[The gay] agenda includes
… redefining the family to represent “any circle of people who love each other.”
- James Dobson
I’ve stated this before and I’ll state it again, I dislike atheists. I have nothing wrong with Atheism, I have a problem with a lot of its followers.
Well, atheism isn’t a belief system that has tenets and there are no “followers” of atheism, so right off the bat the thing you’re saying is nonsense. Atheism is a position on one single issue, a response to the question: Are you convinced a god exists. If the answer is no, you’re called an atheist. That’s all there is to it, brah.
Why is it that most Atheists have to come off as smug, intolerant assholes?
You must think everyone who’s thought an issue through and can clearly explain their position is a smug, intolerant asshole.
Not everyone is like this, but there is definitely a vocal minority/majority that get a lot of attention.
You expose how little you know what you’re talking about when you don’t even have an idea as to whether you’re talking about the majority or the minority. Is there any chance you’re making this up in your imagination? Sounds a lot like prejudice to me.
Why can’t they sell their beliefs without insulting everyone?
There are no beliefs in atheism, atheism is not a system of beliefs, it’s a stance on one issue. I know I said it already, but you seem like the type that needs things explained again and again.
Why do they have to mock people of faith and view them as intellectually inferior for believing in a higher power?
Because it is intellectually inferior and it demonstrably leads to harm and social ills. Religion is a scam. Would you defend the conmen behind a pyramid scheme and say “why does consumer reports have to expose the fraud of scam artists? Why can’t we just let them live, maaaannn!?”
To me, mocking someone for their beliefs is akin to Antisemitism or Islamophobia. It does not lead down a good path…
Well, that’s bullshit because anti-Semitism and Islamophobia involves the systematic, institutionalized legal and social suppression of individuals based on their heritage and/or religious beliefs. That’s certainly not what I’m advocating and while there is no tenets to atheism (so I can’t speak for any other atheists) many of the atheists I know who have an interest in social justice issues make a clear distinction between targeting an oppressive system like Islam and bigotry against individuals. Individuals deserve the same treatment under the law, but religious organizations which take advantage of individuals (which is all of them) do not. While people always ought to be free to choose to join a religious organization, I’m here to present good reasons why they ought not do so.
But here is the thing, if atheists are so drawn to logic and reason, they should be agnostic.
You don’t know what ‘agnostic’ means. You’ve accepted this Vatican-sponsored doublespeak idea that atheists assert there is no god, theists assert there is and agnostics are in the middle or are saying “I don’t know.” I know it’s hard to accept, but you’ve been duped, my friend. There is no such thing as an ‘agnostic.’ Gnosticism is a word that describes knowledge. It literally translates to “knowledge.” To call yourself an agnostic or gnostic is to answer the question whether or not you think you have knowledge of a god existing. An agnostic theist would say she doesn’t KNOW that there’s a god, like she doesn’t have hard evidence, but she’s convinced nonetheless. An agnostic atheist Also doesn’t know, has no direct evidence and thereby has admitted they are unable to form a belief around the thing they have no knowledge of. Theism, by the way, is a term that refers to belief. If you have a specific belief in a god, if you believe that god is a real thing and has at least one trait you can explain, you’re a theist, you are with belief. I don’t have that belief. That’s not to assert there is no god, that’s just to say, I don’t believe any things about a god.
I don’t know if “Schrödinger’s Cat” is an appropriate example or metaphor, but I think it is similar. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of something you cannot see.
Yeah, so like we were saying, there is no ‘disproving’ there is only accept of don’t accept. Look, do you believe in flavooglorps? You don’t know what a flavooglorp is, so you’re agnostic about it, you have no knowledge, but in addition, you don’t believe flavooglorps are real. You don’t say I made them up because a falvooglorp might be a new kind of moss growing in my yard I can show you and then you’ll say, ‘yes I believe it’s real.’ Until then, though, you’re an agnostic atheist in regards to flavooglorps.
Let me give you an example. There is a 100-square mile section of forest. Is there a bear in the woods? Finding a bear could prove to be difficult, and after a week of searching you find nothing. But does that mean there is no bear at all? Who knows? All you can say is that you could not find a bear, but you cannot say with 100% conviction that there is not a single bear in that entire forest. You will not know until you search every square inch of that forest.
Right, you don’t know, but do you believe it anyway?
You will not know if God exists until you die.
How do you know you’ll find out when you die? If there is no afterlife you wouldn’t find out and if there was how do you know that part of the afterlife is finding out if there’s a god. You’re operating under a whole host of false dichotomies. What if there is an afterlife, but you still don’t find out about god? What if there’s a god, but no afterlife? Why do you think you have some understanding of the nature of the afterlife?
To believe that strongly that God does not exist, you need to have the same faith and conviction a religious person needs to believe God exists. You are no better than any religious person.
That’s a real dick way to say it because it implies that atheists think “they’re better” than theists. Like as people. You understand that you’re the one being a dick here, right? You’re making presumptions and I don’t like to have presumptions made about me.
Furthermore, I don’t have faith there’s no god, I trust my ability to understand the world via the senses I have and if they’re not good enough than how would I even know?
Oh, you read books by Dawkins to get your world view? How is that different from reading the Tanakh, the Bible, the Koran, the Veda and Upanishads, the Zend Avesta, or the Tao-te Ching? Through self-reflection you came to this belief? How is that different from meditation or prayer?
uh, because all those books are fairly tales about make-believe characters from ancient mythology and only a child wouldn’t be able to see that’s obvious.
That is why I am agnostic. I have no idea if there is a God or an afterlife until I die, and I’m in no hurry to find out.
I’m confused about you because you think you’re so open to the idea of a god, but your descriptions of the god are very Christian-oriented. You say you have no idea, but you’ve presented tons of your ideas about the nature of god. I suggest you analyze where they come from, kid.
You have a right to believe there is no God. There is nothing wrong with that.
Oh, really, thanks for the fucking permission, I was waiting with baited breath for you to justify my worldview.
You are free to believe whatever you want. But you do not have a right to act smug and superior because of that belief.
Actually I do have the right to act that way. I have to specific right to be as much of a smug prick as I want to be and there’s nothing you can do about it. That right, by the way, is actually the very first right offered to Americans in the Bill of Rights. Are you an American? Do you live in a country with freedom of speech? That’s what a “right’ is, ya know, it refers to your relationship with the law. I have the right to act smug and superior because my
beliefs understanding of reality IS superior. What you don’t have the right to do is to swindle, scam and cheat people, commit acts of violence and limit people’s access to public and private services which is all shit religion does all the time. And, by the way, unlike you, when I use the word “the right” I’m actually referring to what that word means and not to your imagined idea of what’s like, polite or some shit.
The human bones in the box included a knucklebone, a tooth, part of a cranium, a rib and an ulna, or arm bone. The researchers could only date the knucklebone, because radiocarbon dating relies on organic material, and only that bone had enough collagen for a good analysis. The researchers were able to reconstruct DNA sequences from three of the bones, however, showing them to be from the same person, likely a Middle Eastern man.
To understand just how stupid this is, it’s like if I told you I had a cat who licked bigfoot and has subsequently died and I buried him somewhere in New Jersey. Then, upon digging for years, you found some cat bones and said it lends credibility to my story and the existence of bigfoot.
Christianity makes people such suckers, man.
Hey, LC, I think you and I are destined to do this forever.
Existence of God
be a fundy atheist if….
Fundamentalism is strictly literal interpretation of a religious text and an unwavering commitment to traditional religious practices. There is no atheist text, there are no atheists practices. “Fundy atheist” doesn’t make any sense.
- You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven’t changed since.
So, you think an argument is invalid based on the age of the arguer and you reject the what churches (I guess all churches?) teach about God and imply that you know better than they do. How?
- You think questions like, “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?” and, “Can God will Himself out of existence?” are perfect examples of how to disprove God’s omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God’s omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
Uh, what? The argument against omnipotence is that it is inherently paradoxical because it can’t be turned against itself. By pointing out that God can’t pit his omnipotence against itself, you’ve not found an out! You’re just trying to redefine omnipotence.
- Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.
Alright, so curiosity and communicating with people who have opposing viewpoints is an extreme position to take. Got it. Should I act more like a Christian and just, ya know, learn my place. Get back into line? Conform. Obey.
- You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means “without a belief in God ” and not just ” belief that there is no god” as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
I wouldn’t have to spend hours doing it if people weren’t so thick-headed about it. Why do you think it’s not a meaningful distinction? They mean two different things. One asserts a claim and one denies an assertion. If you think people either believe there is a god or believe there is no god, you’re operating under a false dichotomy that ignores the option of just not believing either claim that a god does exist or that a god does not exist.
I can’t understand why it takes hours for you to understand that.
- You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.
- You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
What’s wrong with that? Takes a smart person to be imaginative enough to understand that. I won’t apologize for my intelligence.
- You adamantly believe that the “God of the gaps” idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history.
All? That’s a pretty high number. Are you sure the argument is being made that “ALL” Christian thinkers rely on that fallacies. I’ve heard a lot of them do it, but when I talk about it, I usually provide an example. You’ve just set up a straw man argument. This whole post is straw-men arguments.
- You insist that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, then claim that Jesus never existed
There’s no good evidence Jesus ever existed. That’s not an assertion he never existed, it’s a denial he ever did and even if he did, c’mon, the guy in that book is clearly a fictional character.
- You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes
Yeah, I can’t think of any religious implications in WWII, lol.
- You complain that it is God’s fault if he didn’t make the Bible “clear” enough for you to understand it or not find problems in it without doing any homework in scholarly sources.
or not find problems in it without doing any homework in scholarly sources….What?
- You say that if a Christian reads their Bible a lot, they are brainwashing themselves. But if they don’t read it much, you accuse them of being ignorant.
Variety is the spice of life, my dear.
- Missionaries who give up their personal comfort to aid starving, impoverished and persecuted third-world people are actually “corrupting ancient tribal cultures with western religious dogma”, while you sit at home and complain about the price of KFC.
Aw, c’mon, that’s just a shitty, pointless, sizeist insult.
- You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a “true atheist.”
- You’re convinced that people only believe in God because they’re afraid of going to hell…despite the fact that if there is no God, then there’s probably no hell either.
I can’t tell if you’re like fucking with me here or if you’re actually this stupid. I think you’re fucking with me.
- You think the USA is a theocracy.
Nobody thinks that.
- You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.
Because you get to be the authority on what gets to be taken literally and what doesn’t, right?
- ‘Thinking for yourself’ means adopting an atheist viewpoint.
Adopting an atheist viewpoint? You might as well just say “learning.”
- You get mad when Christians stereotype you, and then proceed to treat them along the lines of your stereotype of them.
- You say that having faith in something is “evil” yet you do not believe in absolute wrong or rights but despise the words “moral relativity” when attributed to atheism.
Sorry, but morality is too complex to be boiled down to these simple labels you want.
- You think Richard Dawkins’ analogies of God and theism are sound and the examples of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” and Zeus make an excellent argument against the existence of God.
Zeus is a god, please explain to me why whatever god you believe in is more plausible than Zeus.
- You think it’s stupid to assume all people are evil if they don’t believe, but you have no problem with mocking or ignoring someone because they believe.
So, you think people who don’t believe are…evil?