Why are athiests so hated in the USA?

[Bill_Brasky]

Ok, a few answers to this:

(1) America was settled, at least initially, by religious fundamentalists who wanted to set up a sort of theocratic republic (before anyone jumps down my throat and says, "The founding fathers were not Christians" - yes, I know, I'm not talking about Jefferson or Paine or Franklin, the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote the US Constitution - I'm talking about the people who went to America in the 1600s. This left a DEEP cultural idea in the American people that they were a 'chosen people' living in a 'promised land' etc. God loves America; so for an American not to love God back is seen as a sort of treason.

(2) The popular religion that developed in the USA, especially along the frontier and in the South, was anti-intellectual. Unlike in Italy, where the Catholics have a hierarchy and a trained priesthood, the dominant form of Christianity in the USA comes out of evangelical traditions and 'revivalism', where anyone with a spattering of Bible knowledge and a good shouting voice could start a church. This led to a very simplistic, literalist, bible-based theology. The broader education and humanist philosophy of the priests in catholic (and anglican and lutheran) churches in Europe mitigated against this trend and produced a religion which is in some ways more 'porous'.

(3) More generally, the USA has an anti-intellectual culture. In most of continental Europe people look up to and respect 'book learning' and being a civilised, cultured human being. In the USA (in most parts) this would be looked down on - it's what you DO that matters, how much money you make. This anti-intellectualism means that those who have a rational, scientific view of existence can easily be criticised as being 'out of touch' with 'good honest god-fearing Americans'. (Read in redneck voice): 'Them danged atheists thinks they is better than us folks, just cos they done got themselves a college edjikatishion'. It's like the horrible reverse parody of the democratic ethos.

(4) Being part of a protestant church is a major commitment. It's not something you just do as a social ritual, like catholicism can be. You have to make a choice, profess Jesus, get baptised by immersion, sign the members' roll, turn up to meetings, sit on committees. This tends to harden the edges of the 'in-group' and the 'out-group'. In a catholic country, everyone (or nearly so) is culturally catholic, even if they do not believe in god or go to church; you can't be a 'cultural baptist' - you are either In or Out (and, according to the Ins, everything Out is evil).

(5) After the second world war, the USA had a massive internal propaganda system designed to attack socialism and the left. Communists were 'atheists', Communists were bad and anti-American, ergo atheists were bad and anti-American.

(6) The USA does not have a good welfare system. Indeed, the whole country is based on a sort of individualist myth, where the only reason that one guy is working 70 hours a week and struggling to get by with two minimum wage jobs and no healthcare, while someone sits by their pool and has a private jet, is that the first one is 'lazy' (i.e. unfavoured by God - remember, Protestant God Wants You to Work Hard) and the second is 'hardworking' (i.e. Blessed by God). This means that: (i) there is a lot of fear - fear of sickness, fear of unemployment, fear of annoying the boss, fear of random economic actions outside your control. Fear drives people into fearful, nasty, exclusive versions of religion - a 'hunker down' against 'the world'; (ii) people need the social network and support provided by a church, because the state provides so little - thus atheists are a threat to people because people are terrified of being convinced by them, having to leave the church, and thus losing their social network and support system.

(7) This is the crucial one - it draws on 1 and 5, but goes beyond them and is vitally relevant today: There is, in the USA, a thing called 'Christianity' that has little to do with Christianity as it is generally understood in Europe, or in the longer view of the Christian tradition. It is a heavily nationalistic, militaristic, masculine, authoritarian cult, with Jesus as the Cadillac-Driving All-American Hero who has come to save his Chosen People from Gayness, Socialised Medicine, Arabs and Long Haired Hippies. This might best be called, "Amerireligion". This was deliberately created after the 1960s by the American right, who wanted a way to stop the changes begun by the Progressive Era and the New Deal and to restore the dominance of the old ruling class. The civil rights and anti-vietnam war era brought it to a head. The right saw an opportunity to appeal to the gut-instincts of the white working class blue collar American male by playing on his prejudices - particularly on matters such as race, alternative lifestyles and the sexual revolution. So there was a deliberate demonisation and vilification of those who were seen as 'different' from that red-blooded white-skinned American male ideal - they were 'liberal hippy tree hugging dirty commie atheist bastards' - not to be trusted, because they were 'anti-American' (when 'American' is defined by the hard right). So, basically, American christians hate atheists because their religion is really a sort of tribal nationalism, and they've been played for fools by right-wing politicians.

How do you get poor and middle class people to vote for tax cuts for billionaires, constant war, erosion of civil liberties, and destruction of public services? Easy, tell them that if they don't American Jesus will cry - and then the Gays and the Foreigners and the Nasty Atheists - and all who don't Love American Jesus will continue to shaft them. Why are they unemployed? Not because NAFTA killed the jobs, but because God angry with America for teaching evolution. It's the ultimate 'bait-n-switch'. So what's the answer to the current economic crisis - the worst in American history since the Great Depression? Is it a massive public investment and job-creation programme like FDR did? No, that would be Communistic Atheism. Instead, we must appease the All-Blessing God of America - by banning pornography!

The level of cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. Faced with that, no wonder so many American Christians act with rage and hostility to the mere presence of atheists.
It's sad.

[DarrinS]

They aren't.

It's the athiests that are haters. (see Bill Maher)

[Winehole23]

They aren't.Atheists are the most despised minority in the US by this measure:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx

[Wild Cobra]

That's funny. I hear all kinds of people talk about dislikes of various groups, but never of atheists. I hear judgement from time to time, but not hateful judgement.

[101A]

Hate / Not Hate VERY different from "Willing to Vote for".

There are plenty of groups I have great admiration for, but for whom I would decidedly not cast a vote for elected office.

Supermodels come to mind.

[101A]

I hear more hate from atheists than I hear directed toward atheists.

[Winehole23]

(retracts any empirical evidence to the contrary in favor of personal anecdotes and DarrinS's fiat)

[Winehole23]

I hear more hate from atheists than I hear directed toward atheists.What assholes atheists are is a minor subtheme in this forum. I think the resentment might be understated. People pretend to be way more open minded and equable than they actually are.

[101A]

What assholes atheists are is a minor subtheme in this forum. I think the resentment might be understated. People pretend to be way more open minded and equable than they actually are.

"Not me"

Sounds kind of trite, no?

[Heat Miser]

That hate goes both ways.

[Winehole23]

Depends on who says it. You don't strike me as being particularly enraged or resentful.

[mouse]

Atheist's I have no problems with, I do have an issue with people who claim we evolved from a snail.

[Winehole23]

That hate goes both ways.Oh sure. It seems Americans can no longer disagree without disrespecting the other person. Pity.

[coyotes_geek]

Oh sure. It seems Americans can no longer disagree without disrespecting the other person. Pity.

Sad but true.

[ElNono]

Are they hated? Didn't notice, tbh

[Blake]

Atheists are the most despised minority in the US by this measure:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx

So the polls indicate people think a gay president is better than an atheist president?

Incredible.

[Wild Cobra]

So the polls indicate people think a gay president is better than an atheist president?

Incredible.
I wonder if his aides would have aids?

[redzero]

Oh sure. It seems Americans can no longer disagree without disrespecting the other person. Pity.

No longer? I must have missed when America was more civil.

[Winehole23]

well, I didn't

[Blake]

I wonder if his aides would have aids?


because the gheys all have aids :tu

[mavs>spurs]

Christians are the most hated group in America actually. Just take a look around this board and it'll prove my point.

[Wild Cobra]

Christians are the most hated group in America actually. Just take a look around this board and it'll prove my point.
I thopught it was:

1: Jewish

2: Mormons

3: Christians

4: Whites

[Blake]

Christians are the most hated group in America actually. Just take a look around this board and it'll prove my point.

Christians on this board are generally seen as being intellectually inferior, imo.

I think everyone hates a zealot.

[Winehole23]

Christians on this board are generally seen as being intellectually inferior, imo.this is essentially bigotry, even if it purports to be naturalistic description.

[redzero]

Not bigotry if they deserve it.

[Winehole23]

sure. jackassery reaps what it sows. but suggesting Christians are just dumber is flat bigoted.

[mavs>spurs]

I thopught it was:

1: Jewish

2: Mormons

3: Christians

4: Whites

I don't hate jews and never quite understood the jew hate. About to graduate and go to work in the financial sector myself, many of my bosses throughout my life will be jews and I have a lot to learn from jews. Jews for whatever reason tend to be financial geniuses and I look up to them in a way.

[mavs>spurs]

this is essentially bigotry, even if it purports to be naturalistic description.

Yup, the same bigotry that they accuse Christians of. The way i see it, just leave people alone and let them make their own decisions. As a christian myself, i may try to help those who are open to the idea, but i'll never cross that line into being a nuisance. You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine, IMO.

[Blake]

this is essentially bigotry, even if it purports to be naturalistic description.

Meh. Stereotyping, imo.

I don't hate any of the board Christian zealots for their blatant disregard for logic.

[Winehole23]

your manner toward them is perceptibly contemptuous. at times it is abusive.

[Blake]

your manner toward them is perceptibly contemptuous. at times it is abusive.

Fascinating.

I perceive myself to be equally contemptuous and possibly abusive towards blatant idiots, regardless of race, religion, gender, team affiliation or sexual preference.

[mavs>spurs]

Fascinating.

I perceive myself to be equally contemptuous and possibly abusive towards blatant idiots, regardless of race, religion, gender, team affiliation or sexual preference.

You do crank it up another notch against Christians, tbh. I gotta agree with Winehole here. Probably you don't even mean to or realize it though.

[Blake]

You do crank it up another notch against Christians, tbh. I gotta agree with Winehole here. Probably you don't even mean to or realize it though.

I don't have the stats in front of me as to who I may have abused and how often it's happened, so it's possible that you're correct.

[baseline bum]

I don't hate jews and never quite understood the jew hate. About to graduate and go to work in the financial sector myself, many of my bosses throughout my life will be jews and I have a lot to learn from jews. Jews for whatever reason tend to be financial geniuses and I look up to them in a way.

Banking started with the Jews because Christians didn't want to violate the bible's usury laws. So they let the infidels do the dirty work in the Jewish ghettos.

[greyforest]

sure. jackassery reaps what it sows. but suggesting Christians are just dumber is flat bigoted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg

:stirpot:

[ploto]

There is, in the USA, a thing called 'Christianity' that has little to do with Christianity as it is generally understood in Europe, or in the longer view of the Christian tradition. It is a heavily nationalistic, militaristic, masculine, authoritarian...

With this I will agree.

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg

:stirpot:Being right doesn't make one any less a bigot, and honest bigots don't need to pretend science backs up their sweeping generalizations.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3722082&postcount=130

[NewcastleKEG]

I don't hate jews and never quite understood the jew hate. About to graduate and go to work in the financial sector myself, many of my bosses throughout my life will be jews and I have a lot to learn from jews. Jews for whatever reason tend to be financial geniuses and I look up to them in a way.
My close friend also works in the financial sector, doing very well. The only specific thing he said about Jews is they will wrestle you for every single penny. Even if you work with them on a job for months to a year. He said obviously the older Jews are especially bad in this regard.

In terms of Jews in general. I think the main complaint is a Jew will ALWAYS view Judaism #1 and many Jewish-Americans put the well being of Israel ahead of America (their own).

IMO, Jews are too fixated on money but I guess that's expected from nomadic people: $$$ gives you power/control.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yup, the same bigotry that they accuse Christians of. The way i see it, just leave people alone and let them make their own decisions.
Wanting to ban gay marriage and abortion is anything but "leaving people alone and letting them make their own decisions."

[NewcastleKEG]

Banking started with the Jews because Christians didn't want to violate the bible's usury laws. So they let the infidels do the dirty work in the Jewish ghettos.
I have family from Poland & what they told me is the local Jews there also established the concept of CREDIT

Basically Jewish store owners would take paychecks from alcoholics while Polish store owners would tell them: Get the fuck outta here alcoholic and go feed your children with that money instead

Like I stated before. Jews fixation on money rubbed & continues to rub some people the wrong way

[Bill_Brasky]

All I'm saying is that I'm going to take somebody more seriously if their arguments are based on facts and evidence, rather than hocus pocus superstitious nonsense.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I have family from Poland & what they told me is the local Jews there also established the concept of CREDIT

Basically Jewish store owners would take paychecks from alcoholics while Polish store owners would tell them: Get the fuck outta here alcoholic and go feed your children with that money instead

Like I stated before. Jews fixation on money rubbed & continues to rub some people the wrong way
:lmao wow you are dumb. First off, virtually every Jew in America has some Polish in him/her, so idk why thought of a Jewish/Polish comparison. 2nd, no store owner would refuse to take money. To act like Jews are the only people who do stuff like take money from alcoholics who should be buying food is retarded.

[NewcastleKEG]

:lmao wow you are dumb. First off, virtually every Jew in America has some Polish in him/her, so idk why thought of a Jewish/Polish comparison. 2nd, no store owner would refuse to take money. To act like Jews are the only people who do stuff like take money from alcoholics who should be buying food is retarded.
At that time (Right before WW2) & in this rustic city (Poland)....yes the Jewish store owners were the only ones taking it.

It's not a comparison, simply passing on a story that my mother passed on to me when I pressed the issue (Jews in the city at that time). Obviously not every Jew owned a store etc but that's the distinct difference in terms of business. You can say they were ahead of their time but like I said, some people didn't & still don't approve of it...in their backyard

[LnGrrrR]

I'd say that atheists tend to be strident because we're a minority. I don't see many atheists getting across laws that are mostly due to atheism. However, there are a good number of social issues that get brought up due to Christian values (Terry Schiavo, name dropping God as a reason for certain policies, etc etc)

[The Reckoning]

why do atheists want so much attention?

[z0sa]

What I wonder is this: what is the general foundation of a TRUE atheists' ethics. I am not saying atheists are unethical, or incapable of ethics. I simply wonder what an atheist believes is the moral foundation for his actions - whether for good and ill.

[mavs>spurs]

Wanting to ban gay marriage and abortion is anything but "leaving people alone and letting them make their own decisions."

gays marrying is their failure to leave religious people and their concepts alone. gays don't need their union to be recognized by a religious concept. one thing that gays commonly do is act really flamboyant and throw their lifestyle in our faces while seeking acceptance, not really "leaving people alone" at all. Don't tell me to accept your lifestyle, leave me out of it.

Abortion, that's not leaving babies alone and allowing them to choose whether or not they want to die. TBH in an an abortion, the baby doesn't choose to die. Someone else makes that choice for them and honestly nobody has that right.

[NewcastleKEG]

What I wonder is this: what is the general foundation of a TRUE atheists' ethics. I am not saying atheists are unethical, or incapable of ethics. I simply wonder what an atheist believes is the moral foundation for his actions - whether for good and ill.
Although I was raised Catholic, it would be what goes around comes around

If the thread title is true....then Americans are increasingly hating each other because athiesim is ever growing

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What I wonder is this: what is the general foundation of a TRUE atheists' ethics. I am not saying atheists are unethical, or incapable of ethics. I simply wonder what an atheist believes is the moral foundation for his actions - whether for good and ill.
Believe it or not, I don't need to religion to know that killing someone is wrong.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

gays marrying is their failure to leave religious people and their concepts alone. gays don't need their union to be recognized by a religious concept. one thing that gays commonly do is act really flamboyant and throw their lifestyle in our faces while seeking acceptance, not really "leaving people alone" at all. Don't tell me to accept your lifestyle, leave me out of it.

Abortion, that's not leaving babies alone and allowing them to choose whether or not they want to die. TBH in an an abortion, the baby doesn't choose to die. Someone else makes that choice for them and honestly nobody has that right.
:lmao qualifying the term "letting people make their own decisions. The only people who want to impose their will on others in this scenario are Christians.

[z0sa]

Believe it or not, I don't need to religion to know that killing someone is wrong.

me either. I am a deist, FWIW.

[Proxy]

What I wonder is this: what is the general foundation of a TRUE atheists' ethics. I am not saying atheists are unethical, or incapable of ethics. I simply wonder what an atheist believes is the moral foundation for his actions - whether for good and ill.

Nope. We're all believers in doing whatever the fuck we feel like since there's no consequence.

Truth be told, Atheists will make noise because of a lack of separation of church and state within the government (abortion, gay rights, etc) and the impending detriment Christians cause to the progress of human intellect.

You're playing stupid if you think Christians are frowned upon in this country.

[z0sa]

Although I was raised Catholic, it would be what goes around comes around

that sounds like karma, which I don't believe to be true or real and IMHO, a real atheist wouldn't either, at least for the most part.

there are consequences for your actions, but not every action has an equal or positive moral reaction, basically.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Nope. We're all believers in doing whatever the fuck we feel like since there's no consequence.

Truth be told, Atheists will make noise because of a lack of separation of church and state within the government (abortion, gay rights, etc) and the impending detriment Christians cause to the progress of human intellect.

You're playing stupid if you think Christians are frowned upon in this country.
This. Christians who think there's some kind of "War on Religion" in this country are kidding themselves. If there was a war on religion abortion and gay rights wouldn't be an issue at all.

[LnGrrrR]

What I wonder is this: what is the general foundation of a TRUE atheists' ethics. I am not saying atheists are unethical, or incapable of ethics. I simply wonder what an atheist believes is the moral foundation for his actions - whether for good and ill.

They are as varied as the reasons for being an atheist, I would assume. Some go by their conscience, some go by how they were raised, some go by logical choices, etc etc

Atheists don't have one set moral code, after all. The same goes for Christians, Jews, Islamics, etc etc.

[LnGrrrR]

why do atheists want so much attention?

Might as well ask, "Why do BLANK GROUP OF PEOPLE want so much attention?"

[NewcastleKEG]

that sounds like karma, which I don't believe to be true or real and IMHO, a real atheist wouldn't either, at least for the most part.

there are consequences for your actions, but not every action has an equal or positive moral reaction, basically.
OR

Do onto others as you want done onto you. Pretty simple.

An athiest would argue why do you need the fear of some spirit watching & judging you, to be a ''good person''

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Might as well ask, "Why do BLANK GROUP OF PEOPLE want so much attention?"
lol Pat's little brother

[z0sa]

Nope. We're all believers in doing whatever the fuck we feel like since there's no consequence.

Truth be told, Atheists will make noise because of a lack of separation of church and state within the government (abortion, gay rights, etc) and the impending detriment Christians cause to the progress of human intellect.

You're playing stupid if you think Christians are frowned upon in this country.

Truth be told, I don't know exactly what you're getting at - at least in relation to my post. It was not meant to be any kind of reflection upon religion or christianity, modern or otherwise.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Truth be told, I don't know exactly what you're getting at - at least in relation to my post. It was not meant to be any kind of reflection upon religion or christianity, modern or otherwise.
I guess it wasn't the point of your post, but generally when someones says, "I don't understand where atheists get any morals!?!?!?!" it's usually a zealot who acts like you're a heartless evil doing fuckstick if you don't believe in Christianity.

[LnGrrrR]

that sounds like karma, which I don't believe to be true or real and IMHO, a real atheist wouldn't either, at least for the most part.

Who says an atheist wouldn't believe? Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean one isn't superstitious, believe in something supernatural, illogical, etc etc

[NewcastleKEG]

Who says an atheist wouldn't believe? Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean one isn't superstitious, believe in something supernatural, illogical, etc etc
Actually I think it is

Atheist is against all. So you're kinda backing yourself into a corner by admitting you are Atheist

[Proxy]

gays marrying is their failure to leave religious people and their concepts alone. gays don't need their union to be recognized by a religious concept. one thing that gays commonly do is act really flamboyant and throw their lifestyle in our faces while seeking acceptance, not really "leaving people alone" at all. Don't tell me to accept your lifestyle, leave me out of it.

Abortion, that's not leaving babies alone and allowing them to choose whether or not they want to die. TBH in an an abortion, the baby doesn't choose to die. Someone else makes that choice for them and honestly nobody has that right.

So you're letting a small percentage of people dictate your thought on homosexuals? The flamboyant ones are annoying people. Has nothing to do with their gender. And homosexuality is genetic a huge majority of the time. You're ignorant to think they are wrong in any way.

And abortion... you obviously have no idea the difference between something being alive or human. You have no concept of what self awareness is and no idea of the process or role your brain actually plays. You don't know anything about biology or what evolution truly is, nor are you an expert on any type of psychology or philosophy, so keep your nose out of things you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about. If you knew, your opinion would be different, but instead you let a conservative and ignorant mindset drive your thoughts instead of thinking for yourself... you'd know about the difference between a fetus and a human... the difference between perception and mere function.

Long story short, until the brain grows enough, it's nothing more than a tree. Still alive, but not human. Souls are complete myth.

[z0sa]

Who says an atheist wouldn't believe? Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean one isn't superstitious, believe in something supernatural, illogical, etc etc

Is not atheism literally defined as "without belief?" If one truly does not believe in the supernatural, how can he then leave 'room' for such occurrences?

[z0sa]

I guess it wasn't the point of your post, but generally when someones says, "I don't understand where atheists get any morals!?!?!?!" it's usually a zealot who acts like you're a heartless evil doing fuckstick if you don't believe in Christianity.

Nah. I don't follow any religion. I personally take my ethics from my own personal experiences, with pain, brutality, hunger, etc. I am wondering if atheists are the same.

[mavs>spurs]

So you're letting a small percentage of people dictate your thought on homosexuals? The flamboyant ones are annoying people. Has nothing to do with their gender. And homosexuality is genetic a huge majority of the time. You're ignorant to think they are wrong in any way.

And abortion... you obviously have no idea the difference between something being alive or human. You have no concept of what self awareness is and no idea of the process or role your brain actually plays. You don't know anything about biology or what evolution truly is, nor are you an expert on any type of psychology or philosophy, so keep your nose out of things you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about. If you knew, your opinion would be different, but instead you let a conservative and ignorant mindset drive your thoughts instead of thinking for yourself... you'd know about the difference between a fetus and a human... the difference between perception and mere function.

Long story short, until the brain grows enough, it's nothing more than a tree. Still alive, but not human. Souls are complete myth.

Get over yourself, you aren't all knowing and don't have the RIGHT to decide "when" someone becomes a human. Take your abortion tools and stay out of the human development process thanks.

[Proxy]

Is not atheism literally defined as "without belief?" If one truly does not believe in the supernatural, how can he then leave 'room' for such occurrences?

an atheists bases views on known fact. "Without belief"...? No, that isn't the definition. It's believing in fact. Quit trying to put your personal definition upon us.

And I used to be a Deist in highschool... when I was too scared to take a side.

[Trainwreck2100]

Who says an atheist wouldn't believe? Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean one isn't superstitious, believe in something supernatural, illogical, etc etc

pretty sure it does actually, the idea of the supernatural is counter-intuitive to atheism.

[NewcastleKEG]

Is not atheism literally defined as "without belief?" If one truly does not believe in the supernatural, how can he then leave 'room' for such occurrences?
Without Belief = Rejection of Belief

Yes. You can quickly spin that into, not caring/without passion or heart

[JoeChalupa]

I don't hate athiests. I'm not the one going to hell.

[mavs>spurs]

:lmao qualifying the term "letting people make their own decisions. The only people who want to impose their will on others in this scenario are Christians.

You said yourself that if you had it your way there would be no christianity. You want force people to believe what you want them to believe. But it's the christians fault, right brah.

[Proxy]

Get over yourself, you aren't all knowing and don't have the RIGHT to decide "when" someone becomes a human. Take your abortion tools and stay out of the human development process thanks.

No, I'm not all knowing. That would be the scientists that found these things out, if anyone, and their knowledge is limited in comparison to everything there is to know. Please, stop talking about things you don't know about. Thanks.

[Proxy]

I don't hate athiests. I'm not the one going to hell.

*whispers*

No such thing as an afterlife, brah

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You said yourself that if you had it your way there would be no christianity. You want force people to believe what you want them to believe. But it's the christians fault, right brah.
:lmao what? I never said anything about forcing anything on people. You're the only one doing that. When I say, "if I had it my way" it seems pretty obvious that I'm referring to how I would want things, not what I think should be done.

At least you're admitting that you want to force your beliefs on gay people. Step in the right direction imo.

[JoeChalupa]

*whispers*

No such thing as an afterlife, brah

Prove it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

you aren't all knowing and don't have the RIGHT to decide "when" someone becomes a human.
:lmao and you do have the right to decide when something is a human?

hi pot, I'm kettle

[Trainwreck2100]

Without Belief = Rejection of Belief

Yes. You can quickly spin that into, not caring/without passion or heart

pretty tough to spin such a erroneous statement. A christian rejects a muslims belief, but they are not without belief.

[z0sa]

an atheists bases views on known fact. "Without belief"...? No, that isn't the definition. It's believing in fact. Quit trying to put your personal definition upon us.

And I used to be a Deist in highschool... when I was too scared to take a side.

I can surmise you're an asshole, 1. Second, prove its solely my definition.

dictionary.com defines atheism as disbelief. Disbelief = without belief. Have fun with that one.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Prove it.
Prove there is such a thing as the afterlife. The burden of proof doesn't lie on the person claiming the negative.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist and isn't controlling Barrack Obama's decision making :madrun

[Trainwreck2100]

Prove there is such a thing as the afterlife. The burden of proof doesn't lie on the person claiming the negative.

his claim was there is no afterlife, so yes the burden of proof is on him

[JoeChalupa]

Prove there is such a thing as the afterlife. The burden of proof doesn't lie on the person claiming the negative.

So then you don't have proof of anything. I get your point but you cannot prove yours. Simply saying there is no proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I don't give a rat's ass about any pasta monster.

[JoeChalupa]

his claim was there is no afterlife, so yes the burden of proof is on him

I concur.

[mavs>spurs]

:lmao and you do have the right to decide when something is a human?

hi pot, I'm kettle

nope and thats why i don't intervene. abortion is comfort food for whores in my honest opinion and i won't pander to that shit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

his claim was there is no afterlife, so yes the burden of proof is on him
You are one dumb beaner. He's claiming a negative, meaning the burden of proof doesn't lie on him to prove it.

Remember when your last family member pled not guilty (a negative) to a drug possession charge and the DA had the "burden of proof" to show how he was guilty? This is the same thing.

[Proxy]

Prove it.

:lol

What do you know about physics? I know enough. You're saying a plane exists that breaks the laws and constants by which this existence abides? Is that what you're saying? Please prove that anything like an afterlife that breaks the rules exists.

Understand this: You are terrified of death. You'll believe anything to help you not think about that. It's in your evolution to believe in superstition... you like to believe that you are immortal. You're not. You're mortal. You'll die. Maybe parts of you will be a part of another living thing way down the line of this current universe's life, but you won't know. You should just focus on being happy. If that is believing in superstition, then do it. Call me a bullshitter, that's fine. Whatever makes you happy, but do not impede on my belief and right to happiness, or I will break the foundation of everything that you base your happiness off of.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

nope and thats why i don't intervene. abortion is comfort food for whores in my honest opinion and i won't pander to that shit.
So what about the victim of rape or incest? Is abortion "comfort food" for them too?

[LnGrrrR]

Is not atheism literally defined as "without belief?" If one truly does not believe in the supernatural, how can he then leave 'room' for such occurrences?

It is "without belief", but "belief" can be interpreted different ways. The usual way it's interpreted is without belief in a specific God. An atheist could still believe there's some universal karmic rule in effect, but that it wasn't put in place by any specific being. Most people wouldn't put believing in some sort of "force" as on the same level of theism. Admittedly, we are somewhat splitting hairs here.

[CuckingFunt]

gays marrying is their failure to leave religious people and their concepts alone. gays don't need their union to be recognized by a religious concept. one thing that gays commonly do is act really flamboyant and throw their lifestyle in our faces while seeking acceptance, not really "leaving people alone" at all. Don't tell me to accept your lifestyle, leave me out of it.

You shouldn't use something you don't understand as an example.

[LnGrrrR]

pretty sure it does actually, the idea of the supernatural is counter-intuitive to atheism.

It is counter-intuitive, and yet, some still believe in supernaturalism. (Admittedly, probably a rare breed.)

[Proxy]

I can surmise you're an asshole, 1. Second, prove its solely my definition.

dictionary.com defines atheism as disbelief. Disbelief = without belief. Have fun with that one.

So your religion is of dictionary.com? Interesting.... did you find the word 'surmise' in the books of your temple?

[LnGrrrR]

an atheists bases views on known fact. "Without belief"...? No, that isn't the definition. It's believing in fact. Quit trying to put your personal definition upon us.

And I used to be a Deist in highschool... when I was too scared to take a side.

Technically speaking, atheism translates out to without belief. A = without, theism = belief in god/gods.

Fwiw, agnosticism means without knowledge.

[mavs>spurs]

So what about the victim of rape or incest? Is abortion "comfort food" for them too?

yeah they'd rather hide the evidence and get rid of it than face their problems for 9 months and give the baby up for adoption. rape sucks, but abortion doesn't undo it or make things any better.

[CuckingFunt]

What I wonder is this: what is the general foundation of a TRUE atheists' ethics. I am not saying atheists are unethical, or incapable of ethics. I simply wonder what an atheist believes is the moral foundation for his actions - whether for good and ill.

Compassion.

[LnGrrrR]

Without Belief = Rejection of Belief

Yes. You can quickly spin that into, not caring/without passion or heart

Except that "without" and "rejection" are completely different words. I am currently without a Mountain Dew. I don't reject Mountain Dew.

[Proxy]

nope and thats why i don't intervene. abortion is comfort food for whores in my honest opinion and i won't pander to that shit.

Understand that you are a breed of human that keeps the entire race from improving at the highest possible rate. You are reading the wrong books.

[Trainwreck2100]

You are one dumb beaner. He's claiming a negative, meaning the burden of proof doesn't lie on him to prove it.

Remember when your last family member pled not guilty (a negative) to a drug possession charge and the DA had the "burden of proof" to show how he was guilty? This is the same thing.

listen kike the original claim was made by the poster, now this may be a shock to you but you can't just go around saying shit positive or negative and here's why. Because his claim is a positive for an atheist and a negative for a christian. So yes he has to defend his claim

[LnGrrrR]

Prove it.

:rolleyes

Prove there is one. Or prove there's no Zeus, while we're at it. Or prove that I'm not 20 feet tall.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

yeah they'd rather hide the evidence and get rid of it than face their problems for 9 months and give the baby up for adoption. rape sucks, but abortion doesn't undo it or make things any better.
:lmao saying "rape sucks, but!" as if you're an expert on rape and have any idea what kind of experience it is for victims.

It's very Christian of you to care less about victims of rape than unborn fetuses tbh. I'm sure Jesus would be proud of the compassion you show towards rape victims.

[JoeChalupa]

:lol

What do you know about physics? I know enough. You're saying a plane exists that breaks the laws and constants by which this existence abides? Is that what you're saying? Please prove that anything like an afterlife that breaks the rules exists.

Understand this: You are terrified of death. You'll believe anything to help you not think about that. It's in your evolution to believe in superstition... you like to believe that you are immortal. You're not. You're mortal. You'll die. Maybe parts of you will be a part of another living thing way down the line of this current universe's life, but you won't know. You should just focus on being happy. If that is believing in superstition, then do it. Call me a bullshitter, that's fine. Whatever makes you happy, but do not impede on my belief and right to happiness, or I will break the foundation of everything that you base your happiness off of.

Prove it and go for it. My faith and belief is stronger than anything you could possibly post in here and at no time did I impede on your right to chose not to believe. And as a believer...I've already found happiness.

[NewcastleKEG]

It is "without belief", but "belief" can be interpreted different ways. The usual way it's interpreted is without belief in a specific God. An atheist could still believe there's some universal karmic rule in effect, but that it wasn't put in place by any specific being. Most people wouldn't put believing in some sort of "force" as on the same level of theism. Admittedly, we are somewhat splitting hairs here.
I'd have to disagree & you are right it comes down to the individuals interpretation

IMO, atheist has to stand for the specific individuals who have NO belief whatsoever. Otherwise do we just call those people the non-believers?

[z0sa]

So your religion is of dictionary.com? Interesting.... did you find the word 'surmise' in the books of your temple?

Is atheism defined as without belief, yes or no? And if so, is that solely my definition?

Thanks in advance.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

listen kike the original claim was made by the poster, now this may be a shock to you but you can't just go around saying shit positive or negative and here's why. Because his claim is a positive for an atheist and a negative for a christian. So yes he has to defend his claim
Wow you're dumb.

Positive = "I believe X exists"
Negative = "I believe X doesn't exist"

Which one has the burden of proof?

[NewcastleKEG]

Except that "without" and "rejection" are completely different words. I am currently without a Mountain Dew. I don't reject Mountain Dew.
Which I think further argues that Atheist has to be ALL or NOTHING, as in they believed there are no spirts, karma, anything. Just birth, life & death

[mavs>spurs]

:lmao saying "rape sucks, but!" as if you're an expert on rape and have any idea what kind of experience it is for victims.

It's very Christian of you to care less about victims of rape than unborn fetuses tbh. I'm sure Jesus would be proud of the compassion you show towards rape victims.

and you are? :lmao

you athiest shitslingers want it your way or the high way, and if someone else disagrees then they're just ignorant :cry and keeping mankind from progressing :cry

just admit that you hate religion and get it off your chest.

[JoeChalupa]

:rolleyes

Prove there is one. Or prove there's no Zeus, while we're at it. Or prove that I'm not 20 feet tall.

We've met and you are nowhere near 20 feet tall. :lol I cannot prove there is an after life but you cannot prove there isn't one. Simple as that. All this other talk still leads to the same conlusion that there is no proof either way and that is a fact.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

and you are? :lmao

you athiest shitslingers want it your way or the high way, and if someone else disagrees then they're just ignorant :cry and keeping mankind from progressing :cry

just admit that you hate religion and get it off your chest.
Neat ad-hominem counter argument.

:cryyou're just a shit slinging athiest:cry

[Trainwreck2100]

Wow you're dumb.

Positive = "I believe X exists"
Negative = "I believe X doesn't exist"

Which one has the burden of proof?


Let me make it closer to home for you
Israel says
I believe iran nukes exist

Iran says
Iran nukes don't exist

Which nation opens the door for the UN security council?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And yes I'll freely say it I hate all forms of Western religion (Islam, Judaism, Christianity). All of it. Idk what that does to help your argument that victims of rape should be forced to have the kid their rapist impregnated them with.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Let me make it closer to home for you
Israel says
I believe iran nukes exist

Iran says
Iran nukes don't exist

Which nation opens the door for the UN security council?
That's a retarded example, especially since Israel isn't "Close to home for me". I also haven't heard anything about the UN security council giving a shit about what Israel says (outside of the US).

OJ Simpson: I'm not guilty
Prosecutor: OJ is guilty

Which one has to prove their claim in court?

[Proxy]

Prove it and go for it. My faith and belief is stronger than anything you could possibly post in here and at no time did I impede on your right to chose not to believe. And as a believer...I've already found happiness.

I kinda did.... by pointing to the existence of an afterlife breaking rules by which our right to function by relativity and see light exists... for example...

But if it made you unhappy, then why would I want to? It's not within my morals to take happiness away. You said I would go to hell, which is an insult in your mind. You asked me to prove it, and I gave you facts that support my claim and not yours. I have yet to hear anything that supports the existence of an afterlife.

Good luck. I was a Christian once. I know both sides.

[mavs>spurs]

And yes I'll freely say it I hate all forms of Western religion (Islam, Judaism, Christianity)

no way :wow

[Proxy]

We've met and you are nowhere near 20 feet tall. :lol I cannot prove there is an after life but you cannot prove there isn't one. Simple as that. All this other talk still leads to the same conlusion that there is no proof either way and that is a fact.

Ah! I figured you out! You don't understand what a fact is... there lies the root of your problems, good sir!

[baseline bum]

Prove it and go for it. My faith and belief is stronger than anything you could possibly post in here and at no time did I impede on your right to chose not to believe. And as a believer...I've already found happiness.

You don't choose whether to believe or not. It would be like choosing to see grass as blue and the sky as yellow.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

no way :wow
Did I ever deny that I hate all forms of Western Religion?

:lol acting like you won the argument because I said something that I was implying all along

[z0sa]

Compassion.

a :toast to you for this response.

[Trainwreck2100]

That's a retarded example, especially since Israel isn't "Close to home for me".

OJ Simpson: I'm not guilty
Prosecutor: OJ is guilty

Which one has to prove their claim in court?

In my example the negative had the burden of proof thus disproving your retarded argument that being against something automatically keeps the burden of proof off of anyone being seen as "negative"

Prosecutor:OJ simpson is not innocent
OJ Simpson: I'm innocent

The not is on the prosecutor side now thus flipping the negative argument. See how that shit works

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

In my example the negative had the burden of proof thus disproving your retarded argument that being against something automatically keeps the burden of proof off of anyone being seen as "negative"

Prosecutor:OJ simpson is not innocent
OJ Simpson: I'm innocent

The not is on the prosecutor side now thus flipping the negative argument. See how that shit works
So you're saying that in a court of law OJ Simpson has to prove his innocence?

EDIT: Guilty and "not innocent" are different so in that sense you're right, but whether or not OJ is proven innocent determines jack shit. Casey Anthony wasn't proven innocent but she still doesn't get punished for a crime she was found "not guilty" for.

[mavs>spurs]

My argument is that it isn't athiests who are hated, it's vice versa. That's what I said from the beginning. And as an athiest who just admitted that you hate christianity, you proved my point.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My argument is that it isn't athiests who are hated, it's vice versa. That's what I said from the beginning. And as an athiest who just admitted that you hate christianity, you proved my point.
I was arguing with you about imposing your beliefs on others, my argument had nothing to do with hate. I also said I hate all forms of Western religion, not just Christianity. If I lived in a country that was predominantly Muslim or predominantly Jewish, I'd talk as much shit about those religions as I do Christianity.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Big victory for all the religious people tonight as Rick Santorum is gonna win multiple primaries :tu

[baseline bum]

Big victory for all the religious people tonight as Rick Santorum is gonna win multiple primaries :tu

Only short-term though since Santorum getting the nomination would guarantee 4 more years of President Uncle Tom.

[baseline bum]

Oops, I mean Mullah Uncle Tom.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Only short-term though since Santorum getting the nomination would guarantee 4 more years of President Uncle Tom.
It's still a strong symbol that religion controls the Republican party so much that ejaculate and fecal matter can run a campaign around religion and become a serious candidate.


Christians 1
Atheists 0

If Rick Santorum wins the primary :depressed

[Trainwreck2100]

So you're saying that in a court of law OJ Simpson has to prove his innocence?

EDIT: Guilty and "not innocent" are different so in that sense you're right, but whether or not OJ is proven innocent determines jack shit. Casey Anthony wasn't proven innocent but she still doesn't get punished for a crime she was found "not guilty" for.

You're using the court of law as some basis for metaphysical arguments. I'm just pointing out that it's flawed reasoning because someone else's "negative" can be someone's "positive." The dissenting opinion still needs a claim because someone's dissension is someone's else's ascension.

For example luis pasteur used an experiment to disprove spontaneous generation and prove bio-genesis, It was both a negative argument (for spontaneous generation) and a positive argument (for biogenesis)

[CuckingFunt]

Let me make it closer to home for you
Israel says
I believe iran nukes exist

Iran says
Iran nukes don't exist

Which nation opens the door for the UN security council?

In that hypothetical? Iran opens the door.

Because Israel riled up the UN in an attempt to prove the existence of Iranian nuclear weapons.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Oops, I mean Mullah Uncle Tom.
Mullah Uncle Tom straight outa Kenya yall better make way!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You're using the court of law as some basis for metaphysical arguments. I'm just pointing out that it's flawed reasoning because someone else's "negative" can be someone's "positive." The dissenting opinion still needs a claim because someone's dissension is someone's else's ascension.

For example luis pasteur used an experiment to disprove spontaneous generation and prove bio-genesis, It was both a negative argument (for spontaneous generation) and a positive argument (for biogenesis)
In that innocent scenario you're referring to, you're right, the burden of proof would be on OJ to prove his innocence. The only thing is that proving one's innocence isn't required to avoid jail time.

[baseline bum]

It's still a strong symbol that religion controls the Republican party so much that ejaculate and fecal matter can run a campaign around religion and become a serious candidate.


Christians 1
Atheists 0

If Rick Santorum wins the primary :depressed

When people believe white boogie man in the sky is going to help them survive their own deaths and give them sky-mansions fit for a Columbian drug lord, it's not so hard to sell them on the Iranian boogeyman tbh.

[mavs>spurs]

more trashing religion tbh, i'm a christian but one of the first people on this board to coin the "iranian boogeyman" and laugh at people for believing in it tbh.

[Trainwreck2100]

Me in another thread

Atheist are seen as dbags, because most of the time the only exposure they get is because atheist zealots are having a bitch fit (see complaining about a cross beam at 9/11 memorial)

[CuckingFunt]

In that innocent scenario you're referring to, you're right, the burden of proof would be on OJ to prove his innocence. The only thing is that proving one's innocence isn't required to avoid jail time.

You're correct about the burden of proof in all of this, but are arguing it horribly if I'm honest.

Innocent, not guilty, not innocent, guilty... that's all semantics and has nothing to do with who is responsible for proving what in a courtroom. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution because they need to prove that the defendant(s) committed whatever crime they've been accused of.

The prosecution is trying to prove an action (he/she/they have done _____). The terminology (he/she/they are _____) is something wholly different.

As it regards the OJ Simpson trial, his lawyers were never responsible for proving that he didn't kill Nicole Brown. Rather, they merely had to prevent the prosecution from proving that he did.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

more trashing religion tbh, i'm a christian but one of the first people on this board to coin the "iranian boogeyman" and laugh at people for believing in it tbh.
bible thumpers are the biggest believers in the Iranian boogeyman.


Since you keep saying you're a Christian, when was the last time you've been to Church?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You're correct about the burden of proof in all of this, but are arguing it horribly if I'm honest.

Innocent, not guilty, not innocent, guilty... that's all semantics and has nothing to do with who is responsible for proving what in a courtroom. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution because they need to prove that the defendant(s) committed whatever crime they've been accused of.

The prosecution is trying to prove an action (he/she/they have done _____). The terminology (he/she/they are _____) is something wholly different.

As it regards the OJ Simpson trial, his lawyers were never responsible for proving that he didn't kill Nicole Brown. Rather, they merely had to prevent the prosecution from proving that he did.
I'm bad at arguing with people who love to play semantics in order to argue something that's wrong.

[mavs>spurs]

bible thumpers are the biggest believers in the Iranian boogeyman.


Since you keep saying you're a Christian, when was the last time you've been to Church?

about a month ago. but that doesn't determine whether or not one is a christian so it's kind of irrelevant really.

[Proxy]

My argument is that it isn't athiests who are hated, it's vice versa. That's what I said from the beginning. And as an athiest who just admitted that you hate christianity, you proved my point.

...and you haven't supported your claim at all. On this thread, there are atheists being assholes (thats me) to christians (thats you) because you bring ignorant viewpoints that impede on the happiness of others without logic.

Then the christian responds by saying gays and atheists go to hell and that we know nothing about abortion when we really do...

You aren't proving shit. you're proving that you're one step above being mentally retarded.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Better start going more or you'll be off straight to hell!

[Trainwreck2100]

I'm bad at arguing with people who love to play semantics in order to argue something that's wrong.

lol i killed your argument and the one your agreeing with agreed with me in an earlier thread. You introduced the semantics btw

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol i killed your argument and the one your agreeing with agreed with me in an earlier thread.
No you really didn't. Whatever happened in an earlier thread doesn't have anything to do with this.


So if I say the flying spaghetti monster exists, and then someone disputes that, it's their burden of proof since they're disputing it? I don't understand what the fuck you're "argument" was.

[mavs>spurs]

...and you haven't supported your claim at all. On this thread, there are atheists being assholes (thats me) to christians (thats you) because you bring ignorant viewpoints that impede on the happiness of others without logic.

Then the christian responds by saying gays and atheists go to hell and that we know nothing about abortion when we really do...

You aren't proving shit. you're proving that you're one step above being mentally retarded.

are you some special breed of idiot or something? i have proved shit. i said that athiests are the ones who hate NOT VICE VERSA as the thread suggests, and an athiest AGREED with me. also you admit that the athiests are being assholes. Athiests are the ones here hating bro, get real. And it's pretty typical.

[Trainwreck2100]

No you really didn't. Whatever happened in an earlier thread doesn't have anything to do with this.


So if I say the flying spaghetti monster exists, and then someone disputes that, it's their burden of proof since they're disputing it? I don't understand what the fuck you're "argument" was.

Yes they have to defend their claim, you expressed belief that the dissenting opinion needs no proof and can just yell out claims with no proof.

Your words

The burden of proof doesn't lie on the person claiming the negative.


So if i said
"You're a fucking idiot"positive
and the i said
"You're not fucking smart at all in any way shape or form." That's a negative argument so by your own logic i can say that and I don't need to defend it at all.

Both arguments convey the same message, but by your definition one has to be defended and one doesn't

[Proxy]

are you some special breed of idiot or something? i have proved shit. i said that athiests are the ones who hate NOT VICE VERSA as the thread suggests, and an athiest AGREED with me. also you admit that the athiests are being assholes. Athiests are the ones here hating bro, get real. And it's pretty typical.

being assholes out of annoyance vs regulating the world and people of it based on dogma.... hmmm.... one causes death and impedes on happiness with racism, inequality, abuse, greed... etc.... while the Atheists hurt your feelings with their big brains... who's hatin more, brah? Methinks it be you.

[Sybok]

Gentlemen,

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god. Some might assert it's a positive belief against the existence of a god, but then that would make Christians also atheists as they hold a positive belief against the existence of every god other than the Christian one.

No, atheism is not a rejection of belief. It's simply a lack of it. We can no more reject a belief in a god than we can reject a belief in the monitor in front of our faces, as belief is something that is compelled; we are compelled to believe what our minds cannot deny.

Christians mistakenly (some intentionally) equate an attempt at belief with belief itself, as can be seen by the acts of those who claim to believe. They claim to believe they are faced with an eternal hell fire if they behave and think in a certain way, counter to how their god has commanded them to think and behave, however they think and behave in this way regardless.

Take those same people in a bank hostage situation; a masked man puts a gun to the head of a teller and says "if you scream I will blow your brains out". The woman does not scream. The masked men tell the bank customers who are now hostages that they will all die if they do not obey. They obey. This ordeal lasts for 2 days. Not one hostage attacks the masked men. No hostage jumps up and begins a strip tease. No hostage casually walks out of the bank. Why? They do not want to die. They have a belief that the masked men will kill them. They act upon that belief. That belief does not leave their mind.

Now look at the Christian. He claims to believe in eternal hell fire, yet he does not do what he knows he must do to avoid it. A bullet to the head is but one quick death vs eternal hell fire which, by nature, is eternal. You would think a believing mind would never venture into that realm where it's even possible to go to hell, but they all do and except for the fictional character of Jesus of Nazareth, they all have and will continue to do so. Why? Because their belief is a meditation to attempt to believe. There is no true belief. Unless they are delusional, they cannot force themselves to believe something as fantastic as a supernatural, omniscient deity. All of their posturing and polished, well rehearsed retorts are just that, and under even mid level observation, do not hold up. The theist then becomes an intentional liar, skewing the truth to attempt to hold on to that shard of "perhaps" they have tucked deep inside their mind, and even the over educated theologians struggle with the existence of a god, many abandoning it completely for long periods of time.

The Christians have a couple thousand years head start on the excuse wagon of apologetics, however in just over a quarter of a century their house of cards has been exposed for what it is by a few thinking minds.

I once ventured to a planet outside our known universe to find Shakari, which I have since learned does not exist. Instead there was a bearded old dude who fucked my friends up pretty bad. We wrestled and I was fucked up too, but he's no god.

Peace out

Sy

[mavs>spurs]

being assholes out of annoyance vs regulating the world and people of it based on dogma.... hmmm.... one causes death and impedes on happiness with racism, inequality, abuse, greed... etc.... while the Atheists hurt your feelings with their big brains... who's hatin more, brah? Methinks it be you.

Except I highly doubt that you are more intelligent than me (or even in the ballpark) and there's a certain athiest in this thread who would even agree. More proof of your bigotry tbh.

[mingus]

Probably because the two because asshats in history, Stalin and Hitler, were athiest.

[Proxy]

Except I highly doubt that you are more intelligent than me (or even in the ballpark) and there's a certain athiest in this thread who would even agree. More proof of your bigotry tbh.

Okay... caught on. I understand that you're just trollin trollin trollin :toast

[Proxy]

Probably because the two because asshats in history, Stalin and Hitler, were athiest.

BINGO! And their entire reasoning behind what they did was due to them being atheists... how many history books have you read btw? I would assume none, and you heard this little story off the O'reilly factor. Amirite?

I was waiting for this, and you can't seem to learn from all the other god v science threads, it seems.

[Trainwreck2100]

or he was trolling you

[Proxy]

or he was trolling you

Nope. I wish he was, but I've run into him in the past on a similar thread

[mavs>spurs]

Okay... caught on. I understand that you're just trollin trollin trollin :toast

no trollin at all tbh. you assuming that religious people are somehow all mentally inferior to you because you're a hip progressive doucher in a thread about ATHIESTS BEING PERSECUTED LOL is trollin imho.

[mingus]

BINGO! And their entire reasoning behind what they did was due to them being atheists... how many history books have you read btw? I would assume none, and you heard this little story off the O'reilly factor. Amirite?

I was waiting for this, and you can't seem to learn from all the other god v science threads, it seems.

For a guy that considers himself smart, you sure do not know how to read. Can you point out where I said that what they did was due to them being athiest? It's just a correlation.

You and graph boi Dok do not know the difference b/w correlation and causation, which is ironic that both of you try to be spokepersons for the notion that athiest > theists in so far as intelligence.

[mavs>spurs]

proxy isn't smart at all, him automatically assuming he's smarter than people on the internet whom he's never met before just because they're religious is more than proof of that.

[The Reckoning]

why do people in the military want so much attention?

[Proxy]

For a guy that considers himself smart, you sure do not know how to read. Can you point out where I said that what they did was due to them being athiests? It's just a correlation.

Then why the hell did you post it? If Stalin and Hitler being Atheists has no connection to why they were bad people, then what point are you trying to make when proving your Christian values are better then an Atheist's values? It's just some statement that has no purpose to the argument.

[Proxy]

proxy isn't smart at all, him automatically assuming he's smarter than people on the internet whom he's never met before just because they're religious is more than proof of that.

The only people I know I'm smarter than are you and the other two arguing against Atheism.

I've already been told I'm going to hell. You argue against homosexuality and abortion when you don't understand either on a scientific or psychological level. Mingus over there thinks that atheism=genocide.... so yeah... I've not condescended to anyone else thus far but a select three.

[Trainwreck2100]

Then why the hell did you post it? If Stalin and Hitler being Atheists has no connection to why they were bad people, then what point are you trying to make when proving your Christian values are better then an Atheist's values? It's just some statement that has no purpose to the argument.

if he was answering ops question.
Why are athiests so hated in the USA?
He could be stating OP my hypothesis to your question is people associate atheism w/ Hitler and Stalin

[mingus]

Then why the hell did you post it? If Stalin and Hitler being Atheists has no connection to why they were bad people, then what point are you trying to make when proving your Christian values are better then an Atheist's values? It's just some statement that has no purpose to the argument.

You're an idiot. I was answering the question posed in the thread title. How was my post not directed at the question? Idiot.

I know you're not an atheist. No matter how badly you want to be. You are too dumb to be an atheist.

[The Reckoning]

why are atheists who can't spell their own affiliation in thread titles so hated in the USA?

[Proxy]

You're an idiot. I was answering the question posed in the thread title. How was my post not directed at the question? Idiot.

I know you're not an atheist. No matter how badly you want to be. You are too dumb to be an atheist.

Then that's my bad, aye. You got me. I dun goofed on you.

[z0sa]

Then that's my bad, aye. You got me. I dun goofed on you.

and me. that's (at least) twice you've been a dick for absolutely no reason in this thread.

[mingus]

You argue against homosexuality and abortion when you don't understand either on a scientific or psychological level.

So does Ron Paul, an OBGYN, not agree with abortion because he doesn't understand the science of it?

[Proxy]

So does Ron Paul, an OBGYN, not agree with abortion because he doesn't understand the science of it?

First, he is a creationist. Second, his opinion on it is purely government based in the sense that it should be decided by state... both of which I disagree with.

[greyforest]

Being right doesn't make one any less a bigot, and honest bigots don't need to pretend science backs up their sweeping generalizations.

Prejudice is one thing. Percentages and trends are another.

[mingus]

First, he is a creationist. Second, his opinion on it is purely government based in the sense that it should be decided by state... both of which I disagree with.

So, then you can still know a shitload about science and not agree with abortion.

[Proxy]

and me. that's (at least) twice you've been a dick for absolutely no reason in this thread.

Well I apologize. I get too pissed off on the subject. My bad. I need to control my temper, but make no mistake... I still stand by to message behind my posts, but not the execution.... maybe that's the answer to the OPs message.

The execution of the message gets lost in anger.

[Proxy]

So, then you can still know a shitload about science and not agree with abortion.

Well, I'll say this. I believe aborting a human is murder.

I believe a fetus becomes a human when it's brain develops for it to understand that it's alive (self-awareness/perception).

A tree does not know that it lives. If you cut into it, it's reacts to pain on a pure reaction level...(cells regrowing... bark and whatnot)... fetus is the same thing. Brain development to self awareness isn't pinpointed, but is at a latter trimester of pregnancy.

I'm against late abortion... everyone is. I'm against the concept that life starts at conception. I don't believe in a soul because I understand that the brain is the computer behind everything we perceive. Until the brain can function on a human level, or even a base reptilian level, it does not understand it's existence. A human body is a tool to the brain. Everything that makes us individual is in the brain. Heart... dogma based soul... have no real basis.

So if we can avoid bringing in a life that has no good base upon which to learn and grow, then it should be aborted before it is alive. Once it is alive, it is murder.

[mingus]

Prejudice is one thing. Percentages and trends are another.

There are probably a million trends going on at once between the people who score low on IQ tests, aside from religion.

You atheists are trying to come to basically scientific conclusions about a certain group of people without actually conducting a scientific experiment, or any semblance of a scientific experiment.

[mingus]

Well, I'll say this. I believe...


I do not care what you believe. I did not ask the question to gain insight into what you believe.

[Proxy]

There are probably a million trends going on at once between the people who score low on IQ tests, aside from religion.

You atheists are trying to come to basically scientific conclusions about a certain group of people without actually conducting a scientific experiment.

It is a minuscule percentage of people that have conducted these scientific/sociological experiments. How can you say that we lose credibility by reciting results from experiments backed by data when Christianity is a world dominating religion based on the old writings of even fewer? The word of one man named Jesus fuels the entire establishment.

You have a double standard that you have to follow.

[Proxy]

I do not care what you believe. I did not ask the question to gain insight into what you believe.

Well you just deleted the facts stated in your quote of my post... is that how you want to play the game? Editing the original source? Very FoxNews of you.

[Proxy]

You can know a shitload about science and not agree with abortion. Is it the right science? Has the science been comprehended correctly?

Apparently not if he's a Creationist. Does that answer your question?

[ElNono]

Nah. I don't follow any religion. I personally take my ethics from my own personal experiences, with pain, brutality, hunger, etc. I am wondering if atheists are the same.

Not much difference here. The only difference with a deist is the lack of all-powerful creator.

[ElNono]

tbh, most atheists I know don't have a problem with religion until religion is literally pushed into their lives...

[mingus]

It is a minuscule percentage of people that have conducted these scientific/sociological experiments. How can you say that we lose credibility by reciting results from experiments backed by data when Christianity is a world dominating religion based on the old writings of even fewer? The word of one man named Jesus fuels the entire establishment.

You have a double standard that you have to follow.

I'm not a Christian.

Faith/Religion isn't testable by science. You're claims are testable by science. There's no double standard.

[mingus]

You can know a shitload about science and not agree with abortion. Is it the right science? Has the science been comprehended correctly?

Apparently not if he's a Creationist. Does that answer your question?

Where did I mention creationism? I addressed abortion. Paul is not an evolutionary biologist. I don't expect him to know any more about evolution than an evolutionary biologist would know about OBGYN.

[Proxy]

Where did I mention creationism? I addressed abortion. Paul is not an evolutionary biologist. I don't expect him to know any more about evolution than an evolutionary biologist would know about OBGYN.

You didn't mention creationism. I did.

Is it that you don't have the balls to make a claim on something without fact, or what?

[mavs>spurs]

The only people I know I'm smarter than are you and the other two arguing against Atheism.

I've already been told I'm going to hell. You argue against homosexuality and abortion when you don't understand either on a scientific or psychological level. Mingus over there thinks that atheism=genocide.... so yeah... I've not condescended to anyone else thus far but a select three.

i'm a member of MENSA, are you?

[Bill_Brasky]

I don't believe that faith is an indicator of lack of intelligence, just that it can(and is, all the time) be used to contol stupid people by very smart people who have alterior motives, most of which are in the best interest of only a select few.

These things could be prevented if more people would encourage their children to think freely instead of indoctrinating them with some sort of nonsense.

[greyforest]

There are probably a million trends going on at once between the people who score low on IQ tests, aside from religion.
This is because a correlation is not a cause.


You atheists are trying to come to basically scientific conclusions about a certain group of people
!!!IRONY ALERT!!!:lmao


without actually conducting a scientific experiment, or any semblance of a scientific experiment.
The chart I posted was generated by this scientific experiment (or semblance thereof)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000238

[mingus]

You didn't mention creationism. I did.

Is it that you don't have the balls to make a claim on something without fact, or what?

?

No idea what your point is. And I'm sick of trying to sift through all of the incoherent shit you've been saying since post 1.

[Winehole23]

Prejudice is one thing. Percentages and trends are another.They're not mutually exclusive.

[Winehole23]

if we were discussing "The Bell Curve" would you be willing to split the same hair? The intelligence of various racial groups should be empirically verifiable, right?

[Winehole23]

it's an empirical question, right? nothing at all bigoted about it.

are there measurable differences in human intelligence correlated with race?

[redzero]

if we were discussing "The Bell Curve" would you be willing to split the same hair? The intelligence of various racial groups should be empirically verifiable, right?

I think that's been done already.

[Winehole23]

generalizing about intelligence on the basis of degree of religiosity is not really distinguishable from that

[101A]

I believe a fetus becomes a human when it's brain develops for it to understand that it's alive (self-awareness/perception).

That rationale appears to balance precariously atop a very slippery slope. I've always believed the strongest pro-abortion argument lies specifically with the rights of the woman to NOT have to carry a parasite, be it human or not.


I'm against late abortion... everyone is.

Not adherents to the above logic. Our president, many other politicians, The National Organization for Women included.


I don't believe in a soul because I understand that the brain is the computer behind everything we perceive.

How very enlightened of you. What do you propose "Creationists" or "Deists" think the brain is?


Until the brain can function on a human level, or even a base reptilian level, it does not understand it's existence.

Is there a measure of human competence equivalent to "Base Reptilian"? I am not aware of it. Fascinating standard you have set, however. What do you think of mean kids who pull tails off of lizards?


So if we can avoid bringing in a life that has no good base upon which to learn and grow, then it should be aborted before it is alive. Once it is alive, it is murder.

That slope is covered in greased silicone.

[LnGrrrR]

IMO, atheist has to stand for the specific individuals who have NO belief whatsoever. Otherwise do we just call those people the non-believers?

Theism just refers to belief in god/gods, not superstitions, karma, or any other sort of new age-y belief you want to stuff in there.

[LnGrrrR]

We've met and you are nowhere near 20 feet tall. :lol I cannot prove there is an after life but you cannot prove there isn't one. Simple as that. All this other talk still leads to the same conlusion that there is no proof either way and that is a fact.

How do you know it was me? How do you know you weren't hallucinating, or that this is all a dream? ;)

I can't prove there is no afterlife, and I have no problem with people who believe in one. More power to them. But just because one can't disprove the existence of something doesn't justify belief. (ie. invisible pink unicorn/flying spaghetti monster)

[LnGrrrR]

why do people in the military want so much attention?

:lol Well played.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, I'll say this. I believe aborting a human is murder.

I believe a fetus becomes a human when it's brain develops for it to understand that it's alive (self-awareness/perception).

A tree does not know that it lives. If you cut into it, it's reacts to pain on a pure reaction level...(cells regrowing... bark and whatnot)... fetus is the same thing. Brain development to self awareness isn't pinpointed, but is at a latter trimester of pregnancy.

I'm against late abortion... everyone is. I'm against the concept that life starts at conception. I don't believe in a soul because I understand that the brain is the computer behind everything we perceive. Until the brain can function on a human level, or even a base reptilian level, it does not understand it's existence. A human body is a tool to the brain. Everything that makes us individual is in the brain. Heart... dogma based soul... have no real basis.

So if we can avoid bringing in a life that has no good base upon which to learn and grow, then it should be aborted before it is alive. Once it is alive, it is murder.

A problem with this definition is that even a baby doesn't have self-recognition for a few months. We'd probably all agree that killing a one-week-old baby is murder though.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Atheist's I have no problems with, I do have an issue with people who claim we evolved from a snail.

You're a moron and disgrace to Latino people everywhere (based on that radio call in). Evolved from a snail? Are you this stupid on that subject?

Jesus was a great guy, fantastic to admire him. It doesn't mean you have to become a cult like moron.

Plenty of people still believed in a higher natural or spiritual order and law of things and accept evolution.

Endogenous retroviruses were planted by the devil obviously.

[Borat Sagyidev]

...and you haven't supported your claim at all. On this thread, there are atheists being assholes (thats me) to christians (thats you) because you bring ignorant viewpoints that impede on the happiness of others without logic.

Then the christian responds by saying gays and atheists go to hell and that we know nothing about abortion when we really do...

You aren't proving shit. you're proving that you're one step above being mentally retarded.


are you some special breed of idiot or something? i have proved shit. i said that athiests are the ones who hate NOT VICE VERSA as the thread suggests, and an athiest AGREED with me. also you admit that the athiests are being assholes. Athiests are the ones here hating bro, get real. And it's pretty typical.

It really doesn't matter whether any of you guys agree or not. Science isn't exactly a democracy, unless it's corrupted.

Some Christians and religious people are great to get along with, some aren't. Especially the ones that knock on your door when you're trying to get stuff done. My favorite part is that tell you about the sky wizard loves you, but will punish you for eternity if you do certain things. Sounds like a dysfunctional marriage/

Same things goes with atheists (not so much agnostics), evolution is not meant to be a substitute religion. It's meant to be a basis for scientific result. If you take it to the extreme to point out that it says their is no GOD/Sky wizard/etc, which it really doesn't say much about, that may deem you an asshole.

You can still have a governing law/authority/entity and evolution, but that's too much middle ground for many.

[Blake]

I don't hate athiests. I'm not the one going to hell.

Bible God apparently hates atheists more than anyone else.

[Winehole23]

by my reading of the OT, worshippers of false gods got it worse

[Blake]

You're using the court of law as some basis for metaphysical arguments. I'm just pointing out that it's flawed reasoning because someone else's "negative"

When these metaphysical arguments enter court rooms is when I have a problem.

[Blake]

by my reading of the OT, worshippers of false gods got it worse

True, they did get it worse in those days.

[Blake]

and you are? :lmao

you athiest shitslingers want it your way or the high way, and if someone else disagrees then they're just ignorant :cry and keeping mankind from progressing :cry

just admit that you hate religion and get it off your chest.

I see Jesus using you here to spread the good word.

Christian accountant boss

[Winehole23]

When these metaphysical arguments enter court rooms is when I have a problem.you seem to have a problem with it here, too

[Winehole23]

True, they did get it worse in those days.so then, your generalization about "Bible God" hating atheists worst of all was more or less fantasized, wasn't it?

[JoeChalupa]

How do you know it was me? How do you know you weren't hallucinating, or that this is all a dream? ;)

I can't prove there is no afterlife, and I have no problem with people who believe in one. More power to them. But just because one can't disprove the existence of something doesn't justify belief. (ie. invisible pink unicorn/flying spaghetti monster)

I hear ya but faith isn't always based on scientific facts and that is why it is referred to as faith. Blessed is he who has not seen....yet believes. Okay, enough preaching. I guess I'm just comfortable with my faith and what I believe in and those are not, more power to them. Personal preference.

[DarkReign]

These threads got old years ago, but I just wanted to point an experience out that I just had recently that I think about to chuckle.

These two individuals whom I know incredibly well are intelligent, successful and very cool. Have had innumerable conversations with them about everything and anything including religion and have never once come away with any impression of them other than favorable.

Just recently, I was having a conversation with one and it trekked into "areas of fault" that one may feel about the other. I offered no criticism as I am loathe to engage anyone on such grounds because I feel that most people I interact with are spineless fucking cowards one or two steps away from having a mental breakdown because someone they know might have a low opinion of them in certain aspects.

His criticism of me? My faithlessness.

I was taken aback to say the least. Stood there in silence and it basically came down to not my faithlessness but the faithlessness that I will inevitably pass onto my son.

He said "Give the kid a chance. Baptize him, send him to church and Sunday school then let him decide". It was everything I could do to not laugh in his face...out of respect, I did not.

That is a practicing Christian's idea of "giving them a chance". Indoctrinate them young so that when they get older the idea that an invisible man in the sky sent his only son down to Earth wont sound like the complete and utter horse shit that it is. That isnt "a chance", thats stacking the deck in religion's favor.

Whatever...I brushed it off and moved on. Later that day both individuals and myself are talking. Seems they had a talk about the conversation and decided it was time they had a...I dont know the words, but basically a lite intervention with me on the subject in tandem.

I am the most patient individual on the planet irl, my want to offend people personally is at its bare minimum, so I let them speak...for about a half an hour. God this, Jesus that, wont be saved, do you realize what that means?, etc.

I basically said this;


I have listened to both of you for years without nary a peep from me in contrast or a statement of my position. Now you feel is the time to tag team me with this? Why? Because of my son's salvation? How about this, you worry about your salvation and I will worry about my son's.

Since we are on the subject that you both feel so strongly about, I have always known to never have a real conversation with you about this because our relationship would be ruined should we do so. But now that you feel its the right time to step on my toes, its time I stepped on yours. Know this, you can end this conversation right now and we can pretend it did not happen and our relationship will not change. But if you do not end this conversation, know that you and I will probably never speak to each other in the same way ever again. End the conversation?

Them: No.


Fine. My problem is not with God, its with you and everyone like you. Its with your sense of entitlement above others, its your conviction that you know something everyone else does not. That you could even pretend to know is an offense to me and it always has been. Just because a book is old does not make it truth, but since you were indoctrinated at such a young age (the same thing youre trying to do to my son, btw), your ability to even objectively look at the story as anything other than fiction has been blurred and will forever obscure your viewpoint.

Moreover, we sit here and have conversations about everything under the Sun, from family, to news, to science, to technology to everything and even religion. But do you know what makes me seriously doubt anything that has ever come out of your mouths? What makes me question your every thought process and conclusion? Your willingness to make yourselves look like buffoons by wasting your time, energy and life arguing with and wrestling with a completely fabricated story.

If I spent the rest of my life studying the Lord of the Rings under the complete conviction that it was a true story and that the nuances therein were a guide to how to live, love and spread joy, would you think me odd? I know I would. Someone peddling the "Two Towers" on the street corner while professing Gandolf to be be the son of God would be something to ridicule and condemn.

But that isnt the case here, is it? You have ~2000 years of confirmation bias and social acceptance to stand on as "proof". You have past and present world leaders and positions of power filled to the brim with like-minded people to look to as "proof". All based on the conquest and conversion of new lands by people who are nothing like you, never were and never will be. That two adult Americans in the 21st century could readily, willingly and constantly suspend their disbelief every single day to make a 2000 year old story be true to the very fabric of their soul offends me. It makes me think less of you. Do you still believe in Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Leprechauns? Fairies? Dragons? Well why the hell not dragons? The story is older than Christ by millenia and the remains of giant flying lizards are called Pterodactyls? Oh, is it because they breathed fire? Thats what makes the idea of dragons preposterous for you?!

Never speak to me about this again. Leave my son out of your thoughts about religion, and remember, you bombarded me, had conversations about me without me being present, thought about how you would do this before this ever happened. I am done playing fucking nice with both of you. You know where I stand and what I think of two grown men believing in fucking fairy tales told thousands of years ago. Got it?

Stunned silence. Havent spoken much since.

[clambake]

:lmao

[clambake]

the gall to tell you what to do with your son.

that would be our last conversation, ever.

[Winehole23]

Giving you advice about indoctrinating your own kid is a bit presumptuous. The gall of that presumption is not tempered by any degree or kind of well-meaning, however understandable it may be, jmo.

[DarkReign]

Giving you advice about indoctrinating your own kid is a bit presumptuous. The gall of that presumption is not tempered by any degree or kind of well-meaning, however understandable it may be, jmo.

Its the complete lack of respect they showed. Until that day, I had never once, never even hinted at my stance on the subject besides being faithless.

I guess they mistook my silence as as a sort of opening for "enlightenment".

Lesson learned: Make sure those close to you know to never broach subjects on which you feel strongly about. Your silence only sets them up for abject failure and will sour your relationship indefinitely.

[DarkReign]

the gall to tell you what to do with your son.

that would be our last conversation, ever.

Difficult to do with in-laws.

[clambake]

Difficult to do with in-laws.

inside job, eh?

[clambake]

should be an adequate warning for the others.

[baseline bum]

Its the complete lack of respect they showed. Until that day, I had never once, never even hinted at my stance on the subject besides being faithless.

I guess they mistook my silence as as a sort of opening for "enlightenment".

Lesson learned: Make sure those close to you know to never broach subjects on which you feel strongly about. Your silence only sets them up for abject failure and will sour your relationship indefinitely.

DR, you should have told them you'd go to church for a while if they paid your 10% of earnings heaven tax until you made up your mind whether you believed it or not.

[Winehole23]

Its the complete lack of respect they showed. Respect is a biggie. You don't get it if you don't give it.

Telling you what to do with your kid and judging you as a person for disagreeing with them on matters of belief is straight up disrespectful and unfriendly. If they say their belief requires them to do so, I think it's safe to say that's bullshit.

[LnGrrrR]

I hear ya but faith isn't always based on scientific facts and that is why it is referred to as faith. Blessed is he who has not seen....yet believes. Okay, enough preaching. I guess I'm just comfortable with my faith and what I believe in and those are not, more power to them. Personal preference.

Same here Joe, and same to you. :) I've got no problems with believers that respect my right not to believe.

[DarkReign]

DR, you should have told them you'd go to church for a while if they paid your 10% of earnings heaven tax until you made up your mind whether you believed it or not.

:lol Brilliant.


Respect is a biggie. You don't get it if you don't give it.

Telling you what to do with your kid and judging you as a person for disagreeing with them on matters of belief is straight up disrespectful and unfriendly. If they say their belief requires them to do so, I think it's safe to say that's bullshit.

Your last sentence rings too many bells. "My service requires spreading the Word, even to those who refuse to listen." I have other funny anecdotes that would at least make you smile.

All I will say is thats its funny how the religious people that I know only have "friends" from church and nowhere else. And by "friends", I mean people you see once a week and have birthday parties with your kids but never once actually have a disagreement with because you will no longer be "friends" anymore.

[clambake]

next time someone brings it up, just ask them what its like to be influenced by the simplest form of mass manipulation ever invented.

[Blake]

generalizing about intelligence on the basis of degree of religiosity is not really distinguishable from that

Of course there's no true way to quantify IQ levels if Christians.

I do think that the great majority of christians running their mouths are intellectually lazy regarding basic tenets of their belief system....yet they go all in on it.

That's the type of religious nut I find to be stupid.

[Winehole23]

it's possible to evangelize without being an arrogant, disrespectful jerk, but apparently some people take that as a requirement.

[LnGrrrR]

I think my wife's family was rather shocked when they found out I was an atheist, because I was such a "nice person". Ah well, changing hearts and minds one step at a time, etc etc...

[Wild Cobra]

I think my wife's family was rather shocked when they found out I was an atheist, because I was such a "nice person". Ah well, changing hearts and minds one step at a time, etc etc...
Probably gets a bit annoying when they try to "save" you?

[Winehole23]

I do think that the great majority of christians running their mouths are intellectually lazy regarding basic tenets of their belief system....yet they go all in on it.More reflexive bigotry. Most people are intellectually lazy. That's hardly peculiar to Christians.

That's the type of religious nut I find to be stupid.Mouthy, ignorant, lazy, and very opinionated?





(we don't get very much of that here)

[LnGrrrR]

Probably gets a bit annoying when they try to "save" you?

Actually, they've been very respectful about that. They understand that we differ in our views, and I've told my wife that if she wants to discuss God with the children, or bring them to church occasionally, then she can. However, I get to explain to them my lack of belief, and when they get older the kids can choose what to believe.

(As far as the church thing, my wife tends not to bother :lol)

But I've had friends and family try to "save" me, or say things like, "I'd have never married my husband if he were an atheist", and yes, it can be somewhat offensive.

[Blake]

you seem to have a problem with it here, too

I have no real problem with metaphysical arguments here.

Don't confuse that with me simply making fun of the people using the same old, tired, easily shot down arguments such as: "you can't prove that god doesn't exist"

[LnGrrrR]

More reflexive bigotry. Most people are intellectually lazy. That's hardly peculiar to Christians.

While obviously true, I find that most atheists (and most Non-Christians) have been more apt to have critically examined their faith/belief structure. Christianity tends to be the "default" and so I think many people believe without actually looking at the reasons behind their belief.

[Blake]

so then, your generalization about "Bible God" hating atheists worst of all was more or less fantasized, wasn't it?

There's no generalization about it. It is clearly written in the OT about the way God treated the pagan nations. He slaughtered many before sending them to hell.

Today, a Christian will tell you that murderers, rapists and thieves can get mansions in heaven while the non-believer burns forever in hell.

[Blake]

More reflexive bigotry. Most people are intellectually lazy. That's hardly peculiar to Christians.
Mouthy, ignorant, lazy, and very opinionated?

(we don't get very much of that here)

Is there a point you are trying to get across to me in this particular case, or is this just you doing your standard measuring?

[Winehole23]

There's no generalization about it. It is clearly written in the OT about the way God treated the pagan nations. He slaughtered many before sending them to hell.God smote the enemies of Israel? Isn't that part of the job description when you're a tribal deity? Womp ass on enemies? Hard to see what the gripe is, tbh.

Today, a Christian will tell you that murderers, rapists and thieves can get mansions in heaven while the non-believer burns forever in hell.Well, you can't believe everything everybody tells you. Particularly people who claim to be experts on the eschatological deeds and the final disposition of things.

[JoeChalupa]

I think my wife's family was rather shocked when they found out I was an atheist, because I was such a "nice person". Ah well, changing hearts and minds one step at a time, etc etc...

One doesn't have to believe in religion to be a nice, decent, respectful person. But one does have to have morals, IMHO.

[JoeChalupa]

The wife and I discussed religion before we married as it can be an issue when having children. I'm raising them as Catholic but they will need to decide on which path they chose to follow.

[Blake]

God smote the enemies of Israel? Isn't that part of the job description when you're a tribal deity? Womp ass on enemies? Hard to see what the gripe is, tbh.

God smote everybody that wasn't on team Israel.

Why would God even bother creating other nations, just to hate on them later?



Well, you can't believe everything everybody tells you. Particularly people who claim to be experts on the eschatological deeds and the final disposition of things.

No scholarly advice required to form such a conclusion.

John 3:16 clear as day states the contempt that God has for the non-believer.

[101A]

All I will say is thats its funny how the religious people that I know only have "friends" from church and nowhere else. And by "friends", I mean people you see once a week and have birthday parties with your kids but never once actually have a disagreement with because you will no longer be "friends" anymore.

Ironic this.

I am religious, go to church every week; same one for 6 years.

Have NO friends from Church.

The majority of my friends are Atheists/Humanists or Agnostic.

We DO discuss religion regularly; we all respect each other's beliefs (as far as I know; they might very well mock me when not in my presence; but I don't think so). A couple have even shown up on Sunday morning to see what's going on....neither returned.

They are good people; generous with their time and possessions. I am a Christian, and I believe JC to be the savior of me and all of mankind. That said, MY God doesn't send MY friends to hell (nor DR, for that matter).

[101A]

God smote everybody that wasn't on team Israel.

Why would God even bother creating other nations, just to hate on them later?




No scholarly advice required to form such a conclusion.

John 3:16 clear as day states the contempt that God has for the non-believer.

Bullshit.


For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Doesn't mention the non-believer.

[z0sa]

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Stoic philosopher-king

[Blake]

Bullshit.

Doesn't mention the non-believer.

The implication is crystal clear: if you are a non-believer, you perish.

[Wild Cobra]

The implication is crystal clear: if you are a non-believer, you perish.
Your biased interpretation doesn't mean that's what it means.

[Blake]

Your biased interpretation doesn't mean that's what it means.

Please give your unbiased interpretation of what this verse means for the non-believer.

[Wild Cobra]

Please give your unbiased interpretation of what this verse means for the non-believer.
It is not an either/or passage. It claims that those who believe in [and accept] Jesus shall not perish. It doesn't say that those who aren't believers will parish. I believe there are other ways to have a favorable existence in the next life.

The Bible is a book written for the followers of Jehovah. It even imply there are other Gods.

[101A]

The implication is crystal clear: if you are a non-believer, you perish.

Many, if not most, Christians believe as you do.

I don't.

Honestly I was much more of a hard-assed know it all Christian before I had children. Then I had children, and I understand much better the love God has for us; for it is as a father.

I give my kids WAY too many chances; set a line, let them cross it; move the line. 1, 2, 2 1/2, 2 3/4, etc.....

Far be it from me to think God isn't more forgiving with his own children than I....

You die and haven't accepted Jesus - there's Jesus waiting for you - showing you heaven, showing you hell........if you have an eternal soul, why couldn't your choice be AFTER you die in this reality? After all, I would give my own kids that chance.

[101A]

It even imply there are other Gods.


Yeah.....you're going to Hell.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah.....you're going to Hell.

LOL...

OK...

If you insist, sitting there in judgement of me...

[LnGrrrR]

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Stoic philosopher-king

Awesome quote Zosa. I've paraphrased nearly the exact same words, but of my own beliefs. I was pretty sure that someone else had coined the idea first though. :) Nice to know who that is. I'll have to tuck this quote into my mental memory bank.

[redzero]

Many, if not most, Christians believe as you do.

I don't.

Honestly I was much more of a hard-assed know it all Christian before I had children. Then I had children, and I understand much better the love God has for us; for it is as a father.

I give my kids WAY too many chances; set a line, let them cross it; move the line. 1, 2, 2 1/2, 2 3/4, etc.....

Far be it from me to think God isn't more forgiving with his own children than I....

You die and haven't accepted Jesus - there's Jesus waiting for you - showing you heaven, showing you hell........if you have an eternal soul, why couldn't your choice be AFTER you die in this reality? After all, I would give my own kids that chance.

One would think that all-loving God wouldn't have created a hell in the first place.

[Blake]

It is not an either/or passage. It claims that those who believe in [and accept] Jesus shall not perish. It doesn't say that those who aren't believers will parish. I believe there are other ways to have a favorable existence in the next life.

The Bible is a book written for the followers of Jehovah. It even imply there are other Gods.

In your unbiased interpretation, where does the Bible say believers in other gods go when they die.

Book and verse, please.

[101A]

One would think that all-loving God wouldn't have created a hell in the first place.


"Universal Salvation" is gaining popularity in some Christian circles. I don't, as "liberal" as my views are, do not prescribe to it.

There are posters on this board, I imagine, that would CHOOSE hell, just to make a point.

[clambake]

well, its a commandment, so.......

[redzero]

"Universal Salvation" is gaining popularity in some Christian circles. I don't, as "liberal" as my views are, do not prescribe to it.

There are posters on this board, I imagine, that would CHOOSE hell, just to make a point.

Yes, so God isn't so forgiving after all.

[101A]

Yes, so God isn't so forgiving after all.

Something I firmly believe we were given is free will. If, given a choice, while peering into the abyss, or gazing into paradise, a person is hell bent (so to speak) on the abyss....God won't stop them. He is not condemning them, they are choosing to separate themselves from Him.

[Blake]

Many, if not most, Christians believe as you do.

I don't.

Honestly I was much more of a hard-assed know it all Christian before I had children. Then I had children, and I understand much better the love God has for us; for it is as a father.

I give my kids WAY too many chances; set a line, let them cross it; move the line. 1, 2, 2 1/2, 2 3/4, etc.....

Far be it from me to think God isn't more forgiving with his own children than I....

You die and haven't accepted Jesus - there's Jesus waiting for you - showing you heaven, showing you hell........if you have an eternal soul, why couldn't your choice be AFTER you die in this reality? After all, I would give my own kids that chance.

So you made up your own non biblical logic.

Far be it from me to tell you not to change the fairy tale ending from sad to happy.

[clambake]

"Universal Salvation" is gaining popularity in some Christian circles. I don't, as "liberal" as my views are, do not prescribe to it.

There are posters on this board, I imagine, that would CHOOSE hell, just to make a point.

don't you look forward to mingling with your taliban brothers?

[redzero]

Something I firmly believe we were given is free will. If, given a choice, while peering into the abyss, or gazing into paradise, a person is hell bent (so to speak) on the abyss....God won't stop them. He is not condemning them, they are choosing to separate themselves from Him.

He created hell, did he not? He made the rules, did he not?

[Blake]

Something I firmly believe we were given is free will. If, given a choice, while peering into the abyss, or gazing into paradise, a person is hell bent (so to speak) on the abyss....God won't stop them. He is not condemning them, they are choosing to separate themselves from Him.

So why go to the trouble to create earth, complete with pain and suffering?

[101A]

He created hell, did he not? He made the rules, did he not?

Yes.