Oh silly theists, dont you see the big picture!!!
Posted on: October 15, 2009 - 8:35pm
Offline
Oh silly theists, dont you see the big picture!!!
THE BIG PICTURE!!!
Discussion after discussion, debate after debate, theists defend their absurd beliefs over and over using their ridiculous holy books. We (rational atheists) only scrutinize the small issues in the bible because you theists actually use that comical joke of a teaching book as the pillar of your belief system. We would much rather use our independent free minds to discuss worldview issues, but instead are forced to mentally demote ourselves to the level of these holy book preachers if we are one day to change the world and rid it of the immoral, irrational, illogical beliefs that will continue to inhibit us as we progress as a species.
Now this is such a massive problem when it comes to logical debate, we rationalists know that believing in one holy book over another is simply arrogant, irrational, and stupid in all senses of those words. How you continue to use scripture to prove scripture, illogical concepts to justify other illogical concept is so taxing to us. To the rational atheist any theist conforming to one religion as if it were more rational or logical than another is proof of their idiocracy, and delusion. We are all apostates to some religion, i am to all, but even YOU the theist are an apostate, just not in your own diluted mind.
Dawkins says it well, you are by pure LUCK born into a culture predominantly based in a certain faith, you could have been born to many other faiths with many other gods and you would have asserted their existence with the same amount of conviction. From the first time man looked up and said WTF am i doing here, their has been some form a religion/god . We can only assume that their have been many of unknown/barely known gods/religions over the years on top of all the ones recorded. I just can’t for the life of me understand how someone can logically state, "It’s not a fluke that I believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, it is because he is, it says so in the gospels." I mean seriously? Do you theists not see that with this statement you have committed intellectual suicide? The battle has already been won and we haven’t even got started. You spend your whole life dissecting the words in your holy books trying to make them logical and moral to your standards, I pity you, and this must be very tiring. We the independent minded intellectuals in the world KNOW that u are in a lower state of mental awareness to make such an arrogant statement as you found the right religion, and you and your religion are special.
What I see in the world today is the emerging of THE GREAT WAR!!!. The great war between the largely outnumbered independent minded rationalists, and the people who want to hold on to arrogant, immoral, and so obviously ridiculous beliefs. Why are we outnumbered? Well its simple, in the present and past common minded men (the majority) like to think they know it all, they like to get together with other no it alls who tell them what to know, so they feel in the know, so they can puff out their chests and tell other people what to know about thing they couldn’t possibly know. This is a internal disease based in insecurity, we the rational folk claim nothing with absolute conviction more than we can prove, and have absolutely no problem saying WE DONT KNOW IT ALL!!! . Anything that can’t be proven should only to be discussed civilly not asserted arrogantly, including the existence of god.
Our winning of this battle inevitable, that to us is obvious. Its just a matter of how long the growing snowball of rationalism will take to spread to all the corners of the earth and not only force u out of all positions of power, but leave u on the margins of society, although with a secular right to practice your faith, you will be taken as seriously as someone who believes in the reptilian race cover-up, and treated accordingly with a pat on the head and a ball given to play with "now you go on you". We know their are only 2 general outcomes of this war:
1)-The theist will be backed into a corner of their own ignorance, with the rising number of rationalists who oppose them some will use other methods than verbal ones to fight back, and "the crazies" will do something apocalyptical in an attempt to save their beliefs.
2)-The world will inevitably evolve past this arrogant way of thinking without being destroyed by one of "the crazies". The world will agree on one basic religious law: anyone claiming absolute truth on the issue is a complete nut job, and should be regarded as so.
Complete separation of religion and government is an absolute must in attaining a secular global society. And so in conclusion I’d like to first make a bold statement to all theists, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST!!! We rationalists are ahead of the evolutionary curve of the common man, we can see it coming, we know this shift in global enlightenment in inevitable, its just whether you do something catastrophic enough to stop its natural occurrence, which of course is our biggest fear, that the crazy's blow up the planet before the rationalists can save it. And to Rationalists of all kinds I’d like to make this statement, WE'VE ALREADY WON!!! This global enlightenment in inevitable with time, it’s just a matter of how long its takes us. This is of course determined by how hard we work to change it.
"SAVE THE WORLD, ONE MIND AT A TIME!!!"
(post cleaned up then featured on Homepage, Digg, and Stumbleupon by Brian Sapient)
- Login to post comments
"but perhaps you should avoid over-analyzing a simple question and make an effort to answer them at face value."
I'm sorry, but I wanted to make sure I was answering the 'right' question. If a question is unclear, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a clarification. I think you'll see, if you look at my other posts both on this thread and on others, that when a question is clear I do answer it without requesting clarification.
"I mean an instance where Christianity itself is the conclusion, not a tangent."
Again, I'm sorry, but this makes your question even more unclear to me. You originally asked,
"Would you discount the utility of faith if it leads one to discover a non-christian "truth"?"
But now you're asking about a situation in which it leads not to a non-Christian truth, but to "an instance where Christianity itself is the conclusion." I hope you see why I'm confused: how can the conclusion, "Christianity" ("an instance where *Christianity itself **is** the conclusion*") be a non-Christian truth?
Edejardin
And another thing :
Where did you think I picked up that "misconception" ? Not from Dawkins, that's for damn sure. In fact, I don't know a single theist who wouldn't happily and proudly agree to define faith that way.
Maybe you should disabuse a few theists before you start on the atheists.
1. By pretty much every theist I have ever listened to. Are you going to claim faith is not used to justify deity? Or is it only used that way by those too simple to understand the nuances of theology?
2. Your premise is that there is some kind of alternate reality where reason fails and that is something I see no evidence of. I see no use for faith and I do not see how it has done anything useful for man, or solved and problems. Reality is the realm of reason, not faith as you describe it.
3. And since you must have a reading comprehension problem, let me explain: My point was that that example is the only valid excuse for faith. When a scientist uses those words he means them in a different way. Simplicity, elegance and beauty do not prove anything in the scientific method and a scientist knows that. However, if there are two competing theories then those factors might help decide which is better, but the final arbiter will still be evidence. Something faith and faith claims usually seem to lack.
4. I am not going to write an essay about theology so you can get your jollies, but I can summarize, so you know I am not too confused.
4.1) He liked Aristotle and rationalized Aristotle's ideas about ontology with his theology.
4.2) Thomas' assumption that there cannot be an infinite regress is flawed. There could be an infinite regress. The universe could be infinite. Linear *anything* might be a total illusion, and who knows whether or not it existed before our universe did? Aquinas certainly didn't. And I still don't like the idea that god gets special pleading, even if it is rationalized as a necessity. We simply don't know how our universe was created, and assumptions about what *must have been* are clearly not anything you can state with certainty. I do know that pulling god out of a hat doesn't help make anything simpler, more elegant or beautiful.
Aquinas was brilliant, but I don't find his philosophical arguments about theology convincing.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
"Aquinas was brilliant, but I don't find his philosophical arguments about theology convincing."
But that's certainly in part because you don't understand them, as your response demonstrates. This is not to say that you would be persuaded if you did understand them; it's just to say that you manifestly don't understand them now, since you've made one of the most common of errors concerning his arguments.
"Thomas' assumption that there cannot be an infinite regress is flawed. There could be an infinite regress. The universe could be infinite. Linear *anything* might be a total illusion, and who knows whether or not it existed before our universe did? Aquinas certainly didn't. And I still don't like the idea that god gets special pleading, even if it is rationalized as a necessity. We simply don't know how our universe was created"
Aquinas *did not* argue that the there could not have been an infinite regress of temporal causation. In fact, he *famously* argued that his arguments *did not* concern *how the universe began*. Rather, he argues against the impossibility of a per se causal series, in which the the regress isn't temporal, but concerns *simultaneous* changes *here and now*. In other words, Aquinas's *arguments* aren't affected one iota if it turns out that the universe is eternal *because he never *argues* for a beginning*. (Now, Aquinas believed there was a beginning, but he didn't think it could be proved rationally; hence, his arguments don't rely *in any sense* on the notion that the universe began.) Aquinas's arguments are related to Kalam style arguments insofar as both belong to the same family of arguments, i.e. cosmological arguments, but they differ substantially.
So, the trend of atheists misunderstanding Aquinas continues...
Edejardin
"No, you didn't "disabuse" me of any notion whatsoever."
Kindly demonstrate, then, that both definitions of faith have the same properties. It cannot be done. I provided an argument, complete with an analysis of identity, while you've in essence replied with "Nuh Uh!" Well, okay, whatever floats your boat.
Edejardin
Actually, the people replying "Nuh Uh!" are the theists where I get my definition of faith from. Pretty much anything floats their boat.
Oh God, someone please pass me the fucking barf bag. Dude you're a fucking post-christian atheist, still deluded by the religion you supposedly renounced, with your Utopian beliefs of saved humanity, the myth of progress, a vision of the world filled with loving little creatures that eventually win a global war again the evil, dark immoral forces.
You've been watching too much lord of the rings. A great war huh? How many theist do you think even give a fuck about atheist, how many of them do u think actually care about debate forums, or this sort of dialog? If there's a great war going on, vast majority of people don't even know its being fought. Judging that only 1.5% of Americans consider themselves atheist, and religion is growing in various parts of the world, there as many Christians in china as there are members of the communist party. Individuals born into a religious household, 72% of them retain their religion, while individuals born into unaffiliated households less than half remain so (46%), only Jehovah witnesses are less likely to stick around.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
And judging that religious individuals tend to have more children than secular individuals, you tell me how this great war is looking?
The picture doesn't look too swell for atheism does it, on a global scale?
just face it dude, you're just peddling deluded bullshit, attempting to rile up the masses with myths. You can peddle you're delusions all you want, but what offends me, is your attachment of "rationalism" to them. You're view on history, progress, where the world is headed, is far from rational, it's pure make believe mythology, and entirely bogus.
But of course you're going to deny this adamantly, because that's how entoxicated you are by your delusions.
Hope you think twice before speaking about a saved humanity, and winning some great cosmic war next time. A south park parody of atheism should have taught you this lesson.
Thanks for your reply. I don't think I'll bother posing my question a second time though.
Truthfully edejardin, you have my utmost respect but I forsee a endless spiral of your wanting me to clarify ...then likely asking me to clarify my clarification .....and then wasting a gargantuan effort to arrive at an answer that in no way relates to my question, which btw could properly be answered with a profoundly meaningful Yes or No.
Thanks anyway. Carry on.
Ha...ha...no. No, I don't.
I have several issues with your definition of faith, but I'm lazy and I doubt my philosophical knowledge compared to yours, so I'll just leave it at this.
I derived this definition of faith long before I read a single book or heard a single lecture from Dawkins. I use this definition because this seems to be how the average theist or at least how the average Christian defines the term. Belief without evidence, perhaps, belief for the very reason that there is no evidence, as ironic as that sounds. Faith is just a word; the definition that I've submitted, the intellectual cop-out, is what I'm criticizing, so if your belief in God does not require this 'faith,' then I have no problem with your 'faith.'
I have no doubt that NMCP was also using this definition when he used the term 'faith.'
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
"I use this definition because this seems to be how the average theist or at least how the average Christian defines the term...the definition that I've submitted, the intellectual cop-out, is what I'm criticizing..."
Fair enough. I would certainly agree with this, and I would join you in criticizing theists who think of faith in this way.
"I have no doubt that NMCP was also using this definition when he used the term 'faith.'"
Again, I agree. Instead of immediately moving to criticize him, I should've asked him if he intended to criticize a particular conception of faith, or faith as such. I take your point, and I should be more careful in the future.
Edejardin
"Thanks for your reply. I don't think I'll bother posing my question a second time though."
I readily admit that I'm a bit too pedantic at times. I wasn't trying to complicate things needlessly, but to clarify a question I genuinely didn't understand. I concede that the problem may indeed be on my end, but until I understand the question I won't be able to say!
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to discuss these issues in the first place.
Edejardin
My pleasure ej. I regard you as opposition worthy of respect.
If you say so. Using Google, I wasn't able to find anything that made his cosmological argument sound any more complex than what I listed though, but you probably know what you are talking about more than I do since I tend to look more at the standard abstracts instead of digging through the details of philosophy (because really, I can't stand most of it).
My hackles were raised because it seemed like you were making a common claim; that atheists don't understand the arguments about deity because they did not go to seminary. Looking back on your posts, that is probably not what you are saying, you seem to be saying something specific about a particular philosophical argument. I'm the first to admit that I am not a philosophy expert, so consider me chagrined.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
"My hackles were raised because it seemed like you were making a common claim; that atheists don't understand the arguments about deity because they did not go to seminary. Looking back on your posts, that is probably not what you are saying, you seem to be saying something specific about a particular philosophical argument."
That is correct. Indeed, I was saying something about the arguments of Aquinas in general using a particular argument, the First Way, as an example. The reason so many people misunderstand Aquinas is because translations of his works use common terms like act, cause, etc. *without* indicating that Aquinas's use of these terms differed greatly from ours. That is, these are technical terms in Thomism that must be mastered before one can hope to understand Aquinas. And it is this that raises my hackles: so many people who obviously don't understand a word of Aquinas speak as if they have themselves refuted him, and insult those among us who find his arguments compelling. I'll be the first to admit that there are some *horrible* arguments for God's existence out there -- e.g. the biological Intelligent Design arguments -- but there are some good ones as well. (Before anyone asks me to provide some of those good arguments, I should first make it clear what I take a good argument to be: a good argument is a valid argument with premises that are more plausible than their denials. That's it. A good argument doesn't have to be rationally coercive, it doesn't have to prove its conclusion with absolute certainty, and it need not have undeniable premises. Why? Well, with criteria like that, *no* argument *that reaches a substantial conclusion* would be a good argument.)
"I'm the first to admit that I am not a philosophy expert, so consider me chagrined."
That wasn't my intention. I simply want critics of theism to understand the arguments they criticize. My motive is largely selfish: the better you understand my arguments, the more likely you'll be able to point out errors I miss; and, if I'm able to answer your charges, my argument becomes stronger. Either way, I gain: in the first case, you correct my error, and in the second case, you deepen my understanding of my position.
Anyway, if you're interested, here's a well written blog post by a very smart philosophy student on Aquinas's First Way.
http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2004/11/aquinass-first-way.html
Edejardin
Ok.
The blog says he accepted that he could not disprove the possibility that the universe is eternal, and his argument is about causality so it does not matter whether or not it did. Fine.
But then he says it is about causality. How can you have an argument for causality when we don't know if linearity existed before our universe began? Doesn't my point about linear time still stand?
My understanding (which is pathetic, so pardon if I screw up the language) of his argument is that the first mover must be made of nothing but act to prevent a logical contradiction. But if linear time did not exist before our universe began how could you differentiate act and potential? If linear time did not exist, then everything, by the blogs definition, would be 'God' because everything would be act and potential would not exist as we understand it.
And that still does not address the idea about what it proves even if it is an internally consistent statement...heck, it seems like all it is saying is that linear time did not always exist, and something existed 'before' linear time that was not linear. But that could have been anything, what makes it God? Put that way, I don't even disagree...modern secular cosmology states that as a likely possibility. Making it God seems like a flat assertion.
(I'm totally winging it now, so feel free to tear into anything I say.)
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Agnostics routinely refer to a lack of intelligent thinking on the part of Christians, and admittedly, ideas such as the dead rising long after their molecules are in use by later generations, the unprovable concept of an immortal soul and the search for the simple whereabouts of God, lead to Yuri Gagarin stating that he had been in heaven and looked all around for God and saw no sign of Him. But true agnostics keep an open-mind, carefully considering all views and weighing them well. 'Techie Worlds' (available at Amazon.com) builds on 'Flatland's ideas about contiguous geometric worlds to show how logical Trinity is, how resurrection, judgment and soul are reasonable in such worlds, and that Christianity is as probable as that simplistic idea of 'only the material world'. Considering not just the testimonies of Wiccans and Satanists, but also miracles such as the dance of the sun at Fatima (witnessed by thousands) it appears that multiple-worlds is more likely. Oh well, the minds of agnostics are not really that open to any belief based on love. Techie Worlds presents a completely new way of looking at the truths of Christianity, able to persuade atheists that Christianity is logical and a sound, well-reasoned view. GeorgeRic
It looks like this is not going to get a direct reply. I'm curious now, can anyone (atheist or theist) who knows something about Aquinas comment? This is in response to Edejardin's posts.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.