Materialism Annihilated in 1 Brief Argument

Feeel the science wash over you.  Come, sinner, accept science into your heart.

Feeel the science wash over you. Come, sinner, accept science into your heart.

Dickard Dawkins: “Fool, there is no God because we live in a universe of rank, determined material process.”

Jay: “Hello there, and before we begin, you’ve got some hot pocket in your beard and Dorito stains on your digits.  So let’s get to the point – you would say, then, the universe is a vast realm of meaningless chaos?”

Dickard: “Of course.  Ultimately there is no great spaghetti monster in the sky, no old man who gives meaning to our lives and our evolving cosmos. It is meaningless.”

Jay: “So, is the universe is meaningless, then it would follow that your own life is meaningless, correct?”

Dickard: “Yes, I have the balls to admit it.  I’m not afraid to face up to a meaningless cosmos, and ultimately a meaningless life.”

Jay: “Whether you’ve “evolved” testicles yet, or stuffed a Beanie Baby in your Underoos is unknown, and will remain that way. Let’s continue down your line of thought.  If the cosmos is meaningless, and also your life, wouldn’t it stand to reason your arguments and thus your sentences in this so-called debate are also meaningless?”

Dickard:  <<hot pocket Meltdown>>


9 Comments on Materialism Annihilated in 1 Brief Argument

  1. LOL! Yes, I’ve stumbled into that same argument a few times. Wait… if we are just a pointless clump of cells in a random universe, then why are we even having this discussion? Why am I even speaking to random bit of biological goo? Wouldn’t that be a bit like trying to have a conversation with a table lamp?

    Never mind trying to prove the existence of God, I’m now left struggling to try to prove your (non?) existence. Well now, this is just fabulous, you’ve somehow managed to prove the non existence of man! Should we be doing that? 😉

  2. Gareth Evans // August 22, 2015 at 11:11 pm // Reply

    I do not see a necessary identity between what is and statements about it(validity only for true statements. This :”and thus your sentences” is redundant.

  3. I saw Fantasia. The universe was one big void and then somehow a bowl of primordial abiotic soup appeared. A dash of protein was sprinkled in for flavor and time and chance did the rest. Viola! He were are. No miracles. Just science. Now if you find that explanation wanting, may I suggest life on the planet was introduced by little green men from outer space. Don’t ask me who or what created those little green men. I don’t have time for such nonsense. Now I am off to a speaking engagement where I intend to ridicule Christians for believing in angels.

  4. Zack Steiner // August 23, 2015 at 4:04 am // Reply

    Hahaha! Brilliant! I find these so-called atheists to be the most contemptible, detestable, utterly empty, and most vile scoundrels around. Dawkins is a “poster child” for this group: pompous, foolish, and having not a modicum of insight into the magnitude of his own imbecility.

  5. If materialists believe they are a robotic collection of animated chemicals with no spiritual component, it’s okay for me to predate them, yes?

  6. Nihilism is a contradiction in itself, to state that there is no meaning at all and that you cannot prove anything, because everything (could) be just a illusion … so how to prove this statement?

    For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.

  7. I certainly do not believe in the bearded man in the sky. If that’s nihilism, so be it. But there is plenty of evidence that this is a control system or anthropomorphic projection. But, of course, it isn’t atheism as a universal principle. Atheism regarding THIS entity is hardly nihilism, it’s just anti-monotheism. Belief in something non-existent is also nihilism. Of course, the Source or Mind or Consciousness (a more neutral term avoiding attribution of traits–which I am inclined to believe exists in some fashion) may be churning out all sorts of specimens, some much more desirable than others. Human beings strike me generally as rather mediocre efforts. And how would any of us know anything about this in the end? It’s all faith–and no reason. Robert Anton Wilson observed that he knew nothing whatsoever, but had many strong suspicions. Dickard’s inference of meaninglessness does not follow from his own premise (no beard dude), so bad logic in his case.

  8. Aristocles, son of Ariston // August 28, 2015 at 8:30 pm // Reply

    Funny stuff. Although I am not personally an atheist I actually find Dawkins quite admirable. Say what you want about him he is principles. His Twitter is quite hilarious, as he blatantly says anti-Islamic things all the time. Critiquing Islam, rightfully, for it’s barbarism and myopic nature. For instance here is one of my favorite quotes from Dawkins: “Relativism, the quaint notion that there are many truths, all equally deserving of respect, even if they contradict each other, is rife today. It sounds like a respectful gesture towards multiculturalism. Actually, it’s a pretentious cop out. There really is something special about scientific evidence. Science works, planes fly, magic carpets and broomsticks don’t. Gravity is not a version of the truth, it is truth. Anybody who doubts it is invited to jump out of a tenth floor window.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: