atheist stupidity
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
If they believe in order, then they believe in God (even if they're Deists). And my religion says that before God created order, there was darkness, voidage and formlessness. Genesis 1:2 Therefore order itself is perpetually proof of God.
It's the reason we can say anything, it's the reason language exists and is a thing. In order to say anything you have to presuppose order. We beg the question that patterns are just a given ---- why are they a given? Instead, why don't we assume that without order being imposed on the world, that order would not spontaneously arise / appear /materialize?
Atheists want to say that theirs is the "null hypothesis." I want to say that formlessness, voidage and darkness is the null hypothesis. That there is order at all, is surprising on my view. And to suggest that order should be seen as a part of the philosopher's mythical "state of nature" or "original position" or whatever they want to call things before man imposes his own order on the world, is begging the question. I want to see some proof of that. I contend, and everyone who believes in God contends the same thing (even Deists), that order itself is a creature. So therefore when the atheists want to just presume order is " a se" self-existent, then we have to say No: You're begging the question.
It's the reason we can say anything, it's the reason language exists and is a thing. In order to say anything you have to presuppose order. We beg the question that patterns are just a given ---- why are they a given? Instead, why don't we assume that without order being imposed on the world, that order would not spontaneously arise / appear /materialize?
Atheists want to say that theirs is the "null hypothesis." I want to say that formlessness, voidage and darkness is the null hypothesis. That there is order at all, is surprising on my view. And to suggest that order should be seen as a part of the philosopher's mythical "state of nature" or "original position" or whatever they want to call things before man imposes his own order on the world, is begging the question. I want to see some proof of that. I contend, and everyone who believes in God contends the same thing (even Deists), that order itself is a creature. So therefore when the atheists want to just presume order is " a se" self-existent, then we have to say No: You're begging the question.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I don't know about others here, but on occasion (outside TOL) I have seen God-haters get really miffed when I tell them the truth about their precious atheism, and they react by telling me that as a Christian I have no business talking about atheism. Basically, the message they are trying to send is "Only atheists get to say what atheism is!" The hilarious thing about that is that you can find God-haters saying stupid things like "Christians are atheists too! We just believe in one less god than they believe in." And that is what I like to point out to God-haters who tell me that I, being a Christian, "don't get to say what atheism is": I say, "Not so fast! On the contrary, I DO get to say what atheism is, on account of your own sages (like Ricky Gervais, for example) telling me that I'm an atheist too. For y'all to tell me I'm your fellow atheist is for you to give me your blessing to say what I will about your precious atheism."
How can a God-hater be atheist?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What do you mean by your word, "atheist"?
Without a belief in a supreme being. What is your definition?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If I say that I don't believe that intelligent women exist, am I a woman hater?
I know that I wouldn't automatically take it that way.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Without belief of what proposition? To what proposition are you referring by your phrase, "in a supreme being"? Every belief, without exception, is belief of some proposition, whether a true proposition (a truth) or a false proposition (a falsehood).
Do you just mean what am I referring to by the word, "atheist"? By the word, "atheist", I refer to God-haters who say things like "I'm an atheist," "God does not exist," "I lack belief that God exists," "There is no God," "I lack belief that there is a God," etc. That's all there is to being an atheist: being a God-hater who says some or all of a certain corpus of slogans of which the atheist's language game consists.
Having no belief with regard to the propositions that a supreme being does or doesn't exist.
See above.
Yes.
How can someone hate something that they don't believe exists?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What (if anything) do you mean by your word, "exists"? When you say "X exists," are you saying that X is doing something? If so, then what are you saying X is doing? Could you answer that question sans using "exists"?
Now I know you're just messing with me.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
It's not my fault that you choose to use your word, "exist", meaninglessly, and that you thus cannot respond rationally to the questions I ask you about your use of it. You've got nothing. Just think about it: your whole, worthless shtick as an atheist rests on your cognitively meaningless use of the word, "exist".
And you keep doing it. You just can't seem to help yourself. Next you'll be asking what the meaning of "is" is.It's not my fault that you choose to use your word, "exist", meaninglessly, and that you thus cannot respond rationally to the questions I ask you about your use of it. You've got nothing. Just think about it: your whole, worthless shtick as an atheist rests on your cognitively meaningless use of the word, "exist".
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
@rstrats: <NO ANSWER>
@rstrats: <NO ANSWER>
@rstrats: <NO ANSWER>
@rstrats: <NO ANSWER>
You can't deal rationally with these questions, because you use your word "exists" meaninglessly.
Asking you questions you can't answer about your use of certain words you choose to use? Of course. What's it to you? And why would I not? Why, that's how I corner you into destroying your own, atheist language game. (Remember that all atheism is is a language game built of a certain set of popular verbal formulas, and fueled by God-haters' hatred of God.) I've done it millions of times, and you're a clone of all the others, your fellow, God-hating fools. Not a lot of opportunities to do it on TOL, though, as I scarcely ever see posters on here performing the standard atheist clown show that you're putting on. And you can't last long on TOL shouting four-letter profanities at me, 'cause you'll get banned, so you'll fizzle out faster and with even less of a bang than those in other platforms who do not have to work w/in those constraints.
I can't help myself from asking you questions you can't answer about your own use of certain words you choose to use? Oh, well.
Words don't mean things; rather, persons (sometimes) mean things by words they choose to say. (Other times, of course, people say words meaninglessly. For example, as you've advertised here, you say "exist" meaninglessly.)
Long story short: As long as you say "exist/s" meaninglessly, you are failing to predicate anything when you say stupid atheist things like "I don't believe God exists!" That is, not only are you therein not affirming any truth, but what you are doing does not even rise to the level of affirming falsehood; rather, you are doing nothing more than venting emotion and emitting preconditioned parrotspeak.
Man, you are one weird dude.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
If you weren't a God-hating fool, God-hating fools would be saying that about you, too.
You shouldn't be angry at me for the fact that you have been cornered into demonstrating how worthless and indefensible your atheist stupidity, your atheismspeak, is.