Monday,
May 5, 2008 at 7:28am
...to
stop listening to Dinesh speak. I wish there was something this
little doosh would get straight. There is no such things as a
"christian morality." There are moral acts, and immoral
acts. It kills me how many times he can repeat the same factually
incorrect and ridiculous shit over and over again. "Atheist
regimes have killed blah blah, secular society will doom us all, I'm
going to attack the person I'm debating and never address an
issue..." He tries to quote mine, completely take out of context
historical claims and philosophies, and just outright lies about what
it means to be an atheist or what his religion are responsible for.
There is no such thing as "atheist principles." I'm writing
this as I listen to him so I can quell my sudden anger at passing
comments. There is a difference between a belief in a god and a
belief in YOUR god. Here's the beautiful thing about arguing over
this stuff. The judeo-christian god supposedly does and says things
which we can no doubt test, that's where it fails. He is called
omni-benevolent, all knowing, etc..Which obviously run into logical
absurdities. Having given up trying to defend those absurdities,
Dinesh just goes after speakers and presents "disaster scenario"
propaganda.
Onto the issue of evil and suffering to which Peter Singer brings up. Dinesh accuses him of making an "atheist god" and then knocking that one down. A simple fact about a discussion about a god, you can't provide evidence for anything supernatural, invisible, "outside of space and time." I'm not telling you you can't simply because you can't, I'm stating that because its logically incoherent, its like saying there is something "more north" than the north pole or testifying at your murder trial. You can only judge whether that being "exists" or not by what is attributed to it. If I said anyone with brown hair got it from invisible fairies (bare with me), rounded up all the people with brown hair and said "O look how right I am," your going to think I'm retarded. This is precisely the way apologetics argue. They point to how things are, put a god tag on it, then shine that pious smirk. When Singer asks Dinesh to explain natural disasters that cause suffering, which have nothing to do with free will or a "fallen" race of people, its a valid question. When no one has been able to answer for the last 2000 years, it says something about your doctrine and your god, not "how we christians choose to interpret the problem" as Dinesh so dodgingly states. And of course because it doesn't seem answerable in our "earthly realm" power word "salvation" is kicked in. AHHH.
It's insufferable to listen to Dinesh in front of a sympathetic audience.
When an atheist like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet does something good, it can't just be them being good, no. According to Dinesh it would be because they are in a "christian culture" not because they are generous people. Another "tactic" that gets old. Wow, Dinesh said that objective good and evil do not exist in a Darwinian universe. I'm just going to say if that isn't the single sentence that tells you how ridiculous this prick is, then I'm at a loss. Dinesh just used the phrase "the atheism of the gaps." Got Mit Uns, God with us, on the belt buckles of the Nazi's. Hitler's personal journal. He was not an atheist. Was the holocaust denounced by the Catholic church? NO. I wish this one would go away. "Rabid atheists" on the list of things Dinesh has said.
I'm pretty sure I hate the debate format of these types of discussions. It lets so many little quips and assertions get lost in the entire picture. Dinesh is allowed to spew for 15 minutes straight listing off every nugget of junk he has in his arsenal. He doesn't read the entire BOOKS dedicated to a single sentence he claims to be true or false. He doesn't address any question ever. He jumps and flails, but does so emphatically that the ill informed just nod along. I'm sorry because if you've been reading along with me over the years I'm sure I sound redundant. I just feel like every time I hear the invalid arguments, every time I see passionate ignorance, I just have to say something back. I can't handle just holding it in.
Quick note an what it means to be an atheist. It's whatever the hell you want it to be. I'm sick of people trying to clump "atheist arguments" "atheist agendas" those dangerous "atheist societies" crap. There is no such thing as a collective of "lack of belief" in something. Let's take all the A-Santaists and travel the worlds schools informing the children of the truth....riiiiight. Let's take all the A-Unicornists and scorn Virgin Mobile commercials and artists. Atheists are not "without" god, they are not without morals. They don't believe in a god. There is no deficiency there. I wonder how many people have been liberated from the dreadful idea of eternal hell. What a burden to the atheists who can't swallow that from perfect love. The more I hear this kind of crap the more impossible, if you will, it becomes for me to believe in this stuff. I really don't understand why you would want to anymore. When I did believe in this stuff I just wondered how bored I would be in heaven.
The more Dinesh accuses people of being merely driven by their selfish genes and that you get nothing out of helping strangers, the more I want to beat the shit out of him. First off, its a ridiculous premise that has been explain by Dawkins an Dennett specifically. And second, its an outright lie to think people don't feel good when they can help others, nor do they forget what it looks like to deny the old lady your seat on the bus. I wanted to type COMMON SENSE and just put a period there, but apparently the more people speak they teach me there is no such thing as common sense. I'm fucking tired of hearing "christian value" as if nothing existed before the idea of Jesus. Dinesh says Springer isn't "following his atheism through." How does this make sense? Follow it through to where? What doctrine or infinite pinnacle is there to atheism? Give me a break.
I can't wait for death if only because I will go back to the peace I had before I was born. Dinesh just said we have no right to life. When asked if he was a "macro evolutionist" Dinest responds that he's not a biologist. "atheist assumptions/agenda" "metaphysical Darwinism" UUGH! Alright, I'm sick of this. Peace.
Buggah, I've spoken too soon. Dinesh says that it isn't possible for humans will be able to reach our wished for heights. It's not going to be us reaching higher, god has to condescend to the human level. I say that is a terrifically terrible idea to live by. Prove the christians who think this way wrong and be whatever type of person you strive for. Be a pinnacle of truth or hope and do it without thinking its impossible, because its not. You don't need an edict from god to love someone, you don't have to be unduly depressed by having goals and dreams that others disagree with. Screw that mantra. Be who want to with a finger flipped at the idea of heaven just to rub it in that your not in it for the eternal reward. Any "ultimate justice" is what you are going to provide for yourself if you choose to feel wronged. I truly feel sorry for you if you feel like you are nothing but a slave for god.
Onto the issue of evil and suffering to which Peter Singer brings up. Dinesh accuses him of making an "atheist god" and then knocking that one down. A simple fact about a discussion about a god, you can't provide evidence for anything supernatural, invisible, "outside of space and time." I'm not telling you you can't simply because you can't, I'm stating that because its logically incoherent, its like saying there is something "more north" than the north pole or testifying at your murder trial. You can only judge whether that being "exists" or not by what is attributed to it. If I said anyone with brown hair got it from invisible fairies (bare with me), rounded up all the people with brown hair and said "O look how right I am," your going to think I'm retarded. This is precisely the way apologetics argue. They point to how things are, put a god tag on it, then shine that pious smirk. When Singer asks Dinesh to explain natural disasters that cause suffering, which have nothing to do with free will or a "fallen" race of people, its a valid question. When no one has been able to answer for the last 2000 years, it says something about your doctrine and your god, not "how we christians choose to interpret the problem" as Dinesh so dodgingly states. And of course because it doesn't seem answerable in our "earthly realm" power word "salvation" is kicked in. AHHH.
It's insufferable to listen to Dinesh in front of a sympathetic audience.
When an atheist like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet does something good, it can't just be them being good, no. According to Dinesh it would be because they are in a "christian culture" not because they are generous people. Another "tactic" that gets old. Wow, Dinesh said that objective good and evil do not exist in a Darwinian universe. I'm just going to say if that isn't the single sentence that tells you how ridiculous this prick is, then I'm at a loss. Dinesh just used the phrase "the atheism of the gaps." Got Mit Uns, God with us, on the belt buckles of the Nazi's. Hitler's personal journal. He was not an atheist. Was the holocaust denounced by the Catholic church? NO. I wish this one would go away. "Rabid atheists" on the list of things Dinesh has said.
I'm pretty sure I hate the debate format of these types of discussions. It lets so many little quips and assertions get lost in the entire picture. Dinesh is allowed to spew for 15 minutes straight listing off every nugget of junk he has in his arsenal. He doesn't read the entire BOOKS dedicated to a single sentence he claims to be true or false. He doesn't address any question ever. He jumps and flails, but does so emphatically that the ill informed just nod along. I'm sorry because if you've been reading along with me over the years I'm sure I sound redundant. I just feel like every time I hear the invalid arguments, every time I see passionate ignorance, I just have to say something back. I can't handle just holding it in.
Quick note an what it means to be an atheist. It's whatever the hell you want it to be. I'm sick of people trying to clump "atheist arguments" "atheist agendas" those dangerous "atheist societies" crap. There is no such thing as a collective of "lack of belief" in something. Let's take all the A-Santaists and travel the worlds schools informing the children of the truth....riiiiight. Let's take all the A-Unicornists and scorn Virgin Mobile commercials and artists. Atheists are not "without" god, they are not without morals. They don't believe in a god. There is no deficiency there. I wonder how many people have been liberated from the dreadful idea of eternal hell. What a burden to the atheists who can't swallow that from perfect love. The more I hear this kind of crap the more impossible, if you will, it becomes for me to believe in this stuff. I really don't understand why you would want to anymore. When I did believe in this stuff I just wondered how bored I would be in heaven.
The more Dinesh accuses people of being merely driven by their selfish genes and that you get nothing out of helping strangers, the more I want to beat the shit out of him. First off, its a ridiculous premise that has been explain by Dawkins an Dennett specifically. And second, its an outright lie to think people don't feel good when they can help others, nor do they forget what it looks like to deny the old lady your seat on the bus. I wanted to type COMMON SENSE and just put a period there, but apparently the more people speak they teach me there is no such thing as common sense. I'm fucking tired of hearing "christian value" as if nothing existed before the idea of Jesus. Dinesh says Springer isn't "following his atheism through." How does this make sense? Follow it through to where? What doctrine or infinite pinnacle is there to atheism? Give me a break.
I can't wait for death if only because I will go back to the peace I had before I was born. Dinesh just said we have no right to life. When asked if he was a "macro evolutionist" Dinest responds that he's not a biologist. "atheist assumptions/agenda" "metaphysical Darwinism" UUGH! Alright, I'm sick of this. Peace.
Buggah, I've spoken too soon. Dinesh says that it isn't possible for humans will be able to reach our wished for heights. It's not going to be us reaching higher, god has to condescend to the human level. I say that is a terrifically terrible idea to live by. Prove the christians who think this way wrong and be whatever type of person you strive for. Be a pinnacle of truth or hope and do it without thinking its impossible, because its not. You don't need an edict from god to love someone, you don't have to be unduly depressed by having goals and dreams that others disagree with. Screw that mantra. Be who want to with a finger flipped at the idea of heaven just to rub it in that your not in it for the eternal reward. Any "ultimate justice" is what you are going to provide for yourself if you choose to feel wronged. I truly feel sorry for you if you feel like you are nothing but a slave for god.
Updated
about 6 months ago
|
|
