A Thought for Atheists

[Dr.Drock]

You should study history a little.

The Christmas truce was not a single day even, and both sides ended up transferring front line units that refused to fire on each other after playing soccer together.

It is also telling that you are still resorting to stawmen in an attempt to defend your position.

My apologies, allow me to make incredibly minor changes to my post in order to get an actual response out of you.

Before the Christmas truce was thought up, and after it ended, when these guys were trying to shoot each other's heads off what was that evidence of? God? Satan?

You're telling ppl not to use strawmen arguments (sunshine, pretty baby, etc) then you're using those exact arguments yourself.

It was evidence that governments are not responsive to the will of the people.

I see, so God overpowered government for that very short period of time, but not the rest?

That's evidence of an omnipotent god? One who can only overpower the will of a gov't of a couple countries for a very short period of time?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Because many use it as a statement of denigration and slander. It's their special little way of telling us that we're inferior, while keeping up the appearance of 'concern' to their little "sunday friends".

It doesn't personally bother me, but I can understand how it affects others.



It's a sign that Herman Cain is the antichrist, and the apocalypse will begin with his election to office in 2012.

I agree with your response about religion. It's a way of saying "I know I'm right and since I'm SO right I DESERVE an eternity of peace and love with my friends and family in heaven" and "I know you're wrong and since you're SO wrong you DESERVE an eternity of fire and torture with demons and heathens in hell."

And to think I got in this thread because I though atheists did not think this way, I might owe Illogical an apology.

Not everyone thinks the line I gave. Just the self-righteous religious types.


Read this board in particular, there's plenty of them who pretend to know who's going to hell and who's going to heaven, who's sins are worse etc etc.

 

[Photonic]

What?

Do you want to reconsider this retarded accusation?

Check who you are talking too, Sir.

You're the one telling me I hold an "interesting viewpoint" in that I "can't have belief founded in fact." I have that absolutely correct, yes?

If so, it is you who should check into who you're talking to because it is manifestly clear that I was illustrating and critiquing QW's faith-based belief paradigm.

I agree with you for the most part.

If by agreeing, you mean I share your notion that I (or someone, I suppose) "can't have belief founded in fact," then we don't agree at all.

I can most certainly have a belief founded in verifiable facts of reality, and valid logic; those kinds of beliefs are the ones I consider to be valid, useful, and worth holding.

It is also most certainly possible to hold all sorts of beliefs that are unfounded in any verifiable sense, that are denials of verifiable facts of reality, and depend entirely upon invalid logic to establish/maintain "validity." These kinds of beliefs--if genuinely held--are all faith; I consider them to be benignly useless at best, and dangerously disinformative at worst.

Though perhaps not with your way of putting it.

You seem to be good at putting words into my mouth, why don't you tell me what to say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My apologies, allow me to make incredibly minor changes to my post in order to get an actual response out of you.

Before the Christmas truce was thought up, and after it ended, when these guys were trying to shoot each other's heads off what was that evidence of? God? Satan?

You're telling ppl not to use strawmen arguments (sunshine, pretty baby, etc) then you're using those exact arguments yourself.

It was evidence that governments are not responsive to the will of the people.

I see, so God overpowered government for that very short period of time, but not the rest?

That's evidence of an omnipotent god? One who can only overpower the will of a gov't of a couple countries for a very short period of time?

No, the will of the people did.

You are making unwarranted assumptions based on your prejudices. You really should try to approach this with an open mind, you might learn something. I never said God is omnipotent, or anything else. Why do you keep resorting to strawmen? Are you that afraid that you might be wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree with your response about religion. It's a way of saying "I know I'm right and since I'm SO right I DESERVE an eternity of peace and love with my friends and family in heaven" and "I know you're wrong and since you're SO wrong you DESERVE an eternity of fire and torture with demons and heathens in hell."

And to think I got in this thread because I though atheists did not think this way, I might owe Illogical an apology.

Not everyone thinks the line I gave. Just the self-righteous religious types.


Read this board in particular, there's plenty of them who pretend to know who's going to hell and who's going to heaven, who's sins are worse etc etc.

Yet you are attempting to make me defend a position I do not have. That indicates that you are actually offended by something, what is it?

 

[LOki]

Check who you are talking too, Sir.

You're the one telling me I hold an "interesting viewpoint" in that I "can't have belief founded in fact." I have that absolutely correct, yes?

If so, it is you who should check into who you're talking to because it is manifestly clear that I was illustrating and critiquing QW's faith-based belief paradigm.

If by agreeing, you mean I share your notion that I (or someone, I suppose) "can't have belief founded in fact," then we don't agree at all.

I can most certainly have a belief founded in verifiable facts of reality, and valid logic; those kinds of beliefs are the ones I consider to be valid, useful, and worth holding.

It is also most certainly possible to hold all sorts of beliefs that are unfounded in any verifiable sense, that are denials of verifiable facts of reality, and depend entirely upon invalid logic to establish/maintain "validity." These kinds of beliefs--if genuinely held--are all faith; I consider them to be benignly useless at best, and dangerously disinformative at worst.

Though perhaps not with your way of putting it.

You seem to be good at putting words into my mouth, why don't you tell me what to say.

Put ... what?!?!?!?!?!?

Dude! Is this not you replying to me; in your very own words saying that I said I can't have a belief founded in fact?

So you can't have belief founded in fact?

Interesting viewpoint. Incorrect of course but interesting you should say that.

IS THIS NOT YOU? HAVE I PUT THESE WORD IN YOUR MOUTH?


Christ! The fucking retards around here have no idea that there is a record of the actual shit they post.

 

[Photonic]

You're the one telling me I hold an "interesting viewpoint" in that I "can't have belief founded in fact." I have that absolutely correct, yes?

If so, it is you who should check into who you're talking to because it is manifestly clear that I was illustrating and critiquing QW's faith-based belief paradigm.

If by agreeing, you mean I share your notion that I (or someone, I suppose) "can't have belief founded in fact," then we don't agree at all.

I can most certainly have a belief founded in verifiable facts of reality, and valid logic; those kinds of beliefs are the ones I consider to be valid, useful, and worth holding.

It is also most certainly possible to hold all sorts of beliefs that are unfounded in any verifiable sense, that are denials of verifiable facts of reality, and depend entirely upon invalid logic to establish/maintain "validity." These kinds of beliefs--if genuinely held--are all faith; I consider them to be benignly useless at best, and dangerously disinformative at worst.

You seem to be good at putting words into my mouth, why don't you tell me what to say.

Put ... what?!?!?!?!?!?

Dude! Is this not you replying to me; in your very own words saying that I said I can't have a belief founded in fact?

So you can't have belief founded in fact?

Interesting viewpoint. Incorrect of course but interesting you should say that.

IS THIS NOT YOU? HAVE I PUT THESE WORD IN YOUR MOUTH?


Christ! The fucking retards around here have no idea that there is a record of the actual shit they post.

You think it's funny take take MY words out of the context of MY statement and put them in YOUR own sentence to make them sound like they are supporting something they are not?

You then have the nerve to insult me for something you have done?

At least I have a new person to ignore today, since you seem to be completely unable to hold a reasonable conversation with another human without resorting to insulting them immediately. If you needed clarification you should have said something instead of putting it in a synthetic statement of your own design to garner some perceived insult out of it.

So much for having a reasonable discussion with someone who probably shared my belief, regardless of what you may have perceived.

 

[Lokiate]

And to think I got in this thread because I though atheists did not think this way, I might owe Illogical an apology.

What? That some are offended by remarks meant to insult others? The insult doesn't bother me, but many times, it is an insult.

 

[LOki]

You seem to be good at putting words into my mouth, why don't you tell me what to say.

Put ... what?!?!?!?!?!?

Dude! Is this not you replying to me; in your very own words saying that I said I can't have a belief founded in fact?

So you can't have belief founded in fact?

Interesting viewpoint. Incorrect of course but interesting you should say that.

IS THIS NOT YOU? HAVE I PUT THESE WORD IN YOUR MOUTH?


Christ! The fucking retards around here have no idea that there is a record of the actual shit they post.

You think it's funny take take MY words out of the context of MY statement ...

This, of course, never happened. Your statement was blockquoted retard, anyone can click the link. Get a clue.

... and put them in YOUR own sentence to make them sound like they are supporting something they are not?

Nothing I did misrepresented your post in the least. Give up this denial of reality dumbass, the whole world can verify that you're out of your mind here.

You then have the nerve to insult me for something you have done?

I'd have pulled back from the 'retard' judgment if you had not just now, with full knowledge that there's a record backing up my judgment, just fully embraced the exact same lack of awareness that there's a record of your retarded behavior.

At least I have a new person to ignore today, since you seem to be completely unable to hold a reasonable conversation with another human without resorting to insulting them immediately.

I didn't start in with a claim that you said you couldn't have a belief founded in fact. Did I? In fact, rather than "...resorting to insulting [you] immediately," I extended to you the opportunity to reconsider the retarded accusation you made, and you opted instead to pretend that you made no such statement--and then when confronted with its entirety, you now claim with retarded gusto that I took your statement out of context and/or misrepresented what you posted.

So ignore away dumbass--my world can only get better without your retarded accusations.

If you needed clarification you should have said something instead of putting it in a synthetic statement of your own design to garner some perceived insult out of it.

You made yourself abundantly clear with the post that I did not design; that statement that is without any question entirely of your own manufacture--your very own "synthesis," if you will.

So much for having a reasonable discussion with someone who probably shared my belief, regardless of what you may have perceived.

On the chance that you have not quite managed to put me on ignore yet, here's a little FYI: Reasonable discussion involves reason, rather than retarded accusations and fatuous denials of reality.

 

[Photonic]

And to think I got in this thread because I though atheists did not think this way, I might owe Illogical an apology.

What? That some are offended by remarks meant to insult others? The insult doesn't bother me, but many times, it is an insult.

This thread was doomed to this from the start. It's yet another hate thread under the guise of attempting to understand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And to think I got in this thread because I though atheists did not think this way, I might owe Illogical an apology.

What? That some are offended by remarks meant to insult others? The insult doesn't bother me, but many times, it is an insult.

Why would going to Hell, Neverland, or Xanadu offend you unless you believe in them? Even comments that are supposed to offend me that I believe do not offend me.

 

[Lokiate]

And to think I got in this thread because I though atheists did not think this way, I might owe Illogical an apology.

What? That some are offended by remarks meant to insult others? The insult doesn't bother me, but many times, it is an insult.

Why would going to Hell, Neverland, or Xanadu offend you unless you believe in them? Even comments that are supposed to offend me that I believe do not offend me.

I already explained why. People get pissed off by it, because it's a denigrating remark. They're saying 'fuck you, you dirty heathen piece of shit, you're going to hell because you aren't good enough'. It's not exclusive to atheists, either. The people who do make such remarks use it to insult people of other faiths, gays, and even other denominations of their religion as well.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

What? That some are offended by remarks meant to insult others? The insult doesn't bother me, but many times, it is an insult.

Why would going to Hell, Neverland, or Xanadu offend you unless you believe in them? Even comments that are supposed to offend me that I believe do not offend me.

I already explained why. People get pissed off by it, because it's a denigrating remark. They're saying 'fuck you, you dirty heathen piece of shit, you're going to hell because you aren't good enough'. It's not exclusive to atheists, either. The people who do make such remarks use it to insult people of other faiths, gays, and even other denominations of their religion as well.

I have to agree with Lokiate here, I don't really get offended by it, but I can see some people being offended by it because it was meant as an insult. To quote SLC punk "The problem with somebody giving you shit about being gay..., it's not that they're wrong about you, it's that they're giving you shit."
There is a reason why fighting words are NOT protected under the 1st amendment of the constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What? That some are offended by remarks meant to insult others? The insult doesn't bother me, but many times, it is an insult.

Why would going to Hell, Neverland, or Xanadu offend you unless you believe in them? Even comments that are supposed to offend me that I believe do not offend me.

I already explained why. People get pissed off by it, because it's a denigrating remark. They're saying 'fuck you, you dirty heathen piece of shit, you're going to hell because you aren't good enough'. It's not exclusive to atheists, either. The people who do make such remarks use it to insult people of other faiths, gays, and even other denominations of their religion as well.

Being told to go somewhere you think is a fantasy is denigrating?

It sounds like you think their attitude is insulting, not the words. I have no idea why you think a person that thinks they are better than you is actually capable of insulting you. Maybe you bought into that low self esteem bullcrap at some point in your life, you should get over it.

 

[Lokiate]

Why would going to Hell, Neverland, or Xanadu offend you unless you believe in them? Even comments that are supposed to offend me that I believe do not offend me.

I already explained why. People get pissed off by it, because it's a denigrating remark. They're saying 'fuck you, you dirty heathen piece of shit, you're going to hell because you aren't good enough'. It's not exclusive to atheists, either. The people who do make such remarks use it to insult people of other faiths, gays, and even other denominations of their religion as well.

Being told to go somewhere you think is a fantasy is denigrating?

It sounds like you think their attitude is insulting, not the words. I have no idea why you think a person that thinks they are better than you is actually capable of insulting you. Maybe you bought into that low self esteem bullcrap at some point in your life, you should get over it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It was evidence that governments are not responsive to the will of the people.

I see, so God overpowered government for that very short period of time, but not the rest?

That's evidence of an omnipotent god? One who can only overpower the will of a gov't of a couple countries for a very short period of time?

No, the will of the people did.

You are making unwarranted assumptions based on your prejudices. You really should try to approach this with an open mind, you might learn something. I never said God is omnipotent, or anything else. Why do you keep resorting to strawmen? Are you that afraid that you might be wrong?

You're the one who said the Christmas Truce was evidence of God. I'm trying to get you to expand on how that could make any sense.

I do have an open mind, convince me how the truce was evidence of God, and the before and after the truce them shooting their heads off wasn't evidence of God.

And rest assured I'm not the least bit worried about my lack of religion.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And to think I got in this thread because I though atheists did not think this way, I might owe Illogical an apology.

Not everyone thinks the line I gave. Just the self-righteous religious types.


Read this board in particular, there's plenty of them who pretend to know who's going to hell and who's going to heaven, who's sins are worse etc etc.

Yet you are attempting to make me defend a position I do not have. That indicates that you are actually offended by something, what is it?

I don't get offended by words on a computer screen.

And I didn't ask you to defend that position, just telling you that position exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see, so God overpowered government for that very short period of time, but not the rest?

That's evidence of an omnipotent god? One who can only overpower the will of a gov't of a couple countries for a very short period of time?

No, the will of the people did.

You are making unwarranted assumptions based on your prejudices. You really should try to approach this with an open mind, you might learn something. I never said God is omnipotent, or anything else. Why do you keep resorting to strawmen? Are you that afraid that you might be wrong?

You're the one who said the Christmas Truce was evidence of God. I'm trying to get you to expand on how that could make any sense.

I do have an open mind, convince me how the truce was evidence of God, and the before and after the truce them shooting their heads off wasn't evidence of God.

And rest assured I'm not the least bit worried about my lack of religion.

No you aren't, you are asking me how I reconcile the Christmas Truce with the existence of an omnipotent God that refuses to stop evil. Since that is not the God I believe in I have no obligation to defend that position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not everyone thinks the line I gave. Just the self-righteous religious types.


Read this board in particular, there's plenty of them who pretend to know who's going to hell and who's going to heaven, who's sins are worse etc etc.

Yet you are attempting to make me defend a position I do not have. That indicates that you are actually offended by something, what is it?

I don't get offended by words on a computer screen.

And I didn't ask you to defend that position, just telling you that position exists.

And it is irrelevant to our discussion, just like the fact that some atheists think people who believe in God are criminally insane is irrelevant.

 

[HUGGY]

Yet you are attempting to make me defend a position I do not have. That indicates that you are actually offended by something, what is it?

I don't get offended by words on a computer screen.

And I didn't ask you to defend that position, just telling you that position exists.

And it is irrelevant to our discussion, just like the fact that some atheists think people who believe in God are criminally insane is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Hardly. That IS the main contention of most atheists. It is central and germain to all discussion with the religious.