Ask an Atheist Anything

UltimateContrarian wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach.

Do not exaggerate it for your own purpose.

I did not. Strive to read better and strive to be honest in your proselytization crusade.

And yes, there are many religious scientists.

The people I mentioned are NOT scientists. Try reading Hegel and Kierkegaard.

There are also religious people who share atheistic views, though, didn't care about. Most religious people actually have seen through the bullshit of their holy books and have managed to ignore the barbaric parts and have just incorporated the good parts to their overall moral philosophy.

I am attacking the Idea of a God, since the concept of a God has been made accountable for the things we do not understand yet, or maybe never will should humanity sabotages itself. The religious ingeniously created there God to be always defended by any criticism and against all reason, by putting God outside the realms of the natural universe. And anybody who claims to know beyond this natural universe, is talking bullshit.

And also because, God itself needs an explanation, if a question on how such thing began or came to be, and if someone tells you God did it, it doesn't answer the question, it doesn't explain anything. You are still left with the sack you are holding on.

I usually don't read long winded BS unless I'm paid to and I only speed read through the above. None of the above has anything with what I wrote. Your lecturn is too clumsy so I'll not waste time in taking it seriously. Try reading instead of engaging in bad faith discussions. That's all again, sport.

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.

And now you are assuming that I have just read Rand. You do make a lot of assumptions, it has turned ugly for you the last time, still you haven't learned your lesson.

Sofronitsky wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach.

Do not exaggerate it for your own purpose.

I did not. Strive to read better and strive to be honest in your proselytization crusade.

And yes, there are many religious scientists.

The people I mentioned are NOT scientists. Try reading Hegel and Kierkegaard.

There are also religious people who share atheistic views, though, didn't care about. Most religious people actually have seen through the bullshit of their holy books and have managed to ignore the barbaric parts and have just incorporated the good parts to their overall moral philosophy.

I am attacking the Idea of a God, since the concept of a God has been made accountable for the things we do not understand yet, or maybe never will should humanity sabotages itself. The religious ingeniously created there God to be always defended by any criticism and against all reason, by putting God outside the realms of the natural universe. And anybody who claims to know beyond this natural universe, is talking bullshit.

And also because, God itself needs an explanation, if a question on how such thing began or came to be, and if someone tells you God did it, it doesn't answer the question, it doesn't explain anything. You are still left with the sack you are holding on.

I usually don't read long winded BS unless I'm paid to and I only speed read through the above. None of the above has anything with what I wrote. Your lecturn is too clumsy so I'll not waste time in taking it seriously. Try reading instead of engaging in bad faith discussions. That's all again, sport.

Well good, next time do have an argument if you wanna participate here. Not tell me how I am bedazzled by quotes of somebody else, do not refer me to other writers, or philosophers in the past.
Have an argument and we will debate it.

And yes it does, I just showed you how Religion makes people Stupid, by discouraging questions, and being content in bad bad answers.

Although you are bent on disagreeing with me, I do not expect you to agree on whatever I say, regardless of how sound and reasonable it is.

And that's all I can say to you, SPORT.

Present an argument, and if you have a problem with what I have written here, do not just say it is Clumsy, it is BS or a sermon, or proselytizing. That is childish, if you think I have made a comment that is unsatisfactory, then demonstrate it. It is that Easy.

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.

And now you are assuming that I have just read Rand. You do make a lot of assumptions, it has turned ugly for you the last time, still you haven't learns your lesson.

You called her your "heroine."

I'm not assuming she is the only one you have read. I stated that you have only made it up to her so far. Meaning that you bought her arguments and have yet to go deeper. Your studies have a long way to go if you are not yet able to see the fault in her philosophy.

Please do not project your feelings onto me, because nothing has "turned ugly" for me in the way you are suggesting.

nanox wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.

And now you are assuming that I have just read Rand. You do make a lot of assumptions, it has turned ugly for you the last time, still you haven't learns your lesson.

You called her your "heroine."

I'm not assuming she is the only one you have read. I stated that you have only made it up to her so far. Meaning that you bought her arguments and have yet to go deeper. Your studies have a long way to go if you are not yet able to see the fault in her philosophy.

Please do not project your feelings onto me, because nothing has "turned ugly" for me in the way you are suggesting.

Then please make an argument of how her philosophy is wrong, and what the faults are. Instead of telling me that they are just faulty.

Again, make an argument. And I'll be here for you all day.

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.

And now you are assuming that I have just read Rand. You do make a lot of assumptions, it has turned ugly for you the last time, still you haven't learns your lesson.

You called her your "heroine."

I'm not assuming she is the only one you have read. I stated that you have only made it up to her so far. Meaning that you bought her arguments and have yet to go deeper. Your studies have a long way to go if you are not yet able to see the fault in her philosophy.

Please do not project your feelings onto me, because nothing has "turned ugly" for me in the way you are suggesting.

Then please make an argument of how her philosophy is wrong, and what the faults are. Instead of telling me that they are just faulty.

Again, make an argument. And I'll be here for you all day.

Did you read the link I posted to you the other day? I didn't link it to win an internet fight or to troll you or in attempt to claim intellectual superiority over you.

I wrote you a sincere reply and invited you to read the best deconstruction of Rand's philosophy I have read (written far better than I could hope to achieve in a forum post). I suggested it because you seem to enjoy philosophy and I thought you might want to continue the study by reading the counter arguments.

In my experience, attempting to debate with you when you are already defensive is pointless because you will dismiss any argument I make simply because I am the one who made it.

BUT I would be intensely curious to know what you think of the link I posted for you and to DISCUSS it with you.

If that doesn't interest you then I guess we can just go back to mocking each other.

nanox wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.

And now you are assuming that I have just read Rand. You do make a lot of assumptions, it has turned ugly for you the last time, still you haven't learns your lesson.

You called her your "heroine."

I'm not assuming she is the only one you have read. I stated that you have only made it up to her so far. Meaning that you bought her arguments and have yet to go deeper. Your studies have a long way to go if you are not yet able to see the fault in her philosophy.

Please do not project your feelings onto me, because nothing has "turned ugly" for me in the way you are suggesting.

Then please make an argument of how her philosophy is wrong, and what the faults are. Instead of telling me that they are just faulty.

Again, make an argument. And I'll be here for you all day.

Did you read the link I posted to you the other day? I didn't link it to win an internet fight or to troll you or in attempt to claim intellectual superiority over you.

I wrote you a sincere reply and invited you to read an amazing deconstruction of Rand's philosophy (written far better than I could hope to achieve in a forum post). I suggested it because you seem to enjoy philosophy and I thought you might want to continue the study by reading the counter arguments.

In my experience, attempting to debate with you when you are already defensive is pointless because you will dismiss any argument I make simply because I am the one who made it.

BUT I would be intensely curious to know what you think of the link I posted for you and to DISCUSS it with you.

If that doesn't interest you then I guess we can just go back to mocking each other.

Oh no, It doesn't work like that, You provide your criticisms, and your argument, otherwise I don't have the need of you, and would rather debate the person who wrote the article.

Present an argument. And I will argue it.

...ok

nanox wrote:

AshleyCK wrote: Quoting would be too much at this point in the conversation.

Alright, let me arrange the answers that I received from you and get this straight.

1. We have a working definition of atheism and each atheist is essentially free to choose which one resonates most with them depending upon personal experience.
2. You meet to essentially speak of how religions are worth being mocked among other topics.
3. A number of atheists have written on or addressed in some way what atheism is or how absurd theism can be.

Here is the outline of what it takes to be considered a religion or an occult:

1, Define what your group is
2. Gain popularity
3. Have some set of rules or books of learning about your beliefs
4. You may or may not have a deity (Buddhism does not necessarily worship Buddha if you go back into the beginnings of this practice).

Granted, these are only a few points but I think that I get the idea across.Even though you do no consider yourself a religion, the differences are far from a few. If you'd like more similarities then fine.

Other than that, let's dive into the quote you posted for me. Although long-winded, it certainly did resonate with me. I detested religion growing up as I have mentioned to you but others may not be familiar. I did choose to learn about it but not for growth in faith or anything like that. I learned how to dismantle their arguments so that sensible people could be produced with or without a religion.

Your stance to openly protest religion is a personal vendetta and not required to spread knowledge in the slightest. Returning to the quote, yes, this does take a stick and poke at several (maybe even all religions) but it does the same to Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, or any other sort. Even without religion, there will always be a way to destroy the person's soul. It is up to them to differentiate what they ultimately believe or value.

Even though you do not intend to sound like you are preaching a sermon or attempting to "convert" people to Atheism just as the running gag with Veganism and their following may not intend to sound the same with the idea that meat is murder... you run along a very incredibly fine line.

To be frank, this reply was not for you since it may or may not get through. This post is for anyone who is curious. I have no personal animosity against Atheism or religions, as of today. My displeasure is against the spread of ignorance whether it is intended or not.

I wonder if anyone else could see where you were leading him?

Ashley, really, you have a beautiful mind.

Thank you. I have learned that the only way to truly point out an error is to get them say it for themselves.