"Debate" between me and Stan - Skeptic Friends Network

Skeptic Friends Network

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members

Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks

All Forums

Community Forums

General Discussion

"Debate" between me and Stan

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

BookMark Topic

Author

Topic

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/19/2012 : 18:31:49

As I said earlier, I'm posting my latest reply to Stan's latest posting right here since it's going to be so damned long and I don't want to have to hit "submit" a bunch of times.

I'll be adding more as I get more time...his rant is really long.

I'll ask that everyone else except me and him stay out of this thread. I'll also ask, if it's possible, to move this thread to a more appropriate area, but I couldn't find a "debate" section here so I'm posting it here for now.

Edit: Forgot to add that I told him that he can either sign up here or he can take excerpts from this reply to deal with on his own site.

============================================
You know, there's just too much warblgarble here on your post, I can only deal with a little at a time, so:

Killing babies is perfectly consistent with the Atheist penchant for abortion, which is the actual subject of this thread.

That is a strawman charge. Even if all atheists were "pro-choice", that does not mean that we all go out and try to force or convince women to have abortions! Besides, not all atheists are "pro-choice". Secular case against abortion and atheist pro-life links.

It's your belief system that has no problems with killing babies, pal. Read the OT or listen to William Lane Craig sometime.

Your hatred of a fictional deity and your attempt to disqualify that fictional being by asserting your own morals is quixotic. You don’t care one whit about killing babies. You are trying to derail the conversation by placing your personal judgment on what is to you, a fictional being:...

Dead wrong, as I show above. I support those pro-life groups. You are doing what you accuse me of later: lying about what the other person believes.

...a Red Herring on the one hand, and an absurdity on the other hand. If there actually is a deity, then your personal judgment on it is even more absurd.

Wrong. Xians judge their own god all the time, only your pronouncements are positive, even when he's supposedly killing babies. Again, if we can't judge your god, neither can you. And if he's not held to the same rules we are, then what rules does he follow? Does he follow any? How can one tell if biblegod is "good" or not?

A being which defines "good" is good according to Atheist logic: that is the Atheist moral position: if the Atheist defines "good" to coincide with his own proclivities for behavior,...

Strawman. Plus, citations needed. And not just for "one" atheist either. You made a generalization. Back it up.

Morality was explained to you once before from this link but you, as usual, dismiss it: here's a quote

...it is basic common sense to treat others as we expect to be treated, that is, with courtesy, dignity and kindness rather than loathing, spite and murder. In fact, religion and morality were separate in many cultures whose gods were tricksters or simply unconcerned with the ethical behavior of mere humans.

******************
EDIT: June 21 7:45 PM

Another discussion of atheist morality can be found here.

from that article:
Certain practices or rules might in some circumstances be highly useful for manifestly improving human happiness and flourishing in ethically relevant matters and therefore be morally estimable and enforceable in those times and places, whereas in other times and places those same practices or rules might be counter-productive or outright harmful to human happiness and flourishing and should rightly be denounced as immoral. Even though they will not put it this way and instead claim they have a God of invariant moral laws, fundamentalists like Peter implicitly believe in moral mutability and it is this which Jason is rightly pointing out but wrongly calling “subjectivity”.

To say that not only do moralities change but that they should and that even good moralities may not be permanently and at all times good is not to say that morality is subjective. To call morality subjective risks falsely implying that it is based on purely personal, idiosyncratic, arbitrary, or otherwise publicly unjustifiable premises-....

There's more obviously but you can click the link to see it.
******************

Stan...then the Atheist is tautologically good since his behaviors match his personal requirements.

Wrong...you obviously did not bother to read the source I gave at the end of the last post where we had our "dialogue".

First off, if there is no deity as the Atheist insists, then there is no possible fear to be had from a fictional hell. Atheists cannot fear that which does not exist.

You should tell your fellow theists like Jack Chick, John Hagee and well, pretty any much "fire and brimestone" preacher out there. We've been trying to tell them that for decades.

Then there are the "Presuppositionalists" who allege that everyone somehow already "knows" that biblegod exists, but that we all "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" so they feel free to use the hell threat anyway.

Nevertheless, the threat of hell is still there.

Second, hell cannot be acknowledged as a threat by anyone who is not already a believer. So hell cannot make a believer by use of threat out of someone who thinks it is a fiction.

Again, tell your fellow believers.

Third, a person who is already a believer has nothing to fear from hell.

Come to think of it, if all of this is true, why was it that jesus made such a big deal of hell in the NT then?

Probably because he was dealing with people who were already religious: Judaism.

Atheists who condemn hell as forcing belief onto cowardly idiots have a superficial understanding of theism and have not thought it through: a fictitious hell cannot threaten Atheists; a real hell cannot threaten Theists. Your argument is without any actual meaning.

Care to explain then just why xians keep threatening non-believers with it then?
At least jesus had an excuse:

Most of those he theoretically talked to were already believers, just in the "wrong" religion (ie. Judiasm). He just altered their mythology to add hell as an extra incentive.

You are absolutely blinded to the logical aspects presented above, presumably blinded by your hatred of a fictional creature that you partially believe in.

Rambling instead of an actual counter-argument noted...

**********************************
EDIT: June 21, 6:51 PM
Here's an example of why we argue against a fictional deity:

from the article
"Additionally, apparently realizing that plaintiff's doctor had an accent, Dr. Borga exclaimed, 'What, do you need a translator?' to which plaintiff's doctor had again responded that Dr. Borga needed to give plaintiff his HIV medication," the complaint states.
"Dr. Borga responded to plaintiff's doctor by stating, 'This is what he gets for going against God's will,' and hung up the phone on plaintiff's doctor."

That patient could very will die because treatment was witheld from him by his xian doctor. The doctor imposed her beliefs on the patient. Just as those cases with pharamicists who refuse to prescribe certain medications or refer people to pharmacists who will: We pay the price for your beliefs even though they're fictional.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/05/12/as-the-faithful-watch-cruelty-with-indifference/
****************************************

The actual truth is in the data, not in your hate filled invective. Atheists are empathetic to the tune of $16.67 per month, and are less likely to be motivated to help actual needy people.

Seems to depend on which study one reads. Of course, you'll only accept xian-based studies...

*****
EDIT as of 6:30 AM June 21:
Here's a study with an alternate link for you to think on Stan:

Financial contributions addressing the physical needs of the poor fall within the remaining 29 percent of expenditures. While these numbers may be higher as a percentage of income than typical charitable giving by corporations, they are not hugely higher (depending on the religion) and are substantially lower in absolute terms. Wal-Mart, for instance, gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year, or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years.

******

This article that discusses the potential motives for giving for each group, atheists and believers is interesting.

You presume to know the motives of non-Atheists; you do not.

Care to explain just why the bible has rewards for xian believers then, Stan?

stuff from the bible
Ex: 2 Corinthians 5:10
Ex: 1 Corinthians 3:8
Ex: Revelation 22:12
Ex: Revelation 2:23
Ex: Mark 10:29-30

In your hatred you assign evil to everything Christian;...

Pot-kettle-black alert! Plus, citations needed.

Time for a reality check. Who's really got the "hate filled rant" going here?
ex 1): Killing babies is perfectly consistent with the Atheist penchant for abortion...
ex 2): ...if the Atheist defines “good” to coincide with his own proclivities for behavior
ex 3): Atheists are empathetic to the tune of $16.67 per month, and are less likely to be motivated to help actual needy people.

An ironic charge, considering this: Matthew 26:6-13

ex 4): There is no embedded excuse here for the absolute stinginess of Atheists
ex 5): And you have no defense for the non-empathy of Atheists
ex 6): ...to your hate-filled belief system...
(any evidence that atheism is "hate-filled" by the way?

From what I've seen here, it's you who seems hate-filled to me). "Atheists" this, and "atheists" that! Wow.

From reading your blog I've never once noticed you say anything like "some athiests" or even "most atheists", it is always "atheists" period, followed by whatever smear or accusation you have lined up. Try replacing "atheist" with any other group and you'll see what you really are.

...you take every opportunity to call names and assume that anything contrary to your hate-filled belief system is a lie, without actual facts to back it up.

Uh, that would be you again...remember for example your remark about "Killing babies is perfectly consistent with the Atheist penchant for abortion" and those other examples above?

Stan, quoting me:
Try thinking: Who is more moral? One who gets rewarded for it, or one who is not? While you're at it, at least secular and atheist charities don't have any strings attached.
Neither do Christian charities, contrary to what you are suggesting.

Uh, let's see: Some church group, Samaritan's Purse, a Catholic group wanting to discriminate about who they help, despite taxpayer funding, the catholic church wanting to curtail certain medical procedures at a hospital, World Relief had discriminatory hiring practices while on public dime

Time to ask that question again. Care to actually answer it this time?

There is no embedded excuse here for the absolute stinginess of Atheists.

Huh? "Absolute stinginess"? What does that even mean?

But, speaking of "stinginess" and how unmotivated us atheists are to help the poor, why don't you have another look at some words of that christ fellah?
Matthew 26:6-13

You have no idea what motivates Christians;...

If they're not motivated by bible verses promising rewards than you can kindly explain why those verses (see above AND below) are there?

you merely hate them.

Not near as much as you hate atheists.

And you have no defense for the non-empathy of Atheists.

Another smear that's apparently contradicted by that earlier link I gave.

You have no idea what motivates Christians;...

Uh, yeah, I do. So does this fellow believer of yours.

The biblically promised rewards. If you disagree, then please explain why those promises are in the bible please...

Ex: 2 Corinthians 5:10
Ex: 1 Corinthians 3:8
Ex: Revelation 22:12
Ex: Revelation 2:23
Ex: Mark 10:29-30 (the money verse)

...you merely hate them.

Pot, kettle, black again.

And you have no defense for the non-empathy of Atheists.

Another unjustified broad smear. Even if every single atheist was as "stingy" as that study implies, that does not mean that we would lack empathy. Again, check out the atheist charity links and that one study I gave earlier.

If by aborting females you are describing fighting for women’s rights, then you are doing so.

Uh, no. Just...no. Even if I was "pro-choice" which I'm not, what makes you think that I would think that killing of female fetuses is fighting for women's rights? That's just fucking bizarre.

That strawman is something you just set on fire yourself.

And if there actually were a "gay gene", who do you think would get aborted first?

Depends if people like you are in power or not. Doesn't the your bible say that homosexuals are to be killed?

And what about pederasty? And post natal abortion, say up to the age of 35? Or 50? Don't these antithesis/synthesis moves deserve civil rights status?

Uh, "pederasty" actually hurts people, so no. They would not get civil rights protection.

Slippery slope fallacy anyone? And "post natal" abortion? Huh? Once the baby is born, even abortionists know that it's no longer just a "part of the woman's body" or whatever rationale they use. Again, you are using the slippery slope, plus a lot of grease here.

The lack of any moral stance obviates any and all moral statements you (or any Atheist) make.

Once again, you're "confusing" the fact that we don't have an unchanging set of morals given to us from some outside source as the same as not having any morals at all.

Yes, morals have to be adjusted for circumstance, to try to come up with the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

With your reasoning it'd be like saying that since different people in different circumstances have different diets then those people don't have any diet at all.*

*thanks to whoever came up with that analogy. Can't remember if it was here or somewhere else though.

Kindly re-read your comment. You have no moral basis, and no moral authority. You are criticizing a being which is fictional in your mind.

The people who follow the teachings of this fictional entity and regard this fictional entity as their source of morality are all too real, as history shows.

I was trying to point out the moral hypocrisy of the religious' so-called "pro-life" stance.

If baby killing is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it. That is objective morality. Something you pretend pro-lifers only pretend to have.

You support the mass murder of humans

Wow. You had sodding better back up THAT statement in your very next reply to me, pal.

As well as this statement here:

You don’t believe in right to life or in human dignity, you believe in ripping the brains out of embryos for female parental convenience and you believe that you have the right to do that,...

And your moral hypocrisy shows again...if god does it, it's ok. You even asked me in that other thread to show just how having those foreign babies killed was not an act of "love" when god has it done! I on the other hand gave some atheist pro-life links at the top of my first reply to you.

Let’s define EvoDevo, then, with regard to evolutionary anthropology, sociology and psychology:

EvoDevo is the creation of theories regarding the evolution of the psychological, rational, and sociological functions of humans, theories which have no actual empirical basis and cannot be falsified,....

Bzzzt! Stop right there, you're already wrong.

Now you show once again, that you did NOT read what I gave earlier. One link was to the 29 evidences for macroevolution site. That whole site consisted of nothing BUT actual falsifiable tests of evolution.

Your charge of ignorance as related to Atheism is humorous, because those who worship science most religiously are those who have never done a shred of science,...

Citation needed.

...but who think it has magical qualities and no limitations: Atheists are the most susceptible to this.

Name ONE scientist who has said that science "has magical qualities" and "has no limitations" please. Define "magical qualities" while you're at it.

In the meantime, here's a quote from an actual scientist who expresses the exact opposite of what you claim "science worshippers" have:

by Richard Feynman
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

You take talkorigins as your source of science? How about you read some actual science and philosophy of science, such as Karl Popper.

Ok.

from site that examines some of Popper's views:
According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos [1996] [note 1]). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins [1996]). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.

How's about this?

Stan

There is far more to science than empirically unsubstantiated forensic biology, which produces a theory that predicts everything and nothing, and which contributes nothing to the actual disciplined practice of real, disciplined biology.

Yep, you definitely did not read at all that talk origins site I gave. You are not only ignorant of science but willfully ignorant, and pretending to care about it. "Bring it on" indeed. Yeah. Good luck with that. Learn some actual science first.

Uh, you do know that "Talk Origins" site is made up of pretty much nothing but information from articles that have been submitted to actual science journals, right? If you'd actually bothered to read that site you'd see by it's references.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

Edited by - the_ignored on 06/21/2012 18:48:12

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2012 : 17:54:03 [Permalink]

You do not think that an hypothesis must be verifiable and falsifiable? Give an actual reason why not

Where did you get that? Another strawman

And forget evolution as your excuse, use real science, actual science which produces theories which can actually predict outcomes.

You rejected the site I gave which gave at least 29 such tests! If you want to be willfully ignorant, fine. But at least be honest enough to admit it instead of pretending that you care about such things.

Me: After all, look at verse 46 where biblegod is commanding people to love even those who hate one...just how is his killing of babies and pregnant women of those people who allegedly hated him then an example of this "perfect" love?'
Stan's reply:
'Can you show (prove) that it was not done out of love?'

My reply back to him:
Uh, how can baby-killing possibly be an act of love? Would you accept any woman's argument for abortion if she claimed that it was done out of "love" for her baby (to prevent a life of poverty and disease or to send it right to heaven perhaps?)

Stan's latest reply to me:
You appear to admit that abortion is an act of hate, using your analogy above.

Close, but no. In the analogy above, I'm using the bible to show that your god ordered the deaths of babies that were also outside the womb.

I said previously that that's something not even the abortionists would do. I figure abortion is an act that's done because those who do it don't consider the fetus to be yet fully "human". I'd prefer not to confuse the issue like that.

But none of your argument makes sense. I would not accept any excuse for an abortion short of triage; you are the one who accepts any reason whatsoever under the guise of "women’s rights".

Another false statement that I expect you to back up. I have never even implied that; I am in fact "pro-life" but your anti-atheist bigotry put that idea in your head.

Ironic for someone who keeps whining about "my" hate-filled rants.

How do you know the motives of your fictional deity? Why are you not answering the question? How do you know the motives of the deity which you consider to be fictional? How?

Uh, it's you apologists who say that such a thing is good when biblegod does it...I assumed that it was you people who knew what the "motives" were, since you asked me to prove that "love" was NOT the motive for killing those kids.

Stan, quoting me:
Or do you just presume that because to you it resembles human hate, it is therefore nessarily hate in the deity also?'

How in hell could it not?
Good. So that presupposition is covered. It is Guilt By Association.

Guilt by Association is what you've been doing whenever you rail about how "atheist" countries have killed so many people, and all those other things you say (see the list near the start of my first post for more examples).

All I'm doing is calling a spade a spade. You have yet to show how baby-killing is an act of "love", you say outright that abortion itself in an act of "hate", so I'm just drawing that same action of abortion (worse, actually since god had post-natal abortions ordered) that "act of hate" as you call it, and showing that is what your alleged god did.

Second if the biblegod is not a fiction, then the biblegod just IS. If the biblegod just is, then judging it good or bad is absurd.

So much then for all the times the bible, your fellow religionists, etc. ever call your god "good" or "righteous" then, eh?

You may certainly adjudge it to be bad according to your non-moral, non-principles, and that has exactly no bearing on what is.

Strawman again. See the "diet" analogy in the previous post above to see how off-base your statemetn above is.

It's you people who hold the teachings of this being and hold this baby-killer up as a moral standard (which is stupid, as you just implied), then we have to examine such "morals" because it's your actions based on god-belief that affect us all.

If you don’t like what IS, then you are railing against reality, and that is the mark of insanity.

The only thing I don't "like" is that it's you people who hold the "morality" of a fictional character who advocates killing of unbelievers. Your actions have consequences in the real world, regardless of whether biblegod is real or not.

Ex) "witchtrials" anyone?

Stan:
Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist?

Me replying:
What makes you think that he has good motives?
Stan replying to me:
Part 2:
I didn’t say that; you are avoiding answering the question.

What was implied then? That your deities motives were good but that we just dont' know them?

As to the question which I believe I DID answer in the original thread: No, the motives would be irrelevant as to "proof" that the deity does exist, but your own holy book describes this being as "good" "just" etc. Human terms. So, it's fully reasonable to see if those claims bear out.

If they do not, then that's another piece of evidence (not "proof"... that i your god isn't as his own holy book describes him, and therefore he may not exist)

Me:
You've shifted the burden of proof. It's those who assert the positive who have to "prove" their case...otherwise, you'd have to disprove zeus, allah, etc. before you could assert your god
You are behind the times here.

When an assertion is rejected, the rejection must be accompanied with reasons for the rejection, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to think that the rejection has any value. Atheism has no actual reasons other than emotional rejectionism, and uses illogic to claim that they need not produce either logic or physical evidence to support their rejection.

Strawman: Atheism does not use "illogic to claim that we don't need to produce physical evidence" to support atheism. It's a given fact that those who assert, have to back up their assertions. Don't like it? Tough.

There are plenty of reasons besides "emotional rejectionism" to "reject" biblegod:
Biblical errancy
False messianic prophecies
Archeological contradictons.

It's statements like the above that make be disbelieve that you were an atheist for 40 years.

Theism claims that there is one supreme deity, not that other deities do not exist. You do not understand either Theism or Burden of Proof and Burden of Rebuttal.

You are of a particular branch of theism called christianity, which does indeed say that no other deities exist.

Steve quoting me and ignoring the evidence that I had in those links:
But: As for evidence of no god:
biblical mistakes, bible archeology problems for a start...

No, what is needed is actual physical evidence for the claim (non-existence), the same as Atheists require of Theists.

Here you show your ignorance again: It is those who assert the something exists have to show it...as I said earlier. Do xians give such physical evidence that no other deity exists before asserting that their deity is the only one?

Evidence consists of empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed, public data that shows that all possibilities have been investigated and have been positively empirically determined to show that no deity can possibly exist non-physically in a non-physical space.

So, are you prepared to show the xian's evidence that no other deity exists?

Which trait does it refute, and how is it conclusively refuted other than by your opinion?

Referring here to my saying that All such a thing (showing his moral failure to live up to any kind of a standard of "good") would do is refute one trait of this being. It would just mean that it'd be more unlikely that he existed.
It's the biblical claims of god being "holy" "just" "good" etc.

And the links do not provide the empirical data for the refutation which is required.

Right...sure. Ignoring evidence again...Your next statement kind of gives your game away right here:

************IMPORTANT NOTE AHEAD*********

Even refuting the bible, were that actually possible empirically,...

Bzzzt! Hold it right there, buddy! "were that actually possible empirically"? So you admit right here that it's impossible to empirically refute the bible?

Right...I think it's safe to say that no matter what evidence is given you'd reject it, simply because in your opinion, the bible can NOT be "empirically refuted".

I know the "justification" for it is coming up shortly, and it's even more funny.
***********************************

....would not refute Theism in the form of a non-physical agent with the ability to create a universe and to interfere and interface with its creation.

True, but since xians have somehow been able to show that no other god exists but their own...all that'd be needed is to do is show that their god doesn't exist by showing how inaccurate his "holy word" is...

It's interesting that you read the claims against but not the refutations of those claims; it's as if you want to know only the charges against and not any facts that refute the charges.

What makes you think that I haven't?

The archeological claims against the bible are especially strong, I figure since I've yet to see any sites that really deal with those. And I visit site like CMI, AIG, christian answers, etc...

Nice case of projection though...I can say the same thing about you and the absolute rejection of the evidence for evolution in the links that you dismissed. You have no interest in evidence. That's also evidence in your claim that the bible can't be empirically falsified earlier.

Steve quoting me:
Sorry, but what use is the bible then, if it's god's word as you people claim then why can't it be tested?

If the bible can't be tested, then what can?
If by "you people" you mean those of us who have done actual science, then here is the answer: Currently existing physical objects are all that are subject to actual empirical experimentation (objective science).

Not so, as you admit later on:

residual physical evidence...

though that's only for the "miracles of Lourdes". I guess when it comes to things that verify your point of view, then it's ok to use "residual" evidence, is that right?

Surely your superior scientific knowledge can attest to that. Given that, nothing in the bible fits the requirements for being amenable to scientific investigation.

You don't know much about archeology then, do you? Or the starlight and time problem eh? The latter, among all sorts of other physical evidence shoots down a literal genesis rather handidly.

Then there's the matter of biblical prophecies, which as noted earlier, are shot down by textual evidence.

I'll also note that this "those of us who have done actual science" (yeah, as opposed to all those "scientists" with degrees and peer-reviewed articles!) whoever you're referring to can't include creationists because their statements of faith precludes them from changing their minds no matter the evidence.

I wager that "those of us" does NOT include you, right?

Now this gets good:

However, there are some things which can be tested, such as the residual physical evidence from the claims of the miracle at Lourdes. Feel free to use your scientific prowess to produce the data required to refute those claims.

Yes, there are things that can be tested...residual physical evidence" and all that...how do you think that the theory of evolution got established in the first place?

Now, to the "miracle at Lourdes" refutation:

One of the most significant of the Marian apparitions was that allegedly seen in 1858 by fourteen-year-old Bernadette Soubirous (now Saint Bernadette), at a grotto near Lourdes, a town in the foothills of the Pyrenees. Although the parish cur branded the affair a hoax, Bernadette's several visions culminated in her being directed to a hidden spring in the cave that had "healing" waters. Despite "multitudinous failures" over the intervening years (one such failure being Bernadette herself, who suffered for many years from tuberculosis of the bone and died at age thirty-five), a few cases have been certified as miraculous or rather as "medically inexplicable." Independent medical investigators have found otherwise, however, observing that virtually all of the diseases that were supposedly cured were those that were susceptible to psychosomatic influences and/or were known to show spontaneous remissions.

That was easy.

Kind of like the bullshit that people like Benny Hinn etc, pull.

Steve quoting me:

We care because theists attack others civil liberties, abuse women in the name of religon, declare jihads, divert funding from actual education to faith-based bullshit, religious groups pay no taxes so the burden is shifted more onto the rest of us, taxpayer dollars go to faith-based institutions which are allowed to discriminate in who they hire, etc.

It's the consequences of the believers actions that we all have to deal with.
Sounds like the Victimology machine is working overtime.

So ok: First, it's the "atheists complete lack of empathy", now it's atheists who have the "victimology machine"?

Which is it? It sounds to me like it's you who don't care, after all.

It is quite interesting that you fail to mention the $500,000,000 of taxpayer money that is diverted to the killing of in utero humans purely at the whim of the female parent and without any semblance of oversight or ethical principle.

Now you're pretending to be "pro-life" again. Also: Strawman. "at the whim of the female parent"?

Uh, no. Like it or not, there are other reasons than "the whim", you know. There are medical, financial, and psyhological etc. reasons you know:

You fail to mention the environmentalist obstruction of food sources for starving peoples,...

Uh, because I don't know what the hell you're talking about? Citation needed.

...and the environmentalist removal of pesticides which would save third world crops and eliminate much starvation.

For one thing, I don't know a thing about that, so why would I mention it? Secondly: Citations needed. As far as pesticides go, if I remember correctly, many of them were removed because of health effects.

So: If I fail to mention something that I don't know anything about, it's a failure of my empathy, eh? Just looking for any excuse to justify your bigotry?

To play your little game here: Maybe if those rich religious institutions like the catholic church would use some of their vast fortunes to help those countries out (and maybe pay taxes in the countries that they live in, to boot!) they could help alleviate some of the starvation.

Maybe if the pope didn't preach against birth control in those very countries, they wouldn't have such a large hunger problem in the first place?

What does that say then about your level of empathy that you've not bothered to mention that stuff??

You are uninterested in actual human travesties in favor of your fear and loathing of tax exemptions for free religions.

Since you revealed yourself as a Catholic with that easily-debunked claim about "Lourdes" then where is your empathy with the victims of the sexual predators the Church employs as priest, you hypocrite?

The Atheist religious devotion to the religions of environmentalism over human concerns and the right to kill humans are of no concern to you.

And again the false charge that all atheists are not "pro-life". Hopefully you'll have read those atheist pro-life links I gave earlier, and apologize for your ignorance.

I doubt it though. And how is "environmentalism" a religion? Doesn't even your bible say that we should take care of this place? After all, it's not like there's anywhere else for humanity to live, is there? Another xian canard right there.

The more you say Stan, the more ignorance you reveal about what atheists are like. More evidence that your claim of being an atheist for 40 years is a lie.

Your degree of empathy is duly noted.

Since it's based on bullshit statements you pulled out of thin air, your judgment of my empathy means nothing.

Civil liberties don’t exist under Atheism;...

Another strawman. Athiesm postulates that there is no god...that's it. As for atheist themselves, which is what you're trying to do here, that's bull. Here's an ironic example: A civil liberties group rejecting a donation from atheists. Why? Read it and find out.

Isn't it the xians who hate groups like the ACLU? Isn't it xians who are trying to deny civil liberties to homosexuals? Wasn't it xians who in the past opposed desegregation?

It was only 12 years ago that Bob Jones U dropped their ban on "inter racial dating"

Would you like to know about the link between xianity and eugenics since you pretend to care so much about civil liberties? Read that article thoroughly. Note that it was the xian creationist Dr. Tinkle who was advocating stripping people of civil liberties for his eugenic ideas.

*******************************
EDIT: June 21 7:15 PM
If "civil liberties don't exist under atheism" then maybe you'd care to explain this?

Why are the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way listed under a list of links for the "infidels dot org" site if atheists don't care about civil liberties?

Let me guess: You'll say that it's only because atheists will use the ACLU against xians sometimes, eh?

Well how's about reading the Aims and Principles of the American Atheists site:

from that site
--to develop and propagate a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;

That's "humanity" in general there. Read through their principles and you'll find more of that.

*******************************

...we are all just animals, striving for survival first, power second, and nothing more under Atheism.

Maybe under your strawman version of it, maybe. If that's what atheism truly is, then you should have no problem finding at least 3 prominent atheists who share that view with you. Just remember to have their quotes in context please.

I already know of one quote by Richard Dawkins that AIG/CMI uses from an interview in Psychology Today but they have to chop off at least 2 sentences of his to make it look like he says what they want him to say.

Sure, humans are animals, but does that mean then that we should ignore the fact that we have developed brains that can think, imagine, and work our methods to get along together?

Here's a thought for you: What kind of animal should people emulate then? If under your view of "atheism" we can't act like humans, what animals should we act like?

Atheism is by default Consequentialist, and you appear not to have moved on to any other "ethic".

"Consequentialist" morality at least looks at the point of view of the victim (you know, that "victimhood machine" you whined about earlier?) and tries to figure out how to work things so that we're all able to get along. See here.

Your concerns are purely directed at gaining the power to install your own opinions into the law of the land.

Back that claim up, please. Also, it's time for you to do some more reading on who's really doing that!

Have a look under the Churches and Politics section for a hint.

The religious right is also trying to subvert the military, as Military Religious Freedom Foundation shows. Yeah, and it's atheists who don't care for "civil liberties"?

And again, they are only your personal opinions. But you are so sure of your own personal opinion that you want it installed as the "moral" law.

"Opinions" based on at least a modicum of empathy as the links to places like show. Your "moral code" which says that it's ok for god to kill people, doesn't seem to have even that much.

But coming back to the point of this blog, and this post: Your complaints and fears and hatreds have nothing to do with producing actual physical evidence to support your basic claim that there is no non-physical agent. You have no evidence, because no physical evidence is possible for a non-physical being.

Why are you so certain that one exists then? Why are you so hung up on atheists then?

Because you have neither evidence nor logic to support your rejectionism, your belief system is blind belief, a religious adherence to an emotional rejection which you cannot support rationa

Complete bull as these two replies are hopefully showing you.

Your stated viewpoint of Christianity, which you spell in a purposefully derogatory fashion, is filled with distortions created by obvious hatred. Your complaints are by and large false.

Pot, kettle, black (again) is all I can say. Read your own ravings against atheists just in this one post of yours! I daresay it's you who is spreading distortions created by obvious hatred. Though I've dealt with that already in my first post above.

The Christian western nations have created more freedoms for women than any Atheist nation ever did, because Atheist nations murdered millions of their own women.

Again, another history lesson is needed. How many native people did those so-called "christian western nations" kill during their colonizations?

Here, read something will you? Nice and quick:

The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. "In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul's memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors," writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses (HarperCollins).

What makes you think that "western" countries like the US are "christian" in the first place? Does it say so in your Constitution?

Time for (yet) more reading for you, and not from that proven liar, David Barton either, just in case he's the one you got that idea from.

The right to murder your fetus is your concept of women’s rights.

Care to back that up? (again!)

You purposefully equate jihad with tax laws,...

Huh? Uh, care to quote exactly where I said that?

...and you think that the government should regulate who religions can hire, but presumably not Atheist organizations.

A half-truth here: It's only those religious outfits who are subsidized in one way or another with taxpayer's money that I'm concerned about.

If they don't take gov't tax money then I don't care who they hire, but if they do take tax money that means that it is not just xians who are paying into them, but non-xians as well.

Stan, quoting me:
'To consistency then: if humans can't judge god's actions as evil even when the same actions if done by people ARE evil, (ex. the baby-killing example earlier) then how can you tell if your god is "good" or not by his or her actions? How can you call your god "good" if he is not bound by some code of morality that we can measure?

This is a continuing absurdity: if a parent doesn’t allow a child to drive the car, then you think that the parent should not be allowed to drive the car either.

Are you seriously equating genocide with driving a car? Are you truly that stunned? And you say I'm "completely absurd"?

EDIT as of June 21, 2:25PM: thanks, freddies_dead:
Here is why your analogy if messed up: Morality isn't all about the action it's more about why you should or shouldn't do said action. To use your analogy, if the reason you don't allow your child to drive is because (s)he can't drive then it's equally sensible that the parent doesn't drive if they can't drive either.

Completely absurd. Your demand to measure the "goodness" of a deity which does not exist is absurd.

As I've said before, I know he doesn't exist, but you people do believe he exists and you people have no problem with god-ordained genocide! That's why I'm trying to get you to think about the supposed "goodness" of your god: To make you realize the kind of insane "morals" you xian embrace.

Even worse, that's the exact kind of morals you people are trying to teach to schoolchidren: How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren!

from that article
The instruction manual goes on to champion obedience in all things. In fact, pretty much every lesson that the Good News Club gives involves reminding children that they must, at all costs, obey. If God tells you to kill nonbelievers, he really wants you to kill them all. No questions asked, no exceptions allowed.

Your demand to measure the "goodness" of a deity which does actually exist is equally absurd.

Care to explain to me then why it's not absurd for xians to be proclaiming that this same deity is "good"? Why is the examination of the "goodness" of this alleged deity only a problem when an atheist does it?

Edited by - the_ignored on 06/21/2012 18:14:22

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2012 : 19:19:40 [Permalink]

Stan, quoting me:
So, deities are not people?
Anyway, thanks for acknowledging the double standard.
Apply the simplest logic test: If deities are tautological with humans, then humans are tautological with deities. This is obviously not the case, or else you would be the furious deity in charge. Obviously, you are not in charge.

So, "Might makes right" then? Is that the extent of xian morality?

And....again....if we can't judge god to be bad when he does something bad, then why do xians say that god is "good" when he does something good?

With all your ravings about how god just "IS", that's something you never dealt with.

If one were to go by what you're saying it would seem that biblegod is an amoral being...one who has no standard of right or wrong.

Also, if human morality can't be compared to god's morality, then why is he judging us then? If we're not at all comparable, then what's the logic in that?

Judgement is an action of a being who has some sort of moral code. If we fall short of his standards, then that means that he has a set of standards in the first place. And if he's judging us by them, that means that he cares enough about those standards to live up to them himself, otherwise, why would he care to judge US in the first place??

If however, humans are not "tautological" with deities, then there is no logical reason for either humans OR deities to judge each other.

Stan, quoting me:
'Only most children aren't so stupid and arrogant to go around asserting that they have the only real standard of "morality"

Stan's reply to above:
Not an argument; continued Ad Hom Abusive

My reply to him:

It's not meant to be an argument...are you that dense to think that I though it was? It was an observation of the xian "moral" mindset
If your assertions are not meant as arguments,...

Only that one was: the analogy I used to show that xian morality was that of a child: Only does things that are right because the parent is telling them what's "right" and is watching them, as opposed to a mature morality based on empathy.

...then your comment above was merely an attack on me, calling me stupid and arrogant.

If the shoe fits in your mouth...look at all the abuse you've been dishing out to atheists, just on that one post. If your entire blog is like that, and fro what I've seen it is, then I've been nice in only calling you "stupid and arrogant". It's arrogance liek yours that can make one make so many broad generalizations of a group of people (atheists) like you do.

Your ability to present your case is juvenile, at best. Your rudeness and anger reveal your emotional state, which is not a rational state. This final statement is a confirmation of that:

Pot, kettle, black, again:...my "rudeness and anger"? again, go and read the list of things you say about atheists in my first reply to you here.

Stan quoting me:
The xian only is moral because god tells them to, which you've confirmed.
Blatant falsehood, on both counts. You are now lying.

No lie at all. What do you think you're doing whenever you claim that god is the source of xian morality?? What about all those verses I posted way back about the rewards that xian get in heaven for what they do??

Ex: 2 Corinthians 5:10
Ex: 1 Corinthians 3:8
Ex: Revelation 22:12
Ex: Revelation 2:23
Ex: Mark 10:29-30 (the money verse)

Would you care to explain then just what is the basis of xian morality then if it's not your god telling you what to do?

With your anger and hatred of me I do not want any of your faux morals applied to me, and I will fight to the death to prevent it.

Huh? My anger and hatred of you? Do you read what you have been writing all this while?

My "faux morals"? Oh the stuff I quoted earlier from the rational wiki site about ...courtesy, dignity and kindness rather than loathing, spite and murder?

I see that you're living up to your morality then: "loathing" and "spite" towards atheists make up the bulk of your posts here and you use them so much I can see how you'd fight to be able to keep on using them.

Stan quoting me:
What I've been saying all along: We have to hash out our own moral code...according to circumstances.

At least it's not based on the arbitrary whim of some "deity" but rather with the person affected in mind.
So your moral code is arbitrary and relativist (i.e. no code containing actual principles at all), depending upon your opinion of what is best for yourself vs. the other person.

I'd ask you to again read the rational wiki links I gave where they talk about atheist morality. How is ...it is basic common sense to treat others as we expect to be treated, that is, with courtesy, dignity and kindness rather than loathing, spite and murder. count as not having ANY principles at all??

Fine. You have established exactly the point being made.

What, that you're clueless?

With your anger and hatred of me I do not want any of your faux morals applied to me, and I will fight to the death to prevent it.

FYI, this hatred of yours is the reason that Christians are well armed; self-protection from those with no principles of morality but the arrogance of their delusion of superiority is essential.

Ok: If you feel so threatened by me and people like me, I invite you to take all that I've posted down to your nearest POLICE STATION and ask them to ARREST me!

I say again: How does

it is basic common sense to treat others as we expect to be treated, that is, with courtesy, dignity and kindness rather than loathing, spite and murder.

scare you enough that you feel you need to be armed?

After reading this huge rant of yours against atheists, it's probably US who should be afraid of people like you, if anything.

The Atheists of the 20th century proved that conclusively. Some of us learn from history.

Yeah, some do: That's why modern secular states are (get this) not totalitarian! In any system, religious or not, if you have a bunch of power-hungry people at the top who want to keep their power, you will have bloodshed. You ignore the fact that places like Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, etc are pretty secular countries and are pretty good places to live.

The so-called "xian" U.S. though has a higher homicide rate than those countries. Why, if it's the xians who respect life more?

One thing that you people never mention in your rants about the "atheistic" nations: Per capita they did not kill as many people as theistic nations did.

Evidence? The religiously inspired 30 year war in the german states 300 year ago. 20-40% of the people died. By just plain numbers it's bad not not "stalin" bad.

BUT: If one were to look at the loss of one third of the population of germany from 30 years ago to now, that would be a hell of a sum.

Why the difference?
-number of people
-effectiveness of weapons

That's why the religious wars have killed less people than so-called "atheist" states. Nothing to do with respect for life or anything like that.

If you truly learned from history instead of spreading age-old xian propaganda, you'd know that.

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2012 : 02:22:03 [Permalink]

I'm not going to edit the previous posts anymore, I'll just post new bits of relevent information.

As I was saying before in a previous post here: There are reasons why atheists fight the religious right even though we don't believe biblegod exists...this is another reason why. It's another example of the actions of those who do believe in biblegod having an effect on the rest of us.

Like the ACE curriculum, A Beka and Bob Jones textbooks promote Young-Earth creationism, are heavily laden with political bias, and at times verge on racism. As shown in the following video, among the dubious, factually incorrect, politically tendentious, and racially and culturally insensitive claims in A Beka Book and Bob Jones University Press textbooks are the following:

-"Only ten percent of Africans can read or write, because Christian mission schools have been shut down by communists.
- "the [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross... In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians."
- "God used the 'Trail of Tears' to bring many Indians to Christ."
- It "cannot be shown scientifically that that man-made pollutants will one day drastically reduce the depth of the atmosphere's ozone layer."
- "God has provided certain 'checks and balances' in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists."

http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/guest-blogger-examining-accelerated-christian-education/

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1487 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2012 : 08:35:13 [Permalink]

Originally posted by the_ignored

As I was saying before in a previous post here: There are reasons why atheists fight the religious right even though we don't believe biblegod exists...this is another reason why. It's another example of the actions of those who do believe in biblegod having an effect on the rest of us.

Yup, it's an ongoing effort to educate and inoculate kids and adults from priestcraft, superstition and dogma in general.

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2012 : 14:20:52 [Permalink]

Well, it looks like this may actually happen:

And yes, I fully understand that you must insult rather than address issues: you have nothing to present (although I will go to your response over yonder).

In the meantime, here's my analysis of that last comment of his to me:

----------------------------------------------
Stan

Your continued use of the misspelled word "Christian" as a pejorative merely proves the point: Perhaps I should start calling you an Athhole, and your empty belief system, Athhole-ism

The word "xian" is an abbreviation.

Compared to the constant slander and demonization of atheists by you, that little abbreviation is literally, nothing in comparison.

So unless "Athholes" is an abbreviation, all you've done is shown that you're more childish than that guy you castigated earlier, godlessnomore

Trust me, when I choose to insult you, you will bloody know it, as one of the forum thread titles on SFN will show. There, I am insulting you. A small taste of your own medicine, as well as a description of your character. Feel free to refute that if you want.

You speak for all Athholes, do you? You must be quite the omniscient phenomenon.

Don't you speak for all atheists whenever you make your bigoted blanket statements about "the lack of empathy" and "stinginess" and "lack of a moral code" and whatnot?

Aren't you asking for someone to speak for all atheists when you put up this post asking for an "atheist moral code"?

You're asking a diverse group of people for ONE moral code. The rational wiki link I gave in the SFN reply to you has an example of a general one, but you've ignored that entire reply.

Anyway, now, when I try to answer you, you make fun of that, saying "must be quite the omniscient phenomenon."?

So what is it you want then?

But, know what? You can't get away with not addressing issues by calling them straw men (the only logic fallacy that most Athholes know).

I have answered all the "issues" you brought up in my respsonse to you.

And yes, I fully understand that you must insult rather than address issues: you have nothing to present (although I will go to your response over yonder).

Again....pot-kettle-black. Do better than this eh?

As for idiotic, the claim that Athholes are good and moral, yet they cannot present even one actual Athhole principle that demonstrates "goodness", nor can they even define it... well, it is your word, and your insult.

So again, you've ignored the links and quotes I gave and pretend that we have no morals at all. As I said earlier: If your claim of being an atheist for 40 years is true, then all you've really done by all your posts is show the lack of your character, not the lack of ours.

In my reply to you, I've given links and quotes, all of which you've so far ignored so you can keep pretending that atheists have no morals.

As for following common sense, just where did that lead in the Atheist dictatorships of the 20th century? Explain how that works for all the Athholes which you represent, OK?

Dealt with in my SFN reply.

The commies, etc only cared about power, NOT common sense or "atheism". Soviet Russia especially was bad on the sciences like genetics, by accepting Lamarckism and persecuting "darwinism".

Hitler of course, used your religion to get away with his anti-semitism. He likely wasn't one himself, but it was still your religion's legacy that he used.
---------------------------------------------------------

Edited by - the_ignored on 06/22/2012 14:29:55

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2012 : 13:24:37 [Permalink]

Ok, it looks like Stan will actually be coming over here I guess, so to simplify things, I'll post my replies here*, and over there I'll just post the links to my rebuttals here.

*no annoying word limit as the blogspot sites do.

NOTE: I will be editing this later, most likely. I have to rush off now and I don't think I've gotten all my points in yet!
==================

The use of “xians” offends many actual Christians as does the word “Xmas”. However, that is of no importance to this blog, I suppose. You undoubtedly will continue its use regardless of the intolerance which it displays.

And yet again, pot, kettle, black just have a look at all of the things you say about atheists! See for example the list in my first reply on this page.

You may also want to have a look at the tone of every single blog post you ever made, as well.

And you complain about my "intolerance"?

Atheism addresses only the issue of a deity. Nothing more.

Doesn't stop you from attaching all sorts of negative attitudes and negative generalizations to them though, does it?

If you wish to submit a rational answer, you must demonstrate that the Atheist principle, “there is no god”, or even the agnostic principle, “there probably is no god, pending material data which I find congenial”, or the recent intellectual dodge, “I gots no god ideas in my head”, is a moral or ethical statement.

It isn't a moral statement. All it is, is the belief that there is no god as you admit. That does not mean that atheists can't come up with a moral system though. It just means that we don't get one handed down to us from someone else as your belief system does.

Good grief. You may as well criticize stamp collectors for not having a set of morals for life laid out for them. After all, any system of morality also falls outside stamp collecting, does it not?

Because that is all there is to the void of Atheism. There is absolutely nothing more to the void of Atheism: read Nietzsche (the only honest Atheist, in my opinion);...

And here you go with your overgeneralizations: So every single atheist who ever sodding lived except for Neitzche, who is the one atheist who confirms your bigoted statements about us, is a liar?

Don't you see that it's overgeneralizations like that that show you up for what you are?

I've said before: Replace the word "atheist" in your rants with the name of any other group, and you'll see yourself for what you are.

This void allows, even necessitates, that the adherent to Atheism either create his own answers to these subjects, or accept the answers which other adherents have created for these subjects, or ignore any further thoughts regarding the consequences of Atheism. But these positions are not engendered by Atheism or a part of the proposition of Atheism, they are separate from but enabled by Atheism.

If that's how you think, then your later statement that Hitler used a "counterfeit form" of your faith falls apart then. Why? As is shown, Hitler has centuries of christian anti-semitism to fall back on for support of what he did to the Jews.

Look at Martin Luther (a guy Hitler said he admired) who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies. Was he a "counterfeit christian"?

The people over at Creation Ministries International don't seem to think so!

Like it or not, it was your religious faith that enabled Hitler to do what he did. Since you're so eager to blame atheists for everything you hate simply because atheism suppsosedly "enables" those things, then you must accept that your religion enabled a lot of bad things as well.

I won't even mention things like the various religious wars, witch hunts, genocide of north american peoples, etc.

...anything which is added to those principles is NOT Atheism, it is added to Atheism. Atheism is the void, a void which can be filled with any ethic whatsoever, or absolutely no ethic at all. And that is what you need to argue against. Or call me more names or whatever.

No, that is not what I need to argue against. As I said earlier: One may as well criticize stamp collectors for not having a moral system built into their stamp collecting "mindset". The same thing for hockey fans, etc.

And again, Atheism has no morals attached to it. That is a raw fact. Your refusal to accept that fact is causing you to attack my character. If you cannot accept raw facts, then you are certainly not “fact based”, as many Atheists claim to be.

It's an entirely different thing to say that atheism has "no morals attached to it" which is true, since all atheism is is the belief that there are no gods...it is quite another to keep saying that atheists have no moral code. We just have to devise our own since there's no god to give us one. I gave some links to some sites but you continue to disregard them.

It seems that unless every single atheist agrees to some unchanging set of rules like you people have then that means that we have "no morality" in your eyes.

Verfied by what you say here:

So, since Kant’s idea of what is "good" is at odds with Consequentialism’s concept of "good", and Nietzsche denies that “good” even exists and favors "will to power" instead, then for adherents of Atheism to claim that Atheists are "good without god", is either absurd, false, or it is tautological. Without a single definition of "goodness", the claim cannot be valid that all "Atheists are good without god", unless Atheism is tautological with "good", which is both absurd and false.

If we're going to argue about the definition of "good" and you're picking apart what various atheists mean when they talk about "good", then let's have a look at what christians consider "good" then shall we?

We dont' actually say that (all) atheists are good without god. From what I remember, we say that we can be good without god.

And again, all you do Stan, is show that the "morals" you people have is that of a child who has to have his or her parents tell them what to do, instead of being mature enough, having enough empathy to try to get along with other people without someone constantly looking over their shoulder.

Doesn't stop you from making broad generalizations though, does it?

Further, there is no reason to believe that whatever the Atheist’s moral theory is today will be the Atheist’s moral theory tonight.

Exaggeration on your part.

When Atheists proudly claim their superior empathy and morality, my response is to give the actual evidence regarding those claims; then you call that response bigoted.

This also deals a bit with your "Note 1" that I "can't refute": You use The Barna study to say that christians have greater empathy, but I've pointed out that according to the bible itself the motive for xian to be moral is because of reward in heaven later on. After all, why would those verses be in there otherwise? What evidence do you have that empathy and not future rewards or fear of punishment motivates members of your religion?

This leads to the question that if I remember correctly, you haven't answered: Which is more "moral"? The person who does something expecting a reward later, or the one who does something because one cares about another person (empathy)?

You use the Barna study to say that atheists have less empathy than xians, but unless you can show that their are other motives from your own bible other than promises of future rewards, and threats of punishments, you really don't have evidence that what motives your fellow religionists is even empathy at all.

Until then, the numbers from that ONE study are irrelevent in comparing "empathy".

Generally, Stan, what you do is you make wild over-generalizations. As for bigotry, again. Look at the list of things you say about atheists and apply them to any other group. I call you as you act.

So far in the past several days you have called me a liar,...

...an idiot, and a bigot. Elsewhere you apparently attack my character.

What kind of character can one have, Stan, if you need someone (ie. "god") to give you the rules to live by? If you can't figure out for yourself for instance, not to hurt people, again, that shows your lack of character, not the atheists you hate so much.

You apparently cannot refute (Note 1) any of the evidence, so you ridicule, which is a staple of Atheism a la’ PZ “ridicule works” Meyers, and a favored technique of that faction.

Again, pot, kettle, black. Look at all of your posts about atheists.

Also, I deal a bit with your "note 1" earlier.

Edited by - the_ignored on 06/23/2012 13:35:02

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/25/2012 : 14:14:32 [Permalink]

One of the things that I notice Stan criticize me for is that pointing out the moral failures of the xian god does not disprove the existence of any god...true. But he ignores the fact that it is a part of testing out the qualities ascribed to that god by the bible.

Stan though refuses to say just what his religious viewpoint is, so it's impossible to examine whatever version of god he worships if any. He says the bible is "fictional" later on but he said that the "Miracle of Lourdes" has not been refuted. That "miracle" is based on a xian belief, a belief which does not regard the bible as "fictional".

I will note though that when he attacks atheism, he's making the same kind of mistake that he's trying to pin on me:

He's acting as if showing that atheists have no over-riding moral code somehow refutes atheism as a way of looking at reality.

He makes the false claim that I speak for "all atheist" when I never claimed such a thing: That's why I gave those links to the RationalWiki articles, to show him what other atheists have worked out.

Well, onto his post:

OK, I guess we’ll just proceed, then, with you calling out names instead of providing any actual evidence supporting your apparent claim that Atheists are moral, all of them,...

I never said that all atheists are moral, just that we have had to work out our own moral code. You refuse to actually discuss what I am actually saying, again.

...because you speak for them all, or providing any disciplined deductive answers to the questions in my post (which you might have done below, I haven’t gotten there yet).

Where please, did I say that I spoke for all atheists? Did you ever wonder why I gave you links to what other atheists have worked out? Those views pretty much match my own, but how you can work out that I claim to speak for all atheists is beyond me.

You wanted a singular atheist moral code. There isn't really one, but I gave a link to a site that works out a decent general view.

"Atheism addresses only the issue of a deity. Nothing more.
Doesn't stop you from attaching all sorts of negative attitudes and negative generalizations to them though, does it?

Oh my no. When I point out the absurdities which Atheists attach to Atheism, that is just awful, isn’t it. Rather than address them, it is best to label them "generalizations", and move away quickly.

More like the absurdities that you attach to atheism in their name. I dont think Stalin, Pol Pot, et al gave a damn one way or another about atheism as much as they did about obtaining and holding power. I did not "move away quickly", I pointed out how stupid it was to base atheism in general on things that you attach to it.

It isn't a moral statement. All it is, is the belief that there is no god as you admit. That does not mean that atheists can't come up with a moral system though. It just means that we don't get one handed down to us from someone else as your belief system does
I claim it, not “admit” it. It is Atheists who make the claim of being universally “good without god”. Now how did they get that idea?

The people who put up those posters that claim that "one can be good without god" themselves are no less law-abiding than anyone else.

But where did "universally" come from in this?

Good grief. You may as well criticize stamp collectors for not having a set of morals for life laid out for them. After all, any system of morality also falls outside stamp collecting, does it not?
Maybe you could show us all where stamp collectors are claiming to be “good because of stamps”,...

Neither they NOR atheists claim that one is good because of stamps or because of a lack of belief in a god...atheists just claim that one can devise moral rules without some god watching over them.

As the metaphor is supposed to go: Atheism and stamp collecting have nothing to say about morality by themselves.

...and that non-stamp collectors are just children without any character,

Only if non-stamp collectors (for some reason) all needed someone over them to hand them rules and watch them, which was my point with the theistic version of morality, and which has seemed to have completely sailed over your head.

...and that those who don't agree that stamp collecting is the repository of rationality are fools, on and on. There is no rational connection between stamp collecting and Atheism; the Stamp Collector gag fails, always.

Because people like you mutilate the metaphor.

And here you go with your overgeneralizations: So every single atheist who ever sodding lived except for Neitzche, who is the one atheist who confirms your bigoted statements about us, is a liar?
Did I say liar? No. Intellectually dishonest is inferrable, though I didn't say that either.

Let's look at what you did say then:

Stan in earlier post
...read Nietzsche (the only honest Atheist, in my opinion);...

So Stan: If Nietzsche is the only "honest Atheist" as you have said: What does that mean about what you think of all the other atheists?

Take your time: I know that it must be hard to work through your own thought processes...

You are quite free with that word, liar, and your own overgeneralizations. Actually the presence of Nietzscheans in the Atheist world cancels your claim to represent all Atheists.

**Lie 1**

The reason I use the word "liar" in describing you is because you keep doing it. This is one right here: Where did I say that I claimed to represent all atheists?

The Nietzscheans could explain the consequences of Atheism to you, if you contact them.

The consequences of atheism? So only they know the actual consequences of atheism then? So then wouldn't it be they who would have this "atheist moral code" that you keep crying for?? What about all those other atheist philosophers you mention later on?

Actually, the longer I am out of Atheism the more I do see that most modern Atheists who blog or write back-stall books or stalk blogs, etc. have much in common generally and are convinced that,

(a) they are the only one who knows any Atheists and they can speak for all Atheists, because their version of Atheism is the only one,

Examples please. Should be easy given what you said above...

(b) there are no consequences to be attached to Atheism,

Where did I or any of the atheists that you claim to have read, ever said that?

If you keep spreading falsehoods while you're doing so, what am I supposed to call you?

(d) Atheism really is super moral, and all because all Atheists are oh so empathetic,

Never said the atheism is "super moral", and there's more to morality then empathy. Not like you care, though.

(d) there is no need to actually have moral principles which are stateable as moral facts, in fact, there is no truth and no facts, only relativist decisions to be made by individual Atheists,...

Uh huh. Once again, that old canard: "without an iron clad set of unchangeable rules" that means that we have no rules at all. Wrong.

They just change if the circumstances warrent it. It'd be stupid otherwise: If rules did not change then biblcial slavery would still exist, and women would still be required to marry their rapists.

...oh wait there is evolution, and that is pure fact, and any critic of that is anti-science and anti-rational and of bad character to boot,....

God, what a rant, in just one statement. I gave you a link to a long site which listed a whole series of tests and predictions that evolution passed and you acted like I didn't.

So if you act like an anti-science idiot that's your fault.

Don't be even more stupid by whining about being called out on it.

(e) all religious people are evil fools who do have evil moral principles stateable as evil moral facts, and are therefore just children and not real men, who are ready to make up stuff,

As I said before: If we kept rules unchanged no matter the circumstance, then women would still be required to marry their rapists as per the OT bible.

And again: Only a child's (or sociopath's) level of morality has the person obeying only becuase they are being watched. Others are more mature. If you're offended by that, tough.

(f) there's no need to read any modern Atheist philosophers outside of the four New Atheists, or Nietzsche, (much less can they spell his name), or Hume, or Popper, or Russell, or Ayer, or Plato, or Aristotle, or Boole, or Spencer, and certainly not Aquinas (that spineless child), or really not any one directly, but they have read what the internet Atheists say about them, well, quickly if they need to think they know a little something for an argument in progress,

Actually, a lot of what those "internet athiests" write uses their works, and analyzes them. That rational wiki link I gave earlier has some of them.

By the way, since you have this in a list of arguments you keep running into, would you care to give some examples of this as well?

(g) it's rational argumentation to become angry and emotional when Atheism and Atheist morality is challenged, and so attack the person rather than the argument,

No, that'd be you when I keep calling you out on being a liar.

When athiest morality is challenged (or outright denied in your case, all I do is give an example where some athiest morality has been worked out), as opposed to getting all emotional about it.

(h) it's not necessary to study the discipline of logic because real men decide things on the fly, and with empathy not logic,

Rules are made by more than just emapthy as I try to explain later.

(i) there's no burden of proof on the Atheist, ever, well except to demonstrate that Christians and their beliefs are stupid and evil...

Just need the bible for that

... no burden for demonstrating the impossibility of non-physical agency,

Uh huh. OK, what's the evidence for a non-phsyical entity then?

How could such a thing be tested? What would you accept as proof that one does not exist? This is why we don't believe in one...no evidence for it.

... or for demonstrating that Atheism actually produces "goodness" of some sort, via morals acquired somehow, from someone, or just made up, maybe just for a specific occasion for all anyone else knows.

As I said: Rules have to change over time otherwise things like slavery would still be legal. Do you have a problem with that?

Oh sure, there are some Atheists who don't think this way. Probably a lot, and those must be the ones who don't haunt the blogs, according to what I have seen.

Looking forward to reading your many, many examples of atheists who do all of the things that you're complaining of above then

...And sure, these are generalizations, based on my own experience with Atheists of all stripes. But if someone wants to refute them, they are invited to go right ahead. Calling me a bigot is without evidentiary power, though.

Calling you as you are has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of any "non-physical entity". true but it is a trait that you display, yes.

On top of all that, no Atheist has ever provided material empirical evidence for the non-existence of non-physical agency,...

Again, shifting of the burden of proof.

If we did not demand evidence of such things before believing in them, than any cult and looney religion would be valid until each specific deity was disproved.

So, we don't believe in any of that until you people can show that such a thing exists.

...nor have they provided any actual moral principles in their defense.

Uh, we do, even some of the philosopers you mention, but you just dismiss them.

They are unable to defend the general Atheist claim of being material evidence-based, and logic-based.
Further, the evidence which is still residual at Lourdes is the continuing existence of the spring, which did not exist until the girl was told to remove the handsful of mud, as the claim states. The original claim is not for healing powers of the water, that claim was added on later by I don’t know who. So the empirical refutation of the original claim, physical evidence still residing in plain view, is still required, and the physical feature, the spring still runs, is still available for empirical refutation.

It was shown that those other various claims are false, so why should we believe that she dug out the spring based on what some voice in her head told her?

How do we know that she didn't see a small steady trickle of water there before she went there with her friends? How do we know that someone with some knowledge of the area told her that there was maybe a spring there?

Your backpedaling on this issue can't help you. Every site and reading I can find on this is focussing on the debunked "healing properties". Yet you're saying that they were just a tag-on? That's pretty much the main focus of every article I could find about it.

Your way of thinking is just stupid. Here's why: If we had to disprove every single supernatural claim, scientists would not have any time to actually examine the real world. Charlatans would rule the day and rip people off an order of magnitue worse than they do now.

I'm sorry, but if you claim that the bible is "fictional", then the "miracles of Lourdes" should be of no concern to you since it's all based on a religious faith that is based on that same "fictional" bible.

Yet you get upset when, after reading your bragging that the "miracles of Lourdes" has not been refuted, I assumed that you were Catholic?

Don't you see that it's overgeneralizations like that that show you up for what you are?
Atheism is a very specific assertion; But Atheists cannot support their assertions. Those are facts.

We have yet to see anything that actually refutes our assertions that there is no god. Got one to show us?

Do they apply generally? Yes they do. Sorry you don’t like them, but they are facts regardless of how you feel about them. Because you don't like the facts but don't care to actually refute them in a disciplined manner, you attack me instead.

No, I point out your bigtry also.

Why don't you specify exactly what you mean by "what you are". Maybe this conversation can be shortened.

A theistic anti-athiest bigot?

I've said before: Replace the word "atheist" in your rants with the name of any other group, and you'll see yourself for what you are.
You demonstrated your own fallacy here by trying out the old stamp collector gag. No other groups make the claims which Atheists make,

So then say, Judaism never makes any moral claims? Ok, substitute Judaism with athiesm in your rants then and see what you look like.

...and certainly not while trying to convince the world that they are the sole, logical, evidence-based centroid of rationality,...

Never said that. That's a lie right there. **Lie 2**

...all while failing to provide actual evidence for their own ideology:

Show us this "non-physical entity that created everything" then.

...only Atheists do that, certainly not stamp collectors. Meanwhile Atheists exercise False Analogy Fallacies like the Stamp Collector Gag.

Nothing "false" about it, well, not until you mutilate it, anyway...

BTW and FYI, analogies always fail, some just sooner than others. It would be better to address the actual subject face-on.

I'm trying to show how your way of "thinking", to put it loosely, fails. Nothing seems to work, so I try analogies. That didn't work either.

You have no idea of whether I have a faith or not, much less what it is (it is not the blind faith of Atheism, and I don't worship Luther, or Creation Whatever, or any ecclesiology); and further, your attack on what you think is my religion or faith or whatever does nothing to obviate these actual facts:

(1) Atheists are claiming to be “good without god”;

(2) Atheism, as a proposition or lack thereof, has no concept of “good” attached to it;

(3) As was demonstrated above, Atheist claims of “good” have no meaning, unless some other philosophical ethic is attached to the Atheism.

That's probably why they say atheists as opposed to atheism...atheists can work out things beyond the belief that there is no god, you know...it won't make them any less athiestic.

You seem to want to ignore that and instead attack all of those atheists as a group, accusing them of having no morals whether they've worked out one or not. Bigotry.

All they're trying to say, which is completely over your head is that one does not need any "deity" standing over them to make them behave. They have things like empathy, consquenes of actions, concern for society, etc. to do that.

(4) There are myriad competing and contradictory Atheist “ethics” available to be attached to Atheism ex post facto.

(5) Not all those ethical propositions can be valid.

(6) Some if not all of those ethical propositions must be non-valid.

(7) In order to validate an Atheist ethical proposition, a standard must be used.

What's the "standard" then? Is it your moral system, whatever it is? Why don't you define a standard then, since you're so certain that we need one.

(8) But the standard must itself be validated, thereby entering a Gödel infinite hierarchical regression.

See above.

(9) Therefore, no Atheist ethical proposition can be known to be valid.

Untrue, since you don't define a standard. What's wrong with having the "golden rule" is the best standard? That seems to be the stance that these guys have?

(10) Certain Atheist ethical propositions do "work", such as Consequentialism, which is actually a tactic rather than an ethic; Atheist Consequentialism dominated 20th Century news with its atrocities. "Working" is not equivalent to "vald".

Huh. I thought it was communism that was responsible for a lot of that. Guess I was wrong. I don't see any reference to those 20th century atrocities on the actual university philosophy site that discusses consequentialism, and I also don't see how what you're saying could even be true. One would think that mass murder and starvation would be bad consequences. According to you, they're not?

Your attempts to justify the Atheist claims of self-endowed morality by using the constant Tu Quoque Fallacy which you bang away at relentlessly does nothing to help the fatal case against Atheism.

Your "fatal case" is nothing but fallacies themselves. Consequences of belief and ad-hom.

If evilbible is false, if Christianity is false, that has no bearing whatsoever on the case against Atheism.

Not quite. If the statemts made by the holy books of a religion do not match reality, or the description of their own deity then it's likely that the belief system based on that holy book is wrong.

As for atheism itself, all that can be done, that I can see, is to examine the claims of the various religous groups. I know that xianity is refuted, islam, etc. So really, what all else can we do?

Oh right...we have to disprove this "non-physical" entity that you talk about...when you refuse to give any idea as to what your beliefs are so we can have an idea of what qualities this being is supposed to have that we can test.

So, in failing that, just give us evidence that this being exists in the first place.

So attacking them is only for your own personal emotional assuagement. None of your arguments address the actual case made against Atheism;...

Your "case" against athiesm is nothing but fallacies in the first place, as I've already said.

...you merely take offense that the case is being made and claim that I am a bigot/idiot/whatever for bringing it up.

You are what you act like; deal with it.

You make no positive case for Atheism or moral Atheists; you merely make negative cases against a religion which you obviously hate.

And again with the "hate". All I can say is that I'm not the one with the blog set up exclusively to attack an entire group of people.

As for what I thought your religious views were: I could only infer from your posts that you are religious, and since catholics are the only ones I know about who care about the so-called "miracle of Lourdes" I took a guess and assumed that you were catholic, or at least some branch of christianity.

It is smart though to not define your belief system at all, because it is a perfect defense. No one can say anything about any particular belief system because you can always say that it doesn't apply to you, as you do later on. You don't have to give any characteristics of this "non-physical entity" that you claim created the universe so it can never be tested.

You are fighting ecclesiasticism as an obvious Red Herring and ignoring the main subject: the fundamental premise of Atheism.

As said before: It's not our job to disprove non-physical beings, it's your job to prove them...all we have to do is point out the lack of evidence for one.

I won't even mention things like the various religious wars, witch hunts, genocide of north american peoples, etc.
Of course you just did mention them; we are not the idiots you presuppose us to be. Now demonstrate how those things prove that there is no non-physical agency, and/or that Atheists are moral yet without standards for goodness.

Once again, that old lie that without one immutable set of unchanging rules, that means we have "no standards" at all.

Well, I've given you some links and some stuff to read, how's about a wee bit more?

from the site:
The Social contract, Utilitarianism/Prioritarianism, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, Ethical egoism and altruism, and moral intuition are all sufficient substitutes for divine command. Many secular ethical theories go along very well with Secular Humanism, a much broader philosophy.

But if I remember correctly, you say that unless their is no contradiction among them, and no unidentified, unquantified (by you) standard, none of these will count, yes?

Now, as to you: if you won't say just what your belief is, then how do we know that you have any "standard of goodness"? All I've seen is you railing on atheists.

No, that is not what I need to argue against. As I said earlier: One may as well criticize stamp collectors for not having a moral system built into their stamp collecting "mindset". The same thing for hockey fans, etc.
Of course it is. Atheists make unique claims regarding morals,...

What's so "unique" about the atheist claim? That we have to work out a moral system of our own? Oh, that's coming up....

...based on a unique claim regarding rejectionism, none of which they can support either logically or with empirical evidence. The hockey fan gag doesn't work, either.

So it's up to us to prove that some unquantifiable, undescribed "non-physical entity" does not exist, right?

What you don't seem to realize is that that's why atheists examine the claims of various religions. When they at least describe their deities, we can start to quantify and test for them.

The "morality" of various deities is a part of that; something you don't seem able to understand.

That claim about not being able to support with "empirical evidence" the lack of such "non-physical entities" is amusing though. All atheism says is that there is no evidence for gods, therefore there is no reason to assume that there is.

Theists will come along and demand that we show that there isn't. It's not that hard when the theist in question has a particular god in mind...all we have to do is examine that person's "holy book" and see how well it matches up with reality and self-consistency.

But, by not ever stating what your religious views are, Stan you have insulated your beliefs from any kind of examination whatsoever.

It's an entirely different thing to say that atheism has "no morals attached to it" which is true, since all atheism is is the belief that there are no gods...it is quite another to keep saying that atheists have no moral code. We just have to devise our own since there's no god to give us one. I gave some links to some sites but you continue to disregard them.
But of course: that is what I’ve been saying all along. Atheists make up their own stuff. So, it does extrapolate to Atheists, doesn’t it?

All one can say is that we've come up with our own ways of getting along, it does not mean that we have no way of getting along.

You have no more idea what an Atheist in Stalingrad, say Boris Popov, uses for moral principles than anyone else. I read your links and I told you why they do not work; I’ll tell you again:

(1)You cannot know what motivates any Atheist, much less all Atheists.

So if one can't tell what motivates all atheists, why do you continue to make your attacks against the character all atheists?

(2)You cannot know what “common sense” means to any Atheist, much less all Atheists.

Actually, there is a link given on the site you pretended to read and the article that links it talks about it in a general form. It seems that they at least have worked out what it means. And since I don't even pretend to speak for all atheists I won't even try to say what "all atheists" mean by "common sense". I can only look for some sort of consensus.

(3)Common sense is rejected along with intuition by (probably) every Atheist philosopher.

Citations.

(4)Your own ethic is relativism, which means that you get to decide something when a situation arises based on no
moral theory and only your own empathy,

Quit lying Stan. I've excerpts already showing different moral theories and you're pretending that I have none?

...and I’m supposed to believe that your altruism will kick in somehow so that you empathetically decide what is good and right for the other guy.

This is the guy who asked me to "show" that god having babies killed in the OT was NOT an "act of love"?? Right. But anyway if you bother to read the link this time, you'll find that there is a scientific basis for empathy and a good reason to include it in forming a system of morality.

Maybe the other guy wants to decide what is good and right for you, what then?

Well, if we were to follow the historic pattern shown by theists, we'd have crusades, inquisitions, or jihads agsint each other.

Long and intellectual negotiations concerning what is meant by good and right, and who gets to make what decision for whom? Or maybe fisticuffs when your empathy doesn't match his idea of fairness.

All we'd do is rely on the secular law that has been laid down. If there was time maybe we could debate it, if it was that important.

However, because of that, he can't claim that a theistic morality is better than the atheists' "making stuff up as we go along" since he's never said just what his theistic beliefs actually are. Is it Divine Command Theory or what?

Does his theistic view of morality take into consideration the consequences for the victim, or just the fact that a deity wants something done, and victim be damned? Remember: This is the guy who asked me to "show" that god having babies killed in the OT was NOT an "act of love".

It seems that unless every single atheist agrees to some unchanging set of rules like you people have then that means that we have "no morality" in your eyes.
Again, if by "you people", you mean those who have studied actual logic... Right.

Problem is, logically speaking, that is baloney. If anything, the fact that atheists have more than one view on what exactly consititutes a moral code means the opposite of having "no morality". No morality means that one doesn't have a moral code, period...not having more than one moral code to potentially choose from!

No discernible principles by which to establish expectations for predicting your behavior. Nope. None.

Lie right there. I've given links and quotations to show that we have more than one moral code to choose from.

You keep dishonestly saying that it somehow means that we have "none". How stupid is that? It's like asking a person "what color is your car"? and when the guy says that it's red and green, the first person says that therefore the car has no color!

It's not like you're asking for a "favourite" moral theory, you're asking for one over-riding moral rule, and when we say that there is no over-riding rule, you pretend that we have no rules at all.

You make yours up on the fly, as you decide the situation requires. You said so yourself.

Yeah, you definately did not read the link I gave. And you are twisting the meaning of my words: you are once again confusing "having to make up our own moral code" with "having no moral code at all", even though it's been explained more than once.

This kind of thing is why you are a bigot: Even when given evidence that your claims are wrong, you still hold onto them.

****While you're at it: Would you care to explain how even if you were right about atheists and morality just

how that disproves atheism itself?

If we're going to argue about the definition of "good" and you're picking apart what various atheists mean when they talk about "good", then let's have a look at what christians consider "good" then shall we?"
Forget the Tu Quoque Fallacy attempt; as an Atheist you have a serious issue, and yes, I'm picking it apart. That's why we are here. You cannot define “good” as a common concept for all Atheists.

Yet when I try to give you references for what atheists in general, have worked out, you make fun of me, pretending that I speak for "all atheists"?

For "all atheists" no, but there is a some consensus which is more consistent then the moral views of different religious sects you are of course dismissing.

So why should anyone consider a professed Atheist to be "good"?

Guilty until proven innocent eh? That question shows your bigotry, again.

Because they're not bigots like you? Because atheists have worked out different but compatible moral systems generally?

If all that is known about Yin Gang Yong is that he is an Atheist, why does that confer "goodness"? Or morality of any sort? It cannot, and it does not.

Being an athiest confers nothing. Still, because you can't tell if he has a moral code or not, in your bigotry you will assume that he has none., as that's what you keep saying about us.

By the way, that's more than we know about you and your concept of "goodness". All you do is rag on atheists for not having hashed out a SINGLE UNANIMOUS definition of "goodness". Never mind that even the religions of the world can't even do that themselves.

It seems that for your definition of "goodness" we're left to sift through your remarks, like when you asked me to "show" that god having babies killed was NOT an "act of love" and the time you referred to the "victimology machine" working overtime? Look at what you were referring to when you said that.

I think we can at least start to work out perhaps what you consider "good", eh?

We don't actually say that (all) atheists are good without god. From what I remember, we say that we can be good without god.

Really? Some of the signs said “millions are good without god”.

Did it say "millions" or "all" please? And if millions are, then it shows that we can.

Besides, by the standards of the law of the land in those countries and by the references I gave earlier millions would be "good". They just don't worship any gods.

Oddly, most of the sign photos have been removed from the "good without god" articles, including at Dawkins’ place and Huffpo. Huffpo replaced theirs with a "Don't mess with Texas" bumper sticker. Too embarrassing to keep the photos up perhaps?

More likely becuase they can't afford to keep them up forever, and various xian groups went all nuts over signs like those.

And again, all you do Stan, is show that the "morals" you people have is that of a child who has to have his or her parents tell them what to do, instead of being mature enough, having enough empathy to try to get along with other people without someone constantly looking over their shoulder.
And again, your Tu Quoque Fallacy attempts have no bearing on the rational and moral problems that inhere with Atheism.

I am merely pointing out that since atheists don't have some "non-physical" being watching over them, that we've had to work out our own moral codes, as opposed to be like children who do have people watching over them and who have their moral codes handed to them. It's about maturity. Sorry if that offends you. And how is this "tu quoque" anyway?

And how does your constant ad-hom attacks on atheism disprove atheism?

Further, you have no idea what my belief system might be, if any, but you don't hesitate to generalize, do you?

I can only do what you claim to do: Go by the examples of the many theists that I have met and read about. If you're not a theist then let me know.

Odd that you continually bash atheists for not having any ONE set of moral instructions, but you refuse to show that you have any religious belief system or any moral code yourself. It's a perfect way to insulate yourself from having your beliefs examined while you just sit and take pot shots at others.

Further still, claiming to have all that empathy rings hollow, in light of the history of Atheism in the world. Pol Pot empathetic?

Name the atheists you know of who say he is. I do know of xians who admire* Martin Luther, the guy who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies. *See last post for the links to CMI

Really? Not a true Atheist? Really? Your generalized condemnation, above? Hardly. Why would anyone want your empathy to decide their fate?

And again, you have disregarded the links I gave. I seriously doubt anyone would have trouble living under the guidelines and advice laid out there.

Those general guidelines are better then say, the Divine Command Theory espoused by xians, especially the calvinist sect.

This is the basis for the claim that knowing merely that a person is an Atheist gives no hint of what that person’s personal ethical/moral theory might be, or even if that person actually has a moral theory at all.

Doesn't stop you from making broad generalizations though, does it?
Again, if you have specific issues, then make a rational deductive case. In this case, your charge is not just oblique, it is without any relationship to my statement. Total non sequitur fallacy. And in no manner a refutation of the statement.

I am merely calling out your behaviour here. You said above that being an atheist doesn't let you know what that person's actual ethics and morality may be like, but you keep making generalized statement after generalized statement about atheists supposed lack of morals (see my first post on this page for examples)

For instance, that ONE Barna survey which you use to equate to ALL atheists?

Further, there is no reason to believe that whatever the Atheist’s moral theory is today will be the Atheist’s moral theory tonight.
Exaggeration on your part

Really? Then define how you will react tomorrow in an unknown situation, using your personal definition of "good".

Uh huh. Explain how I'll act in an "unknown" situation. Do you think about what you write? Well, for a vague question, I'll give a vague answer: I'll go by what I consider to be my personal definition of "good" to guide my actions in this "unknown situtation".

Then describe how every Atheist in the universe will react to similar situations, using their definition of "good"

You're really getting a lot of mileage out of your lie that I "claim" to speak for "all atheists" aren't you?

Then describe the half-life of a personal definition of “good”.

Huh? "Half-life"? Do you even know what the hell you're talking about here? Half-life, my ignorant friend is to do with physics. The time it takes for half of an element to decay, basically. How can you even apply that to a person's definition of "good"? Unless you can show that the conditions of the world change at some measurable, steady pace that would require it...ah, never mind, you're just setting another strawman on fire at this point.

Is “good” defined as Atheist empathy? Then define how empathy works for all your Atheists, and whether it is an involuntary emotion, or whether it is a principle to be followed religiously as an Atheist.

As I said, and you refuse to acknowledge: I do not speak for all atheists. That is why I gave you those links as they show the generalized working out of an atheist system of ethics. You blindly dismiss them however and instead insist that I give you all the answers, even though I have repeatedly said that I do know speak for all atheists. Some lies are just too useful, eh, Stan?

Then describe the limits of empathy. For example, a man recently was acquitted of wrong doing for beating to death the rapist of his five-year old daughter. Where does your empathy lie?

With the man and his daughter.

Good thing you don't say what your religious beliefs are, and it's a very good thing that you're not a bible believer because the according to the bible, the rapist would have to marry the daughter and she'd be stuck with him.

Where do you think the OT writer's empathy is?

How do you apportion your empathy? Do you have empathy for Hitler?

No. That was easy.

What are your limits? Are you sure empathy is not merely another Atheist buzz word for making stuff up as you go? Making stuff up that you personally feel OK about, and since there are no absolute principles, feeling OK is what it is all about for Atheists?

How's about you try reading those links I gave instead of dismissing them?

I don't claim to know the motivation of any Christian, much less all of them: that is your claim. Where is your evidence? You know the motivation of all Christians, how? The fictional book called the bible is your evidence?

Yes, it is. That's where they get their rules of morality from. If not all are motivated by that; great.

The point that you refuse to get is this: That is what the bible writers were assuming. Otherwise, why have promises and threats in their in the first place?

Think: If one can't judge what a person is like by what moral precepts they follow, then why are you judging atheists at all?

Where do you get your moral code from? You talk a lot about atheists not having any moral code, what is yours? How do we know that you have one? Does whatever the hell your belief system have one moral code for everyone that covers every single situation, Stan?

This leads to the question that if I remember correctly, you haven't answered: Which is more "moral"? The person who does something expecting a reward later, or the one who does something because one cares about another person (empathy)?
This has been rehashed. Under pure Atheism, neither one is moral; Atheism has no morals attached to it.

Actually, I was asking which is more moral under your system of morality. Under the guidlines that you dismiss earlier, the answer is obvious: The one who does things without expectation of reward.

I don't know of any athiest personally who would say different.

However, under Consequentialism, whichever one produces best is the most moral; that would be the one with the rewards. Under Virtue Ethics, empathy must be enforced by the Atheist elite priesthood, because humans are not naturally empathetic enough.

Huh? Atheist elite priesthood? Where is that in Virtue Ethics
please? Not in here either from what I can tell. So is this just another lie of yours?

So neither one is moral. Under Reciprocal Altruism, the Atheist expectation is for future reward for an empathetic response now, so that single encounters between individuals do not produce the empathetic response that kin selection produces with multiple encounters between individuals (e.g. Chicago politics); again the rewards are part of the Atheist ethical add-on, and the rewards win. That's two for rewards and zip for empathy; should we continue?

Let's. That's at least one for empathy right there. You act like you care about empathy Stan, so can you describe how your moral code acts in relation to empathy?

The repetitive plaint for “empathy” does not ring true, and falls apart under analysis.

In your opinon. On the other hand, you don't even offer anything for analysis.

You use the Barna study to say that atheists have less empathy than xians, but unless you can show that their are other
motives from your own bible other than promises of future rewards, and threats of punishments, you really don't have
evidence that what motives your fellow religionists is even empathy at all.
I do not make that case at all. I make the case that the study shows that actual, measurable Atheist empathy is pitifully tiny, with an actual metric of $16.67/month.

Uh, does that article take into account things like volunteer work?

I make no claims regarding the motivations of Christians, except that the data shows them donating more even to non-religious causes than Atheists and being more likely to help an actual person in need,...

Ok... By whatever your moral system you use, which is more moral? Doing something in expectataion of a reward or doing something with no expectaion of a reward?

You see, you're making a moral judgement of atheists based not on motivation, which is what drives and determines morality, but only on one metric: Money.

Your problem is that you're basing your judgement of all atheists on one study, two at most. On the other hand, this article has three studies.

Want to know the results of those three studies?

from the article:
In one, people's attitudes about compassion were measured against the frequency of their own acts of generosity; in another, participants were shown one neutral video and one showing children in poverty, then given the option of giving money to strangers; in the third, 200 college students were given money to keep or share. In all three experiments, the less religious participants were more inclined to show generosity to strangers.

Unlike you though Stan, I'm not going to say that non-religious people are less compassionate than religious people, though using your reasoning I certainly could such is something only a bigot would do, really.

...which could lead to inferences which I do not make. Those are actions not motivations. It's in the report.

Another link to same set of studies

Until then, the numbers from that ONE study are irrelevent in comparing "empathy".
Well, oh sure, of course then. Apparently that is your new rule. But in your competing study link (actually an article, not
a study), a second study is mentioned which supports the Barna study. How does two to one fit into your rules of relevance?

What you failed to mention (big surprise) is that the article was talking about three studies that showed atheists to be more compassionate than believers, Stan.

But, let’s not measure comparative empathy, since neither of us has any actual empirical data to compare against, and since it has no bearing on the paucity of Atheist empathy: let’s measure the absolute value of Atheist empathy in dollars. OK I won’t rub your nose in it.

Which is of course what you just did, based on one or two studies which you've apply to every atheist alive. As I've said earlier, this talks about threee studies that I could hold over your head, using your reasoning. If you want to read the actual findings go ahead and sign in.

They were less biased certainly because it wasn't a religious group like Barna that came out with results favourable to religion.

How's about you show the studies that show that whatever your faith group is, having the more "measurable empathy" than atheists?

While you're at it, can you logically show how all your ad-hom attacks against atheists' supposed "lack of empathy" in any way refutes the reality claim of atheists?

”Generally, Stan, what you do is you make wild over-generalizations. As for bigotry, again. Look at the list of things you say about atheists and apply them to any other group. I call you as you act.”
Really? You actually think that comparing Atheism to stamp collecting is a valid excuse for dodging analytics of Atheist statements? That position itself is a gross generalization, right there. And you claim that doing that sort of analysis on Atheism is bigotry, because you know what all Atheists actually think,...

And again with the lie that I "know what all atheists think" or I "speak for all atheists".

Did it ever occur to you that you are the one who's acting as if he knows what all atheists think? That it's you whos pretending to know the character of every atheist?

...and what all Atheists have for morals, and that is not what I write about, so I'm a bigot?

Read the above, yes you are a bigot.

That doesn’t wash. Your name calling is capricious and based on nothing whatsoever other than your hard feeling at seeing the truth displayed, and of course your prejudices in the void of any information about me, which actually really is bigotry.

No. Calling a person out on making slanderous overgeneralized statements like you make is not bigotry. You have displayed no "truth" at all. You take one or two studies, apply it to every atheist who's ever lived, and pretend that it's a valid way of thinking.

Yes. I believe that you are lying when you say that you've been an atheist for 40 years. Your conduct, your contempt, your attacks against atheists are things I've only ever seen in people who are fundy christians, not "former atheists", and I know a few."
Then your attack is based on profiling and prejudice and not on a single bit of actual knowledge about me or my history:

My "attack" is based on what you have been saying in your last few posts.

You are driven by the same hatred of athiests that they are. That is your problem.

...that right there is the definition of bigotry. You have no evidence. You know precisely nothing about me.

Wrong. I know that you have a severe hate-on for atheists and that has made you bigoted. You judge athiests (plural) in each of your posts. You overgeneralize about atheists in each post. And you claim to not be bigoted?

And you call me a liar without any evidence to back it up, other than your personal prejudice. You don’t like what I say, too bad; I am not a liar, and I won’t tolerate being called names by you or anyone else.

Stan, I am calling you out as an individual. I said that you acted like a particular group, (fundy xians) and that's a group I've had experience in dealing with, so I know what the signs of anti-atheist bigotry are.

I am calling you out because your blog has from what I can see, a huge amount of unjustified overgenralizations about atheists. How is calling you out on your behaviour bigotry?

If you don't like being called a liar, then stop acting like one. I've caught you lying more than once already as can be seen. Deal with it.

You don't like name-calling? Tough, because I've just found another name for you: Coward. You refuse to give any clue as to what your beliefs and moral codes are while you sit and snipe away at those of non-theists. Let's have a look at yours and see if they're any better than those who you hate so much.

What kind of character can one have, Stan, if you need someone (ie. "god") to give you the rules to live by? If you can't figure out for yourself for instance, not to hurt people, again, that shows your lack of character, not the atheists you hate so much.
Again and for the last time, you have no idea what I believe, who I am, where I came from, how I got here, or any other fact other than what I write about Atheism.

Yes, because while you feel perfectly ok with assassinating the character of an entire group of people while preventing any analysis at all of whatever set of morals you may or not hold.

While et's a good tactical move, I do not respect cowards.

On that basis you apply your prejudice to the analysis of my character,...

My analysis of your "character" as you call it, is based on the constant stream of bigotry flowing from your posts.

Your hypocrisy is showing: You judge atheists as having no morality at all simply because we don't have anyone who handed out ONE set of IMMUTABLE rules and is looking over our shoulder yet when I ask a simple question about the alternative in order to determine just what kind of character you you whig out.

If you actually have a moral code to offer instad of just sniping away at atheists then you should have no problem answering the question. For me, it's easy. The one who does something with no expectation of reward has the greater empathy and also the more morality than the other one.

How's about answering the question instead of just whinging?

...and strikingly in the complete absence of any principles for the definition of moral character whatsoever. It's not apparent that you actually know what bigotry is.

And another example of your dishonesty: Just because atheists don't have ONE IMMUTABLE set of rules handed down from on high does not mean that we don't have any moral code at all...it just means that it's more flexible than that by any theist.

Shall we ask, what kind of character can you have, Reynold, when you cannot even define "good"?

I've given you links where such things are discussed; I've also said that empathy (consideration for how other people would

feel when things are done to them) is moral. I also said that being able to get along in society so that everyone can get along is good or at least moral. That's how I'd define "good", just so you know.

Your turn to define "good".

But, you're going to ignore all of that and start attacking me? Not surprised actually. So I just put it all in condensed form up there.

When you have no principles even to define moral character, much less to implement into actual character?

More dishonesty. I've given you links and quotes from those links. You disagree but that does not mean that I don't have principles.

And you wonder why I call you a liar?

When you profile a person with no knowledge of the actual person...

Wrong again. I called you out one one characteristic: Your bigotry and that is based on, well, your entire flipping blog, really.

...and declare that person a liar?

See above.

And especially when you think that obedience to principles of behavior is childish?

Wow. That's a lie right here. A complete distortion of what I said. Let me refresh your memory:

me earlier:
And again, all you do Stan, is show that the "morals" you people have is that of a child who has to have his or her parents tell them what to do, instead of being mature enough, having enough empathy to try to get along with other people without someone constantly looking over their shoulder.

Did you catch that, Stan? It's the people who are able to come up with a set of principles who are NOT childish.

You have totally turned my words around, and you get mad because I call you a liar?

Again, pot, kettle, black. Look at all of your posts about atheists.
None of which have you refuted, all of which are presumed valid until refuted,...

So much for that "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit, eh?

I'll let the readers of this debate decide.

...and not ridicule. Clucking one's tongue on the way to the fainting couch is not a refutation. You do not refute anything; you only address your hatred of a specific religion (and try mightily to connect me to it).

For that I have to apologize to the fundamentalist xians: Your ravings are actually worse than most of what I read from them are. Gee, would I still qualify as a "bigot" under your terms?

You have not provided a positive case for, (a)the rejection of a non-physical agent, or...

Don't have to. What evidence is for for one? How can it be tested? If you claim that some invisible, "non-physical" agent is responsible for everything, then you have to prove it. It is not "behind the times" to ask that, as you claimed in an earlier post; it's just your dodge for shifting the burden of proof.

(b)for your claim that Atheists are moral, or...

And here you go with that lie, again! As I keep saying and you keep ignoring: Just because we don't have one unchanging universal moral set of rules does NOT mean that we are immoral. You have exposed your bigotry against atheists right here. Yet you get mad when I call you out on being a bigot?

(c)that for someone to point out the failures of Atheism is bigotry, idiotic, and of low character.

Uh, for the perfect example of bigotry, just see right above.

Sorry, you have not made an argument for Atheism; you have made an emotional appeal against a specific ecclesiastic group and against myself for demonstrating that you actually do that rather than provide disciplined, deductive arguments.

Does "disciplined" arguments include lying? As you did just above with that "atheists have no morals" crap?

If you choose to make an actual rational IF/THEN/THEREFORE case in support of your rejectionism, then we might have something to discuss. Your emotional bigoted tirades against my character show only the weakness of your thought process and your lack of an actual case in general.

As I said before: I don't have to "prove" that there is no god...where is the evidence FOR one instead? Then we'll talk.

So far I see no evidence of any "non-physical entity" existing, much less having made anything therefore I see no reason to believe in gods.

And as for "bigoted tirades"? If you don't like them, then I guess you'll be shutting down your blog then eh?

(BTW, Tu Quoques are failures in defending yourself; we all understand that you hate Christians. But that doesn’t have any influence on your need to make a rational or evidentiary case for rejecting a non-physical agent which caused the universe). Alternatively, show empirical data which supports your rejectionism.

What's the data that shows a non-physical agent caused the universe?

As for hate? I don't think I hate anyone as much as you hate atheists...after all, I never started a blog which does nothing but attack christians now, did I?

If you cannot argue rationally then this conversation is done.

If you can't argue honestly, then yeah, we will be done.

Your statements summarizing your "points" below don't give me much hope of that...

In terms of generalizations, let’s take a look:

1. Reynold speaks for all Atheists.

Where did I say that please? The lie that you keep on spreading. Nice.

2. All Atheists conform to Reynold’s Atheist concepts.

Where did I say that, please? I gave links and quotes about how atheists generally think. Where did I say that they conform to "my" concepts?

3. Anyone who claim to have been Atheists but are not now sympathetic to Atheist fallacies are liars.

Wrong. It's people who get caught lying (like you did above with your #1 and #2 points) who are liars.

4. Christians, all of them, are fear-bound.

Read the bible for the list of verses threatening hell and watch some of their preachers. Not my fault for pointing out what their holy book says.

5. Christians, all of them, have no empathy but give out of either fear or reward promise.

That seems to be the premise of the bible writers themselves. That's not so much my position as that of whoever wrote those verses in the first place. Doesn't mean that it's the actual case though, but that is what the bible writers seem to have presumed.

6. All who aren’t man enough to make up their own rules ad hoc have bad character and are mere children.

Actually half-assed close. I will ask again: Who is, in whatever your moral view, more moral? One who does something for others consideration or one who does something only because someone else is watching?

7. Empathy, however weak, is better than rules.

Where did I say that? Empathy, plus a knowledge of the consequences to the other person and caring about society in general would be among the basis for making the rules in the first place.

8. Always Tu Quoque; never answer the actual challenges.

Challanges met, every one that actually legitimately applied to me. A lot of your "challenges" were based on your lie that I claim to speak for "all atheists".

9. Atheists are exactly like stamp collectors.

Uh, no. Another lie. Completely distorts what I said in my comparison.

As I said: If you can't argue honestly, then yeah, we will be done.

Edited by - the_ignored on 06/25/2012 15:27:36

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 : 20:01:52 [Permalink]

Stan's last reply:

I. REYNOLD’S DEFENSE OF ATHEISM
The challenge which Reynold faces is this: he is challenged to refute basic Theism, or admit that he cannot. He is challenged to perform this refutation using either the Philosophical Materialist standard which is material, empirical, scientific evidence, or the discipline of logical deductive argumentation which is axiomatically based, and Reductio validated.

This was not the original topic though, was it?

Killing babies is perfectly consistent with the Atheist penchant for abortion, which is the actual subject of this thread

then later:

OK, I guess we’ll just proceed, then, with you calling out names instead of providing any actual evidence supporting your apparent claim that Atheists are moral, all of them, because you speak for them all, or providing any disciplined deductive answers to the questions in my post (which you might have done below, I haven’t gotten there yet).

Whatever. I go with the flow.

I already pointed out that this is nothing but a shifting of the burden of proof: If the theist wants to show that their is some "non-physical deity" out there, he must show the proof for it.

Stan, instead of giving any evidence, has just shifted the burden of proof. So I didn't even try to "defend" atheism. He has to show that it's wrong, and with more than his constant personal, overgeneralized attacks on atheist which is nothing more than ad-hom

Now what does Stan do? He quotes an old post where I still thought this guy was a xian, never mind that I changed my mind once he said that the bible was "fictional".

So in other words, Stan is "refuting" a claim that I had already taken back.

This conversation demonstrates Reynold’s response to this challenge.
Reynold: You are of a particular branch of theism called christianity, which does indeed say that no other deities exist.
False and False. Reynold has no idea whether I hold beliefs or not.

I know that you are not a christian, though you since you keep demanding that I prove that some "non-physical entity" did not create the universe, and his rejection of atheism, I think can safely infer that he is some kind of theist, though since Stan refuses to say what any of his views are, it's impossible to examine any of them, or to even say if this guy has a set of morals which he constantly accuses atheists of not having.

...Judeo-Christianity acknowledges the existence of other non-physical existences and possible false gods. Reynold does not understand his chosen opponent: Judeo Christianity.

I understand it just fine, with its claims of angels and demons, etc.

Reynold: "Steve [who is Steve??]

Sorry, I meant to say Stan.

quoting me and ignoring the evidence that I had in those links:
But: As for evidence of no god:
biblical mistakes, bible archeology problems for a start...

Stan: ‘No, what is needed is actual physical evidence for the claim (non-existence), the same as Atheists require of Theists.”

Reynold: Here you show your ignorance again: It is those who assert the something exists have to show it...as I said earlier.
First, those who reject a proposition without giving any reason for the rejection, give absolutely no reason to believe the rejection.

Uh, not quite. There has been no sign of such a being. Can you point any out? Can you tell us what such a sign would be? No? Then what are you complaining about?

There have been no verified sightings, no verified (and accurate) holy books left behind by any such thing, etc. So Stan's charge that atheists reject any "non-physical beings "for no reason" is not true. There is simply no evidence for such things. I pointed out once before that if we had do disprove every supernatural claim out there we'd be stuck in a huge morass.

The Burden of Rebuttal exists whether Atheists like it or not, and the Atheist attempt to skate away without giving reasons for their claim of rejection is rationally rejectable.

Let's look at this shall we?

Below is the classic structure of formal debates from the early literature on debating. Please also visit the links listed below for other guidelines. For the class debate, we will follow the classic guidelines.

The Affirmative Burden of Proof

The affirmative team always has the burden of proof. You can uphold your view by proving that: a) there is a need for a change in the status quo relative to the proposition; b) that your side has a plan for change and a proposal for implementation; and c) that there are precise advantages and benefits to such a plan and proposal.

They talk about the "burden of rebuttal" later but it's basically: to refute at least one of the premises of the affirmative. Thing is, when "the affirmative" is someone like Stan who refuses to give us anything to check up on, it becomes impossible. At least with any named theology, we have actual premises that can be, and are, checked. Stan is taking the vague way out be refusing to give anything that can be checked, and then demanding a rebuttal.

Read the bolded part from that page again..."the affirmative team always has the burden of proof". Stan is basically asserting that there is some sort of "non-physical deity" that created everything. He has to show it.

Second, the biblical statement, “have no other gods before me” puts forth the truth: the existence of other gods is not rejected biblically, it is supported; worshipping them is rejected.

The bible does talk about other spirits etc, but as far as I know, no judaic or christian person will ever say that actual other gods exist. Just fallen angel "impersonators" or something. That verse in the bible is the only one I know of that implies actual other gods. Nowhere else.

If Stan knows any different, he can give examples.

Third, the demand for physical evidence of a non-physical entity is a classic Category Error, which has been pointed out but ignored.

Category Error:

from that aritcleA category error occurs when one attempts to use an invalid sensory modality, or manner of knowing a particular phenomena, such as trying to hear light, or feel an idea, and then holds that the failure of this modality or manner of knowing to detect the phenomena proves that the phenomena either does not exist, or that it exists in some 'immaterial form'.

Stan's the one who says that this "non-physical deity" exists in some "immaterial form".

Thing is: do us atheists also make this error by saying that we "lack evidence" for such a thing? No.

Here's why: even though a supposed "non-physical" being can't be tested for DIRECTLY it should be possible that if such a being existed and actually did make all of us, that there'd be evidence of his or her "fingerprints", or even some sort of "divine revelation" if it wanted to communicate to us directly. After all, this "non-physical deity" did, in the view of theists, at one point interact with the physical world, did it not?

If it wanted us to know about it's existence at all, it could have left evidence behind in the form of books which would show knowledge and predictions beyond man's ken. Nothing yet.

Reynold continues:
Do xians give such physical evidence that no other deity exists before asserting that their deity is the only one?
Since Judeo -Christianity does not make that claim,

Wrong, it does make that claim, it's just that in that religion, any other "god", (ie. Any god of any other religion) is false. It's implied in that bible verse Stan quoted about "not having any gods before me". There are verses in the bible that outright refer to "false gods":
1 Corinthians 8 and in Isaiah 46 5-8 the "lord" asks: To whom will you compare me?
Who is my equal?
6 Some people pour out their silver and gold
and hire a craftsman to make a god from it.
Then they bow down and worship it!
7 They carry it around on their shoulders,
and when they set it down, it stays there.
It can’t even move!
And when someone prays to it, there is no answer.

mplying that he's the only "god".

...no defense of that claim is necessary.

Not actually true, but if Stan can dodge, he will, such as by not saying at all what his theistic views are so's that we can't test them.

And the question is clearly of no consequence to the challenge to disprove even/only/just one deity. It is a diversion to avoid the actual inability to refute even a single deity.

Baloney. This whole "refute" even a "single deity" is a diversion to avoid the actual inability to show even a single deity.

Stan makes it even easier for himself by not giving us any qualities to measure his deity by.

Next is the challenge made to Reynold:
”Evidence consists of empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed, public data that shows that all possibilities have been investigated and have been positively empirically determined to show that no deity can possibly exist non-physically in a non-physical space.”
Here is Reynold’s response:
”So, are you prepared to show the xian's evidence that no other deity exists?”

That is Reynold’s response to the challenge; he ignores it. He tries to divert the conversation from the actual challenge. He uses the Category Error to form a Red Herring.

I have already said: The burden of proof lies on YOU, not us Deal with it.

As for my question that Stan quoted above: It's from the time that I still thought that Stan was a christian theist! If he actually was, then that would have been a good question to ask, since that is what they believe.

If I had figured earlier that Stan had no true uh, "beliefs" as he claims, I would have just asked for peer-reviewed evidence for that "deity" of his having acted with the physical world, or shown itself in the first place.

Is Stan pretending that I am still thinking that I believe that he is a christian?

As to the charge of "Category Error":
uh, no. you are the one doing the category error, Stan. You are the one who is demanding physical proof that a non-physical entity can't exist. Atheists merely ask for evidence that this being has had measurable interactions with the physical world, since that's the claim of every theist, as I've just recently pointed out.

The next four or five times it is presented, Reynold dodges in several different directions, but never addresses it.

As I said before: We don't have to dodge. You have to give evidence for the claim of a "non-physical entity" that exists in a "non-physical space". I mean, really, what the hell is that, anyway?

This is the main issue with the concept of Atheism: the adherent cannot provide either disciplined logic or empirical validation for support of his rejection of the basic premise of Theism.

Now would be a good time to re-quote that article I quoted from earlier:

..."the affirmative team always has the burden of proof"

There are many excuses given for this by Atheists who have been challenged: "no Burden of Rebuttal", "require physical evidence for a non-physical entity", "the description must contain physical characteristics to measure", etc. But they are just making up excuses, and don’t even attempt to actually refute the Theist claim.

So asking for for the theist to follow through on the "affirmative" dealing with the "burden of proof" is an excuse eh?

Noted.

In the absence of a refutation of the Theist claim, then, the Atheist can surely be challenged to answer for his rejection of the proposition.

There is no evidence for your assertion. It's made even worse Stan, when you refuse to give any characteristics of this "non-physical deity" so that we can test it...

This ends the pertinent portion of (what should be) the debate.

II. NOW FOR THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND RED HERRINGS:

Reynold’s creation of Red Herrings by making false accusations against my character:

First, the purpose of the Red Herring Fallacy is to deflect the conversation away from the main points. The purpose of the Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy is to try to arouse the emotion of resentment and anger in the opponent, who then goes into an emotional mode and loses control of the rational end of his argument.

Which Stan does constantly with his tirades against atheists...his accusations of a "lack of moral code" do nothing to deal with whether atheism is true or not.

These two tactics are the primary response mode being used by Reynold, and he is ramping up the level of attack in his use of these fallacies.

Reynold has diverted the conversation away from his inability to refute the basis for Theism by using his accusations made on me, with the accusations being entirely unrelated to the main point.

Ah no. All I do is point out that many of your so-called "points" against atheists made in your various posts and in this "debate" with me were nothing but ad-hom and fallacy of consequences of belief attacks in the first place, as opposed to actual "points" made against atheism.

Again, the actual point being Reynold’s inability to refute the basis for Theism ...

Here we go, Stan. "basis for theism"? You've never given one! All you do is attack atheism and shift the burden of proof.

If there is a "basis for Theism", let's sodding hear it! You have refused to give that. You don't even explain what your view of theism is. You have not given us anything with which to test if any "non-theistic deity" who's interacted with (ie. created) the physical world, much less an actual "basis"!

Do you even know what it means when you say basis of Theism? It means that you believe that there is some kind of a case for it. Where is it?

...and to support the void of Atheism using either disciplined deductive logic or material, empirical science.

You said Stan, that I failed to refute this "basis of Theism". What is it in the first place??

If So the Ad Hominem Abusives serve a dual function which includes creating Red Herrings in order to allow Reynold to avoid addressing the main point.

If this "basis of Theism" was the main point, Stan...how can I avoid addressing it if you have not presented it?

So it is necessary to address Reynolds accusations.

First, he accused me of lying about having been an Atheist.

On 6-21-12, at 8:59 pm, Reynold made this statement.
”If your views on atheists is based on what you were like as an atheist, then all it shows is what you were like, and still are.

Not us.”
Now by “us”, does Reynold mean just a few of his buddies? Or does Reynold mean Atheists in general?

Too bad you never thought to ask that question before you jumped to conclusions about me "speaking for ALL atheists" eh?

If you had bothered to ask, I would have said: I mean "every single atheist that I've ever dealt with personally, online and in the flesh. Since it' naturally impossible for one person to speak for such a diverse group. In my stupidity, I thought that Stan understood that.

Ok, I guess not, as we see. Whether it's an honest mistake or he's trying to dig himself out of a hole, I no longer care.

EDIT: June 27 6:28 AM added a bit more to my argument here and also added bolding to make this quote easier to read.

Since the consequence of this judgment is that, [IF Stan is not like "us", THEN Stan is a liar],...

Close. The more accurate way would be "if stan is not like any of us atheists that I've ever known...as I basically say elsewhere.

...it is perfectly clear that Reynold is speaking for all Atheists as "us". When asked about this, the following conversation took place:

Set up:
Stan: Your continued use of the misspelled word "Christian" as a pejorative merely proves the point: Perhaps I should start calling you an Athhole, and your empty belief system, Athhole-ism.

You speak for all Athholes, do you? You must be quite the omniscient phenomenon."

Reynold: "You speak for all Athholes, do you? You must be quite the omniscient phenomenon. (I'm repeating Stan's words here in his reply)

Don't you speak for all atheists whenever you make your bigoted blanket statements about "the lack of empathy" and "stinginess" and "lack of a moral code" and whatnot?

Aren't you asking for someone to speak for all atheists when you put up this post asking for an "atheist moral code"?"
Reynold continues,

"So again, you've ignored the links and quotes I gave and pretend that we have no morals at all. As I said earlier: If your claim of being an atheist for 40 years is true, then all you've really done by all your posts is show the lack of your character, not the lack of ours."
[emphasis added]

Yeah, on his site emphasis HAD to be added because he's trying to make me say something I didn't actually mean.

Is this an example of Reynold denying that he is speaking for all Atheists? Hardly. Reynold is clearly speaking for ALL Atheists, and condemning my character on "our" behalf.

Ok, so Stan is continuing the lie here. So be it. I can't help him anymore. Well, one last time:

If I truly spoke for all atheists, Stan...WHY would I give links to sites where OTHER atheists have discussed the moral issue instead of giving you just my own opinion?

You wanted something akin to a single unified atheist moral theory, and as impossible as it is, I did try to give you as much of a consensus view as possible.

(As an aside, I asked for Atheists to give their "personal moral code", not some general Atheist moral code;

Uh, Stan, how is that even possible what you ask here? You are asking for a moral code for an entire group of people.

Reynold’s precipitating statement is demonstrably false but he never admitted that).

As I said, this "general Atheist moral code" is the best that I can come up with. What do you want? The moral code of each and every atheist??

And just how is my "precipitating statement" false? You keep on making attack after attack on atheists in general, after claiming to have been one for 40 years.

Since I've yet to meet or even hear of an atheist with all the attributes you ascribe to them, what am I supposed to think, but rather you're looking at what you were like as an atheist and are now pushing those attributes on them?

Think: After all, you don't say "some" atheist, or even "most" atheists in your little tirades, just "atheists", period. That's even the name of your blog: "Analyzing Atheists". What am I to think then of what you were like during those 40 years that you were an atheist, Stan?

That's something you never dealt with.

Based on his assessment of my “tone” and falsely purportedly bigoted statements, and his self-authorized speaking for all Atheists,...

And again here we go...Note how he has no problem "speaking for all" atheists when he attacks atheists character in his blog posts? Has Stan personal knowledge of every single atheists out there so that he can justify his continual broad-brushing?

...Reynold then charged me with lying about my history as an Atheist. This he based on his knowledge of how all Atheists are and how I don't fit.

Ah no. As I've explained, it's based on my knowledge of every atheist I've ever met or heard of whose behaviour you don't match. Even xians who make a big deal out of what "sinners" they were before they gave up atheism don't say that they had all the character flaws that you keep ascribing to all atheists.

...condemnation was done purely on Reynold’s self-endowed universal knowledge of all Atheists,

Uh, isn't that what you must have Stan, in order to be able to judge all atheists yourself in your blog posts? Remember the name of your blog. Will you answer that question, please?

Do you even think when you type??

...and self-anointed authority to speak to the qualities of all Atheists.

And again isn't that what you must have when you actually do judge the qualities of all atheists? Or are you just going by what you were like when you where an atheist? I'd like an answer please.

(Interestingly, one of the charges made on me by Reynold was overgeneralization...)

What's so "interesting" about it? You do realize that it's pretty much statistically impossible for all atheists (or any group for that matter) to have a uniform set of conduct like what you keep doing to atheists? You don't even try to narrow things down either, to "some" atheists or "most" atheists or "fundy" atheists, etc.

He subsequently charged me with lying about many things based on his speaking for all Atheists. This is purely profiling/condemnation, without a single shred of actual corroborating evidence to support his charge.

Since I do not speak for all atheists, no matter how hard you try to pretend I do, your sentence there is bull.

He has no actual knowledge of my history or my beliefs then or now, if any. NO KNOWLEDGE.

At least now he admits that I no longer believe him to be a xian. Thing is, I don't need knowledge of all your beliefs in order to call you out on the actions that I see here. Your actions are those of a bigot, like it or not...now if I were to try to say just why were were a bigot, then yes: I would then need knowledge of your past and beliefs.

His charge is false; he did claim to speak for all Atheists, and he used that claim as part of his charge against me.

Still hanging onto that lie, eh? I guess it is too useful for you.

Now let’s address my actual position on Atheism, rather than the caricature presented by Reynold. Here I repeated my position for Reynold:
”Now. I admit to using the term “Atheists” improperly, and I will try not to continue that bad habit. I should be referring to Atheism and not to Atheists. The reason is that Atheism, as an assertion or proposition, is specifically a void and nothing more; Atheists are free to fill that void however they wish and with whatever they wish because the void of Atheism gives no guidance whatsoever. Especially glaring is the absolute void which Atheism, as an assertion or a proposition, presents to the Atheist on the subject of morality, the definition of morality, the definition of good and evil, whether morality actually even exists, and the sources of life, intellect, agency, and even whether those things actually exist. Atheism addresses only the issue of a deity. Nothing more.

This void allows, even necessitates, that the adherent to Atheism either create his own answers to these subjects, or accept the answers which other adherents have created for these subjects, or ignore any further thoughts regarding the consequences of Atheism. But these positions are not engendered by Atheism or a part of the proposition of Atheism, they are separate from but enabled by Atheism. Further, many of them are directly contradictory, such as Consequentialism vs. Virtue Ethics; Friedrich Nietzsche’s Anti-Rationalism vs. Scientism; Deontology vs. Aristotelian Peripatetics; Kantianism vs. Relativism; and so on. Wikipedia lists 91 Ethical Theories to choose from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethical_theories”
In no manner can this rationally be interpreted as, “pretend that we have no morals at all.” Reynold’s charges are false, completely and totally.

Stan: You list a bunch of moral theories right there, then you said that atheists have "nope, none" when it comes to moral theories. How is my charge false?

However, I might add that just by knowing that a person is an Atheist, it is not possible to know what that person’s moral theory, if any, might be.

Doesn't stop you from talking about how "stingy" atheists are from one religious group's study, eh? It doesn't stop you from saying that atheists have no moral code, eh?

Think: If you say that atheists have no moral code as opposed to atheism has no moral code, you are full of it. In that great big blurb of yours above, you talk about how atheism has no moral code built into itself, which is actually true as far as I know...it does have to be added to from outside.

That's a far cry from implying or stating that atheists have no moral code though. They may not match, they may even conflict, but nevertheless, there you go.

If a person’s moral theory is not known but is known to start with a void, there is no reason to trust that person.

What Stan doesn't realize is that, in the start, everyone starts with a void. People are not born with a moral code. Even theists have to have their moral code handed down to them at some point!

The only way that atheists would be different is that they would either get it from other atheists as opposed to people of the same faith (through parents or whoever raised them or whatnot). As they grow up they may change their moral code due to changes in their beliefs or their circumstances, whether they're religious or not.

Does Stan really think that by the time one is, say, a teenager that no one has figured out some way to get along in society? Sure, there are a few who don't, like sociopaths, several catholic priests and whatnot, but those are in every group.

Stan is just blindly assuming that since atheists in general don't have their moral code handed down by religious leaders or something that they are "guilty until proven innocent"?

And for that reason, Atheists are not trusted any more than rapists and sexual abusers according to national polls. This lack of trust is rational, not bigotry as some Atheists claim.

Uh, no. That lack of mistrust is bigoted as hell and it is NOT rational, for the (lack of Stan's reasons above). Do atheists have the same kind of rape record that say, catholic priests do? Do atheists have any less morals than anyone else just because we "start out in a void"? Does that mean that all of us, or even most of us STAY in this moral "void" of yours?

Those links I keep giving should refute that, not that you care.

The only reason that atheists are mistrusted so much is that in the religionized west, atheists are demonized so much by people like, well...Stan with his idiotic "guilty until proven innocent" attitude.

I'd invite Stan to look at the crime statistics for countries that are far more secular than the U.S. like Norway, Sweden, etc. and compare. I gave such a link I believe, in my first post dealing with this.

Then ask if those polls are justified.

According to Reynold,

MORE LIES

(The first accusation of lying was addressed above)
”Stan:’...and certainly not while trying to convince the world that they are the sole, logical, evidence-based centroid of rationality,...’

Reynold: 'Never said that. That's a lie right there. **Lie 2**'

To start, I did NOT say that he said that, and reading the entire sentence would show that; what I said is that those claims are a theme common to a specific group (Atheists) and not to other groups with which he would like to analogize Atheists.

If he knows of anyone who has said that claim that he attributes to atheists as a group up there, I invite him to show us.

Reynold is less than scrupulous in making character claims on his opponent. Further, he did not refute it.

Uh, what's to refute about an unsubstantiated claim? As I just said: start giving examples of atheists who have said what you claim up there. Yeesh. "Guilty until proven innocent" again.

His claim was about atheists; he did say that as he admits. I never said that atheists claimed to be the sole source of rationality, etc. yet Stan goes ahead
Reynold’s charge of "lie" is rejected.

You made the claim that atheists do say that, Stan...with no evidence to back you up. I never made that claim, and you never gave any examples of atheists who have, yet you made the claim anyway. The charge stands.

Reynold’s Next Lie Accusation
"Stan: '(b)for your claim that Atheists are moral, or...'

Reynold: 'And here you go with that lie, again! As I keep saying and you keep ignoring: Just because we don't have one unchanging universal moral set of rules does NOT mean that we are immoral. You have exposed your bigotry against atheists right here. Yet you get mad when I call you out on being a bigot?

(c)that for someone to point out the failures of Atheism is bigotry, idiotic, and of low character.

Uh, for the perfect example of bigotry, just see right above."

Let’s discuss this assertion, which Reynold does not refute, he merely says that it is a lie and bigoted, without any evidence to support that charge. Is there evidence to support the assertion itself? Yes, and it has been given above, and I will summarize it here:
(1) Atheism is a void without any moral theory attached to it.

Does that mean that atheists stay morally void there entire lives, Stan? In order for your claim of the lack of morality of atheists as opposed to atheism itself, notice the bolding there? That is what you'd have to show.

The fact that there are several different philosophies which you yourself mentioned should be evidence of that.

So again, why do I have to refute an unproven charge?

(2) Any moral theory which an Atheist might have is an add-on to Atheism and not part of Atheism.

Again, how many atheists stay morally void? In order for bigotry as noted in that study you mentioned to be valid, it would have to be damn near all of us. I don't think that's the case, otherwise, jails would have far more atheists than they do now and more secular countries like Norway, Sweden, etc would have way higher crime rates that the States do.

(3) It is possible for an Atheist to have no moral theory at all (Jeffry Dahmer).

Just as it's possible for various theists to use their religion as motivations for killing...just look throughout history.

So, your point?

(4) Therefore it is not possible to declare Atheists “moral” as a universal statement.

Not so, since atheists just like anyone else can get their moral codes from others (ie. parents) when growing up, or can change theirs later. In order for that charge to be true, that would have to be pretty much completely false. Also, see above point.

Reynold’s charge of “lie” is rejected.

The charge stands firm.

So Reynold has continued to make more false claims on my character.

HATRED

As for the hatred I have been accused of projecting, and at which Reynold takes offense, here is his list:
” Time for a reality check. Who's really got the "hate filled rant" going here?

ex 1): Killing babies is perfectly consistent with the Atheist penchant for abortion...”

In the years I have been doing this blog there has been virtually no Atheist who has come right out against abortion and actually condemned it, including Reynold.

What? You sodding liar. I gave links to atheist pro-life sites in the very first post here. I said that I was against abortion!

I support those pro-life groups

how in hell can you possibly twist that to mean that I do not condemn abortion?

I can't wait to see how you try to get out of that, you effing liar.

Many, many have defended abortion as "women’s rights" and the denial of any rights to the fetus, based on their personal, moral opinions and presumption of their personal moral authority over others.

As I've shown by those links, however, "many, many" (however many that is, does not equate to "all"!)

However, what I said was too strong. What I should have said is "consistent with the overwhelmingly pro-abortion stance of the many Atheists I have encountered".

Marginally better...but you are still twisting words here. "pro-abortion"? Uh, you mean "pro-choice" right? Let me explain the actual difference. A pro-choicer will leave it up to the woman. They won't try to force an abortion on her. In contrast to the behavior of "pro-life" groups.

Further, Reynold wants to make a condemnation of Christians for actions which are not condemned under Atheism

But are condemned by many atheists using those very philosophies that you and I have mentioned or linked to in this "debate".

...or many of the add-on, made-up ethics, and which were precipitated by, and participated in by Atheists in the huge massacres of the 20th century - which Reynold denies had any relationship to their Atheist content, while insisting that Judeo-Christians believe that they should kill babies based on the bible.

You do know why right...For one thing, there's this thing called the bible which depicts their god having babies killed, which modern apologists like William Lane Craig defends. It's in the OT. What's more, read some of William Lane Craig's crap...he outright admits that there is no harm done when god ordered the killing of babies.

Atheism has no bible telling us to do that kind of stuff, see the difference? Besides, as I said once before, Hitler had centuries of xian anti-semitism to base his views on, and communism just took over from where the Czar's brutal secret police left off. The last Czar was no atheist, if I remember.

It was about power and manipulation, not atheism. People will use whatever means they can to get into power...even using religion to do it, but at least atheism doesn't give them any precedents!

ex 2): ...if the Atheist defines "good": to coincide with his own proclivities for behavior
I stand by this statement; it would be irrational for a person who makes up his own morality (or gets it from someone else who makes it up) to fabricate or accept a moral system incompatible with his own preferred behaviors and inclinations.

You're leaving out the fact that there is the good of society to consider. In one of those links you keep dissing they talk about that a bit.

In fact, the case for empathetic relativism is a precise example of defining "good" on the fly to coincide with the emotional inclinations of the Atheist who is declaring the moral content of a specific situation.
ex 3): Atheists are empathetic to the tune of $16.67 per month, and are less likely to be motivated to help actual needy people.

Me:
An ironic charge, considering this: Matthew 26:6-13

Note that jesus' lack of empathy here is not dealt with...

This is a factual statement with the data and source given. Thus it is not a charge, nor is it hate, it is objective data.

I notice that in order to make his generalization about all atheists, Stan again mentioned ONE study while saying nothing about the three studies that show atheists to be ore compassionate than religious believers.

Reynold's response was of the form Tu Quoque Fallacy, and of no value since he has no idea of my own belief system, if any. He has not refuted the facts, but merely calls the facts "hate".

My response I believe, was to point out three studies that said that atheists were more compassionate. You ignored them.

ex 4): There is no embedded excuse here for the absolute stinginess of Atheists

I stand by this statement; it is documented as shown in ex 3), above.

ex 5): And you have no defense for the non-empathy of Atheists

I stand by this statement; it is documented as shown in ex 3), above, and it is not credible that Atheism is a superior moral system because it is based on empathy, considering the documented level of actual, not theoretical, empathy which Atheists actually exhibit in the real world.

And again, the man ignores the three studies I mentioned that showed that atheists were more compassionate. Is this how you win debates, by ignoring contrary evidence? So much for your respect for "empirical evidence".

ex 6): ...to your hate-filled belief system...
(any evidence that atheism is "hate-filled" by the way?

I believe I was referring specifically to Reynold’s apparent belief system, which includes false accusations made on false statements and with accompanying invective at every turn, not to Atheism in general.

Given that I've shown how my charges all stick, I think I can dispense with that without further ado.

"From what I've seen here, it's you who seems hate-filled to me). "Atheists" this, and "atheists" that! Wow.

From reading your blog I've never once noticed you say anything like "some athiests" or even "most atheists", it is always "atheists" period, followed by whatever smear or accusation you have lined up. Try replacing "atheist" with any other group and you'll see what you really are."

As for "smear", I am happy to back up or reject any comment I've made which any Atheist chooses to challenge and can conclusively prove false. The above statement is false.

I am not aware of any "other group" which,

EDIT: June 27, 6:12 AM (added the part about "how people are able to pick out...etc.")
So atheists are a unique group to him...so what? Every group is unique in some way, that's how people are able to pick out what there is to discriminate about in the first place, isn't it? How does that justify bigotry?

Stan now lists the ways in which atheists are supposedly "unique".

(a) makes unsubstantiated claims as the basis for their ideology,

Like what? That there is no evidence for some unquantified "non-physical entity" which created the universe? Again, shifting of the burden of proof. Also, that could be said of pretty much any actual religion on the planet.

(b) which ideology starts with a void to be back-filled (or not) with myriad made-up but contradicting moral theories of “good” behaviors (with contradictory concepts of “good”),...

Uh, atheism is not an "ideology", not that I've ever heard of,

If you can find any atheists who say that it is, go right ahead. That's kind of why there is this void in the first place. What was it you were saying about Category Errors?

(c) many of which theories are not for the adherents, but are for imposition on all of mankind in order to "benefit" all of mankind, yet without the permission of all of mankind,...

Uh, just when in the history of the world has anything been imposed on the entire world WITH all the world's permission?

...and without the moral authority or actual authority to declare anything for all mankind.

So what is "moral authority" then? Consensus rule by the governed? Orders dictated from on high, or what? You talk about "moral authority" let's see you define it according to whatever your belief system is.

Come to think of it, when has atheism itself been "imposed" on "all" mankind? If you refer to the "20th century atrocities" again, I'll just have to slap that down, again.

Atheism is unique in this regard.

Baloney. Most actual religions and other, political ideologies like communism, etc. have been imposing themselves on mankind for centuries. How could you be so ignorant of history? The 30 years war from an earlier post was just one example.

Criticism of Atheism is specific to Atheism because Atheism is unique. Comparing Atheism with stamp collecting falls under the False Analogy Fallacy.

Stan's criticisms of atheism above have just fallen apart. He doesn't like it: tough. As for the stamp collector analogy, it's dealt with in an earlier post.

Remember: When it comes to analogies, Stan is the same guy who earlier on, tried to compare mass murder as ordered by biblegod to parents forbidding their kids to drive.

Stan, quoting me:
'To consistency then: if humans can't judge god's actions as evil even when the same actions if done by people ARE evil, (ex. the baby-killing example earlier) then how can you tell if your god is "good" or not by his or her actions? How can you call your god "good" if he is not bound by some code of morality that we can measure?
This is a continuing absurdity: if a parent doesn’t allow a child to drive the car, then you think that the parent should not be allowed to drive the car either.

That idiocy is part of why I assumed that he was a fundy xian in the first place.

I'm sure they'd be relieved that he's not actually in their ranks.

III. STATE OF THE DEBATE

Due to Reynold’s failure to address the actual subject and instead to make false charges on my character as diversions, I see no point in continuing with this, unless Reynold takes responsibility for his false charges and takes responsibility for addressing the actual subject, rather than exercising diversions. So it is up to Reynold as to whether this will become a civilized debate or stop right here.

Well, let's see: You've shifted the burden of proof again, you've added on more lie to your repertoire (about me not being pro-life even after I said I supported some atheist pro-life groups), you try to justify the lies you said earlier, so yeah.

This farce is done.

Edited by - the_ignored on 06/27/2012 05:30:52

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 06/27/2012 : 06:41:32 [Permalink]

Well, since Stan had said that if I didn't retract my accusations, etc. (which I won't because they're true) he'll end the debate. So, if anyone wants to comment on this shit, go right ahead.

I like how he still plays innocent even when one of the examples of his lying is pretty damned blatant: That one where he accused me of being pro-abortion even though I had given links to atheist pro-life sites and said that I had supported them. (See my previous reply).

I wondered how he'd try to justify that one, and he didn't even try. And of course, I'm the "hoodlum" and the "internet thug" even though he does nothing but attack atheists on his blog set up specifically for that purose.

That Reynold refuses to address the basic issue of Theism which has been presented to him multiple times.
So he not only refuses to give any evidence for the basis of theism which he mentioned in his previous reply to me, but now he says that I've never "addressed" it? He's not given me anything to address! And he still refuses to get the idea of the burden of proof.

What a joke.

By the way, look who's showed up on Stan's blog:

Well, I had to reply to my old friend JD Curtis:

Hiya, JD:
Reynold is a complete, intellectual fraud. One need look no farther than this thread for sufficient evidence to prove this.

Actually, I'd encourage you to look beyond Vox's blog.

Let me know if he's ever bothered to deal with this, or this?

That second link and the post right afterward contains my reply to Vox...I believe I posted the links to it on his site. Even if he never published the links, my reply is still out there, at least.

And that's the last I'll be dealing with him, and I suspect you, JD.

By the way, JD, any comment about this?

Check out that link, it has a link to JD's posting on Myer's blog. You can see how brilliant JD is there. Just do a search for his name and on that page and you'll find all his posts and you can see how intellectually honest JD is.

That whole thread by the way, is devoted to Vox's scientific incompetence and his misogyny. Yeah, and JD wants to talk about me?

As an aside: I guess Vox is still staying with cocomment?

Now for Frank Norman

Its a give-away what kind of Atheist you are talking to, if you find out that he equates Theism with belief in Biblical Inerrancy, which Reynold apparently does.
That's the assumption I went with, since in light of the fact that Stan had in the abortion post, started defending the christian god Also, he touted the so-called "Miracle of Lourdes" as evidence of theism.

That Lourdes place is a catholic thing.

Was I supposed to assume that Stan was a buddhist or something?

When Stan told me I was wrong, I corrected it. So what's your point again?

Evidence? That he offered supposed conflicts between archeological findings and the Biblical record as an argument against the existence of God.
It was a little bit more than that, but you've shown that you don't read things through before shooting off your mouth.

Edited by - the_ignored on 06/27/2012 06:53:53

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2013 : 17:52:30 [Permalink]

I forgot to add, I think: To those who are wondering what had started this all off, see here. So you know that when he said in the "debate" that I support the "mass murder" of people, etc. that he's full of it. I made some references to that thread in the debate, but I'm not sure I actually posted it's URL.

Edited by - the_ignored on 01/03/2013 19:08:10

Topic

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

BookMark Topic

Jump To:

Skeptic Friends Network

This page was generated in 1.42 seconds.

Snitz Forums 2000