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

page: 67
34
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
"absence of belief" implies factual knowledge!


No, it doesn't. It implies a rejection of a positive claim.



Since you *believe* dieties do not exist that makes you an athiest believer.


How many times am I going to have to respond to the exact same stupid statement over and over again?

For the umpteenth time: I do not believe in deities.

This doesn't mean I believe that deities don't exist.

I am an agnostic atheist, I am in the logically supportable epistemological position that it would be impossible to fundamentally disprove all claims of all deities, but I have found no evidence for the acceptance of deities.



Honestly I cannot comprehend why you dispute this point so vigorously! If you/we knew god did not exist than it would stop being called a belief.....



If you, and pretty much anyone else who posts this moronic point would stop putting out the same unsupportable assumption that atheism inherently means "All deities don't exist", then I'd have to stop debating this insane claim.

Atheism: I do not believe in deities.



Your simply arguing that a negative position cannot exist.


No, I'm arguing that a negative position does exist, it's called atheism, and that negative positions do not have the burden of proof.

Man
Made of straw.



An analogy would be saying negative numbers do not exist when we know they do.


Red herring, false analogy, knocking down a straw man.



Does that clear your confusive state?


Not a word.




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
For the umpteenth time: I do not believe in deities.

This doesn't mean I believe that deities don't exist.

I am an agnostic atheist, I am in the logically supportable epistemological position that it would be impossible to fundamentally disprove all claims of all deities, but I have found no evidence for the acceptance of deities.


My man since no one can prove dieties exist nor not exist, we all BELIEVE and have OPINIONS!

To not believe means to KNOW. To know means FACTS!

You say your an agnostic atheist but HOW can someone be a GNOSTIC atheist?

For that matter how can someone be a gnostic THEIST?

Do you not see how simple this is? There is NOTHING moronic about what I say, just basic common sense mixed with semantics.

Please take more time to read peoples posts and understand them! I noticed your quick to reply to things that you ASSUME are derrogatory for you and other athiests but in reality I am not here to mock/disrespect you.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I will approach your next-to-last post from my own direction, where I first will bring up the fact, that the claim 'atheism is a belief' presently is one of the 'fads', which come and go amongst christian apologists. From apologists it has been presented endlessly in the last month or two on ATS, mostly disregarding answers to it from atheists or other interested parts.

Sometimes new apologists turn up, ignoring former posts on a thread where this claim has been opposed, and from square one repeat the claim.

Sometimes even the same apologist returns to it and also from square one start all over.

Atheists can hardly be blamed for answering.

I have my own VERY strong suspicion, that this christian-initiated repetitive insistence on what is a relatively minor semantic proposition, does NOT come from a genuine interest in general semantics, logic or objective methodology, but from debate-tactical reasons.

1/ It's a deflectionary maneuver, which can derail a thread from inconvenient criticism of christian positions.

2/ Though it will never happen, the 'atheism is a belief'-claim could hypothetically question the basic values of the systematic methodology generally and collectively called 'objectivism'. As many christians seem to be almost completely ignorant of logic/science procedures, they naively suspect, that they 'get a point' this way.

3/ It can be used to provocate very confrontational positions, tempting christian critics to get temperamental, when the same rather stupid argument is presented over and over and over, where the apologist position will be based on the worst kind of semantic excesses or plain scholastic.

4/ It's just a propaganda clichée, which extremist christians hope will take root without any critical examination.

I have some personal considerations on this IMO christian 'tactic':

If you'd been home in the church or at a prayer-meeting, this probably would have been accepted without questions by the faithful. Here on ATS, in a for you 'critical' environment with informed and competent opposition, it's probably suicide for your converting efforts.

This clumsy sand-box debate technique reflects back on you (something you possibly won't believe, because you're unused to qualified opposition) and will reinforce the impression of a group of missionaries, who can't sell their product on its own merits, but have to resort to less housebroken maneuvers.

Believe me or not, but I'm actually giving you fair warning concerning your misapplied methods.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
My man since no one can prove dieties exist nor not exist, we all BELIEVE and have OPINIONS!


Actually, if certain deities existed it would be quite simple to prove their existence. Were the deity of Biblical literalism true, the world would be littered with evidence of its existence, just as a single example.

And a lack of belief in a deity isn't a belief. Again, "No" isn't "Yes to no"



To not believe means to KNOW. To know means FACTS!


To not believe means "I don't accept this proposition", it doesn't mean to know.



You say your an agnostic atheist but HOW can someone be a GNOSTIC atheist?


Via the claim that they have a definitive proof or evidence that no deity exists. I think that's quite obvious.



For that matter how can someone be a gnostic THEIST?


Via the claim that they have a definitive proof or evidence that at least one deity exists. I think that's quite obvious.



Do you not see how simple this is?


Careful, 'simple' has some negative connotations.



There is NOTHING moronic about what I say, just basic common sense mixed with semantics.


Common sense? That stuff is useless. I mean, what do you expect to happen to glass at extremely cold temperatures? Well, it melts. That's not common sense.

Let Bill O'Reilly have common sense, I'll stick with critical thinking.



Please take more time to read peoples posts and understand them!


I do take time to read them, hell, I respond to things line by line for a reason.



I noticed your quick to reply to things that you ASSUME are derrogatory for you and other athiests but in reality I am not here to mock/disrespect you.


You're just here to spread ignorance.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You say your an agnostic atheist but HOW can someone be a GNOSTIC atheist?


Via the claim that they have a definitive proof or evidence that no deity exists. I think that's quite obvious.


That is ALL they have. A claim. No proof!


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

For that matter how can someone be a gnostic THEIST?


Via the claim that they have a definitive proof or evidence that at least one deity exists. I think that's quite obvious.


And again they CLAIM is the keyword! No proof!

Religious nuts and atheists keep arguing over OPINIONS and that is pretty damm retarded if you ask me. We are letting our ego get in the way of rational thought process. I used to be a devout orthodox christian but with all the corruption it has undergone, the only thing I am "gnostic" about anymore is ........aliens living among us.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
madness


I don't get why you're engaging in the worst sort of semantic argument.

Trying to figure out what you're talking about is impermissible?

In my attempt to answer the question which you asked me,


If atheism is a belief, then how can a negative position exist?

I gave two examples of an existing believed negative position.

The atheism of the billboard buyers, as previously discussed, includes assent to the propostion that there probably is no God. That's a belief, along with its expression, and yet atheism surives, existing, negative and positioned.

There simply is no problem here, madness.

As a technical aside, many classes contain their own meta-'s. The obvious example is that the metalanguage of natural language can be a natural language (I might write a grammar of English in English). Similarly, your corpus of beliefs includes your metabeliefs. That is, you believe your metabeliefs, on pain of their not being your metabeliefs.

Your metabeliefs include questions which you believe you cannot answer and the like. There's just no problem believing a negative position to be the correct position, or to be your actual position, on whatever the question happens to be.


Being nude isn't a type of wearing clothes.

Being nude is a clothing choice, or if you prefer, a clothing situation or status. Just as being single or divorced is a marital status.

Being nude isn't a belief, though, and beliefs were what we were discussing.

-
edit on 20-2-2011 by eight bits because: typo



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I'm just going to have to repeat myself: How is "I don't believe in any deity" equivalent to "I believe that no deity exists"? How is a statement of personal incredulity equivalent to a reality claim?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Being nude is a choice, but being nude isn't a form of clothing. The belief in a deity is to clothing as atheism is to nudity.

Honestly, I'm done addressing this stuff. When 95% of my post goes ignored in favor of addressing 5% out of context when the remaining 95% addresses the objection to that 5%, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

You're here to snipe, you're here to distort. I've done the dance, I tried to address things rationally, you're not bothering to participate in actually responding to my points.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
To people who try to push the same fail arguments.

Atheism/Theism = What you believe

Agnosticism/Gnosticism = What you know.

1) I'm an agnostic atheist, i don't know if there is a source/creator or what other people call "GOD" (Deistic God)

2) I'm a gnostic atheist to those who claim to describe God, i know that God's do not intervene in floods, nor can they be rationalised as "punishment" from above. Specific definitions of God can be easily falsified. (Religion)

godisimaginary.com...


If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.


edit on 21/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


Unfortunately, some of us took to the conditioning early on...though it didn't stick as well. In retrospect, the first crack in the shell of my belief came in my 6th grade Social Sciences class when the book defined a civilization and gave 'religion' as a prerequisite for a civilization...and I just pointed out the possibility of a hypothetical society that has no religion yet has all of the other factors defined in the book (division of labor, exchange of goods and services, that sort of thing) and just outright went "Wouldn't that be a civilization?"

...I think the teacher just sort of tossed out a "Shut up, it's what the book says" responses. I honestly don't even remember exactly how the teacher responded...hell, I was still a Catholic back then.


As I've mentioned elsewhere, they tried real hard. However i was kicked out of Sunday school for asking one question and making one statement.
The question was "Why?"
The statement was "That doesn't make sense."

The one question that no christian (this forum is overrun with them so I will use their delusion) ever likes to answer:
"If you were born into a muslim/jewish/hindu/sikh family would you still be preaching at me about christianity ?"

No you would not. Religion and belief are a form of conditioning. They are not a natural state. I no more believe in zeus/odin/shiva or quetzalcoatel than I do i jesus/allah or any other skyfather/earth mother. Myths are myths no matter how much power their enablers wield in society.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
The one question that no christian (this forum is overrun with them so I will use their delusion) ever likes to answer:
"If you were born into a muslim/jewish/hindu/sikh family would you still be preaching at me about christianity ?"

No you would not.


Really? You believe that there are no religious converts in the world? That once you're born something, that's it, you remain it until the day you die? Frankly, it's your question that makes no sense.

I wasn't "exposed" to the church in any manner until I was about 12. I left the church for about a decade because I had a certain mindset that didn't sit well with what I found was a reasonable view of the world, and I didn't come back until I'd spent a lot of time reading and thinking, including about other faiths. I don't know that I ever ventured too far into atheist-land, but I teetered on the edge and would likely have called myself agnostic at times if someone pressed the point.

People change, they have personal revelations, and they eventually find their path. If you have yet to do so, don't just assume that no one else has.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


No, there are religious converts, but statistically they make up a tiny figure, even if you count people who shift denominations and go from 'general' versions of religion (believers who aren't too bothered about practicing) to devoutness.

If you were born in India, the odds are that you would have been born into a Hindu household or a Muslim household, thus increasing the chances that you would remain either Hindu or Muslim.

Not saying there aren't any, just that they're not as statistically significant. If anything, the most statistically significant conversion rates could be to non-belief (though I'll look up the numbers on this later).



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Really? You believe that there are no religious converts in the world? That once you're born something, that's it, you remain it until the day you die? Frankly, it's your question that makes no sense.

I wasn't "exposed" to the church in any manner until I was about 12. I left the church for about a decade because I had a certain mindset that didn't sit well with what I found was a reasonable view of the world, and I didn't come back until I'd spent a lot of time reading and thinking, including about other faiths. I don't know that I ever ventured too far into atheist-land, but I teetered on the edge and would likely have called myself agnostic at times if someone pressed the point.

People change, they have personal revelations, and they eventually find their path. If you have yet to do so, don't just assume that no one else has.


I find the last sentence the most revealing here. I am an atheist: ergo I must have not found my path.
By contrast I regard it as never having lost my way.

As for religious converts, yes they exist but are not really numerous enough to be relevant, as was pointed out.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well to be fair, a good portion (I won't say all, or most, because that's unfair) of athiests like to tell anyone of any religion exactly why their belief is flawed , and how stupid they are for falling for that specific dogma. Of course these people are going to counte back with what they believe.

And yes lol... All the christians met at a church and are conspiring against the athiests.. "The christians are coming ! The christians are coming !"

Honestly, people arguing back and forth for or agaisnt religion need to stfu... Maybe what you believe is right, but taking into account all the different theories and religions out there, statistically speaking, the odds of your belief being true are slim to none... At the end of the day does it matter whose right ? Everyone has their own opinion, they don't need anyone elses.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by adjensen

People change, they have personal revelations, and they eventually find their path. If you have yet to do so, don't just assume that no one else has.


I find the last sentence the most revealing here. I am an atheist: ergo I must have not found my path.


To the contrary, I would say that atheism is a fine path to have found. My reference was to people who have not found something that they feel comfortable believing to be their truth.


As for religious converts, yes they exist but are not really numerous enough to be relevant, as was pointed out.


Yes, sorry, I guess I didn't explain it clearly -- you stated an absolute ("no people born Muslim or Hindu would be preaching Christ") and I said that you are wrong and that your question (which no one could answer anyway, since it is rhetorical) made no sense.

It doesn't matter if the number of converts is statistically relevant or not -- if it is more than zero, then your claim that no one born Muslim or Hindu could be preaching Christ is invalid.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, sorry, I guess I didn't explain it clearly -- you stated an absolute ("no people born Muslim or Hindu would be preaching Christ") and I said that you are wrong and that your question (which no one could answer anyway, since it is rhetorical) made no sense.

It doesn't matter if the number of converts is statistically relevant or not -- if it is more than zero, then your claim that no one born Muslim or Hindu could be preaching Christ is invalid.


Actually quote me truly or not at all:

The one question that no christian (this forum is overrun with them so I will use their delusion) ever likes to answer: "If you were born into a muslim/jewish/hindu/sikh family would you still be preaching at me about christianity ?"

Word-smithing doesn't change the fact that the question is one which any religious person with a modicum of intelligence struggles to justify.

As you just proved by attempting to pervert the intent.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibbled
 



Originally posted by Gibbled
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well to be fair, a good portion (I won't say all, or most, because that's unfair) of athiests like to tell anyone of any religion exactly why their belief is flawed , and how stupid they are for falling for that specific dogma. Of course these people are going to counte back with what they believe.


I'm sorry, but when do we do this? Do we go door-to-door doing it? Do we go out on street corners or college campuses holding up signs saying such things (except in mockery of those religious folks who do)? We might bring it up sometimes, but I don't know many atheists who actively seek to dismiss beliefs of others in an unprovoked manner.

Hell, I discuss things on ATS. It's a web forum where people are free to respond to my threads or not.



And yes lol... All the christians met at a church and are conspiring against the athiests.. "The christians are coming ! The christians are coming !"


Well, seems more credible than a lot of theories on here, don't it?



Honestly, people arguing back and forth for or agaisnt religion need to stfu...


Wow, that's put graciously.



Maybe what you believe is right, but taking into account all the different theories and religions out there, statistically speaking, the odds of your belief being true are slim to none...


The big issue for me isn't actually whether or not I'm right. Hell, I want to know if I'm wrong. If I find out I was wrong about something I always have that little optimistic voice in my head saying "now you're not wrong about it anymore". It's probably because I grew up in a scientifically minded (though religious) household.



At the end of the day does it matter whose right ?


Not really...but...



Everyone has their own opinion, they don't need anyone elses.


Except that these 'opinions' can be harmful to society. Whether or not I'm right, I must point out that the Christian world view as a whole, and specific sections of it found amongst certain though not all members, are harmful to the world. Same goes for Islam, Hinduism, and pretty much every other religion out there.

They're hurting people, I will politely refuse your offer to 'stfu'.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Do we go out on street corners or college campuses holding up signs saying such things (except in mockery of those religious folks who do)?


I'm curious, do you find anything hurtful or hateful in regards to this particular campaign?

Persons of faith who go to street corners or college campuses holding up signs do so because they believe in something. Do you think it is proper to hold up signs that mock people who protest in favour of gay rights or being pro-choice? Or is it just those you disagree with that are fair game?

What is the value in mocking other people -- do you think that it makes a more salient point about the mocker or the person being belittled for their beliefs?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Lets think, if your bad where do you go...hell (jail). you see how it works. I personally belive in the Ancient Astronaut Theory because it makes the most sense. religion has caused alot of problems and will continue to do that untill people agree that A) There is no such thing as some dude in the clouds who made the earth or B) we all agree on one singal religion cuz all in all they are the same thing



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Do we go out on street corners or college campuses holding up signs saying such things (except in mockery of those religious folks who do)?


I'm curious, do you find anything hurtful or hateful in regards to this particular campaign?


Hateful? Nope. Hurtful? Well, that's a personal issue. It's someone offering one piece of text for another. You can already get a Bible for free. Now, it is more than a bit silly and childish, but I don't see how it's hateful or hurtful. I am all ears for an explanation from you if you're willing to provide one.

Granted, I can't gather how the people operating the table were acting, and they might have been acting inappropriately. I do, however, notice that the sign on the table reads "Atheist Agenda" rather than "Smut for Smut", the name of the campaign. This honestly seems like a respectful choice. I'd also like to point out another thing, from the source which the link you provided cites and yet this quote is not reproduced:


"It is to send a message that the stuff in the bible, and the Quran, and the Torah, and all that sort of thing is, in our case worse, in our opinion worse, than pornography," explained UTSA student Kyle Bush.


You do realize that he is claiming that this is a statement of opinion? Hell, his opinion of pornography doesn't seem to be too negative either. Also at the end of the story:


This is the second year in a row for the event. Christian students were also out talking to fellow students about their beliefs. It's not known how many students actually turned in their bibles for the pornographic material.


No conflicts, no shouting matches, no childish behavior reported. Seems like an all around decent conflict of ideas.



Persons of faith who go to street corners or college campuses holding up signs do so because they believe in something.


And the ones that go to college campuses are often the ones that hold up signs that show that they believe in hate.

Even if it's not hateful, it's still unsolicited. It's a public place where people are trying to go about other things in their lives.



Do you think it is proper to hold up signs that mock people who protest in favour of gay rights or being pro-choice?


Nope. Granted, people don't spontaneously show up on street corners to protest in favor of homosexual rights or choice. Now, if they did, they'd be fair game.



Or is it just those you disagree with that are fair game?


Oh, it has nothing to do with the people who disagree with me. I have no problems with preachers, so long as they're preaching in a respectful manner. Blasting out messages in random places is a different story. It's the behavior, not the message, that's most disrespectful...well, I guess there are some messages that would be equally disrespectful.



What is the value in mocking other people -- do you think that it makes a more salient point about the mocker or the person being belittled for their beliefs?


Being belittled for their beliefs? I'm sorry, but when someone comes on to a college campus basically denouncing everyone on that campus, they are doing the belittling and are not open to logical discourse. In fact, logical discourse does tend to be the first attempted recourse in these situations. Guess how that turns out? Yep, like talking to a wall.

If you're going to preach in public, you have to engage those you're preaching to. If you're just there to spout off hate, be prepared for a backlash.

In fact, I'm going to do something I don't normally do, praise Mormons for religious action. When not going door-to-door early in the morning, their missionaries handle things very well. They are polite, respectful, and ask people if they'd like to engage rather than simply standing on a box or holding up a sign or shouting at a crowd. This is respectful behavior and I'd respect it from any group, even if it were neo-Nazis. The message might be crap, but at least they're being respectful about it.

If atheists or any other group acted in this manner I would denounce them equally.





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum