Comments on: How to criticize the “New Atheists:” a seven-step guide to writing the perfect reactionary hissy-fit http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/ Science. Humanism. Atheism. Politics. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:06:32 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: BluffingtonBoast http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-7959 BluffingtonBoast Sun, 04 Jan 2009 01:55:59 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-7959 Oops! The following lines: "Then there’s Lenin, and Marx who initiated the expropriation and plundering of religious property, the exile into gulags of clerics and believers, and the subsequent genocides in Ukraine and Poland perpetrated by their acolyte Lenin." Should be modified by the name Stalin - the ultimate insane murdering beast - instead of 'acolyte Lenin.' Oops! The following lines: “Then there’s Lenin, and Marx who initiated the expropriation and plundering of religious property, the exile into gulags of clerics and believers, and the subsequent genocides in Ukraine and Poland perpetrated by their acolyte Lenin.”
Should be modified by the name Stalin – the ultimate insane murdering beast – instead of ‘acolyte Lenin.’

]]> By: BluffingtonBoast http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-7958 BluffingtonBoast Sun, 04 Jan 2009 01:51:39 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-7958 I beg to differ with your highly selective and highly abreviated line-up of atheist killer goons - You missed Votaire whose killer satire advocated the murdering of believers and the forced imposition of atheism. His thought influenced the perpetrators of the French revolution who killed Catholics by the hundred thousands. And sure, Hitler was a murdering atheist as well. Much as the godless crowd would like to tag him as anything but. Then there's Lenin, and Marx who initiated the expropriation and plundering of religious property, the exile into gulags of clerics and believers, and the subsequent genocides in Ukraine and Poland perpetrated by their acolyte Lenin. Later on - you are right - Mao, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Min should not be forgotten for their unmitigated savagery in imposing atheism. Neither should the Republican goons of the Spanish Civil war who, but for the help of Franco, might have turned Spain into a Soviet satellite in the 1940's. Finally, you can also include several Mexican freemason/atheist/male supremacist-chauvinist/authoritarian/retrograde pit-bulls, helped in their anti-religious murdering massacring zeal by an uncaring US presidency under the leadership of freemasonry. Oh, and you can also count the hundreds of millions of murders of unborn infants and the black genocide as result of atheist Margaret Sanger's Eugenics movement. In all, the murders, genocides, starvation and killing brought about by atheists either trying to excise religion from the populace by sheer force, or by their own lack of moral compass easily approach the billion mark. And you call yourselves 'humanists?' Try putting the pre-fix IN when having the gall to breath the word. In fact, the Mickey Mouse poll you run at the top of this blog dispells any doubt. The great majority of your responders would prefer a world without religion at the same time they express they would pursue that goal actively. Which means exactly what...??? I beg to differ with your highly selective and highly abreviated line-up of atheist killer goons – You missed Votaire whose killer satire advocated the murdering of believers and the forced imposition of atheism. His thought influenced the perpetrators of the French revolution who killed Catholics by the hundred thousands.

And sure, Hitler was a murdering atheist as well. Much as the godless crowd would like to tag him as anything but.
Then there’s Lenin, and Marx who initiated the expropriation and plundering of religious property, the exile into gulags of clerics and believers, and the subsequent genocides in Ukraine and Poland perpetrated by their acolyte Lenin. Later on – you are right – Mao, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Min should not be forgotten for their unmitigated savagery in imposing atheism. Neither should the Republican goons of the Spanish Civil war who, but for the help of Franco, might have turned Spain into a Soviet satellite in the 1940’s.

Finally, you can also include several Mexican freemason/atheist/male supremacist-chauvinist/authoritarian/retrograde pit-bulls, helped in their anti-religious murdering massacring zeal by an uncaring US presidency under the leadership of freemasonry.

Oh, and you can also count the hundreds of millions of murders of unborn infants and the black genocide as result of atheist Margaret Sanger’s Eugenics movement.

In all, the murders, genocides, starvation and killing brought about by atheists either trying to excise religion from the populace by sheer force, or by their own lack of moral compass easily approach the billion mark. And you call yourselves ‘humanists?’ Try putting the pre-fix IN when having the gall to breath the word. In fact, the Mickey Mouse poll you run at the top of this blog dispells any doubt. The great majority of your responders would prefer a world without religion at the same time they express they would pursue that goal actively. Which means exactly what…???

]]> By: lortis http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-2553 lortis Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:05:40 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-2553 pick a god any god, got it? Ok now look at your card... whoops! I mean ... Hell I don't know what I mean. But look at religion on a world wide basis. There are so many gods. Which one is the right one? The christians are so self rightous they believe their god is the only true god. What bullshit! There is no god! There are just a bunch of fables out there trying to convince people to live a certain way. Why should I live my life trying to follow those guidelines with the hope that when I die I can exist in some Utopia? Lead a good life, enjoy it while you are here and when you die you are gone, period. Until someone can come back from the dead and tell me that there is truly a here-after, I am gonna party, fornicate, drink, gamble, and whatever else I feel like doing until I die. I am not going to deprive myself in this life in hopes that there is a better life after I die! Doesn't even make sense... A better life after I die. pick a god any god, got it? Ok now look at your card… whoops! I mean … Hell I don’t know what I mean. But look at religion on a world wide basis. There are so many gods. Which one is the right one? The christians are so self rightous they believe their god is the only true god. What bullshit! There is no god! There are just a bunch of fables out there trying to convince people to live a certain way. Why should I live my life trying to follow those guidelines with the hope that when I die I can exist in some Utopia? Lead a good life, enjoy it while you are here and when you die you are gone, period. Until someone can come back from the dead and tell me that there is truly a here-after, I am gonna party, fornicate, drink, gamble, and whatever else I feel like doing until I die. I am not going to deprive myself in this life in hopes that there is a better life after I die! Doesn’t even make sense… A better life after I die.

]]> By: lolextremists http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-2283 lolextremists Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:47:28 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-2283 One thing I didn't talk about is the reason I only decided to look at the possibility of there being a god, rather than a particular god or multiple gods. Even if by some miracle we had proof that there was a supernatural force outside our universe that shared something in common with ours (and I use this word intentionally, because I think it would take an 'act of god' for us to prove something that is outside our realm of existence), what would be the chances that we would understand anything more of that force than that it exists? Therefore, it is even more improbable/impossible to prove that there is a particular type/number of god/s. One thing I didn’t talk about is the reason I only decided to look at the possibility of there being a god, rather than a particular god or multiple gods. Even if by some miracle we had proof that there was a supernatural force outside our universe that shared something in common with ours (and I use this word intentionally, because I think it would take an ‘act of god’ for us to prove something that is outside our realm of existence), what would be the chances that we would understand anything more of that force than that it exists? Therefore, it is even more improbable/impossible to prove that there is a particular type/number of god/s.

]]> By: lolextremists http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-2281 lolextremists Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:30:27 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-2281 My definition of faith fyi (sorry about the long pause).... "Belief/Disbelief of something that can neither be proved or disproved." This isn't something I've looked up anywhere, it is what I have come to understand it as during my short 21 year life. I would love to hear any ideas you have on what it is (honestly). I do see your point about being able to set a definition to what you would define as disproving your statement technically making it falsifiable, but I think you have to look at how you can come about that proof. To simplify, we're just going to look proof that any god exists and not talk about specifics. I'll explain why at the end. First I want to try and loosely define a few of the terms I use. dimension/realm/universe - These are all synonymous for our existence in this space-time; every possibility of every timeline from it's creation to it's end (if it exists). god - a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality. (Merriam-Webster definition) By the definition above, I think it is safe to assume that a god would have to exist in some part separate from our universe. The extent of this is not known though, and you could argue that it is impossible for us to know since it is outside of our realm of existence, knowledge and understanding. So a god would have to exist in a realm or dimension that is separate from our dimension. However, if it control some aspect of our reality, you could argue that it has to have knowledge and understanding of the part that it controls. So to fit the definition, the god's dimension would have to share at least the smallest unit of anything with our universe. It is also possible though for our entire dimension to be part of the god's dimension. However, for a god to have 'more than natural attributes', it would have to have something that is not contained within our universe and we can't have anything that is not in it's universe (or else we would be gods). Think of two Venn diagrams: one has two circles that only intersect at one point, the other has one circle completely enclosed inside the other one...then the relationship between our dimensions would have to exist somewhere between them. So in order to prove to you that a god exists, you would need to see some evidence that there is a god, we have to not only prove that something exists that is not part of our realm of existence, but that it shares SOMETHING in common with (or has some form of control over) our existence. How can we do this? If our existence in this space-time is everything we can possibly know, how can we prove there is something outside of it that also shares something in common with it? (This is going to sound condescending when read on the internet, but it's not intended to be, but it's only way I can think to phrase it) If you have any ideas as to how we could even go about starting to prove that, please let me know because knowing one way or the other whether there's a god or not would free us from this debate. Think of all brain power alone that has been dedicated to the thought of whether there's a god or not and what could have been done with those man-hours had they been devoted to something else.... I digress though. Even if we were to understand our entire universe and all life inside of it, we still would not be able to prove whether there was a god or not. With all that knowledge, all that we could conclude is that if there was a god, he would have to share/control something with it. This is exactly what we said at the beginning of this. The only difference would be that we could specifically name every little thing that he could have in common. I guess the point I'm trying to say is that while you laid out what it would take to change your mind, it seems impossible to be able to find that evidence. Not because either side is right or wrong, but because it lies outside of our capabilities of sense or comprehension. My definition of faith fyi (sorry about the long pause)….
“Belief/Disbelief of something that can neither be proved or disproved.”
This isn’t something I’ve looked up anywhere, it is what I have come to understand it as during my short 21 year life. I would love to hear any ideas you have on what it is (honestly).

I do see your point about being able to set a definition to what you would define as disproving your statement technically making it falsifiable, but I think you have to look at how you can come about that proof. To simplify, we’re just going to look proof that any god exists and not talk about specifics. I’ll explain why at the end.

First I want to try and loosely define a few of the terms I use.
dimension/realm/universe – These are all synonymous for our existence in this space-time; every possibility of every timeline from it’s creation to it’s end (if it exists).
god – a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality. (Merriam-Webster definition)

By the definition above, I think it is safe to assume that a god would have to exist in some part separate from our universe. The extent of this is not known though, and you could argue that it is impossible for us to know since it is outside of our realm of existence, knowledge and understanding. So a god would have to exist in a realm or dimension that is separate from our dimension. However, if it control some aspect of our reality, you could argue that it has to have knowledge and understanding of the part that it controls. So to fit the definition, the god’s dimension would have to share at least the smallest unit of anything with our universe. It is also possible though for our entire dimension to be part of the god’s dimension. However, for a god to have ‘more than natural attributes’, it would have to have something that is not contained within our universe and we can’t have anything that is not in it’s universe (or else we would be gods). Think of two Venn diagrams: one has two circles that only intersect at one point, the other has one circle completely enclosed inside the other one…then the relationship between our dimensions would have to exist somewhere between them.

So in order to prove to you that a god exists, you would need to see some evidence that there is a god, we have to not only prove that something exists that is not part of our realm of existence, but that it shares SOMETHING in common with (or has some form of control over) our existence.

How can we do this? If our existence in this space-time is everything we can possibly know, how can we prove there is something outside of it that also shares something in common with it?
(This is going to sound condescending when read on the internet, but it’s not intended to be, but it’s only way I can think to phrase it)
If you have any ideas as to how we could even go about starting to prove that, please let me know because knowing one way or the other whether there’s a god or not would free us from this debate. Think of all brain power alone that has been dedicated to the thought of whether there’s a god or not and what could have been done with those man-hours had they been devoted to something else….

I digress though. Even if we were to understand our entire universe and all life inside of it, we still would not be able to prove whether there was a god or not. With all that knowledge, all that we could conclude is that if there was a god, he would have to share/control something with it. This is exactly what we said at the beginning of this. The only difference would be that we could specifically name every little thing that he could have in common.

I guess the point I’m trying to say is that while you laid out what it would take to change your mind, it seems impossible to be able to find that evidence. Not because either side is right or wrong, but because it lies outside of our capabilities of sense or comprehension.

]]> By: Tauriq Moosa http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-2190 Tauriq Moosa Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:57:27 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-2190 Don't worry about rambling. I for one am delighted to hear people's views on things, when you lay them out honestly and in an UNbigoted way. Your ramblings are refreshing compared to dogmatic believers who demand we shut up. So don't apologise :) I do not doubt that there are many who profess a dogmatic ideology - it doesn't really matter what the belief is here. I know a few atheist who do not care about truth, but just love the feeling of trumping and winning arguments. I don't care for such things and for this reason I decline many debates - because they have no formalities and no rhetoric involved. Regardless of this, I still think you need to clarify faith. As I've stated, it has to do with evidence. And what do you mean by not being falsifiable? It is very much falsifiable in terms of: I am agnostic, as all the so called evidence for the biblical god has not been proven as true or even as proper evidence. This leads me to not believe in him, therefore i am atheist. If, however, I was presented with proof that only the god of the bible could do (remember, there are other gods and this says nothing about them, because one of the billions of other gods might be the true god!), i would change my mind. This is not unfalsifiable, like "intelligent design" (as Steve Fuller seems to forget). I can think of a scenario where my lack of belief is proven wrong. This means falsifiable. I don't see how then you can say, this belief is not falsifiable. Don’t worry about rambling. I for one am delighted to hear people’s views on things, when you lay them out honestly and in an UNbigoted way. Your ramblings are refreshing compared to dogmatic believers who demand we shut up. So don’t apologise :)

I do not doubt that there are many who profess a dogmatic ideology – it doesn’t really matter what the belief is here. I know a few atheist who do not care about truth, but just love the feeling of trumping and winning arguments. I don’t care for such things and for this reason I decline many debates – because they have no formalities and no rhetoric involved.

Regardless of this, I still think you need to clarify faith. As I’ve stated, it has to do with evidence. And what do you mean by not being falsifiable? It is very much falsifiable in terms of: I am agnostic, as all the so called evidence for the biblical god has not been proven as true or even as proper evidence. This leads me to not believe in him, therefore i am atheist.

If, however, I was presented with proof that only the god of the bible could do (remember, there are other gods and this says nothing about them, because one of the billions of other gods might be the true god!), i would change my mind. This is not unfalsifiable, like “intelligent design” (as Steve Fuller seems to forget). I can think of a scenario where my lack of belief is proven wrong. This means falsifiable.

I don’t see how then you can say, this belief is not falsifiable.

]]> By: lolextremists http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-2185 lolextremists Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:07:30 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-2185 If you honestly uphold everything you outlined than I am glad to hear it, but you can't be asking for a burden of proof. The argument is unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove it wrong/right and therefore it's not even a debatable topic. It is a matter of personal faith (or lack of if you want to look at it that way) that can only be resolved by each individual. I hope I didn't come off wrong. I'm not attacking your 'garden-variety atheist', nor am I attacking your 'everyday Christian'. I'm merely saying that both sides (I should say all sides) have extremists who try to proclaim/prove that the other is wrong. It's not a defensible topic and thus can't be proven right or wrong. One other point I was hoping to get across is aimed towards secularists. I guess in my own travels I have come across a lot of atheists who look down upon people of faith for a lot of stupid reasons. If a person blindly follows a religion, and their ideology is instilled from an organization that doesn't allow them to think for themselves, then I would agree that the person doesn't have a clue what is going on and needs to open their eyes.. But their are a lot of intelligent and open-minded people of faith out there who are just as open and accepting as most secularists. FYI, I do consider myself an atheist of sort, maybe....I'm not really sure. Was raised Roman Catholic, but just struggle (even to this day) with the ego that is involved with almost all major religions. "God made us in his image" "God speaks to us" "God wants us to rule"....all just seemed a little off to me. But I guess I have the feeling that there's something more, whether it's the typical sense of a greater being or just the power of the human mind that makes us all demi-gods of this beautiful world we create, I'm not even close to knowing. I ramble a lot.... :\ If you honestly uphold everything you outlined than I am glad to hear it, but you can’t be asking for a burden of proof. The argument is unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove it wrong/right and therefore it’s not even a debatable topic. It is a matter of personal faith (or lack of if you want to look at it that way) that can only be resolved by each individual.

I hope I didn’t come off wrong. I’m not attacking your ‘garden-variety atheist’, nor am I attacking your ‘everyday Christian’. I’m merely saying that both sides (I should say all sides) have extremists who try to proclaim/prove that the other is wrong. It’s not a defensible topic and thus can’t be proven right or wrong.

One other point I was hoping to get across is aimed towards secularists. I guess in my own travels I have come across a lot of atheists who look down upon people of faith for a lot of stupid reasons. If a person blindly follows a religion, and their ideology is instilled from an organization that doesn’t allow them to think for themselves, then I would agree that the person doesn’t have a clue what is going on and needs to open their eyes.. But their are a lot of intelligent and open-minded people of faith out there who are just as open and accepting as most secularists.

FYI, I do consider myself an atheist of sort, maybe….I’m not really sure. Was raised Roman Catholic, but just struggle (even to this day) with the ego that is involved with almost all major religions. “God made us in his image” “God speaks to us” “God wants us to rule”….all just seemed a little off to me. But I guess I have the feeling that there’s something more, whether it’s the typical sense of a greater being or just the power of the human mind that makes us all demi-gods of this beautiful world we create, I’m not even close to knowing.

I ramble a lot…. :\

]]> By: this is gross http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-1914 this is gross Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:38:31 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-1914 Although I would defend your right to believe in whatever you want untill the end this is crazy. Point of the story how to defend yourself from logical argument. I have no proof of a god but let us kill each other for no reason and say it is for a god. Ya ya we dont do this anymore ha ha. What happened in the past?? We went to the middle east and kill us some enemies of god. Now whats happening there is a jihad and we are in the middle east killing enemies of someones god. There is no proof logical or illogical to prove religion except for Religious experiences. Something great happened ya but is it because of some all knowing being in the sky who watches over us?? or just good fortune. Now there is undeniable proof that the earth was hear for millions of years not thousands lol and every great mind in history has been atheist. Anyone hear heard of Aristotle or Einstein?? No? they were not only atheist but some of the smartest people ever and no god was good enough for them. Religions are groups created by the powerful to control the under population the fact that they are not smart enough to notice is the reason they stay in power. Now that being said if religion makes you live a happy life go for it no one will stop you just don't kill me for not believing in a story book written by shepherds thousands of years ago instead of, lets see anybody who knows anything about modern science. Although I would defend your right to believe in whatever you want untill the end this is crazy.

Point of the story how to defend yourself from logical argument.

I have no proof of a god but let us kill each other for no reason and say it is for a god. Ya ya we dont do this anymore ha ha. What happened in the past?? We went to the middle east and kill us some enemies of god. Now whats happening there is a jihad and we are in the middle east killing enemies of someones god.

There is no proof logical or illogical to prove religion except for Religious experiences. Something great happened ya but is it because of some all knowing being in the sky who watches over us?? or just good fortune.

Now there is undeniable proof that the earth was hear for millions of years not thousands lol and every great mind in history has been atheist. Anyone hear heard of Aristotle or Einstein?? No? they were not only atheist but some of the smartest people ever and no god was good enough for them.

Religions are groups created by the powerful to control the under population the fact that they are not smart enough to notice is the reason they stay in power.

Now that being said if religion makes you live a happy life go for it no one will stop you just don’t kill me for not believing in a story book written by shepherds thousands of years ago instead of, lets see anybody who knows anything about modern science.

]]> By: Johnny http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-1912 Johnny Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:55:17 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-1912 You forgot "8. Atheist is only a position people take to appear smarter." http://www.roflposters.com/images/rofl/1215429637022.jpg.rofl.posters.jpg Laughed my ass off the first time I saw something like that. You forgot “8. Atheist is only a position people take to appear smarter.”

http://www.roflposters.com/images/rofl/1215429637022.jpg.rofl.posters.jpg

Laughed my ass off the first time I saw something like that.

]]> By: Barry Greenstein http://factonista.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/comment-page-1/#comment-1910 Barry Greenstein Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:53:00 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=176#comment-1910 "Their belief that this life is the entirety of what we have to experience and that they control their outcomes is impossible to prove or disprove. It requires a ‘Leap of Faith’ for them to believe what can not be proven." ---This is rather circular, lolextremists. The burden of proof... (fill in the rest, this is a major axiom). "STOP FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER! Whether you believe in ascending to heaven, being greeted by 77 virgins, or decomposing and becoming part of the world that nourished you during your life cycle, realize that the one thing we all share in common is this trip on the Spaceship Earth, so let’s make it a happy one…" ---This is what Secular Humanists want to do. Unfortunately over 80% of the world has different ideas, and many of them will gladly forsake the importance of this life and this world for a (so-called) transcendent principle. "None of us can have any proof that their is/isn’t a god, and whether he even likes us if there is, so it is silly…neigh stupid, for us to fight over which one is the right one." ---I think you'll find yourself in good company with humanists. “Their belief that this life is the entirety of what we have to experience and that they control their outcomes is impossible to prove or disprove. It requires a ‘Leap of Faith’ for them to believe what can not be proven.”

—This is rather circular, lolextremists. The burden of proof… (fill in the rest, this is a major axiom).

“STOP FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER! Whether you believe in ascending to heaven, being greeted by 77 virgins, or decomposing and becoming part of the world that nourished you during your life cycle, realize that the one thing we all share in common is this trip on the Spaceship Earth, so let’s make it a happy one…”

—This is what Secular Humanists want to do. Unfortunately over 80% of the world has different ideas, and many of them will gladly forsake the importance of this life and this world for a (so-called) transcendent principle.

“None of us can have any proof that their is/isn’t a god, and whether he even likes us if there is, so it is silly…neigh stupid, for us to fight over which one is the right one.”

—I think you’ll find yourself in good company with humanists.

]]>