Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[DrewPaul]

What an absurd perversion of logic.

Whew for a moment I thought you were going to refute what I wrote...not just criticize it.

 

[BabaVoss]

The universe is a tangible object...

No, it is not. The word describes everything we know to exist.

...and it was either unintentionally caused or intentionally caused.

There is a third possibility - that it has always existed.

Either claim requires the existence of the universe. If the universe didn't exist both claims would be falsified. Therefore the existence of the universe is a fact that makes either claim more probable and irrelevant if it doesn't exist.

The universe exists.

The most boring thing about atheists is their refusal to defend what they actually claim. That the universe was a naturally occurring event that without plan or intent caused all the circumstances needed to create intelligent life.

Based on all available scientific evidence, that appears to be exactly the case. I can easily defend the claim; look around.
The universe exists.
There is no factual evidence that the universe is anything other than naturally occurring.
There is nothing about our universe that requires a supernatural creator.

 

[Ouroboros]

Pointing out your straw man is just pointing out a fact.

Your repeated "straw man" error was not an insult. It was the comment on my "virtue" because I didn't roll over and give in to your empty rhetoric.

 

[Ouroboros]

Again, not my intention - nor do I care.

BS. You care about railing against anyone who doesn't flatter atheists by buying into their self-portrait. I'm just pointing out that your nonsense pose as a psychoanalyst makes you look bad.

You still have it wrong. Atheists are non-believers in one thing; a supernatural deity. It is a lack of that one belief. Not a belief system at all. That is simple.
Unjustified? I made no such claim. If you are of a scientific rational mind, atheism is logically and factually justified.

Thinking atheists resort to justification of their beliefs, and you attempted to circumvent those justifications by claiming that you didn't have to justify your belief that there are no supernatural beings. You can either attempt to align your arguments with actual thinkers, even if their arguments remain flawed, or you can do as you did before, claim that you don't need to justify your philosophy. You really can't do both without looking like a huge hypocrite.

I don't know what any of that refers to. There are no scientific facts that support a supernatural deity.

And here you are again, dipping your toe into the justification pond after claiming you didn't need justifications of your belief.

You need a new hobby.

To the extent that my hobby is luring out posters who don't know logic from a hole in the ground, it's quite successful.

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't say you did.

I didn't accuse you of so doing. I clarified my position by eviscerating your false representation that only religion deals with "beliefs."

That is false.

I'm sorry you don't understand that your belief system is a belief system.

Let us know whwen you have a valid argument to make.

You've missed all the others, so why would I think you're going to start now. After I gave you guys the thinking atheist Bataille to grapple with, you predictably ignored the substance of the quote. You guys couldn't even grapple with a "Hogfather" quote.

WHat "individual differnces?" It seems you'e trying to make mre out of atheism than there is.

I agree that there isn't much to atheism, but those posters who have claimed that the individual differences transcend the commonalities are in error.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your assertions in the OP were ridiculous trash without the least bit of actual merit or truth. It is the very definition of massive mediocrity.

You're entitled to your deluded opinion.

 

[Ouroboros]

More projection. You’re very good at it. Not much good at making actual reasoned arguments, however. Please quit your constant whining.

The whining's all coming from your side. I'm willing to let you guys drone on as long as you please, because you say such silly things.

 

[Ouroboros]

See post #773.

See post 738.

 

[Ouroboros]

See post #773.

See post 738.

 

[Ouroboros]

These podcasts are hosted by a Christian apologist who has written a book of the same name, so don’t expect them to be anything but that—Christian apologism—with no relationship to anything close to an objective discussion. Sorry, not worth the time.

And all my opponents offer is atheist apologism.

 

[Ouroboros]

I will continue to point out your straw man arguments regarding atheism and atheists.

Still not even close to a straw man since I made no comments in the OP about what atheists do or don't believe. I said their arguments were derivative, they didn't appreciate the poetic nature of humankind, and that they couldn't make arguments about morality because they had none. You can claim they're false statements, but none is a representation of an atheist position. But by all means, keep repeating your nonsense.

 

[Ouroboros]

The number one claim atheists make is there is no evidence, not one fact that supports the claim we owe our existence of the universe and ourselves to a Creator. This claim is a sacred cow despite being demonstrably false.

Yes, that is the derivative atheist argument: that if one cannot place a creator-god upon a dissection-table, then it does not exist. The fact that science cannot place all phenomena on the dissection-table never bothers any atheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is not demonstrably false. There is no evidence of gods.

The usual derivative argument.

 

[BabaVoss]

BS. You care about railing against anyone who doesn't flatter atheists by buying into their self-portrait. I'm just pointing out that your nonsense pose as a psychoanalyst makes you look bad.

Your opinion is being given all due consideration.

Thinking atheists resort to justification of their beliefs, and you attempted to circumvent those justifications by claiming that you didn't have to justify your belief that there are no supernatural beings.

You keep insisting that some justification is required. It isn’t. This is not a complex subject.

You can either attempt to align your arguments with actual thinkers, even if their arguments remain flawed, or you can do as you did before, claim that you don't need to justify your philosophy. You really can't do both without looking like a huge hypocrite.

I don’t care what you think, honestly. You keep mistaking your own perception of your significance as being important to others. It’s not. I don’t have ‘a philosophy’ with regard to supernatural beliefs. I just don’t have them. You see “flawed” arguments everywhere and pretend - for no reason whatsoever - that anyone should have to justify their own lack of belief in magical stuff. Then you attempt weak and silly insults. Again, I suggest you find a new hobby.

And here you are again, dipping your toe into the justification pond after claiming you didn't need justifications of your belief.

I don’t need to justify my outlook or you or anyone. It’s strange that you continue to insist that I - or anyone else - needs to justify their thoughts to you on gthsi subject.

To the extent that my hobby is luring out posters who don't know logic from a hole in the ground, it's quite successful.

You are experiencing some imagined superiority. How fun for you. Is that why you post here incessantly? Seems like a weird hobby. Your version of ”logic” is wildly unappealing. But hey, if it makes you happy, go for it.

A non-belief in something for which there is no scientific evidence is very simple to understand. Or should be. I have religious friends who understand it. I wonder why you struggle so.

 

[Ouroboros]

I was once a believer so I was fully exposed to writings that supported the idea of a god. Then I came to the logical conclusion that gods are not real, but only something imaginary that can only be believed in. There is nothing that I can read that will lead me to any other conclusion, nor should I spend my time reading things that I have no interest in. God beliefs don’t come from books and neither does a lack of beliefs. It comes from using logic and reason to come to your own conclusion. I don’t need books to tell me what to believe or not.

You almost made a coherent statement there. While beliefs about theism and atheism absolutely are transmitted through books, as well as through individual speakers, individual taste, rather than logic and reason, often determines what individuals are willing to logically accept. Since you don't even know what a straw man argument is, you're not coming off as the epitome of logic and reason.

 

[Ouroboros]

Atheism isn’t an ideology. It isn’t arrived at through arguments.

Well, they're very bad arguments, like the ones seen here, but they're still arguments.

 

[DrewPaul]

No, it is not. The word describes everything we know to exist.

Why wouldn't everything we know to exist be a tangible object?

Tangible
a thing that is perceptible by touch.

If the universe is everything then we touch it all the time. It is tangible and some parts are visible.

There is a third possibility - that it has always existed.

A possibility that has been crushed.

There is nothing about our universe that requires a supernatural creator.

You have knowledge of how mindless forces without plan or intent caused the universe with the properties, laws of physics that enabled intelligent life to exist? Or is this just a faith claim all atheists profess?

 

[devildavid]

Straw men arguments are still only those arguments that represent an opponent as holding a view the opponent does not hold.

I realize you think that repeating your drivel annoys me. You are incorrect. I made the OP knowing it would draw the wrath of superficial atheists

Straw man arguments are any argument using a straw man of what is being argued against, which is what you are doing regarding atheists. You build a straw man atheist to attack. You made the OP to bait atheists. Good to know.

 

[devildavid]

Nope, you all have the same mediocre philosophical justification for your belief: "if God can't be put under a microscope, He doesn't exist." Modern atheism is completely tied to empirical science. It doesn't spring out of nothing, and every time you say that it does, you sound extremely religious.

There is no philosophical justification required for not believing that anything imaginary is real. Atheism existed long before modern science and does not rely on science for its existence. It springs out of not believing in gods.

 

[DrewPaul]

Yes, that is the derivative atheist argument: that if one cannot place a creator-god upon a dissection-table, then it does not exist. The fact that science cannot place all phenomena on the dissection-table never bothers any atheists.

Scientists often infer the existence of things such as dark energy and dark matter without putting them under a microscope.

 

[devildavid]

Why wouldn't everything we know to exist be a tangible object?

Tangible
a thing that is perceptible by touch.

If the universe is everything then we touch it all the time. It is tangible and some parts are visible.


A possibility that has been crushed.


You have knowledge of how mindless forces without plan or intent caused the universe with the properties, laws of physics that enabled intelligent life to exist? Or is this just a faith claim all atheists profess?

The universe is not an object, but objects are in the universe.

 

[devildavid]

Scientists often infer the existence of things such as dark energy and dark matter without putting them under a microscope.

Not everything needs to be observed under a microscope or dissected in science. Dark energy is not non physical nor akin to the concept of gods.

 

[DrewPaul]

There is no philosophical justification required for not believing that anything imaginary is real.

No, you just have to prove some claim is in fact imaginary.

 

[devildavid]

A belief in no gods is still a belief.

It is not believing in gods, not a belief in no gods. Atheism is not a belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your opinion is being given all due consideration.

And yours is given all due amusement.

You keep insisting that some justification is required. It isn’t. This is not a complex subject.

Preach to the converted, brother.

I don’t care what you think, honestly. You keep mistaking your own perception of your significance as being important to others. It’s not. I don’t have ‘a philosophy’ with regard to supernatural beliefs. I just don’t have them. You see “flawed” arguments everywhere and pretend - for no reason whatsoever - that anyone should have to justify their own lack of belief in magical stuff. Then you attempt weak and silly insults. Again, I suggest you find a new hobby.

Actual thinking atheists do indeed make coherent arguments, even if I disagree with their premises. The fact that you forswear argumentation does not make you look good, and it's funny that you think it does.

I don’t need to justify my outlook or you or anyone. It’s strange that you continue to insist that I - or anyone else - needs to justify their thoughts to you on gthsi subject.

Justification is good mental exercise. That's the only reason to do it, not because I ask you to do it. The fact that you don't want to speaks volumes.

You are experiencing some imagined superiority. How fun for you. Is that why you post here incessantly? Seems like a weird hobby. Your version of ”logic” is wildly unappealing. But hey, if it makes you happy, go for it.

Then you're transitioning to the position that you can't make me stop posting by repeating your "new hobby" hobbyhorse? That's slight progress, I guess.

A non-belief in something for which there is no scientific evidence is very simple to understand. Or should be. I have religious friends who understand it. I wonder why you struggle so.

You've just expressed an unconditional belief in the supremacy of scientific evidence. More progress.