11 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeCan you elaborate on your last sentence where you express a hope that theists will be no longer in a majority ? What does that mean ? A rule of atheists over this planet where Faith will be forbidden ? Something like the early communist regime in Soviet Russia started to do ? A papacy of Reason, Logic and nothing but Reason and Logic ? A place where Darwin's birthday will be a national holiday-like the British Rationalist Association has started to agitate for ? A dreary barren place where emotions will be forbidden--remember if you banish Faith your emotional faculties start to shrivel. So,unless Love fits in the rules for the evolution of species and has the express permission or certification of the rationalists, it will be banned ? Truly, what a nightmarish place will this earth be if it is handed over to rationalists.
Well it would be nice if that were true, but it isn't.
Atheists are a subset of human beings. (barring the discovery of another sentient species
capable of conceiving and expressing the abstract ideas needed for god concepts and belief
or otherwise in them)
In fact all humans (not currently mentally incapacitated and incapable of such thoughts ...[text shortened]... ing)
are either Atheists or theists.
Most currently are theists, this is hopefully changing.
11 Dec 11
3 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoUtter garbage - you might as well assert that to be an atheist is to be devoid of emotion.
Can you elaborate on your last sentence where you express a hope that theists will be no longer in a majority ? What does that mean ? A rule of atheists over this planet where Faith will be forbidden ? Something like the early communist regime in Soviet Russia started to do ? A papacy of Reason, Logic and nothing but Reason and Logic ? A place where Darw nned ? Truly, what a nightmarish place will this earth be if it is handed over to rationalists.
We simply don't believe in imaginary friends, talking snakes, twinkle dust and all the other sh** you theists believe in. Other than that we operate like any other human.
11 Dec 11
Originally posted by AgergWhy the high ambition of ruling this planet then, as googlefudge is hoping for ? We theists do not believe in talking snakes or imaginary friends or twinkle dust or whatever s*** you abusively credit the theists to believe in. We do believe in God,that is all. That belief exists side by side with faculties of Reason, Logic as well as Love and other emotions in the minds of theists. Does that perplex you ? Do you hate the theists for what they are ? But you do seem to be upset that there are humans who believe in God ! Everyone cannot be an automoton swearing by Reason and Logic alone.
Utter garbage - you might as well assert that to be an atheist is to be devoid of emotion.
We simply don't believe in imaginary friends, talking snakes, twinkle dust and all the other sh** you theists believe in. Other than that we operate like any other human.
11 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoHow in blazes do you get from:
Why the high ambition of ruling this planet then, as googlefudge is hoping for ? We theists do not believe in talking snakes or imaginary friends or twinkle dust or whatever s*** you abusively credit the theists to believe in. We do believe in God,that is all. That belief exists side by side with faculties of Reason, Logic as well as Love and other emoti ...[text shortened]... humans who believe in God ! Everyone cannot be an automoton swearing by Reason and Logic alone.
In fact all humans (not currently mentally incapacitated and incapable of such thoughts or reasoning) are either Atheists or theists.
Most currently are theists, this is hopefully changing.
to some hive of heartless, communist inclined atheists who seek to rule the earth and sap it of every last drop of fun or emotion!???
Also how in blazes did you conclude I hate theists? Really, give us a breakdown of what constitutes deductive reasoning for you in this context because from where I'm standing all I can see is a mess 😞
11 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergGooglefudge is hoping that theists will soon be no longer a majority. What he means by that he has not elaborated. In plain reading, it is at least a wish that the planet will soon be full of atheists rather than theists. Does that not recall to the mind the early Soviet rule where Cathedral of St.Basil was converted into an " Anti - god Museum " ? ( vide Fitzroy Maclean's book Eastern Approaches page 21 Penguin Edition 1990 ).Is not the British Rationalist Association trying to get Darwin's birthday declared as a National Holiday ? Does that not amount to deifying Darwin who as a decent scientist would have been horrified to find ? Even Dawkins has written a chapter in his " The God Delusion " titled " What's wrong with religion?why be so hostile ? " in order to clear the perception about him that he is a fanatic science fundamentalist. At least he is cogent and sincere in his arguments and respectful about the opposition. But atheists on this forum are just dumping shovelful of nonsense on the theists. Is that not on account of hatred ?
How in blazes do you get from:
In fact all humans (not currently mentally incapacitated and incapable of such thoughts or reasoning) are either Atheists or theists.
Most currently are theists, this is hopefully changing.
to some hive of heartless, communist inclined atheists who seek to rule the earth and sap it of every last drop of fun or emot ...[text shortened]... titutes logical reasoning from your perspective because from where I'm standing it's a mess 😞
11 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoGooglefudge is hoping that theists will soon be no longer a majority. What he means by that he has not elaborated
Googlefudge is hoping that theists will soon be no longer a majority. What he means by that he has not elaborated. In plain reading, it is at least a wish that the planet will soon be full of atheists rather than theists. Does that not recall to the mind the early Soviet rule where Cathedral of St.Basil was converted into an " Anti - god Museum " ? ( vid e just dumping shovelful of nonsense on the theists. Is that not on account of hatred ?
Well given the surplus of crazy fundamentalists like RJHinds, Rajk999, etc...
(and those who divorce themselves of fundamentalism yet hold equally f***ed up view of what is going to happen within the next 50 years - for example a cataclysmic battle between humans and the minions of hell)
for whom the precepts of their religion acts as a barrier to otherwise rational people acknowledging that they are indeed unhinged - alongside the fact that religious dogma is a source of many injustices in this world and still tries to get it's fingers in pies for which it has no business; I read it as a firm hope that in the future we as humans will collectively grow up.
Does that not recall to the mind the early Soviet rule where Cathedral of St.Basil was converted into an " Anti - god Museum " ? ( vide Fitzroy Maclean's book Eastern Approaches page 21 Penguin Edition 1990 ).
No, not really - atheism is not synonimous with "Stalinism". Indeed I visited a London cathedral to see a concert last month and despite the fact I don't believe in "God" I had no desire that the beautifully constructed place of Christian worship be transformed into something else. As a structure - just the way it was - it was quite a remarkable sight; turning it into a museum would destroy that.
Is not the British Rationalist Association trying to get Darwin's birthday declared as a National Holiday ? Does that not amount to deifying Darwin who as a decent scientist would have been horrified to find ?
It amounts to certain members of the Rationalist Association seeking to pull off an anti-religious stunt - nothing more than that. They certainly don't speak for all atheists.
Even Dawkins has written a chapter in his " The God Delusion " titled " What's wrong with religion?why be so hostile ? " in order to clear the perception about him that he is a fanatic science fundamentalist. At least he is cogent and sincere in his arguments and respectful about the opposition. But atheists on this forum are just dumping shovelful of nonsense on the theists. Is that not on account of hatred ?
There are a lot of theists on this forum presently who actually buy into the "nonsense" you say we foist upon them.
11 Dec 11
Originally posted by AgergWe Christians are waiting for you guys to grow up. 😏
[b]Googlefudge is hoping that theists will soon be no longer a majority. What he means by that he has not elaborated
Well given the surplus of crazy fundamentalists like RJHinds, Rajk999, etc... [hidden](and those who divorce themselves of fundamentalism yet hold equally f***ed up view of what is going to happen within the next 50 years - for example a ca ...[text shortened]... rum presently who actually buy into the "nonsense" you say we foist upon them.[/b]
11 Dec 11
Originally posted by AgergIf you don't believe in imaginary friends, talking snakes, and twinkle dust,
Utter garbage - you might as well assert that to be an atheist is to be devoid of emotion.
We simply don't believe in imaginary friends, talking snakes, twinkle dust and all the other sh** you theists believe in. Other than that we operate like any other human.
then stop obsessing over them and maybe you can get them out of your
mind. You and a few other atheists are the only ones that have such
problems. Maybe a psychologist or if you are really bad a psychiatrist
can get such things out of yor head. However, I don't have much hope
for the guy that believes in a flying spaghetti monster because he even
has a church.
http://www.venganza.org/
11 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsMay he touch you with his noodly appendage. Praise be to ragu!
If you don't believe in imaginary friends, talking snakes, and twinkle dust,
then stop obsessing over them and maybe you can get them out of your
mind. You and a few other atheists are the only ones that have such
problems. Maybe a psychologist or if you are really bad a psychiatrist
can get such things out of yor head. However, I don't have much hope ...[text shortened]... ieves in a flying spaghetti monster because he even
has a church.
http://www.venganza.org/
11 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeMy, but you do go on.
As a throwaway clarifying point in my last thread I stated what I meant by atheist and what was meant
by atheist by the person in the talk I was linking so that people would know and understand what was
being talked about in the video and by myself.
This backfired by creating off topic discussion on what atheist means and who gets to define it.
...[text shortened]... ch?v=AiPR74AiGdU&feature=channel_video_title
Bottom line, your twist of the language does nothing more than throw more light on your problem: an atheist needs the thing he refutes to exist in order to exist himself. He can only define himself in terms of the thing he insists doesn't.
In short, the atheist is a classical paradox; an arborist cutting the limb between himself and the tree.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Dec 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI would think the atheist is more like a fish without a bicycle. 😉
My, but you do go on.
Bottom line, your twist of the language does nothing more than throw more light on your problem: an atheist needs the thing he refutes to exist in order to exist himself. He can only define himself in terms of the thing he insists doesn't.
In short, the atheist is a classical paradox; an arborist cutting the limb between himself and the tree.
12 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudge"American Atheists" simply defines Atheism as "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity".
As a throwaway clarifying point in my last thread I stated what I meant by atheist and what was meant
by atheist by the person in the talk I was linking so that people would know and understand what was
being talked about in the video and by myself.
This backfired by creating off topic discussion on what atheist means and who gets to define it.
...[text shortened]... ch?v=AiPR74AiGdU&feature=channel_video_title
So what is the difference between an Agnostic and an Athest according to this?
Neither has a belief in a deity so why are they not the same according to this?
I think they have to blur the lines with this line of thought, its harder to defend
a belief in something (or nothing) than to claim a lack of one.
Kelly