by BurnTheShips 61 Replies latest watchtower bible
You're describing a hypothetical atheist who simply does not exist.
I've encountered more than one that embodies at least one of the points in the list.
You also strike me as being a closet atheist in denial, trying your best to cling on to theism. It will prove to be in vain i'm afraid.
This statement seems arrogant to me. Four years ago a very intelligent atheist poster (you have not struck me as being one yourself, I'm sorry to say) made the same predictions about me. Well, here I am.
BTS
This statement seems arrogant to me. Four years ago a very intelligent atheist poster (you have not struck me as being one yourself, I'm sorry to say) made the same predictions about me. Well, here I am.
Hey, it took Rock Hudson 50 years to come out of the closet (hey man, I'm just yanking yer chain a little , no real offense intended at all)
Exactly. Pure naturalism would seem to be a defeater for trust in human cognition--including perception and reason. In a meaningless universe, then, it would seem that evolution probably "cares" nothing about "truth," but about survival.
It seems to me that if survival was the point, highly developed perception and reasoning skills would aid survival, so evolution we be pre-disposed to select for it.
You know you're a Fundamentalist Atheist, when you can't admit, that a belief that there is no Creator/God, is a presupposition.
Why is that pre-supposition? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Read the title of this thread and think of the implication of your question.
Read the title of this thread and think of the implication of your question.
Perhaps you are driving at a point I am not seeing.
Hey, it took Rock Hudson 50 years to come out of the closet (hey man, I'm just yanking yer chain a little , no real offense intended at all)
It seems to me that if survival was the point, highly developed perception and reasoning skills would aid survival, so evolution we be pre-disposed to select for it.
That's entirely possible. But if we look at natural history, we see a continuum, don't we? We can start with the simplest unicellular life. How powerful is it's sense of perception and reason? Then we move up the scale of complexity and finally arrive at human beings, which seem to be the most developed here. Even among healthy humans, we see a continuum from those that are relatively less skilled on the one hand, and geniuses on the other.
If reasoning skills are shown to exist on a continuum, is it reasonable to suppose that we are the apex, or that something greater isn't possible?
BTS
1. You vigorously deny the existence of God, yet you frequently blame him for all the "evils" in the world, all the natural disasters, and everything else under the sun that is wrong in modern society.
I don't believe in God, so i don't blame him for anything. I don't blame anything or anyone for natural disasters. Shit happens.
2. You think that it is possible to talk meaningfully about "good and evil" "right and wrong" when criticizing the sins of Christians while simultaneously subscribing to the notion that neither sin nor good and evil exist as ultimate categories but only as personal and social constructs.
I do not believe in objective right & wrong, but i do feel that humans living in a civilised society have a duty to eachother to as pleasant as circumstance will allow. But ultimately, pragmatism will prevail over subjective ethics, for better or worse. I think the golden rule can be considered to be good, without a deity having to tell us that it is, simply because it is personally satifying to everyone.
3. You think that human beings are merely the products of blind, uncaring, evolution but when it comes to human reason (a product of the same process) we can believe in it without question!
Firstly, that's a non sequitur. The origin of our brains being an 'uncaring' process does not mean that we cannot trust our brains, in fact the very reason we can trust them is because blind & uncaring evolution selected them without bias, purely on pragmatic grounds, because they work, they are effective, we wouldn't still have them after millions of years if they weren't. Also, 'without question'? Not at all, all things must be questioned. Human reasoning must be treated with skepticism at all times. But that doesn't mean that handful of logical absolutes that our brains have discovered are wrong.
4. You believe that when the Founders are framing the Constitution, they're staunch non-Christians, but when they're beating their slaves, they're Bible-believing Christians.
No, i believe that they were non-christians 24/7. Many of them wanted to be rid of slavery but were unable to get rid of it without upsetting a good deal of their population, the slave owners & in particular the slave traders. They knew that getting rid of slavery would mean civil war, & in the end it did result in that. Many of the founding fathers treated their slaves very well. Do you have any evidence of any of them 'beating their slaves'? You also have to remember that many people back then were under the misapprehension that black people were not human.
5. When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false, history is objective truth. When a Christian uses historical evidence to prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot be trusted.
I've never used history to prove it false. You don't prove things false, things must be proven correct. Christianity has not been proven correct as far as i can tell. History cannot be 100% trusted, but there are levels of trust & standards of evidence that can be applied to certain events.
6. You insist that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then claim that Jesus never existed.
I don't claim he never existed, although i don't think that it's an at all extraordinary claim. Extraordinary in that context usually means miracles. And the non-existence of Jesus would hardly be a miracle. But nevertheless, i don't know whether or not he existed. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Who knows, no one does.
7. You accuse Christians of being intolerant, judgmental and hateful, while you foam at the mouth calling them lunatics, ignorant, weak-minded, and stupid.
Shut up, the only thing i foam at the mouth at is a huge pair of ***** bags. Many christians are intolerant, judgemental & hateful. But those are not necessarily bad attributes, i would describe myself as intolerant of many things, judgemental of everything & for many people, i am hateful. But many christians are also lunatics, ignorant, weak-minded & stupid, & none of those are good things.
8. You think atheists are treated like second-class citizens. Then you spend most of your day belittling Christians and other religious people on JWN.
I think atheists get varied treatment across the world, as do all people. On the whole christians get better treatment that atheists in most places, but that's to be expected, they are a majority. However, i don't see how calling christians out on their beliefs should be considered belittling. If you were reasonable, you'd consider it thought-provoking, would you not?
9. You think "freethought" and "thinking for yourself" automatically means adopting an atheist viewpoint.
No, it doesn't mean adopting anything. But it does mean STARTING with the default viewpoint, & that is always non-belief.
10. You adamantly refuse to recognise the historical fact that "scientific atheism" was both a foundational philosophical position and an actual policy of the Soviet Union and other atheist states from the time of Lenin on, and responsible for massive persecution, torture, suffering, humiliation and death far in excess of the numbers of the "victims" of Christianity.
Really? Because i have to say, a google search of 'scientific atheism' isn't turning up much. Secularism on the other hand (which is fundamentally derived from atheism & the seperation of church & state), based on the principles of the already mentioned founding fathers (among others in history) had nothing to do with Soviet Russia or any other country that went down the shitter in the last 100 years. These countries all had irrational ideologies that could not be equated with secularism. They were more like religions in which the 'god' was a living human being, & this includes North Korea today. Most atheists today would endorse secularism. Stalin did not.
11. You declare on a public forum that you are "furious at God for not existing."........!!!!
No, i am very grateful to Him for not existing.
12. You criticize Christians who believe in the Bible, and say that it can't possibly be true because it's just a book written by mere men, yet you never question any of Richard Dawkins' books.
Is this even worth addressing? Are you really so dense as to think that Dawkins is anything more than contemporary populariser or atheism? I think Dawkin's books are far from perfect & if you'd read them, which you obviously haven't, you'd see that most of them are not even about atheism as such. His book The God Delusion is okay, but there are better books out there that put god to rest.
13. You claim, with a straight face, that "social Darwinism" and its child, eugenics, have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
They have a connection yes, but it's not a connection that was made by Darwin himself. It's merely evidence that scientific facts can be hijacked for questionable agendas. Just like the discoveries about the atomic world have been hijacked by governments to produce nuclear bombs. That does not mean that the theories are wrong or that their discoverers were ill-motived.
14. When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.
The pope has never been, & will never be enlightened. Everything he says is garbage & his acceptance of evoluion is also garbage because it's insincere & merely pandering to science in order to stay relevent. Further evidence of how deep a hole christianity is in. They are trying & failing to keep up with a world that they were not made for.
15. You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
I do not have any figures, & i think pure numbers are irrelevent. There are non-religious wars, & religious wars. Ultimately the problem of war will not go away with religion, but it will certainly be helped by the fading away of faith. Religion is a symptom of the problems of humanity rather than the cause. But as for the amount of wars caused by religion, there are surely enough of them for it to be considered a problem. Non-religious wars on the other hand, are generally caused by land disputes & fear caused by ignorance rather than lack of religion or atheism.
16. You assert that a fundamentalist Christian is an authentic Christian, but a non-fundamentalist one is "wishy-washy."
There is no authentic christian, it's all nonsense. But the moderates do provide a platform for the fundamentalists, not to mention plenty of cover & a diversion.
17. You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor.
No, i think both were trying to win their people's favour. Hitler certainly believed that he was fulfilling bible prophecy though.
18. You demand that theists explain news items where bad things have happened to theists, even though no theists on the board have claimed that belief in God is some kind of a lucky charm that wards off bad luck.
I don't demand any such thing, i just ask that they be objective. When things go well for them, if that is because god has blessed them, then if things go wrong, it must be because god has cursed them, you can't have one without the other.
19. You think that Reverend Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church does what he does because of his Christianity, but yet when other Christians give their lives in service to a good cause, they do this in spite of their Christianity.
No, people do the things they do because they are human. But christianity, & any authority, including secular, can be used as a cover for it. That should be obvious. And many christians do good things because of christianity, yes. But that to me is a very poor motive for doing good things. Doing them out of kindness would be a much better motive. Whether or not you believe that atheists do good out of kindness is up to you. Some do, some don't, in my opinion.
20. You are part of a non-belief organization such as American Atheists, Church of Freethought, Humanist Association of Canada, Student Freethought Alliance and/or the Council of Secular Humanism. You claim these organizations have absolutely no creeds and that the people involved independently think of different things from one another. Yet of course, on your organization's website they define the commonalities that all non-believers follow. Is that not the definition of creed?
I'm not a member of any of those organisations, i don't identify or affiliate with any organisation, & i cannot speak on behalf of those who do, i go it alone. I am sure there are plenty of atheist hypocrites out there, yes. That's because like their religious brothers & sisters, they are human.
This statement seems arrogant to me. Four years ago a very intelligent atheist poster (you have not struck me as being one yourself, I'm sorry to say) made the same predictions about me. Well, here I am.
Wrong, i'm afraid, i am (as i have just demonstrated with this post) very intelligent, & not afraid to admit it. And judging by your posts in this thread, particularly the first post, i am a lot more intelligent than you are. Sorry to say it. Also, you & i have only come up against eachother a couple of times prior to today. The first time, i won the argument fair & square, & the second time, you agreed with me.
If reasoning skills are shown to exist on a continuum, is it reasonable to suppose that we are the apex, or that something greater isn't possible?
I am sure there is room for improvement, but since we are the current apex of our planet, we must make do with what we have. What use is it to sit around waiting for the species to become more intelligent before trying to learn about the universe? We must start now!
Why do you feel that you have to defend yourself, Psychotic Parrot?
BTS
Why do you feel that you have to defend yourself, Psychotic Parrot?
The thread title is 'Top Ten Signs YOU're a Fundamentalist Atheist'.
The thread is clearly aimed at us as individuals, a call for us to defend ourselves, so that is what i am doing. I am defending myself as an individual. Would you prefer it if i just don't say anything? It would be easier for you if i didn't i suppose, but why should i make it easy for you.
That's entirely possible. But if we look at natural history, we see a continuum, don't we?
Kind of, but not really. Fossilization is extremely rare, particularly with soft bodied and single celled creatures, so there isn't really a continuum. More like patches of information from all over the temporal map.
If reasoning skills are shown to exist on a continuum, is it reasonable to suppose that we are the apex, or that something greater isn't possible?
It's reasonable to suppose that we are the apex right now for lack of evidence for anything better.
