Atheism is Not Illogical Part 3

posts are illogicalThis is my third foray into the crazy repetitious world of the Site Philosopher over on Philosophy Out of the Box and seriously, he’s not getting any better.  Unfortunately, I think this is a clear case of not having a clue what one is talking about and running with it blindly down the field.  That’s not to say he’s stupid by  any means, but he’s taken a concept that is wrong on it’s very face and he’s twisted it around into every conceivable configuration, except the correct one, to continue his crusade to prove that he was right all along.

Now I don’t want to spend any time proving he’s still wrong, I’ve done that twice already, but this is the third post he’s done on essentially the same thing, but in all that time that he’s been saying the same thing, he’s never realized that his initial, and thus secondary and now tertiary posts are based upon a flawed premise.

It strikes me that this, like most things the religious take on faith, is a silly idea that they never bother to question.  It’s likely something that he was taught, either by his parents or by his preacher or by some respected apologist and therefore, it’s not open to correction.  I could go run over to his blog and post how he’s wrong, but let’s be honest, no matter how nicely I do it, no matter how well supported my statements are, he won’t care because this is yet another case of feelings and not fact.  Here, he’s just re-spun his faith-based proposition three different ways, yet in none of his iterations has he actually demonstrated that his claim is in any way true.  It took me mere seconds to blow it out of the water and explain what atheism actually is, but for someone living in a faith bubble, where they cannot imagine anyone not having faith in something, I can understand why he’d make that mistake, but still have to shake my head that he keeps making it over and over.

I think I’ll just leave this for now, I repeat myself enough without having to do so over the repetitious nature of a theist who really doesn’t know what they’re talking about and isn’t interested in finding out.  I must depart for more fertile and rational soil and leave the clueless where they lie.


7 thoughts on “Atheism is Not Illogical Part 3”

  1. At least you tried 🙂
    The layers of illusiont hat theist create on a false beggining assumption is scary. If they could only see that the original assuption is wrong all these layers would dissapear. But that is easier said than done, as you really have to hammer away at the layers for ages.
    My recent post Random Chats With Believers IX

  2. His style of argumentation is eerily similar to that of Stan the Srawman of Atheism Analyzed fame. He, too, exhibits a similar pathology that, in effect, renders him unable to process why it is that his very foundational premises never make it out of the starting gate.

    1. Now that you say that, I can see it. I did an examination of one of Stan’s posts and looking it over, it does seem similar. Then again, the same could be said for a lot of theist posts, many of them have the same pathology, they take an idea, no matter how absurd it is and run with it. I wish they’d just run over a cliff somewhere.

        1. I don't know if he deserves any credit for being skilled at obfuscation, does he? It sounds very similar to a news story recently by a former Bachmann staffer who says that her lies are just fine because her audience bought them hook, line and sinker. Lying is only bad if people don't believe you.

  3. I have read all three of these and a few other things in my research on this subject and find that atheists are not aware of their own contradictions. I found someone stating that atheists are moving toward inclusion, but how can one include when one stands on the sole ideal of rejection? Then there was one who said, that the burden of proof is not something that should be sought, noting that proof should only be used for mathematics and alcohol; and yet, over and over I keep seeing line after line calling for objective evidence. Sounds like you all want to eat your cake and have it too. It also sounds like atheists see the world as one large high school with themselves as the most popular clique in it and if you don't agree with them, then you obviously aren't one of the popular people and therefore don't matter. I have an idea, instead of demanding that others do your homework for you, why don't you study the written material of the "rejects' followers" for yourself, and give it an honest read as a scientist would, then find someone better versed in that material than you- yes they do exist, THAT is verifiable, and ask them to assist you with your study and once you have actually given it a good and honest effort, then you will truly know more than just lumping 'theists- i.e. rejects" together in one group. We all have our zealots and our complete nut cases and atheists are not immune, despite your best intentions.

    1. Atheists aren't moving toward inclusion, they are moving toward rationality. One should only believe things for which there is objective evidence and in the absence of objective evidence or logical reasoning, one should not believe. That's all there is to it. Believing things for purely emotional reasons makes no sense whatsoever. Just because it makes you feel good to believe in something, be it gods or ghosts or aliens or Bigfoot, doesn't mean that what you believe is factually true, but a lot of theists, virtually all I'd say, aren't interested in what is factually true, they just want that emotional buzz they get from having faith. Of course, it's not just theists, it's all irrational thinkers who have the same problem.

      Nobody has ever claimed that there aren't atheist "nut cases", in fact, I point that out myself whenever I come across it. Something tells me you picked one post and are generalizing based on it, rather than actually having the slightest idea what I write about here and have written about here for more than 10 years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)