Why bother wasting your time prostelytizing?

Do atheists have a better time rotting in the ground than theists? :rolleyes:

That is where you believe we all go when we die, right? No "atheist heaven" or "atheist hell". :p

All you're doing is making my faith stronger. It's obvious that you are tools, which satan is using to pull people away from the saving love of Jesus Christ.

I find it a great injustice to have a bunch of people believing in fairy tales to make themselves feel better.

Why bother wasting your time prostelytizing?

I don't assume to speak for all atheists, but as for me, I have no expectations of changing any person's religious beliefs.

I am simply sick and tired of theists pushing their illogical, nonsensical, homophobic, non-tolerant, bigoted, assinine, misogynistic, and ultimatley unsupportable bullshit beliefs on the rest of us.

Do atheists have a better time rotting in the ground than theists? :rolleyes:

What a stupid question, even if intended as sarcasm.

You obviously don't grasp the simple truth that atheists want to make the most of this life, since it is the only life they will ever have. Once this life is through, that's it- game over. There is no afterlife. What you see is what you get.

I refuse to allow the quality of the only life I will ever have,and the lives of my children and grandchildren, to be governed by the insane beliefs of the religious.


That is where you believe we all go when we die, right? No "atheist heaven" or "atheist hell". :p

Heaven and Hell are both inventions of man. They only exist in human imagination.

All you're doing is making my faith stronger. It's obvious that you are tools, which satan is using to pull people away from the saving love of Jesus Christ.

You can believe whatever nonsense you choose to believe. Just don't expect me to sit quietly by while you and those like you try to impose your superstitious bullshit into the lives of the rest of us.

You can believe whatever nonsense you choose to believe. Just don't expect me to sit quietly by while you and those like you try to impose your superstitious bullshit into the lives of the rest of us.

Fair enough; however, my question was really aimed at the athiests who come to this forum purely to promote atheism. What's the point of that?

If your only excuse is "I don't want to hear about your religion", why not stay out of the religion forum? Duh!

Why bother wasting your time prostelytizing?

All you're doing is making my faith stronger. It's obvious that you are tools, which satan is using to pull people away from the saving love of Jesus Christ.

How dare a theist (a Christian no less) EVER accuse someone else of prostelytizing. This is by far one of the stupidest things you have ever printed on here and that is saying a lot.

Your faith is made stronger ONLY by the amount of self-delusion and ignorance you acquire.

I am again amazed that a theist would dare call anyone a tool. You are a tool by choice for your space daddy in hopes that he will party with your ghost for eternity. Since you cannot talk directly to this space daddy who are you really a tool for? Pat Robertson? Daystar? Your preacher?

Jesus Christ could not even save his own sorry ass. Not much of a role model if you ask me. The difference between you and I is I have been in your shoes. I know what it is to believe. Do you truly know what it is to not?

Fair enough; however, my question was really aimed at the athiests who come to this forum purely to promote atheism. What's the point of that?

What forum have you been reading???

Nearly all posts made by atheists in this forum are made, not to promote atheism, but in opposition to religious proselytization.


If your only excuse is "I don't want to hear about your religion", why not stay out of the religion forum? Duh!

Simply due to the fact that I do not wish for religious beliefs to be the only opinions presented to anyone who might read through this forum. I feel that all beliefs should be subjected to critical analysis.

Don't worry. If your religious beliefs are sound enough to withstand critical disection, people will be compelled to accept your point of view.

Then ignore the atheists, and go wallow in your slave-morality death-cult before you, yourself, rot in the ground.

I know what it is to believe. Do you truly know what it is to not?

As someone who was a theist for ten years, then an atheist for ten years, I gotta tell you all that agnosticism is the life. The belief that there is no God is just as deluded as the belief that there is a God. Instead, I accept that I can never be sure one way or the other, and embrace the fluidity of this thing we call "belief."

Any high leaping faith that can leap over any fact or reason with the greatest of ease is but a cheap thrill ride. And yes, your stupidity can grow ever stronger. The rumors are absurd, they are impossible: therefore it must be true. Yeah, right.

As someone who was a theist for ten years, then an atheist for ten years, I gotta tell you all that agnosticism is the life. The belief that there is no God is just as deluded as the belief that there is a God. Instead, I accept that I can never be sure one way or the other, and embrace the fluidity of this thing we call "belief."
I believe that is called agnostic...which is what I am. Quite frankly, I don't know if there is anything such as a god or not. But I do know, as far as Christian gods and the God of the scriptures, there is no such thing. Like the Wizard of Oz, when you pull back the curtain it is always a man.

How dare a theist (a Christian no less) EVER accuse someone else of prostelytizing. This is by far one of the stupidest things you have ever printed on here and that is saying a lot.

Your faith is made stronger ONLY by the amount of self-delusion and ignorance you acquire.

I am again amazed that a theist would dare call anyone a tool. You are a tool by choice for your space daddy in hopes that he will party with your ghost for eternity. Since you cannot talk directly to this space daddy who are you really a tool for? Pat Robertson? Daystar? Your preacher?

Jesus Christ could not even save his own sorry ass. Not much of a role model if you ask me. The difference between you and I is I have been in your shoes. I know what it is to believe. Do you truly know what it is to not?

I'll be praying for you, you certainly need it. :p

Simply due to the fact that I do not wish for religious beliefs to be the only opinions presented to anyone who might read through this forum. I feel that all beliefs should be subjected to critical analysis.

Don't worry. If your religious beliefs are sound enough to withstand critical disection, people will be compelled to accept your point of view.

In other words, you just admitted that you are here to promote atheism. :rolleyes:

Regardless, the truth of the Bible can stand up to your malicious lies. :)

I'll be praying for you, you certainly need it. :p

Have three questions for you:

Have you ever truly not believed in god?

When did you join the Christian faith?

What is the faith your parents, grand parents, great grand parents subscribe to?

Have you ever truly not believed in god?

Yeah, when I was younger. I grew up not believing in God, my father is an atheist and my mother was a very liberal Christian. My mom would take me to church on holidays, but even then nobody explained to me the whole concept of sin & salvation.

Actually, I used to make fun of Christians to. :(

When did you join the Christian faith?

When I was 14 I started going to church regularly and started indentifying myself as a Christian, but I didn't really understand until I was 15 and got saved.

What is the faith your parents, grand parents, great grand parents subscribe to?

Like I said my father is an atheist and my mother is a rather liberal Christian. All of my grandparents are Christians, and I would assume the same is true for my great grand parents.

I know what you're getting at. You're going to say "You're just a Christian because your parents are... blah blah blah", which isn't true (although it's not entirely invalid).

Anyway, have you ever believed in God?

How were you raised?

In other words, you just admitted that you are here to promote atheism. :rolleyes:

"Simply due to the fact that I do not wish for religious beliefs to be the only opinions presented to anyone who might read through this forum. I feel that all beliefs should be subjected to critical analysis.

Don't worry. If your religious beliefs are sound enough to withstand critical disection, people will be compelled to accept your point of view."

This statement promotes critical skepticism, not atheism. If the result of such critical scrutiny results in atheism, so be it.

Regardless, the truth of the Bible can stand up to your malicious lies. :)

If the *truth* of the bible is so strong, why should you worry that atheists subject it to critical evaluation?

Also: Please demonstrate where I have lied? I'm not the one here who is trying to sell tickets to an eternal happy-happy/joy-joy festival featuring Big Daddy, Junior, and the Spook.

Basically, I don't give religious faith a free pass because I care about any specific religionist, but because as a whole they're pissing all over my society and my government, and that's hurting me and the people I love and respect.

I would have no problem with people believing in illogical, childish nonsense if they just left it alone and kept it to themselves. Sadly, that's generally not what happens... even the passive ones will get uppity if you start talking about facts and logic in relation to their beliefs. There are enough of these people to cause problems, the least I can do is not just stand by and pretend to "respect" that idiocy because of some societal norm.

I mean, look at Rolloffle. He could be a troll, but there really *are* losers like him out there, that think they are superior because of some bronze age fairy tales. People like that run our governments, make laws that bind us... that's fucking dangerous.

Anyway, have you ever believed in God?

How were you raised?

My parents and grand parents are baptist. I was indoctrined at a young age into this faith. I became increasingly interested in science and history through high school and God started shrinking. In college I began reading Carl Sagan's: Demon Haunted World science a candle in the dark.

I have since read many other things concerning the conflicts between science and religion. Both make absolute truth statements and only one delivers in a reliable and tangible way. That is the long and short of it.

The history of Christianity in particular is appalling. The fact that you refuse to recognize this shows the level of your infection of the Christian meme complex. You are akin to a Holocaust denier in this regard.

Why bother wasting your time prostelytizing?I don't you're making this up.

Do atheists have a better time rotting in the ground than theists? :rolleyes: Again a very stupid question, i see a pattern developing here.

That is where you believe we all go when we die, right? No "atheist heaven" or "atheist hell". :pHeaven and Hell are both inventions of man. They only exist in human imagination.

You can believe whatever nonsense you choose to believe. Just don't expect me to sit quietly by while you and those like you try to impose your superstitious bullshit into the lives of the rest of us.What truckfixr said.

All you're doing is making my faith stronger. It's obvious that you are tools, which satan is using to pull people away from the saving love of Jesus Christ.A fairy tale is a fairy tale is a fairy tale... no matter how you cut it.... obviously you live a pathetic and apathy filled life. And no i don't feel sorry for you, you CHOOSE to be ignorant.

The history of Christianity in particular is appalling. The fact that you refuse to recognize this shows the level of your infection of the Christian meme complex. You are akin to a Holocaust denier in this regard.

I'm "akin to a Holocaust denier". :rolleyes: The fact that you resort to such an absurd ad hominem attack just demonstrates how wrong you are.

Fair enough; however, my question was really aimed at the athiests who come to this forum purely to promote atheism. What's the point of that?

If your only excuse is "I don't want to hear about your religion", why not stay out of the religion forum? Duh!Only your religion counts, why can't you see how stupid that is? The hypocritical leanings of your above statements is rather astounding, the bias that you spew here is truly amazing. :rolleyes:

I'm "akin to a Holocaust denier". :rolleyes: The fact that you resort to such an absurd ad hominem attack just demonstrates how wrong you are.

When the question of religions comes to the effect it has on it's followers, referencing an example of the effects of a religion on a person is not ad homenim. Learn2Logic.

Only your religion counts, why can't you see how stupid that is? The hypocritical leanings of your above statements is rather astounding, the bias that you spew here is truly amazing. :rolleyes:

So basically you're saying you have a right to promote your beliefs here, which seems fair.

However, my question is why?

Hindus promote Hinduism because they think it'll get people closer to Nirvana...

Christians promote Christianity because they think it'll get people to heaven...

Muslims promote Islam because they think it'll get people virgins...

But why do atheists promote atheism? It's not like your God is going to reward you, or they will have a better after life. You have no good reason to prostelytize.

Why waste your few precious years here on Earth trying to convert people to your depressing belief system? Regardless of who's right, your afterlife will be negative.

As someone who was a theist for ten years, then an atheist for ten years, I gotta tell you all that agnosticism is the life. The belief that there is no God is just as deluded as the belief that there is a God. Instead, I accept that I can never be sure one way or the other, and embrace the fluidity of this thing we call "belief."Your tripping on your shoelaces there AtomicZagnut, there is nothing wrong with rejecting the spoon-fed moral dullness and the latent hypocrisy that most believers in mainstream religions find convenient and necessary.

When the question of religions comes to the effect it has on it's followers, referencing an example of the effects of a religion on a person is not ad homenim. Learn2Logic.

My religion doesn't make me deny the holocaust or do anything similar. He simply choose that word in an extremely irresponsible manner to fasely associate me and my beliefs with something morally repugnant.

It is an ad hominem attack, and slander. Not to mention extreme disrespect for Holocaust victims by using their suffering to gain the upperhand in an unrelated argument.

I'm "akin to a Holocaust denier". :rolleyes: The fact that you resort to such an absurd ad hominem attack just demonstrates how wrong you are.
There was no ad hominem made. You should make sure of definitions before you try to add big words to your vocabulary.

And claiming one is making an ad hominem attack is not a very convincing way of demonstrating how wrong someone is. A strong counter argument usually works.

There was no ad hominem made. You should make sure of definitions before you try to add big words to your vocabulary.

And claiming one is making an ad hominem attack is not a very convincing way of demonstrating how wrong someone is. A strong counter argument usually works.

Definition for ad hominem: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem)
"attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

Slandering someone by calling them a holocaust denier (without any good reason) certainly fits that definition.

My religion doesn't make me deny the holocaust or do anything similar. He simply choose that word in an extremely irresponsible manner to fasely associate me and my beliefs with something morally repugnant.
Read what he wrote again. He didn't say you deny the holocaust.

It is an ad hominem attack, and slander.
There was no slander either. Learn to read.


Not to mention extreme disrespect for Holocaust victims by using their suffering to gain the upperhand in an unrelated argument.
Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Slandering someone by calling them a holocaust denier (without any good reason) certainly fits that definition.
Are you really that dense or are you just pretending? NO ONE CALLED YOU A HOLOCAUST DENIER!

So basically you're saying you have a right to promote your beliefs here, which seems fair.

However, my question is why?

Hindus promote Hinduism because they think it'll get people closer to Nirvana...

Christians promote Christianity because they think it'll get people to heaven...

Muslims promote Islam because they think it'll get people virgins...

But why do atheists promote atheism? It's not like your God is going to reward you, or they will have a better after life. You have no good reason to prostelytize.

Why waste your few precious years here on Earth trying to convert people to your depressing belief system? Regardless of who's right, your afterlife will be negative.No i'm not saying that at all. The foolish promotion of "why" is not a real question, it is a red herring, you are intellectually incapable of facing simple fact, of correctly interpreting simple statements and of course reality also. Nobody is promoting anything, again you are making this up. So many here have rebutted your simplistic, and i must say for the record, "superficial" statements that i don't see any real need for me to state the painfully obvious, or restate what you plainly can't or don't understand, whether by accident or design.

That you need to be rewarded for expressing belief in a fairy tale tells me that you are either a severely dysfunctional coward or psychotic.

Let me give you a little help here...

If you want to somehow intelligently discuss religion and/or atheism here, first learn how to analyze the issues... in this case you need to seperate motivations from belief.

Otherwise people here will think you are a cowardly two-faced Gumpian.

Let me clean this up.... it's obvious you need help....you asking why is more like a brain-damaged little child asking 'why' the sky is blue... only you are making a complete nuisance and a compleat arse outta' yourself.

Read what he wrote again. He didn't say you deny the holocaust.

He didn't say it directly, but still he made the absurd & highly offensive comparison

Your tripping on your shoelaces there AtomicZagnut, there is nothing wrong with rejecting the spoon-fed moral dullness and the latent hypocrisy that most believers in mainstream religions find convenient and necessary.

I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with it, per se. However, I do find atheists to generally be too much like "most believers in mainstream religions" with the accompanying "moral dullness" and "latent hypocrisy."

I'll have to say that I agree with OP's point, that atheists have nothing to gain by parroting their dogma. The meme simply desires to spread, and the atheist meme lacks any sort of built-in reward for those who spread it, other than the satisfaction of "freeing someone's mind" (a.k.a. trapping it in another rigid belief system).

I'm all for a lively theological discussion, but attempts to convert people simply cause the discussion to degenerate into... my God (or, in this case, the lack thereof) can beat the shit out of your God.

That you need to be rewarded for expressing belief in a fairy tale tells me that you are either a severely dysfunctional coward or psychotic.

There you go with the ad hominems again. :p

He didn't say it directly, but still he made the absurd & highly offensive comparison
And he didn't say it indirectly either, so continually saying he did is much more of an offense. And if you can't take being "highly offended" (which I'm certain you're only pretending to be), Totse isn't for you.

If the *truth* of the bible is so strong, why should you worry that atheists subject it to critical evaluation?

Also: Please demonstrate where I have lied? I'm not the one here who is trying to sell tickets to an eternal happy-happy/joy-joy festival featuring Big Daddy, Junior, and the Spook.What truckfixr said. I would love to evaluate your Master Puppeteer aka god the master PuppetMaker. Please bust out that Truth man, i can hardly wait. ;)

Definition for ad hominem: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem)
"attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

Slandering someone by calling them a holocaust denier (without any good reason) certainly fits that definition.

I'll type this slowly so that you may be able to keep up. He did not accuse you of being a holocaust denier.

He said:

*The history of Christianity in particular is appalling. The fact that you refuse to recognize this shows the level of your infection of the Christian meme complex. You are akin to a Holocaust denier in this regard.*

He simply stated that you cannot bring yourself to accept the appaling nature of Christianity, in the same way that holocaust deniers cannot bring themselves to accept the truth that the holocaust actually did happen.

I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with it, per se. However, I do find atheists to generally be too much like "most believers in mainstream religions" with the accompanying "moral dullness" and "latent hypocrisy."
I'm not sure what you mean by moral dullness, but what sort of latent hypocrisy do you find atheists to have?

I'll have to say that I agree with OP's point, that atheists have nothing to gain by parroting their dogma.
Atheistic dogma? There is none!

I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with it, per se. However, I do find atheists to generally be too much like "most believers in mainstream religions" with the accompanying "moral dullness" and "latent hypocrisy."

I'll have to say that I agree with OP's point, that atheists have nothing to gain by parroting their dogma. The meme simply desires to spread, and the atheist meme lacks any sort of built-in reward for those who spread it, other than the satisfaction of "freeing someone's mind" (a.k.a. trapping it in another rigid belief system).

I'm all for a lively theological discussion, but attempts to convert people simply cause the discussion to degenerate into... my God (or, in this case, the lack thereof) can beat the shit out of your God.Yeah i see your point, but to me saying that one is agnostic is a cheap cop out. And i ain't trying to convert anyone, please don't make crass and pointless generalizations, at my expense.

I'm "akin to a Holocaust denier". :rolleyes: The fact that you resort to such an absurd ad hominem attack just demonstrates how wrong you are.

It is not ad hominem. It is a fucking fact. Your religion I would argue is responsible for more deaths and flat out murder then the Holocaust itself.

YOU DENY THIS.

It is almost an insult to a Holocaust denier. You both belong in the same group of blissful ignorance of your chosen creed's historical deeds.

Ad hominem would be calling you bat shit crazy.

i think that all religions should be independant from state or government legislature, for example, in my country they're actually having discussion wether or not muslim's should be excempt from interest rate and fees because it goes against their religion, that's ridiculous.
it means that i could believe i don't have to pay shit, so i don't have to.
religion in my book is not possible in any way shape or form, the thought of a god goes straight against everything i've ever seen and experienced.
to base your entire life around a 1700 year old book(they started 300 years after jesus' death)is simply stupid.
what that means is 2000 years from now, we could all be believing in harry potter
and magic wands.
because it says so in a book doesn't mean it's true.
so why believe in science books?
because atleast those books are remotely acceptable in whether they're true.
and i know you can't see air so why belive in it, because it's been proven to be real.
a 1700 year old book is outdated, not to mention just full of walking on water an talking firey bushes like situations.
if the bible had been published today, it would've been thrown in the fiction section of the bookstore.
religion is just humanities way of coping with life's situations they don't understand, and instead of trying to figure life out on their own, they take the easy way and put their faith in something else so thay don't have to take responsibility for their own actions, they fuck up "it's a test of god".
they get hit by a car "a test by god".
instead of looking twice when they get out of the hospital to cross the street, they're just happy they "passed" this test.

and don't forget that you christians are worse than the nazi's, remember the crusades in the dark ages?
yeah, those wars where you kill everyone whose not a believer, millions died during even one of those, far more than world war 1,2 and even the gulf war combined.

and another thing, why is this book so important?
it's been rewritten countless of times in those 2000 years, you actually think it's still the same as it was then?
ervytime it was rewritten, the write put in his own beliefs and morals and the book has been changed beyond recognition over time.
there's just no way it's still trustworthy.

i'm not denying jesus existance, but that he was able to multiply fish and bread or that he was the son of god, i sincerely doubt that.

There you go with the ad hominems again. :pSo let's just ignore the rest of my statements, and the thoughtful and balanced statements of others because i said and because i believe that you are either

1) a hypocritical materialistic "both eyes shut" moral coward
2) and/or psychotic.

You have the mind of a small and selfish child my man. Trust me.

No wonder you live such a superficial and meaningless existence..always at the ready to fault others... simply for what they believe... or choose to believe.

That is hardly an ad hominem attack, you have such low and arbitrary standards! i raised several valid points and stated many coherent and valid rebuttals to your redundant, pathetically dull and hopelessly illogical meanderings.

I'll have to say that I agree with OP's point, that atheists have nothing to gain by parroting their dogma. The meme simply desires to spread, and the atheist meme lacks any sort of built-in reward for those who spread it, other than the satisfaction of "freeing someone's mind" (a.k.a. trapping it in another rigid belief system).

The meme complex of an athiest is one of science and rationality. YES I AM TRYING TO SPREAD THAT. There is plenty to gain from throwing away supernatural out dated beliefs that attempt to explain what we DID not or do not understand. These beliefs are responsible for far more deaths than you will ever be able to attribute to the view of rationality, science and reason(aka the view of an athiest).

He didn't say it directly, but still he made the absurd & highly offensive comparison

No, you see, this is an ad homenim: You're an idiot. In this case, it's also true because you apparently are unable to distinguish between a statement and a simile.

The whole ad hominem argument from Rofflle is meant to detract fromt the fact that he wishes to deny Christian responsiblity for the atrocities HISTORY attributes directly to his belief structure.

There are enough of these people to cause problems, the least I can do is not just stand by and pretend to "respect" that idiocy because of some societal norm.

I mean, look at Rolloffle. He could be a troll, but there really *are* losers like him out there, that think they are superior because of some bronze age fairy tales. People like that run our governments, make laws that bind us... that's fucking dangerous.Real fuckin dangerous well said.

The whole ad hominem argument from Rofflle is meant to detract fromt the fact that he wishes to deny Christian responsiblity for the atrocities HISTORY attributes directly to his belief structure.Yes of course. Prolly drives a brand new SUV and knows all the right people too.

I'm not sure what you mean by moral dullness, but what sort of latent hypocrisy do you find atheists to have?

By moral dullness, I refer to the apathy and lack of ethical thought that is so pervasive among the general populace.

As for latent hypocrisy, that's something that is also quite common among people, regardless of their belief system. Atheists tend to get hypocritical when they make something like Science or Reason their God. If you listen to the way these people talk, and replace that special term of theirs with the term "God," they sound exactly like a fundamentalist Christian. Reason can be as limiting of a worldview as faith.

Atheistic dogma? There is none!

See above.

Yeah i see your point, but to me saying that one is agnostic is a cheap cop out. And i ain't trying to convert anyone, please don't make crass and pointless generalizations, at my expense.

The talk about conversion was in general, as that is the main topic of this discussion, and was not directed at you personally, neon.

Agnosticism as a cop out? I could see how that fits some people, such as skeptical agnostics, who deconstruct and deny everything to the point of being nihilists. I'm more of a zetetic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zetetic) agnostic. I'm willing to enter into any belief system, yet always maintain the continuum of my own identity. It's quite similar to the participant-observer method used by anthropologists. It doesn't seem to be everyone's cup of tea, but it sure works out well for me.

The meme complex of an athiest is one of science and rationality. YES I AM TRYING TO SPREAD THAT. There is plenty to gain from throwing away supernatural out dated beliefs that attempt to explain what we DID not or do not understand. These beliefs are responsible for far more deaths than you will ever be able to attribute to the view of rationality, science and reason(aka the view of an athiest).

Really, because I can attribute quite a few deaths to the atomic bomb alone, not to mention all the other technology of war science has designed for us. Ask any scientist working in any field today where most of the funding comes from: military R&D.

Pure reason leads us to arrive at an essentially agnostic conclusion. Look at Socrates, who used reasoning and questioning to the sole exclusion of all else, and he arrived at "I know that I know nothing."

Atheism is more like having faith in reason, which may sound absurd. But, go ahead and apply my experiment to your own post, BrokeProphet. Replace the terms science, rationality, etc. with "God" and see how much you sound like a fundamentalist monotheist.

Really, because I can attribute quite a few deaths to the atomic bomb alone, not to mention all the other technology of war science has designed for us. Ask any scientist working in any field today where most of the funding comes from: military R&D.

Atheism is more like having faith in reason, which may sound absurd. But, go ahead and apply my experiment to your own post, BrokeProphet. Replace the terms science, rationality, etc. with "God" and see how much you sound like a fundamentalist monotheist.

Technology and science (especially medical science) has saved more lives than have been lost by science. The Atom Bomb does not compare to the Inquisition or any of the Crusades.

Few people die "In the name of science" compared to how many have died "In the name of God".

Your experiment.......
The meme complex of an thiest is one of God. YES I AM TRYING TO SPREAD THAT. There is plenty to gain from throwing away supernatural out dated beliefs that attempt to explain what we DID not or do not understand. These beliefs are responsible for far more deaths than you will ever be able to attribute to God.
.........makes no sense. Mainly the bolded part.

I do see your point that I preach atheism like a pastor of a baptist church. You cannot be heard over the most virulent mind virus known to man without shouting. I also think riduculing the cunts who affect my every day life with their INSANE beliefs helps me cope with the religious oppression in addition to having a long term affect of dissuading others from joining this irrational cult.

As for latent hypocrisy, that's something that is also quite common among people, regardless of their belief system.
You specifically said, "However, I do find atheists to generally be too much like "most believers in mainstream religions" with the accompanying "moral dullness" and "latent hypocrisy."


That's not just saying that hypocrisy is a basic human construct. What specifically do you find hypocritical about atheists that is similar to "most believers in mainstream religions"?

Atheists tend to get hypocritical when they make something like Science or Reason their God. If you listen to the way these people talk, and replace that special term of theirs with the term "God," they sound exactly like a fundamentalist Christian.
I do hear the way these people talk. Not having fantastic beliefs until evidence is brought forth is not hypocritical.


Reason can be as limiting of a worldview as faith.
Oh, it can be? Do tell. If it's limiting because it allows people to not believe any claim spewed without evidence, that's not anywhere in the same ballpark as faith in fantastic beliefs and it's not limiting in any way that is negative, hypocritical or dogmatic.



See above.
I saw above. You gave no response as to what's dogmatic about atheism.

Really, because I can attribute quite a few deaths to the atomic bomb alone, not to mention all the other technology of war science has designed for us. Ask any scientist working in any field today where most of the funding comes from: military R&D.

And this is evidence of what? Should the U.S. not use advances in science for military purposes?

As for latent hypocrisy, that's something that is also quite common among people, regardless of their belief system. Atheists tend to get hypocritical when they make something like Science or Reason their God. If you listen to the way these people talk, and replace that special term of theirs with the term "God," they sound exactly like a fundamentalist Christian. Reason can be as limiting of a worldview as faith.



Yes, if you replace a sensible reason for believing what they do - science or reason - with an infeasible one - God. Everything scientific is empirical except theoretical science. If Atheists quote theoretical science, then they are as bad as Christians who quote the Bible. What you said may be true, but the substitution of words make it irrelevant.

For example if I were to replace the word heroin with the word bacon in an article about addiction and withdrawal, it would make bacon sound addictive, but it would make the article irrelevant because it no longer has the same meaning and level of supporting fact. The basis is too dissimilar.

God is nothing but another 3 letter word to me. There is to much shit in life to worry about to be watching your every step so some all seeing all knowing thing in the sky that nobody has ever seen or ever talked to (without going to a mental institution) Supposedly the all knowing creature that has endless love..yet says..if you smoke this plant...if you touch this..if you do that you burn in a firey hell for all of eternity. Yeah. Right.

Common sence people, common sence.

Wow, an onslaught to defend myself against! Where shall I begin?

I may not be able to counter every point y'all have made here, because you've made some good ones, and I'm pretty tired, but here goes:

Atheism is dogmatic in its rejection of God. If you ask an atheist if there is a God, they will always answer "no," just as a theist would always answer "yes." That is the very definition of dogma.

Atheism is hypocritical in it's glorification of reason. Most humans behave not according to pure reason, but rather a combination of faith, reason, intuition, good ol' force of habit, etc. This is good, though, because pure reason, as I pointed out earlier, leads us nowhere. We'll all "know that we know nothing."

As David Hume worked out, all logical propositions are either a fact or a state of affairs. Facts give us no new information, though, because they are true by definition. Yes, 2+2=4, but only because a four is defined as two twos in a base 10 counting system. It's like saying "a chair is something you sit in." That's great if you don't know what a chair is, but once you do, it's outlived its usefulness.

States of affairs aren't true by definition, but have a probability of being true or false. You can say "It's raining outside", and then you have to go outside and verify whether or not the statement is true. Of course, going outside would have told us if it was raining or not regardless of whether we were going outside to verify the statement, or going outside to make a run to the store. Once again, it ends up being useless.

These two kinds of statements are all we'd be able to say if we lived according to pure reason. Pure reason cannot question or command. It cannot wax poetic or even tell a story. Plus, the statements it can make don't actually tell us any more than we already know.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be completely irrational, otherwise we wouldn't be capable of having this conversation, but I don't think complete rationality is any kind of solution. Such a society, driven by the cold, calculating engine of reason, would have no place for spontaneity, joy, love, or anything else outside of the narrow scope of science.

Both religion and science have the potential to hurt and to heal. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I take the best of each by walking the middle path.

...Where shall I begin? ...

Really good post, *gives a hug and some MDMA*

Wow, an onslaught to defend myself against! Where shall I begin?

I may not be able to counter every point y'all have made here, because you've made some good ones, and I'm pretty tired, but here goes:

Atheism is dogmatic in its rejection of God. If you ask an atheist if there is a God, they will always answer "no," just as a theist would always answer "yes." That is the very definition of dogma.

Atheism is hypocritical in it's glorification of reason. Most humans behave not according to pure reason, but rather a combination of faith, reason, intuition, good ol' force of habit, etc. This is good, though, because pure reason, as I pointed out earlier, leads us nowhere. We'll all "know that we know nothing."

As David Hume worked out, all logical propositions are either a fact or a state of affairs. Facts give us no new information, though, because they are true by definition. Yes, 2+2=4, but only because a four is defined as two twos in a base 10 counting system. It's like saying "a chair is something you sit in." That's great if you don't know what a chair is, but once you do, it's outlived its usefulness.

States of affairs aren't true by definition, but have a probability of being true or false. You can say "It's raining outside", and then you have to go outside and verify whether or not the statement is true. Of course, going outside would have told us if it was raining or not regardless of whether we were going outside to verify the statement, or going outside to make a run to the store. Once again, it ends up being useless.

These two kinds of statements are all we'd be able to say if we lived according to pure reason. Pure reason cannot question or command. It cannot wax poetic or even tell a story. Plus, the statements it can make don't actually tell us any more than we already know.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be completely irrational, otherwise we wouldn't be capable of having this conversation, but I don't think complete rationality is any kind of solution. Such a society, driven by the cold, calculating engine of reason, would have no place for spontaneity, joy, love, or anything else outside of the narrow scope of science.

Both religion and science have the potential to hurt and to heal. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I take the best of each by walking the middle path.

FAIL.

Sorry, just felt like drive-by-ing. I'll leave it to someone else to bash their head into the wall that is theistic rationalizing.

"Wow, an onslaught to defend myself against! Where shall I begin?

I may not be able to counter every point y'all have made here, because you've made some good ones, and I'm pretty tired, but here goes:

[quote]"Atheism is dogmatic in its rejection of God. If you ask an atheist if there is a God, they will always answer "no," just as a theist would always answer "yes." That is the very definition of dogma."

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization. Atheism is not a religion or an ideology since it is not a collection of ideas; it's just the lack of a belief in any gods. If someone tells you they are atheist, all you know about that person is that they don't believe gods are real, nothing else; it doesn't make a positive assertion about anything. Religion is just the opposite.

"Atheism is hypocritical in it's glorification of reason."

Again, atheism doesn't glorify anything; the word "atheism" itself is kind of misleading in and of itself, because there's nothing there to constitute an "ism." There's no such thing as "a-santa clausism", after all.

Not all atheists think alike or subscribe to the same beliefs, however reason and logic are often regarded as good things for at least one reason: they accomplish things.

"Most humans behave not according to pure reason, but rather a combination of faith, reason, intuition, good ol' force of habit, etc. This is good, though, because pure reason, as I pointed out earlier, leads us nowhere. We'll all "know that we know nothing."

Humans are imperfect creatures, nobody is perfect 100% of the time, however reasoning through problems seems to have a higher success rate than sitting on one's ass praying for help.

"As David Hume worked out, all logical propositions are either a fact or a state of affairs. Facts give us no new information, though, because they are true by definition. Yes, 2+2=4, but only because a four is defined as two twos in a base 10 counting system. It's like saying "a chair is something you sit in." That's great if you don't know what a chair is, but once you do, it's outlived its usefulness."

Oh great, you're going to start re-defining things needlessly.

"States of affairs aren't true by definition, but have a probability of being true or false. You can say "It's raining outside", and then you have to go outside and verify whether or not the statement is true. Of course, going outside would have told us if it was raining or not regardless of whether we were going outside to verify the statement, or going outside to make a run to the store. Once again, it ends up being useless.

These two kinds of statements are all we'd be able to say if we lived according to pure reason. Pure reason cannot question or command. It cannot wax poetic or even tell a story. Plus, the statements it can make don't actually tell us any more than we already know."

Meaningless doublespeak, par for the course with you people. You try to rationalize away the usefulness of reason by talking circles around it into pointlessness.

"Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be completely irrational, otherwise we wouldn't be capable of having this conversation, but I don't think complete rationality is any kind of solution. Such a society, driven by the cold, calculating engine of reason, would have no place for spontaneity, joy, love, or anything else outside of the narrow scope of science."

Not being an idiot doesn't equal being an emotionless calculating machine. Just because I know that that Gods are internally contradictory fictional constructs and Bigfoot tracks are generally fakes, doesn't mean I can't love my girlfriend or cry at a sad movie.

"Both religion and science have the potential to hurt and to heal. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I take the best of each by walking the middle path."

Science is a tool that can be used for good or ill, true. However Religion is actively delusional and shouldn't be encouraged, as it itself encourages fear and irrational bigotry, as history has repeatedly shown us.

Wow, an onslaught to defend myself against! Where shall I begin?

I may not be able to counter every point y'all have made here, because you've made some good ones, and I'm pretty tired, but here goes:

Atheism is dogmatic in its rejection of God. If you ask an atheist if there is a God, they will always answer "no," just as a theist would always answer "yes." That is the very definition of dogma. FAIL.

Sorry, just felt like drive-by-ing. I'll leave it to someone else to bash their head into the wall that is theistic rationalizing. i disagree. That is far too narrow of a definition for "dogma".
Meaningless doublespeak, par for the course with you people. You try to rationalize away the usefulness of reason by talking circles around it into pointlessness. i agree with this statement, that you seem to grab the bull by the horns and then proceed to continuously babble about in even greater and greater circles, just adding more unnecessary confusion in the process.

Atheism is dogmatic in its rejection of God. If you ask an atheist if there is a God, they will always answer "no," just as a theist would always answer "yes." That is the very definition of dogma.

Perhaps, but if you ask a theist for reasoning for their answer, it is a string of nonsense supported by fictional texts. If they claim to know God, and you ask them to introduce you they can't. If you ask an atheist for reasoning for their answer, they can generally use empirical reasoning. For example, God has never shown Himself to anyone who is not already a psychotic God freak who can't be trusted to be telling the truth. Atheists believe in what they see and they haven't seen a concrete God, thus we can only rationalise that God is a creation of man.

Atheism is hypocritical in it's glorification of reason. Most humans behave not according to pure reason, but rather a combination of faith, reason, intuition, good ol' force of habit, etc. This is good, though, because pure reason, as I pointed out earlier, leads us nowhere. We'll all "know that we know nothing."

And theism is any better? The belief in something which is completely irrational? No, we don't act on pure reason, but the faith of atheists is not misplaced. The faith of an atheist is placed on something different. If you have never been to Australia, you have never seen it, but you have faith that exists because many people have the seen it, and it's the same thing every time. No human could ever act through pure reason, but atheists see reason as being more important than blind faith.

As David Hume worked out, all logical propositions are either a fact or a state of affairs. Facts give us no new information, though, because they are true by definition. Yes, 2+2=4, but only because a four is defined as two twos in a base 10 counting system. It's like saying "a chair is something you sit in." That's great if you don't know what a chair is, but once you do, it's outlived its usefulness.

So you're suggesting that fact is useless once it is known? That's bullshit. If one person knows a fact, that doesn't mean everyone does. Thus the fact is still useful. And if we didn't retain knowledge of a fact, we would be blind to how things were. So all facts are always useful. Definition and language are there to give us a base to work from, as is our numeric system. Without a basis, nothing would make any sense. So now you understand why fact, reason and knowledge of truth are important?

States of affairs aren't true by definition, but have a probability of being true or false. You can say "It's raining outside", and then you have to go outside and verify whether or not the statement is true. Of course, going outside would have told us if it was raining or not regardless of whether we were going outside to verify the statement, or going outside to make a run to the store. Once again, it ends up being useless.

But it isn't useless. Using your example, if we state that it is raining and it is, the fact that we know it's raining is an inherent factor in what ever else we do. If we take our car on the road, we need to be more careful when it is raining and thus the fact is useful. Knowing that it's raining gives us a base on which to plan for the rest of the day. Facts can never be made redundant.

These two kinds of statements are all we'd be able to say if we lived according to pure reason. Pure reason cannot question or command. It cannot wax poetic or even tell a story. Plus, the statements it can make don't actually tell us any more than we already know.

Unless we don't know it. Then once we do, that is the case, yes. But I don't think anybody has suggested that we should live by pure reason. Not even atheists would suggest that. We just value reason more than blind faith.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be completely irrational, otherwise we wouldn't be capable of having this conversation, but I don't think complete rationality is any kind of solution. Such a society, driven by the cold, calculating engine of reason, would have no place for spontaneity, joy, love, or anything else outside of the narrow scope of science.

There are more things covered by science than religion. Once again, however, it is impossible for any human to ignore instinct completely, so it is impossible for any human to be entirely logical or rational. We all have basic instincts and we all feel love toward some, hate toward others. We all feel joy in some situations and abhorrence in others. It is natural.

Both religion and science have the potential to hurt and to heal. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I take the best of each by walking the middle path.

But you could ignore religion completely because anything religion can do, science can do better. Religion has no aesthetic benefit to any non-religious person whereas science has benefit for all. Religion causes more disputes and more wars than science ever will. I don't have any problem with anyone wanting to believe in a God or Gods, as long as they don't shove it down my throat, but they inevitably do.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization. Atheism is not a religion or an ideology since it is not a collection of ideas; it's just the lack of a belief in any gods. If someone tells you they are atheist, all you know about that person is that they don't believe gods are real, nothing else; it doesn't make a positive assertion about anything. Religion is just the opposite.

Atheism is indeed an ideology, anything with the suffix"-ism" is. It is he belief that there are no gods. It is not a lack of belief, that is agnosticism (my stance on the issue). An agnostic can consider the idea that gods exist, and consider the idea that they don't, and argue just as well for both sides. An atheist holds the firm belief that gods do not exist, and will always argue against the idea of gods, unless playing the part of Devil's advocate or something of that nature.

For example, when missionaries come to my door, I invite them in, make them tea, and engage in theological discussion with them. I'd wager that most atheists, when confronted with missionaries on the doorstep, either ask them to leave or try to convert the missionaries to atheism.



Again, atheism doesn't glorify anything; the word "atheism" itself is kind of misleading in and of itself, because there's nothing there to constitute an "ism." There's no such thing as "a-santa clausism", after all.

Not all atheists think alike or subscribe to the same beliefs, however reason and logic are often regarded as good things for at least one reason: they accomplish things.

Once again, there is an "-ism" to atheism, namely the belief that there are no gods. One could very well coin the term "asantaism" to describe the belief that there is no Santa Claus. Linguistically, there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree with you that the only generalization that can be made about the entire group of atheists is that they all believe there are no gods. The reason I brought up logic is only to show how atheists can be as hypocritical as theists. Denouncing God or gods does not make every other inconsistency in the human psyche magically reconcile itself.


Oh great, you're going to start re-defining things needlessly.

Meaningless doublespeak, par for the course with you people. You try to rationalize away the usefulness of reason by talking circles around it into pointlessness.

Do you even know what doublespeak means? I'm not trying to hide things in euphemism and inaccessible language here. I'm attempting to summarize the life's work of David Hume, which is a bunch of thick books, in a couple of paragraphs, so y'all don't have to read those books to understand my point. Granted, some of Hume's original idea may have been lost in my translation (I did write that at 1 in the morning, after all). However, I'd highly suggest you learn more about it before dismissing it as "meaningless doublespeak," especially if you're going to govern your life with reason, because Western philosophy has never fully recovered from Hume's assault on reason. If you wish to read more about it from other sources, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume's_fork
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humeepis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

I'd highly recommend anyone who wants to continue this debate with me read at least the top article, lest you make an ass of yourself. And, BTW, Hume was an atheist.


Not being an idiot doesn't equal being an emotionless calculating machine. Just because I know that that Gods are internally contradictory fictional constructs and Bigfoot tracks are generally fakes, doesn't mean I can't love my girlfriend or cry at a sad movie.

All of these things are irrational. Which actions make one "an idiot" is in the eye of the beholder.


Science is a tool that can be used for good or ill, true. However Religion is actively delusional and shouldn't be encouraged, as it itself encourages fear and irrational bigotry, as history has repeatedly shown us.

Science can be delusional as well. It does have a built-in mechanism for dispelling said delusions, but this tends to work rather slowly, with each successive generation of scientists dispelling some of the dogma (yes, dogma!) of the previous generation. Since our science puts more emphasis on technological progress than ethical progress, it ends up encouraging the same kind of "fear and irrational bigotry" as religion. For just one example, look at the Cold War foreign policy of "mutually assured destruction," which was nothing but fear and bigotry forged chiefly by science and logic. Now, I know religion has a higher "death tally" right now, but only because it's the older institution. Do you want to wait around to see if science catches up, or forge boldly ahead?

Also, religion isn't necessarily actively delusional. You can't generalize about all religions anymore than you can generalize about all atheists. Actually, it's easier to generalize about all the atheists; have you ever actually tried to sit down and define religion? Buddhism is a religion that's all about actively dispelling illusions. It works far more effectively than science, too, allowing an individual to dispell all delusion in his lifetime, rather than making peicemeal progress over the work of generations. As a matter of fact, most esoteric sects of most religions work in a similar manner (gnosticism, sufism, kabbalah, tantra, etc.).

Let me re-iterate my point here again, to hopefully bring some of you closer to understanding what I'm saying (and to give the rest of you another angle to attack me from). Every system has limitations as no model can describe reality in it's entirety. There's exceptions to every rule, even this one (one of my favorite paradoxes). However, we can acheive greater understanding by taking what works from other systems and fusing them into new ones. The idea is to always be able to make progress. If your system seems to have hit a plateau, start discussing it with friends (or on TOTSE!) to see what you may have overlooked. You'll get more out of it than you will parroting anyone else's system, whether it comes from the Holy Bible or Richard Dawkins.

Atheism is dogmatic in its rejection of God.
So not having a belief in Santa is dogmatic also? If not having a belief in Santa fits in your definition of being dogmatic, do you really find this on the same level of dogmatism as Christianity? I don't think you really believe what you've said.


If you ask an atheist if there is a God, they will always answer "no,"
That's not true. The majority of atheists I know will answer "I don't know". Not having a belief in God/gods does not mean one is positive they don't exist, just as not having a belief that leprechauns exist doesn't mean one would say that leprechauns definitely don't exist.

just as a theist would always answer "yes." That is the very definition of dogma.
Most grammarians would disagree. Dogma is usually defined as a set of tenets and beliefs that are unchanging. Lacking a belief in something is not dogmatic.

Atheism is hypocritical in it's glorification of reason.
There's nothing hypocritical whatsoever about believing that using reason to make decisions if beings exist than something unreasonable. Being a hypocrite entails saying one thing and doing or believing another. You have given no examples of how atheism is hypocritical.


Most humans behave not according to pure reason, but rather a combination of faith, reason, intuition, good ol' force of habit, etc. This is good, though, because pure reason, as I pointed out earlier, leads us nowhere. We'll all "know that we know nothing."
And you think there's something wrong with us all realizing that we can't be 100% sure of anything?


Pure reason cannot question or command. It cannot wax poetic or even tell a story. Plus, the statements it can make don't actually tell us any more than we already know.
Though reason we've been able to come to extraordinary heights in all sorts of technology and is the reason we continually can tell each other facts that we already didn't know. You're talking out of your ass.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be completely irrational, otherwise we wouldn't be capable of having this conversation, but I don't think complete rationality is any kind of solution. Such a society, driven by the cold, calculating engine of reason, would have no place for spontaneity, joy, love, or anything else outside of the narrow scope of science.
Yes, us reasonable atheists can't even chuckle or love others because we find enjoyment and compassion for others so irrational.

Atheism is dogmatic in its rejection of God. If you ask an atheist if there is a God, they will always answer "no," just as a theist would always answer "yes." That is the very definition of dogma.

Yes, science (atheism) is dogmatic in an approach to the truth. Because of this dogmatic approach the
Scienctific method is a truth machine whose abilities have yet to be matched by any other thought process.

Before a scientific minded (most atheists) person can believe that Peter Pan really exists and there is a never never land you HAVE TO SHOW EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. If you FAIL to do this (which religion undeniably does) your ideas and theories of a flesh and blood Peter Pan are and should be considered fiction.

The difference between science and religion is this simple: When it comes to truth science delivers. Religion does not. Athiest dont simply say "there is no God". Athiests say "until you fucking prove it, there is no God."

Prove God exists and I will cease to be an atheist.

On the other hand:
Prove creationism, miracles and historical accuracies in the bible to be false or riddled with paganistic astrotheological symbolism and a Christian still believes just as strongly as he did before. That is a dogmatic belief structure not to mention irrational.

On a final not if you do wish to believe in Peter Pan taking you to Never Never land.......be my guest. I will think you foolish but will not disrespect and insult your beliefs so long as your imaginary friend for grown ups (GOD) does not interfere with my personal everyday life.

Atheism is indeed an ideology, anything with the suffix"-ism" is. It is he belief that there are no gods. It is not a lack of belief, that is agnosticism (my stance on the issue).
Doesn't matter where you stand. Atheism is being withut belief in God/Gods. One need not be positive they don't exist to be an atheist.


An agnostic can consider the idea that gods exist, and consider the idea that they don't, and argue just as well for both sides. An atheist holds the firm belief that gods do not exist, and will always argue against the idea of gods, unless playing the part of Devil's advocate or something of that nature.
See the Wikipedia article on atheism since you have no idea what you're talking about. Atheists DO NOT have to assert that God/gods don't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

For example, when missionaries come to my door, I invite them in, make them tea, and engage in theological discussion with them. I'd wager that most atheists, when confronted with missionaries on the doorstep, either ask them to leave or try to convert the missionaries to atheism.Foe example? What did you say that this is an example of? Why would you bet that atheist won't engage in dialogue with missionaries?




Once again, there is an "-ism" to atheism, namely the belief that there are no gods. One could very well coin the term "asantaism" to describe the belief that there is no Santa Claus. Linguistically, there's nothing wrong with that.
Atheism has an 'ism' at the end of it because of the word 'theism''. Theism is the belief that God/gods exist. The prefix 'a' means 'without'. Atheism is simply without belief in God/gods.

I agree with you that the only generalization that can be made about the entire group of atheists is that they all believe there are no gods. The reason I brought up logic is only to show how atheists can be as hypocritical as theists. Denouncing God or gods does not make every other inconsistency in the human psyche magically reconcile itself.
You have not shown what's hypocritical about not having a belief in God/gods, Santa, leprechauns, etc.




All of these things are irrational. Which actions make one "an idiot" is in the eye of the beholder.
There's nothing irrational about humans feeling love or sadness. You're insane



Science can be delusional as well.
Example?


It does have a built-in mechanism for dispelling said delusions, but this tends to work rather slowly, with each successive generation of scientists dispelling some of the dogma (yes, dogma!) of the previous generation.
Science is the opposite of dogmatic. It continually aims to find truth even if it means changing direction on that which was previously thought to be true.


Since our science puts more emphasis on technological progress than ethical progress, it ends up encouraging the same kind of "fear and irrational bigotry" as religion.
Science encourages "fear and irrational bigotry"? WHAT A DICK!


For just one example, look at the Cold War foreign policy of "mutually assured destruction," which was nothing but fear and bigotry forged chiefly by science and logic. Now, I know religion has a higher "death tally" right now, but only because it's the older institution. Do you want to wait around to see if science catches up, or forge boldly ahead?
It was forged by world leaders, not 'science'. It's irrelevant whether or not the tools would have been available without humans using their brains to figure out how to make new tools.

What do you want to do? Halt humans from figuring out how to do things? This has ZERO to do with comparing believing in God/gods without evidence verses not believing in things until sufficient evidence has been brought forth.

Atheism is dogmatic in its rejection of God. If you ask an atheist if there is a God, they will always answer "no," just as a theist would always answer "yes." That is the very definition of dogma.

Did not want you to miss it so I re-posted.

Yes, science (atheism) is dogmatic in an approach to the truth. Because of this dogmatic approach the
Scienctific method is a truth machine whose abilities have yet to be matched by any other thought process.

Before a scientific minded (most atheists) person can believe that Peter Pan really exists and there is a never never land you HAVE TO SHOW EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. If you FAIL to do this (which religion undeniably does) your ideas and theories of a flesh and blood Peter Pan are and should be considered fiction.

The difference between science and religion is this simple: When it comes to truth science delivers. Religion does not. Athiest dont simply say "there is no God". Athiests say "until you fucking prove it, there is no God."

Prove God exists and I will cease to be an atheist.

On the other hand:
Prove creationism, miracles and historical accuracies in the bible to be false or riddled with paganistic astrotheological symbolism and a Christian still believes just as strongly as he did before. That is a dogmatic belief structure not to mention irrational.

On a final note if you do wish to believe in Peter Pan taking you to Never Never land.......be my guest. I will think you foolish but will not disrespect and insult your beliefs so long as your imaginary friend for grown ups (GOD) does not interfere with my personal everyday life.

Doesn't matter where you stand. Atheism is being withut belief in God/Gods. One need not be positive they don't exist to be an atheist.

See the Wikipedia article on atheism since you have no idea what you're talking about. Atheists DO NOT have to assert that God/gods don't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


No, they do not have to assert that. However, if you read the article, the very first line says "Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." So, to clarify, I have been talking about the atheists who affirm the nonexistence of gods. Although, as I have also been saying, an outright rejection of theism will severely limit your worldview, just as an outright subscription to theism at the exclusion to all other worldviews would be limiting.



Atheism has an 'ism' at the end of it because of the word 'theism''. Theism is the belief that God/gods exist. The prefix 'a' means 'without'. Atheism is simply without belief in God/gods.

Read the etymology section of your Wikipedia article. It appears that the term "atheist" appears in the English language about 75 years prior to the term "theist," making your argument here invalid. But of course, this is a discussion in theological philosophy, not philology.


You have not shown what's hypocritical about not having a belief in God/gods, Santa, leprechauns, etc.

If you re-read my previous posts carefully, you'll see that have, and I really don't feel like repeating myself, especially to someone who thinks I'm "insane" and a "DICK." Though such ad homenims roll off my back far easier than some other posters here, and I understand it's kind of par for the course on TOTSE, it really does detract from the power of your argument when you resort to name-calling.


There's nothing irrational about humans feeling love or sadness.

The subjective experiences of these emotions cannot be explained rationally. Sure, you can talk about neuro-transmitters and chemical receptor sites, but these only describes the objective nature of the emotions, it tells us nothing about how it feels to have such an experience.


What do you want to do? Halt humans from figuring out how to do things? This has ZERO to do with comparing believing in God/gods without evidence verses not believing in things until sufficient evidence has been brought forth.

If you read my previous posts (and I'd suggest you do very carefully), you'll see that I'm trying to help humans figure out how to do things in a more utilitarian manner.

What is "sufficent" evidence, exactly? Because all those theists out there find the evidence for their beliefs to be just as "sufficent" as you do for yours. How much do you actually apply empiricism to your own life? When you read about an experiment, do you attempt to repeat it? Or, do you just listen to what the media tells you scientists have said?

Now... onto you, BrokeProphet

before a scientific minded (most atheists) person can believe that Peter Pan really exists and there is a never never land you HAVE TO SHOW EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. If you FAIL to do this (which religion undeniably does) your ideas and theories of a flesh and blood Peter Pan are and should be considered fiction.


Peter Pan doesn't have to be flesh and blood. He can be seen as a symbol of eternal youth in our cultural mythology. Having a mythology is very important in any culture, as it gives us symbols we can anchor to our reality. Several have mentioned Santa Claus, asking if I still believe in him. I see him as a symbol of generosity and altruism in the modern pantheon. Sometimes, during my Winter Solstice gift-giving ritual, I may even don a red hat lined with white fur to symbolically embody the spirit of Santa Claus.

We could do the same thing with the notion of God. Does he have to be an angry old man with a beard? Why can't God be the universe? Why can't God be you and me having this discussion? In many ways, this discussion could be seen as God attempting to get a better grasp on what God is through our collective thoughts.

Before you dismiss this archetypical-symbolic interpertation, keep in mind that science is filled with it to. Newton thought up gravity when an apple fell from a tree and conked him on the head, right? No one knows if this event actually happened or not: it's a myth, a great story to tell the kids. I seem to recall another story involving an apple changing humanity's view of the universe...

Even beyond that, though, to more fundamental concepts in science, one sees that they're all models, they're all myths. The Big Bang is a creation myth, just as every culture has a creation myth. String theory is a myth about the composition of matter, another common theme in the myths of many cultures. Every culture reasons the best they can in the creation of their myths. Our reasoning isn't any more "advanced." If it were, it would give us definitive answers, but, like all myths, it gives us, at best, an educated guess.

On a final note if you do wish to believe in Peter Pan taking you to Never Never land.......be my guest. I will think you foolish but will not disrespect and insult your beliefs so long as your imaginary friend for grown ups (GOD) does not interfere with my personal everyday life.

I'm glad you feel that way. I've always said, whatever floats your boat, as long as you're not sinking anybody else's.

Atheism is indeed an ideology, anything with the suffix"-ism" is. It is he belief that there are no gods. It is not a lack of belief, that is agnosticism (my stance on the issue). An agnostic can consider the idea that gods exist, and consider the idea that they don't, and argue just as well for both sides. An atheist holds the firm belief that gods do not exist, and will always argue against the idea of gods, unless playing the part of Devil's advocate or something of that nature.

You would be correct if it were athe-ism, and not a-theism. Atheism simply means without theism. All that is required to be an atheist is lacking belief in a deity. One who does not believe that there is a god is as much an atheist as one who actively denies a god's existance. An agnostic, on the other hand believes that one cannot know whether or not gods exist, and can make no claim either way. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

For example, when missionaries come to my door, I invite them in, make them tea, and engage in theological discussion with them. I'd wager that most atheists, when confronted with missionaries on the doorstep, either ask them to leave or try to convert the missionaries to atheism.

If you wish to waste your life listening to drivel, go for it. As for myself, I would politely send them on their way.


Once again, there is an "-ism" to atheism, namely the belief that there are no gods. One could very well coin the term "asantaism" to describe the belief that there is no Santa Claus. Linguistically, there's nothing wrong with that.

It may be linguistically correct, but it would be a useless term, considering that children who believe in santa are not called santaists.

I agree with you that the only generalization that can be made about the entire group of atheists is that they all believe there are no gods. The reason I brought up logic is only to show how atheists can be as hypocritical as theists. Denouncing God or gods does not make every other inconsistency in the human psyche magically reconcile itself.

Again, they lack belief in any god.

Science can be delusional as well. It does have a built-in mechanism for dispelling said delusions, but this tends to work rather slowly, with each successive generation of scientists dispelling some of the dogma (yes, dogma!) of the previous generation. Since our science puts more emphasis on technological progress than ethical progress, it ends up encouraging the same kind of "fear and irrational bigotry" as religion. For just one example, look at the Cold War foreign policy of "mutually assured destruction," which was nothing but fear and bigotry forged chiefly by science and logic. Now, I know religion has a higher "death tally" right now, but only because it's the older institution. Do you want to wait around to see if science catches up, or forge boldly ahead?


Do you even have a clue as to the meaning of the term *mutually assured destruction*? I seriously doubt that you do, as your claim was rediculous.

Mutually assured destruction is a strong deterrent to keep any country possessing nuclear weapons from using them. It would require insanity to launch a nuclear attack against an opponent with the ability to retaliate and destroy the attacker. On the other hand, If only one side held such weapons and had no fear of being destroyed in turn, they may actually use such weapons.

By the way, the cold war had nothing to do with science. It was political.

Also, religion isn't necessarily actively delusional.

Your assertion was delusional.

You can't generalize about all religions anymore than you can generalize about all atheists. Actually, it's easier to generalize about all the atheists; have you ever actually tried to sit down and define religion? Buddhism is a religion that's all about actively dispelling illusions. It works far more effectively than science, too, allowing an individual to dispell all delusion in his lifetime, rather than making peicemeal progress over the work of generations. As a matter of fact, most esoteric sects of most religions work in a similar manner (gnosticism, sufism, kabbalah, tantra, etc.).

Wrong. They simply trade one delusion for another. To claim that it works more effectively than science is simply rediculous.

Let me re-iterate my point here again, to hopefully bring some of you closer to understanding what I'm saying (and to give the rest of you another angle to attack me from). Every system has limitations as no model can describe reality in it's entirety. There's exceptions to every rule, even this one (one of my favorite paradoxes). However, we can acheive greater understanding by taking what works from other systems and fusing them into new ones. The idea is to always be able to make progress. If your system seems to have hit a plateau, start discussing it with friends (or on TOTSE!) to see what you may have overlooked. You'll get more out of it than you will parroting anyone else's system, whether it comes from the Holy Bible or Richard Dawkins.

Perhaps you should take your own advice? You may actually figure out that agnosticism is not really a viable position to hold. If you actually apply reason you would discover that the chances for the existance of a god are not 50/50. Temporary agnosticism is understandable, while one gathers and evaluates the evidence for and against. Permanent agnosticism is intellectual cowardice.

Having a mythology is very important in any culture, as it gives us symbols we can anchor to our reality.

We could do the same thing with the notion of God. Does he have to be an angry old man with a beard? Why can't God be the universe? Why can't God be you and me having this discussion?

Newton thought up gravity when an apple fell from a tree and conked him on the head, right? No one knows if this event actually happened or not: it's a myth, a great story to tell the kids. I seem to recall another story involving an apple changing humanity's view of the universe...

The Big Bang is a creation myth, just as every culture has a creation myth. String theory is a myth about the composition of matter, another common theme in the myths of many cultures.

Mythology does not anchor anything to reality. That is a very foolish statement. Mythology is escapism detatching one from reality.

EX: "Your child is dead and rotting in the ground." or "Your child is dead but his ghost is partying with the invisible man." One is real and the other is escapism from that reality.

God can be Peter Pan if you wish him to be. He can be an angry old man or you and me if you like. You can even believe your farts can cure cancer. Fact is, there is as much evidence for any one of those things than the other (with the exception of cancer curing farts, it has more evidence than god being anything b/c you can actually test your physical farts on a physical cancer patient.

Your Newton myth and your adam myth analogy represent a passing of the torch for understanding of the universe. One actually understands the physical real world and the other is fantasy land bullshit. They cannot be equated.

You call the big bang a myth. You call string theory a myth. These are theories. THEY ARE THEORY. They are above the realm of dragons, gods, and peter pan. They cannot be equated to things that HAVE NO EVIDENCE. They are grounded in reality. They have empirical evidence.

You say so much and say so little. You can try to compare science and religion but all you will do is display your complete lack and disregard of scientific understanding which is an earmark of most theists today.

Perhaps you should take your own advice? You may actually figure out that agnosticism is not really a viable position to hold. If you actually apply reason you would discover that the chances for the existance of a god are not 50/50. Temporary agnosticism is understandable, while one gathers and evaluates the evidence for and against. Permanent agnosticism is intellectual cowardice.

It seems that I am taking my own advice, am I not? I'll tell you this much: I've figured out that neither atheism or theism are really viable positions. Neither are a whole host of other options, which is how I arrived at agnosticism in the first place. And the best part is that being an agnostic lets me explore ANY SYSTEM I DESIRE without having to commit my life to it.

I'd call this intellectual courage. I'd call intellectual cowardice hiding out inside one system, afraid to see what the others might do for you.

And I never claimed the chances for the existence of a god were 50/50. There's a figure that definitely has been made up.

You call the big bang a myth. You call string theory a myth. These are theories. THEY ARE THEORY. They are above the realm of dragons, gods, and peter pan. They cannot be equated to things that HAVE NO EVIDENCE. They are grounded in reality. They have empirical evidence.

Funny, I was just sharing this viewpoint of mine with my ethnobotany professor, a woman who's been a scientist for over 40 years, and she agreed with me.

What will we call your cherished theories when they've been disproven in a hundred years? Myths. What do we call outdated theories like the Ptolmeic model of the solar system, or the humor model of the human body? Myths. All empirical evidence does is shows that when preforming certain actions, we're likely to achieve certain results. It can never tell us why something happens. We invent myths to do that. The myths of other cultures aren't simply pulled out of their assholes, you know. They, too, make observations and explain them with myths. So, yes, the mythology of a given culture DOES anchor it to reality.

Here's something all of you atheistic rationalists can chew on:

Albert Einstein is often touted as the greatest scientist who ever lived. Einstein revolutionized our physics with several theories, most notably his theories of relativity. He arrived at these by conducting thought experiments where he would imagine he was a beam of light, or in an elevator falling through space. Imagining such things is not logical. By drawing logical conclusions from his intuitive leaps, he advanced not just our science, but the worldview of our entire society. Most advances in science are made by similar intuitive leaps, not through logic alone.

Oh, and what's the clincher here? Albert Einstein was a devout monotheist. When asked what he was searching for, he replied "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details."

Why bother wasting your time prostelytizing?

Do atheists have a better time rotting in the ground than theists? :rolleyes:

That is where you believe we all go when we die, right? No "atheist heaven" or "atheist hell". :p

All you're doing is making my faith stronger. It's obvious that you are tools, which satan is using to pull people away from the saving love of Jesus Christ.

Athiests don't prosletyze. Athiests don't have beliefs in the supernatural.

Oh, and what's the clincher here? Albert Einstein was a devout monotheist. When asked what he was searching for, he replied "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -

Albert Einstein

It seems that I am taking my own advice, am I not? I'll tell you this much: I've figured out that neither atheism or theism are really viable positions. Neither are a whole host of other options, which is how I arrived at agnosticism in the first place. And the best part is that being an agnostic lets me explore ANY SYSTEM I DESIRE without having to commit my life to it.

I'd call this intellectual courage. I'd call intellectual cowardice hiding out inside one system, afraid to see what the others might do for you.

And I never claimed the chances for the existence of a god were 50/50. There's a figure that definitely has been made up.



Funny, I was just sharing this viewpoint of mine with my ethnobotany professor, a woman who's been a scientist for over 40 years, and she agreed with me.

What will we call your cherished theories when they've been disproven in a hundred years? Myths. What do we call outdated theories like the Ptolmeic model of the solar system, or the humor model of the human body? Myths. All empirical evidence does is shows that when preforming certain actions, we're likely to achieve certain results. It can never tell us why something happens. We invent myths to do that. The myths of other cultures aren't simply pulled out of their assholes, you know. They, too, make observations and explain them with myths. So, yes, the mythology of a given culture DOES anchor it to reality.

Here's something all of you atheistic rationalists can chew on:

Albert Einstein is often touted as the greatest scientist who ever lived. Einstein revolutionized our physics with several theories, most notably his theories of relativity. He arrived at these by conducting thought experiments where he would imagine he was a beam of light, or in an elevator falling through space. Imagining such things is not logical. By drawing logical conclusions from his intuitive leaps, he advanced not just our science, but the worldview of our entire society. Most advances in science are made by similar intuitive leaps, not through logic alone.

Oh, and what's the clincher here? Albert Einstein was a devout monotheist. When asked what he was searching for, he replied "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details."

I haven't time right now to address your entire post. I'll just hit on your incorrect assertion that Einstein was a *devout monotheist*:


Einstein quotes concerning God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar

"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

Are you trolling?

Great quotes, folks! They illustrate quite well that the conception of God and the practice of science are not mutually exclusive.

Great quotes, folks! They illustrate quite well that the conception of God and the practice of science are not mutually exclusive.

That depends on one's definition of God.

That depends on one's definition of God.

And we'd be here all night if we hashed through the myriad of definitions people assign to it.

Here's something all of you atheistic rationalists can chew on:

[...]

Oh, and what's the clincher here? Albert Einstein was a devout monotheist. When asked what he was searching for, he replied "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details."

What's there to chew on? Yes, Albert Einstein believed in Spinoza's concept of a god (hardly a "devout monotheist" as you say, since Spinoza's god isn't a monotheistic god). So? He believed in that concept of a god despite the scientific method, not because of it. He also believed in a lot of other things that turned out to be wrong.

Phh, Spinoza's god was merely a naturalist pantheist conception of god....not really what I would consider an actual god. :/

Yeah some would say it's more atheism than anything else; but the "worse" case scenario would be that this notion is different from atheism - in which case Einstein would still not be a devout monotheist.

I too am an Atheist.

I believe that when I die, it would be like a dream. Repeating itself over and over again. I see all my friends. I do whatever the hell I want.

It's that last 5-6 minutes of brain activity

(I based that idea off of waking life's basis)

I think Ethan Hawke said like 10-12 minutes ....?
I still don't see how scientists could get that statistic, but mmmkay.

Fyi, he originally said it in Before Sunrise. His and Julie Delpy's conversation was just reenacted in Waking Life. I don't know which film I like better.

Heaven and Hell are both inventions of man. They only exist in human imagination

hahahahaa oh ok..

do you have proof?

what a stupid thing to say if you dont have a clue. your just pretty sure..

I too am an Atheist.

I believe that when I die, it would be like a dream. Repeating itself over and over again. I see all my friends. I do whatever the hell I want.

It's that last 5-6 minutes of brain activity

(I based that idea off of waking life's basis)

That's where you're going if you don't accept Jesus Christ.

That's where you're going if you don't accept Jesus Christ.
You've got to do better than that if you want people to believe you. What evidence do you have to offer that the Bible's promise that unbelievers go to Hell isn't just made up bullshit?

hahahahaa oh ok..

do you have proof?

what a stupid thing to say if you dont have a clue. your just pretty sure..

You can't disprove something that we can't is supposed to be supernatural or 'of another world'. The burden of proof lies with those that believe in such extraordinary things. Seeing as one could never produce such proof, evidence, or mere support just shows that the belief is simply made up and unfounded in anything except a manmade book which gives circular proof of authority.

hahahahaa oh ok..

do you have proof?

what a stupid thing to say if you dont have a clue. your just pretty sure..

Do I have proof? Obviously not. It is impossible to prove the non-existance of anything. Was it a stupid thing to say? Absolutely not! It is a fact that humans exist. It is a fact that humans have powerful imagination. It is a fact that there have been countless gods and countless religions invented by man. It is a fact that all religious texts were written by humans. It is a fact that there is zero evidence to support the existance of the supernatural. It is a fact that there is zero evidence to support the assertion that any Deity exists. It is a fact that there is zero evidence to support the assertion that heaven or hell exist. Belief in that which can in no way be observed or measured by any possible means, is a worthless endeavor, and for all practical purposes, it is safe to assume the non-existance of such.

In Reply to First post:

LoL, I am Gnostic... As at one time a Born Again Christian... Only to change over to Gnosticism I ask a Christian, just purely Christian, why do you think I hate the world and why do you say that only a select few can obtain a magical gift called Gnosis. Why has Irenaeus been listen to when he wasn't even a Gnostic but accusing them of some many things were not? Why has the Roman Catholic Church persecuted and massacred so many Gnostic's back in the Medieval times despite having done nothing wrong... Hell they didn't even proselytize or anything, they minded there business! The Gnostic's were welcoming and inclusive to new comers and there views on people while The Roman Catholic Church back in the beginning was exceptionally exclusive.

I was exactly were you are saying the same exact thing ready to prove my faith to God by debating with atheist. I felt the same exact thing, until I realized The Letters of St. Paul contradict what Jesus says in the Gospels. Hell The Old Testament God of Moses contradicts the New Testament God of Christ.

Don't get me wrong, faith is important in my book but not as important as knowing myself and being faithful to that b/c that is were God's at. Usually I have disputes concerning whether or not religious people are ignorant. But, let me tell you, there right this time around, your only giving a sense of self-delusion. You sir must be a Fundamentalist