No.

:lol:

Case closed.

:roll: The part about semantics is what I was referring to.

I'm sorry because I had to address this properly



The writer addresses both those statements. Makes you more the fool for not reading it.



You are the typical type of former Christian who has changed his ideology but not freed from dogma. There is evidence in your statement that you harbor fear of being wrong obviously carried over from a religious upbringing. Just like the ostrich who buries his head in the sand and the born again Christian who fears God you fear being wrong. You've been wrong before so once bitten twice shy right?

Your second statement (above) is like returning a steak at a restaurant because it's too rare for your liking (when in fact it's medium rare). It's arrogant and narrow minded and makes you sound like a complete pompous ass. Any free thinking individual would have read it and than passed judgement. You may not be blinded by faith but certainly by your own ego.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible. :d

Relax on the psychology assessments and stereotyping there champ.

No problems turbo.

Those are some very extraordinary conclusions to draw about someone that has done nothing other than refuse to accept flawed arguments.

Have to say aside from the psychoanalysis rant, in the more recent discussions leftrightout has been quite honest with himself about when he's unsure about something or mistaken instead of arguing for the sake of arguing like some others.
But yes that fear of being wrong stuff was horse shit.

Fact is, yes there are alot of stupid atheists who's minds operate similarly to dogmatic theists. And he's had plenty of valid criticisms against that rare breed.
Some of the nitpicking against his points have been just for the sake of arguing when I'm sure we could just agree that some people are stupid regardless of belief.

I will have a quick nitpick at this though:

Not true. Implicit evidence of a creator is constantly being researched. Alot of the best they could come up with is presented whenever the teaching creationism in school along side evolution issue comes up. The best they had was tested in a court of law and rejected.
Theres probably some deluded scientists or rich theists funding research for explicit evidence sometimes too.

Edited by neanderthal: 5/11/2013 06:22:12 PM

Tbh I was trying to bait him. Didnt work :lol: Will reply tommorow. On my phone

No shit.

So much for honesty.

Well.. I might not have lied about my opinion but probably drew some pretty thin conclusions based on the fact that I barely know you. You do come across as arrogant and egotistical. I could be wrong though.

You're not.

Here's the thing - you came into the discussion with a preconceived idea that atheists are arrogant and egotistical. As someone that doesn't hide who they are, it wouldn't be too difficult to guess what your conclusion of who I am would be.

Maybe. But I'm not one to paint any group ideology with same brush. I think its more you being prematurely dismissive on a paper that I thought raised some interesting ideas. I would have preferred you read it and then agree to disagree rather than state your not reading it based on the premise. Why even bother telling me you didn't read it? That's what irked me.

I read enough of it to decide that it wasn't worth reading and told you exactly why I wouldn't be reading it. You then took an excerpt from the article that was pretty much a demonstration of misuse of language that I feel justified my decision to not read it.

That's why I told you.

Fair enough. I still see it as kind of silly in a tit for tat kind of way. The other thing was your 'burden of proof' that you refused to elaborate.

I thought I elaborated it a few different ways. Shifting the burden of proof to atheists when they are not making a positive claim is a common fallacy that goes on in theistic debates, and I just don't have any patience for it.

The burden of proof is not exclusive to theistic debates. If someone asserts something, the onus is on the person making the assertion to provide proof - not on the other party to disprove it.

So what your saying essentially is that you don't believe in God but not asserting that a God doesn't exist. Therefore no need for burden of proof as your not actively seeking it?

Not only does atheism not assert that a god doesn't exist, it doesn't assert anything at all :)

Any assertion by anyone needs to be backed by proof if it is to be taken seriously, and the more outlandish or extraordinary the assertion the even greater need for compelling evidence.

Without any compelling evidence to prove the assertion, there is absolutely no burden on others to go along for the ride.

The issue is when an unsubstantiated claim becomes as widespread and integrated into a civilisation as religion has integrated itself throughout humanity and caused a huge amount of harm & suffering to those that don't go along for the ride (and quite often those that do, as well).

As for those arrogant, egotistical, militant, dogmatic & evil atheists... Your issue seems to largely be with anti-theists, not atheists. It's about as sensible as someone basing their entire view of Christianity on the Westboro Baptist Church.

:lol:

My issue is a lack of understanding. It's a very convenient point of view. Not saying I agree with it. I think it shows a lack of curiosity. Why pigeon hole yourself? That's what religion does.

Do you mean that my position shows a lack of understanding? I don't think that rejection of bad reasoning with a lack of evidence pigeon holes me into anything. I'm very happy to accept arguments when I find them compelling, it's just that I haven't heard many recently that relate to a supernatural being of creation. Of course I could be wrong, but to date I remain unconvinced.

Neil Degrasse Tyson does an excellent talk on believing in supernatural things because of a lack of understanding of natural processes on humanities part. He calls it "the god of the gaps", which puts the concept of a god in an ever shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance. Bertrand Russell's cosmic teapot is another great example of where the burden of proof lies for those claiming any sort of a creator.

I was at a men's retreat with my dad recently put on by the church he attends, and whilst we were discussing various logical arguments for the Christian god, one of the attendees spoke about CS Lewis and his argument for Christianity which appears to be the root of presuppositional apologetics. It's probably the closest thing that I have heard since deconverting from theism to a compelling argument for a supernatural being, but even then it's too shaky and relies too much on assumptions while ignoring evidence to the contrary to sway me back again.

Weren't you just saying before (or at least acknowledging) that there wasn't any concrete evidence to the contrary.

I think I'll leave it at that. I do have a lot clearer understanding of the definition. I wouldn't say I'm atheist as I'm actively interested in god theories explained scientifically.

I'm into questions like, If all matter is energy held together by invisible forces, what is the source of those forces? I also like reading up on simulation theory and the holographic universe theory as I find that stuff fascinating. Though they are only theories, I'm not a believer.

The multiverse theory always blows my mind. With research into the Higgs Boson and other particle physics projects underway, we live in really exciting times.