|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Bad advice for atheists
Posted on: July 21, 2009 - 12:48pm
   Offline
Bad advice for atheists
Internet christian Doug Eaton is kind enough to give advice to us! Isn't that nice of him? And he gets everything so right too...
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
How lovely that this guy made a comedy for me to watch while I had a few tokes.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
He's a Garage Philosopher. Yay!
good idea
*Hyuk, take my advice instead. After all, I'm a dumbass with absolutely zero understanding of non-theistic worldviews making a vlog in my decrepit garage.*
Who does this guy think he is? I'm drowning in arrogance.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
1. Who ever said that the flying spaghetti monster was a really good argument for anything?
2. Fuck you Doug. There are immoral people everywhere. The point is that there are immoral christians.
3. Did you have some specific item in mind or are you just going on a vague idea that any argument that does not prove the christian god... um, did you actually have a point?
4. So if there is an argument based on evidence, it is not true? Well, what does that say about the crap that you are peddling that is based on no evidence?
5. OK, I don't believe in your god. That would be one less than you. Just for shits and giggles, let's say that I actually did believe in the Norse gods. I would still believe in one less god that you do. Do the Norse gods explain any of that any better than the one that you can't prove the existence of?
6. See #3. Did you have an example in mind or are you blowing smoke up my ass yet again?
7. Again, fuck you Doug. I don't need to believe in things that have been proved. After all, they have been proved. Belief is for that other thing that you still have not proved.
8. So can god make a rock so big...Hell fuck you Doug.
9. The presupposition that god does not exist? Just who told you about the thesaurus? In any case, fuck you yet again Doug. Give me a reason to believe in god that is not based on the presupposition that god does on fact exist.
10. Umm, what about the concept of your god as first cause? Or the idea that your god already knows everything that will ever happen? How much room is there for free will in your world view? Don't bother answering, I already know that you are just going to change the rules (which itself says something about free will BTW). Fuck you Doug.
=
Wow. Welcome to the internet you might want to read it sometime. The FSM and the tooth fairy are used all the time as by atheist you absurdly think they've made some crushing argument.
Ah vulgarity. The bastion of weak minds, poor education, and a lack of vocabulary. I love that you just proved the point.. Are you secretly a theists working to convert atheists.
Hmm his point was clear and unavoidable. More evidence for a weak mind and lack of education?
Ah the old there's no evidence for faith lie. Based on denying any evidence that doesn't fit into your tight little assumed world view. Not doing to good so far are ya?
Wow.. no simple math escapes you. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Not believing one less god. Also interesting how you ignore the whole point of his statement.
Having to defend your worldview. But given the depth of thought we've seen so far I highly doubt you'd be up to such a task.
Once again.. something simple and easy to understand is missed. hmmm?
Wow. Once again missing a very simple concept. But logic and philosophy are not really big things on the atheist list. And once again the lie that faith is believing things without evidence. Yes, Yes I know. The atheists have been corrected on it over and over, but really are you surprised reality isn't particularly important to them.
So you completely skip this one and ramble some hateful nonsense instead. Good work.
Ah once again. Missing the whole point and responding with irrationality and hatred. I understand he used a common word that had many syllables. It must have frightened you.
I think we are used to the pattern by now. Ignore what was actually said. I mean it would be devastating to his atheism. Respond with irrationality and hatred.
Out of a possible 10 points I award you -37,395
So what we have is even more proof for what I've realized after over 4 years of dealing with atheists online: ignorant(as in lacking knowledge), irrational, and full of hate.
Your responses have been so irrational and so absurd I am left with 3 possibilities.
You are five and have a really bad potty mouth and your mommy and daddy should wash it out with soup.
You have developmentally disabled and they are allowing you on the internet one hour a day at the home.
Or you are actually a Christian trying to make atheists look bad.
Not really. Use of vulgarity is not indicative of the education, mind, or vocabulary of a person. That's just an assumption on your part based on a prejudiced view of vulgarity and those that use it; not based on evidence. For example I have an extensive vocabulary, it's better than most Americans. My education was adequate, and my mind is rather quite strong. I'm an autodidact(look it up). Yet I swear a lot in my everyday conversations. Just because some people swear to emphasize their point, it doesn't automatically mean that they are limited to this use of vulgarity.
Unless you can cite some evidence that backs up your claim, I'm just going to have to regard it as typical jerk response. Ad Hominem Fallacy: you are attacking the person rather than the argument.
ciarin.com
You should try "dealing with" atheists who don't, intentionally or otherwise, mirror the tactics of the bulk of their theist adversaries.
Mind you, if you restrict your "dealing with" people to online confrontations I am surprised you have not formed the same character assessment of train-spotters, mushroom pickers and members of the Barney the Dinosaur Club. Bile and spleen-venting seems to be the online way.
The guy in the video makes a pile of assertions. He makes no attempt at proving these assertions (for a very obvious reason) and concentrates instead on debunking what he thinks are atheist assertions gainsaying his view. That's about as clever as a theist can get (not very, in other words) - and it doesn't suffice in terms of promoting any assertion beyond just that. Calling it "advice" to atheists is simply compounding the arrogance of confusing feelings and fact with the arrogance of assuming such confusion places him at an intellectual advantage over people who have actually used reason to form logical deductions which contradict his stance. Bullshit, in other words, and par for the course within the religious mind-set.
I have higher standards than that, myself. Life is too short to live it so far up one's own ass.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
It depends on the definition you're using.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
"(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
"3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith
"A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, empirical evidence. It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety."
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
=
Some thoughts on Doug's statements:
1- The FSM is based on pasta. Pasta can be seen, the invisible gods can't. Duh!
2- Vulgarity is in the ear of the beholder while Christians clearly admit they are evil immoral people even in their confessions. No contention here, Christians are immoral when observed by others. I consider praying to a god to heal a child to be immoral for example, especially when the child dies from a treatable illness such as diabetes.
3- If one has a problem in arguing with a theist and claims that such and such does not support the existence of the Christian god the theist has but only to produce the god on a lab table and we will immediately admit the errors of our position. Does he have a specific point here, if so make it.
4- If a scientific explanation based on facts in reality isn't sufficient to indicate truth then there is no point in further discussion with this particular theist as they are in the "land of never was".
5- If one believes in one less god meaning no gods then all we see must have basis in the real world not the land of fantasy and wishful thinking. Could that be? Again, just put the god on the lab table for examination and you'll win your point. No god, no points.
6- Not sure of his point on metaphysics. If one is strictly speaking of religion and metaphysics or what. Need more info.
7- If one has empirical evidence one has proof and belief is not required. Duh!
If one claims to only accept concepts with empirical evidence the point is that without proof the concept could be faulty and fail. I don't get where he's going here it's bizarre.
8- He should have listened to what he said here about logic before he posted this.
9- He seems to like double talk and circular misrepresentations. If one argues that there is a lack of evidence for a god all the believer needs to do is put the god evidence on a lab table to prove his point. Where's the problem here, show me if you got the cards, if not come back if and when you ever have anything more than claims and conjecture. As no specific point is made what else can one say.
10- Is this guy related to Paisley?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
WillieBop must be new to the internet, theology, logic, etc. Otherwise he'd have figured out why noone bothered with a serious response. Let me help the poor deluded child:
Everything coming from the vid and from you has been refuted. As in YEARS AGO. If I had a working pc here, I'd tear you and the vid apart for the lulz. I don't, so I refer you to a grade school education instead.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.