1/18/10

SMRT’s “Five Good Reasons for Being an Atheist”

This post has been moved to this link.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , ,

20 comments:

  1. Benjamin FranklinJanuary 18, 2010 at 10:19 AM

    How is religion and belief in god anything but a widespread, socially accepted delusion?

    Delusion as defined by Mirriam Webster Medical Dictionary as:

    a false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside theself that persists despite the facts and occurs in some psychotic states

    ReplyDelete
  2. MacGyver JrJanuary 18, 2010 at 10:27 AM

    Thans for the mention and discussion, but I have a couple of quick corrections, sadly I did not write it, I'm feel that I'm better at researching other people's falsehoods than posting original content, I just reposed it for another member of ours by the name of Intellectual Ninja as part of my admin duties. secondly, thank you for catching the typo in the "Who are we section." The "S" in SMRT does properly stand for Skeptical, not Smart.

    ReplyDelete
  3. secularist10January 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM

    "Firstly, any and every reasonably sane person condemns one or another form of sexual act"

    Homosexuality is not a sexual act, it is a sexual orientation.

    "Of course prayer fails when it is defined as God being a cosmic Jeeves." Whether or not this statement is correct, this brings up the issue of definitions; I can define "god" and "prayer" however I want to lead to whatever conclusion I desire.

    Atheists and secularists generally use common/ colloquial definitions for "god" or "religion" etc, and the religious defense is often "that's not MY god."

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJanuary 18, 2010 at 1:13 PM

    Actually secularist 10 by erroneously labeling everything as "god" or "religious" all your really doing is discrediting yourself. Because literally that isn't their god as it were. Try comparing a Hindu to a Muslim or a Muslim to a Jew. You'll hit a cultural and ideological wall so fast that you'll be shell shocked. By lumping these groups together it shows either 1) Ignorance of a subject 2) Laziness or 3) simply making a catergory mistake. You can't honestly think that by labeling something "religious" and lumping it with other things that does anything to discredit it. Thats about as absurd as clumping all cultures in the world together calling it "cultures" pointing out one thing about them and claming there all impotent. That is not only wrong it sounds like an argument from either arrogance or laziness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJanuary 18, 2010 at 1:26 PM

    "We have looked, but we haven’t found any, ever."

    When and where did this search take place I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  6. secularist10January 18, 2010 at 2:06 PM

    "Actually secularist 10 by erroneously labeling everything as 'god' or 'religious' all your really doing is discrediting yourself."

    I am not labeling everything as "god" or "religious." I am using the colloquial/ common definitions of those terms.

    ReplyDelete
  7. WhatevermanJanuary 19, 2010 at 10:32 AM

    By lumping these groups together it shows either 1) Ignorance of a subject 2) Laziness or 3) simply making a catergory mistake.

    Fine. Either YOUR God does not exist, or there is so little evidence of its existence that prudence demands that we assume non-existence.

    Really, it's childish to demand that secularists qualify every statement with the names and qualities of each God they reject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. bossmanhamJanuary 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM

    Hey, Ben Franklin! Don't you remember you were a theist?


    Sec10,

    I am not labeling everything as "god" or "religious." I am using the colloquial/ common definitions of those terms.

    Which would be the fallacy of equivocation.

    W-man,

    Really, it's childish to demand that secularists qualify every statement with the names and qualities of each God they reject.

    No, it's intellectually weak to rely on the fallacy of equivocation to disprove all gods.

    ReplyDelete
  9. WhatevermanJanuary 19, 2010 at 12:58 PM

    No, it's intellectually weak to rely on the fallacy of equivocation to disprove all gods.

    That'd be a handy argument, except for the fact that no one is equivocating to disprove all gods.

    ReplyDelete
  10. secularist10January 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM

    bossmanham:

    Nice try. It is not such a fallacy because there is no ambiguity/ uncertainty in the terms "god" or "religion".

    ReplyDelete
  11. bossmanhamJanuary 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM

    Nice try. It is not such a fallacy because there is no ambiguity/ uncertainty in the terms "god" or "religion".

    Your reply was to Mariano's contention that God not giving all we want when we pray like a cosmic genie not applying to the Yahweh was to say "Atheists and secularists generally use common/ colloquial definitions for "god" or 'religion' etc, and the religious defense is often 'that's not MY god.'"

    That, however, is the definition of equivocating. You're applying one possible definition of 'god' to all uses. What the pantheist means by god is demonstrably different than what the monotheist means. If you don't differentiate when speaking on a specific application, like prayer, between the different possible formulations, you have committed the fallacy of equivocation, and attacked a straw-man in the case of at least Christian theists.

    Or maybe it's that neither of you understand what equivocation or the straw-man fallacies are?

    ReplyDelete
  12. secularist10January 19, 2010 at 6:36 PM

    bossmanham:

    Not quite. I said regarding Mariano's statement: "Whether or not this statement is correct, this brings up the issue of definitions..." I thought Mariano's statement spoke to a larger tendency, but I wasn't directly addressing his assertion.

    I understand you want to read into things and extrapolate about our intelligence, but it doesn't necessarily work.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousJanuary 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM

    regarding question number 1 the memory you have could just as easily be fake and also if that did happen there would still be evidence you would just have to work hard to find it. And people have been looking hard to find proof of religion very frequently and yet there is still no valid proof other than a few old books that have been changed by people throughout time

    ReplyDelete
  14. Benjamin FranklinJanuary 28, 2010 at 5:48 PM

    bossmanham said :

    "Hey Ben Franklin! Don't you remember you were a theist?"

    How, in any way, does that answer my question?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Debunkey MonkeyJanuary 28, 2010 at 10:39 PM

    MacGyver didn't write that post. I did. Thank you for reading. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. secular bastardJanuary 31, 2010 at 3:19 PM

    First of all Mariano is a Fucking idiot!
    Why is everyone so concerned about an individual who refuses to shave and looks like a fucking Neantherthal! This Christian right wing dirtbag should be in a Geico commercial! This loser can't even aford a car so he takes a bus and he porks this 300 beast who he calls his wife. Did you clowns ever meet this ugly bitch?
    What you fucking clowns need to do is find a real blog and not waste your time with a dirtbag who would gladly give Jesus a blowjob!

    ReplyDelete
  17. MarianoJanuary 31, 2010 at 3:24 PM

    This is disgusting I would never dry off Jesus.
    Well then again if I could get to Heaven I guess I would blow the Son of God.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Debunkey MonkeyJanuary 31, 2010 at 3:26 PM

    Mariano:

    Can I suck your dick?

    ReplyDelete
  19. MarianoJanuary 31, 2010 at 3:28 PM

    Yes off course! Benjamin Franklin let's make it a threesome!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Benjamin FranklinJanuary 31, 2010 at 3:31 PM

    Okay but you have to lick my balls too!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)