Converting to Atheism?

[Exian]

This here does it all! A Made in America, fully mobile rock crushing machine. And it comes fully equipped with its own sorting philosophy!

---

---

Do you need some rock crushing done? Fuck yeah!

[Thumpalumpacus]

William lane Craigs had an interesting RF podcast this week (I am sure you all heard it) about how aggressive atheists tend to use mockery and derision rather than reasons and logic. THIS IS NOT A BLANKET STATEMENT. However, it does seem to be a favorite of many atheists.

That dumbfuck doesn't listen to reasoned points, and carries on as if they've never been made. Maybe if he engaged in honest discussion, he wouldn't be mocked?

That point goes for all theists. If you plug your ears and shout "lalalalalalala" when faced with countervailing points, you won't earn respect. I'd much rather have interesting and informative conversations, so once I suss out that a theist is an ear-plugger, I will use mockery to make my point and provide entertainment at the same time.

[Alex K]

This here does it all! A Made in America, fully mobile rock crushing machine. And it comes fully equipped with its own sorting philosophy!

---

---

Do you need some rock crushing done? Fuck yeah!

Mahaha, I cal that a horizontal impact crusher!

And here we see the subtle cultural differences between American and German engineering. Yeeeeee Haaw.
Erm I mean LAAAAAAAAME

[robvalue]

WLC will poison your mind if you take him seriously. It's an honest warning. If you're interested in persueing logic and reason, dump that guy. I know he sounds convincing, that is his skill. I'm not trying to just be mean to him, I'm trying to help you and save you a lot of unnecessary confusion and stress. I've spent a long time now deep in all these issues and debates and I'm trying to share my findings with you. Him smearing atheists like that is a disgusting low tactic. Putting a little qualifier on it makes it no more honest or true.

Like I've said before, bring me any of his arguments and I'll point out what is wrong with them. I'll back this up. He is the master of hiding fallacies and tautologies inside reams and reams of clever sounding words, and playing confusing semantic games. All this in place of any actual substance.

[Won2blv]

WLC will poison your mind if you take him seriously. It's an honest warning. If you're interested in persueing logic and reason, dump that guy. I know he sounds convincing, that is his skill. I'm not trying to just be mean to him, I'm trying to help you and save you a lot of unnecessary confusion and stress. I've spent a long time now deep in all these issues and debates and I'm trying to share my findings with you. Him smearing atheists like that is a disgusting low tactic. Putting a little qualifier on it makes it no more honest or true.

Like I've said before, bring me any of his arguments and I'll point out what is wrong with them. I'll back this up. He is the master of hiding fallacies and tautologies inside reams and reams of clever sounding words, and playing confusing semantic games. All this in place of any actual substance.

All I know is that I have experienced my fair share on this forum. I don't even think some people read my whole post before they start their reply. I am on here trying to hash out whats going on in my head. I use my JW beliefs as a point for arguing because I want to see them logically dismantled. But I am not going to get that here. My new method is to try and learn and understand for myself that the bible is not historically accurate and facts about evolution. 

But I do like WLC. I don't think that he can be excoriated here and also let the everyone else get away with their own logical fallacies. I go back to that dialogue he had with Kraus in Brisbane. Kraus used blatant dishonesty and showed his ignorance multiple times. Krauss is a scientist, not a philosopher or professional debator so I would expect him fault at times. But WLC deserves more credit

[Cato]

All I know is that I have experienced my fair share on this forum. I don't even think some people read my whole post before they start their reply. I am on here trying to hash out whats going on in my head. I use my JW beliefs as a point for arguing because I want to see them logically dismantled. But I am not going to get that here.

Perhaps you should try a different approach. Atheists don't believe in God, so any particular JW belief contingent on God's existence is summarily dismissed. Now, if there is some particular aspect of the JW set of beliefs you want hashed out then start a thread to discuss it. Perhaps start going down this list (assuming that these are actual JW beliefs):

http://watchthetower.net/reasons.html

1. God is not a Trinity; the doctrine is inspired by the Devil
Answer: At least JW's seem to have the ability to count, but further burden themselves by invoking another unprovable entity.

11. Jesus second coming happened invisibly and secretly in 1914
Answer: A little demonstration is in order.

54. They are forbidden to use any tobacco products
Answer: I'm always a bit suspect of 'thou shalt nots'. In this case, perfectly good arguments can be made for why we shouldn't smoke; however, a celestial dictator is not required for this.

63. They must go from door to door weekly to gain converts
Answer: Since JWs believe that there is a maximum occupancy requirement in heaven (144,000), this mandate seems a bit self defeating. JWs cannot be sure of their salvation so why increase the rolls and further jeopardize your chances?

69. Men are forbidden wear beards
Answer: Are whiskers a design flaw?

80. All churches are of Satan
Answer: JWs seem fond of blaming the Devil for everything, but somehow he's confused when JWs go to 'meetings' in Kingdom Halls instead of churches.

94. They are strongly discouraged from giving to charity (except Watchtower causes)
Answer: Cunts.

100. They can never question what is printed in Watchtower literature
Answer: Cult

[JesusHChrist]

Oh goody - argument ad saracasm! Wonderful!

How about argument ad name calling? Let us begin....

1. I already acknowledge Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris as the three main Atheistic gods, but are there any more Atheist deities that I need to quote?

Fuckface!

2. Do I have to make Atheism my whole life identity? Should I constantly assert that I am an Atheist?

Dipshit!

2.  I am good and ready to start religious debates with people on the internet, but just how much condescension is required in these Atheistic sermons?

Chuckle-fuck!

3. I know reading up on other religions is expected of that of a practicing Atheist, but I'm wondering how much is sufficient? Is three Google searches okay enough to compete with a scholar on religion?

Asshat!

4. Must I dismissively label every one who explains something about religion to me as an "apologist"?

Cheese dick!

5. And finally, does regurgitating witty one-liners like "God is just as real as unicorns, fairies, and the flying spaghetti monster" score me any intellectual points?

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

That's all for the moment, thanks for your time.

You're welcome.

[Esquilax]

But I do like WLC. I don't think that he can be excoriated here and also let the everyone else get away with their own logical fallacies. I go back to that dialogue he had with Kraus in Brisbane. Kraus used blatant dishonesty and showed his ignorance multiple times. Krauss is a scientist, not a philosopher or professional debator so I would expect him fault at times. But WLC deserves more credit

WLC deserves more credit? You did read the quote from him I gave, confirming his presuppositionalism, right? Are you aware that he's also said that if he were to go back in time and literally see that the resurrection never happened, he would still believe that it did, because he feels like god exists?

The man deserves no credit at all!

[Cyberman]

I wouldn't even give "Two Citations" Craig store credit.

[robvalue]

Nic: If you like WLC, that's fine I won't bring it up again, I was genuinely trying to help you.

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for regarding your JW beliefs. How can we help you? We can't go about "proving them wrong" because they are unfalsifiable like virtually all religious claims. We can point out however that there is no good reason to believe any religious claims due to lack of evidence.

What more can we do? I'm genuinely asking, I'm not being sarcastic/rhetorical. I'd love to help, if I can