The Faith of Atheism

[rwdeese]

Why is RW contradicting and playing the blind card left and right? You'd think a guy who read the bible many times would know not to fall into contradi--oh....wait...I just answered my own question.

I am fairly sure you have come to the same conclusion a couple of us have. I think most of his 'stories' are pure unadulterated   beginning with the drugs and Coast Guard. He wants to come across as the learned academic, preaching down to we lowlifes from his Ivory Tower - "I was using the usus generalis principle of hermeneutics" - please. That is really comical considering how many words he has used out of context and/or seemingly made up.  The average age at death for homosexuals is 39 - NOT. I won't bother going back through his posts to find all the other examples of double-speak or incorrect information because it's not worth the time. He may impress some, but I am after all uneducated, ignorant, and only use a very tiny part of my brain. I was good enough though to fake my way into multiple working degrees in medicine (as opposed to esoteric ones) and even talked them into giving me my Masters Degree....oh well, one of these days I might just buckle down and learn something.

Edited to remove MY mistake in this post.

This doesn't sound like a response from one who has been educated. This ad hom is fun, but really reavels more about the author than any other point. Besides, you do not have to respond. Have a great day.

[Falconer02]

This doesn't sound like a response from one who has been educated.

Yes it does. You just don't want to acknowledge it. You do not get your definitions correct. Anyone who knows anything about atheism knows it is not a religion.  You cannot get your own facts straight which makes us believe that you are lying; your motives seem extremely tainted as a few have pointed out. You defend the myths and beliefs despite their barbaric characteristics. Therefore this is not an ad hom fallacy. Liljp said it best--

"are people still seriously giving the time of day to a guy who states there's nothing morally wrong with owning human beings?"

You seriously need to get your definitions straight. Atheism is not a religion. Faith can have a number of meaning depending on what you're referring to. It almost seems like you strive on being incoherent. You're seeing things in black and white and that's the major problem here.

[oonamas]

2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.

rwdeese, do you consider yourself an "absolute Christian"? And if so, how do you justify this without proof of god's existence or without claiming that you yourself are god?

[rwdeese]

RW: This doesn't sound like a response from one who has been educated.

Yes it does. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

No, it doesn't. Argumentum ad hominem is never an educated response - even if you disagree.

You do not get your definitions correct. Anyone who knows anything about atheism knows it is not a religion.  You cannot get your own facts straight which makes us believe that you are lying; your motives seem extremely tainted as a few have pointed out. You defend the myths and beliefs despite their barbaric characteristics. Therefore this is not an ad hom fallacy.

1. You wrongly assume that your definition is the only possible answer.
2. You have not demonstrated anywhere that I have not got my facts straight. Merely saying that I do does not make it so.
3. Accusing someone of lying is ad hom - unless one can ABSOLUTELY prove that the other person is lying - which you cannot. I can quote plenty of definitions from plenty of sources that affirm my definition.
4. Very profound indeed; A person bringing up debate subjects in a debate section of a forum is tainted because he brings up debate subjects - wow! Will the silliness ever end.
5. You attack openly (militant atheist) the Christian world view (and I am the troll...lol) by stating unsubstantiated statements and I am to be merely passive on the subject - how absurd.

Liljp said it best--

"are people still seriously giving the time of day to a guy who states there's nothing morally wrong with owning human beings?"

You seriously need to get your definitions straight. Atheism is not a religion. Faith can have a number of meaning depending on what you're referring to. It almost seems like you strive on being incoherent. You're seeing things in black and white and that's the major problem here.

His Cavalier Dismissal provides the cover up, but really amounts to an ad hom. As if what he says proves anything, but that he disagrees with it! So!

Sure, atheists ascribe to the idea (not fact) of the an absence of a belief in god. However, this is not say that an atheist does not place their faith in something else. There may be atheists that "claim" they do not place their faith in anything, but this is an illusion. Atheists are forced, logically, to place their faith in many things. They trust their own reasoning abilities - that what they reason is absolutely true. Of course, the mind cannot deceive itself...lol. They trust in a un-provable mysteries - they believe that the universe came about mysteriously on its own, yet, not a single shred of evidence. They trust in science and reason - believing what has been presented is in fact the whole story. They place their faith in scientists - actually believing that scientists have correctly reasoned what they have discovered.  They place their fain in the scientific community - actually believing that all these scientists are so noble they would never taint the evidence for name recognition. I can go on with many beliefs that atheists hold, however, it all boils down to trusting that what they perceive to be true is actually so.

[queenofnines]

And your religion boils down to one big argument from authority (the Bible, the church, god).

People who throw around debate terms every chance they get as a response to intelligent discourse are really annoying.  I realize I just did it above (lol), but I rarely do it myself because it's inane.

[Falconer02]

No, it doesn't. Argumentum ad hominem is never an educated response - even if you disagree.

"The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

You wrongly assume that your definition is the only possible answer.

Hey I know both sides, buddy. Unless you have rational proof that goes beyond the gates of skepticism, prove me wrong. Or are you going to play the cop-out god card again like all the other christians?

You have not demonstrated anywhere that I have not got my facts straight. Merely saying that I do does not make it so.

Everyone else has though. You can just play the mystery card because we do not know you personally.

A person bringing up debate subjects in a debate section of a forum is tainted because he brings up debate subjects - wow! Will the silliness ever end.

No...your personal criteria seems very tainted.

You attack openly (militant atheist) the Christian world view (and I am the troll...lol) by stating unsubstantiated statements and I am to be merely passive on the subject - how absurd.

You've been extremely pompous. I think that's pretty obvious to everyone. And I'm not an atheist.

They trust in science and reason - believing what has been presented is in fact the whole story.

I think we need to realize that there are different types of faith. One relies on the need to REALISTICALLY define ones surroundings (having faith to build a rocket and go to the moon) and one relies on hoping for the undefined/unrealistic/irrational to take place via old texts from ancient cultures (god's gonna come down and smite ya'll for being hot lesbians!).

I can go on with many beliefs that atheists hold, however, it all boils down to trusting that what they perceive to be true is actually so.

Your whole last paragraph..well...for a guy who believes that slavery is okay, evolution is false, atheism is a religion, homosexuality is horrible, and in the fairy tales spread across your ancient text...it's rather difficult for me to take you seriously. OMG I FELLED FOR SOME LOJIKAL FALLASSY PROLLY

[oonamas]

however, it all boils down to trusting that what they perceive to be true is actually so.

You seem to be mocking an atheists trust in their own reasoning and the reasoning of educated individuals, but ignore the fact that your own Christian beliefs also all boil down to trusting what you perceive to be true.

[jordandog]

rwdeese:

This doesn't sound like a response from one who has been educated. This ad hom is fun, but really reavels more about the author than any other point. Besides, you do not have to respond. Have a great day.

If you'd like, we can discuss Girard, Heidegger, or anyone else. I can start throwing around more educated phrases for you and I can also debate various aspects and schools of thinking re biblical hermeneutics. You seem to be a fan of switching between them while posting your most learned opinions (sic). Your thinking on homosexuals is obviously employing the dispensation principle ie punishment from God and the homosexual's responsibility for his actions. You incorporate the breach principle while countering queen's population remarks and using the scriptural passages re Noah's Ark. Debating the proper definition of an atheist is clearly the application principle ie the definition is true only after finding the correct (obviously your's) interpretation. Now, these may be loosely applied here, but I would hope you can see what I am getting at. This is not a forum bogged down with theological scholars, now is it? How many people actually even bother to read or understand what you write when you have to stroke your own ego by 'dazzling' us with your words? If I wanted to come across as a pompous know it all, I wouldn't expect anyone on here NOT to call ME out on it.

I am also not an atheist who knows nothing of God and then decided to find everything I could to disprove there is one. I had a very strong foothold in religion and a very deep belief from the age of around 6 into my late 20's. It was NOT a passing thing where I simply put in an appearance at church every Sunday and I was not a raging fanatic. I had an unwavering, deep, and personal relationship with him. So don't throw me under the bus and pass me off as just another atheist. I could give a rat's *bleep* as to your opinion on how much of my grey matter has been enhanced by education - I know what I do to earn a living.
Have a great night!

[queenofnines]

I think we need to realize that there are different types of faith. One relies on the need to REALISTICALLY define ones surroundings (having faith to build a rocket and go to the moon) and one relies on hoping for the undefined/unrealistic/irrational to take place via old texts from ancient cultures (god's gonna come down and smite ya'll for being hot lesbians!).

This is epic truth right here!  And hot lesbians...oh my!   

[shernajwine]

i agree with ya there sheryl 

[rwdeese]

2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.

rwdeese, do you consider yourself an "absolute Christian"? And if so, how do you justify this without proof of god's existence or without claiming that you yourself are god?

This is like the old chestnut question "When did you stop beating your wife?" How does one respond. Question framing arguments are no win arguments, so I will let others categorize me as they wish. As far as proof of God's existence goes, I haven't even began discussing that topic yet. I have merely chosen to deal with those arguments being made by the local atheists here first. Thanks for the question.

[queenofnines]

I don't think he's "pompous",  sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.

I agree with that except for the first part (before the comma).  To an outsider, it can seem like a fine line sometimes between determining who's highly intelligent and who's just pompous, but there's definitely a line!  Using lots of big words or phrases that don't really make sense, announcing your educational status when it's not relevant, labeling every opposing viewpoint as wrong without justification for doing so, using debate terms (like ad hominem, straw man) ad nauseum...these are all characteristics of being pompous in my book and things rwdeese has been guilty of.

[jordandog]

I don't think he's "pompous",  sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.

I agree with that except for the first part (before the comma).  To an outsider, it can seem like a fine line sometimes between determining who's highly intelligent and who's just pompous, but there's definitely a line!  Using lots of big words or phrases that don't really make sense, announcing your educational status when it's not relevant, labeling every opposing viewpoint as wrong without justification for doing so, using debate terms (like ad hominem, straw man) ad nauseum...these are all characteristics of being pompous in my book and things rwdeese has been guilty of.

queenofnines,
Thank you for trying to get the (my) point across again. There is a line and it has been crossed. As I said, this is not a forum laden with theologians. If it was, I wouldn't be quite so put off by it. It is almost like a 7th grader who is having a problem understanding intro to Basic Algebra being thrown in a room with a group of students discussing quantum mechanics.

edited to add: By the way, have you noticed how much he sounds like stealth? Interesting.....

[rwdeese]

I don't think he's "pompous",  sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.

I agree with that except for the first part (before the comma).  To an outsider, it can seem like a fine line sometimes between determining who's highly intelligent and who's just pompous, but there's definitely a line!  Using lots of big words or phrases that don't really make sense, announcing your educational status when it's not relevant, labeling every opposing viewpoint as wrong without justification for doing so, using debate terms (like ad hominem, straw man) ad nauseum...these are all characteristics of being pompous in my book and things rwdeese has been guilty of.

I totally embrace the criticism of being pompous by those that have made these criticisms here. Now, can we get on with the issues - thanks!

[rwdeese]

I don't think he's "pompous",  sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.

I agree with that except for the first part (before the comma).  To an outsider, it can seem like a fine line sometimes between determining who's highly intelligent and who's just pompous, but there's definitely a line!  Using lots of big words or phrases that don't really make sense, announcing your educational status when it's not relevant, labeling every opposing viewpoint as wrong without justification for doing so, using debate terms (like ad hominem, straw man) ad nauseum...these are all characteristics of being pompous in my book and things rwdeese has been guilty of.

queenofnines,
Thank you for trying to get the (my) point across again. There is a line and it has been crossed. As I said, this is not a forum laden with theologians. If it was, I wouldn't be quite so put off by it. It is almost like a 7th grader who is having a problem understanding intro to Basic Algebra being thrown in a room with a group of students discussing quantum mechanics.

Ok, I understand that this criticism is important and interesting for some, but let us get on with the debate. Thanks!