Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking should stop venturing into unfamiliar waters, stick to the natural sciences, leave philosophy to the philosophers and theology to the theologians, and disengage from the foolish enterprise of trying to look for God using a microscope or a telescope. But of course that would mean less controversy and less money. Still, Dan Brown is relatively more entertaining.
I think the best spokesman for atheism, materialism and scientism is Nikita Khrushchev who said that "Gagarin flew into space, but did not see any god there."
Christianity itself is a Fad, and is completely irrational. You don't have to read a book to see whats right in front of you. You blind one another with Emotionally Fused Peer Pressure. Religion has been the training wheels for society for quite a long time, but now, its outdated, its only purpose now is to seperate Humanity even further than the current state. Humanity needs unification and yet you all sit there, spreading your contreversal fable tales, making people crazy. F You Christians.
so cewards600, you believe that David Icke is the son of God, and that reptilian humanoids are actually running the world? Good thing you gave up Christianity!
ThearterOfTheWord, i have bad news for you. Religion is just another form of control. i was a catholic for 33 years and i finally woke up from sleep. Religion, especially catholic religion is the most delusional and wouldn't advise anyone to join it!
@cedwards600 Catholicism is a vestige of the Roman Empire. They beheaded most of the Christians as soon as they had the chance at the council of Nicea and have perverted the Truth for over 2000 years. I'm sorry you had to deal with those types, but I have to ask you to reconsider Jesus Christ rather than some politicized establishment. It's the mission of the secular types to destroy a natural reverence for God, and they have largely accomplished their mission, unfortunately.
@Vogter2100 Well, Vogter, I've read it cover to cover probably a dozen times, and I have yet to be re-converted to atheism. I suspect you have not read it cover to cover, in the same way Colin's friend had not even read a word of "The God Delusion".
@TheaterOfTheWordInc So you like to belong to a relgion where it's deity orders the killing of babies by smashing them agsasint walls and the same deity orders genocide. Well done. You must be a sociopath if those things are acceptable.
@Vogter2100 You are mischaracterizing both Psalm 137 and the conquest of Canaan. But rather than displaying your ignorance and bigotry, why don't you answer my question, "Have you read the Bible cover to cover, as you have suggested I do, and which I have in fact done several times?" Or are you like
Colin's friend I allude to in the clip?
And by the way, Vogter, if my God ordered the killing of babies, He would indeed be a monster and I would indeed be a sociopath.
We both agree, then, that it is wrong to do or to admire evil. And I assume you must also oppose abortion, which is the killing of babies who have not yet come past the womb. It's good to know we have so many things in common. I say that about atheists elsewhere on this TV interview. and I will post more clips soon.
@Vogter2100 So you're for sparing convicted criminals, but killing innocent babies. I see.
And yes, I'm pro-life and therefore agree with Church teaching: life begins at conception (a fetus is a human being), torture is intrinsically evil, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research are both gravely evil, and the death penalty is almost never appropriate in modern society. Catholic teaching is the teaching of Christ, it comes as a whole and parts of it can not be rejected.
@TheaterOfTheWordInc Yes I read it from cover to cover the first when I was 12. And thta was th eend of me believing in thta fairytale. My morals could not accept your god to be all loving and all that bs when he orders genocide in men women and innocent children.
@Vogter2100 Vogter, here's the deal. If you're only about 13 or 14 now, as it appears you are from the way you type, I won't get into this with you. If you are older than that, then take enough concern for what you're saying to write cogently without a flood of typos. Are you serious about this or just playing around?
And if you did indeed read the Bible cover to cover last year or so, then what is its main point - that we should kill innocent women and children? Is that ...
@TheaterOfTheWordInc Im pretty convinced there is no god. I sort of grew up you know..and at age 12 I was pretty sure I didnt need an invisible friend. Adults shred their imaginary freinds you know.. part of growing the fuck uo.
@Vogter2100 Well, at least you spelled the F-word properly.
By the way, I had you beat. I was an atheist at age 9.
Anyway, my advice is stay away from video games and nothing-but-the-internet and ipods. If reading the Bible had such an impact on your life, then look what reading other books could do. Learn how to read good books and write well as you grow up, my friend, and there are other myths you will shed along the way. Such as atheism.
I actually agree with you to a good extend; there is such a thing as fad atheism, and Dawkins tends to be a supporter of it. His book is a terrible plea for atheism. I found myself more a theist after reading it, because he failed to give even a single argument which made atheism seem the better option to me. However, I am an atheist now. I did not buy into fad atheism. That does not make Christianity true. There are arguments for atheism which are almost imperturbable. Dawkins just missed them.
And considering the origins of the universe, the world, mankind, I find it far more irrational to speculate that this was all a mere coincidence than I would to say an intelligent being designed it.
Hilarious. No really! Calling atheism a fad is just plain amusing, seeing as it's been around for as long as theism has. Only difference is that nowadays you religious folk don't get to murder us at your whim, for the crime of not accepting unsubstantiated claims as truth.
While I suppose it's technically possible for an atheist to believe in magic, it's not likely. I don't at any rate.
Your comment shows you don't understand what the word atheism means. Atheism doesn't make claims, therefore it doesn't need to substantiate anything. It is a disbelief in the unproven claim made by theism, that there's a personal god. Ergo that pesky burden of proof that I know theists hate so much.
Ah, but your comment was directed at "religious folk" as representative of theistic notions. So similarly, I point to atheists as representatvie of atheistic notions. All the atheists I have heard from, and seemingly you too from what you've written thus far, believe that all knowledge is aquired through scientific evidence. Yet, none of you are able to provide the evidence of such a claim - of such a faith system.
I have no religion. I know it's hard for you to grasp this, but the abscense of blind faith is not faith.
You're confusing atheism with science too, which is common in your camp. Your question is not just a non sequitur, it's inane at best. I could probably spend a year citing all the knowledge in the world to you and when I'm done you'll just claim there's something I missed and pretend that proved your point. How about you provide me with knowledge not derived from evidence. should save time.
Ok. You want an example of knowledge not derived from science? How about the self-refuting claim made by those of your camp: that all knowldedge is derved from science. Of course, I already mentioned this, but I know, it's tough for atheists to escape tat myopic vision.
So there it is. "All knowledge is derived from science!"
That's about as dogmatic as you can get.
But once again, if that is not merely dogmatic and rather scientifically sound, show me the evidence.
I didn't ask you to repeat a faulty statement. I asked you to provide knowledge that wasn't derived from evidence.
I never stated that all knowledge was derived from science. The statement should be "all knowledge is derived from evidence". The scientific method however is a tool used to root out evidence in order to establish facts. That's what science is. It's not a dogmatic religion/philosophy. it's a method based on logical deduction.
Thanks for the lecture on the scientific menthod. Talk about non sequitur.
Maybe you aren't one, but many atheists put forth the notion "all knowledge is derived from evidence" and then posit that all evidence is scientific. Such a premise is unscientific and un-knowable by means of scientific data.
If you hold such a view, you simply have faith with no proof whatesoever. And so welcome to the world of religion.
My lecture went to the heart of the matter, as you obviously didn't understand the meaning of the word science. It seems you still don't, but I doubt I can explain it any clearer than I did before.
What I'm still waiting for however is an example of knowledge not derived from evidence.
Unfortunately, it was non sequitur. Hanging your hat on a minor semantic here indicates a reluctance to engage. And this indication is pronounced when you ask again for an example that I have already given 3 times.
My example is the "knowledge" atheists claim: that all knowledge is derived from scientific evidence.
And since you will undoubtedly and unbelievably ask again, here it is again:
"All knowledge is derived from scientific evidence."
And the reason I don't accept that as an example is because you're using the very statement you claim is false as proof of knowledge that isn't derived from evidence.
I don't agree that the claim is self-refuting, but since you think so you can't simultaneously call it knowledge.
Either it's untrue or it's fact. You can't have it both ways.
As for semantics? If you stop misusing the words themselves, by imbuing them with meaning they don't possess, I promise I will stop correcting you for it.
It is irrelevant that you don't accept it and it is amusing if you think I care. I put it forth anyway. Atheists make the unscientific claim that all knowledge is derived from scientific evidence.
Atheists seem to have no problem side-stepping that pesky little burden of proof mantra they are otherwise so fond of demanding. Well all atheists, without exception, have faith. Add Panwolven to the list.
Anyone else? Is there an atheist out there who can back their claims?
And I thought the guy in the clip was hilarious. Do you really think simply declaring that I have faith makes it so? And do you for a second think that it would change the fact that you didn't meet a single one of my arguments and then proceeded to pwn yourself with the example you gave.
As for the not caring ... I didn't realise this was a playground-debate. What's next, "I am rubber, you are glue ..."?
But let's have fun and test the claim you claim we claim scientifically. "all knowledge is derived from evidence" would be seen as a theory. It would then be tested to see if there is in fact knowledge that is not derived from evidence. Since knowledge is, per definition, demonstrably true, as opposed to speculation, the theory would be concidered sound and, yes, viewed as knowledge. To refute it one would simply need to present an exception to the rule, which you fail to do.
Man, you're funny. Why would you even want scientific evidence when your whole point is that scientific evidence doesn't count?
As for the definition of knowledge, buy a dictionary. While you're at it, check out the meaning of atheism, science, evidence, logic and argumentation.
When you're done take some time to think about how any of the points you brought forth in this discussion gives substance to the theistic claim of god.
Sceintific evidence doesn't count? On the contrary, I am the one who has persistently asked for it. And asked for it. So wrong. I have a deep appreciation for science. And since you claim that science is the source of all knowledge, I merely asked to see the scientfic evidence supporting that belief.
Oh, and I Googled te definition of knowledge like you suggested. Nothing, I repeat nothing came close to your other claim that "knowledge is, per definition, demonstably true".
And sorry, I never attempted to "give substance to the theistic claim of god" as you say. I simply asked an atheist to give substance to his claims. And you have not. Instead you have introduced red herrings, straw men, and essentially refused to share how you arrived at the Gnostic understanding you have. In short, you represent the atheist camp very well.
So, until you can provide the scientific evidence to back your claims, kindly shut up.
The only red herring presented was when you jumped from atheism to science as if they were one and the same. You then constructed a straw man by claiming that all atheists believe that knowledge can only be derived from scientific evidence and proceeded to attack that claim, demanding that I defend it. The claim was never mine. I merely pointed out how your logic was fallacious.
But please, point out my red herrings and straw men, if you can.
I never told you to google the word knowledge. I told you to get a dictionary and look it up. You might for example come across this little tidbit in webster "the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind"
I didn't say you were trying to give substance to the theist claim, i suggested you think about it. It being the one topic that I did in fact bring up it would be interesting to see you address it, rather than a bunch of claims I didn't make.
Also, the definition you provided by teh generic "webster" is nowhere near the original mess you made. Glad to see you abandoned: "knowledge is, per definition, demonstably true"
Before anything else, then. You agree? Knowledge may be attained without having scientific evidence?
You're too hung up on the scientific bit. My claim is that evidence is needed for something to be called knowledge and that science is a means of getting at evidence. But no, I never said that all evidence is scientific evidence. That was you putting words in my mouth. I do however hold to it being, per definition, demonstrably true, albeit probably not the way you thought I meant it. But I'll try to clarify my viewpoint with a couple of examples below.
Knowledge is known, on that I'm sure we agree. For something to be known it must have been demonstrated in some way, ergo evidence. Now, there's such a thing as subjective knowledge, like the knowledge of your own emotions, that is of course only demonstrable to yourself internally. You know the emotions are there but you can't really show them to anyone else, except indirectly through actions.
Just being aware of having an emotion doesn't give you knowledge of the emotion itself though. For that you need to define what you're feeling, test it against existing definitions of emotions and decide on which definition matches. In short root out the evidence that proves what emotion you're experiencing. Once that is done you can say you have knowledge of the emotion. Take the eternal question "is this love?", for example. As long as we need to ask, we don't know.
Knowledge about our common external reality however can only be of a truly demonstrable kind, as otherwise we'd have to agree that the reality of a schizofrenic was as objectively valid as anyone elses. His personal reality is valid to him of course, but it still doesn't reflect our common objective reality.
In both the above cases evidence is needed for something to be called knowledge, but only the latter lends itself to scientific evidence.
I had to think about that for a little bit. I'm not smart enough to have read this once and quickly send a reply. And I'm afraid after thinking for a little bit, I am still missing something. I don't know how ou arrive here:
"Knowledge about our common external reality however can only be of a truly demonstrable kind"
Then you explain the scenario with the schizofrenia.
It sems that your argument is centered upon perception, whether it is personal perception or communal.
This does not encompass objectve reality itself in my opinion, but rather it's perception. But let's run with it.
I think there is faith involved even with the the communal aspectof perception. And it starts with our "knowledge" that we are experiencing a conscious perception. In other wrods, we all "know" that we aren't just dreaming.
Very funny : ) But the real questions is, did you have enough nerve to read the counter argument: Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God? If not, then how are you different then the silly teenager they laughed about?
You have no empirical evidence to prove there is no God. Ironically your atheistic beliefs use the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone." (That cracks me up). Refusing to investigate the counter arguments, prove your position is by prejudice not discernment. You can do better than that. Hahn & Wiker used reason to demonstrate the inconsistent and illogical arguments used by Dawkins, not faith. Their book takes Dawkins shoddy arguments point-by-point. Are you up to the challenge?
then why did you say I WAS an atheist if you still are. I find it hard to belive you understand anything you read, you barly understand the things you say.
look I understand what he wanted to say, I merly stated that he didnt say it cause of his poor abillty to make statments. I mean if he's not organized and rational enough to make statements why shuold we consider his veiws rational
and as for his finnsh I know it too and it is poorer then his english which is why I made the comment, "what ever that is", about it cause its so bad its hard to tell what it is.
I think he did a good job critiquing atheism and he had some good points but I don't think this belief system will die out soon. However I certainly hope so.
If anyone actually makes the effort to trudge through "The God Delusion" they will see why it is so irrelevant. The first 2 chapters are coherent, but essentially say "there is rational religgion and bad religion - I will ignore the rational and bash the bad". So the book shoots itself in the foot and vanishes into irrelevant polemics against weird Internet fundamentalists; a fad against fads! Ignores the whole masive edifice of Western culture built on Greek philosophy, Judeo-Christianity etc.
I wonder if many atheists are even willing to discuss matters, and if given a satisfactory explanation to each of their doubts, would they consider that they could be in error?
Maybe I'm meeting the wrong atheists, but the ones I'm meeting on the internet are far more concerned about "winning an argument" than searching for truth; even if they have to end an argument with "you're an idiot". I would enjoy debate, but this egocentric hostility towards Christians defies any kind of approach.
Considering that your description of atheists is how I tend to experience religious people might it not be that they're just reacting to your own stubborn inability to admit the faults of your own view?
Just putting it out there as a plausible possibility. ;)
@jarkoer i guess it is well to assume everyone is open to the truth, but to be on the lookout for people who are just time-wasters b/c some are not really interested in truth, at least not at the present time. Here is a short (<1min) clip of Dr William Lane Craig talking about his experience with this:
watch?v=V5RIbrFv51M
and this is a longer clip that i found funny b/c it's so true:
watch?v=dnpa_kQaCgA
i think atheists unknowingly begin to reject rational thought when they reject God.
That's not an ad hominem fallacy. Ad Hominem is when someone uses a personal defect as the soul reason for why their opponent's argument is wrong. I am saying the religion as a whole is terrified because corporations are afraid of loosing their customers so they slander their competitor as being a "flash in the pan". You set them up, I knock them down.
You're right KolbeKrew. Supposedly God has "died" long ago. Thus spoke Nietzsche, who then died a mental patient.
If anyone ever happens to bump into Fred, tell him that there is indeed an up and down left. And the only way to lose it is to lose your ontological axiom; to wipe away the horizon as he so clearly realized. But now he is dead.
These guys are just dismissing the fact that more and more people are coming out as disbelievers by labeling it a fad because really, they are afraid. They are absolutely terrified. The harder they push, the harder we push back and these days we tend to win most of the battles because rationality and evidence are on our side.
A fad? Is Christianity not just a fad that has managed to drag on for the last few centuries? This is exactly the type of people that are leading this world to chaos. Pointing a finger at the atheist and calling him irrational for not believing in talking snakes and bushes is just ludicrous.
ImTheRiffRaff and hal2017 are precisely what pop atheism is about: ad hominem, false dichotomy, appeal to ridicule, and poisoning the well. The cultural movement of fallacies.
Whatever happened to respectable atheists who were intellectually honest? Like Nietzsche and Hume?
Go ahead and respond. You'll probably commit a genetic fallacy, seeing as that's what pop atheism is best at doing.
Muertos06 is precisely what pop apologetics is about: red herrings, labeling things as fads thereby dismissing them as youthful rebelliousness so you don't have to actually address their arguments, condescension, and obfuscation. The death rattle of religion.
Whatever happened to respectable Christians who were intellectually honest? Oh, they never existed.
It's funny how you christians have to perform damage control for your dwindling church attendance by characterizing it as "pop atheism".
People like muertos06 will be saying "soon this whole atheism business will blow over and we will go back to controlling people's lives any day now" when it's the year 2050 and 80% of the population positively believe that God is a superstition. Enjoy the good ol' days while they last because the time of religion is finished.
"Whatever happened to respectable Christians who were intellectually honest? Oh, they never existed."
Lol, I believe your credibility has just gone out the window. Your emotional theatricality doesn't speak much, except to those who consider subjective emotional appeals as objective conterpoints. I don't want to "control" anybody. Good strawman you got there.
Oh by the way, I consider myself a youthful rebel as well.
Let me know when you rid yourself of your fallacies and theatrics.
Fallacies? What fallacy? Rebel? religion is never rebellious especially when the religious have established their religion as the mainstream. You just don't get it.
And isn't all the pageantry that goes on in religious rituals all about theatrics?
Anyway, please don't dismiss your falling church attendance as pop atheism. We're simply winning.
lol, if I could leave out all the important points in my opponents arguments, I could also act as immune to arguments as you.
Address the pageantry that is religious ritual. Address the challenge to find a fallacy in my arguments. Address that religion is inherently not rebellious.
The most rationale, logical defense of God and Jesus is C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" AND Lewis was originally an aethist. He said that God pursued him and ran him down from behind, logically.
/watch?v=LxJwSIIqQrU
What convinced me that Satan exists, besides the daily news, was Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters" which scenario I see in mankind, and right here on youtube, everyday.
Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking should stop venturing into unfamiliar waters, stick to the natural sciences, leave philosophy to the philosophers and theology to the theologians, and disengage from the foolish enterprise of trying to look for God using a microscope or a telescope. But of course that would mean less controversy and less money. Still, Dan Brown is relatively more entertaining.
wbarquez 1 month ago
I think the best spokesman for atheism, materialism and scientism is Nikita Khrushchev who said that "Gagarin flew into space, but did not see any god there."
wbarquez 1 month ago
Christianity itself is a Fad, and is completely irrational. You don't have to read a book to see whats right in front of you. You blind one another with Emotionally Fused Peer Pressure. Religion has been the training wheels for society for quite a long time, but now, its outdated, its only purpose now is to seperate Humanity even further than the current state. Humanity needs unification and yet you all sit there, spreading your contreversal fable tales, making people crazy. F You Christians.
UNSCDefenseForces 3 months ago
Comment removed
UNSCDefenseForces 3 months ago
The only thing that can take the place of atheism is theism, by definition.
So, since he said that something worse is coming to replace atheism...
MrFungus420 4 months ago
with the frequent groaning i hear about declining church attendance and lessening belief, it may have been unwise for him to bring up dying out
truemisto 4 months ago
Some devastating critiques of today's fashionable atheism:
The Last Superstition, by Edward Feser
Atheist Delusions, by David Hart
Jitpring 5 months ago
so cewards600, you believe that David Icke is the son of God, and that reptilian humanoids are actually running the world? Good thing you gave up Christianity!
tonyroma12000 1 year ago 2
sorry the last person is jordan maxwell. they really opened my eyes to the TRUTH!
cedwards600 1 year ago
because of three very intelligent people.; christopher hitchens, david icke and jordan mazwe
cedwards600 1 year ago
if you really want to be atheist don't read TGD, read the OT- that shit is enough to turn anyone off god
SuperBeanson 1 year ago
I hate "fad atheism" but these two are absolute morons.
ultimateinfinite 1 year ago
@ultimateinfinite WHY
singapore7773 1 year ago
ThearterOfTheWord, i have bad news for you. Religion is just another form of control. i was a catholic for 33 years and i finally woke up from sleep. Religion, especially catholic religion is the most delusional and wouldn't advise anyone to join it!
cedwards600 1 year ago
@cedwards600 Catholicism is a vestige of the Roman Empire. They beheaded most of the Christians as soon as they had the chance at the council of Nicea and have perverted the Truth for over 2000 years. I'm sorry you had to deal with those types, but I have to ask you to reconsider Jesus Christ rather than some politicized establishment. It's the mission of the secular types to destroy a natural reverence for God, and they have largely accomplished their mission, unfortunately.
Lachdenan 1 year ago
@cedwards600 Why did you leave? If you don't mind me asking
Yummygreek 1 year ago
The way to deconvert christians is to make them read the bible, from cover to cover.
Vogter2100 1 year ago
@Vogter2100 Well, Vogter, I've read it cover to cover probably a dozen times, and I have yet to be re-converted to atheism. I suspect you have not read it cover to cover, in the same way Colin's friend had not even read a word of "The God Delusion".
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc So you like to belong to a relgion where it's deity orders the killing of babies by smashing them agsasint walls and the same deity orders genocide. Well done. You must be a sociopath if those things are acceptable.
Vogter2100 1 year ago
@Vogter2100 You are mischaracterizing both Psalm 137 and the conquest of Canaan. But rather than displaying your ignorance and bigotry, why don't you answer my question, "Have you read the Bible cover to cover, as you have suggested I do, and which I have in fact done several times?" Or are you like
Colin's friend I allude to in the clip?
And by the way, Vogter, if my God ordered the killing of babies, He would indeed be a monster and I would indeed be a sociopath.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc ... so you're right there.
We both agree, then, that it is wrong to do or to admire evil. And I assume you must also oppose abortion, which is the killing of babies who have not yet come past the womb. It's good to know we have so many things in common. I say that about atheists elsewhere on this TV interview. and I will post more clips soon.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc A fetus is NOT a baby. get real. And you as a good christian want to abolish the death penalty? Prolife I guess? HUH?
Vogter2100 1 year ago
@Vogter2100 So you're for sparing convicted criminals, but killing innocent babies. I see.
And yes, I'm pro-life and therefore agree with Church teaching: life begins at conception (a fetus is a human being), torture is intrinsically evil, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research are both gravely evil, and the death penalty is almost never appropriate in modern society. Catholic teaching is the teaching of Christ, it comes as a whole and parts of it can not be rejected.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc Yes I read it from cover to cover the first when I was 12. And thta was th eend of me believing in thta fairytale. My morals could not accept your god to be all loving and all that bs when he orders genocide in men women and innocent children.
Vogter2100 1 year ago
@Vogter2100 Vogter, here's the deal. If you're only about 13 or 14 now, as it appears you are from the way you type, I won't get into this with you. If you are older than that, then take enough concern for what you're saying to write cogently without a flood of typos. Are you serious about this or just playing around?
And if you did indeed read the Bible cover to cover last year or so, then what is its main point - that we should kill innocent women and children? Is that ...
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@Vogter2100 ... what the Bible is really about? If so, "Mine Kampf" is an easier and shorter read.
So gird your loins and read it for real; learn how to present yourself in writing and then come back and take another swing at God and His Church.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc Im pretty convinced there is no god. I sort of grew up you know..and at age 12 I was pretty sure I didnt need an invisible friend. Adults shred their imaginary freinds you know.. part of growing the fuck uo.
Vogter2100 1 year ago
@Vogter2100 Well, at least you spelled the F-word properly.
By the way, I had you beat. I was an atheist at age 9.
Anyway, my advice is stay away from video games and nothing-but-the-internet and ipods. If reading the Bible had such an impact on your life, then look what reading other books could do. Learn how to read good books and write well as you grow up, my friend, and there are other myths you will shed along the way. Such as atheism.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago 4
@TheaterOfTheWordInc what a presumptious twat you are :)
Vogter2100 1 year ago
"I don't happen to believe in god"
How irrational can you get?! My goodness atheists are silly!
mikatagahara1212 1 year ago
Colossus, give me one of the "almost imperturbable" arguments for atheism ... although I suppose you mean "almost unanswerable".
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
I actually agree with you to a good extend; there is such a thing as fad atheism, and Dawkins tends to be a supporter of it. His book is a terrible plea for atheism. I found myself more a theist after reading it, because he failed to give even a single argument which made atheism seem the better option to me. However, I am an atheist now. I did not buy into fad atheism. That does not make Christianity true. There are arguments for atheism which are almost imperturbable. Dawkins just missed them.
colossus999 1 year ago
@colossus999 Impenetrable, I think you mean.
And considering the origins of the universe, the world, mankind, I find it far more irrational to speculate that this was all a mere coincidence than I would to say an intelligent being designed it.
GenghisKhan44 1 year ago
It's almost creepy how much Kevin was describing my own situation xD
I used to hark the God Delusion to believers at my school all the time like some fundamentalist, when in fact I never even read the thing. xD
Lord, I am so grateful to be attending Mass again.
cathoman7 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@cathoman7 HAHAHAHA.. oh you are not joking?
Vogter2100 1 year ago
Hilarious. No really! Calling atheism a fad is just plain amusing, seeing as it's been around for as long as theism has. Only difference is that nowadays you religious folk don't get to murder us at your whim, for the crime of not accepting unsubstantiated claims as truth.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Speaking of hilarious. PanWolven apparently thinks Atheism is somehow magically "substantiated" in comparison.
mikey7146 2 years ago
While I suppose it's technically possible for an atheist to believe in magic, it's not likely. I don't at any rate.
Your comment shows you don't understand what the word atheism means. Atheism doesn't make claims, therefore it doesn't need to substantiate anything. It is a disbelief in the unproven claim made by theism, that there's a personal god. Ergo that pesky burden of proof that I know theists hate so much.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Ah, but your comment was directed at "religious folk" as representative of theistic notions. So similarly, I point to atheists as representatvie of atheistic notions. All the atheists I have heard from, and seemingly you too from what you've written thus far, believe that all knowledge is aquired through scientific evidence. Yet, none of you are able to provide the evidence of such a claim - of such a faith system.
But if you can, I'm all ears.
Your religion is self-refuting.
mikey7146 2 years ago
I have no religion. I know it's hard for you to grasp this, but the abscense of blind faith is not faith.
You're confusing atheism with science too, which is common in your camp. Your question is not just a non sequitur, it's inane at best. I could probably spend a year citing all the knowledge in the world to you and when I'm done you'll just claim there's something I missed and pretend that proved your point. How about you provide me with knowledge not derived from evidence. should save time.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Ok. You want an example of knowledge not derived from science? How about the self-refuting claim made by those of your camp: that all knowldedge is derved from science. Of course, I already mentioned this, but I know, it's tough for atheists to escape tat myopic vision.
So there it is. "All knowledge is derived from science!"
That's about as dogmatic as you can get.
But once again, if that is not merely dogmatic and rather scientifically sound, show me the evidence.
mikey7146 2 years ago
I didn't ask you to repeat a faulty statement. I asked you to provide knowledge that wasn't derived from evidence.
I never stated that all knowledge was derived from science. The statement should be "all knowledge is derived from evidence". The scientific method however is a tool used to root out evidence in order to establish facts. That's what science is. It's not a dogmatic religion/philosophy. it's a method based on logical deduction.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Thanks for the lecture on the scientific menthod. Talk about non sequitur.
Maybe you aren't one, but many atheists put forth the notion "all knowledge is derived from evidence" and then posit that all evidence is scientific. Such a premise is unscientific and un-knowable by means of scientific data.
If you hold such a view, you simply have faith with no proof whatesoever. And so welcome to the world of religion.
I have faith. I admit it though.
mikey7146 2 years ago
My lecture went to the heart of the matter, as you obviously didn't understand the meaning of the word science. It seems you still don't, but I doubt I can explain it any clearer than I did before.
What I'm still waiting for however is an example of knowledge not derived from evidence.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Unfortunately, it was non sequitur. Hanging your hat on a minor semantic here indicates a reluctance to engage. And this indication is pronounced when you ask again for an example that I have already given 3 times.
My example is the "knowledge" atheists claim: that all knowledge is derived from scientific evidence.
And since you will undoubtedly and unbelievably ask again, here it is again:
"All knowledge is derived from scientific evidence."
mikey7146 2 years ago
And the reason I don't accept that as an example is because you're using the very statement you claim is false as proof of knowledge that isn't derived from evidence.
I don't agree that the claim is self-refuting, but since you think so you can't simultaneously call it knowledge.
Either it's untrue or it's fact. You can't have it both ways.
As for semantics? If you stop misusing the words themselves, by imbuing them with meaning they don't possess, I promise I will stop correcting you for it.
PanWolven 2 years ago
It is irrelevant that you don't accept it and it is amusing if you think I care. I put it forth anyway. Atheists make the unscientific claim that all knowledge is derived from scientific evidence.
Atheists seem to have no problem side-stepping that pesky little burden of proof mantra they are otherwise so fond of demanding. Well all atheists, without exception, have faith. Add Panwolven to the list.
Anyone else? Is there an atheist out there who can back their claims?
mikey7146 2 years ago
And I thought the guy in the clip was hilarious. Do you really think simply declaring that I have faith makes it so? And do you for a second think that it would change the fact that you didn't meet a single one of my arguments and then proceeded to pwn yourself with the example you gave.
As for the not caring ... I didn't realise this was a playground-debate. What's next, "I am rubber, you are glue ..."?
PanWolven 2 years ago
But let's have fun and test the claim you claim we claim scientifically. "all knowledge is derived from evidence" would be seen as a theory. It would then be tested to see if there is in fact knowledge that is not derived from evidence. Since knowledge is, per definition, demonstrably true, as opposed to speculation, the theory would be concidered sound and, yes, viewed as knowledge. To refute it one would simply need to present an exception to the rule, which you fail to do.
PanWolven 2 years ago
"knowledge is, per definition, demonstably true"
How did you arrive at this premise. Where is the scientific data supporting it?
mikey7146 2 years ago
Man, you're funny. Why would you even want scientific evidence when your whole point is that scientific evidence doesn't count?
As for the definition of knowledge, buy a dictionary. While you're at it, check out the meaning of atheism, science, evidence, logic and argumentation.
When you're done take some time to think about how any of the points you brought forth in this discussion gives substance to the theistic claim of god.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Sceintific evidence doesn't count? On the contrary, I am the one who has persistently asked for it. And asked for it. So wrong. I have a deep appreciation for science. And since you claim that science is the source of all knowledge, I merely asked to see the scientfic evidence supporting that belief.
Oh, and I Googled te definition of knowledge like you suggested. Nothing, I repeat nothing came close to your other claim that "knowledge is, per definition, demonstably true".
mikey7146 2 years ago
And sorry, I never attempted to "give substance to the theistic claim of god" as you say. I simply asked an atheist to give substance to his claims. And you have not. Instead you have introduced red herrings, straw men, and essentially refused to share how you arrived at the Gnostic understanding you have. In short, you represent the atheist camp very well.
So, until you can provide the scientific evidence to back your claims, kindly shut up.
mikey7146 2 years ago
Lol. Now here's the pot calling the kettle black.
The only red herring presented was when you jumped from atheism to science as if they were one and the same. You then constructed a straw man by claiming that all atheists believe that knowledge can only be derived from scientific evidence and proceeded to attack that claim, demanding that I defend it. The claim was never mine. I merely pointed out how your logic was fallacious.
But please, point out my red herrings and straw men, if you can.
PanWolven 2 years ago
I never told you to google the word knowledge. I told you to get a dictionary and look it up. You might for example come across this little tidbit in webster "the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind"
I didn't say you were trying to give substance to the theist claim, i suggested you think about it. It being the one topic that I did in fact bring up it would be interesting to see you address it, rather than a bunch of claims I didn't make.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Also, the definition you provided by teh generic "webster" is nowhere near the original mess you made. Glad to see you abandoned: "knowledge is, per definition, demonstably true"
Before anything else, then. You agree? Knowledge may be attained without having scientific evidence?
mikey7146 2 years ago
You're too hung up on the scientific bit. My claim is that evidence is needed for something to be called knowledge and that science is a means of getting at evidence. But no, I never said that all evidence is scientific evidence. That was you putting words in my mouth. I do however hold to it being, per definition, demonstrably true, albeit probably not the way you thought I meant it. But I'll try to clarify my viewpoint with a couple of examples below.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Knowledge is known, on that I'm sure we agree. For something to be known it must have been demonstrated in some way, ergo evidence. Now, there's such a thing as subjective knowledge, like the knowledge of your own emotions, that is of course only demonstrable to yourself internally. You know the emotions are there but you can't really show them to anyone else, except indirectly through actions.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Just being aware of having an emotion doesn't give you knowledge of the emotion itself though. For that you need to define what you're feeling, test it against existing definitions of emotions and decide on which definition matches. In short root out the evidence that proves what emotion you're experiencing. Once that is done you can say you have knowledge of the emotion. Take the eternal question "is this love?", for example. As long as we need to ask, we don't know.
PanWolven 2 years ago
Knowledge about our common external reality however can only be of a truly demonstrable kind, as otherwise we'd have to agree that the reality of a schizofrenic was as objectively valid as anyone elses. His personal reality is valid to him of course, but it still doesn't reflect our common objective reality.
In both the above cases evidence is needed for something to be called knowledge, but only the latter lends itself to scientific evidence.
I hope that clears things up for you.
PanWolven 2 years ago
I had to think about that for a little bit. I'm not smart enough to have read this once and quickly send a reply. And I'm afraid after thinking for a little bit, I am still missing something. I don't know how ou arrive here:
"Knowledge about our common external reality however can only be of a truly demonstrable kind"
Then you explain the scenario with the schizofrenia.
mikey7146 2 years ago
It sems that your argument is centered upon perception, whether it is personal perception or communal.
This does not encompass objectve reality itself in my opinion, but rather it's perception. But let's run with it.
I think there is faith involved even with the the communal aspectof perception. And it starts with our "knowledge" that we are experiencing a conscious perception. In other wrods, we all "know" that we aren't just dreaming.
mikey7146 2 years ago 2
I sent another message that didn't show up it seems. That's ok. Let's just start with this last one.
mikey7146 2 years ago
I was an atheist... then I read god delusion (yes, I actually read it, cover to cover) ... big effect! Now I'm even more an atheist! :p
ijaju 2 years ago
Very funny : ) But the real questions is, did you have enough nerve to read the counter argument: Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God? If not, then how are you different then the silly teenager they laughed about?
SusanMCM 2 years ago 2
Why I have to read a book which will fill the blanks with faith? Wiker is a joke... BIG joke!
ijaju 2 years ago
You have no empirical evidence to prove there is no God. Ironically your atheistic beliefs use the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone." (That cracks me up). Refusing to investigate the counter arguments, prove your position is by prejudice not discernment. You can do better than that. Hahn & Wiker used reason to demonstrate the inconsistent and illogical arguments used by Dawkins, not faith. Their book takes Dawkins shoddy arguments point-by-point. Are you up to the challenge?
SusanMCM 2 years ago
Like I say, wiker is a joke, no one sensible does not take him seriously. hanh is just an idiot :)
Give to me something which can take seriously! not ridiculous... I mean religious nonsense...
And you don't know me, you don't know what I have been read, who I have been.... You don't know my thoughts now or past... so f*ck off!
...Damn I was a christian for too long... Fortunately, I woke up...
ijaju 2 years ago
Too bad, I thought we had the beginning of an interesting conversation until you told me to "F" off. I'm outta here.
SusanMCM 2 years ago
you should read steven kutai. you'd have no reason not to be a Catholic.
usrss 2 years ago
then why did you say I WAS an atheist if you still are. I find it hard to belive you understand anything you read, you barly understand the things you say.
zekiDan 2 years ago
Se o poju su ongelma, ei mu :)=
ijaju 2 years ago
please speak english not Finnish or what ever that is
zekiDan 2 years ago
I think his point might be that while he doesn't fully grasp the english language, you don't grasp his native language at all. :)
As to him saying that he WAS an atheist, he explains quite clearly that reading the god delusion only strengthened his view.
PanWolven 2 years ago
look I understand what he wanted to say, I merly stated that he didnt say it cause of his poor abillty to make statments. I mean if he's not organized and rational enough to make statements why shuold we consider his veiws rational
and as for his finnsh I know it too and it is poorer then his english which is why I made the comment, "what ever that is", about it cause its so bad its hard to tell what it is.
zekiDan 2 years ago
Moron!!
danvdm 2 years ago
I think he did a good job critiquing atheism and he had some good points but I don't think this belief system will die out soon. However I certainly hope so.
Kazae02 2 years ago
How so did he do a good job of it? And in what way is atheism a belief system?
PanWolven 2 years ago
Welcome Home
grekito 2 years ago
If anyone actually makes the effort to trudge through "The God Delusion" they will see why it is so irrelevant. The first 2 chapters are coherent, but essentially say "there is rational religgion and bad religion - I will ignore the rational and bash the bad". So the book shoots itself in the foot and vanishes into irrelevant polemics against weird Internet fundamentalists; a fad against fads! Ignores the whole masive edifice of Western culture built on Greek philosophy, Judeo-Christianity etc.
mhopwood1 2 years ago 13
I wonder if many atheists are even willing to discuss matters, and if given a satisfactory explanation to each of their doubts, would they consider that they could be in error?
Maybe I'm meeting the wrong atheists, but the ones I'm meeting on the internet are far more concerned about "winning an argument" than searching for truth; even if they have to end an argument with "you're an idiot". I would enjoy debate, but this egocentric hostility towards Christians defies any kind of approach.
jarkoer 2 years ago 8
Considering that your description of atheists is how I tend to experience religious people might it not be that they're just reacting to your own stubborn inability to admit the faults of your own view?
Just putting it out there as a plausible possibility. ;)
PanWolven 2 years ago
@jarkoer i guess it is well to assume everyone is open to the truth, but to be on the lookout for people who are just time-wasters b/c some are not really interested in truth, at least not at the present time. Here is a short (<1min) clip of Dr William Lane Craig talking about his experience with this:
watch?v=V5RIbrFv51M
and this is a longer clip that i found funny b/c it's so true:
watch?v=dnpa_kQaCgA
i think atheists unknowingly begin to reject rational thought when they reject God.
urbanh196398105 1 year ago
Kevin, you and your son are better men than I. I would have bet the kid and taken his money.
tmfarg 2 years ago
I remember watching this on TV. I loved this one! The kid didn't even read the book! lol
1Hope4All 2 years ago 2
Yea, atheists don't read ... this bloviating imbecile has a child whom he has no doubt well-inoculated against reason.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Funny that DeimosSaturn has just proven me right.
"They are absolutely terrified."
Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. As well as an appeal to emotion. These must be his favorites.
muertos06 2 years ago
That's not an ad hominem fallacy. Ad Hominem is when someone uses a personal defect as the soul reason for why their opponent's argument is wrong. I am saying the religion as a whole is terrified because corporations are afraid of loosing their customers so they slander their competitor as being a "flash in the pan". You set them up, I knock them down.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
You're right KolbeKrew. Supposedly God has "died" long ago. Thus spoke Nietzsche, who then died a mental patient.
If anyone ever happens to bump into Fred, tell him that there is indeed an up and down left. And the only way to lose it is to lose your ontological axiom; to wipe away the horizon as he so clearly realized. But now he is dead.
muertos06 2 years ago
These guys are just dismissing the fact that more and more people are coming out as disbelievers by labeling it a fad because really, they are afraid. They are absolutely terrified. The harder they push, the harder we push back and these days we tend to win most of the battles because rationality and evidence are on our side.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
A fad? Is Christianity not just a fad that has managed to drag on for the last few centuries? This is exactly the type of people that are leading this world to chaos. Pointing a finger at the atheist and calling him irrational for not believing in talking snakes and bushes is just ludicrous.
bartshejr 2 years ago
Lol
ImTheRiffRaff and hal2017 are precisely what pop atheism is about: ad hominem, false dichotomy, appeal to ridicule, and poisoning the well. The cultural movement of fallacies.
Whatever happened to respectable atheists who were intellectually honest? Like Nietzsche and Hume?
Go ahead and respond. You'll probably commit a genetic fallacy, seeing as that's what pop atheism is best at doing.
muertos06 2 years ago
Muertos06 is precisely what pop apologetics is about: red herrings, labeling things as fads thereby dismissing them as youthful rebelliousness so you don't have to actually address their arguments, condescension, and obfuscation. The death rattle of religion.
Whatever happened to respectable Christians who were intellectually honest? Oh, they never existed.
It's funny how you christians have to perform damage control for your dwindling church attendance by characterizing it as "pop atheism".
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
People like muertos06 will be saying "soon this whole atheism business will blow over and we will go back to controlling people's lives any day now" when it's the year 2050 and 80% of the population positively believe that God is a superstition. Enjoy the good ol' days while they last because the time of religion is finished.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
"Whatever happened to respectable Christians who were intellectually honest? Oh, they never existed."
Lol, I believe your credibility has just gone out the window. Your emotional theatricality doesn't speak much, except to those who consider subjective emotional appeals as objective conterpoints. I don't want to "control" anybody. Good strawman you got there.
Oh by the way, I consider myself a youthful rebel as well.
Let me know when you rid yourself of your fallacies and theatrics.
muertos06 2 years ago
Fallacies? What fallacy? Rebel? religion is never rebellious especially when the religious have established their religion as the mainstream. You just don't get it.
And isn't all the pageantry that goes on in religious rituals all about theatrics?
Anyway, please don't dismiss your falling church attendance as pop atheism. We're simply winning.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
"You just don't get it."
"We're simply winning."
Lol, if assertions are the best you have in your arsenal, then I'm afraid that speaks volumes on your behalf.
muertos06 2 years ago
lol, if I could leave out all the important points in my opponents arguments, I could also act as immune to arguments as you.
Address the pageantry that is religious ritual. Address the challenge to find a fallacy in my arguments. Address that religion is inherently not rebellious.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
Excellent answers:
-God Is No Delusion, by Thomas Crean, O.P.
-Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, by David Bentley Hart
Jitpring 2 years ago
The most rationale, logical defense of God and Jesus is C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" AND Lewis was originally an aethist. He said that God pursued him and ran him down from behind, logically.
/watch?v=LxJwSIIqQrU
What convinced me that Satan exists, besides the daily news, was Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters" which scenario I see in mankind, and right here on youtube, everyday.
exenrontexas 2 years ago
LOL - Invisible sky daddies and zombies, now that's rational!
hal2017 2 years ago
Oh, it's no fad. The cat is out of the bag.
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago