NationStates Jolt Archive

Not all atheists annoy the hell out of me, I'll start off with that. I don't know any friends of mine yet around me that are atheists....but that's not my point.

My point is that you friggin radical atheists are no better than radical Christians, Islamics, or.....*flips through dictionary* ....gays? *shrugs*

In almost every, I do mean every and almost, I see a radical atheist starting a thread with the words "God is non-existant, case closed."

Well ya know what? Kiss my ass that has the words "STFU" painted on it with your mother's milk goddammit! You have no more proof that there is no God than I have proof there is God. You wanna tell me how a speck of matter that caused the big bang came into existance? You wanna tell me how whatever caused that matter came into existance? You wanna tell me how THAT came into existance?

Didn't think so.


I'm sorry to be unable to distinguish the good atheists from the idiotic ones...but I just gotta let off some steam...


So...anyone else saw I, Robot?

Radical atheism doesn't breed violence, just cynicism.

i'd smite the fukk out of those atheist scumbags if it weren't for dad's "free will" rule.

See, this is the thing.


One can make many, MANY compelling arguments against most organized religions.



However, it's pretty much impossible to prove or disprove the simple existance of a diety.


**flashes a smile** Diesm-it's the way to be! <ting!>

See, this is the thing.


One can make many, MANY compelling arguments against most organized religions.



However, it's pretty much impossible to prove or disprove the simple existance of a diety.


**flashes a smile** Diesm-it's the way to be! <ting!>

The argument for organized religion is that religion typically promotes a virtuous existence. The argument against is if it's allowed to run rampant it will squash opposing ideas.

LoL, his dad's "free will" rule...lol, shouldn't you not smite us because of your God's free will rule, and much more importantly, his golden rule? Would you like me to smite you for threatening to smite me? I'll have you know I'm not exactly sure what I want to believe, but it's closest to athiesm. Just because a person is athiest doesn't mean they are evil, it just means they are skeptical about things that no one can prove or disprove and would rather question those things than accept them blindly. Religious fanatics who lash out so harshly against people who haven't "accepted Jesus as their saviour" and threaten athiests with the punishment of eternal damnation in hell do nothing to help their side of the argument. Anyway, most importantly, as far as religion goes, I am closest to athiest, but I have a higher set of morals for myself than any of my "Christian" friends do. And after all, what is the most important part of Christianity, believing in something that no one can prove either way, or the real lesson of it, which are the morals and good will, etc.

deism is for pretentious pussies who want to cop out on the issue of religion, but do it in a fruity 18th century rationalist way.


all diests rot in hell, including the american founding fathers and the french philosophers who led them there.

So...anyone else saw I, Robot?

I work at a movie theater and don't plan on going out of my way to see it...it's another Will Smith shoot'em'upper, and I've already seen MIB.

deism is for pretentious pussies who want to cop out on the issue of religion, but do it in a fruity 18th century rationalist way.


all diests rot in hell, including the american founding fathers and the french philosophers who led them there.

Well, I'm glad that CannibalChrist has done a good job of proving that I've taken the better part of Christianity with me whether or not I still believe it. And I bet Christians are glad that I'm not a stereotyper. Doesn't the bible say that it is not your place to judge me?

LoL, his dad's "free will" rule...lol, shouldn't you not smite us because of your God's free will rule, and much more importantly, his golden rule? Would you like me to smite you for threatening to smite me? I'll have you know I'm not exactly sure what I want to believe, but it's closest to athiesm. Just because a person is athiest doesn't mean they are evil, it just means they are skeptical about things that no one can prove or disprove and would rather question those things than accept them blindly. Religious fanatics who lash out so harshly against people who haven't "accepted Jesus as their saviour" and threaten athiests with the punishment of eternal damnation in hell do nothing to help their side of the argument. Anyway, most importantly, as far as religion goes, I am closest to athiest, but I have a higher set of morals for myself than any of my "Christian" friends do. And after all, what is the most important part of Christianity, believing in something that no one can prove either way, or the real lesson of it, which are the morals and good will, etc.


hey my god IS my dad, and i AM your lord and savior, and you WILL burn in a lake o' fire if you don't accept me into your heart. now EAT me, and live forever beeotch.

Oh, I meant specific ones. Like, one could argue against christianity. Or judaism. Or hinduism.

Not that one could argue against ALL religions at once :p

You guys...you're taking Cannibal a bit too seriously :p

My main issue is not the annoying tendency to assume God's non-existance is universally accepted. It's the ones who are taking legal action to try to make that view a reality.

I've lost track of how many cass Christians are undermined in the American Government due to "separation of Church and State". The odd part is, it doesn't seem to apply to any other religions (unless you're in France). There was a recent case in Florida (I think, though it could be California.) where a christian group wanted to put up a Nativity scene on private propery.The city officials don't let them, citin a mis-interpretation of the 1st ammendment. This would simply be another reason to roll your eyes, except for the small fact that a menorah was already up. As was a "holiday tree"( :headbang: ).

hey my god IS my dad, and i AM your lord and savior, and you WILL burn in a lake o' fire if you don't accept me into your heart. now EAT me, and live forever beeotch.
Like I said, according to your Bible (which you should probably read), it is not your place to judge me. Additionally, doesn't it look bad when a person who is leaning heavily on athiesm knows more about your bible than you do when you are such a fanatic Christian?

Well, I'm glad that CannibalChrist has done a good job of proving that I've taken the better part of Christianity with me whether or not I still believe it. And I bet Christians are glad that I'm not a stereotyper. Doesn't the bible say that it is not your place to judge me?


NO NO, you miss understand, it is my place to judge, that's why i'm seated at the right hand of Dad Almighty, from whence i shall come to JUDGE the living and the dead.

NO NO, you miss understand, it is my place to judge, that's why i'm seated at the right hand of Dad Almighty, from whence i shall come to JUDGE the living and the dead.
Please stop posting here and making your fellow Christians look bad.

You guys...you're taking Cannibal a bit too seriously :p
They are not!

Like I said, according to your Bible (which you should probably read), it is not your place to judge me. Additionally, doesn't it look bad when a person who is leaning heavily on athiesm knows more about your bible than you do when you are such a fanatic Christian?


You really are a bit dense aren't you. I'm Jesus Christ, I am the one who gets to judge, I am the Alpha and the Omega. I'm the friggin' lamb o'God.

I am an atheist but I have never tried to convince anyone that God does not exist. On the contrary, I have had numerous Christians trying to prove to me that God does exist.
The only time I mention that I am an atheist is when people post threads such as this or I get accused of being part of the "religious right" on these forums.

Please stop posting here and making your fellow Christians look bad.


I am the Christ, I say what goes in the whole CHRISTianity thing. Its my friggin' show.

You really are a bit dense aren't you. I'm Jesus Christ, I am the one who gets to judge, I am the Alpha and the Omega. I'm the friggin' lamb o'God.
/me suddenly becomes Christian and prays for a bolt of lightning to be delivered to this moron...

Jesus the homie?

I am the Christ, I say what goes in the whole CHRISTianity thing. Its my friggin' show.
You are flaming the thread. That's all. Post something with some sort of depth.

I am an atheist but I have never tried to convince anyone that God does not exist. On the contrary, I have had numerous Christians trying to prove to me that God does exist.
The only time I mention that I am an atheist is when people post threads such as this or I get accused of being part of the "religious right" on these forums.


Hey now, I do exist, right here posting on the forums. What, you want me to walk my ass through the monitor so you can put your fingers in my nail holes?

/me suddenly becomes Christian and prays for a bolt of lightning to be delivered to this moron...


hey I am allowed to smite upon occasion if provoked, don't you sass the crucified and risen lord... i.e. me.

no-one's questioning your existance, it's simply your obnoxious claims to messiah-hood.

You are flaming the thread. That's all. Post something with some sort of depth.


You just called me a moron, and I'm flaming. For this I died on the cross, for this I rose again from the dead, you humans never fail to disappoint.

"smite if provoked"? "crucified"? crucifixion should have been the perfect provocation. If Jesus God to forgive the people who certainly weren't making his trip any easier, then why would being called a moron serve as provocation.

no-one's questioning your existance, it's simply your obnoxious claims to messiah-hood.


Hey its a scarey thing to be in the presence of a living god. But that's no reason to be rude and call people names my child.

outraged over a forum. 1 word: NERO! look it up.

"smite if provoked"? "crucified"? crucifixion should have been the perfect provocation. If Jesus God to forgive the people who certainly weren't making his trip any easier, then why would being called a moron serve as provocation.


i've gotten cranky in my old age, plus that was all staged for the masses. it did even hurt, what you think a divinity can't control the pain centers of his avatar's mind, come on.

Funny. The desire to puke is supposed to come AFTER being scared.

Funny. The desire to puke is supposed to come AFTER being scared.
puke if you need to, then partake on my body. eat my flesh, and drink my blood and receive immortality...


...eat all you want, i am infinite and yummy

old age?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John 1:1

Jesus has always been old.

puke if you need to, then partake on my body. eat my flesh, and drink my blood and receive immortality...


...eat all you want, i am infinite and yummy

A diet of grape juice and bread doesn't provide me with the needed protein and a diet with only a human's flesh, holy or not, wouldn't provide me with the needed carbohydrate. You don't offer any compromise, do you Jesus?

crackers and wine sead to immortality?

And all these 2,000 years we though the cross was important! oh how stupid we've been!

geez. it's 2:30. I'm going to bed.

A diet of grape juice and bread doesn't provide me with the needed protein and a diet with only a human's flesh, holy or not, wouldn't provide me with the needed carbohydrate. You don't offer any compromise, do you Jesus?


okay granted man doesn't live by the flesh of god alone, but he could...
i got mad powers ya know...

crackers and wine sead to immortality?

And all these 2,000 years we though the cross was important! oh how stupid we've been!
the cross is just a nasty old cross beam on a post, i'm the important part kiddo. don't go all passion of christ on me, the death is only important within the context of the resurrection.

geez. it's 2:30. I'm going to bed.


night night my child

Amazingly, CannibalChrist's blasphemy has managed to annoy a non-Christian...

Amazingly, CannibalChrist's blasphemy has managed to annoy a non-Christian...

Gimmicks can annoy anyone if they're overused, and his gimmick appears to be about 800 posts overused.

Gimmicks can annoy anyone if they're overused, and his gimmick appears to be about 800 posts overused.
I'd say 822 posts overused
cause I figure by the time I post this he will have posted another worthless post

Gimmicks can annoy anyone if they're overused, and his gimmick appears to be about 800 posts overused.


it still amuses me, and that's all that counts...
would you perfer a different flavor of puppet, i have quite a collection... i see you scared your rightwinger away on the gun thread, i have a very nice collection of nazis to choose from... pick your poison...

I'd say 822 posts overused
cause I figure by the time I post this he will have posted another worthless post


who are you humourless whiners l've never run into you lot before and i've been cc almost a year...

it still amuses me, and that's all that counts...
would you perfer a different flavor of puppet, i have quite a collection... i see you scared your rightwinger away on the gun thread, i have a very nice collection of nazis to choose from... pick your poison...
I have an idea, do you have the non-childish, mature, nationstater in your puppet closet?

Amazingly, CannibalChrist's blasphemy has managed to annoy a non-Christian...


okay that made my day :p

who are you humourless whiners l've never run into you lot before and i've been cc almost a year...
It's called "life," something that a dude nailed to a tree wouldn't know a whole lot about...

I have an idea, do you have the non-childish, mature, nationstater in your puppet closet?


naw, i only post as myself on other boards, here its strictly over the top roleplaying... well i do have the northern allegeny, but i never use it anymore, it was my original nation, and the northern allegheny the spelling correction nation but... meh i'm not bringing them out.

It's called "life," something that a dude nailed to a tree wouldn't know a whole lot about...


hey i'm not nailed there anymore....


hey! you mocking me for my handicaps, a man gets a few disfiguring wounds saving humanity from its sins and suddenly its open season on him...

it still amuses me, and that's all that counts...
would you perfer a different flavor of puppet, i have quite a collection... i see you scared your rightwinger away on the gun thread, i have a very nice collection of nazis to choose from... pick your poison...

That's inane and pointless. Why purposefully harrass people with a persona not representative of you on the internet if it's devoid of humour, which honestly, if you've done it more than once, it is.

That's inane and pointless. Why purposefully harrass people with a persona not representative of you on the internet if it's devoid of humour, which honestly, if you've done it more than once, it is.
Because, like I argued before, guys nailed to trees know little about a little thing called "life."

That's inane and pointless. Why purposefully harrass people with a persona not representative of you on the internet if it's devoid of humour, which honestly, if you've done it more than once, it is.


people with a sense of humour seam to like most of my puppets, why are you kids so uptight. meh... this was a mistake talking to you out of character, you're far to dim to be worth the effort..

people with a sense of humour seam to like most of my puppets, why are you kids so uptight. meh... this was a mistake talking to you out of character, you're far to dim to be worth the effort..
Not funny and insultive. Now that is someone I want to laugh at fo' sho'

Not funny and insultive. Now that is someone I want to laugh at fo' sho'


god(dad) you're up tight, maybe not as dim as ff but definitely uptight

No offense to CC, but he is rather over-the-top, like that satire I wrote about a world where is was considered sinful for kids to eat so people used IVs to get the nutrients they needed.

Radical atheism doesn't breed violence, just cynicism.

Tell that to the victims of Stalin, Mao and company.

Tell that to the victims of Stalin, Mao and company.

Don't be ridiculous. Stalin and Mao killed in the name of Marxism, not atheism.

meh, if the choice is between radical atheism and radical religion i go with the atheists every time. at least their books don't ask me to accept talking snakes and ritual cannibalism.

Tell that to the victims of Stalin, Mao and company.

As opposed to the victims of the Crusades?

You can't prove a negative, I'm afraid the onus is on the believer, not the non-believer.

Don't be ridiculous. Stalin and Mao killed in the name of Marxism, not atheism.

Marxism is/was a system believed in by faith: do this and the world will become that... it is a utopian religion of the atheist set of religions, just as christianity is an apocalyptic religion of the theist set of religions.

- Dru

Marxism is/was a system believed in by faith: do this and the world will become that... it is a utopian religion of the atheist set of religions, just as christianity is an apocalyptic religion of the theist set of religions.

- Dru

erm, you CANNOT equate marxism with atheism. it is NOT the utopian vision held by many atheists, and being atheist often leads people farther away from Marxism.

it is a utopian religion of the atheist.

I'm sorry, but atheism is NOT a religion, that's the whole point.

Marxism is/was a system believed in by faith: do this and the world will become that... it is a utopian religion of the atheist set of religions, just as christianity is an apocalyptic religion of the theist set of religions.

- Dru

Nonsense, Marxism advocated economic and political changes to create a fairer [in Marx's view] state. If Marxism is a religion, so is every other political system.

meh, if the choice is between radical atheism and radical religion i go with the atheists every time. at least their books don't ask me to accept talking snakes and ritual cannibalism.

I would rather not have books that rule out the wonderous. Just me I guess.

As opposed to the victims of the Crusades?

As opposed to nothing.

Did you not read Four Fiends' post? The one I quoted? They said theistic religions produce bad stuff and that atheistic ones do not. I corrected them. As opposed to nothing, because theism and atheism are in the same boat.


- Dru

You can't prove a negative, I'm afraid the onus is on the believer, not the non-believer.

What onus?

I would rather not have books that rule out the wonderous. Just me I guess.



hey, fiction is fun. just as long as it is read as such.

besides, if you can't see the wonderous in science then you have my deepest sympathies. the wonder of modern physics, biology, and molecular science can never be equalled by fairy tales about maidens and apples and magic spirits, primarily because the wonder and magesty of science is actually present and accessable every second of every day.

What onus?

That was actually addressing the original post.. he said "prove there is no god" or some thing to that effect. It wasn't directed at you.

What onus?

As the believer, the burden of finding proof lies with you. Seeing as you have no proof, your argument amounts to... nothing.

I'm sorry, but atheism is NOT a religion, that's the whole point.

Nor is theism, or monotheism. So? What's the point? Would you accept theist evangelists more readily if they did not represent a particular brand of theism?

The point as I understood it, of the opening poster, was that evangelical atheists are just as obnoxious as evangelical theists, such as BACs for the most part, also proponents of catholicism, hare krishnas, radical islamists, etc.

And Cannibal Christ, that was hilarious :)

Nonsense, Marxism advocated economic and political changes to create a fairer [in Marx's view] state. If Marxism is a religion, so is every other political system.

Marxism is faith-based... it relies not on the science of economics but on its faith in human nature: guide the proletariat for x years and they will evolve into anarchosyndicatalists, and your successors in guiding them will let themselves be made redundant. And paradise will result. It is a humanistic faith system that also holds central the concept that belief in the spiritual world is a falsehood. It is a religion in the subset of atheist humanism.

- Dru

Nor is theism, or monotheism. So? What's the point? Would you accept theist evangelists more readily if they did not represent a particular brand of theism?

No, my only point was that the atheist does not have the burden of proof, the believer does.. as one can't prove a negative. Just like you can believe that invisible fairies are circling your head.. I don't believe it.. the burden would be on you to prove it.

Now, not that any one has any thing to prove.. I'm just saying the atheist seems to have the stronger argument then the believer. However, believe as you wish.. I personally don't care what people wish to believe. I simply don't, nor do I shove it down people's throats. I will respond to a thread on the topic, or if one wishes to bring up religion.. if they don't, then I don't say a word. When some one opens a thread on religion, then people will and do post their opinions, I suppose that is the whole point..

Although as a footnote, I can't recall ever being woken on a Sunday morning by an atheist knocking at my door wanting to share the word of no god.. :D

hey, fiction is fun. just as long as it is read as such.

besides, if you can't see the wonderous in science then you have my deepest sympathies. the wonder of modern physics, biology, and molecular science can never be equalled by fairy tales about maidens and apples and magic spirits, primarily because the wonder and magesty of science is actually present and accessable every second of every day.

Fiction is fun and fact is fascinating and theory is quite enthralling but I do not need books to tell me whether or not I can believe in things that you do not. I have a degree in physics as well as an abundance of experience in metaphysics. I could of course quote the Bard now, Horatio, but I won't bother. But put all the faith you want into science, while I only put faith into it as a system of defining the most likely explaination for observable phenomenon. Which is in fact what it is and all that it is. OTOH Scientificism is a religion, a faith based system that holds the conclusions of science as being unquestionable truths.

Fiction is fun and fact is fascinating and theory is quite enthralling but I do not need books to tell me whether or not I can believe in things that you do not. I have a degree in physics as well as an abundance of experience in metaphysics. I could of course quote the Bard now, Horatio, but I won't bother. But put all the faith you want into science, while I only put faith into it as a system of defining the most likely explaination for observable phenomenon. Which is in fact what it is and all that it is. OTOH Scientificism is a religion, a faith based system that holds the conclusions of science as being unquestionable truths.

having a degree in physics as you do, i am baffled by your assertion that science is a faith-based system that holds its conclusions as unquestionable truths, when that in fact is precisely what the definition of a scientist forbids. scientists have no problem understanding the concept of THEORY, and the concept that our limited perceptions yield limited understandings that will evolve as our measurement scales and perceptive tools evolve.

for some reason, the people who tend to have the biggest problem embracing this basic principle are the people who claim to be scientists yet (somehow) also cling to superstitions. perhaps contradiction simply comes too easy to such people, and they cannot embrace a system that eliminates such contradiction.

As the believer, the burden of finding proof lies with you. Seeing as you have no proof, your argument amounts to... nothing.

What arguments? Have I ever taken a position, other than labelling my faith, and in other threads? The position I took was that Four Fiend's statement was wrong. Many millions have been murdered by those acting on the beliefs of communism, which is a self-professedly atheistic system of faith based action for the purposes of creating an earthly paradise. That's the only thing I have said, at least here, other than expostulating on it and answering specific comments directed at my posts. I have not said that there is or that there is not a God. Why is there onus on me or anyone else who has not to do so?

This thread was obviously started in response to another thread in which it has been stated in its founding that there is no God and that anyone with a brain larger than that of a... hamster? knows that. The founder of this thread expressed ire at the belligerent actions of such atheistic evangelists, and it was his/er intention that the discussion be about that.

Communism btw also has the stated goal of converting the world to its ways, and overthrowing or rendering redundant all religions, which it specifically premises as being false and being tools of oppression.

Communism tells people what the answers are to spiritual questions. Therefor it is a religion.

But for those who still say otherwise, tell me or remind me if I have forgotten... what are your positions on the "atheism is a religion" or "...a religious belief" question? Because it's been gone over here before again and again so if it just comes down to that. let's just agree to disagree and save ourselves from it just this once...

- Dru

. . .

I'm just saying the atheist seems to have the stronger argument then the believer.
. . .


The only argument they have is "I don't believe it if I haven't seen it". Well, I have seen it. It just requires a truly open mind and a willingness to look.

...as a footnote, I can't recall ever being woken on a Sunday morning by an atheist knocking at my door wanting to share the word of no god.. :D

Nor I suspect have you had someone's jackboots kick in your door on a sunday morning because you and your friends were gathered discussing how there is a God.

- Dru

having a degree in physics as you do, i am baffled by your assertion that science is a faith-based system that holds its conclusions as unquestionable truths, when that in fact is precisely what the definition of a scientist forbids. scientists have no problem understanding the concept of THEORY, and the concept that our limited perceptions yield limited understandings that will evolve as our measurement scales and perceptive tools evolve.

for some reason, the people who tend to have the biggest problem embracing this basic principle are the people who claim to be scientists yet (somehow) also cling to superstitions. perhaps contradiction simply comes too easy to such people, and they cannot embrace a system that eliminates such contradiction.

I'm gonna be rude and stop reading after your first sentance :D Read what I said again. SCIENTIFICISM is a religion, the belief that the conclusions of science are unquestionable truths. SCIENCE is a system of defining the most likely explainations of observable phenomenon.

- Dru

Yup :D I was right to think I could stop reading there... hehehe... you had a faulty premise my friend.

I'm gonna be rude and stop reading after your first sentance :D Read what I said again. SCIENTIFICISM is a religion, the belief that the conclusions of science are unquestionable truths. SCIENCE is a system of defining the most likely explainations of observable phenomenon.

- Dru

fair enough, then i will not do you the courtesy of reading beyond yours.

BTW I added a line I'd forgotten in post #77

Oh, please? :) I read yours... eventually... :D

The only argument they have is "I don't believe it if I haven't seen it". Well, I have seen it. It just requires a truly open mind and a willingness to look.

Lay off the drugs dude..:P

If you have such an open mind, you would think you could consider other's points of view, Druthulhu.

Many millions have been murdered by those acting on the beliefs of communism, which is a self-professedly atheistic system of faith based action for the purposes of creating an earthly paradise.

False in a great many ways.

>Communism's objective is not the overly religious-toned 'creation of an earthly paradise,' it's the creation of a just system of economics and politics [whether that system ios even possible is not a matter for this debate]. Since people will still have to work, it would not be any kind of paradise I would envision.

>Atheism in communism was at best a minor footnote:
Karl Marx predicted that religion would fall by the wayside with the advent of the Age of Reason. To be fair, he was hardly alone in this belief, and he didn't explicitly advocate the forcible elimination of religion.

>Communism is a system of economics, not a system of faith. It makes no demands of irrational belief in it's adherants, it simply sets down a set of rules for a system. In fact:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Is that something that requires any kind of 'faith?'

If you have such an open mind, you would think you could consider other's points of view, Druthulhu.

I do consider other's points of view, and quite often. I considered that communism is not a religion, for example, but no one has convinced me of that other than pointing out that it is a political philosophy, which it is also.

False in a great many ways.

>Communism's objective is not the overly religious-toned 'creation of an earthly paradise,' it's the creation of a just system of economics and politics [whether that system ios even possible is not a matter for this debate]. Since people will still have to work, it would not be any kind of paradise I would envision.

>Atheism in communism was at best a minor footnote:


>Communism is a system of economics, not a system of faith. It makes no demands of irrational belief in it's adherants, it simply sets down a set of rules for a system. In fact:



Is that something that requires any kind of 'faith?'


Faith in the success in the revolution of the proletariat to bring about the Age of Reason, or the Workers' Paradise, which is that religion's phraseology for "Heaven on Earth", which they would never of course call it.

Faith in the success in the revolution of the proletariat to bring about the Age of Reason, or the Workers' Paradise, which is that religions phraseology for "Heaven on Earth", which they would never of course call it.

In other words, if you call a just system of government 'heaven on earth' it sounds religious? Wow, that's...Ridiculous.

When you turn the key in your car, you have faith your car will start. It is not, however, reasonable to call starting your car a religion.

In other words, if you call a just system of government 'heaven on earth' it sounds religious? Wow, that's...Ridiculous.

When you turn the key in your car, you have faith your car will start. It is not, however, reasonable to call starting your car a religion.

Well, yes... calling it "heaven" makes it sound more religious, which is why Marx called it an "Age of Reason" (are the caps his?) and marxists have long called it "the worker's paradise". Atheists are well known for refusing to admit the religious nature of their beliefs. And yes, if I went to paradise and there was nothing constructive and needed to do, it wouldn't seem very paradicial to me.

When I turn the key of my car I expect it to start based on past experience. If I expected it to drive me to somewhere I had never been and did not know the way to, such as world-wide economic justice, that would take an awful lot of faith.



- Dru

In other words, if you call a just system of government 'heaven on earth' it sounds religious? Wow, that's...Ridiculous.

When you turn the key in your car, you have faith your car will start. It is not, however, reasonable to call starting your car a religion.
Haha!

OK before we go any further: IS ATHEISM A RELIGION OR A RELIGIOUS BELIEF?

By this I mean "Atheism" as Athe - Ism, that is, the positive believe in the absence of God/gods, rather than A - Theism, the lack of belief in God/gods.

If your answer is no... please... there is no point in continuing and minutiating that argument, which has been had to death in these forums, into the question of whether communism is.

Well, yes... calling it "heaven" makes it sound more religious, which is why Marx called it an "Age of Reason" (are the caps his?) and marxists have long called it "the worker's paradise". Atheists are well known for refusing to admit the religious nature of their beliefs.

The 'age of reason' was a common concept in Marx's time, that science would prove everything and sweep away the need for religion. The fact that he believed it would happen has nothing much to do with communism; Marx believe it was inevitable and did not advocate any action regarding it.

And atheism isn't a religion, which is why atheists don't tend to admit they're religious.

When I turn the key of my car I expect it to start based on past experience. If I expected it to drive me to somewhere I had never been and did not know the way to, such as world-wide economic justice, that would take an awful lot of faith.

Extended anology fallacy. Cars don't tend to drive to economic systems; the point is you cannot be aware of the functionality or lack thereof of your engine and thus turning the key without checking the engine first is an act of faith, albeit a small one. You don't even know the engine is there unless you check under the bonnet first.

OK let's put it this way:

Four Fiends wrote that Atheism has never caused atrocities.

Read about the people who got caught practicing religious meetings in the privacy of their own homes behind the iron curtain, and how they got sent to the gulags for this. Read about how the chinese soldiers kicked in the heads of budhist monks, pacifists, when they took over Tibet. Tell me that atheism has not been the cause of atrocities? I give you the history of communism. Want to say that it's not a religion? Fine. BUT... Tell me that communism is not atheistic? Tell me that atheists never went on killing sprees for what they believe vis a vis God/n-God?

No.

Well yes, go ahead and tell me that... but you'll still be wrong.

OK let's put it this way:

Four Fiends wrote that Atheism has never casued atrocities.

Read about the people who got caught practicing religious meetings in the privacy of their own homes behind the iron curtain, and how they got sent to the gulags for this. Read about how the chinese soldiers kicked in the heads of budhist monks, pacifists, when they took over Tibet. Tell me that atheism has not been the cause of atrocities? I give you the history of communism. Want to say that it's not a religion? Fine. BUT... Tell me that communism is not atheistic? Tell me that atheists never went on killing sprees for what they believe vis a vis God/n-God?

No.

Well yes, go ahead and tell me that... but you'll still be wrong.

Find me an atheist scripture that demands any of these actions. Oh wait, you can't, because atheism is based solely on the single statement that there is no god or gods and makes no other demands. Mao and Stalin also believed that 1+1=2, would you therefore state that they murdered in the name of maths?

OK before we go any further: IS ATHEISM A RELIGION OR A RELIGIOUS BELIEF?

By this I mean "Atheism" as Athe - Ism, that is, the positive believe in the absence of God/gods, rather than A - Theism, the lack of belief in God/gods.

If your answer is no... please... there is no point in continuing and minutiating that argument, which has been had to death in these forums, into the question of whether communism is.

depends on the person

since athiesm isnt a codified system of ideas (as chrisitianity is) there is no consensus of what is needed to be an atheist.

some people are very religious in their atheism. they spend lots of time railing against the god they dont believe exist

some people have no religious component to their lives. for them atheism isnt a belief system so much as a lack of having any such ideas in their lives. they dont reject god any more than they reject bigfoot, it just isnt a factor.

Find me an atheist scripture that demands any of these actions. Oh wait, you can't, because atheism is based solely on the single statement that there is no god or gods and makes no other demands. Mao and Stalin also believed that 1+1=2, would you therefore state that they murdered in the name of maths?

No. But those specific people were imprisoned and murdered because of the Marxist and Maoist governments' opposition to religion. Or are you aware of anyother motivation for these atrocities?

BTW, find me a scripture that demanded the spanish inquistion or the crusades.

No better... let me just ask you this: was Four Fiends right or wrong?

depends on the person

since athiesm isnt a codified system of ideas (as chrisitianity is) there is no consensus of what is needed to be an atheist.

some people are very religious in their atheism. they spend lots of time railing against the god they dont believe exist

some people have no religious component to their lives. for them atheism isnt a belief system so much as a lack of having any such ideas in their lives. they dont reject god any more than they reject bigfoot, it just isnt a factor.

Good. THANK you!!! :)

Anyway the breakdown of that in the other threads has always seemed to be that just about everyone who is NOT an atheist evangelist acknowledges that the latter is perhaps better called "agnostic" or "soft atheist" or something...

No. But those specific people were imprisoned and murdered because of the Marxist and Maoist governments' opposition to religion. Or are you aware of anyother motivation for these atrocities?

So you admit they were murdered for opposing governments? You want a bandage for your foot? That's a nasty gunshot wound.

BTW, find me a scripture that demanded the spanish inquistion

Exodus 22:18 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'

Marxism is faith-based... it relies not on the science of economics but on its faith in human nature: guide the proletariat for x years and they will evolve into anarchosyndicatalists, and your successors in guiding them will let themselves be made redundant. And paradise will result. It is a humanistic faith system that also holds central the concept that belief in the spiritual world is a falsehood. It is a religion in the subset of atheist humanism.

- Dru
and that seems to me to be the central falacy of communism.

that marx could predict the future.

that humanity was bound to end up in communism. what BS. in that way it is as "religious" as any fundamentalist christian waiting for the rapture.

the faith that you can change human nature or that you can predict that it will evolve in a certain way is ridiculous.

So you admit they were murdered for opposing governments? You want a bandage for your foot? That's a nasty gunshot wound.

Yes it seems we both now admit that they were murdered for opposing the government's laws requiring them not to practice religion... well, plus Tibet was invaded and the chinese wanted to absolutely crush tibetan budhism, because they were *drumroll* atheists. Just like the victims of the spanish inquisiton were also murdered for having spiritual beliefs different from their government, and those of the crusades from their invaders.

I think you might be mistaking your foot for mine.

Exodus 22:18 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'

Learn Hebrew, my friend. The word is "poisoner". Oh and btw the formost targets of the inquisition were relapsed moronni, anscestoral/closet jews who wished to reconvert. Even the scriptural orders to drive forth and destroy the canaanites cannot be compared to that.



- Dru

and that seems to me to be the central falacy of communism.

that marx could predict the future.

that humanity was bound to end up in communism. what BS. in that way it is as "religious" as any fundamentalist christian waiting for the rapture.

the faith that you can change human nature or that you can predict that it will evolve in a certain way is ridiculous.

^5

Not all atheists annoy the hell out of me, I'll start off with that. I don't know any friends of mine yet around me that are atheists....but that's not my point.

My point is that you friggin radical atheists are no better than radical Christians, Islamics, or.....*flips through dictionary* ....gays? *shrugs*

In almost every, I do mean every and almost, I see a radical atheist starting a thread with the words "God is non-existant, case closed."

Well ya know what? Kiss my ass that has the words "STFU" painted on it with your mother's milk goddammit! You have no more proof that there is no God than I have proof there is God. You wanna tell me how a speck of matter that caused the big bang came into existance? You wanna tell me how whatever caused that matter came into existance? You wanna tell me how THAT came into existance?

Didn't think so.


I'm sorry to be unable to distinguish the good atheists from the idiotic ones...but I just gotta let off some steam...


So...anyone else saw I, Robot?

*fighting the urge to suggest that you turn the other cheek*

yeah militant athiests are annoying. even to me. just as the fringe of any group is. the best thing to do is smile and dismiss them. if you are interested in a discussion with an athiest, talk to the quiet person in the corner.

but why should a "there is no god" post bug you so very much? surely it doesnt in anyway make you question your own belief. lots of people dont beileve in god. it bugs ME because there is no true dialog in any of those threads, just people yelling back and forth at each other.

im gonna go to the dollar show on tuesday. im thinking that to enjoy it, you have to forget all you know about isaac asimov. i always enjoy will smith so its probably worth a buck and 2 hours of my time.

Yes it seems we both now admit that they were murdered for opposing the government's laws requiring them not to practice religion...

No, they were murdered for opposing the government's rules. What those rules were is largely irrelevant. Stalin also murdered homosexuals and gypsies, can that also be defined as being because of your strawman version of atheism?

Learn Hebrew, my friend. The word is "poisoner". Oh and btw the formost targets of the inquisition were relapsed moronni, anscestoral/closet jews who wished to reconvert. Even the scriptural orders to drive forth and destroy the canaanites cannot be compared to that.

So the fact the the inquisition murdered millions of innocent women after hideously torturing them to extract confessions of their 'guilt' is excused by the fact that they were using a bad translation? Why then isn't the execution of religious types by Marxist nations excused by the fact that Marx never demanded it?

No, they were murdered for opposing the government's rules. What those rules were is largely irrelevant. Stalin also murdered homosexuals and gypsies, can that also be defined as being because of your strawman version of atheism?



So the fact the the inquisition murdered millions of innocent women after hideously torturing them to extract confessions of their 'guilt' is excused by the fact that they were using a bad translation? Why then isn't the execution of religious types by Marxist nations excused by the fact that Marx never demanded it?

WHO SAID FUCK-ALL ABOUT EXCUSING ANYTHING?????

*throws up his hands in disgust*

I am going to bed...

Theism through the various systems under its umbrella has killed many people.

Atheism through the various systems under its umbrella has killed many people.

This is all I am saying.

Learn to read what you respond to please.





*goes to bed*

good night, dru

WHO SAID FUCK-ALL ABOUT EXCUSING ANYTHING?????

You appeared to be claiming that because the witch hunts were based on a mistranslation / misinterpretation they were somehow a moot point. If that wasn't your claim, what were you saying?

Theism through the various systems under its umbrella has killed many people.

Atheism through the various systems under its umbrella has killed many people.

The difference being that theistic systems have used direct statements from their texts to justify their massacres whereas systems like communism have lumped religious types in with other 'subversives' opposing their government's interests. In other words, they were just cutting down on their de facto enemies, not seeking to 'further' atheism or do as it demanded. As you yourself pointed out, they would murder their enemies regardless of what their religion was or indeed whether they were atheists themselves.

That's a pretty big difference. Atheism has killed nobody because atheism does not make any proclaimations that you should kill anyone, it's the singular belief that there is no god. It makes no other demands whatsoever.

As an atheist, I resent the blind hate of atheists I see in this topic, but I regret painfully the fact that more prevalent than that is the statement that atheism is 'better' than religion - every school of religious thought - whether it indicatesd belief in a religion or no belief at all - has given way to radicals who killed people. Dictators like Stalin and Mao should not be considered to be murdering people because of their religion, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been atheists who killed due to religion on a far smaller scale.

The bottom line is this line - I can't remember where I quoted it from, but it isn't of my own creation: "What if it is you who are wrong?"

As an atheist, I resent the blind hate of atheists I see in this topic, but I regret painfully the fact that more prevalent than that is the statement that atheism is 'better' than religion - every school of religious thought - whether it indicatesd belief in a religion or no belief at all - has given way to radicals who killed people. Dictators like Stalin and Mao should not be considered to be murdering people because of their religion, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been atheists who killed due to religion on a far smaller scale.

The bottom line is this line - I can't remember where I quoted it from, but it isn't of my own creation: "What if it is you who are wrong?"

it doesn't matter if I'm wrong

my right to belive what I want and express those beliefs is being threatened

we'll find out about the right and wrong part latter anyway

I'm actually a little tired of this merry-go-round, this little coda that happens after the religous evangelists get creamed. (Everyone knows the routine, some evangelist posts something retarded like "Evolution, Science or Fiction" or "God loves wether you like it or not," or some other nonsense. The atheists respond, make thier own threads and then some christian starts whining, "Why are you picking on us...." Shutup. Nahhh. That's not realistic. It's like trying to stop the seasons, the pattern will always happen. I have little energy for originality, so I'll compile instead.
This made me laugh:
http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/herholy.gif
Invisible Pink Unicorn, the symbol of atheism.

There's WS Burroughs issues (http://mv.lycaeum.org/M2/ogu.html) on the one god universe.

I have to give up on my biggy, because I can't find it. It was an article a friend sent me, the gist of which is ladeling me with the notion that I can't disprove your god is the same as ladelling you with the notion that you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting Pluto (or my personal favorite, you can't prove I don't have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey that follows me around and gives me advice.

Not that any of this will stop the merry go round. But if there are people wondering why atheists are starting to feel the need to defend themselves and their point of view, I give you this from George H.W. Bush:
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Well ya know what? Kiss my ass that has the words "STFU" painted on it with your mother's milk goddammit! You have no more proof that there is no God

No one has to disprove the unproven, m'laddio.

than I have proof there is God. You wanna tell me how a speck of matter that caused the big bang came into existance?

Mayhaps you should EDUCATE YOURSELF as to modern cosmological thought.

Until then, STFU.

You guys are funny.

FACT: there's no proof against or for God.

....So how are you even arguing about it? The existance of a/several diety(ies) cannot be proven OR disproven.

Therefore, to each his or her own ;)

You guys are funny.

FACT: there's no proof against or for God.

....So how are you even arguing about it? The existance of a/several diety(ies) cannot be proven OR disproven.

Therefore, to each his or her own ;)

i don't know if i agree with your conclusion. i agree that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, but doesn't that mean that all people who base their beliefs on assertions of one or the other are WRONG? i mean, if you actually believe God can't be proven or disproven then the only honest stance is agnosticism, and both belief in God and disbelief are incorrect systems of thought.

therefore, it's not whether or not God exists that we should be debating, since we can never answer that, but whether or not we should worship the possibility of God in the absence of any evidence.

The thing is, you CAN argue against most things that have no evidence backing it up.

It is impossible for a human being to be Santa Claus, and evidence of a large multitude pf parents can prove that he does not, in this day and age and to the degree in which he is believed, exist.



However, if someone says "I believe a giant pink unicorn created all life," then the only difference between this and basic diesm/monotheism is a physical representation of the diety.


The interesting thing about science, is that it proves itself wrong. Numbers both must and at the same time cannot be infinite. If you shoot an arrow at a tree, it must first travel half that distance in order to reach the tree. However, if numbers are infinite, it will continuously be travelling that distance, and will never actually strike the tree.

Only, if you attempt this experiment, it obviously DOES hit the tree. What happened?



And actually, you're last sentance is pretty much correct. In the abscence of all evidence both for and against something, should you have faith that it exists?

The thing is, you CAN argue against most things that have no evidence backing it up.

It is impossible for a human being to be Santa Claus, and evidence of a large multitude pf parents can prove that he does not, in this day and age and to the degree in which he is believed, exist.



However, if someone says "I believe a giant pink unicorn created all life," then the only difference between this and basic diesm/monotheism is a physical representation of the diety.


The interesting thing about science, is that it proves itself wrong. Numbers both must and at the same time cannot be infinite. If you shoot an arrow at a tree, it must first travel half that distance in order to reach the tree. However, if numbers are infinite, it will continuously be travelling that distance, and will never actually strike the tree.

Only, if you attempt this experiment, it obviously DOES hit the tree. What happened?



And actually, you're last sentance is pretty much correct. In the abscence of all evidence both for and against something, should you have faith that it exists?

Back from work and going back to bed soon... Goed I must congratulate you on your previous post, which Bottle has either failed to or refused to understand. Bottle, what Goed is saying is that there is indeed no proof either way, but why do you say that his(?) conclusion is wrong? His conclusion is simply that it is up to each to decide what if anything to believe. That is wrong how? But you seem to draw, and apparently ascribe to him, the conclusion that we pre force MUST choose agnosticism. HE * NEVER * SAID * THAT ! ! ! ...nor anything that would lead most people to conclude that he meant anything but that we are all free to choose and that there is no proof of who if anyone is right or wrong. HOW ON EARTH WAS HIS CONCLUSION WRONG???

This illustrates some problems I have noticed since this thread began:

a) atheist evangelicals, like all evangelical, seem to think that there is an onus on all people to take a position. STFU.

b) atheist evangelicals, like all evangelicals, seem to think that their position is the only one that can possibly be right. GOYBBS.

c) atheist evangelicals, in particular, seem to think they have more in the way of proof in terms of their answers to questions that they, at the same time, will at least usually admit cannot be proven. WTF?

d) certain posters on this thread have a bad habit of seeing things and perceiving positions, in the posts of others, that are simply not there at all, and usually that can barely even be infered. I might under different circumstances suspect that this is a deliberately sophistic attempt to divert the topic, subvert the opposition's position, etc., but in this case it seems more likely that a surfeit of emotional reaction is causing them an impairment in their reading comprehension abilities.

But Goed, I have to say... the Arrow "Paradox" is just a piece of crap put forth (originally, not that this is your agenda) to look deep and to appear to present a wierd and counterintuitive bit of science-like information. But look at what it's saying:

If you look at snapshots of physical positions at intervals of time that are successively halved in duration, the arrow will be shown to move half the remaining way at each snapshot, and will never be shown arriving at the target. SO? You have a constant velocity (more/less, discounting gravity, etc.) and you are halvong the intervals of time, so you are also halving the intervals of distance. All this really says is that if you slow down time (which we cannot do, at least appreciably at these sublight speeds) by halflifes, time will never actually stop but it will not carry on into the future past a certain point either. BFD. It means nothing in the real world. It only means that if you are in the perspective of an observer who is suffering such a temporal collapse, you will never see the arrow hit the target. So tell me something germaine to the real world?

OK sleep is coming... I will go further into Marx and hos views on religion, and their results, (hopefully) tomorrow. But look...

Communist governments are founded on a political philosophy that incorporates the affirmative belief in the absence of diety. Communist governments have declared those who practice religion to be enemies of the state. When finding (or conquering, as in the case of Tibet) such people, they have sentenced them to gulags, asylums, and death, as well as simply killed them outright.

These people may have been declared enemies of the state by the communist governments, but the ONLY reason for declaring them that, in these cases, is because of those GOVERNMENTS' AGENDAS OF IMPOSING ATHEISM ON ALL OF THEIR CITIZENS. Yes I am yelling... is it getting through yet?

The inquisition and crusades were also participated in by the state. The government of spain was loyal to the teachings and beliefs catholicism, just as the government of the u.s.s.r. was loyal to the teachings and beliefs of atheism. The maronni and other "heretics" were enemies of the church/state government of spain, just as the monks were enemies of the atheism/state govenment of china.

If you don't get it yet, try this: if Mao had been a buddhist, do you think the chinese troops would have slaughtered those monks? Or, if the monks had not been monks, just tibetins with no religious position?



...off to bed...

- Dru

OK I lied...

OK just suppose... a little alternate timestream speculation here... If the King of Spain had said

"It is henceforth illegal to be jewish in this kingdom, and all who practice judaism in spain are enemies of the state."

...and proceded to arrest abuse and murder all the jews his forces could find... THAT'S not religious oppression, is it? I mean, he's the state, and he has decided that jews are his enemies. Does the fact that he is catholic mean that it's religious in nature? Oh no. The Pope didn't tell him to say it, and nothing in scriptures has ANYthing positive to say in terms of kings killing off jews just for being jewish.

So... if the state had done the inquisition, it's not religious persecution.

NOW, BACK TO THE REAL WORLD...

Also, the halocaust wasn't religious persecution, now was it? Certainly it had its racial aspects, as catholic germans had largely dispised jews for centuries, but the Third Reich was not really catholic and was, if anything, "thule" at its head (whatever that means). And it was all about the blood, not the books. So nothing religious about that, right?

And anyway the MOTIVE of the inquisition, many have said, was for the church and state to strip the assets of wealthy jewish families. So hey, most of them weren't even murdered because they were jews. They were murdered because they were rich, it's just that they were vulnerable because they were jews. So it wasn't religious persecution at all, I guess. The persecutors just HAPPENED to be priests, just like the secret police just happened to be party members and good sons of mother Russia and the glorious Soviet Republic... i.e., atheists, or at least well deep in the closet.

You guys are doing real good in developing your religion. You have the art of seeking the moral highground through sheer sophistry down to an art well enough to fool even... well... you.



- Mean Sleepy Dru

SARCASM ALERT HAS ENDED - if real sarcasm had been in use, you would not have been warned.

The arrow thing shows that sometimes, science just makes life more of a bugger to deal with :p

Look at it mathematically.

Let's say the distance was 100 yards.

To reach the tree, the arrow must first travel half it's distance: arrow 50 tree

Then, it must do the same: arrow 25 tree

However, if numbers are indeed infinate, there will always be a space between the arrow and the tree, because there will always be a number that needs to be divided in half once more. It doesn't matter what velocity, because there will *always* be a new number that needs to be divided. This is, of course, on the assumption that numbers are infinate.

The arrow thing shows that sometimes, science just makes life more of a bugger to deal with :p

Look at it mathematically.

Let's say the distance was 100 yards.

To reach the tree, the arrow must first travel half it's distance: arrow 50 tree

Then, it must do the same: arrow 25 tree

However, if numbers are indeed infinate, there will always be a space between the arrow and the tree, because there will always be a number that needs to be divided in half once more. It doesn't matter what velocity, because there will *always* be a new number that needs to be divided. This is, of course, on the assumption that numbers are infinate.

The problem with your mathematical proof is in the phrase; 'To Reach the Tree'. If, indeed, the arrow never reaches the tree, then it is not doing what is necessary to reach it, is it?

The arrow thing shows that sometimes, science just makes life more of a bugger to deal with :p

Look at it mathematically.

Let's say the distance was 100 yards.

To reach the tree, the arrow must first travel half it's distance: arrow 50 tree

Then, it must do the same: arrow 25 tree

However, if numbers are indeed infinate, there will always be a space between the arrow and the tree, because there will always be a number that needs to be divided in half once more. It doesn't matter what velocity, because there will *always* be a new number that needs to be divided. This is, of course, on the assumption that numbers are infinate.

Yes but YOU have decided to look only at those numbers in the sequence that you have selected, and you have decided that you will (as if you could) look at them until they run out, which they never will. All you are really saying is that you can define an infinite amount of numbers between any two points in space &/or time. What's really so wierd about that? The arrow adds drama, but that drama only clouds the issues.

GRR. ARRGH.

What, seriously? The point is that one was doing what it did because of explict teachings of religion and the other was trying to eliminate threats to it's government and wasn't even pretending this was as part of some great 'teaching' demanded by atheism.

Stalin and Mao killed people for opposing them, not atheism.

Back from work and going back to bed soon... Goed I must congratulate you on your previous post, which Bottle has either failed to or refused to understand. Bottle, what Goed is saying is that there is indeed no proof either way, but why do you say that his(?) conclusion is wrong? His conclusion is simply that it is up to each to decide what if anything to believe. That is wrong how? But you seem to draw, and apparently ascribe to him, the conclusion that we pre force MUST choose agnosticism. HE * NEVER * SAID * THAT ! ! ! ...nor anything that would lead most people to conclude that he meant anything but that we are all free to choose and that there is no proof of who if anyone is right or wrong. HOW ON EARTH WAS HIS CONCLUSION WRONG???


erm, you seem to have totally misread me. i wasn't insisting that my proposed conclusion was right, simply posing it as a situation for logical consideration. if we cannot prove or disprove God, then is it right for us to encourage or endorse people's decision to worship God anyway? people who believe in invisible tigers who surround us and secretly control us with mind rays are ruled insane by our society, yet people who believe in God are not even though there is no more evidence for their belief than the first...is that reasonable? if we believe that invisible-tiger-worship is unhealthy then why do we not hold God-worship to the same standard?

if one really does believe that there is no proof either way of God's existence then how can one be anything but agnostic? if you have no way of knowing the existence of God then you also have no way to know His nature, and therefore there is no logical way to select which of the many Gods to worship. however, since you have no conclusive proof that there ISN'T a God, you cannot take the firm stance of disbelief. therefore, if you really believe there is no proof either way, don't you have to end up agnostic?

i never claimed that Goed made this claim, i was extending his point to another possible conclusion. please read more carefully and contain your emotion long enough to use your reading comprehension skills. if you would like to address my points that is fine, but if not then feel free to not reply.

...just as the government of the u.s.s.r. was loyal to the teachings and beliefs of atheism.

There are no 'teachings and beliefs' of atheism, you idiot.

What, seriously? The point is that one was doing what it did because of explict teachings of religion and the other was trying to eliminate threats to it's government and wasn't even pretending this was as part of some great 'teaching' demanded by atheism.

Stalin and Mao killed people for opposing them, not atheism.

And the inquisition killed people because they could take their money, not because they disagreed with their religion. The people the communists killed "opposed their governement" ONLY in that they refused to act like atheists, and your defence of atheism, saying it bares no responsibility for this, is blatent and shallow sophistry.

But hey, "religion bad, atheism good", right? As long as you can work the definitions to make it appear (which it frankly does not) that it had nothing to do with atheism, you can claim moral superiority. GRR ArGH indeed.



- Dru

You guys are funny.

FACT: there's no proof against or for God.

....So how are you even arguing about it? The existance of a/several diety(ies) cannot be proven OR disproven.

Therefore, to each his or her own ;)

Bottle

His conclusion was only this "to each his or her own". Can you NOW tell me why you disagree with that conclusion?

There are no 'teachings and beliefs' of atheism, you idiot.

Really? So who were Nietzche? Rand? Sartre? Et Cetera? Well they didn't exactly call themselves rabbis, but it seems to me that they taught atheism in their writings. And nobody ever called those writings "holy". So? They were atheists, of course no one calls their works "holy". And are you saying atheists have no beliefs? Don't they belief that God is a myth?

...you idiot.

Bottle -

You seem somewhat reasonable, so if the frustration that I feel for that idiot up there has splashed over onto you, I apologize.

But it still seems to me that, in terms of what you said about Goed's post, you are proving my point that evangelicals, including evangelical atheists, seem to think that there is an onus on everyone to take a position.

There isn't. "To each his own" is in fact the best conclusion there is.

- Dru

I think I've read this thread somewhere else, but maybe I'm confusing it with another very, very, very similar thread. Anyway . . .
Can someone give me a definition of "stuffing a viewpoint down someone's throat"? What is it about the presentation of a belief system that makes it an exercise in throat-stuffing?
Is it the extensive use of CAPITAL LETTERS or the unwarranted use of exclamation points!!!!!!!?
Is it the presence of mere repetition without the consideration of questions and challenges which have been raised?

Or is it that the reader disagrees with the poster?

None of the rhetorical techniques or abuses of punctuation used here can be considered brainwashing, and if you read and post on a thread about religion, or God, or any number of other subjects (abortion springs to mind), you are almost certain to get offended occasionally if you actually hold a position on the topic in question.

I think I've read this thread somewhere else, but maybe I'm confusing it with another very, very, very similar thread. Anyway . . .
Can someone give me a definition of "stuffing a viewpoint down someone's throat"? What is it about the presentation of a belief system that makes it an exercise in throat-stuffing?
Is it the extensive use of CAPITAL LETTERS or the unwarranted use of exclamation points!!!!!!!?
Is it the presence of mere repetition without the consideration of questions and challenges which have been raised?

Or is it that the reader disagrees with the poster?

None of the rhetorical techniques or abuses of punctuation used here can be considered brainwashing, and if you read and post on a thread about religion, or God, or any number of other subjects (abortion springs to mind), you are almost certain to get offended occasionally if you actually hold a position on the topic in question.

I think for a good definition you should examine the example provided by the initiator of this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340200

And your comment about repitition of position without consideration of counterpoints is very apt in this thread that we are in, particularly in GMC's responses to my points. However, he would no doubt say that your point applies more to me... ahh well... GRR ARRGH and all that...

- Dru

I think for a good definition you should examine the example provided by the initiator of this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340200

And your comment about repitition of position without consideration of counterpoints is very apt in this thread that we are in, particularly in GMC's responses to my points. However, he would no doubt say that your point applies more to me... ahh well... GRR ARRGH and all that...

- Dru

Yeah, but the kid later said that he was only joking, that he was just flamebaiting (I think I'm using this term correctly, but please correct if not), and I don't consider any argument that confused to be direct enough to be heading down my throat.

And yeah, isn't it easier to see the poor rhetorical technique of another than of oneself?

I didn't bother to schlogg very far into that flame bait myself so I'll take your word for it, but basically in answer to your question, the point is people like that... serious ones, and as far as I'm concerned ones who claim to be just asshole trolls when the heat comes onto them as well.

Just cause I'm kinda new to netiquette, could someone define the terms flame, flamebait, and troll for me? I'm pretty clear on the concept of spam (Lovely spam! Lov-er-ly spam! Spam spam spam spam/Spam spam spam spam), but I'm guessing a bit on the three listed.

Just cause I'm kinda new to netiquette, could someone define the terms flame, flamebait, and troll for me? I'm pretty clear on the concept of spam (Lovely spam! Lov-er-ly spam! Spam spam spam spam/Spam spam spam spam), but I'm guessing a bit on the three listed.

flame = abusive posts

flame bait = the practice of posting things designed to provoke abuse

troll = a poster with nothing significant to offer other than flames &/or flame bait

Got it, thanks!

[QUOTE=Colodia]

Well ya know what? Kiss my ass that has the words "STFU" painted on it with your mother's milk goddammit! You have no more proof that there is no God than I have proof there is God. You wanna tell me how a speck of matter that caused the big bang came into existance? You wanna tell me how whatever caused that matter came into existance? You wanna tell me how THAT came into existance?
QUOTE]

well wasn't that enlightening. I haven't seen the rest of posts in this, however, i have to admit, if it bothers u that much, shouldn't it say that maybe you faith isn't as rock solid as you believe? If you believe, it shouldn't bother you, period.

Oh, and one other question, how did god come into existence?

Bottle

His conclusion was only this "to each his or her own". Can you NOW tell me why you disagree with that conclusion?


ahh, perhaps this is the source of the confusion: i was refering to his conclusion that we cannot know for certain about the existence of God. i then proposed an alternate course from that point, giving reasons why it would not be reasonable to say "to each his own" if you do, in fact, believe that there is no proof either way. i have yet to be given any reason why my proposed idea is incorrect, beyond a vague suggestion that it's just not nice.

Here's what I'm trying to say:

There's no proof for or against God.

Therefore, it's up to each and every individual to decide weither or not to have faith in the existance of such (a) dieties(y).

The thing is, most things can either be proven or disproven. To borrow something used in another thread, one can disprove mole men living in the sewers who feed off of flour. The existance of one or many dieties can't, though.

Here's what I'm trying to say:

There's no proof for or against God.

Therefore, it's up to each and every individual to decide weither or not to have faith in the existance of such (a) dieties(y).

The thing is, most things can either be proven or disproven. To borrow something used in another thread, one can disprove mole men living in the sewers who feed off of flour. The existance of one or many dieties can't, though.

we also cannot concretely prove that we aren't all living in the Matrix, or something like it...does that mean we would be perfectly justified and sane if we proceded under that assumption? we cannot disprove that tiny magic gnomes are secretly messing with all our equipment in a fiendish plot to fabricate the existence of gravity, which is actually caused by invisible primordial lava men pulling down forcefully on all stray matter on Earth...are we going to consider believing such a theory to be just as valid as the theory of gravitational pull currently supported by science?

we also cannot concretely prove that we aren't all living in the Matrix, or something like it...does that mean we would be perfectly justified and sane if we proceded under that assumption? we cannot disprove that tiny magic gnomes are secretly messing with all our equipment in a fiendish plot to fabricate the existence of gravity, which is actually caused by invisible primordial lava men pulling down forcefully on all stray matter on Earth...are we going to consider believing such a theory to be just as valid as the theory of gravitational pull currently supported by science?


First of all, there are people who believe in the matrix. Last I checked, they weren't being sent to wards. Guess that answeres that question :p

Secondly, when did science get pulled into this?

Thirdly, I believe that it's religion's job to answer "why," and science's job to answer "how." If someone did make that theroy, of course nobody would believe him. But what does it matter?

To borrow from the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do as ye will."

Really? So who were Nietzche? Rand? Sartre? Et Cetera?

People who didn't write teachings of atheism, as THERE IS NO SUCH DAMNED THING.

And the inquisition killed people because they could take their money, not because they disagreed with their religion. The people the communists killed "opposed their governement" ONLY in that they refused to act like atheists, and your defence of atheism, saying it bares no responsibility for this, is blatent and shallow sophistry.

False [again]. They were killed because they failed to be good little communists and follow Stalin or Mao's orders. This has nothing to do with the single statement that 'there is no god,' now does it? Lecturing me on sophistry...Funny.

Really? So who were Nietzche? Rand? Sartre? Et Cetera? Well they didn't exactly call themselves rabbis, but it seems to me that they taught atheism in their writings. And nobody ever called those writings "holy". So? They were atheists, of course no one calls their works "holy". And are you saying atheists have no beliefs? Don't they belief that God is a myth?

...you idiot.

So since people mention there is no God in their writings on their own opinions we should elevate these to the same standing as holy scripture? Do you think atheists have to believe all of these writings to be considered atheist, even though most have never read them? That's quite possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

Well, I know a lot of atheists that make me as an atheist look bad and I know that a lot of people don't like reading so I'll write a book and say there is no God and get rid of a few more atheists if that is the case...

First of all, there are people who believe in the matrix. Last I checked, they weren't being sent to wards. Guess that answeres that question :p

Secondly, when did science get pulled into this?

Thirdly, I believe that it's religion's job to answer "why," and science's job to answer "how." If someone did make that theroy, of course nobody would believe him. But what does it matter?

To borrow from the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do as ye will."

erm, you seem to have utterly missed my point, perhaps i wasn't clear...i wasn't trying to make this a science-versus-religion thing, i was simply trying to say that if somebody completely believed one of the "crazy" theories i proposed then we would believe them to be insane and would try to help them. but for some reason we don't have the same attitude toward equally unfounded religious superstitions. if we should treat all beliefs as equally valid, then how can we rule such people insane? how can we judge them and their values, when we cannot PROVE that they are wrong? all beliefs are equally valid, after all, so the belief in hideous baboon-creatures lurking just out of sight and preparing to take over the world is just as valid and important as the belief in God, right?