AtlantaAtheist

- friends
3,601 link karma
18,411 comment karma
send messageredditor for
what's this?

TROPHY CASE

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

Science Teacher claims Evolution was pushed by supernatural being. by tigerfam1in DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 3 points4 points ago

Says she has proof because of her background in micro cellular biology.

That sounds like a pretty good start to a professional scientific paper. Tell her to put it in writing and submit it for peer-review. That is what any credible scientist would do with their work.

Science Teacher claims Evolution was pushed by supernatural being. by tigerfam1in DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 3 points4 points ago

So, would every other scientist on the face of the planet. I'm sure they would love to see her submit her findings for peer-review.

The most important skeptic in the history of modern philosophy (David Hume) wasn't an atheist. by lumberdragonin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 1 point2 points ago

i questioned my experiences for almost a year before accepting them as divine in origin.

Argument from Ignorance. You couldn't find a natural, physical explanation...therefore it was "transcendent."

so far no one has done a good job at dismantling them.

You might want to study up on the argument from ignorance. This is a text-book case.

The most important skeptic in the history of modern philosophy (David Hume) wasn't an atheist. by lumberdragonin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 0 points1 point ago

You see, you start off by discussing Hume's work, which is a commendable venture. You even seem to demonstrate a good grasp of the material. I thought this may have the chance of becoming a good discussion.

Then...you say something like this:

i have willed away sickness (or avoided getting sick via willpower) a number of times. mind over matter, dude.

As soon as you start appealing to "woo" jargon and pseudoscience, and you claim miraculous feats which have never, ever been demonstrated to occur (yet, many similar claims have been debunked countless times)...you lose any credibility you may have otherwise had.

The most important skeptic in the history of modern philosophy (David Hume) wasn't an atheist. by lumberdragonin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 1 point2 points ago

yes! this is why he says "the Atheist is only nominally so, and can never possibly be in earnest."

Please explain this to me. As far as I can tell from your other comments, your line of thinking (or rather, Hume's line of thinking that you are promoting) is as follows:

  1. The cause of the universe is called "god."
  2. It doesn't matter if this cause is external to the universe, or if the universe caused itself. Whatever caused the universe must be called "god."
  3. No matter what new information comes along regarding the initial formation of the universe, even if it completely changes the way we think about the origin of the universe, we will still apply the label "god" to whatever this happens to be.
  4. Because of this, there can be no people who don't believe in "god." They do believe in God. They just don't call it that.

Have I interpreted this point correctly? If not, please explain where I have gone wrong, and feel free to ignore what I am about to say.

However, if I have interpreted this correctly, I can only say that this type of word game is mind-numbingly absurd and useless.

Consider the following:

People say that they don't believe in fairies, but an a-fairy-ist is only nominally so. They can never possible be in earnest."

  1. The cause of gravity is called "fairies."
  2. It doesn't matter if this cause of gravity turns out to be a natural condition of the universe. Whatever causes gravity must be called "fairies."
  3. No matter what new information comes along regarding the origin of gravity, even if it completely changes the way we think about gravity, we will still apply the label "fairies" to whatever this happens to be.
  4. Because of this, there can be no people who don't believe in "fairies." They do believe in fairies. They just don't call it that.

Atheists, how do you explain the extremely low chances for us existing as just a coincidence? by bryce1234in DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 8 points9 points ago

You are correct. I should have specified suits instead of just any jack (out of four possible), any 3 (out of four possible), and so on.

My mistake. I should have been more specific in the analogy. But, you got the point.

Southern cocktail culture - finds from the Atlanta Food & Wine fest and more around town by kaplanbrin cocktails

[–]AtlantaAtheist 1 point2 points ago

Yes, we love our booze down here...you know...except on Sundays.

Great article!

Is Christianity responsible for the opposition to homosexuality in America today? by justus87in DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 1 point2 points ago

Sure. That's why I included the last paragraph of my original comment.

Atheists, how do you explain the extremely low chances for us existing as just a coincidence? by bryce1234in DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 11 points12 points ago

Yep!

But, I should give credit where credit is due. The "pre-defined template" point was not my own. That was first brought to my attention by Tracie Harris from The Atheist Experience. She has a fantastic model, which she has previously used on the show, about "Supernatural Transcendent Dice."

Is Christianity responsible for the opposition to homosexuality in America today? by justus87in DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 24 points25 points ago

There could be some evolutionary predisposition to bigotry against homosexuality. I have no idea. I don't think we currently have any reason to believe that is the case. And, we have plenty of evidence that such bigotry is almost completely driven by social and religious factors.

There is a common claim that "The Bible doesn't make people hate homosexuals. These people would be hateful regardless of their religion. They just use it as an excuse." Personally, I find this line of reasoning laughable.

You see, as a former Fundamentalist myself, I was, for many years, bigoted against homosexuals. I believed that theirs was a sinful and despicable lifestyle. Why did I believe this? Because the Bible told me so. I didn't go out of my way to actually persecute homosexuals. By the time I could vote, I was even a supporter of gay marriage, if only because I believed in individual freedom.

But, I still had a negative outlook on their lifestyle, and I thought less of them for it.

When I deconverted, I had to confront many of my previously held positions, including my feelings toward homosexuality. I realized that, without blind acceptance of scripture as truth, I had no justification for my negative attitude toward homosexuality. I now recognize that it is a completely legitimate and natural lifestyle. I have no negative feelings toward it whatsoever.

My bigotry toward homosexuality was completely driven by religion.

Are there people out there who would still oppose homosexuality even if they changed their mind about their religious beliefs? Probably. Societal factors must be considered. But, then again, religious views and societal views have always had a symbiotic relationship. If religious views toward homosexuality were set aside, I imagine that the social factors would, in turn, be diminished as well.

Atheists, how do you explain the extremely low chances for us existing as just a coincidence? by bryce1234in DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 46 points47 points ago

Another important aspect about this "deck of cards" analogy is the fact that a certain outcome may seem astronomically unlikely if we already have a pre-defined template in our mind. Take, for instance, the game of poker. What are the odds that, on your very first hand of poker, you are dealt a Jack, 3, 6, 8, and 9? Now, what are the odds that on your very first hand of poker, you are dealt a Royal Flush?

The odds are the same.

But, one seems more unlikely than the other because you have a template of a Royal Flush in mind.

The truth of the matter is, life, as it exists now, is not the only way life could have evolved. The odds are the exact same that some other form of life could have evolved and we would have never existed. But, people already have a template in their mind of life, as it currently exists, and don't stop to consider that the odds are the exact same that it could have evolved differently.

Naturalism and Evolution can't rationally be accepted? by broomrollin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 4 points5 points ago

And, here is where the crew of the "Reasonable Doubts" podcast takes on the argument.

Note: I've recently been going through all of the old "Reasonable Doubts" podcasts, which I haven't heard in a while. Hence, why I've referenced them twice in the last few days. I forget how great those guys are. If you haven't heard them, give them a shot!

Easiest & Most difficult religious views to debunk? by Athemonin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 13 points14 points ago

"Reasonable Doubts" did a fantastic two-part series addressing Presuppositionalism.

Part 1

Part 2

The 'Moral Law' and Oskar Schindler by shootytalkasin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 1 point2 points ago

Here is an excellent presentation, given by Luke Galen on the roots of morality. Dr. Galen explains the psychological makeup of our moral decision-making and the the evolutionary basis of it all. His presentation is well-researched and supported by evidence.

Steve Harvey Anti-Atheist Comments Debunked by 10J18R1Ain atheism

[–]AtlantaAtheist 0 points1 point ago

I never thought I would hear the words "Steve Harvey" and "debunked" used in the same sentence.

atheists:what do you think of this rabbi's message? by Susie2112in atheism

[–]AtlantaAtheist 1 point2 points ago

G‑d is the reality in which we stand.

This is not a coherent or meaningful sentence. It is rhetorical nonsense.

What I deal with living in Georgia. by chester7832in atheism

[–]AtlantaAtheist 1 point2 points ago

I have lived in Georgia my entire life (over 30 years). It gets better when you get closer to Atlanta, but I am only a recent transplant to this area. In Athens, where I'm from, you still get a lot of this kind of thing. It's UGA town, but the Fundamentalist Christians still hold a lot sway in the area...and there are a lot of them. I was one of them for most of my life.

In areas like Gainesville, where I also lived for quite a while, it's even worse.

Theists are not welcome here by gogglesaurin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 4 points5 points ago*

I'd bet that you check the expiration date on a jug of milk before you buy it

It's even more fundamental than that. Someone who claimed that they weren't an evidentialist wouldn't even bother buying the milk. They wouldn't even bother eating.

After all, it is just an "evidentialist philosophy" that says human beings need to digest food and remain hydrated in order to survive. If he doesn't rely on evidence to dictate what he considers true and false, then he would have no reason to do even the most basic things that everyone must do in order to function.

The common backlash against evidentialism is, at best, laughable, and at worst, wholly dishonest.

Are you a functioning human being? Yes? Then, you are most certainly an evidentialist. Now, stop your pseudo-intellectual bellyaching about why we demand evidence and start consistently applying that same standard you already apply to every other area of your life.

Theists are not welcome here by gogglesaurin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 36 points37 points ago

It's also important to mention that in the post titled "How does it feel to win every debate because you aren't making a claim?", the OP states:

I'm getting called a troll here and I can't say that's unfair.

He admits to trolling, then wonders why he is being downvoted.

I agree that posts and comments should not be downvoted for simple disagreement. But, when the trolling is so obvious that even the OP has to admit it when called out on it...yeah...downvotes are deserved.

Why call yourself atheist, if you could just call yourself a skeptic? by SaysNotAtheismin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 0 points1 point ago

I know it would have been much more difficult. The level of constant indoctrination I received (My father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and uncle were all Fundamentalist Southern Baptist pastors), the level of control that was exhibited over my education (8 years at a Fundamentalist Christian school - grades 5 through 12), and the amount of emotional manipulation I received (every sermon I heard at school, church, youth group functions, summer camp, etc.)...these things are not easily overcome.

I was able to because I was eventually confronted (repeatedly) with the question "Do you care if your beliefs are actually true." I decided that I did care about truth. This concern for truth and eventual willingness to apply skepticism (which I already valued) is all that it really took to overcome my religious trappings.

Could I have done it without it? Maybe. But, not likely. Skepticism would be harder to develop during the process of questioning my beliefs, than it was to simply apply the same level of skepticism that I already applied to everything else.

Side note: Ironically, I can actually thank my dad for making me a skeptic. He was never one to accept just any claim...even the supernatural ones. He is still skeptical of things like faith-healings, prophesies, miracle claims, etc. It's just that he compartmentalizes the rest of his beliefs.

Why call yourself atheist, if you could just call yourself a skeptic? by SaysNotAtheismin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 4 points5 points ago

Do you think, though, that there is a presumption, whether fair or unfair, that if one is to be atheist, one must be vocally atheist, and anti-theist

That one must be? I don't know if that presumption exists. It may. But, after my deconversion, I never once felt that I must act a certain way based on expectations of me. But, perhaps that is just something that will vary from individual to individual.

However, there is one important point to be brought up. Many atheists are former Christians. And, like me, many of them are former Fundamentalists who spent most of their lives on the other side of the fence. After our deconversion, it becomes painfully obvious how much we were intentionally mislead, deceived, and even emotionally manipulated into believing the things we believed. We become aware of the indoctrination practices that our families and communities utilized.

We also become aware of how much we really lost during all those years we spent believing something that was completely unjustified. Personally, I lost years of actual education in the fields of history and science that I will never be able to recover. Sure, I can read all kinds of books now. I can reeducate my self after all this time. But, I spent my most formative years being taught the earth was only 6,000 years old and that evolution was a lie promoted by the liberals who want to destroy the Christian heritage of our country. I shit you not.

Who knows what I could have accomplished by now had I been taught real science and history. Who knows what would have sparked my imagination and piqued my interest enough to get me to focus on a different major in college. We will never know because I was subjected to years and years of deceitful religious indoctrination which trained me to accept, and promote, all kinds of unscientific nonsense.

Lastly, we deconverts become aware of just how much our beliefs impacted our actions and hurt people around us. Personally, I was quite bigoted towards homosexuals for many years as a Fundamentalist Christian. I was taught that their lifestyle was absolutely, unequivocally sinful and evil. What they were doing was not love. It was not godly. It was shameful and vile in the eyes of God. It was an abomination.

I didn't go out of my way to stand on street corners with picket signs protesting homosexuals. But, I know that my words in conversations, at least, were hurtful to homosexuals or those who knew homosexuals. I actively did not associate myself with them and attempted to separate myself from anyone I knew was a homosexual. I intentionally avoided friendly relationships with people because I was taught that their lifestyle was a sin...for no other reason than "God said so."

It took a full deconversion to recognize how wrong and bigoted I had been toward homosexuals. There was no excuse for it. And, to this day, I deeply regret my words and actions toward them. But, I can't undo it.

For all of these things, former Christians like me are rightfully enraged. We are enraged at what we were tricked into buying. We are enraged how we were taught to think, feel, and behave. We are enraged at how much we lost because of our unjustified religious beliefs.

We now fight against that system by choice. I wouldn't say it's a purely emotional reaction. We have very good reasons for opposing religion the way we do.

But, we understand, on a very personal level, the kind of damage such a belief system can do.

Why call yourself atheist, if you could just call yourself a skeptic? by SaysNotAtheismin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 0 points1 point ago

The interesting thing was, when I was a Christian for almost 20 years, I was both a Fundamentalist and a Skeptic. As Irish_Whiskey so eloquently stated, I applied my skepticism to every other area of my life, but I compartmentalized my belief in God and protected it from that same level of scrutiny.

Even though I was, at my core, a skeptic in practically every other area of life, I was still a Fundamentalist Christian. I believed in a literal hell. I believed that the Bible was the direct, inspired word of God that was 100% accurate in every way. I was even a Young Earth Creationist.

Looking at this, it would seem quite obvious that I was not, in fact a skeptic. And, when it came to the subject of my religious beliefs, that was true. I did not apply skepticism to this one area of my life.

Indoctrination can be a powerful thing.

But, all of that to say is that it is quite easy to be both a skeptic, who appreciates the scientific method, evidence, logic, rationality, etc., and still make all kinds of errors in logic, accept unsupported misinformation, make wildly inaccurate claims with total confidence of their truth...all without batting an eye.

Convert Me by SoberBaboonin atheism

[–]AtlantaAtheist 2 points3 points ago

Can you provide sufficient reason to believe that a God exists?

How are atheists different, at a logical level, then their theists counterparts in the veracity of their beliefs for and against god? And does that matter? by haller365in atheism

[–]AtlantaAtheist 9 points10 points ago

Many people are going to point you to the FAQ. While this is a good tip, and the FAQ addresses your argument directly, I want to take a different approach to this.

Do you believe that I can fly?

What exactly is wrong with religious views? by tarbooshnikin DebateAnAtheist

[–]AtlantaAtheist 1 point2 points ago

what is it exactly about religious views that makes some people identify as something distinct and apart from them (i.e. an atheist)?

It should be noted that my problems with religion, in general, have nothing to do with why I am an atheist. I am an atheist, by definition, because I don't believe in the existence of any gods. I have no reason to believe such a thing.

The fact that many religions have immoral theologies is largely irrelevant to whether or not I am an atheist. Even if I had some reason to believe a god existed, and I identified as a theist (one who believes in the existence of a god), that wouldn't change what problems I had with religion. Conversely, even if I had no problems with religion, and I saw nothing but good philosophy and moral teachings, I would still be an atheist because I would still have no reason to believe a god exists.

view more: next