Worse Than A Fundie? An Atheist Snob

[Admiral Valdemar]

In a prior thread, I brought up the encounter I had with someone who, apparently, was on my side, yet came across as more of a hard head religious fucktard.

I now find that his "arguments" have been applied over at RD.net too, and they had a whale of a time with him. So here is the thread I brought up to request advice on this particular nutcase, and here is where he displays some of the most amazing mental gymnastics I have ever seen.

They should give out medals for this ability to confuse people. Really, just read through some of his posts and ask yourself if you a) know what he's saying and b) can actually think of a way to respond that would not eventually lead to you wanting to throttle him, perhaps with some use of the OED as a bludgeoning implement.

[Darth Wong]

That's a wonderful "Registration Required" screen in your link. I can't say I learned much about the guy's arguments from it, though.

[Admiral Valdemar]

WTF? The site was fully viewable to unregistered before. The links have always worked for me when not logged in.

Board software change must've taken place or policy change. I'll see what happened.

[mr friendly guy]

God = Yahweh or Allah spoken of in the Bible & Koran.

Going along with that hogwash about the word god is enough to discredit any assertion of atheism.

Yet the fundamental flaw of your argument is in your defining the word God like the Bible dictates. Until you can view religion objectively, your just running in circles around the Bishops maypole.

Thats like me saying because someone accepts Superman as an alien from the planet krypton who wears a big S on his chest and has superpowers as spoken in the DC universe encyclopedia, will discredit anyone who asserts Superman is a fictional character.

Have I missed the crux of his argument?

I am sure I have seen several variations of this type of argument before, my first encounter being on SB.com. They simply define "God" however they want so attacks against the Bible brush off them. Never mind that they don't bother to actually define what they mean by God. Heck if people here criticise a creationist's definition of evolution we would usually without being asked give them the proper definition of evolution so they at least know what we mean.

[Lord Poe]

Erm, what more can be said about a god other than; "a supernatural being who is all powerful, and all-seeing?"

[Zixinus]

That he is eternal?

[Surlethe]

Erm, what more can be said about a god other than; "a supernatural being who is all powerful, and all-seeing?"

Not all gods were all-powerful or all-seeing - take the Olympians, for example. But in general, when someone in the West (or Middle East) says "God", he's talking about the Abrahamic one; to claim otherwise is to hair-split. On a related tangent, that's one thing about all the sophistic proofs of God's existence, like Anshelm's ontological argument (or Godel's modification of it): they define "God" so vaguely, they're proving that logic exists or the universe exists; they certainly don't prove anything about the Biblical God.

[Darth Wong]

Erm, what more can be said about a god other than; "a supernatural being who is all powerful, and all-seeing?"

I don't think there's any god in mythology which is actually all-powerful and all-seeing. The Biblical God needed to send envoys to Sodom and Gomorrah to see if it was as bad as he'd heard; that is clearly not all-seeing. And he repeatedly got frustrated when humans wouldn't act the way he wanted them to; that does not sound all-powerful either (why couldn't he just alter their natures to make them more obedient?). And how about the time a human male wrestled him to a standstill?

The same is true of other gods; I don't think any of them are omniscient and omnipotent if you actually read the stories. The Biblical God just wants his followers to keep telling him that he's omnipotent and omniscient, like an insecure man who wants his woman to say things like "Oh, it's so big!"

[Alyrium Denryle]

Erm, what more can be said about a god other than; "a supernatural being who is all powerful, and all-seeing?"

I don't think there's any god in mythology which is actually all-powerful and all-seeing. The Biblical God needed to send envoys to Sodom and Gomorrah to see if it was as bad as he'd heard; that is clearly not all-seeing. And he repeatedly got frustrated when humans wouldn't act the way he wanted them to; that does not sound all-powerful either (why couldn't he just alter their natures to make them more obedient?). And how about the time a human male wrestled him to a standstill?

The same is true of other gods; I don't think any of them are omniscient and omnipotent if you actually read the stories. The Biblical God just wants his followers to keep telling him that he's omnipotent and omniscient, like an insecure man who wants his woman to say things like "Oh, it's so big!"

Hehe, it gets better if you take everything in historical context. The jews were a breakaway tribe of mesopotamians that started to worship their tribal god exclusively. Initially they maintained that the other gods existed, just were not as powerful etc etc etc.

I can imagine it. YHWH sitting in a cloud poking at the jews, who proceeds to get kicked in the rear by the more powerful Baal. But seems more powerful, because he has nothing better to do but interact with (read: abuse) the jews. while Baal is off having crazy sex with Jezebel.

[Omeganian]

There is atheism as religion, and atheism as lack of religion, with the second type, it seems, being very uncommon.

And about the omnipotent and all-seeing God. Wikipedia gives six links to the Exodus book (somewhat different translations). In all six, the God says in 3:14 "I am what I am." It seems to be a heavy influence of the Greek philosophy, which considered their God (the Logos) to be, in addition to all that, unchanging. (a rather logical conclusion from the first two qualities). The joke is, in the original it is clearly written "I shall be what I shall be" (Eheye asher eheye) God speaks of himself in future tense.

[Omeganian]

I can imagine it. YHWH sitting in a cloud poking at the jews, who proceeds to get kicked in the rear by the more powerful Baal. But seems more powerful, because he has nothing better to do but interact with (read: abuse) the jews. while Baal is off having crazy sex with Jezebel.

Well, during their competition, Elijah did ask the priests of Ball if their God might be stuck in the toilet.

[Ryushikaze]

There is atheism as religion, and atheism as lack of religion, with the second type, it seems, being very uncommon.

And what are you basing this statement on?

[Rye]

There is atheism as religion, and atheism as lack of religion, with the second type, it seems, being very uncommon.

What the fuck are you talking about? All atheism falls under a lack of theistic belief.

[Resinence]

It really is amazing how many other-wise seemingly reasonable people whip out the "atheism is a religion" horseshit. Where did it originate anyway?

[Darth Wong]

It really is amazing how many other-wise seemingly reasonable people whip out the "atheism is a religion" horseshit. Where did it originate anyway?

Where do you think? Obviously, with religious people who are so indoctrinated into their belief system that they think it's "obvious" and that anyone who disagrees must be deluding himself. Hence, it's a religion.

Hell, I've dealt with religious people who have told me that I'm lying about being an atheist, and that I secretly believe. That's how confident these people are in the universality of the God belief.

[Omeganian]

Although I am an atheist, I am not a proselytizing one; I am not a missionary; I do not treat atheism as a kind of true religion that I must force on everyone.

Isaac Asimov

[Surlethe]

Although I am an atheist, I am not a proselytizing one; I am not a missionary; I do not treat atheism as a kind of true religion that I must force on everyone.

Isaac Asimov

Do you really think appealing to a pithy quote is a good argument?

[Omeganian]

No. I just like it.

[Darth Wong]

No. I just like it.

Are you familiar with the term "red herring"?

[Omeganian]

Yes. BTW, how do you like this quote (Same paragraph)?

I have opposed those people who attack legitimate scientific findings (evolution, as an example) in the name of religion, and who do so without evidence, or (worse yet) with distorted and false evidence. I don't consider them true religionists, however, and I am careful to point out that they disgrace religion, and are a greater danger to honest religion than to science.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, you like posting quotes, eh? OK ...

"Here's an idea ... have a point! It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!" - Neil Page, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles

[Omeganian]

Omeganian concedes the duel.

[Ryan Thunder]

And how about the time a human male wrestled him to a standstill?

Minor nitpick; Have you ever pretend-wrestled with your kids? You know, arm-wrestled and let them win, that sort of thing?

[Adrian Laguna]

I wonder, shouldn't a distinction be drawn between an atheists whose beliefs are an article of faith, and an atheist whose beliefs are grounded in logic? Wouldn't it be somewhat correct to call the first instance a 'religious atheist'?

[Patrick Degan]

I wonder, shouldn't a distinction be drawn between an atheists whose beliefs are an article of faith, and an atheist whose beliefs are grounded in logic? Wouldn't it be somewhat correct to call the first instance a 'religious atheist'?

A "religious atheist" is rather oxymoronic, don't you think?