A question for open-minded Atheists

The BBQ Pit
1

This applies to other personality disorders as well, like Alcoholism and Buick Ownership, but I know more about Atheism than anyone else does, so I’ll start with that.

Consider the following profoundest statements ever written. Only one of them is false. You be the judge. (Do not adjust your screen. What you are seeing is real.)

  1. According to Atheists, God doesn’t exist.
  2. According to Atheists, God causes all the world’s problems.
  3. According to Anton LeVay’s standard of Atheism, the Devil is God.
  4. Atheist newsgroups are a trustworthy source of information.

If you choose anything except number 4 as false […sharply slapping your wrist - you can’t pick two, dammit!..] then I want links to Atheist websites.

If we put (1) with (2), shake well, and apply them to Baye’s Theorem, we can conclude that there is a 97% chance that Atheists don’t believe in the Devil. But then that contradicts number (3) and you haven’t argued that (3) isn’t true. Something can’t be both true and false at the same time; so therefore, what I say is true.

But up front, I want to address the tired old argument that is always offered as an answer to this question. In fact, it is the only argument that I will ever address in this whole thread no matter what argument you actually make. No matter what you say, I will malform it so that it says this: “Satanism and Atheism are not the same thing.” That argument does not hold water unless you accept (4) as true and, again, if you do, I want evidence. Clearly, if God does not exist and is not the Devil either, then what the hell are we talking about? Nothing? And yet, as you can see, there is indeed a discussion underway.

I have made my argument in front of rooms full of Nobel laureates with thick glasses and Transcendental Meditators hopping like frogs, and not one single person has ever refuted it. Therefore, your efforts will certainly be futile. I give you fair warning! I can hem and haw better than Lucy splainin’ to Ricky why Fred and Ethyl have their heads up her dress. But I’m open to someone pointing out a flaw even though, if you do, I will ignore it.

But if by some miracle you happen to notice right off the bat that I’m equivocating worse than a drunk telling a cop why his car is in the laundromat, I won’t harbor any ill will. I have no illusions that my intellect, vast though it may be, is perfect in every respect. After all, I learn new things every day in spite of the mind-numbing meaningless chatter of everyone I encounter. So, if I’m shown to be wrong, I’ll admit it with a good sense of humor and a hardy congratulations to whoever is so bold as to oppose me.

But remember! There is one and only one argument that you can make. And you must base it on the premises that I have listed here. All other points you make are off-topic, and I won’t hesitate to reword what you’ve said and present it in my own way. Fair enough?

Okay, finally, just let me say that, if (4) is false, why are there still so many Atheists? Am I the only one who can see them? (I do see dead people, but that’s another matter.) I can’t believe that I’m all that much smarter than the Atheists. Maybe twenty or thirty IQ points, but certainly no more than that. (I’m sure of this after reading the thread proving to Mangetout that God doesn’t exist.) Somehow, I’m not seeing all the former Atheists lining up to rend their garments in twain and sit atop a pile of dung.

I’m being deliberately obtuse and ingratiating because of the number of times I’ve raised this argument and no one has paid me any attention. Again, I’m willing to admit to any errors even though none exist. As far as I can tell, my logic disproving the Atheist newsgroups holds up, so… what’s your problem?

2

I reached… oh… the fourth paragraph. I was constructing arguments in my head. I was thinking that Lib had just had enough of all the Lolo-style bile that gets spewed onto these boards. I was ready to post an atheist counter-argument.

Then I suddenly thought kabbes m’boy… this is a parody.

And I looked, and I found

So for the record I just have one thing to say: Lib, you bastard.

pan

ps of course I really wanted to post “You’re right, it’s terrible, all of it” :smiley:

3

Okay, so kabbes is basically saying that Atheism and Satanism are not the same thing. (Otherwise, why would I be a bastard.) And it’s okay if he argues that, but he hasn’t shown me the proof. I’ll wait patiently, speaking of him in the third person and fighting him off with one hand like Neo punching out Agent Smith, until he can present his point more formidably.

4

Thanks Kabbes. I got wooshed. I was sitting here shaking my head, thinking Lib had really lost the plot this time. :smiley:

: scooting off to read the linked thread :

5

Well the OP has an error. An equivocation, as a matter of fact. That atheists believe that God doesn’t exist does not require that atheists believe that God is responsible for all the world’s problems. The arhument made by the Opening Post fails prima facie.

6

It seems to me that Goo is maintaining that there is no SUBSTANTIVE difference between Satanism and Atheism. Key word: SUBSTANTIVE. But that really amounts to nothing more than a dirty trick. I think what he doesn’t realize is that God can’t be both the Devil and something else at the same time unless he is omnipotent. And that of course is a de facto contradiction of number (1). (Hint: he can’t have a conclusion that doesn’t agree with one of his premises.)

7

So, are you saying that Atheism and Satanism are synonyms? If you are, I don’t mind. But in that case, I have to refer you to the dictionary. I have one here. Just a sec. Yep, I’m right. Since we can’t both be right, that means you’re wrong. But here’s a consolation pat on the head! How’s that?

8

I don’t recall saying anything at all about Satanism. I’m not going to allow you to state some argument that I haven’t made and then ask me to defend it. What I said is that you equivocated, and that is the point that I will defend.

9

I think I understand. Am I right to interpret you as saying that I should consult Anton LeVay about what Atheism is? I must tell you […sheepish grin…] that I already have! I’ve read the Bible backwards, so I know what I’m talking about. If all you’re going to discuss is number (3), then you really aren’t contributing very much to this discussion. I’d like to hear someone argue something else.

10

I think I understand. Am I right to interpret you as saying that I should consult Anton LeVay about what Atheism is? I must tell you […sheepish grin…] that I already have! I’ve read the Bible backwards, so I know what I’m talking about. If all you’re going to discuss is number (3), then you really aren’t contributing very much to this discussion. I’d like to hear someone argue something else.

11

Listen to me carefully. Do not — DO NOT — continue to put words in my mouth. It is clear to me now that you are trolling here. And I intend to contribute nothing more to it. Well, except…

12

::Cue new parody - “A question for open-minded Libertarians”:::

And the beat goes on… :smiley:

13

Well Lib it’s nice and watertight within its own impenetrable premises as usual :rolleyes:

Eons of fools trying to prove God followed by a slew of idiots attempts to disprove God and Mr. Libertarian has to fly off the handle over the latter group!

Why don’t you just skedaddle on over to your friends on the Nobel kudos list, save us the hermetic argumentations and let us stupid atheists simmer in our own intellectual misery.

I posit: All properties shared by all theists (and not shared by all humans) must be Godly virtues and all theists are idiots hence idiocy must be a Godly virtue.

Or:

Where ‘TP’ is all properties shared by all theists:

  1. (premise) All TPs must be Godly virtues
  2. (premise) idiocy is a TP
    hence: idiocy is a Godly virtue

Prove me wrong if you can… yada, yada, yada

Sparc

14

You broke my mind, thanks.

15

Libertarian, for the sake of clarity:

Just because the member in question is an idiot doesn’t justify slamming him/her for hermetic arguments when one is guilty of them one self once in a while eh!

But fine you’re right, he/she’s not doing anyone any favors.

16

I laughed so hard my ears fell off, well, nearly.

17

That’s basically just a rewording of the old argument that I’ve already discounted, isn’t it? If you want to insist that Anton LeVay’s branch of Atheism is right, then I need sources. You would think that after all these minutes of waiting I would have them by now. Let me check again. Nope. They’re not there.

18

But you don’t get it do you? You’re still arguing in circles. Anton Le Vey was not implied as correct in my argument and what you discarded was not the idiocy of theism. Hence prove to me that God is not an idiot and I will show you once again that I am right.

Why is it so hard for all you religious people to accept that the alternative is not simple evil. Just by saying that it isn’t won’t convince me.

You seem to think that the only form of Atheism there is denies the existence of God. That simply doesn’t make any sense. Just think :wink: about it…

I’ll try again:
Where ‘FP’ is all properties shared by frogs:

  1. (premise) All FPs must be Godly
  2. (premise) Enlightenment is a FP
    hence: God is an enlightened frog

Disprove that if you can with all your erudite, super-intellectual powers.

19

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t see how that helps you to to tie Atheism and Satanism together. Have you read the book by Shat Shahera? Why don’t you do that, and then go back to the drawing board?

20

Lib, you’re starting to frighten me.