Sunday, April 4, 2010

Hate Group Atheism Has But One Argument

I am not speaking of all atheists, but the "Dawkies" the rude arrogant people who go on message boards to mock and ridicule, which has grown to be the big majority of atheists on message boards, they basically have but one argument. The only argument mot atheists on message boards make is argument from incredulity, "I refuse to believe therefore it can't be true. You can find all kinds of versions of this, from sophisticated arguments that appear to be real arguments, to foolish troll mockery. I present this as a lesson for the apologist becuase once you learn this fact and you start looking you find that most arguments atheist make on message boards (except for the minority good thinking type) are really just versions of this. I think it's becuase some people can't understand the distinction between real skepticism and incredulity. I think the cultist aspects of atheist ideology and hate group dynamics shape their thinking into a from of circular reasoning where they take basic skepticism and transform it into the refusal to ever believe no matter what.

Skepticism says "I don't know. I have a fishy feeling about this, if I dig deeper I bet I'll find a different story." I can't help but regard this attitude with some sympathy, having been an atheist myself and having been ripped off by numerous things in life. I think we all have a degree of skepticism in general and well we should. But we don't have to, and in fact can't afford to take it to the level that we say "nothing can be true, I refuse to believe no matter what." I think many atheists fall into this trap becuase the over all dynamics of the ideological movement pushes them in that direction. We see this in any number of ploys that they use. When you realize this is all they ever do you can see it in almost everything. That's sounds like an obsession but of cousre I mean almost everything they argue, and as I said, watch out for those exceptions because there are some bright one's out there who don't do this. An exampel of one who does not fall into this trap is Hermit, the loyal opposition reader of my blogs. I say that so he can't jump all over me about it ;=)

One of the major ploys in which they use it is the shift in argument. We see the shift all the time but don't' often catch it. We will be arguing about something let's say consciousness, and suddenly the other guy will say something like "O yea, but you have to admit the God of the OT is a blood thirsty tyrant and religion is based upon fairy tales." This is totally off topic and they slam it in there right out of the blue. what's going on at that point? It's a shift in argument not only because they can't answer your point, but also because your arguments are starting to get to them and they having cognitive dissonance. They don't what to say and go off script and most of them feel lost, so they start spouting propaganda lines in order to regain their equilibrium. We see fundamentalists do this too, where the other guy says something complex and they go "O I don't know about that but I do know Jesus loves you and has a plan for your life."

That ploy of the shift often invovles resorting to incredulity becasue it's a mainstay of their ideological world view. They want equilibrium since your arguemnts have set them off balance with cognitive dissonance so they seek equilibrium by reciting some tried and true slogans of tier ideology. A related ploy is the trollish answer. The trollish answer if mockery which they fall back upon when they have nothing left. there are times they employ mocking, for the real hateful ones who go there to bully they get a rush from bullying. For those the main objective is work things around so they can start their trollish answers. Other times they fall back on trollish mocking because they have no answer and they seek equilibrium and those are the sort of ideological slogans they know best.

here are several examples, all from CARM. Now remember, CARM has that new backwards board where the latest post is at the top of the que. So you have to number them and scroll to find the number. That means 34 will be further toward the bottom than 35:

Quote Originally Posted by Dr Pepper View Post 37
Things that were claimed 2000 years ago is not objective.

foolish. time doesn't make something subjective.


What verification that is subject to scientific investigation is around. Much history is not factual especially the supernatural.


you are using hasty generalizations. you can't write the evidence of Res off through guilty by association. You have to show specifically that each piece of evidence is unverified. you can't certainly can't dispute the finding of textual criticism on that basis.

All you have is more claims by people you never met who with the same biases that you have.
Texts are concrete. they last after the people who wrote them die the evdience textual critics turn up is objective and can be demonstrated scientifically. you are making hasty generalizations.

If your way of thinking about history were taken seriously there would be no history at all. No one would have a single history or book or class.


People want to believe and they want to convince others. This is all we get around here.
you are projecting your anti-religious mythology onto evidence you don't even know--you have no idea what I use as evidence, you are condemning it out of hand because you refuse to believe anything, evidence is irrelevant to you.

drop the smoke screen you don't care weather the evdience is objective or not, you refuse to believe it no matter what.

There is no way some will ever give up attempting to convince those of us here. I can imagine how the guys writing bible stories had the same agenda and motivation.
Your thinking about region is anything but scientific,. It's really quite emotional and filled hate and all sorts of unfounded assertions not in evidence.
you pride yourself on a being a scientist! You are just filled with hate.

Weak answer but I was fed up at that point. notice: (1) he does not deal with a single piece of evdience. (2) he doesn't show how  any evidence for the Resurrection is invalid or uncritical. This is an example of incredulity because he's really arguing "I don't have to look at the evidence, I know some histoircal evidence is bad, therefore, you's is because it's religous and I hate religion and refuse to believe it therefore it has to be wrong, therefore, your evidence must be bad.

the proof? He has no evidence. he did not present one single argument about any specific evidence. It's sounds like he's trying to make real arguments because he's using words like "scientific verification" but look at what he really says he basically just argues "I refuse to believe therefore  it can't be true." 

Here he is again, same thread

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper View Post 39

I don't even know where to begin. How can you get I am filled with hate because I think supernatural stories were made up. Even you agree with that assessment when it comes to other religions and mythology. 
 Actually the truth is I do not argue that about other faiths. I never argue that. I have never argued on a message board "Christian miracles are true but other faith's miracles are made up." He's just asserting that I do because they thinks all Christians must do that.

Scheese. It isn't even worth replying. Please don't get the last word AGAIN! So far you are 100% in that department.
 He said I always have to get the last word, I said "no I don't."


Your views on religion have no bearing on history, anthropology, theology, it's like you have not bothered to do anything more than read a bunch of atheist websites and regurgitate a bunch of atheist propaganda. Most of the stuff on those sites and their general view of religion is straw man based upon their hatred of fundies. Your views on religion are just silly stereo types.

the Scott Adams quote is a good example. It's not just stupid it' totally disproved by a huge body of empirical scientific work. The one thing those studies prove beyond the shadow of a doubt is that there nothing stupid about being religious.
I admit I was getting ticked at this guy. That answer is ok minus the personal tone but I could have made it a lost more devastating intellectually and less insulting if I had not been ticked off. Notice that his argument is still incredulity. what he says is ironic, "how do you get that I'm filled with hate just because I don't bleieve your idiotic fairy tales" that's essentially what he's saying. Again, no effort was made to analyze any evidence. It's all false becuase it has to be because he refuses to believe it.

same thread, different players.

Originally Posted by elwyn View Post 44

Ok but he did say he'd like to have a Christian's take on this. And if he feels as you do, about death, then both of you simply disagree with what Scripture says about Jesus' death and resurrection. I haven't seen any arguments yet, refuting what Scripture says about this. A denial isn't a refutation.
Nor do fairy tales that have been accepted without proof, "substance".
Atheist (don't remember who)

I can't refute that the jolly green giant doesn't exist somewhere.
what we have here is that shit argument ploy, no attempt to present any evidence or analysis of same, just shift to another point, but the point is a trollish answer of mocking so it's the combo I spoke of above, the shift to troll mode. That is incredulity becuase the basic motivation says "I refuse to believe no matter what the evidence says, so I don't need to give evidence, I will just mock you instead because your views are not worth a serious answer."

This kind of attitude is just replete throughout that thread. That is basically the only kind of answer they give in that thread. This is incredulity in action.

in his signature is a quote by Thomas Jefferson. That on the surface seems like it would be an intellectual answer and he probably has it there not only for the appeal to authority but also to dress up his post and make himself look smarter than he is. But examine the quote and we find, although Jefferson was not an atheist, he is making an argument from incredulity.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

That is merely saying I refuse to believe it so it can't be true, it's a bit more sophisticated because it's pinned upon the deistic philosophies of the enlightenment. That's not to say that Jefferson didn't have loads of intellectual content all over his writings, but oddly enough the atheists chose to highlight the incredulous statement.

post 43
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

this quote early in the thread (backwards order) was about the orignial topic, the resurrection and the evidence for it. The atheists have argued it can't be true because they never see resurrections. That in itself is an incredulous answer, the evdience be damned it can't be true because I refuse to believe it.

that's a way of thinking that's designed to eliminate miracle a priori. so even if they happen you don't' care because you don't' want to be bothered with it. so really in a sense this is just admission that you can't come to terms with the have to rule them out a priori.

Atheist (anaynous)

Miracles are by definition a priori because if their functionality were susceptible to empirical proof they wouldn't be miracles.
He seems to be saying that miracles are necessary and must happen, makes me think he doesn't know what a prori means. Or else he's trying to say they can't happen a prori. Of course he can't give a reason. His whole reason is that they don't so they can't. That's sort of Hume's probelm too. sort of.

In the past when atheist try to give such a reason they assert laws of physics, then run slap dab into my God argument no. 3 "fire in the equations" which argues from the laws of physics to the existence of God. In this era atheists ear stuck with denying the existence of prescriptive laws of physics, otherwise they  have to admit the universe needs a cause. Here the argument is incredulity because he doesn't even try to give a reason. He appears to  be trying to nix miracles by logical fiat.

same thread post 42

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

But what difference does it make. you think this is a circus trick? why does God have to entertain you? As I said it's a statement, you can't take it seriously you don't' think deeply to care what God is telling you, if you can only think about things if they razzel dazzel you then it's not for you ok?
On the other hand why do churches have to entertain the congregations their "theatre of the absurd"?

Argument against the res was soemthing like it's not spectacular enough.

Or why does one think that God condemned each fetus to death for the "sins" of ancestors hundreds of generations removed and allegedly left their salvation in the hands of a group of child abusing and buggering men and women Catholics, who have no fundamental "morality" and no remorse.

Here we have the first tactic of shifting that I spoke of above. I got all of these at random they are indicative of every argument on that thread given by atheists. Here he shifts from the lack of spectacular miracles to God is a big meanie. He's also got the situation backwards because the RCC is not condemning fetuses to death but trying to save them. That's why they don't want them aborted. I don't know what this guy was thinking, I suspect it was nothing. Literally.


Dave said...

Reminds me of when I once asked each person on a discussion forum to do their best to describe and defend what they thought was a proposition that would go against their assertion about the existence of God. Each person in a new thread. You know, to see what it was like from the other side. The idea that you could believe X yet actually know of at least one good reason not to believe X apparently sounded outrageous to many folks.

Metacrock said...

I bet. But when you don't care about reasons but just refuse to believe because your ideology tells you to, then you don't need to know reasons.