can do so at my blog. But I won't be holding my breath.
Dan is also ignoring the fact that my comment was clearly throw away. The entire exchange went like this -
DeleteDan: "You make me desire a banhammer in Blogger. :7)"
Alex: And you make me desire social services coming to your house to rescue your kids, but what are ya gonna do?
CLEARLY a throwaway comment. But then, why should I be surprised that Dan doesn't understand context?
Alex:
ReplyDeleteI will grant Dan the benefit and assume he did not recognize it as a throwaway comment. However, I do not think him so stupid as to believe that a wish that something would happen is the same as a threat to bring it about.
I think you are being too kind to Dan, and that the reality ist that his brain has snapped.
DeleteAtheism def. - the rejection of asserted superstitions.
ReplyDeleteLogic used - occam's razor
fallacy of redefinition - FTW? Logic missed.
DeleteNope. He has it right. Unproven inivisible magical beings such as "god" and "angels" and demons, etc?
DeleteYeah. Just a different superstition than the others.
Logic missed
DeleteOnly because following it represents the path of failure for your ideas, Dan.
I reject your assertion of fallacy :7
ReplyDeleteSo DAN.... are you using a 'fallacy of redefinition' when you assert the meaning of the words (noises homo-sapiens make) 'Truth', 'Certainty' and 'knowledge' in your 'presup' BS?
Also, my logical position of 'Occam’s razor' is one that rejects all assumption and assertions, wether they are superstitions or not.
My position of 'Atheist/ism' is following the same logic.
Assumptions just make a ass out of you and me (ass-u-me)
:7
Do I get a prize for my answer?
I would like a T-shirt that says:
"I caused cognitive dissonance on Debunking Atheists"
With the picture of the newspaper reading pony on the back
:)
FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition
I Stubled upon this blog and read a few of the posts. And I have to say this guy really sucks and debunking athiests in fact the only thing the blogger seems to do is spout political BS and personal opinion. I suggest you do research from here on it may surprise you. Especially since we all know the bible is full of crap.
ReplyDeleteDan...you'd better have another look at your friend Stan:
ReplyDelete"the leftist, progressive, secular Reds (i.e. AtheoLeftists); the Whites of traditional religious America; the Browns emanating from the third world Americas; and the Blacks of Feral America."
"The American Reds and Whites contain people of all races, including Hispanic and African American. However the Browns and Blacks seem to be exclusive. The Browns are already agitating via La Raza. The Blacks are already at war with the Browns and with themselves."
You're cracking me up when you take a moral position. Are you appealing to a moral law here? Or is it merely an temporary opinion? What makes your "opinion" more valid than others?
DeleteOnce again, bit.ly/assmorals