Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists

[Agnostico]

---

Intersting and again varying responses.

Why the large font?

Hmm I dunno. I changed it back for ya

[GrandizerII]

Agnostic truth

But there's no such thing as agnostic, remember?

You do not believe "A" means you believe "not A" per your reasoning.

[Belacqua]

I saw you mention my favorite scientist and couldn't help myself

I find Dawkins painful to watch, but I'd also be ultra-skeptical about Ben Stein and others who think they can stump him on evolution. Their gotcha questions nearly always betray an ignorance of the subject. 

British philosopher John Gray has a new book called Seven Types of Atheism. His first type is the New Atheist group, and I agree with him that they are, for the most part, entertainers. No doubt they give encouragement to lonely doubters in fundamentalist families, but thinking people will outgrow them right away. 

Pessimisim is my middle name. Karl Pessimist Popper. 

Popper, on the other hand, is someone to take seriously. I have found his Three Worlds structure to be very useful. 

I know iv been aggressive to begin with here but i've been fair. 

Web sites like this one, just like high school, have unwritten rules that everyone must abide by or face sustained attack. These are not official rules concerning the moderators, but behavioral things even more strongly enforced "from below" -- just as wearing the wrong kind of jeans in high school can invite an astonishing level of attack, you must behave here according to the norms. 

How much you obey these mores is up to you. If you want to focus on the topic rather than the presentation you have to play along. 

They cannot explain the most basic of questions without blowing a fuse and trying to mock you for questioning

A lot of people get pleasure from mockery. Again, it's up to you how much you want to put up with. On a site like this you learn pretty quickly who to avoid. 

But genuine questioning is good, and patient responses from you will eventually draw out some considered opinions. 

There is a long list of hoaxes and frauds that have been fabricated by theoretical science to push their theory. 
They tech it in school as though it was undisputable proof, turning them into little atheist social justice warriors full of entitlement. Special snowflakes. Unique

Well, sometimes people don't like to admit it, but scientists are human, too. And we live in a society in which science cannot be done purely -- it is structured through universities in which success involves measures other than the discovery of truth -- tenure, increased funding, etc. Or else it's supported by corporations, in which case the goal is not truth but profit. In the US, a hell of a lot of "pure" research is commissioned by the Pentagon, which, you can imagine, is not exactly pure of heart. 

Challenging anyone's pet theory will get an emotional reaction. The goal is to work around that, and not get irrational yourself.

[Agnostico]

Agnostic truth

But there's no such thing as agnostic, remember?

You do not believe "A" means you believe "not A" per your reasoning.

Im not fussed by definitions. They vary among atheists themselves.
If i was a serious atheist now, after the attack from the fellow brethren.
I probably would have been driven to become a catholic priest...

[Anomalocaris]

But there's no such thing as agnostic, remember?

You do not believe "A" means you believe "not A" per your reasoning.

Im not fussed by definitions. They vary atheists themselves.
If i was a serious atheist now, after the attack by fellow brethren.
I probably would have been driven to become a catholic priest...

You are driven to rape choir boys by atheists? That would be pleasing to the ears of your kind, wouldn’t it? But it won’t keep you out of jail and won’t help the choir boys, now would it?

[Agnostico]

Im not fussed by definitions. They vary atheists themselves.
If i was a serious atheist now, after the attack by fellow brethren.
I probably would have been driven to become a catholic priest...

You are driven to rape choir boys by atheists?  That would be pleasing to the ears of your kind, wouldn’t it?   But it won’t keep you out of jail and won’t help the choir boys, now would it?

Hehehe thats a good one. Left myself open... My kind... Ye sure ok.
Hmm it says no religion on ur profile. But such baseless assumptions can only come from an atheist

---

I find Dawkins painful to watch, but I'd also be ultra-skeptical about Ben Stein and others who think they can stump him on evolution. Their gotcha questions nearly always betray an ignorance of the subject.

Thanks. being from Australia im not familiar with Stein. I watched that whole interview and understand that question as I have objections to it being presented as fact.
He basically tries to explain how the first cell came about and how it replicated into other cells but fails. The most interesting part for me is the fact that he hold a place for the possibility of extraterrestrial creation but not God creation. Looks like 2 of those videos didn't come up but i encorage you to copy n paste the url I added and watch them. Their short

Popper, on the other hand, is someone to take seriously. I have found his Three Worlds structure to be very useful

We need more Poppers today. Atheism fails his critical rationalism theory. I know the theory has some pitfalls but atheism still fails.
U know the black swan theory? Not sure how long that was kicking for but there has always been black swans here just down the road...
Pooper didn't feel the need to answer theists and identified himself as agnostic. C Darwin also was agnostic before he died. Einstein I think also. Its the default position for scientists.

Web sites like this one, just like high school, have unwritten rules that everyone must abide by or face sustained attack

Is there. Without knowing these unwritten morals one cannot know them. Like caveman I know not of such morals in society.
But I haven't insult or abuse anyone. I try ignore the trolls and ad hominem attacks. I haven't even used foul language. Anything else?
Thanks for the advise. I feel like im in a small room getting bashed by 30 atheists.
I noticed T0 Th3 M4X on another thread calmly dealing out facts while coping all this shit. Im impressed

Challenging anyone's pet theory will get an emotional reaction. The goal is to work around that, and not get irrational yourself

Thanks. A new thread on what u called "pet theory" will come up soon. A theory I heard that is so true. U can count on emotions being displaced... LoL

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The default position in science is agnostic.

I disagree.  The default position in science should be to avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  Thus dismissive atheism, when theists promote their unwarranted assumptions.

There is no "default position" position in science in regard to worldviews.   When you start believe there is, or that there has to be, then you miss the mark of what scientific study attempts to do, which is study relationships between two or more variables in the natural world, and without interjecting biases.  The only default position would be the "null" and that's what you're testing to accept or reject.

[adey67]

Well I read the whole thread (that's 1/2 an hour I'm never getting back again) My conclusion? The provocation, the passive aggression, the goading with deliberately inflammatory language and comments, the use of hackneyed old long debunked stereotypes of atheists..... The OP is trolling hard.

[Pat Mustard]

The worst example I can think of off hand is in Dawkins' book, where he thinks he has rebutted Thomas Aquinas.

What's even more stupid? Thinking the standard debunking of Aquinas' quinque viae (which has been around so long, Aquinas was still alive when it was first formulated) doesn't debunk it.

The simple fact of the matter every single one of the five "proofs" for god depend on god not having the qualities of every single item in existence. Hence god "the necessary being" cannot exist by Aquinas' own assumptions!

[Belacqua]

god not having the qualities of every single item in existence.

I guess I'm not understanding the objection here.

Don't all those guys hold that God is unique, and is therefore unlike every item in existence? In fact I think they hold that it would be wrong to call God an item in existence.