Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My "Beef" With Atheists
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 1 of 123 (482332)
09-16-2008 12:09 AM


Perhaps the the more appropriate title of this post should be "beefs," because there are quite a few.
I just got done watching a debate between an atheist and a believer, and I must say the entire thing was enthralling... I love a good debate. But it gave re-birth to fundamental issues I must hold against atheists and atheists alone, and I will spell each one out in detail throughout this post.
I know, believe, or presume this board is predominantly atheists, from my past "altercations" I've had with individuals on it, so please, like a moth to a flame, please do swarm. It is healthy for all.
And I want you all to know, I write this post with an eye towards objectivity and rationality, not towards any one side. Of course, you may think that is false, because of the set-up of this post, but I assure you it is not. I come into this with as agnostic a viewpoint as possible and I will fully detail exactly why my ire is directed towards atheism. Theists/Deists get a pass in my viewpoint (as I will explain), and agnostics can't be touched.
First of all, I would like to attempt to establish a basis for common ground. Common ground based on objective logic, which all could be forced to agree with. And a true meeting of the minds can always be found in the most simplistic language, and fundamental stances.
The only axiom I can perceive and truly hold to is that "we" and "this" are in fact here. At least in some form, whether or not it is in the form that has been presented to us of course cannot be determined, but one thing we do know is that there is a reality that has been presented to us, and which we all interpret. This is known personally and most subjectively as the earth on which we live, and more remotely as the universe we are a part of.
The question now is the following: does this axiom lend itself to the notion of an intelligent force behind it in a realm outside of it beyond our comprehension and perception, or does it lend itself to the notion of a spontaneous birth that arrived from no-intelligence and came forth from “nothing” itself?
Truthfully, I don't have the answer to that question. No one does, who can at least fully provide the required evidence to the rest of the world to make either side presumed correct.
My problem with atheists is that it is a fine personal belief... only in a world where the only axiom we know to be true, does not in itself exist. Atheism is a great belief in a reality where there is no reality. I'm all for it. And even then, I can't state atheism as a fact.
It appears as if, however, this is not the reality in which we live. This reality can most certainly in fact, lend itself to an outside intellect and force that we cannot comprehend, simply because of the only axiom we can empirically observe as fact. Why? Because of its very existence. In a world of "something" it hardly seems reasonable to assert that 'it came from "nothing"' as some sort of self evident truth. Therefore, to suggest that "something" came from "something" can be construed as a more reasonable stance. Of course, neither can be proven or dis-proven at this time.
Of course, 'what about the intelligent force itself', the atheist would respond. "Where did it come from? It must have come from nothing, so your argument is negated." My response is that I know absolutely nothing about this dimension/realm, do not know the laws that govern it, or even if there are any laws. In this dimension, the universal truth of why there is an intelligent force, and how long it has existed (which is kind of a faulty statement, considering time would most certainly be skewed or non-existent in comparison to our reality), could and most likely would make perfect sense, if the human mind could even comprehend it. The point is, by taking this stance at least you are paving the way for some sensibility to our universe, by leaving the door open to the possibility of what is unknown and could be, what is outside of this "shoebox." The path of the atheist is that of complete and utter insensibility and close mindedness. The atheist firmly shuts the door on all room for sensibility, "I cannot see it, it does not apply to this reality, therefore it doesn't exist, or demand any time of day in its possibility of existence. "It" is nothing more than a flying-spaghetti monster to me. Which is nothing but absurd. Why can’t you see that?"
Atheism is a unique beast in itself, in that simple rationale does not support it. Now, I’m not talking about weak atheists, or de facto atheists, who simply suggest that a higher power has not revealed itself in any way to me, so why should I recognize it as anything more than a fairy-tail like entity. This is sort of a primitive and distanced approach taken out of the book of mammals that do not have the ability to reason. They roam the world without the slightest concept of such a thing as a “God,” so why should I be any different? This approach is “I do not see it, therefore why should I even think about it as a reasonable concept. Therefore, I am not deciding for or against something I shouldn’t even be thinking about.
This is a much more distanced and agnostic approach, but still harbors traits of the close minded. It, in itself is a reasonable stance, however, it still completely shuts the door on the possibilities of the universe that the human mind should, and is capable of exploring.
Strong atheism, on the other hand, the general stance of there is no proof whatsoever, therefore “God doesn’t exist,” deserves the most rebuking. First of all, the proof thing can most certainly be debated (yes yes, not unassailable), but the circumstantial evidence of such a power (just how "loving" is not relevent) can certainly be depicted as nothing other than overwhelming.
And yet, there are people, and even those I’ve come across, that state as a fact that God does not exist. And they will go as far as rebuking, and mocking you for thinking otherwise. “Why are you creating up a fairy tale?” “If it wasn’t for the indoctrination that society has instilled in humans, the concept of a higher intelligence outside our reality wouldn’t even exist, no more than giant flying potato that rules over us all. And THERE IS NO POTATO, this is absurd, and why should I be expected to have anything to do with this.” I’m sorry, but the big difference is (as touched on earlier), we are here, reality does exist, we reside in a reality that is totally and utterly un-explained. And If I were isolated from all civilization on an island, I would come to the same conclusion, that has nothing to do with flying potatoes but rather, “Hmm, it seems quite reasonable to suggest that some kind of higher power/intelligence had a hand in creating what I see around me. Perhaps there is some sense and purpose to all of this. Just perhaps, maybe [sarcasm].” Hardly un-reasonable.
I think what it all boils down to, is true Atheism is most certainly a pathological disorder [perhaps related to narcissism] consisting of the following things somehow intertwined into a poisonous combination where the individuals who fall subject to it are blinded themselves. First of all, I think it’s a rebellion. So often, I think you will find that atheists at one point had some religious affiliation, found out how much bologna there was in all that, and completely went the other direction, and found the ultimate antithesis, atheism. But the rebellion goes further than this. It’s a rebellion against religious society as a whole, not only in the present, but going as far back as the birth of human existence.
Religious folks, believers in God/higher intelligence, can generally be construed as loons/brainwashed. And in this day and age, even radicals that threaten the very existence of human kind. “If these people are loons, and radicals, and brainwashed, why would I want anything to do with that they believe.”
Religious folks believers in God/higher intelligence throughout the centuries have been un-enlightened, un-informed, un-intelligent, barbarians, that had no understanding of science, and progress, and we are in an entirely different class from them! “If these people believed in God, and Gods and higher powers, why would I want anything to do with these primitive silly views? We have advanced science harnessed from the great minds of society that explain what they couldn’t. Belief in God/higher intelligence is simply old fashioned, and has no place in today’s society.
So rational or not, true atheism is the ultimate rebellion from the belief-set of our primitive forefathers, and the dimwits that still embrace and hijack such views today.
And more than this, and coinciding with this rebellion, is simply put, arrogance. The atheist has the answers that 95% of the world today, and 100% of the world of the past has been blind from. This makes them feel good, enlightened. Science has revealed that science itself reveals things in a way that everything makes sense, does not require supernatural explanations. Everything fits like a puzzle, and there is no higher intelligence required to put it together. “Guess what, I don’t want anything to do with your silly, primitive views, they are far beneath me. Dig your ditch, hold on to your gun; believe in your God, just like billions of loons today, and billions of loons of old, except there’s one thing you don’t know. You’re primitive, and I’m advanced. I’ve got science; you’ve got a black book written by some dudes with beards 1000s of years ago. I don’t care if there’s any sensibility whatsoever in our Universe, I don’t care that I think something that undoubtedly reflects intelligence came from nothing, when it could have just as easily come from something, say intelligent. You know why? Because I have the answer, and you don’t. And you’re most certainly ignorant. And I'm especially sick and tired of you trying to convert me to your non-existent God.”
And the most arrogant aspect of it all, is their inability to acknowledge that they simply don't know. Quite a pity.
I’m sorry, but as far as I can see, there cannot be many other possible explanations for the phenomenon of atheism. And I would like to say, I can give my full respect to agnostics. They acknowledge that the answer is beyond them. “Maybe there’s a higher intelligence, maybe there’s not, I just flipping don’t know .” Fair enough. Deists deserve some respect, for at least acknowledging that it makes more sense to presume that for “something” that comes out of “something” makes more sense than something coming out of nothing. Especially when that “something” is the most finely tuned clockwork one could begin to imagine. And the theist that states his beliefs as fact, can be grouped in the same category as the atheist, in terms of arrogance and close-mindedness. But at least he’s not making any reservations. He believes in something, quite frankly, because there is “something” that demands some sort of explanation. Either that, or there is absolutely no sense, sensibility or purpose to the universe. And yet, this is what the atheist embraces and insists on. Just doesn’t add up.
So in conclusion, simply put, in a world where we’re not here, atheism rocks as a belief set. Unfortunately, we wouldn’t be here to believe it. But under the unfortunate circumstance that we are here, I guess it only makes sense to put atheism where it belongs, and that’s certainly “not here.” It would be even better if it regressed to “nothing” that way it could reside peacefully with its shoddy explanation of reality’s existence. From “nothing” you came, and from “nothing” you will return.
----------
I may reply to comments that deserve response.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : bolding main points

"I want to know, if I can live with what I know... and only that."

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-16-2008 3:36 AM Watson75 has replied
 Message 11 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-16-2008 9:33 PM Watson75 has replied
 Message 15 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 9:49 PM Watson75 has not replied
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 09-16-2008 10:23 PM Watson75 has replied
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2008 1:08 AM Watson75 has replied
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 12:50 PM Watson75 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 123 (482344)
09-16-2008 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Watson75
09-16-2008 12:09 AM


How about a condensed version of your thesis?
Seems to me to be a lot of words to say not nearly that much.
How about posting your essential content as a new message in this topic? About 30 lines maximum.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 12:09 AM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 2:02 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 4 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 2:16 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 3 of 123 (482405)
09-16-2008 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
09-16-2008 3:36 AM


Re: How about a condensed version of your thesis?
I disagree. I think if anything, my thesis could be turned into a book, no less condensed. I think it flows well, and requires its current length to drive home the point effectively.
adminemooseus writes:
Seems to me to be a lot of words to say not nearly that much.
You know, I am essentially trying to debunk the very notion of atheism being a rational belief... and further, why it is still accepted irrationally. You try doing that in 30 lines or less.
If readers don't want to read it, that's fine. But I think you're taking moderating a bit too far here. Let the free market decide.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-16-2008 3:36 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2008 2:30 PM Watson75 has replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 4 of 123 (482408)
09-16-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
09-16-2008 3:36 AM


Re: How about a condensed version of your thesis?
And the bottom line is, I believe I provided a quality post, hot button or not, that should be welcome to discussion. It's good for a forum like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-16-2008 3:36 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 123 (482412)
09-16-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Watson75
09-16-2008 2:02 PM


A condensed Version
The following contains, I think, or argument and is about 90 % shorter.
In summary your argument is:
1) assume there is a reality
2) therefore there is a higher power.
First para -- not needed
2nd para not needed
3rd para nnot needed
4th para I want this to be a objective and reational discussion with no bias as to one side or the other.
5th para not really needed
6h para I assume that there is a reality. (AdminNosy note: there is a philosophical name for this but I forget it).
7th The question I am asking here is: Does making this assumption lead to the notion of an intelligent force behind it and that this force is in a realm outside and beyond our comprehension? Or does it lead to the opposite that things came from nothing with no intelligence involved?
8th para No one knows the answer at least no one can support their answer with evidence.
9th para This needs reworking or leaving out. It is not clear what it is saying.
10 para: Asserts an answer to para 7 question. Logic is not given just assertions made.
11 para: To the query, but where did the intelligent force come from? the answer is: There is no answer I don't know.
12 para: Assertions with no logical chain of reasoning. Makes clear that only strong atheism is being talked about.
13 para: not needed
14 para: Asserts there is circumstantial evidence for the existance of the higher power.
15 para: restates the case to be made: Reality exists therefore a higher power. It is not necessary to restate this again.
16 para: not needed, only tries to assign motives to those who disagrees. No contribution to the argument is made.
17 para: not needed contributes nothing to the argument.
18 para: same as 17
19 para: same as 16
'
20 para: same as 16 and 17 not needed either
21 para: save as 16
22 para: nothing to do with the argument
23 restates assertion not needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 2:02 PM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 7:09 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 6 of 123 (482470)
09-16-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminNosy
09-16-2008 2:30 PM


Re: A condensed Version
Dear lord. First of all, if you cannot even understand what my argument is, how can you even attempt to break my post down to a condensed version.
AdminNosy writes:
In summary your argument is:
1) assume there is a reality
2) therefore there is a higher power.
(First of all, to have painted that as the summary of my argument is either an insult to my intelligence, or you've just insulted yourself.)
Where do I state this once in my post? I am not making an "assumption/therefore this is true" stance regarding a higher power. I did state this axiom "lends itself" to the possibility of a higher power. Entirely different. And that's not even my argument!
My argument, which can only be properly presented and discoursed properly via the entire post, is the following...
'Atheism is a complete and utter insensible stance, because of the following....And further, here is why I believe this insensibility is blindly followed.
Which is only explained in the entire post, as a a whole. Sure, I could take a few things out here and there, make it maybe 10% shorter, but let's have 10 less kernels of corn while we're at it, and that way we won't exceed our daily calorie intake.
If you feel it necessary to pick apart an entire post, when you can't even pinpoint my argument which is stated multiple times and is very clear... ugh. Just ugh.
I might assume for whatever reason, you don't want this post to see the light of day, and that's just fine.
You're the admins, have fun abusing your power. If the post is that worthless, get it out there, and let it die. I won't even bump it.
But aren't we all here to discuss topics like this through intellectual back and forth? Yes, this post is my personal stance and I explain why. You don't have to agree. But that's what discussion boards are supposed to be all about. And my post may be
AdminNosy writes:
"illogical"
, but at least give folks the chance to explain why, it is healthy for all.
Nothing can be lost, and everything can be gained.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

"I want to know, if I can live with what I know... and only that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2008 2:30 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2008 8:01 PM Watson75 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 7 of 123 (482486)
09-16-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Watson75
09-16-2008 7:09 PM


Re: A condensed Version
My argument, which can only be properly presented and discoursed properly via the entire post, is the following...
Whatever your argument and however much I don't understand it the above statement isn't true. Something like half the paragraphs do not contribute to any argument of any kind. Remove those for a starter and let's see what is left.
pinpoint my argument which is stated multiple times and is very clear... ugh. Just ugh.
If is stated "multiple times" then the post is too long. Pick one good way to state it and go with that.
"Very clear" it may be but you must consider that you audience may have a number of people with my limited cognition and therefore it might not be clear enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 7:09 PM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 8:43 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 8 of 123 (482500)
09-16-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AdminNosy
09-16-2008 8:01 PM


Re: A condensed Version
Yes, there is some "fluff" in there, but what is the major problem with that? It is there to contribute to the post. Any book could be condensed to 30 lines, and I guess the rest is just 'fluff'. But you're left with nothing.
Why is it so bad to have a longer topic post? If certain people have "limited cognition" they are by no means forced to read it. So they miss out. And if people have the required cognition, then at least some are fortunate enough to be able to read through a relatively short and hopefully thought provoking post.
However by refusing to post it at all, no one gets the chance to respond, and or discuss. You seem to believe this is the superior option.
I've already condensed this as much as reasonable, I could remove "10 kernels" but that certainly wouldn't please you. Once again, if anything, this sort of a thesis demands being expanded rather than condensed, to something like 300 pages, not 30 lines. That I've condensed it to its current length, should be embraced.
I refuse to butcher my post, especially in the way in which you've suggested (you pretty much hacked it down to nothing).
I will compromise and put in bold the main ideas, so users can skim if they so choose.
Why is personal choice frowned upon so much here? Once again, if it's so long, and worthless, getting it out there can't hurt anything.
You are only denying the provocation of thought and ideas. What is this 1984? Your post and ideas are too long perhaps too suggestive. Why don't you start purging the words we can use while you're at it. That's another great way to limit expression.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

"I want to know, if I can live with what I know... and only that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2008 8:01 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2008 8:51 PM Watson75 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 9 of 123 (482503)
09-16-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Watson75
09-16-2008 8:43 PM


Another Admin?
Ok, your choice. Let's see if another admin will promote it. I am not going to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 8:43 PM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 9:09 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 12 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 9:33 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 10 of 123 (482508)
09-16-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AdminNosy
09-16-2008 8:51 PM


Re: Another Admin?
Not surprising.
Did you notice the bolding? Not only does this shorten the post (the reason you weren't posting it) but it should also make it an easier read for our users with the "limited cognition," which hinders their ability to read such a lengthy post.
There is no reason this shouldn't be obliging at this point, other than your pre-existing bias against such an argument. And if you're not an atheist yourself, I apologize.
I mean, I could understand if people were being "held to the flames" here, and were forced to read these posts. You could then say "It's not fair to force these folks read something so long, when you could condense it."
However, this is not the case.
The following is a paraphrase.
AdminNosy (Paraphrased) writes:
The far more appropriate and logical option is denying all the privilage to read/respond/discuss a longer post, as opposed to simply posting a longer post on these boards. That way no one can simply decide for themselves whether or not they want to read/respond/discuss a longer post. Volition? Never heard of it. We know what's good for the folks. And length is certainly harmful to the community. Very, very harmful.
I'm very, very sorry. But this is how you've painted yourself out to be. I'm not too fond of the representation of yourself. You really shouldn't be either.
Quash all dissent.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2008 8:51 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 11 of 123 (482515)
09-16-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Watson75
09-16-2008 12:09 AM


Substandard, but it will get promoted.
Strong atheism, on the other hand, the general stance of there is no proof whatsoever, therefore “God doesn’t exist,” deserves the most rebuking. First of all, the proof thing can most certainly be debated (yes yes, not unassailable), but the circumstantial evidence of such a power (just how "loving" is not relevent) can certainly be depicted as nothing other than overwhelming.
And yet, there are people, and even those I’ve come across, that state as a fact that God does not exist. And they will go as far as rebuking, and mocking you for thinking otherwise. “Why are you creating up a fairy tale?” “If it wasn’t for the indoctrination that society has instilled in humans, the concept of a higher intelligence outside our reality wouldn’t even exist, no more than giant flying potato that rules over us all. And THERE IS NO POTATO, this is absurd, and why should I be expected to have anything to do with this.” I’m sorry, but the big difference is (as touched on earlier), we are here, reality does exist, we reside in a reality that is totally and utterly un-explained. And If I were isolated from all civilization on an island, I would come to the same conclusion, that has nothing to do with flying potatoes but rather, “Hmm, it seems quite reasonable to suggest that some kind of higher power/intelligence had a hand in creating what I see around me. Perhaps there is some sense and purpose to all of this. Just perhaps, maybe [sarcasm].” Hardly un-reasonable.
I think what it all boils down to, is true Atheism is most certainly a pathological disorder [perhaps related to narcissism] consisting of the following things somehow intertwined into a poisonous combination where the individuals who fall subject to it are blinded themselves. First of all, I think it’s a rebellion. So often, I think you will find that atheists at one point had some religious affiliation, found out how much bologna there was in all that, and completely went the other direction, and found the ultimate antithesis, atheism. But the rebellion goes further than this. It’s a rebellion against religious society as a whole, not only in the present, but going as far back as the birth of human existence.
My impression is that the message 1 core is the above quoted. Even there there is a fair amount of redundant and/ or superfluous text.
I would boil it down to "Any absolute belief is irrational." To which I would agree. But I think any hard atheist would admit to having a little "agnostic" in him or her. Thus there is no such thing as an absolute hard atheist.
The concept behind this forum's proposed topic review procedures is that we wish to have a message 1 that is a clear and concise launching point for a debate. I'll promoted it as presented, but it will be with the administrative disclaimer that message 1 is considerably substandard.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 12:09 AM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 9:37 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 12 of 123 (482518)
09-16-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AdminNosy
09-16-2008 8:51 PM


Re: Another Admin?
Can I post a topic that's extremely condensed, and then reply with my current post to elaborate on the topic post?
If the bolding is not good enough, would this be fair?

"I want to know, if I can live with what I know... and only that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2008 8:51 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 13 of 123 (482519)
09-16-2008 9:34 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 14 of 123 (482521)
09-16-2008 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Adminnemooseus
09-16-2008 9:33 PM


Re: Substandard, but it will get promoted.
And I continually strive for substandardosity!
Thank you for the promotion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-16-2008 9:33 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 15 of 123 (482523)
09-16-2008 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Watson75
09-16-2008 12:09 AM


That's part of it (the core you presented), but I would say the core of the argument is closer to this.
Watson75 writes:
My problem with atheists is that it is a fine personal belief... only in a world where the only axiom we know to be true, does not in itself exist. Atheism is a great belief in a reality where there is no reality. I'm all for it. And even then, I can't state atheism as a fact.
It appears as if, however, this is not the reality in which we live. This reality can most certainly in fact, lend itself to an outside intellect and force that we cannot comprehend, simply because of the only axiom we can empirically observe as fact. Why? Because of its very existence. In a world of "something" it hardly seems reasonable to assert that 'it came from "nothing"' as some sort of self evident truth. Therefore, to suggest that "something" came from "something" can be construed as a more reasonable stance. Of course, neither can be proven or dis-proven at this time.
So I would have to ask, what is unreasonable about this stance?
As suggested in my post, I propose that atheism should vanish into either the belief set of agnostics, or deists. I mean, both just make more sense.
I feel to go as far as being an atheist, requires some sort of inner "knowiness," or "truthiness" as Colbert might put it. Otherwise, it's the product of rebellion, and arrogance, as outlined in my post.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 12:09 AM Watson75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Granny Magda, posted 09-16-2008 10:40 PM Watson75 has replied
 Message 19 by Blue Jay, posted 09-16-2008 10:50 PM Watson75 has replied
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2008 4:10 AM Watson75 has not replied
 Message 58 by RickJB, posted 09-17-2008 4:41 AM Watson75 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024