What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by something wicked

 

We have evidence of tribal cultures on this planet that have no form of religion, no concept of deities, no afterlife, no spirits, no supernatural at all. These are 'primitive' isolate cultures.

I'm sorry, what does that say exactly? I have evidence of people who don't watch the x factor - I'm one of them, does that mean that this TV program doesn't exist? Is Simon Cowell therefore a figment of some peoples imagination - after all most have never met him in the flesh. Where did I use the word primitive please, you seem to feel the need to draw attention to it, or are you responding to someone elses comment but using my tag?

Re Tiger 5

You wrote:


["Why shouldn’t there be psychism? Why shouldn’t there be spiritual entities? All that can be said from the most able scientists (many of whom taught me) is that “It seems unlikey”. Meanwhile the les academically able atheists rsuh out and just yell prove it when they cannot disprove their own flying spaghetti god!"]

Psychism isn't a part of theism, though they can be associated depending on the cosmogony/cosmology models used.

Mainly the confusion on this has its roots in the new-age mish-mash, where incompatible world-wievs are mixed and then considered from incompetent cottage-industry perspectives. The informed atheist doesn't position him/herself on this

Meanwhile I'm personally a great 'flying spaghetti monster' fan, as an expression and example of bad logic, bad science, bad semantics, bad epistemology.

Quote: ["Cheer up. By the time you have read this post science has advanced by another tranche of peer-reviewed papers. It is the peer review process that acknowledge the scientific proof at the level of academic science."]

Quite a few of the basic logical and and scientific claims can be verified by the reasonably well educated and informed individual, without peers. E.g. definitions and application of deductive and inductive logic. Something which still seems to be lightyears beyond the average pseudo-scientist's misuse of it in theist contexts.

I would like to see an example of such a tribal culture.

Originally posted by NonKonphormist

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by lowki

 

Anyhow, you're focusing on only a small part of the spells I cast, a large bulk of my magic spells were dedicated to getting a perfect partner. And she is way better than expected, which was also defined.

Hey I'm all up for an online experiment, I've asked this of xtians many a time but get nothing but BS excuses (I got a book full), so how do you fancy casting a spell for me ?

I'll make it easy, you seem to be adept at the perfect woman thing and by sheer coincidence I could well be in the market for one and my budget won't stretch to a ticket to Thailand at the mo.

So you fancy having a crack then ?

Hi, just out of interest, why do some people on here use the phrase Xtian? Do you have a problem with someone named Chris? Surely you need to also remove the 't' also if you wish to indulge in such games?

What's the problem with Xtian?
You know what it refers to.
Then what's the problem?

The fact you responded as such means you haven't really got a clue have you? Have you followed this thread or just jumping in? The point was made by someone using the term was that the name Christ was not one they wished to use, hence Xtian. Christian minus Christ = ian, not tian. Is that not obvious to you? Are you really up this late?

Sheesh, adolescence ain't what it used to be, having an attitude just means you have an attitude.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by something wicked

 

The x replaces the criss(like criss cross) sound. Xian would be pronounced crissian. Does that make sense to you? xmas works because the t is silent in christmas for some weird reason...

You really don't get it do you? You seem to want to use the term to deny the word Christ - Christ has six letters, by leaving one in you are keeping a little bit of Christ in your life

reply to post by something wicked


You are really strange the way you interpret things lol.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by something wicked

 

The x replaces the criss(like criss cross) sound. Xian would be pronounced crissian. Does that make sense to you? xmas works because the t is silent in christmas for some weird reason...

You really don't get it do you? You seem to want to use the term to deny the word Christ - Christ has six letters, by leaving one in you are keeping a little bit of Christ in your life

Yes, but if it was Xian,
that could be a city in China.

really he was Jmmanuel or Emmanuel if you prefer,
while he was alive.

Even if Christ may be an offensive name to him,
since people have forgotten the origin of the term,
child sodomy under the guise of education,
still a common Illuminati practice,
they simply see it as okay.

You can call the historical figure that if you want.
In much of america he's actually called Jesus.
with a birth potentially guided by star-beings,
Jesus Emanuel, who traveled to India,
and came back to tell the tales,
a body possessed by some high-level souls.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by NonKonphormist

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by lowki

 

Anyhow, you're focusing on only a small part of the spells I cast, a large bulk of my magic spells were dedicated to getting a perfect partner. And she is way better than expected, which was also defined.

Hey I'm all up for an online experiment, I've asked this of xtians many a time but get nothing but BS excuses (I got a book full), so how do you fancy casting a spell for me ?

I'll make it easy, you seem to be adept at the perfect woman thing and by sheer coincidence I could well be in the market for one and my budget won't stretch to a ticket to Thailand at the mo.

So you fancy having a crack then ?

Hi, just out of interest, why do some people on here use the phrase Xtian? Do you have a problem with someone named Chris? Surely you need to also remove the 't' also if you wish to indulge in such games?

What's the problem with Xtian?
You know what it refers to.
Then what's the problem?

The fact you responded as such means you haven't really got a clue have you? Have you followed this thread or just jumping in? The point was made by someone using the term was that the name Christ was not one they wished to use, hence Xtian. Christian minus Christ = ian, not tian. Is that not obvious to you? Are you really up this late?

Sheesh, adolescence ain't what it used to be, having an attitude just means you have an attitude.

It is more convenient to use an abbreviated form of the word, and that's all it is, a word.
I have no issue with the word christ, it's just quicker to type xtian, and it's a bonus that it gets your knickers in a twist.

reply to post by lowki


The user i am replying to has stated in another thread that:-

"Atheists have no problems with making oaths to Satan"

Nonsense - we don't believe in deities.

reply to post by bogomil


Bogomil.

I am very happy withmy terms and definitions. I am a doer as opposed to a philosopher, theologian or the legendary bicycle repair man. I hope you got the essence of the point I was trying to make. If you did not cheer up and be happy. Not everything is meant to be grasped by everyone.

This is turning into a fine dog and pony show. If I wanted to get involved in Philosophy I would have studied it at university as opposed to science.

Try this one. If there are little spiritual entities why not great big ones that we may call deities?


Sheesh

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by lowki

 

The user i am replying to has stated in another thread that:-

"Atheists have no problems with making oaths to Satan"

Nonsense - we don't believe in deities.

Then why not sign on the dotted line?
It's all false anyhow,
test your faith in atheism.

If your atheist faith is strong, nothing will happen.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by lowki

 

The user i am replying to has stated in another thread that:-

"Atheists have no problems with making oaths to Satan"

Nonsense - we don't believe in deities.

LOL! Wow. Actually, that person is right, about me at least. I have absolutely no problem making an oath to Satan, but he doesn't exist. No harm done to me, no possession, no "demon" infestation, no voices in my head, nothing. All because I don't believe it, which adds the extra bonus of not experiencing those illusions.

As an atheist.

I have ZERO problems with the teachings of Christ.

But... Sadly, some (not all), some of the people who believe in Christ, also use it to justify war, or arrogance towards other religions.

Some Christians are more un-Christ-like than I am...

Attention Xtians and all such related people. As you can guess by now I am not the best typist> I therefore spell Xtian the we that I do. Please can you use some sense and realise that I write it in this way as it is quicker. There is no secret Occult reason.

Live long and prosper

reply to post by lowki


Atheism isn't a faith. you make the positive assertion, i don't have faith.

I don't have faith in santa, or the flying spagetti monster. Provide evidence, and faith is not required.

Just remember your "evidence" has not been considered logically or empirically satisfying to the claims you make.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Any deity "theory" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Although, unfalsifiable hypothesis allow people to make assertions without demonstratable evidence, they may not always be false.

Atheism, especially Agnostic Atheism doesn't require faith. That is the reasoning behind agnosticism, faith isn't convincing enough, and your "evidence" has been found wanting

Spreading nonsense, AGAIN.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

Some people believe in spirit, but don't believe in any gods. One belief i can think of of the top of my head refer to spirit as energy, like qi for example.

That's belief with absence of proof, how can you agree with one and discount the other? That is making rules based on what you think is right, not what emprical evidence shows what is correct - not sure how it's right to be so picky.

reply to post by tiger5


Why does it take 18 months? Why can't you just show what you do? And not a single scientific paper has proven psychic abilities, let alone a meta analysis of studies done.

Here's the thing, proof is acceptable. Lots of it would be. Like if you could simply demonstrate your abilities. You don't have to train someone else for 18 months to prove that the thing exists. If it exists, you should be able to demonstrate it independently. If you could repeatedly demonstrate it in a controlled environment, I doubt anyone would be skeptical once they see the proof.

Originally posted by lowki

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by lowki

 

The user i am replying to has stated in another thread that:-

"Atheists have no problems with making oaths to Satan"

Nonsense - we don't believe in deities.

Then why not sign on the dotted line?
It's all false anyhow,
test your faith in atheism.

If your atheist faith is strong, nothing will happen.

You do it first...

Test your belief in God.

Go on... If you truly believed in your God, you'd have no problem surrendering your soul to Satan.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by tiger5

Originally posted by mr-lizard
The natural order of the world is atheism

Our ancestors were natural atheists as are new born babies.

IS that why they all had shamans, Holy men and a plethora of gods. Prove your statement please.

Do you think shamans, holy men and gods existed before non-belief?

Nope that is irrational. You just cannot support your position or have not fully expalined youoriginal statement.

Your ancestors definately have religions by the end of the paleolithic. look it up. You cannot prove an unbroken line of belief hence your position seems fallacious. Stop wriggling. You cannot prove that you come from an unbroken line of atheists.

I see Pascal's wager and i'll raise it with the Atheist's wager

Atheist's wager

It's certainly less car salesman like. Pascal's wager basically consists of "what have you got lose?"