The Treadmill of Atheism

[luckypyrate]

I don't think anyone is making blanket statements here. 

At least from my perspective, there is a much more pointed approach against the RELIGIOSITY of religion.  No one has any issue with any behavior, or tradition, as you call it, that may have come about incidentally to religion.  But it is important that we distinguish what is of the church and of mankind's own derivation that was done in the name of the church because not doing so at the time would have resulted in a rather crispy ending. 

I am not sure exactly what specific traditions you speak of, but for the most part any evidently theologically rooted traditions would only be so because not that long ago people were legally killed for coming up with something beneficial and not giving glory to the Highest (whispers pile of dog shit [sorry had to])
Admittedly I did not watch the video, so I apologize if it covers the traditions in question.  But maybe you can clarify in conversation and we can go from there?

Also, to the gays and marriage:  Do not let the theist's own what the State has to give you license to do.  To me this delusion about the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution is one of the biggest pieces of proof that religion is and always has been nothing more than a management tool of the State.  It is of the church, but literally every aspect of it that makes it binding is legal State submitted paperwork.  You make some promise in front of poor schmuck family members who could care less and it was ultimately the State, not the church, who made it so easy to divorce, which to me nullifies the whole sanctified nature of marriage.  Something sacred should not be able to be so easily undone.

And if being gay is so natural, than shut the fuck up and stop begging for attention.  You are queer, we get it.  Much like the blacks, everyone else is over it except those crying persecution.  You are so busy crying with your eyes tightly shut you don't even realize the rest of the world has moved on.  It doesn't help that while your eyes are closed politicians and hate mongerers are whispering in your ears about how much people hate you, but that doesn't make it any more true!

Sorry for the rant, but look forward to hearing from you.

[Buffer Overflow]

Here is a PRIME example of the "Shit Slinging Brand Atheist"

I posted the "Treadmill of Atheism" to a bunch of atheist, including the Atheism group on Google Plus. And this morning I noticed basically a response video, though it is not labeled as such.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hltr8WM8BVo

First I want to say that I think everyone should have the right to get married and I don't see what religion has to do with Marriage. That being said. This guy brings up the Gay rights court cases that have been happening recently, and says that in the past the only reason they didn't legalize gay marriage was "tradition". That is him shitting in his hand. Then he proceeds to sling that shit, by generalizing ALL religions as "Tradition" and all tradition as "Bad".

The supreme court justices that stalled gay marriage were largely Catholic, but Atheists don't actually know enough about this stuff to see the difference.

And secondly, WESTERN MEDICINE IS A TRADITION, having a court system is tradition, etc. Atheists need to stop acting like all traditions are bad. PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank you.

I guess you must be one (and only one) that has clicked on his thumbs down count.

[luckypyrate]

Okay I watched the video.  I liked it.  Don't think I really disagree with anything he said...

[Bitcoin-hotep]

Why Atheism is Failing

Yesterday I posted an argument for the Atheists, as I said, I think the Christians are the ones with the worst arguments here, but the Atheists should be able to smack them down no problem. So since I want to see all of this move forward, I am going to present you with some arguments to beat the Christians.

Presup

1. The same as yesterday, appeal outside your own reasoning by appealing to the reasoning of other people and the work of people before you.

2. Pick an absolute. Like Lobsters, ask the Atheist "Why are Lobsters Illegal to over fish in Florida, why did God make it that way" They will most likely respond confused, then you tell them that it is for conservation purposes to make sure lobsters exist in the future. Then you proceed from there asking them why God did different things with Lobsters, and at this point, they are no longer in the presup argument.

GO WIN NOW.

Pascal's Wager

This one only needs 1.

1. The Christians say "Well, what if God is real, it's better to believe than to not, just in case. And if it's not true, I believed something for no reason and who cares?" the way you respond to this is by saying that is the religions of Abraham one day aren't the most popular, people could hunt down all the circumcised people and kill them, and you don't want to put your descendants through that, so might as well not be Abrahamic.

GO WIN NOW.

Evolution

1. The Christian says that "no one has ever seen change over time, and we will not live long enough to ourselves". SHOW THEM FOSSILS. Look up "Whale Wolf Transition Fossil" and I am sure you will find something you can point to and show "This used to live on land, now it is in the water." Then show them the Fossil Record of Humans and things that we passed down like fire and dream herbs, so that they can see that these people existed in a timeline and not at the same time.
2. The Christians say "The Bible has a table of lineage, and it tells me that from Adam to Jesus there were only enough Generations for approximately 6,000 years". All the Atheist has to do is look up "Syro-Palestinian Archaeology" and show them things like Jericho 10,000 vs 6,000 BC and Bethlehem and all that.

3. The Christian says "There is no mechanism for Evolution". Ask them how they would prepare to go to Alaska, then ask them how they would prepare to go to Mexico. Then ask them if they think they had kids that grew up in there, if they think that kid might have kids with people there. Then ask if they think those kids will be different from the other kids there, and if they are different from the kids in the original country, There is your mechanism.

GO WIN NOW.

Cosmological

You guys seem to have forgotten this one, but you always had an argument for it. When they say "The universe had a beginning, therefor a creator" you say "What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster?". That is WHY he was invented.

[Bitcoin-hotep]

Okay I watched the video.  I liked it.  Don't think I really disagree with anything he said...

He doesn't even know what he is saying. We "Traditionally" go to court to decide things. He (all in one video) talks about how AWESOME the tradition of court is, then says ALL tradition is bad. He is an idiot.

[Bitcoin-hotep]

Here is a PRIME example of the "Shit Slinging Brand Atheist"

I posted the "Treadmill of Atheism" to a bunch of atheist, including the Atheism group on Google Plus. And this morning I noticed basically a response video, though it is not labeled as such.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hltr8WM8BVo

First I want to say that I think everyone should have the right to get married and I don't see what religion has to do with Marriage. That being said. This guy brings up the Gay rights court cases that have been happening recently, and says that in the past the only reason they didn't legalize gay marriage was "tradition". That is him shitting in his hand. Then he proceeds to sling that shit, by generalizing ALL religions as "Tradition" and all tradition as "Bad".

The supreme court justices that stalled gay marriage were largely Catholic, but Atheists don't actually know enough about this stuff to see the difference.

And secondly, WESTERN MEDICINE IS A TRADITION, having a court system is tradition, etc. Atheists need to stop acting like all traditions are bad. PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank you.

I guess you must be one (and only one) that has clicked on his thumbs down count.

I never thumbs down anyone, but since you brought it to my attention I just went and did and there are at least 2 now.

[BitMos]

PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank you.

I keep that one in my fav quote list, thank you!

 

[Bitcoin-hotep]

So I posted the Atheist Treadmill thing, and on a forum an Atheist kinda got angry with me. Then he realized I was not arguing for Christianity, so he paused for a moment and was talking casually about the Matt Dillahunty, Sye Ten debate with me. I told him that I don't think Sye Ten has a single brain cell in his head, but Matt Dillahinty still got caught in the presup, so it wasn't a clear win.

Then he said he would debate me, and I went ahead and sent something to him, because I am pretty sure a video debate would just devolve into insults since he is defending himself against the things I said, and I only ever said anything about "Shit Slinging Atheists" so he must feel like that fits him, or he would not have tried to defend against it. Everyone knows there are atheists that don't know what they are talking about that just hate religion, they are shit slingers. You don't have to identify with them if you are Atheist, they are just a group of people that don't understand what they are fighting.

But anyways.

I send him the thing explaining my Gods, and instead of being able to prove me wrong he retreats to "Those are lower case gods, not God". And I told him that things change over time, for example, "Atheos" was the original word for "Atheist", and it referred to people who did not believe in the popular Gods like Zeus. So in Greek times, this was a reference to Jews and Christians, because the Greeks worshiped the planets. They called Jupiter "Zeus" and they called History"Clio" and they called tutors "Mentor", We still use the word "Mentor" today to explain how someone is embodying the spirit of helping us learn.

So I tell him this, and he gets all twisted, saying that "Atheists can't have Gods" and I had to explain to him that the only reason I was putting it in historical context, was because he was saying that Gods can only be "All Powerful, All Knowing sky men".

And I tried to tell him that I was not trying to say that modern Christians are Atheists, I was saying that the word Atheist comes from Atheos which came from Christians, who worshiped a man. Not Gods like the Greeks. So the Greeks called them "Atheos".

Then he told me I had not told him what my God was, and never gave him a definition. So I explained to him how the seasons move with the planets and the plants are planted and harvested based on those changes. Ancient people called those Gods, and I am calling them Gods.

Then I told him to stop being a Christian, because only Christians, Jews and Muslims think God is an all powerful all knowing being. And most of the world lives in China and India, so MOST OF THE WORLD doesn't even agree with the idea of the Christian God.

And he won't give it up. He says he is Atheist, but he will only accept an all powerful, all knowing sky daddy. Doesn't that make you Christian?

[duke1839]

Bill Nye the government science guy. 

The atheist community on YouTube ticks me off.  DarkMatter2525 makes a series of great animations lampooning religion and then he makes a video defending the NSA smh.  I wish the atheist community would grow some balls and stop worshiping at the altar of the state.   

[Vod]

Family Guy tends to sum up religion well. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNKcGXri98Y

[BADecker]

The problem with the atheism religion is, it is not the truth, any more than any other religion expresses the complete truth.

In fact, the fact that atheism denies that there is a god is a reason that it is destroying itself, for one major reason. That reason is that anyone who is willing to certify that there is no god, is by that certification setting himself up as god, just by making a certification like that.

When a god says that there is no god, that is self destruction.

[cryptodevil]

Except, of course, atheism isn't a religion any more than 'off' is a tv channel.

You are the theist, the one who is proposing the existence of something, your supreme all-powerful deity.

We, the atheist, say you have no evidence that would justify considering your claim as even reasonable, let alone valid. So, no, we don't assert "there is no god", we assert, "you, the theist, have no evidence that would warrant considering your extraordinary claim as even plausible, let alone likely".

Or are you going to continue being dishonest about this?

[TECSHARE]

Except, of course, atheism isn't a religion any more than 'off' is a tv channel.

You are the theist, the one who is proposing the existence of something, your supreme all-powerful deity.

We, the atheist, say you have no evidence that would justify considering your claim as even reasonable, let alone valid. So, no, we don't assert "there is no god", we assert, "you, the theist, have no evidence that would warrant considering your extraordinary claim as even plausible, let alone likely".

Or are you going to continue being dishonest about this?

ATHEISM:
1 archaic :  ungodliness, wickedness
2
     a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity
     b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Who is being dishonest now?  Disbelief is still a belief. You are still making conclusions that there is no god with a complete lack of evidence in either direction. I think what you are defining is whats called agnostic.

Agnostic:
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

Full definition:
1:  a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :  one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2:  a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?ref=dictionary&word=agnostic#

[cryptodevil]

ATHEISM:
1 archaic :  ungodliness, wickedness
2
     a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity
     b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Who is being dishonest now?  Disbelief is still a belief.

No it isn't. You are either failing to grasp the concept or you are intentionally misrepresenting it.

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: atheism

    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Disbelief or lack of belief is not the same as having a belief.

Otherwise, in your reality, I am also just as required to furnish you with evidence of the lack of invisible pink unicorn angels who protect us from invisible blue gremlins at all hours of the day. Otherwise, according to you, the claim towards the existence of said unicorns and gremlins is equally as valid as my disbelief in same because neither side can offer evidence towards or against.

Theists assert the existence of something, they are the ones needing to justify their assertion with reasonable evidence, which they do not have, therefore, we atheists dismiss their claim as having insufficient evidence or reason to be worthy of consideration.

That is not the same as you requiring that we atheists offer up evidence to prove the non-existence of something. That is asinine.

[TECSHARE]

ATHEISM:
1 archaic :  ungodliness, wickedness
2
     a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity
     b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Who is being dishonest now?  Disbelief is still a belief.

No it isn't. You are either failing to grasp the concept or you are intentionally misrepresenting it.

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: atheism

    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Disbelief or lack of belief is not the same as having a belief.

Otherwise, in your reality, I am also just as required to furnish you with evidence of the lack of invisible pink unicorn angels who protect us from invisible blue gremlins at all hours of the day. Otherwise, according to you, the claim towards the existence of said unicorns and gremlins is equally as valid as my disbelief in same because neither side can offer evidence towards or against.

Theists assert the existence of something, they are the ones needing to justify their assertion with reasonable evidence, which they do not have, therefore, we atheists dismiss their claim as having insufficient evidence or reason to be worthy of consideration.

That is not the same as you requiring that we atheists offer up evidence to prove the non-existence of something. That is asinine.

So you are arguing with Websters dictionary now? Polarizing your belief to an opposite doesn't magically make it not a belief.

[cryptodevil]

So you are arguing with Websters dictionary now? Polarizing your belief to an opposite doesn't magically make it not a belief.

No, I quoted another source but you, however, also happened to deviously misrepresent what yours actually meant.

You may have quoted Merriam-Webster regarding the word 'Atheism', but it is you who falsely asserted the claim, "Disbelief is still a belief".

Merriam-Webster didn't say that, you did.

dis·be·lief
noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\

: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

Which is utterly different from your claim that Disbelief is still a belief, when it is actually a lack of belief, or an inability to believe.

So, as I said, theists assert the existence of something for which they have no evidence. It is not down to the atheist to do anything more than to point out the fact that theists have no evidence for their assertion.

[TECSHARE]

So you are arguing with Websters dictionary now? Polarizing your belief to an opposite doesn't magically make it not a belief.

No, I quoted another source but you, however, also happened to deviously misrepresent what yours actually meant.

You may have quoted Merriam-Webster regarding the word 'Atheism', but it is you who falsely asserted the claim, "Disbelief is still a belief".

Merriam-Webster didn't say that, you did.

dis·be·lief
noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\

: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

Which is utterly different from your claim that Disbelief is still a belief, when it is actually a lack of belief, or an inability to believe.

So, as I said, theists assert the existence of something for which they have no evidence. It is not down to the atheist to do anything more than to point out the fact that theists have no evidence for their assertion.

Your argument about disbelief is a red herring. You are still misrepresenting the definition of atheism. Declaring the existence or non  existence of anything requires a conclusion, and with no evidence to support it either way this is called a belief. I am simply holding you to the same standard you hold theists. You are defining agnosticism, not atheism, which is the BELIEF there is no god.  

 British Dictionary definitions for dis-
(would have used Websters but they apparently don't do word prefixes)
dis-1 prefix
1. indicating reversal: disconnect, disembark
2. indicating negation, lack, or deprivation: dissimilar, distrust, disgrace
3. indicating removal or release: disembowel, disburden
4. expressing intensive force: dissever

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dis-?s=t&path=/

[cryptodevil]

This is the point in the debate where I wonder out loud if your ignorance is wilful. I can handle plain ol' lack-of-education-on-the-subject ignorance, it's the I-refuse-to-consider-that-I-may-be-mistaken brand of ignorance I despise.

You continue to ignore the fact that you are the one claiming 'disbelief' is 'just another type of belief'. It is you who seeks to rewrite and reinterpret the meaning of a word that clearly does not mean what you want it to.

Let's break it down for you *real* simple:

+1 = Belief that there is evidence for the existence of an omnipotent super-being, a 'God'.

-1 = Belief that there is evidence against the existence of an ominpotent super-being, a 'God'.


Atheism on that scale = 0

That there is no objective evidence FOR the existence of an omnipotent super-being, a 'God'.

So, with regards to your

Declaring the existence or non  existence of anything requires a conclusion, and with no evidence to support it either way this is called a belief.

The Atheist conclusion is not derived from the "There is no God" assertion, it is derived from the "Your theist assertion lacks any objective evidence" position.

Which is correct a conclusion to reach because it does not require the invocation of the paranormal or 'ooky and spooky' made-up-stuff(tm), it simply examines the claim being made by theism and draws the, absolutely correct conclusion, that the assertion theists make is utterly devoid of evidence and, you know, looks *exactly* like it has just been dreamed up in human imagination and asserted to be true.

Because that is *exactly* what theism is.

[BADecker]

Here is another explanation of one of the great 3 evidences for God. This explanation is about the idea of cause and effect, action and reaction. Said another way, there is no pure random.

Be patient, and read the whole thing, even if you don't like to look at an argument that offers strong evidence for God. Here goes.

----------

When we talk about probability (randomness), we show that we are speaking from a position of not knowing. For example. When one flips a coin, what are the odds it will land heads, and what are the odds it will land tails? Over time, with many tosses of the coin, we find that the answer is very close to 50% both ways.

Why don't we know ahead of time what the result will be each time? Because we are unable to measure all the forces acting on the coin sufficiently well to make an absolute prediction. Now, I understand that there are some few people who have practiced so much that they can tell the outcome almost every time. But the point that I am making is, there is no easy way to measure all the forces acting on the coin so that we can predict accurately.

This is what OUR random is. It really isn't random. What it is, is our weakness in knowing, our inability to observe. In the case of the flipped coin, it is our weakness in knowing all the forces acting on the coin.

Essentially, there is NO pure random.

----------

Next...

Consider the common (American) game of "Pool" (the billiards sport). Once in awhile a player is able to hit the cue ball, which hits a second ball, which hits a third ball, which taps a fourth ball into a pocket. Predicting 4 balls in this fashion isn't easy. What about 5, or 6, or 7 balls in a sequence shot like this?

The point? Whatever makes cause and effect work in nature, has produced untold numbers of sequence shots in subatomic particles, with untold numbers of length of sequences, including cross shots (where more than one ball act on another), which have produced all kinds of highly complex materials and operations of nature, possibly the greatest of these being life itself.

The point? Since we don't have the ability to track more than a tiny, tiny percent of these forces, if we want to understand what's going on, we need to use probability. So, what are the odds that things would work out as well as they have, universally, through cause and effect of these HUGE numbers of sequences and cross sequences?

----------

Everything in nature acts according to the action and reaction principle... cause and effect. Science has no evidence of anything that happens by accident, randomly; everything that we call random activity exists ONLY because we are so extremely limited in our methods of observation, that we can't track the billions upon billions of action-reaction operations in the universe around us.

Is there mathematics that shows the existence of pure random activity? If there is, it lies in realms of quantum mechanics where other math shows that pure random does NOT exist.

----------

Whatever started all the cause and effect, action and reaction, that produced all the fantastically marvelous things found in nature, and life itself, IS A FANTASTICALLY GREAT GOD, whatever this God might be.

If God is the Big Bang, or if God is simply nature itself, or if God is one of the gods of one of the various religions, whatever God is, GOD IS EXCEEDINGLY GREAT, beyond understanding.

And here is a very interesting point. The god behind modern science is extremely greater than the Christian God. It all has to do with action and reaction, cause and effect. Here's what I mean.

Modern science suggests that the universe is 13 to 14 billion years old. The Bible suggests that the earth is 6,000 to an absolute maximum of 25,000 years old. What of it? Here's what.

A good pool player might be able to hit the cue ball with such precision that it hits a second ball that hits a third ball that taps a fourth ball into a corner pocket.

The God of the Christians hit some "cue balls" way back 6,000 to 25,000 years ago that knocked this whole fantastic universe into place today. Look around yourself at nature, at life, at human emotion, and imagine how great Someone has to be to hit the "cue balls" of the Beginning so that we wind up with all the marvels that we have today.

And if the God of the Christians is great, THE GOD OF MODERN SCIENCE IS FAR GREATER! Why? Because there are COUNTLESS more action-reaction/cause-effect happenings over 13 to 14 billion years than over 6,000 to 25,000 years. And the Big Bang(?) God shot was SOOOOO exceedingly good that it STILL produced what we have today, all the marvels of nature, and the universe, and life, and emotion in people, and human thought, and even scientific investigation by man, even though it had countless MORE numbers of action-reaction, cause-effect activities that the gods of any of the religions.

----------

All you scientific atheists, you are simply denying a Great God, One you are making way stronger than any god of any religion, simply by proving all your scientific theories and hypotheses.

Now, you may not like me. You might even hate me for showing you this. And you certainly have the ability to talk all around what I say. But one thing stands HERE as FACT, even if I have stated it poorly. As things stand in science right now, THERE IS GREAT STRENGTH IN THIS ARGUMENT that I have just shown you.

God exists, whomever/whatever he/she/it might be!

[cryptodevil]

And there we have it, further proof of the inane arguments used by theists to desperately claw their way out of the hole they keep being shown to be in, give 'em God, any God, for God's sake!!!!1111!1!eleventy!!1!

So now you want to turn an event (the big bang) into God?

Are you even capable of recognising the desperation in your position? You can call anything you want God, knock yourself out, it still doesn't leave you doing anything more than making-shit-up(tm).

What if I want to call The Universe 'Colin' and declare it to be evidence of 13-Dimensional super-being's school science project?

We can all play that game, it's called "Using your imagination". But you don't get it stick it in a medium-sized Hadron Collider and conduct experiments on it, that's reserved for things which actually exist outside of human imagination.