Feedback: Who has been my most difficult atheist opponent?

[Andius]

If they're religious they're kooks ..... JUSTIFICATION COMPLETE!

Newsflash Yourmaster:

Even atheism has her religions, what makes you think atheistic systems of belief are excempt? They are just as religious as they come like any other system of belief. Just because they toss deities out the window, does not excempt from the label of religion.

You adhere to an atheistic belief system, ergo, an atheist religion, Oh snap!! All your crap has become invalidated!! Foul! Foul!

[YourMaster]

Jackass, not only does intelligence all to frequently fly off the window with atheism, but manners as well. I pity the mother and father that had to spawn you, and even more so the woman (or man ) that be your mate.



Oh dear... your just as bad as the Germans who swallowed the tripe that the Jews were nothing but swindling bankers and moneylenders that are plundering Germany clean. Your just as deluded as the Arabs that seek to wipeout Israelis clean of the map. Your narrow conception of Christianity has blinded you from thinking outside the box, yeah.... cuz Christians are ALL chauvinistic pigs. You hate Christianity that bad that you are willing to delude yourself to strawman conceptions of them, just as the Germans of 80 years ago did with the Jews, and the Arabs of 50 years ago with the Israelis. I am gonna dub you a Nazi from here one, cuz that's pretty much what you are in your praxis, a stupid deluded Nazi.



Hit a chord didn't we? whatever happened to this "self-control" of yours?

Awesome ... when you have no argument pull out the Nazi card. I LOVE IT

[Andius]

Awesome ... when you have no argument pull out the Nazi card. I LOVE IT

I have my argument (Can't even spot an argument to save your sorry life), you fit in the same mold as a Nazi, by virtue that you hold a narrowistic conceptions of others, especially the ones that you have no love for.

You = Christianity is meaaaan
German Nazis = Jews are meeaaann

See? Stupid Nazi.

[YourMaster]

Newsflash Yourmaster:

Even atheism has her religions, what makes you think atheistic systems of belief are excempt? They are just as religious as they come like any other system of belief. Just because they toss deities out the window, does not excempt from the label of religion.

Atheism doesn't have anything, it's a blank sheet of paper. Only kooky wing nuts would define a simple demand for real proof as "a religion"

[Andius]

Atheism doesn't have anything, it's a blank sheet of paper. Only kooky wing nuts would define a simple demand for real proof as "a religion"

Wrong dude, atheism is anything but a blank sheet of paper.

Atheistic belief systems contain these qualities:

- The universe had an impersonal beginning.
- Beings under the definition of deities do not exist.
- The material forms the sole basis of the "construct" (Design is only illusory) of our reality.

That don't look like a blank sheet of paper to me in it's positive conceptions or qualities.

[YourMaster]

I have my argument (Can't even spot an argument to save your sorry life), you fit in the same mold as a Nazi, by virtue that you hold a narrowistic conceptions of others, especially the ones that you have no love for.

You = Christianity is meaaaan
German Nazis = Jews are meeaaann

See? Stupid Nazi.

Maybe I am like an anti-theist Nazi in one aspect .... because I certainly think theists are stupid (but of course that's only because THEY USUALLY ARE). However, I don't attribute it to genetics, in most cases anyway (genes are just dumb little stretches of DNA made up of exons and introns that don't do much except code protein ... and their influence on our behavior and thinking is drastically overrated in popular parlance).

[YourMaster]

Wrong dude, atheism is anything but a blank sheet of paper.

Atheistic belief systems contain these qualities:

- The universe had an impersonal beginning.
- Beings under the definition of deities do not exist.
- The material forms the sole basis of the "construct" (Design is only illusory) of our reality.

That don't look like a blank sheet of paper to me in it's positive conceptions or qualities.

None of this is accurate. An atheist isn't obligated to take a materialist view (obviously I do, but not all do). You can believe in some sort of obscurely defined spiritual life force (that isn't a deity) and still be properly classified as an atheist. I'm not referring to deism (deists are of course theists, although they're often grouped with other types of religious skeptics).

Furthermore, few atheists make far reaching assertions like "the universe had an impersonal beginning." Many of us think believing otherwise amounts to baseless wishful thinking, but we don't mind saying we're not sure (and waiting for science to gain a greater understanding of the universe before making hard conclusions). What we're confident of is ludicrous ancient desert religions, which have a clear connection to earlier myths (and no I'm not referring to the "Jesus myth") that read almost exactly like every other myth in history ... offers us any insight into anything (except how primitive and dark ancient desert life must have been).

Religion objectively reduces to the absurd ... period!

[YourMaster]

I'm not "demanding" anything except that you validate your epistemology with a comparable example. Obviously that's well beyond your ability -- as I knew it would be when I consulted all the scholars who have done work on the Scythians in the first place. Sucker.

It's like this....you have only these options:

1) Work out an epistemology for determining how we know when millions of nomadic people occupied X amount of space for X amount of time. Then show that the level of evidence expected under this epistemology is met for the Scythians (who were much more numerous, and occupied their space for a much longer period) but isn't met for the Exodus (which involved far fewer people in a much smaller period of time).

BTW you're inadvertently saying archeology lacks a systematic method for answering these questions, and dealing with the unique issues presented by each of these cases (better go find out what Jesus would do when he's stumped; maybe you can dribble out a parable for me). Also, I just found a video of you .... what a tard

[Andius]

Okay .... first I'm not sure the idea that Jews are mean was exactly a hallmark element of Nazi ideology. I think parasitic, inferior, etc. was more along the lines of their warped thinking (but maybe I am like an anti-theist Nazi in one aspect .... because I certainly think theists are intellectually inferior; but of course that's only because THEY ARE). However, I don't attribute it to genetics, in most cases anyway (genes are just dumb little stretches of DNA made up of exons and introns that don't do much except code protein ... and their influence on our behavior and thinking is drastically overrated in popular parlance).

None of this is accurate. An atheist isn't obligated to take a materialist view (obviously I do, but not all do). You can believe in some sort of obscurely defined spiritual life force (that isn't a deity) and still be properly classified as an atheist. I'm not referring to deism (deists are of course theists, although they're often grouped with other types of religious skeptics).

Okay, I can grant that. But I still stand and treat self-proclaimed atheists on the basis of the first two qualities as the starting premises for the rest of their system of beliefs.

Furthermore, few atheists make far reaching assertions like "the universe had an impersonal beginning." Many of us think believing otherwise amounts to baseless wishful thinking,

Okay, so the number of atheists asserting impersonal beginning are few, but if the many do so because the the latter leads to wishfull thinking, they are already committing an illegitimate bias in choosing a belief (It is illogical bias to be selective of a belief on the basis that you one hold's that X belief leads wishfull thinking, that be a hallmark of superstitious thinking) .

but we don't mind saying we're not sure (and waiting for science to gain a greater understanding of the universe before making hard conclusions).

f they want to stay at limbo regarding the God question on origins, then atheism is not even the proper label, and they would be more accurately agnostics or apatheists, where they at least leave the question open, and display indifference in their everyday business as if deities did not exist.

[YourMaster]

Okay, so the number of atheists asserting impersonal beginning are few, but if the many do so because the the latter leads to wishfull thinking, they are already committing an illegitimate bias in choosing a belief (It is illogical bias to be selective of a belief on the basis that you one hold's that X belief leads wishfull thinking, that be a hallmark of superstitious thinking) .

If they want to stay at limbo regarding the God question on origins, then atheism is not even the proper label, and they would be more accurately agnostics or apatheists, where they at least leave the question open, and display indifference in their everyday business as if deities did not exist.

No one is in limbo. Most atheists in the United States were raised Christians or Jews. Many of us have simply concluded (usually after significant academic accomplishment) that religion is stupid. Furthermore, I strongly doubt you know a thing about the roots of superstition. Let's start with a simple question if you're up to it .... are you familiar with the work of B.F. Skinner and modern developments in behavioral psychology that help explain the sources of human superstition (I'll give you time to Google it )?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

At least you spelled it right

And yet, YourMustard refuses to engage in an argument.

Revealing, well, not really.....

[Andius]

Maybe I am like an anti-theist Nazi in one aspect .... because I certainly think theists are stupid (but of course that's only because THEY USUALLY ARE). However, I don't attribute it to genetics, in most cases anyway (genes are just dumb little stretches of DNA made up of exons and introns that don't do much except code protein ... and their influence on our behavior and thinking is drastically overrated in popular parlance).

And I thought you cried for nitpickings. Okay, so I displayed them as "meanies" merely to assert how you and the Nazis pretty much are giving them "evil" propagandistic conceptions. The Germans actually did view them as mean also, mean in the sense that they were rich exploiters of true and pure Germans!

Then there's where you be committing foul. You hold an unwarranted bias that theists hold an inferior intellect by virtue of this one belief. Are you not awares that such a thing is not true?

- J. W. Marriott, Jr. = An administrative genius that brought about the prosperity of the Marriot Hotels Industry, and he be a Mormon! (He is a theist! Oh gasp!!)
- Bertrand Russel = A mathematical genius that has given great contributions in the field of logic, and he is an atheist! (Don't push yourself, unlike you, I don't hold silly biases)
- James Joule = Physicist that contirbuted in the development of how heat and mechanics work (And he is a theist!)
- Kathrin Bringmann = Mathematician that helped calculate modular forms and mock theta functions. (And she is a pantheist! even Hindus are not bereft genius!)
- Ludwig von Mises = Austrian Economist that developed the Cycle's Theory that explains correctly how market crashes occur. (Oh my! an Agnostic!).

What's wrong with this picture? Oh yes.... nothing. Unlike you, I don't hold petty prejudices regarding an individual's intellectual dexterity on the sole basis of their beliefs regarding gods. The former does not naturally follow the latter. If the rest of the world followed your pattern of thought, it would kill substantially the amount of technological innovation and research in all sciences. Your prejudice is the thing of Nazis, or any other oppressive group that has come, and is to come that holds a hatred for a group of people on the charge of their stances regarding the God/Divinity question. I recognize and give due honor to genius, regardless of the their god question stances.

Oh, and since when did I assert anything regarding genetics? I care little for that field, and back off from it (Not my field). Okay, so the populist conception that genes are determitive is all bunk, okay, that's fine, thank you for the redundency.

[Andius]

No one is in limbo. Most atheists in the United States were raised Christians or Jews. Many of us have simply concluded (usually after significant academic accomplishment) that religion is stupid. Furthermore, I strongly doubt you know a thing about the roots of superstition.

Keep telling yourself that love, in regards to the so called "Academic Accomplishments" of atheists. No I don't know the roots of superstition, and quite frankly, I could care less about it.

Let's start with a simple question if you're up to it .... are you familiar with the work of B.F. Skinner and modern developments in behavioral psychology that help explain the sources of human superstition (I'll give you time to Google it )?

I am not very knowledgeable regarding Skinner's works, nor do I presume to understand it correctly (I am not trained to understand Psychology properly, not my major, nor my forte). but I am familiar with his starting premises in the research, in this case, the Behaviorist school of thought.

[YourMaster]

And yet, YourMustard refuses to engage in an argument.

Revealing, well, not really.....

The so call arguments I've encountered on this site thus far amount to absurd rabble (like an assertion that archeology lacks a systematic method for verifying historical events). Like I've been saying, when I see an argument worthy of a thoughtful response, you'll get a thoughtful response. So far I have no reason to respect the intelligence of any poster here.

[jpholding]

BTW you're inadvertently saying archeology lacks a systematic method for answering these questions,

You're "archaeology"? I can believe that -- dusty, crusty, and musty.

In any event, you obviously have no answer to the argument, which further proves you are nothing but hot air. And it is hardly inconceivable that certain MINIMALIST Biblical archaeologists have not figured out that their ideas lack a systematic epistemology...after all, many of them do make remarkably stupid statements, as you do. In contrast, the archaeologists who deal with the Scythians have never made exceptionally stupid statements like, "We can find this or this from the Exodus, therefore it never happened."

So I'm hardly saying "archaeology" lacks an epistemology -- just a few windbag archaeologists, perhaps, and a whole lot of windbag fundy atheists like you.

Also, I just found a video of you ...

Here's one of you coming in for a landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B6FXDx1HlI