An Open Letter to Atheists

[Tiger]

Oh I suppose you did answer, at least a little bit

Try to cease and desist from your tedious opening paragraphs (and general bloviation) and one might be more inclined to read your (garbage) posts..

At this point it’s evident that you’re more invested in evasion than in honest discourse.

You’ve ignored substantive points, defaulted to deflection and now resort to performative trolling. This isn’t debate.

I won’t waste anymore time with your circular bullshit.

 

[céline]

Dawkins referred to himself, despite being Atheist, as a 'Cultural Christian' because he still follows the teachings of the holy bible despite not believing the parts which are 'supernatural'.

I would say likewise I'm a 'Cultural Atheist' because I have the same yearning for a life led on first principles despite still remaining interested in matters 'supernatural'.

 

[AN2]

At this point it’s evident that you’re more invested in evasion than in honest discourse.

You’ve ignored substantive points, defaulted to deflection and now resort to performative trolling. This isn’t debate.

Utterly deluded as always, Tigs

I'll get back to your previous post in a bit, right now I'm busy preparing a meal..

 

[AN2]

Ah, the classic (and tedious) James deflection — answer a question with a question to avoid stating your own position.

Deluded opening paragraph complete..

You claim to feel “fully qualified” to reply, yet you won’t.

Can you not f*cking read? I said I, as an atheist, was fully qualified to reply to your post (which was to @Fishalt) because it was generic. R u with me, son?

Instead of engaging with the content of my post — which already outlined the creation myth endemic to materialist atheism — you’re now demanding I define your worldview for you?

WTF is "materialist atheism", you poor boob? What's the difference between "materialist atheism" and atheism, you creationist crank?

Very well, I’ll repeat the core: if you're a materialist atheist, your creation myth is as follows — that the universe burst into existence from absolute nothing, uncaused and unpurposed, that lifeless matter somehow spontaneously organised itself into living, reproducing cells, and that mind, meaning, morality, and mathematics all emerged by accident, from a cosmos indifferent to them.

What the f*ck are you babbling about now, you halfwit

Atheists don't have a "creation myth", that would be theists, you 70 IQ deluded gobshite

Now: if that’s not your position, state your own.

But don’t play coy while pretending your worldview is immune to scrutiny. You’ve had ample opportunity to show otherwise — and haven’t.

What worldview?!

 

[AN2]

Dawkins referred to himself, despite being Atheist, as a 'Cultural Christian' because he still follows the teachings of the holy bible despite not believing the parts which are 'supernatural'.

I would say likewise I'm a 'Cultural Atheist' because I have the same yearning for a life led on first principles despite still remaining interested in matters 'supernatural'.

Dawkins has said that he's a cultural Christian for decades

He said it recently and theists' head fell off..

 

[Tiger]

Deluded opening paragraph complete..


Can you not f*cking read? I said I, as an atheist, was fully qualified to reply to your post (which was to @Fishalt) because it was generic. R u with me, son?


WTF is "materialist atheism", you poor boob? What's the difference between "materialist atheism" and atheism, you creationist crank?


What the f*ck are you babbling about now, you halfwit

Atheists don't have a "creation myth", that would be theists, you 70 IQ deluded gobshite


What worldview?!

James, I hearby crown you the worst contributor to this forum.

You literally have nothing to say. Don’t waste my time tagging me again.

Go read a book.

 

[AN2]

What an absolute f*cking tosser

 

[AN2]

So, to explain to anyone who might be unclear..

Atheism doesn't have a "creation myth" nor is it a "worldview"

Theism on the other hand..

 

[SwordOfStZip]

So, to explain to anyone, who might be confused..

Atheism doesn't have a "creation myth" nor is it a "worldview"

Theism on the other hand..

Atheism may not have a Creation Myth but a lot of atheists certainly have if not Creation Myths Origination Myths such as the "Big Bang".

 

[AN2]

Atheism may not have a Creation Myth but a lot of atheists certainly have if not Creation Myths Origination Myths such as the "Big Bang".

The Big Bang is not a creation myth

The Big Bang, put simply, is rewinding the clock from today to when the universe was very dense, very hot and then expanded (as it continues to do today). And there's lots of evidence for it

 

[Tiger]

The Big Bang is not a creation myth

The Big Bang, put simply, is rewinding the clock from today to when the universe was very dense, very hot and then expanded (as it continues to do today). And there's lots of evidence for it

The statement that the Big Bang is “not a creation myth” is precisely the kind of semantic sleight-of-hand modern materialists use to dodge the obvious: it is a creation account with all the trappings of myth, only stripped of metaphysical honesty and dressed in lab coats.

You say it’s merely “rewinding the clock” to a hot, dense state. Rewinding to what, exactly? An origin, a beginning — a moment when the universe leapt into being from absolute non-being. That’s not science, that’s cosmogony without the courage to admit it.

As Michael Polanyi warned, “scientific objectivity” becomes its own kind of superstition when it insists on silencing the deeper metaphysical implications of its discoveries.

The irony is historical: the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest and physicist, and was rejected by many atheistic scientists precisely because it looked too much like creation ex nihilo — too much like God. Fred Hoyle’s mocking phrase “Big Bang” was meant to ridicule it. Yet now, in a desperate turn, the materialist clings to it — hoping no one notices that it still demands a beginning, a cause, and an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

Even Stephen Hawking admitted:

“Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning.”

That’s not “rewinding” — that’s a beginning in the most metaphysical sense. And the attempt to explain it away through quantum fluctuations or abstract math is a theological dodge masquerading as physics — a conjuring act that invokes nothing and calls it something.

The Big Bang, in the end, is not the triumph of science over myth — it is the triumph of a sanitised myth over theological honesty. Your version doesn’t explain creation — it merely eliminates the Creator and hopes we won’t notice.

 

[AN2]

The statement that the Big Bang is “not a creation myth” is precisely the kind of semantic sleight-of-hand modern materialists use to dodge the obvious: it is a creation account with all the trappings of myth, only stripped of metaphysical honesty and dressed in lab coats.

You say it’s merely “rewinding the clock” to a hot, dense state. Rewinding to what, exactly? An origin, a beginning — a moment when the universe leapt into being from absolute non-being. That’s not science, that’s cosmogony without the courage to admit it.

As Michael Polanyi warned, “scientific objectivity” becomes its own kind of superstition when it insists on silencing the deeper metaphysical implications of its discoveries.

The irony is historical: the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest and physicist, and was rejected by many atheistic scientists precisely because it looked too much like creation ex nihilo — too much like God. Fred Hoyle’s mocking phrase “Big Bang” was meant to ridicule it. Yet now, in a desperate turn, the materialist clings to it — hoping no one notices that it still demands a beginning, a cause, and an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

Even Stephen Hawking admitted:

That’s not “rewinding” — that’s a beginning in the most metaphysical sense. And the attempt to explain it away through quantum fluctuations or abstract math is a theological dodge masquerading as physics — a conjuring act that invokes nothing and calls it something.

The Big Bang, in the end, is not the triumph of science over myth — it is the triumph of a sanitised myth over theological honesty. Your version doesn’t explain creation — it merely eliminates the Creator and hopes we won’t notice.

I'll get to your post in a little while (I'm having a late supper at the mo)

I just laugh at your turgid, self-righteous prose..

"No! You are not saying this, you are saying THIS!" etc.

You are an utter cockwomble

 

[Tiger]

I'll get to your post in a little while (I'm having a late supper at the mo)

I just laugh at your turgid, self-righteous prose..

"No! You are not saying this, you are saying THIS!" etc.

You are an utter cockwomble

Yes, by all means, fortify yourself with your "late supper"—a suitable metaphor, perhaps, for the tepid intellectual fare you bring to the table. It's telling that, faced with serious metaphysical and philosophical inquiry, your first instinct is to retreat into name-calling and adolescent derision, as if “cockwomble” were a talisman against the weight of truth.

You scoff at “turgid prose” not because it’s unclear, but because it reminds you—painfully—that your own worldview cannot withstand rhetorical precision, nor historical depth. This is the hallmark of the modern desacralised man: allergic to contemplation, addicted to mockery, and reduced to a jester’s performance in place of argument.

Do take your time. There’s no rush. The truth is eternal, though your patience (and wit) seems less so.

 

[AN2]

lol Every post it's the same. Our very own Gowl

 

[Tiger]

lol Every post it's the same. Our very own Gowl

If anyone wanted to know what a lack of self awareness looked like, then this is it

 

[AN2]

The statement that the Big Bang is “not a creation myth”

Correct

is precisely the kind of semantic sleight-of-hand modern materialists

WTF is a "materialist"? I honestly don't relate to that word but I know that it's a word theists love to say about atheists

use to dodge the obvious: it is a creation account with all the trappings of myth, only stripped of metaphysical honesty and dressed in lab coats.

You say it’s merely “rewinding the clock” to a hot, dense state.

Correct

Rewinding to what, exactly?

You just said it above, dumbass

An origin, a beginning — a moment when the universe leapt into being from absolute non-being.

Incorrect. Totally wrong

Read a book, you f*cking idiot. And I don't mean by creationist carnies like Stephen Meyer, an actual science book

That’s not science, that’s cosmogony without the courage to admit it.

As Michael Polanyi warned, “scientific objectivity” becomes its own kind of superstition when it insists on silencing the deeper metaphysical implications of its discoveries.

The irony is historical: the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest and physicist, and was rejected by many atheistic scientists precisely because it looked too much like creation ex nihilo — too much like God. Fred Hoyle’s mocking phrase “Big Bang” was meant to ridicule it. Yet now, in a desperate turn, the materialist clings to it — hoping no one notices that it still demands a beginning, a cause, and an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

Even Stephen Hawking admitted:

That’s not “rewinding” — that’s a beginning in the most metaphysical sense. And the attempt to explain it away through quantum fluctuations or abstract math is a theological dodge masquerading as physics — a conjuring act that invokes nothing and calls it something.

The Big Bang, in the end, is not the triumph of science over myth — it is the triumph of a sanitised myth over theological honesty. Your version doesn’t explain creation — it merely eliminates the Creator and hopes we won’t notice.

 

[AN2]

Yes, by all means, fortify yourself with your "late supper"—a suitable metaphor, perhaps, for the tepid intellectual fare you bring to the table. It's telling that, faced with serious metaphysical and philosophical inquiry, your first instinct is to retreat into name-calling and adolescent derision, as if “cockwomble” were a talisman against the weight of truth.

You scoff at “turgid prose” not because it’s unclear, but because it reminds you—painfully—that your own worldview cannot withstand rhetorical precision, nor historical depth. This is the hallmark of the modern desacralised man: allergic to contemplation, addicted to mockery, and reduced to a jester’s performance in place of argument.

Do take your time. There’s no rush. The truth is eternal, though your patience (and wit) seems less so.

There you have it folks..

Three paragraphs of turgid prose that says precisely nothing

This guy is just a (low IQ) whiny ass titty-baby. Dumber than Gowl (if that's possible)

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

The Pachamama incident—that many rightly saw as scandalous and contrary to the perennial teachings of the Church.

Out of respect to the Pope thread I've brought this here.

I vaguely recall that incident Tiger and how daft it was. Its the adult equivalent of two children fighting over a plastic toy.

I want to tell you that such things aren't real. You need to realise they're not real.

Its like putting a football on a mantelpiece instead of a figurine. Irrelevant to the Cosmos!

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

What's so confusing Sparks?

 

[AN2]

What's so confusing Sparks?

Eh, the "Pachamama incident"?

What you on 'bout, guv'nor?

What does it have go do with Tiglet being a spastic?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

The Catholics freaked out about having a Goddess statue in a church.

 

[Eclair Clearly]

So, to explain to anyone who might be unclear..

Atheism doesn't have a "creation myth" nor is it a "worldview"

Theism on the other hand..

Ever heard of the Soviet Union?

 

[AN2]

Ever heard of the Soviet Union?

What sort of a stupid question is that.. seems the natural answer

If you have a point to make, and trust me, you don't, then spit it out

 

[Fishalt]

Atheism may not have a Creation Myth but a lot of atheists certainly have if not Creation Myths Origination Myths such as the "Big Bang".

Yes, by all means, fortify yourself with your "late supper"—a suitable metaphor, perhaps, for the tepid intellectual fare you bring to the table. It's telling that, faced with serious metaphysical and philosophical inquiry, your first instinct is to retreat into name-calling and adolescent derision, as if “cockwomble” were a talisman against the weight of truth.

You scoff at “turgid prose” not because it’s unclear, but because it reminds you—painfully—that your own worldview cannot withstand rhetorical precision, nor historical depth. This is the hallmark of the modern desacralised man: allergic to contemplation, addicted to mockery, and reduced to a jester’s performance in place of argument.

Do take your time. There’s no rush. The truth is eternal, though your patience (and wit) seems less so.

I'm still waiting for you both to explain the mechanics of how God created the universe in six days, and particularly how creating plants before the sun worked. Material explanations, please. Not abstraction-riddled philosophy.

 

[Eclair Clearly]

What sort of a stupid question is that.. seems the natural answer

If you have a point to make, and trust me, you don't, then spit it out

You made the stupid remark that "atheism is not a worldview" but it often is, and was very much the worldview that permeated throughout the Soviet Union where religious expression was crushed, priests defrocked and subjected to show trials.

Read up on some history you angsty atheist geebag.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

^^
Yis did a good job on Wexford yesterday Sham.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

The Catholics freaked out about having a Goddess statue in a church.

It was not a Goddess statue as such.

There was an epic battle about it between Tadgh and TFM on Pish with an Ultramontane actually supporting Tadgh because the Pope or the Possible Pope was supporting the Pachamama thingy.

 

[AN2]

You made the stupid remark that "atheism is not a worldview" but it often is, and was very much the worldview that permeated throughout the Soviet Union where religious expression was crushed, priests defrocked and subjected to show trials.

Read up on some history you angsty atheist geebag.

So you're saying that a dictatorial state that seeks to remove (supernatural) idol worship is the "atheist worldview"? GTFO, you clown

And you know, you could've come up with a better example. Ever heard of North Korea?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

To be fair Sparks you did say something pretty bad about that guy's Mom.

 

[AN2]

Wrong

That's not Sham, anyway

It's Laz

He says that he's not religious but he's every bit as angry with atheists as the rest of them

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Its Sham for sure. He's the only person who keeps creating new accounts (for some odd reason).

 

[AN2]

I'm still waiting for you both to explain the mechanics of how God created the universe in six days, and particularly how creating plants before the sun worked. Material explanations, please. Not abstraction-riddled philosophy.

I have to admit, I'm rather baffled by this

The Sun (capitalised) came before the planets, so, wha? Is that some religious belief?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

The Sun (capitalised) came before the planets, so, wha? Is that some religious belief?

If humans have existed for around 200,000 years why did God wait 198,000 years to intervene in their conditions Sir?

 

[AN2]

If humans have existed for around 200,000 years why did God wait 198,000 years to intervene in their conditions Sir?

Why did he wait billions of years to create humans in the first place?

Haha.. You see how all of this shit links back to their fairytale. And low IQ losers like Tiger try to dress it as "science"

 

[Eclair Clearly]

So you're saying that a dictatorial state that seeks to remove (supernatural) idol worship is the "atheist worldview"? GTFO, you clown

And you know, you could've come up with a better example. Ever heard of North Korea?

Wrong

That's not Sham, anyway

It's Laz

He says that he's not religious but he's every bit as angry with atheists as the rest of them

I'm not angry. And I'm not religious. I merely hold in contempt angsty atheist gimps who feel the need to tell everyone that they're angsty atheists - as if anyone gives a shite. And there's something very unnerving about people who get off on insulting pleasant grannies (that's a common trait among Irish shitlibs).

 

[AN2]

I'm not angry. And I'm not religious. I merely hold in contempt angsty atheist gimps who feel the need to tell everyone that they're angsty atheists - as if anyone gives a shite. And there's something very unnerving about people who get off on insulting pleasant grannies (that's a common trait among Irish shitlibs).

You've always been an angry twerp

Jog on, pal (and perhaps stick to one account rather than making new ones every couple of months)

 

[AN2]

And to be clear, you're dumping your angry turds in a thread entitled - An Open Letter to Atheists, started by a religious person

If you had a clue, you'd know that the sort of rubbish that the likes of Tiger watches on YouTube (such as Daily Dose) is as much if not more about atheism than it is theism

For the record, here's what I'm against;

1. Bringing science into it (in fairness, @scolairebocht doesn't do that)

2. Gnosticism

 

[scolairebocht]

I don't mean to cut across the debate here but it seems that Tiger has fallen into the cul de sac that many people do debating with atheists. What happens is that frequently the latter interpret their atheism as a kid of black hole of nothingness, and believing in, sometimes literally, nothing, so its impossible to have a debate, because the other side has actually no position. Sometimes they will invite you to give your interpretation of their position and then spend hours saying "I don't believe that"..."how dare you presume to know what I believe" etc etc. So I wonder would the atheists on here like to give a proper summary of what they actually believe, so that you could have a proper debate?

Take a specific issue as an example which then might make this point clearer. For thousands of years people accepted the story in the Bible, particularly about Our Lord, as a genuine true account of what happened, so hence its a pretty strong bulwark of the theist position. So presumably atheists argue back against that, they obviously have to because if you accept the Bible as true then they are sunk? So can I invite atheists on here to say what is there position on that, for example, presumably you take one or other of these positions:

a) That the Bible account is a later forgery, not written in Biblical times at all.
b) That the Four Evangelists were writing fiction which they themselves never believed to be true.
c) That these Four were misled, they thought what they said was true but it isn't.

Or some variation of all that? Because its only when you try to get straight in your mind what you think really happened, straight enough that you are prepared to say so, that maybe you can see clearly the problems in your position?

Anyway just a thought.

 

[AN2]

I don't mean to cut across the debate here but it seems that Tiger has fallen into the cul de sac that many people do debating with atheists. What happens is that frequently the latter interpret their atheism as a kid of black hole of nothingness, and believing in, sometimes literally, nothing, so its impossible to have a debate, because the other side has actually no position. Sometimes they will invite you to give your interpretation of their position and then spend hours saying "I don't believe that"..."how dare you presume to know what I believe" etc etc. So I wonder would the atheists on here like to give a proper summary of what they actually believe, so that you could have a proper debate?

I'm afraid you're just another theist who doesn't know what atheism is

So, if you were to ask (I suspect the vast majority of) atheists the following two questions:

Q. Do you believe in God?
A. No

Q. Do you believe there isn't a God?
A. No

And because there isn't an affirmative there, you, as a theist, your head falls off

Take a specific issue as an example which then might make this point clearer. For thousands of years people accepted the story in the Bible, particularly about Our Lord, as a genuine true account of what happened, so hence its a pretty strong bulwark of the theist position. So presumably atheists argue back against that, they obviously have to because if you accept the Bible as true then they are sunk? So can I invite atheists on here to say what is there position on that, for example, presumably you take one or other of these positions:

a) That the Bible account is a later forgery, not written in Biblical times at all.
b) That the Four Evangelists were writing fiction which they themselves never believed to be true.
c) That these Four were misled, they thought what they said was true but it isn't.

Or some variation of all that? Because its only when you try to get straight in your mind what you think really happened, straight enough that you are prepared to say so, that maybe you can see clearly the problems in your position?

Anyway just a thought.

 

[AN2]

By the way, has @Tiger finally fulfilled his flounce, or is he dead (I can assure you that if it's the latter I had nothing to do with it)