Through the eyes of Atheism

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Decent people, on the other hand, don’t need an Ogre in Heaven to keep them good and honest

Did you expwect me to take this seriously ?

As little or as much serious as the OP, of which this post is a mirror-reflection (except that Astyanax doesn't include false categories to operate from).

reply to post by bogomil


Catagorical judgement being placed with you ? When and by what authority ?

Petrus

I will say that I think atheists have both as much a requirement for, and a right to, love and acceptance as anyone else. I will also say that I think I've unfairly and inappropriately generalised about what atheism is, in the past; it can mean a whole lot of things

Of course ! Well said and I agree and I'm sure they have that in this world.

reply to post by randyvs


You wrote:

["Catagorical judgement being placed with you ?"]

Didn't quite catch that one; considering the question-mark, it looks like a question to me.....about WHAT category you have created initially, perhaps.

In that case the answer is: You have created a sweeping generalization of atheist, whose 'eyes you look through' based on a home-made 'look-through-the eyes-of-atheists' methodology.

Quote: ["When and by what authority ?"]

If you refer to me, the 'authority' implied is normal reading-skills. It doesn't take more.

reply to post by bogomil


Just thought of something here Bog. Run it by you if I may? Would you consider this to be accurate?

Disbelief - neg.

Belief - pos.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

Just thought of something here Bog. Run it by you if I may? Would you consider this to be accurate?

Disbelief - neg.

Belief - pos.

No, not accurate. You forgot to mention the reference-point(s) to neg. and pos. (whoever they are).

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

Just thought of something here Bog. Run it by you if I may? Would you consider this to be accurate?

Disbelief - neg.

Belief - pos.

No, not accurate. You forgot to mention the reference-point(s) to neg. and pos. (whoever they are).

Oh, well of course I did. Reference Websters.

Belief-
Confidence in the truth, existence, reliability of something not immediatly suseptible to rigorous proof.

I think that sounds positive.

Disbelief=
The inability or refusal to believe or accept something as true. To have no belief.

Negative, wouldn't you agree ?

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

Just thought of something here Bog. Run it by you if I may? Would you consider this to be accurate?

Disbelief - neg.

Belief - pos.

No, not accurate. You forgot to mention the reference-point(s) to neg. and pos. (whoever they are).

Oh, well of course I did. Reference Websters.

Belief-
Confidence in the truth, existence, reliability of something not immediatly suseptible to rigorous proof.

I think that sounds positive.

Disbelief=
The inability or refusal to believe or accept something as true. To have no belief.

Negative, wouldn't you agree ?

That's however not, what I asked about. The missing part concerns neg. and pos.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

Just thought of something here Bog. Run it by you if I may? Would you consider this to be accurate?

Disbelief - neg.

Belief - pos.

No, not accurate. You forgot to mention the reference-point(s) to neg. and pos. (whoever they are).

Oh, well of course I did. Reference Websters.

Belief-
Confidence in the truth, existence, reliability of something not immediatly suseptible to rigorous proof.

I think that sounds positive.

Disbelief=
The inability or refusal to believe or accept something as true. To have no belief.

Negative, wouldn't you agree ?

Do you believe in the teachings of the prophet bobby (PBH) when he revealed to us the truth about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
www.venganza.org...

and if not why not?

reply to post by bogomil


But you would agree ? Quit trying to be a slippery politician and answer a simple question for once Bog. Yes or no ?


Racasan
Is the flying speghetti monster in scripture somewhere ? Must of missed that. No Bobbys either. Sure you have the right thread?

reply to post by randyvs


Quit trying to be a slippery politician and answer a simple question for once randyvs. Yes or no ?

and if no - they why not?

reply to post by racasan

They why not ?

I don't understand the question then I guess IDK ?

I'm gonna go with no and no explanation K ? Just out of curiousity.


:

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by randyvs

 

Quit trying to be a slippery politician and answer a simple question for once randyvs. Yes or no ?

and if no - then why not?

Good luck with that.

Why certain people insist on disrupting Atheist threads is beyond me.

When the mods stated not to deride religious threads - - does that include Atheist threads?

Originally posted by Annee
When the mods stated not to deride religious threads - - does that include Atheist threads?

Atheism is not a religion.

This is randyvs "atheism isn't right" thread. He's doing a good job of keeping up the theme no matter how ironic.

reply to post by randyvs

Did you expect me to take this seriously?

Yes, because it is true, and decent people, whether they are religious or not, know it.

reply to post by randyvs


I am referring to the belief system of the church of the flying spaghetti monster
This link

www.venganza.org...

is to prophet Bobby Henderson (PBH) first revelation about the flying spaghetti monster

So I’m asking you, if after looking at Bobby’s (PBH) teaching do you now believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

And if you don’t believe in Bobby’s (PBH) revelation about the flying spaghetti monster – could you tell me why you don’t believe in it?

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by Annee
When the mods stated not to deride religious threads - - does that include Atheist threads?

Atheism is not a religion.

This is randyvs "atheism isn't right" thread. He's doing a good job of keeping up the theme no matter how ironic.

Atheism deserves the same respect.

Just saying.

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by Annee
When the mods stated not to deride religious threads - - does that include Atheist threads?

Atheism is not a religion.

This is randyvs "atheism isn't right" thread. He's doing a good job of keeping up the theme no matter how ironic.

Atheism deserves the same respect.

Just saying.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Annee

 

Atheist simply means lack of a belief in a deity. It doesn't mean anything else.

Hardly surprising that believers should insist that atheism is a belief. They probably can’t see things any other way. If they could, they might cease to be believers.

I say, let the faith-heads call us believers in something if it makes them happy. For all of that, we unbelievers

• look to no comforting fairytales to calm our night-fears,
  
• pray for no miracles to cure what ails us,
  
• take responsibility for our own choices,
  
• do not look to Higher Powers to get us out of trouble, and
  
• don’t tell ourselves lies about the hereafter to excuse our failures and ease our fears of death.

In short, if atheism is a belief, it is one that provides its believers with none of the consolations of religion.

Instead, it obliges us to face life with courage, dignity and responsibility – knowing it is short, knowing it is painful, knowing that we are mere animals, and knowing, in the end, that the only meaning we take out of life is whatever meaning we bring to it in the first place.

If that is a belief, call me a believer, and I will wear the badge with pride.

Do most atheists believe that the human being is just an animal?

reply to post by randyvs


You wrote:

["But you would agree ? Quit trying to be a slippery politician and answer a simple question for once Bog. Yes or no ?"]

As I so often recommend theists, get a grip on standard logic.

"Have you stopped beating you wife. Yes or No?"

Double-bind questions are plain nonsense, but christian orators love them. Give me a rational question with the parts defined, and I can answer you. Not such semantic 'smartness' as you regularly produce in lack of real arguments.

reply to post by randyvs


You wrote:

["Racasan
Is the flying speghetti monster in scripture somewhere ? Must of missed that. No Bobbys either. Sure you have the right thread?"]

And there's nothing about Jahveh in tao'istic texts, nothing about Brahman in northern mythology, and nothing about Jesus in pastafarian texts.

So what relevance has this question. More rhetorics, or do you actually have a point with it?