patrick.net

Dan8267 says

So you want to continue to argue that rape is far worse than masturbation?

Just 5 ways.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Dawkins is so smart, why doesn't he spend all day shitting all over bankers instead of drooling fuckwits who sit around waiting for jesus to make pizzas appear on their doorsteps?

That's Elizabeth Warren's job.

Dan8267 says

So you want to continue to argue that rape is far worse than masturbation?

Correction: Thomas Aquinas argued that masturbation is far worse than rape.

It's such an idiotic argument that I couldn't even type it correctly. My brain autocorrected it.

FP says

When your ideas diverge so totally with a crowd like this, you should question your own retardedness first.

I have no problem whatsoever with atheists or atheism. But radical atheists, espousing the exact thing I would have said when I was 15 years old ? Making arguments against some anthropomorphised view of god ?

Many of those type atheists are idiots.

If a 7 year old child's view of god or a fundamentalists view of god are the only beliefs in god that one can possibly imagine, then I guess he and the other radical atheists are brilliant. But in my world one has to be truly retarded to think that all the intelligent adults who believes in god, see god in anything close to this way.

It's really no different than the stupid straw man arguments you hear in political arguments. Such as when Dan calls someone an idiot for their straw man argument against what they think a liberal is.

IF Dan isn't in the mood to elaborate, it doesn't mean he's wrong that the straw man version of a liberal is stupid.

As you have illustrated deifying is pointless. OTOH throwing out the baby with the bathwater is equally crazy.

marcus says

But radical atheists

Define "radical atheist". Radical is the new nigger. Today the word is a meaningless label used only to dehumanize individuals and groups and to dismiss their ideas without actually addressing those ideas.

Don't like an idea? Label it "radical" and you don't have to argue against it. Radical mystics would have you believe their is a god. You can't get more radical than believing in a god. No need to find arguments against their beliefs, just label all theists radical mystics and say they are extremists because only moderate mystics -- you know the ones who believe in leprechauns and unicorns, but not something as ridiculous as omnipotent spirits -- should be respected.

Today radical is a word used to turn off the frontal lobe and to get dumb people to rally behind you. It's tribalism masquerading as debate.

marcus says

Making arguments against some anthropomorphised view of god ?

That's not what Stephen Fry did. It's not what I've done.

Stephen Fry illustrated that a morally upstanding god, regardless of his form, would not engineer a universe with completely pointless suffering like a creature that burrows through a child's eye and eats the eye causing great pain to that child. No plan could possibly require that to happen. Any all-powerful god could easily create a universe in which that particular species of worm did not exist, and nothing else would need to change. It is pointless suffering, and pointless suffering is incompatible with the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent god. This has nothing to do with anthropomorphization.

Nor has any of my proofs against the standard monotheistic god.

marcus says

But radical atheists, espousing the exact thing I would have said when I was 15 years old ?

marcus says

If a 7 year old child's view of god or a fundamentalists view of god are the only beliefs in god that one can possibly imagine, then I guess he and the other radical atheists are brilliant.

marcus says

Many of those type atheists are idiots.

Whereas I attack the ideas of theology, you attack the persons who are atheists. I could easily state that anyone who believes in a god is an idiot, but instead I choose to demonstrate why the idea of a god is wrong. You accuse

You keep attacking anyone who makes a rational argument against religion, faith, or the supernatural as if they are childish. Yet your own words are the most childish on this thread and most others. Only a child relies entirely on ad hominem attacks and refuses to address the actual subject matter.

Your posts even seem exactly what a petulant child would write. They have no substance. They are full of elementary school insults. They come off as pretentious and arrogant but with no indication that they are backed up with actual knowledge. Quite frankly, you are being insulting and then hypocritical by accusing others of the very crimes you are committing right now. What's saddest of all is that you actually think this is an effective means of persuasion, and that is truly childish.

marcus says

IF Dan isn't in the mood to elaborate

I will always elaborate when someone asks a sincere question. And my posts will always being intellectually honest regardless of how much you personally disagree with them.

Dan8267 says

If god existed, he would be a motherfucking, evil asshole.

May the fleas of a thousand camels land on your buttocks.

I think you screwed up that quote.

Dan8267 says

Yet your own words are the most childish on this thread and most others. Only a child relies entirely on ad hominem attacks and refuses to address the actual subject matter.

If you see only ad hominem, that's you're problem.

marcus says

I have no problem whatsoever with atheists or atheism. But radical atheists, espousing the exact thing I would have said when I was 15 years old ? Making arguments against some anthropomorphised view of god ?

marcus says

If a 7 year old child's view of god or a fundamentalists view of god are the only beliefs in god that one can possibly imagine, then I guess he and the other radical atheists are brilliant. But in my world one has to be truly retarded to think that all the intelligent adults who believes in god, see god in anything close to this way.

marcus says

It's really no different than the stupid straw man arguments you hear in political arguments.

You understand exactly what I'm saying. You understand exactly what I think is stupid about these arguments. And yet you call yourself intellectually honest.

You call this honest ?
Yet your own words are the most childish on this thread and most others. Only a child relies entirely on ad hominem attacks and refuses to address the actual subject matter

Let me guess, addressing the subject matter would be what ? Explaining why I think that omniscient and powerful old white man with a long white beard up in the clouds is willing to let a child have cancer or why this same sky daddy is willing to have all kinds of tragedies, suffering and atrocities occur to humans ?

Really ? I have to engage in that argument, to not be a guy who only engages in ad hominem in this thread ?

Dan8267 says

Define "radical atheist"

Atheist: a person who does not believe in god.

Radical atheist: someone who wants to proselytize against believing, , or someone who obsessively wants to take it further than just not believing. They are on a quest to convince others that all religion is evil. And usually based on a straw man position of what belief in god even means.

The radical atheist was well described by Einstein. He chose the word "fanatical" rather than radical.

The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.

FortWayne says

Dan as much as you hate god, remember that he will always be there ready to accept and forgive you when you come to your senses finally.

I hate Allah. That piece of non existent crap has done tremendous harm to mankind.

marcus says

Radical atheist: someone who wants to proselytize against believing, , or someone who obsessively wants to take it further than just not believing. They are on a quest to convince others that all religion is evil. And usually based on a straw man position of what belief in god even means.

Sounds just like radical non atheists.

marcus says

intelligent adults who believes in god

Yeah, intelligent adults, in order to reconcile childhood indoctrination with the real world, can create an absurd abstraction of a god, which in the end is as meaningful as "I believe in something." Are you one of these people?

In any case, Fry was asked a question and he answered it, giving a suitable answer for that specific question.

What percentage of the atheists believe there is a spiritual nature to humans?

FP says

which in the end is as meaningful as "I believe in something." Are you one of these people?

No, I'm an agnostic.

But I'm totally an atheist if the question is, "do you believe in some sort of all powerful being, who you can think of as being more or less a superhuman, or as a super being who micromanages everything that happens in the universe, including all the good things and all the bad things that every person deals with in their lives.

If that's what god is, of course I'm an atheist. I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of the people that call themselves agnostic are also atheists if that's the definition. But that definition is silly. You'd be hard pressed to find a catholic priest that believes in god by that definition, if they are being honest with you.

Wow, I wonder if anyone saw Dan's videos above and had a life changing break through.

marcus says

Radical atheist: someone who wants to proselytize against believing, , or someone who obsessively wants to take it further than just not believing. They are on a quest to convince others that all religion is evil. And usually based on a straw man position of what belief in god even means.

Interesting, I have never come across such people. On the other hand, whenever I go to my public library, there's always a guy with a stand with bibles on it, trying to strike a conversation with people. There's another one I often see at my BART station. There are mormons pacing around the neighborhood. I have had Jehova witnesses knocking on my door. A Saudi muslim trying to talk to me about god on a flight to Europe (when I was ~ 20yo). My daughter taken to a religious meeting by her friend's parents, without our knowledge, and told that her "grandfather would not go to heaven if she does not believe in god." We hear all the time public officials in the US professing their religiousness, and commentators in the mass media musing how can there be morality without religion and other such nonsense.

indigenous says

What percentage of the atheists believe there is a spiritual nature to humans?

define spiritual nature

FP says

Interesting, I have never come across such peopl

Oh. Well then let me introduce you to Dan, the OP.

~2800 deities worshiped today,which one is Patnet talking about?
Can anyone show the proof of a gods existence?

An element that that transcends the objective.

marcus says

No, I'm an agnostic.

atheist/agnostic - a stupid distinction imho. One either cares about religion/supernatural stuff/magic (call it whatever you want) or one doesn't.marcus says

Wow, I wonder if anyone saw Dan's videos above and had a life changing break through.

That's the problem with childhood indoctrination. It's hard to shake off.

FP says

~2800 deities worshiped today,which one is Patnet talking about?

Can anyone show the proof of a gods existence?

"First Way - The Argument From Motion

St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way:
Nothing can move itself.
If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
Movement cannot go on for infinity.
This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.
Aquinas is starting from an a posteriori position. For Aquinas motion includes any kind of change e.g. growth. Aquinas argues that the natural condition is for things to be at rest. Something which is moving is therefore unnatural and must have been put into that state by some external supernatural power."

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm

indigenous says

An element that that transcends the objective.

And by objective I presume you mean measurable?

FP says

And by objective I presume you mean measurable?

Yup

indigenous says

This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Who or what created God?

HEY YOU says

Can anyone show the proof of a gods existence?

Strategist says

Who or what created God?

More profound breakthroughs in the making.

marcus says

FP says

Interesting, I have never come across such peopl

Oh. Well then let me introduce you to Dan, the OP.

Really, Dan stops strangers on the street, knock on people's houses, to tell them that there's no god?

Strategist says

Who or what created God?

Got me.

What if he already existed, the idea that he would/is be exterior to the universe(s) you cannot speak of him in physical universe terms, as in words. Word too come after actions not before, therefore God by definition cannot be described by words.

indigenous says

Strategist says

Who or what created God?

Got me.

What if he already existed, the idea that he would/is be exterior to the universe(s) you cannot speak of him in physical universe terms, as in words. Word too come after actions not before, therefore God by definition cannot be defined by words.

So you don't know, just like I don't know who or what created us.

FP says

atheist/agnostic - a stupid distinction imh

I frame it differently.

To me, there are people that have to have all the answers. This type of person would not let such a question as whether or not there is such a thing as god (leaving the definition relatively open ended) simply stay a question. THEY MUST HAVE THE ANSWERS.

These people are also usually black and white thinkers. Dan fits this. So do most other people who think agnostic is a cop out or doesn't make sense. THey need to know. They need to decide what it is they know. I'm not saying they aren't willing to not know something if it isn't known. But leaving such a question open for exploration or otherwise just leaving the question open when they have the possibility of closing it would not be comfortable for such people.

You are probably in this category too. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Strategist says

So you don't know, just like I don't know who or what created us.

Nope

My theory is that we already existed.

indigenous says

FP says

And by objective I presume you mean measurable?

Yup

So your question is:
"What percentage of the atheists believe there is an element to human nature that is not measurable?"

An utterly pointless question, isn't it?

indigenous says

Strategist says

So you don't know, just like I don't know who or what created us.

Nope

My theory is that we already existed.

That does not explain where we or everything comes from.

FP says

An utterly pointless question, isn't it?

I think he's alluding to Einsteins point, what Einstein referred to as not being able to hear the music of the spheres.

FP says

An utterly pointless question, isn't it?

I don't think so, clearly someone like Dan is an objectivist ( not that he believes in Ayn Rand), but others I wonder if they think there is some spiritual element beyond the human condition?

I think this is a pathology that is coincident with the advent of psychology in the late 1800s

Strategist says

That does not explain where we or everything comes from.

That implies that there is time, time is a reflection of the physical universe, time would not exist exterior to the universe

marcus says

To me, there are people that have to have all the answers. This type of person would not let such a question as whether or not there is such a thing as god (leaving the definition relatively open ended) simply stay a question.

This is a trivial discussion. If you leave the definition of god open ended, then the question is meaningless and of course everybody is agnostic. If you give a definition, then you have atheists.