The 4 horseman :Atheist Agenda

[Render]

[Irrelevant]

Ok.... one more time for the road... I know you can read. Is it a comprehension issue maybe?

If you don't want to admit to your deliberate misrepresentation of the content of videos you posted, then just responding to question 4 will suffice.

#1. At what point in the videos you posted do these gentlemen state that their intention is the destruction of all religions? Not that their intention is to shake people's faiths, the destruction of all faiths as you originally stated.

#2. If you truly feel that the destruction of all faiths is their intention, which parts of the videos do you feel gives this impression? Keep in mind that i've already shown that at least two members, Hitchens and the gentleman in the beard, do not hold this position and the other two feel this would not be possible.

#3. If you cannot answer the other two questions, then why are you deliberately misrepresenting the views of those in the videos?

#4. Please address the philosophical foundations I'd mentioned previously. The ontological case for a god. Do you feel that this is enough to convince someone in the existence of a god? Yes? If so, then why do you not believe in the FSM? Why do you not believe in Krishna? Zeus? So on and so forth. Can you address the epistemological case an atheist would require, other than holy books, and why you feel that a case for a god without an epistemological argument would be capable of pursuading anyone already not holding a belief in the possibility of such a being?

And the first time I'd brought up the subject as well as the first time you chose to ignore it...

Comments? Thoughts? Yes? No? Shut up? Something? Anything? Hello?

My friend I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request , because you use to much circumlocution.

[Zaphod222]

My friend I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request , because you use to much circumlocution.

Mr. Miyagis comment had intelligent content. Yours does not.

Over and out.

You lose.

Try to read, and more importantly, THINK about the topic the next time you bring it up.

[Irrelevant]

its not about winning or loosing. i am in disagreement with him on the nature of the four horseman and there agenda, however

if you or him would like to debate such topics he sugests, well, im very intrested to hear the these views on such things first to substantiate your position in such a debate, and why you hold these views , if you would like to debate those views you hold i would enchourage you to do so, but at least first inform me and the readers from what ( fixed point ) you wish to base yourself. ,as for what a Atheist would require, i can only guess that for most it would be some form of Scientific proof, i would put forth there is a God , and God is a being of "Dual Characteristics", and can substantiate that with science and scripture ( something id hoped Emma would be able to provide us with since she posted on these issues) .. counter that if you wish..that shall be my position

[Irrelevant]

thats a debate about Ontology...

[Almagest]

I'd just like to add that, although I like the four horsemen, particularly Hitchens (RIP), I don't agree with any of them completely. They aren't my leaders, they aren't my representatives. If they have an agenda it isn't shared by me, or the millions of atheists around the world.

Frankly, the organised religions of the world need their foundations shaken. They have not kept up with the modern world. They need to re-examine themselves and refocus on promoting good.

[Zaphod222]

if you would like to debate those views you hold i would enchourage you to do so, but at least first inform me and the readers from what ( fixed point ) you wish to base yourself

Why do you want to re-invent the wheel? All four of these (in particular, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris) have been through countless debates, and countered all the typical theist arguments convincingly.

Can you point to a particular argument made in a particular debate (there are hundreds of them on Youtube), where you think one made a mistake?

Because re-hashing all the standard arguments on this forum is kind of boring.

For what it is worth, I thank you for posting the three links here. The third one is kind of useless, because it only shows one presentation, and not even a complete one. But in particular the second one was wonderful, and it refutes your claims about a grand conspiracy right there.

[Irrelevant]

i agree with this statement in full...

I also like Hitchens.

[Zaphod222]

i agree with this statement in full...

I also like Hitchens.

That is kind of bizarre. You have diametrically reversed your position now??

Anyway, congrats to waking up and becoming an atheist.

[Mr Walker]

While i do not se it in terms of "triumph" or even a contest Atheism can't compete with faith. It is far too handicapped to do so because it offers nothing of the rewards faith gives to people Even if atheism was/is factually correct that there was no god, it would still never come close to "defeating" theism and faith, because of the nature of human beings and their way of thinking. Humans not only need god/faith they construct this faith and belief from birth. Very few humans ever find a significant motivation, strong enough to displace faith and belief. And really, that is what it takes, something in a person's life, to move away from the first constructed belief about god and the nature of human spirituality. It might be hurt, disappointment, teenage rebellion, peer group pressure, the nature of modern education etc. govt pressure, but without such forces humans rarely, if ever, become non believers.

it is interesting that the largest publisher of bibles in the world today Is China (Lagely for overseas chinese speakers but increasingly for domestic consumption-60 million last year)

[Irrelevant]

That is kind of bizarre. You have diametrically reversed your position now??

Anyway, congrats to waking up and becoming an atheist.

No I'm still very much a believer, only stating I like hitchens, I've spoken with many but he is a chap I know I would have enjoyed talking with over good bottle of scotch.

[+Liquid Gardens]

While i do not se it in terms of "triumph" or even a contest Atheism can't compete with faith. It is far too handicapped to do so because it offers nothing of the rewards faith gives to people Even if atheism was/is factually correct that there was no god, it would still never come close to "defeating" theism and faith, because of the nature of human beings and their way of thinking. Humans not only need god/faith they construct this faith and belief from birth. Very few humans ever find a significant motivation, strong enough to displace faith and belief. And really, that is what it takes, something in a person's life, to move away from the first constructed belief about god and the nature of human spirituality. It might be hurt, disappointment, teenage rebellion, peer group pressure, the nature of modern education etc. govt pressure, but without such forces humans rarely, if ever, become non believers.

You really need to put down the paint gun and use a smaller brush here MW, the width of your paint strokes is way too wide. Geez, you've been informing me how no one can understand all the great 'evidence' for the spirit world and such because they haven't experienced it, but apparently a non-atheist can hold forth with some validity apparently about what atheists, let alone 'humans', need; no, all humans do not need faith and no, not all humans have identical 'ways of thinking'. Faith cannot provide the 'rewards' that atheism brings to people either. I agree though, faith cannot compete with atheism, just not in the way you mean.

[Irrelevant]

Just popping this in here because I mentioned it earlier

[White Crane Feather]

watched part of it.

I stopped when they start talking about its a contradiction to be spiritual one day then then scientific another and "how can you live with such a contradiction". I think all four of them live in box that they built for themselves. Non of their arguments are convincing for a myriad of reasons. It's funny I know these guys are supposed to be educated writers, but I find much of what they say either ignorant or dishonest. If this really is the leadership of an atheistic movement In don't think it will go very far. Four horsemen?..... Na..... Just some guys sitting around a table smoking and drinking congratulating themselves for recognizing the myth in mythology.

[Irrelevant]

It's a bit sad sometimes isn't it.

I remember watching a doco by Steven Hawking ( about origins of the universe) where it all came down to a demonstration of a hole in the ground and mountain of dirt..they balance themselves out, yet to prove his hypothesis it required a guy holding a shovel to do the work, in his hypothesis he forgot to include that guy ( the guy behind the sceans who does the work) , for religion that guy holding the shovel silently doing the work in creation is God.

[White Crane Feather]

It's a bit sad sometimes isn't it.

I remember watching a doco by Steven Hawking ( about origins of the universe) where it all came down to a demonstration of a hole in the ground and mountain of dirt..they balance themselves out, yet to prove his hypothesis it required a guy holding a shovel to do the work, in his hypothesis he forgot to include that guy ( the guy behind the sceans who does the work) , for religion that guy holding the shovel silently doing the work in creation is God.

I found hawking to be very misleading in that documentary aswell. his definition of 'nothing' seemed to be that two opposite something's = nothing. In reality that's not nothing at all obviously we exist. The universe cannot be viewed as an equation simply because it is not an equation. He also seemed to insinuate that the vacuum itself was created during the bb then suggests that the bb was a quantum vacuum fluctuation. They are really trying for nothing, but since nothing by definition dies not exist, it is a futile quest.

[Zaphod222]

watched part of it.

I stopped when they start talking about its a contradiction to be spiritual one day then then scientific another and "how can you live with such a contradiction". I think all four of them live in box that they built for themselves. Non of their arguments are convincing for a myriad of reasons.

Well. Can you just name one reason, among the myriad?

I like all four of them. Personally, I find Sam Harris the most fascinating. I have read some profoundly convincing thoughts from Sam Harrison. From you? None, so far. Only an off-hand dismissal.

[danielost]

By getting people to use their brains?

I am not holding my breath though...

Becareful what you wish. I use my brain, and I am quite religous. According to science, there are just to many accdents. The suns radition level is just right for life on earth, with its accidentail magnitic field. Organic componets came to gether to form life. Which accidentally got caught in a soap bubble. Earth accidentally formed in the right place. It was accedentally eestroyed, almost, by a mars sized planet, which accaddentally formed the moon. Which was accadentally the right size to keep the earth from doing huge wobbles. And don't get me started on all of the accidents that became us.

[White Crane Feather]

Well. Can you just name one reason, among the myriad?

I like all four of them. Personally, I find Sam Harris the most fascinating. I have read some profoundly convincing thoughts from Sam Harrison. From you? None, so far. Only an off-hand dismissal.

I'm not surprised.

For starters they begin the conversation by trumping up the sensitivity of believers. An obvious straw man, which imeadiatly suggests they are not going to be discussing arguments, but instead are focused on the emotions of others. Then the conversation politely turns to how contradictory it is for Somone to have faith in a religion and also be a scientist. ( they make some comment about praying to god on sunday and being a biologists on Monday) Since science has nothing to say about spirituality, all we are really witnessing is the construction of adhominims. I would expect nothing less from Dawkins.

One did not have to go far in that particular video to recognize marketing for their books not actual logically constructed criticism of religions or spirituality. I do a lot of marketing myself, and i can smell self Promotion a mile away. Note. It's not that I dont disagree with them on SOME issues ( mostly regarding fundamentalists), it's just that despite their particular fields of expertise, they are not very educated on the rym and reason for spiritual beliefs. These types continually hold up the obvious problems with religions as a strawman for all spirituality.

That's just in a few minutes of the video.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

Becareful what you wish. I use my brain, and I am quite religous. According to science, there are just to many accdents. The suns radition level is just right for life on earth, with its accidentail magnitic field. Organic componets came to gether to form life. Which accidentally got caught in a soap bubble. Earth accidentally formed in the right place. It was accedentally eestroyed, almost, by a mars sized planet, which accaddentally formed the moon. Which was accadentally the right size to keep the earth from doing huge wobbles. And don't get me started on all of the accidents that became us.

Gravity just happens to be the right strength

The strong force just happens to be the right strength

The weak force just happens to be the right strength

The difference in anti matter to matter ratio just happened to be enough

The expansion rate just happens to be the right rate

Every part of fundamental physics from quantum tunneling, to miniscule ratios and behavior of subatomic particles just happened to be what they are.

There is only one way around the anthropoic principle without god, and this way inevitably leads to the birth of god.

But hey you are deluded religionists, and I harbor primitive unintelligent superstitions.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Gravity just happens to be the right strength

The strong force just happens to be the right strength

The weak force just happens to be the right strength

The difference in anti matter to matter ratio just happened to be enough

The expansion rate just happens to be the right rate

Every part of fundamental physics from quantum tunneling, to miniscule ratios and behavior of subatomic particles just happened to be what they are.

You use the phrase 'just happens' like there is some possibility that these 'finely tuned' constants could have other values, what is the evidence of that? Pi 'just happens' to have the right value to represent the ratio of a circle's diameter to it's circumference; so?

[White Crane Feather]

You use the phrase 'just happens' like there is some possibility that these 'finely tuned' constants could have other values, what is the evidence of that? Pi 'just happens' to have the right value to represent the ratio of a circle's diameter to it's circumference; so?

That is the question isn't? If any one of hundreds if not thousands of those things were different the universe could not support life as we know it. If it just happens to be the only way it could be then that is quite astonishing. That would be saying that the only type of universe that can exist is the type that can support our brand of concious life.

So?

That by most peoples standards even prominent atheist scientists does seem to suggest purpose. Unfortunately it does fall apart in science. Most scientists do seem to think, for various reasons, the the fundamental forces and post big bang physics arose out of the big bang when the fundamental forces were united. You should read suskind's book "The Comsmic Landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0316013331/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/184-1329841-2907325

Here one of our foremost scientists and atheists acknowledges the deep unlikely hood of a single universe with the porage just right, only his understanding of physics takes it even deeper.

Since most science seems to sugest that the universe arose out of a extremely ( very extremely) rare quantum tunneling event and the universe appears to be very very flat, at least 14 trillion light years in diameter as the lower limit, there is no reason to think that there are not many many other universes from previous or distant quantum tunniling events thereby makeing this type of universe only occupying a tiny fraction of possible kinds of universes thereby not makeing concious life very special at all. if we are not going to recognize these potentials and stick with this one lone universe, the anthropoic principle is amazing evidence for a creator. Even intelligent atheists like suskind will agree. Especially if the fundamental forces arose out of initial conditions, which appears to be the majority consensus.

Most scientists with healthy understanding of quantum mechanics realize that determinism cannot be a reality. Reality dosnt just look fuzzy it actually IS fuzzy.

I don't think this universe is the only one, so for me personally the anthropoic principle didn't hold any power.

But I think that's a better answer than "so" don't you think?

As of yet there is not experimental evidence only circumstantial evidence of unification. It's where the theories and math lead. Let's hope so, because if it dosnt the religious become more right.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Seeker79

[danielost]

You use the phrase 'just happens' like there is some possibility that these 'finely tuned' constants could have other values, what is the evidence of that? Pi 'just happens' to have the right value to represent the ratio of a circle's diameter to it's circumference; so?

I believe you will find that we made up pie. The egyptions were capable of building the prymids with out knowing about pie. It is figuered in by accident. They used a wheel to missure things.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Irrelevant... (Wow.. how appropriate...)

So it is a comprehension thing. Ok... I'm not going to dumb down my vocabulary in order to have a conversation with someone who cannot understand the concepts I'm attempting to discuss with them. Given this new bit of information, I'll respectfully bow out and you can continue to derp along through your thread actually having no concept of that which you are trying to discuss.

Good day.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Mr. Miyagi

[scowl]

Here's the way I look at the hundreds of fortunate circumstance that led to life here on Earth: they happened here on Earth. If they had happened somewhere else in the universe, we'd be there saying the same thing. There's nothing special that they happened on this rock.

In the universe you'll find any physically possible combinations of any conditions somewhere. The ones here made life happen.