Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The Bathroom Wall

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,18:01

[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

"...But as a thumbnail (and my last comment on the matter, at least on this thread), the hatred of God by all atheists is synonymous with Original Sin, ..."

Heddle,

There you go making a logical fallacy again because it fits your position. One does not have to "hate" God to be an atheist

From the friends I have who are atheists, it's a decision borne out of logic, lack of evidence, proof, data or anything testable, that most atheist acknowledge.

Your position, however, is based on emotion and not logic or evidence.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,18:42

Quote

I�ve already had this debate a number of times. Do you expect that if yet another group of atheists tell me �no, we don�t hate God. Why, we hardly think of him at all� that I would say �Gee, so sorry, my bad. I didn�t realize.� This argument has some subtleties for which this UD thread is not the appropriate venue. But as a thumbnail (and my last comment on the matter, at least on this thread), the hatred of God by all atheists is synonymous with Original Sin, and also with the T in TULIP.

The atheists from whom you have heard these denials are likely (and often correctly) asserting the absence of an ordinary psychological state of hatred, an intensely negative cognitive/emotional mix directed at a particular object, a state of which persons are typically, to some degree, phenomenologically aware and which is often behaviorally expressed.

Hate as expressed in "T" above, and in your assertion, obviously refers to something other than this (relatively) ordinary psychological state. If I read you right, you are not claiming that atheists are in that ordinary cognitive/affective/behavioral state vis God, but are somehow unawares, or are being untruthful about such a state. Hatred of God as expressed in "T" stands apart from ordinary cognitive and affective content (conscious or otherwise), and is present even in the complete absence of such states and contents, because inherent in the depravity that characterizes separation from God. �

Your assertion and the resulting denials are not apposite, because you are using "hatred of God" in a quite specialized/idiosyncratic manner. Hence they pass in the bloggy night.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

mitschlag

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,19:27

Quote

I�ve already had this debate a number of times. Do you expect that if yet another group of atheists tell me �no, we don�t hate God. Why, we hardly think of him at all� that I would say �Gee, so sorry, my bad. I didn�t realize.� This argument has some subtleties for which this UD thread is not the appropriate venue. But as a thumbnail (and my last comment on the matter, at least on this thread), the hatred of God by all atheists is synonymous with Original Sin, and also with the T in TULIP.

I find the obtuse arrogance of Heddle's statement supremely offensive.

How dare he tar anyone with Original Sin or any other imputed moral deficiency based on his bizarre belief system?

Let him take the damned beam out of his own sinful eye and stop bearing false witness against his neighbors.

--------------
"You can establish any �rule� you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,19:40

I would like to thank SteveStory for inventing, a while back, the term "flinkwisty". I also appologise for having used it without prior consent.

Still, you can't sue, so my ass is safe.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,19:53

I've already had this "atheists hate god" debate with Heddle. See, he will say that atheists deny god and hate him. When you point out that you can't hate something that you don't believe in, he will retreat to it being Xian doctrine that atheists hate god, therefore his original statement is true. I pointed out that his statement is still not true, and that he should amend it to, "Xian doctrine says atheists, blah blah blah." He refused to speak more on it IIRC. Now, he's back here claiming the same carp as if nothing happened.

Secondly, he wants to say that CS Lewis was an atheist even though he hated god. But, if CS Lewis acknowledged god exists and hated him, then he was not an atheist. Of course, this is lost on Heddle, because he insists that all atheists hate god, and that is true because his little guidebook and his personal connection with god tell him it is so, whether the real world agrees with him or not. It's kind of like his ideas on ID.

J-Dog

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,19:56

So, Hedle - Is it better to hate you, or hate your god, and why do you always make the Baby Zeus cry?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

heddle

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,20:37

GCT,

Quote

I've already had this "atheists hate god" debate with Heddle. �See, he will say that atheists deny god and hate him. �When you point out that you can't hate something that you don't believe in

You remind me a bit of Kim Jung Il. Your descriptions of our "debates" on my site are always, when retold by you on this site, glorious victories for you. Nevermind. I'll just point out that the contention is "athiests don't believe in God, and they hate him," so carrying the argument nowhere beyond "we don't believe in God, therefore we can't hate him" is hardly worth the effort.

BTW, I didn't say C. S. Lewis was an atheist (though I believe, rather obviously, he was prior to converting) rather the Wiki article Kristine linked to said he was, and that he was angry with God.

mitschlag

You find it offensive? The fact that "I tar everyone with Original Sin" is offensive? How odd. It makes sense that you find it wrong, moronic, insane, etc.--but offensive? I simply don't understand how it is that such a thing is offensive. Atheists deny (and hate) God. Many of them say that theists are idiots. �Moslems deny that Jesus was God. Mormons & JW deny that Jesus is eternal. I believe all of these are wrong--but none offend me. You really need a thicker skin--if you offend that easily I'd avoid debates altogether, if I were you. (BTW your scripture quote is related to how believers are to judge other believers--not unbelievers. Believers judging unbelievers is covered in the same chapter of Matthew 7.)

Riciprocating Bill,

Your comment is spot-on.

To all,

No I don't hate Zeus. But if you believe in Zeus, and the Zeus holy book teaches that all are born in rebellion against Zeus, then you should argue that I hate Zeus, even as I deny it. And if you insist I hate Zeus, when I don't believe that I do, I will not be offended. I'll either not think about it at all or, like Reciprocating Bill, I'll try to understand where you are coming from.

J-Dog,

Hate me, by all means.

EDIT: fix typo, add boldface

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,20:39

"No I don't hate Zeus. But if you believe in Zeus, and the Zeus holy book teaches that all are born in rebellion against Zeus, then you should argue that I hate Zeus, even as I deny it. And if you insist I hate Zeus, when I don't believe that I do, I will not be offended. I'll either not think about it at all or, like Reciprocating Bill, I'll try to understand where you are coming from."

Fair enough.

Except they are both unsupported assertions. If the stories of Conan said anyone who didn't believe them was gay, and you don't believe them, are you therefore gay? No, so why state atheists hate god when all evidence suggests that on the whole, we don't?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,20:44

flinkywisty is not mine. It's from Edward Lear's nonsense letter to his friend:

Quote

Thrippsy pillivinx,

Inky tinky pobblebockle abblesquabs?--Flosky! Beebul trimble flosky!--Okul scratchabibblebongibo, viddle squibble tog-a-tog, ferrymoyassity amsky flamsky ramsky damsky crocklefether squiggs,

Flinkywisty pomm,
Slushypipp

My point was that the ID folk were using the word 'design' in such a way that it had no meaning. It might as well have been a nonsense word. Certain objects were said to have design. If it's a watch lying in the grass, it's the watch with design. If the grass is lying on a sandy beach, it's the now cells in the grass that have design. If it's a sandy beach on earth vs rocks on an uninhabitable planet, the beach has design. If its the uninhabitable planet that was able to form vs the universe where planets can't form, the uninhabitable planet has design. If something's fragile (i.e. Irreducibly Complex) it has design. If instead it has complex backup systems, it has design. If a poker hand is a straight flush, it has "CSI" and therefore design. If it's random, hey, maybe that's just a false negative. Designers can incorporate random components, after all. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It makes as much sense as just arbitrarily picking something and saying it has Flinkywisty, and Flinkywisty implies a Flinkywister.

Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,20:48

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 13 2007,20:44)

flinkywisty is not mine. It's from Edward Lear's nonsense letter to his friend:

Quote

Thrippsy pillivinx,

Inky tinky pobblebockle abblesquabs?--Flosky! Beebul trimble flosky!--Okul scratchabibblebongibo, viddle squibble tog-a-tog, ferrymoyassity amsky flamsky ramsky damsky crocklefether squiggs,

Flinkywisty pomm,
Slushypipp

My point was that the ID folk were using the word 'design' in such a way that it had no meaning. It might as well have been a nonsense word. Certain objects were said to have design. If it's a watch lying in the grass, it's the watch with design. If the grass is lying on a sandy beach, it's the now cells in the grass that have design. If it's a sandy beach on earth vs rocks on an uninhabitable planet, the beach has design. If its the uninhabitable planet that was able to form vs the universe where planets can't form, the uninhabitable planet has design. If something's fragile (i.e. Irreducibly Complex) it has design. If instead it has complex backup systems, it has design. If a poker hand is a straight flush, it has "CSI" and therefore design. If it's random, hey, maybe that's just a false negative. Designers can incorporate random components, after all. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It makes as much sense as just arbitrarily picking something and saying it has Flinkywisty, and Flinkywisty implies a Flinkywister.

Ahhh, it's a Lear creation...fair enough so.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, at any rate.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,21:06

So flinkwisty is now a synonym for something being gzorply muffnordled?*

* And we got that one into the peer-reviewed literature. You could look it up.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,21:52

I'm the 50th guy to the dinner table. There's just no meat left on the ID turkey.

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,22:22

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,21:37)

Riciprocating Bill,

Your comment is spot-on.

Heddle,

Given that, and the notion that it is helpful to try to understand where others are coming from:

Assuming the ordinary construal of "all atheists hate God" (denoting the psychological state I described in my first post), your assertion is demonstrably inaccurate: many atheists do not sustain cognitive/affective states of hatred directed at the notion of God. It would be less incendiary were you to refrain from such statements when the meaning you intend is quite distinct from the ordinary English meaning of this sentence - the meaning most here are likely to conclude you intend - and hence is certain to be misconstrued in this venue.

But you clearly know that. Per Grice, one is prompted to embark on search for the implicate meaning(s) of your deliberate deployment of this ambiguity. It is tempting to conclude that your intention is to arouse the reactions you are in fact arousing. �

Also, as I expect you are aware, the specialized intention of your statement carries little force or even intelligibility for those of us (and here I certainly include myself) for whom the Christian notions of original sin, total depravity etc. bear no resemblance to the facts of human history, the peculiarities of the human predicament, etc. I don't see much reason to become upset by your assertion, when it is understood in the idiosyncratic way you intend. However, given the misunderstandings your ambiguity invites, it becomes quite likely that some will become angry over your apparent claim to have more knowledge of their psychological states then do they themselves.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,00:26

I hate pancakes.

I hate women who bitch all the time, are perfectionists, and who wear a lot of perfume. I hate Osama bin Laden. "Hating God" is like trying to hit a cloud with a dart.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,03:42

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 13 2007,22:16)

And here I was upset over the high price of rats.

Naaah, the rats aren't the expensive bit. It's the ketchup that really costs.

Louis

Louis Crawls back into Pratchett filled library

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,03:53

What to do, what to do?

Do I:

a) Take Heddle's obvious attempt to rile with his "Ahhhh but "hate" doesn't mean what you think it means, I'm using "hate" in some special christian calvinist sense because I'm aspecialchosensavedpersonofgawd and everything" and reply to the implied question:

"Do you have anything to say to ~~Norway~~ Heddle?"

With the Gazza-esque:

"Fuck off ~~Norway~~ Heddle".

Or do I:

b) Ask Dear David to explain his exciting and entirely idiosyncratic use of the word "hate".

Hmm, it's a tricky one.

I'm going to go with b), but I retain full rights and options to a)!

So David, sweetie, please explain to me how I as an atheist hate your fictional deity Yaweh (or is it Elohim? Or both? Or neither?) but I don't hate other fictional deities like Zeus or Tiamat or Odin (to name but three). Be careful to define "hate" most clearly.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

heddle

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,04:56

Reciprocating Bill,

Quote

it becomes quite likely that some will become angry over your apparent claim to have more knowledge of their psychological states then do they themselves.

If people become angry, it is only because of a sort-of double standard. There was a comment above, by Steverino that argued:

Quote

From the friends I have who are atheists, it's a decision borne out of logic, lack of evidence, proof, data or anything testable, that most atheist acknowledge.

Your position, however, is based on emotion and not logic or evidence.

This is (a) fairly representative and (b) attributes "more knowledge to my psychological state that I do myself." And without much effort, and I suspect you'd agree, I could find any number of comments that attribute my theism to some sort of "emotional need" or "fear of death" or "intellectual shortcoming" or any number of things I myself do not feel. Should I be angry at those comments? I don't think so.

And, by the way, when the doctrine of Original Sin is understood, you will see that the word "hate" to describe the position of fallen man toward God (in that view) is not outside the boundaries of common use of the term which, in accepted usage (as opposed to highly specialized) includes less visceral attitudes such as aversion and antipathy.

Louis

As usual, your response is annoying because you insist on writing in that unpalatable "let�s demonstrate how cute and clever I am, because that is more important than saying anything of substance" style.

I have answered a number of times that your hatred of God (and, as clarified above, that this use of hate is within the confines of acceptable use of that word�it is not a new or specialized definition�at most it requires just a little subtlety to grasp) is synonymous with original sin. Since I believe in that doctrine, the point (from my perspective) is obvious. Since I do not believe the Roman or Greek or Norse or any other gods carry with them a similar truth, then, just as obviously, I don�t have any particular opinion as to whether you hate them or not.

But to clarify just a bit further, this is some of what the bible says about �fallen man's natural attitude and relationship toward God:

� The intent of our heart is "only evil continuously". Gen. 6:5
� Our "righteous" deeds are filthy garments. Isa. 64.6
� Nobody is good. Luke 18:19
� We cannot see the Kingdom of God . John 3:3
� We are not righteous. Rom. 3:10
� We do not understand; we do not seek God. Rom. 3:11
� We have turned aside; we are useless. Rom. 3:12
� None of us does good. Rom. 3:12
� We do not fear God. Rom. 3:18
� We are hostile to God. Rom 8:7
� We are unable (not just unwilling) to submit to the law of God. Rom 8:7
� We cannot please God. Rom 8:8
� We were dead (not just gravely ill) in our sins. Eph 2:1
� We walked according to Satan. Eph 2:2
� We lived in the lusts of our flesh. Eph 2:3
� We were children of wrath. Eph 2:3

Such a picture is fairly summarized by saying all unsaved men hate God.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Patrick Caldon

Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,05:30

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 14 2007,03:53)

So David, sweetie, please explain to me how I as an atheist hate your fictional deity Yaweh (or is it Elohim? Or both? Or neither?) but I don't hate other fictional deities like Zeus or Tiamat or Odin (to name but three). Be careful to define "hate" most clearly.

I think I might try to channel my Calvinist past for a bit ...

The idea is that you and everyone starts out in a state of Total Depravity. (hence T in TULIP). This is what Jesus meant when he said "everyone in Sin is enslaved to Sin", and there's another passage about non-believers "loving the darkness rather than loving the light"; as a non-believer you are wedded to a sinful nature and every deed that you do is tainted by corrupt intent.

For instance, myself as a (now) non-believer, in performing this explanation of Total Depravity to you will have in some way have been performing a sinful act by so doing, because as a non-believer my every action is corrupted by sin. I love the darkness and not the light, and I write this to you out of my love of the darkness rather than the light. By just hanging around here and typing, I am sinning. By sitting there and reading this, your (atheistic) action of reading is tainted by corruption and arises out of non-Godly motives, so you are sinning. Just by learning about Total Depravity, you are in fact engaging in a rebellion against God. Heddle on the other hand is (presumably) redeemed by Grace, so his action of sitting there and reading this comes from the "light, not the darkness", so he's not sinning right now.

I'm not sure if you sin against God just by *existing* and being an atheist, but pretty much every action you do consciously as an atheist is an act of sinning/rebellion against God. (With one important exception, getting saved, which you cannot do but which God does for you.) Such is the nature of atheism.

And to sin is to hate God.

David will no doubt correct me, but it's not a big stretch to say that being alive and being an atheist is (according to Reformed thought) an act of hatred towards God.

So stop breathing Louis. Your continued intentional respiration is an act of hatred towards God.

edit -- sorry, david, I hoped to gazump you
edit2 - not corruption, depravity

k.e

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,06:05

For Christ's sake Heddle have you considered castration?

It brings you closer to god you know and used to be a rolled gold, sure fire way of entry into the upper strata of human life before eventual entry into paradise. Just check out the Operas of Ravioli and Tortellini, as a man of your obvious cultural omniscience must be aware.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,06:21

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ Aug. 14 2007,05:30)

And to sin is to hate God.

David will no doubt correct me, but it's not a big stretch to say that being alive and being an atheist is (according to Reformed thought) an act of hatred towards God.

And this whole conversation is based on yet another example of how one has to twist logic in order to believe in all of the illogical and contradictory attributes of Heddle's God. Do Buddhists also hate God, even though they may have never had a chance to understand their current "fallen" status? How far can one take this before it becomes too absurd for rational people to even discuss further?

It is also an excellent example of why this sort of stuff does not belong in a classroom that might be populated with students who have managed to get that far without knowing the illogic of Heddle's God.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,06:35

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,05:56)

And, by the way, when the doctrine of Original Sin is understood, you will see that the word "hate" to describe the position of fallen man toward God (in that view) is not outside the boundaries of common use of the term which, in accepted usage (as opposed to highly specialized) includes less visceral attitudes such as aversion and antipathy.

This statement is completely at odds with the point of my first post, which you characterized as "spot on," so I'm a bit confused. �It also weakens your assertion, because it becomes an empirical rather than theological assertion. Your amended assertion as "ALL atheists hate, carry an aversion to, have antipathy toward (etc.) God" which is likely untrue: I'd wager that at least a few persons live their entire lives without giving more than a moment's thought about God. They are surely atheists, yet are devoid of anything that can be characterized as hatred, strong antipathy, etc. I am sure you would agree - yet would also insist that they do, in fact, hate God, because such hatred is inherent in their fallen nature and is otherwise not contingent upon their psychological states, awareness of those states, etc.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Patrick Caldon

Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,06:45

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 14 2007,06:21)

How far can one take this before it becomes too absurd for rational people to even discuss further?

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. --- I Corinthians 13:11

We can only hope.

Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,06:53

Quote

How far can one take this before it becomes too absurd for rational people to even discuss further?

For me it takes only one step, when Heddle or anybody else starts blathering about their irrelevant religious opinions to begin with. �I understand why some of us might have initially reacted viscerally to Heddle's attribution of hatred unto us--I did--but it should only take about three seconds to realize we're just being sucked into a boring theological exposition of one person's idiosyncratic and daft superstitions.

Ultimately, is it really any more interesting than hearing an addict rationalize about why it's OK to take one more hit? (I'm not suggesting an equivalence between Heddle's beliefs and substance abuse, just the extent to which it's pointless to discuss the matter with either person.)

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,07:05

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,04:56)

I have answered a number of times that your hatred of God is synonymous with original sin. Since I believe in that doctrine, the point is obvious. Since I do not believe the Roman or Greek or Norse or any other gods carry with them a similar truth, then, just as obviously, I don�t have any particular opinion as to whether you hate them or not.

So, basically, you are absolutely right that we hate god because you believe it, but when we use your exact same logic to show that you hate Zeus, we're somehow getting it all backwards?

That a fair assessment Heddle?

Jesus Christ.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,07:10

Oh NOES! I have annoyed Heddle by mocking his asinine faith and playing Mr Cutey Clever Who Never Says Anything Substantial.

Louis runs around like Daffy Duck going "Woop Woop Woop"

Heddle, I know you think your ~~drivel~~ oops sorry "faith" is meaningful, and I know you like your magic book, but nothing of substance? Oy vey! So wounded am I! I better go and have a quick cry.

There all better. Now on with the fun.

1) Try to get this through your skull:

Your reliance on quotes from your magic book and your assertion that you believe it neither prove nor demonstrate a single thing. As always your retreat position is "My magic book says it, my magic book is from god because I and/or it says it is (or depending on the weather I had a magic experience you cannot duplicate, or some such appeal to faith and or mystery), therefore I believe it". No recourse to anything outside of your imagination.

I have just written on a piece of paper that "Heddle = Mr Poo, Heddle hates Jews, loves Hitler, and wants to shag babies up the arse". I believe that not only are the words on that paper inerrant but that my writing of them was a direct act of god working thorugh me. So now by the very self same definitions and process you have, I can claim that your name is now Mr Poo, you are an antisemitic, Hitler-loving paedophile. Quick, someone lock Heddle up!

(Incidentally I don't really believe that you are an antisemitic, Hitler loving paedophile, I was just trying my hand at the process. A confused religious fruitcake, sure, but not those other things. God changing your name to Mr Poo through me....well I haven't quite let go of that yet. It's as intellectually rigourous as your claims, so why not keep it!)

The issue is ~~Heddle~~ Mr Poo, that as someone who doesn't believe in your deity, finds no special value in your magic book, why should I take your claims of "atheists hate god" seriously? Why should you be listened to at all on the subject if all your evidence for the claim that "atheists hate god" is derived from a special interpretation of a magic book for which there is no external corroboration and nothing more than your simple say so?

Answer is: You shouldn't.

Because your magic book says so and Zeus' doesn't does not constitute an answer. A response perhaps, but not an answer. After all (play hypothetical game here) should tomes of Zeus' proclamations be unearthed tomorrow with "Anyone who doesn't believe in me HATES me" emblazoned in big gold letters across the front, does this then mean that you and I both hate Zeus?

I don't think so.

2) Also, I strongly disagree that your summary of the bible's position on fallen man is accurately portrayed as "atheists hate god". The quotes you use discuss the nature of man, i.e. than man is not predisposed to love or worship god. Hate implies active dislike, not merely passive lack of predisposition. The only one (Rom 8:7) that implies activity uses the word "hostile" and even that can be a passive property as opposed to active hostility (for example a hostile environment for X does not imply agents in that environment which actively perpetuate a dislike for X).

So I can understand how, based on your magic book you might claim that humanity's nature is not predisposed towards loving your invisible buddy or following his commands or even simply worhsipping him, but it's a long way from that to hatred, even via opposition or indifference or even simple annoyance, but hatred? Nah, sorry.

Not only that but "atheists hate god" is a statement redolent with misinterpretations. A more accruate summary would be "According to my reading of the bible and my specific faith I believe that atheists hate god." Those are two very different statements. The former could be taken as some form of claim and as such open to disproof, the second is merely a statement about your personal beliefs, and whilst I think it idiotic, I can at least merrily grant you the right to believe as you will.

3) Your opinion, based on your magic book, about humanity's nature and mine differ. Mine because it is derived from evidence alone, your because it is derived from nothing more than fantasy. Does that mean I think human being are perfect or fit some aspirational ideal? No.

I think before you can say that your claim of "atheists hate god" is valid in any sense outside of your personal faith position that this is the case you have to demonstrate that your faith position about humanity's nature has soem validity. Since you'll have to use reason to do this, and reason is the antithesis of faith, good luck. As it stands though Mr Poo, your statement is not very accurate, even basing it on the words of your magic book.

Louis

P.S. Added in edit. I think that every time Mr Poo asserts that atheists hate god, everyone should post up that David Heddle is a paedophile. When questioned we can then justify it on exactly the same basis he justifies his claim. Sound fair?

--------------
Bye.

heddle

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,07:30

Reciprocating Bill,

Quote

This statement is completely at odds with the point of my first post, which you characterized as "spot on," so I'm a bit confused.

Yes, I misunderstood your first post, not taking it to mean, as your follow-up clarified, that I was using and entirely different and specialized meaning for �hate.� That was my fault; you wrote clearly enough.
Ian

Quote

So, basically, you are absolutely right that we hate god because you believe it, but when we use your exact same logic to show that you hate Zeus, we're somehow getting it all backwards?

I never said anything remotely close to a claim that your Zeus comments are �getting it backwards.� I believe you hate God for the reasons I gave. You are more than free to believe I hate Zeus; it doesn�t bother me a bit, for whatever reasons you might have�although I would hope the reasons are more substantive than �he says I hate God, so I say he hates Zeus.�

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,07:33

"although I would hope the reasons are more substantive than �he says I hate God, so I say he hates Zeus."

Why should they be? Yours arent.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,07:43

Quote

Naaah, the rats aren't the expensive bit. It's the ketchup that really costs.

But Rusty doesn't like ketchup.

I don't think even Hodgesaargh would try to offer his charges a ketchup-covered rat.

Shopping...

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 14 2007,07:52

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006