Rock Beyond Belief

[Mills 0]

Can you list the flaws of Atheism?I think the bible discussion is played out and this might be a different angle than the usual atheist offense/christian defense talk.

Hooked one...

[Spademan 94]

Where did you get that following these two commandments and these two ALONE would prevent someone from being a rapist or pedophile? That's not what I was saying, the point was that a person who could pay attention to these "little" things (and many more, it's not like there are only two biblical concepts in that big ass book) would never need to be told "Hey, man, don't have sex with kids." I never said it was only these two things. As far as murder warranting a commandment, well, at the time, murder was an issue, even for Gods people. God would send them to war to kill, but a line needed to be drawn. As far as rape being about power and violence rather than lust, sure, but it doesn't start that way. Lust is one of many first steps, anger, violence, power, they come later. It's a progression for the person over time where eventually they become capable of rape. Same for a pedophile, it's not like one day you wake up and you want to **** kids, it's a progression. No one just wakes up one day pissed off looking to rape a chick, and no one just wakes up one day looking to **** kids.

I didn't get that. I didn't get that ten lolcommandents would prevent anything. You're the one who gets that. Because you're an idiot.It doesn't matter how many fucking rules there are, because rules aren't morality, you tepid moron. But, even if you were going to put out ten rules, and your rules include keeping the sabbath and not wanting to bang the chick next door, and do not cover, just as two examples, rape and slavery, your "rules" are pathetic. Your whole argument is just absurd.Now you've opened it up to "the whole big ass book". And this makes it all the more hilarious, what with all the rape, genocide, baby killing, and slavery the big wizard was directly responsible for or condoned in said book.

Can you list the flaws of Atheism?

What a horrible question. The only possible way one could answer the question is, "There is a god."That is the only possible flaw of "atheism." Atheism means lack of belief in a god, it connotes nothing else. All this question does is invite straw men.

[Balloon guy 158]

Can you list the flaws of Atheism?I think the bible discussion is played out and this might be a different angle than the usual atheist offense/christian defense talk.

Flaw #1: Communism. The only examples of atheism brought into the realm of practical application in government has resulted in the deaths of millions, hundreds of millions. Flaw #2: Genocide. The natural continuance of the notion that there is no God and that evolution is the perfect guide for life has resulted in attempts at genocide in Nazi Germany and the practice of Eugenics in America.Flaw #3: Racism. Atheism/evolution has taught us that certain animals are more advanced, and therefore more likely to survive/better. This has given support to noted racist like Huxley and Darwin to get full passes for their blatant racism.Flaw #4: Arrogance. Making a declarative statement that you know enough about the make up of the universe to make a conclusive decision as to the existence of God is based on blind arrogance and/or blatant attempts to quell their internal voice telling them they are wrong.Let's start with the obvious ones before we get into the lack of logic and outright silliness of declaring they 'knew' there was no God when they were 8.

[vbnautilus 48]

Flaw #4: Arrogance. Making a declarative statement that you know enough about the make up of the universe to make a conclusive decision as to the existence of God is based on blind arrogance and/or blatant attempts to quell their internal voice telling them they are wrong.

Therefore you refrain from making a conclusive decision as to the existence of god?

[Spademan 94]

Caveat: As is often the case, BG's post can be ignored without losing anything of relevance.For the reader: A typical theme for those who hold irrational beliefs is, unsurprisingly since they are irrational in their belief, to straw man a "world-view" for an atheist. You can usually spot that activity when words like "came from nothing", "Nazi's and communism", "eugenics", or "objective morality" are included. Atheism can no more constitute a "world view" than "a-astrology" can constitute a world view.A "world-view" is a broad conceptual construct. Two "atheists" can have vastly different world views. If you come across this type of activity, simply point it out to anyone observing the conversation how this is fallacious.

All this question does is invite straw men.

Aaaaaannnd:

Flaw #1: Communism. The only examples of atheism brought into the realm of practical application in government has resulted in the deaths of millions, hundreds of millions. Flaw #2: Genocide. The natural continuance of the notion that there is no God and that evolution is the perfect guide for life has resulted in attempts at genocide in Nazi Germany and the practice of Eugenics in America.Flaw #3: Racism. Atheism/evolution has taught us that certain animals are more advanced, and therefore more likely to survive/better. This has given support to noted racist like Huxley and Darwin to get full passes for their blatant racism.Flaw #4: Arrogance. Making a declarative statement that you know enough about the make up of the universe to make a conclusive decision as to the existence of God is based on blind arrogance and/or blatant attempts to quell their internal voice telling them they are wrong.Let's start with the obvious ones before we get into the lack of logic and outright silliness of declaring they 'knew' there was no God when they were 8.

Heh. Nice. Clearly you've made a subtle self-deprecating joke post here. (Well, with Poe's law, maybe it isn't self-parody... no way to tell.)Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate, either way. It's become clear that you are (trolling or not) an excellent instructional aid. A veritable pop up target of the most oft-used and easily trounced creationist/apologist/fundamentalist/believer fallacies that have populated religious defense for a long, long time.To the reader: This example BG has so kindly provided for us contains Reductio ad Hitlerum/Stallinum, which, humorously, further satisfies Godwin's law in this thread.This encompasses the majority of his post. Read the first link to discover why it fails so miserably, and has for years and years and years. The interesting thing is, the more you have these types of discussions, the more you engage in the forums/circles/groups involving magical belief, the more, even as a "fence-sitter", you get a sense of the general weakness in thinking those who hold irrational beliefs suffer.When you (personally, possibly as a skeptical believer or fence-sitter) see this type of argument - which is so easily and readily refuted - propped up hundreds of times, by illiterate hicks up through doctorate level apologists, you can really develop an impression of the concessions they must make to their intellectual honesty in their submission to willful ignorance regarding their glaringly fallacious arguments. Some other things to consider:1. The fact that Hitler...In a speech delivered April 12, 1922, published in "My New Order," and quoted in Freethought Today (April 1990), Hitler said: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice . . . And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."" may have been a Christian is irrelevant (For a more detailed article discussing Hitler's proposed beliefs, go Here). Whether he was Christian or atheist is absolutely irrelevant in terms of this incredibly poorly thought out claim made by apologists. 2. Even if we were to overlook the embarrassing failure of Reductio ad Hitlerum, even if we were to take the point irrationally, on faith... even if we were subject to the fuzzy thinking of magical beliefs... even if we took the argument as gospel, it would still utterly fail to provide any support whatsoever to the validity of the God of Abraham. I've already discussed why earlier in the thread but as a recap: That someone may be happier believing something (person holding a losing lottery ticket thinking they have a winning lottery ticket), may behave better holding a certain belief (uh oh, Buddhists win), or may feel good because of something (morphine, amirite), has literally nothing to do with that belief or feeling being true. This is the greatest comedy of this type of fallacious argument. Not only does it fail on its own merits, not only does it fail logically... but even if it were not fallacy it would still provide no support to the magical belief behind it. Keep 'em coming BG. Keep pumping out all of the tired, fallacious, "slam dunk" apologetic arguments magical thinkers have been passing down to each other through the years. Arguments that enjoy great popularity within various-and-mutually-exclusive cult pipelines of indoctrination. The curt sound bytes that sound so good when a bunch of believers are listening to their holy man shout them emotionally from his podium. These empty rationalizations greeted with "HUZZAH" and back-slapping within tribalistic communities of shared self-delusion. These emotional appeals to "common sense" that all meet a terrible fate when they see the light of day. That fall flat and desperately on their faces when examined critically. That crumble upon themselves when put through the gauntlet of observational reality, demonstrable logic and the clarity of reason.

[timwakefield 68]

Flaw #3: Racism. Atheism/evolution has taught us that certain animals are more advanced, and therefore more likely to survive/better.

I'm not even going to address the other "flaws," but this is idiotic. How does "evolution" teach us that certain animals are more "advanced?" And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.The Bible teaches us that certain animals (humans) are more advanced, and it does so in the goddam preamble. Equating Hitler and Darwin is offensive. Hitler was an insane, conspiratorial dictator. You're literally trying to agree with Hitler, not with science. Spade addressed this more comprehensively, so I'll leave it there.

[Spademan 94]

Spade addressed this more comprehensively, so I'll leave it there.

It would have been enough to think this and not post.You've added almost nothing other than pointing out his particular fallacy is offensive, which should be self-evident.

[timwakefield 68]

[Spademan 94]

I saw your post, Tim, before you edited to the picture.I find your edit to be sufficiently objective, admirably subtle and surprisingly humorous in its application.Don't let this go to your head, my next post directed toward you might be a massive flame.

[SweetDee 0]

I didn't get that. I didn't get that ten lolcommandents would prevent anything. You're the one who gets that. Because you're an idiot.It doesn't matter how many fucking rules there are, because rules aren't morality, you tepid moron. But, even if you were going to put out ten rules, and your rules include keeping the sabbath and not wanting to bang the chick next door, and do not cover, just as two examples, rape and slavery, your "rules" are pathetic. Your whole argument is just absurd.Now you've opened it up to "the whole big ass book". And this makes it all the more hilarious, what with all the rape, genocide, baby killing, and slavery the big wizard was directly responsible for or condoned in said book. What a horrible question. The only possible way one could answer the question is, "There is a god."That is the only possible flaw of "atheism." Atheism means lack of belief in a god, it connotes nothing else. All this question does is invite straw men.

Your position is that morality in and of itself is good enough, rules don't matter? So, Smokey can't prevent forest fires?

[SweetDee 0]

Pedophilia not much of an issue when people are marrying 12 year olds and don't have the Internet.

I'm guessing your joking, but just want to point out that it wasn't that long ago when a 12 year old was treated like we would treat an 18 year old now. Ability to marry, provide for a family, even take over a throne. Read Little House on the Prairie and you can find good examples of what a 12 year old was capable of, not that long ago.

[Mercury69 3]

I'm guessing your joking, but just want to point out that it wasn't that long ago when a 12 year old was treated like we would treat an 18 year old now. Ability to marry, provide for a family, even take over a throne. Read Little House on the Prairie and you can find good examples of what a 12 year old was capable of, not that long ago.

"Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end."

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

"We'd sing and dance forever and a dayWe'd live the life we chooseWe'd fight and never loseThose were the days"Great, now that song is stuck in my head.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm guessing your joking, but just want to point out that it wasn't that long ago when a 12 year old was treated like we would treat an 18 year old now.

that... was my point.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

that... was my point.

you must be joking.