Every New Atheist sort is an arrogant fool, otherwise they would not be of that ideological movement. Other than disliking God, their primary defining trait is the worship of their own power of reasoning, believing it incapable of fault. It's a complete waste of time to bother interacting with them, barring the desire for some incredulous entertainment.
I've never thought I was too smart to believe in God. I always though it was a reasonable response. Some people disagree, but that never bothered me. People disagree about what is reasonable all the time.
"Other than disliking God, their primary defining trait is the worship" Projection. Why worship at all? I am not casting about looking for something to worship in place of worshiping a god.
Maybe you have some psychological need to worship, dunno, I cannot read your mind, but something must explain this manifest projection of yours.
"their own power of reasoning, believing it incapable of fault." I have never encountered an atheist who expressed that belief. Where do you get this nonsense from? You own imagination, it seems likely.
"It's a complete waste of time to bother interacting with them" If you regard receiving an education as a waste of time, then that might be the case in your view.
I have never encountered an atheist who expressed that belief
It doesn't have to be directly stated to be observationally obvious. Which it is.
If you regard receiving an education as a waste of time, then that might be the case in your view.
New Atheists consistently have no idea what they're talking about, nor do they possess the capacity or willingness to realize it. I've been greatly educated by the gnus, but it's not been the lessons they try to "teach". I now know the entire movement is devoid of worthy thinkers, thanks to years of their efforts declaring otherwise.
You can always tell when an atheist is a thinker, because he is guaranteed to be embarrassed by the gnus.
"It doesn't have to be directly stated to be observationally obvious. Which it is." So you consider mind reading over internet to be "observationally obvious".
No wonder you labor under strawmen. By your own statement you listen to a few things on line, and from that you think you can somehow attribute some absurd strawman to the individual.
That is an apparent difference between you and I. I only go by what is written or said, and only ascribe that to a segment of the individual's thinking, not something to be generalized. I see others as highly multifaceted and complex, because I am highly multifaceted and complex, so it seems likely that others are also highly multifaceted and complex, because we seem to all share very much the same physiology.
You, by contrast of your own words, don't seem to bother with all that complexity. By your own words, you are so limited in your conceptions of the other that you feel you are being accurate when you ascribe absurd blanket strawmen to others, contrary to what they actually said, or at least absent any direct confirmation that your sweeping generalizations are justified.
"New Atheists consistently have no idea what they're talking about," Ok, you are very clearly lacking in education.
"nor do they possess the capacity or willingness to realize it." The bigotry is strong with this one.
"worthy thinkers" Oh, well, then, by all means, oh most worthy thinker, how do you reconcile human free will with human non-authorship of acts commonly asserted to be the consequence of humans acting with free will?
If human act X is accomplished through free will then that human is the author of act X, right?
For example, evil act X. God is supposedly not the author of evil act X because a human being chose of free will to do evil act X, so, that supposedly gets god off the hook for evil, right?
On the other hand, if god is actually the author of evil act X then the human perception of free will in that case is an illusion, the human would then not be the one to blame, god would be the one to blame, in that case, correct oh worthy thinker?
So, is the creation of art an act of free will or not? Is god the author of all art or not?
Now, suppose we put a Catholic style bit of iconography in a jar of urine and place it on display in an art museum under the designation of a work of art. Did god author putting the little statue of Jesus on the cross into the jar of urine? Or was that an act of free will by the human artist?
And what of evil art? Must all art be morally good? What about the case of a great artist who is also an evil person with a sick perverted criminal mind, who goes around making evil art? Is god the author of evil art?
If god is the author of evil art then god is evil, not all good. If god is not the author of evil art then Picard is correct, she is not too smart to believe in god, she is enough of an idiot to state insipidly stupid things like "god is the author of all ... art".
So you consider mind reading over internet to be "observationally obvious".
Reading isn't mind reading. And you accuse me of strawmen?
By your own statement you listen to a few things on line
Except I stated nothing of the sort. In fact, the word "years" was what I said. Around 2006 or 2007, in fact. I've seen every ignorant argument from them many times.
Reading instead of attempting to mind read will be much closer to what I'm actually saying. Which is why
I only go by what is written or said
is blatantly false, since you very clearly are responding to things I didn't write.
You, by contrast of your own words
Which you possibly didn't read and definitely didn't understand. The only context I have to identify people online as New Atheists is their words on religious sites, where their thinking is consistently poor on the topic of God. I have no idea who they are anywhere else, because the subject isn't God. Someone being arrogantly and ignorantly foolish on the subject of gun control or whatever doesn't mean I have any real reason to suspect they are antitheists as well, any more than wisdom on the subject of adoption makes me suspect they aren't.
If context clues are insufficient, then allow me to be perfectly clear that I am only speaking in terms of one topic. On the subject of God, they are proudly and arrogantly clueless.
And anyone familiar with the A+ schism can see that "reason" guides them no more than anyone else, as their positions and conclusions only match regarding their rejection of God, but they claim to be People of Reason with their Reason Rallies. So yes, they hold unjustifiably high opinions of their own reasoning capacity but don't recognize it, and earn criticism by defining themselves by their reasoning despite the clear deficiencies and inconsistencies therein.
Ok, you are very clearly lacking in education.
That would be you, I'm afraid. I've advised repeatedly to get away from their way of thinking, it would only benefit you.
The bigotry is strong with this one.
This is called "hypocrisy". I've seen plenty of your depictions of the alleged thinking deficiencies of people who believe in God, not to mention endless deluges of the same from others over the years. A bigot thou art by thine own logic.
I've seen thoughtful atheists. New Atheists are the flat earthers of the community.
how do you reconcile human free will with human non-authorship of acts commonly asserted to be the consequence of humans acting with free will
Everything I've previously written has only required basic reading comprehension to understand, and look how that went. Can you give me a single reason to suspect a dialogue regarding free will has even a remote chance of being productive?
Especially since I'm not justifying "god" with an adult response, but that's all you write?
I think we both know the answer to that, though likely disagree on the reason for it.
"their primary defining trait is the worship of their own power of reasoning, believing it incapable of fault" So you had some discussions on line for about 15 years and attribute this strawman.
That is internet mind reading, not merely reading.
You think your arguments are generally correct, don't you? Does that mean you think your reasoning is "incapable of fault"?
I very much doubt it.
That is a manifest difference between you and I.
I realize that just because you believe you are generally correct in your arguments that does not mean you think your "reasoning is incapable of fault".
You, however, stubbornly cling to just that conclusion about me.
That makes you an ignorant bigot in that respect by your own words.
That makes you an ignorant bigot in that respect by your own words.
And which of us says there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in his beliefs, none whatsoever, and if someone thinks they have found an alleged flaw then that's the first clue they made a mistake? Not me.
Which of us uses words abnormally and then declares it's everyone else throughout history that got it wrong? Not me.
These are standard New Atheist behaviors, but very deviant in any thoughtful discussion.
By your words, you're an ignorant bigot, and do nothing to disprove my blanket depiction of New Atheist behavior. You actually reinforce it, and I feel more comfortable saying "worship" because that level of certainty in one's own reasoning tips toward blind faith. I've been proven wrong more than once, even on the subject of God and religion. Have you? Or are there no problems with your beliefs, none whatsoever?
That's enough for me. You may have the last word if you so choose.
"Which of us uses words abnormally and then declares it's everyone else throughout history that got it wrong? Not me." There is no objectively wrong way to use words, historically or in the present.
All individuals are free to use any words, pronunciations, grammar, spelling, or definitions.
The supposed rules are just conventions agreed to by large numbers of people to make communication more effective.
"that level of certainty in one's own reasoning tips toward blind faith." I never expressed certainty in my reasoning generally. I am certain that there are no self-contradictions in my materialism, or naturalism is you prefer that term. Hardly blind. I have studied the subject for years and designed my materialistic claims specifically to be free of self-contradiction.
So, when folks like Lewis or Plantinga or Reppert or Bonnette claim to have found a self-contradiction in materialism necessarily I immediately know they are wrong and it is just a matter of a bit of analysis to uncover the errors in their arguments.
"I've been proven wrong more than once, even on the subject of God and religion. Have you?" When I was 11 I believed in god. By the time I was 12 I realized I had been wrong about that.
"are there no problems with your beliefs, none whatsoever?" If I thought there was an error in my belief I would not hold that belief.
Apparently that is not the case for some people, like Lewis, for example. Victor recently provided a shockingly inane quote from Lewis, wherein he admitted he was both angry at god and believed god did not exist, plus he was angry at god for not existing!
Obviously, Lewis was an effing idiot, on the subject of god.
He was very good at other things. People are like that, highly multifaceted. Lewis was stupid about god, and brilliant about writing fiction. Well, the bible is fiction so I suppose that combination of traits is not entirely self contradictory.
9 comments:
Every New Atheist sort is an arrogant fool, otherwise they would not be of that ideological movement. Other than disliking God, their primary defining trait is the worship of their own power of reasoning, believing it incapable of fault. It's a complete waste of time to bother interacting with them, barring the desire for some incredulous entertainment.
I've never thought I was too smart to believe in God. I always though it was a reasonable response. Some people disagree, but that never bothered me. People disagree about what is reasonable all the time.
"Other than disliking God, their primary defining trait is the worship"
Projection. Why worship at all? I am not casting about looking for something to worship in place of worshiping a god.
Maybe you have some psychological need to worship, dunno, I cannot read your mind, but something must explain this manifest projection of yours.
"their own power of reasoning, believing it incapable of fault."
I have never encountered an atheist who expressed that belief. Where do you get this nonsense from? You own imagination, it seems likely.
"It's a complete waste of time to bother interacting with them"
If you regard receiving an education as a waste of time, then that might be the case in your view.
I have never encountered an atheist who expressed that belief
It doesn't have to be directly stated to be observationally obvious. Which it is.
If you regard receiving an education as a waste of time, then that might be the case in your view.
New Atheists consistently have no idea what they're talking about, nor do they possess the capacity or willingness to realize it. I've been greatly educated by the gnus, but it's not been the lessons they try to "teach". I now know the entire movement is devoid of worthy thinkers, thanks to years of their efforts declaring otherwise.
You can always tell when an atheist is a thinker, because he is guaranteed to be embarrassed by the gnus.
"It doesn't have to be directly stated to be observationally obvious. Which it is."
So you consider mind reading over internet to be "observationally obvious".
No wonder you labor under strawmen.
By your own statement you listen to a few things on line, and from that you think you can somehow attribute some absurd strawman to the individual.
That is an apparent difference between you and I.
I only go by what is written or said, and only ascribe that to a segment of the individual's thinking, not something to be generalized.
I see others as highly multifaceted and complex, because I am highly multifaceted and complex, so it seems likely that others are also highly multifaceted and complex, because we seem to all share very much the same physiology.
You, by contrast of your own words, don't seem to bother with all that complexity. By your own words, you are so limited in your conceptions of the other that you feel you are being accurate when you ascribe absurd blanket strawmen to others, contrary to what they actually said, or at least absent any direct confirmation that your sweeping generalizations are justified.
"New Atheists consistently have no idea what they're talking about,"
Ok, you are very clearly lacking in education.
"nor do they possess the capacity or willingness to realize it."
The bigotry is strong with this one.
"worthy thinkers"
Oh, well, then, by all means, oh most worthy thinker, how do you reconcile human free will with human non-authorship of acts commonly asserted to be the consequence of humans acting with free will?
If human act X is accomplished through free will then that human is the author of act X, right?
For example, evil act X. God is supposedly not the author of evil act X because a human being chose of free will to do evil act X, so, that supposedly gets god off the hook for evil, right?
On the other hand, if god is actually the author of evil act X then the human perception of free will in that case is an illusion, the human would then not be the one to blame, god would be the one to blame, in that case, correct oh worthy thinker?
So, is the creation of art an act of free will or not? Is god the author of all art or not?
Now, suppose we put a Catholic style bit of iconography in a jar of urine and place it on display in an art museum under the designation of a work of art. Did god author putting the little statue of Jesus on the cross into the jar of urine? Or was that an act of free will by the human artist?
And what of evil art? Must all art be morally good? What about the case of a great artist who is also an evil person with a sick perverted criminal mind, who goes around making evil art? Is god the author of evil art?
If god is the author of evil art then god is evil, not all good.
If god is not the author of evil art then Picard is correct, she is not too smart to believe in god, she is enough of an idiot to state insipidly stupid things like "god is the author of all ... art".
Correct, oh worthy thinker?
So you consider mind reading over internet to be "observationally obvious".
Reading isn't mind reading. And you accuse me of strawmen?
By your own statement you listen to a few things on line
Except I stated nothing of the sort. In fact, the word "years" was what I said. Around 2006 or 2007, in fact. I've seen every ignorant argument from them many times.
Reading instead of attempting to mind read will be much closer to what I'm actually saying. Which is why
I only go by what is written or said
is blatantly false, since you very clearly are responding to things I didn't write.
You, by contrast of your own words
Which you possibly didn't read and definitely didn't understand. The only context I have to identify people online as New Atheists is their words on religious sites, where their thinking is consistently poor on the topic of God. I have no idea who they are anywhere else, because the subject isn't God. Someone being arrogantly and ignorantly foolish on the subject of gun control or whatever doesn't mean I have any real reason to suspect they are antitheists as well, any more than wisdom on the subject of adoption makes me suspect they aren't.
If context clues are insufficient, then allow me to be perfectly clear that I am only speaking in terms of one topic. On the subject of God, they are proudly and arrogantly clueless.
And anyone familiar with the A+ schism can see that "reason" guides them no more than anyone else, as their positions and conclusions only match regarding their rejection of God, but they claim to be People of Reason with their Reason Rallies. So yes, they hold unjustifiably high opinions of their own reasoning capacity but don't recognize it, and earn criticism by defining themselves by their reasoning despite the clear deficiencies and inconsistencies therein.
Ok, you are very clearly lacking in education.
That would be you, I'm afraid. I've advised repeatedly to get away from their way of thinking, it would only benefit you.
The bigotry is strong with this one.
This is called "hypocrisy". I've seen plenty of your depictions of the alleged thinking deficiencies of people who believe in God, not to mention endless deluges of the same from others over the years. A bigot thou art by thine own logic.
I've seen thoughtful atheists. New Atheists are the flat earthers of the community.
how do you reconcile human free will with human non-authorship of acts commonly asserted to be the consequence of humans acting with free will
Everything I've previously written has only required basic reading comprehension to understand, and look how that went. Can you give me a single reason to suspect a dialogue regarding free will has even a remote chance of being productive?
Especially since I'm not justifying "god" with an adult response, but that's all you write?
I think we both know the answer to that, though likely disagree on the reason for it.
"their primary defining trait is the worship of their own power of reasoning, believing it incapable of fault"
So you had some discussions on line for about 15 years and attribute this strawman.
That is internet mind reading, not merely reading.
You think your arguments are generally correct, don't you? Does that mean you think your reasoning is "incapable of fault"?
I very much doubt it.
That is a manifest difference between you and I.
I realize that just because you believe you are generally correct in your arguments that does not mean you think your "reasoning is incapable of fault".
You, however, stubbornly cling to just that conclusion about me.
That makes you an ignorant bigot in that respect by your own words.
That makes you an ignorant bigot in that respect by your own words.
And which of us says there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in his beliefs, none whatsoever, and if someone thinks they have found an alleged flaw then that's the first clue they made a mistake? Not me.
Which of us uses words abnormally and then declares it's everyone else throughout history that got it wrong? Not me.
These are standard New Atheist behaviors, but very deviant in any thoughtful discussion.
By your words, you're an ignorant bigot, and do nothing to disprove my blanket depiction of New Atheist behavior. You actually reinforce it, and I feel more comfortable saying "worship" because that level of certainty in one's own reasoning tips toward blind faith. I've been proven wrong more than once, even on the subject of God and religion. Have you? Or are there no problems with your beliefs, none whatsoever?
That's enough for me. You may have the last word if you so choose.
"Which of us uses words abnormally and then declares it's everyone else throughout history that got it wrong? Not me."
There is no objectively wrong way to use words, historically or in the present.
All individuals are free to use any words, pronunciations, grammar, spelling, or definitions.
The supposed rules are just conventions agreed to by large numbers of people to make communication more effective.
"that level of certainty in one's own reasoning tips toward blind faith."
I never expressed certainty in my reasoning generally.
I am certain that there are no self-contradictions in my materialism, or naturalism is you prefer that term.
Hardly blind. I have studied the subject for years and designed my materialistic claims specifically to be free of self-contradiction.
So, when folks like Lewis or Plantinga or Reppert or Bonnette claim to have found a self-contradiction in materialism necessarily I immediately know they are wrong and it is just a matter of a bit of analysis to uncover the errors in their arguments.
"I've been proven wrong more than once, even on the subject of God and religion. Have you?"
When I was 11 I believed in god. By the time I was 12 I realized I had been wrong about that.
"are there no problems with your beliefs, none whatsoever?"
If I thought there was an error in my belief I would not hold that belief.
Apparently that is not the case for some people, like Lewis, for example. Victor recently provided a shockingly inane quote from Lewis, wherein he admitted he was both angry at god and believed god did not exist, plus he was angry at god for not existing!
Obviously, Lewis was an effing idiot, on the subject of god.
He was very good at other things. People are like that, highly multifaceted. Lewis was stupid about god, and brilliant about writing fiction. Well, the bible is fiction so I suppose that combination of traits is not entirely self contradictory.
Post a Comment