Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Atheism Irrational

with 12 comments

ca3nzlxpcadf610xcagb4s4ycarzovgqcavy8uqxcap4du52caj2xf5ccacs8myqcaoqk0ebcax2rbwlca8rbwk2ca3j0tzncamb4qlycalyec3dca0tm4ylca48tthrcamsc9ttcavyfporcak15h7w.jpg

Well God has said that he is hiding because of peoples inequities Isaiah 59:2 but Atheists say that they cannot see him and the conclusion is he does not exist.

Well their objection is not logical.  The best way to solve the problem is to get rid of sins and Jesus has done it on the cross. But that is what they hate, Jesus dying for their benefit.

 You see the irrationality of “Reason” ( their reasoning, which they have elavated to a god or an idol, I have meant the tautology in the last stament, it is a lingustic trick to highlight to them how they have painted themselves into a corner)?   

Guess what? They did not get it.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

February 4, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Posted in Materialism

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Slow news day, hmmm?

    Kelmon

    February 4, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  2. Are you familiar with the concept of empiricism? If atheists can be said to believe or have faith in something, it is probably the concept of empiricism.

    It’s funny when people tell me what it is that I hate. I find the idea that someone knows what’s going on in my head better that I to be a little presumptuous.

    sparky

    February 4, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  3. Why would God be hiding now, but not then? If he is all knowing and all powerful and all good (or even mostly decent) why would he act be a sulking child?

    I don’t hate Jesus. I don’t even know the dude.

    By definition reason cannot be irrational.

    Samuel Skinner

    February 4, 2008 at 6:36 pm

  4. Had to check webster. Here is rational:

    1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable

    Course the definition could be wrong or inadequate, but I think it shows your last paragraph is nonsense.

    Samuel Skinner

    February 4, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  5. Yet again, you are saying silly things on your blog. How many times to you have to be told that atheists can’t hate Christ as they do not believe in him?

    I also agree with Sparky that it is both presumptuous and foolish for you to claim to know the contents of anyone’s mind other then your own. The simple fact is that you don’t and can’t, and you should stop falsely claiming that you do.

    Mike

    February 4, 2008 at 7:02 pm

  6. I’ve found a lot of these kind of stuff made up about atheists. We kill babies, we eat christians for brunch, etc. It’s all very amusing since I think most atheists are pretty low on hate. I feel a lot more hate coming in my direction than the other way. I’m always reading about how fundamentalist christians think we should all die a horrible death and be tormented for eternity. Why all the hate, man?

    sparky

    February 4, 2008 at 7:18 pm

  7. Samuel skinner, I am saying that “Reason” has been elavated beyond its limitation.

    But when we examine their claims, they fall apart.

    dawkinswatch

    February 4, 2008 at 7:21 pm

  8. Which claim is it that falls apart under a framework of reason/rationality?

    sparky

    February 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  9. 1) God says He is hiding

    2) Atheist say we do not see evidence, there is no God.

    3) God: I am here get rid of sin I will meet you.

    4) Atheist :God is a Delusion

    dawkinswatch

    February 4, 2008 at 7:42 pm

  10. 1) this isn’t an atheist claim
    2) it’s called empiricism and it’s pretty much the basis of science and the scientific method. Without it, you wouldn’t be typing on a computer right now. If it some credit, it’s done a lot for you.
    3)Not an atheist claim
    4) I believe Chris Hitchens has a lot to say on this one. I’ll liken this to adults that believe that Santa is real

    sparky

    February 4, 2008 at 7:44 pm

  11. The argument presented in this entry starts from and is based on a false assumption of which there is no proof, which seems to be a common fundamentalist/creationist mistake.

    In this particular instance, the argument assume that god exists and then builds from that point on, despite evidence for such being weak to non-existent.

    Matt

    February 6, 2008 at 12:47 am

  12. “But when we examine their claims, they fall apart.”

    I’m a bit confused – I thought this was something that atheists would say about faith-heads.

    It may satisfy you that it’s OK that there’s no empirical evidence for a transcendant sky daddy who brought everything into being, because in your book it says he’s hiding – so he obviously wouldn’t be detectable. And you can keep on using some very good circular reasoning as a nice infinite loop to satisy your blind faith. But there are many people for whom believing things without empirical evidence just isn’t a virtue.

    Quoting your book at us is not only futile, but rather stupid. Not only does the book have absolutely no authority to us, and hence fails as any sort of counter-argument so far as we’re concerned – but there’s a fair chance we already know what the book says, which is possibly what we were basing an argument on in the first place. Quoting biblical verses and affirming to us what you believe may comfort you yourself in your self-perpetuated blind faith fantasy-land musings – but it will do quite the opposite of winning you any intellectual respect.

    You can justify anything to your faith on the premise that the Bible is literal truth. You can say that Satan invented carbon dating, and fossils, and the heaps of evidence pointing at evolution, in a ploy to undermine believers. You can say that stoning adulterers, killing those who worship false gods, abstaining from sex during menstruation and cutting infant genitals – “don’t count” anymore, ’cause they’re totally part of the Old Covenant. But who said they were? Apart from circumcision, and a small scene where Jesus halts the stoning of a young woman – there isn’t much said on the matters of what should be kept and what shouldn’t. How on earth do you manage to be fundamentalist in the most literal sense when you know that part of your job as a Christian involves the screening out of what God thought was a marvellous idea before Christ? And if God didn’t think that stoning adulterers was fair game, then why does his inspired word…

    The minute you stop thinking out of that quickly shrinking box you’ve crafted for yourself, you will see that the majority of your arguments do not have a leg to stand on.

    Heather

    February 17, 2008 at 4:47 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: