Tag Archives: Online Debate

More atheist debate – Its easter after all!

14 Apr

Sooo… Its easter. The time we acknowledge (celebrate has always seem strange to me) that Jesus died for our sins. Nice!

So in acknowledgement of that I want to share a debate I had with some atheists again.  It all started here —> On the youtube video: Why Jordan Peterson Still Believes In God

Uten navn

I wrote:

Andy Ace 3 months ago (edited)
“It´s strange to me how some of the most rational, intelligent people can be religious.” That statement says more about you than it does about religious people.

If I were to say “It´s strange to me how some of the most rational, intelligent people can be atheist/liberal/concervative/whatnot” it would show lack of humility and understanding that people may have different values and life experiences and does not equal “not being smart” or “irrational”.

First step to knowledge is to understand that people of different belief is not stupid or bad, they are just different (and wrong 😉

3 months later and the debate is still going on 😉

First

 

I decided to copy-paste it and add some screengrabs so we can study the average atheist debate skills and understanding of themselves and how much “new” they add to the debate. They really dont. Also to take a gander at what google and youtube think is spam/censorship worthy.

 

Here it is —>


 

Mouthy Buddha 3 months ago
Andy Ace

I respectfully disagree. I think Atheism and intelligence go hand and hand. And I also think that deeply religious people do not value reason, or logic, or at the very least, they do not hold these intellectual qualities to high esteem.

So I stand by the claim.

Andy Ace3 months ago (edited)
Then most big thinkers 50-60 years back were “irrational”. The fact is that atheism is a cultural shift. There aren´t more intelligent people now, then back then, even though more and more people are becoming atheist. In fact, most outspoken atheist I have met online have known very little about anything.

The reason why they are becoming atheist is not because “science shows us it”. Science is as agnostic/irreligious as it always has been. As Peterson says himself “Science is not religious truth”, it about what can be observed. We have known of evolution for many years, its only the last 20 years that has been seen as “evidence” of there not being a God.

The growing number of “atheist awakenings” is not because of the body of evidence or rationality increasing. We are just as irrational as we have always been. The reason is pop-culture and political agendas. We are bombarded with anti-religious ideas everyday, and that is the reason why people are “waking up”. I have seen the change with my own eyes. I lived in a country where irreligious christianity was the norm, now it is patronizing atheism. In Norway I think it was mostly because of politics though and US pop-culture.

 

Uten navn 7

Mouthy Buddha 3 months ago
Andy Ace

I disagree again. Pop culture and political agendas do sway the public, but you have left out a major development which, in my view, is the most relevant requisite for atheism – science.

And I never said stupid, or dumb. But someone who values reason and logic. And seeing as Peterson is an intellectual giant, who is a scientist who obviously values arriving at a truth, it baffles me as to why he would still find truths in religious faith.

I am not saying that he is wrong for feeling this way, or else I wouldn’t have uploaded the video. But it did shock me. I also debated for minutes regarding the exact words you have issue with, as my intention is never to offend, but I realized that this is truly how I feel, and I would rather be honest with myself, and my channel, than pander to religious people that I disagree with.

Andy Ace 3 months ago
you say
“Pop culture and political agendas do sway the public, but you have left out a major development which, in my view, is the most relevant requisite for atheism – science. “

I addressed that. It is a belief in atheism that they are on “science side”. That is false. First of, that would mean that all scientists are atheists. That was not the norm 50 years ago. I have seen youtube lists of “Top 10 atheist thinkers” and often they even add thinkers that are not atheist. I.e Einstein. Although he has said many strange things on it, I saw an hour long BBC documentary about how Einstein tried to prove there was a God. It was called “Einsteins Unfinished Symphony”. Either that documentary was lying, or Einstein was not an atheist.

I also listened to Hitchens talk about 1984. My favorite book and also my favorite atheist. He said that 1984 wasnt really criticizing communism, but religion. This was fascinating because Orwell was NOT atheist, but also because Hitchen interpretation said more about him, then the book or 1984.

This comes up again and again. This belief that all great thinkers are atheists but that is not so. Its only the last 20-30 years or so that “great thinkers” has been outspooken atheists. Also many of them havent really been all that much of scientist anyways. Often closer to educators. “Dumbing down” science for the masses. They left science to follow their true calling. Proselyting atheism (i.e biologist Dawkins).

you say
“And I never said stupid, or dumb.”

Yes I changed it to “irrational” to not add words not used. Although these things arent water and oil 😉

You say
“And seeing as Peterson is an intellectual giant, who is a scientist who obviously values arriving at a truth, it baffles me as to why he would still find truths in religious faith. ”

I would guess it comes to what you have read and what you know. Have you read C.G. Jung? The undiscovered self? IT deals with theism and atheism, among other things. He said “You can take away a man’s gods, but only to give him others in return.”

There is a quote I read, but I can not seem to find again. It went “When I first started reading philosophy I became an atheist, when I kept reading I became a theist again”. I dont know who said it and where it came from. But it has a valid point. Theism vs atheism is not a scientific debate. Its a philosophical one. It has to do with metaphysics. Its not irrational to believe that we were created.

you say
” I also debated for minutes regarding the exact words you have issue with, as my intention is never to offend, but I realized that this is truly how I feel, and I would rather be honest with myself, and my channel, than pander to religious people that I disagree with.”

I am not offended. I just restated what you said. Sometimes seeing in writing what was said, can make you see what you truly said. I hope you made these videos to communicate, not preach? Thus when I saw your video and heard that phrase I thought it interessting to restate it to point out its interessting undertones. But that was addressed in my original comment.

I am not offended by atheists, or their ideas. As most theist, I have been atheist at times. I understand perfectly your side, and would not call it “irrational” or anything else. That being said, I think atheism is wrong, and I also dislike patronizing attitudes that many atheists have. This does not apply to you or your video. This is a general issue. Fortunatly for me and other theists, many atheists now have become anti-feminists now and that seems to be their holy cow now, to bash them. So we have peace 😉

scythermantis 2 months ago
Great post!
For a theist great thinker, John Lennox is worth checking out as well.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+scythermantis Ill check him out. Found a youtube video about him now 🙂

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Paul Seli
You say
“Forgive the self-promotion Andy Ace, but, respectfully, Mouthy Buddha is correct in noting that theists tend to be less rational/analytic than theists.”

Why is this self-promotion? If you disagree you disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

I read the abstract to this findings, but it was hard to understand how they came around to this. I like it better when the science paper give both the OBJECTIVE, METHOD, RESULTS and CONCLUSION in the abstract.
Like here: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

The abstract to your paper was just “we assumed and this is what we found”. I wont pay money to read the entire thing.

Analytical thinking may go beyond what they define as analytical. To put it in a cliché, “some may not see the forest for all the threes”.

But yeah, I would have liked it if they defined what they think is “analytical” and how they decided to test out this. Let´s say analytical is “finding patterns” then they may love the basic IQ test with those 3 lines of patterns that are suppose to add up to a 9th pattern. I have done that one, and didnt much care for it. I never understood the reason for that. What did it test? Who decided the logic behind those patterns? What did that prove? Does analytical thinking include thinking in abstracts?

To bring in a science study I found interessting.

Why Are High-Functioning Autistics More Likely to Be Atheists or Agnostics?
http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2011/09/26/why-are-high-functioning-autistics-more-likely-to-be-atheists-or-agnostics/

I think asberger´s people are known for their visually, concrete and provable needs. But they may love puzzles and logical tests. To be honest most atheists I know and have debated have not shown much interest in analysis and have high level of confirmation bias.

Take the most recent atheist debate I have had. I wrote a long argument, and he replied with “Nice dude, this must be a world record: “Most words used to form a strawman arguement” End.

It doesnt really try to grasp the arguments, and see why they disagree. Just a declaration of disprovement.

Conclusion: Perhaps its just confirmation bias, but that study doesnt ring true to me.

I stand by my original post that to say “It surprised me that a christian can be rational/intelligent/whatever” still shows bias from the atheist, more than the Christian. 2000 year of history has brought many great Christian thinkers and artists. Its only been 20-30 years where atheism has been seen as the “only rational stand”.

Andy Ace 2 months ago (edited)
+Paul Seli
you say
“(1) It is self-promotion because I am an author on the article that I sent to you (in which it is demonstrated that theists tend to be less analytical than atheists).”

Interesting. I did think that, that could be the reason. I even looked for you name, but didnt see it. Now I do see it.

you say
“(2) To demonstrate this, we obtained people’s views on religion (i.e., whether they are theists or atheists), and then administered an IQ test, along with the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), which has been validated as a measure of people’s propensity to think analytically (to produce correct responses to the test items, one has to override an intuitive response and think carefully about the answer).”

Is the IQ test block/logic understanding or is it a more broad test (WAIS-III)?

I can say that I did the CRT test as described on wikipedia and I failed. The first question I said 10 cent. The second 1 minute. The third I didnt bother with cuz I read the answer before taking it. I did understand why I was wrong when I read the answers though. They are trick questions though. The point of trick questions is to trick you.

It was math questions and I hate math. I remeber a co-worker said to me how can it be 25% up but only 20% down. And it took me a long time to understand that as my mind is not wired for math.

My family wanted me to take the hard science route. Knowing my interests I took the humanities. I knew that for me to study math, physics and biology would fail as my interest was low which would mean that I would not work hard at it, but at the same time I was not a natural at it so that would mean I would have to work hard at it, which I knew I wouldnt. But did you see there was analysis in this to? Just not based on math.

Its just like with psychology. I love psychology and have read books on it. But the parts of the books about the biology (neurology, endocrinology etc.) are things I find far less interesting than the human to human (philosophical and less testable) areas of psychology.

Point being: Although I do not have a “math mind” (I do understand it at the most average level) I do not care for it, but still consider myself to be analytical.

you say
“(3) If your argument is that we cannot pin down what “analyticity” means, even when using validated tests with convergent validity (i.e., the CRT correlates well with other purported measures of analyticity), then we cannot debate an exceptionally large number of things. If this is really your view, then it would be best to refrain from engaging in debate with anyone over any natural constructs, such as “intelligence,” “love,” “hope,” “fear,” “analyticity,” “boredom,” “attention,” and so forth, because you and/or your opponent could always claim ignorance about what the construct actually means, whether it’s being measured fully and properly, and so forth. As such, you will invariably draw the conclusion that you simply “cannot know”: a conclusion that ought to preclude meaningful discussion about a host of topics. ”

You may have missunderstood me. I think its important to DEFINE what analytical is in a paper looking for analytical mentalities. I have been to university to and I always learnd that when using terminologies one should define it and preferably have some source on it.

I.e “We define analytical as a person who [does this and that] (Mindwell and Misc, 2011, p201)”

or

“Love is just a biological illusjon caused by to much hormons. “[Its] just a miserably lie””(Morrissey, 1983).

If I then disagree with the definition, then I may disagree with the entire findings. And that should be a valid argument if I have basis for thinking the definition to broad or to narrow.

(to be continued)

Andy Ace 2 months ago (edited)
+Paul Seli
You say
(4) I’m generally interested by the Autism/Asperger’s topic, but the link that you’ve provided is a link to an opinion piece, not an empirical study. Nonetheless, even if there were an empirical study on the topic, this would not somehow necessitate that religious people are therefore more analytic. I don’t see the link here. In the same way, analytic individuals might be more creative, and perhaps autistic individuals are also more likely to be creative, but this doesn’t necessitate that autistic individuals are therefore also more analytic.
These are correlational results, and hence, such conclusions cannot be drawn. Nevertheless, I will read the article you sent me, as I think it’s an interesting topic (thanks for sharing).

I agree. But it may be an indicator of what kinds of minds think what kinds of things beyond the “analytical”. There may be different things to analyse. Feelings.

Take for instance the “God of the gap” argument. That is something many atheists laugh at. Why? It means that there is an X and so some people fill that X with 0 (there is not God) and some with 1 (there is a God). These things may go beyond logic. It may have an emotional level. And emotions are a part of us. We are given it for a reason, be it from nature or God. To completely disregard emotions as evidence of X may be false.

you say
“(5) Although you’ve not encountered many atheists who have shown interest in analytic thinking, the data suggest that your experience is simply not reflective of the general population. In addition to the study that I sent you, my co-authors have conducted numerous other studies demonstrating the same effect, time and time again (i.e., theists are less analytic on numerous different tasks, and this is with gigantic samples of thousands of people, as opposed to the handful of people you’ve met). That said, some atheists are certainly not very analytic at all (and some theists are very analytic), and maybe you’ve just been exposed to a disproportionate number of these non-analytic atheists (this seems likely). Remember that the finding isn’t that ALL atheists are more analytic, but rather, that on the whole, atheists score higher on measures of analyticity (and IQ) than theists.”

I wont be the guy who says “YOUR DATA IS FALSE”. I havent looked at it. I am also aware that my experience is anecdotal. But anecdotal can be the start of an hypothesis. I do not have the resources or interest to really test it out, but I can draw an hypothesis of it. Which I have.

The hypothesis are:
1) Atheism is not based on rational thinking, but a cultural shift.

2) Atheism in its most common form is religious. (Jung; 1957)

In the end, the question of atheism vs theism, is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one (metaphysics aka “before physics”).

A religious atheist strategy now is to try to tie science and atheism together. A strategy I find very destructive. For one it crates a false dichotomy, and secondly it may divert theist from joining in, even though they may have interessting perspective and knowledge to make interesting hypothesis and findings.

A documentary about this, that I saw was called “Expelled: No intelligence allowed”. I found it a biased documentary, as most documentaries, but it gave food for though. What gave me even more food for thought was reading on the IMDB page how atheists had hijacked the page to “correct” the arguments of the documentary. I started a thread about it on the movie page and I was overwelmed with atheist denying that there was any hijacking (then why were they there?) and then the forum thread was removed.

PS: I will take a look at the data since you sent it to me. Thanks 🙂

shadowdawg04 2 months ago
Mouthy – “I think Atheism and intelligence go hand in hand” a statement that taken at face value, self evidently false. The very fact the you put a premium on ‘I think’ & ‘I also think’ is indicative of a person looking for facts to support their assertions.

Intelligence is not a wholly own subsidiary of the atheist – your trying to win the argument by an self-pronounced superiority. History and evidence is not on your side – merely wanting a thing to be true does not make it so. History is not what we like or what we dislike, it is what actually was, and perhaps, what still is.

shadowdawg04 2 months ago
Any Ace – “theists TEND to be less rational/analytic than atheist.” My, my how very scientific and fact based your generalization is!

Your condescension is illuminating …. however,

One might say that atheist tend to be more cold blooded and callous toward their fellow human beings – it wasn’t peasant farmers who killed 30 million in the Soviet Union, or 100 million under Mao, nor 45 million under the Pol Pot regime. Castro was he a theist or an atheist? He actually stated this, so there is no ambiguity here.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+shadowdawg04 I never said that. I was pro-theist. I may have quoted another guy who removed his comments.

TheOlzee 2 months ago
Not really about how intelligent you but how honest you can be with yourself which often takes courage so both unrelated to intelligence. Although i know what you mean.

Hurling Camogie 2 months ago
Andy Ace Leftist shaming tactics? Really? You lost this debate before you started. It never surprises me that people who initially appear to be intelligent turn out not to be so, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. You are definitely one of those people.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Hurling Camogie You wrote “shaming tactics” and I thought: “shaming tactics? That doesnt sound like something I would write.” So I searched the thread and I can not see where I wrote that.

Anjelus 2 months ago
+Andy Ace: That quote you paraphrased, “When I first started reading philosophy I became an atheist, when I kept reading I became a theist again,” is from Francis Bacon. Also, you were completely right in this debate and Mouthy Buddha was wrong.

Internet Contrarian 2 months ago
Well no, not true. Many religious people do argue completely ridiculous beliefs and claims, its rational to assume MOST of them offer these weak arguments. Since well… most of them do.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Anjelus Thank you! I found it! Yes! Thank you! The quote was “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” It has driven me nuts not finding it.

+The Fifth Antitheist
you say
“Many religious people do argue completely ridiculous beliefs and claims”

This is the pop-culture I was talking about. The many memes. When a christian is portrayed in movies he is often seen as suspect, ignorant and bigoted.

Historically the greatest thinkers were theist or christian in some way. That may have been because of the zeitgeist. But a zeitgeist (be it theist or atheist) does not dictate right or wrong. The greatest thinkers have been theist up until the last 20 years. Kant, Descartes, Jung, Orwell, Einstein.

So its NOT “rational to assume MOST of them offer these weak arguments” its ignorant to assume that.

Devon Yretich 2 months ago
Andy Ace but these men hardly dealt in the subject of religion and einstin wasnt a christian. Newton was so religious though that he tries to predict the end of the world fron the bible. It was never sonething they were forced to confront, in some cases it was taboo. The equivocation between thinker of both times doesnt work. its also an appeal to power

Devon Yretich 2 months ago
Andy Ace also that quote means nothing. it proves nothing and is therefore pointless in the context of this arguement.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
Devon Yretich I dont think I said Einstein was a christian. I called him a theist, most likely. Here is a question for you: Why do YOU read christian where I write theist? It may something about you.

As for the quote: Its a very important and poingiant (did I spell that right?) quote.

Anjelus 2 months ago (edited)
+Andy, a more updated version of Bacon’s is physicist Werner Heisenberg’s “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Also, few people in general have even the slightest inkling of classical theism, so they attribute everything “theism” to Christianity because Christianity is all they know. Einstein was a theist but not a Christian, you’re quite right. Of all modern religions, Christianity is the one whose theology drives most from classical theism, but the two have been distinct entities for 2500 years and will presumably remain so.

p.s. it’s ‘poignant’ :-p

Devon Yretich 2 months ago
+Andy Ace sorry for that mistake. The quote means nothing because it is unsustansiated. It proves nothing. I can say the samethinh backwords and it would be still as valid.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Anjelus Yes. Christianity is a religion or philosophy of theism, but theism is not the same as christianity. There are many types of theism. I dont know what kind Einstein was, and he was very unclear and often talked against himself. What I do know is that BBC made a documentary about how Einstein dedicated the last part of his life to mathematically prove there was a God. That makes him a theist in my mind.

I consider myself a irreligious philosophical christian. I dont go to church, I dont read the bible that much, and I dont follow dogma. But I do respect Christian values and traditions. When I debate atheists I never debate religion, I always debate metaphysics. There is no point debating if Christianity makes sense or if its true if one cant agree on the basic idea that there is a God.

But what´s funny is that all atheists want to debate is religion and how stupid the bible is.

+Devon Yretich

Its fine that you´re sorry, but why did you assume I meant Christian when I wrote theist? Einstein was a jew. His views though seem to go towards a more unpersonal God. A creator who do not care. A mathematical beginning for everything.

The quote by Bacon is an afterthought to a longer debate I have had with many people over a month now. This was not the entire train of thought, but a summation.

Read the original post I made, and the replies afterwards. Then you will get the CONTEXT.

Anjelus 2 months ago (edited)
Einstein’s philosophy hero was 17th century Baruch Spinoza, who developed a natural theology around pan-en-theism (not to be confused with pantheism). The “God of Spinoza and Einstein” is an intelligent creator God, the source of all knowledge and all matter, who creates from the necessity of his own nature, but certainly wouldn’t do something so lowly as answer a prayer. Einstein’s thinking as a theist would have been along these lines. It’s why Einstein so emphasized determinism and was so disturbed by the indeterminacy in quantum mechanics.

I used to really quite agree with the Spinoza paradigm. “After all, why would God answer prayers? And how could God love anything, if he’s God and already has everything he wants? Ridiculous Christian ideas!”

I later grew to disagree with Spinoza, and then still later I accidentally became one of those “dumb and irrational” Christians. But if you want to know Einstein, you gotta go back to Spinoza! Lots of value in understanding his philosophy, especially Ethics 3, 4, and 5.

Andy Ace 2 months ago (edited)
+Anjelus I tend to go for the Jungian understanding of collective unconscious and the importance and truths of mythology. Not only do I get a lot from believing in Christianity I also get alot from art be it music, games, movies, books. There is something profoundly human in making things that have no use over enjoyment. I see art as a great gateway to this “collective unconscious” and also a way to understand ourselfs and the world.

As for God answering prayers. I dont know. I know in great strife I at least try to pray and that there is a consolation in just that. Asking greater powers for help in a situation beyond my control. But if I may refer to the bible here (but I am NOT a bible scholar) I think it is even stated in the New Testament that one should never pray for what one wants (as God knows that already) and that is why one should just say the Lord’s Prayer.

I do live in the real world, and I do see what atheists see. There are some very disturbed people in this world with an unhealthy relationship to God and religion. As I often say: My faith not weaken by debating atheists, it is debating other Christians. Some are extremely emotionally unstable, with a nevrotic view on everything. But to each its own.

But what is interessting is how reductive atheist see theism. Its “angry Christians who belive in talking snakes”. They do not seem to understand that a theist can be a lot of things.

Fine, they do not belive, but atleast understand that a theist world view may NOT be as simplistic as they try to reduce it to be.

Anjelus 2 months ago
In general, I’d avoid forming opinions based on the people’s conduct. It’s like how the American and French Revolutions both came from the same underlying liberal philosophy; but only the French had the guillotine and the reign of terror. The French crazy of the 1790s doesn’t mean the philosophy was wrong, and we can see the big difference when we compare with the Americans before them.

“Atheism” isn’t really a thing, it’s just “No God-ism.” A person who is a “No God-ist” can be any kind of person at all, depending on the ideology his internal vacuum has been filled with. He could be an utterly depraved nihilist or an eloquent, rationalist philosopher with a strong moral code. Similarly, someone can be a cultural Christian without ever having studied Christ in his life. What we call ourselves does matter, but it matters more whether our actions fit the name. That’s why Justin Martyr, a 2nd century Roman-Christian writer, could say that “even Socrates knew Christ.”

So far as prayer goes, Jesus in the NT is actually the #1 prayer guy, who prays before each and every major decision he takes.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Anjelus I agree 🙂

LogosTheo s2 months ago
+Mouthy Buddha You sound like a fundamentalist version of an atheist. I have lots of reasons to believe that materialism as philosophy is irrational, but don’t attack the intelligence of people who hold to it.

Hurling Camogie 2 months ago
LogosTheos “Fundamentalist Atheist” is about as real as the fake word “Islamophobia” which is a neologism used for the purpose of silencing crictics. Funny, saw what you did there, but it doesn’t work. Andy Ace has it backwards. All religion is founded on ignorant, outmoded, superstitious belief. This isn’t rocket science so if you feel your intellect is being insulted, good, because it is. So shame on you.

Andy Ace 1 month ago
+Nihil Sum Did you bother reading any of the 31 comments below my original one or did you just have to preach this argument Ad nauseam?

American Heritage Dictionary: “an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion.”

I have allready addressed this MANY times. We are beyond this point now.

John Doe 3 weeks ago
Wrong. Religion is fucking retarded.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
“This is the pop-culture I was talking about. The many memes. When a christian is portrayed in movies he is often seen as suspect, ignorant and bigoted. ”

No I am talking about actual religious people that I know or see in my hometown. They believe ridiculous anti-science and choose faith(believing with no evidence) over sound reason and rational conclusions.

“Historically the greatest thinkers were theist or christian in some way. That may have been because of the zeitgeist. But a zeitgeist (be it theist or atheist) does not dictate right or wrong. The greatest thinkers have been theist up until the last 20 years. Kant, Descartes, Jung, Orwell, Einstein.”

Historically most people have been believers(as far as we can tell, although nonbelievers often could not voice their unbelief). Aquinas formed his worldview of the knowledge available back then – which at the time, theism was the best/most logical answer. We now know things that make theism impossible to believe. Einstein very specifically said he believed only in a Spinoza god, which would not qualify him for what you talking about; since you talking about organised religion, not deism.

“So its NOT “rational to assume MOST of them offer these weak arguments” its ignorant to assume that.”

No, Aquinas, Aristotle, Epicurus, Jung etc did not have the information that we now currently have. Their arguments not only might seem weak for theism, but will almost certainly contain things that we now know to be false.

This isn’t the same as saying “all religious people are stupid”. I would never say that. A strong believing Christian sequenced my genome a couple months ago, he is alot smarter than I am or care to be, but when it comes to theism, he knows not to argue with me because him being smart doesn’t make the ridiculous claims of theism any less ridiculous.

I highly recommend you read God is not Great by C Hitchens, its an eye opener to theists and its respectful. It doesn’t call you dumb etc. Its just talks facts. Theism, particularly monotheism has opposed free inquiry for thousands of years – for good reason. Alternative worldviews often offered better explanations. Thus why Christians tried to destroy Atomism – and very nearly did, only one copy of “De Rerum Natura(On the Nature of Things)” by Lucretius survived after Christian fanatics tried to destroy his works.

One can only guess at what works weren’t so luckily to survive. Thanks to his work surviving, we know people have formulated the atomic theory before Jesus was even born. But we very nearly didn’t know that.

And let nobody say that it is over – Ayaan Hirsi Ali is being protested by Muslim women groups for voicing her concerns about the spread of Islam. Once again, religion is trying to choke to free inquiry.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
“You sound like a fundamentalist version of an atheist. I have lots of reasons to believe that materialism as philosophy is irrational, but don’t attack the intelligence of people who hold to it.”

Do materialists have a long history of chocking free inquiry and stopping science and reason and facts from spreading? Do materialists tell you you cannot be moral if you don’t believe as they do? Do materialists cut the top of babies penis’ off thinking that God told them to do so?

Your comparison hold no weight at all. The claims of the religious are immoral, not just wrong. The claims of materialist, arguably wrong, however, not so immoral. I don’t think a materialist has ever killed someone because of his materialist beliefs.

Its just a non comparison sorry.

Andy Ace 3 weeks ago (edited)
+John Doe
You say
“Wrong. Religion is fucking retarded.”

Great rebuttal. The use of logic and evidence for your views put me in my place. I stand corrected. I also think everyone else can see the great power of atheist thinking here. Very good! A+

+Nondual Contrarian

you say
“No I am talking about actual religious people that I know or see in my hometown. They believe ridiculous anti-science and choose faith(believing with no evidence) over sound reason and rational conclusions. ”

And I see angry people who write “Wrong. Religion is fucking retarded.” and think that is being rational and believing WITH evidence. We all take many things on faith. But where theist take things on faith from the bible or from the priest, atheist take things from faith from scientists and fellow atheists.

As for Christians becoming anti-science (although how representative this is to reality is disputable) atheists have much to blame as they have hijacked science and claimed it for themselves.

you say
“No, Aquinas, Aristotle, Epicurus, Jung etc did not have the information that we now currently have. ”

I guess I have to take that on faith… But no… That is wrong. Jung is not that old. We have had great technological advances after Jung, but not scientific discoveries.

TheOlzee 3 weeks ago
Andy Ace he doesn’t need to show evidence that god is utter BS YOU need to show evidence that it’s real. And not one person has ever been able to do it or even come close Saying “religion is retarded” is one of the best rebuttal to such nonsense that’s been squashed many many times before.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago (edited)
+Andy Ace Firstly, your reply to John Doe was freaking hilarious! I can’t stand atheists or theists who just knock the other belief system and don’t present why. Its a waste of everyones time.

“And I see angry people who write “Wrong. Religion is fucking retarded.” and think that is being rational and believing WITH evidence. We all take many things on faith. But where theist take things on faith from the bible or from the priest, atheist take things from faith from scientists and fellow atheists. ”

No doubt there are atheists who say stuff like that, though I don’t see them as often as you do. Likewise, believe me, there are theists that do the same in reverse and you don’t see them much.

As for taking things on faith, I disagree. Atheists don’t need faith. Faith is believing without evidence yet science is based off of empirical evidence.

“As for Christians becoming anti-science (although how representative this is to reality is disputable) atheists have much to blame as they have hijacked science and claimed it for themselves.”

I disagree again. Atheists didn’t claim science, science simply tells us about the world and we don’t live in a theistic world, thus science points away from theism. How much this represents reality can even alluded to by the very things I mentioned. The fact that Christian fanatics, thousands of years ago tried to destroy atomism and the fact that some Christians TODAY insist that we walked the earth as the same time as the dinosaurs is atleast some evidence in my favour. To be a believing theist(not exclusive to Christianity), certain science must be denied. Indeed, to be anything close to a theist, believing in the afterlife or the soul or the actual resurrection is a blatant denial of empirical evidence. Atheist do not take this kind of faith. Perhaps we trust scienctists that are smarter than us due to a lack of understanding or time that they are right in their findings. However science has been set up to check itself repeatedly. Science is the one place you get points for proving yourself wrong. Peer review systems etc stress for actual truth more than any religious system ever has, or would want to; for obvious reasons.

“I guess I have to take that on faith… But no… That is wrong. Jung is not that old. We have had great technological advances after Jung, but not scientific discoveries.”

I must plead ignorance to Jung, I shouldn’t have included his name. I am not familiar with his work yet, still getting through Greek philosophy and Aquinas etc. Jung is on the list though.

I am 100% correct about the others though. Had I lived in the days of Aquinas or Spinoza(another great case as to how religion evades truth and persecutes free expression) I would have been a believer in some sort of God, perhaps even a theistic intervening God. We simply didn’t have better models of the world. And even if we did, you have to go to an actual library and know what to look for and certain works only existed in certain libraries etc. Nowadays, I sit at my PC and I have more information at my finger tips than all of those great thinkers combined. This is not at all to insult them, its simply a fact.

Thanks for the response 🙂

EDIT: Peterson is one the main reasons I want to read Jung. I love alot of Jordans work. I love CS Lewis’ books. I love reading Aristotle talk about God. I’m not at all anti-religious people, I am anti-religion. Or anti-theistic to be more accurate. Possibly anti-deistic.
Show less

John Doe 3 weeks ago
+Nondual Contrarian

> +Andy Ace Firstly, your reply to John Doe was freaking hilarious! I can’t stand atheists or theists who just knock the other belief system and don’t present why. Its a waste of everyones time.

#1 Atheism is not a belief system. It is a lack of belief. You seem dumb tho.

#2 Atheism is the default position. The burden of proof is not on me. And also religion being retarded is self-evident.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
+John Dee

“#1 Atheism is not a belief system. It is a lack of belief. You seem dumb tho.”

Thanks, I totally didn’t know that. Its just wording, I meant I cannot stand people who attack other people based off of their belief or lackthere of.

“#2 Atheism is the default position. The burden of proof is not on me. And also religion being retarded is self-evident.”
Nobody is asking for evidence of a deity in this sub thread, why are you so quick to play the burden of proof card? I am an atheist too but do you have any idea how boring your replies are? And not useful. Do you really think calling religion retarded is going to make a theist deeply question there own beliefs? Its as useless as when a theist tries to put the burden of proof onto us. Its just a comment that if I see, I ignore. Theists will do the same to your comment. Thus you are wasting your time.

Also its self evident to you. It might not be to others. Imagine you were indoctrinated at a young age and now some pesky atheist is calling what you and your family believe in retarded? Granted, the actual doctrines are borderline retarded; thus why children see through them. But if you think every believers beliefs are as simple and black and white as the scriptures, you’re only displaying your own ignorance. Especially on a video about Peterson, who I think has a very interesting take on religion, even though I disagree with him; his views are not retarded, they are probably more nuanced than yours and mine combined – and I’m well read on the topic.
Show less

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
+TheOlzee “Saying “religion is retarded” is one of the best rebuttal to such nonsense that’s been squashed many many times before.”

Your opinion is retarded. See how useless that was for everyone involved? Can you see why theists cringe when they read that kind of stuff. I am an atheist, in fact an anti-theist but a non constructive comment isn’t a rebuttal at all, let alone “the best” rebuttal. Its simply a waste of time. It will convince nobody and make nobody challenge their own views. Its literally the worst reply. Saying nothing at all would be more useful; which speaks volumes about how utterly stupid and useless that assertion was.
Show less

John Doe 3 weeks ago (edited)
+Nondual Contrarian Wow, talk about religion apologetics.

> I meant I cannot stand people who attack other people based off of their belief or lackthere of.

Is it really hard to understand why somebody would “attack” belief systems that are so toxic and baseless as religion? Wow, I could not think of a more deserving belief system to “attack.”

> I am an atheist too but do you have any idea how boring your replies are? And not useful. Do you really think calling religion retarded is going to make a theist deeply question there own beliefs? Its as useless as when a theist tries to put the burden of proof onto us. Its just a comment that if I see, I ignore. Theists will do the same to your comment. Thus you are wasting your time.

Non-sensical religious arguments have been smashed again and again and again. There is no point in repeating. Call a spade a spade.

> Also its self evident to you. It might not be to others. Imagine you were indoctrinated at a young age and now some pesky atheist is calling what you and your family believe in retarded?

I’d say man up. Indoctrination is the lack of critical thinking, and therefore is the reason that children are vulnerable. This is no such defense for adults, unless you imply that they lack critical thinking.

> But if you think every believers beliefs are as simple and black and white as the scriptures, you’re only displaying your own ignorance.

Wrong. They made their choice to believe.

> Especially on a video about Peterson, who I think has a very interesting take on religion, even though I disagree with him; his views are not retarded, they are probably more nuanced than yours and mine combined – and I’m well read on the topic.

His views are not substantiated. His views are retarded.

TheOlzee 3 weeks ago (edited)
Nondual Contrarian no you’re wrong it’s the best because religion and god have been beaten time and time again. For me to keep arguing and debating with believers literally makes me an idiot. It is retarded, period!!!! Maybe you’re somewhat new to all this but like I said atheists have been making religious people look like the fools that they are for years and years. To argument with them makes me look silly. It’s like a parent arguing with a child. You just don’t do it cos the child is to stupid. Am i being clear here? Any argument I give back or any atheist gives back is a luxury to the believers.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
+John Doe Asking for a reasonable conversation instead of thoughtless assertions makes me a religion apologist?

“Is it really hard to understand why somebody would “attack” belief systems that are so toxic and baseless as religion? Wow, I could not think of a more deserving belief system to “attack.” ”

Learn how to actually debate then. Alchemy is retarded but saying that to someone who believes is not going to help. Make an actual criticism. Notice how Hitch, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Russell, Bolton, Shermer, Barker, Murray, Dursan, Bush, Krauss, Flynn, PZ Myers, Hirsi Ali, Carrier, Grayling, Sagan and Atkins don’t ever sell books saying “religion is retarded”? Notice how they construct actual useful and interesting arguments and view points? You’re failing at doing that. Hitch attacked religion perfectly without ever calling it retarded. You’re not smart for calling it retarded, you’re immature. If that makes me a religious apologist, than so be it.

“Non-sensical religious arguments have been smashed again and again and again. There is no point in repeating. Call a spade a spade.”

Its always worth establishing first principles. How do I know what I already think I know, except that I’ve always believed it? I enjoy these arguments, as do many; if you’re too simplistic to make an actual rebuttal, don’t say anything. Your comment is a waste of time for everyone.

“I’d say man up. Indoctrination is the lack of critical thinking, and therefore is the reason that children are vulnerable. This is no such defense for adults, unless you imply that they lack critical thinking.”

Beliefs carry over from childhood to adulthood. Granted its an unjustified belief in my opinion, however that wouldn’t mean I should just call it retarded. Why bother calling it that? Like what is your actual reason? No theist will ever read it and think “oh wow, very insightful”. Its just for your ego so you can feel smart yeah?

“Wrong. They made their choice to believe.”

Ignorance is bliss. People, even the very person of which this video is based, do not necessarily believe in the black and white literal truth of scripture just because they call themselves Christian/Muslim etc. Sure people choose to believe, but it doesn’t mean they all believe the exact same thing in fact, I am yet to meet 2 theists that agree on everything. Again, you’re only showing your ignorance to reality here. People will pick and choose certain things that they believe for whatever reason. Its not black and white and its not as simple as you’re attempting to make out.

“His views are not substantiated. His views are retarded.”

How are his views not substantiated(its unsubstantiated by the way)? He doesn’t even believe in a revealed God that intervenes from my understanding of his views(although I could be wrong). He is very very very far from theism, in fact most Christians would probably say he isn’t a “real” Christian. Plus, even if he believes some things dogmatically despite science, his views aren’t retarded. They might be wrong and perhaps unjustified in some cases, but retarded? If we’re calling Petersons interpretation of Christianity retarded, what word are we going to use on a fundamentalist? I’m starting to get a feeling that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%, must have retarded views. This is telling, not about the “retarded views” but about you.

John Doe 3 weeks ago (edited)
> Learn how to actually debate then. Alchemy is retarded but saying that to someone who believes is not going to help. Make an actual criticism. Notice how Hitch, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Russell, Bolton, Shermer, Barker, Murray, Dursan, Bush, Krauss, Flynn, PZ Myers, Hirsi Ali, Carrier, Grayling, Sagan and Atkins don’t ever sell books saying “religion is retarded”? Notice how they construct actual useful and interesting arguments and view points? You’re failing at doing that. Hitch attacked religion perfectly without ever calling it retarded. You’re not smart for calling it retarded, you’re immature. If that makes me a religious apologist, than so be it.

#1 I never said I was not up for debating arguments.

#2 It is not immature. It is blunt. And so what? Your point sounds like an appeal to emotion.

> Its always worth establishing first principles. How do I know what I already think I know, except that I’ve always believed it? I enjoy these arguments, as do many; if you’re too simplistic to make an actual rebuttal, don’t say anything. Your comment is a waste of time for everyone.

But I have not seen a good argument yet. And I use the principles of science.
Your comment seems irrelevant

> Beliefs carry over from childhood to adulthood. Granted its an unjustified belief in my opinion, however that wouldn’t mean I should just call it retarded.

On the contrary, I feel it is justified.

> Why bother calling it that? Like what is your actual reason?

It is accurate.

> No theist will ever read it and think “oh wow, very insightful”. Its just for your ego so you can feel smart yeah?.

If they give any arguments, I can debate them.

> Ignorance is bliss. People, even the very person of which this video is based, do not necessarily believe in the black and white literal truth of scripture just because they call themselves Christian/Muslim etc. Sure people choose to believe, but it doesn’t mean they all believe the exact same thing in fact, I am yet to meet 2 theists that agree on everything. Again, you’re only showing your ignorance to reality here. People will pick and choose certain things that they believe for whatever reason. Its not black and white and its not as simple as you’re attempting to make out.

Red herring. And a straw man, since I never said they must believe all of religious dogma.

> How are his views not substantiated(its unsubstantiated by the way)?

#1 Because there is no evidence for religion. #2 Not substantiated is valid English.

> He doesn’t even believe in a revealed God that intervenes from my understanding of his views(although I could be wrong). He is very very very far from theism, in fact most Christians would probably say he isn’t a “real” Christian.

Red herring.

> Plus, even if he believes some things dogmatically despite science, his views aren’t retarded. They might be wrong and perhaps unjustified in some cases, but retarded?

Yes.

> If we’re calling Petersons interpretation of Christianity retarded, what word are we going to use on a fundamentalist?

More retarded.

> I’m starting to get a feeling that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%, must have retarded views. This is telling, not about the “retarded views” but about you.

If someone uses good arguments against me, I would not say that they are retarded.

Timothy Stratton 4 days ago
To me, that’s not necessarily an insulting statement, but rather a statement of awe and wonder how someone who could think so much differently than him can nonetheless be very rational and respectable.

Andy Ace 3 days ago (edited)
+Internet Contrarian: Is it just me or has youtube made it more difficult to address people? Why does every web page hate debate now? Youtube was the best place if you ask me for debate. But they have put so many nails in the wall now its annoying. Moving on.

This became a long reply. Sorry about that.

you say
“Firstly, your reply to John Doe was freaking hilarious! ”
Thank you. One needs a bit of humor in debate or one is going to get grey hairs quickly. Everyone thinks their opinion is the best one, and seldom do one experience people addmitting one was wrong. The few times I do it, its often mindblowing to the other debater. Its also funny how admitting one may be wrong on one part (i.e “You have a point there”) often result in the other stating my entire argument or idea is wrong. So I guess there is a reason why people dont do it that much. Moving on.

you say
“No doubt there are atheists who say stuff like that, though I don’t see them as often as you do.”

Be the devils advocate or “troll” as its popularly referred to now and you may have the same experience I have. Find an atheist video, state an argument of pro-theism and let the fun ensue.

you say
“Likewise, believe me, there are theists that do the same in reverse and you don’t see them much. ”

Oh, I know. As I often say “My faith is often more questioned by debating other theist than atheists”. I remeber having a great debate with an adventist (they think the sabbath is on saturday) of how important it was to have the sabbath on saturday. I call them “nevrotic christians”. Christians who think God is a personification of their nevortisim. That the most mundane things (like what they you keep holy) is important.

you say
“Atheists didn’t claim science, science simply tells us about the world and we don’t live in a theistic world, thus science points away from theism.”

I disagree. Perhaps I am older than you, perhaps its cuz I am from Europe, perhaps we just have different experience. But I grew up in a time when evolution was NOT in battle with religion. We were presented with a scientific explanation and a symbolic/metaphorical one. There were no either/or. This came post 2000. A false dichotomy. There is no EITHER like philosophy or religion. Either like science or art! Either like truth or religion.

I blame Doc Dawkins for this. But there could be other mechanisms as well. Perhaps there ARE anti-science Christians in the US that started it. In EUROPE this battle wasnt there until post-2000. Science doesnt point away from theism. In fact, science has saturated with Christian presuppositions (i.e mechanical world view and concepts of truth). Its just that many atheists speak from ignorance. But this ignorance gives them strength to belive they have the best cards. I guess its called “Dunning–Kruger effect”. The less you know, the more you think you know.

You say
“As for taking things on faith, I disagree. Atheists don’t need faith. Faith is believing without evidence yet science is based off of empirical evidence. ”

Observing atheists, they keep believing that their position is a neutral and rational one. That becoming atheist cleanses them of “faith” and irrationality. Speaking with atheists it comes up again and again this belief that saying you are atheist somehow makes you a part of the science community and even a scientist. I remeber onces talking to a high-school drop-out who also were atheists, and he spoke of some “fun fact” from reddit about a meteor that would land on earth at a very precise point OR not hit earth at all. I asked him “How come they know that it will land a spesific place on earth or NOT hit earth at all and he replied “*We* know that”.

“*We* know that”. Who is “we”? It seem to imply that he was a part of a science community, but he was a high school drop out.

Let me bring up another example. The internett guy I like to call “the angry atheist” or Amazing Atheist as people know him. I dont know much about his merrits. Perhaps he is a scientist. I feel he may NOT be. But him being atheist automatically to some make him a representation of “rationality”. He then makes a claim that youtube the word “atheist” is banned on youtube. He changed his name and then he wanted to change it back but couldnt. So now somehow the word “atheist” was banned from youtube. This was then spread trough the quote-unquote “sceptic community”. It was false. But it was a good example of two things: 1) That being an atheist automatically makes your views have merit and 2) how many people were willing to take his CLAIMS on faith.

That is what FAITH is. Taking something for granted “just because”. And atheist does it all the time to. They are NOT cleansed of bias or human religious nature.

You say
“The fact that Christian fanatics, thousands of years ago tried to destroy atomism and the fact that some Christians TODAY insist that we walked the earth as the same time as the dinosaurs is atleast some evidence in my favour. ”

I dont know how representative this is for Christians. I know there are some who make that claim, but if they represent 1%, 10% or 90% of christian community I do not know. I would say its closer to 1% though. I dont know how great representation of a group it has to be, to be valid, but I would claim there are more theistic scientists then what is popular to believe in atheist communities.

You say
“To be a believing theist(not exclusive to Christianity), certain science must be denied.”

Again, I claim this to be a false dichotomy. What part of science must be denied? Take evolution. To all Christians I know evolution was how God did it. The non-symbolic and non-aesthetic explanation of how we came to be. The bible is not a scientific text. Its written for other reasons than science. Again, its not SCIENCE or RELIGION. Its not SCIENCE or ART. We see this also in art and entertainment debates. Sci-fi HAS to be scientifically accurate to some people. Like how Jurassic World didnt have dinosaurs with feathers. This rigid approach to art from a certain community is fascinating. Kind of close to how Christians approach art before.

I made a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI7TwnMEwkg

Andy Ace 3 days ago (edited)
My comment was removed. Youtube is working hard against debate. It was as I feared.

Let me repost the comment without link to video:
“Is it just me or has youtube made it more difficult to address people? Why does every web page hate debate now? Youtube was the best place if you ask me for debate. But they have put so many nails in the wall now its annoying. Moving on.

This became a long reply. Sorry about that.

you say
“Firstly, your reply to John Doe was freaking hilarious! ”
Thank you. One needs a bit of humor in debate or one is going to get grey hairs quickly. Everyone thinks their opinion is the best one, and seldom do one experience people addmitting one was wrong. The few times I do it, its often mindblowing to the other debater. Its also funny how admitting one may be wrong on one part (i.e “You have a point there”) often result in the other stating my entire argument or idea is wrong. So I guess there is a reason why people dont do it that much. Moving on.

you say
“No doubt there are atheists who say stuff like that, though I don’t see them as often as you do.”

Be the devils advocate or “troll” as its popularly referred to now and you may have the same experience I have. Find an atheist video, state an argument of pro-theism and let the fun ensue.

you say
“Likewise, believe me, there are theists that do the same in reverse and you don’t see them much. ”

Oh, I know. As I often say “My faith is often more questioned by debating other theist than atheists”. I remeber having a great debate with an adventist (they think the sabbath is on saturday) of how important it was to have the sabbath on saturday. I call them “nevrotic christians”. Christians who think God is a personification of their nevortisim. That the most mundane things (like what they you keep holy) is important.

you say
“Atheists didn’t claim science, science simply tells us about the world and we don’t live in a theistic world, thus science points away from theism.”

I disagree. Perhaps I am older than you, perhaps its cuz I am from Europe, perhaps we just have different experience. But I grew up in a time when evolution was NOT in battle with religion. We were presented with a scientific explanation and a symbolic/metaphorical one. There were no either/or. This came post 2000. A false dichotomy. There is no EITHER like philosophy or religion. Either like science or art! Either like truth or religion.

I blame Doc Dawkins for this. But there could be other mechanisms as well. Perhaps there ARE anti-science Christians in the US that started it. In EUROPE this battle wasnt there until post-2000. Science doesnt point away from theism. In fact, science has saturated with Christian presuppositions (i.e mechanical world view and concepts of truth). Its just that many atheists speak from ignorance. But this ignorance gives them strength to belive they have the best cards. I guess its called “Dunning–Kruger effect”. The less you know, the more you think you know.

You say
“As for taking things on faith, I disagree. Atheists don’t need faith. Faith is believing without evidence yet science is based off of empirical evidence. ”

Observing atheists, they keep believing that their position is a neutral and rational one. That becoming atheist cleanses them of “faith” and irrationality. Speaking with atheists it comes up again and again this belief that saying you are atheist somehow makes you a part of the science community and even a scientist. I remeber onces talking to a high-school drop-out who also were atheists, and he spoke of some “fun fact” from reddit about a meteor that would land on earth at a very precise point OR not hit earth at all. I asked him “How come they know that it will land a spesific place on earth or NOT hit earth at all and he replied “*We* know that”.

“*We* know that”. Who is “we”? It seem to imply that he was a part of a science community, but he was a high school drop out.

Let me bring up another example. The internett guy I like to call “the angry atheist” or Amazing Atheist as people know him. I dont know much about his merrits. Perhaps he is a scientist. I feel he may NOT be. But him being atheist automatically to some make him a representation of “rationality”. He then makes a claim that youtube the word “atheist” is banned on youtube. He changed his name and then he wanted to change it back but couldnt. So now somehow the word “atheist” was banned from youtube. This was then spread trough the quote-unquote “sceptic community”. It was false. But it was a good example of two things: 1) That being an atheist automatically makes your views have merit and 2) how many people were willing to take his CLAIMS on faith.

That is what FAITH is. Taking something for granted “just because”. And atheist does it all the time to. They are NOT cleansed of bias or human religious nature.

You say
“The fact that Christian fanatics, thousands of years ago tried to destroy atomism and the fact that some Christians TODAY insist that we walked the earth as the same time as the dinosaurs is atleast some evidence in my favour. ”

I dont know how representative this is for Christians. I know there are some who make that claim, but if they represent 1%, 10% or 90% of christian community I do not know. I would say its closer to 1% though. I dont know how great representation of a group it has to be, to be valid, but I would claim there are more theistic scientists then what is popular to believe in atheist communities.

You say
“To be a believing theist(not exclusive to Christianity), certain science must be denied.”

Again, I claim this to be a false dichotomy. What part of science must be denied? Take evolution. To all Christians I know evolution was how God did it. The non-symbolic and non-aesthetic explanation of how we came to be. The bible is not a scientific text. Its written for other reasons than science. Again, its not SCIENCE or RELIGION. Its not SCIENCE or ART. We see this also in art and entertainment debates. Sci-fi HAS to be scientifically accurate to some people. Like how Jurassic World didnt have dinosaurs with feathers. This rigid approach to art from a certain community is fascinating. Kind of close to how Christians approach art before. ”

Andy Ace 3 days ago
+THeOlzee
you say

“he doesn’t need to show evidence that god is utter BS YOU need to show evidence that it’s real.”

This is an example of atheist religious nature. If I claim one thing and you another. Why is it that only one part has to give evidence?

-Then in the spamfilter-

Uten navn 4
Andy Ace 3 days ago
+John Doe. Speak for yourself. I did not end up in the spamfilter as you did 😉

John Doe 3 days ago (edited)
+Andy Ace You’re salty, brah.

Religion is schizophrenia.

Andy Ace 3 days ago
John Doe Oki-doki.

John Doe 3 days ago
+Andy Ace REKT

Internet Contrarian 3 days ago
+John Doe Wow, now I see why theists always accuse atheists of being reductionist.

John Doe 3 days ago (edited)
+Internet Contrarian Too bad atheism isn’t reductionist, you dumb fuck.

Internet Contrarian 3 days ago
+Andy Ace I really don’t get this point, can you help clear up my confusion?

“Science doesnt point away from theism. In fact, science has saturated with Christian presuppositions (i.e mechanical world view and concepts of truth). Its just that many atheists speak from ignorance. But this ignorance gives them strength to belive they have the best cards. I guess its called “Dunning–Kruger effect”. The less you know, the more you think you know. ”

Are you saying any worldview that has “truth” in it, is based of Christian presuppositions? You’re aware thats not how truth works right? Regardless of Christianity or not, truth exists. Things are true or false. I’d say science really does point away from theism. I’m so sorry, I can’t give any ground at all here. Christianity has taught the most abject nonsense for thousands of years and still, STILL today people are trying to sneak it into the education system etc; be it intelligent design or that we trod the earth with dinosaurs. For thousands of years Christianity taught that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Could not have been more wrong.

Science says the afterlife is false. Theism says, the afterlife exists.
Science says the soul isn’t real. Theism says we all harbour immaterial souls.
Science says naturalistic world models work. Theism asserts deities and supernatural entities.

“There is no EITHER like philosophy or religion. Either like science or art! Either like truth or religion. ”

True but either it is true or it isn’t. I would say Christianity is not true and thus quite useless. Peterson fans harp on about esoteric meaning found in the bible – I have a simple reply: Fine, take the good parts from he theism and drop the theism. Whatever is good in Christianity should, in principle be good even when secularised.

Furthermore, regardless of what profound esoteric meaning you find, I kind of don’t care. Even if I really wanted to agree with you, my conscious would speak out. Christianity has plagued our species. Think of all the great men and women free thinkers that we oppressed by it. Condemned and forced to believe; punished if they didn’t. I say whatever meaning you get from theism, it isn’t worth what we went through thanks to these books. Will you be so quick to defend the quran? Do you give a single fuck about the esoteric meaning of the quran(given that in the last 24 hours 2 Islamic terrorists have died shouting allah ackbar, being taught fromt he quran of course)?

“Observing atheists, they keep believing that their position is a neutral and rational one. That becoming atheist cleanses them of “faith” and irrationality.”

Well it is a neutral position technically. It makes no claims at all. Its a lack of a belief. Not a positive assertion. Thus alot of atheists will remain neutral as to not pick up the burden of proof(because theists will often say soemthing like “well how do you explain the start of the universe than”, as if me not being able to explain the start of the universe proves that it must have been made by God etc).

“Speaking with atheists it comes up again and again this belief that saying you are atheist somehow makes you a part of the science community and even a scientist. I remeber onces talking to a high-school drop-out who also were atheists, and he spoke of some “fun fact” from reddit about a meteor that would land on earth at a very precise point OR not hit earth at all. I asked him “How come they know that it will land a spesific place on earth or NOT hit earth at all and he replied “*We* know that”.
“*We* know that”. Who is “we”? It seem to imply that he was a part of a science community, but he was a high school drop out. ”

He probably means “we” as in humans. Like how “we” know the earth is round, not flat. “We” humans “know” that, even though some people contend it. The atheist was probably alluding to an argument of demonstrability: it may not be said that only the natural exists(how would I know). It may be said only the natural can be demonstrated to exist. For this reason and this reason alone, you will run into a lot of issues with theism. Atheists commonly claim philosophical naturalism – a mistake in my view; but alot are smartening up and getting behind methodological naturalism, which has already left theism in the curb.

How can I say methodological naturalism has left theism in the curb? Goto any science department. Go to any physics institute, goto NASA, goto a doctor/hospital. They ALL use naturalism in the thing they actually need to work. The guy flying your plane never appeals to God for it. No doctor ever appeals to the supernatural. This is because we know naturalism works.
They don’t show graphs in science to then appeal to something supernatural. Its always explained by the natural; which is afterall, much more beautiful and much more elegant than the idea of monotheism.

” 1) That being an atheist automatically makes your views have merit and 2) how many people were willing to take his CLAIMS on faith. ”

1) well of course it doesn’t, there are tons of retarded atheists, John Doe is one. However, he doesn’t claim to be here under a supernatural divine plan – he doesn’t claim to know Gods mind with NO EVIDENCE. Perhaps he is more rational than you?
2) taking someones opinion on the internet without evidence is slightly different to insiting that the entire cosmos was made with us in mind without evidence. And that I should snip my babies penis. And that I can’t sleep with men etc. Faith is a good thing in religious groups. It isn’t a good thing in science. Doubt is actually a sin for crying out loud.

Plus, I’m not taking something on faith if my doctor tells me it. I’m listening to a better, more educated on the topic world view and taking the advise. The theist however believes a raw belief because of a book written 2000 years ago. Again. the difference between having “faith” in a scientific study that I havn’t read, but no less trust is NOT the same as saying I believe Jesus was born of a virgin and he was the literal son of God and I have no evidence. There is a HUGE difference. We can play semantics all day about how I technically take things on faith, but the difference is clear.

“Again, I claim this to be a false dichotomy. What part of science must be denied? Take evolution. To all Christians I know evolution was how God did it. The non-symbolic and non-aesthetic explanation of how we came to be. The bible is not a scientific text. Its written for other reasons than science. Again, its not SCIENCE or RELIGION. Its not SCIENCE or ART. We see this also in art and entertainment debates. Sci-fi HAS to be scientifically accurate to some people. Like how Jurassic World didnt have dinosaurs with feathers. This rigid approach to art from a certain community is fascinating. Kind of close to how Christians approach art before. ”

I disagree. I’m talking theology not what modern secular xtains think. Christianity teaches that Earth was made in 7 days, around 10000 years ago. Maybe 6000? I understand YOU don’t think that, well done, you’ve used your brain, but Christianity holds it as that. That seems to be anti-science in my submission. Perhaps it isn’t. Perhaps it is metaphorical? Well for along time they didn’t know that and were deluded.

And yes yes I know. Its quite clear that God created us out of Dirt. It explicitly says that. The science contradicts that, so then evolution just becomes “gods plan”. So its an un-ending tautology. Infinitely explaining. It can’t be disproved. When evidence directly contradicts it, it simply morphs to the new evidence and still claims to be right. That is anti-science if anything ever is.

Internet Contrarian 3 days ago
+John Doe I know it isn’t, I am an atheist; my point was how reductionist your reply to me was. You think that the fact no argument FOR X exists, we can assert that we have disproved X. That is ridiculous and reductionist. Disproof requires positive evidence. You can’t disprove by saying “no argument for God convinced me”. You are actually why atheists get a bad wrap.

Rayn Gryphon 3 days ago (edited)
All science will be wrong in one thousand years. They will say, “Wow. They used silicon-based microchips and thought a giant explosion saw its shadow and conceived of a multiplicative order of evolutionary and, strangely, cybernetic proliferation of life and taxation. What if they just ate whole non-gluten organic food and spent more time with their children than it takes to drop them off at government-run detention centers and then enjoyed the levels of brain development that they and their mongoloid ancestors had for some reason eschewed for thousands of years?” For the primary strategic objective of all religious, state, mass, social, family, penal, prison, military and cult psychology (and psychosis) is to gain and improve a total monopoly upon all systems and organs of communication in a cybernetic-industrial society as religiously as scientifically kept poised upon a bloody if profitable brink of perpetual near collapse veritably at war with every natural instinct with which a child is born and to which we force our most vulnerable citizenry to conform under only the most Herculean duress, duress that could not possibly fail to stymie the courage and whole brain development of the most battle-hardened combat soldier (of “the sun”), let alone that of a wee child whose birth is converted to a transaction of goods or capital transferred from a water way (the womb) and rendered effectively non-living upon delivery by every scientific, medical, religious and legal genesis that ostensibly “free” human beings subsequently rely upon in order to coordinate themselves with every parameter and aspect of what is left of their life in death and death in life a pageant of glorified memento morte that billions of ostensibly well educated, spiritual and duly informed people simultaneously and symbiotically buy, sell, live for, die for, quibble over, worship, study, medicate, rebel against and prop up on the order of their own ability to breathe and fuck, eat, drink and shit.

Andy Ace 3 days ago
+Internet Contrarian
you say
” I really don’t get this point, can you help clear up my confusion?

“Science doesnt point away from theism…”

The history of science is long, and hasnt been as separated from religion (christianity) before, as now. During the scientific revolution there were three main philosophers of importance. Descartes, Kand & Hume. Only one of them was atheist (Hume was most likely an atheist) and he was the only one of the three who claimed that one can never know truth. These three philosophers are the basis of our understanding of truth and how we can know it. This is NOT “just” philosophy. They were important for the scientific revolution.

As for science, if you look at most universities in the western world, their mottos are usually something about God. I.e “Scientia et religio, ex uno fonte.” This is not a coincidence. It has to do with the fact that SCIENCE and faith hasnt been ad odds before the last 20-30 years do to aggressive atheist campaigning. We have known of evolutions for 200 (?) years, only the last 30 has this been synonymous with “there is no God”.

We are heavily saturated with christian belief even if we do not know it or recognize it. An atheist will say “Oh, my God!” when surprised. We talk of our souls even if we do not believe in the supernatural and concepts of good and evil stay with us even if there can be no such dichotomy if life is just being.

you say
“Science says the afterlife is false. Theism says, the afterlife exists.”
Where does science make that claim?

you say
“Science says the soul isn’t real. Theism says we all harbour immaterial souls. ”

Where has science made that claim?

you say
“Science says naturalistic world models work. Theism asserts deities and supernatural entities.”

Although science is bound by what is observable, does not mean they negate anything else.

you say
“True but either it is true or it isn’t.”

I may be half right. I may be a bit right. I may claim that there is a Christian God but it turns out it was a Jewish or Muslim or Non-denominal one. With complex world views on doesnt need to be completely right, to be right.

you say
” Christianity has plagued our species. Think of all the great men and women free thinkers that we oppressed by it. Condemned and forced to believe; punished if they didn’t. I say whatever meaning you get from theism, it isn’t worth what we went through thanks to these books. ”

Now, I am NOT a history buff. As Napoleon (may have) said “history is lies agreed upon”. But I think you need to go back to the history books there. I think you just got the atheist cliffnotes. Read about The Terror (french revolution). Understand that the dark ages was not as bad as people say, and even if it was it was not because of christianity. Do you know why we had the dark ages? Because the fall of Rome. Christianity was the thing that kept written language, and science up during this time. Then we have sovjet. Lots of horrible deeds done in the name of atheism there.

you say
“Will you be so quick to defend the quran? Do you give a single fuck about the esoteric meaning of the quran(given that in the last 24 hours 2 Islamic terrorists have died shouting allah ackbar, being taught fromt he quran of course)?”

Yes and no. I like to draw parallels to democracy when the “other religions” are drawn. I may support or not support Donald Trump. He won. Does that mean I now hate democracy if I didnt want him to win? Both republicans and democrats say they are “right”, should I then not vote?

That would be absurd. I am not a muslim. I take offence to many of the things they believe. In fact, many christians see Islam as a devils cult because so many things goes against Christians values and beliefs. They are allowed to lie, they are allowed to kill. Lots of stuff like that.

That being said, we do agree that there is a God, we just done agree on what God wants for us. Just like (hopefully) both democrats and republicans agree in democracy, they just dont agree on everything.

you say
“Plus, I’m not taking something on faith if my doctor tells me it. I’m listening to a better, more educated on the topic world view and taking the advise.”

You better question the doctor too. Many dont care and do not have the knowledge you have of your own medical history. I have more than once corrected mistaken diagnoses on my own health.

you say
“And yes yes I know. Its quite clear that God created us out of Dirt. It explicitly says that. The science contradicts that, so then evolution just becomes “gods plan”.”

Do they? Do you know what abiogenesis is?

Rayn Gryphon 3 days ago
You guys are fucked.

Internet Contrarian 2 days ago
“”Science says the afterlife is false. Theism says, the afterlife exists.”
Where does science make that claim?”

Physics. There is no way for the information that makes you “you” to exist beyond the decay of your brain. I can link studies for this if you like?

“”Science says the soul isn’t real. Theism says we all harbour immaterial souls. ”

Where has science made that claim?”

Every experiment ever done leads to naturalism. No evidence leads to a soul. 0. None.

“Although science is bound by what is observable, does not mean they negate anything else. ”

It does to me and anyone else who is rational. I can’t disprove flying space ants wearing top hats with lazer eyes. I rationally do not believe in them until there is evidence to support it.

“I may be half right. I may be a bit right. I may claim that there is a Christian God but it turns out it was a Jewish or Muslim or Non-denominal one. With complex world views on doesnt need to be completely right, to be right.”

Well you’d better hope its not Allah, he doesn’t exactly take kindly to those who worship other Gods.

“Now, I am NOT a history buff. As Napoleon (may have) said “history is lies agreed upon”. But I think you need to go back to the history books there. I think you just got the atheist cliffnotes. Read about The Terror (french revolution). Understand that the dark ages was not as bad as people say, and even if it was it was not because of christianity. Do you know why we had the dark ages? Because the fall of Rome. Christianity was the thing that kept written language, and science up during this time. Then we have sovjet. Lots of horrible deeds done in the name of atheism there. ”

Man cmon. I’ll argue soviet russia with you if you want, but why you jumping to that from my point? This isn’t a “atheism is better than theism” point I was making. It was that even if I wanted to be a theist, I would feel terrible given all the people who were silenced by the church. Not just monotheisms but belief in Gods has always oppressed people. Socrates was put to death for challenging the Gods. Spinoza was dis-communicated and cursed. Galileo was sentenced to death for saying the earth wasn’t the center(he was right). If you think even just those 3 cases were worth a belief in God, I struggle to see how you sleep at night.

“You better question the doctor too. Many dont care and do not have the knowledge you have of your own medical history. I have more than once corrected mistaken diagnoses on my own health. ”

Right well, semantics again. Asking the doctor for general information about your diagnoses is still technically taking it on faith. Technically, to be sure, you’d have to read alot of studies on many sicknesss’ and cures etc and work it out for yourself. No one has that kind of time(not for every scientific theory). So we take educated opinions on it. This is alot different to the faith that religious people have. Faith contradicts evidence often in terms of theism.

“Do they? Do you know what abiogenesis is?”

Again, semantics. Its clear in the bible we were created, not evolved. If you accept evolution, good for you; but it doesn’t mean thats secretly what Christianity taught. It has opposed scientific inquiry every step of the way.

Andy Ace 2 days ago
you say
“Physics. There is no way for the information that makes you “you” to exist beyond the decay of your brain. I can link studies for this if you like?”

Sure. I would love to read that. You cant post real links though or you will end up in spam filter. Just give me the titles of the documents. I can google.

you say
“Every experiment ever done leads to naturalism. No evidence leads to a soul. 0. None.”

As far as I know, science talk about consciousness. That is not the same as debunking the concept of soul. Science does not dedicate its field to debunking theistic claims.

you say
“It does to me and anyone else who is rational. ”

I think you should have stopped after “It does to me”.

you say
“I can’t disprove flying space ants wearing top hats with lazer eyes. I rationally do not believe in them until there is evidence to support it. ”

That is your choice. I guess you would be one of those who laughed at the guy who said the world was build up of tiny bits to. Of course I do not think there is “flying space ants wearing top hats with lazer eye”. That was not what we were debating. Do you see that? This is reductive and stupid.

Just because it cant be proven, just because we dont know it exists, does NOT mean it doesnt exist. Which leads up back to the Mexican standoff. I ask for evidence that there is no God. You ask for evidence that there is. I have non, you have non. Fine. Believe what you want to belive, just dont say its based on facts. It is not. Its based on a cultural zeitgeist. Which leads me back to my original posts.

you say
“Well you’d better hope its not Allah, he doesn’t exactly take kindly to those who worship other Gods. ”

I sure dont.

you say
“Man cmon. I’ll argue soviet russia with you if you want, but why you jumping to that from my point? This isn’t a “atheism is better than theism” point I was making.”

I think it was.

You said: “Christianity has plagued our species. Think of all the great men and women free thinkers that we oppressed by it. ” To quote the bible “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye,
but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye?” That was my point. “Christianity has plagued our species”. Atheist are far more blood thirsty when given the chance and more effektive as well. History is NOT on atheist´s side. Not only can they be violent in their prosecution of people they do not belive in, they arent very healthy to cultures as a whole either. It rots the moral and destroys a culture from the inside. For more you can read Émile Durkheim. Start with “suicide” and the term Anomie. Max Weber talked about the “Protestant work ethic”. Another example of how christianity is more healthy for western culture than atheism.

you say
“It was that even if I wanted to be a theist, I would feel terrible given all the people who were silenced by the church. ”

And if I was an atheist I would feel terrible about all the horrible things being done and THOUGHT by atheism. I have seen atheist defend pedophila, post-birth abortions, genocide, rape. Do you think a catholic priest who molested children would even DREAM of really defending it? Defend genocide? Defend rape? No. But what belief did the founder of NAMBLA have? Guess 😉

you say
“Socrates was put to death for challenging the Gods. ”

No he was not. He was put to death for corrupting the youth. There was no priesthood/Clergy sending him to death. This was politics, not religion.

you say
” Galileo was sentenced to death for saying the earth wasn’t the center”

Here are wikipedia fun facts for reflection:
“Galileo seriously considered the priesthood as a young man”
“following the death of Copernicus and before Galileo, heliocentrism was relatively uncontroversial”
“Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo’s writings combined religious and scientific objections and were fueled by political events.”

Take that last sentence. Study it abit. Notice something? You say RELIGION is to blame. But look… “combined religious and scientific objections and were fueled by political events” There were MORE factors into this.

you say
“Again, semantics. Its clear in the bible we were created, not evolved. ”

So we were created from dirt (abiogneisis) but there is no evolution in the bible? Hmm. So in the creation story we as humans do not evolve? Sure about that? What does the apple represent then?

“Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” Do monkeys feel shame for being naked?
After apple “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.”

This is evolution. They evolve both referentially but also symbolically.

Phillip Zverev 1 hour ago
Andy Ace dang…. nuff’ said

Andy Ace 2 seconds ago
+Rayn Gryphon I am sorry to tell you this, but you have ended up in the google spam-filter. I do not know why and it kind of scares me. We could all end up in this “web void” where our comments disappear.

 

Andy Ace 2 seconds ago
+Phillip Zverev I dont know if this is a compliment, but I will take it as one 😉

 

Movies

Blog 2.0 – Atheism! Dont need to prove their right, because you are wrong.

Advertisements

A fight against big brother or two minutes of hate?

20 Aug

Sooo…

I made a video…

………………….

And here are some youtube comments during debate.
OnlineDebate

I find it fascinating how some people are so passionate about defending bullying.
MoreOnlineDebate

Like we lose our freedom  if some children cant be cruel to other children. What is the end goal here, anyway?

 

Movies

Blog 2.0 – Dont agree with me? CUCK!!!