Bitcoin Forum
November 14, 2018, 12:31:12 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 422 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion?  (Read 873315 times)
RodeoX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2800
Merit: 1068


The revolution will be monetized!


View Profile
May 12, 2015, 07:21:10 PM
 #161

DOES ALLAH EXIST?

Please Do read this post (GIVE SOME OF YOUR PRECIOUS TIME TO THIS POST)


CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST


Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing...

No. I don't believe in any God. I do like Islamic culture, but even if there were a God I don't think it would want a follower that does not believe.

The gospel according to Satoshi - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Free bitcoin in AFRICA - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2710325.msg27720734
1542198672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542198672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542198672
Reply with quote  #2

1542198672
Report to moderator
1542198672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542198672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542198672
Reply with quote  #2

1542198672
Report to moderator
1542198672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542198672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542198672
Reply with quote  #2

1542198672
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1542198672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542198672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542198672
Reply with quote  #2

1542198672
Report to moderator
1542198672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542198672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542198672
Reply with quote  #2

1542198672
Report to moderator
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1291


Hello You


View Profile
May 12, 2015, 08:56:25 PM
 #162

When I was a little thing I was taken into a church for a service. My first thought was who is the guy in the dress? My second thought was what the fuck is this junk he's talking about? I've never heard of any of these people and they've never touched my life in any way whatsoever.

That feeling has remained exactly the same ever since that day.

I admire the dedication it takes to be devoted to one's religion and in theory their teachings are often worthwhile. But their teachings are what any decent human should be doing anyway without believing in nice or scary people who live in the sky.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1009


View Profile
May 12, 2015, 09:06:53 PM
 #163


No. I don't believe in any God. I do like Islamic culture, but even if there were a God I don't think it would want a follower that does not believe.

If I were God I would not really want followers who DO believe.  Actually I wouldn't really want any followers at all.  I would not respect them very much.  I'd judge people on their actions, and if their actions were influenced by some sort of a hope that 'we have a deal' for their future in the afterlife or whatever that seems a bit distasteful to me.

I read somewhere recently that Jefferson expressed some sentiment of a similar nature to his nephew before he died.  Of course I also read that Franklin warned against believing everything one reads on the internet, so who knows?


celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 12, 2015, 10:55:01 PM
 #164


No. I don't believe in any God. I do like Islamic culture, but even if there were a God I don't think it would want a follower that does not believe.

If I were God I would not really want followers who DO believe.  Actually I wouldn't really want any followers at all.  I would not respect them very much.  I'd judge people on their actions, and if their actions were influenced by some sort of a hope that 'we have a deal' for their future in the afterlife or whatever that seems a bit distasteful to me.

I read somewhere recently that Jefferson expressed some sentiment of a similar nature to his nephew before he died.  Of course I also read that Franklin warned against believing everything one reads on the internet, so who knows?



Precisely. Those who believe in god and do good only because they want to go to heaven(Which is the vast majority of religious people), are going straight to hell.

A true god would want people to believe in it through logic by coming to the conclusion that such a god exists through logic(That would only be possible in some hypothetical universe as god cannot be proven to exist through logic either). And even then that would probably grant the believer something akin to Purgatory. A true god would only grant those "Heaven" if they through their lifetime, consistently do morally good deeds, not because they fear they'll go to hell if they don't, but because it's the right thing to do.

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
mayflor2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 12:00:30 AM
 #165

Real atheists don't care about religions. Why would you hate something you don't believe in?

Satanism doesn't approve of god, but you can't be a satanist without acknowledging that god exists.

Actually, this is not true.   Satanism is essentially atheism with a glorified name.   It is self worship.   At least Anton Lavey's satanism. 

numismatist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1170
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 12:19:27 AM
 #166

Real atheists don't care about religions. Why would you hate something you don't believe in?

Satanism doesn't approve of god, but you can't be a satanist without acknowledging that god exists.
Actually, this is not true. Satanism is essentially atheism with a glorified name.   It is self worship.   At least Anton Lavey's satanism. 

So you would have to accept for God exisisting, AND to serve some another random fallen angel? Man that sucks twice! Thought Atheists get along without any of this.

celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 01:29:50 AM
 #167

Real atheists don't care about religions. Why would you hate something you don't believe in?

Satanism doesn't approve of god, but you can't be a satanist without acknowledging that god exists.
Actually, this is not true. Satanism is essentially atheism with a glorified name.   It is self worship.   At least Anton Lavey's satanism.  

So you would have to accept for God exisisting, AND to serve some another random fallen angel? Man that sucks twice! Thought Atheists get along without any of this.

...Go read up on what it is. Satanism is not the belief in god or any other deity. In fact they use the name "Satan"ism to make fun of religion, specifically Christianity.

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
Trifixion713
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 254
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 01:57:59 AM
 #168

Real atheists don't care about religions. Why would you hate something you don't believe in?

Satanism doesn't approve of god, but you can't be a satanist without acknowledging that god exists.
Actually, this is not true. Satanism is essentially atheism with a glorified name.   It is self worship.   At least Anton Lavey's satanism.  

So you would have to accept for God exisisting, AND to serve some another random fallen angel? Man that sucks twice! Thought Atheists get along without any of this.

...Go read up on what it is. Satanism is not the belief in god or any other deity. In fact they use the name "Satan"ism to make fun of religion, specifically Christianity.
"Modern" Satanists or those who ascribe to the philosophy that LaVey laid forth in the SB do not believe in a Devil or God, they feel they are their own "God" as they are the master of their own destiny - Traditional Satanists are the ones most think of when they hear the term "Satanist", they actually believe in the Christian God and Devil. Modern Satanism is basically an inversion of Christianity - one embraces man's desires instead of shunning them, so long as those indulgences do not bring harm to others and are within the laws of the land. Instead of the old "Golden rule", Satanists say "Do unto others as they do unto you". The main reason Satan is used is due to Lucifer being the "light bringer" and embracing true knowledge instead of adopting herd mentality - and also the fact Christianity is/was the predominate religion here when LaVey wrote the Satanic Bible.
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2015, 02:37:48 AM
 #169

Why do atheists hate religion?
GOD = EGO. Superstition is the enemy of reason and therefore the ally of violence. I love reason, loathe violence and dislike religion. I hate the way new yorkers drive.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
Falconer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 06:12:17 AM
 #170

Why do atheists hate religion?
GOD = EGO. Superstition is the enemy of reason and therefore the ally of violence. I love reason, loathe violence and dislike religion. I hate the way new yorkers drive.

i think world people should read Dan Brown's books especially the lost symbol

.ARAW.
The Decentralised
Payment
for E-Commerce Ecosystem
███████████████████████████
██████████████▀▀▀▀▀████████
████████████░░░░░░░████████
███████████░░░░▄███████████
███████████░░░░████████████
████████░░░░░░░░░░░████████
████████▄▄▄░░░░▄▄▄█████████
███████████░░░░████████████
███████████░░░░████████████
███████████░░░░████████████
███████████░░░░████████████
███████████▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████░████████▀░░░░▀▀▄█████
█████░░▀▀████░░░░░░░░▄█████
█████▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████
█████▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░░░░░████████
████████▄░░░░░░░░▄█████████
████▄▀░░░░░░░░▄▄███████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
████▀░░▀███████████████████
████▄░░▄███████████████████
███████████████████████████
████░░░░██░░░░▀░░░░░░▀█████
████░░░░██░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀████
████░░░░██░░░░█████░░░░████
████░░░░██░░░░█████░░░░████
████░░░░██░░░░█████░░░░████
████░░░░██░░░░█████░░░░████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2562
Merit: 1831


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2015, 06:19:28 AM
 #171

The christian's heaven is a joke.  I couldn't imagine sharing it with people like Osama Bin Laden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_JoE2GioXY

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)  - My Trust Removal Guidelines
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
cryptodevil
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1082


Thread-puller extraordinaire


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 06:45:45 AM
 #172

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
Smarmy sycophancy will get you nowhere in your failed attempt to promote fallacious theism.

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GODMy first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. . . Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives.

No, for a person to say, "There is no God" he would need to define the myriad variations of everybody's personal subjective claim towards their own personal God, which is not what this is about and would be a pointless exercise.

If a human being is told by another human being, "There is a God", yet the person making the assertion cannot provide a reasonable definition of what they actually mean in terms of tangible characteristics nor, for that matter, any evidence or reasoning to support their claim, requiring the employment of logical fallacy such as special pleading, then the person who is being told, "There is a God", is correct to reject that assertion on the basis that it is clearly groundless and utterly lacking in any objective substance.

This does not require the person being told, "There is a God" to have to derive anything themselves about this 'God' other than the fact the assertion being made towards the existence of said entity is grossly flawed.

Remember, I no more need to disprove your assertion, "There is a God" any more than I need to disprove somebody else's assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn flying around Saturn". You are the one making the claim towards something, that the basis for your claim is devoid of reason and substance means I can simply dismiss it.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

So who created your 'Creator'? You will, no doubt, want to respond along the lines of how your 'Creator' didn't need to be created because, well, 'God'. Does it ever occur to you that your argument is absurd in that, on the one hand, you want to claim that everything has to have a creator except for the one thing you claim does not, a thing which you are applying arbitrary characteristics to because, as we know, that is all you can do when it comes to fictional characters.

Your 'logic' is grossly flawed.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?

Dude, you already had this claim torn apart in the 'Miracles of . . .' thread which was rapidly closed because the absurd notion that there are statements in that book concerning scientific facts which, allegedly, could not have been known at the time it was written, was exposed for being the absurdity it is.

There is nothing in that book which indicates it is anything other than a book written from the imagination of man.

Stop trying to kid yourself that it is, or at least limit yourself to claiming such only when you are in the company of equally intellectually dishonest people who are as desperate as yourself to believe such bollocks.

this depends on where one comes by this definition, as there seem to be plenty of variations and debate on how exactly to define it.  Most of the ones I've come across state that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of deity, not this other definiton you've set out.  

Fuck's sake, so what do you think is the process which serves to demonstrate the atheist lack of belief in the existence of a deity? Yes, that's right, it is the process of rejecting the theist assertion, "There is a God" on the basis it is intellectually dishonest and utterly unsound.

Most of the people I know who express a 'lack of belief in the existence of an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn', do so on the basis of what? Yes, that's right, through the process of rejecting the invisible-pink-unicornist assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn", on the basis of it being equally unsound an assertion to make!

Do they or don't they believe in deity.  This is an almost binary question,

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

Beyond the fact that you've set out a generally horseshit definition and seemed to think you were speaking from the mountaintop (pun intended), I treated you with respect and expect the same in return.  

Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Waaaaa!

Way to rebut my valid points there, real solid reasoning and counter-argument. Sure showed me.

Oh, one small thing, I guess you know nothing of the 'tone complaint' dishonest argument. Learn it. Avoid using it. Otherwise you simply look like you're doing the one thing you are doing, which is to avoid having to actually answer the content of what I am saying, by complaining about how I am saying it.

Quote from: Rational Wiki
The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent's argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. It is an ad hominem attack, used as a derailment, silencing tactic or by a concern troll.
The tone argument in practice is almost always dishonest. It is generally used by a tone troll against opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.

WARNING!!! Check your forum URLs carefully and avoid links to phishing sites like 'thebitcointalk' 'bitcointalk.to' and 'BitcointaLLk'
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030
Merit: 1647


GUNBOT Licenses up to 50% OFF - 'GrumpyKitty'.


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2015, 08:38:02 AM
 #173

The christian's heaven is a joke.  I couldn't imagine sharing it with people like Osama Bin Laden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_JoE2GioXY
Wouldn't it be better to go to hell? We'd have all the awesome guys and chicks there. The best part of it all is that Lauda is going to be there too.  Wink

This thread is going out of control. This has already happened to a few threads with similar topics. The deluded people won't give in no matter what one presents them with, hence they are deluded.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
cryptodevil
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1082


Thread-puller extraordinaire


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 09:04:12 AM
 #174

True. The funny thing is how this thread topic is a question aimed at atheists, who answer it with their personal opinion on the matter, but it ends up getting hijacked by theists and theist-apologists who end up trying to either answer it on our behalf or who try to claim our reasoned position to be erroneous while their intellectually dishonest delusion is correct.

So when we counter their fallacious argument with critical analysis, they get all butt-hurt and try to claim our position to be equal to theirs in that it is an unsubstantiated belief, too. Which it isn't because it is not a belief, it is a rejection of their belief for being fallacious.

WARNING!!! Check your forum URLs carefully and avoid links to phishing sites like 'thebitcointalk' 'bitcointalk.to' and 'BitcointaLLk'
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030
Merit: 1647


GUNBOT Licenses up to 50% OFF - 'GrumpyKitty'.


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2015, 09:49:16 AM
 #175

True. The funny thing is how this thread topic is a question aimed at atheists, who answer it with their personal opinion on the matter, but it ends up getting hijacked by theists and theist-apologists who end up trying to either answer it on our behalf or who try to claim our reasoned position to be erroneous while their intellectually dishonest delusion is correct.

So when we counter their fallacious argument with critical analysis, they get all butt-hurt and try to claim our position to be equal to theirs in that it is an unsubstantiated belief, too. Which it isn't because it is not a belief, it is a rejection of their belief for being fallacious.
I have always seen things differently than the people around me. Trust me when I say this, the atheists hate is actually caused by theists (at least most of the time). Growing up being different than the majority around me, people have usually looked at me through different eyes and have often rejected me. I have not hated their deluded beliefs, I have actually accepted it and let them be. Theists are the ones who reject atheists much more.

You are correct. They should have not hijacked the thread. Actually this should be punishable on the forum but I guess when they write long replies nobody really cares.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
guybrushthreepwood
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1163



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 10:14:12 AM
 #176

The christian's heaven is a joke.  I couldn't imagine sharing it with people like Osama Bin Laden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_JoE2GioXY
Wouldn't it be better to go to hell? We'd have all the awesome guys and chicks there. The best part of it all is that Lauda is going to be there too.  Wink

This thread is going out of control. This has already happened to a few threads with similar topics. The deluded people won't give in no matter what one presents them with, hence they are deluded.

It's hard for me to tell if the religious nuts on here are trolling or not. You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Theists are the ones who reject atheists much more.

That's because they get hurt when their belief system is threatened and can't help but chime in, whereas Atheists tend to not really care or just discredit their opinion as nonsense whilst religious people have to continually defend themselves (and always poorly when it's vs reason and science).

Snail2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 02:38:11 PM
 #177

It's hard for me to tell if the religious nuts on here are trolling or not. You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

I don't get how a transaction processing system could "enlighten" us "religious nuts on here" Smiley.

First blockchain based marketplace of trading algorithms]
_______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________
TRADINGENE JOIN NOW
ICO 4 April 2018
_______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________
ANN THREAD |BOUNTY | TELEGRAM | TWITTER | FACEBOOK | MEDIUM | GOLOS
cryptodevil
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1082


Thread-puller extraordinaire


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 02:53:05 PM
 #178

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.


WARNING!!! Check your forum URLs carefully and avoid links to phishing sites like 'thebitcointalk' 'bitcointalk.to' and 'BitcointaLLk'
Pentax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 03:35:00 PM
 #179



this depends on where one comes by this definition, as there seem to be plenty of variations and debate on how exactly to define it.  Most of the ones I've come across state that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of deity, not this other definiton you've set out.  

Fuck's sake, so what do you think is the process which serves to demonstrate the atheist lack of belief in the existence of a deity? Yes, that's right, it is the process of rejecting the theist assertion, "There is a God" on the basis it is intellectually dishonest and utterly unsound.

Most of the people I know who express a 'lack of belief in the existence of an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn', do so on the basis of what? Yes, that's right, through the process of rejecting the invisible-pink-unicornist assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn", on the basis of it being equally unsound an assertion to make!

Do they or don't they believe in deity.  This is an almost binary question,

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

Beyond the fact that you've set out a generally horseshit definition and seemed to think you were speaking from the mountaintop (pun intended), I treated you with respect and expect the same in return.  

Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Waaaaa!

Way to rebut my valid points there, real solid reasoning and counter-argument. Sure showed me.

Oh, one small thing, I guess you know nothing of the 'tone complaint' dishonest argument. Learn it. Avoid using it. Otherwise you simply look like you're doing the one thing you are doing, which is to avoid having to actually answer the content of what I am saying, by complaining about how I am saying it.

Quote from: Rational Wiki
The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent's argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. It is an ad hominem attack, used as a derailment, silencing tactic or by a concern troll.
The tone argument in practice is almost always dishonest. It is generally used by a tone troll against opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.



I did rebut your points.  You presented a definition held seemingly only by atheists as the one truth and continue to cling to that definition.  I don't not understand the logic, I reject your definition as one which is not the commonly held definition, but rather as one put out by a political group.  I would no sooner simply accept that definition than that of any other groups' that was attempting to forward an agenda.

Sorry to tell you that other definitions exist and run counter to yours.  you can continue to rail on about it, but it's kind of absurd.  It's even more absurd that you seem to think you're playing some game of 'gotcha' with that when it is you that refuses to accept the common definition.

Beyond that you cling to this definition with such fervency as to be laughable in the context of your trying to argue against ego being a large component of people's need to hammer an opposing viewpoint, if that's even what you're doing, as it seems you're just bitching at this point.  . 

It's funny, actually.  "Here's evidence in support of my point and here's where to verify it"  "Well, fuck that, I'm still right and you're still stupid"  This is exactly, EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

BTW, pointing out your boorish behavior, is not a logical fallacy.  You might have a point if I had used those statements regarding your assholery as actual argument, however, I did not.  After I was done making my points, which I did do, counter to your again incorrect assertion that I did not, I simply pointed out that your self righteous posing was bullshit and added nothing to the conversation. That is neither whining nor logical fallacy, it is pointing out that silly shit is silly shit, as well as it being a wonderful display of your clearly raging ego getting the best of you in the middle of a conversation about ego itself being a driving force of this behavior.   

Beyond that, if my trying to steer this back off the path of outright argument and personal attacks to an actual discussion is something to be reviled than I guess you can keep right on thinking that.  I couldn't give half a fart in a windstorm if you think that's some sort of win for you.  It's not, but it is pretty indicative of the fact that even outright stupidity spewed by yourself when poured through your own self imaging filter comes out as pure gold.  That's amazing work, really.

It is good to see that you know how to use wiki, though.  Maybe you should look up "Atheism" while you're there.   After that make a stop at Websters.com and do the same.  Then come back and give us a book report on what you've learned outside of the confines of the definitions that you are attempting to ram on others.  I already made my case on that, complete with where to find the supporting evidence at this point, while you've offered no response except more sputtering.  It's dressed up nicely, I'll give you that, but it's really nothing more than 'you're a poopy-head'

My simple core assertion that this issue is many times impacted, if not out right governed, by ego is proving itself quite nicely I think.  I don't mind your continuing to rail and I expect you will.  If you make some solid points regarding the positions I actually put out, which were really very simple statements, that would be good though.  Still waiting for some or any of that.
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 03:47:10 PM
 #180

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.



Devil's advocate:  The 'atheist scientist" fallacy at play is that they believe 1) the scientific method should have the final say, or that 2) only empirical things are real, or that 3) scientific falsification is the only kind that exists, or that 4) the scientific method sets the standard for explanatory rigor.

1)  In this case it shouldn't as it is entirely inapplicable (there is no possible, theoretical way to even conceptualize a means of empirical falsification even if you assume outright God exists).  Actually, it can't even explore the topic of God or Intelligent Design in any meaningful way.

2)  Non-empirical (i.e. non-physical) things exist.  This is self-apparent every moment of your conscious experience.

3)  Logical falsification > empirical falsification.  The scientific method has no built-in mechanism for distinguishing between contradictory observations (e.g. our extrapolation based upon observations of Universal expansion that the Universe is 'x' years-old vs. our observations that galaxies at similar ages of development appear equidistant from our locality in every direction).  Science must defer to logic to distinguish between contradictory conclusions derived from observations.  In such a case, logic can reconcile what Science cannot.

4)  The scientific method is a philosophical subset.  Its roots are entirely abstract and philosophical, and stem from empirical epistemology.  In an empirical context (i.e. where the role of observation is controlled and assumed to have no causal effect on reality whatsoever), the scientific method does set the standard for explanatory rigor.  Outside of an empirical context, its explanatory rigor is exactly zero.  Nil.  Zip.  Nothing.  Nada.  It has absolutely no capacity whatsoever to explore or comment upon abstract phenomena, including its own abstract assumptions, and also the abstract rules of logical inference and theory-making which it utilizes at every experimental turn.

At the height of generality, logic is self-descriptively the most capable of forming sound explanatory models.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 422 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!