Logic and reason =/= Atheism

[klr]

Why are you letting this guy troll you? Disengage.

It's far too ineffectual to count as trolling.

[MrFungus420]

Sooooo ... one guy's experiences make for a universal truth, do they? Shome mishtake, shurely.

No, but why is someone else's belief system of interest to you at all? So long as they aren't hurting you, it's none of your business at all, you see. Criticizing other people's beliefs is an act of hubris and arrogance and disdain, not logic and reason. It's not about what others believe, it's about how you follow your own religious dogma.

Beliefs haven't got some sort of immunity from rational criticism. A situation where someone is emotionally fragile may require some forbearance from face-to-face criticism, but that's all. You are over-reacting; criticising beliefs is not the same as causing harm to someone because of their beliefs, a practice which does indeed happen in the current world (usually by religiously motivated cretins attacking people for believing in the wrong sky fairy), and certainly was practiced by the christian establishment of the past.

So.....Your argument supporting the rationality and logic of attacking the "christian establishment" (sic) is "They did it first!".

You might want to work on your reading comprehension.

Nowhere did he say that in any way.

[MrFungus420]

There's absolutely nothing rational or logical about denigrating a belief system or systems that helps 80 percent of the population of the planet cope with the stresses of their lives.

But by the same token there's nothing unreasonable about applying logic and reason to the content of those comforting beliefs.

There is if it's none of your business in the first place. Examine your own beliefs, not somebody else's. You've plenty of work to do there.

Says the guy examining the beliefs of others.

Can you say "hypocrisy" boys and girls?

[MrFungus420]

Find out more about “Matthew 13:44″ here.

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." Verily, how could I have been so blind not to see the reason of theism.

Probably has something to do with the internal conflicts inherent in your religion of Atheism.

What internal conflicts are there in saying, "I don't believe that a god exists"?

How does the position of not believing that a god does exist count as a religion?

[MrFungus420]

I don't know why you can't accept the fact that I'm not a theist or an apologist for theists, I'm merely a critic of Atheism and Atheists who chooses to put your religion under the same sort of rational and logical examination that you subject everyone who doesn't believe as you do to on a daily basis. (and by "you" I mean Atheists collectively, not you individually...)

Because atheism is not a religion.

The only people that seem to say that are those trying to make the position of not believing in a god equivalent to believing in a god, having priests, holy books, and dogma.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

but why is someone else's belief system of interest to you at all? So long as they aren't hurting you, it's none of your business at all, you see.

But apparently, it is of enough interest to YOU and enough of YOUR business for you to post this here? And with a completely misleading title?

Take a course in journalism focusing on headline writing, review the post activity associated with the thread, and get back to me on why I framed it that way.

Well sidestepped, Sir.

But I was already aware of your skills in that direction.

Now, will you kindly address my first point (rephrased for clarity): Why, if the beliefs of others should not interest us, did you post something that is nothing but an account of the beliefs of another!

(The addendum about the title was peripheral I was giving you credit for having sufficient intelligence to realise this. Kindly inform me if you struggle with such concepts and I will simplify my questions to something you are comfortable with.)

[Seth]

Sooooo ... one guy's experiences make for a universal truth, do they? Shome mishtake, shurely.

No, but why is someone else's belief system of interest to you at all? So long as they aren't hurting you, it's none of your business at all, you see. Criticizing other people's beliefs is an act of hubris and arrogance and disdain, not logic and reason. It's not about what others believe, it's about how you follow your own religious dogma.

Eh? That cuts both ways. Why did you bother to post the article then? FWIW, your posting is a thinly veiled attempt on the beliefs of atheists.

No, it's an examination of the practices of Atheists and their logical, rational, ethical and moral strengths and weaknesses.

I don't know why you can't accept the fact that I'm not a theist or an apologist for theists, I'm merely a critic of Atheism and Atheists who chooses to put your religion under the same sort of rational and logical examination that you subject everyone who doesn't believe as you do to on a daily basis. (and by "you" I mean Atheists collectively, not you individually...)

No, it's one person's experience, nothing more, nothing less. Not in the least relevant in the great scheme of things.

Prove that claim please, using critically robust scientific evidence.

Einstein "experienced" things that changed the world, why couldn't someone else's "experience" do the same?

[Seth]

Why are you letting this guy troll you? Disengage.

Spoilsport.

[Seth]

Sooooo ... one guy's experiences make for a universal truth, do they? Shome mishtake, shurely.

No, but why is someone else's belief system of interest to you at all? So long as they aren't hurting you, it's none of your business at all, you see. Criticizing other people's beliefs is an act of hubris and arrogance and disdain, not logic and reason. It's not about what others believe, it's about how you follow your own religious dogma.

Beliefs haven't got some sort of immunity from rational criticism. A situation where someone is emotionally fragile may require some forbearance from face-to-face criticism, but that's all. You are over-reacting; criticising beliefs is not the same as causing harm to someone because of their beliefs, a practice which does indeed happen in the current world (usually by religiously motivated cretins attacking people for believing in the wrong sky fairy), and certainly was practiced by the christian establishment of the past.

So.....Your argument supporting the rationality and logic of attacking the "christian establishment" (sic) is "They did it first!".

You might want to work on your reading comprehension.

Nowhere did he say that in any way.

Yes, he did.

[Seth]

Find out more about “Matthew 13:44″ here.

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." Verily, how could I have been so blind not to see the reason of theism.

Probably has something to do with the internal conflicts inherent in your religion of Atheism.

What internal conflicts are there in saying, "I don't believe that a god exists"?

How does the position of not believing that a god does exist count as a religion?

It's an expression of religious faith. But that's hardly all of what Atheists believe and practice that makes Atheism a religion, you see.

[Seth]

I don't know why you can't accept the fact that I'm not a theist or an apologist for theists, I'm merely a critic of Atheism and Atheists who chooses to put your religion under the same sort of rational and logical examination that you subject everyone who doesn't believe as you do to on a daily basis. (and by "you" I mean Atheists collectively, not you individually...)

Because atheism is not a religion.

Perhaps, but Atheism most certainly is.

The only people that seem to say that are those trying to make the position of not believing in a god equivalent to believing in a god, having priests, holy books, and dogma.

No, I'm saying that Atheism is a religion, which has nothing whatever to do with theism per se. Religion =/= theism, whereas theism = religion and Atheism = religion, religion and theism being two entirely different things.

[Seth]

but why is someone else's belief system of interest to you at all? So long as they aren't hurting you, it's none of your business at all, you see.

But apparently, it is of enough interest to YOU and enough of YOUR business for you to post this here? And with a completely misleading title?

Take a course in journalism focusing on headline writing, review the post activity associated with the thread, and get back to me on why I framed it that way.

Well sidestepped, Sir.

But I was already aware of your skills in that direction.

Now, will you kindly address my first point (rephrased for clarity): Why, if the beliefs of others should not interest us, did you post something that is nothing but an account of the beliefs of another!

(The addendum about the title was peripheral I was giving you credit for having sufficient intelligence to realise this. Kindly inform me if you struggle with such concepts and I will simplify my questions to something you are comfortable with.)

Because I'm not "you," I'm "me" and I don't discount or denigrate the beliefs of others in favor of my own particular dogma. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate that Atheists aren't nearly as smart as they would like to think they are, and are just as susceptible to religious dogma as the next guy.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

but why is someone else's belief system of interest to you at all? So long as they aren't hurting you, it's none of your business at all, you see.

But apparently, it is of enough interest to YOU and enough of YOUR business for you to post this here? And with a completely misleading title?

Take a course in journalism focusing on headline writing, review the post activity associated with the thread, and get back to me on why I framed it that way.

Well sidestepped, Sir.

But I was already aware of your skills in that direction.

Now, will you kindly address my first point (rephrased for clarity): Why, if the beliefs of others should not interest us, did you post something that is nothing but an account of the beliefs of another!

(The addendum about the title was peripheral I was giving you credit for having sufficient intelligence to realise this. Kindly inform me if you struggle with such concepts and I will simplify my questions to something you are comfortable with.)

Because I'm not "you," I'm "me" and I don't discount or denigrate the beliefs of others in favor of my own particular dogma.

I denigrate belief per se. I despise it as much in myself as in others. I strive always to treat my own convictions as nothing more than a working hypothesis, subject to revision whenever new evidence presents.

That I am not entirely successful in this, I do not doubt. But I am genuinely striving in that direction (most of the time). The fact that I am, to all intents and purposes, atheist is a function of that striving, not a cause of it.

The purpose of the article is to demonstrate that Atheists aren't nearly as smart as they would like to think they are, and are just as susceptible to religious dogma as the next guy.

Please, do tell me how the article achieves this?
How did you deduce that this is the purpose of the article? It itself states so nowhere!
Of what relevance is the relative intelligence of atheists and the guys next to them, in this case (and is this affected by their capitalisation, or lack thereof)? Or are you claiming that it their relative perception of their own intelligence that matters? If the latter, again, of what relevance is this?
How should one reduce ones susceptibility to religious dogma? Is such a reduction even to be desired, in your opinion? Is religious dogma better or worse than any other dogma, again, in your opinion?

[piscator]

but why is someone else's belief system of interest to you at all? So long as they aren't hurting you, it's none of your business at all, you see.

But apparently, it is of enough interest to YOU and enough of YOUR business for you to post this here? And with a completely misleading title?

Take a course in journalism focusing on headline writing, review the post activity associated with the thread, and get back to me on why I framed it that way.

Well sidestepped, Sir.

But I was already aware of your skills in that direction.

Now, will you kindly address my first point (rephrased for clarity): Why, if the beliefs of others should not interest us, did you post something that is nothing but an account of the beliefs of another!

(The addendum about the title was peripheral I was giving you credit for having sufficient intelligence to realise this. Kindly inform me if you struggle with such concepts and I will simplify my questions to something you are comfortable with.)

Because I'm not "you," I'm "me" and I don't discount or denigrate the beliefs of others in favor of my own particular dogma. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate that Atheists aren't nearly as smart as they would like to think they are, and are just as susceptible to religious dogma as the next guy.

Who said the Atheists were smarter than the Raytheists, the Reformed Shaynatheists, the Predispositional New Zion ShayNaynatheists, or any of the other organized groups formed specifically around not believing in Allahoo?

[Seth]

I denigrate belief per se. I despise it as much in myself as in others. I strive always to treat my own convictions as nothing more than a working hypothesis, subject to revision whenever new evidence presents.

And your policy should be judged rational or logical why, exactly? And how is your process inherently superior to that of another? What is inherently superior about your methodology over religious theistic belief?

That I am not entirely successful in this, I do not doubt. But I am genuinely striving in that direction (most of the time). The fact that I am, to all intents and purposes, atheist is a function of that striving, not a cause of it.

Good for you. How does that make your striving superior to the striving of others using different methodology?

The purpose of the article is to demonstrate that Atheists aren't nearly as smart as they would like to think they are, and are just as susceptible to religious dogma as the next guy.

Please, do tell me how the article achieves this?
How did you deduce that this is the purpose of the article? It itself states so nowhere!

I didn't deduce it, I caused it. The article is merely the vehicle with which I trigger the examination.

Of what relevance is the relative intelligence of atheists and the guys next to them, in this case (and is this affected by their capitalisation, or lack thereof)?

It's relevant in assessing the rationality and logic of Atheist religious dogma.

Or are you claiming that it their relative perception of their own intelligence that matters?

Of course it matters. What makes you think that your relative perception of your intelligence matters more than anyone else's? You seem to presume a priori that your methodology is superior to the methodology of theists without a scintilla of evidence that this presumption of yours is logical, rational or true.

If the latter, again, of what relevance is this?

It helps to demonstrate the logical and rational failures of dogmatically religious Atheists.

How should one reduce ones susceptibility to religious dogma?

Why does susceptibility to religious dogma need to be reduced?

Is such a reduction even to be desired, in your opinion?

That is the question, isn't it?

Is religious dogma better or worse than any other dogma, again, in your opinion?

One would think that a logical and rational analysis and response to religious dogma would require properly and thoroughly answering that particular question before drawing conclusions about the superiority of one's own religious dogma or the inferiority of another's.

And the failure to answer that fundamental question on the part of dogmatic Atheists is one of the examples of illogic and unreason that Atheists engage in as a substitute for actual logic and reason that I am currently examining.