Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 AIG/CMI takes advantage of suicide
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2011 :  22:18:09  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Wow, talk about vultures.

I know the two groups have split, but for the purposes of this thread, I'm still treating them as the same. You really need to get a load of this.


It's the old xian emotional manipulations again. However, this is really fucked up:

There is no difference between the embrace of a loving husband and the violence of a vicious rapist, the actions of a doctor trying to save a life and the mass murderer who kills at whim, the actions of our greatest leaders and the inaction of a lazy sluggard.

Both are totally the same in atheism.



Well, some people don't care that that bullshit.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2011 :  10:12:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I wrote a reply to that article, and Don Batten gave me a reply:


Dear Reynold,



Thanks for your comment.



Taken out of context, as you have done, the statement does appear over-the-top. However, here it is in context:

Atheism inescapably leads to naturalism, and from naturalism follows atheismís great skeleton which its followers try to keep hidden; determinism.

Determinism is inescapable if one is a naturalist, as all that exists is material and has come about by purely natural processes.

This means then, that the mind of man, our greatest treasure, is reducible to material bound by physical laws; namely, our thoughts, feelings, and actions are reducible to reactions of chemicals in the brain.

Few people realize, then, that this destroys all that makes us human. Namely; if our thoughts, feelings, and actions are simply chemical reactions in the brain, those reactions are simply the by-products of prior reactions forming an unbreakable chain which leads to the very beginning of the universe.


This means then, that whatever we do, we do because we have to. We cannot do anything other than what we do, it simply isnít possible.

All actions are the result of prior actions in an unbreakable chain. We are no different than a cog in a watch or a falling domino.

Ö atheism is utterly horrific! Sadly, most atheists are unaware of these things! I believe if they truly understood the consequences of what they believed, they would reconsider their position.

There is no difference between the embrace of a loving husband and the violence of a vicious rapist, the actions of a doctor trying to save a life and the mass murderer who kills at whim, the actions of our greatest leaders and the inaction of a lazy sluggard.

Both are totally the same in atheism.


Please note the first four highlighted paragraphs (which I bolded here--ig), which lead up to the statements you object to, which are an inescapable rational conclusion from rationalism. Some atheists have indeed articulated this conclusion. Prof. William Provine, Cornell University, for example. If there is no free will, as Provine recognizes, then true love is an illusion. Of course Dawkins and the like donít say much like this because they are in the business of proselytizing for atheism and you would not want prospective converts seeing what they are in for and getting cold feet, would you?


Of course few atheists can live with such an outlook, which leads to madness, so they live as if there is real meaning to their lives. But this is not rational, it is an existential leap in the dark.

The only possibility of true meaning is that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence. This provides for something additional to chemistry to explain behaviour and something other than annihilation at death as our destiny. According to the Bible there will be justice and Hitler, Stalin and co will get their just desserts. In materialism there is no purpose, meaning or ultimate justice.


Jesus said,

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10)


With kind regards,

Don Batten



My reply to Don Batten:



From: Reynold Hall

To: Don Batten


I've got news for you, Don: "in context" that statement (about a husband's hug and a rapists assault being the same thing under atheism) is still bull. Why? Even if atheism leads to determinism, those two actions are completely physically different, with different physical results (ie. injury vs. no injury), "determinism" or not!

Besides, atheism does not lead to "determinism". Let's look at what this supposed "former atheist" says here:
Few people realize, then, that this destroys all that makes us human. Namely; if our thoughts, feelings, and actions are simply chemical reactions in the brain, those reactions are simply the by-products of prior reactions forming an unbreakable chain which leads to the very beginning of the universe.

This means then, that whatever we do, we do because we have to. We cannot do anything other than what we do, it simply isnít possible.

Baloney. The human brain is a very complicated network, NOT "chain" of processes. The neural impulses can go to many possible places in the brain. It is NOT near as rigid as this person makes it out to be.

All actions are the result of prior actions in an unbreakable chain. We are no different than a cog in a watch or a falling domino.
Again, baloney. If the big bang and the events after it were repeated, there is very little likelihood, even with the same laws of physics, chemistry, biology that life on earth would have inevitably lead to humanity being the "dominant" life form on this planet.

Perhaps the Dinosaur killer asteroid may not have hit this time, so mammals may have never gotten a chance to become dominant, for one.


I defy the author of that letter to show that it's purely physical "determinism" that determines which side of the bed he gets up out of in the morning. As I said earlier, the brain provides a network of many possible paths for impulses to travel, NOT a straight chain.

You may want to refresh yourself with Quantum Mechanics to see just how "deterministic" the natural world really is, especially on a sub-atomic scale.


As for atheism leading to "determinism"; we don't have any "god" watching over us planning to send us to a fiery eternal hell for not believing in the right things.

For that you want religion...you know, with a "god" that supposedly "knows" everything, and has plans for everyone..unless we somehow have the power to break those plans, then we don't have true "free will"

See especially Calvinism.


As a commentator (http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=82476&Page=1#1307962) "Brendan Rizzo" said:
Since an omniscient God would know everything that ever happens even before it happens and thus would know the future, making the future unable to be changed. The only reason Christians believe in free will is because they need to believe in free will, otherwise they have no justification for other people being sentenced to eternal damnation in hell. There is no logical way to have both an omniscient God and free will, but fundies believe in free will anyway just because belief in hell is more important to them than logic.


Now, as to your complaint that atheists believe that our thoughts and emotions are strictly a result of what goes on in our brains? Guess what? Our thoughts, feelings, etc. ARE a result of what happens in our brains. So what? Does that make our feelings, thoughts, etc. any less special, any less valid? You people say so, but that's NOT what any atheist I've ever heard of thinks. When Provine say that it's an "illusion", they're saying that without brains, we can't experience those things. Those things are a result of what happens in our brains, as opposed to something outside our brains that we can physically interact with.

This is nothing but a play on emotion to make people want to believe that your religion is true and atheism is not.

Your complaint ignores the fact that if our thoughts, etc were the cause of something else than the physical make-up of the brain, then when the brain is damaged, there shouldn't be any change in our abilities to think or feel emotions should there?

We all know that is not the case. An Alzheimer's patient's brain loses its abilities to properly produce and conduct neuro-electric currents and as a result, memory and cognitive ability degenerate. Brain damaged people can no longer think the way you and I do. Like it or not, our thoughts ARE dependent upon the physical makeup and nature of our brains.

To claim that our thoughts are a result of something independent of our brains is a claim that is to put it delicately, unverified.

Speaking of which, you say:

The only possibility of true meaning is that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence. This provides for something additional to chemistry to explain behaviour and something other than annihilation at death as our destiny.
Nothing but a fallacy. What one wants to believe is true, does not make it true. Many atheists, even Provine find that their own lives have meaning. We just don't need an outside agency to do so. All you're doing is making an emotional 'hook' to suck people in. By convincing people that only YOUR belief can give them "true meaning" is a powerful draw.


But, as I said: It's a fallacious claim. As to "love" being "an illusion"...it's not exactly a physical object one can lay their hands on, is it? Without a human mind, one can't experience those things, can you? That's the point Provine was driving at.

You've somehow equated that (in our "atheistic" view of course!) that those things don't exist period. They do, just in our brains.
Same thing even if your god exists, because god or no god it's still our brains that let us feel love!



To end this, even if one were to ignore everything I said to this point; even if "determinism" is true, to claim that a husband's hug and a rapists assault are the "same thing" is totally batshit insane.


This person is either lying about being a "former atheist" or, even worse, is someone who's swallowed the bullshit you people spew about atheists.


If you people were honest, you'd realize that the reason that so many atheists "deceive everyone, even themselves" about the so-called consequences of atheism is this: This entire letter is a strawman set up of atheism. We haven't ignored the consequences of atheism, this person is making stuff up..


Or, as I suspect, is regurgitating the same baloney you people keep dishing out about atheists. If that's the case, then congratulations...you've emotionally lied to another person and brought them into the "truth".

You may as well read the thread where I got Rizzo's quote from. Frankly, they have more points against what you and this other guy say here than I've got time to put in just one letter.

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=82476&Page=1





>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 07/10/2011 10:23:17
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24952 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2011 :  11:29:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Don's missing the fact that even if determinism is true, it doesn't mean that personal responsibility flies out the window. Because behavioral modification works. Haters can turn into lovers, lazy people into workaholics, etc. People can learn, and they can learn to behave well in society.

Which is why the punishment for murder is different if it's coldly premeditated by a healthy person than if it's done on a whim by someone with a huge brain tumor impinging on the executive centers (for examples).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 07/18/2011 :  10:08:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, Don gave me a reply. This is totally fucking nuts!

Reynold Hall,

A staff member has replied to your question with the following response:

Dear Reynold,
Of course you reject determinism, but that is because it does not tally with your experience, not because it is inconsistent with atheism. Your experience should cause you to question atheism, not try to argue against the clear logical deduction of determinism from atheism.
You wrote, "to claim that a husband's hug and a rapists assault are the "same thing" is totally batshit insane." You are correct, but such is the logical conclusion from materialism (atheism). As for some sort of randomness being injected by quantum mechanics saving the day, Nietzsche recognized that some randomness does not result in any notion of what *ought* to be, that is, any basis for moral judgments (that a husband's hug is 'better' than a rapist's assault, for example). And Nietzsche did spend the last 11 years of his life insane.
Atheism applied logically does lead to insanity. Thankfully not everyone is so logical.
With sincere regards,
Don Batten


"Sincere regards my Ass!" Ok, fuck this! Time for a reply to this idiot!

Ok. how to word this:
==========

From: Reynold Hall
To: Don Batten
Subject: What??

You still say that atheism leads to "determinism"? Since I know you're against atheism I think it's safe to assume that you are allegedly against "determinism".

You obviously never read the part in my last letter where I said:

"As for atheism leading to "determinism"; we don't have any "god" watching over us planning to send us to a fiery eternal hell for not believing in the right things.

For that you want religion...you know, with a "god" that supposedly "knows" everything, and has plans for everyone..unless we somehow have the power to break those plans, then we don't have true "free will"

See especially Calvinism."

Get that? If any philosophy out there embraces "determinism" it's religion, not atheism.


Don, are you serious? It is your saying that a husband's hug and a rapists assault being the same thing is the "logical conclusion from materialism" is insane. That claim is, as I said, totally insane. In other words, it's your claim that's batshit insane. That is NOT the "logical conclusion" of "materialism".

Maybe a few examples will help.

From chemistry: Water and gasoline are both just atoms, correct? But their properties are very different, correct? Here's why: Different atoms in different configurations lead to different properties. Same thing in physics where one physical action (a light squeeze vs. being hit with a nailgun will produce entirely different results because the forces applied are of differing magnitudes, over different surface areas being affected.

I hope you can understand this. "Materialism" does not mean that just because everything is made of atoms that are subject to physical laws, that every physical action has the same results or effects.

A husband's hug doesn't leave the bruising and other associated physical damage that a rapists attack does. Then there is the emotional damage (and before you ask, yes, our emotions are also a product of what happens in our physical brains...in response to stimuli such as you know...RAPE!) that results from the attack. There is no such emotional damage from a husband's hug, and we don't need to believe in spirits, gods, angels, or any of that crap in order to know this.

And then you talk about "logic"? Ok. Time to go over a fallacy that you've just committed. The "fallacy of consequences of belief" when you claim that atheism "logically" leads to "insanity". Even if that baloney were all true, it has no bearing on whether atheism is true or not! It's just an emotional play on your part to make people not want to believe that atheism is true.

A salesman trick, and not even an honest one at that.

Another logical fallacy you commit: Ad-hominem. When you point out that Nietzsche spent the last years of his life insane again, it has no bearing on whether he was right or wrong when he advocated atheism.

Besides, it seems his illness had more to do with a biological problem (http://mindhacks.com/2006/12/01/what-caused-nietzsches-insanity-and-death/) rather than any so-called "logical consequence" of a belief in atheism.

If you really want to keep playing the "logical consequences of belief" game than can I point out people like Susan Smith to you? How's about this well-adjusted person: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_iGI22xT4s) or how's about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJI9xDUYV8) from a christian camp? For more examples you may want to watch the documentary "Jesus Camp". Or how's about just reading some published work by Dr M D Magee? (http://91.198.165.171/~askwhyco/truth/324Psychology.php)

I know you'll jump on their mentioning Stalin in there, but read carefully what all is said about him.

I think you get the point: Besides being a logical fallacy, it is a really stupid move to try to link "atheism" to "insanity" especially based your sample size of one.

Ok, long story short, you've constructed this idiotic attack on atheism based on logical fallacies, hoping to emotionally manipulate people. Not that I expected any different from a creationist, but the problem I have with this, is that this is the kind of thing that you people encourage children to believe. Children don't have the knowledge to realize that you're snowing them and using logical fallacies to boot. They'll fall for it, and actually believe things like "atheism leads to insanity" or "atheism means that without god there is no justification to be moral".

Nice little time bombs you people are setting here: If those people ever become atheist, then they'll do who knows what to themselves and others and atheism gets the blame.

I suppose a case in point would be that person whose letter your originally published. He's not only drunk your kool-aid, but decided to "improve" the flavour himself.

As for ethics and morality, we just have to work out those things ourselves, materialism or no materialism. We sure can't follow your god's example can we? . Killing pregnant women and babies as commanded by your god in the OT would kind of mess our society up. If you try to bring up abortion, I'll just note that Most abortions are early term and no abortion is done on a bloody whim, and once the baby is born it's hands off. In comparison to your god's instructions...

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3733 Posts

Posted - 07/18/2011 :  11:26:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So many things wrong with this. *sigh*

First, not all atheists believe in determinism. I don't; I don't have an opinion on the matter. Atheism just means one doesn't believe in gods.

Second, a lot of the argument against determinism amounts to: This can't be true because it is too horrible to be true. That's not a logical argument.

Next, what Dave said about "even if determinism is true..." It's not like anyone who believes in determinism advocates that we shrug our shoulders at criminal behavior and ignore heroism.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 07/18/2011 11:30:01
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3733 Posts

Posted - 07/18/2011 :  11:29:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
the_ignored, might I suggest that your time and intelligence are better spent elsewhere? You are just shouting and people who are shouting back. Neither side is going to change, so why bother? Unless you simply get a kick out of such sparring.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 07/19/2011 :  21:58:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
His last reply to me, interspeirced with my last reply to him. I've not yet emailed it yet because I want this to be good, so you guys can have a look and tell me if I'm missing anything, etc.

---------------------
Dear Reynold,
There is probably not much point in continuing this conversation as we are talking past each other. In spite of my considerable efforts, you refuse to see the inescapable implication of determinism from atheism/materialism. I have cited high-profile atheists who see this, but you refuse to get it.

No, you twisted their words: I pointed out to you that the people you previously quoted mean that we have to figure out our own morality.

As an example of this: Dawkins outright said in the January/February 1997 version of "Psychology Today" which you people have mis-quoted on your CMI site (http://creation.com/evolution-no-morality-dawkins).

You people left out the part where Dawkins said that it just means that we have to work on our morality ourselves. I expose the lie in that CMI title ("Evolution: No Morality") along with a few other creationist misquotes here:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9443#140165

There's even a Huxley quote that you people make us of, which Dawkins repudiates from that same Psychology Today article that you people quote-mined Dawkins from!


I can understand why, of course; it is not something you want to contemplate; you don't like it. But wishing it were not so does not make it not so.

No, it's an outright lie on the part of you people. See for example how you people misquoted Dawkins above. You've done the same with the other atheist you quote, as you people generally do.


Note that *I* am not saying there is no difference between genuine love and rape; but there is just no logical basis in atheism for deciding what is 'good' or 'bad' morally---from chemistry and physics (matter).

It's a position that you seem to agree with though, since that is an alleged "problem" that you keep insisting that atheism has. Given the messed-up "morality" of your god when he ordered babies and pregnant women killed, would you perhaps care to tell us what your "logical basis" is for being "pro-life"?

You are plagiarizing a Christian world-view in insisting on moral judgments. Even your attempt to judge God is from a position of 'standing with your feet firmly planted in mid-air'.

Baloney. Asking for some moral consistency on the part of your so-called "holy", "just" and "perfect" god is not "plagiarizing" anything. If it's wrong for us to kill children, as is apparent from your blaming atheism for abortion (I won't even ask where in hell you got THAT idea from!) It's obvious that you consider child-killing to be bad.

I point out that your god does it, and you criticize ME, and ignore the moral contradiction of your own position?

Besides, modern societies get our morals and laws from many sources; from Hammurabi, ancient Greece and Rome, some from the bible. It's not the only source for our laws etc. Not by a long shot.

If you want biblical values, here's some right here:
Deu 13:6-10
Prov 23:13
Mat 8:21-22
Then there's the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and "those who blashpeme the name of the lord shall be put to death". And of course the 10 commandments, some of which directly contradict the American Constitution. You know, like that first commandment about only worshipping Jehovah vs the religous freedom built into the constitution?


Calvinism? I did not comment because Calvinism is one school of thought that does not represent the views of all Christians. There are plenty who disagree with the determinism of some interpretations of Calvinism.

Why aren't you railing about the "determinism" inherent in Calvinism then? I pointed out that Calvinism is only the worst; Your entire religion is what is truly "deterministic", what with a god who supposedly knows all that will happen and has "plans" for each of us, and throws those who dare go against those plans into hell for eternity...

Odd that you're accusing the atheist world view of being "determinist". Isn't it you people who used to keep saying that atheists are in "rebellion" against your god, that we like to "sin" and "go our own way"? Isn't that the opposite of "determinism"?

Can't you keep your attacks consistent at least?


Another problem for you people is, how can you biblically tell that Calvinists are wrong? How do you know that your sect's views, also based on the same bible, are right?

Why can't you people, who all have this "infallible" word of god get your acts together?

How do you know then that your interpretations of anything from the bible are right then? Can't you all just ask "the holy spirit" or something to get it straightened out? Don't you people claim to be able to communicate with this "great spirit"?


I agree with you on one thing, that because atheism leads to hopelessness, meaninglessness, suicidal thoughts and loss of human life and liberty (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., the abortion holocaust, etc.)...(cont'd)


Uh, NO it doesn't! I've tried to straighten you out on that repeatedly. If there was any truth to your accusation above, then countries like Sweden, Norway, Denark, New Zealand where biblegod belief is not as prevalent as it is in the States, the crime rates would be higher shouldn't it? They're not.

Why? Probably because there isn't a bunch of b.s. artists running around trying to teach everyone that life has no meaning at all if one doesn't believe in biblegod.

The closest that any atheist gets to that is when they say that the universe doesn't give us meaning itself; we have to come up with it ourselves, as Dawkins did, remember?

That doesn't stop you people from twisting the meaning of the words though, isn't it? Then you go on to say that it's atheists themselves who don't "logically" accept the consequences of atheism. In reality, it's just you people pulling things out of your asses.

...it does not necessarily mean that atheism is wrong. But it does illustrate that it had bad consequences.

I was able to get you to acknowledge your fallacy. Doesn't stop you from using it, and even justifying it though, does it? Emotional manipulation of that kind is just too useful, eh? Should I now point out the negative consequences of xianity then? The persecutions, the religious wars, the library burnings, etc?

Hey, believe what you want...but if you teach that to people you should at least have the honesty to admit that it's what you people teach. It's NOT what atheist believe and it is NOT "logically" derived from atheism. All you're doing is setting off time bombs in children's heads so that if they turn atheist later, they'll act out what YOU people have been teaching them.

You'll be waiting of course, to point the finger at us, just as you people always do when someone in your country goes off the rails.


(BTW, re Stalin: "Atheists have tried to confuse the issue by alleging that the actions of Mao and Stalin had nothing to do with their atheism.

How's about you try and show that what they did was as a result of atheism in the first place?? If anyone's trying to confuse the issue it's you people with that ad-hom attack. How do you know that Stalin wasn't inspired by the many biblical slaughters commanded by your god that he would have learned while he was in Seminary?

They killed people who they though were POLITICAL threats, not because they worshiped any god!

...really? Can one seriously suppose, as pointed out by Berlinski, that Mao and Stalin would have gone ahead with their monstrous crimes had they believed that there was a God watching them, and to whom they would one day be accountable?

All one has to do is to look at all the little fun events that your christians have done throughout history. You know, the crusades, the insquisition, the witch trials, the persecutions of different sects, the anti-semitism (ie: Martin Luter's book "On The Jews and Their Lies" which Julius Striecher admitted at Nuremburg was an inspiration to them).

Ask yourself: If christianity didn't have such a history of persecuting Jews, why would Hitler feel that he could get away with crediting a christian preacher, Karl Leuger, with giving him his ideas against the Jews, in his book "Mein Kampf"?

By the way, to put the numbers of people killed into perspective, which I notice that you people never do, look at the number of people killed during the Thirty Year's War in the German States. One third of the population gone. In today's numbers that'd beat out what Stalin et al ever did.

Oh yeah, On the other had, if there is no God, then anything goes." From: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_2/j24_2_35-37.pdf
Yours sincerely,
Don Batten

You don't understand, do you? It's YOU PEOPLE who keep saying that stuff. Over and over. Rarely in comparison do I hear atheists say that!

We generally figure that we have to work within the law and society's rules to keep things from falling apart. We try to do better as we go along.

Every time you theists say something like "a person good only because he knows god's watching" and therefore atheists don't have any real reason to be good, all you're doing is showing us what YOUR morality is like!

As maybe shown here?
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

If that's what you people really believe and no reason that any atheist gives for being moral is good enough for you, then you're just admitting that the only reason YOU people aren't out being criminals is that you're afraid of your sky daddy.


As I said earlier: I don't care what you believe, but don't pass your sociopathic attitudes on to kids, OK? All you're doing is setting up time-bombs for which you'll blame us for (again), you pricks.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 07/22/2011 19:45:08
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24952 Posts

Posted - 07/20/2011 :  07:56:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Atheism has as much to do with "deciding what is 'good' or 'bad' morally" as coin-collecting does, he's right. Which is why atheists get their morality from elsewhere. Why is this a big deal to him?

Wait, how has atheism led to the "abortion holocaust?" How does atheism lead to "hopelessness, meaninglessness, suicidal thoughts and loss of human life and liberty?" Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (etc.) slaughtered people because they were political threats, not because of atheism. Their politics wasn't informed by atheism, either, unlike the zillions of religious political persecutions and mass killings.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1862 Posts

Posted - 07/21/2011 :  05:47:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Theocacies past and present and their limits on, or outright elimination of, freedoms that we tend to take for granted should not be dismissed or ignored by those who would have the same here. They need to be reminded that their way when used as a foundation for laws often leads to violations of freedom and atrocities committed by believers against non-believers and against believers of different sects. They often bring the sword rather than peace.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2011 :  23:56:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, here is my final (I suppose) letter to that Don Batten guy:

=====
From: Reynold Hall
To: Don Batten

Yeah, speaking of talking past each other, I note that you ignore most of what I say and you keep barreling on with your own strawman idea of the so-called "logical" consequences of atheism are (which is fallacy by the way, though even when you all but admit it, you still use it!) while ignoring the real historical consequences of your own faith.

I note that you still whine about materialism, since you don't like that atheism implies that the physical world is all that there is, and as a result, everything is hopeless.

I can only say: If that was not the case; if there was something else besides our brains that determined our emotions, how we thought and acted, etc. then why is it that brain damage and brain aging has such a detrimental effect on our cognitive abilities? I pointed that out once, I believe, but you never responded to that.

So, I'm making it the main point of this reply.

My complete reply to your last email is stored here (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14298#192890). I won't copy and paste it, because I'm not sure you'd even bother reading what you don't want to anyway. I did however post the link to it, just in case. Feel free to drop by anytime if you want to discuss it, instead of talking past it.

I figure since you people are spreading lies about atheism and distorting the words of Provine, Dawkins, et al, I should try to put the truth out there as well, to defuse some of those "time bombs" you people are busy making.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 07/27/2011 23:58:47
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2011 :  07:57:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, he replied
Dear Reynold,
I fail to see how we have 'quote mined' or distorted Dawkins or Provine. You have not proven this at all. In your zeal to prove dishonesty you have totally misconstrued the point of the Dawkins quote, which is stated in the heading and even the question asked of Dawkins. The web post of the quote follows:

"Evolution: no morality (Dawkins)
"From a debate between two evolutionists. Lanier is a computer scientist; Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.
Jaron Lanier: ĎThereís a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.í
Richard Dawkins: ĎAll I can say is, Thatís just tough. We have to face up to the truth.í
ĎEvolution: The dissent of Darwin,í Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997."

Note: it's about *evolution*, not atheism. *Evolution* provides no basis for morals. Are you saying that Dawkins actually believes that nature/evolution provides a basis for morality? If not, then your accusation is baseless and if you were a decent person you would apologize on your public blog.
Talking about honesty; I note you have betrayed my confidence. At no stage did you ask my permission to post our interaction on the Internet. It is illegal to record phone conversations without the permission of the other person. It is just as unethical to publish correspondence without the permission of the other party.
As for our thoughts just being emanations of matter (our brains), your argument proves nothing. If you remove one wheel from a bicycle it won't work but that does not mean that a bicycle is comprised of only one wheel (or only needs one wheel). See: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_29-32.pdf
Sincerely,
Don


And I replied right back
From: Reynold Hall

To: Don Batten

Just re-stating the CMI article does no good: I've read the whole article. It's on the basis of reading the whole article that I accuse CMI of misquoting Dawkins. Just repeating the original article and pretending that the entire message is within that same section won't cut it.

What you said right here:

"Note: it's about *evolution*, not atheism. *Evolution* provides no basis for morals. Are you saying that Dawkins actually believes that nature/evolution provides a basis for morality?"

proves that you did not even bother to read what I had supplied in the link in my last reply to you...in the part of the magazine article that you (again!) left out, Dawkins goes on to say the exact opposite:

Let me put it here since you've got no interest in doing any further reading on your own:

This is what you left out:

"Even a cheetah as a killing machine is beautiful. But the process that gave rise to it is, indeed, nature red in tooth and claw.
However, you go further when you call evolution evil. I would simply say nature is pitilessly indefferent to human concerns and should be ignored when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems. We should instead say, We're on our own. We are unique in the animal kingdom in having brains big enough not to follow the dictates of the selfish genes. And we are in the unique position of being able to use our brains to work out together the kind of society in which we want to live. But the one thing we must definately not do is what Julian Huxley did, which is try to see evolution as some kind of an object lesson."

It's a far cry from what you people say in the heading and in the (yes, out of context quote) that Evolution means "no morality" as you people dishonestly claim, to what Dawkins actually said, was that we just have to come up with our own moral code. I'm sure that if you people had bothered to contact Dawkins for permission and asked what he really meant, I'm sure he'd have told you...well, before that whole "From a Frog to a Prince" debacle where you people edited the tape to make it look like he couldn't answer a question! Yeah, and you talk about MY honesty later?

If you people were actually honest, you'd have the title to that article of yours being something like: "Evolution: Nature is not our example for morality". That is what Dawkins was trying to say.

By the way, you want to talk unethical (my posting your replies on the web)? Go right ahead. You can post mine (so long as it's not "altered"!) , as I assume is your right once you received them (Remember your Feedback Rules?) This is not a Title 15 issue. Personal communications shared by one of the participants, while sometimes considered rude, is not a USC Title 15 violation as far as I know. Let me give you an example of a real issue:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/04/answers-in-neme.html

Let me quote, in context yet (if you don't believe me, check out the link) the relevant part:

"Sadly, this isn't the only manner in which AiG shows itself to be a blatant hypocrite concerning issues of copyright infringement. In July of 2002, Scientific American published an article titled 15 Ways to Refute Creationist Nonsense. AiG decided to publish its own poorly written rebuttal, which as it turns out, reproduced the entire Sci-Am article without permission. (And this was a mere 3 days after the Sci-Am article came out, which aside from indicating that AiG didn't put too much thought into it, had the potential to cause financial harm to Sci-Am.) Now, AiG claims that their use of the article falls under the "fair use" provision of copyright law; however, fair use only allows for some of the work to be reproduced for commentary or criticism, not the entire thing, which was Sci-Am's complaint. This is different from a parody in which "fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted ... in order to 'conjure up' the original." (See Copyright & Fair Use by Stanford University Libraries for more.) But when Sci-Am asked them to remove the article contents from the AiG website, AiG responded with an ugly screed accusing Sci-Am of censorship in which they made use of an extended ad hominem claiming that the only reason why Sci-Am objected to having its article reproduced was that it couldn't handle AiG's "devastating rebuttals". And yes, they turned that into an opportunity to beg for money too."

That "rebuttal" was written by Sarfati, and that article is now stored on your CMI website (http://creation.com/15-ways-to-refute-materialistic-bigotry).

What I consider rude is taking only part of what a person said in print, distorting the message of what they said, and publishing that, that is unethical. So go ahead and complain. If it turns out that it IS illegal, I'll do what you people have apparently NOT done, which is to obey the law and remove the offending material.

Besides, according to your feedback rules, any correspondence received become CMI's "property". I assumed the inverse was true when I received correspondence from CMI.

Lastly, to this:

"As for our thoughts just being emanations of matter (our brains), your argument proves nothing. If you remove one wheel from a bicycle it won't work but that does not mean that a bicycle is comprised of only one wheel (or only needs one wheel). See: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_29-32.pdf"

You have got to be kidding. In order for your analogy to hold, the "bike" would still have to ride even if it didn't have any wheels at all. That's what you people believe when the body and brain die off...that this "spirit" component will allow the person to have full faculties in some "spirit body", even when the physical body is mulch. This analogy of yours is a poor way to try to prove that there is a "spiritual" component to a person. It's not even an attempt at evidence for a spirit, but is a poor dodge of the obvious problem I pointed out.



Sincerely,



Reynold Hall

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2011 :  07:47:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yes, I've quoted one line damn near verbatim from someone on this forum in that last reply; see if you can spot it!

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 07/30/2011 07:48:04
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  07:03:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, I guess it's come to an end...You'll note that Don Batten isn't able to tell the difference between a forum and a blog:

Reynold Hall,

A staff member has replied to your question with the following response:

Dear Reynold,
You are receiving nothing I say, so there is no point in me responding (although I could to your every point). It will just give you more fodder for your blog. That seems to be all you are interested in, rather than genuine dialogue. I will not respond again.
Sincerely,
Don Batten
PS Our posting of the SA stuff with the detailed critique was NOT breaking copyright law; we had advice from a specialist copyright lawyer about that after SA complained (and, just from a pragmatic point of view, we would not risk a suit from SA, which would have limitless finances compared to us to fight the matter). So this is a completely false accusation.


Whoops. Forgot my reply:

Huh? I who answered every single point you ever brought up...you on the other hand only half-assed respond to what I had to say, For instance, the bad analogy you used to justify your belief that the physical body is not all that there is to a person. Where's the evidence for that?

By the way, Don, you should know this, since I've sent you links, it's a FORUM I post at, not a blog.

Whatever...it's been a slice and I'm learning more and more just how deluded you people must be.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 08/04/2011 22:27:39
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 03/14/2012 :  19:26:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, well. Look at what we have here. They've posted the first part of what I wrote to that guy, and his reply. Naturally, they don't get any deeper into that, thus leaving them with the last word...

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2539 Posts

Posted - 03/14/2012 :  19:37:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, this is what I wrote on their comments section for that page:

How's about giving a link to the rest of the correspondence that Batton and I had?

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14298

Or, if you don't like the "profanity" on that site, how's about just publishing the rest of our replies to each other on your site?

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

alienist
Skeptic Friend

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 03/15/2012 :  09:29:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send alienist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Unfortunately, these people have closed off their minds because of fear. They fear the ambiguities of life, the idea that we are not as significant as we would like to be. There is more to this kind of fear and wish for definite answers than I can go into quickly.

Because they are close-minded they miss out on the chance to wonder about the human brain. Humans have had morality despite the changes in religious beliefs. Humans overall need to be able to get along together to be able to survive as a group and as a species. Yes, we are a bunch of chemicals and nerve impulses. But the more we understand where morality comes from the more we can "encourage it." Globalization has led to a lot of problems, of course, but it has also led to certain interdependence. One country is less likely to go to war with another if their economy is dependent on this interdependence.

Overall, there are fewer conflicts in the world now than ever before.
this decline in conflict did not start with the christian religion (or any other religion) 2,000 years ago.

Okay, I am rambling, so I will stop here
C

The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 2.14 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000