The debate over whether a high being exists or not is totally out of control.

It is my opinion that so called 'atheists' are nothing but attention grasping, loud mouthed, asshole hypocrites. What is their story? They don't believe in heaven and hell and god...right? But they do believe in pestering people that do have faith into thinking their way. Excuse me whilst I say that is a load of bullshit.

How can one person tell someone else not to thrust their religious beliefs down anothers throats whilst doing so themselves?

It has been revealed to me through my own experiences that atheists only case for disbelief is a person telling them that science disproves religion, or some such story. And that bibles (can be seen to) contain contradictions, and wrong doings.

Can anyone else see how that is wrong? I mean I can only think of Dickie Dawkins as an atheist leader myself but compare his likeness to say the pope. One is telling you what to believe and to do whilst, uh, so is the other as it turns out.

As for me I don't even know what my religious beliefs are. I was raised Roman Catholic, if you could call it that. I am here to live my own life.I'm not going to devote any time of it to a religion and I'm also not going to spend one second of my time either saying that religion is wrong.

I think I ran out of steam :p

This kind of talk is frustrating, you should all find better things to do with your time.

"The debate over whether a high being exists or not is totally out of control."

It's not a debate. It's a bunch of irrational fools yammering about meaningless crap while everybody else asks them to back up their shit.

"It is my opinion that so called 'atheists' are nothing but attention grasping, loud mouthed, asshole hypocrites."

Fuck you too, buddy.

"What is their story? They don't believe in heaven and hell and god...right? But they do believe in pestering people that do have faith into thinking their way. Excuse me whilst I say that is a load of bullshit."

Really now? You see atheists passing laws, being in charge and telling people what they can't put in their bodies, who they can marry or what can be taught in their classrooms? That's terrible, dude. Behavior like that is totally unacceptable and should be spoken out against.

Oh, wait...

"How can one person tell someone else not to thrust their religious beliefs down anothers throats whilst doing so themselves?"

Because we have facts and logic to back up our assertions, religious people don't. Fairy tale bullshit isn't tolerated by anyone over the age of 10 in every other aspect of society except the religious one; there's no reason why religion should be except from scrutiny and criticism.

"It has been revealed to me through my own experiences that atheists only case for disbelief is a person telling them that science disproves religion, or some such story."

Actually, the staggering silence (not so skillfully covered over with doublespeak and logical fallacies) from religionists when asked for evidence or proof of and for their beliefs is why most atheists are atheists.

"And that bibles (can be seen to) contain contradictions, and wrong doings."

When the "Word of God" is full of badly written shit, it casts doubt on his case.

"Can anyone else see how that is wrong? I mean I can only think of Dickie Dawkins as an atheist leader myself "

He's an outspoken dude who thinks that religion should not be except from the same scrutiny we treat other subjects with, not some kind of "leader." Last time I checked I wasn't following him or any other atheist anywhere.

"but compare his likeness to say the pope. One is telling you what to believe and to do whilst, uh, so is the other as it turns out."

One is telling you what to believe, the other is telling you to pull your head out of your ass and look at things with a functioning brain. I'll give you a hint: The latter one isn't the Pope.

"As for me I don't even know what my religious beliefs are."

You don't know shit about shit, big surprise.

"I was raised Roman Catholic, if you could call it that."

You poor bastard.

"I am here to live my own life."

I think Jon Bon Jovi beat you to the song about that.

"I'm not going to devote any time of it to a religion and I'm also not going to spend one second of my time either saying that religion is wrong."

Of course, you're content to shut your brain off and not think about it. Another "astonishing" surprise.

"I think I ran out of steam"

You're about a post late in making that realization.

"This kind of talk is frustrating, you should all find better things to do with your time."

I'll tell you what, I'll stop giving morons like you and others a hard time about their stupidity when they stop fucking about with my government, trying to marginalize myself and the people I care about and generally make the world a shittier place to live.

So long and take care, you oblivious tool.

Atheism is not a religious belief. Dictionaries are your friends.

I'll take Christianity as an example. Why would an atheist feel like questioning a Christian's faith? If your good friends all believed in some philosophy from a book which taught that snakes used to talk, people lived to be 900 years old, and every other person was a freaking magician, wouldn't you question them??

The debate over whether a high being exists or not is totally out of control.

It is my opinion that so called 'atheists' are nothing but attention grasping, loud mouthed, asshole hypocrites. What is their story? They don't believe in heaven and hell and god...right? But they do believe in pestering people that do have faith into thinking their way. Excuse me whilst I say that is a load of bullshit.

How can one person tell someone else not to thrust their religious beliefs down anothers throats whilst doing so themselves?

It has been revealed to me through my own experiences that atheists only case for disbelief is a person telling them that science disproves religion, or some such story. And that bibles (can be seen to) contain contradictions, and wrong doings.

Can anyone else see how that is wrong? I mean I can only think of Dickie Dawkins as an atheist leader myself but compare his likeness to say the pope. One is telling you what to believe and to do whilst, uh, so is the other as it turns out.

As for me I don't even know what my religious beliefs are. I was raised Roman Catholic, if you could call it that. I am here to live my own life.I'm not going to devote any time of it to a religion and I'm also not going to spend one second of my time either saying that religion is wrong.

I think I ran out of steam :p

This kind of talk is frustrating, you should all find better things to do with your time.

You're right! What are we thinking? How could we be so foolish, as to come to an internet forum that was designed for the express purpose of religious discussion, and actually debate religion???

We should stop this insane exchange of ideas and all hold hands together and sing Cum Ba Ya.

/sarcasm

i have no problem in people believing in god or whatever, but it's only when they start forcing their beliefs on others that i have to draw the line.

the reason atheist have such a big problem with religious people is because religious people are so sure in their beliefs that they feel the need to make sure we follow them as well.

the only way to stop things like this is to tell religion to 'fuck off' because until people see that their faith is really a fairytale, they are going to keep trying to make us obey their rules and laws.

You're right! What are we thinking? How could we be so foolish, as to come to an internet forum that was designed for the express purpose of religious discussion, and actually debate religion???

We should stop this insane exchange of ideas and all hold hands together and sing Cum Ba Ya.

/sarcasm


i think he's talking about real life and how some atheists need to explain why they're right everytime a christian says they're christian.

As for me I don't even know what my religious beliefs are.

You'd be surprised to learn that you're in good company here concerning that particular kernel of self-doubt. Don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

i think he's talking about real life and how some atheists need to explain why they're right everytime a christian says they're christian.

Why, the same reason a christian needs to explain why they're right every time an atheist says they don't believe in the idea of God.

No one wants to be misunderstood.

You'd be surprised to learn that you're in good company here concerning that particular kernel of self-doubt. Don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

me too. not sure if there is a name for what i believe. mostly because i'm too lazy to search for one ;)

You're right! What are we thinking? How could we be so foolish, as to come to an internet forum that was designed for the express purpose of religious discussion, and actually debate religion???

We should stop this insane exchange of ideas and all hold hands together and sing Cum Ba Ya.

/sarcasm

You aren't debating shit. You aren't a scientist I'm sure. Unless you are you're just rehashing the words of someone that has potentially fucked up, made up a bunch of lies, etc...exactly the issues you're supposedly fighting against to people who want to belief.

For what?

To vagabondtramp, I have no problem either but isn't it a tad silly having people say I'm an atheist, I don't like you jamming beliefs down my throat but open up whilst I do just that to you?

Why, the same reason a christian needs to explain why they're right every time an atheist says they don't believe in the idea of God.

No one wants to be misunderstood.

yeah, but it's only when you make an ass of yourself, that it's a problem.

i'm sure there are people who go out in the world just looking for people they can argue with so they can show how 'right' they are.

I'll take Christianity as an example. Why would an atheist feel like questioning a Christian's faith? If your good friends all believed in some philosophy from a book which taught that snakes used to talk, people lived to be 900 years old, and every other person was a freaking magician, wouldn't you question them??

I don't usually question things that have no imact on me and don't do harm to anyone else, either.

yeah, but it's only when you make an ass of yourself, that it's a problem.


Ever heard the saying "There's an asshole in every crowd"? It's true. No matter what the subject matter, or how civil the discussion, you're liable to encounter an asshole or two who can't seem to illustrate their point without being insulting and rude.

It only seems more prevalent in this forum because there are a great deal of assholes on both sides who frequent this place.

But y'know, this is Totse. For with every angsty, opinionated, poorly communicating fool registered here, there's a diamond or two in the rough who can manage to get their points across in a way that makes it resemble civil debate.

I don't usually question things that have no imact on me and don't do harm to anyone else, either.

lmao if you think the propagation of the Christian religion has/has had no impact on you.

i think he's talking about real life and how some atheists need to explain why they're right everytime a christian says they're christian.

In real life, when a christian starts talking about religion, the vast majority of atheists remain silent and do not express their lack of belief in a deity. Being known as an atheist can quickly turn one into an outcast in one's community.

It would be a great thing if every atheist would make his/her beliefs known. It's high time that atheists cease to be treated as second class citizens.

You aren't debating shit. You aren't a scientist I'm sure. Unless you are you're just rehashing the words of someone that has potentially fucked up, made up a bunch of lies, etc...exactly the issues you're supposedly fighting against to people who want to belief.

For what?

To vagabondtramp, I have no problem either but isn't it a tad silly having people say I'm an atheist, I don't like you jamming beliefs down my throat but open up whilst I do just that to you?

it is, but there is really no other option. when someone forces their beliefs upon someone else, that person has to fight back somehow.

when religion stops imposing rules on others who don't conform with them, then there is no problem with them believing whatever they want.

people should be able to believe what they like, but they should have to leave the people who don't agree, alone.

do you see what i'm saying?

And as for Surak. You're a fucking idiot :)

Let me look at the shit you spewed.

Okay the first few things were just your opinions so I'll skip that for the sake of not insulting my intelligence with your apprant lack of.

All your evidence may as well be a fairy tale to you. You're not discovering it you're being told it. Unless you are backing it yourself shut your fucking mouth.

As for being oblivous...I'll gladly take that knowing that you are devoting yourself to being oh so clever in 'knowing' something and not shutting up about it, or turning off the "I care" switch with your wisdom of knowing everything there is to this right? You're the same person replying in such 'detail' (read:Saying what I feel I'm supposed to say as an atheist), taking the time to do so, whilst no doubt saying people that go to church to perhaps thank something that may or may not exist for good fortune they have experienced.

Yeah, live that so called life.

it is, but there is really no other option. when someone forces their beliefs upon someone else, that person has to fight back somehow.

when religion stops imposing rules on others who don't conform with them, then there is no problem with them believing whatever they want.

people should be able to believe what they like, but they should have to leave the people who don't agree, alone.

do you see what i'm saying?

I do see what you're saying, you're saying exactly what I am but with the atheist angle whilst I don't care.

However I will say everyone should let people believe what they want, BUT ESPECIALLY atheists whom SHOULD know better considering one seemingly universal complaint of these people is having something shoved in their noses...perhaps learn from what you consider to be the mistakes of others instead of doing it yourself? This thread title suits nice don't it?

In real life, when a christian starts talking about religion, the vast majority of atheists remain silent and do not express their lack of belief in a deity. Being known as an atheist can quickly turn one into an outcast in one's community.

It would be a great thing if every atheist would make his/her beliefs known. It's high time that atheists cease to be treated as second class citizens.

i think it is too.

it's fine to make your beliefs known, but it's a different matter to go around insulting people because they don't agree (or even forcing them upon someone else)

if a perfect world, people would believe whatever they believe (no matter how stupid) and no one would poke their nose into other people's business.

I do see what you're saying, you're saying exactly what I am but with the atheist angle whilst I don't care.

However I will say everyone should let people believe what they want, BUT ESPECIALLY atheists whom SHOULD know better considering one seemingly universal complaint of these people is having something shoved in their noses...perhaps learn from what you consider to be the mistakes of others instead of doing it yourself? This thread title suits nice don't it?

it does, but to get what you need, sometimes you've got to be a little hypocritical.

until we get everyone leaving everyone else alone, people are going to argue.

i think it's kind of counter-productive to argue over your beliefs, when it's much better to get the other to 'agree to disagree, now leave me the fuck alone.' :D

However I will say everyone should let people believe what they want, BUT ESPECIALLY atheists whom SHOULD know better considering one seemingly universal complaint of these people is having something shoved in their noses...perhaps learn from what you consider to be the mistakes of others instead of doing it yourself? This thread title suits nice don't it?

Don't you see. The annoyance of having religious beliefs shoved down our throats is but a minor distraction. That is something that can be dismissed and chalked up to the "live and let live" mentality.

It's the fact that it's intertwined so much with our government, our media and the laws we make that affect all human beings, regardless of religion ... that's what we're uncomfortable with.

Isn't it kind of funny that there are as many atheists who support the preservation and historical research of religious texts as there are theists? Also, there's staunch atheists who take the time to study why religion as a natural phenomenon has occurred (only) in the human species.

They don't want to stifle it completely. They just want it to be recognized for what it is so that it can lead to further answers on why the entire world is divided over it, and what gives us the propensity to believe in it.

(You had to have known this was coming):


"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

You aren't debating shit. You aren't a scientist I'm sure. Unless you are you're just rehashing the words of someone that has potentially fucked up, made up a bunch of lies, etc...exactly the issues you're supposedly fighting against to people who want to belief.

For what?

For what, you ask? How about for the fact that a large percentage of christians literally believe that Jesus will descend from the clouds in the near future, bringing death and damnation to all who disbelieve, and they think that this would be a glorious thing? How about the fact that those same Christians are the majority of the voting public, and that they are determined to elect politicians who share the same irrational superstitions? How about the fact that they want to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, what you can watch on television, what is taught to children in public school classrooms, and what research scientist should be allowed to do(embryonic stem cell)?

I've looked at both sides of these issues, and I assure you, there are definitely lies being told. But they are being told by the religious.

Very good post Trousersnake.

Atheists are the ones who are wrong. When they try to convince other people to become atheists they are -- whether they realize it or not -- serving satan.

Don't go down with them! Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, your walk with him should be the most important thing in your life.

The debate over whether a high being exists or not is totally out of control.

It is my opinion that so called 'atheists' are nothing but attention grasping, loud mouthed, asshole hypocrites. What is their story? They don't believe in heaven and hell and god...right? But they do believe in pestering people that do have faith into thinking their way. Excuse me whilst I say that is a load of bullshit.

How can one person tell someone else not to thrust their religious beliefs down anothers throats whilst doing so themselves?

It has been revealed to me through my own experiences that atheists only case for disbelief is a person telling them that science disproves religion, or some such story. And that bibles (can be seen to) contain contradictions, and wrong doings.


We just have to be a noisy minority in order to protect ourselves from the Jesus police. I do agree that many take it too far in evangelizing atheism.

For what, you ask? How about for the fact that a large percentage of christians literally believe that Jesus will descend from the clouds in the near future, bringing death and damnation to all who disbelieve, and they think that this would be a glorious thing? How about the fact that those same Christians are the majority of the voting public, and that they are determined to elect politicians who share the same irrational superstitions? How about the fact that they want to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, what you can watch on television, what is taught to children in public school classrooms, and what research scientist should be allowed to do(embryonic stem cell)?

I've looked at both sides of these issues, and I assure you, there are defifitly lies being told. But they are being told by the religious.

Great job reminding me of what absolutely positively scared the shit out of me. Mind numbing apathy seems to be the only cure.

And as for Surak. You're a fucking idiot :)

Let me look at the shit you spewed.

Okay the first few things were just your opinions so I'll skip that for the sake of not insulting my intelligence with your apprant lack of.

All your evidence may as well be a fairy tale to you. You're not discovering it you're being told it. Unless you are backing it yourself shut your fucking mouth.

As for being oblivous...I'll gladly take that knowing that you are devoting yourself to being oh so clever in 'knowing' something and not shutting up about it, or turning off the "I care" switch with your wisdom of knowing everything there is to this right? You're the same person replying in such 'detail' (read:Saying what I feel I'm supposed to say as an atheist), taking the time to do so, whilst no doubt saying people that go to church to perhaps thank something that may or may not exist for good fortune they have experienced.

Yeah, live that so called life.

So... We can't know anything unless we see, hear, or prove it ourself? We can't trust the scientific discoveries of others? Great fucking idea.

There's a big difference between prosletyzing and challenging assertions.

Thirdly, way to be a shitstirrer, asshole.

Edit: To clarify. You created a thread based on half-truths to pick a fight with any and all athiests. That makes you a shitstirrer.

Double edit: "Thread", not "Threat". Typo.

Edit: To clarify. You created a threat based on half-truths to pick a fight with any and all athiests. That makes you a shitstirrer.

A threat? You mean I threatened atheists elitist ideals? How'd I manage that? Fueling any self doubt in their own minds about their own beliefs? Wow I impress myself sometimes even.

And point me out to any half truth I have made. They are all observational. My own observations to be precise which is more then some cult-like following atheists have with a strong static cling to any leader figure.

A threat? You mean I threatened atheists elitist ideals? How'd I manage that? Fueling any self doubt in their own minds about their own beliefs? Wow I impress myself sometimes even.

That was a typo.

And point me out to any half truth I have made. They are all observational. My own observations to be precise which is more then some cult-like following atheists have with a strong static cling to any leader figure.

'Static cling to any leader figure'? 'Cult'? Richard Dawkins, your example, is a renowned scholar. Athiests don't all love him, and those that do don't always love him because he's athiest. Nice assumption, too bad it's a false one. Care to give us any more examples, or just your personal observations, which as far as assertions go isn't worth anything.

I do see what you're saying, you're saying exactly what I am but with the atheist angle whilst I don't care.

However I will say everyone should let people believe what they want, BUT ESPECIALLY atheists whom SHOULD know better considering one seemingly universal complaint of these people is having something shoved in their noses...perhaps learn from what you consider to be the mistakes of others instead of doing it yourself? This thread title suits nice don't it?

Woah, woah. Who said athiests were shoving their beliefs in anybody's faces? An athiest (a being the prefix for 'without', or 'lacking', or 'not') doesn't have belief in the supernatural. Athiests don't shove their 'beliefs' down anybody's throats. As I said, big difference between prosletyzing and criticising the assertions of others.

wht is the point of this discussion? you're basically saying that you don't want to listen to anyone elses point of view! it doesn't leave much of an opening for debate does it.

at least atheists question god and listen to believers ideas, they don't just tell them to SHUT UP!

http://sonyps3giveaway.co.uk/index.php?referral=395543
http://hits4pay.com/members/index.cgi?dr_rock

Well there are passive atheists, and aggressive atheists. Most atheists are passive, it's just the aggressive ones are in people's faces about religion, and people think that's atheism. I dislike aggressive atheists as much as I dislike evangelicals, extremists etc.

Religion is retarded. I don't know why I even bother looking in this forum.

Well there are passive atheists, and aggressive atheists. Most atheists are passive, it's just the aggressive ones are in people's faces about religion, and people think that's atheism. I dislike aggressive atheists as much as I dislike evangelicals, extremists etc.

I don't know of any atheists that run around in the streets with signs saying DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD!! REPENT!! LIVE A SECULAR LIFE!! NO. Even militant atheists, at most, write books on why atheism is rational and, most of them, simply fight to keep religions out of state-funded affairs/institutions.

I mean in everyday life, of course I think the tax breaks and privileges etc that churches get is bullshit. I'm very pro separation of church and state.

I haven't bothered to read the entire thread up until this point, so maybe this has already been discussed, but here it goes...

Atheists are INCREDIBLY hypocritical. People place their belief in religion based on faith, not proof. They have no solid proof in their beliefs, but they choose to believe them anyways. This is the only argument that atheists can realistically bring into play in the argument, but oddly enough this same argument works just as well when turned around on the atheist. Where is your proof that there is no god? There is none, it is just the belief that they choose. They have put equally as much faith in their non-belief as the believers have put in theirs. So how exactly can they make their attack based on a question which attacks their own belief system in an equally as effective manner?

Agnosticism is far more reasonable stance on the topic than either devote belief in the gods, or devote disbelief in them.

Atheists are INCREDIBLY hypocritical. People place their belief in religion based on faith, not proof. They have no solid proof in their beliefs, but they choose to believe them anyways. This is the only argument that atheists can realistically bring into play in the argument, but oddly enough this same argument works just as well when turned around on the atheist. Where is your proof that there is no god? There is none, it is just the belief that they choose.
Atheists don't need proof that deities don't exist to be without belief that they do. I'm assuming that you don't believe pink unicorns exist. Not having that belief doesn't make you a hypocrite.

You obviously are another one who has his own definition of atheist that is defined as one who declares deities don't exist. Even this type of atheist is not a hypocrite. Claiming that extraordinary claims without evidence are not true is not on par with claiming they do. There is nothing hypocritical about stating that an all knowing, all powerful God doesn't exist as intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. Not to mention all the evidence we have of people creating religions and making up gods throughout the centuries. The likelihood that such beings exist is minute enough to claim that they don't. Nothing hypocritical about it.




They have put equally as much faith in their non-belief as the believers have put in theirs.
Nonsense. Atheists need no more faith to not have a belief in gods as you do to not have a belief in leprechauns.



So how exactly can they make their attack based on a question which attacks their own belief system in an equally as effective manner?
Not having a belief in gods is not a belief system just as a Christian's lack of belief in Brahma is not theirs.


Agnosticism is far more reasonable stance on the topic than either devote belief in the gods, or devote disbelief in them.
Do you think the definition of agnosticism is that of some sort of fence sitter? An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of deities is unknowable. Most atheists that I know are also agnostic.

Atheists don't need proof that deities don't exist to be without belief that they do. I'm assuming that you don't believe pink unicorns exist. Not having that belief doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Nonsense. Atheists need no more faith to not have a belief in gods as you do to not have a belief in leprechauns.

Assuming that we are arguing for the existence of pink unicorns, pink unicorns would be something of physical substance. There is absolutely no physical proof of this physical existence case closed. The existence of gods is not a matter of physical being, there's much more to the argument. All either side has to go on is faith. Atheism VS. Theism is an argument between two beliefs, leprachauns/pink unicorns do not hld any relevance inthis argument, you simply can't compare them.

You obviously are another one who has his own definition of atheist that is defined as one who declares deities don't exist. Even this type of atheist is not a hypocrite.

I don't care if you look at atheism from a blunt "no gods exist" point or from a broad philosophical view. The substantial proof that no higher deity exists is no more plentiful than the substantial proof that a god does exist.

Not having a belief in gods is not a belief system just as a Christian's lack of belief in Brahma is not theirs.

I didn't say it was a belief system. I said it was a belief, which is all it is. To believe wholely that there is no god requires as much faith in the belief as believing ther eis a god does. Neither side has much in the way of proof to support their claims. Even when you look at the proof that has been brought to light regarding the falsifications of many established religious followings.

Do you think the definition of agnosticism is that of some sort of fence sitter? An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of deities is unknowable. Most atheists that I know are also agnostic.

Agnosticism being the belief that the existence of theological deities is simply something we cannot know. Whether or not gods exist is simply unknowable. I know this. I don't see how a decidedly explicit atheist can also be an agnostic. You either believe there are no gods, or you're not sure. You can't call yourself an atheist, then turn around and be, well i'm kind of agnostic too...

Assuming that we are arguing for the existence of pink unicorns, pink unicorns would be something of physical substance. There is absolutely no physical proof of this physical existence case closed. The existence of gods is not a matter of physical being, there's much more to the argument. All either side has to go on is faith. Atheism VS. Theism is an argument between two beliefs, leprachauns/pink unicorns do not hld any relevance inthis argument, you simply can't compare them."

Reality is physical, there are no such things as "non-corporeal" life forms like in Star Trek. If God is not physical, that is the same as saying he does not exist.

Let's throw out that for a minute however, and say that he can somehow exist and not be physical; he still cannot interact with us or reality, and therefore has no effect on anyone or anything.

"I don't care if you look at atheism from a blunt "no gods exist" point or from a broad philosophical view. The substantial proof that no higher deity exists is no more plentiful than the substantial proof that a god does exist."

The whole "your fictional construct is internally inconsistent and logically impossible" thing is a pretty good point against it being real, no matter how you try to shift the goalposts into meaninglessness with your "outside reality" garbage.

"I didn't say it was a belief system. I said it was a belief, which is all it is. To believe wholely that there is no god requires as much faith in the belief as believing ther eis a god does."

The only time a religionist or other deluded fool busts this pitiful old chestnut out is when they have nowhere else to run with their "arguments." By claiming that atheists requires as much faith as their twisted beliefs do, they attempt to bring atheists down to their level; this fails miserably as not believing in something to due lack of evidence does not require faith, only a functioning capacity for empiricism and logical thought.

"Neither side has much in the way of proof to support their claims."

There is a reason why the so-called "god of the gaps" has been getting smaller, that is precisely because religious claims have been progressively getting debunked by reason as time passed. This trend will only continue into the future.

"Even when you look at the proof that has been brought to light regarding the falsifications of many established religious followings."

"You do in fact have proof that what we're all saying is bullshit, but because I say it does not count, it does not count."

Typical.

"Agnosticism being the belief that the existence of theological deities is simply something we cannot know. Whether or not gods exist is simply unknowable. I know this. I don't see how a decidedly explicit atheist can also be an agnostic. You either believe there are no gods, or you're not sure. You can't call yourself an atheist, then turn around and be, well i'm kind of agnostic too..."

Very few of us are "agnostic" about other fictional characters, the only reason anyone assumes this position about religion is because it has been hammered into our society for thousands of years that it is something that somehow deserves to stand outside the reach of reason. There's no reason for this other than the propagation of the illogical beliefs themselves.

Exactly. The argument for the person that disbelieves in unicorns, is the same as an atheist. There is no support for either, therefore we don't have to support our position. The believer in a unicorn or a god, therefore, has the burden of proof upon their shoulders. I can't disprove something that is non-falsifiable...get this through your head. YOU show IT to ME. Show me a unicorn. Show me a god.

Show me a unicorn. Show me a god.

You cannot compare the two, it's irrelevant. For the sake of argument, lets say that pink unicorns are real and that God is also real. Now assuming this, I CAN show you my pink unicorn, I still can't show you god. Even if god is truthfully known to exist, I still cannot present to you a physical manifestation of his existence at my will. Therefore leprachauns or pink unicorns hold no fucking value in your argument. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD...

Very few of us are "agnostic" about other fictional characters, the only reason anyone assumes this position about religion is because it has been hammered into our society for thousands of years that it is something that somehow deserves to stand outside the reach of reason. There's no reason for this other than the propagation of the illogical beliefs themselves.

You can't out rule the slight possibility though. You just can't. Even though it's all a pretty laughable story that you'll be fed by most any religious follower, it's still a possibility, even if you reason leads you to believe it's bullshit (which mine does too, don't get too bent out of shape).

When I ask any atheist what their explanation for our existence, or the source of human existence, or more so existence in general (of the universe and whatnot), their explanations always end out sounding just as ridiculous as the explanation of intelligent design does when considered with no bias.

You're all lining up to scream at me that atheism is not a belief system, that you're more founded in your beliefs than say Christians are or whatever. Bullshit. I retract my previous statement, IT SURE IS A BELIEF SYSTEM. You've accepted your belief and all you're all digging the up the points which support your belief system to back it. Picking and choosing what suits your liking to protect your chosen belief.

People will accept whatever they choose to to suit their situation and make their reality happy one. They will believe whatever they WANT to, to feel that the questions regarding their existence are somehow answered. Organized religion is answering less and less of the questions people need answered for themselves and turn to atheism, and I think more will, which I also think eventually will pass in fad too over an extended period of time towards peoplenot giving a shit at all....

Fact of the matter is, that when it comes down to understanding the source of all existence, and the meaning of life, etc etc. THERE IS NO KNOWABLE EXPLANATION. We can't know it, we aren't ever going to know it. To me, calling yourself an Atheist is as ridiculous as calling yourself a Christian, a Buddhist, or a Muslim.

You're no better in vigilantly supporting your unfounded beliefs than any crazed Christian in my eyes. You're both standing on opposite sides of a dead horse kicking it back and forth. The argument doesn't matter, both sides are wasting their time...

You cannot compare the two, it's irrelevant. For the sake of argument, lets say that pink unicorns are real and that God is also real. Now assuming this, I CAN show you my pink unicorn, I still can't show you god. Even if god is truthfully known to exist, I still cannot present to you a physical manifestation of his existence at my will. Therefore leprachauns or pink unicorns hold no fucking value in your argument. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD...


This is my whole point, you CAN'T show me god or anything of it. IT IS NON-FALSIFIABLE. Also, as far as I know, you can't show me anything pointing to the existence of a unicorn, therefore it would be utterly dumb of me to believe in such a creature. Why should a concept such as 'god' be exempt? I'm not saying this "disproves" god or unicorns, but it's utterly insane to believe in either of the two. We all might as well hold beliefs on millions of other unverifiable beings.

This is my whole point, you CAN'T show me god or anything of it. IT IS NON-FALSIFIABLE. Also, as far as I know, you can't show me anything pointing to the existence of a unicorn, therefore it would be utterly dumb of me to believe in such a creature. Why should a concept such as 'god' be exempt? I'm not saying this "disproves" god or unicorns, but it's utterly insane to believe in either of the two. We all might as well hold beliefs on millions of other unverifiable beings.

What's your take on the creation and existence? Of life and the universe? I'd like to hear it before we go anything further, because I'm sure it makes equally as much sense as any intelligent design theory religion has cooked up does when you think it over a bit. You have no reasonable grounds to 100% believe that the concept of a god does not exist, no more than any bible thumper does. Yet you still have made an assumption, took the side, and feel the need to preach your beliefs and opinions. No less than any religious followers of the world do. All your arguing is gonna break down to in the end is a we're still better and righter than they are though.

It doesn't matter either way, because you can't know, none of us can, at least not where we're at now. So the only reasonable stance to take on it is to not question it either way (and more over not to care at all really) because it is simply unknowable. There is no absolute comprehensible truth to be had. I guess that can be called an agnostic viewpoint, I don't care what you want to call it.

What's your take on the creation and existence? Of life and the universe? I'd like to hear it before we go anything further, because I'm sure it makes equally as much sense as any intelligent design theory religion has cooked up does when you think it over a bit. You have no reasonable grounds to 100% believe that the concept of a god does not exist, no more than any bible thumper does. Yet you still have made an assumption, took the side, and feel the need to preach your beliefs and opinions. No less than any religious followers of the world do. All your arguing is gonna break down to in the end is a we're still better and righter than they are though.

It doesn't matter either way, because you can't know, none of us can, at least not where we're at now. So the only reasonable stance to take on it is to not question it either way (and more over not to care at all really) because it is simply unknowable. There is no absolute comprehensible truth to be had. I guess that can be called an agnostic viewpoint, I don't care what you want to call it.

Listen carefully because I've said it over and over, and even made a thread about it:

An athiest is NOT someone who believes a supernatural entity DOES NOT exist.

An athiest is someone who DOES NOT believe a supernatural entity exist.

WITHOUT THEISM.

No assumption, no belief, no preaching (you can't prosletyze the absence of beliefs).

Here's how logic works, in a sense: An assertion is made based on evidence. Without evidence, there is no assertion.

Theists assert supernatural entities exist, despite lacking evidence to actually HAVE an assertion. This is an assumption, a lie, a fallacy, whatever you want to call it.
Atheists do not make that assertion.

Okay? Okay.

Edit: Next time, read the thread. You'll find your argument already debunked.

It's not a debate. It's a bunch of irrational fools yammering about meaningless crap while everybody else asks them to back up their shit.



And that's just the atheists!

Mwahahahahahaha!!!

Assuming that we are arguing for the existence of pink unicorns, pink unicorns would be something of physical substance. There is absolutely no physical proof of this physical existence case closed.
And there is no proof of gods, case closed. Because you haven't seen pink unicorns, does that mean they don't exist.

I'll chance 'pink unicorns' to 'unicorn spirits' if it helps you understand the argument better.


The existence of gods is not a matter of physical being, there's much more to the argument. All either side has to go on is faith. Atheism VS. Theism is an argument between two beliefs,
I guess you didn't understand a word I wrote. Not having a belief in something is not a belief and atheism takes zero faith.


I don't care if you look at atheism from a blunt "no gods exist" point or from a broad philosophical view. The substantial proof that no higher deity exists is no more plentiful than the substantial proof that a god does exist.
Simply declaring two things to be equal doesn't make it so. God is not a 50/50 proposition just as the possibility of anything else I can create in my mind does not have the same chance of existing as not existing.



I didn't say it was a belief system. I said it was a belief, which is all it is.
Non beliefs are not beliefs. Get that through your head. Is your lack of belief that leprechauns exist a belief?



To believe wholely that there is no god requires as much faith in the belief as believing ther eis a god does.
It takes zero faith to believe that God was made up by people when all of the evidence shows he was and that none shows that he exists. I already talked about how statistically improbable things come late into the universe and how the existence of a being that is similar to one we've been making up for thousands of years actually exists is highly improbable. To say it's just as probable that He does exist is baseless as you have failed to provide any evidence.


Neither side has much in the way of proof to support their claims.
I gave my proof. Where's yours that He does exist?



Even when you look at the proof that has been brought to light regarding the falsifications of many established religious followings
Why does that proof get disregarded? We know all about how humans have created gods to as a way to explain the seemingly unexplainable. There is no more reason to believe these gods exist as invisible unicorns.

With no evidence for supernatural type beings existing and and all evidence showing thst things happen through natural means, saying that belief in gods existing is equal to believing they don't is beyond just being stubborn. It's wishful thinking that God is a 50/50 proposition and that atheists have beliefs just as ridiculous as believers do. It's just not so.



Agnosticism being the belief that the existence of theological deities is simply something we cannot know. Whether or not gods exist is simply unknowable. I know this. I don't see how a decidedly explicit atheist can also be an agnostic. You either believe there are no gods, or you're not sure. You can't call yourself an atheist, then turn around and be, well i'm kind of agnostic too...
You should know better by now. An atheist can have no belief in deities yet be of the opinion that the reality of them existing or not existing is unknowable.




When I ask any atheist what their explanation for our existence, or the source of human existence, or more so existence in general (of the universe and whatnot), their explanations always end out sounding just as ridiculous as the explanation of intelligent design does when considered with no bias.
Then you're talking to the wrong atheists or you see a god who always existed and can poof things into existence as ridiculous/believable as gradual escalation from simple beginnings.

And many atheist will just say, "I don't know" Not having an explanation for why and how things are is no reason to come to the conclusion "God did it".



Bullshit. I retract my previous statement, IT SURE IS A BELIEF SYSTEM. You've accepted your belief and all you're all digging the up the points which support your belief system to back it. Picking and choosing what suits your liking to protect your chosen belief.
If you believe in the Easter bunny and I argue against his existence, is that also my belief system? I can argue for the non-existence of all kinds of made up characters. Are all of those non-beliefs each a belief system?

What's your take on the creation and existence? Of life and the universe? I'd like to hear it before we go anything further, because I'm sure it makes equally as much sense as any intelligent design theory religion has cooked up does when you think it over a bit. You have no reasonable grounds to 100% believe that the concept of a god does not exist, no more than any bible thumper does. Yet you still have made an assumption, took the side, and feel the need to preach your beliefs and opinions. No less than any religious followers of the world do. All your arguing is gonna break down to in the end is a we're still better and righter than they are though.




Unfortunately, we're all left with a problem of infinite regress when trying to conceive some 'be all end all' to the beginning of existence. Whether you say the universe just is and always has been or god just is and always has been, it leaves you in the same quandary of wondering "but what made x (god or the universe).



It doesn't matter either way, because you can't know, none of us can, at least not where we're at now. So the only reasonable stance to take on it is to not question it either way (and more over not to care at all really) because it is simply unknowable. There is no absolute comprehensible truth to be had. I guess that can be called an agnostic viewpoint, I don't care what you want to call it.

Again, there is no need to say 'I don't know' to something that has absolutely no foundation for believing. I could tell you 'look, there's a magical green monkey in the middle of moon, he is the creator of the moon' Now, realistically, we can't dig through the moon and just find him. Would you say 'hmm, well there's absolutely no evidence for your conjecture, so I'll say I'm just not sure whether or not the monkey exists? I sure would hope not. You'd say, look monkey theorist, give me some evidence, then we can talk.

This same example you could take in many different forms. You could start telling people that we're in the matrix, how could they possibly debunk this non-falsifiable claim?

Again, the burden of proof is on you, the believer of such grandiose beliefs, not anyone else.

And that's just the atheists!

Mwahahahahahaha!!!

Your wit is underwhelming.

You cannot compare the two, it's irrelevant. For the sake of argument, lets say that pink unicorns are real and that God is also real. Now assuming this, I CAN show you my pink unicorn, I still can't show you god. Even if god is truthfully known to exist, I still cannot present to you a physical manifestation of his existence at my will. Therefore leprachauns or pink unicorns hold no fucking value in your argument. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD...


For the sake of argument, let us assume that it is an invisible unicorn. Now does it work?

And that's just the atheists!

Mwahahahahahaha!!!

He cannot be talking about atheists b/c he said IRRATIONAL fools. Atheism is based entirely on rationality.

There is NOTHING irrational about not believing Peter Pan actually exists or that there is a never-never land. Shit, I mean god and heaven. SAME DIFFERENCE.

Muslims claim that Allah has performed miracles for them.

Christians claim that god has performed miracles for them.

Both hate each other and praise a different god.

SO

This either means:

1.) There are (at least) 2 gods, who are both created the universe and both answer their followers prayers. Also this would mean when a christian dies they go to christian heaven and muslim hell at the same time and vice versa.
This is not to mention all the other thousands of "I know my god is real" gods out there.


2.) Both Gods are fairytales and people just thank their "god" for any good luck that comes their way, and use their "god" as an easy way out for understanding anything.

I think any logical person would go with the latter.

I was a christian for 16 years, in the 4 years since that I have been an athiest and stopped praying, my life has changed in absolutly no way, other then having an extra free 2 hours on sundays.
/thread

I was a christian for 16 years, in the 4 years since that I have been an athiest and stopped praying, my life has changed in absolutly no way, other then having an extra free 2 hours on sundays.
/thread

I actually thought of making a thread on this very topic. I was a Xtian for a long time. You are right in that my life remains for the most part unchanged. God has not punished me and the devil has not rewarded me.

I do feel more comfortable and at ease with the whole world as an atheist though. No more guilt or bullshit. No more turning my head skyward and begging an invisible man for anything. No more foolishness.

When something bad or good happens in my life I do not attribute those things to supernatural forces. I attribute them to myself or natural things beyond my control. It feels great. It empowers an individual to make or break it based on their own merits.

If we continue to believe in a BENEVOLENT entity in the sky we are really just passing the buck, when it comes to making the world a better place, to our IMAGINATION. The world would be better based on that logic if God died in the hearts and minds of humanity.