1. The Flea Delusion

Comment #216407 by Jake Atkisson on July 23, 2008 at 6:27 am

"Mr. Dawkins' chapter on classical theism is an extended horse laugh; clearly, he does not apprehend the sophisticated arguments for the existence of God and is too lazy to try. Now, that might be fine for fora like this that thrive on groupthink, but as an academician it does not remotely attain my standard."


Your post is an abbreviated sneeze; clearly, you have confused the differences between 'comprehension' and 'agreement', and are too lazy to bother altering this maladroit stumble of interpretation. Now, that might be fine for individuals such as yourself that thrive on hauteur, but as a purposeful statement it does not remotely attain my standard.

/mirroring

2. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #102956 by Jake Atkisson on December 24, 2007 at 3:28 am

"Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."


Oh, well, I only feel that my life has dignity and purpose if I carry my Lucky Snorkel around on my head everywhere I go. Some people try to tell me I'm being ridiculous, but they're just jealous.

In fact, I'm wearing my extra-lucky glow-in-the-dark snorkel right now, Professor McGrath. You seem to be a reasonable, rational person; can I ask you a few questions about your lucky snorkel?

...You don't have one? You don't -wear- one?!

Are you an idiot? Everyone knows that lucky snorkels are the most dignified, austere and purposeful things EVER! -IT SAYS SO RIGHT ON THE TAG-!

Good grief. When you mentioned 'dignity' and 'purpose', mein herr, I, for a moment, thought perhaps you understood the truth, saw through the pettiness of a rabble-filled world and knew what /I/ know.

I can see, now, that you're just another philandering religionist, however. This saddens me. I pray to the buoyant pasta being that you someday discover the truth, joy and perfect love of lucky snorkels.

Yours in Snorkely Eternity,
Jake

3. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #102735 by Jake Atkisson on December 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm

"Also why are they all referred to as 'flea' books?"

Because they are books written to leech off of the fame and controversy of a genuinely competent person's writings.

See, these parasitic authors couldn't write a book of their own, compelled of their own topic's formation, and sell more copies than they have friends and relatives if they tried.

Granted, this is not always true of every author that writes in response to another author's material, but in specific reference to a flea author, it is the definition; topical parasites.

What's worse, and thoroughly degrading for the flea-authors specifically, is that they are typically responding in one of three fashions-

A) Knee-jerk, emotion-driven spit-froth rants that would be fit right in on a pseudo-intellectual 'net forum, dubbed a grief-attempt at starting a flamewar and IP-banned.

B) Poorly researched attempts at rhetoric, replete with pitiful over-dramatizations and misapplications/misrepresentations of the original subject material being 'responded to'.

And/Or C) Fundamentalist book-thumping intended more to desperately re-establish the orthodox pedagogy and status quo by terrifying and intimidating the fence-riders, oftentimes via the modus operandi of 'reminding' anyone who might be brought to doubting *insert faith here's* validity, authority and sovereignty that their Big Skyman told them in MagicBook, Chapter Whazahoo, Verse Lah-dee-dah that this would happen, they'd better not stray down the oozy, slippery slope of even thinking about *attacked subject matter here* or the Big Skyman will get them.


See? It's really rather easy to render into bite-sized pieces :)

4. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #101846 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:52 am

*insert the sound of eye-rolling here*

5. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #101843 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:48 am

That we invariably have to make up reasons for things goes without saying; we do it whether we mean to or not, as the human brain is a wonderfully imaginative thing, and there is simply no way to know how much of what we imagine 'sticks' in our thoughts and to what degrees our imaginings color our thinking.

It is, however, safe to assume that our imaginings do, in fact, color our thinking.

So, make up whatever you like as for -why- things are, just keep an open mind about it; accept that your reasons might not be true, and never stop -thinking about it-.

That's the best advice I can give to anyone on the matter, as it's the best I know to do myself, and frankly, I see it as that we're all a bunch of children that don't know squat, but are trying to figure things out.

Here, you can borrow my dirt shovel if you like; it works for me. Maybe it will work for you to. If you don't want it, you don't have to take it; I won't be mad.

Ho hum...

6. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #101841 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:44 am

Well, lessee...

...what's your relation to the little old lady in this vignette?

What's her state of mind?

Who else is on the bus?

What do they all think of your not doing so?

What impact does this have on your capacities to find and mate with a suitable partner?

When the questioner realizes the absurd breadth of their question, perhaps they might consider narrowing it down so that a meaningful answer might be locatable within the next million years and within this solar system, rather than elsewhere on the galactic map of time, space and reason.

7. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #101839 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:41 am

I find it entertaining that the terms 'Atheist' and 'Agnostic' are thrown around and contrasted like they're so easily quantified.

Just what -is- an atheist? Just what -does- 'agnostic' mean?

I ain't gonna answer either of those. I have my own answers, and they're all mine; go find your own.

Or don't. Whatever turns your crank.

;)

8. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #101836 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:39 am

I speak for myself when I say the following.

"The meaning and all-consuming purpose of life is! ...."

9. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #101835 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:38 am

"It's very frustrating. It's also the reason why it's impossible to debate a Hindu."

Conveniently, I've never seen hindus running around trying to convert people with the Big 3 monotheistic approach to such things.

However...all these things that wind up being blamed on religions are really people-issues. People invented religions; every last one of them.

If there were never humans on earth, I guarantee you that the birds and dogs wouldn't be worshiping anything any more or less than they do now, point in case.

Just the same, redressing a religion (even those as deplorable as monotheisms wind up being, in practice) is like blaming guns for gun-related violence.

Yeah, the gun is the vehicle in such instances, but the intention, the application, the direction and the motive were all provided by people.

Ditto with religions and all the harm that's been caused in their employ over the ages.

So on, so on, so forth...fiddle-dee-dee.

10. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #101831 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:34 am

People are idiots until they mean not to be. I find that I keep saying this in regard to a lot of these...queries.

11. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #101825 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:27 am

"How the Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who by his own admission believes in all the core teachings of the Christian faith, can claim that atheist critiques avoid the so-called 'real arguments' is beyond me."


Because the 'real argument' most orthodox religionists would love to showcase is how wrong anyone who doesn't agree with them is, not if they themselves are wrong.

To them, you're trying to dispute the undisputable; to refute the irrefutable; to malign and disparage the untouchable- the sanctity of their faith, which solely rests upon the correctness, accuracy and infallibility of both their judgment and their sources.

For them to admit one error would be to acknowledge that they -can- be wrong; this is inexcusable in their purveyance of internal coherence. It's all or nothing, white or black, god exists as the bible states or not at all.

See how silly it is? Me, well...I just laugh at it all.

Seems a fine enough response to me!

12. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #101818 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:18 am

"If you don't believe in God, then you must hate music, art, poetry, etc."

Of course. I secretly live a life of woe and misery beneath my unfailing grin. Deep inside, I weep, wishing that someone would save me, but I'll never tell! Oh no, too proud, nobody understands my pain!

No, no, wait, that's emo...ahh well. Best leave melodramatic bullshit to stage artists, I guess.

Back to the drawing board...

13. All worldviews are merely paradigms, narratives having no more inherent value than any other narrative.

Comment #101815 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:15 am

Erisian logic FTW!

14. Why do atheists care about what others believe when it doesn't affect atheists?

Comment #101812 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:13 am

"Hey, why do you care if we defecate in the well; it isn't affecting -your- glass of water, is it?"

...this platform of questioning is too stupid to merit reasonable response. I'd make llama noises at the inquirer, or turn the above question on them.

15. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #101810 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:11 am

People are idiots until they mean not to be. 'Nuff said.

16. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #101808 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:09 am

"Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being."

'True' logic? Just what is 'true' logic? Circular naval-chasing rhetoric? That's not true logic.

The above statement isn't even logical, yet it's speaker would profess to claim executive authority over 'true' logic?

How bemusing. Human logic is a patternized reflection of human cognition; it is literally the system the human brain employs like a computer's operating system, to run a tech-contrast most would be familiar with.

I wouldn't bother talking with someone who was professing such nonsense. I'd probably just laugh at them until they went away.

If I absolutely had to provide argument, I'd smile at them in the most pleasant means available to me at the time and explain to them, with very small words, that the mere fact that I am capable of disagreeing with them disproves the entire basis of their claim.

If it was, in fact, -the- truth, I would have no capacity to refute, doubt or disagree with it.

If they didn't like this argument, I'd commend them to flap their arms, scream, kick or do anything they liked under their own power to defy gravity and fly away.

If a thing is irrefutably true for a given thing, that given thing cannot refuse or functionally deny it. Similarly, a man can flap his arms until he dies of exhaustion and never fly.

Similarly, if there were such a universal god-figure, it would always have been so, everyone would know it and there would be no room, margin or availability for doubt.

But, hey, it could be argued round and round forever, 'cause nobody on either end (mine or theirs) actually -knows- anything.

If I were a/the god-figure, I'd laugh at us. Seriously. I'd just laugh my divine arse off all the time, every day, 'cause we're mighty silly.

17. How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?

Comment #101802 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:59 am

"How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?"

How the heck should I know, I didn't do it. Just 'cause I can't explain it, however, doesn't automatically indicate that your answer is -right-, no matter what it is.

(Please do remember that my responses to these queries are rendered in the first-person format, but are not intended to be attacks or jabs back at the author on this forum; the platform of delivery is as figurative as the author's)

18. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #101795 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:47 am

That's as ridiculous as saying "Mankind owes it's existence to monkeys because monkeys are where mankind originated" and then trying to get people to worship monkeys.

Besides, in following with that statement's own internal logic, religion owes itself to storytelling and imagination, which are the pretty-well-accepted-and-understood roots of how religions came to be; stories made up in attempt to explain the otherwise poorly understood, mystifying aspects of the world around more primitive generations of people.


I mean, really, think about it. There you are, some dude or dudette way-back-when, looking up at the sky at these huge white things that move and shift and change shape -all the time-.

You don't know that they're primarily water vapor. You also don't know that there's such a thing as air. Likewise, you don't know a thing about gravity, buoyancy or anything to do with things science wouldn't explain for thousands of years.


All you know is that there are these huge white things up there that clearly move, change shape and occasionally fill the entire sky, get dark and drop water over absolutely everything.

Sometimes those big things even seem to attack the ground with blasts of light while bellowing earth-shakingly. It's scary stuff, yo!

But, hey, when you talked about it with all your pals back at MudHutVillage, some of the older folks understood your awe and fear and said that those things must be great beings that live in the sky.

But why do they get so angry sometimes? Well, maybe they get angry for reasons like we get angry.

Maybe someone's insulted them or hurt them. Maybe something's stolen from them, or did something that displeased them.


But what would insult such sky-beings? What could hurt them? Surely there is no man who could throw a spear so far and so high as to strike them.

Well, maybe it was one of those flying creatures, and maybe those flying birdy things like to steal stuff, just like they keep stealing our food when we leave it sitting out...

...ho hum. Kind've explains itself, doesn't it?

I think it does.

Now, contemplate how silly most here would think it if that dude in the above vignette got hit by lightning while out hunting one day.

Let's say he survives; he was attacked by a giant skybeing. Smote like he'd never been smitten before; no spear or animal could cause him such pain. Skyfire has burned his limps, blown the fingers of his hands off and melted all his hair.

It's awful. Dude's hurting -bad-. He crawls back to his village, explains what happens that his fellows freak -right- out.

Why? He somehow angered the skybeings. They think "OMG, he pissed them off something awful and they attacked him with their light-spears of skyfire!"

So, what do they do? Well, that depends on how they take it. Most likely, they'd probably kill the poor bastard to appease the skybeings, -just- in case they were still mad at the dude and might strike the whole lot of them down for not finishing the job of killing him.

Maybe it's all a test! Someone starts babbling about how it's a sign; maybe the skybeings -wanted- him to survive- surely if they wanted the dude dead he'd be dead, right?

And so it goes on, one unfounded answer leading into another, and at it's root, it's one massively splendid exercise of the imagination, and can make for very enjoyable storytelling, even educational!

I mean, really, we can get a lot of insight into things through fiction and stories, but we can also uh...run into trouble when we start believing things that aren't true, and it gets just silly when we effectively choose to continue believing in skybeings with spears of skyfire despite knowing all about water vapor, atmospheric buoyancy, static electricity and lightning discharge, so on, so forth.


Welcome to the age of Utter Silliness, thereby. Have a lovely day!

19. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #101788 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:36 am

But...the universe doesn't necessarily follow laws. We simply observe things that seem to be laws, and rather more often than I think most scientists would like to admit, at least some of those laws don't always obey -themselves-.

We cannot, ergo, claim to know that the scientific laws we recognize are true in every possible instance, all the time, everywhere. We -do- know that at least some things we call laws only seem to be, or can be changed, or aren't -always- true...just true as often as we can figure they should be to be classified as a law.

To the best of our knowledge, there seem to exist predictable patterns in the physical world around us, and we've learned much about said world for exploring these laws, testing their boundaries and constantly refining, re-evaluating and occasionally even rediscovering what we thought we already knew.

But we cannot state as utter, irrefutable fact that what we recognize as universal law is universal. Neither can we know if our capacities to perceive the full extents of these 'laws' is complete or not; how would we know what we do not yet know?

Hence it is, I believe, a good thing to keep pushing the proverbial envelope; to always be seeking to learn more.

This attempt at 'proving' a creator with circular logic isn't even a proper application of logic; it is an attempt at capitalizing on technical definitions of a given language in the interest of generating support for one's platform, which in no way relies upon non-speculative 'evidence'.

After all, who can truthfully and unerringly both say and prove that we're not a momentary dream, or a figment of our own imaginations, or any other absurd thing one might contrive upon?

Who is to say, without potential for refute, that what we think we know so much about will be valid or even remotely relevant to anything in existence a million years from now...or tomorrow?

We can, of course, trace the patterns; we've had a lot of yesterdays, and if history serves to indicate direction, the universe we understand -should- be predictable in many ways.

But we don't -know- that. We can't.

Just like the figurative 'you' here cannot -know- if there's a creator or not.

My advice? Get over it. Quit taking it all so seriously. Go enjoy life while you're alive and, while you're at it, do something with a friend.

After all, you never can tell when some unpredictable occurrence might transpire that abruptly terminates your breathing privileges, or those of someone you should've gone for a walk with instead of spending all evening arguing on the internet.

Just a thought.

20. Atheists only promote divisiveness, as any other separatist movement.

Comment #101784 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:22 am

The statement is spun, twisted and biased.

Divisiveness, as a term, is employed in the negative, rendered in such a fashion as to imply that divisiveness directly equates into undesirability.

This is not, in fact, objectively accurate.

Furthermore, the sheer silliness of trying to lump every separatist movement of every sort, for every reason or no reason at all, into one single thimble is absurd.

Thirdly, the statement is dismissive and not conducive to discussion; it is as poor in form as saying "I'm right no matter what you say, neener neener neener".

And I would treat it as such in any debate I might engage in should such a statement pop up.

Conclusion: Peurile and logically derelict, as well as biased and without useful direction.

21. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #101782 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:18 am

If there is anything resembling a willful creating force, I don't know a thing about it. I would be silly to pretend that I do.

I am an atheist not because I refuse the potential for such things, but because I refuse to pretend that I know what I, in fact, do not know.

There exists no evidence that seems, to me, to stand as actual evidence for anything resembling a creator-force or god-figure of any sort; ergo, I do not believe in any such things.

Why is the world so mystifyingly supportive of life whereas no other ball of space-rock we've yet spied out seems to share this peculiarity?

Well, there's a -lot- of scientific observation explaining -how- it came about. We're still stuck on 'why' though.

I predict that we'll take our first step in finding such an answer when the majorities stop pretending they have all the answers already, and that is what religion offers; quick, easy answers, pre-fabricated for all your existential-quandary needs.

I mean, come on, I'd apologize but I feel no remorse; it should be a little obvious.

If there is a god-figure, it quite plainly exists in such a manner that we cannot pinpoint it yet; maybe someday we might if there is such a thing to find.

Maybe we won't. What's the problem with this?

I think I know.

I think it goes a little something like this- "Onoez, I am scared because I have no certainty, so I'll latch on to the -first thing that seems certain- and cling to it for dear life!"

Religion: Mankind's saddest, yet most provocative attempt at convincing itself that it possesses not merely certainty, but the inside track to feeling special.

Kinda pathetic that an entire species can be summarized as "Terminally Insecure: Best Just To Avoid Them".

That's what I'd say about us if I were an alien observing all this, anyway.

:)

22. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #101779 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:08 am

People once -knew- the world was flat. People once -knew- a lot of things.

But, hey, adolescents sometimes -know- everything too. In fact, people -know- so terribly much that I'm surprised any learning gets done at all by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Maybe there's some merit to the actualized realization that we don't actually -know- much, if anything, that enables the potential to maybe, possibly someday learn something.

But, I dunno, I don't know much, so I could be wrong.

:)

23. If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #101778 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:05 am

Any sociology undergrad that's actually read their textbooks and thought about it for a while could likely arrive at the observable truism that where there are people, there is society.

Society is, of course, the interaction of peoples' cultures, beliefs, ideas, etcetera, so on, so forth; it's really quite simple, but very wordy stuff, so go look it up yourself if you want the long-winded versions.

Point in case, religion is just one potential vehicle for manifest society, and it is society (particularly social interaction) that people, in a sense, seek.

Honestly though, we could have perfectly functional societies based on any sort of mutually shared platform. I'd go into the particulars, but again, long-winded versions are elsewhere, go find them, enrich thy mind, better thy reading habits and a bunch of other important-sounding crap.

Toodles, and have a lovely day!

-Jake

24. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #101777 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 12:58 am

"What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?"

I am I, begotten by the realization that I Am. That is my one and only requisite qualification; I need no more.

Just who am I? That is my concern, not yours. Perhaps the figurative 'you' in this reference should concern yourself more with answering that of yourself to yourself than with questioning my 'qualification' to do so for myself, to myself.

Qualifications. Text is a poor conveyor of contempt, but I feel that anyone who attempts to tag a list of pre-req qualifications onto the 'right' or 'ability' to question religion is, themselves, to be held in grave suspicion and certainly not to be trusted.

Why? They're probably wanting you to buy something, and likely not with money, but rather the currency of yourself.

I am. That is my qualification to question, to pursue, to investigate and to learn.

I'll say it again for the fundamentalist religious goomba's in the proverbial back row that still think you need a college credential to question religious authority; I Am.

Say it with me now. Say it like you mean it.

I Am. Feels good, don't it? Empowering, even. Such vistas open up when you really realize it.

But, it's scary over here. Because You Are, you have to do something about it; that's how 'being' works. If you don't pursue learning, well, there's a whole army of whackjobs ready, willing and cheerfully able to tell you what to learn.

So, you'll either think for yourself or someone else will do it for you.

I. Am. And as far as it goes, I need no other qualification, 'cause hey, let's face it; all the qualifications of man-made titles, pieces of paper that say "You've officially learned stuff and this bunch of pundits will confirm it" and agreement of your peers don't mean squat.

Why? Nobody actually knows anything about religion anyway. Not like we know, for example, about directly observable, interactive things, like tire irons.

Rambling babble? Hey, that's my right and privilege too. While I realize that the author posed the query as a debate point and not his personal inquiry, I'll respond like it's personal.

What's my right to question? What's your right to claim?

Who died and left me boss of what I will and won't accept as right and true? Turn it around; who died and made you the distributor of what's right and true?

Jesus did? Your storybook tells you so? Well hey, I'll write my own storybook. Then we can compare storybooks, and you can yell and scream and howl about how your wrathful man in the sky that actually loves everybody but is apparently as meglomaniacle and bi-polar as eternity is long is the real one, and my buoyant pasta creature is clearly the most absurd thing ever.

Closing thought: "I read it on the internet, so it must be true."

I mean, really, if you're into religion, you'll doubtlessly say things like that repeatedly and often in your life, as you're demonstrably quite gullible.

But, but, but...there's a tragic twist to this ending. Direly tragic. It goes a little something like this.

You're the author of your own delusions; your delusions of grandeur, your delusions of moral and ethical superiority, your delusions of infallibility, your delusions of universal correctness; all just delusions.

Vapor; smoke; hot air. So...anyone who'd seriously ask me what my qualification to question religion is should be prepared for equally stupid answers.

I shouldn't have to explain it. If I have to explain it, there's virtually no chance of a given audience 'getting it' anyway, and any attempt at explaining would thence wind up becoming an exercise in preaching, which I abhor.

I've also observed that water never apologizes to drowning victims. It's kinda like how 'bad' and 'good' are subjective, life is what you make of it and, at the end of the day, life just isn't conforming to anyone's specific notion of 'fair'.

Maybe, maybe, just maybe...there's a link somewhere in those notions.

We'll just call it 'natural consequence', and with that, I'm out.