Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 40751

[/quote=HRG]Since theologians are free to create their own criteria of validity, that's not a big surprise. They in effect act as their own umpires. [/quote]

So says the atheist who lives in a world ultimately governed by chance processes, who redefines chance so that it means something other than chance, and who must admit that the principles of logic are conventions, though uses them to bet his soul -- which doesn't really exist -- that God does not exist, and who acts as if these conventional principles are themselves rational and who also despises with moral indigination, intellectual dishonesty, though both "intellectual" and "dishonesty" are mere conventions and personal preferences from which you express nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions that have over millions of years evolved to be what they are whether what they are is rational or not, accurate or not, or true or not.

And you suppose that the apologist isn't rational? Rational in your worldview is a bunch of chemical reactions that you bet against all odds just so happens to be truth. No man in his right mind would bet on that unless they had an axe to grind with God. It appears that only atheists fit that bill.

Jimmy Sloan, CARM 26 Comments [6/11/2008 3:20:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: i smell bullshit
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Illuminatalie

"It appears that only atheists fit that bill."
It appears that fundies can only believe that infidels REALLY BELIEVE THEIR DOGMA TOO, they just won't follow it, because not only do they believe in FundiGod, they believe they can trick FundiGod.

6/11/2008 3:29:11 PM

Mister Spak

Yer out!

6/11/2008 3:31:57 PM

Dark_Lord_Prime

In order to have "an axe to grind" with your god, I would first have to BELIEVE IT EXISTS.

How do you suppose I could be "angry" with a figment of YOUR imagination?

6/11/2008 3:40:03 PM

John

Quick summary:

Pascal's Wager,

followed by

I'm not rational? Well, nyah, nyah, neither are you. (the "so's your momma" defense)

6/11/2008 3:43:13 PM



Word salad.

6/11/2008 4:25:24 PM

Berny

So says the atheist who lives in a world ultimately governed by chance processes...

It has been said before, and I'm sure it will be said again, but evolution was not governed by chance. Neither is cosmology, physics, chemistry, etc.
Pick up a science book and educate yourself.
Personally, I consider theology to be the study of bullshit.
At least we have facts to back up what we say.

6/11/2008 4:35:38 PM

tmr

You must feel really threatened.

6/11/2008 4:47:38 PM

Wet Walnuts

Causality =/= chance

6/11/2008 5:04:11 PM

One Trick Pony

Run-on sentence/paragraph for Jeebus.

6/11/2008 5:04:54 PM



There are no chances, only determinism.

It's not about the chemical reactions, it's about the fact that no matter whether or not I can explain it, it's clear your explanations are bullcrap.

Although if God did indeed exist, he would be a jerk, assuming He's the same God as that of the Bible.

6/11/2008 5:05:05 PM

Mike

Jimmy, you fell down the well, and no ones here to save you.

6/11/2008 5:06:01 PM

aaa

Pascal, you arse!

6/11/2008 5:10:08 PM

James

i) Evolution is not governed by chance processes, if that is what you're referring to. If you refer to quantum physics, then yes processes are governed by chance but the average of all results is always predictable and deterministic.

ii) The principles of logic are conventions in the sense that the definition of a vector space is a convention. If, in maths, you define a ring group you can get coherent results, but the definition of a vector space is what describes how the world is observed to work.

iii) The rest of what you wrote makes no sense.

6/11/2008 5:10:18 PM

Grigadil

The Singularity was a chance event [or not]. Since then, all events follow a traceable pattern of causality.

Here's an example: supernatural entities were imagined by primitive peoples to be the causes of inexplicable [to them] phenomena. We can see from this that even primitive peoples understood causality, while ignoring the fact that their premises were flawed.

Now that the vast majority of phenomena have been scientifically explained, and those that haven't are still being researched, there is no need to deal with the supernatural.

Is there a Great Spirit out there which defies empirical analysis? To me, that would "explain" a lot, without really explaining anything. I refuse to fall into the "gap trap".

6/11/2008 5:23:45 PM

Pyroclasm

Word salad with a dash of philosophy.

6/11/2008 6:06:49 PM



"who redefines chance so that it means something other than chance"

Who does that, now?

"uses them to bet his soul -- which doesn't really exist -- that God does not exist,"

They aren't betting, that's their firm belief.

"who also despises with moral indigination, intellectual dishonesty, though both "intellectual" and "dishonesty" are mere conventions and personal preferences from which you express nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions that have over millions of years evolved to be what they are whether what they are is rational or not, accurate or not, or true or not"

Wat now?

"And you suppose that the apologist isn't rational?"

Suppose hell!

"No man in his right mind would bet on that unless they had an axe to grind with God"

You still don't get it, do you?





6/11/2008 6:22:47 PM

Osiris

I prefer my word salads tossed.

6/11/2008 6:34:12 PM

Beeblebrox

And you suppose that the apologist isn't rational?

Apologists are rarely rational. When one is operating as an apologist one generally must stretch arguments to their breaking point in order to cover one's subject.

6/11/2008 6:37:07 PM

Old Viking

A person who wants to assert a position, or defend one, would be well advised to learn how to do so with clarity. This verges on speaking in tongues.

6/11/2008 6:38:07 PM

Papabear

As there is no evidence supporting the existence of God, we atheists don't believe there is a God, therefore, we cannot possibly have "an axe to grind with God." QED

6/11/2008 7:39:41 PM

toothache

You've just set off my hay fever with all that straw. I hope you're happy with yourself, dickhead.

6/11/2008 7:45:39 PM

Mayhem

I'll take Run-On Sentences for 500, Alex.

6/11/2008 8:13:20 PM

Allegory for Jesus

What's so bad with chance processes?
What is so significant about using different meanings of the word "chance"?
What is wrong with admitting that the principles of logic are conventions?
What makes you think that we have a soul to bet?
What reason would we have to suppose that something supernatural and unevidenced exists, and what reason would we have to believe that Christianity pinpointed what this unknown entity's opinions and traits happen to be?
What is wrong with despising dishonesty?
Why do you need an absolute basis to have an opinion on something?
How does something having a microscopic level to it undermine its meaning?
How does the manner in which something came into being have any bearing on its legitimacy in the present?
And how is acceptance of observed scientific facts and not accepting the baseless conclusions of your religion supposed to be construed as hatred of your deity?

The answer: you fail.

6/11/2008 10:33:16 PM

kingoftheheavies

*grinds axe*

*swings axe at god*

*god's head goes a-flying*

6/11/2008 11:34:25 PM

Canadiest

You know, The Bible didn't create English, Neither did Christians. The terms you say we don't understand are English language terms. English is the most precise, defined language on the planet (by default almost) Mostly because it accepts and incorporates words from other cultures (which nearly every other language won't)

Our understanding of morals is much higher than sheeo-hearder fantasy. Where are the Pedofile laws in the Bible for one?

6/11/2008 11:51:54 PM
1 2