U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to 'De-Baptize'

reply to post by desert


it's no problem to maintain a personal belief, and to share that belief with others. where the problem arises is the use of it in a mixed venue, for the sole purpose of ostracization and perhaps worse -- to sway others of similar mindset (who may or may not be atheists) to attack people of your belief system, specifically, for any number of reasons, starting with the books you read and ending on any given points of contention (which are many).

[edit on 18-7-2010 by undo]

reply to post by Wolf321


You and I look at a sealed oyster. You say 'I think there is a pearl in that oyster, for reason x.' (Belief) I say either a) 'I believe you.' (Belief) b) 'I don't believe you, there is insufficent evidence.' (Weak atheism) c) 'I think there is no pearl in that oyster because x.' (Strong atheism) or d) 'That oyster is unopenable, there is no way to know.' (Agnostic).

reply to post by undo


How do we know that these gods were just mis-viewed angels however? The power of God cannot be comprehended by man, but angels and their works can be seen by man. It can be argued that primitive man would not know the difference.

Can someone please explain to me why I am required to have "respect" for the spiritual beliefs of others?

Originally posted by Grumble
Can someone please explain to me why I am required to have "respect" for the spiritual beliefs of others?

You're not, and it is stupid to do so.

I've seen it on this board before, we're some people honestly think that terrorists blowing up coffee shops, planes, cars, etc... are "freedom fighters".

Originally posted by C09JayLT
You say 'I think there is a pearl in that oyster, for reason x.' (Belief) I say either a) 'I believe you.' (Belief) b) 'I don't believe you, there is insufficent evidence.' (Weak atheism) c) 'I think there is no pearl in that oyster because x.' (Strong atheism) or d) 'That oyster is unopenable, there is no way to know.' (Agnostic).

Your argument for strong atheism, is actually one for an Ignostic.

The view that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed.

Your answer includes "because x," therefor, you define the parameters of what or why the pearl (i.e. God,) is. Such is the nature of Ignosticism.

Your other argument for weak atheism is exactly what I have been claiming as a belief in 'nothing.'

reply to post by Gorman91


long story, different thread required. but since the gods were also created by the supreme god in biblical theology, you have to wonder if this is just reiteration times infinity. also, and this is another related topic, the gate of god (Babel) or gods (Babilu) became associated with the gods themselves, meaning it became a type of deified object (and there was more than one such gate) and the functions behind it were mixed into the description of god and the gods in the ancient histories. a reading of atum creating is a good place to start with that particular train of thought and a comparative analysis of the parallel mesopotamian beliefs.....really an eye opener.

reply to post by Grumble


Because in this atheist's moral system you can do whatever you want provided you respect everyone else's right to do whatever you want. It lets you have your beliefs and not get murdered/raped/abused/ect for them, and the same with everyone else.

how stupid. they are atheists and dont believe?
so Why do a ritual to de baptize?
to do this you Must believe in it in the first places.

reply to post by RestingInPieces


there's a huge difference between blowing up people and baptizing or debaptizing people. overstating the case in such a way reveals prejudice instead of fair and equal consideration, which is the point of contention.

reply to post by Wolf321


I didn't say anything about definitions, just if I beleived you and if that disbelief was strong enough for me to claim the opposite. I can say there is not enough evidence to claim that belief (weak atheism) without beleiving that there is no god. (strong).

reply to post by undo


However solely from the Bible, what exact proof is there? God makes it quite common that he is jealous and the only God. E was the wording for God, and that did not end with an M. Allah, an ancient word for God, does not end in M. And many others. And traditionally, ada, adam without the m, is a female name.

reply to post by C09JayLT


I respect other's rights to do what they please, within reason. But I see no reason to respect their beliefs. If you believe the universe was created by a giant octopus, I am going to think you are a moron, and I am not going to be shy about telling you or anyone else how I feel about it.

The beliefs in the virgin birth, resurrection, etc., etc., are equally outrageous and unbelievable, but because Christians are in the majority here they demand "respect." I think it is important to stand up to them and deny their attempts to coerce worship in any form.

reply to post by Gorman91


oh oh, check this out:

Atum was a self-created deity, the first being to emerge from the darkness and endless watery abyss that girdled the world before creation.

en.wikipedia.org...

he didn't create himself, he (or rather they) created many clones of themselves, as workers, who were named after their progenitors (the atum). same idea. emerging from the abyss (see the mesopotamian abzu, which is the biblical bottomless pit, a gated device on the ocean floor). what were the clones for? to serve the atum. ancient history is really very very interesting. so the god atum (from the egyptian city of annu! see sumerian anu, who was later called amen or amun) created male and female images of themselves. we all have progenitors and dare i say they aren't monkeys?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by undo]

Seems kinda like a childish way to make a statement when it is relying on the basis of a ritual, the very thing they are condemning.

reply to post by Grumble


virgin birth = artifical insemination.

not hard to believe at all.

reply to post by C09JayLT


I think I am starting to see where we are disconnecting on our discussion. We have two fundamentally different concepts of atheism.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f307ad1b6422.jpg[/atsimg]

This is how Wikipedia graphically represents the classes of Atheism. It further goes on to explain:

A chart showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief.

It lumps the idea of Agnosticism into Atheism via weak atheism. I reject that concept, because Agnosticism only claims uncertainty. This leave the two categories of strong atheism. One simply does not believe that a god does exist, the other that there is no god. These were your arguments previously. I still assert that both of these strong atheism concepts have faith in the lack of a deity, but would divide the two by saying one is passive the other aggressive.

The aggressive form would be more akin to 'religion' on par with evangelical Christianity, but both are matters of 'faith in nothing.'

It's bad to be baptized at birth to be the toy of a capricious, devious, cruel, unjust diety who delights in torturing unfortunates.... It's even worse to make this mistake when you're older, and find out that your simple prayers not only wont be answered, they're laughed at hysterically.

reply to post by undo


Nephilim. This is how incest was avoided. It is believed that the human life span got lower because of the bad genes introduced by these beings. They are fallen angels. Angels that chose to act like God, or feel themselves better than God. The bible speaks of how they bred with early man, both before and after the flood.

reply to post by Grumble


Then we are in agreement. I have no problem telling folk what I think, only with keeping them from their beliefs. Now if they change their mind because of my ideas, that is their business.