-
In total there are 36 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 36 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- LevV
-
- Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:45 pm
- 13
- Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
- Has thanked: 117 times
- Been thanked: 202 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
Haidt's elephant is alive and well here!Taylor wrote:The article should have drown in the cesspool, It and the author lend a great deal of nothing to the life worth living.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
I don't have much time this weekend, but would add something to this.geo wrote:Gee, thanks for that important clarification.ant wrote: Hold on a second. I need to correct a couple of misunderstandings you might have about my comments:
I never said the atheists ive encountered were all arrogant intellectuals. I said they were mostly boring, arrogant assholes.
Ant’s claim that the vast majority of atheists he meets are "boring, arrogant assholes" is simply not believable. It's much more likely (and obvious) that he just hates atheists and what he sees in the world is colored by his hatred.
Even if it were true that the vast majority of atheist skeptics Ant meets are "boring, arrogant assholes," it doesn't make sense to bring his grievances here. How are we supposed to engage with such broad-brushed caricatures? There's no argument being put forth, just basic hate-mongering. "Atheists are a cancer on society." Wow.
As johnson said earlier, no one makes such broad generalizations about a group of people as Ant does. This kind of extreme strawman thinking only feeds into his obvious bigotry and to categorize and dehumanize a group of people based solely on whether or not they believe in god. It ain't a pretty picture.
I don't assign the word "intellectual" around cheaply. The "New Atheists" that refer to themselves as "The Brights" are mostly ridiculous. Reading popularized versions of science by celebrity atheists who graft their opinions on to summaries of scientific studies, and then regurgitate those opinions during open forums or internet message boards does not make one an intellectual.
What are theist intellectuals supposed to be, The Dims?
Patronizing atheists are not intellectuals. They're parroting Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins/ Chris Hitchens RAW-RAW-RAW! apologists. There's nothing original or deep about their rhetoric.
The world "intellectual" has been watered- down. Very much the same way as the word "friend' has by a Facebook generation.
You disagree?
Do you remember "President Camacho" was sharing some essay he was writing for a class, and how horribly he characterized religious people?
Remember you commented to him that not all religious people are screaming naive literalists?
I'm guess P.C. is college kid. Some of you old farts have helped to feed his religious caricatures.
I've shared anecdotal experiences here. Anecdotal sharing is not uncommon on this forum.
Interbane's mother-in-law seems like quite a handful.
I feel for him. But there's always two sides to every little story. That includes stories told by atheists.
I don't care if you choose to dismiss mine.
Most of you here have been extremely patronizing with your posts in the past.
If someone doesn't appreciate my condescending characterizations of atheists that person can move on.
Don't you f*** get it?
A) I've posted many times - PRESENT COMPANY EXCLUDED
B) No one should get their panties knotted up if it's not a description of your "non belief"
C) The fact that most everyone IS reacting, is reacting for one reason only - you're not a live-and-let-live non believer. You're specifically ANTI-RELIGION - PERIOD. And you're (not you specifically) not camouflaging it very well.
The truth or falsity of religion is ultimately unimportant when you consider how important it has been and will continue to be. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on crimes or ignorance. Only a brute imbecile would spout that nonsense.
We can start counting victims and winners. Both sides probably have more than their share.
There's some good thoughts shared here on this forum. But there's also a lot of characterizing and over-simplification disseminated by the core non believers on this forum.
Please, don't cry me another river.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
Taylor wrote:The article should have drown in the cesspool, It and the author lend a great deal of nothing to the life worth living.
What does this mean exactly?
what country do you live in and do you know that in the United States we have something called freedom of expression?
Can you tell me why your life is worth living and mine isn't?
Are you a Nazi?
Last edited by ant on Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
what about the the truth or falsehood of specific concepts and doctrines, and their actual effect on the minds and actions of those who accept them as beneficial when they are in fact detrimental?ant wrote:The truth or falsity of religion is ultimately unimportant when you consider how important it has been and will continue to be.
The truth or falsity of religion
no ant, the truth or falsity of specific elements, concepts and thoughts in religion, atheism or anywhere else for that matter.
i love "religion" (broad area, exceedingly broad, everything from go to whoa, or woe as the case may be)
i hate literalism, substitutionary atonement, eternal torment, original sin, jihad, caste system etc etc etc
no ant, you can be anti-food poisoning without being anti-food.C) The fact that most everyone IS reacting, is reacting for one reason only - you're not a live-and-let-live non believer. You're specifically ANTI-RELIGION - PERIOD.
Last edited by youkrst on Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
from the article
and that christianity might do the best job of all adequately explaining aids and ebola?
something better than exclusionary monotheism?
something better than being told what to believe?
no daring needed, it's a necessity.
does it then follow that only theism offers an adequate explanation for when mothers kill their own children?I'd say that only theism offers an adequate explanation — and that Christianity might do the best job of all.
and that christianity might do the best job of all adequately explaining aids and ebola?
something better than the god outlined by the doctrines of orthodox christian literalism?Don't buy it? I dare you to come up with something better.
something better than exclusionary monotheism?
something better than being told what to believe?
no daring needed, it's a necessity.
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
Another ridiculous tirade. We're not "live-and-let-live" because we're arguing in a forum with the resident angry, strawman-creating defender of quasi-deism? What do you think, we're going around beating up religious people in real life?ant wrote: C) The fact that most everyone IS reacting, is reacting for one reason only - you're not a live-and-let-live non believer. You're specifically ANTI-RELIGION - PERIOD. And you're (not you specifically) not camouflaging it very well. [/b]
Look at that, obvious misinterpretation and suggesting someone's a Nazi. Tolerance and good will in action.ant wrote: Can you tell me why your life is worth living and mine isn't?
Are you a Nazi?
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
I'll stop you right there, cowboy. All this stuff about Brights and intellectuals is only stuff you dredged up from somewhere. Jesus, get a hobby. 99.999 percent of our culture is absolute crap. There's plenty of stupidity out there and, yet, you focus like a laser beam only on the stuff that feeds your personal pet project: hating and passing judgment on atheists.ant wrote:I don't assign the word "intellectual" around cheaply. The "New Atheists" that refer to themselves as "The Brights" are mostly ridiculous. Reading popularized versions of science by celebrity atheists who graft their opinions on to summaries of scientific studies, and then regurgitate those opinions during open forums or internet message boards does not make one an intellectual.
That's probably the point I made to President Camacho. He seemed to equate all theists as the kind that believes the earth is 6,000 years old, and I reminded him that YECers are only a fringe element of a much larger spectrum of religious beliefs.ant wrote:Do you remember "President Camacho" was sharing some essay he was writing for a class, and how horribly he characterized religious people?
Remember you commented to him that not all religious people are screaming naive literalists?
I'm guess P.C. is college kid. Some of you old farts have helped to feed his religious caricatures.
So it's weird that you remember that and somehow don't make that connection with what you are doing, which is to attack atheism in the most ridiculous and broadest terms. And you criticize him for religious caricatures? That is frankly amazing.
By the way, President Camacho's a great guy. I wish he would come back. He's very passionate and kind of crazy. I once mentioned to him that I owned a couple of out of print books—THE WILL OF ZEUS and THE MASK OF JOVE—that I hadn't gotten around to reading yet. Within a month, he had bought (and read) both books. Last time he was here he mentioned that he had recently moved to Atlanta to work as an air traffic controller. I think he was taking classes too. An interesting guy.
Yet I'd be willing to bet that the only thing you remember about him is his tendency to bash religion. As if the only thing that matters about a person is their tolerance for religion. That's a damned shame.
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Hard Battle
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
Characterizing all theists as YEC's is amazing.
I don't care if it's by someone who can read two books in a month's time.
I've nearly always clarified what particular atheists I'm opining about. You've chosen to ignore each time I have.
Do you get out much? How are you able to discredited the experiences I've shared with you ( Skeptic meetings held in a large metropolitan city, in large forums at major universities) by simply calling me a liar?
Accusing me of lying is actually no defense at all. It's more of a desperate attempt by someone who's biased toward a group he can only says does not exist. And if anyone says otherwise that person must be a liar.
Really?
Wow! I love it.
Camacho is an interesting and great guy that characterized all theists as YECs and I must be a hate-filled liar because I claim certain things about A-theists I've experienced.
Fcking weak bullshit from you, George.
I don't care if it's by someone who can read two books in a month's time.
I've nearly always clarified what particular atheists I'm opining about. You've chosen to ignore each time I have.
Do you get out much? How are you able to discredited the experiences I've shared with you ( Skeptic meetings held in a large metropolitan city, in large forums at major universities) by simply calling me a liar?
Accusing me of lying is actually no defense at all. It's more of a desperate attempt by someone who's biased toward a group he can only says does not exist. And if anyone says otherwise that person must be a liar.
Really?
Wow! I love it.
Camacho is an interesting and great guy that characterized all theists as YECs and I must be a hate-filled liar because I claim certain things about A-theists I've experienced.
Fcking weak bullshit from you, George.
Last edited by ant on Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: Another challenge to atheists from The Week!
I can see many of Camacho's positive qualities. You can't.ant wrote: Fcking weak bullshit from you, George.
I win!
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything