It’s said and it’s said often, by atheists, “You can’t get two atheists to agree on anything.” Or as Stan the Half-Truth Teller says, Atheists as a group are impossible to corral.
I suppose that’s true, except for the fact that ALL atheists agree:
That you can’t get two atheists to agree on anything.
That God doesn’t exist
That Jesus isn’t God
That God didn’t create the universe
That the Bible isn’t God’s Word
That You don’t need God in order to be a good person
That Life can spontaneously rise from non life
That Everything can come from nothing by nothing
The Micro evolution proves macro evolution
That Matter can be eternal
That Christians should keep their faith to themselves
That All religions are wrong
That The only reality is natural reality
That Miracles are not possible
That there is no such thing as the supernatural
That Prayer does not “work”
That Intelligent Design should not be taught in school
That the Lord’s prayer should not be said in school
That The idea that we are connecting with God is a delusion
That Life does not have ultimate meaning or purpose
That physical death is the end
That There is no objective right or wrong.
That it did not require intelligence to place 1,000 sets of encyclopaedia’s worth of information in the first living cell. Richard Dawkins said that it just happened. And if Richard Dawkins says that it just happened, then that’s what happened!
That “In God We Trust” should not be on the money or in Gov’t Buildings.
That Christian politicians should keep their beliefs and behaviours separate
So besides the above and probably a couple dozen other items that didn’t get included, I think it’s true, you really can’t get any two atheists to agree on anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
So... Straw-manning your opponents is all you do, eh?
I humbly apologize, and with no small amount of embarrassment do I admit that I actually thought your blog might be worth my time. I'll lurk a bit, I'm sure, and I'm pretty easy to goad into a rowdy debate, but I expect I'll delete this site from my list by day's end.
(Psst. The ten items you listed which directly reference a god are necessarily redundant. The eight which deal with origins and/or philosophy are complete straw men which apply also to non-atheists. The four which deal specifically with the separation clause of the First Amendment were introduced by a diverse group, including at the least both Deists and Theists, and are supported by far more than mere atheists. The one about Dawkins is humorous, but still a straw man. There are also two I'm apparently missing... Sorry. I'm sure they're redundant and/or straw men, too.)
--
Stan
I suppose that’s true, except for the fact that ALL atheists agree...
I'm an atheist and there's two or three of those points I don't agree with. So I guess it is true that you can't get two atheists to agree on everything...
Dude. You really go about making your point the wrong way. If you want to convert people or convince them to believe in a higher power, you should maybe cut the sarcasm. People close their eyes, their ears and their hearts to personal attacks the likes of this.
There is this thing and it's called debating. And it can totally be done in a way where two people of vastly different opinions don't hate each other by the end.
As they say, you catch more flies with honey or whatever. That is why I am going to convert everyone to my new spiritual phenomenon "Wicked/Awesomeism" by releasing hoards of giant bees onto the internets.
I suppose that’s true, except for the fact that ALL atheists agree:
I assume you can point us to the the questionnaire that has been signed by every atheist that proves this?
Were I to poll only the atheists I know, I would have to say that the answers to this questionnaire are:
1) false
2) false
3) likely true
4) false
5) likely true
6) likely true
7) false
8) false
9) likely true (because they are one in the same)
10) what are you even talking about?
11) false
12) likely true
13) likely true
14) likely true
15) likely true
16) false
17) likely true*
18) likely true*
19) likely true
20) false
21) false
22) false
23) likely true
24) likely true*
25) likely true*
So, it's likely true that every atheist agrees on 14 of these 25 points, with at least four of them not specific to atheists*. I say likely, because finding even one atheist to disagree with any one of those points would disprove your hypothesis. Remember, this is just a run down of the atheists I know and what I suspect they would agree or disagree over.
You should create a list of things that every Christian believes. See how far you get with that.
* These are not "atheist" positions by any measure, as members of many religions in this country agree on these points. Of course, I'm sure you don't consider anyone "Christian" if they oppose teaching Intelligent Design, unless considering them "Christian" helps you make an argument about how your religion is correct because of its popularity.
There are hundreds of Christian sects in the US and all you have to do is look at the statements on their sites and it is obvious that no two agree.
If there was a Satan, and he could write a book that would be fractious to "The Church," it would be the Bible.
Wowsers! I believe all that? Who'd've thunk it?
Oh wait, no I don't.
I'm going to make this simple for you. I DON'T AGREE...
That you can’t get two atheists to agree on anything.
That God doesn’t exist
That Life can spontaneously rise from non life
That Everything can come from nothing by nothing
The Micro evolution proves macro evolution
That Christians should keep their faith to themselves
That All religions are wrong
That Miracles are not possible
That the Lord’s prayer should not be said in school
That physical death is the end
That There is no objective right or wrong.
That it did not require intelligence to place 1,000 sets of encyclopaedia’s worth of information in the first living cell. Richard Dawkins said that it just happened. And if Richard Dawkins says that it just happened, then that’s what happened!
That “In God We Trust” should not be on the money or in Gov’t Buildings.
I'm willing to explain why I disagree with any of these positions, if you're curious.
Mak, it didn't "just happen". Your fairy boy God did it. Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so .....
Mak, why does God get your default? You never answer that question. Why not aliens from another dimension? Oh, I guess they would have to have a creator too. But your creator doesn't need a creator. Makes sense to me.
On the road tonight ... Got to go find a Gideon Bible to deface ...
You don't HAVE to call the Primary Cause God. Philosophers generally refer to The Greatest Conceivable Being.
Virtually all philosophers agree that if there is the slightest chance of God existing, then He does in fact exist. Alvin Plantinga has refined Anselm’s argument as follows.
He asks, “What is the greatest conceivable being?” Our answer goes past me and you and the Dali Lama and any other "great" human being we can think of and we come to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being that we commonly call “God” If we could think of something greater than God, then THAT is what would be called God. We can call it a Mind or something else but it amounts to the same thing ie. The Greatest Conceivable Being That Can Possibly Exist.
Therefore we can know that God exists because:
. It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.
. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality.
. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in some possible reality, it exists in every possible reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in every possible reality, then it exists in actual reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in actual reality, then a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in our reality.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, it stands to reason that the conclusion is also true: A Greatest Conceivable Being or God exists.
Ah, Plantinga's argument. Hooray.
It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.
Okay, with you so far.
. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality.
Assuming that such a reality is an extant thing, and not merely a philosophical construct... but okay, I'll bite by assuming a multiverse in which all possible scenario's play out, and in which all universes are interconnected (which is exactly what must be proposed if we are to consider our reality as a part of it)...
. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in some possible reality, it exists in every possible reality.
Nup. No. False. Because, by the same logic of the infinite multiverse that spawned the GCB, there also exists an infinite number of universes (but a smaller infinite than the infinite number of universes in the infinite multiverse) which are completely seperate from the GCB. Which makes the GCB not the Greatest Possible Being.
Thus, the argument fails by binding itself in a neat little paradox which (co-incidentally) renders the existence of a Greatest Possible Being impossible.
From wiki
Douglas Gasking:
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
I think most of us would agree that you are a total tool.
Mixter
"I think most of us would agree that you are a total tool."
Ah, and you're a sweetheart who obviously doesn't need God in order to be a nice person.
Kiss, kiss, good night.
Makarios, think about it. I'm sure you don't like it when people characterize all Christians as being one type, or all behaving in the same manner, or all thinking exactly the same way. Why is it okay for you to do it to atheists? You can't possibly know what I think, who I agree with, how I behave, what my moral stance is, etc. For the most part, I don't have a problem with people who believe in a god. I DO have a problem with those who would try to legislate their particular brand of morality or who try to ram their beliefs down my throat. Fundamentalists -- be they Islamic, Christian, or whatever -- are, in my opinion, very scary people.
I'm actually a very nice person -- anyone who has ever met me will tell you just that -- but I get REALLY tired of theists who pigeonhole atheists. For the most part, you're just dead wrong. You're a tool: you're trying too hard and you're regurgitating falsehoods. (There are other definitions for "tool" besides that of the male genitalia, btw...)
By the way, I've never read Dawkins. I'm not an atheist because someone else convinced me to be one.
So, kiss, kiss goodnight to you. :)
Mixter
Post a Comment