Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Question: why are atheists so bitter and mad at the world?

Nice, dropping the plurium interrogationum, aka Loaded Question. Good debating, JIA.

Here's one back at ya, you're [presumably] a decent person simply because you fear the consequences of an afterlife/judgement. i.e. You don't steal, murder or rape because you have a fear of God and how you'll be judged.

On the other hand, those 'bitter/angry atheist' don't steal, murder or rape, yet don't have a fear of God or judgement in the afterlife.

So who's really the better person?

Originally posted by Robtard
Nice, dropping the plurium interrogationum, aka Loaded Question. Good debating, JIA.

Here's one back at ya, you're [presumably] a decent person simply because you fear the consequences of an afterlife/judgement. i.e. You don't steal, murder or rape because you have a fear of God and how you'll be judged.

On the other hand, those 'bitter/angry atheist' don't steal, murder or rape, yet don't have a fear of God or judgement in the afterlife.

So who's really the better person?

Most don't; the average Atheist is an average person just going about they're everyday life.

But there are loud, bitter ones that have a vendetta.

Going off that^ I saw a video on Youtube where Christopher Hitchens gave a speech at a university. At the end he was taking questions from the audience, and one student asked him "Why all the effort? If religion is just a bunch of fairytale hogwash, why write a book? Why not just live with the confidence that its fake?" His answer was because he wanted to expose the evil of religion to the world. And I think that's what JIA is talking about.

If you ever read God Is Not Great, you'll see its just a long-winded rant. It's not even an argument like Dawkins' books. The first chapter is even called "Putting It Mildly".

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Most don't; the average Atheist is an average person just going about they're everyday life.

But there are loud, bitter ones that have a vendetta.

Going off that^ I saw a video on Youtube where Christopher Hitchens gave a speech at a university. At the end he was taking questions from the audience, and one student asked him "Why all the effort? If religion is just a bunch of fairytale hogwash, why write a book? Why not just live with the confidence that its fake?" His answer was because he wanted to expose the evil of religion to the world. And I think that's what JIA is talking about.

If you ever read God Is Not Great, you'll see its just a long-winded rant. It's not even an argument like Dawkins' books. The first chapter is even called "Putting It Mildly".

indeed, a critic of religion is merely bitter and cynical, not as if anything being done today in the name of religion has had foreseeable negative consequences.

This attitude, imho, appears to place way too much importance in religion as a concept to be challenged. people challenge each other on numerous other issues they disagree on, and in those cases it would be entirely unacceptable to call them "bitter".

Do Dawkins or Hitchens delve into deep theological considerations with their books? no. However, it is totally unfair to characterize them as "bitter and mad". They are raising awareness in problems they see with the world. Maybe all those civil rights protesters were just "bitter and mad" (different scale, but the appeal makes my argument look good).

Originally posted by inimalist
However, it is totally unfair to characterize them as "bitter and mad".

No its not. Hitchens even describes himself that way.

There are "bitter and mad" members of any side of an argument from religion to animals to abortion and even comics, but JIA classifying all Atheist as bitter and mad then saying he doesn't call anyone names seems hypocritical to me.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, a critic of religion is merely bitter and cynical, not as if anything being done today in the name of religion has had foreseeable negative consequences.

This attitude, imho, appears to place way too much importance in religion as a concept to be challenged. people challenge each other on numerous other issues they disagree on, and in those cases it would be entirely unacceptable to call them "bitter".

Do Dawkins or Hitchens delve into deep theological considerations with their books? no. However, it is totally unfair to characterize them as "bitter and mad". They are raising awareness in problems they see with the world. Maybe all those civil rights protesters were just "bitter and mad" (different scale, but the appeal makes my argument look good).

You are correct. Calling someone "bitter and mad" is simply a way to dismiss them. The problem with Dawkins or Hitchens, from the fundamentalist point of view, is that they are effective. To call them "bitter and mad" is an attempt to diminish this effectiveness. The truth is people like JIA are these who are "bitter and mad" for having their sacred ideas challenged.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct. Calling someone "bitter and mad" is simply a way to dismiss them. The problem with Dawkins or Hitchens, from the fundamentalist point of view, is that they are effective. To call them "bitter and mad" is an attempt to diminish this effectiveness. The truth is people like JIA are these who are "bitter and mad" for having their sacred ideas challenged.

Hitchens admits he's beligerent towards religion.

Dawkins is too, but as a leading biologist and department chair, he has a little more restraint because of his reputation. He said he wants there to someday be a day when the "churches and mosques are empty". How is that not a vendetta?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Hitchens admits he's beligerent towards religion.

Dawkins is too, but as a leading biologist and department chair, he has a little more restraint because of his reputation. He said he wants there to someday be a day when the "churches and mosques are empty". How is that not a vendetta?

So, you equate "bitter and mad" with vendetta? Someone can fight a perceived evil without being "bitter and mad" regardless of rather they are right or wrong.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Hitchens admits he's beligerent towards religion.

Dawkins is too, but as a leading biologist and department chair, he has a little more restraint because of his reputation. He said he wants there to someday be a day when the "churches and mosques are empty". How is that not a vendetta?

thats exactly what I mean. Being opposed to religion is no different than being opposed to liberal politics or other such matters of taste. Claiming that an agenda against religion is driven by bitterness and anger is then placing too much significance in religion as a concept. I can't imagine being reasonably called "bitter and mad" were I to stage a political protest with a personal motivation.

Also, both of them lay out very plainly what it is about religion that bothers them, making it also improper to say they are motivated by such things.

It would be just as easy to say Hitchens' belligerence comes from a history of repeated negative experiences with religion, making it much less bitter and much more well informed and thought out.

Basically, as Shaky said, characterizing atheists in such a way is a good way of dismissing any potentially accurate points they might make.

Originally posted by inimalist
It would be just as easy to say Hitchens' belligerence comes from a history of repeated negative experiences with religion, making it much less bitter and much more well informed and thought out.

Actually that would probably make him very bitter and definitely imply that his arguments are quite poorly though out (even if they're well intentioned).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually that would probably make him very bitter and definitely imply that his arguments are quite poorly though out (even if they're well intentioned).

lol, it could lead to both

the point is that he isn't speaking from a position of "bitter anger". He makes well thought out criticisms of religion, agree with them or not. Also, the characterization of criticisms of religion vs the characterization of criticisms of political/social/institutional/corporate bodies.

also, and I'm guilty for buying into it, but why are we talking about Hitchens and Dawkins? Last I checked, they weren't emperor of atheists

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, it could lead to both

True.

Originally posted by inimalist
the point is that he isn't speaking from a position of "bitter anger".

More like placid bitterness?

Originally posted by inimalist
He makes well thought out criticisms of religion, agree with them or not. Also, the characterization of criticisms of religion vs the characterization of criticisms of political/social/institutional/corporate bodies.

Well he certainly makes very long winded criticism of religion.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, and I'm guilty for buying into it, but why are we talking about Hitchens and Dawkins? Last I checked, they weren't emperor of atheists

Their like Atheist Jesus or something, right? I don't have time to go out and read up on all the atheist teachings out there.

I just gave you a quote that shows that they believe quantum fluctuations are uncaused.

Okay, what causes quantum/vacuum fluctuations?[/COLOR]

in simple words, the contents of two non similar universes interacting with one another{this includes dimension/particles}. ofcourse, this is a VAST oversimplification, but to get a point across to you, since you asked

Again, see point 10:00 in the clip, Mr. Hovind explains how in six thousand years all the people on earth could have multiplied.

YouTube video

mr hovind is an idiot who beleives the flood of noah was respinsible for creating the grand canyon because{as he explained to his idiotic audience} the river is too LOW to have cut the top of the cliffs, never informing people that recorded crustal plate acitivity is responsible for PUSHING the ridges up from the level of the river. so you will excuse me if i dont go through the same bullshit with you over again. he explains NOTHING, it isnt bilogically/geneticall possible PERIOD without evolution, learn about alleales before commenting again, here ill help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele

and heres quantum fluctuations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

I still don’t get why you are so angry and insulting. Again, with all due respect were you abused as a child? Do you have some issues?

christian choir boy is asking ME if i was abused as a child?! 😆
stop projecting and start debating.

What evidence do scientists have that the universe spontaneously emerged into existence from a vacuum fluctuation?

What caused the vacuum fluctuation?

anti matter, the uncertainty principle, wave particle duality, the twins paradox, time dilation, the weakness of gravity

ive already explained what caused the vacuum fluctuaion,{hopefully in words that you can understand}

OK, if you say that the Earth and the Universe is only 6,000 years old and want to use modern science to back your claim then how do you explain that the light that we can see from distant galaxies can take 13 billion years to reach Earth?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, if you say that the Earth and the Universe is only 6,000 years old and want to use modern science to back your claim then how do you explain that the light that we can see from distant galaxies can take 13 billion years to reach Earth?

God works in wondrous ways. 😱

Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, if you say that the Earth and the Universe is only 6,000 years old and want to use modern science to back your claim then how do you explain that the light that we can see from distant galaxies can take 13 billion years to reach Earth?

The speed of light is wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The speed of light is wrong.

Duh. Which proves that all science is wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Duh. Which proves that all science is wrong.

Then if fundies use science (which is wrong) to prove the bible, then they are wrong, also. 😄

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Duh. Which proves that all science is wrong.