An Open Letter to Atheists

[SwordOfStZip]

Here's one that I watched (don't ask me why) but haven't posted previously. The well known theist is positively gushing over him (O'Connor)


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjsSHd23e0Q

William Lane Craig is an Apollinarian or a "Neo-Apollinarian" meaning that he believes that as part of the Incarnation Christ did not assume a human mind. This puts him very much on the fringes. Also a lot of US Evangelicals have a general "gushing" style.

 

[AN2]

Here's one I did post, gushing


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AR7xh-dijiI

 

[AN2]

True however the fact of his popularity is in itself interesting- especially the way it has weathered the storm of it becoming clear that he himself is an emotional wreck.

Nationalists of course object to Peterson on the same grounds that they object to all of these people.. Peterson, Tommeh, Nigel Farage, even Triggernometry bloke..

 

[AN2]

His biggest fan base is atheists.

Obviously he has a reasonably large following and most of them are atheists

But I think that's there's something very appealing to theists about a prone atheist

I don’t know a single theist who likes him.

He’s a classic boarding school fag.

 

[AN2]

lol


View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs

 

[AN2]

Daily Dose is on it! -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EWvtqR6XN4s

For those of you who don't know, Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson had a debate recently chaired by Alex O'Connor

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Daily Dose is on it! -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EWvtqR6XN4s

For those of you who don't know, Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson had a debate recently chaired by Alex O'Connor

Gosh the ties Dawkins and Peterson are wearing are awful. That Crown is SO Kitschy. Arguably men should have facial hair but the moustache does not look great on this Alex O'Connor character at all.

 

[clarke-connolly]

Gosh the ties Dawkins and Peterson are wearing are awful. That Crown is SO Kitschy. Arguably men should have facial hair but the moustache does not look great on this Alex O'Connor character at all.

Maybe with the " Right "Moustache = = Alex O'Connor could become a Hitler Impersonator = = I wonder, is there much work available for Hitler Impersonators ? !

 

[AN2]

Gosh the ties Dawkins and Peterson are wearing are awful. That Crown is SO Kitschy. Arguably men should have facial hair but the moustache does not look great on this Alex O'Connor character at all.

I dunno, he reminds me of some comedy film, is it this one

As long as he doesn't grow a ponytail

And those trousers aren't the worst but they're dangerously close to skinny jeans

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I dunno, he reminds me of some comedy film, is it this one



As long as he doesn't grow a ponytail

And those trousers aren't the worst but they're dangerously close to skinny jeans

Or a "man bun".

He looks goodish minus the hair and moustache.

Someone told me that Dawkins is actually quite accomplished as a hard scientist (as opposed to a polemist), is that true?

 

[AN2]

Or a "man bun".

He looks goodish minus the hair and moustache.

Someone told me that Dawkins is actually quite accomplished as a hard scientist (as opposed to a polemist), is that true?

Well he is a biologist!

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[AN2]

I've read the opposite.

You don't like him because he's an atheist

I think quite a lot of actual scientists engaged in research consider him to be a kind of pop scientist who appeals to a mass audience but who doesn't actually contribute anything to scientific research. There are lots of these pop scientists around (Neil de Grasse Tyson and Brian Cox are two that spring to mind)

Brian Cox (physicist) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

who make a very good living out of flaunting their supposed scientific credentials to a captive audience - but who don't actually engage in research.

I know EO Wilson, a distinguished scientist who taught in Harvard - the leading authority on ants apparently - had no time for him.

From 1.45 in this video


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ya_9-06MIQ&t=165s

 

[AN2]

Wrong, as usual. I'm not religious.

He's made a ton of money with his anti-theist shtick. What actual scientific research is he engaged in? Is EO Wilson wrong?

To call Dawkins a journalist? Of course

 

[AN2]

I remember this video used to have very funny annotations.. They're not there anymore (or possibly it's a different video/link)


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

 

[AN2]

I remember this video used to have very funny annotations.. They're not there anymore (or possibly it's a different video/link)


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

Oops! Maybe it was this one. Still can't find it with the annotations though


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm2nehoWI9Q

 

[AN2]

What do you all think about the reopening of Notre Dame?


View: https://t.me/No_BS_NewS/188284


Sadly, Media is too big (including for attaching here) so only for Telegram users (@Myles O'Reilly will be relieved as it's a whole two minutes long)

 

[scolairebocht]

The new altar looks terrible, almost Masonic.

 

[Tiger]

A snap shot of the lovely Godless world we live in…

 

[AN2]

A snap shot of the lovely Godless world we live in…

View attachment 6870

What does that have to do with atheism?

 

[clarke-connolly]

A snap shot of the lovely Godless world we live in…

View attachment 6870

Another Crazy Woman ~ ~ What is driving so many Women Crazy ? !

that is the question ? !

 

[Tiger]

The intrepid logician Kurt Gödel believed in the afterlife. In four heartfelt letters to his mother he explained why.

Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death | Aeon Essays

The intrepid logician Kurt Gödel believed in the afterlife. In four heartfelt letters to his mother he explained why

aeon.co

 

[clarke-connolly]

The intrepid logician Kurt Gödel believed in the afterlife. In four heartfelt letters to his mother he explained why.

Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death | Aeon Essays

The intrepid logician Kurt Gödel believed in the afterlife. In four heartfelt letters to his mother he explained why

aeon.co

Sure, if there is Life ~ ~ There could easily be an AfterLife !

And a before Life !

 

[AN2]

Sure, if there is Life ~ ~ There could easily be an AfterLife !

And a before Life !

How did you find it?

 

[clarke-connolly]

How did you find it?

Fell in to it.

 

[AN2]

Fell in to it.

You don't have any experience of a beforlife

 

[clarke-connolly]

You don't have any experience of a beforlife

Cause and Effect !

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Bumped into a gang of lads just then. Hanging around outside the chipper.

In my day it was a bunch of 'ner do well Dub young-flaas and that aul carry on.

Tonight it was a gang of Africans with a white slag in their number. As soon as I went toward the white girl, the Africans formed a shield.

I held me ground until they summoned the Chief who politely told me to dissapear. I'm not a brave man but I'm often drunk and I told him to do one before I cut his throat (I had n'er a knife a'talll.) He told his crew to back off and asked "why do you care?" It hit me link a tonne of bricks.

Why should I? Why the hell should I care when the only bastard in Ireland who cares about my plight is from Castlecomer (Aul Lad) and hates my guts?

There's no such thing as coordination in Ireland. If there was 1798 would've been a clean sweep (and the Kilkenny lads needn't even have bothered to piss in the gunpowder).

 

[AN2]

The intrepid logician Kurt Gödel believed in the afterlife. In four heartfelt letters to his mother he explained why.

Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death | Aeon Essays

The intrepid logician Kurt Gödel believed in the afterlife. In four heartfelt letters to his mother he explained why

aeon.co

He starved himself to death thinking he was being poisoned

 

[AN2]

Bumped into a gang of lads just then. Hanging around outside the chipper.

In my day it was a bunch of 'ner do well Dub young-flaas and that aul carry on.

Tonight it was a gang of Africans with a white slag in their number. As soon as I went toward the white girl, the Africans formed a shield.

I held me ground until they summoned the Chief who politely told me to dissapear. I'm not a brave man but I'm often drunk and I told him to do one before I cut his throat (I had n'er a knife a'talll.) He told his crew to back off and asked "why do you care?" It hit me link a tonne of bricks.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsUXAEzaC3Q

 

[clarke-connolly]

He starved himself to death thinking he was being poisoned

Some of these Genius's live on the borderline between Genius and Insanity ! !

 

[AN2]

WHATEVER about Mehdi Hasan, who could forget this infamous encounter Dawkins had with Brandon Flowers on a Finnish chat show. If looks could kill ..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W-pr2PL-e9Y

 

[clarke-connolly]

WHATEVER about Mehdi Hasan, who could forget this infamous encounter Dawkins had with Brandon Flowers on a Finnish chat show. If looks could kill ..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W-pr2PL-e9Y

The Mormon Fella didn't have much of an argument !

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Do you know that Mormons wear magic underwear? It was a thing Mitt Romney was often asked about when he ran against Barack Obama.

Folk were afraid of a guy who's smelly jockstrap had mystical powers would be in charge of the nuclear codes.

 

[clarke-connolly]

Do you know that Mormons wear magic underwear? It was a thing Mitt Romney was often asked about when he ran against Barack Obama.

Folk were afraid of a guy who's smelly jockstrap had mystical powers would be in charge of the nuclear codes.

Romney is a Complete Gimp anyway ~ ~ So that is Not all the surprising !

 

[AN2]

Nope, you set up your own thread because you and James were failing miserably in our discussion and you needed a safe haven. Which is why you banned me from it.

The only posts I ever removed were mindless abuse from James, nothing to do with any debate. James was drunk and spamming

Your dismissal, laced with weary condescension, is less an argument and more a defense mechanism. Saying “I’ve heard it all before” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s a way of shielding yourself from engagement. And yet, ironically, your complete inability to answer even basic challenges shows you clearly haven’t heard it before—or at least, never understood it. What you have “heard” are caricatures filtered through the echo chamber of materialist apologetics, not serious arguments demanding serious response.

You mock “mud men” and “rib women” while faithfully adhering to your own creation myth: that a cosmos burst from nothing without cause, that inorganic matter sprang to life without intention, and that consciousness is a biochemical accident. You accuse others of magical thinking while invoking a liturgy of unobservable, unrepeatable events you accept on institutional authority. That’s not science—it’s scientism. And your “technical explanations” never seem to touch the core: why anything exists, why order emerges, or why truth matters at all.

You reject metaphysics and then smuggle it in through the back door under names like “emergence” or “natural selection.” The Bible speaks in symbols of eternal truths you cannot measure but which govern all that is—meanwhile, your worldview is a ghost town of unaccountable abstractions.

When pressed, you return to sneers, not substance. Because at bottom, this isn’t about evidence. It’s about allegiance—to a system that cannot tolerate contradiction, and to a narrative that needs the protection of scorn to survive scrutiny.

Right so

Obviously @Fishalt was too much of a coward to reply to this, but I will..

As an atheist, what's my "creation myth" and "worldview", Tiglet (@Tiger)?

 

[Tiger]

Right so

Obviously @Fishalt was too much of a coward to reply to this, but I will..

As an atheist, what's my "creation myth" and "worldview", Tiglet (@Tiger)?

James, why would you imagine that your creation myth — as a materialist atheist — would differ in substance from any other of your ilk, when all are bound by the same unobserved assumptions and metaphysical dogmas.

If you reject the existence of any transcendent cause or intelligent principle, then please articulate — without resorting to metaphoric sleight-of-hand or appeals to institutional consensus — a coherent, empirically grounded mechanism by which:

1. Absolute non-being (i.e., the total absence of matter, energy, space, and time) logically and causally gave rise to a finely ordered cosmos; and
2. Inert, purposeless matter, through random collisions and blind forces alone, crossed the ontological chasm into self-replicating life, endowed with symbolic cognition, moral awareness, and abstract reasoning.

And as you formulate your response, kindly explain how these foundational assertions — all unobserved, unreproducible, and beyond the domain of experimentation — do not constitute, in the strictest academic sense, a mythos: a speculative narrative designed to account for ultimate origins, rooted in metaphysical assumption, cloaked in the authority of “science,” and immunised from falsification.

 

[AN2]

James, why would you imagine that your creation myth — as a materialist [sic] atheist — would differ in substance from any other of your ilk

Good point and yes, as an atheist, I feel fully qualified to reply to your post (that was to @Fishalt) as it was obviously a generic statement by you

Now, can you please reply properly..

As an atheist, what is my "creation myth" and "worldview"?

 

[Tiger]

Good point and yes, as an atheist, I feel fully qualified to reply to your post (that was to @Fishalt) as it was obviously a generic statement by you

Now, can you please reply properly..

As an atheist, what is my "creation myth" and "worldview"?

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

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

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.

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.

 

[AN2]

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

LOFL! I asked you a question, that's the beginning..

What is my "creation myth" and "worldview", according to you?

Are you going to say, or not, you silly boy?

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

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.

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.

 

[AN2]

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

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

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.

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.

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..