Thursday, March 31, 2011

OPEN LETTER TO AN ATHEIST or ATHEISM v GOD part 2

When you argue with a libby, that libby will probably start by calling you names. This is how libbies argue. They don’t have the skills to rationally debate conservatives on any topic and they know this so they don’t even try.

Oh there are some that will try to argue, but they soon realize that they are overmatched in the higher thinking realm and eventually resort to name calling. As I’ve pointed out before liberals ‘think’ with their emotions. When it comes to violence or sex or sports or cooking for example, the emotions do just fine. Solving complex or intricate problems? Not so good.

I was on a liberal oriented community site and the subject of how atheism doesn’t have a way of understanding life or a moral code and things like that came up. And of course I was remembering the post I wrote last week Atheism v God and already had a response thought out but not down on paper. So I let the atheists have it;

"Forget religion, this is about believing or not believing in god. If you're an atheist then you believe that all of existence is an error or a fluke or a random, errant growth; i.e. a mistake. It was not created or intelligently designed (by god or a creator) so it has no meaning or purpose to it. Nothing has any meaning or purpose. No purpose means no goals or direction to existence or life. That means no right or wrong because right and wrong are predicated on rules and obligations to be met. That means there would have to be order or maybe a design by which adhering to would lead to happiness or purpose. But no! Randomness has no rules so how can it create what it does not itself possess? If there is no purpose to anything you do or say why follow some phony-baloney rules made-up by some religious folk? They’re idiots! What meaning or purpose could you build into your own existence if there is nothing within you that needs to be fulfilled, no goals built-into life that would lead to the reward of satisfaction? You sit there reading this…..why? It doesn’t mean anything; nothing means anything! Ask yourself this; why do you continue to live? Oh, maybe life is interesting? How is it interesting? How is nothing interesting? How is meaninglessness interesting? There is no heaven or hell. So why not go out and kill people –THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING! Why follow most of the rules other people follow? Rob gas stations, bomb people’s homes, murder Hollywood celebrities!! Talk about interesting?! You would get your name all over the media! People would talk about you. But you don’t cause you’re a coward! A little mouse; a worm! My take is atheists are ignorant. You look through scientific understanding at the marvelous intricacies of creation and how everything miraculously is part of everything else; AND YOU DON’T SEE IT! You don’t get it. It stares you right in the face, it’s at the end of your nose, but you’re blind. By that I mean you’re ignorant. Or maybe you want to be ignorant! Maybe you’re scared to face up to life’s rules and responsibilities?! You just want to be little babies and have mommy or the ninny state take care of you. In any case I don’t feel sorry for you, because its people like you who are screwing up life for everybody else. Please libbies, go back to Mars!"

The libby’s response   -   name-calling.


Next: IF I COULD ONLY DEBATE THOSE MORONS - DAWKINS, HITCHENS AND HARRIS!

28 comments:

  1. I have a general rule that I don't debate religious belief with believers. After all, what can I say that will ever dissuade them. You, on the other hand, are quite ignorant of actual atheist views, and you're pretty abrasive, even when talking to people who share your political viewpoint.

    You don't seem to understand your opponent's arguments in the least. Do you truly believe the only alternative to a belief in god is that the entire universe is random/accidental/a fluke?

    Then you make the rhetorical leap from randomness to a lack of purpose to life... fascinating. The difference between believers and atheists is that you get your life's purpose from God, while we choose our own purpose in life. This is very different from having no purpose.

    Consider this: I happen to know that there is no god. Your belief is actually based on an ancient mythology and social code from the Middle East. This religion was a product of man, because there was no god to hand it down to us. Your belief in a higher purpose is in fact a purpose that was written down by men. Sure, you believe that god has given you a purpose, but open your mind for a moment to realize that, if I'm right, your purpose is just as man-based as mine.

    Interestingly, you answer your own question regarding atheists morals. First you say "atheism doesn’t have a way of understanding life or a moral code." Later you ask "So why not go out and kill people." Wrap your brain around this: The fact that atheists don't go out and kill people gives you the answer: Religion is not required to have moral values. If it were, we WOULD be out killing. So buried in your ignorance is the answer that moral values do not depend on god.

    In my case, I actually share your Judeo-Christian values because that's how I was raised. The difference is that I don't fool myself into believing that my values come from God. They come from men who wrote them down either believing they were writing on behalf of God or because they simply needed a higher authority that the people would obey.

    I'd also like to highlight two of your comments: "The libby’s response - name-calling." and "you’re a coward! A little mouse; a worm!" I guess you're no better than the liberals you "debate."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Look up "dissipative process".

    ReplyDelete
  3. To: Heathen Republican

    First: I’m a Deist not a Theist.
    Second: Either existence was created with purpose or without. Give me a third alternative.
    Third: On morals and purpose – please read Lectures 1 & 2 @ http://www.philosophy1001.com
    Fourth: Yes I resort to name calling too. After I have responded with logic and reason.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To: John Kennard
    The process of dissipation especially of heat. So?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No no no, the local decrease of entropy and _increase of order_ as a way of dissipating energy, at a total (overall or universal) cost of the usual increase in entropy and decrease of order:

    Local order, _such as the most primitive life_, can emerge quite naturally from such process.

    See, for example, the "honeycomb" convective cells in boiling pots and the Sun, and crusts on almost everything (le Chatelier's Principle is probably an expression of such processes).

    And energy doesn't have to be flowing through the system for this to happen:

    The system might have a fixed energy (or energy-density) but be, say, expanding . . . .

    Here we go:

    http://www.biolcell.org/boc/098/0589/boc0980589.htm

    I love that test-tube reaction, creating stripes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ‘Emergent’ properties, self-organization, in bio-chemistry are evidence of the larger directive for living nature. These inherent qualities requisition the instruction and arrangement of outcome to those processes. This is, to me, further evidence of the inherent design contructed throughout existence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So the spontaneous emergence of order is proof of design to you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. kxar said: "Either existence was created with purpose or without. Give me a third alternative."

    OK: Existence wasn't created, but has just always, um, 'existed' (without first-cause or purpose).

    ReplyDelete
  9. To: John K. I consider the Big Bang spontaneous, so, yes the spontaneous emergence of design and order that was created with the big bang is proof to me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Frank! No, the universe did not always exist. I explaned this in the KXAR v DAWKINS blog. Science says that the universe is about 14.5 billion yr old so it could not have always existed! I try to keep my blogs about one page in length to avoid reader boredom so I don't get to put in everything I want and wind up explaining things over several blogs. You kinda have to read 'em all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. kxar, I did NOT SAY the UNIVERSE always existed! You asked for a third alternative (possibility) to "EXISTENCE" being either created with purpose or without purpose, and I gave you a third alternative (namely, that "EXISTENCE" was NOT CREATED at all, but has always existed).

    There is no empirical or logical reason why "EXISTENCE" did NOT ALWAYS exist (in other states and forms) before the universe arose (naturally) from that "existence."

    Therefore, "EXISTENCE" MAY or may NOT have ALWAYS "existed" (in other states and forms) prior to the universe's arising (naturally) from prior "EXISTENCE."

    I am using the terms YOU used in framing your question about a third alternative.

    If you cannot form unambiguious questions or understand straightforward answers to the questions as you actually asked them and give credit for a "good point" when you see one amde in a reply to one of your questions where the reply uses the same terms you used in framing your question, then I shall not bother to waste any more of my time or yours, believe whatever makes the most genuine good sense to you (just as I do for my own self). Bald assertions will not persuade me nor serve you, and I begin to sense that you think you already know everything anyhow (in which case I have nothing for you).

    ReplyDelete
  12. kxar: We even disagree on that, since I'm not one-a the "Big Bang" faithful:

    That theory's had more patches than "cold fusion", from the first, and by far--and how about those "Deep Field" images, huh? no shortage of galaxies _that_ far back in time, eh? (although for some reason you don't hear the "Big Bang" theorists addressing those images.)

    Indeed, I consider both the rapid and wide and fanatical adoption of that hypothesis to be due to its representing a back-door invasion of cosmology by Judaeo-Christian metaphysics.

    At least the biologists have held firm.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To: Frank Is there any research supporting your contentions? Any physicists that share you views? I need to know.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To: John K. - Then what is your understanding of where the universe came from?

    ReplyDelete
  15. kxar: It didn't come from anywhere, since anywhere there's an anywhere, and anywhere else, for that matter, is part of the universe . . . .

    You can't infer the properties of a set from the properties of its elements-- for example, the integer 1 is finite, but the set of integers is infinite . . . .

    Similarly, the fact that all things are finite on our scale is no proof that the Universe as a whole is finite.

    The fact that all things (but choice) have causes on our scale is no proof that the Universe as a whole had or has a cause.

    And even the conservation laws that we see on our scale for mattergy and momentum might well need to be re-tooled as conservations of mattergetic and momentum _densities_ on the cosmic scale.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @kxar: You replied to me saying, "Frank Is there any research supporting your contentions? Any physicists that share you views? I need to know."

    We are talking about POSSIBILITIES about the existence of "existence." It appears you and I are not even in the same conversation!

    You gave TWO alternative POSSIBILITIES ["Either existence was created with purpose or without. Give me a third alternative." - kxar], and asked for a third alternative POSSIBILITY, and I gave you one ["OK: Existence wasn't created, but has just always, um, 'existed' (without first-cause or purpose)." -- FL].

    Now, if you wish to reject the third alternative POSSIBILITY for the existence of "existence" that you asked for and I gave you, fine, you do not need ANYthing from me for you to to reject it, just reject it and move on -- I don't care one whit whether you agree it is a valid third alternative POSSIBILITY or not, for LEGION are those who already see things differently than I do, you are just one more grain of sand in that bucket, no problem, I can live just fine with your disagreement.

    On the other hand, -IF- YOU want ME to also reject the third alternative POSSIBILITY for the existence of "existence" taht you asked for and I gave you, -THEN- You need to tell ME (using only valid logic and sound premises) exactly WHY I should reject the third alternative POSSIBILITY that I gave you, so I can examine it for merit (or lack thereof) to see if indeed you have offered a good reason for why -I- should reject the third alternative POSSIBILITY that I gave you (if you can and if you will).

    Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree and stop wasting each other's time (we can leave the record of our [failed] dialogue for other people to consider and make up their own minds).

    ReplyDelete
  17. To: John K. As I've said before "Nothing comes from nothing. And that's the only thing that comes from nothing." To me it is not logical that all of existence sprang from nothing. I will never believe that existence came from nothing. But I agree that you have the right to your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. To: Frank L. All possiblities can be expressed as mathematical equations. Certainly someone has ponder this third possiblity and rendered a theory. If this third possiblity is yours alone - Existence wasn't created, but has just always, um, 'existed' (without first-cause or purpose)." - then all I'm asking for is clarification, because I've never run across it before. Therefore I don't know how to respond to it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. To kxar: I believe you when you say you do not know how respond to my identification of a third alternative POSSIBILITY (to the two you initially identified) for the existence of "existence."

    Alas, I do not know how to help you with that (no empirical or scientific evidence or the agreement of ANYone ELSE is required to recognize that the third alternative POSSIBILITY that you asked for and I gave you is a bona-fide POSSIBILITY) beyond simply identifying it for you.

    Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  21. kxar: "Nothing can come from nothing"? what about

    0 = N + -N

    ?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "When you argue with a libby, that libby will probably start by calling you names"...

    Yeah, not like these pillars of the religious community:

    Mr. Miyagi (@DaBoyBanks) 4/9/11 2:34 PM @LadyAtheist you’re not funny you ugly bisexual you’re confused enough, you dont even believe in god but you will when you burn in hell

    https://twitter.com/daboybanks/status/56802091011813376


    Khalid Salad (@Young_Salad) 4/9/11 3:02 PM @LadyAtheist @DaBoyBanks i treat other women much different then how i treat u fuckin atheist

    https://twitter.com/young_salad/status/56809169629609984


    Why should I even bother reading the rest of when your FIRST statement is a complete distortion of the truth?

    Did it ever occur to you that you might be making such such poor statements that ridicule is, in fact, the best response?

    “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter in Publications of the Buffalo Historical Society, Volume 7 By Buffalo Historical Society, page 18

    ReplyDelete
  23. You claimed that Without god there is no "right or wrong"?

    I would say that evolution created our sense of right and wrong and by all evidence it has done a pretty bad job of it on the whole. But it is our ability to reason and project the consequences of actions that gives us a sense of right and wrong. And the evolutionary model fits history far better than positing an absolute moral lawgiver.

    In fact, if god actually existed that would only make matters worse.

    Does god forgive us? What if the person wronged doesn't want to forgive the other person? Are they forced into forgiving? If you believe in a Hell then how could a parent be happy and without tears in Heaven while their loved children suffer eternally in Hell?

    This is why the Christians painted themselves into a corner with original Sin - to the point where they must believe that even newborn children are vile sinful creatures FULLY worthy of Gods infinite wrath, should he so choose to take them (as he allowed 15 million a year to starve to death and some 50 Billion children have died to date). If God commands you to murder your child, then you better do it (ask Deanna Laney from Texas how that worked out). If God commands you to slice open infants with a sword then you better do it. If God commands you to commit genocides against the seven nations then you better do it. If God commands you to mutilate your child's genitals then you better do it. If God drowns nearly everyone that is a glorious and good action and moral action. Where does it stop? This absolute moral lawgiver also commanded us not to suffer a Witch to live -- now funny thing, there is no such things as witches or magic -- but that didn't stop Christians from doing their damnedest to carry out this order.

    The immensity of the suffering allowed by God is just unbelievable - and we're told this is because someone 170 generations ago ate some fruit? And this level of punishment is deserved?

    I know you said you were a deist but that puts you in the rather awkward position of not even believing this deity bothered to clue us in on what he wants with any clarity. Oh wait, he built it into us right? And YOU know what he wants and what that other guy over there KNOWS he wants is wrong according to you -- is that about the sum of it? Well, how do YOU KNOW you are the only one that has his wishes correct?


    Like every other problem, throwing God into the mix doesn't answer a thing and only makes matters worse.

    ReplyDelete
  24. to DARK STAR: 1st comment.
    Ridicule does not encorporate a logical, rational argument which is always the best response. Sometimes I get angry and it shows sometimes. Also using religious arguments against me is wrong because I am not religious.

    to DARK STAR: 2nd comment.
    You say that evolution created our sense of right and wrong. Why would evolution do that. How does evolution have a sense of right and wrong to impart? Evolution is random and directionless. Where in the description of evolution does it say that right, wrong and morality are characteristics of evolution? Nowhere because right and wrong and morality are NOT scientific entities. How can evolution give what it does not possess?
    And about religion - once again I am not religious. I am a deist not a theist.
    About being right and being moral; how do I know? How really know? How do I know for sure? Because logic, reason and science tells me so.Along with self-understanding. And so far I haven't found any better tools for determining right and wrong.
    I do believe that before the big bang the qualities of right and wrong and morality where made part of the design of existence. I'm writing a a couple of blogs on Intelligent Design right now. Perhaps that will clear up a few things for you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. There are so many straw-men/incorrect assumptions in this blog I don't know where to begin. I have a meeting in 15 minutes, so my further response will have to wait a bit... Lets just say it's evident this person has next to no scientific or mathematical training as he doesn't understand the nature of a random process... The universe is governed by rules - and even what we perceive as "random" processes obey the laws of physics. The universe (for whatever reason) IS ordered ...
    He also falls into the trap of assuming that patterns imply 'meaning' ... more on this later.

    Frankly this pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo is repetitive and annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I've now read thru a lot of the comments on your post. Dark Star & Frank Lovell and others have made several cogent comments and arguments. However, as they also point out, you will not be swayed from your world-view because it isn't based on empirical data, but on faith ... likely instilled in your from parents/priests/etc.

    You ask for evidence? Read some scientific papers on cosmology (my field of study). You cannot expect to understand why scientists come to the conclusions they do because you do not have the background (now) ... however, if you start reading about the data and analysis that has been done -- and earnestly seek the truth as revealed by the cosmos itself, you may one day begin to shed the nonsense instilled in you by religion.

    Here's a reference... Just look for some of the older papers on cosmology.

    http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph

    I am not going to waste my time refuting the nonsense in your post. Other's have tried and I see their results.

    ReplyDelete
  27. TO: RR You are the epitomy of liberalism. On Twitter you called me a bunch of names then disappeared. Here you show up and pretend that because science exists a creator can not. No logical explanation to follow up.

    And I don't see what cosmetics (your field of study) has to do with anything.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "When you argue with a libby, that libby will probably start by calling you names. This is how libbies argue."
    derp.

    ReplyDelete