Who Is (((Billy))) and What Is He Trying To Do
Who is (((Billy)))?
I am a 42 year old man in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I have a loving wife (we’ve been married almost 19 years). I have two wonderfully weird children (my son will hit college next September, and my daughter will graduate from high school in three years). I have four cats. I play the guitar and the trumpet (and even play guitar in public (sometimes (under the right circumstances))).
I am (as the title may have suggested) an atheist. I am, to be more specific, a naturalistic atheist. I see nothing in the natural world which cannot be explained through natural processes. Just because we don’t have all the answers yet doesn’t invalidate the theories (you know, gravitation, elecro-magnetism, germ, uniformitarianism, evolution, etc.).
I was baptised Episcopalean, and then became a Unitarian (along with my parents). I went from non-comformist theist, to deist, to universal deist, to very soft atheist by the time I was 20. I realized I am an atheist right around my 42nd birthday. Okay, so it took me a while.
So what am I trying to do with this blog?
I’m not sure yet. I realized I was an atheist by reading (lurking) atheist blogs (most notably Atheist Revolution, the Spanish Inquisitor, and An Apostate’s Chapel). Then I started commenting. Now I am blogging.
Part of what I am doing is preaching to the choir. By writing about my experiences (and other people’s experiences), commenting on them, and trying to make connections, I hope to provice support, entertainment, and critical thinking. I don’t pretend that what I do is orginal, but I may be able to make some new connections.
The other part of what I do is to provide tools for theists to begin questioning their assumptions. Questioning is the single most important component of critical thinking. If you add logical processes to that, who knows what will happen?
(((Billy))) The Atheist 
🙂
Funny how you call yourself an “atheist” and yet discuss about God in your other blogs. Do you really know the meaning of the word? Also, if to be able to negate a “God” presupposes you acknowledge there is one.
Your statement is clear. So are your thoughts. The links to others who are like minded are helpful. It’s pleasing not to be alone.
Bibomedia: Welcome to my blog. Hope you become more verbose in the future.
Susan: Welcome to my blog. When I discovered the atheosphere, I had the same feeling. Even though I don’t know what some of these men and women look like, I consider them friends.
I got a blog you would dig by a Christian about the church…
The Ongoing Adventures of ASBO Jesus
http://asbojesus.wordpress.com/
Why don’t parentheses get points in Scrabble? Seems a bit unfair.
And aren’t names a no-no?
Enquiring minds need to know.
There are no parentheses in Scrabble. They are like god. They don’t exist. And, as they do not exist, there are no points for them.
Yes, names are a no-no in Scrabble. However, a billy is the pot used by Australian Bush Rangers in which they cook meals. They are also refered to as billycans.
Dear Bill,
Hello! My name is Sarah Trachtenberg and I am currently writing a book proposal about the personal experiences of atheists. I am wondering if the book is published (Darwin willing) if you might be able to mention it (not necessarily plug it) on your blog. I plan on launching a site to promote the book and will naturally reciprocate. Please let me know.
Thanks,
Sarah
Great blog Billy!!
Sarah, you can contact me if you want, your idea is great.
All atheists, please take a look at my song “god” and its video-clip on my website:
http://www.le-monde-pluriel.eu/content/0/70/
on youtube:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=RixoXcf7eso&feature=user
I have also filed a complaint against the bible and the koran for sexist and homophobic contents :
http://www.le-monde-pluriel.eu/content/0/63/
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd1E141X6xw&feature=user
Thanks, Pertutti, France
Salvatore: Welcome to my blog.
Rock On!! ;)) Peace*
Billy,
just wanted to inform you and anyone else who might be interested,that there’s a new secular group in our area.
The group is called “The NEPA Freethought Society”,based in Wilkes-Barre. I could go into details,but would rather direct you to the group’s site so that you can take a peek for yourself.
And with that,you can decide if the group offers anything of interest to you. But I seriously hope that you’ll take a few minutes of your time to check it out,I think you’ll like what you find.
Sincerely,
Info101
I’m gobsmacked – you treat each other with respect! Probably unique in the blogosphere which is a pretty corrosive environment so I don’t usually venture therein.
Keep it up.
I’ve been an atheist since 1957 (a sort of reverse Paul on the road to Damascus – note to Homeland
Security: biblical reference) when I suddenly realised that blaming it all on the supernatural is a load of old dingoes kidneys. Since then, the older I get the dafter belief in God (or gods) becomes. I sometimes say I’m a ‘wysiwygist’ (what you see is what you’ve got). Dates you, eh?
Cheers and keep up the good work keeping people thinking rationally instead of just knee-jerking.
Tom
Tom: Welcome to my blog. I try to treat people with respect, but ideas are open to the mocking they deserve.
Well you bunch are certainly putting it up to the Christians.However no matter how many nutty type “Christians” are out there it wont matter. You guys in here have to meet the maker. It concerns me that you would take that chance and go against Jesus Christ and all he said.He spoke about hell as much as he did about heaven. And…..If you cant see your rebellion right now then I cant help you .I know He will be the only one who can do that.That is what revelation is all about.Mock away.Think I care about your self righteous attitude?No way. But He will and that is what you guys in here have to get through. You will be called to account for every idle deed and every single word.I mean to say…………….has anyone of you ever done anything wrong? Anything?Once you see you are not perfect through the eyes of the Law of God and His Commandments you will see your own guilt and reach for the Saviour who paid your price that you cant pay.Its great to have no God cause you cant really get guilty can you?Well’thats not something to be proud of.Reach now to the Saviour before something bad happens to you.I plead and beg you all to reach for the Christ.
John D.: Welcome to my blog. Actually, I don’t single out Christians (I do tend to emphasize Christians because they are the majority in our secular democracy and keep trying to push their twisted view of morality on the rest of us), I point out the hypocrisy, criminality, foibles, and irrationality of all theists.
Arguing that Jesus is the one and only way by citing a book which was altered and written to glorify him makes no sense in any rational thought pattern.
As far as mistakes? I make them all the time. And I pay for my mistakes in the real world. With real consequences in reality.
May I recommend that your read a few books? Including one regarding the proper use of the English language?
May reason, rationality and sanity find you. Soon.
I had been visitor of ateist blog for last couple of days.even; in my raw observation i also posted a few comments in response to some of your posts which logically ; i may assume were more or less addressed to christain community. but; somehow;it is believed that you differ if not challenge all apostle religions purely on reason which reason is more science oriented. from just cursory look at your blogs i further understand that you preffer to convey being naturalist; AND major behavioural contrast is also found as between theist and athiest.if you could permit me to join question-answer session with you;i may be guided on following.the bretrand rusell in his book “HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IT IS SCOPE AND LIMITS SAID”” at every stage; though one part of our problem may be in the focus of attention;all parts are more or less revelant.the different key words that we must use are all interconnected; and so long as some remain vauge; others must more or less; share this defect. it follows that what is said first is laible to require emendation later.the prophet announced that if two texts of koran appeared inconsistent; the later text was to be taken as authoritative; and i wish to reader to apply the similar principle in interpreting what is said in this book” you may agree the russell had long ambition to write the comrehensive book on human knowledge; yet could not produce other than the one in hand.my humble question is; WHAT PROMPTED RUSELL TO QUOTE PROPHET{PBUH}AS A PROPOUNDER OF ACCEPTABLE LOGIC TO REFFER FOR FOLLOWING BY HIS READERS EVEN TO INTERPRET HIS PHILOSICAL APPROACH TO DEBATES IN THE BOOK?WAS NOT SUCH LOGIC PRESENT IN THE SCEINCE?IF YES; WHY RUSSELL IGNORED IT?WAS RUSSELL OTHERWISE; IMPRESSED BY THE BEHAVIUORAL APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE OF BELIEVERS?
Respecred bill; i have posted my question on 13th. instant and is awaiting your reply?thanks
Mohmood: If I was able to understand your question, I would reply.
thanks for response.it would surprise me that you being high knowledgable person trying to show the world how it should look like based on comparative match of knowledge; thus; my little question should gone home without any difficulty.i quted russell who intentionally belongs to athiest world and has produced huge literatue-based philosiphy; besides; being scietist. kindly feel free to remind me to correct myeslf if my question orientation is so low as to bother your intellectuall standard. thanks
That’s a clever trick, mohmood – post a question that defies any possibility of comprehension, then run away shouting “la la la, you’re a dumbass, I’m so clever” when the nonsensical nature of your question is pointed out…
I’m assuming your question relates Russell’s approach to the scientific method. Are you trying to argue that Muhammed’s rewrites of the Qur’an constitute scientific method because Russell mentioned them in the same paragraph? Please clarify.
Yunshui: thanks. I had no clue what the initial question was about.
By that argument, virtually every other piece of fiction, philosophy, political science, history (in short, every written piece in the world save for some letters and some comments) would qualify as science since it is rarely the first draft which is published. The Bible would count as science, since it was still being rewritten into the (at least) 4th century CE.
mahmood: No, your question was not too low for my intellectual standard. Your presentation, however, was. The point of writing is to express an idea(s) in such a way as to make the idea intelligable to other readers. If English is not your first language, no problem. There are some excellent translation programs available (beware of the web-based ones: babelfish is fun, but can return some strange results). It’s not that your question is beneath more, only that your inability to express your thoughts coherently in a language I understand (and, typical American, I am only fluent in English (though, with the changes among the young (my kids) I am starting to question my English fluency). As with my teenagers, I understand the individual words in your comment, but am unable to understand the idea.
thanks for being substitute to respected bill and showing your interest in knowing the mobolising effect of my “non-sensical”question.i am impressed that you have spared time to offer me opportunity to convert non-sensical into sense.if you will assume me a genuine reader of russell; i hope you will convince me ; either; i have misplaced comrehension of rusell or russell itself had casulaity of quoting the above paragrapgh; which he himself wrote as preface.i may humbly remind you that “disagreement” is the basis of argument and impatience with offensive reffernce is never desirable.My point is simple: that russell was ardent believer of christain faith for long time however; after being mature{his own words}he found religions not a logical concept with its consequent effects to be followed.the book i have quoted is the last book which; surprisingly;contradicts his stand being athiest and impressing his readers to follow the logic while reading/interpreting his book on the logic and principles proponded by holy prohet{pbuh}my question gets chance of repitition: why was rusell impressed by prophet?was the logic propounded by prophet not present in science?by reffering prophet; could it be said that believers have also resourceful base to learn and deliver knowledge based things in the world?it may not surprise you that bertrand rusell had been otherwise; impressed by islamic culture and philosiphy and had observed that present western knowledge explosion started gaining it from the muslim world{refer history of western philosiphy pages 390-97}let me hope to enjoy your accdemic courtsey without being emotional. thanks
Mr. bill. my above response was to Mr.yunshui; as i could not get your answer.i am sorry that you could not get me effciently due to poor standard of my lunguage. however; i have again posted my response which you may like to see. thanks
Okay, I think I see what you’re saying. Basically you’re claiming an equivalence between Russell’s scientific approach (ie. the most up-to-date research is likely the most valid) and Muhammed’s textual approach (ie. when you find a contradiction in the Qur’an, assume the most recent version is correct). In assuming this, however, you miss the goal of both parties. Russell’s point is that our knowledge of the world changes – he was interested in ensuring that the information he conveyed was as accurate (hence up-to-date) as possible. Muhammed’s statement was designed to ensure that his most recent suras (ie. the ones most relevant to his immediate situation) were accepted as the truth, and that his cohorts were not tempted to disagree with him. Muhammed’s approach was purely pragmatic, whereas Russell’s is based on the evolving body of information available.
Russell’s quoting of Muhammed does not suggest endorsement of the prophets ideas, any more than my quoting Yoda makes me a Jedi.
thanks; you have still ignored my basic question while giving your apprant interpretation: question persists: why russell as valued and knowledable person found it desirable to quote prophet; when; for athiest; the bleievers have limited vision to understand things due to their behavioural development being taken place while pursuing something fictional/and illogical? or is it that inspite of being believer one could be as scientific as possible without losing faith in God?and can deliver gainful servies to the humanity. you will kindly bear me that; besides; rebuting the existence of God;you propject believer somewhat; irrationale; and hard to disgest scientific outlook. i may add the argument to prove and disprove God is based purely on scientific grounds; besides apostle revealations.if you are intersted i may quote muberless; scietists; who were motivated becauseof their own scietific discoverires to believe in God; can you comment. thanks
You want me to tell you why Russell quoted Muhammed? To make his point. To add textual colour. To interest his readers. It’s a literary device, not an endorsement. As I said, I (rather too often) quote Yoda from the Star Wars films to make a point, but I’m happy to admit that he’s a fictional character. If your best argument for your faith boils down to: “A famous atheist once quoted my prophet”, then you’re quite easily the weakest apologist I’ve ever come across.
Yes, some scientists are believers (though a lower proportion of the scientific community than in the general population) – but that’s equally meaningless! Lots of scientists watch and enjoy Big Brother on TV – does that mean I’m wrong when I say it’s hideous, nauseating pap?
Finally, I have to side with (((Billy))) on the language issue. English isn’t your first language, and whilst your grasp of it is far superior to my ability to speak your mother tongue (unless you’re Japanese, which I doubt), we can’t hold a meaningful discussion without some interpretation. If you could get a fluent English-speaker to proof-read your comments prior to posting, we could understand each other a lot better. It’s perfectly fine to be non-fluent yourself, but when we’re discussing an issue this sensitive and complex, we need some translation.
(((Billy))) I seem to have been hogging your comment threads today, apologies!
THANKS FOR QUOTING ME WEAKEST TO TAKE SUPPORT FROM ATHIEST RUSSELL FOR APPRECIATING PROPHET. YOU HAVE TAKEN TWO STANDS: ONE MY ENGLISH IS TOO WEAK TO DISCUSS THE SENSITIVE TOPIC LIKE ONE IN HAND; SECOND;JUST BY CASUAL QUOTING OF PROPHET BY RUSSEL WOULD NEVER MEAN THE RUSSELL HAD ENDORSED WHAT PROHET HAD SAID.THE TOP INTELLECTUALL MR. BILL HAD RUN AWAY FROM THE DISCOURSE BECAUSE; OF MY LUNGUAGE IN-EFFICIENCY.I AM SORRY TO SAY THATTOP INTELLECTUALL SUFFERS THE CASUALITY FOR BEING PROPERLY TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE MAJORITY.BUT; THE ATHIEST WORLD CAN;T BE SO SELECTIVE TO FIRST MAKE SCREEN TEST OF IQ OF OPPOENET THEN; EITHER CONVEY THEIR MESSAGE OR ENTER INTO ARGUMENT.AWAY FROM LUNGUAGE ODDS I TRUST MY ADDRESS BEHAVIOUR HAD NOT BEEN INDECENT TO DISTURB YOU.YOU HAVE HALF TAKEN MY QUESTION:I SHALL TRY TO IMPRESS IT AGAIN.CAN A BELIEVER BE AS INTELLIGENT AND BENIFICIAL TO THE SOCIETY AS ATHIEST?OR; BY DISBELIEVING IN GOD ATHIEST GETS MORE LIBERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE WORLD AND COULD DELIVER PURPOSEFUL SERVICES TO THE WORLD AS COMPARED TO BELIEVER.? DOES BELIEVING IN GOD CREATE A SOCIAL CONDITIONS MOULDING BEHAVIOUR OFBELIEVERWHICH IS FAR INFERIOR TO NON-BELIEVERS? IF NON BELIEVERS DEFY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD ON SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS W;ILL IT SUSTAIN A PERMANET ARGUMENT FOR THE TIMES TO COME; AS IN YOUR OWN ADMISSION YOU SAID THAT MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD DUE TO THEIR SECIENTIFIC DISCOVERIRES.SUPPOSE SUCH MINORITY TOMORROW TURNS INTO MAJORITY; WILL NOT ATHIEST GET DEFEATED ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD PURELY ON SCIENTIFIC BASIS.I HOPE YOU MAY NOT CLOSE THE ARGUMENT
Mahmood: I really don’t have a whole lot to add to what Ynushui said. Just because a philosopher quotes from a ‘holy’ book, or a scientist quotes from a ‘holy’ book does not validate the holy book. I have quoted the bible. Does that automatically validate everything in the bible?
I find your argument disengenuous. First, you post a very difficult to understand comment (for me (maybe I’m just not intelligent enough to understand the elegance of the argument within your comment)). Then, after I have read the comment but did not respond because of my lack of understanding, you call me out for not immediately answering. I reply by saying that I do not understand, even going so far as to state why I do not understand. Now, because I cannot understand what was written, you call me an intellectual coward who is afraid of debate. I did not question your IQ. You have a much better command of the English language than I do of Arabic, or Farsi, or Bantu, or Japanese. However, communication requires understanding. If I cannot understand what you have written, we are not commuicating.
As to why Bertrand Russell chose to quote one of the prophets, I have no idea. I have not read Bertrand Russell (save for some short samples in a thoroughly unenjoyable philosophy course in college). I do not read philosophy. I bores the hell out of me. I read history, science fiction, and natural history.
Your last post is even less readable. Writing in all capital letters eliminates many of the visual clues in the Latin alphabet used to recognize letters. But I will try to answer.
God(s) cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means. Really. The Abrahamic god(s) of the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qu’ran is said to exist completely outside of the material plane. There is no way to measure the presence or non-presence of god(s). I cannot prove, scientifically or otherwise, that god(s) does not exist. Likewise, a believer cannot prove that god(s) exists through the texts of 1400, 1800, 2400 years ago.
The fact that a philosopher quoted from the Qu’ran is immaterial. Again, I have quoted the Bible. Tom Clancy has quoted the Qu’ran. Frank Herbert has quoted from the Buddhist writings. Sometimes using a quote from a ‘holy’ book is a very effective literary tool. It can spark understanding among those familiar with the work. It can create bridges between different societies. It can point out absurdities and contradictions. Merely quoting from a book does not validate that book as eternal truth.
Case in point:
A thousand years after the virgin birth
and after five hundred more allowed the globe,
the wonderful eighty-fifth year begins and
brings with it woe enough. If, this year, total catastrophe does not befall, if land
and sea do not collapse in total ruin, yet
will the whole world suffer upheavals, em-
pires will dwindle and from everywhere will
be great lamentations.
(from The Armada, by Garrett Mattingly, 1959, quoting a ‘poetic translation’ of Regiomontanus’ prophecy)
I quoted a prophecy (prophecies are created by, um, prophets?) to support my statement. Does this automatically validate that prophecy? Does this mean that prophecies are accurate? Does this mean that The Armada is now a ‘holy’ book which can be used to prove the unprovable?
I cannot close the argument regarding the existence or non-existence of god(s). I take, as you have pointed out, a naturalistic view of reality. If something can be explained without recourse to a deity, then use the natural explanation. I see nothing in the universe which cannot be explained naturally. We don’t have all the answers yet (and most likely never will), but we have working explanations (theories) which account for the reality which many theists deny.
Mr.bill; thanks for response.first of all i tender my heart felt apologies to you for having understood me to quote you”intellectual coward”thus; being offended. I assure i never quoted it nor meant it.my point was that regretallbly; my communication had not been so clear and intelligible as was otherwise; desired by you. necessarily; in view of such difficulty any one including your person could face aviodable difficulty to answer my question.i can;t be conservative to quote russell in repition.i better quote your own person ” questioning is the single most important componet of critical thinking”this is most effective statement of creative thinking.by virtue of your such statement ; i have liberty to put questions; with; without and inspite of bad English.As said earlier i had visited athiest blogs and found them in uniformity in nature and message:that believers have illogical paths to follow. such meassage is diverse; composite; and conveying purposeful meaning in many respects so for athiest perspective is concerned.Given; the situation believing and non-believing does not remain confined to prove and not prove the existence of God; it simantenousely;carries concievable socio-intellectual concept of believer and non-believer.linking thus; i earlier tried to know: can believer be as purposeful in this world as non-believers assert to be?or; by following illogical dogmas of their holy books believers have curtailed their liberty to develop themselves liberally in this world whileas; non-believers being logical in their approach found liberal environment to gain socio-intellectuall development in this world.if it falls {away from russell}within the ambit of critical thinking as defined by you ; i trust you will not hesitate to answer.i further hope you will treat me firendly as there is nothing in between us to lose or gain; other than trying to find and pursue the truth.thanks
How did we go from Bertrand Russell quoting the Qu’ran to logic and illogic? Logic has little to do with it. Rationality has everything to do with it. A rational approach to the world, a rational approach to reality, requires evidence. Evidence is acquired through observation and replicable experimentation. An irrational worldview, an irrational approach to the world and to reality, does not require evidence. Many theists (not all) view the Bible or the Qu’ran as the infallible word of god as expressed through prophets and disciples. Even when the book contradicts itself, or is demonstrably historically inaccurate, it is still considered infallible through faith. A belief that something is true, in conflict with blatant contraindications, is a perfect example of irrationality.
Remember the root of the word belief – lief. Lief still shows up in some southern dialects as a synonym for wish. That is the root of the word – wish. A belief is a wish for something to be true, even if the facts – evidence gained through observation and experimentation – suggest otherwise.
I did not define critical thinking. That was done long before me, and by much better minds. Critical thinking is rational thinking. Rational thinking is following the evidence to where it leads. Clear enough?
thanks. iam obliged. my disagreement with you as thiest persists. in fact; theists and athiests base their agruments soley and alone either on science or the deductive method of thinking; much or less quoted rationalisim.the same rationalisim was adopted by the french philosopher j.p satre while explaining the existentialisim.the believers so believe in “design and designer theory. i quote in little way the american scientist{Mr.claude.M.Hathaway} who was supposed to design”electric brain” for united states national advisory committee on aeronauctics. who after completion of his assignment obesrved” Now the world around us is a vast assembly of design or order independent; but interrelated, vastly more complex in every smalldetail than my ‘electric brain’ if my computer required designer; how much more so did that complex physio-chemical-biological machine which is my human body-which in turn is but extremely minute part of the well-nigh infinite cosmos? in raw anylisis the perceived cosmos has it self limitations beyond which speculations were flouted to go farward without explaining rationaley such speculations upon which the science itself stands.a little earlier your friend admitted that some scientists are believers yet are in minority. if minority/majority determine the test of reality; one day we may apprehend should minority turn into majority; where will athiest stand?I have taken enough care of your refined reminder to me”enough clear”as such it is your sole discretion to reply or not reply my response. thanks
No. Theists use belief. The root of the word ‘belief’ is the Latin ‘Lief’ which means wish. Belief suspends the need for critical thinking, suspends the need for rational thinking.
And thank you so very much for giving me permission to reply on my own blog. Really. Thank you.
thanks. i could appreciate your patience which ‘otherwise’ was not to your desire and taste.may be in mistaken belief; i took besides; your time; your blog permissiblefor comments. since; you have no God; I pray to my own God that you alongwith your family be happy and properous . i may use other blogs to engage your freternity for further discourse.my compliments to your friend also. i for the time being close the argument. thank you once again.
Mohmood: My blog is always open for comments. It is a free speech zone. Good luck with the discourse. And don’t mistake my answers for patience: I have little patience with the idea that the intellectual rigor required to understand the scientific method is in any way comparable to the idea that all can be explained through one or two books which claim goddidit. One is rational, one is mental masturbation hiding behind authoritarian paternalism.
May reason and rationality find you. Quickly. You need it.
unfortunately; neither reason nor rationality is at sale at athiest blogs so that persons like me not having it could at least purchcase it. thanks
Mohmood: You’re absolutely right, you can’t purchase reason or rationale. It’s free, and it must be instilled in you by paying good attention to the naturalistic world we live in as we go along.
Your life’s experiences should be enough to give you proper insight on how things truly work, unless you’ve decided for whatever reason to judge our world and it’s inhabitants based on the teachings of an ancient, misogynistic, slavery endorsing, murder promoting, bigoted book. I hope not!
thanks my brother; hailing from athiest world you have reason to join the refference.i agree that reason and rationale is never purchasable and needs to be instilled at least to find disagreements.you challenge the existence of God on scientific reasons; whileas; theists; display the existence of God on same appratus of science; away from apostle teachings.the limitation on one side does not neutralise the limitation on the other side.the universe is so complex where reason dies due to its own succession of better quality and appeal.thus; the reason today held by me looks improper while understanding your reason so on and so forth.as such naturalist like you is supposed volantarily to admit that your view till date is temporarily valid ;may be tomorrow better views comeforth; thus frustrate your stand.a person challenging or assuming the perception of world purely on reason and precision is even so small to define himeslf in terms of emotion which emotion is often above reason.thus; athiest has partial obervation of human existence which is confined to body and not to soul.i would preffer to give you the instances of non-muslim world thinkers much before i may reffer muslim thinkers especially hailing from spain to fortify my stand.possibily; you either ignore or never appreciate that thiest world had contributed a socio-intellectuall standard to the world; which majority of the people recognise and appreciate including some writers from the athiest world.inspite of your sharp intellect you are unable to state that hitler perpretrated genocide due to the faith he got from bigoted book; as the spirit of history shall check you to differentiate between indiviual act and faith; faith and reason; reason and emotion; thanks.
Info101: Welcome to my blog.
Mohmood: Show me one, just one, instance in which the existence of god(s) has been displayed upon the apparatus of science. Can’t be done. God(s) is all about faith and belief, not proof. Faith is believing something because you desperately want it to be true; it is often a result of fear — fear of death or fear of punishment. Belief, as I said before, is wishing. Wishing for something to be true does not make it true.
You seem to have this idea that if you keep tossing enough nonsense my way, I will suddenly become a person of faith an belief. Your current crop of excrement is not even up to your previous standard. Read books. Think for yourself. And stop being a troll.
Billy: Thanks for the welcome, and thanks for the consideration in creating a blog that promotes secularism. I don’t know about Mohmood, it seems as though he’s getting more and more carried away with himself.
By the way, did you ever get around to taking a look at the group I mentioned. If you did, or when you do, would you mind giving me some feedback on what you saw. I’ll be looking in on your site from time to time for a little intellectual conversation, or debate. Talk to you later.
Info101: I did take a look at your group. I thought I left a message, but I don’t remember (they say that as you get older, your memory is the second thing to go; the first thing is, umm . . .). Anyway, I’m not much of a joiner (never have been), plus with my job, I always work weekends (which is another reason I’m not much of a joiner). Thanks for the invite anyway, but maybe later.
Respected bill. thanks for abusing me. abusing is a rudimentary human trait where capacity to argue further on the basis of reason stops for the moment.may be it confirms the conventional standard of thinking in contrast to critical thinking that besides; reason; rationale; there subsists emotion also.I quote one instance of science and scientist suggesting that God exists as under:Dr. cecil Boyce Hamann the noted american biologist says:”where the mysteries of digestion and assimilation were seen as evidence of divine intervention; they now are explained in terms of chemical reactions; each reaction under the control of enzyme. but does it rule God out of his universe?who determined these reactions should take place; and that they should be so exactly controlled by the enzymes? one glance at a present day-chart of the various cyclic reactions and their interaction with each other rules out the possibility that this was just a chance relationship that happened to work. perhaps; here more than any place else; man is learning thatGod works by principles that he established with the creation of life” { refer evidence of God in expanding universe pg.221}here Dr. boyce was not influnced by bigoted book; nor any illogical apostle message motivated him to say so.Dr. boyce is noted biologist who while teaching or explaining the biology could be assumed sane; but; while infering the perception of extra power to see the the balance of chemical reactions so error free he got the idea of Design and designer; as such in next brath can;t be held insane. which; simply means once you see the design you immediately get the idea that somebody is its designer.thus; the universe being big design can;t be without its designer.your athiest blog carries ethical message that while discussing the three major religionsviz; christainity; juduasim; and islam;the required protocol of decency is to be maintained. divergent opnions are there that is why athiest blog had come into existence.had there been no theists; there was no necessity to create blog much less to say athiests.if iam non-sensical ; yet; iam relaxed i could find another one from your neigbhour- hood who also compensated my deficiency of being less read.Nothwithstanding; the pungent expressed against me I never lost the love and respect for all of you . thanks
I called you a troll. An internet troll is someone who shifts goalposts, changes arguments in the middle, calls others intellectual cowards, attempts to enforce rules on someone elses blog. These are also common traits of theists commenting or posting on the web.
Please, feel free to find someone else. I would be happy to argue or discuss the ideas of atheism and irrationlity, but I still cannot figure out your argument(s).
You said “the required protocol of decency is to be maintained”. Required by whom? If you want to have a discussion and/or argument with ‘required’ protocols, start your own blog. Nowhere does it say, anywhere on my blog, that there are required protocols. I generally treat my comenteers with exactly the decency they deserve.
You request respect, you have to give respect to earn it.
Speaking of requests, you asserted that science (or scientific apparatus) can be used to prove the existence of god(s). I asked for one citation, one example. Go for it.
mohmood:
Hamann’s (noted American biologist? He’s a hack professor at a Bible college!) god is, as so often in science, a “god of the gaps”, thrown into the mix to explain anything science hasn’t yet answered and getting smaller by the year. Let me make a suggestion. So far, you’ve been throwing up kindergarten level arguments (argument from authority, argument from incredulity, god of the gaps) which virtually every atheist worth his or her salt has encountered and countered so many times it bores us to think of it. I suggest, therefore, that before posting another unintelligible exposition on (((Billy)))’s homepage, you familiarize yourself with at least basic counterapologetics – Iron Chariots, though based on Christian, not Muslim apologetics, would be the best place to start.
If you find that your argument has not already been dealt with there, please feel free to drop over to my blog and posit it – I’m always interested to see a new theistic argument. However, if you’re only going to rehash the same old tired apologetics which the atheist community have dealt with oh-so-many tedious times, then please – don’t bother. Take (((Billy)))’s advice and start up your own blog.
Hi!
I found you through the Atheist Blogroll!
Diaphanus: Glad to have you stop by. Enjoy. (and contribute (or not (who am I to tell people what to do?)))
(((Billy))),
I had a hit on my blog from a link on one of your posts so I thought I’d stop by for a look-see.
Interesting. The idea of atheism make me smile.
Dennis: Glad you could stop by. Glad I could induce a smile. Which link hit your blog? Since you left neither a valid email nor a valid URL I can’t be sure. Not a demand, just curious.
Hi
I’ve added your blog here
http://aggregatedinfidels.blogspot.com/2008/12/billy-atheist.html
Feel free to let me know if you’d like the intro changed.
all the best.
Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Repent!
Just found your blog. Love it!
Texas
Hey! Fun stuff here. I hope you’re not losing to much time to “waste[s of] time.” The unbracketed portion of that last quote gives a dirty insight into clarity of mind . . . when you think about it.
It is worth noting that even trolls can increase our ability to think.
Maybe I’ll tag-team with you against future antagonist(s). Glad you’re making such community available to the un’s.
Ataraxia.
Interesting spiritual journey Billy… mine is pretty opposite, going from an atheist to an agnostic to a spiritualist (is that even a word? (thought I would try parenthesizing (is that a word?) like you do :))) to a Christian by the time I was 23… who knows, maybe I’ll be an atheist again by the time I’m 42? (doubt it)
Anyhow, I look forward to reading future posts. Might even leave a comment if I think that I have something intelligent to say (doubt it :)).
Hi (((Billy))). I’m a christian and i love reading about your views. I dont agree with them though, but ‘n respect them.