Opinion peice on Athiests

by SickofLies 203 Replies latest jw friends

serotonin_wraith

Thanks for that link, BTS. I'll watch that in the next day or two. Here's a quote from someone who attended:
For those who couldn't be there, here's a summary of D'Souza's arguments, more or less in the order presented:
-Religion isn't bothering you, so leave it alone. Do I persecute unicorn believers?
-Atheists (i.e. Stalin and Hitler) killed more people than Christians
- Christians like Mother Teresa did more good things for the world than Atheists.
-All these different scientists/artists/musicians were Christians, so Christianity must be okay
-Just look at the complexity of the universe and the way the "dials" are set perfectly for us, therefore Jesus died for your sins
-Science can't know a 100% absolute truth (i.e. the problem of induction) therefore the miracle of the resurrection is true
-Evolution can't account for human morality and altruism
-The reason why atheists are militant is that they--like Hitchens--hate God. Probably it was some kind of past trauma.
-A society can't survive without religion.
-Mother Teresa was awesome, therefore Christianity is a good thing
Hitchens started out really strong and had a good opening presentation, but then he got bogged down in an argument over whether Christians or Atheists had killed more people in history that went nowhere. Then he kind of lost interest in the second hour and let D'Souza run away with emotional rants (Hitchens was getting pretty slurry toward the end too--that wasn't water he was drinking). So I'd say that D'Souza "won" the debate in the sense that he did a better job of presenting his (tired and lame) arguments. Hitchens wasn't strong on the physics or biology (didn't even correct the "biology can't account for morality" claim) and once D'Souza noticed that, he went for the arguments that Hitchens was weak on.
But the crowd seemed about 50/50, even though it was sponsored by a Christian power college, and maybe some people's minds were changed.
Brother Apostate has pasted some of his arguments and I didn't find them that challenging - the whole 'in the name of atheism' stuff, for example. Maybe there's better stuff he's written, but I haven't seen it yet.
Brother Apostate

Brother Apostate has pasted some of his arguments and I didn't find them that challenging - the whole 'in the name of atheism' stuff, for example. Maybe there's better stuff he's written, but I haven't seen it yet.

Way to go, seratonin, you latch on to one statement and use it to deny everything else D'Souza stated.
"In the name of" could be changed to "As an atheist", and would perhaps be a less troublesome for you?
Your entire argument against the fact that, collectively, atheist regimes murdered more than 100 million people, is that the writer used the term "in the name of atheism", lol.
Oh, almost forgot your "other argument", your analogy that atheists don't believe in Santa, so they're somehow off the hook. Christians don't believe in Santa, either. Poor, poor, useless analogy, indeed.
BA
Gregor

Believers are going to be disappointed when they die and.....nothing. I guess that means they won't be disapointed? They should take comfort in knowing that they won't know... anything. Kind of like the poor Jews led into the "showers" by the Nazis thinking right up until the last minute that they were finally going to get a shower. Sorry, I prefer living life in the reality that this is all there is.
What a cool thing to teach ( and manipulate) people. No unhappy believers! As the sign in the mortuary said, "No dissatisfied customers after 75 yrs in business"
hillary_step

What I have noticed over the years on this Board that is a common logical fallacy when debating this issue, and that is that the theists inability to recognize that their stated position is usually argued from the very limited Christian perspective. I know that those who hold to beliefs in other dieties post to this Board, but they are hardly the vocal element.
Many do not even understand what athiesm, which is defined as "the absence of believe in dieties" actually means, though of course this does not stop these same Christian defenders commenting vigorously on the subject..
One would need to ask those that argue against athiesm whether they accept that the god of the Australian midwest, Altijira exists, or that Allah the god of the Muslims exists, or that the vodoo gods Ougoun exist, or that Dziva the African diety, or Shiva...well, you get my meaning.
The athiest position on the existence of all these "gods" is clear, as stated above, and that is that they have an absence of belief in all these dieties due to a lack of scientific, falsifiable evidence. The only issue seems to be that they add the God of the Bible to this list, a logical addition which does not seem to suit some posters.
Would one of the more logically inclined theists explain whether they accept the existence of the God's which I mention above, and if not, why not?
Many thanks - HS
Qcmbr

-Religion isn't bothering you, so leave it alone. Do I persecute unicorn believers?
Depends if they strap bombs on themselves or split my family up if I change my mind.

-Atheists (i.e. Stalin and Hitler) killed more people than Christians
I'm not certain that all the actual killing was done by atheists - unless Germany and Russia where deconverted super quick...

- Christians like Mother Teresa did more good things for the world than Atheists.
For fundamentalists other religions send people to hell. Technically economics and knowledge have done most for the world. Christians have taxed the world, wiped out the indigenous Indians (several times!), caused several wars (crusades) and it is critical that the dark ages were ruled by the Christians. Christians have invaded the world, enslaved the world and dragged the world into several religious standoffs.

-Science can't know a 100% absolute truth (i.e. the problem of induction) therefore the miracle of the resurrection is true
Science is a methodology for finding truth and is at the root of Christian belief (i.e. try it and see) however, Christianity often tries to deny the scientific method as soon as it presents conflicting results

-Evolution can't account for human morality and altruism
There is no such thing as altruism - altruism is merely self-interest. Morality is merely rules of engagement finessed for large group living.

-The reason why atheists are militant is that they--like Hitchens--hate God. Probably it was some kind of past trauma.
Militant is what religious groups are - onward christian soldiers.

-A society can't survive without religion.
Every single failed society had religion

-Mother Teresa was awesome, therefore Christianity is a good thing
By that logic so is wearing a habit but science has proven that that is only true on hen/stag nights
SickofLies

Steve, too bad that Dawkins does not have the intestinal fortitude to face a real Christian Apologist in a debate:

I’d like the opportunity to debate Dawkins. I think I can vindicate a rational and scientific argument for religion against his irrational and unscientific prejudice. When I wrote Dawkins to propose such a debate, however, Dawkins said that “upon reflection” he decided against it. He didn’t give a reason, and there is no reason.
In his writings on religion, Dawkins presents atheism as the side of reason and evidence, and religion as the side of “blind faith.” So what’s he afraid of? How can reason possibly lose in a contest with ignorance and superstition? I have written Dawkins back offering him the most favorable terms: a debate on a secular campus like Berkeley rather than a church, with atheist Michael Shermer as the moderator, and a donor ready and willing to pay both our fees.
So I hope Dawkins takes me up on my challenge to an intellectual joust. If you want to encourage him, write Dawkins and send the email to [email protected] . I’ll forward your thoughts to our wavering atheist knight. He may want to pattern atheism on the gay rights movement, but surely he doesn’t want the world to think that he’s a sissy.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/12/are_atheists_the_new_gays&Comments=true
D'Souza pretty much smashed Hitchens in a debate recently.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-471219088532317812&q=dinesh+d%27souza+hitchens&pr=goog-sl
Burn
Are you D'Souza? If you are, why do you refer to yourself in the third person, and if not WTF are you posting this crap for?
serotonin_wraith

"In the name of" could be changed to "As an atheist", and would perhaps be a less troublesome for you?
Well, atheism just doesn't come into it. Change it for anything else they didn't believe in to see how silly it is. "As Thor deniers..."/"As pixie deniers..."/"As people who didn't believe in flying cheese monkeys..." It's all ridiculous.
Your entire argument against the fact that, collectively, atheist regimes murdered more than 100 million people, is that the writer used the term "in the name of atheism", lol.
lol.
No.
Oh, almost forgot your "other argument", your analogy that atheists don't believe in Santa, so they're somehow off the hook. Christians don't believe in Santa, either. Poor, poor, useless analogy, indeed.
You didn't get it. I was showing how saying they did bad things because of a-Santaism is silly. Just like it's silly saying they did bad things because they didn't believe in a god. You think there's a difference, but to the atheist, Santa and God are simply things they don't believe in.
steve2

Steve, too bad that Dawkins does not have the intestinal fortitude to face a real Christian Apologist in a debate:
Yes, the level of debate can get very heated and seemingly personal. I wouldn't dare question the experience you have had, except to say that Dawkins claims to have also had similar experiences in which Christian apologists have appeared to shy away from him.
I think that Dawkins is capable of making his own decisions about who to face up to and doesn't need me to prod him. When people's admittedly strong personalities are put to one side, we are left with the content of their arguments - and it is on this content that I prefer to place the focus.
kwintestal

I’d like the opportunity to debate Dawkins. I think I can vindicate a rational and scientific argument for religion against his irrational and unscientific prejudice. When I wrote Dawkins to propose such a debate, however, Dawkins said that “upon reflection” he decided against it. He didn’t give a reason, and there is no reason.
I think Dawkins reply to this would be (I've read this before), "That'll look awfully good on your resume, not so good on mine."
Kwin
hillary_step

One would need to ask those that argue against athiesm whether they accept that the god of the Australian midwest, Altijira exists, or that Allah the god of the Muslims exists, or that the vodoo gods Ougoun exist, or that Dziva the African diety, or Shiva...well, you get my meaning.
The athiest position on the existence of all these "gods" is clear, as stated above, and that is that they have an absence of belief in all these dieties due to a lack of scientific, falsifiable evidence. The only issue seems to be that they add the God of the Bible to this list, a logical addition which does not seem to suit some posters.
Would one of the more logically inclined theists explain whether they accept the existence of the God's which I mention above, and if not, why not?
Any takers on this one?
How about you BA? I notice that you have bludgeoned your way onto this thread, as usual mistaking your own bluster for intelligence. ;) As a fundamentalist Christian, evidenced by your past posts, would you like to discuss the issue raised in the quote above.
Do you accept that Vishnu is God? Why not?
Anybody willing to take this one on?
HS

Opinion peice on Athiests

Share this