The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[Retro Rob]

Bestseller is a somewhat manipulated term; for instance, if you sell 9,000 copies of your book in the first week of it's release it'll make the NY Times best seller list, however it only takes 3,000 sales to make the Wall Street Journal's best seller list.

I agree, but we're not talking about a mere 9,000 or 3,000 copies respectivelty...I'm speaking over 2 million for the God Delusion alone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

As of January 2010[update], the English version of The God Delusion had sold over 2 million copies.[5] It was ranked No.2 on the Amazon.com best-sellers' list in November 2006

Now, this isn't to say (nor does it do anything to prove) that people are "follwoing" people like Dawkins, but his words do carry influence over people who read his material.

I am personally fascinated by atheism, which is why I have interests in people who feel like he does, and why.

 

[alzan]

JD is an Atheists and JD has issues with the site that Retro Rob linked too.....
Just like various Christians would have issues with Christian sites that you might link too....

First of all you label all Christians as following a single book...that's not true at all.

Most Christians make reference to the Bible and believe it is the word of God.
Yet I have met and continue to meet Christians who use other materials to help them to understand what the Bible says, as well as use various websites to help them deepen their own personal faith in God!

Yet there are also people who without any references to the Bible or to Christianity will tell you they believe in God and have a relationship with God...explain that??

What website Do Atheists use -- they use many websites to reference Atheism and make a case for Atheism.....
Atheism also has individuals who we will call leaders of the Atheism movement such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_(activists_and_educators)

There also Leaders of the Atheist movement or religion -- Famous leaders of atheists: Madelyn Murray O'Hair, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins.

Many Atheist feel the need to proselytize or educate others who might believe in God............

I was agnostic long before the Internet or websites. And I've never read a book promoting agnosticism or atheism.

Never had an atheist come to my door wanting to hand me atheist reading materials or invite me to a meeting, unlike Baptists, JW's, Mormons, etc. No atheists standing on random street corners downtown telling people of the "good news" of atheism. Plenty of theists doing that though.

Atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, et al are invited to speak in forums at organizations, colleges, etc.; AFAIK they don't show up unbidden. They're usually debating theists. I'm also unaware of any attempts by them to get people to join atheistic organizations; there may be a campus atheist group who's seeking new members that's sponsoring the debate but that's completely different from Sam Harris and others actively asking for new members.

"Atheist movement or religion".....keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I agree, but we're not talking about a mere 9,000 or 3,000 copies respectivelty...I'm speaking over 2 million for the God Delusion alone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion



Now, this isn't to say (nor does it do anything to prove) that people are "follwoing" people like Dawkins, but his words do carry influence over people who read his material.

I am personally fascinated by atheism, which is why I have interests in people who feel like he does, and why.

I've watched a number of Christopher Hitchens videos on Youtube, some but much less so Dawkins and Harris. I haven't read any of their books. I had already known how I felt regarding religion when I stumbled on to the 'Hitchslap' videos. What amazed me wasn't that I was listening to someone 'preach' atheism, but that so many of the things I heard Hitchens say were so very, very like the things I've already thought to myself when I would think about religion and atheism. And I think many other atheists sound similar not because we follow any one person or teaching, but because logic will deliver you to the same place or very near the same place when you think about these things critically.

 

[alzan]

I agree, but we're not talking about a mere 9,000 or 3,000 copies respectivelty...I'm speaking over 2 million for the God Delusion alone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

Now, this isn't to say (nor does it do anything to prove) that people are "following" people like Dawkins, but his words do carry influence over people who read his material.

I am personally fascinated by atheism, which is why I have interests in people who feel like he does, and why.

I realized that, I was pointing out that bestseller does not mean a whole heck of a lot. Nor am I trying to diminish 2 million books sold but you do have to consider that we're talking sales in countries (US, Great Britain, Canada, etc.) whose combined populations total 600 - 900 million; 2 million or even several million is a fraction of 1 percent.

I know atheism has it's zealots and extremists, though thankfully their numbers are miniscule. For myself, a given book of an ethical or spiritual nature is one that I would cull a few particular ideas from that I think will better my life. The only books that have had more of an "influence" on me are Cloud-Hidden, Whereabouts Unknown by Alan Watts and a couple of Joseph Campbell's books on comparative mythology; The Hero Of A Thousand Faces and The Power Of Myth. Also Man And His Symbols by Carl G. Jung.

 

[soulcougher73]

I've watched a number of Christopher Hitchens videos on Youtube, some but much less so Dawkins and Harris. I haven't read any of their books. I had already known how I felt regarding religion when I stumbled on to the 'Hitchslap' videos. What amazed me wasn't that I was listening to someone 'preach' atheism, but that so many of the things I heard Hitchens say were so very, very like the things I've already thought to myself when I would think about religion and atheism. And I think many other atheists sound similar not because we follow any one person or teaching, but because logic will deliver you to the same place or very near the same place when you think about these things critically.

This. Logic usually leads people down the same path or very close to it at least. Without logic...well skies the limit for your imagination.

 

[Retro Rob]

What amazed me wasn't that I was listening to someone 'preach' atheism, but that so many of the things I heard Hitchens say were so very, very like the things I've already thought to myself when I would think about religion and atheism. And I think many other atheists sound similar not because we follow any one person or teaching, but because logic will deliver you to the same place or very near the same place when you think about these things critically.

If you and many random atheists agree with each other without any previous conversation, that simply means you happen to agree with each other by sheer chance.

One of my co-workers likes to play Mortal Kombat and I've been playing it long before we met. Does that mean it's "logical" to play Mortal Kombat because we met "in the same place"?

We just "happen" to like playing the same game -- that's really all it is.

Flip a coin, you're bound to find someone who called Heads.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you and many random atheists agree with each other without any previous conversation, that simply means you happen to agree with each other by sheer chance.

The rules of evidence and reliable inference are not a matter of opinion nor are they decided by popular vote. It isn't "sheer chance" that atheists agree upon them and agree that they do not support the existence of a god or gods.

One of my co-workers likes to play Mortal Kombat and I've been playing it long before we met. Does that mean it's "logical" to play Mortal Kombat because we met "in the same place"?

We just "happen" to like playing the same game -- that's really all it is.

Flip a coin, you're bound to find someone who called Heads.

Not even remotely equivalent.

 

[JD50]

If you and many random atheists agree with each other without any previous conversation, that simply means you happen to agree with each other by sheer chance.

One of my co-workers likes to play Mortal Kombat and I've been playing it long before we met. Does that mean it's "logical" to play Mortal Kombat because we met "in the same place"?

We just "happen" to like playing the same game -- that's really all it is.

Flip a coin, you're bound to find someone who called Heads.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a worse analogy.

 

[Retro Rob]

The rules of evidence and reliable inference are not a matter of opinion nor are they decided by popular vote. It isn't "sheer chance" that atheists agree upon them and agree that they do not support the existence of a god or gods.

So does this mean God doesn't exist, then?

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you and many random atheists agree with each other without any previous conversation, that simply means you happen to agree with each other by sheer chance.

One of my co-workers likes to play Mortal Kombat and I've been playing it long before we met. Does that mean it's "logical" to play Mortal Kombat because we met "in the same place"?

We just "happen" to like playing the same game -- that's really all it is.

Flip a coin, you're bound to find someone who called Heads.

Mortal Kombat isn't deeply thinking on a subject, it's a personal taste or preference. If my favorite color is green and I meet someone else that I didn't previously know that says his/her favorite color is green, that is chance.

But if a bunch of random scientists who don't read from the same instruction manual all come to the same solution on something they are independently working on, do you think it is more likely due to random chance that they all came up with an identical answer, or because they independently thought through it logically?

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a worse analogy.

That means that you didn't read Spider's post, which I was responding to.

He said that by virtue of them meeting in the same place, it means they've reached a logical conclusion. I just inserted "Mortal Kombat" so show how silly it sounds to say that since a group of people agree, then it's logical.

Stop making terrible statements and the bad analogies will stop.

 

[Retro Rob]

But if a bunch of random scientists who don't read from the same instruction manual all come to the same solution on something they are independently working on, do you think it is more likely due to random chance that they all came up with an identical answer, or because they independently thought through it logically?

The evidence leads them to the same conclusion, apart from reading different manuals.

This kind of begs the question, though...on what basis can the atheist position be anymore true than that of a theist?

If there isn't evidence either way, then it simply becomes an opinion -- the same type of opinion that says Mortal Kombat is a great fighting game, based on what one personally perfers to accept, or reject.

I see atheism the exact same way, making an abritrary decision.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So does this mean God doesn't exist, then?

Did I say that? Can you not read what I have written, or are you simply too eager to fill my mouth with your inserted words that you didn't take the time to comprehend the statements in front of you?

 

[Retro Rob]

Did I say that? Can you not read what I have written, or are you simply too eager to fill my mouth with your inserted words that you didn't take the time to comprehend the statements in front of you?

I just asked a question.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Did I say that? Can you not read what I have written, or are you simply too eager to fill my mouth with your inserted words that you didn't take the time to comprehend the statements in front of you?

actually YES!! In the manner that you speak you said that!!

Tell me how this can be taken any other way?

Originally Posted by Cerpin Taxt View Post
The rules of evidence and reliable inference are not a matter of opinion nor are they decided by popular vote. It isn't "sheer chance" that atheists agree upon them and agree that they do not support the existence of a god or gods.

Your mistake was bringing the rules of evidence into the picture.....

Then you insinuate there is no God by stating -- It isn't "sheer chance" that atheists agree upon them and agree that they do not support the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I see atheism the exact same way, making an abritrary decision.

That's because you still, erroneously, and despite the innumerable times it's been explained to you, believe that atheism is a derived conclusion that precisely zero gods exist. It isn't. It is rather the condition of being unconvinced by the arguments and alleged evidence submitted to justify the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

actually YES!! In the manner that you speak you said that!!

Tell me how this can be taken any other way?



Your mistake was bringing the rules of evidence into the picture.....

Then you insinuate there is no God by stating -- It isn't "sheer chance" that atheists agree upon them and agree that they do not support the existence of a god or gods.

It is impossible to conduct a rational debate with a person that is unable to parse simple sentences in English.

 

[jackstar7]

14.) Which seems more probable? God(s) or no gods?

Explain your answer.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's because you still, erroneously, and despite the innumerable times it's been explained to you, believe that atheism is a derived conclusion that precisely zero gods exist. It isn't. It is rather the condition of being unconvinced by the arguments and alleged evidence submitted to justify the existence of a god or gods.

That's because you guys clearly insinuate such.

 

[JD50]

That means that you didn't read Spider's post, which I was responding to.

He said that by virtue of them meeting in the same place, it means they've reached a logical conclusion. I just inserted "Mortal Kombat" so show how silly it sounds to say that since a group of people agree, then it's logical.

Stop making terrible statements and the bad analogies will stop.

It's a bad analogy because the two scenarios are in no way similar.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's because you guys clearly insinuate such.

This is a blatant falsehood. I choose my words carefully and deliberately to clearly exemplify that distinction in my arguments. Any confusion is a consequence of faulty comprehension on your part.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's a bad analogy because the two scenarios are in no way similar.

I explained why they are similar, because they're both based on an opinion. Of course, I know its offensive to compare your sincerely-held conclusions to something as trival as rejecting a video game.

That's what I think this is all about.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I just asked a question.

And I asked several more. The correct answers to my questions reveal the fact that your question was disingenuous.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I explained why they are similar, because they're both based on an opinion. Of course, I know its offensive to compare your sincerely-held conclusions to something as trival as rejecting a video game.

That's what I think this is all about.

Apparently it is a mistake made by many of us to assume you were interested in dealing with real atheists and real atheism instead of the effigies of straw you clearly prefer.

 

[serpretetsky]

That's because you still, erroneously, and despite the innumerable times it's been explained to you, believe that atheism is a derived conclusion that precisely zero gods exist. It isn't. It is rather the condition of being unconvinced by the arguments and alleged evidence submitted to justify the existence of a god or gods.

Isn't that more like agnostism? I thought athiesm claims there are no gods.