Vote.. on this atheistic position

[>< V ><]

I think DepricatedZero is labouring under the delusion that if he types "overruled" often enough then it will start to mean something relevant. Whether you accept my objections or not is meaningless, so I suggest you return under the bridge you periodically emerge from.

Oh and, according to your post, (using "overruled." as a search-term),there are no less than 9 instances of you saying just that, in ONE post, all of which were made in this thread, all in one day.

*lol* At a cursory glance, my initial instincts tell me that it's designed to be distracting, to distract from your flawed arguments... it looks to be nothing more than a ploy, in a vain effort to encourage people to perceive your arguments to be more compelling, than they actually are.












Wow, do I feel stupid using the reasoning of a moderator and contributor of the League of Reason.

Fear not DepricatedZero, unlike your cohorts, I will respond with something intelligent. I just wanted to open up some blinders and let the Sun shine in.

 

[bluejatheist]

I think DepricatedZero is labouring under the delusion that if he types "overruled" often enough then it will start to mean something relevant. Whether you accept my objections or not is meaningless, so I suggest you return under the bridge you periodically emerge from.

Oh and, according to your post, (using "overruled." as a search-term),there are no less than 9 instances of you saying just that, in ONE post, all of which were made in this thread, all in one day.

*lol* At a cursory glance, my initial instincts tell me that it's designed to be distracting, to distract from your flawed arguments... it looks to be nothing more than a ploy, in a vain effort to encourage people to perceive your arguments to be more compelling, than they actually are.



Wow, do I feel stupid using the reasoning of a moderator and contributor of the League of Reason.

Fear not DepricatedZero, unlike your cohorts, I will respond with something intelligent. I just wanted to open up some blinders and let the Sun shine in.

Please continue

 

[australopithecus]

><V><'s ego stroking is a testament to how accurate Messrs Dunning and Kruger's work in psychology was.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I think DepricatedZero is labouring under the delusion that if he types "overruled" often enough then it will start to mean something relevant. Whether you accept my objections or not is meaningless, so I suggest you return under the bridge you periodically emerge from.

Oh and, according to your post, (using "overruled." as a search-term),there are no less than 9 instances of you saying just that, in ONE post, all of which were made in this thread, all in one day.

*lol* At a cursory glance, my initial instincts tell me that it's designed to be distracting, to distract from your flawed arguments... it looks to be nothing more than a ploy, in a vain effort to encourage people to perceive your arguments to be more compelling, than they actually are.



Wow, do I feel stupid using the reasoning of a moderator and contributor of the League of Reason.

Fear not DepricatedZero, unlike your cohorts, I will respond with something intelligent. I just wanted to open up some blinders and let the Sun shine in.

Please continue

I about fell out of my chair laughing, in the office no less

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I about fell out of my chair laughing, in the office no less

I actually broke my chair today, but that's another story...

 

[>< V ><]

I know it's been a while since you posted - that's a typical tactic, hide until you think we've forgotten.

><V><'s ego stroking is a testament to how accurate Messrs Dunning and Kruger's work in psychology was.

Since none of you are smart enough to determine what my motives are, I'll tell you. Atheists entertain me. This place is a circus and you are the clowns. You actually think I come here every couple weeks to prove my arguments to you? To stroke my ego? To fight for a cause? No, that's you people. You're the ones that are moderators and contributors of an atheist forum.

My job is basically arguing and I enjoy my job, I enjoy arguing. And on lazy days when I want some simple entertainment that requires minimal brain power, one thing I do, is engage you people.

I find it entertaining how atheists talk and talk about reason, the League of Reason, the Reason Rally. Yet, when I ask for their reasoning on "why something isn't possible unless a reason to suggest it," they have no reason.

When I say having sex is not analagous to creating a universe, I find it thoroughly entertaining that australopithecus's response was reasonless.

I find it thoroughly entertaining that at the League of Reason, people like Dean and bluejatheist, will make comments about me when not even having read my arguments. They just want to cheerlead for their team. No reason or reasoning, just shish goom ba, go team go!

I find it entertaining that you people wanted to engage me in debate with all your reason and reasoning, at the League of Reason, and now you can't hang, because you've run out of reasons. "Why something isn't possible unless a reason to suggest it" is the end of your reasoning. It stops here. You have no arguments that defend your assumption let alone any arguments beyond it.

I find it entertaining that DepricatedZero will argue belief is boolean, which means T = B + N, and then say T = B + N "isn't at all what I use." That's funny. Because he thinks he's so smart, yet, can't even understand, even with his totally awesome programming skills that boolean means two choices and that this demands the total number of people be the sum of those two choices.

I find it hilarious that atheists almost solely defend their position on God, without ever mentioning God. Atheism is simply not a choice. It's the natural, default response of a baseless claim. As DepricatedZero said, atheism is like getting raped, you just have no choice. Out of all the "controversies" that are and have been, atheism is probably the only position to ever argue they don't have a choice.

I find it absolutely hilarious that an average atheist like DepricatedZero will argue and argue that he must be given some knowledge if he is going to believe. And then argue to an agnostic like me, that I have to choose theism or atheism, regardless of whether or not I have knowledge to do so.

That's funny, because it should be obvious that is the logical fallacy, special pleading, that he needs knowledge for his beliefs, but I don't. But none of you show any recognition of that. And what's even funnier, is some of you will actually try to validate that logical fallacy.

But what I find to be probably the most amusing thing about atheists is their so-called admiration for science and demand for evidence.

I put forth my claims, my hypotheses, my philosophy, my assumptions, my supporting arguments. I challenge the opposition while defending myself. I put forth credible supporting evidence.

1) "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God., I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

-Charles Darwin


2) I leave you with these final words from Bertrand Russell.

At 0:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw

"Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe it and if it isn't, you shouldn't. And ah, if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, you should suspend judgement."


3) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

"'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

"'Agnostic' is more contextual than is 'atheist', as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it."



4) Richard Dawkins "7-point belief scale".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9103685/Richard-Dawkins-Im-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html

Dawkins even states exactly my position. I support 50% true, 50% false.



5) http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf

I found it humorous that this correspondence, in one of the most prestigious journals ever in the history of mankind, doesn't even mention theist or atheist as a belief, but they do agnostic.




This is how science works and despite atheists claimed admiration for science, they reject the notion that one needs to argue their position and support it with evidence.



As evidence, show me where one atheist here has offered evidence that supports their fanatical redefining of terms?



Darwin, Dawkins, Russell, Standford, Nature support the position I'm arguing.


And all you have.....is words.

And that's funny, coming from a group of people so adamant about having evidence.




Thanks for the candy.

 

[bluejatheist]

I know it's been a while since you posted - that's a typical tactic, hide until you think we've forgotten.

><V><'s ego stroking is a testament to how accurate Messrs Dunning and Kruger's work in psychology was.

Since none of you are smart enough to determine what my motives are, I'll tell you. Atheists entertain me. This place is a circus and you are the clowns. You actually think I come here every couple weeks to prove my arguments to you? To stroke my ego? To fight for a cause? No, that's you people. You're the ones that are moderators and contributors of an atheist forum.

My job is basically arguing and I enjoy my job, I enjoy arguing. And on lazy days when I want some simple entertainment that requires minimal brain power, one thing I do, is engage you people.

I find it entertaining how atheists talk and talk about reason, the League of Reason, the Reason Rally. Yet, when I ask for their reasoning on "why something isn't possible unless a reason to suggest it," they have no reason.

When I say having sex is not analagous to creating a universe, I find it thoroughly entertaining that australopithecus's response was reasonless.

I find it thoroughly entertaining that at the League of Reason, people like Dean and bluejatheist, will make comments about me when not even having read my arguments. They just want to cheerlead for their team. No reason or reasoning, just shish goom ba, go team go!

I find it entertaining that you people wanted to engage me in debate with all your reason and reasoning, at the League of Reason, and now you can't hang, because you've run out of reasons. "Why something isn't possible unless a reason to suggest it" is the end of your reasoning. It stops here. You have no arguments that defend your assumption let alone any arguments beyond it.

I find it entertaining that DepricatedZero will argue belief is boolean, which means T = B + N, and then say T = B + N "isn't at all what I use." That's funny. Because he thinks he's so smart, yet, can't even understand, even with his totally awesome programming skills that boolean means two choices and that this demands the total number of people be the sum of those two choices.

I find it hilarious that atheists almost solely defend their position on God, without ever mentioning God. Atheism is simply not a choice. It's the natural, default response of a baseless claim. As DepricatedZero said, atheism is like getting raped, you just have no choice. Out of all the "controversies" that are and have been, atheism is probably the only position to ever argue they don't have a choice.

I find it absolutely hilarious that an average atheist like DepricatedZero will argue and argue that he must be given some knowledge if he is going to believe. And then argue to an agnostic like me, that I have to choose theism or atheism, regardless of whether or not I have knowledge to do so.

That's funny, because it should be obvious that is the logical fallacy, special pleading, that he needs knowledge for his beliefs, but I don't. But none of you show any recognition of that. And what's even funnier, is some of you will actually try to validate that logical fallacy.

But what I find to be probably the most amusing thing about atheists is their so-called admiration for science and demand for evidence.

I put forth my claims, my hypotheses, my philosophy, my assumptions, my supporting arguments. I challenge the opposition while defending myself. I put forth credible supporting evidence.

1) "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God., I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

-Charles Darwin


2) I leave you with these final words from Bertrand Russell.

At 0:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw

"Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe it and if it isn't, you shouldn't. And ah, if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, you should suspend judgement."


3) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

"'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

"'Agnostic' is more contextual than is 'atheist', as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it."



4) Richard Dawkins "7-point belief scale".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9103685/Richard-Dawkins-Im-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html

Dawkins even states exactly my position. I support 50% true, 50% false.



5) http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf

I found it humorous that this correspondence, in one of the most prestigious journals ever in the history of mankind, doesn't even mention theist or atheist as a belief, but they do agnostic.




This is how science works and despite atheists claimed admiration for science, they reject the notion that one needs to argue their position and support it with evidence.



As evidence, show me where one atheist here has offered evidence that supports their fanatical redefining of terms?



Darwin, Dawkins, Russell, Standford, Nature support the position I'm arguing.


And all you have.....is words.

And that's funny, coming from a group of people so adamant about having evidence.




Thanks for the candy.

Your post is so much more effective and dramatic with all those spaces and ellipses. I bet you feel badass after that masterpiece!

 

[australopithecus]

First rule of being a troll is dont tell people you're trolling. See you later ><V><.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

My job is basically arguing and I enjoy my job, I enjoy arguing. And on lazy days when I want some simple entertainment that requires minimal brain power, one thing I do, is engage you people.

Now I'm hurt... :|

 

[SirYeen]

I've been a deist for quite a while. I stopped being a deist when I realized it's just a useful hypothesis that leaves me with more cognitive dissonance than anything else.

 

[Laurens]

I've been a deist for quite a while. I stopped being a deist when I realized it's just a useful hypothesis that leaves me with more cognitive dissonance than anything else.

What was the cognitive dissonance that you felt as a deist?

 

[SirYeen]

I've been a deist for quite a while. I stopped being a deist when I realized it's just a useful hypothesis that leaves me with more cognitive dissonance than anything else.

What was the cognitive dissonance that you felt as a deist?

Well the inevitable pointlessness that I felt, I realized that the reason I believed was because I wanted to and because god gave everything "sense". However when I saw hitchens argument which didn't even attack the deistic position about the 100 000 years of apathy (I can link if you'd like) I could no longer honestly believe he existed. The thing is god was still in the back of my mind as something that had died, but for now I can only say that the more information I absorb the less sense it makes for god to exist.

 

[Gila Guerilla]

For a deistic God,

I understand holding the position that you do not believe in it, based on knowledge that there's no good reason to believe in it.

But what is your position on Belief that there is no deistic god.

Are you
Sure in your belief that there is no deistic god?
do you believe there is no deistic god, but have low confidence in that belief?
is it only a suspicion that there is no deistic god? (and thus not something you could really say you believe there is no deistic god?)

There is a difference between ' belief that there is no [ . . . ] god ' and ' non-belief that there is a [ . . . ] god ' :
( [ . . . ] = fill in whatever type of god you wish).

I certainly don't believe that there is a deistic god, but that position is one that is open to change. But even if there were a deistic god, why should I care ? Maybe it would be of academic interest as a matter of logical possibilities in a philosophical pondering about metaphysical reification.

If I can live my life as I see fit, and not bother about said remote possibility, then I won't bother giving my time to the consideration of a 'might be', 'could be' deistic god. Why not just consider it all to be nature anyway? I'm only writing this post in passing, as I have just come upon this thread. I don't wish to debate the matter.