reply to post by trueperspective
Originally posted by trueperspective
1 You think the statement “My linage derives from evolved lizards” is more logical then “A higher intelligence created intelligent life on
earth, according to their kind.”
Why yes, I do think that my lineage derives from evolved lizards at one point at which the evolutionary history of reptiles and primates diverged.
Of course, how is that illogical? I mean, the basic premise here is that I'm unquestioning...because I question your belief for valid scientific
Counterpoint two would have to be that there are a multitude of theists that support naturalistic evolution.
2 You don’t accept the idea of God, but you talk about him more then most religious zealots
Because it can be a dangerous idea...
3 You despise the idea of faith, but you have a hyper-abundant amount of trust in “time and chance”
This is a straw man argument. We don't have any amount of trust, we have evidence that 'time and chance' produce really cool stuff.
4 You despise organized religion by being a part of an organized religion against organized religion.
Atheism isn't organized. At all. There are 500-750 million atheists worldwide (or more), very few of them belong to an organization and even the
largest organizations top out at hundreds of thousands.
5 You claim that religious people are brainwashed, but you spout off quotes from renowned atheists to defend your beliefs.
So quoting people is the same as being brainwashed now? Wow...that's...that's just ignorant.
6 Your best defense to the idea that religious people cram their beliefs down people’s throats is to cram your beliefs down people’s throats
I'm sorry, but how is Richard Dawkins cramming his lack of a single belief
down anyone's throat by writing a book, hosting conferences, and
taking part in discussions, all of which are non-compulsory? He doesn't go around on street corners, he doesn't do anything to force people to listen
to him. His means of communication of his lack of belief to the world are all voluntary. He hasn't attempted to force people to not believe in
anything, has he?
7 You say the Bible is utterly made up non-sense, then use stories from it to condemn God…who you claim doesn’t exist.
We use it to condemn the character, much like a critic could condemn the character of Edward Cullen for being a creepy ephebophile stalker using the
8 One of your favorite arguments against believing the Bible is that it was written by men, but you unquestioningly believe science text
books…written by men
Actually, the argument is that it was written by incredibly wrong
men, while science text books aren't unquestioningly believed. They're
accepted so far as the evidence supports their claims.
So that's 8 signs in a row that are pure ignorance, let's see if you can redeem yourself with the last two.
9 You get stark raving mad when someone says God (who doesn’t exist) will send you to Hell (a place that doesn’t exist), and use that as
“evidence” that God doesn’t exist.
I'm sorry, but which atheist uses people telling us we're going to hell as evidence that a deity doesn't exist? We don't even need evidence that a
deity doesn't exist because there is an entire lack of evidence that one does exist. Atheists don't tend to put forth positive disproofs, we just tend
to disassemble the positive proofs which are all lacking.
Now, it's the sentiment of the statement that angers us, not that there's any truth to it. It's just a really mean thing to say if you're an
individual that believes in eternal punishment. It's not nice at all.
10 You deny the testimony of countless millions of believers, but trust the research of a few hundred atheist...and call that being "open-minded"
Argumentum ad populum, an easily identifiable logical fallacy. Just because more people believe something doesn't mean it is true.
Now, testimony is useless in truth claims. Why? Because those countless millions of believers tend to disagree with each other
, there have been
some brutal evidences of this throughout history.
And again, popularity of a belief holds not a single shred of weight towards its validity.
Atheists also don't rely on atheist research, because such a field doesn't exist. We do accept scientific research
, which is carried out by
both theists and nontheists alike. However, we only accept that research so much as it is logically sound and follows the evidence found in the
natural world. It's not like we just accept it because some atheist dude said it.
Also, to let you know, a good number of atheists become so without exposure to atheist writings. I personally didn't have any exposure to atheist
writings upon my deconversion (though I did have exposure to pretty much every sort of religious writing), yet I still managed to make a choice.
Anyway, ignorant post.
edit on 26/12/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Added 'reply to' script