The Faith of Atheism

[rwdeese]

Everyone's different.   Everyone comes from different backgrounds, different educations, different stages of life, different religions, & they have different writing styles.  I haven't had a problem with rwdeese's posts. I find them clearly written & well stated for the most part.  I haven't found anything to criticize him for and I've been looking.  I find his posts refreshing, and wish I could put things as well as he does.  I really don't think he's posting to "attack" anyone.  I don't think he's "pompous",  sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.  (I'm not saying jordandog isn't highly intelligent, she is, but her style is more "down to earth".  There's ALOT of highly intelligent people whose style is "down-to-earth".  I think I'm a "down to earth" style but I get bored easily---so something written in rwdeese's type of style, I do actually find "dazzling".  I can learn from alot of his posts even if it's just to go look up a long word I don't know.  Everyone has something different to contribute to the forum, it keeps it interesting.  Noone is looking to a forum to "get saved" or discover ways to "lose their belief".   "Debate & Discuss"...nothing more & nothing less.  

You seem very wise and practical. I may be pompous. However, it is a criticism that is merely meant to cover all the real discussions on the topic. I am trying not to attack anyone in particular, but I am definately attacking their arguments. If I have attacked anyone, you can let me know - I will apologize and continue with the discussion. Thanks

[rwdeese]

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.

1. You assume what my arguments are, I see - ok, I understand.
2. I am sorry that I am annoying you. If people are going to claim that they are using reason as a foundation for their belief system, then the reasoning needs to be evaluated. Using debate terms is a quick way of evaluating an argument. Perhaps you have all the time in the day to debate. Some of us don't, so it has a very practical side to it - it saves time trying to debate something that amounts to no argument at all.

[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?

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.

My question isn't loaded at all, unless you're refering to my assumption that you're a Christian, but I thought it was already well established that you are. I didn't ask when you decided you were god, or ask why you had decided that your reasoning and logic were more sound than another's. There is no reason you can't answer the question I asked with a simple yes or a no without implying that you are something that you're not.

And if you have proof of god's existence I don't see why you would refuse to present it. It would certainly make the argument between you and the local atheists quite a bit shorter - unless the proof is not irrefutable in which case I'd refer back to my question of do you consider yourself an absolute Christian, or do you defer to agnostic Christian since there is no absolute proof of an existence of god?

[jordandog]

rwdeese:

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

You know what? That, right there, is a very snide and backhanded attack on me. As if the only things "important" or "interesting' to me is criticising you. Implying I obviously lack any ability to discuss, debate, or present a valid point of view. More of your pompousness shining through right there!
Well, this 'idiot' needs to get some sleep so I'll have to be enlightened by you later on.

[rwdeese]

RW: 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."

I stand corrected. However, this is extremely rare, and it is not used arbitrarily merely because someone disagrees with another. Most of the time it is used, it is used by those who may be hiding behind the argument as a means to hide their own conduct, character, motives, etc... So, when one constantly personally attacks another, they are the ones who usually are suspect. We see this in counseling constantly - i.e. a husband who constantly accuses his wife of being an adulterer. Once all the facts are in, we discover that the one who is doing all the accusing was the one doing all the acts of adultery. So, a wise person will be very careful when throwing around ad homs.

RW: 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?

I have heard this argument a thousand times. Perhaps you haven't been following what I have written. I have made it very clear that I will not present all my arguments at this time (although I did demonstrate that the age of man and the population is impossible under evolution). I will present my view of evidential faith in the future. If you have noticed, I haven't copped out on any response - unless time has prevented me. You may accuse me of cop outs, but I can only handle one set of arguments at a time, and quite frankly, I have been taking apart the ten reasons for not believing in a God. The first two have no validity at all. I will continue that as time allows, but believe me, I will not ignore the positive side of my position at all. I say that to say that your criticism is more emotive than factual.

RW: 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.

I totally disagree with you - who? and how? I do not believe you can prove this statement at all. This is just more unsubstantiated jargon.

RW: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.

[qutoe]No...your personal criteria seems very tainted.[/quote]

...and you declaring this so makes it so, right? When will you actually debate anything? What are you afraid of? You already are an unbeliever!

RW: 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.

Ok, so what if I have been perceived as pompous. Now - can we get on with the issues. These side issues are fun, and I am sure the criticisms against me make you feel better, but really - what do they really prove? They don't prove your right!

RW: 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.

Finally, you are engaging in the discussion.. whew! I agree. There are many types of faith. In fact, there are more categories than what you mention below:

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!).

1. Making a false comparison like having the faith to build a rocket that goes to the moon (which is a hard science), and implying that relying on the un-provable science of evolution is absurd. One is in no way equal to the other!
2. Using the rules of evidence, which is firmly grounded in sound reason, is not irrational, undefined nor unrealistic. This is the foundation for all knowledge. Do you deny this?
RW: 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

If you do not want to take me seriously, that is fine. It does not change the truth. This form of Cavalier Dismissal and Ad Hom is more telling than the criticisms themselves. You do not have to read what I write. No one is forcing you to. However, I will continue to show the readers all your Ad Homs and Cavalier Dismissals so that everyone can see who bases what they believe on reason as opposed to emotion.

I was proud of you for a moment for actually engaging in the conversation, but then you couldn't resist. In counseling, this may be attributed to a person who is dealing with excessive amounts of guilt. Talk to you soon!

[queenofnines]

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

Yes I have!  I noticed this a few days ago...I didn't bring it up, though, because I didn't want those two to gang up and become buddies.  lol!  Good thing Stealth only comes around once a month or so...

The last thing I said to that guy was:

"Are you 'enlightened' enough to know that pretty much every reply you make on this forum comes across as arrogant academia?  Having every line of yours read like yuppy B.S. is quite annoying.  You're not some world-renowned philosopher, so stop making yourself look bad by spewing esoteric concepts that have no real substance behind them."

Needles to say, this message applies to more than one person... 

[queenofnines]

I have never seen so much "militant defense" of one's own stance in my life!!!  Close-mindedness to the core.

I was proud of you for a moment for actually engaging in the conversation, but then you couldn't resist.

And you got mad at me in the other thread for "mocking" you!  This is extremely insulting; Falconer is BRILLIANT, and in any case, do you really think he cares what the hell you think of him?

In counseling, this may be attributed to a person who is dealing with excessive amounts of guilt. Talk to you soon!

I'm sure a counselor would have a thing or two to say about you.  Also, consistently ending with a fake cheerful ending is not helping you.

[ro901]

I have never seen so much "militant defense" of one's own stance in my life!!!  Close-mindedness to the core.

I was proud of you for a moment for actually engaging in the conversation, but then you couldn't resist.

And you got mad at me in the other thread for "mocking" you!  This is extremely insulting; Falconer is BRILLIANT, and in any case, do you really think he cares what the hell you think of him?

In counseling, this may be attributed to a person who is dealing with excessive amounts of guilt. Talk to you soon!

I'm sure a counselor would have a thing or two to say about you.  Also, consistently ending with a fake cheerful ending is not helping you.

What? You never look in the mirror? Here's a song dedicated just to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP1YGp68A-E&feature=related

[rwdeese]

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

forgive my "blasphemy," but jesus christ, please stop trolling

Ad Hom - fun, interesting, but unimportant

[rwdeese]

My question isn't loaded at all, unless you're refering to my assumption that you're a Christian, but I thought it was already well established that you are

.

You assume correctly

I didn't ask when you decided you were god, or ask why you had decided that your reasoning and logic were more sound than another's. There is no reason you can't answer the question I asked with a simple yes or a no without implying that you are something that you're not.

ok

And if you have proof of god's existence I don't see why you would refuse to present it.

Actually, I am not refusing to do anything. I am not equipped time wise to present every argument. My first goal is to finish answering the 10 reasons not to believe in a God, with a little fun excursions from time to time. Although, I have demonstrated one argument against evolution - i.e. concerning population growth and real math. Perhaps you can prove how the math doesn't work?

It would certainly make the argument between you and the local atheists quite a bit shorter - unless the proof is not irrefutable in which case I'd refer back to my question of do you consider yourself an absolute Christian, or do you defer to agnostic Christian since there is no absolute proof of an existence of god?

Well, I prefer being more thorough than that - this is why I am dealing with the reasons for one not to believe in God arguments first. I will deal with the other aspects later. True debate must both eliminate false arguments and present better arguments.

[oonamas]

You assume correctly

Well then I will rephrase, and perhaps you will give me an answer. Do you consider yourself an absolute believer in god? And if so, how do you justify this without solid proof of existence?

[rwdeese]

rwdeese:

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

You know what? That, right there, is a very snide and backhanded attack on me. As if the only things "important" or "interesting' to me is criticising you. Implying I obviously lack any ability to discuss, debate, or present a valid point of view. More of your pompousness shining through right there!
Well, this 'idiot' needs to get some sleep so I'll have to be enlightened by you later on.

1. Perhaps you can demonstrate that you can debate instead of criticize. It would be refreshing.
2. It is very humorous for anyone to actually not see that to constantly blasts another for being pompous is, in and of itself, pompous: "bombastic" is one definition.
3. I know you enjoy this, but lets move on. This really doesn't produce anything of value.
4. For the record, I do not think anyone is an idiot here. I do think that they have not looked at all the evidence, however, and some of the "reasons" for not believing in God are no more than myths and philosophical nonsense. Just so you understand - I think many of us Christians believe in God the same way.

[rwdeese]

Yes I have!  I noticed this a few days ago...I didn't bring it up, though, because I didn't want those two to gang up and become buddies.  lol!  Good thing Stealth only comes around once a month or so...

The last thing I said to that guy was:

"Are you 'enlightened' enough to know that pretty much every reply you make on this forum comes across as arrogant academia?  Having every line of yours read like yuppy B.S. is quite annoying.  You're not some world-renowned philosopher, so stop making yourself look bad by spewing esoteric concepts that have no real substance behind them."

Needles to say, this message applies to more than one person...  

I do not really know what is worse - those who claim great amounts of knowledge without evidence - or those who have the evidence but use terms that offend the first claiments? Which one is truly arrogant - ones who continually personally attack others - or, ones who try to keep to the subjects being debated? I wonder how an objective observer would answer these questions? oh well!

[rwdeese]

I have never seen so much "militant defense" of one's own stance in my life!!!  Close-mindedness to the core.

Now I am being accused of being closed minded. I am enjoying this ride. The reality is this: closed mindedness is a concept that says that after one has been shown the evidence, one refuses to believe the evidence. Exactly what evidence have I been shown? If I had a choice, however, on the more philosophical side to be one who is closed minded and one who is open minded, I would rather be closed minded. If I were to be open minded, my very brain might fall out - then I might believe anything!

RW: I was proud of you for a moment for actually engaging in the conversation, but then you couldn't resist.

And you got mad at me in the other thread for "mocking" you!  This is extremely insulting; Falconer is BRILLIANT, and in any case, do you really think he cares what the hell you think of him?

The fact of the case is that he has not engaged in any real conversation. He may be brilliant, who knows. All I know is that when one continually attacks another - that is not very brilliant! I do not believe he cares what I think of him - but that is not the point. If he wants to discuss the topics - great! I am all for that - I am still waiting for him to do so - and that is a fact. Anyone can check out all his comments towards me!

RW: In counseling, this may be attributed to a person who is dealing with excessive amounts of guilt. Talk to you soon!

I'm sure a counselor would have a thing or two to say about you.  Also, consistently ending with a fake cheerful ending is not helping you.

1. I have worked with many counselors. I already know what they say about me...lol
2. I am surprised about how judgmental you atheists/agnostics are! Now you are judgin my motives. Does it ever end with you guys? Fascinating! Someone ought to do a research project on this to find out what drives it? None the less, I am not trying to show myself as anything, but one who is trying to debate some subject. My cheerfulness is a natural disposition - at least that is what everyone tells me except on a board like this...lol so, here is my "fake" cheerfulness - cheers!

[queenofnines]

I am not equipped time wise to present every argument.

But you seem to expect that atheists are.