Tuesday, April 10, 2012

What the New Religion of Atheism Has to Offer

Hat tip to: James White


Stormbringer said...

Yes, the message of hope from atheism is SO encouraging!

The universe began when nothing exploded. By pure chance, life began on Earth. Then chance, randomness, mutations and other ill-defined mechanisms gave rise to evolution.

There is no God, there is no purpose in life. You came here by chance, you are just a blob of active pond scum, and there is no hope nor judgement after you're gone.

What's the suicide rate among atheists, again? Oh, right. It is indeed unfortunate that they reject the true message of hope. But that would involve humbling themselves, wouldn't it?

Fish With Trish said...

I wonder where all the atheists have disappeared to?

Reynold said...

Uh, you people do realize that athiesm is not a religion, right.

If so, then bald is a hair colour.

Reynold said...

Stormbringer seems to love to toss out logical fallacies...even if atheism robs one of "purpose" in life (ignoring the fact that one can choose one's own purpose), and that there is no "hope" after death, so what? What does any of that have to do with the truth or falsehood of atheism?

Just a bunch of emotional manipulation to make people not want to believe the atheist's point of view.

What one wants to believe has no bearing on what actually is.

Also, I would not trust anything from "conservapedia"!

Wait, I thought that the rules say that any posts that have links in it as Stormbringer's does, would not be published?

Azou said...

I wondered where you had disappeared to, Trish. You barely post these days, and it's mostly a video or to sell something. You also never reply to my comments, so it's cute when your one post for the year is to act like we left because this 40 seconds of inanity has us flummoxed.

But I agree with the video: always look both ways before crossing the street.

xflowahsx said...

Have you ever seen Richard Coughlans "Atheism Is"? It actually is very sad. I believe it's still available on You Tube.

Stormbringer said...

I see the misotheists came out of the woodwork to fire off their vituperative assaults on both me and on logic.

Aside from missing the point altogether, they make their own fallacies (probably as a result of the failed "Reason Rally", where Dawkins encouraged atheists to be childish bullies).

"What one wants to believe has no bearing on what actually is."

You do not want to believe in God, but he is there.

"Also, I would not trust anything from "conservapedia"!"

Genetic Fallacy noted.

I missed the part about no links, I'll watch for that in the future.

Azou is upset that Trish "never" replies, then goes on with subtle sneering. Does he REALLY wonder why he gets no replies?

Unfortunately for them, atheism IS a religion, whether they like it or not. Since I should not be doing links, honest people who want to check my article and documentation should use Google and search, with quotes, "stormbringer's thunder: the religion of atheism".

stranger.strange.land said...

I see that Trish modifies the restriction on urls in the sentence following: "...the inclusion of a url may mean we choose not to publish your otherwise wonderful comment" I believe this means that the blog owner reserves the right to either allow or disallow a comment.

I find Trish to be very gracious in publishig comments that disagree with her posts.

Fish With Trish said...

Reynold, sorry, I accidentally deleted your comment. So here is what you wrote to Stormbringer:

Stormy, quoting me:
"What one wants to believe has no bearing on what actually is."

You do not want to believe in God, but he is there.
You may want to believe in God, but that can't make him exist. If he does exist, prove it.

"Also, I would not trust anything from "conservapedia"!"
Genetic Fallacy noted.
Wrong. Conservapedia has a long history of being wrong, about, well, everything.

Google "the Lenski affair", or "conservapdedia relativity". Schafly thinks that the physics theory of relativity has to do with "moral relativism"!

In short, that's only the beginning of the "errors" in that site. There are his ravings about athiesm and obesity and other such weird stuff.

Not only is that site proven to be highly inaccurate but the man obviously, like you, has a serious axe to grind with atheists. So no, when it comes to his writings about science or athiesm, that site just plain has no credibility.

As to your claim of "genetic fallacy", I'll just quote from the Nizkor Project entry on "genetic fallacy":
It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).

Schafly is not an expert on anything he writes about over there, and he's demonstrably been proven wrong, over and over again.

And no, stormy: it's the people who do the name-calling like what you are doing who are the "vituperative" ones.

And you have shown that it's you who do not understand logic by your misuse of the "genetic fallacy".

I note that you don't even try to deal with the main point I brought up in my post so I'll repeat: all that stuff about atheism meaning no hope (a strawman constructed by theists) has nothing to do with whether atheism is true or not.

Azou said...

Stormbringer, it is so precious when you try to act like an adult. Like a kid wearing grown-up clothes.

Atheists haven't been replying because

A) Trish doesn't post a lot. No complaint here: no doubt Trish has a life outside this blog.

B) The posts aren't interesting. Giveaways for tracts and stuff aren't good for real discussions.

For Trish to come on and act like we've left because she thinks she came up with a stinging zinger is just blatantly trolling and dishonest to boot.