Critique of the book "Why there is no God" by Armin Navabi
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Well what can I say, you've given another pretentious religious halfwit the intellectual equivalent of a "drive by" colonoscopy.
Bravo, have an agree, I only wish I could give more than 1.
Ferguson, that stinging sensation you're experiencing is because you've just had the intellectual equivalent of being "prison shamed".
Now say thank you to a vastly greater intellect, and learn your fucking lesson.
FYI Ferguson the only thing your religion "steps on" is its knuckles as they drag along the fucking floor.
Its science that wipes its arse with religion btw, many many times, which is why that stinking intellectually and morally bankrupt tome of fantasies and myths you blindly worship leaves such a strong whiff of excrement everytime it's quoted by one of its blinkered ignorant arrogant religious automatons like you.
Meanwhile, dealing with this piece of manifest dick-waving pomposity ...
Oh, look who's engaging in fucking petulant toddler foot stomping. Oh, fucking diddums.
Here's a clue for you. Just because you think your bizarre, disjointed and at times utterly diseased stream of consciousness raving, constitutes substantive content in the television inside your head, doesn't mean for one moment that the rest of us, who bothered to pay attention in class and learn about the real world, are under any obligation to indulge your blatant stroking of your Internet penis here. Quite simply, if you can't be bothered even acknowledging the existence of proper rules of discourse, let alone adhering thereto in a public arena of discourse run, managed and funded by someone else, then this merely points yet again to how much of a fucking shitbag you are.
As a corollary, those of us who do respect the proper rules of discourse, will continue subjecting your drivel to the treatment it deserves.
Here's a clue for you. You don't own this fucking thread. You'll be called upon to own the shit you're responsible for posting therein, but this is a different concept. Likewise, just because you're filled with the same hubris I've seen from a lot of other rectally self-inserted supernaturalists, doesn't mean you can demand exemption from those rules of discourse for your pathetic and diseased rants. Every time you try this shit with us, we'll simply toss your arrogant bullshit into the bin where it belongs and set fire to it, before turning our attention to choosing whatever ordnance is appropriate to bear upon the remainder of the worthless rectal scrapings you're unloading here.
Though I notice a trend emerging here, when I compare your discoursive malfeasance with that I've seen from several other Catholics I've had the displeasure of encountering in my travels. A combination of hubristic presumption of infallible righteousness in the most verminous presuppositionalist vein, combined with synthetic, affected disdain for any knowledge outside the music of the spheres of the verbal diarrhoea of their own apologetic fabrications, has been a recognised part of the aetiology for some time. Perhaps the archetypal specimen exhibiting this efflorescently miasmatic combination being Edward Feser, self-proclaimed leader of the new breed of arch-neo-Thomists. Though as annoying as this collection of ideological stormtroopers for mediaeval anachronism are, at least some of them exhibit signs of having exerted something resembling academic diligence. They may be a complete pain in the arse, nauseatingly whiny, petulant and, in some cases, given to potentially criminal threats of violence against those who do not conform (we are back once again to that age-old Abrahamic invention), but at least they exhibit signs of having attempted to use their neurons, albeit in dreadful service to a pestilential doctrine. You, on the other hand, do not even have observational signs of sanity in your favour.
I am tempted to ask at this juncture, if what we are observing here, is the last throes of someone desperate to make a mark upon the world, no matter how small, before a diagnosis of something such as Creuzfeldt-Jakob Disease takes its inevitable toll. It would fit with the observed symptoms, as determined through the relevant post content. If not, and what we see is the product of someone who is actually consciously deciding to post this drivel, without impending prion- or amyloid-related catastrophe exerting an effect, then once again, this merely adds a particularly sordid data point to the observational database, pointing to the malign influence of supernaturalism.
Any more chapters Fergster? I need my daily fix. Withdrawal is not enjoyable. How many chapters does the book have anyway? What will we do when it's over. I'm shaking noticeably. C'mon Fergbird, help a brother out.
Chapter 13: "God is love; God is energy".
This chapter is just so absurd and beyond any sensible talk about God I am just at a loss for words.
Really, Armin decided to discuss a subject about which he knows absolutely nothing at all. On top of that, as is customary for rational atheists, applying a language that will never come close to being suitable and in the end doing nothing but prove with unmistakable evidence that with logic you can get any result you want on any one subject.
Really, even Sheldon would have done a bit better, hahaha
This was like giving an addict a one-tenth dose. C'mon Fergster, you can do so much better than this. More stream of consciousness is needed. C'mon Fergturd, elaborate, spew more gibberish from your anal passage. We NEED it. We are dying here. More attacks on thinking rationally. More attacks on coherence. I need to see the quest for evidence finally and righteously destroyed and only our beloved Fergberger can do it. We need you more than ever Fergby.
So feguson is still dishonestly pretending he's read this book, despite his "critique" yet again not quoting a single word from it. He is the very embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect.
I know my onions.
You are one of the most ignorant ill-informed people I have ever encountered, and the old canard that science stems from religion is hilarious. Religions have been all pervasive throughout human history they controlled vast wealth and power, so yes they influenced things like education and science. They have also retarded both with their blind adherence to erroneous dogma and doctrine. imagine how advanced science might be by know but for the pernicious effect of religion. They're still holding up research, and wasting money on researching ancient superstitious fantasies. The sooner people wake up, and smell reality and dumb religion in the dustbin of history the better off we will all be.
Sure science used to be part of religion at one point, that was way back in the day when religion had some intellectual credibility. That was before all the intellectuals and scientists who were once Christians realised it was all a little bit nonsensical and bonkers in the conkers and jumped ship. You will notice we haven't had any Crusades and Witch Hunts since that happened.
Well said, good post, have an agree my man.
But we have had two world wars and Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot tried to erase religious people from the face of the earth. If they did not do it in the name of atheism, in the name of what did they do it?
A ridiculously loaded question.
I cannot accept Ferg read that hedgehog article much less understood it. I can accept there will be no forthcoming critique of it from him any time soon.
Interesting article but I dont accept that scientific theories that have been dropped or modified because of newer information from free continuing research are reviewed with the level of contempt the author suggests. She seems to be fermenting rancourous discord to sensationalise her article.
Granted that some researchers might stridently oppose conflcting or critical reassessments of their life's research as a personal attack on them if identifying themselves with their work as would be expected. Other than in cases of fraud or misrepresntation I dont think there would be any institutionalised condemnation of good ideas proven inaccurate. Tell me Im naive or wrong.
The points these delusional fantasist miss are that if science couldn't modify its findings according to new evidence It'd be as useless as religion for validating claims. What's more even if scientific facts as all encompassing as scientific theories were entirely reversed, an exremely unlikely scenario in itself, this wouldn't evidence religion's superstitious guff in any way. They don't seem to grasp that it's a false dichotomy fallacy to believe for instance that either life evolved or was created by a deity using magic The first is evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, but even in the astronomically unlikely event evolution were entirely reversed tomorrow, creationism would remain unevidenced fantasy.
I quite agree Sheldon. Theists seem to overlook, ignore or simply misunderstand the scientific method and even that it is a methodology, not a creed or belief system.
My point was that Einstein, despite his opposition to aspects of quantum physics, did not feel the need to invoke a bloody pogrom against Heisenberg for suggesting God played dice, and yes I know, despite Ferg's insistence Einstein did not believe in a personal god, he was simply in awe of physics.
The author of the article was attempting to jack up the controversies in the history of science to the fever pitch, blood lust levels usually associated with divinely revealed beliefs in religions.
CHAPTER 14: "The laws of logic prove the existence of God"
I am not discussing this chapter.
As a believer, I could not care less about logic or the Trascendental Argument.
I will not subject my faith to the useless language of rational scientific atheists.
CHAPTER 13: "The laws of logic prove the existence of God"
So you're agreeing with this chapter and the author then, that logic cannot be used to evidence a deity.
Well this a turn up I must say. Though your idiotic pretence at a critique is never more hilarious than when you now take the time to say you have no interest in making that critique, as we had failed to notice you were simply using this lie to preach about your superstitious beliefs, and clearly haven't even read the book.
You really are a clown, fair play. Even other theists like Jo are squirming at the stupidity and ignorance of your posts. That's some achievement.
Sheldon, buy yourself a decent t-shirt
Grow up, and since you ignored my entire post...
"CHAPTER 13: "The laws of logic prove the existence of God"
So you're agreeing with this chapter and the author then, that logic cannot be used to evidence a deity.
Well this a turn up I must say. Though your idiotic pretence at a critique is never more hilarious than when you now take the time to say you have no interest in making that critique, as if anyone had failed to notice you were simply using this lie to preach about your superstitious beliefs, and clearly haven't even read the book.
Now are you even capable of a cogent or even a remotely intelligible response for once, as if we didn't already know the answer to that one, and as your last post amply demonstrates.
YOU are a fully paid up subscriber to SigmaXi? One can't access the article "Paradoxes, contradictions and the limits of science." without paying first. You don't come across as a typical Sigma Xi subscriber.
Or did you just google search titles that seemed to support your uniformed and biased views?
Don't feel that you have to answer.
Poor fergie, he genuinely doesn't have the intellectual capacity to see how transparent his idiotic superstitious guff is. It's a classic case of the Dunning Kruger effect in action.
That's a good point Grinseed. I read it, and I'm not sure why ferguson1951 would link such a thing, considering his past disdain for science and math.
Fergus has done it again!
He has chosen three more references he believes discounts science and rationality and which end up not supporting his views at all.
At least there was no paywall this time.
For those who reasonably can't be bothered to look, I recommend the last two, for very interesting references to books (I have ordered a copy of Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, thanks for the link Ferg!) and a colourful introduction to the idea of abiogenesis.
The Discovery Magazine link leads to an article entitled "20 of the Greatest Blunders in the Last 20 Years" from October 2000, the usual copy-filling list of accidents (Chenobyl, Challenger, the awol Mars Polar Lander), various frauds (Piltdown Chicken and cold fusion) and there's even Y2k for old time's sake. The usual space fillers you'd find in yellow press when nothing else newsworthy was at hand to fill blank space. But nothing ultimately condemning the veracity of science, otherwise nothing much to see except 3rd rate journalism.
The Spirit of Contradiction surprisingly for a hard core Catholic like Fergus links to a Socialist blog site..."A confluence of voices from the European radical left and beyond…". This is part II in a study of "science and socialism". Part I apparently was the political relationship and this Part II the philosophy and history of science. It details various opposing views of scientists.
The last paragraph finishes with the observation that science "is not itself intrinsically capitalist and until a superior way of gaining knowledge of the world presents itself, we would do well to stick with a winning formula. A transition to socialism will need to keep hold of the fact that the interpretation of reality requires a scientific orientation. We can’t hope to move forward by retreating to religious or even romantic modes of thought." Promoting stuff like this is likely to see you a candidate for excommunication, not sainthood, Ferg. Just saying.
This is the most confounding and surprising link of the lot and goes a long way to prove Ferg doesnt even bother to look or read any of these links. It is a very charming and useful animated explanation about what and how science, biology and chemistry, know about the origins of life. It would be excellent for showing younger folk the basics for abiogenesis.
Great work Ferg, you have even catered for youngsters in their education in science.
Tinman was right. You provide excellent service for secular views and the advancement of science.
In short, he's simply peddling made up shit, and pretending that articles he never read with clickbait titles support his diseased ravings, without bothering to check the actual content first.
If this level of indolence was endemic to human endeavours other than supernaturalism, smallpox would still be stalking the planet. We'd still be relying on the horse as our fastest form of transport, and we'd probably still be thinking that setting fire to small furry animals in order to placate an imaginary magic man with twisted tastes, actually achieved something.
But while he's masturbating to the music of the spheres of his own diarrhoea, and wallowing in exquisitely crafted self-deifying holograms of his own imagined magnificence, he's oblivious to the fact that everyone possessing functioning neurons who reads his excrement, regards him as at best, mentally deranged by some unpleasant organic disease, and at worst, the poster child for the nastiest brands of supernaturalist duplicity in circulation. I admit to being ambivalent on this one, because some of his output does, at times, genuinely bear the stamp of untreated schizophrenia, but the suspicion that even this is a smokescreen, erected to elicit unwarranted sympathy for an arch-practitioner of mendacity, persists.
Though of course, there's always the Trump-level narcissist option to consider ... which again would be consistent with the observational data ...
FUCK!!! God does indeed answer prayers!!! Unless of course I just got lucky again!