# Why do Americans still dislike atheists?



## sadated_peon (May 10, 2011)

> Long after blacks and Jews have made great strides, and even as homosexuals gain respect, acceptance and new rights, there is still a group that lots of Americans just don?t like much: atheists. Those who don?t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and angry. They can?t join the Boy Scouts. Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score as sufficiently ?spiritual? in military psychological evaluations. Surveys find that most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry or vote for nontheists; in other words, nonbelievers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.
> 
> Rarely denounced by the mainstream, this stunning anti-atheist discrimination is egged on by Christian conservatives who stridently ? and uncivilly ? declare that the lack of godly faith is detrimental to society, rendering nonbelievers intrinsically suspect and second-class citizens.
> 
> ...




What are your thoughts, Why do you think that Americans still dislike atheists.


----------



## Mexican God Lvl 3 (May 10, 2011)

What


----------



## ExoSkel (May 10, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Why do you think that Americans still dislike atheists.


Because God demands it.


----------



## urca (May 10, 2011)

> Long after blacks and Jews have made great strides, and even as homosexuals gain respect, acceptance and new rights, there is still a group that lots of Americans just don’t like much: atheists.* Those who don’t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and angry.* They can’t join the Boy Scouts. Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score as sufficiently “spiritual” in military psychological evaluations. Surveys find that most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry or vote for nontheists; in other words, nonbelievers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.
> 
> Rarely denounced by the mainstream, this stunning anti-atheist discrimination is egged on by Christian conservatives who stridently — and uncivilly — declare that the lack of godly faith is detrimental to society, rendering nonbelievers intrinsically suspect and second-class citizens.
> 
> ...


thats weird,absolutely stereotypical.
i have an athiest friend that i met on an online game,the guy's a great guy,and we share the pokemon love .


----------



## Stalin (May 10, 2011)

How does a state being more religious have to do with higher murder rates? Anyway, isn't tolerance of atheists increasing?


----------



## Ennoea (May 10, 2011)

> i have an athiest friend that i met on an online game,the guy's a great guy,and we share the pokemon love .



Why did you expect him to be a mad killer?


----------



## Stalin (May 10, 2011)

I am open about my atheistism and I have been embraced by religous christians.


----------



## Ennoea (May 10, 2011)

> I am open about my atheistism and I have been embraced by religous christians/



Wait till they intervene that you need God. Happens to me every other week.


----------



## Stalin (May 10, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Wait till they intervene that you need God. Happens to me every other week.



That never happened to me.


----------



## Omolara (May 10, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Wait till they intervene that you need God. Happens to me every other week.



I feel like everyone needs God, or _something_ to serve a similar purpose. Like, believe in something. Science, logic, nature, the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism... something.

Oh, and whatever you do or don't believe in, don't be an asshole.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (May 10, 2011)

urca said:


> thats weird,absolutely stereotypical.
> i have an athiest friend that i met on an online game,the guy's a great guy,and we share the pokemon love .



Does he have horns? I heard that all atheists have horns.


----------



## sasugirl (May 10, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Wait till they intervene that you need God. Happens to me every other week.



that NEVER happens to me o.o


but it's mainly because we don't fit with the thought that everyone has which is that there is fosho a god. they simply don't want to hear it.


(goin for most, not all =P)


@rob: i have horns. and they're pretty sexy P:


----------



## Stalin (May 10, 2011)

Really, I'm good friends with deeply spirtual christians. THey treat me with respect and even know to how actually live.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 10, 2011)

Omolara said:


> I feel like everyone needs God, or _something_ to serve a similar purpose. Like, believe in something. Science, logic, nature, the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism... something.
> 
> Oh, and whatever you do or don't believe in, don't be an asshole.



Wait how is science, logic, intellect and cynicism anything like God for atheists?


----------



## Draffut (May 10, 2011)

The Cheat said:


> How does a state being more religious have to do with higher murder rates? Anyway, isn't tolerance of atheists increasing?



Basically just that, in general the more religious a state in the US, the higher it's murder rate.


----------



## Stalin (May 10, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Basically just that, in general the more religious a state in the US, the higher it's murder rate.



I get it but hows does it produce murders?


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)




----------



## Draffut (May 10, 2011)

The Cheat said:


> I get it but hows does it produce murders?



I don't understand the question.  Religious people murder more.  Are you looking for some type of religous brainwashing that makes them murder or something?

Also, born-again Christians have generally higher murder/abuse/divorse rates than other religious individuals too.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Disdain for atheists?

But more of the world is becoming atheist, isn't it?

I don't understand /didn't read OP.

I don't hate atheists, I just feel bad for them (you know, my belief in the whole Hell thing), and get frustrated when some have to put down theists wherever they go, and parade about how all religion needs to be destroyed.


----------



## Coteaz (May 10, 2011)

Just popping in as an open atheist who is accepted with open arms by his family's church. Nothing to see here folks.

That aside, tolerance of non-religious individuals is something that the U.S. citizenry needs to work on.


----------



## Awesome (May 10, 2011)

Religion doesn't need to be destroyed, it will just fade away as time goes on. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not people believe in god.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

I get dragged to church by the Catholic side of my family sometimes. I hate it, it's so utterly boring. They're good people (for the most part), my uncle did get deported (Mexican) for beating his wife though.


----------



## Inuhanyou (May 10, 2011)

conservatives dislike atheists 

i just think that people should just believe what they want, religious freedom is the point of this country


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Awesome said:


> Religion doesn't need to be destroyed, it will just fade away as time goes on. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not people believe in god.



I agree, it will eventually fade anyway, so you might as well stop ranting.

But it will return triumphantly.


----------



## Enclave (May 10, 2011)

The Cheat said:


> How does a state being more religious have to do with higher murder rates? Anyway, isn't tolerance of atheists increasing?



It's increasing but if you put an Atheist up against a Muslim in an election odds are that the Muslim would win.

Atheists are very much untrusted.  It's the younger generations by the way that are more tolerant of atheists.  The same generations that either cannot vote due to their age or don't vote because they're idiot college students who don't realise how important the right to vote really is.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

I've never had a problem being atheist in my family. We haven't been church goers for some generations now. It's mostly a mixture of deists, agnostics, atheists, neo pagans and people who just don't give a shit either way.


----------



## Bender (May 10, 2011)

Because we're somewhat a bigoted society of people.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (May 10, 2011)

I find Atheists cooler to hang around than actual Christians,and I'm a Christian .



Enclave said:


> It's increasing but if you put an Atheist up against a Muslim in an election odds are that the Muslim would win.
> 
> Atheists are very much untrusted.  *It's the younger generations by the way that are more tolerant of atheists. * The same generations that either cannot vote due to their age or don't vote because they're idiot college students who don't realise how important the right to vote really is.


Wait a minute bro, where I live almost everybody in my school hates Atheists,but that might be due to me living in the south .


----------



## Omolara (May 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Wait how is science, logic, intellect and cynicism anything like God for atheists?



That's not the point I was trying to make. That's not at all where I was going with that. Though, those did come to mind because they often come up when people are discussing whether people should believe in God. Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I feel that people should have something to believe in. It doesn't have to be spiritual. It can be grounded in hard facts, it can be a person or a thing - whatever. Just something that grounds you. Which is why I said "a similar purpose". That doesn't necessarily mean that you have to worship that whatever it is, just that it inspires you and holds a special place in your life. For some people, that's God, for others, it may be something else entirely. 

Also, the last bit was a quote about Doctor Who from Craig Ferguson. 

*Spoiler*: __ 




[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9P4SxtphJ4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Ennoea (May 10, 2011)

Well coming from a Conservative Muslim background you could imagine that my family doesn't let it slide at all. Like just the other day I was told that my lack of belief in God means I will have my heels set on fire for all eternity, and that's the nice ones, not the bad ones where apparently dinosaurs will rip me to shreds.

They really do get carried away at times.


----------



## dr_shadow (May 10, 2011)

It was only a few years ago that I learned religion was such a big thing in the U.S, since my main window into American society is Hollywood movies, and those don't talk about religion a whole lot. At least not in a way I'd notice.

How is the U.S compared to Canada and Mexico on secularism vs religion? I'm interested to know if the New World is in general more conservative than us in the Old World, or if the U.S stands out even compared to other American countries.


----------



## Enclave (May 10, 2011)

Lincoln Rhyme said:


> I find Atheists cooler to hang around than actual Christians,and I'm a Christian .
> 
> Wait a minute bro, where I live almost everybody in my school hates Atheists,but that might be due to me living in the south .



You'll find that's almost definitely due to living in the south.  Also you'll note, odds are high that while everybody in your school hates atheists, the adults hate them even more.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> It was only a few years ago that I learned religion was such a big thing in the U.S, since my main window into American society is Hollywood movies, and those don't talk about religion a whole lot. At least not in a way I'd notice.
> 
> How is the U.S compared to Canada and Mexico on secularism vs religion? I'm interested to know if the New World is in general more conservative than us in the Old World, or if the U.S stands out even compared to other American countries.



The U.S. has the most secular constitution in the world or damn near it, but one of the least secular populations.



Enclave said:


> You'll find that's almost definitely due to living in the south.  Also you'll note, odds are high that while everybody in your school hates atheists, the adults hate them even more.



Although their mileage may vary. They're busy being scared shitless of Muslims and imaginary Satanists at the same time. Also, in a town like mine, each of the seven Baptist churches teaches that members from all the others will go to Hell, despite them being in the exact same denomination.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (May 10, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Well coming from a Conservative Muslim background you could imagine that my family doesn't let it slide at all. *Like just the other day I was told that my lack of belief in God means I will have my heels set on fire for all eternity, and that's the nice ones, not the bad ones where apparently dinosaurs will rip me to shreds.*
> 
> They really do get carried away at times.


Holy shit dude . My mother's side of the family are hardcore Christians(even though most of them are hypocrites to very high levels), and they frown and get REALLY upset when I say that I prefer (insert any religion that is not Christian here.) people more than any Christian I've talked to. I am forced to go to church every Sunday to sit with idiots who can't think rationally,and where the answer to everything is God. Can't stand that damn place.



Enclave said:


> You'll find that's almost definitely due to living in the south.  Also you'll note, odds are high that while everybody in your school hates atheists, the adults hate them even more.


Believe it or not,you're right about that claim.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (May 10, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Well coming from a Conservative Muslim background you could imagine that my family doesn't let it slide at all. Like just the other day I was told that my lack of belief in God means I will have my heels set on fire for all eternity, and that's the nice ones, not the bad ones where apparently *dinosaurs will rip me to shreds*.
> 
> They really do get carried away at times.


 
I lol'd **


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Mostly because there are jack ass atheists out there who piss people off, then because there are religious assholes who think every atheist is bad and evil. The people in the middle really have good reason to hate both extremes. 



Pilaf said:


> The U.S. has the most secular constitution in the world or damn near it, but one of the least secular populations.


Maybe in the first world, but that's bullshit any other way.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Extreme Atheists are a product of close-minded theists, they end up becoming the very thing they fight.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

I should have added "in the first world". I dunno why I left that off. 

Note that "Secular" and "atheist" are separable terms. A lot of proponents of secularism aren't necessarily atheists. Our own Founding Fathers for instance were mostly deist, not atheist, but saw the danger of state endorsed religion.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (May 10, 2011)

i think this isnt a matter of a nationality disliking atheists as much certain religious groups disliking atheists, Europe has gotten fairly secular, asia kind of always has been, US and to a greater degree SA are still fairly religious, so thats my take

I dont dislike atheist in general, im apathetic what you believe is your business, but what i dislike are people like dick something, who try to cram atheism down everyones throat, on the flip side i dislike super fundamentalists who try to do the same with their respective religions


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

Gnome said:


> Extreme Atheists are a product of close-minded theists, they end up becoming the very thing they fight.



Exactly what's an "extreme atheist" and what is it they become? I hear this one a lot and it doesn't seem to hold any water. Are atheists the ones that teach people they'll go to hell for being different from us? Is simply being vocal about one's non belief the same as enforcing one's belief as some kind of law over other people?


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

But why fight?


----------



## saprobe (May 10, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> It was only a few years ago that I learned religion was such a big thing in the U.S, since my main window into American society is Hollywood movies, and those don't talk about religion a whole lot. At least not in a way I'd notice.
> 
> How is the U.S compared to Canada and Mexico on secularism vs religion? I'm interested to know if the New World is in general more conservative than us in the Old World, or if the U.S stands out even compared to other American countries.


 
That's a pretty good question, actually. Mexico is a very religious country. I can't really speak for Canada because I've only been to Vancouver and Toronto and in my experience in the US big cities tend to be more secular than small towns.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

I honestly don't think the US is as religious as people act, they seem to take the extreme and make it the whole country somehow.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

Stunna said:


> But why fight?



That's like stepping on someone's face repeatedly and being mad if they stab you in the leg.

"WHY U MAD? WHY FIGHT? WHY U STAB ME?"

The fucking religious right pushes their bullshit into law on a daily basis, pushing legislature against gays, against women, against science, and when people dare to push back you get the little apologists wondering why anyone would possibly say anything bad about religion.


----------



## Enclave (May 10, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> How is the U.S compared to Canada and Mexico on secularism vs religion? I'm interested to know if the New World is in general more conservative than us in the Old World, or if the U.S stands out even compared to other American countries.



Mexico is fairly religious as far as I've heard.

Canada on the other hand?  Better than Mexico and the States in this regard but still not totally brilliant.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Enclave said:


> Mexico is fairly religious as far as I've heard.
> 
> Canada on the other hand?  Better than Mexico and the States in this regard but still not totally brilliant.


Because being religious automatically equals being stupid.


----------



## Mider T (May 10, 2011)

Does this even belong here?

I really don't think Americans as a whole care.  Sure, the crazies you see on Fox News but the people I've talked to all around for the most part see religion as private, or just don't care entirely.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> That's like stepping on someone's face repeatedly and being mad if they stab you in the leg.
> 
> "WHY U MAD? WHY FIGHT? WHY U STAB ME?"
> 
> The fucking religious right pushes their bullshit into law on a daily basis, pushing legislature against gays, against women, against science, and when people dare to push back you get the little apologists wondering why anyone would possibly say anything bad about religion.



WHOA.

Simmer down.

Geez, we're all cool here, no need to get worked up.

Now, if you're debating politics, that's another thing all together. But why confront someone over their faith if it doesn't even affect you? Why do you even care?


----------



## Enclave (May 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because being religious automatically equals being stupid.



Oh look, CTK quoting me and claiming I said something that I never actually said or even implied.  Colour me surprised


----------



## Magnum Miracles (May 10, 2011)

Mider T said:


> Does this even belong here?
> 
> I really don't think Americans as a whole care.  Sure, the crazies you see on Fox News but the people I've talked to all around for the most part see religion as private, or just don't care entirely.



In the south it's srs business .


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (May 10, 2011)

Stunna said:


> WHOA.
> 
> Simmer down.
> 
> ...



It will affect them if the religious person started it by trying to force his/her beliefs on the atheist.


----------



## Syed (May 10, 2011)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> i think this isnt a matter of a nationality disliking atheists as much certain religious groups disliking atheists, Europe has gotten fairly secular, asia kind of always has been, US and to a greater degree SA are still fairly religious, so thats my take
> 
> I dont dislike atheist in general, im apathetic what you believe is your business, but what i dislike are people like dick something, who try to cram atheism down everyones throat, on the flip side i dislike super fundamentalists who try to do the same with their respective religions



Yeah this has happened to me a lot in University. Quite a bit of my profs and friends are atheists/agnostics. And yes they've taken jibes at religion, either indirectly/discreetly or in my friends case, directly. Sure it gets annoying sometimes when say they start a rant about religion being the shittiest thing to come into existence but I tend to just nod and go on with it. 

Same thing with the ultra religious types, the really religious Muslims have gotten on my nerves a lot, half of them turning out to being hypocrites in the end and overall extreme. Plus the annoying as hell Jehova Witnesses ringing my god damn doorbell 2-3 times every week or catching you before you leave the house.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Exactly what's an "extreme atheist" and what is it they become? I hear this one a lot and it doesn't seem to hold any water. Are atheists the ones that teach people they'll go to hell for being different from us? Is simply being vocal about one's non belief the same as enforcing one's belief as some kind of law over other people?



I admit, an extreme atheist is hardly extreme relative to extremely religious people. Being outspoken as an atheist in America is extreme, considering most just mind their own business and don't care.

They become the type of people whose attitudes toward the other side are nothing but the negative. Saying they indulge in harmful behavior and substantiate it. Then both sides proselytize each other, when they should know it's going nowhere and it ends up being a pissing contest.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> It will affect them if the religious person started it by trying to force his/her beliefs on the atheist.


Well, in that case I think that it would, or should, depend on how far the religious person is pushing on the atheist's boundaries, because when it gets down to it, the religious person (I would hope) is just trying to help.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (May 10, 2011)

As an agnostic I have no problems with religious people or atheists alike.

The only thing I hate are the extremists on both sides.

I equally hate the 'You're going to hell if you don't believe what I believe' religious people just as much as I hate the 'All religions should be destroyed and their holy books used as toilet paper' Atheists.

IMHO people should chill and let people believe what they want without sticking their nose in other peoples business. Though it's clear that that will never happen and someone's POV will always be better than everyone else's.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Enclave said:


> Oh look, CTK quoting me and claiming I said something that I never actually said or even implied.  Colour me surprised



You actually said that exactly, but since I can tell from other threads you seem to have an issue understanding we'll chalk it up to that. 



Gnome said:


> I admit, an extreme atheist is hardly extreme relative to extremely religious people. Being outspoken as an atheist in America is extreme, considering most just mind their own business and don't care.
> 
> They become the type of people whose attitudes toward the other side are nothing but the negative. Saying they indulge in harmful behavior and substantiate it. Then both sides proselytize each other, when they should know it's going nowhere and it ends up being a pissing contest.



The last time we had extreme atheists they killed 40 million people, you act as if religion as an extreme is somehow worse than atheism as an extreme.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 10, 2011)

Hitler wasn't atheist, and even if he was, he didn't cause those deaths in the name of atheism.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You actually said that exactly, but since I can tell from other threads you seem to have an issue understanding we'll chalk it up to that.



He really didn't state anything like that. You DO have a history of misunderstanding people, and even attacking those that agree with you. Particularly on threads dealing with religion.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The last time we had extreme atheists they killed 40 million people, you act as if religion as an extreme is somehow worse than atheism as an extreme.



It's people who are bad, there's just more examples for religious extremist. And I was mainly referring to America, which is the topic. I don't know of any examples of Americans who kill and do harmful shit in the name of Atheism.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

The idea of militant atheist groups rampaging around is a bit absurd. It's not impossible but it hasn't manifested itself.

The worst that can be said for guys like Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris is that they write books that hurt some people's feelings.

Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where that's all militancy consists of? Wouldn't we all be better off if the worst Osama bin Laden ever did was to write an offensive book? 

Give me militant book writers over militant suicide bombers or abortion doctor killers any damn day.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Hitler wasn't atheist, and even if he was, he didn't cause those deaths in the name of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> He really didn't state anything like that. You DO have a history of misunderstanding people, and even attacking those that agree with you. Particularly on threads dealing with religion.





> Canada on the other hand?  Better than Mexico and the States in this regard but still not totally brilliant.



You were saying? 

And actually I don't have any more of a history than anyone else on a site where everything is text and not everyone is a native English speaker. But that's what he said right there word for word.


----------



## Santí (May 10, 2011)

Aren't American's the 2nd most Atheist only to the UK?


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Santisimo said:


> Aren't American's the 2nd most Atheist only to the UK?



China     .


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Santisimo said:


> Aren't American's the 2nd most Atheist only to the UK?


Nah I doubt that, I wouldn't know what country is most secular or atheist.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

Japan has the highest population of explicit atheists per capita, but other countries in Europe have a very high population too, like the Scandinavian countries.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Isn't Japan's population of Christians around or below 2%?


----------



## Superstars (May 10, 2011)

No one likes people who deny truth and are illogical.


----------



## DremolitoX (May 10, 2011)

Asian countries tend to be more atheistical.

Asian people have no souls.

Coincidence?


----------



## Mintaka (May 10, 2011)

Stunna said:


> WHOA.
> 
> Simmer down.
> 
> ...


Because it does affect me.  There are idiots out there who are pushing there religous beliefs into law.  Laws that go against the very constitution of our country that keep gays from being able to marry or stomping on the rights of people they don't agree with.

In stating that you are a christain you give them ammunition whether you like it or not.  They use you as statistics stating that America is a christian or heavily religious nation, and in having your moderate ((and idiotic)) beliefs you give legitimacy to the more extreme idiots.  You are the forest, and they are the venomous snakes that use you as cover.

Our nation was founded on secular principles.  When people attempt to erode those principles away we the people must fight them.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

I believe atheists are the biggest group in Japan followed closely or sometimes tied in with traditional ancestor worship like Shintoism. It's interesting to note that "atheist" doesn't always mean "rationalist" or "anti spirituality." I'm personally a skeptic all the way around, but it's entirely possible to be a definitional atheist in that you reject the idea of deities but believe in ghosts and things too. Not all atheism is arrived at by the same methods. State enforced atheism like Stalinism or Maoism or whatever bullshit they do in North Korea isn't anything at all like the type of atheism Dawkins would promote. If anything, you can be an extremely religious and irrational atheist if you put a human like Kim Jong Il up on a pedestal and never question anything he says. At least the New Atheism movement promotes critical thinking and skepticism, and encourages people to question whatever they hear whether it's from a theist or another atheist.


----------



## Santí (May 10, 2011)

DremolitoX said:


> Asian countries tend to be more atheistical.
> 
> Asian people have no souls.
> 
> Coincidence?



Coincidence of this being a stupid and unfunny post?

No. None at all.


----------



## Mikaveli (May 10, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Exactly what's an "extreme atheist" and what is it they become? I hear this one a lot and it doesn't seem to hold any water. Are atheists the ones that teach people they'll go to hell for being different from us? Is simply being vocal about one's non belief the same as enforcing one's belief as some kind of law over other people?



I believe he's referring to those who adamantly belittle and antagonize theists. "You believe in an imaginary man in the sky you fucktard!!!"

That kind of thing. Tolerance is a problem on both sides.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No one likes people who deny truth and are illogical.



Ironic coming from a mouth breather who refuses to accept scientific evidence for natural phenomenon. There's a hell of a lot more physical evidence for human evolution than any invisible deity.



Super Mike said:


> I believe he's referring to those who adamantly belittle and antagonize theists. "You believe in an imaginary man in the sky you fucktard!!!"
> 
> That kind of thing. Tolerance is a problem on both sides.




The worst that happens when an American atheist is intolerant is usually that they say some immature shit and someone's feelings get hurt. The worst that happens when an American Christian is intolerant is the Oklahoma bombings or an abortion clinic being destroyed. These things are not comparable. It's fucking insane to say they're the same.


----------



## DremolitoX (May 10, 2011)

Santisimo said:


> Coincidence of this being a stupid and unfunny post?
> 
> No. None at all.



Boo hoo. You're destined for hellfire sinner.

Accept it.


----------



## Santí (May 10, 2011)

>Implying that I'm destined to go to hell without knowing 1/12 of a centimeter about my personal, cultural, and religious views.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Santisimo said:


> >Implying that I'm destined to go to hell without knowing 1/12 of a centimeter about my personal, cultural, and religious views.



There is no hell, don't worry.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> Because it does affect me.  There are idiots out there who are pushing there religous beliefs into law.  Laws that go against the very constitution of our country that keep gays from being able to marry or stomping on the rights of people they don't agree with.
> 
> In stating that you are a christain you give them ammunition whether you like it or not.  They use you as statistics stating that America is a christian or heavily religious nation, and in having your moderate ((and idiotic)) beliefs you give legitimacy to the more extreme idiots.  You are the forest, and they are the venomous snakes that use you as cover.
> 
> Our nation was founded on secular principles.  When people attempt to erode those principles away we the people must fight them.



So because there are people who are Christians that do bad things, you must confront all other Christians too?

Well then, I guess I should hate all Atheists, because Stalin was an Atheist too.

Which is a shame really, because I don't wanna hate Atheists


----------



## DremolitoX (May 10, 2011)

Santisimo said:


> >Implying that I'm destined to go to hell without knowing 1/12 of a centimeter about my personal, cultural, and religious views.



I can actually take your tears to a lab to run some tests you know.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Stunna said:


> So because there are people who are Christians that do bad things, you must confront all other Christians too?
> 
> Well then, I guess I should hate all Atheists, because Stalin was an Atheist too.
> 
> Which is a shame really, because I don't wanna hate Atheists



Bad association fallacy. Stalin killed people because of paranoia of losing power, not because he was atheist.


----------



## TSC (May 10, 2011)

technically buddhist are atheist if you think about it. Buddhism don't worship any sort of God, but rather the teaching of buddha.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> Because it does affect me.  There are idiots out there who are pushing there religous beliefs into law.  Laws that go against the very constitution of our country that keep gays from being able to marry or stomping on the rights of people they don't agree with.
> 
> In stating that you are a christain you give them ammunition whether you like it or not.  *They use you as statistics stating that America is a christian or heavily religious nation, and in having your moderate ((and idiotic)) beliefs you give legitimacy to the more extreme idiots.*  You are the forest, and they are the venomous snakes that use you as cover.
> 
> Our nation was founded on secular principles.  When people attempt to erode those principles away we the people must fight them.


What gets me about this site is if I respond to someone saying something about idiotic beliefs or some such then I get pegged as the problem, I'm always attacking atheists and stirring shit up but when people make comments like this they want a fight because there's no reason to talk like that about someone else's beliefs. 

Am I an atheist? No. Do I mind if you are? Not really. But if you choose to be rude or belittle me or my beliefs why should I argue with you nicely.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

>__>

<__<

Well... excuse me while I think of good comparison to show why you shouldn't hate me just because I'm a Christian and there happen to be cruel Christians.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

Stunna said:


> So because there are people who are Christians that do bad things, you must confront all other Christians too?
> 
> Well then, I guess I should hate all Atheists, because Stalin was an Atheist too.
> 
> Which is a shame really, because I don't wanna hate Atheists



He's saying he hates Christian privilege in the United States. Never once did he say he hated human beings who happen to be Christian. Stop erecting your pathetic straw men and victim cards. 

 Everyone's politics is informed by their beliefs. Stalin may have been an atheist but he was no fan of free thought among the people, or of humanistic values. If he was he wouldn't have had millions slaughtered the way despots from the bible like Moses did. In that regard they are very much similar. This is what happens when ideologies rule politics.


----------



## Mikaveli (May 10, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Ironic coming from a mouth breather who refuses to accept scientific evidence for natural phenomenon. There's a hell of a lot more physical evidence for human evolution than any invisible deity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm no expert, but I'm sure an atheist has done just as bad before. I don't think you can say being religious makes you more extreme or hostile than someone who is not. People who do that kind of shit do it because they're crazy, not because of their religion or lack of.


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

TSC said:


> technically buddhist are atheist if you think about it. Buddhism don't worship any sort of God, but rather the teaching of buddha.



It's still pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo. It's better to view the world as it really is than to persist in delusion, however comforting.

Of course I have no beef with buddhists. There's no buddhist movement in the US that's trying to alter the constitution. I'm about as likely to become a scientologist as a buddhist though, which is not very fucking likely.


----------



## Enclave (May 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You were saying?
> 
> And actually I don't have any more of a history than anyone else on a site where everything is text and not everyone is a native English speaker. But that's what he said right there word for word.



Where there did I mention anything to do with intelligence?  I seriously think you go out of your way CTK to be offended.  This isn't the first time you've done this with a post of mine.

edit:

Perhaps you thought my use of the word brilliant was to do with intelligence?  If so then you *completely* misinterpreted my use of that word.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> He's saying he hates Christian privilege in the United States. Never once did he say he hated human beings who happen to be Christian. Stop erecting your pathetic straw men and victim cards.



What's up with you and hostile insinuations?

There's a difference between playing the victim and, albeit ignorant, misunderstandings. 

And I have a question. A hypothetical, in a sense.

What's wrong with living in ignorant bliss if it doesn't harm you or anyone else? Why is the truth such a mandatory thing?


----------



## Pilaf (May 10, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> I'm no expert, but I'm sure an atheist has done just as bad before. I don't think you can say being religious makes you more extreme or hostile than someone who is not. People who do that kind of shit do it because they're crazy, not because of their religion or lack of.




When an atheist like Stalin or Mao has millions of political opponents slaughtered, it's not in the name of atheism but a political ideology.

For whom did Joshua put innocent women and children to the sword? Daniel? Moses? Samuel? Aaron? For whom was so much blood shed? For what reason? For Yahweh, that's who. In the name of a pagan war god repackaged as the creator god of the universe. The most hateful being in all of literature, inspiring the most savage despots who ever lived.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> I'm no expert, but I'm sure an atheist has done just as bad before. I don't think you can say being religious makes you more extreme or hostile than someone who is not. People who do that kind of shit do it because they're crazy, not because of their religion or lack of.



The difference is religious people like to use their religion as a justification for heinous acts, and they actually manage to gather support because of it.


----------



## Mikaveli (May 10, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> When an atheist like Stalin or Mao has millions of political opponents slaughtered, it's not in the name of atheism but a political ideology.
> 
> For whom did Joshua put innocent women and children to the sword? Daniel? Moses? Samuel? Aaron? For whom was so much blood shed? For what reason? For Yahweh, that's who. In the name of a pagan war god repackaged as the creator god of the universe. The most hateful being in all of literature, inspiring the most savage despots who ever lived.



So you think if these people weren't religious that it would make them better people? I don't see how that's the case. My opinion, but whatever.

Edit: I understand the use of religion to justify, but I don't see how it makes it different from any other excuse. But I see your point. I'm not very good at getting my thoughts out exactly how I want, so I will stop before I end up contradicting myself or something like that.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Stunna said:


> And I have a question. A hypothetical, in a sense.
> 
> What's wrong with living in ignorant bliss if it doesn't harm you or anyone else? Why is the truth such a mandatory thing?



By ignoring the world and not helping when you can, unless it affects you, just shows how little you care about others. This attitude is one of the biggest faults to democracy.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Why is religion any worse than any other excuse? And why does religion being used as an excuse for heinous act suddenly make religion bad?


----------



## Ceria (May 10, 2011)

I have nothing against them personally, i loathe the types of atheists that want nativity scenes torn down, and want every facet of god stripped from public places/ government. 

It's a christmas tree not a holiday tree


----------



## Mikaveli (May 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why is religion any worse than any other excuse? And why does religion being used as an excuse for heinous act suddenly make religion bad?



What I was trying to get at lol.


----------



## Superstars (May 10, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Ironic coming from a mouth breather who refuses to accept scientific evidence for natural phenomenon. There's a hell of a lot more physical evidence for human evolution than any invisible deity..



Every design has a designer, common sense. There is no scientific evidence for evolution and evolution isn't even scientific.


----------



## Mikaveli (May 10, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Every design has a designer, common sense. There is no scientific evidence for evolution and evolution isn't even scientific.



Are you being serious right now? No evidence for evolution? What do you call fossils? How about the change of pigment in peppered moths during the industrial revolution? Or homologous structures?


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why is religion any worse than any other excuse?


It isn't, it just happens to be common. Even if religion was gone, it would just be replaced with something else.


> And why does religion being used as an excuse for heinous act suddenly make religion bad?


A lot of said acts stem from the religious doctrine to start with.


----------



## Mizura (May 10, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> Are you being serious right now? No evidence for evolution? What do you call fossils? How about the change of pigment in peppered moths during the industrial revolution? Or homologous structures?


Or genetic diversity in general, while we're at it?  If were were all descended from Adam and Eve and no genetic change was possible, there'd be at most 4 variants of any chromosome.



> It isn't, it just happens to be common. Even if religion was gone, it would just be replaced with something else.


Yeah. Shitty people will always do shitty things, and they'll always find shitty excuses to support them, be they religious, racial or other excuses. Religious excuses just tend to be more common because they claim it to be the will of a higher authority: "Da big guy sez"


----------



## Superstars (May 10, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> Are you being serious right now? No evidence for evolution? What do you call fossils? How about the change of pigment in peppered moths during the industrial revolution? Or homologous structures?



That ain't the fairytail, evolution [aka pollution]. Show me animals transforming into brand new kinds of animals/people. You can't cause it doesn't exist. Just imagination of men.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

I would just ignore Supertroll, he doesn't know the difference between a circle and a sphere.


----------



## Superstars (May 10, 2011)

You still butthurt and still can't read I see *Gnome*.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Gnome said:


> It isn't, it just happens to be common. Even if religion was gone, it would just be replaced with something else.
> 
> A lot of said acts stem from the religious doctrine to start with.


A lot of acts stem for prejudice and are backed up with religion.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Gnome said:


> By ignoring the world and not helping when you can, unless it affects you, just shows how little you care about others. This attitude is one of the biggest faults to democracy.


I don't think it's wrong for me to say that the most of us aren't doing anything that contributes to the advancement of science anyway.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Stunna said:


> I don't think it's wrong for me to say that the most of us aren't doing anything that contributes to the advancement of science anyway.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Sounds like you're talking about taking things for granted as being fine, seems kind of insulting.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Hm.

I'm trying to say that people shouldn't be forced to face the truth if it doesn't harm anyone or themselves.

You said this was selfish because by ignoring the hard truths of life, you're not aiding in the world's advancement.

But what I'm saying is that if someone is a garbageman, it's not like they're doing anything where their personal philosophy aids or detracts from the world's progress in the first place, so nothing is wrong with his bliss in ignorance.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (May 10, 2011)

I recommend that people have a look on this: as it brings an answer to various points raised here. Specifically if there is a problem with people believing incorrect things.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

By being ignorant to the things around him, he allows that which brings harm to happen. You're saying that he is neutral, when in reality his absence of action is an action itself, an indirectly harmful one.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (May 10, 2011)

Gnome said:


> By being ignorant to the things around him, he allows that which brings harm to happen. You're saying that he is neutral, when in reality his absence of action is an action itself, an indirectly harmful one.



Yeah.

Also, it is an incorrect assumption that there is an absence of action. The person in question can vote, influence others, and be in favor of harmful legislation. Stunna is underestimating how much every one of us, is influencing the world around us. We might look at first glance insignificant but we are part of the greater sum and our beliefs and actions influence others. 

Even if we could influence ourselves alone, although that is a wrong conclusion, self-delusion and ignorance is inferior to knowledge. It is an improvement even from that perspective to have a correct understanding on things.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

Sort of like an every vote counts sort of deal.

I think I see what you're saying now.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Sort of like an every vote counts sort of deal.
> 
> I think I see what you're saying now.



Pretty much.

Nothing bothers me more than when people say stuff like: "I voted for Bush because he was from Texas" or "I voted for Obama because he's good looking."


----------



## fantzipants (May 10, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> When an atheist like Stalin or Mao has millions of political opponents slaughtered, it's not in the name of atheism but a political ideology.
> 
> For whom did Joshua put innocent women and children to the sword? Daniel? Moses? Samuel? Aaron? For whom was so much blood shed? For what reason? For Yahweh, that's who. In the name of a pagan war god repackaged as the creator god of the universe. The most hateful being in all of literature, inspiring the most savage despots who ever lived.



with all due respect to those who really follow the faith.

truthfully i thought the large majority of americans are atheist because they sure act like it.


----------



## Stunna (May 10, 2011)

You're right in saying that.

One my problems with Christians is that they call themselves that, but don't abide by it's laws.

Or at least try to.


----------



## Gnome (May 10, 2011)

America is Christian...on Sundays...for a few hours...


----------



## Jarl lKarl (May 10, 2011)

> Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score as sufficiently ?spiritual? in military psychological evaluations.



To be fair, this has more to do with evangelical groups turning the military into a state funded mission program than it does with systemic cultural prejudice.


----------



## Mintaka (May 10, 2011)

> So because there are people who are Christians that do bad things, you must confront all other Christians too?
> 
> Well then, I guess I should hate all Atheists, because Stalin was an Atheist too.
> 
> Which is a shame really, because I don't wanna hate Atheists


You do realize that it is quite the easy feat to despise someone's ideals and still like them as a person right?

I hate Christianity NOT Christians.  I hate Theism, not theists.

I attack the ideas because they are frankly disgusting, are delusional, and do harm.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 10, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> You do realize that it is quite the easy feat to despise someone's ideals and still like them as a person right?
> 
> I hate Christianity NOT Christians.  I hate Theism, not theists.


Sounds pretty hateful to me, I don't hate atheists...I mean their belief doesn't have to bother me.


----------



## WraithX959 (May 11, 2011)

Putting atheism on the same level as racial discrimination or discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation is simply ludacris. No one has ever been beaten for not believing in God.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

WraithX959 said:


> Putting atheism on the same level as racial discrimination or discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation is simply ludacris. No one has ever been beaten for not believing in God.


Well they have for sure in other countries, and it happens more often than it does here for sure. But the way some people sound you would think it happens all of the time here.


----------



## Gnome (May 11, 2011)

A few atheists or probably non-Christians in general have probably been beaten in the military by 'comrades' for their beliefs.


----------



## Castiel (May 11, 2011)

Americans hate anyone that disagree with them, it's just that the crazies on the religious side are much more loud than the crazies on the other side.


----------



## Gnome (May 11, 2011)

Crazy atheists seem louder on the internet though.


----------



## WraithX959 (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well they have for sure in other countries, and it happens more often than it does here for sure. But the way some people sound you would think it happens all of the time here.



Point taken, of course I was mainly focused on the United States which this article also seems to mainly focus on.


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (May 11, 2011)

Gnome said:


> Crazy atheists seem louder on the internet though.



Crazy everyone seem louder on the internet.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

Ruby Tuesday said:


> Crazy everyone seem louder on the internet.


Not crazy people with no hands.


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (May 11, 2011)

speech to text software my friend. though crazy people who are afraid of technology are rather silent on the internet.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (May 11, 2011)

Captain Obvious said:
			
		

> Surveys find that most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry or vote for non-theists; in other words, nonbelievers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.



Speaking as a non-atheist, if a potential candidate doesn't share this particular piece of very important common ground with me, then that is a perfectly rational, just reason for me to not vote for them as they cannot be considered representative.



			
				Mintaka said:
			
		

> I hate Christianity NOT Christians. I hate Theism, not theists.
> 
> I attack the ideas because they are frankly disgusting, are delusional, and do harm.



Mintaka explains perfectly here why not voting for an avowed Atheist candidate is the rational choice for a nominally Christian voter to make.


----------



## Castiel (May 11, 2011)

honestly the crazies on both sides should go fuck off, they're not helping either of their sides in the slightest


----------



## Jarl lKarl (May 11, 2011)

Kilogram said:


> honestly the crazies on both sides should go fuck off, they're not helping either of their sides in the slightest



We invented the internet and that option was no longer available to us.


----------



## Bill G (May 11, 2011)

So let me get this straight... 

there are people that DON'T have Superstars on their ignore list?


----------



## Havoc (May 11, 2011)

I don't see any reason to not dislike atheists.

What have they ever done for me!?

Nothing.

Santa brings me presents.


----------



## Trism (May 11, 2011)

The real answer? Because a lot of religious folk can't stand to have their faith questioned, even a little.

They cannot provide proof of God's existence, and they hate it when they are called out on their double standards. The idea that atheists are "immoral, wicked, evil people" is outrageous when you consider the immorality that has resulted from religion.

That's not to say all religious people are like that, because I know a lot of great people who believe in God. But this is the case with a lot of them.


----------



## Superstars (May 11, 2011)

Trism said:


> The real answer? Because a lot of religious folk can't stand to have their faith questioned, even a little.
> 
> *They cannot provide proof of God's existence, and they hate it when they are called out on their double standards.* The idea that atheists are "immoral, wicked, evil people" is outrageous when you consider the immorality that has resulted from religion.
> 
> That's not to say all religious people are like that, because I know a lot of great people who believe in God. But this is the case with a lot of them.


It's not about providing evidence of God's existence because Gods existence is so obvious that people are without excuse. Athiests surpress the truth majority of them are in denial. The reason they won't find God are the same reasons a thief can't find the police.


----------



## Trism (May 11, 2011)

Superstars said:


> It's not about providing evidence of God's existence because Gods existence is so obvious that people are without excuse. Athiests surpress the truth majority of them are in denial. The reason they won't find God are the same reasons a thief can't find the police.



In other words, you don't have any evidence of God's existence.

Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## Jarl lKarl (May 11, 2011)

Superstars said:


> It's not about providing evidence of God's existence because Gods existence is so obvious that people are without excuse. Athiests surpress the truth majority of them are in denial. The reason they won't find God are the same reasons a thief can't find the police.



Assuming I'm asking this question in good faith and not lying, how is God's existence obvious?


----------



## kazuri (May 11, 2011)

> It's not about providing evidence of God's existence because Gods existence is so obvious that people are without excuse.



Even if you assume the obviousness is just the fact that things exist, you have 0 that adds to WHICH god would have done it. 0 is hardly "obvious."


----------



## Sanity Check (May 11, 2011)

Trism said:


> In other words, you don't have any evidence of God's existence.



How does one find evidence for something that is impossible to prove?

If you're an atheist -- a rational and logical person.  

How can you fail to understand the illogical and irrational nature of asking someone to prove the impossible? 

In essence, what atheists who request evidence are saying is: "If you can't bend over and kiss your own ass -- God doesn't exist".

Its not as "logical", "scientific" or "intelligent" an argument as many believe it to be.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> How does one find evidence for something that is impossible to prove?
> 
> If you're an atheist -- a rational and logical person.
> 
> ...



No, what we're in essence saying is that if you can't bend over and kiss your own ass, when there is no evidence that you ever have bended over and kissed your own ass, when it is indeed by our knowledge of science physically impossible for you to bend over and kiss your own ass, then you can't bend over and kiss your own ass.

We're not asking for some absurd, ridiculous evidence to prove a simple, rational proposition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The more extraordinary the claim, the more and better evidence I need. According to you it should work the other way around.

I mean, can you prove there's no invisible pink elephant living in your fridge, that disappears as soon as someone looks inside? Of course I can't provide evidence, because that would be asking me to prove the impossible. So when you demand evidence for my absurd claim, your argument is very illogical and unscientific.


----------



## Sanity Check (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, what we're in essence saying is that if you can't bend over and kiss your own ass, when there is no evidence that you ever have bended over and kissed your own ass, when it is indeed by our knowledge of science physically impossible for you to bend over and kiss your own ass, then you can't bend over and kiss your own ass.
> 
> We're not asking for some absurd, ridiculous evidence to prove a simple, rational proposition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The more extraordinary the claim, the more and better evidence I need. According to you it should work the other way around.
> 
> I mean, can you prove there's no invisible pink elephant living in your fridge, that disappears as soon as someone looks inside? Of course I can't provide evidence, because that would be asking me to prove the impossible. So when you demand evidence for my absurd claim, your argument is very illogical and unscientific.




You're approaching religion as if it were science.

You're asking religious folks for 'evidence' as if they were trained professionals with years of scientific experience and knowledge.

Maybe, you're beginning to see a flaw in this wondrous plan of yours?

Evidence and proof implies something is provable.  You can ask evidence for some things.  To ask evidence for other things is out of context.

Example -- if someone asked a scientist for evidence proving the existence of dark matter, would that be reasonable?  At the moment, I don't think evidence exists.  They could tell you the reasons why they suspect its existence, but proof and evidence would not be forthcoming.

Likewise, with God and the topic of religion.  

You can't ask for something that is currently impossible...


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> You're approaching religion as if it were science.
> 
> You're asking religious folks for 'evidence' as if they were trained professionals with years of scientific experience and knowledge.
> 
> ...



Science isn't exactly rocket science (). You make a claim and expect other to believe it, other people demand evidence. That's how it's been long before people had a concept of science. The difference is that back then you actually had evidence. There was thunder, there was rain, the sun rose every day, the moon got fuller and then shrinked again, sometimes the sun would be darkened, people got sick for no reason whatsoever.

Now we can explain all of that, so religion can no longer claim it for itself. Now we can dissect a claim and actually test it. They don't have to be trained professionals to tell us what the evidence is. When I tell you that I have a unicorn in my backyard and you ask me to show it to you, can I just say "I'M NO TRAINED SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONAL HERPDERP"? I doubt most people would recognize that as a valid answer.



> Example -- if someone asked a scientist for evidence proving the existence of dark matter, would that be reasonable?  At the moment, I don't think evidence exists.  They could tell you the reasons why they suspect its existence, but proof and evidence would not be forthcoming.
> 
> Likewise, with God and the topic of religion.
> 
> You can't ask for something that is currently impossible...



 You're absolutely right. One day Fritz Zwicky and his colleagues got really drunk and he was link "hey guys, what if there's like dark matter, lol" and most atronomers just accepted it based on that.

Dark matter is indeed one of the less supported scientific theories, nonetheless it is widely accepted because our current understanding of the universe necessitates it. It's a matter of putting the pieces together. If you see a guy lying dead on the street with his head bleeding and a bloody baseball bat lying next to him, would you not draw conclusions based on that? Even if you don't have concrete evidence, yet, nobody would say that it's unreasonable to assume someone beat him to death with a baseball bat.

So please, stop this bullshit of equating scientific theories with the absurd concept of the bearded magician in the sky that cares about what positions you use while having sex.


----------



## Kdol (May 11, 2011)

i prefer my self calling a "Rationalist" than an atheist


----------



## Sanity Check (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Science isn't exactly rocket science (). You make a claim and expect other to believe it, other people demand evidence. That's how it's been long before people had a concept of science. The difference is that back then you actually had evidence. There was thunder, there was rain, the sun rose every day, the moon got fuller and then shrinked again, sometimes the sun would be darkened, people got sick for no reason whatsoever.
> 
> Now we can explain all of that, so religion can no longer claim it for itself. Now we can dissect a claim and actually test it. They don't have to be trained professionals to tell us what the evidence is. When I tell you that I have a unicorn in my backyard and you ask me to show it to you, can I just say "I'M NO TRAINED SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONAL HERPDERP"? I doubt most people would recognize that as a valid answer.



Like I've said, you're treating religion as if it were science.

If someone told you they were in love with you -- would you ask them to provide scientific evidence proving it?  If someone said they thought Ron Paul was gay, would you ask for scientific evidence?  

There are circumstances where positive claims are made and its understood asking for evidence isn't a justifiable question.



Saufsoldat said:


> You're absolutely right. One day Fritz Zwicky and his colleagues got really drunk and he was link "hey guys, what if there's like dark matter, lol" and most atronomers just accepted it based on that.
> 
> Dark matter is indeed one of the less supported scientific theories, nonetheless it is widely accepted because our current understanding of the universe necessitates it. It's a matter of putting the pieces together. If you see a guy lying dead on the street with his head bleeding and a bloody baseball bat lying next to him, would you not draw conclusions based on that? Even if you don't have concrete evidence, yet, nobody would say that it's unreasonable to assume someone beat him to death with a baseball bat.
> 
> So please, stop this bullshit of equating scientific theories with the absurd concept of the bearded magician in the sky that cares about what positions you use while having sex.



You're behind the times.  Both string theory and dark matter are in danger of being dropped.

There's an abstraction layer separating fact from interpretation of fact.  

One person can look at the data and conclude: dark matter exists.  Another person can look at the same data and interpret it as: dark matter isn't necessitated to explain this.  There's a reason why scientists disagree on a number of issues and it has to do with the scientific method and other abstracts heavily relying on people with arbitrary, subjective, interpretations of data in order to function.

The point is, even science fails to provide direct evidence at times for its assertions.  And, if science fails, why should religion be expected to adhere to the same standards?

I believe tax cuts for the rich are a bad idea.  But, if you asked me for scientific evidence proving it, I don't know that I or anyone else could find it.

Clearly, there are limits regarding evidence and its dissemination that must be taken into account, as well as contextual limitations.


----------



## Xyloxi (May 11, 2011)

Kdol said:


> i prefer my self calling a "Rationalist" than an atheist



Despite the fact that rationalism means something else entirely than the lack of belief in God? That and a fair amount of rationalist philosophers were religious themselves, but that has a lot to do with the time periods they lived in.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Like I've said, you're treating religion as if it were science.



Maybe because religion treats itself like a science? You can't say "yeah, I know how the universe came to be and I know that humans didn't evolve and I know the earth is 6000 years old and I know that that rainbows are a sign from god and I know that there was a global flood a few years back and I know there there an invisible, yet omnipresent sky magician who cares about every aspect of our lives and judges us after we die" and then just go "IT NOT BE A SCIENCE CLAIM HURRRRRR" as soon as someone asks for evidence. I'm not sure what reality you live in, but with me that shit doesn't fly.



> If someone told you they were in love with you -- would you ask them to provide scientific evidence proving it?



No, because it wouldn't change anything. They're not making an extraordinary claim, I'm just that loveable.



> If someone said they thought Ron Paul was gay, would you ask for scientific evidence?



I'd assume that it's a joke. Most people would require evidence if you seriously made that claim.



> There are circumstances where positive claims are made and its understood asking for evidence isn't a justifiable question.



Yes, for example when those claims are of little or no consequence. When I tell someone "there are 2.419.030 stars in the sky", they'd be inclined to believe, even though I couldn't provide any evidence when asked. We know there's a lot of them and the we cannot comprehend the number either way. Even if it's wrong, nobody suffers any bad consequences from believing it.

If I tell someone that Elvis is still alive and lives in a bunker on the north pole together wih Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, they'll kindly point me to the next psychiatrist, even though the claim is far less ludicrous than what most religions tell you.



> You're behind the times.  Both string theory and dark matter are in danger of being dropped.



String theory isn't a theory and I'm not sure why you even bring it up. Dark Matter is still widely accepted among astronomers.



> There's an abstraction layer separating fact from interpretation of fact.
> 
> One person can look at the data and conclude: dark matter exists.  Another person can look at the same data and interpret it as: dark matter isn't necessitated to explain this.  There's a reason why scientists disagree on a number of issues and it has to do with the scientific method and other abstracts heavily relying on people with arbitrary, subjective, interpretations of data in order to function.



And the other person would be required to present his alternate hypothesis and explain why it's more likely than Dark Matter.



> The point is, even science fails to provide direct evidence at times for its assertions.  And, if science fails, why should religion be expected to adhere to the same standards?



No, that's not the point at all and I'm not sure where you get that ridiculous notion from. There is not a single scientific hypothesis out there with less evidence than religion. Not a single one. Do not try to drag science down to that level just because you want to make your own opinion seem less retarded. 

Religion is dogmatic and nothing dogmatic can ever compare itself to science. Science is humble where religion is arrogant, that's why science has advanced as more in a few decades than religion in 10.000 years.



> I believe tax cuts for the rich are a bad idea.  But, if you asked me for scientific evidence proving it, I don't know that I or anyone else could find it.



That's like saying "I believe bulimia is healthy, but, if you asked me for scientific evidence proving it, I don't know that I or anyone else could find it."

The problem here might just be that tax cuts for the rich have never helped anyone. I would have no problem providing solid evidence to show that the rich aren't taxed enough and many economists would disagree with you on no evidence being available for taxing the fat pigs less.



> Clearly, there are limits regarding evidence and its dissemination that must be taken into account, as well as contextual limitations.



In the long run there are no limits for science. Religion's limits have been hit a few millenia ago.


----------



## Sanity Check (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Maybe because religion treats itself like a science? You can't say "yeah, I know how the universe came to be and I know that humans didn't evolve and I know the earth is 6000 years old and I know that that rainbows are a sign from god and I know that there was a global flood a few years back and I know there there an invisible, yet omnipresent sky magician who cares about every aspect of our lives and judges us after we die" and then just go "IT NOT BE A SCIENCE CLAIM HURRRRRR" as soon as someone asks for evidence. I'm not sure what reality you live in, but with me that shit doesn't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ha.  I have to go w0rk0utz now.  I'll be back to respond later, though.


----------



## Razgriez (May 11, 2011)

I blame the atheist aholes that take the time to prove how wrong you are.

Do yourself a favor and dont go all atheist missionary on someone when they start talking about their religion. That is unless you're defending your stance obviously.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> I blame the atheist aholes that take the time to prove how wrong you are.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and dont go all atheist missionary on someone when they start talking about their religion. That is unless you're defending your stance obviously.



Why not? When someone starts talking about his belief that Elvis is still alive, I don't see why I should stay quiet and nod. They felt the need to bring it up, not me.


----------



## dr_shadow (May 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> I blame the atheist aholes that take the time to prove how wrong you are.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and dont go all atheist missionary on someone when they start talking about their religion. That is unless you're defending your stance obviously.



This is true. No matter if it's religion, politics or World of Warcraft, trying to talk someone into changing a big part of their lifestyle is very hard, unless you already have some authority over the person.

What you can do is inform the person of your own lifestyle, but without it sounding like you want to convert them. Tell them in a matter-of-fact way what it's all about and then let them decide for themselves.


----------



## zuul (May 11, 2011)

It's good to live in Europe where atheism is not an issue while biggotery certainly is.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 11, 2011)

Because atheists feast on the corpses of little children.


----------



## Ippy (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> I don't understand the question.  Religious people murder more.  Are you looking for some type of religous brainwashing that makes them murder or something?
> 
> Also, born-again Christians have generally higher murder/abuse/divorse rates than other religious individuals too.


I Googled "murder rate among Christians" just to see what popped up.

Damn, I was shocked.

I could be here all day posting links that provide evidence supporting your post.



Trism said:


> They cannot provide proof of God's existence, and they hate it when they are called out on their double standards.


I am not Christian or religious by any stretch of the imagination, but I have to point out that logically, it's also impossible for atheists to prove that their is _no _God(s).

Of course, the burden of proof is on the theists, but the mere fact that atheists cannot also prove their beliefs (can't prove a negative) means they're also just blowing hot air as well.

Apatheism ftw.


----------



## Inuhanyou (May 11, 2011)

We're all human beings, we can't prove anything beyond our relm of understanding


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (May 11, 2011)

Because most Americans are ignorant religious people who let their blind faith determine much of their decision making. So us non-religious people have to come up with clever ways to trick religious people into thinking that we're religious so that they vote not with their bibles but vote for what is in their best interests. So, the founding fathers had to act religious and call the US a "Christian nation" to get people on board with their good ideas because had they come out and said that they weren't religious any gun-toting redneck with a bible in hand could have taken over the nation. And presidents like Obama have to profess that they are men of great Christian faith so that the Christians will listen. It's sad really. It's the easiest way to control people, and I'm currently training to become a minister because I don't see why I shouldn't exploit that to get paid if people are dumb enough to believe the nonsense and believe that they should pay me because of it.

This is also how idiots like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin aren't immediately laughed off stage as soon as they open their mouths. In all seriousness if Sarah Palin was in a nationally broadcasted debate with Richard Dawkins(or anyone who is obviously smarter than Palin) and each were running for president; if Palin decided to focus on her faith and Dawkins lack of faith, I guarantee you that a very high majority of Americans would vote for Sarah Palin because "She is a good Christian who shares our Christian values"




Ippy said:


> I am not Christian or religious by any stretch of the imagination, but I have to point out that logically, it's also impossible for atheists to prove that their is _no _God(s).
> 
> Of course, the burden of proof is on the theists, but the mere fact that atheists cannot also prove their beliefs (can't prove a negative) means they're also just blowing hot air as well.
> 
> Apatheism ftw.


We can't disprove God in the same way that they can't disprove the invisible dragon that is sitting in my bedroom right now. A rule of thumb that most rational people go by is: "*What is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof*"


----------



## Razgriez (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why not? When someone starts talking about his belief that Elvis is still alive, I don't see why I should stay quiet and nod. They felt the need to bring it up, not me.



You see it more on the internet.

A good example would be an atheist visiting a christian forum just to troll.

Its one thing to actively seek out those who wish to butt heads with you. Its another to butt into someone's conversation with another and be an epic tool. The christian variant is a missionary.


----------



## armorknight (May 11, 2011)

I found this article written by a libertarian atheist, and I think that it explains very well why so many religious people dislike the liberal atheists who make up the bulk of the atheist community.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

armorknight said:


> I found this article written by a libertarian atheist, and I think that it explains very well why so many religious people dislike the liberal atheists who make up the bulk of the atheist community.



From the article:



> Attend any meeting of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers, and you will find in a relatively short period of time that most atheists are leftists in their politics. Granted, there are a minority of libertarians like myself and devotees of Ayn Rand. But my personal estimate is that this amounts to about 10% of the atheist community. *This begs a certain question. How can so many smart people be so stupid?*



The guy doesn't attempt to explain the situation of atheists in America at all, he just strokes his own cock telling us how dumb liberals are and how superior libertarianism is.


----------



## thekingisback (May 11, 2011)




----------



## MunchKing (May 11, 2011)

Someone  on the washington post staff was bored.



Ippy said:


> I am not Christian or religious by any stretch of the imagination, but I have to point out that logically, it's also impossible for atheists to prove that their is _no _God(s).
> 
> Of course, the burden of proof is on the theists, but the mere fact that atheists cannot also prove their beliefs (can't prove a negative) means they're also just blowing hot air as well.
> 
> Apatheism ftw.



I hope you realise you make absolutely no sense.

Atheists don't have to prove a thing. That's what burden of proof means.


----------



## Toby (May 11, 2011)

Americans dislike atheists for the same reason that they dislike any other group of people. They probably don't know many atheists, and those few atheists in their social circle are doing a good job at hiding it. Americans are told to dislike atheists by some idiot who claims to know what's going on in the world, and then when nobody stands up for the atheists, they don't learn that it's wrong to dislike them. That's not irrational behavior if you think about it. It's very natural. They just don't know what atheists actually believe in, which is fair on account that atheism isn't about faith anyway, but there's also a remarkable lack of popular atheist celebrities in American society, so I wouldn't expect that to change until it is normal for an atheist to declare their lack of faith on American TV. But let's say that a famous movie star goes public about it and starts a trend. Then it would become acceptable. And you know it.

That's going to happen gradually a few generations down the road, but since America is such a religious society to begin with there's always going to be some degree of mistrust just because atheism is, all things considered, a rare deviant opinion. In a big picture perspective there's just very few atheists in the world, and it's not acceptable to talk about alternative faith in many societies, let alone lack of it, so this shouldn't be surprising. I know people are tempted to talk about the lack of democracy in the US, but hey, I can accept that I have a minority opinion, and it's not a big deal compared to other forms of discrimination in the US.


----------



## alchemy1234 (May 11, 2011)

MunchKing said:


> Someone  on the washington post staff was bored.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the point he/she is trying to make is that despite atheists not having to prove anything, their idea of God being a non-existent entity has no more validity than the idea of God existing has.

Edit: It could however, in the eyes of many, have more validity than certain theistic renditions of God.


----------



## Ippy (May 11, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> We can't disprove God in the same way that they can't disprove the invisible dragon that is sitting in my bedroom right now. A rule of thumb that most rational people go by is: "*What is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof*"


Fair enough.

I take the lazy man's path anyway.  My belief system is more of a "I'm too lazy and apathetic to follow any one path due to the general uncertainty in all directions."



MunchKing said:


> I hope you realise you make absolutely no sense.
> 
> Atheists don't have to prove a thing. That's what burden of proof means.


.... and that's exactly what I said.

Let's recap...


			
				me said:
			
		

> Of course, the burden of proof is on the *theists*


"theists", as in .

The burden of proof is on those that believe in a god or gods, not on the atheists, but since atheists cannot prove that their belief system (and atheism IS a belief system) is true either (due to not being able to prove a negative), that means that they cannot say with certainty that their beliefs are true.



alchemy1234 said:


> I think the point he/she is trying to make is that despite atheists not having to prove anything, their idea of God being a non-existent entity has no more validity than the idea of God existing has.


Bingo!


----------



## MunchKing (May 11, 2011)

alchemy1234 said:
			
		

> I think the point he/she is trying to make is that despite atheists not having to prove anything, their idea of God being a non-existent entity has no more validity than the idea of God existing has.





Ippy said:


> Bingo!



As long as we are staying away from the Judeo Christian God as he is portrayed in the religious books, I can agree with that.

You seem to believe I misread your post or something. You and I just have different view of atheism. You claim it to be a belief system. I consider atheism to be a small part of my identity. Not as part of something bigger that claims to be the truth. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Was that  link to wikipedia meant to insult me? If so, it worked.


----------



## Garfield (May 11, 2011)

I think this is a terrible article to try and convince the super biased religious zealots. It basically says "We're not as bad as you think. *In fact we're better than you asses*."

kinda defeats the sentiment of congeniality.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (May 11, 2011)

Atheists are like an annoying Vegan: always trying to force their opinions down your throat.


----------



## Juno (May 11, 2011)

adee said:


> I think this is a terrible article to try and convince the super biased religious zealots. It basically says "We're not as bad as you think. *In fact we're better than you asses*."
> 
> kinda defeats the sentiment of congeniality.



Pointing to secular and non-theistic societies having less violent crime does nothing to prove that atheists are are better people, it just utterly debunks the disheartening insistance that they are innately _bad_ people. Too bad some atheists get carried away with that.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

Ippy said:


> "theists", as in .
> 
> The burden of proof is on those that believe in a god or gods, not on the atheists, but since atheists cannot prove that their belief system (and atheism IS a belief system) is true either (due to not being able to prove a negative), that means that they cannot say with certainty that their beliefs are true.



Depending on how you define belief you might make a case for atheism being a belief rather than just a lack thereof but a belief _system_? That ridiculous.



As for the whole "atheists can't prove god doesn't exist", it's nonsense and in 99% of all cases the arguement gets twisted and is then used as a non-sequitor by theists. 

Even if we do assume for the sake of argument that the point itself is valid and that believing in a god can be justified by saying you can't disprove it, theists still have all the work ahead of them, because there is no logical connection whatsoever from "god exists" to "god created the universe" or "god cares about what you do and the manner in which you have sex and judges you after your death".


----------



## Garfield (May 11, 2011)

Juno said:


> Pointing to secular and non-theistic societies having less violent crime does nothing to prove that atheists are are better people, it just utterly debunks the disheartening insistance that they are innately _bad_ people. Too bad some atheists get carried away with that.


We should instead calmly argue about which of us is better


----------



## Ippy (May 11, 2011)

MunchKing said:


> You seem to believe I misread your post or something. You and I just have different view of atheism. You claim it to be a belief system. I consider atheism to be a small part of my identity. Not as part of something bigger that claims to be the truth.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...


It did seem as if you misread my post.

If you didn't, I still disagree, and alchemy1234 was spot on in any case.
*Spoiler*: __ 



No, it was meant to prove a point.






Saufsoldat said:


> Depending on how you define belief you might make a case for atheism being a belief rather than just a lack thereof but a belief _system_? That ridiculous.


Error.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (May 11, 2011)

I'm sure we haven't had this argument a hundred times in the atheism thread.


----------



## Toroxus (May 11, 2011)

A lot of theists have moral standards solely because they think if they abide by it, they'll be rewarded. Thus, they think if they there is no award (as do atheists) they feel as if there's no reason to have morality because there isn't some divine accountability or responsibility.


----------



## Gnome (May 11, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> A lot of theists have moral standards solely because they think if they abide by it, they'll be rewarded. Thus, they think if they there is no award (as do atheists) they feel as if there's no reason to have morality because there isn't some divine accountability or responsibility.



Kind of the defeats the purpose to being moral imo.


----------



## Glued (May 11, 2011)

> * They are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric*



We have the answer right here. America is very nationalistic.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 11, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> We have the answer right here. America is very nationalistic.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

I like how Space Cowboy pretty much answered the question and it seems everyone is acting like they didn't see it. Of course people want to vote for like minded people and like it or not, most Americans aren't atheists.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how Space Cowboy pretty much answered the question and it seems everyone is acting like they didn't see it. Of course people want to vote for like minded people and like it or not, most Americans aren't atheists.



Strange then why it works just fine in all of Europe. People judge politicians based on their policies, not their religion. The Christian Democratic Union is the biggest party in Germany, yet religion virtually never comes up in a political debate. I'd rather vote for a bishop who supports my political views than a richard dawkins who advocates liberterianism.


----------



## Xyloxi (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Strange then why it works just fine in all of Europe. People judge politicians based on their policies, not their religion. The Christian Democratic Union is the biggest party in Germany, yet religion virtually never comes up in a political debate. I'd rather vote for a bishop who supports my political views than a richard dawkins who advocates liberterianism.



Its the same in Britain, people hate Nick Clegg for selling out and whatnot as opposed to the fact he's an atheist. People elected Atlee in the 1940's, despite being an agnostic, the US really has to modernise in terms of religion.


----------



## Dionysus (May 11, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Mintaka explains perfectly here why not voting for an avowed Atheist candidate is the rational choice for a nominally Christian voter to make.


Why do you think prejudice is the rational choice? Mintaka is spouting the official atheist scripture? There is no standard set of beliefs that an atheist holds, none that you can assume and consider yourself rational, beyond "there is no god/gods". The atheist can believe everything else you believe; the rational course is to get to know the people who are running for office.

Being a theist or an atheist is not a solution (or _the_ solution) to a problem as one encounters as a politician. Voting for someone who has the intelligence and can explain how he will solve problem X, Y, and Z--pressing concerns that should be dealt with forthwith--in a manner superior to the other candidates, now this is a perfectly rational motive to vote for someone.

If you take 2 candidates, one Christian with terrible legislative ideas and one atheist with acceptable/great legislative ideas, how does your just and reasonable voting method hold up? In close calls between equally great or terrible candidates, sure. Sad, but, sure.

I don't not how vehemently against atheists American voters are. If it's an immediate "no", the tendency is not rational. If it's a secondary or tertiary discriminator, I still wouldn't call it rational, but certainly more justifiable.

If anyone ever wonders how Parliaments, Senates, etc. get filled with stupid douchebags, blame the informed voter.


----------



## Gnome (May 11, 2011)

There isn't anything exclusive about a religious person that would make them better at running a country. To say you have an increased likelihood to vote for someone just because they share your religious beliefs doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Strange then why it works just fine in all of Europe. People judge politicians based on their policies, not their religion. The Christian Democratic Union is the biggest party in Germany, yet religion virtually never comes up in a political debate. I'd rather vote for a bishop who supports my political views than a richard dawkins who advocates liberterianism.


No actually its not strange, since when have Americans voted on policy? Why do you suddenly act like all of the other bullshit that matters to people shouldn't be concerned should matter more than something that should be important. 

If you're a Christian, Muslim or whatever else, your belief should be central to your life. I know you people don't like to hear that, but its the truth because if you really believe then what you do here is just leading to where you're going to be. 

The US is a less secular nation than most first world countries and people want to agree with their elected officials on more personal things here on top of that, so I don't know why its so shocking that people want to vote for someone they agree with.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The US is a less secular nation than most first world countries and people want to agree with their elected officials on more personal things here on top of that, so I don't know why its so shocking that people want to vote for someone they agree with.



I wouldn't say it's shocking so much as depressing that people will vote for politicians for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with policy.  "Well I agree with him on all his policies but he doesn't believe in my god so I'm going to vote for the other guy".

Countries in Europe have plenty of Christians, Jews and Muslims but religion doesn't dominate their politics nearly as much as it does here so its not as inherent to human nature as you seem to be implying it is.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I wouldn't say it's shocking so much as depressing that people will vote for politicians for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with policy.  "Well I agree with him on all his policies but he doesn't believe in my god so I'm going to vote for the other guy".
> 
> Countries in Europe have plenty of Christians, Jews and Muslims but religion doesn't dominate their politics nearly as much as it does here so its not as inherent to human nature as you seem to be implying it is.



People vote for someone based on race, good looks, age, military service and all manner of other things that are less important than religion though no one gets on here to talk about that. And in all honesty if someone's being truthful to what they claim to believe religion should effect policy.


----------



## Juno (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how Space Cowboy pretty much answered the question and it seems everyone is acting like they didn't see it. Of course people want to vote for like minded people and like it or not, most Americans aren't atheists.




Even more americans aren't black, jewish, or muslim, yet they were polled as more trustworthy and more likely to receive votes than atheists. So to say people simply vote for like-minded individuals is not a comprehensive answer - it certainly doesn't explain why smaller minorities are viewed so much more favourably.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People vote for someone based on race, good looks, age, military service and all manner of other things that are less important than religion though no one gets on here to talk about that. And in all honesty if someone's being truthful to what they claim to believe religion should effect policy.



While voting solely on those things is also quite stupid, the difference is when people get into office on a religious campaign they tend to push that religion on other people.  Can you point to any politicians elected on their race/good looks/age/military service that try to push those things on everyone else?

I can't, though I have to say it would be interesting to see someone try to come up with legislation to force everyone to be better looking.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

Juno said:


> Even more americans aren't black, jewish, or muslim, yet they were polled as more trustworthy and more likely to receive votes than atheists. So to say people simply vote for like-minded individuals is not a comprehensive answer - it certainly doesn't explain why smaller minorities are viewed so much more favourably.



Probably because they're more identifiable, Jews and Muslims share a heritage with Christians. 

The black one is rather shocking. 



Tsukiyomi said:


> While voting solely on those things is also quite stupid, the difference is when people get into office on a religious campaign they tend to push that religion on other people.  Can you point to any politicians elected on their race/good looks/age/military service that try to push those things on everyone else?
> 
> I can't, though I have to say it would be interesting to see someone try to come up with legislation to force everyone to be better looking.


Sure, people always talk about Bush's service over Clinton's and Gore's and both Bushs started a war, which is pretty much forcing that lifestyle on others. 

The point I'm making is that religion is something meant to be important people, its not meant to be a silent thing you do on Sundays for a hour and then back to your life. 

The idea that it shouldn't effect your life at all is terrible. I feel like its true that there's bad representations of religion out there, but its not going to change the fact that these people want someone who believes in the same thing as them.



> I can't, though I have to say it would be interesting to see someone try  to come up with legislation to force everyone to be better  looking.


 Obama has tried to get people to be more fit and healthy which could make you better looking and many women agree that he is pretty good looking though given the alternative I don't know what kind of person _would _vote for McCain.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sure, people always talk about Bush's service over Clinton's and Gore's and both Bushs started a war, which is pretty much forcing that lifestyle on others.



No, forcing the military lifestyle on others is called the draft.  Unless Bush instituted a draft he wasn't forcing it on anyone.

Even then one can argue he didn't really have a military background since he never actually came close to combat.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The point I'm making is that religion is something meant to be important people, its not meant to be a silent thing you do on Sundays for a hour and then back to your life.



Religion is a personal thing, it should stay personal.  If you want to use it on a personal level to help make decisions fine, but we shouldn't have people campaigning on their religion and trying to put the ten commandments outside of court houses.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The idea that it shouldn't effect your life at all is terrible. I feel like its true that there's bad representations of religion out there, but its not going to change the fact that these people want someone who believes in the same thing as them.



Who has _ever_ said that your religion shouldn't effect your life _at all_?


----------



## Superstars (May 11, 2011)

Trism said:


> In other words, you don't have any evidence of God's existence.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point.



No thank you for proving my point, it's not about me giving evidence because God's obvious qualities doesn't need my help to be proven. It is about you stop denying the evidence. Athiest surpression of the truth denies rational thought.



Jarl lKarl said:


> Assuming I'm asking this question in good faith and not lying, how is God's existence obvious?


This isn't a question in good faith. You are showing that you don't have rational thought asking this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> No, forcing the military lifestyle on others is called the draft.  Unless Bush instituted a draft he wasn't forcing it on anyone.
> 
> Even then one can argue he didn't really have a military background since he never actually came close to combat.



Okay, so Bush wasn't really in, but he did try and coerce people into war. 



> Religion is a personal thing, it should stay personal.  If you want to use it on a personal level to help make decisions fine, but we shouldn't have people campaigning on their religion and trying to put the ten commandments outside of court houses.



It is a personal thing, but like minded individuals want others of like mind. The only issue is that people let religion override policy. 



> Who has _ever_ said that your religion shouldn't effect your life _at all_?



I see it here on the forums all of the time, its not said verbatim but there is a lot of "well I don't know why this person being Christian should do this..." well because its what they believe and if they do otherwise they're lying.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Okay, so Bush wasn't really in, but he did try and coerce people into war.



Coercion and force are two very different things.  Coercion is one of the core principles of politics, convincing people to agree with what you think.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It is a personal thing, but like minded individuals want others of like mind. *The only issue is that people let religion override policy. *



That's my whole point.  People running and being elected on heavily religious campaigns have a tendency to try to enact policy that promotes their religious beliefs, again like the ten commandments outside of court houses or trying to ban non-existent threats of sharia law.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I see it here on the forums all of the time, its not said verbatim but there is a lot of "well I don't know why this person being Christian should do this..." well because its what they believe and if they do otherwise they're lying.



I'd be curious to see any examples you have of people saying your religion shouldn't effect your decision making at all.


----------



## Basilikos (May 11, 2011)

I think the article wasn't being completely fair here. It just so happens that the U.S.'s media, pop culture, and, education system are run predominantly by non-religious people. Let's not forget the increase in secularization we have been seeing lately in the U.S as well. So atheists aren't the powerless, victimized outcasts the article tries to convey them as.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No actually its not strange, since when have Americans voted on policy? Why do you suddenly act like all of the other bullshit that matters to people shouldn't be concerned should matter more than something that should be important.
> 
> If you're a Christian, Muslim or whatever else, your belief should be central to your life. I know *you people* don't like to hear that, but its the truth because if you really believe then what you do here is just leading to where you're going to be.



Are you saying you like to hear that? That people take the most central aspect of their life completely on faith without any evidence? That's downright depressing.



> The US is a less secular nation than most first world countries and people want to agree with their elected officials on more personal things here on top of that, so I don't know why its so shocking that people want to vote for someone they agree with.



Actually the American people are less secular. If they'd actually believe in the constitution that they claim to love so much and the wall of separation between the church and the state that it describes, the US could easily be the secular nation that it should be.



Basilikos said:


> I think the article wasn't being completely fair here. It just so happens that the U.S.'s media, pop culture, and, education system are run predominantly by non-religious people. Let's not forget the increase in secularization we have been seeing lately in the U.S as well. So atheists aren't the powerless, victimized outcasts the article tries to convey them as.



I'd say being the least electable minority is pretty bad. Also, what increase in securalization?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'd say being the least electable minority is pretty bad. Also, what increase in securalization?



I've seen it reported in several places that atheism is one of the fastest growing minorities.



This links to a few of those studies.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I've seen it reported in several places that atheism is one of the fastest growing minorities.
> 
> 
> 
> This links to a few of those studies.


Aren't Muslims growing fast too?


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I've seen it reported in several places that atheism is one of the fastest growing minorities.
> 
> 
> 
> This links to a few of those studies.



I know that, but if the least electable minority still won't have a say in politics, no matter how fast they grow.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Aren't Muslims growing fast too?



Nowhere near as fast as atheists, because atheism doesn't just have "converts" but also many closet atheists, who gain the confidence to stop pretending.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I know that, but if the least electable minority still won't have a say in politics, no matter how fast they grow.



That's not really possible.  If a large enough majority of people became athiests then they would eventually gain major sway in politics.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> That's not really possible.  If a large enough majority of people became athiests then they would eventually gain major sway in politics.



Well duh, I'm just saying if 51% of the population absolutely refuses to vote for anyone from the 49% of the population, they won't get elected in the American system. That's of course an exaggeration, but the point remains.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (May 11, 2011)

I saw a Youtube video where a guy made a video response to an atheist, pointed his finger at the camera, and proclaims: "You're wicked!  You're wicked...!" 
I know I have it somewhere... oh, here it is, lol.


----------



## Miss Fortune (May 11, 2011)

Why? Because they're different. Herp Derp.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 11, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Well duh, I'm just saying if 51% of the population absolutely refuses to vote for anyone from the 49% of the population, they won't get elected in the American system. That's of course an exaggeration, but the point remains.



Yeah, I was just responding to the statement you made that no matter how fast they grew they would have no sway which is clearly not the case.

The more people that identify themselves as atheists the less those people will be shunned by the rest of society because those doing the shunning will eventually start actually meeting those people and seeing they're just normal people.


----------



## fantzipants (May 11, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> You do realize that it is quite the easy feat to despise someone's ideals and still like them as a person right?
> 
> I hate Christianity NOT Christians.  I hate Theism, not theists.
> 
> I attack the ideas because they are frankly disgusting, are delusional, and do harm.



you mean like loving your neighbor and giving your life for another like this priest in Colombia using his body as a shield taunting the guerrilla (who are mostly marxist and socialist and on paper atheist) while protecting this soldier whom they wanted to kill? 



i suggest you look at the sermon on the mount. ghandhi being hindu at least said he liked christianity not christians.80% of the anti christians here don't have the guts to do something of the sort. This priest alone has proven to me that God is real and that the words are worth the paper they are printed on.

For the one's saying that atheists haven't killed in the name of atheism need to read up on the Iran-Contra war in Central America. None of you intellectuals can tell me otherwise. I personally know many people who lived through that from both sides of the war including some ex marxist guerrilla fighters. What they did in the name of their political and some atheist beliefs is atrocious even by colombian standards.

Finally for those who want to listen. Why can't you all just drop it, get along and move on with your lives. Life is too short for such nonsense. What irritates me the most is these so called intellectuals who renounce religious ideals are a bunch of self centered self righteous spoiled introverts who whine from the comfort of their homes in one of the safest nations on the planet. Unless you have been outside of the US or were a soldier you have no business whining about things you do not understand or participate in. Most of you don't even know what it is to truly suffer. Most here have never felt the pain of war on your own soil, seen the atrocities of humanity with your own eyes, felt the pain of hunger, felt the injustice of true prejudice because you are the majority. As horrible as 9/11 was , and with all due respect to the victims, it's absolute chump change. 3,000 people lost? give me a break. REALLY? 3,000? you get your panties in a bunch for nothing. Where I came from 9/11 was 2 or 3 times a week 365 days a year since my great grandfathers time. In one night 10,000 people were killed by the paramilitary north of my department (what you call a state) only to catch the paramilitary walk through my street with me in the middle of it staring at death right in face.

Instead of looking at good message behind it people just get stuck on the bad things people did abusing the name.


Who cares if the person is gay, muslim, or atheist. If you want a better wold then do something instead of promoting irrational hate to a group of people you don't know or belong to. Feed the hungry first, comfort the orphans, protect the war victims. Then maybe you won't sound like such hypocrites.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 11, 2011)

Sounds like you ripped that off a Tea Party nut.


----------



## thunderbear (May 11, 2011)

I don't know what yall are talking about.  It seems pretty obvious to me that the current American culture _hates_ Christian values.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

thunderbear said:


> I don't know what yall are talking about.  It seems pretty obvious to me that the current American culture _hates_ Christian values.


They're just also not fond of Atheists.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 11, 2011)

thunderbear said:


> I don't know what yall are talking about.  It seems pretty obvious to me that the current American culture _hates_ Christian values.



About the only thing Christians can claim a monopoly on is believing Christ to be the Messiah and son of God. There aren't any Christian values because many of those values existed before the religion even came about, or existed during its time in other societies where they'd never even heard of Judaism.


----------



## thunderbear (May 11, 2011)

Alright then, I'll elaborate.  The media of America is certainly anti-Christian.  Take the Super Bowl.  The Super Bowl is, sadly enough, one of our culture's defining events.  It often nets more view than any other Television program every year; therefore it makes sense that the producers would want to show commercials that will draw more viewers during the downtime in between plays.  

So, what sort of commercials bring big numbers?  Commercials that play on our sexual desires, of course! Thats where our culture's values lie! In fact, American media is so sex-saturated that fornication has become commonplace, nay, praised!  Watch nearly any channel that features programming not designed for little kids, and it will become evident just how rampant the culture is for sex.  Its so apparent to everybody who watches even a little bit of TV that it is futile to deny it.

So, how exactly is America's culture conservative when acts such as fornication are commonplace, nay, encouraged, by the electronic screen that brainwashes us daily?  Seems pretty hostile to the Christian values of modesty to me.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> About the only thing Christians can claim a monopoly on is believing Christ to be the Messiah and son of God. There aren't any Christian values because many of those values existed before the religion even came about, or existed during its time in other societies where they'd never even heard of Judaism.


That doesn't matter, if the group holds those values they're still they're values. If what you were saying was true then any religion wouldn't have values.


----------



## thunderbear (May 11, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> About the only thing Christians can claim a monopoly on is believing Christ to be the Messiah and son of God. There aren't any Christian values because many of those values existed before the religion even came about, or existed during its time in other societies where they'd never even heard of Judaism.



Ah, I should have specified earlier; I didnt necessarily mean for "Christian values" to be taken as "morality in general."  I was talking about more specific values such as modesty and humility.  Modesty as in, you know, women not wearing clothes as provocative as the kind seen on HOlister shopping bags, or as seen on Snooki from "Jersey Shore."


----------



## thunderbear (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They're just also not fond of Atheists.



Oh yes, there's no denying that.


----------



## Pilaf (May 11, 2011)

Last time I checked nobody breeds and fucks more than Christians do. In what way is sex a non Christian value? If anything, atheists and other people who overlap that category seem to have lower child birth rates. Most new atheist are converts, not raised by atheist parents.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (May 11, 2011)

TSC said:


> technically buddhist are atheist if you think about it. Buddhism don't worship any sort of God, but rather the teaching of buddha.



actually no, Buddhism is spilt into severla different sects, and in at least one of the older sects they do have a god or gods


----------



## Cornbreesha (May 11, 2011)

American is a christian Nation. Like it not . "one Nation under god" Why not one nation Zeus or one nation under Buddha or Muhammad ? 

worship one god.... why not all ??

Atheist are not welcome...I actually had a gas pump tell me that one day.


----------



## Shiranui (May 11, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> you mean like loving your neighbor and giving your life for another like this priest in Colombia using his body as a shield taunting the guerrilla (who are mostly marxist and socialist and on paper atheist) while protecting this soldier whom they wanted to kill?



Forgive me for speaking on his behalf, but I believe Mintaka was referring to the advocation of slavery, the oppression of women, and the violent killings of homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, "sorcerers", and "false prophets" among numerous other atrocities that are patently encouraged by the authors of the Bible.



			
				fantzipants said:
			
		

> i suggest you look at the sermon on the mount.



And I, dear friend, suggest you read the inimitable Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, and Wilde. The list is boundless. Amidst the barbarous and sanguinary offenses that are condoned by the authors of the Bible, there are, indeed, moral gems to be found. But to isolate the more saccharine and optimistic passages and claim them to be evidence for the moral purity of the Christian faith is no more effective than me saying that Charles Manson's concern for pollution makes him an admirable cultural and political figure.

Would it not be better to harvest the fruits of various texts, rather than one which is virulent, pernicious, and morally impoverished?

If you would like a response to the 'militant atheist' argument you proposed, I implore you to visit the , where members recently addressed this subject.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 11, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That doesn't matter, if the group holds those values they're still they're values. If what you were saying was true then any religion wouldn't have values.



A lot of the values that Christians associated as being "Christian values" were adopted from societies that existed before the religion was established. They are values that Christians happen to have come to follow or espouse too, but they aren't "Christian values" in the sense of the word many Christians use it as. 



thunderbear said:


> Ah, I should have specified earlier; I didnt necessarily mean for "Christian values" to be taken as "morality in general."  I was talking about more specific values such as modesty and humility.  Modesty as in, you know, women not wearing clothes as provocative as the kind seen on HOlister shopping bags, or as seen on Snooki from "Jersey Shore."



Humility, modesty, and virtue existed in places such as the Far East at least many centuries before the supposed birth of Christ. They were values espoused by Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism hundreds of year before Christianity.


----------



## Pilaf (May 11, 2011)

I'm having a little trouble finding the specific passages in the Bible that call for sexual prudence or monogamy and I'm finding them a little difficult to locate. There's lots and lots of sex in the Bible to be sure. Drunken sex with one's own daughters. Polygamy out the ass. Raping the virgins of conquered nations at the express command of God. Lots of that shit. Not a lot of mention of these prudent values you speak of until some nut named Paul like 100 years after Jesus dies. Even if you believe in Jesus, why would you listen to some bald crazy guy 100 years after he dies? Jesus didn't say very much about sex at all. He mostly went on about how you should abandon your family and possessions and stuff. Sort of shocking stuff he preached, actually. If anything he seemed to be anti family. He says at one point that if you don't hate your family you can't enter Heaven. I wish I was making this shit up but it's right there in the Bible.


----------



## Stunna (May 11, 2011)

Talk about interpreting things out of context.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 11, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Talk about interpreting things out of context.



Elaborate.


----------



## Stunna (May 11, 2011)

I'd personally always interpreted that verse as Jesus saying that one should prioritize God over everything else, including his own family; not that you had to despise your family.


----------



## Basilikos (May 11, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Talk about interpreting things out of context.


Beat me to it.


----------



## Shiranui (May 11, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Talk about interpreting things out of context.



And what is your impression of the other passages Pilaf alluded to? I assumed by "things" - and your neglect to address a specific passage - you were dismissing his entire argument on the basis of distorted context. If you would be so kind, please reveal to us in what context these acts are admissible.


----------



## Stunna (May 11, 2011)

I've no impression. You're correct, I did ignore everything else.

Why?

Because I didn't post to comment on those, I posted to point out the misinterpretation of a referenced verse.

My job is complete, and I shall take my leave.

Cause I just don't give a crap.


----------



## Shiranui (May 11, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Because I didn't post to comment on those, I posted to point out the misinterpretation of a referenced verse.



Thank you for clarifying.



			
				Stunna said:
			
		

> My job is complete, and I shall take my leave. Cause I just don't give a crap.



Concession accepted.


----------



## Stunna (May 11, 2011)

Um. Okay.

I think it's that elitist attitude of yours that may contribute to some of the bad rep that is given to Atheists.

I wasn't trying to debate you or anyone, but you have to get in your little jab by interpreting my post as a concession, adding to your, I'm sure, countless victories against religious buffoons such as myself.

Well, if you must take it as a concession, please do so. Whatever aids you when you sleep at night.


----------



## Shiranui (May 11, 2011)

I don't mean to be misunderstood. I was merely being provocative (and somewhat facetious) to persuade you into joining the discussion again. Perhaps it wasn't the most genial approach (but it worked).


----------



## GrimaH (May 11, 2011)

I think the real question here is:

Why are people arguing on the internet being labelled "extreme"?


----------



## Gaawa-chan (May 12, 2011)

Cornbreesha said:


> American is a christian Nation. Like it not . "one Nation under god"



... For those unaware, the words 'under God' were added to the Pledge in 1954 after a religious group pushed for it.  Originally, the Pledge was secular.


----------



## Trism (May 12, 2011)

Bill G said:


> So let me get this straight...
> 
> there are people that DON'T have Superstars on their ignore list?



Even though he is an obvious troll, he shouldn't be allowed to spread his nonsense without someone being there to explain why it's wrong. Otherwise, someone who doesn’t know he's a troll might believe him...


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> How does one find evidence for something that is impossible to prove?
> 
> If you're an atheist -- a rational and logical person.
> 
> ...



This was already covered very well, but since it was a direct response to me, I'll still go ahead and address it.

Religious people go around preaching about how there is a God and how people who refuse to believe in Him are going to go to Hell. This is a bold claim, to which we ask for some solid evidence. As of yet, no one has provided any. Faith and personal belief is not a usable argument.

In short, if you have no proof, and admit that it is impossible to prove, then in terms of a logical argument you have failed to support your case. So the only illogical, non-scientific, or unintelligent argument is that of the theists, not the atheists. You've failed to give us proof of something you claim exists, so why should I believe you? Less I start believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well. 


Superstars said:


> No thank you for proving my point, it's not about me giving evidence because God's obvious qualities doesn't need my help to be proven. It is about you stop denying the evidence. Athiest surpression of the truth denies rational thought.





Let me give a very quick and simple explanation on how formal argument works.

*-You make a claim.
-I ask for evidence.
-You fail to provide any, thus conceding the point.*​
In your case:

*-You: "God is real."
-Me: What evidence do you have?
-You: "It's obvious."*​
You just effectively conceded the argument by failing to support your claim, hence you proved my point. "I don't have to give evidence because it's obvious" is basically what you said, and it is not a valid argument.

There is no evidence of God's existence. Concession accepted.


Stunna said:


> Talk about interpreting things out of context.



Not really. He names a lot of the immorality that exists in the Bible, and there is much more than that as well.


----------



## Superstars (May 12, 2011)

Trism said:


> Let me give a very quick and simple explanation on how formal argument works.
> 
> *-You make a claim.
> -I ask for evidence.
> ...


This is why athiest are labeled illogical truth surpressers, Evidence is in the creation of God looking at it with common sense. Every design has a designer but You knew this already but you are just denying it. So no doubt you are gonna deny truth and post some illogical nitpicking nonsense so I'll leave you with this. You people are without excuse.


----------



## Razgriez (May 12, 2011)

> Let me give a very quick and simple explanation on how formal argument works.
> 
> -You make a claim.
> -I ask for evidence.
> ...



Unfortunately religion and scientific fact do not mix and simply do not make sense.

Its like trying to to explain a circle is a square. Religion will not make sense in a scientific sense. Knowing this, its kind of pointless to argue it.


----------



## Stalin (May 12, 2011)

Why are we having a debate over the existence of God? Those never go anywhere!


----------



## lint789 (May 12, 2011)

Superstars said:


> This is why athiest are labeled illogical truth surpressers, Evidence is in the creation of God looking at it with common sense. Every design has a designer but You knew this already but you are just denying it. You people are without excuse.



That is a common misconception about atheists. Atheists don't particularly want there to be no God, we just haven't found a reason to believe. There could be a creator, but not the Christian God. The Christian God just seems silly.


----------



## Superstars (May 12, 2011)

lint789 said:


> That is a common misconception about atheists. Atheists doesn't particularly want there to be no God, we just haven't found a reason to believe. There could be a creator, but not the Christian God. The Christian God just seems silly.



You people already know That God exists, you just don't want to take responsibility for your actions. The God almighty of the Bible is the most logical and easisiet way. All you gotta do is repent and you are forgiven.


----------



## Gnome (May 12, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Unfortunately religion and scientific fact do not mix and simply do not make sense.
> 
> Its like trying to to explain a circle is a square. Religion will not make sense in a scientific sense. Knowing this, its kind of pointless to argue it.





Superstars could do it, he's tried very similar before.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (May 12, 2011)

Superstars said:


> This is why athiest are labeled illogical truth surpressers, Evidence is in the creation of God looking at it with common sense. Every design has a designer but You knew this already but you are just denying it. You people are without excuse.



Humans, for example, have a lousy design. If God really does exist, he's shitty designer.

To list a few:

Useless organs (can also be detrimental) such as wisdom teeth, which your mouth cannot fit when they come in. Tail bone, which is a left over relic of evolution, and the appendix which has no use to us, and can be infected and ruptured, killing us. Brilliant design, right? 

Last I checked, the urethra in men runs through the prostate gland, which is prone to swelling, thus blocking the urethra. 

We eat/drink and breath down the same tube. Guess what? That makes us prone to choking. A bad design if I do say so myself.

Our bipedal design makes us prone to bone problems.

And the list goes on.

God is a shitty designer (provided He designed us in the first place).


----------



## Stalin (May 12, 2011)

Please stop this bullshit.


----------



## Stalin (May 12, 2011)

All of you ,cut the shit out guys.


----------



## Superstars (May 12, 2011)

Yeah, It is useless. I'ma stop.


----------



## Trism (May 12, 2011)

Superstars said:


> This is why athiest are labeled illogical truth surpressers, Evidence is in the creation of God looking at it with common sense.



This is a lie. Creation is not evidence of God's existence. There are numerous stories about gods creating the world. There is not a bit of proof that the God you serve is the real one (assuming there is even one at all).


> Every design has a designer but You knew this already but you are just denying it. So no doubt you are gonna deny truth and post some illogical nitpicking nonsense so I'll leave you with this. You people are without excuse.



What you are doing is strawmaning my argument by claiming I am denying God's existence. That's not my argument. My argument is that you have no evidence of His existence, an argument that still holds true.


Razgriez said:


> Unfortunately religion and scientific fact do not mix and simply do not make sense.
> 
> Its like trying to to explain a circle is a square. Religion will not make sense in a scientific sense. Knowing this, its kind of pointless to argue it.



I'm not even talking about science or scientific evidence. I'm talking about the manner in which a formal argument is carried out, and why Superstars doesn't know how to present one. He hasn't proven his claim with any support, scientific or otherwise.


lint789 said:


> That is a common misconception about atheists. Atheists doesn't particularly want there to be no God, we just haven't found a reason to believe. There could be a creator, but not the Christian God. The Christian God just seems silly.



Thank you for explaining this. A lot of people need to read that.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2011)

Better question: Why is this thread still not locked?


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 12, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Better question: Why is this thread still not locked?



Because the mods are incompetent howler monkeys ?


----------



## Sanity Check (May 12, 2011)

I think I may be able to get the thread locked with this comment.  (Although, I don't know why it would be locked in the first place.    Just when a thread gets good and people start to talk, thread is locked.  Whyy)

It seems atheists have a bad reputation in politics which explains why so few are willing to vote for them.

*Mikhail Gorbachev(atheist)* -- largely attributed with causing the downfall of the USSR.
*Stalin(atheist)* -- intentionally killed millions of his own people via starvation.
*Mao Zedong(atheist)* -- killed millions more via starvation than Stalin did.
*Kim Jong(atheist)* -- starved close to a million northern koreans to death.

A good deal of the reason why people in Russia are religious is likely reactionism of dealing with Gorbachev, Stalin and other atheists.  They _lived_ in a country where atheists ran things, and realized it wasn't the unicorns crapping rainbows people like Pilaf seem brainwashed into believing..

And, before someone replies without thinking about what I've said.

I would like atheists to remember many of them point to Hitler being a (christian) and attribute all negative things he did to religion.

If atheists really want credibility -- it may be a good time to start criticizing Kim Jong, Castro and other atheists and get them to show that atheists can be moral and humanitarian when they have the power and authority to do so.


----------



## LoboFTW (May 12, 2011)

^ whoever blames hitler's christianity for his actions is a moron. He never claimed that what he was doing was at all to do with his religion. The people you mentioned were communists, which is really the issue. Atheism, unlike any other religion, has no set values besides not believing in God. You cannot claim that as a motivation for an action. Whereas muslim suicide bombers and Christians who kill abortion doctors are primarily doing these things because they think their holy book tells them to.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 12, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I think I may be able to get the thread locked with this comment.  (Although, I don't know why it would be locked in the first place.    Just when a thread gets good and people start to talk, thread is locked.  Whyy)
> 
> It seems atheists have a bad reputation in politics which explains why so few are willing to vote for them.
> 
> ...



Can you really call them atheists if they make people believe that they themselves are gods?

Also, I'm having a hard time understanding why christians for example would object to genocide, seeing how their god commits or orders it in the bible rather frequently.



> A good deal of the reason why people in Russia are religious is likely reactionism of dealing with Gorbachev, Stalin and other atheists.  They _lived_ in a country where atheists ran things, and realized it wasn't the unicorns crapping rainbows people like Pilaf seem brainwashed into believing..



Go fuck a lawnmower. Seriously, if you had ever in your lifetime read one of those posts Pilaf makes concerning the issue of totalitarian dictatorships and forced atheism, you would write such retarded nonsense. By your logic we've seen what christian rule is when Hitler was in power and therefore we should all be afraid of electing christians. What you neglect to think about is the fact that the vast majority of atheists in the western world are humanists and strictly opposed to totalitarianism, unlike christians, muslims and jews who embrace totalitarianism in the form of their religion and relish in the thought of being slaves to a fascist dictator.



> And, before someone replies without thinking about what I've said.
> 
> I would like atheists to remember many of them point to Hitler being a (christian) and attribute all negative things he did to religion.



Wrong, that always comes up in reaction to the fucktarded argument of telling us that Stalin and Mao were atheists, never on its own.



> If atheists really want credibility -- it may be a good time to start criticizing Kim Jong, Castro and other atheists and get them to show that atheists can be moral and humanitarian when they have the power and authority to do so.



Are you implying that atheists aren't condemning totalitarian despots? Again, I don't know what reality you live in, but have fun playing tea party with your dolls.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2011)

I spent about an hour on another forum and I was shocked by the kind of debate the atheists were having over there, the question of "Pro-Life" Atheists came up: 



> They don't mail you a new brain when you become an atheist, I'm one and have easily been through 2000 church services in my life as well as well as living in a society soaked head to toe with christian values, is it really shocking that people assimilate this stuff even when their framework says they shouldn't?





> Look, the idea that a human life begins at conception can be held from a scientific point of view. Conception and birth are the only really clear boundaries.
> 
> There is no reason implicit in atheism that should require much special defense of that view. I'm atheist, and can see logical points of view in both sides of the abortion debate. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons regarding taking a life. Is that weird for an atheist too?
> 
> This kind of feels like the idea that atheist can't have morality because they don't have faith. There are other sources for it.





> Maybe pro-life atheists aren't idiotic straw men spawned out of your inability to grasp that there's no atheist hive mind, though.



And then I come back over here and you guys are bitching about how _The Man_ holds Atheism down and its easy to see why its so hard to have a discussion over here that gets into the real meat of things and past the mindless rhetoric.


----------



## Garfield (May 12, 2011)

You know, another way to look at Stalin's athiesm is: sometimes even bad people do good things .


----------



## Xyloxi (May 12, 2011)

Stalin wasn't that bad, he had to do what he did to build up the USSR. You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette, right?


----------



## Gilgamesh (May 12, 2011)

> *Stalin wasn't that bad*, he had to do what he did to build up the USSR. You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette, right?



            .


----------



## Sanity Check (May 12, 2011)

LoboFTW said:


> ^ whoever blames hitler's christianity for his actions is a moron. He never claimed that what he was doing was at all to do with his religion. The people you mentioned were communists, which is really the issue. Atheism, unlike any other religion, has no set values besides not believing in God. You cannot claim that as a motivation for an action. Whereas muslim suicide bombers and Christians who kill abortion doctors are primarily doing these things because they think their holy book tells them to.



That creates a double standard.

1)  Atheists don't need "set values".  They don't need their morality written in a "holy book" to be as ethical as religious people.
2)  Atheists can't be held to the same standards as religious people -- because atheism has no "set" values'.

(CONTRADICTORY, BTW ^)

Atheists cite statistics relating to which US states are the most religious and attempt to correlate violence to the numbers.

Then, they try to bs their way out of being held to the same standard when people cite things atheists like Stalin and Mao have done.

It doesn't matter whether your beliefs and values are written down or not.  Religious people don't agree on everything anymore than atheists, do.  Truth be told, religion doesn't have any "set values" either.  If you're going to criticize religion on the basis that someone with a certain classification is adequate evidence to judge an entire demographic of people  -- you will probably be held to the same standard.



Saufsoldat said:


> Can you really call them atheists if they make people believe that they themselves are gods?
> 
> Also, I'm having a hard time understanding why christians for example would object to genocide, seeing how their god commits or orders it in the bible rather frequently.



Why not?  All types of people who don't fit the classical religious stereotype are considered "christians".  We even have gay christians.  The classification of a religious person is very, very, broad.  Yet, everytime a person who talks to geese does something retarded, many atheists seem to have no trouble classifying them as "religious".  Why should atheists be classified differently?

Well, I don't see why Americans, British people, and other assorted demographics would object to genocide either, considering their President / Prime Minister / whatever has ordered it rather frequently throughout history, as well -- without God being there to hold their hand and walk them through the process.



Saufsoldat said:


> Go fuck a lawnmower. Seriously, if you had ever in your lifetime read one of those posts Pilaf makes concerning the issue of totalitarian dictatorships and forced atheism, you would write such retarded nonsense. By your logic we've seen what christian rule is when Hitler was in power and therefore we should all be afraid of electing christians. What you neglect to think about is the fact that the vast majority of atheists in the western world are humanists and strictly opposed to totalitarianism, unlike christians, muslims and jews who embrace totalitarianism in the form of their religion and relish in the thought of being slaves to a fascist dictator.



Oh, lawd.  No.  



Saufsoldat said:


> Wrong, that always comes up in reaction to the fucktarded argument of telling us that Stalin and Mao were atheists, never on its own.



Yes, because that type of "judge a group of people by the bad apples" argument is ignorant.  Something atheists fail to realize -- to their own detriment.



Saufsoldat said:


> Are you implying that atheists aren't condemning totalitarian despots? Again, I don't know what reality you live in, but have fun playing tea party with your dolls.



Atheists aren't condemning anyone really worth condemning.

A genocide happens in Africa, and atheists are generally too busy complaining about gay persecution in America to even notice.  

A million north koreans are starving to death under Kim Jong, and atheists are complaining about intelligent design being taught in schools.

Your priorities are a bit odd -- a vaguely american trait.

Anyway, I really don't want to talk about this shit.

But, if you want me to, I'm sure I can pwn the hell out of whatever you happen to *think* is a "good argument".


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 12, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Why not?  All types of people who don't fit the classical religious stereotype are considered "christians".  We even have gay christians.  The classification of a religious person is very, very, broad.  Yet, everytime a person who talks to geese does something retarded, many atheists seem to have no trouble classifying them as "religious".  Why should atheists be classified differently?



 Religious people prescribe to certain dogma, a set of values and beliefs. Atheism has none of that just like theism. You can't argue against a deist like you'd argue against a christian, it's nonsensical. 

Every time I think "we had that discussion a million times" someone comes in and pretends it's the first time he ever heard of atheism and now thinks he has to regurgitate the same shit arguments that have been debunked decades ago.



> Well, I don't see why Americans, British people, and other assorted demographics would object to genocide either, considering their President / Prime Minister / whatever has ordered it rather frequently throughout history, as well -- without God being there to hold their hand and walk them through the process.



Does it say in the job description for a president "you must worship a genocidal maniac"? No president has to repeat or condone anything his predecessor did. Every christian has to condone the horrible acts of Yahweh.



> Yes, because that type of "judge a group of people by the bad apples" argument is ignorant.  Something atheists fail to realize -- to their own detriment.



Are you dim? I just said it's a mock argument in response to the "stalin/mao was an atheist" bullshit.



> Atheists aren't condemning anyone really worth condemning.
> 
> A genocide happens in Africa, and atheists are generally too busy complaining about gay persecution in America to even notice.
> 
> ...



I'm... I'm sorry but the level of retardation in your post is just too much to bear. I'm literally biting my desk here because it's so incredibly stupid. Please tell me you're doing this on purpose.

You're essentially saying "there are genocides in the world so you mustn't complain about any injustice in your country".

And how is this in any way or form exclusive to atheism? Are you telling me that Christians care more about the events in Africa or North Korea than atheists? That's a lie and you know it. Atheism correlates with education and education in turn correlates with the ability to see beyond one's own nose. 

What are christians concerned with? Abortion is condemned, women's rights are suppressed, homosexuality is condemned, catholics would rather have Africans die than use condoms and you're saying atheists have strange priorities? Fuck you, I'm out of here before I get a brain tumor.



> Anyway, I really don't want to talk about this shit.
> 
> But, if you want me to, I'm sure I can pwn the hell out of whatever you happen to *think* is a "good argument".



Just curious, but have you considered sterilization?


----------



## Talon. (May 12, 2011)

America is butthurt over atheists because Conservatives are butthurt over atheists. a good chunk of Americans believe anything the conservatives say, so theyre playing a whole monkey see monkey do act.


----------



## Sanity Check (May 12, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Religious people prescribe to certain dogma, a set of values and beliefs. Atheism has none of that just like theism. You can't argue against a deist like you'd argue against a christian, it's nonsensical.
> 
> Every time I think "we had that discussion a million times" someone comes in and pretends it's the first time he ever heard of atheism and now thinks he has to regurgitate the same shit arguments that have been debunked decades ago.



Atheism has a trillion logical, scientific and fundamental flaws in it.  Even top tier atheists who are big names have gaping holes in their approach.

The main reason I'm replying to your posts, is to help prevent atheists from putting forth horrible arguments and giving atheists everywhere a bad name.  So, listen up.  

God exists = dogma.
God doesn't exist = dogma.
I have no belief in God = dogma.

Values?  Many atheists believe religion represents a main cause of evil in the world.  Many atheists believe in separation of church and state.  

See, atheists don't necessarily need these things written down in a holy book to have values and dogma which are widespread and proliferate amongst those of their own demographic.



Saufsoldat said:


> Does it say in the job description for a president "you must worship a genocidal maniac"? No president has to repeat or condone anything his predecessor did. Every christian has to condone the horrible acts of Yahweh.



We generally condone the horrible acts of Mr. Bush because his cruel and unusual punishments led to the capture of Bin Laden.  We consider them a necessary evil.

With a God, its not necessarily proven that said acts were not a necessary evil.  Thus, to suggest otherwise amounts to yet more -- dogma.



Saufsoldat said:


> I'm... I'm sorry but the level of retardation in your post is just too much to bear. I'm literally biting my desk here because it's so incredibly stupid. Please tell me you're doing this on purpose.
> 
> You're essentially saying "there are genocides in the world so you mustn't complain about any injustice in your country".
> 
> ...



Eh, think whatever you want.  I would rather not discuss it because I know it will result in someone being butthurt.  History being what it is, that person isn't likely to be me.  

What I mean is, Americans have economic troubles, they have war troubles.  And, instead of focusing on important and significant issues, they spend most of their time talking about Obama's birth certificate and other topics which are low priority.

Likewise with atheists.  Maybe, they should be writing letters to Fidel Castro and Kim Jong telling them they're giving atheists worldwide a bad name & people won't vote for atheists if they have a bad political record, worldwide.

Instead, they do other things.  So, maybe, our prioritization is somewhat questionable.



Saufsoldat said:


> Just curious, but have you considered sterilization?



That would be cool.  But, only if I had the Alan Turing credentials and respect to go along with it.


----------



## IcySaya (May 12, 2011)

> Long after blacks and Jews have made great strides, and even as homosexuals gain respect, acceptance and new rights, there is still a group that lots of Americans just don’t like much: atheists. Those who don’t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and angry. *They can’t join the Boy Scouts.* Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score as sufficiently “spiritual” in military psychological evaluations.



Wha? Bull crap. My cousin's athest and his kid's in Boy Scouts(His son is also athest).


----------



## Soups (May 12, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I think I may be able to get the thread locked with this comment.  (Although, I don't know why it would be locked in the first place.    Just when a thread gets good and people start to talk, thread is locked.  Whyy)
> 
> It seems atheists have a bad reputation in politics which explains why so few are willing to vote for them.
> 
> ...



cretin. When do athiest not condemn mao and stalin. such an idiotic statement. Not only do they condemn them, but what do you want them have to do, distance themselves from all bad athiests? if religious people had to do that, they'd be there for a long time...

also i dont really think that many atheist accuse Christianity of being the cause of hitler and his fucked upness. Thats just stupid. like the rest of your post.

on the actual point, as ctk pointed out, spacecowboy had it right when they said people wont vote for people they cant relate to.  i dont know if there is actual discrimination towards athiest in the community at large, except in mental evangelical places, which hardly represent the relatively moderate norm of christianity.


----------



## Sanity Check (May 12, 2011)

Soups said:


> cretin. When do athiest not condemn mao and stalin. such an idiotic statement. Not only do they condemn them, but what do you want them have to do, distance themselves from all bad athiests? if religious people had to do that, they'd be there for a long time...
> 
> also i dont really think that many atheist accuse Christianity of being the cause of hitler and his fucked upness. Thats just stupid. like the rest of your post.
> 
> on the actual point, as ctk pointed out, spacecowboy had it right when they said people wont vote for people they cant relate to.  i dont know if there is actual discrimination towards athiest in the community at large, except in mental evangelical places, which hardly represent the relatively moderate norm of christianity.




lol @ you calling me a 'cretin'.  

So, this is 'stupid' then?  



(All the white people who voted for Obama could prove people can vote for someone they can't relate to, directly, btw.)


----------



## Soups (May 12, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> lol @ you calling me a 'cretin'.
> 
> So, this is 'stupid' then?
> 
> ...



one example doesn't prove a point does it especially when its taken from some hack internet website that potrays the views of atheist as generally as pastor terry jones represents the views of all christians. i bet no atheist on this forum attributes it to his Christianity.  neither does any atheist i have ever met, and nearly everyone i know is atheist...

also black and white people can relate. (but either way that's an unprovable opinion so i wont push it.)

So yes you are still a cretin. and yes that is stupid.


----------



## Sanity Check (May 12, 2011)

Soups said:


> one example doesn't prove a point does it especially when its taken from some hack internet website that potrays the views of atheist as generally as pastor terry jones represents the views of all christians. i bet no atheist on this forum attributes it to his Christianity.
> 
> So yes you are still a cretin.




Show the world how 'moral' and 'ethical' atheists are by making dead baby jokes and teasing fat people?  

Then, call me a cretin.  I need the lolz.


----------



## Soups (May 12, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Show the world how 'moral' and 'ethical' atheists are by making dead baby jokes and teasing fat people?
> 
> Then, call me a cretin.  I need the lolz.



...Fat people deserve to be teased there fat, annoying and breathe heavily under the slightest strain. Irritants. although i don't know what your on about any more to be honest. Christians never tell dead baby jokes or tease fat people now? confusing.

Cretin. for your lolz.


----------



## Sanity Check (May 12, 2011)

Soups said:


> ...Fat people deserve to be teased there fat, annoying and breathe heavily under the slightest strain. Irritants. although i don't know what your on about any more to be honest. Christians never tell dead baby jokes or tease fat people now? confusing.
> 
> Cretin. for your lolz.




Nvm.  Thanks, though, will rep later.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 12, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Atheism has a trillion logical, scientific and fundamental flaws in it.
> 
> Even top tier atheists who are big names have gaping holes in their approach.



Name one, I dare you to name just one single fucking flaw that the lack of belief in gods has.



> The main reason I'm replying to your posts, is to help prevent atheists from putting forth horrible arguments and giving atheists everywhere a bad name.  So, listen up.
> 
> God exists = dogma.
> God doesn't exist = dogma.
> I have no belief in God = dogma.



Really? How many atheists say for themselves that they wouldn't believe in a god even if the guy provided conclusive proof for his existence? I don't know a single one, so that's not dogma. 

"I don't believe in god" is not dogma. You're allowed to doubt the truth of the statement, therefore it cannot dogma.



> Values?  Many atheists believe religion represents a main cause of evil in the world.  Many atheists believe in separation of church and state.



Many humans believe the earth is flat. Does that mean people 3000 years ago weren't humans?

Many vegetarians believe in equal rights for men and women. Does that mean a sexist can't be a vegetarian? Is there a vegetarian set of beliefs? *insert generic insult*



> See, atheists don't necessarily need these things written down in a holy book to have values and dogma which are widespread and proliferate amongst those of their own demographic.







> We generally condone the horrible acts of Mr. Bush because his cruel and unusual punishments led to the capture of Bin Laden.  We consider them a necessary evil.



I'm not sure who "we" refers to in this case, but I most certainly don't condone the acts of a barely literate fuckwit.



> With a God, its not necessarily proven that said acts were not a necessary evil.  Thus, to suggest otherwise amounts to yet more -- dogma.



Stop using the word dogma this instant. You will put the word down, go to your room, pick up a dictionary and when I come up there I want a full essay on why you were wrong.

An opinion is not dogma, an argument is not dogma. Even saying "XYZ is a fact" does not imply any form of dogma.



> Eh, think whatever you want.  I would rather not discuss it because I know it will result in someone being butthurt.  History being what it is, that person isn't likely to be me.



You'd rather not discuss because you're wrong and you've been proven to be wrong multiple times.



> What I mean is, Americans have economic troubles, they have war troubles.  And, instead of focusing on important and significant issues, they spend most of their time talking about Obama's birth certificate and other topics which are low priority.



So now it's Americans and not just atheists? Does that mean you retract your previous statement...?



> Likewise with atheists.



No, of course not. You ignore my argument and follow up on one agreed-upon concession with a claim that I just debunked in my last post. Congratulations on mastering the art of debate.



> Maybe, they should be writing letters to Fidel Castro and Kim Jong telling them they're giving atheists worldwide a bad name & people won't vote for atheists if they have a bad political record, worldwide.



Why? They're not giving atheists a bad name any more than Mugabe is giving black people a bad name, Hitler is giving vegetarians a bad name or Stalin is giving heliocentrists a bad name. All those things are incidental and just because there's people like you falling for a bunch of idiotic fallacies doesn't mean I should do something about it.



> Instead, they do other things.  So, maybe, our prioritization is somewhat questionable.



That's cute, saying "our" to make it seem like you're making concessions on your end as much as you demand from me.

There's nothing I can do about North Korea, but I can do something about the injustice in the society that I live in.



Are you aspiring to surpass superstars in terms of absurd arguments?


----------



## Basilikos (May 12, 2011)

Soups said:


> one example doesn't prove a point does it especially when its taken from some hack internet website that potrays the views of atheist as generally as pastor terry jones represents the views of all christians. i bet no atheist on this forum attributes it to his Christianity.  neither does any atheist i have ever met, and nearly everyone i know is atheist...


You apparently haven't met many atheists if this it what you are saying. I've seen atheists on this very forum link to that webpage. Also, it's a fairly popular thing for atheists right now to argue that Hitler was a Christian. An extraordinarily asinine endeavor it is but hey, if people want to argue for something utterly retarded then go right on ahead.


----------



## Soups (May 12, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> You apparently haven't met many atheists if this it what you are saying. I've seen atheists on this very forum link to that webpage. Also, it's a fairly popular thing for atheists right now to argue that Hitler was a Christian. An extraordinarily asinine endeavor it is but hey, if people want to argue for something utterly retarded then go right on ahead.



well I've personally never encountered it. But even if it was as prevalent as you say it is, seems pretty hypocritical, not  of you but of theist as a whole, considering one of there main arguments is bringing up Mao and Stalin. Then i am british, perhaps its a culture thing, my entire social group is made up of atheist, not of choice, but i dont meet many theists and absolutely none of them would attribute hitler's dickishness to his religion.

Also it probably stems from the fact that theists used to bring up Hitler a lot, along with Stalin as examples, ignorant of the fact that he WAS a Christian. there is a difference in arguing that Hitler was a Christian (which he was) and attributing his twattish behaviour to his Christianity, which i personally haven't seen much of.

But essentially that means the point comes down to anecdotal evidence, so guess its bit pointless. must say im surprised if what you say is true. perhaps its a view not so prevalent in Britain. I guess american atheist would be more combative, being brought up in a somewhat less accepting culture. (making it clear that I think its bizzare to attribute Hitler's behaviour to his Christianity)


----------



## Sanity Check (May 12, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Name one, I dare you to name just one single fucking flaw that the lack of belief in gods has.



Atheists who utilize the faith vs reason dichotomy = flaw.

Religion has trillions of flaws, too.  The thing with atheism is, its generally new to most.  People haven't had time to really work out what its shortcomings are.

Whereas with religion, its the opposite.



Saufsoldat said:


> Really? How many atheists say for themselves that they wouldn't believe in a god even if the guy provided conclusive proof for his existence? I don't know a single one, so that's not dogma.
> 
> "I don't believe in god" is not dogma. You're allowed to doubt the truth of the statement, therefore it cannot dogma.



If you could describe a plausible method of gathering evidence, I'm sure religious folks would be glad to get it for you? 

Having no belief in God is dogma.  Look:

Dogma is the *established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.*



Bolded part describes "lack of belief in God" somewhat accurately.



Saufsoldat said:


> Many humans believe the earth is flat. Does that mean people 3000 years ago weren't humans?
> 
> Many vegetarians believe in equal rights for men and women. Does that mean a sexist can't be a vegetarian? Is there a vegetarian set of beliefs? *insert generic insult*



Hmm..  Weren't we talking about dogma?



Saufsoldat said:


> I'm not sure who "we" refers to in this case, but I most certainly don't condone the acts of a barely literate fuckwit.



K.



Saufsoldat said:


> Stop using the word dogma this instant. You will put the word down, go to your room, pick up a dictionary and when I come up there I want a full essay on why you were wrong.
> 
> An opinion is not dogma, an argument is not dogma. Even saying "XYZ is a fact" does not imply any form of dogma.



The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political [3] and scientific [4] beliefs.





Saufsoldat said:


> You'd rather not discuss because you're wrong and you've been proven to be wrong multiple times.



I don't think so.

In some cases, there are people who are still upset over these types of discussions even though they occurred 5+ years ago.  I don't feel at all upset, though.  As much as people might want to pretend they've 'disproven' me -- they may only be kidding themselves, I guess.



Saufsoldat said:


> So now it's Americans and not just atheists? Does that mean you retract your previous statement...?



Analogy.



Saufsoldat said:


> No, of course not. You ignore my argument and follow up on one agreed-upon concession with a claim that I just debunked in my last post. Congratulations on mastering the art of debate.



Debunked?  



Saufsoldat said:


> Why? They're not giving atheists a bad name any more than Mugabe is giving black people a bad name, Hitler is giving vegetarians a bad name or Stalin is giving heliocentrists a bad name. All those things are incidental and just because there's people like you falling for a bunch of idiotic fallacies doesn't mean I should do something about it.



Did Osama Bin Laden give middle eastern people and muslims a bad name?  Yes, he did.

Maybe, it doesn't affect you, personally.  But, there are people in this world who will look at Kim Jong and others and look at it as being representative of atheism in general.  That's the likely source of atheists having difficulty drawing votes.

There's always that...  'what if we elect an atheist and he turns out to be a closet communist who establishes martial law and becomes a dictator' concern lingering in the back of voter's minds.

Look at Jello.  Maybe, a decent, everyday, example of what fosters that type of worry.



Saufsoldat said:


> That's cute, saying "our" to make it seem like you're making concessions on your end as much as you demand from me.
> 
> There's nothing I can do about North Korea, but I can do something about the injustice in the society that I live in.



What about...  'raising awareness' and all that greepeace stuff?  



Saufsoldat said:


> Are you aspiring to surpass superstars in terms of absurd arguments?



I don't make absurd cases for anything..  I don't need to.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 12, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Atheists who utilize the faith vs reason dichotomy = flaw.
> 
> Religion has trillions of flaws, too.  The thing with atheism is, its generally new to most.  People haven't had time to really work out what its shortcomings are.
> 
> Whereas with religion, its the opposite.



No, no, no, no, stop, wrong. You said atheism has flaws, not "some atheists use flawed arguments", but atheism itself. That's what I wanted to see and I'm still waiting.



> If you could describe a plausible method of gathering evidence, I'm sure religious folks would be glad to get it for you?



Well since he intervenes in our lives, we should be able to aquire some evidence that things happened in this world which couldn't have happened by themselves. Historical evidence for the things claimed in the bible would also be nice. Oh and actually showing himself might just do the trick for most atheists. You know, giving even the slightest shred of evidence for his own existence. I know, it's a lot to ask.



> Having no belief in God is dogma.  Look:
> 
> Dogma is the *established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.*
> 
> ...



Firstly, atheism is neither religion, nor a group or an organization. Therefore the definition doesn't apply.

Secondly, many would dispute the claim that atheism is a belief in the first place, but I'm willing to grant you that one for the sake of argument.

Thirdly, atheism is by no means authoritative.

Lastly, dogma never stands alone. This is connected to the first point, atheism is not an organization or group of any kind. It is just the lack of belief in gods. Dogma must always be connected to some greater ideology, which atheism does not offer. 



> Hmm..  Weren't we talking about dogma?



You were claiming that there's a set of values for atheists which I proved to be false.



> The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political [3] and scientific [4] beliefs.



Stubborn would imply that you keep the belief despite evidence that it's wrong. Since there's no evidence that there is a god, you can't say that it's a dogmatic belief.



> Analogy.



Flawed analogy, you know that atheism is not a religion.



> Debunked?



Atheists tend to care for world politics more than christians, because atheists tend to have better education.



> Did Osama Bin Laden give middle eastern people and muslims a bad name?  Yes, he did.



"The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam." - Sam Harris

Osama Bin Laden can easily justify his actions with Islam, that's the problem about it. He doesn't need to twist the Koran's message, there's no "love thy enemy" or "turn the other cheek" in that book.



> Maybe, it doesn't affect you, personally.  But, there are people in this world who will look at Kim Jong and others and look at it as being representative of atheism in general.  That's the likely source of atheists having difficulty drawing votes.



Mugabe is a Roman Catholic, protected by the church and so were Hitler and Franco. Somehow that doesn't stop people from electing Catholics into any offices. Conclusion: Those who base their vote on religion are moronic shitheads. I don't need to prove anything to those people.



> What about...  'raising awareness' and all that greepeace stuff?



Whenever some dipshit thinks he has to defend or belittle the crimes of Kim Jong Il, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Dinnerjacket, Hamas or anything of that kind, I set them straight. That's all I can do and it's more than most people do. 



> I don't make absurd cases for anything..  I don't need to.



But you're trying so hard, at least admit that you're doing it for the lulz. Anything would just be sad.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 12, 2011)

You know what's incredible ?

People not having 1mmortal on their ignore list


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2011)

> Long after blacks and Jews have made great strides, and even as  homosexuals gain respect, acceptance and new rights, there is still a  group that lots of Americans just don?t like much: atheists. Those who  don?t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and  angry. *They can?t join the Boy Scouts.*  Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score  as sufficiently ?spiritual? in military psychological evaluations.



Okay, not sure who said this. but even if they weren't allowed, its a religious organization. God is mentioned all of the time in the Scout book and on the cover it used to order things Scouts held important, God and Country were first.


----------



## Trism (May 12, 2011)

If we're going to discuss issues of immorality among the people themselves, then don't sit there and pretend there are only immoral atheist. Immorality exists on both sides, religious and non religious. Religion has been responsible for some truly horrible and wicked people and events.



In the name of God, eh?

And then we have:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo[/YOUTUBE]​
So don't act like religious people are so holy. I will be quick to call you out on your hypocrisy.


----------



## perman07 (May 12, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Okay, not sure who said this. but even if they weren't allowed, its a religious organization. God is mentioned all of the time in the Scout book and on the cover it used to order things Scouts held important, God and Country were first.


Why should the scouts be a religious organization in the first place? Surely the point is getting kids out into nature, excluding kids of the wrong religious persuasions seems kind of messed up.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2011)

perman07 said:


> Why should the scouts be a religious organization in the first place? Surely the point is getting kids out into nature, excluding kids of the wrong religious persuasions seems kind of messed up.


It's a religious organization because it wants to be...

What kind of stupid fucking question is that?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 12, 2011)

perman07 said:


> Why should the scouts be a religious organization in the first place? Surely the point is getting kids out into nature, excluding kids of the wrong religious persuasions seems kind of messed up.



Why shouldn't it be a religious organization?

There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from starting a secular scouts.


----------



## Vynjira (May 12, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Why shouldn't it be a religious organization


because it's supported by the Government.


----------



## Toroxus (May 12, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> because it's supported by the Government.



^
This.

The BSA gets money from the government from taxes. Use public land like schools, parks, courthouses, etc. And also has the military set up their national celebrations. It's illegal for government money to go to a discriminatory organization like the BSA because it excludes gays, atheists, and females (from working).


----------



## Nihonjin (May 12, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> God exists = dogma.
> God doesn't exist = dogma.
> I have no belief in God = dogma.
> 
> ...



Dog-ma

_1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. *a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down*, as by a church: the dogma of the assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma._

Who exactly is(are) the leading atheist(s) that lay(s) down the rules for his/her followers..? If you cannot answer, then please, drop this ridiculous notion that atheists are dogmatic.



> We generally condone the horrible acts of *Mr. Bush because his cruel and unusual punishments led to the capture of Bin Laden.*  We consider them a necessary evil.



Bet you watch Fox News.

This simply isn't true. Torture has _never_ lead to valuable intelligence about anything. As a matter of fact it was found to be so unreliable and counter productive, that interrogation experts decided to ignore any information gained by torture to avoid muddling up their case and wasting their time on false leads.

Also, Bin Laden was killed, not captured. And it was by Obama's decisions, not Bush's.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 12, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> because it's supported by the Government.



Easily rectified.  Cut government support for the program.

Seems far easier to me then trying to force it to be non-religious.


----------



## Superstars (May 12, 2011)

Trism said:


> This is a lie. Creation is not evidence of God's existence. There are numerous stories about gods creating the world. There is not a bit of proof that the God you serve is the real one (assuming there is even one at all). What you are doing is strawmaning my argument by claiming I am denying God's existence. That's not my argument. My argument is that you have no evidence of His existence, an argument that still holds true..


You just denied the existence of the true God of the Bible and contradicted yourself because first you say there is no evidence of God then you say we can't observe creation as evidence because DERP dere iz other Gods who say dey created too how do we knowz dis God you speak of did itz. Then you try to cover your illogical contradicting argument with "azzumingz der is a Godz derp." Like I said keep proving there are those who surpress the truth and proffess the truth, that is the only kind of people in this world.

God of the Bible is the only true God divinely inspired truths long before man ever knew about earth being held up by gravity the bible already had said the earth was suspeneded in space. Other ancient religions believed Atlas held the earth up, A turtle and elephant held the earth up, Allah has delivered false prophecies where as the God of the Bible has delivered them perfectly. this same true living God of the Bible is the one who says observe his creation and you can see how he governs it all. It is not rational to deny these truths but you people still do it like no bodies business.


----------



## Toroxus (May 12, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You just denied the existence of the true God of the Bible and contradicted yourself because first you say there is no evidence of God then you say we can't observe creation as evidence because DERP dere iz other Gods who say dey created too how do we knowz dis God you speak of did itz. Then you try to cover your illogical contradicting argument with "azzumingz der is a Godz derp." Like I said keep proving there are those who surpress the truth and proffess the truth, that is the only kind of people in this world.
> 
> God of the Bible is the only true God divinely inspired truths long before man ever knew about earth being held up by gravity the bible already had said the earth was suspeneded in space. Other ancient religions believed Atlas held the earth up, A turtle and elephant held the earth up, Allah has delivered false prophecies where as the God of the Bible has delivered them perfectly. this same true living God of the Bible is the one who says observe his creation and you can see how he governs it all. It is not rational to deny these truths but you people still do it like no bodies business.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (May 12, 2011)

The earth isn't held up by gravity.  That's not how gravity works.


----------



## MunchKing (May 12, 2011)

Reading this thread is like watching a car crash.

You can't look away even though it's going to end badly.


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2011)

None of the books of the Bible were written by the authors attributed to them. None. If you think Moses wrote Genesis-Deuteronomy you're seriously brain damaged. These books mention things that happened after Moses' death, including his death itself. How can a man write about his own death? 

The exact same problem crops up again and again in the Bible, from Daniel to Samuel all the way through the Judges. Even the New Testament suffers from this exact same issue. The evidence points towards the four Gospels being written many years after the authors they're attributed to passed away. As for Paul and his Epistles, he's an obvious hack.

If we concede that the authors of the Bible are liars and frauds who used other people's names to promote an agenda - and any honest analysis surely must yield this conclusion - then what evidence is there for the biblical God or the accounts of his interventions? If the authorship itself is a series of lies, how can we believe anything that's being talked about?


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (May 12, 2011)

Duh! Because the Bible is truth.  It says so itself.


----------



## Toroxus (May 12, 2011)

Read the middle, bottom, purple column and please tell me if you take the bible literally.


----------



## kazuri (May 12, 2011)

SuperStars said:
			
		

> DERP dere iz other Gods who say dey created too how do we knowz dis God you speak of did itz.



Let he who is without herp cast the first derp.


----------



## LoboFTW (May 12, 2011)

rofl that is great


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2011)

Bruce Lee was an atheist and he'd be fucking ashamed of Superstar. He's likely to rise from the grave and kick him in the throat for being so dumb.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 12, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Bruce Lee was an atheist and he'd be fucking ashamed of Superstar. He's likely to rise from the grave and kick him in the throat for being so dumb.



How many times do I have to tell people you can't rely on zombie Bruce Lee to solve all the worlds problems?


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> How many times do I have to tell people you can't rely on zombie Bruce Lee to solve all the worlds problems?



Can't we use him JUST this once?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 12, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Can't we use him JUST this once?



I'd prefer to save him for a real emergency, like when the other zombies finally decide to start shit.


----------



## Trism (May 12, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You just denied the existence of the true God of the Bible and contradicted yourself because first you say there is no evidence of God then you say we can't observe creation as evidence because DERP dere iz other Gods who say dey created too how do we knowz dis God you speak of did itz.



Asserting that my claim is a contradiction does not make it one. What I said is true. You claimed that the observation of creation is evidence of the God's existence. I explained that this is false because there are numerous stories of gods creating the world, and nothing proves the one particular god you believe in is the real one (assuming there is a god at all).

Hopefully I've broken this down enough for you to understand.


> Then you try to cover your illogical contradicting argument with "azzumingz der is a Godz derp." Like I said keep proving there are those who surpress the truth and proffess the truth, that is the only kind of people in this world.



Back to what I was saying about you not knowing how to present a formal argument. Sorry, but making unsupported assertions in combination with distorting my words in the fashion of a petulant child does not create a valid argument. And the situations I explained were hypothetical, thus they assume God does exist. I didn't say it to conver up anything.

The only illogical thing so far is your ridiculous babbling.


> God of the Bible is the only true God divinely inspired truths long before man ever knew about earth being held up by gravity the bible already had said the earth was suspeneded in space.





Funniest thing I've read all day. 


> Other ancient religions believed Atlas held the earth up, A turtle and elephant held the earth up, Allah has delivered false prophecies where as the God of the Bible has delivered them perfectly. this same true living God of the Bible is the one who says observe his creation and you can see how he governs it all. It is not rational to deny these truths but you people still do it like no bodies business.



The God of the Bible has delivered immoral teachings and double standards, not some perfect prophecies.

Superstars, you have done nothing but continuously deliver circular reasoning (as pointed out), strawman arguments, and failed to provide any evidence for your claim. I am sure you will return and continue this trend. But I do urge you to stop trolling and learn how to actually give a proper debate. Maybe then people will take you seriously.


----------



## TSC (May 12, 2011)

This is why I'm a Deist as oppose to atheist or Christian.

A deist believe there is one supreme God but is a neutral being and is not involved with any human issue or conflict as bible indicate. It also easily without contradictions could easily work well all the scientific explanations too.

example: God set forth a conceptual idea or plan of the universe and all it's function. Then the rest works off on it's own as science have shown..


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 12, 2011)

TSC said:


> This is why I'm a Deist as oppose to atheist or Christian.
> 
> A deist believe there is one supreme God but is a neutral being and is not involved with any human issue or conflict as bible indicate. It also easily without contradictions could easily work well all the scientific explanations too.
> 
> example: God set forth a conceptual idea or plan of the universe and all it's function. Then the rest works off on it's own as science have shown..



It's just unnecessary. "There is an eternal god that just exists and created the universe" is needlessly complicated compared to "The universe just exists", especially when you consider that you don't even have any holy books or divine intervention on which to base your faith. It's just pointlessly adding god into the equation for the sake of not suffering the negative social consequences of being an atheist.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 12, 2011)

TSC said:


> This is why I'm a Deist as oppose to atheist or Christian.
> 
> A deist believe there is one supreme God but is a neutral being and is not involved with any human issue or conflict as bible indicate. It also easily without contradictions could easily work well all the scientific explanations too.
> 
> example: God set forth a conceptual idea or plan of the universe and all it's function. Then the rest works off on it's own as science have shown..



I prefer agnosticism.  I find it the most logical and humble way to go.  To simply acknowledge that the existence or lack thereof of a supreme deity is unknowable and unprovable.  The simple answer "I don't know".


----------



## Stalin (May 12, 2011)

How about we stop debating about the existence of God? Its going nowhere.


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2011)

The Cheat said:


> How about we stop debating about the existence of God? Its going nowhere.



How about you just shut the fuck up and stop posting in this thread if you don't like it?


----------



## Stunna (May 12, 2011)

How about you calm down?


----------



## Basilikos (May 12, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> How about you just shut the fuck up and stop posting in this thread if you don't like it?


U mad?


----------



## TDM (May 12, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> The Cheat said:
> 
> 
> > How about we stop debating about the existence of God? Its going nowhere.
> ...


What, do you have an issue with The Cheat trying to steer the thread remotely back in the right direction?


----------



## Stunna (May 12, 2011)

Obviously.

Anyone who tries to take the spotlight off of Pilaf and his Anti-Holy Crusade is enemy numero uno.


----------



## Stalin (May 12, 2011)

Seriously, that shit had nothing to do with the topic. I also disliked it because it was going in circles.


----------



## Blastrix (May 12, 2011)

Its always amazing to hear about how religious america really is. 
Ive only known 2 perons IRL who believed in christianity in my entire life lol. (one of them is the local priest) There arent alot those where im from. I will estimate that _at least_ 90 % of the danish population, do not believe in god.
Nearly everyone is a member of the church, (myself included) but its for ceremonial purposes, like weddings and baptisms. 

I will make an assumption here and say that religion will probably fade out with time in america, and end up being used like we do, for ceremonial purposes.


----------



## Mintaka (May 12, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I prefer agnosticism.  I find it the most logical and humble way to go.  To simply acknowledge that the existence or lack thereof of a supreme deity is unknowable and unprovable.  The simple answer "I don't know".


I prefer it when people acknoledge that gnostiscm and theism are two very different things.


----------



## JellyButter (May 12, 2011)

Americans hate everything.


----------



## TSC (May 12, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> It's just unnecessary. "There is an eternal god that just exists and created the universe" is needlessly complicated compared to "The universe just exists", especially when you consider that you don't even have any holy books or divine intervention on which to base your faith. It's just pointlessly adding god into the equation for the sake of not suffering the negative social consequences of being an atheist.



not so much "suffering the negative social consequences of being an atheist." But just thinking there could be one. Most of founding fathers were deist too. I guess Tsukiyomi's example of agnostism is more fitting, though for now i'm just settling for one god or unknown deity.

what i was trying get at is that if you truly want to believe in some god without starting conflicts, the best way is probably deism as you have no need of a book or human set rules to tell you how to live your life or what to do or follow. It also erase all these unnecessary wars and conflict we have whether it's Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 12, 2011)

TSC said:


> not so much "suffering the negative social consequences of being an atheist." But just thinking there could be one. Most of founding fathers were deist too. I guess Tsukiyomi's example of agnostism is more fitting, though for now i'm just settling for one god or unknown deity.



The founding fathers are really a crappy example as they predate important scientific finds like evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, etc.

The smartest people 5000 years ago probably thought the gods make thunder and rain, that's no reason to believe it.



> what i was trying get at is that if you truly want to believe in some god without starting conflicts, the best way is probably deism as you have no need of a book or human set rules to tell you how to live your life or what to do or follow. It also erase all these unnecessary wars and conflict we have whether it's Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.



As long as you don't believe there's an omnipresent god who cares about what food you eat, whose ass you covet, and where you stick your cock, then it's all the same to me.


----------



## Basilikos (May 12, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Obviously.
> 
> Anyone who tries to take the spotlight off of Pilaf and his Anti-Holy Crusade is enemy numero uno.


Pilaf will liberate mankind from its theistic delusions.  Careful, Stunna, you might be burned at the stake if he catches you praying over your meal in a restaurant.



The Cheat said:


> Seriously, that shit had nothing to do with the topic. I also disliked it because it was going in circles.


Welcome to the NF cafe. Derailed threads, trolling, people flaunting their "intelligence", and everything anti-theism. Oh, and mods who don't give a shit either. 



JellyButter said:


> Americans hate everything.


No we don't.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (May 12, 2011)

This is actually the best-and most active discussion in the NF Cafe while the rest of the NF Cafe forum is dead in comparison. Not much trolling either. There is no reason to lock this whatsoever. Of course that a discussion might be offending to you or boring to you, or annoying to you, doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad discussion or that it contains trolling.


----------



## Basilikos (May 12, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> This is actually the best-and most active discussion in the NF Cafe...


That isn't saying much.


----------



## Superstars (May 12, 2011)

Trism said:


> Asserting that my claim is a contradiction does not make it one. What I said is true. You claimed that the observation of creation is evidence of the God's existence. I explained that this is false because there are numerous stories of gods creating the world, and nothing proves the one particular god you believe in is the real one (assuming there is a god at all).
> 
> Hopefully I've broken this down enough for you to understand.
> 
> ...


There you go again, You just *DENIED* the evidence PROVING DIVINE INSPIRED TRUTHS from God of the Bible and the falsehoods of other claimed Gods. Then you try to label my posts non arguments and circular reasoning when I'm the one with the facts and you just keep saying "you have no proof no one knows if it's da bible God, derp" despite me showing the evidence. And since you CAN'T refute any of my points you deceitfully try to bandwagon on what other's have tried to do by labeling me a troll and mind you these other posters have no arguments just like yourself. You've denied evidence of God in the creation and you denied the facts I've given in my last post and you just PROVED me right again about you people being illogical and truth surpressers.


----------



## Awesome (May 12, 2011)

Oh hey look, it's Superstars. Care to tell me why evolution doesn't make any sense in your mind again?


----------



## Magnum Miracles (May 12, 2011)

Another thread turned into a a war about God's existence.....good job guys.


----------



## Stunna (May 12, 2011)

It was bound to happen.


----------



## CottonCandi (May 12, 2011)

Blastrix said:


> Its always amazing to hear about how religious america really is.
> Ive only known 2 perons IRL who believed in christianity in my entire life lol. (one of them is the local priest) There arent alot those where im from. I will estimate that _at least_ 90 % of the danish population, do not believe in god.
> Nearly everyone is a member of the church, (myself included) but its for ceremonial purposes, like weddings and baptisms.
> 
> I will make an assumption here and say that religion will probably fade out with time in america, and end up being used like we do, for ceremonial purposes.



America is really not that bad with religion. there are some parts in america that are REALLY bad about christianity though. Like i've heard that some parts are so bad and crazy that they see cussing as a sin.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (May 12, 2011)

I think we should make this into a thread about kittens.


----------



## Stunna (May 12, 2011)

CottonCandi said:


> America is really not that bad with religion. there are some parts in america that are REALLY bad about christianity though. Like i've heard that some parts are so bad and crazy that they see cussing as a sin.



Um, I hate to be pedantic, but according to the Bible, it _is._


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 12, 2011)

I use the pages from the Bible as toilet paper. That's all it's good for.


----------



## TDM (May 12, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> This is actually the best-and most active discussion in the NF Cafe while the rest of the NF Cafe forum is dead in comparison. Not much trolling either. There is no reason to lock this whatsoever. Of course that a discussion might be offending to you or boring to you, or annoying to you, doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad discussion or that it contains trolling.


It's the most active discussion in the NF Cafe, but the discussion has little to do with the original thread topic, which I believe was addressed centuries ago. 

My two cents - the primary image of the atheist to the average American is some snooty elitist who hates your God and your way of life. Of course, I'm pretty sure it's been said somewhere around ten times now that it's a serious image problem.


----------



## Gnome (May 12, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> I use the pages from the Bible as toilet paper. Thta's all it's good for.




Bible pages are too thin, its like 1/2 ply, can't use that shit.


----------



## CottonCandi (May 12, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Um, I hate to be pedantic, but according to the Bible, it _is._



thats not true unless your talking about cursing others literally which is different from saying cussing words.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 12, 2011)

The great majority of things that make life fun and worth living are prohibited by the Bible.

If God has a problem with me doing them he can tell me himself.

Oh wai-


----------



## Stunna (May 12, 2011)




----------



## CottonCandi (May 12, 2011)

Well I still didn't see any place where it was stated outright that cussing is a sin...


----------



## Jagon Fox (May 12, 2011)

wow what a bunch of broad brushing tripe. of course there will always be religious bigots, but not everyone is.


----------



## Naruko (May 12, 2011)

OP and other readers noticed that was an Opinions page article, right? I.E. not-news, *opinion*. Everyone I know in the States is an atheist or at least agnostic. I know there are religious people out there but folks posting in their thread from outside the US have a terribly skewed idea of what the average American thinks about religion. Makes for interesting reading, if nothing else.


----------



## VioNi (May 12, 2011)

We have a hard time accepting people for who they are. That's all.

I don't care what your religious views are. Just don't force them on me.


----------



## Trism (May 12, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> How about you just shut the fuck up and stop posting in this thread if you don't like it?



This is actually the correct response. The Cheat did nothing to contribute to the discussion and just continued to whine about it. If he had a personal issue whit it he could've either left the thread and not returned, or asked for it to be closed, rather than make useless posts.


Superstars said:


> There you go again, You just *DENIED* the evidence PROVING DIVINE INSPIRED TRUTHS from God of the Bible and the falsehoods of other claimed Gods. Then you try to label my posts non arguments and circular reasoning when I'm the one with the facts and you just keep saying "you have no proof no one knows if it's da bible God, derp" despite me showing the evidence. And since you CAN'T refute any of my points you deceitfully try to bandwagon on what other's have tried to do by labeling me a troll and mind you these other posters have no arguments just like yourself. You've denied evidence of God in the creation and you denied the facts I've given in my last post and you just PROVED me right again about you people being illogical and truth surpressers.



I didn't deny anything because there was nothing to deny. Others had already explained how you had an incorrect concept of how gravity works, in which case I did not need to further that point. As for the Bible, it is filled with so many contradictions and immorality that nothing in it can be accepted as proof. You have not shown any evidence, please stop lying.

I called you a troll, not because everyone else is, but because you are one, for the reasons I stated at the end of my last post. And just as I said, you continued the trend when you responded. I did not, however, use the fact that you are a troll to try and discredit your arguments. I only pointed the fact out while going through your post and explaining what was wrong with your logic.

Furthermore, you have not give a real argument to refute. However, I still explained how you had failed to provide a formal debate and the logical fallacies you've used. And now you've taken it a step further and resorted to outright lying.

I know you won't listen, but I strongly urge you to learn how to debate before responding again. Because you're only destroying you own credibility more than it already is.


----------



## Toroxus (May 12, 2011)

Because Superstars refuses to open my spoiler tags:


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 12, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Because Superstars refuses to open my spoiler tags:



Which Athiest website you rip this off? It couldn't make it's contempt or bias any more evident.


----------



## Basilikos (May 12, 2011)

Lincoln Rhyme said:


> Another thread turned into a a war about God's existence.....good job guys.


The NF cafe never changes. 



stab-o-tron5000 said:


> I think we should make this into a thread about kittens.


Here, here!


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Which Athiest website you rip this off? It couldn't make it's contempt or bias any more evident.



Grammar lesson: It's always is a contraction for 'it is'. The proper possessive form is "its".

Bias lesson: All those things are actually in the Bible, so there's no bias. It's simply showing what's actually in the Bible and asking people like you to honestly say they believe that stuff, which you've conveniently and spectacularly failed to do.

Why is that? 

Will you not condemn these atrocities as anti humanist horse shit? 

If not, what kind of person are you?


----------



## thunderbear (May 12, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You people already know That God exists, you just don't want to take responsibility for your actions. The God almighty of the Bible is the most logical and easisiet way. All you gotta do is repent and you are forgiven.



Just leave them be, Superstars.  "The fool has already said in his heart that God does not exist."  It doesn't matter what proofs we give them, if they in their own hearts have said that "God does not exist."  They are dead set on that.


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2011)

thunderbear said:


> Just leave them be, Superstars.  *"The fool has already said in his heart that God does not exist."*  It doesn't matter what proofs we give them, if they in their own hearts have said that "God does not exist."  They are dead set on that.



 for your consideration who, according to the Bible, can do no good.

Strange that the Bible is so wrong about these good people.

You hear that sound? That was me pwning your ass hard. You may walk funny for a few days.


----------



## Stunna (May 12, 2011)

Well, this thread _is_ giving examples of why some people may not like atheists.


----------



## TSC (May 12, 2011)

Pilaf never fail to make me laugh with how he says stuff.


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Well, this thread _is_ giving examples of why some people may not like atheists.



If some of you are butthurt that you can't legitimately defeat our arguments, it may be time to face the man in the mirror and ask where this anger is really coming from.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 12, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Well, this thread _is_ giving examples of why some people may not like atheists.



Religious folk can be extremely arrogant themselves and with dire consequences coming from it, but that seems to be ignored often.


----------



## Stunna (May 12, 2011)

I'm sure you're right, I just rarely see it in comparison.


----------



## Gnome (May 12, 2011)

^ Confirmation Bias, You only see it if you look for it.


My sociologist teacher always said that people feel threatened by information. I think he's probably right. This thread sure seems to show it anyhow.


----------



## thunderbear (May 12, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> for your consideration who, according to the Bible, can do no good.
> 
> Strange that the Bible is so wrong about these good people.
> 
> You hear that sound? That was me pwning your ass hard. You may walk funny for a few days.



Obligatory "U mad?"

Actually, we are all fools.  Read the rest of Psalm 14: "The Lord looks down from Heaven on the children of man...they have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one."

The chapter does single out atheists in verse 1, but it later states that _no man is capable of doing good on his own._  We are all fools because we have turned against God, we do things that voice our desire to get away from God, do things that shed light on how we wish God did not exist.  In that way we are all fools, not just atheists.  Atheists in particular deny divine revelation, but all people deny natural revelation.  Read some Aquinas for more on that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 12, 2011)

Stunna said:


> I'm sure you're right, I just rarely see it in comparison.



You mustn't get out much then.


----------



## Toroxus (May 12, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Which Athiest website you rip this off? It couldn't make it's contempt or bias any more evident.



4chan of course  That must mean it's true.

Actually, it's a good list of passages that make no sense at all and no one follows them anyways. And believe it or not, I'm not an atheist.


----------



## Narcissus (May 13, 2011)

Stunna said:


> I'm sure you're right, I just rarely see it in comparison.



I recall recently explaining to you this very fact in the Unpopular Opinions thread, and I've seen some examples of what Seto is talking about in this very thread. It's the reason why I said it would be good to educate yourself on these matter if you planned to join in on discussion about them.


----------



## Stalin (May 13, 2011)

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

thunderbear said:


> Just leave them be, Superstars.  "The fool has already said in his heart that God does not exist."  It doesn't matter what proofs we give them, if they in their own hearts have said that "God does not exist."  They are dead set on that.



Quoting scripture does not make a valid argument either, _because it is not evidence_. And the fact of the matter is that you have not provided proof in any way, shape or form. So thanks for coming in and making a post that contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.


Stunna said:


> I'm sure you're right, I just rarely see it in comparison.



lolwut?

I gave two examples: The Westburo Baptist Church and the Army of God. I already posted a vid for one, so here is the other:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d1n0zDngPI[/YOUTUBE]​
And in terms of the forum itself, Superstars is an example of why a good number of people don't care for Christianity.


----------



## Superstars (May 13, 2011)

Trism said:


> I didn't deny anything because.....



*STOP...*

*Spoiler*: __ 





Trism said:


> nothing proves the one particular god you believe in is the real one (assuming there is a god at all).





Superstars said:


> God of the Bible is the only true God divinely inspired truths. Long before man ever knew about earth being held up by gravity the bible already had said the earth was suspeneded in space.





			
				Trism said:
			
		

> You claimed that the observation of creation is evidence of the God's existence. I explained that this is false because there are numerous stories of gods creating the world, and





			
				Superstars said:
			
		

> Other ancient religions like greeks believed Atlas held the earth up, Buddhist thought that the earth had a support of columns, Hindu's beleived it was supported by A turtle and elephant which held the the earth up, Allah/Muhammed has delivered false prophecies where as the God of the Bible has delivered them perfectly [Israel becoming a nation, destruction of Jureselums tower, destruction of the city of tyrus]. This same true living God of the Bible is the one who says observe his creation and you can see how he governs it all [celestial bodies ect]. It is not rational to deny these truths but you people still do it like no bodies business.



Here was your response...


Trism said:


> Funniest thing I've read all day.
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible has delivered immoral teachings and double standards, not some perfect prophecies..


Your responses are what I said they would be from jumpstreet, simply ILLOGICAL posts in the form of denial.




As for *Toroxus* poster: It is obvious false labeling by truth surpressers who try to diminish God by taking his word out of context blatantly and don't even understand anything about the word. Just trying to find reasons why they shouldn't serve him. They can no more diminish Gods glory than a child blotting out the sun by scribbling darkness on a chalkboard.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (May 13, 2011)

Superstars: If I'm not mistaken, those nasty things in the bible, such as the "So what does the Bible tell us?" part that Toroxus posted even cited the verses in the Bible where you can find them.


----------



## scerpers (May 13, 2011)

America hates Atheists because America is mostly religious.


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> *STOP...*



I have no intenton of stopping because I have no reason to do so. I will contine to counter your poor logic.


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You didn't say anything from "jumpsreet." I was the one who said you would return and continue the trend of circular reasoning, strawmen arguments and a failure to provide proof.

Let me make this as simple as I can: The Bible's words are not evidence of God's existence. Claiming it says that the world is in space does not prove God's existence. I don't think you understnd what proof is. 

Like I said, the Bible is so full of contradictions that it cannot be taken seriously without *a credible source of outside evidence*. Without out this, you have no argument.


> As for *Toroxus* poster: It is obvious false labeling by truth surpressers who try to diminish God by taking his word out of context blatantly and don't even understand anything about the word. Just trying to find reasons why they shouldn't serve him. They can no more diminish Gods glory than a child blotting out the sun by scribbling darkness on a chalkboard.



They are not false, they are nt taken out of context. It clearly explains some of the immorality that can be found in the Bible. All you've done is make assertions, while that chart gives explainations and points to where this information can be located in the Bible.

Like I said, learn to argue properly.


----------



## Superstars (May 13, 2011)

Trism said:


> I have no intenton of stopping because I have no reason to do so. I will contine to counter your poor logic. You didn't say anything from "jumpsreet." I was the one who said you would return and continue the trend of circular reasoning, strawmen arguments and a failure to provide proof.
> 
> *Let me make this as simple as I can: The Bible's words are not evidence of God's existence. Claiming it says that the world is in space does not prove God's existence. I don't think you understnd what proof is. *
> 
> *Like I said, the Bible is so full of contradictions that it cannot be taken seriously without a credible source of outside evidence*. Without out this, you have no argument.


YAWN, I told yall, MORE DENIAL...The bible stating earth being suspended in space thousands of years before *SCIENCE itself proved so *IS ACTUAL DIVINE PROOF THAT THIS GOD EXISTS! IT IS* A UNIVERSAL FACT* THIS IS PROOF/TRUTH [Fact Outside the bible stating so within the bible first]!!!! NO OTHER FALSE GODS KNEW THIS AND CLAIMED OTHERWISE FALSELY. Continue to swim in your pool of denial with your illogical chlorine.



			
				Colonel Awesome said:
			
		

> Superstars: If I'm not mistaken, those nasty things in the bible, such as the "So what does the Bible tell us?" part that Toroxus posted even cited the verses in the Bible where you can find them.


Sigh, This is why the deniers/fools should actually learn to read the Bible with understanding instead of just LOOKING for faults which aren't there. The civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were specifically thrown out in the New Testament. Examples: Acts 10:12-15; Colossians 2:11-16; Romans 14:17. *Moral laws *were not tossed [As stated by The Lord Jesus Christ], but the *harsh earthly penalties for them are not in force *since Jesus’ gospel of grace. Jesus’ example, such as toward the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11, was not to condemn the transgressor to harsh punishment as the culture would have demanded (in this case being stoned to death), but to show mercy and insist that she leave her life of sin. Your foolhardy poster is straight up ignorance.


----------



## Jarl lKarl (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> YAWN, I told yall, MORE DENIAL...The bible stating earth being suspended in space thousands of years before *SCIENCE itself proved so *IS ACTUAL DIVINE PROOF THAT THIS GOD EXISTS! IT IS* A UNIVERSAL FACT* THIS IS PROOF/TRUTH [fact Outside the bible stating so within the bible]!!!! NO OTHER FALSE GODS KNEW THIS AND CLAIMED OTHERWISE FALSELY. Continue to swim in your bowl of denial with your illogical chlorine.



It doesn't really prove anything other than that the author had a correct intuition about natural phenomena (which isn't actually that far fetched; the Presocratics managed to land on atomic theory) or took a wild ass guess and wound up being close to right. Either way, it's a moot point; most passages cited as evidence for scientific foreknowledge are so vague that they could be used to support a number of conclusions.


----------



## abcd (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> YAWN, I told yall, MORE DENIAL...The bible stating earth being suspended in space thousands of years before *SCIENCE itself proved so *IS ACTUAL DIVINE PROOF THAT THIS GOD EXISTS! IT IS* A UNIVERSAL FACT* THIS IS PROOF/TRUTH [Fact Outside the bible stating so within the bible first]!!!! NO OTHER FALSE GODS KNEW THIS AND CLAIMED OTHERWISE FALSELY. Continue to swim in your pool of denial with your illogical chlorine.



Well you cannot ask science for support when u need it and reject it when u do not want.


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> YAWN, I told yall, MORE DENIAL...The bible stating earth being suspended in space thousands of years before *SCIENCE itself proved so *IS ACTUAL DIVINE PROOF THAT THIS GOD EXISTS! IT IS* A UNIVERSAL FACT* THIS IS PROOF/TRUTH [Fact Outside the bible stating so within the bible first]!!!! NO OTHER FALSE GODS KNEW THIS AND CLAIMED OTHERWISE FALSELY. Continue to swim in your pool of denial with your illogical chlorine.



Like others said, all it proves is that the writer was more accurate. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but God did not write the Bible. So like I said, the Bible is not evidence, hence why I said you need a credible outside source.

Until you can provide this, you have no argument.


----------



## WhiteRider40 (May 13, 2011)

In Numbers 25, some Israelites start mingling with Shittim women.  So, God orders that they all be put to death.  In a few verses, an Israelite fellow has hooked up with a Midianitish woman.  A priest promptly kills both of them, and is blessed with eternal priesthood by God for the gruesome act. 

Irony:  Moses' first wife was from Midian.

Numbers 25: 

Superstars, Stunna, thunderbear, and whomever else is concerned:  Why do you follow a God that condones and promotes murder?  Why do you follow a God so petty as to condemn people to death for worshiping other gods and forming interracial couples?  

In Numbers 31, God commands the death of the Midian people.  Or more specifically, of all of their males.  And so, all of the males are slaughtered.  Of the children, all of the males are likewise killed.  Of the females, all that are non-virgin are murdered.  The cattle and goods of these people are, naturally, plundered.

Indeed, verse 18 reads: "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

So the rest of the women were kept so that the loyal servants of God could use them for sex.

This is done to lift a "plague" God has put on the Israelites. 

Numbers 31: 

Again, how do you defend the murder and rape of an entire people just because they worship a different god (in this case Baalam)?  How do you justify the use of women like cattle?

Why do you follow this God of death, rape, and plunder?


----------



## Juno (May 13, 2011)

None of this has anything to do with the topic. If you want to debate the existence of god, take it to the debate corner.


----------



## Basilikos (May 13, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Well, this thread _is_ giving examples of why some people may not like atheists.


Indeed.

I find that every group (not just groups pertaining to stances on religious matters but also fandoms, views on meat eating, anything really) has reasonable folks as well as extremists, hypocrites, and closeminded people.

This is why I find it more fair and wise to take people as individuals.


----------



## WakaWakaAnime (May 13, 2011)

Personally, I believe religion should be *BAN!!* It causes argumenta and wars.
Has anyone here seen that Phelps family? How SICK were they. After watching them I just wanted to go burn down a church!


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 13, 2011)

WakaWakaAnime said:


> Personally, I believe religion should be *BAN!!* It causes argumenta and wars.
> Has anyone here seen that Phelps family? How SICK were they. After watching them I just wanted to go burn down a church!



Banning it doesn't help, education is what's needed.


----------



## WakaWakaAnime (May 13, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Banning it doesn't help, education is what's needed.



Why not? If we demolish all churches  and forbid the practice of any religion, things would get better. Introduce strict laws in which people are not allowed to talk about it, own a bible or any "Holy" material. And a hefty find to those that brake these laws. 

That would do the trick


----------



## Gnome (May 13, 2011)

Suppressing freedom, lol no.


----------



## Yachiru (May 13, 2011)

WakaWakaAnime said:


> Why not? If we demolish all churches  and forbid the practice of any religion, things would get better. Introduce strict laws in which people are not allowed to talk about it, own a bible or any "Holy" material. And a hefty find to those that brake these laws.
> 
> That would do the trick



Because this totally ends up well, right? Yeah, let's deprive everyone of their freedom to practice religion and have beliefs.. 

Great suggestion, what's this? Communism?

Laws like these can only be enforced through constant supervision of citizens via the authority. And that's unconstitutional.


----------



## perman07 (May 13, 2011)

WakaWakaAnime said:


> Why not? If we demolish all churches  and forbid the practice of any religion, things would get better. Introduce strict laws in which people are not allowed to talk about it, own a bible or any "Holy" material. And a hefty find to those that brake these laws.
> 
> That would do the trick


People should be allowed to be morons. Not saying religious people are morons (a lot of them probably are, but that applies to non-religious people too), but banning opinions and ideologies are the signs of a sucky society.


----------



## Yachiru (May 13, 2011)

Point is this: If we ban religion, we might as well ban free speech.

I certainly don't want another atheistic dictatorship. The soviets were enough.


----------



## WakaWakaAnime (May 13, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Because this totally ends up well, right? Yeah, let's deprive everyone of their freedom to practice religion and have beliefs..
> 
> Great suggestion, what's this? Communism?
> 
> Laws like these can only be enforced through constant supervision of citizens via the authority. And that's unconstitutional.



Beliefs? More like delusions! So what if thy can't practice it. I don't see why they need to! Christians always bring their beliefs to support their irrational hatred.  They think homosexuals should die? Immoral much?

It's completely unnecessary and until Jeezus is proven to actually _exist_ we don't need it.


----------



## Toroxus (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> As for *Toroxus* poster: It is *obvious *false labeling by truth surpressers who try to diminish God by taking his word out of context blatantly and don't even understand anything about the word. Just trying to find reasons why they shouldn't serve him. They can no more diminish Gods glory than a child blotting out the sun by scribbling darkness on a chalkboard.



Taking his word out of context blatantly? It's FUCKING QUOTED FROM THE BIBLE. It's not even out of context, it's literally WORD FOR WORD. I can think of a billion reasons why not to serve an imaginary being that if he did exist, does absolutely nothing.

How about all that time you spend in church, you work for the red cross.
How about all that time you spend jamming bullshit down your children's ears, you spend teaching them how to aid people suffering from heart attacks, strokes, etc. 
How about all the BILLIONS of dollars that goes into the Christian church system goes to feeding starving children. (Oh wait, those starving and dying children are all part of God's divine plan. What a sick joke)
How about all that praying and worshiping you do goes to something that actually does something, like actually WORKING towards your desires.

*Superstars, you are a sickly deluded person whose actions and ideology is a danger to everyone.*


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 13, 2011)

WakaWakaAnime said:


> Beliefs? More like delusions! So what if thy can't practice it. I don't see why they need to! Christians always bring their beliefs to support their irrational hatred.  They think homosexuals should die? Immoral much?
> 
> It's completely unnecessary and until Jeezus is proven to actually _exist_ we don't need it.



People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong those are. You don't get rid of religion by banning it just like banning bad grades in school won't make the children smarter.


----------



## Pilaf (May 13, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Point is this: If we ban religion, we might as well ban free speech.
> 
> I certainly don't want another atheistic dictatorship. The soviets were enough.



I've only seen one person in this thread suggest banning religion, and that's your pathetic straw man of atheists. 

The rest of us are actually having a debate over the merits of religion vs. free thinking, the way a normal person in a free society would.

If all you can bring is scare tactics about atheist communist societies kindly fuck yourself and exit out the side door.


----------



## WakaWakaAnime (May 13, 2011)

> People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong those are. You don't get rid of religion by banning it just like banning bad grades in school won't make the children smarter.



I see your point. Perhaps scare tactics are not the way to go, but i'd like to see Goverments move away from the bullshit. Like Toroxus said: 





> How about all that time you spend in church, you work for the red cross.
> How about all that time you spend jamming bullshit down your children's ears, you spend teaching them how to aid people suffering from heart attacks, strokes, etc.
> How about all the BILLIONS of dollars that goes into the Christian church system goes to feeding starving children.





> I've only seen one person in this thread suggest banning religion, and that's your pathetic straw man of atheists.
> 
> The rest of us are actually having a debate over the merits of religion vs. free thinking, the way a normal person in a free society would.
> 
> If all you can bring is scare tactics about atheist communist societies kindly fuck yourself and exit out the side door.



Okay, okay.. sheesh. It was merely a suggestion.


----------



## Pilaf (May 13, 2011)

WakaWakaAnime said:


> Okay, okay.. sheesh. It was merely a suggestion.



It was a stupid fucking suggestion that lowers the level of our discourse.

Apologize to me and everyone else whose time you wasted, and hang your head in shame.


----------



## Toroxus (May 13, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> It was a stupid fucking suggestion that lowers the level of our discourse.
> 
> Apologize to me and everyone else whose time you wasted, and hang your head in shame.



You're telling him to hang his head in shame when Superstars is in this thread? Really man, get your priorities straight. There's a greater evil at work here.


----------



## WakaWakaAnime (May 13, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> It was a stupid fucking suggestion that lowers the level of our discourse.
> 
> Apologize to me and everyone else whose time you wasted, and hang your head in shame.



I'm saaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwyyy...


----------



## TSC (May 13, 2011)

WakaWakaAnime said:


> I'm saaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwyyy...



Ignore Pilaf. He act like a dick for majority of the time even though some of the stuff he says is hilarious.


----------



## Sanity Check (May 13, 2011)

WakaWakaAnime said:


> I'm saaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwyyy...



Awz..  don't feel bad.

He was just joking.


----------



## Yachiru (May 13, 2011)

WakaWakaAnime said:


> Beliefs? More like delusions! So what if thy can't practice it. I don't see why they need to! Christians always bring their beliefs to support their irrational hatred.  They think homosexuals should die? Immoral much?
> 
> It's completely unnecessary and until Jeezus is proven to actually _exist_ we don't need it.



Again, as Sauf said, people are allowed to have opinions, because opinions equal free speech. Banning religion will also result in a ban of free speech, since religion is a personal opinion.

Personally I am a christian, and if you're an atheist, that's fine. But please.. don't force atheism on others. It's as bad as forcing religious beliefs on other people.




Pilaf said:


> I've only seen one person in this thread suggest banning religion, and that's your pathetic straw man of atheists.
> 
> The rest of us are actually having a debate over the merits of religion vs. free thinking, the way a normal person in a free society would.
> 
> *If all you can bring is scare tactics about atheist communist societies kindly fuck yourself and exit out the side door.*



Debating also means debunking fallacies, you should know that. And if someone advocates banning religion, everyone is free to refute it by presenting facts that speak for themselves.

Soviet Russia was an atheistic communist dictatorship under Stalin, whom I quote: "Religion is opium for the people." Stalin forced his beliefs on others, including atheism.
This system is mainly practiced in China nowadays, where practicing religion leads to arrest and more severe repercussions even for your family.

Calling for a ban of religion is pure ideology and can not have any positive outcome for religious and unreligious people alike.


----------



## Toroxus (May 13, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Soviet Russia was an atheistic communist dictatorship under Stalin, whom I quote: "Religion is opium for the people." Stalin forced his beliefs on others, including atheism.



You know, honestly, I think I'd take Stalin's forced atheism over Superstars' forced theism any day. At least Stalin would give me an aspirin when I'm having a heart attack whilst Superstars would read the Bible.


----------



## Yachiru (May 13, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> You know, honestly, I think I'd take Stalin's forced atheism over Superstars' forced theism any day. At least Stalin would give me an aspirin when I'm having a heart attack whilst Superstars would read the Bible.



As I said, forced theism and forced atheism are equally bad.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> YAWN, I told yall, MORE DENIAL...The bible stating earth being suspended in space thousands of years before *SCIENCE itself proved so *IS ACTUAL DIVINE PROOF THAT THIS GOD EXISTS! IT IS* A UNIVERSAL FACT* THIS IS PROOF/TRUTH [Fact Outside the bible stating so within the bible first]!!!! NO OTHER FALSE GODS KNEW THIS AND CLAIMED OTHERWISE FALSELY. Continue to swim in your pool of denial with your illogical chlorine.



The earth isn't suspended in space, the earth is in orbit around our sun by the suns gravity, in orbit around the center of our galaxy in an arm of the milky way, the milky way itself which is itself moving. 

The earth is in no way fixed in one position in space, our connection to our sun is by gravity not by nothing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 13, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Soviet Russia was an atheistic communist dictatorship under Stalin, whom I quote: "Religion is opium for the people." Stalin forced his beliefs on others, including atheism.



Karl Marx said that, not Stalin (or if he said it, he was just quoting Marx).



> This system is mainly practiced in China nowadays, where practicing religion leads to arrest and more severe repercussions even for your family.



That's nonsense, China is a very religious nation. If by practicing you mean "standing on the street and trying to hand out bibles", then you're of course right but so long as you keep your shit to yourself and don't feel the need to congregate with other believers, you're usually fine.

I'm not saying that China has freedom of religion, but it's not like they're banning all forms of it. Basically they're granting you as many freedoms as they can without endangering the regime. Religious congregations are of course a threat, but not religion per se.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 13, 2011)

Yachiru said:


> Soviet Russia was an atheistic communist dictatorship under Stalin, whom I quote: "Religion is opium for the people." Stalin forced his beliefs on others, including atheism.
> This system is mainly practiced in China nowadays, where practicing religion leads to arrest and more severe repercussions even for your family.


The ban on religion in Soviet Russia and China were about stopping anyone (a church) having any authority. These states to not allow challenges to it's authority that the churches represent.


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Juno said:


> None of this has anything to do with the topic. If you want to debate the existence of god, take it to the debate corner.



Actually it does. Everything being discussed is a branch of why some people don't like atheists, and in converse, why some people don't like religion. The debate over God's existence is a part of that.

And besides, you don't have the authority to tell us where to argue. If you don't like it, don't post in the thread, or inform a mod. If a mod makes a decision, then we will follow it.


WakaWakaAnime said:


> Why not? If we demolish all churches  and forbid the practice of any religion, things would get better. Introduce strict laws in which people are not allowed to talk about it, own a bible or any "Holy" material. And a hefty find to those that brake these laws.
> 
> That would do the trick



If you look over this thread, you will see that I did mention the Westburo Baptist Church, as you asked in another post. If we enacted what your suggesting, we would be just as bigoted as those people are. We don't need to go around burning down churches to prove our point. Like Saufsoldat said, education is the best cure for ignorance.


Toroxus said:


> You know, honestly, I think I'd take Stalin's forced atheism over Superstars' forced theism any day. At least Stalin would give me an aspirin *when I'm having a heart attack whilst Superstars would read the Bible*.



That really did make me chuckle.


----------



## Basilikos (May 13, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> You know, honestly, I think I'd take Stalin's forced atheism over Superstars' forced theism any day. At least Stalin would give me an aspirin when I'm having a heart attack whilst Superstars would read the Bible.


I don't see Superstars systematically killing people on massive scales and throwing them into gulags for disagreeing with him. Comparing what he's done to what Stalin has done is just asinine.


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> I don't see Superstars systematically killing people on massive scales and throwing them into gulags for disagreeing with him. Comparing what he's done to what Stalin has done is just asinine.



Maybe, but there are still examples of people committing acts of violence and killing in the name of their religion. So like I said before, there are guilty people on both sides.


----------



## Superstars (May 13, 2011)

Jarl lKarl said:


> It doesn't really prove anything other than that the author had a correct intuition about natural phenomena (which isn't actually that far fetched; the Presocratics managed to land on atomic theory) or took a wild ass guess and wound up being close to right. Either way, it's a moot point; most passages cited as evidence for scientific foreknowledge are so vague that they could be used to support a number of conclusions.





Trism said:


> Like others said, all it proves is that the writer was more accurate. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but God did not write the Bible. So like I said, the Bible is not evidence, hence why I said you need a credible outside source.
> 
> Until you can provide this, you have no argument.



Weak, your whole entire arguments are weak. You people trying to pass a blatant direct accurate scientific statement thousands of years before it's time as a mere guess/coincidence shows you are not rational and how desperate you are. GUESS WORK is stating that pillars are holding the earth up or by an elephant. Keep proving my point of how you people are in denial and will in anyway possible DENY truth. 




sadated_peon said:


> The earth isn't suspended in space, the earth is in orbit around our sun by the suns gravity, in orbit around the center of our galaxy in an arm of the milky way, the milky way itself which is itself moving.
> 
> The earth is in no way fixed in one position in space, our connection to our sun is by gravity not by nothing.



Gravity can not be seen which is a scientifically accurate description of what it is like to view the earth from outer space, from any direction. It also does not run counter to the gravitational (and momentum) force which "suspends" the earth in space "over nothing." Common sense. 



Toroxus said:


> Taking his word out of context blatantly? It's FUCKING QUOTED FROM THE BIBLE. It's not even out of context, it's literally WORD FOR WORD....



Would you calm down, I already know you are scared but I already showed how that ignorant poster took the word of God out of context and you people tried to parade it around as if it were the truths about the Bible. This Proves my point how you people try to look for errors [when there are none] and don't even have the intelligence to understand what you are reading just to try and ease your evil conscience. I explained here..



			
				Superstars said:
			
		

> Sigh, This is why the deniers/fools should actually learn to read the Bible with understanding instead of just LOOKING for faults which aren't there. The civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were specifically thrown out in the New Testament. Examples: Acts 10:12-15; Colossians 2:11-16; Romans 14:17. *Moral laws *were not tossed [As stated by The Lord Jesus Christ], but the *harsh earthly penalties for them are not in force *since Jesus’ gospel of grace. Jesus’ example, such as toward the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11, was not to condemn the transgressor to harsh punishment as the culture would have demanded (in this case being stoned to death), but to show mercy and insist that she leave her life of sin. Your foolhardy poster is straight up ignorance.


Also keep proving how evil and ignorant you are with posts like following a devil worshipper like Stalin..


----------



## gtw1983 (May 13, 2011)

Because some people just believe there is more to life than science and human logic can explain.There's nothing wrong with that,as long as no harassment or violence comes from the conflicting beliefs.

I am Christian,therefore yes I do believe in God and Jesus.And yes I think Atheists are mistaken,just like they think the same of me.It's sad that it comes to violence and other  bad things so many times just because people have two different belief systems.Life is too short for such things.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 13, 2011)

superstars said:
			
		

> Gravity can not be seen which is a scientifically accurate description of what it is like to view the earth from outer space, from any direction. It also does not run counter to the gravitational (and momentum) force which "suspends" the earth in space "over nothing." Common sense.


No, it is in NO WAY scientifically accurate. 
The earth is not suspended over nothing, the earth is kept in an elliptical orbit around our sun by gravity. In a galaxy itself which is moving through the galaxy.

From MOST frames of reference the Earth is hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour.


----------



## Superstars (May 13, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> No, it is in NO WAY scientifically accurate.
> The earth is not suspended over nothing, the earth is kept in an elliptical orbit around our sun by gravity. In a galaxy itself which is moving through the galaxy.
> 
> From MOST frames of reference the Earth is hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour.



Faceplam
The earth is VISIBLY held up by nothing which is alluding to gravity that can not be seen from all sides viewed which is scientifically accurate. You got no common sense or case, leave.


----------



## Vynjira (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Faceplam
> The earth is VISIBLY held up by nothing which is alluding to gravity that can not be seen from all sides viewed which is scientifically accurate. You got no common sense or case, leave.


Superstars we've been thru this, round does not mean an oblate sphere, likewise suspended does not mean spinning in orbit.

It doesn't allude to anything if you can only interpret it to mean so, after science has already explained it in greater detail.


----------



## Superstars (May 13, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Superstars we've been thru this, round does not mean sphere, likewise suspended does not mean spinning in orbit.
> 
> It doesn't allude to anything if you can only interpret it to mean so, after science has already explained it in greater detail.


Science has shown exactly what the bible says. It gives an amazingly accurate picture of what we have confirmed to be scientific reality today, as seen from space.This is an accurate description of what it is like to view the earth from outer space, from any direction. You people have done nothing but DENY the facts.


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Weak, your whole entire arguments are weak. You people trying to pass a blatant direct accurate scientific statement thousands of years before it's time as a mere guess/coincidence shows you are not rational and how desperate you are. GUESS WORK is stating that pillars are holding the earth up or by an elephant. Keep proving my point of how you people are in denial and will in anyway possible DENY truth.



Except it isn't weak, because it is supported by the fact that "nothing" is not tantamount to gravity, and the Earth is not "suspended." Others have already explained this. The fact that the author was even a little closer than other religions doesn't mean a thing when the facts are still wrong.

I cannot prove your point when you have no point to prove.

Vague references are not evidence of God's existence or that Christianity is the correct religion (assuming any of them are correct). 


> Also keep proving how evil and ignorant you are with posts like following a devil worshipper like Stalin..



The irony is that you follow a God who is morally corrupt and wicked.


----------



## Superstars (May 13, 2011)

Trism said:


> Except it isn't weak, because it is supported by the fact that "nothing" is not tantamount to gravity, and the Earth is not "suspended." Others have already explained this. The fact that the author was even a little closer than other religions doesn't mean a thing when the facts are still wrong.
> 
> I cannot prove your point when you have no point to prove.
> 
> ...



I already proven that God isn't morally corrupt. You are just scared because your conscience is bothering you. And it is a scientifically accurate fact that the earth VISUALLY viewed in space FROM ALL SIDES is hung upon nothing in space. That isn't vague that is not a guess it is a scientific fact that you continue to deny. Your arguments have been weak and dishonest.


----------



## Vynjira (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Science has shown *exactly what the bible says.* It gives an *amazingly accurate* picture of what we have confirmed to be *scientific reality* today, as seen from space.This is an *accurate description* of what it is like to view the earth from outer space, from any direction. The earth is in space over nothing, period.


That's funny because you claim it is exactly how the Bible describes it, which means that from the passage alone we should know that the Earth not just spinning around the Sun at high velocities but it is also itself spinning.

Show me the passage that explains this accurately and I'll shut up. By accurately we mean not alluded to.





> You people have done nothing but DENY the facts.


That would first require facts, which you lack.





Superstars said:


> I already proven that God isn't morally corrupt.


I remember proving he was and you never refuted it, you left.


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I already proven that God isn't morally corrupt. You are just scared because your conscience is bothering you.



Making unsupported claims and lying about "my conscience" isn't helping your case. God's morality has been questioned so many times with valid evidence and sound reasoning it's not even funny. His actions in the Old Testament speaks for themselves, and then there are concepts such as the Euthyphro Dilemma.


> And it is a scientifically accurate fact that the earth VISUALLY viewed in space FROM ALL SIDES is hung upon nothing in space. That isn't vague that is not a guess it is a scientific fact that you continue to deny. Your arguments have been weak and dishonest.



Argumentum ad nauseum. This argument has been effectively refuted. 

With all the fallacies you're piling up, the only weak and dishonest argument is your own.


----------



## Basilikos (May 13, 2011)

You know, I don't get it. 

If atheists on this site are so annoyed by Superstars' posts and are so convinced they won't change his mind then why do they bother arguing with him? Why not just use the ignore function on this forum and be done with the pointless "debates" that go absolutely nowhere productive or enlightening? Why waste so much time arguing with someone who clearly isn't going to you listen or grant you anything?

This is something for anyone, theist and non-theist alike to reflect on.

Life is too short to be spending so much time engaging in endeavors that will clearly be fruitless.


----------



## Vynjira (May 13, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> You know, I don't get it.
> 
> If atheists on this site are so annoyed by Superstars' posts and are so convinced they won't change his mind then why do they bother arguing with him? Why not just use the ignore function on this forum and be done with the pointless "debates" that go absolutely nowhere productive or enlightening? Why waste so much time arguing with someone who clearly isn't going to you listen or grant you anything?
> 
> Life is too short to be spending so much time engaging in endeavors that will clearly be fruitless.


Interesting advice from one who preaches to people who don't wanna hear it


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> You know, I don't get it.
> 
> If atheists on this site are so annoyed by Superstars' posts and are so convinced they won't change his mind then why do they bother arguing with him? Why not just use the ignore function on this forum and be done with the pointless "debates" that go absolutely nowhere productive or enlightening? Why waste so much time arguing with someone who clearly isn't going to you listen or grant you anything?
> 
> Life is too short to be spending so much time engaging in endeavors that will clearly be fruitless.



I already answered this earlier in the thread. It's because he is spewing ignorant garbage and quite frankly, I could care less about changing his views. If he wants to remain ignorant, let him. But I can't just sit by as he spreads his uneducated opinion without showing why it's wrong.

Funny that you didn't bother to ask him why he is wasting his own time arguing.

Edit: Vynjira, that is an even better response.


----------



## Vynjira (May 13, 2011)

Trism said:


> Edit: Vynjira, that is an even better response.


Supposedly he has us both on ignore, since he couldn't refute our arguments change our minds


----------



## IBU (May 13, 2011)

I am going to close this thread if it does not get back on topic. The issue is not the validity of religion in general or Christianity in particular in contrast to atheism. But rather why Atheists are still disliked in America.


----------



## Basilikos (May 13, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Interesting advice from one who preaches to people who don't wanna hear it


Learning from past mistakes must be foreign notion to you.



Trism said:


> I already answered this earlier in the thread. It's because he is spewing ignorant garbage and quite frankly, I could care less about changing his views. If he wants to remain ignorant, let him. But I can't just sit by as he spreads his uneducated opinion without showing why it's wrong.


I suppose if your free time allows you that "luxury" then go right ahead. If you insist on repeatedly slamming your head against what you maintain is a brick wall then that is your prerogative. Though from personal experience, I have come to find that it is a massive waste of time.



> Funny that you didn't bother to ask him why he is wasting his own time arguing.


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Supposedly he has us both on ignore, since he couldn't refute our arguments change our minds





That's hilarious. I'll always remember beating him down in the Homosexuality thread, and the way you tore through his arguments in the Evolution thread.


----------



## Trism (May 13, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> I suppose if your free time allows you that "luxury" then go right ahead. If you insist on repeatedly slamming your head against what you maintain is a brick wall then that is your prerogative. Though from personal experience, I have come to find that it is a massive waste of time.



And yet you've still been a presence in this thread, even if you haven't argued as heavily as you used to. You've been making snide comments. Stop with the double standards.

Oh I love how you worded that. "People who have no intention of knowing the truth." What BS. And then that you would talk to him personally and try to call us out pubically. 

You haven't changed one bit, and you haven't learned anything at all.

Anyway, staff is now asking for us to stop, so time to stop.


----------



## IBU (May 13, 2011)

If you guys want to discuss these issues take it to the Official Atheism thread in the Debate Corner, or the Official Question of Faith thread in the Philosophical Forum.


----------



## Vynjira (May 13, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> Learning from past mistakes must be foreign notion to you.


Can I have tickets? To that fantasy world you live in?


----------



## IBU (May 13, 2011)

Thread is getting way too off topic and personal.


----------

