Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Mister Agenda]

See, it's like this.  When the first ignorant moron, of the type you know so well because you are one, came uninvited to say stupid idiotic and supercilious things, as you always do, every last atheist, every last one except may be min, were ready to elevate you above the superstitious cesspool you wallow in.

But like pigs the each and every last one of you, yeah, including you, deli, would prefer to continue to wallow in your cesspit.   Which is fine, if you go away and wallow in your bible and your church.  But no.  You insist on keep coming back and tracking shit all over our new carpets.

You see, that's why we lose patience with you.

When faced with a critical analysis of the intellectual bankruptcy, the typical atheist will fail to refute any of the arguments, but will instead fly into a rage because their precious dogma has been trampled upon.

Your response, as expected, is 100% rage, 0% substance.

I'm looking to bring some substance into the discussion. Ideally someone who:

(a) can read
(b) reads the entire article
(c ) refutes it

Here's what the list is looking like right now.

Substantive atheists: 0
Rage atheists: Chuck
Somewhere-in-the-middle: Kitan

The article is a classic example of the courtier's response to the observation that the emperor has no clothes: 'but they are of such fine quality, how can you think you're qualified to critique the existence of these marvelous silk robes when you don't even know enough to appreciate the stitching?'

Edit: BTW, the 'Courtier's Reply' objection could be easily refuted by presenting an actual substantive argument, just as the courtier could just produce an article of the emperor's clothing, if it were real. Not 'Aquinas wrote hundreds of pages explaining why the cause of the universe must be an intelligent all-powerful being', but 'here is his proof that the cause of the universe must be an intelligent, all-powerful being'. Congrats on having a sophisticated concept of God, but there's still no good reason to think that what you've come up with is real. If you know of such a reason, just present it.

[Mister Agenda]

Why do we need to refute the article? Are you saying either all atheists make bad arguments or no atheists make bad arguments? False dichotomy.

Some atheists make bad arguments. I'm sure everyone here would agree to that statement,

Again, so what? I'll pick apart bad atheist's arguments as much as I would bad theist's arguments.

If you were doing your job faithfully, padawan, this place wouldn't be the garden of logical horrors, the septic tank of thought that it is right now. 

Where are the substantive critiques of theistic claims? Why are so many atheists foaming at the mouth instead of using reason and following the evidence?

Why does this place make atheism look like a complete shitstain as opposed to something that's intellectually, ethically and socially respectable?

Forget about the plethora of comments directed at me that fail, completely, to engage with the point of what I'm saying but rather descend into slanging matches (which I inevitably win anyhow). Just look at the comments in this discussion so far.

Yours comes closest to addressing the point in the article, and yet it is clear you haven't even read the whole thing.

Where are the substantive theistic claims? I'd love to hear one. Please go on.

[Faith No More]

There are multiple proofs of the Pythagorean theorem that show conclusively that it is valid.  Are you seriously comparing mathematical theorems to ontological arguments?

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt668/emt668...orean.html

This is why I can't take Chad seriously. He doesn't even understand the epistemological value of mathematics, yet he has not problem pontificating on epistemology itself.

[Mister Agenda]

False. Data from sources like this survey from the Pew forum on Religious Religion and Public Life consistently show that, in general, atheists and agnostics are better informed about religion(s) than anyone else.


Personally, I spent 20+ years rigorously studying the Bible in a ministry household, plus part of my college career studying various other world religions, and I can tell you with certainty that straw men are completely unnecessary when it comes to dismantling the supposed veracity of the Bible (or other superstitious gibberish, for that matter).


Your condescension toward people's imaginary anger is merely a deflection technique you've employed to avoid supporting anything you've said in this thread so far. All you've really done here is posted an article, declared "I agree with this article!" and when it's pointed out to you that there are major problems with the claims forwarded from the get-go of the article, you immediately resort to, "Nope, you're just dumb...and angry. READ MY ARTICLE!"


You are a sad little man. Make some friends or something.

I wouldn't apply the results of a broad survey on the narrow slice of this forum's population. That's like taking a survey of the nation's IQ, and inferring that the Kardashians must be on par.

But if it's true that you have spent 20+ years rigorously studying the Bible in a ministry household (and I expect you mean something academically credible, not the Westboro Baptist or atheistforum.org equivalent of "rigorous study"), then point me to one of your critiques.

I'd love to read your thoughtful criticisms.

Above, you applied the results of your personal impressions here to atheists in general. Your standards are elusive.

[houseofcantor]

You should probably read up on quantum mechanics, Chad. It refutes all three claims.

But yes, do go on.

“What the (Bleep) Do You Know.” Since its discovery, quantum mechanics has been used to justify the claims of New Age hucksters, so-called non-dualists, proponents of idealism, and various mystical beliefs. Disagreements of interpretation abound. This doesn’t not make you wrong; it only means that you should take pause before making pronouncements about what QM research does and does not reveal. As a layman, I have only a basic understanding of it; the physics classes I took as an architect only touched on the basics. While I follow with interest more recent discoveries like quantum erasure and retro-causality, I generally steer clear of relying on the findings of natural science to inform metaphysical issues. Doing so puts the cart before the horse.

Fortunately it doesn’t take an advanced degree in physics to recognize the incoherence of the self-refuting position you have taken. The findings of all natural science inquiries, including QM, presuppose the fundamental principles I listed. If the results of a QM experiment were to invalidate the first principles of its own inquiry then its own results are invalidated.

That leaves open the question of what to make of quantum oddities and puzzles. Nothing prevents the existence of contraries in a particular provided they are not contrary in the same respect. For example suffering is contrary to joy and yet an athlete can suffer greatly during a marathon and still experience the joy of achievement. I am not suggesting that I know how to apply that idea to any one quantum puzzle. I only bring it up to suggest how such puzzles can be resolved without falling into self-refutation.

But they're all wrong, Chad. Perhaps not in the physical, logical sense; but all of your four conjectures all have cracks in their armor. For me, the most visible fault line runs across "nothing comes from nothing, however, everything comes from nothing."

[Thumpalumpacus]

You should probably read up on quantum mechanics, Chad. It refutes all three claims.

But yes, do go on.

“What the (Bleep) Do You Know.” Since its discovery, quantum mechanics has been used to justify the claims of New Age hucksters, so-called non-dualists, proponents of idealism, and various mystical beliefs. Disagreements of interpretation abound. This doesn’t not make you wrong; it only means that you should take pause before making pronouncements about what QM research does and does not reveal. As a layman, I have only a basic understanding of it; the physics classes I took as an architect only touched on the basics. While I follow with interest more recent discoveries like quantum erasure and retro-causality, I generally steer clear of relying on the findings of natural science to inform metaphysical issues. Doing so puts the cart before the horse.

I make no claim to expertise, but I know that it directly refutes two of your claims. That you'd wave it away as a matter of preference is not a problem with my point; rather, I've just elicited what I want from you, an admission that you'd rather ponder the ineffables as aopposed to talk about facts.

Me, I will take the findings of natural science any day of the week. Reality is my ontology.

Fortunately it doesn’t take an advanced degree in physics to recognize the incoherence of the self-refuting position you have taken. The findings of all natural science inquiries, including QM, presuppose the fundamental principles I listed. If the results of a QM experiment were to invalidate the first principles of its own inquiry then its own results are invalidated.

That's actually why QM gives everyone fits. But -- the computer you are reading this on relies upon QM to work. If QM weren't true, you and I wouldn't be having this exchange. So however much you wish to protest that QM cannot be (because you have logicked it out of existence!), you have certainly chosen the wrong medium to argue that point -- this medium relies the very thing you say cannot be.

That leaves open the question of what to make of quantum oddities and puzzles. Nothing prevents the existence of contraries in a particular provided they are not contrary in the same respect. For example suffering is contrary to joy and yet an athlete can suffer greatly during a marathon and still experience the joy of achievement. I am not suggesting that I know how to apply that idea to any one quantum puzzle. I only bring it up to suggest how such puzzles can be resolved without falling into self-refutation.

This is nonsense. Joy and suffering are subjective states. We were supposed to be speaking about objective reality. Stay on topic.

Also, I just wanted to point out how similar is this passage of yours:

As a layman, I have only a basic understanding of it; the physics classes I took as an architect only touched on the basics. While I follow with interest more recent discoveries like quantum erasure and retro-causality, I generally steer clear of relying on the findings of natural science to inform metaphysical issues.

... to this graphic in the OP's article:

[robvalue]

I agree, QM fucks with my brain. If I didn't have such confidence in the scientific method, I'd think it was a practical joke.

I believe that the scientific community know what they are doing, and I believe their standards would only produce theories that stand up to scrutiny; but I can't honestly say I believe the workings of QM because I don't properly understand them yet.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But they're all wrong, Chad. Perhaps not in the physical, logical sense; but all of your four conjectures all have cracks in their armor.

All I can say is, wow! How can you say with a straight face that the PNC is false?

[Angrboda]

But they're all wrong, Chad. Perhaps not in the physical, logical sense; but all of your four conjectures all have cracks in their armor.

All I can say is, wow! How can you say with a straight face that the PNC is false?

There are examples on the boundaries, such as the strengthened liar's paradox and Godel's theorems which show that straightforward acceptance of the PNC as an unqualified truism is problematic.

[houseofcantor]

But they're all wrong, Chad. Perhaps not in the physical, logical sense; but all of your four conjectures all have cracks in their armor.

All I can say is, wow! How can you say with a straight face that the PNC is false?

Because I remember standing before the creator of the universe. Thanks for asking.

It is not that it is currently false in logical terms, it is that starting from simultaneous dualities leads - logically - to gibberish. Have you not noticed all the duality in scripture?

For instance, the law of gravity essentially states, "things fall down;" yet the vast majority of the hypothetical universe whispers dark energy, where things fall away.

Stone age tools, man; law of identity, PNC, nothing from nothing - we'll learn more, I have faith.