My Fellow Atheists, We Aren't Responsible

[Dr.House]

You're right, I apologize. You never said that. I confused what you said with what Dr.House said. He made that statement and I mistakenly attributed it to you.

I never made that claim either... I said Fundie Athiests like the OP do...

Did you somehow relate yourself to him?

I don't understand your use of "fundie" atheist

The term fundamental atheist is in essence a contradiction. A fundamentalist is someone who often blindly subscribes to a specific doctrine or creed. By definition, an atheist has no specific doctrine, creed or world view associated with atheism.

So I didn't see how you really saw a distinction between atheists and were just labeling all atheists as "fundies".

Whatever, you can play semantic games all day if you want though, I don't care.

I wasn't labeling all athiests... I rarely use the word "all" when describing a group of people...

The OP is a Fundamental Athiest who wants to stop those who believe from believing for the betterment of mankind... If you were reading the thread you would have known this...

Whatever... I leave you to your ignorance....

 

[RDD_1210]

I never made that claim either... I said Fundie Athiests like the OP do...

Did you somehow relate yourself to him?

I don't understand your use of "fundie" atheist

The term fundamental atheist is in essence a contradiction. A fundamentalist is someone who often blindly subscribes to a specific doctrine or creed. By definition, an atheist has no specific doctrine, creed or world view associated with atheism.

So I didn't see how you really saw a distinction between atheists and were just labeling all atheists as "fundies".

Whatever, you can play semantic games all day if you want though, I don't care.

I wasn't labeling all athiests... I rarely use the word "all" when describing a group of people...

The OP is a Fundamental Athiest who wants to stop those who believe from believing for the betterment of mankind... If you were reading the thread you would have known this...

Whatever... I leave you to your ignorance....

What happened to the link to the posts of me worshiping Obama?

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't understand your use of "fundie" atheist

The term fundamental atheist is in essence a contradiction. A fundamentalist is someone who often blindly subscribes to a specific doctrine or creed. By definition, an atheist has no specific doctrine, creed or world view associated with atheism.

So I didn't see how you really saw a distinction between atheists and were just labeling all atheists as "fundies".

Whatever, you can play semantic games all day if you want though, I don't care.

I wasn't labeling all athiests... I rarely use the word "all" when describing a group of people...

The OP is a Fundamental Athiest who wants to stop those who believe from believing for the betterment of mankind... If you were reading the thread you would have known this...

Whatever... I leave you to your ignorance....

What happened to the link to the posts of me worshiping Obama?

There isn't a URL to his ass.

 

[HUGGY]

Why must willfully ignorant USMB members like HouseGimp troll Atheist threads spewing their vile hate? No one says HouseGimp can not be an ignorant asshole. If he wants to believe in the booger man or an invisible all seeing..all knowing creator being ...I say fine!

I'm just glad he doesn't say he is an atheist. That would leave a stain on atheism.

 

[RDD_1210]

I wasn't labeling all athiests... I rarely use the word "all" when describing a group of people...

The OP is a Fundamental Athiest who wants to stop those who believe from believing for the betterment of mankind... If you were reading the thread you would have known this...

Whatever... I leave you to your ignorance....

What happened to the link to the posts of me worshiping Obama?

There isn't a URL to his ass.

Strange. He said I did it everyday, I figured it would be easy for him.

 

[Tetracide]

Bottom line is you Fundie Athiests aren't happy with allowing those who believe to practice their Constitutional right to do so...

I believe every individual has a right to believe whatever they wish to. Whether they are right or wrong is a completely different matter. Whether the consequences of their beliefs are positive or negative, is also a completely different matter.

Somehow their faith threatens you and the future of mankind...

Which I have explained. The existence of a supernatural plane of existence would destroy all that which we know today, and the means by which we know it. But not a single one of you have understood that, and instead have spent most of your time either calling me a bigot, or a "fundie" with no other substantiated claim countering mine.

Instead, we've spent much of our time here blurring the definition of God, likening it to Batman and Star Trek, essentially rendering it a useless term incapable of being defined or dealt with objectively.

I hate no one. I never argued the rights of other should be curbed. I have only said, and will continue to say, that the existence of God is a faulty premise, resting on faulty metaphysical claims, and that if it were in fact true, represents a threat to man's faculty of reason.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Seriously, why do you care what others believe or who they believe in?

Because I am fascinated by human behavior.

And because religion has been the cause of a great many human deaths throughout history. It has restrained human advancement, blocked scientific achievements, and has, to this day, asking millions to surrender their mind to faith.

If a sect of individuals invented a pink unicorn to worship, established a society and culture around this pink unicorn, and then proceeded to kill, or convert, or enslave those who did not believe, you would also have something to say.

Now-a-days, we don't have all the killing, but we do have a religious culture that is bogging down human progress and scientific advancement. It's worth saying, "Hey, pink unicorns don't exist, dude."

Have you been asked to surrender your mind to faith?


Did it kill you to say NO?


You idiots can't even be honest.

Just admit it, your in a religious forum to marginalize folks who do believe in something bigger than themselves and who has the strength of faith. You're nothing but a bunch of
weak bastards.

 

[percysunshine]

Bottom line is you Fundie Athiests aren't happy with allowing those who believe to practice their Constitutional right to do so...

I believe every individual has a right to believe whatever they wish to. Whether they are right or wrong is a completely different matter. Whether the consequences of their beliefs are positive or negative, is also a completely different matter.

Somehow their faith threatens you and the future of mankind...

Which I have explained. The existence of a supernatural plane of existence would destroy all that which we know today, and the means by which we know it. But not a single one of you have understood that, and instead have spent most of your time either calling me a bigot, or a "fundie" with no other substantiated claim countering mine.

Instead, we've spent much of our time here blurring the definition of God, likening it to Batman and Star Trek, essentially rendering it a useless term incapable of being defined or dealt with objectively.

I hate no one. I never argued the rights of other should be curbed. I have only said, and will continue to say, that the existence of God is a faulty premise, resting on faulty metaphysical claims, and that if it were in fact true, represents a threat to man's faculty of reason.

"The existence of a supernatural plane of existence would destroy all that which we know today, and the means by which we know it."


Only someone who has visited such a supernatural plane could possibly know that.

What was it like?

.

 

[Tetracide]

Only someone who has visited such a supernatural plane could possibly know that.

Not at all. A supernatural plane of existence, as conceived by theists, is a place outside man's means of knowledge. It is beyond reason. It is not a physical place one may travel to, it is outside of existence.

Metaphysically, we know that nothing can be beyond existence. Existence is all that which is. Beyond existence is nothing. Introducing a supernatural realm is throwing that concept out entirely.

Furthermore, and as I stated before, science represents man’s attempt to systematize aspects of reality into a coherent framework of knowledge with the premise that reality can be understood. Theology, on the other hand, is dedicated to the proposition that an important segment of reality is forever unknowable (supernatural).

 

[Tetracide]

Just admit it, your in a religious forum to marginalize folks who do believe in something bigger than themselves and who has the strength of faith.

I'm on a debate forum, debating. If you can't handle the fire, get out of the kitchen.

 

[percysunshine]

Only someone who has visited such a supernatural plane could possibly know that.

Not at all. A supernatural plane of existence, as conceived by theists, is a place outside man's means of knowledge. It is beyond reason.....

Soo...this "supernatural plane of existence would destroy all that which we know today"...I am guessing 'you' is part of 'we'.

This is a very old logic trap by the way. Don't worry about it too much.

 

[Tetracide]

Soo...this "supernatural plane of existence would destroy all that which we know today"...I am guessing 'you' is part of 'we'.

This is a very old logic trap by the way. Don't worry about it too much.

I won't, nor will I worry much about you any longer.

 

[HUGGY]

Just admit it, your in a religious forum to marginalize folks who do believe in something bigger than themselves and who has the strength of faith.

I'm on a debate forum, debating. If you can't handle the fire, get out of the kitchen.

Faith is the excuse the Muzlumz that slit the U N workers throats used. Faith isn't strength..it is insanity.

 

[k2skier]

I don't agree with that. The Bible doesn't cover every known 'thing' known to man at that time. Just as a simple illustration I pointed out that many animals that were known at the time were not mentioned in the Bible. I just don't see the logic of discrediting what the Bible says because dinosaurs weren't mentioned? Revelations spoke of times to come. You really should read it if you haven't, studying about it in college isn't quite the same thing as actually reading it.

The second part we can agree on.

I don't discount it, any more than I discount Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or any other works of fiction.

I understand all were written by human, for human, in human's own image. That's not a knock.

I know you don't mean it as in insult, but millions of other people see it differently, many very intelligent and learned people. And even from a purley historic standpoint, it's not fiction.

this is why the bible is in it's own "special" section in the library...just sayin'

religioustolerance.org

 

[Rogo]

Like I previously stated on this thread, I have no problem with theism but I do believe in the next coming century or centuries that mankind's belief in faith-based religious and ideologies will diminish. Just look at some of the European countries, such as Switzerland. Atheism and agnosticism is becoming very popular over there, and it is only a matter of time till the rest of us follow in their footsteps.

 

[JoReba]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

Thanks for your thoughts, here.

Many people were predestined to be destroyed after death. I speak for and hope for the best of luck for you in your atheism. After all, "luck" is the only resource you have.

 

[Anguille]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

Thanks for your thoughts, here.

Many people were predestined to be destroyed after death. I speak for and hope for the best of luck for you in your atheism. After all, "luck" is the only resource you have.

That may be how you see it. I take great comfort in my atheism.

 

[JoReba]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

Thanks for your thoughts, here.

Many people were predestined to be destroyed after death. I speak for and hope for the best of luck for you in your atheism. After all, "luck" is the only resource you have.

That may be how you see it. I take great comfort in my atheism.

What other resource do you have beyond luck?

 

[Anguille]

Thanks for your thoughts, here.

Many people were predestined to be destroyed after death. I speak for and hope for the best of luck for you in your atheism. After all, "luck" is the only resource you have.

That may be how you see it. I take great comfort in my atheism.

What other resource do you have beyond luck?

The comfort in knowing the truth. Comfort is a resource.

 

[JoReba]

That may be how you see it. I take great comfort in my atheism.

What other resource do you have beyond luck?

The comfort in knowing the truth. Comfort is a resource.

How do you use comfort as a means of accomplishing anything?