[quote]pat wrote:
Seems I have pissed a lot of people off lately…
What are you pissed off about, exactly?[/quote]
Chopping that down to save on size.
I’m not pissed off.
It just seems that in those two threads, people went through quite the lengths to rectify your logical malfunctioning, and in this thread you go ahead and say:
[quote]pat wrote:
I do not believe this is true. First, theists have fulfilled the burden of proof with many logical arguments for the existence of God.
Second, atheists have just as much burden to prove why anything exists, rather than nothing.
This burden of proof shift is false. Removing God from the equation doesn’t make the equation disappear.[/quote]
and then
[quote]I was arguing for something completely different, not God, first. And that was my argument and I admit it was poor. But I was not arguing the existence of God. Second, the arguments for God’s existence are not mine, I didn’t invent them. Much smarter people than I did that. I don’t trumpet the strength of my arguments, I argue the strength of other people’s arguments. [/quote]
So you use other people’s arguments, (no crime there, that’s how these things work), then say that your argument was poor.
Going from there, so you were using someone else’s argument, and it was poor.
Now it was either poor because you misrepresented it or didn’t understand it well enough to properly represent it. Or it was poor in itself, eg not a good argument regardless who was using it.
So if the argument was poor, then it shouldn’t be used, or;
you don’t understand the argument and were unable to properly represent it, so how can you claim that is it logical?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Science’s buttresses have been torn down and rebuilt many times. The prudent man suggests that it will probably continue to be so.[/quote]
Yep, have to change with new information/understanding.[/quote]
Doesn’t that explain the many versions of the same essential message?
Dawkins and his New Atheism sounds like a very american phenomenon to me.
He is pretty much nobody where i live.
I remember reading a few articles about him years ago, when i was studying philosophy in the university.
But it was not about his atheism. It was about the “selfish gene” and his socio-biological theories.
Showing hostility against believers is excusable if you’re a 16 year old, but if you’re a professor, it’s a sign of premature dementia.
Anyway, i don’t feel the need to distance myself from him. The Atlantic Ocean already do that.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Dawkins and his New Atheism sounds like a very american phenomenon to me.
He is pretty much nobody where i live.
I remember reading a few articles about him years ago, when i was studying philosophy in the university.
But it was not about his atheism. It was about the “selfish gene” and his socio-biological theories.
Showing hostility against believers is excusable if you’re a 16 year old, but if you’re a professor, it’s a sign of premature dementia.
Anyway, i don’t feel the need to distance myself from him. The Atlantic Ocean already do that.
[/quote]
Well I found this enlightening…
Is this the real atheism? Has it shown it’s true face?
“Mock them, ridicule them, in public”
“… need to be ridiculed with contempt”
How many atheists believe Richard Dawkins? We should be mocked and ridiculed for our beliefs? This isn’t non-belief, this is raw, pure hatred. I want to hear from atheists, do you practice what is preached?[/quote]
Pat, I believe that Dawkins has a brilliant mind, and agree with a large portion of what he says. That being said, I also believe that he’s a poor messenger of non-belief. I have a hard time listening to him speak, as he has a very unpleasant personality. I don’t hate the guy, I just think that his personality is very grating.
Listening to Dawkins, makes me miss Hitchens even more.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I do agree with you, smh, that the starlight problem is a seemingly difficult one at this juncture. However, science has solved difficult problems before. I see no reason why it can’t happen again.[/quote]
If it does, I will be the first to concede that point. I don’t say that sarcastically.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Science’s buttresses have been torn down and rebuilt many times. The prudent man suggests that it will probably continue to be so.[/quote]
And that, my friend, is the beauty of it.
It is very liberating, to be able to abandon your beliefs when you’re given reason to doubt them.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Dawkins and his New Atheism sounds like a very american phenomenon to me.
He is pretty much nobody where i live.
I remember reading a few articles about him years ago, when i was studying philosophy in the university.
But it was not about his atheism. It was about the “selfish gene” and his socio-biological theories.
Showing hostility against believers is excusable if you’re a 16 year old, but if you’re a professor, it’s a sign of premature dementia.
Anyway, i don’t feel the need to distance myself from him. The Atlantic Ocean already do that.
[/quote]
I’m not sure I had even heard of him until I started reading these forums on PWI and I still don’t know much about him. But according to Pat I need catch up on his teachings since he is my leader or something like that.
Well I found this enlightening…
Is this the real atheism? Has it shown it’s true face?
“Mock them, ridicule them, in public”
“… need to be ridiculed with contempt”
How many atheists believe Richard Dawkins? We should be mocked and ridiculed for our beliefs? This isn’t non-belief, this is raw, pure hatred. I want to hear from atheists, do you practice what is preached?[/quote]
No I don’t practice this.
[quote]It seems to me, and ever more apparent that you are readily passing judgement on Christians, Christianity as a whole, etc.
Not by reading theology and dogma, but on the behavior of a few.[/quote]
It seems to me, and ever more apparent that you are readily passing judgement on Atheists, Atheists as a whole, etc. On the behavior of this guy.
*“Oh no, I’m not judging, I’m asking, asking asking! I even called him your preacher.”
Not judging. C’mon. Do better and give us a challenge at least. You’re making this too easy.
Why are you mocking and ridiculing non believers? Why are you not calling out people in your thread who call them fools? Why are you telling them to stay on meds?
If you can’t find the hypocrisy it’s because you have no desire to see it. Which seems to be the case lately when I point it out. So rock on.
[/quote]
Oh I see, you’re trying to expose me for who I really am… Whatever floats your boat. Expose me all you want. Show the world who I really am. Like it matters, I am not running for office.[/quote]
What are you talking about? Either respond to what I said or don’t post. Don’t make up stuff like I’m trying to expose you. Don’t hand wave and deflect things. You’re far smarter and better than that Pat.
I’m not TRYING to do anything. I’m pointing out that you don’t seem to be staying consistent. I don’t know who you really are or even what that means. It’s a pointless bullshit internet discussion. We’ve had a million of them before. I don’t get on here to set out and do something or have some type of agenda. I discuss what I feel about topics brought up. Plain and simple. Playing the victim isn’t necessary here. No one is doing anything you’re alleging. [/quote]
You’re trying to show what a hypocrite I am, how inconsistent I am are you not? Isn’t that what you just said, or did I misread it?
I didn’t allege anybody was doing anything.
If it’s such a pointless discussion then why are you participating? That’s contradictory. For such a pointless discussion, you sure have a lot to say about it. Well it actually seems you have more to say about me, than the topic. And if you read my responses, I don’t think you can reasonably say I am accusing anyone of anything, except you. I am accusing you of ad hominem attacks without justification.
It appears to me, you are interested in pointing out what I hypocrite I am. Maybe I am too self absorbed, but you said it several times. You pointed out how contradictory I am, what a hypocrite I am, did you not?
So go on tell everybody what a hypocrite I am. Start a thread on ‘pat the Hypocrite’.[/quote]
C’mon. I was saying these discussions aren’t as big a deal as you’re making them. You’re getting really defensive for no reason. Yes, I demonstrably showed hypocrisy. I showed this with words.
[/quote]
You showed hypocrisy? Where? What is hypocritical specifically? You’re putting a bunch of words in my mouth for example:
[i]"It seems to me, and ever more apparent that you are readily passing judgement on Atheists, Atheists as a whole, etc. On the behavior of this guy.
*“Oh no, I’m not judging, I’m asking, asking asking! I even called him your preacher.” [/i]
“Back to the “ya know Atheism is a religion” stupidity arguments for the 9,000th time. More hypocrisy. You have believers already in this thread mocking and ridiculing atheists. No big deal though right?”
I didn’t say ANY of that. None. You said I said it, but I didn’t say it.
Calling me a hypocrite without justification, using your own words as my words is ad hominem. I didn’t say those things. I didn’t imply those things.
[quote]
Take it easy Pat, you’re getting really worked up for no big deal. I don’t even dislike you, I just dislike the argument you’re currently making. I think you’re intelligent and we’re all hypocrites from time to time. Nothing worth exploding about. [/quote]
I am not worked up at all. Puzzled yes. Being called a hypocrite and all that stuff isn’t very nice. What is my hypocrisy? I am curious because I don’t see it. But maybe I am blind and stupid. But I didn’t say the things you said I said. And you are calling my a hypocrite based on the things you said I said.
So what did I say that is hypocritical?[/quote]
Nice? Is this nice?
[quote]Well I found this enlightening…
Is this the real atheism? Has it shown it’s true face?
“Mock them, ridicule them, in public”
“… need to be ridiculed with contempt”
How many atheists believe Richard Dawkins? We should be mocked and ridiculed for our beliefs? This isn’t non-belief, this is raw, pure hatred. I want to hear from atheists, do you practice what is preached?[/quote]
Is get back on your meds nice? Those WERE your words. I called you a hypocrite because you said don’t judge believers on the words of a few people and then attempted to judge atheists on the words of one. You’re deliberately being obtuse. Everyone knows exactly why I posted what I did and so do you. You’re attempting to play it off like you “don’t get it.”
Why would YOU get annoyed about non-believers talking about judging Christians on the actions of a few and then turn around and attempt to do the same. Why are you talking about being attacked while throwing out attacks? You’re getting defensive about stuff that YOU are doing. It’s strange. Honestly I just find it ironic when I read the thread because you JUST posted how annoying it was because you thought I was doing it.
I don’t mock religious people for their belief (though in debate I say what I mean, and these things can offend).
All that said, religion is a worldview, a set of beliefs, a way of looking at things…
Like conservatism.
Like liberalism.
See where I’m going with that?
Take a quick look around PWI. Beliefs are mocked all the time and everywhere, including the beliefs of Republicans, moderates, libertarians, anarchists, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Scientologists, and–around here, most often–liberals.
Again, Richard Dawkins is an asshole. He is also emitting little more than hot air in that video: Most atheists absolutely do not mock Christians in the street, and most never will. Insofar as mocking does happen, it happens in very corner of every ring. Except maybe the Quakers.
[quote]pat wrote:
Seems I have pissed a lot of people off lately…
What are you pissed off about, exactly?[/quote]
Chopping that down to save on size.
I’m not pissed off.
It just seems that in those two threads, people went through quite the lengths to rectify your logical malfunctioning, and in this thread you go ahead and say:
[quote]pat wrote:
I do not believe this is true. First, theists have fulfilled the burden of proof with many logical arguments for the existence of God.
Second, atheists have just as much burden to prove why anything exists, rather than nothing.
This burden of proof shift is false. Removing God from the equation doesn’t make the equation disappear.[/quote]
and then
[quote]I was arguing for something completely different, not God, first. And that was my argument and I admit it was poor. But I was not arguing the existence of God. Second, the arguments for God’s existence are not mine, I didn’t invent them. Much smarter people than I did that. I don’t trumpet the strength of my arguments, I argue the strength of other people’s arguments. [/quote]
So you use other people’s arguments, (no crime there, that’s how these things work), then say that your argument was poor.
[/quote]
The argument for determining contingency from the existence of something was poorly done in the first premise. That was an argument I was asked to construct on the fly. I seldom if ever create logical arguments from nothing or without predicate. Clearly I need to work on it.
No, the arguments for the existence of God are someone elses arguments and defending those arguments are what I do most of the time. That was not what was occurring in the threads you referred to. We were not discussing the existence of God. We were looking at some premises, but not the arguments themselves.
I wasn’t using somebody else’s argument there. I was asked to create an argument for causation of existence and I did not do a good job of it. I was not arguing the cosmological or ontological arguments.
No, I have no idea what this has to do with anything. If you are interested in discussing the 5 arguments for God’s existence we should do that in those threads. I lost an argument once about something else, big deal it happens.
Does this make you so giddy as to bring it up in threads that has nothing to do with that?
You can start a ‘pat lost’ thread and bash the shit out of me about it there if you’d like. It does not mean the arguments for the existence of God are wrong, it doesn’t speak to them at all.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Science’s buttresses have been torn down and rebuilt many times. The prudent man suggests that it will probably continue to be so.[/quote]
Yep, have to change with new information/understanding.[/quote]
Doesn’t that explain the many versions of the same essential message?
[/quote]
Not sure what you’re saying/mean. Clarify please?
[/quote]
If you take all the religions the world has ever known, and put them in a colander with the right sized holes, you’d be left with a common core of basic principles, agreed?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If you take all the religions the world has ever known, and put them in a colander with the right sized holes, you’d be left with a common core of basic principles, agreed?[/quote]
I don’t know, and that would depend on what you filtered, and the criteria you were using, eg do all have to have these for it to be considered common? 80%…etc
What if most don’t have love and respect your neighbours? Should it be agreed that those are wrong? That would get interesting
It would be interesting to see a graphic, or statistical analysis of something like that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If you take all the religions the world has ever known, and put them in a colander with the right sized holes, you’d be left with a common core of basic principles, agreed?[/quote]
I don’t know, and that would depend on what you filtered, and the criteria you were using, eg do all have to have these for it to be considered common? 80%…etc
What if most don’t have love and respect your neighbours? Should it be agreed that those are wrong? That would get interesting
It would be interesting to see a graphic, or statistical analysis of something like that.[/quote]
I’m thinking along the lines of the bare bone basics. Things like, there is more to the world than us, “good” is preferable to “evil”, there is reason for things, etc.
If you get too specific, you end up with the different names, sects, books and this leads to arguments. However, if you stay macro enough, there isn’t a whole lot of disagreement.
I’m thinking along the lines of the bare bone basics. Things like, there is more to the world than us, “good” is preferable to “evil”, there is reason for things, etc.
[/quote]
As an agnostic-atheist this fits me even though. I think science explains why things happen. I prefer what I view as good to what I view as evil. I think there is more to the “universe” than just humans on Earth.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Science’s buttresses have been torn down and rebuilt many times. The prudent man suggests that it will probably continue to be so.[/quote]
And that, my friend, is the beauty of it.
It is very liberating, to be able to abandon your beliefs when you’re given reason to doubt them.[/quote]
Maybe you will see fit to someday practice what you just preached. Your tendency to explore might very well lead you down that path. If it happens you remember the words of your ol’ Montana hick buddy, Push.
Speaking of being liberated, see John 8:32.[/quote]
I do practice this. In fact, it was evidential reason to doubt atheism that led me away from it.
If I am ever offered better reason to believe Scripture than to believe what I believe now, I will change.
This is not intended as an insult, but I don’t think the reverse could be said of you. I think it’s ingrained in your mind (a mind I know, as an aside, to be very sharp).