Three previous reports play a part in this one:
1. in the article The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Christmas present to Albuquerque it was noted that atheists worldwide waste tremendous amounts of money purchasing billboards and bus ads that express prejudice and generally make illogical statements that only succeed in demonstrating their lack of knowledge of that which they seek to criticize.
2. in the article Audio Bibles, Haiti and atheist hypocrisy it was noted that after, or even while, wasting tremendous amounts of money on patting themselves on the back during times of recession and natural disasters atheist then turn around and condemn a charity that provided food, water and other goods to Haiti along with audio Bibles.
3. in the article “Non-Believers Giving Aid” the uncharitable charity it was noted that various atheist groups combined their resources in establishing the first charity in history to be founded upon prejudice and an in your face mentality, as they made it clear that they were primarily forming the charity in order to shove it in the faces of theists.
Now, atheists in Australia appear to have demonstrated that they have more money than they know what to do with by wasting it on bus ads that read “Atheism - celebrate reason.”
Atheists have, again, come very close to quoting that which the Bible has stated for almost 3,000 years, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD (Isaiah 1:18).
The ads are occasioned by the upcoming “Global Atheist Convention” in Melbourne a convention that is being titled, “The Rise of Atheism” and billed as the “biggest ever atheist event in Australia’s history.”
This convention will feature the best and brightest atheists; the most erudite amongst us. They who are the very same people who have been challenged by Christians in Australia to engage in debate while they are down under. They who, as if with one voice, refuse to debate and prefer to preach to the choir.
This was detailed in the essay, Yet Again, the Most Intelligent, Well Informed and Vociferous Atheist in the World Cower from Debate.
Reason? No, merely self-aggrandizing and self-professed pseudo-erudition.
Comments
Engaging in debate with theists gives them the false impression that they have something to debate about. Personally I've never seen an atheist shy away from it, regardless.
If you want to talk about self-aggrandizing as though religion isn't guilty, you'll have a tough time escaping every other street corner, upon which some religious billboard or ranting lunatic professes the "greatness" of the skygods.
Hypocrites? Takes one to know one, methinks.
It's also impossible to engage in debate with people who behave like schoolyard bullies. "Skygods" is a childish smear. It is similar in nature to homophobes who refer to sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice" -- it is an accurate description in a purely technical sense, but it is a characterization that is ultimately intended to denigrate.
It never ceases to amaze me how many of these gurus of rationality have no grasp of basic science or logic. They can't spot the assumptions underlying their arguments. They don't understand the distinction between a formal system and a system with intrinsic semantics (this leads to all kinds of foolish claims) and they refuse to acknowledge the validity of subjective experience (I think because they are insecure and subjectivity terrifies them).
In my experience, if you criticize these modern "atheist fundamentalists" they will obligingly show up in your comment section and prove everything you just said about them.
Oh please.
I saw this Examiner's post some time before either of you posted, and immediately knew it wasn't worth a rebuttal.
Charles, I will bet you dollars to donuts you have never taken an academically accredited class in formal Logic.
Am I right? Be honest.
No worries, neither has this Examiner.
Diochs: No donuts for you.
First of all, questioning my academic background is a a particularly shallow ad hominem. What does my pedigree matter? I am either capable of formulating a valid, logical argument or I am not -- regardless of my education.
As it is I studied Philosophy of Mind/Cognitive Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Sylvain Bromberger and Jerry Fodor (before he left for Cal Tech).
Sorry to preemptively undermine what the next obvious ad hominem: insisting that, as a theist, I must not understand science. Trust me when I tell you that MIT's science curriculum is pretty good.
If anything on this page is unworthy of a response, it would have to be your petty remarks... but please continue to embarrass yourself. No skin off my back.
If you read the early church fathers, many of their arguements were ad hominem attacks. Reading Origen, my favorite orthodox church father, I found him thoughtful and responsive, and then he would fall back on calling Celsus an Epicurian, as if he won the arguement. That tended to disappoint me.
I note many apologists will call someone an "atheist" LOUDLY as if that alone is a game winner, but it hardly fits the purposes of the discussion, they sought to engage in.
"Atheist Fundamentalists" is term that seems to exist somewhere between accurate and ad hominem. "Atheist Reactionaries" seems a more accurate term. The Satanic Panic Propaganda and 9/11 started this backlash by atheists.
That being said, you may continue slamming each other
Hey Diochs - christians are more than happy to bear false witness when they "think" they are furthering their religion.
They "think" the everybody else has to obey them and the buybull instead of obeying it themselves.
Gnostic Guy: Good point.
I had previously switched to using the term "absolutist atheist" as that seemed more accurate and less like a taunt. I forgot my own vernacular. :)
What does it mean to "acknowledge the validity of subjective experience" and to be terrified of subjectivity?
Chris: Tough to answer in 1000 characters. "Subjective experience" refers to what Phil. of Mind refers to as "intentionality" -- the fact that as conscious beings we have beliefs and desires. There is also the subject of "teleology" which is how we ascribe functions to things. If someone says, "Ice cream should be eaten for dessert," that is a fact, but it is a fact that is dependent on the existence of intentional states and relative to a teleology.
Subjectivity creates ambiguity and some people fear that for various reasons. You see Biblical literalists who take comfort in the idea that the Bible describes the world according to some supposedly-obvious "plain reading." Others with the same psychology have realized that science *is* literally true and retreat into a world where everything they believe is supposedly "scientific." In reality, science applies to very little of what we believe. Science tells us how to cure world hunger, but not why we should bother.
@Charles: I subscribe to the first sentence of your response to me, but if I have reason for embarrassment, think of the shame your instructors must feel.
After all, you really should know what “ad hominen” means. A simple observation, no matter how insulting you find it to be, is sometimes an merely an insult.
Don’t think so? Then deconstruct my previous comment. Be exact.
@Chris: When Charles states that “gurus of rationality” refuse to “acknowledge the validity of subjective experience”, what I usually translate that to mean is “Anecdotal experiences are as objectively valid as any collective analysis”, usually followed by an argument by numbers. Take that as you will. Charles will correct me if I misunderstand him personally.
Diochs: What I said in the comment I posted hours before your latest remarks isn't even remotely similar to “Anecdotal experiences are as objectively valid as any collective analysis."
Obviously, you are going to see what you want to see, so there's really no point to me taking the time to provide more explanation for you to completely ignore in favor of your straw men.
<sigh> When closing my browser tabs that morning, I had this site open, and thought to reply. My sin was to not to ctrl+R.
What is obvious is this. You're a "Fallacy Hack" who attempts to shoe-horn replies into fallacies you merely think you understand. No better than Fodor who pretends that his critics merely don't understand him.
I didn't commit an ad hominem. You didn't even bother to champion your accusation when I called you on it. And if you read for comprehension, you'd know why my "translation" failed the straw-man test. As I said before, deconstruct it, and be exact. Break it down.
What's funny is this: the explanation of your phraseology in no way clarified your previous assertion, and lent no substantiation to your first conclusion. Your words are mush - they lack any specificity to convey real meaning.
FYI, teology is usually associated with philosophy, not psychology.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!