From Winnie the Pooh to Cocaine Bear. What is going on with the formerly live-and -let-live atheists lately. Listen to philosophy doctorate and everyone's favorite documented psychopath Dr. D. Wood for an interesting logical exercise that turns the focus on atheists. Are they purely motivated by a search for truth? Enjoy.
(3 votes)
Comments
(Short Spike)
(Site Administrator)
jd, fantastic song! It's been years since I heard it. Thx.
(Old Spike)
Fucking hell, this is hilarious. Thank you. At least for a while,after 4 minutes of pure ad hominem I lost interest, though.
If you feel you can discredit somebody, I would encourage you to please do so, BUT by actually disproving them. I would really have liked to see that. Please let me know if actual arguments about where Dawkins is wrong will be used somewhere later in the video otherwise I won't waste my time.
In any case Dawkins is a biologist, his main interest lies with science denying creationist type of religious sects (you know the ones the members of your sect laugh about). Hitchens went quite a bit further.
You should actually love the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, they are number one "islamist bashers" after all!
(Short Spike)
lol
you didn't watch it and you have an opinion anyway.
lol
you actually have no idea what the point was.
no I won't indulge you with a synopsis
lol
(Old Spike)
(Site Administrator)
Actually jd's reply was spot on. You just need to drag the toggle to the right to see there's a lot more Dawkins in his own words so to speak. And the presenter does a good job pointing out some things I really don't want to spoil for you. Would be ironic if you didn't.
(Old Spike)
So I was correct to assume nothing of any significance (like pointing out examples where dawkins has "no proof" for his statements) is to follow, just more ad hominem bullshit.
I find it funny how believers insist that he is some kind of guru of a cult or atheistic "sect", when by definition they are not believers at all. I think it is just because the believers are unable to grasp that there are people that can live without this kind of dogma and that they think they should somehow be more respected for their belief (as it is so old?).
(Site Administrator)
Oh, so you watched the rest of the video and came to the conclusions above? I'd like that clarified before we continue. Thanks.
(Old Spike)
So you ARE SAYING that the concept of the video completely changes after the 4 minute mark, well you are a "christian", you wouldn't dare lie to me as it is a sin, so I'll watch it....
(Site Administrator)
Yep. Much like his other vids when he quotes directly from the Quaran he puts up direct quotes from your lord and saviour Dawkins (except here it's on video,.. out of his own mouth while being interviewed by another atheist..no doubt feeling he's in his safe space). I'd like to know what you think of Dawkins's statement that no evidence would be sufficient.
edit 20230313: and why the quotes around christian.. you channelling someone in particular?
(Old Spike)
So he is a quran basher? oh of course you like that don't you. Just like you like to ignore the stupid and vile parts of your holy book you love to point them out in other religions. Hell, you even like to laugh at your fellow christians when they have different interpretations than your particular sect.
I put this in quotes as you do not really behave like a christian.
Anyway here goes:
If I would say to you, "I am the new Jesus" you wouldn't take my word for it now would you? Quite some investigation would need to be done. And based on the current evidence we have (especially from what has been shown in this video) it actually would be more likely that I am hallucinating or a con artist.
Lastly unfortunately the narrator has not given any evidence at all now, has he, he just says it doesn't mater what evidence there is people like Dawkins wouldn't accept it. Does he mean that there actually is evidence? I would find this surprising as whenever I challenged you on this you come up with nothing other than "the beauty of nature" and stuff that cannot (yet) be explained by scientists.
To me, as I explained many a time, it is a matter of likelihood: Is it likely that (a) god(s) interfered with the development of humanity? From what I have seen it ain't.
So yeah, waste of time video.
(Site Administrator)
I don't get it. Didn't you start off above saying some of your best friends (Dawkins/Harris) are Quran bashers? And yes, laughing at other Christian sects poses some heartfelt joyous memories for me, so, be careful not to make me cry or anything. Thanks for clarifying that you're the authority on what we behave like. I'll let you know if I have any questions. So on to your Q&A:
We won't do bullet 8 cause it's been asked and answered many times before and we said this thread was about us looking at you. And this.. this is what you look like right now.
(Old Spike)
*facepalm*, see, here's a reason I put christian in quotes to describe you. I NEVER called you dumb (maybe some things you said though), I don't believe you are, many believers are not, same as being atheist doesn't make one intelligent. To dumb it down:
being deluded or gullible towards a certain "thing" =/= stupid
Which one of these mails is from you?
(Site Administrator)
Oooh, most likely the second one I'd think. I mean as it turns out you new-atheists ARE just spouting dogma in the end. Plus I noticed Dawkins pronounced hypocrite correctly so I'm assuming it was spelled correctly, so let's say I'm that guy... except I'd probably say intellectual deficit or developmental delay .. otherwise yeah, it's pretty accurate - thanks!
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You can't really deny that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris didn't form a following.
There are the ones that preach and the ones who listen and follow (parrot) the same message onward. Just like any other group it needs some ideas to form a following.
Compare that to the scientific method and what does science do with the idea of god. Well, it does nothing. Theres no evidence, hence no discussion, no hypothesis, no theory. It doesn't argue against god or for it.
(Old Spike)
Correct! The only thing science does is try to find evidence, and as far as the concept "god" goes, there are plenty of hypothesis', however not a single shred of evidence and thus no theory. So there is nothing to disprove really (and the onus wouldn't be for science or anyone to do so, it would lie with the believers to provide proof of existence).
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"and the onus wouldn't be for science or anyone to do so, it would lie with the believers to provide proof of existence"
Thats why they're called believers, they believe without proof, well physical & demonstrable proof anyway.
(Site Administrator)
Meanwhile, also as established in the video above; quoting directly from Dawkins here; (nah, just paraphrasing) 'nothing would (convince me)'. 'I've always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming'. Why would you go against the will of your lord and saviour Dawkins and demand proof, daftcunt? You're acting like a real heretic here. Aren't you scared pope-Dawkins might excommunicate you or something?
(Old Spike)
Again you behave like a "knower", so please, and I believe I asked this before, what makes you so certain "god" exists? What is your evidence? Do you need any? If not, why not?
Also where does your constant insisting on any relation between me and Dawkins come from. I believe I haven't posted anything from him on here? Exception in my reply above, which appeared in my yt after I watched this video.
(Site Administrator)
We said my answer's never been good enough for you. As established in the video above, it can't be for you new-atheist types.. on account of your indoctrination. This is equally ironic when all you do is run around telling everyone they're indoctrinated...but not you. And that in a world of atheists (antitheists) we would have true peace.
Let's do 'elevator gate' next. Lols.
(Old Spike)
I don't think you ever gave reasons or "your evidence", you actually, like now, always desperately try to avoid that and reply with some sort of attack.
(Site Administrator)
I won't repeat myself. As you said above, my answers are too lowly for you. But you on the other hand... Your responses (or lack thereof) played out exactly as the presenter above said they would. Down to a T,.. you might say.
Let's continue this journey of exploration into new-atheism, eh. 'Atheist elevatorgate' next. I promise.
(Old Spike)
What did you expect, he lured the audience in with ad hominem and then made sure they "understand" their insecurities about and lack of arguments for their belief doesn't matter, because, well, they are just right anyway and can never convince the enemy. Stuff you happily repeat (thus showing clear symptoms of a cult follower).
Then he distorts what his "enemy" said to a certain extent.
But that is not the point here, maybe Dawkins is so set in his ways that meeting god and being given eternal life or a glimpse of paradise would not convince him, so let's make him irrelevant for this discussion. I never ever mentioned Dawkins to you anyway, you just assumed that I am one of what you like to call "his cult".
I asked you before what proof would YOU need to accept somebody claiming they are the re-incarnated Jesus who was sent back down to earth because *insert here what you think should be the most pressing issue for him (in your mind, you do not need to spell it out, what it actually is is irrelevant)*.
I would struggle to answer that question off the top of my head, could you? Or would you just accept their statement? Or would you say it is impossible?
(Site Administrator)
The above is a very interesting statement, though wrong. You've brought in new-age beliefs whereas Christianity refers to the resurrection of the body (eg. Jesus asking Thomas to touch the wounds on his hands and in his side). Getting past that, since you disavowed Dawkins in the above video (which could easily be called 'things atheists say when they get together'). Since you can't answer off the top of your head, why not give it some thought and tell us what it might take for you to recognize him if he ever came back. (I say 'might' above just to make it an easier mental exercise). I promise I'll answer too, but,..you first.
(Old Spike)
Like I said I would struggle to come up with something because for me too many variables would need to be considered. It would need to be something that can be witnessed, measured, reproduced and closely analysed, so in any case it would never be an "on the spot change of mind".
Maybe like make one lose or gain10kg body weight or grow a full head of hair again or "repair" a burn victim's injuries, all in an instant. Which would leave the conundrum of "is he an alien in disguise?" As in many scifi movies and series this is already "invented".
Still, it would probably have to be something physical rather than ethical or philosophical, as I think humans are very much capable and a deity is unnecessary in this respect.
(Site Administrator)
Well, thanks for trying in any case. I think we've hit it on the head. What you need to accept now is that just like you would need specific measurable proof (not Dawkins apparently), the average Christian hasn't given it much thought. I'm not trying to be dismissive or belittling here. Most are just comfortable knowing that they would recognize Him. That they'd feel it in every fiber if their being. That kind of thing.
Good talk. Glad we were able to compare notes in a civilized manner, there at the end.