alec said:
Important message: Vatting this post of mine will only prove one thing: that I am right (and you can't cope with that). So beware and think this over.
Not really, vatting this would mean we expect more from our members than for them to blow their top and start insulting other members for no apparent reason. I won't vat it, though, because you're only making yourself look pretty stupid like this, and you should be well aware of that.
alec said:
Or is that a problem for someone who started studying languages
Untrue.
alec said:
Which also reminds me of this: the box of tricks you use in your meagre attempts to prove certain people wrong, is becoming less and less surprising.
How does this this statement disprove what I said? You don't seem to adress it anywhere else.
alec said:
For a self-proclaimed student of Roshambo
Untrue. Rosh is banned, I'm not.
alec said:
Your ego is big enough as it is, trust me.
Yes, obviously I'm the one with self-awareness problems. Man, do I feel like I'm talking to Terrel Owens here.
alec said:
Another reason why I would want to post yet again in this holy thread after saying I wouldn't?
It's pretty obvious you're posting again because you can't stay away, because you care about this subject too much. I don't know why you're trying to make up excuses for this, as it is nothing to be ashamed of, but be sure everyone is aware of it.
alec said:
It has come to my attention that this whole thread is yet again about the eternal struggle of a bunch of religious zealots to defend their lunacy.
Really? How so? I'm not religious.
alec said:
Now, some of these characteristics are more important than others, but none is so important that it alone can make a religion. If atheism lacked two or three of these characteristics, then it would be a religion. However, atheism lacks every one of these characteristics. It does not explicitly exclude most of them, but then again: the same can be said for almost anything. In any case, it is not possible to call atheism a religion or to even compare it with one. They are completely different categories.
The comparison is obviously that atheism can share the fanatic elements of theisms in when and how it is defended. This is a personality trait of its proponents, not a mark of the term itself. Your statement does not invalidate this comparison.
alec said:
See, by claiming that atheism is simply another "faith", atheists' critiques of religious beliefs become hypocritical and can be ignored.
I'd like you to point out who made that claim in this thread. If only you perceive it, it's an irrelevance.
alec said:
However, I just explained to you dunces that the claim that atheism is a religion is based upon a misunderstanding of one or both concepts. Therefore, it must proceed from flawed premises.
Heh, yeah, very conclusively, by stating your own definition of religion, then not stating any definition of atheism, and claiming the two are obviously completely incompatable.
Some academic standard.
alec said:
How can you expect me, good ol' wishy-washy alec, to SENSIBLY discuss matters like religion and all the evil it has done to societies and individuals if you bunch of retards can't even adequately define what religion is?
Or adequately stick to your definition?
alec said:
(And no, there is no need to go all postmodern on my arse, Annie, I am well aware of Derrida and all those other fucktards who claim that definitions can not really exist in our realm, so spare yourself the trouble to show off yet again with your rather limited knowledge of the world around you.)
I wasn't about to say that, but I do admire your debating method of telling another person what he's going to say and then telling him he's wrong. You must win a lot that way.
alec said:
Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
No it isn't. I'm sorry to go into the all-feared semantics here, but you can't just define a word wrongly like that. Athiesms means BOTH the absence of believe in any gods OR the denial of Gods;
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
alec said:
This is yet another common mistake theists make: they argue that people choose to be atheists and, hence, will be held accountable for such a (sinful) choice.
Ok, this is getting a bit sad, I'll be honest with you. You're not arguing with anyone but yourself here, alec, why exactly are we supposed to be the target of your derision and self-conflict if nobody made any statements you're fighting here?
alec said:
Then why did I become an atheist? Who will tell?
More importantly, who would care? I'm guessing no one.
alec said:
Because, quite simply, I have experienced ongoing discrimination because of my disbelief in gods (school, work, family).
That might be because you refer to anyone that disagrees with you as part of the "Confederacy of Dunces", dude.
alec said:
Theists are easily offended by my views, but seem to lack the necessary braincells to figure out that their views are equally offending for me.
Please point where in this thread you've been attacked by a theist as violently and offensively as you're attacking them now.
alec said:
Do you think I enjoy looking at your so-called holy places? Do you think I appreciate your symbols in my life? Do you think I should just accept your statements and try to live happily together with 7 billion people of which 90% believe in something that I do not believe in? Oh, I should at least try, you say? Then you should try living in a world where 90% of the people claim to believe in supernatural beings even though they have insufficient empirical evidence to support such an absurd claim. It pisses me off. It's like looking at a blue sky and everyone else is claiming it's pink. Who are you trying to fool, fools?
So you're saying you are offended by people not sharing your opinions?
Very Enlightened.
alec said:
Nevertheless, I rarely do what theists do constantly: I do not spread the word like a veneral disease.
Really? You're offended by people not sharing your opinion yet you also refuse to spread your word, thus leaving them disinformed and not sharing your opinion, thus offending you? I can see how that world-view would work for you.
Also, looking at this thread, I see only one person violently pushing his opinion on people. And it ain't Santa!
alec said:
I simply explain what atheism is, what it is not, and whilst I'm at it, I try to refute as many myths and misconceptions as possible.
This is different from converting how? Jehova's Witnesses just explain what they belief too.
alec said:
I explored and explore the nature of religion, theism and other types of beliefs.
I am no doubt greatly impressed by your mind and grand ability to refer to other people as children!
alec said:
I want people to think more sceptically and critically in general. And if I am flaming you sorry bunch of dunces, it is simply because I want you to stop being so gullible and to use your own mind to think about these kind of things.
Yes, because obviously you're the most original thinker here.
Oh, wait...nope.
alec said:
So they combine their forces and fling this remark at me
There you go again telling people what they say. I can just imagine how you think you're more right than everyone else, what with you pushing wrong opinions into their mouths.
alec said:
Oh, you poor old sod, everything you've said so far holds true
Nope.
alec said:
but do tell me this: why do you go through so much trouble if ultimately you cannot prove that god does not exist?
Never said it, never hinted at it, why are you pushing this opinion on me?
alec said:
Heh. That's always the last argument, isn't it? "Tee-hee, you cannot prove that god does not exist, and therefore atheism must be based on faith as well! Tee-hee!"
Actually, I'm unclear on what the last argument is here. You seem to think you're debating with me, but you've yet to adress any single point I've made. Who are you arguing with, again?
alec said:
Yeah, well think again you sorry bunch of dressed primates
That must prove you're right!
alec said:
They then often use this as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable since neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other.
That's a bit of a stupid argument, of course one has a "logical" place above the other. Not surprising. Atheism stems from Rationalism, which considers logical thinking the highest value. Then it goes to prove that using its own standards of measurement its conclusions are the most logical ones. Well, yeah, you can't argue with that, of course logically theism beats atheism, if you consider logic the greatest good.
But theism doesn't stem from rationalism, by its standards it is the greatest good, those standards just aren't logical ones.
Your whole way of arguing stems from the concept that logical thinking is the only possible right way of thinking, a fairly modern concept. You then force theists to go onto your grounds and force them to use logic to prove a concept that doesn't stem from logic at all.
Well, declare victory then, because you won. As long as you're narrowminded enough to limit your mind to confines of logic.
Which worked well for Marx. Heh.
alec said:
Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Well, get this: many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.
That is an assumption, that you justly call, a "belief", it is thus false, even logically.
alec said:
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.
That notion is grade school material, why are you even bothering us with it?
alec said:
What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist?
What if it's illogic to force logical demands on something that predates logic?
Ah, snap!
alec said:
One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary: that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.
But wait, you were just imagining the theist-puppet in your head debating about logical proof or disproof of God, when did we shift to scientific proof? Are you kidding me here? You just shifted your definition of the problem in the middle of explaining it, do you seriously expect anyone to fall for party trick logic like that?
alec said:
Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. Say, Annie: remember Plato? Why, wasn't he the one who stated that "to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation"? Or does anyone know of this litlle anecdote: when the French physicist Pierre Simon de Laplace explained his theory of the universe to Napoleon, Napoleon is said to have asked, "Where does God fit into your theory?" to which Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
Wow, that's great, you once again disproved religion by subjecting it to your own set of standards! Man, I wish I could think up a set of standards so I could disprove things that use a different set of standards too! I'd be right in everything!
alec said:
The goodness of an explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces
No, that's how you measure "the goodness of an explanation." And what the hell kind of unscientific thing is this "goodness"? What kind of goodness?
alec said:
The realization that the traditional God of theism is not needed to explain anything (that there is nothing for him to do) has even led a number of theologians to call for the rejection of this notion of god: for instance Michael Donald Goulder and the Reverend Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of New Jersey. Both agree with Stephen J. Gould that religion should not be in the business of trying to explain the world. One can only imagine the strength these people must have needed to take such a decision.
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Are you even trying?
alec said:
No, for our inability to provide a natural explanation may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces.
May be hence must be? Now you're not even following your own rigid standards of logic anymore.
alec said:
Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations
Inherent how?
alec said:
Theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it.
"Scientifically justified". Again, your values are not universal.
alec said:
TI have a whole bunch of other atheistic thoughts and views which will blow you away.
Are you kidding me? So far all you've done is offer boring, predictable and cliched quotes and opinions that I've read many times before, even at my young age. There's nothing original about anything you said, and I seriously doubt you have any argument to offer that I haven't seen before.
It'd be easier for you if you lived in another age, one in which rationalism could still be defended to be a fair standard to try and measure and control the entire world. That age is long gone, though. Welcome to the 21st century, man, where you logic is pretty darned invalid!
