A poster on Reddit gave reasons for his atheism

After a three-month layoff, I decided to do a report about something that I shared recently with Joe. I don’t think that I will be doing these bi-weekly anymore, but from time to time, I will do a report (on a Tuesday) sharing interesting things that I find.

A week ago on Reddit, there was a list from this atheist sharing the reasons for their atheism. They decided to take it down, but he also posted it on another site (with a long discussion thread):

Bitcointalk.org: Why I am an atheist

His username on this site is Trading, and his phrase is “Nothing like healthy skepticism and hard evidence”. That’s what they all say.

Here are some excerpts:
There is no use to invent a helping imaginary “friend” who will offer you immortality.
Hold on. It gets better (lol).

It’s absurd to ruin your life (a lucky but tiny oasis that exists between two almost infinite deserts of nothingness) by following absurd or immoral rules invented by primitive people of the Bronze Age which have no relation whatsoever with the happiness of other people.
After this, he discusses his eleven main points, and then he rambles on about how religions have negative social consequences.

It's sad to see ignorance like this continually pop up online, but maybe a reason for it is what JP was alluding to the other day with these feel good-type book stores putting out spiritual junk food. You put garbage in, you get garbage out. 







Comments

JBsptfn said…
Posted on 3:00 A.M EST 3/7/2017 (Tues)
Joe Hinman said…
"...tiny oasis that exists between two almost infinite deserts of nothingness..."

almost infinite...
Anonymous said…
Might have been interesting if you had addressed at least one of his eleven points.

Pix

Mike D said…
It's a rather hard piece of writing to address, just because the author seems to trade in argument by assertion - he/she doesn't support any of the 11 points with logical arguments or facts, but just states them. Mind you, given that, it seems a little peculiar to then write a blog post on it!
im-skeptical said…
he/she doesn't support any of the 11 points with logical arguments or facts, but just states them.

And this is different from religious arguments ... how?
Joe Hinman said…
e/she doesn't support any of the 11 points with logical arguments or facts, but just states them.

And this is different from religious arguments ... how?

because his arguments are ot supported and ours our, you have not ever answered one of them. You can say the studies I cite don't say Gd exists but you have never answered a single argumnet i make connecting their findings to my conclusions, that tells me you cant reason, all you do is regurgitate,so your little quip is not meaningful.
im-skeptical said…
So the ontological argument that simply asserts God exists by definition is supported by logical argumentation and facts? Right.
Joe Hinman said…

Draw me a square circle. when draw me a square circle I'll agree things can't be true by definition.

Husbands are married men, true by definition

wives are married women

Dogs are mammals

numbers are either ordinal or cardinal

all tue by definition
Joe Hinman said…
OA does not definite go into existence anesthetists quite listening,

God cannot be contingent and still be God because the concept God is the necessary aspect of being.

because God is necessary and not contingent he is either necessary or impossible. Meaning he either must exist or can't possibly exist. Given that choice you must show why he is not possible.

this is why the atheist saying there's no support for a God argument is a meaningless statement. It doesn't matter how good the argument or how strongly it's supported, I have 7000 good reasons to assume miracles happen but because he could find fault with one of them it;s nothing, there are no examples.

the OA is not defining God into existence, they turn out, aklalkakakalallalla No listening,knot e er going to learn the answer.

Most atheists do not think. most atheists are regurgitating the echo chamber. Here's a little secret, most of those Secular outpost guys agree.
im-skeptical said…
Most atheists do not think. most atheists are regurgitating the echo chamber. Here's a little secret, most of those Secular outpost guys agree.

Here's a secret for you, Joe. Most of those Secular Outpost guys vehemently disagree with all of your "arguments".
JBsptfn said…
I am not sure that the Secular Outpost is a great source. A year ago, your buddy (Papalinton) posted a link from there on your site about the Jesus Myth, and someone in the comments tore that author apart. I shared that with Papa, and he said that I was doozy for religious woozy or something. Not very good.
Joe Hinman said…
Here's a secret for you, Joe. Most of those Secular Outpost guys vehemently disagree with all of your "arguments".

not the point,I don't care who agrees with me. I know Lowder is perturbed with most atheists for being uncritical and clinging to echo chanter without thinking deeply about the things they argue.
Joe Hinman said…
I am not sure that the Secular Outpost is a great source. A year ago, your buddy (Papalinton) posted a link from there on your site about the Jesus Myth, and someone in the comments tore that author apart. I shared that with Papa, and he said that I was doozy for religious woozy or something. Not very good.

I don't consider most of the posters om that site to be representative of the blog. I think of the blog authors as representing the blog.It is Lowder's blog I dom't claim to speak for him but I get the impression he's not real pleased with most of the posters.
the actual blog authors have treated me better than the Christians on dangerous idea have,except for Repert himself.
JBsptfn said…
Joe, are there a lot of conservatives on DI? I was asking because there is another conservative (Crude) that used to post on Vic's site (maybe he still does. Skeppy and Papa's tactics were exposed by him on DI and Feser's blog). He isn't a big fan of Liberal Christians:

Crude Ideas

Check out the first and third entry. In the first one, he seems to go after Liberal Christians, and in the third entry, he talks about DI and the direction that he sees it going now.
im-skeptical said…
crude is a small-minded alt-right Trump-loving bigot. Whatever he has "exposed" about me is a reflection of his own extremely narrow and biased thought processes. It doesn't harm me in any way to be seen as opposing that guy.
Joe Hinman said…
JBsptfn said...
Joe, are there a lot of conservatives on DI? I was asking because there is another conservative (Crude) that used to post on Vic's site (maybe he still does. Skeppy and Papa's tactics were exposed by him on DI and Feser's blog). He isn't a big fan of Liberal Christians:

I've seen him there, yes there are a lot of conservatives, but he;s not the worst.real liberal theology types don't care about apologetic

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

The Meaning of the Manger

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?