Contradictions in atheism

Russell's Tea Pot is a fallcy, and you can indeed prove that it is so unlikely that it is essentially an arguement from absurdity.

Indeed, it has been done with this EXACT poster on AT LEAST a dozen occassions from MULTIPLE posters - and here is fousting the same petulant moronic claims as if its all new.

Please atheists, tell us how this process if driven by evidence rather than arrogance and sheer obstinance?

Tell me, in what REALITY is this kind of behavior - the repeating of dogmatic montra over and over and over, despite rebuttal, anything other than a sign of arrogance and sheer obstinance?

How do atheists allow people this obtuse and rude to define their postions for them in silence?

Once again, when asked for reality - we get the known imaginary, magic floating tea pots, pink pandas, etc. And who is it that is using these obvious imaginary fallacies? Those who claim they are driven by reality?

Silliness. And it is what atheism is. We see is ALL the time. But atheists don;t want to acknowledge it? Sound like a problem for atheism. Oh wait - it is.

Welcome to reality atheists.

 

Yep. At least with the Christian version of God, which is easily disprovable due to the logical contradictions it brings up. The problem of evil and the contradiction of omniscience and free will are two such examples that logically show the standard Christian god can't exist. (And claiming "god is outside logic" forfeits the discussion by turning Christianity into agnosticism, since a god outside logic would be entirely unknowable.)

Now, for most other versions of god, standard scientific method indicates one should withhold belief unless positive evidence is presented. I don't believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the various gods, all for the same rationality-based reasoning.

 

This entire forum and every thread contained within it is proof of the reality I have claimed.....

The only one angry right now is you..... I don't hold on to any declared absolute that I find the need to defend or enter into any aspect of anger.

If you desire to project any sort of anger upon me, that is of your doing alone, it is completely independent of anything relating to me.

 

Now facts are angry? Interesting.

You claimed that reality drives yoru atheism, that is a claim that requires proof.

The proof is ... the claim itself?

Does that sound like proof, or simple narcassism?

The fact that you are getting angry when confronted is not excused simply because you blame someone else for pointing out the weakness in your case.

Making assinine and unsupported claims in the belief that YOU ALONE have it all figured out? That is simply, and in reality, nothing but arrogance.

Its why most theorlogians consider atheism to be nothing but self worship. Well, emotionally that makes you upset? Who cares?

You emotional state is not my concern, the assinine claims that atheists make are. And as we see - again - they are not supportable. Pretty cimple, but that REALITY makes me and not YOU angry?

So, atheism is delusion in support of arrogance? Is that correct?

No? Well, lets see that evidence then? If its not evidence driving your conclusion and utter certainty ... must be something else. And when we see ass clowns that are utterly certain of themselves despite rebuttal, well, we know what that is in reality as well.

Reality stings atheists though? Again, sounds like a problem for atheists, particularly those who are claiming its reality that is driving them .... to anger.

 

Anyone see an example of anger going on round here?
These are your words from a single post!

 

good work going on right here!

 

Reality, is that the only thing that is provable is self

Ringing pretty loud and clear how Neutral conducts himself in doing so!

 

Well, you opened the doorway, so now PROVE your self. Prove that you really exist. Prove that you are not some artificial intelligence system manipulating the inner workings of a computer network.

 

These is no evidence to suggest that such an AI exists.

 

None that is provided to the general public. Are you certain that you KNOW all that goes on in the secret laboratories around the world?

 

Why would anyone entertain the notion of paranoid conspiracy theories?

You raise an irrelevant point.

 

Even if I didn't exist and this was all an illusion, the inner workings of YOUR own awareness..... Does it change the offering of knowledge in expression to be had from it?
Are you paying attention to the proof within the content?

What if you were the only one to exist in this moment, that it was a created illusion for your own awareness, that I am a quark within your mind...... What are you saying to yourself?
Prove yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's the point?
It doesn't change the substance in what's being said.... There's your proof!

 

A summary of Neutral's arguments:

"Some atheists were rude, therefore atheism has contradictions!".

Not very rational. A rational argument would not ignore the definition of atheism, in favor of declaring that various random actions by certain cherrypicked atheists defined the real meaning of athiesm.

 

You have shown no PROOF. The statement that was made under the heading of 'revol' was "Reality, is that the only thing that is provable is self". That statement says nothing about 'the inner workings YOUR own awareness.' It only mentioned "self". The challenge has been laid before you, to prove the existence of 'self'.

More fantasies to entertain huh?

Prove that there is 'substance' in what is being said.

 

You raised an irrelevant point in saying "These is no evidence to suggest that such an AI exists. ", when considering that you cannot prove that statement to have validity within the entire world.

 

Want to discuss Russel's Teapot while we are at it?

Fallacy.

 

Why not? The thread is already off topic. On the other hand, why not discuss Karens Crock Pot. I have seen some really wonderful meals come out of such a pot. As for 'tea'... I am not much on tea, but coffee is another story... so we could as easily talk about 'coffee pots' and the various blends of coffee.

 

Meh, oblivious to the blatant use of fallacies.

 

Are you really that oblivious?

 

No, simply dismissive.

 

The challenge was rather absurd to begin with..... You like to twist subject matter to draw away from anything of importance.....
I've already pointed out how I can't understand how anyone entertains anything you post with a response......But to show how ridiculous the challenge is, anybody who desired to test whether I exist or not can come pay me a physical visit, look at me with their own eyes, touch me, smell me or even taste me if I allowed them too , but more likely they would get a boot up the ass if they tried.... But that should be proof enough!
Proof is testable, now if you really want I'd be happy to oblige you with the latter just so that you can be certain, I'll shine up my boots!

 

REally? Thank you for provong my point exactly.

My thesis - atheism is not an evidenced based process, and when asked for evidence atheists come up with excuses.

What do atheists read? Fill in any old random excuse - the ruder and more emotional the better. Because that is Christianity's fault?

Yep, that IS atheism, its all we ever see of it. (Somehow though, its always teh other atheists doing the rude stuff, not the ones actually doing it because they have nothing to fill in, eh?)

 

A truely arrogant person would think that someone pointing it out in their behavior is actually proof of arrogance in the other person.

Classic narcassism.

So, what do we have with atheists being teh result of reality based position? Castigating transferrence? Nice.

 

I missed any point that you have correctly referenced anything pertaining to my behavior..... Perhaps you would like to point out now where you have done so at any point in this discussion!

I had no problem pulling personal attacks from your posts in your own words; you should have no problem doing the same if this is the case.

 

Its called supporting a thesis statement.

You claimed it was 'reality' backing your position, and, like every atheist when called upon support that thesis, you got pissy instead.

And when confronted about your behavior?

Now, just like every other atheist, you are super victim.

So, atheism is a bunch of empty claims, backed nothing but insults, that come from serial victims?

Its pretty simple, you claim its reality that drives atheism - I claim its emotion.

And given that EVERY atheist follows the same emotional pattern you do - I would say that is pretty strong evidence of emotion.

And it stands in sharp and compelling contrast to the utter abscence of reality that you claim - but clearly cannot support - just like every other atheist.

Maybe you shouldn't kick other people's faith if you are going to whione when someone kicks yours right back - and it is a faith isn't it?