Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[PRmerger]

What testimonies do atheists believe in? or even more, base their beliefs or skepticism on, if anything, they wouldn’t include any supernatural interactions.

As far as not including any “supernatural interactions”…well, yeah.

That’s because they’re atheists.

But I think it’s quite clear that atheists accept the testimony of others with as much regularity as theists do.

But for some reason, they permit in themselves what they object to in others.

One has to wonder why that is.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s not true. People, including atheists, can and do have feelings of trust and confidence about others.!

I specified “anything”!

It is a sobering thought which highlights the stark emptiness of a Godless universe which is soul-destroying in every sense of the term.

I’ve heard of this type of reaction from someone that had been religious but has recently had doubts or become unconvinced; as though their safety net has been pulled from under them. But people at times have limited capacity to worry about something and that reaction and feelings may diminish overtime.

It is rare for an atheist to believe we have a soul…

Without religion we live in a spiritual desert which ultimately becomes so oppressing that death becomes a liberation from despair and desolation. Without religion we are left utterly alone without anyone to share our thoughts and feelings.

And this sounds more like a reaction to complete involuntary social isolation (which is still a form of punishment here in the USA) or something akin to it such as loosing all of the most loved people in ones life at once. Social connections, feeling loved by others, and having others that one loves contribute to a motivation to continue living even in otherwise negative circumstances.

All circumstances are fundamentally negative in a Godless universe. No one can share a person’s inner solitude.

It is impossible to prove God doesn’t exist.

Strong Agnostics of the world agree!
I’m glad you agree.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

How 'bout this one:

And this one:

And here’s someone who also believes the testimony of someone, even declaring that “there’s no reason to think they’re not completely true” (based on what?

Wait for it…

Wait for it…

the testimony of others) :

No self-respecting skeptic would reject or accept everything just because it is only supported by testimonials. Skeptics discern and investigate if a testimonial is sufficient evidence for something or not.

People would accept your testimony if you said that you found a dollar bill on a crowded street. The same people would reject if you said that you have found a 5000 dollar bill - in mint condition - because those bills have been removed from circulation a very long time ago. Your effort to draw some parallel between different kinds of “testimonials” is just as pathetic, as it was the last time.

 

[tonyrey]

No self-respecting skeptic would reject or accept everything just because it is only supported by testimonials. Skeptics discern and investigate if a testimonial is sufficient evidence for something or not.

People would accept your testimony if you said that you found a dollar bill on a crowded street. The same people would reject if you said that you have found a 5000 dollar bill - in mint condition - because those bills have been removed from circulation a very long time ago. Your effort to draw some parallel between different kinds of “testimonials” is just as pathetic, as it was the last time.

If they were consistent sceptics wouldn’t believe in anything at all! They have to invent something on which to base their conclusions but they can never tell us what it is! Not one of their arguments has a rational foundation. In fact for them thought is just “a little agitation of the brain”…

 

[inocente]

I have never heard Protestants say Catholics are different race or vice versa. A different nationality yes. But a different race? No.

I personally can’t think of a ‘cutting up’ that happened 300 years ago.

Tribal politics yes, among a minority, but how do you get bars were bombed in the name of Jesus out of that? The vast majority of the population didn’t bomb bars. Of those who did I have never heard it claimed it was bombed in the name of Jesus. In the name Ulster or the Republic yes - but what would I know?

Tribal history. Battle of the Boyne, 1690.

*Ask your friends what the name of this bar is. I’d be interested to know. And also why they consider it an atheist bar. *

The bar wasn’t in Ireland, don’t know if it’s still there, as I said their families had moved out of Ireland.

*You know fine well I’m not arguing that - and wouldn’t.

It seems certain I didn’t unless - *

I quote from your original post again below and your sentence still reads “I would also say radical atheists are the new fundamentalists.”. You didn’t add any ‘unless’, ‘if’ or ‘but’ clause. You’ll have to explain why you dispute what you wrote when clearly you wrote it.

It is a fact that’s what they mean. Putting these biblical quotes in local newspapers that state homosexuality is an abomination started when a prominent politician who is a fundamentalist Christian stated publicly homosexuality was an abomination. Inserting the biblical quote that refers to homosexuality as an abomination led to a court case. The court ruled this part of the quote could not be cited in a national newspaper as it constituted ‘hate speech’ and thus unlawful. Thus, the biblical quote is still cited in newspapers minus the ‘abomination’ reference. In light of these facts are you to tell me they don’t mean to infer homosexuality is an abomination and to infer they are is stereotyping them?

Interesting as that is, of the 117 words in your original paragraph, only 4 mention homosexuality, as highlighted below:

I would also say radical atheists are the new fundamentalists. I say this based on their words and actions. In my parents time fiery evangelical preachers stood on street corners shouting through megaphones, ‘Get saved or burn in hell.’ There has been a contemporary revival of this in my home town - though not on the same scale, and every week there are insertions in the local paper, ‘Remember the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah.’ In other words - Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination. Current law prevents them from actually publishing this but they can cite Scripture so we know what they are getting at.

I was referring to the bulk of that paragraph. You start by claiming “radical atheists are the new fundamentalists … based on their words and actions” but then say nothing about their words or actions. You only refer to atheism again as something you infer the evangelicals are speaking of, although it’s unclear why you think “'Remember the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah” means they’re saying atheism is to blame for all the worlds ills.

Even then, you do nothing to link all fundamentalists with the views of those evangelical fanatics. There are some Catholics on this forum who share those views, but there are many other fundamentalists, aka bible literalists, Catholic and non-Catholic, who don’t, and you make no argument which links any of them with atheists other than a few ad hoc associations (not quoted above).

I mean, come on, didn’t you say you have a legal background? A lawyer could drive a coach and horses through that, and the judge might even join in for the sport .

I think maybe we dun done this one to death now.

 

[reggieM]

If they were consistent sceptics wouldn’t believe in anything at all! They have to invent something on which to base their conclusions but they can never tell us what it is! Not one of their arguments has a rational foundation. In fact for them thought is just “a little agitation of the brain”…

Excellent point. Skeptics measure against a standard, some basis. But by their own belief, the basis itself is uncertain and their own standard is shifting and subject to skepticism. They will suddenly declare that one thing is absolute and firm. But they’ve already argued that none of it can be that at all. They then get quite indignant when we use the exact skepticism they use. This is why we see the bully-tactics and emotional outrage, for example, when we point out that rape and torture (Vera’s two favorite words for creating shock and awe) have evolutionary benefits.
The best chance they have is to adopt Theistic/Catholic standards and then argue for skepticism on that basis. But that is cheating, obviously.

 

[minkymurph]

Tribal history. Battle of the Boyne, 1690.

1690 is more than 300 years ago and in 1690 they didn’t bomb bars which what we were discussing.

The bar wasn’t in Ireland, don’t know if it’s still there, as I said their families had moved out of Ireland.

Well if it wasn’t in Ireland its’ hardly surprising it wasn’t bombed.

I quote from your original post again below and your sentence still reads "I would also say

radical atheists are the new fundamentalists.". You didn’t add any ‘unless’, ‘if’ or ‘but’ clause. You’ll have to explain why you dispute what you wrote when clearly you wrote it.

I don’t have to explain it. You know it isn’t what I wrote, and should you say 100 times it did it will not make it true.

Interesting as that is, of the 117 words in your original paragraph, only 4 mention homosexuality, as highlighted below:

Glad you found it interesting.

I was referring to the bulk of that paragraph. You start by claiming “radical atheists are the new fundamentalists … based on their words and actions” but then say nothing about their words or actions. You only refer to atheism again as something you infer the evangelicals are speaking of, although it’s unclear why you think “'Remember the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah” means they’re saying atheism is to blame for all the worlds ills.

Even then, you do nothing to link all fundamentalists with the views of those evangelical fanatics. There are some Catholics on this forum who share those views, but there are many other fundamentalists, aka bible literalists, Catholic and non-Catholic, who don’t, and you make no argument which links any of them with atheists other than a few ad hoc associations (not quoted above).

I did in other posts and if you weren’t cherry picking from one post I made in continuation of others you would know that. That said, you probably do no.

I mean, come on, didn’t you say you have a legal background? A lawyer could drive a coach and horses through that, and the judge might even join in for the sport .

I think maybe we dun done this one to death now.

Ah - the 'let’s make disparaging comments of personal nature to the opponent simply to annoy them opponent strategy? It is often the case people resort to this strategy when they have no viable counter argument to offer and know they loosing?

Judges don’t uphold what one party’s assertions purely on their insistence something was said or don.t Judges don’t cherry pick, nor misinterpret, and remain neutral. They don’t ‘join in the sport.’ But then you already know that as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah - the 'let’s make disparaging comments of personal nature to the opponent simply to annoy them opponent strategy? It is often the case people resort to this strategy when they have no viable counter argument to offer and know they loosing?.

Oh, yes. This is an astute observation, to be sure.

 

[minkymurph]

I was referring to the bulk of that paragraph. You start by claiming “radical atheists are the new fundamentalists … based on their words and actions” but then say nothing about their words or actions. You only refer to atheism again as something you infer the evangelicals are speaking of, although it’s unclear why you think “'Remember the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah” means they’re saying atheism is to blame for all the worlds ills.

So why do you think someone would put an insertion in the local newspaper citing said passages from the Bible? What do you think they are trying to convey?

 

[tonyrey]

If they were consistent sceptics wouldn’t believe in anything at all! They have to invent something on which to base their conclusions but they can never tell us what it is! Not one of their arguments has a rational foundation. In fact for them thought is just “a little agitation of the brain”…

Thanks, Reggie. Your reference to shifting reminds me of quicksands and the words of Jesus:

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Both atheists and Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church built on the rock chosen by Jesus but the latter do accept the authority of His teaching whereas the former rely entirely on their own judgment. They fail to realise an ape which exists by chance cannot possibly be rational like a person made in God’s image and likeness. It amounts to getting something for nothing, i.e. insight from things which lack insight. That would be a far greater miracle than being created by God!

 

[reggieM]

Both atheists and Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church built on the rock chosen by Jesus but the latter do accept the authority of His teaching whereas the former rely entirely on their own judgment. They fail to realise an ape which exists by chance cannot possibly be rational like a person made in God’s image and likeness. It amounts to getting something for nothing, i.e. insight from things which lack insight. That would be a far greater miracle than being created by God!

Exactly!
I haven’t been following your Design thread, Tony (knowing you’re doing a masterful job there, as always) but I wonder if you’ve noticed that there is this greater acceptance of the idea that things just come from nothing, or else they’re “just there”, with no explanation?
At one time, Theists were blamed for “magical thinking” regarding the miracles of God, but now we have even more magic - like an ape becoming a rational being simply through accidental mutations.

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly!
I haven’t been following your Design thread, Tony (knowing you’re doing a masterful job there, as always) but I wonder if you’ve noticed that there is this greater acceptance of the idea that things just come from nothing, or else they’re “just there”, with no explanation?
At one time, Theists were blamed for “magical thinking” regarding the miracles of God, but now we have even more magic - like an ape becoming a rational being simply through accidental mutations.

Thanks, Reggie. I would be a dimwit if I didn’t know much about the subject after so many years of experience. It has taught me that God is often rejected at any price regardless of the implications. I can understand their mentality because I was a lapsed Catholic for seven years and regarded religion and old-fashioned without having even thought about the subject! It is far worse now with all the propaganda in the media about evolution, child abuse and, of course, terrorism by religious fanatics. The atrocities in atheist regimes like China don’t seem to draw much attention and millions of abortions are routinely performed just for convenience.

In the UK the prevailing attitude has been indifference rather than antagonism. Most people are products of our secular society and never seem to wonder whether God exists probably because they’re so busy with their worldly activities. Perhaps I’m too extreme but after living in Africa for more than ten years I regard the city where I live as a spiritual desert - and it’s not London!

 

[reggieM]

Thanks, Reggie. I would be a dimwit if I didn’t know much about the subject after so many years of experience. It has taught me that God is often rejected at any price regardless of the implications. I can understand their mentality because I was a lapsed Catholic for seven years and regarded religion and old-fashioned without having even thought about the subject! It is far worse now with all the propaganda in the media about evolution, child abuse and, of course, terrorism by religious fanatics. The atrocities in atheist regimes like China don’t seem to draw much attention and millions of abortions are routinely performed just for convenience.

In the UK the prevailing attitude has been indifference rather than antagonism. Most people are products of our secular society and never seem to wonder whether God exists probably because they’re so busy with their worldly activities. Perhaps I’m too extreme but after living in Africa for more than ten years I regard the city where I live as a spiritual desert - and it’s not London!

Thanks for sharing that, Tony.
I fully agree with how you see the situation also. The roots of that change in attitude are just as you say - putting other things in place of God. No, I would not say too extreme at all. You’re just looking at the reality of the situation!

 

[Bradski]

This is why we see the bully-tactics and emotional outrage, for example, when we point out that rape and torture (Vera’s two favorite words for creating shock and awe) have evolutionary benefits.

Good Lord, have you actually posted something along those lines? What on earth was the point you were trying to make?

 

[reggieM]

Good Lord,

Yes, He is good and it’s great to see you calling upon Him,

have you actually posted something along those lines? What on earth was the point you were trying to make?

Yes to the first question, simply sharing research from evolutionary science.

I don’t know what you’re looking for on the second question. Wasn’t the point obvious from what I already said?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, He is good and it’s great to see you calling upon Him,

Ha ha with Bradski it’s either Good Grief Charlie Brown or the Good Lord. (or may the Great Pumpkin is who he is talking about!)

 

[Bradski]

I don’t know what you’re looking for on the second question. Wasn’t the point obvious from what I already said?

Nope.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what you’re looking for on the second question. Wasn’t the point obvious from what I already said?

I think the point that was made obvious by Bradski’s incredulity is this presupposition: rape and torture are morally reprehensible.

In his “good grief” he is implicitly arguing our position, amusingly: it’s absurd to declare rape and torture to be good.

 

[reggieM]

I think the point that was made obvious by Bradski’s incredulity is this presupposition: rape and torture are morally reprehensible.

In his “good grief” he is implicitly arguing our position, amusingly: it’s absurd to declare rape and torture to be good.

Yes, it’s kind of weird.
I cited materialist evolutionary biology (Thornhill). An atheist should have no problem with it.
The brain is designed by selection, according to them. Evolution causes us to do things.
Darwin:
natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

Rape is an evolutionary adaptation that emerged as a result of positive, beneficial mutations and preserved because it was good for the survival and reproductive success of the human species.

We still have rape. So, it obviously is still a good thing according to the atheistic viewpoint.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

A few people keep on repeating this nonsense: “Scratch an atheist and you will find a fundamentalist”. I have no idea who came up with this ridiculous idea first, but it is so irrational, and getting so frequent that it requires a response.

Fundamentalists consider every sentence in the bible being literally true and correct.
Atheists accept that some parts are historically correct, while others are allegorical, and yet others are pure fantasy or fairy tale.

How can these two, diametrically opposite views be considered equal? Only a completely irrational person can equate them. Unfortunately the most irrational ones are exceedingly loud, stubborn and beyond redemption. But hopefully the others see how ridiculous they are, and will not associate with them.

Nope - you got that backward. Scratch a Christian and you will find a skeptic. The news media is bombarding people daily with humanistic agenda. Atheists eat it up. A Christian has to stand firm and be skeptical of all the so called “news” and “truths” being put out daily by the propaganda media.