Atheism is a Fringe Kook Theory Cult

[PratchettFan]

I think some of you are misstating the atheists argument for proof.

The argument is:
If there is no evidence/proof for the existance of something, then there is no reason to believe it does exists.

Another way of saying this is:

If there is reason to believe something exist, then there is evidence for it.
(Is the above true? )

If there is no evidence for something, then there is no reason to believe it exist.(the Atheist argument concerning god)


Note that we can't cut the word believe out. Why? Because we could have evidence of something that no longer exist. Also we could lack evidence for something that currently/previously did exist.




The mis-statement that some of you are making is
"If there is no evidence, then it does not exist"
Which is not the atheist argument. The argument is based on the belief on whether something exist or not. Not if it actually exists or not.

(I guess this is where some believers try to claim that atheism is a religion.)

There could be a god. But I don't believe in the God of Abraham because the only evidence I have for it is circumstantial and hearsay--some of it including obvious elaborations that makes me doubt the sources of these claims even more.

By the way, once you can't believe in the God of Judaism, Western religion is no longer viable for you.

I fully understand the argument. However, just because that is the claim does not make it so. I go based upon the statements made, not what I am told is the argument.

When the claim is made that anyone who does believe in a God is stupid, and that claim has been made many times, that is more than just not believing. When the claim is made that theism is a mental illness, also made many times, that is more than just not believing.

This, in a thread claiming that "atheism is a fringe kook theory cult"? Whatever. Religious people proselytize a "hell" of a lot more than atheists, and invest a lot more time and energy claiming that those who disagree with them are evil.

There are definitely atheist assholes. If you want to hold them up as representative of everyone who doesn't believe in your god, go for it. But don't be surprised when the 'favor' is returned.

I don't care if you believe in my god. I don't even want you to. This has absolutely nothing to do with my god. This is about how people believe, not what they believe. Believe whatever you like, but at least acknowledge that is what you are doing. Don't pretend you are on some higher intellectual ground because you believe B rather than A. Because that makes you exactly like the people saying you're going to hell.

If the actual definition of an Atheist is someone who lacks beliefs in God, then I am probably the closest thing to an Atheist here... and I am a Theist.

I doubt that. You seem to be making all of unwarranted - and in at least one case, wholly inaccurate - assumptions about what people here believe.

Which part was wholly inaccurate?

 

[dblack]

I think some of you are misstating the atheists argument for proof.

The argument is:
If there is no evidence/proof for the existance of something, then there is no reason to believe it does exists.

Another way of saying this is:

If there is reason to believe something exist, then there is evidence for it.
(Is the above true? )

If there is no evidence for something, then there is no reason to believe it exist.(the Atheist argument concerning god)


Note that we can't cut the word believe out. Why? Because we could have evidence of something that no longer exist. Also we could lack evidence for something that currently/previously did exist.




The mis-statement that some of you are making is
"If there is no evidence, then it does not exist"
Which is not the atheist argument. The argument is based on the belief on whether something exist or not. Not if it actually exists or not.

(I guess this is where some believers try to claim that atheism is a religion.)

There could be a god. But I don't believe in the God of Abraham because the only evidence I have for it is circumstantial and hearsay--some of it including obvious elaborations that makes me doubt the sources of these claims even more.

By the way, once you can't believe in the God of Judaism, Western religion is no longer viable for you.

I fully understand the argument. However, just because that is the claim does not make it so. I go based upon the statements made, not what I am told is the argument.

When the claim is made that anyone who does believe in a God is stupid, and that claim has been made many times, that is more than just not believing. When the claim is made that theism is a mental illness, also made many times, that is more than just not believing.

This, in a thread claiming that "atheism is a fringe kook theory cult"? Whatever. Religious people proselytize a "hell" of a lot more than atheists, and invest a lot more time and energy claiming that those who disagree with them are evil.

There are definitely atheist assholes. If you want to hold them up as representative of everyone who doesn't believe in your god, go for it. But don't be surprised when the 'favor' is returned.

I don't care if you believe in my god. I don't even want you to. This has absolutely nothing to do with my god. This is about how people believe, not what they believe. Believe whatever you like, but at least acknowledge that is what you are doing. Don't pretend you are on some higher intellectual ground because you believe B rather than A. Because that makes you exactly like the people saying you're going to hell.

If the actual definition of an Atheist is someone who lacks beliefs in God, then I am probably the closest thing to an Atheist here... and I am a Theist.

I doubt that. You seem to be making all of unwarranted - and in at least one case, wholly inaccurate - assumptions about what people here believe.

Which part was wholly inaccurate?

I'm not pretending I'm on some higher intellectual ground because I believe B rather than A.

 

[dblack]

I also wouldn't call myself an atheist, since I think gods are very real things - as real as you and me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Another claim of pure belief. A statement of faith, if you will. There is absolutely no evidence faith was "invented". It is far more probable faith is inherent in humans. You certainly don't lack it.

What earns the Atheist scorn is that their expression of belief, and it is belief regardless of the definitions, is not in keeping with the majority. All minorities are scorned. This too is human nature. We always attack the outsider.

I should have said the term faith, and the usage of the term was invented.

The faith based belief that there is some path to eternal life is probably an outgrowth of the survival instinct coupled with the awareness of mortality.[/QUOTE]

I would agree it is an outgrowth of awareness. We don't simply react, we look into the future and imagine what is going to happen. Belief is a manifestation of imagination. This makes it entirely normal human behavior. We all have it. The trick is to recognize the difference between belief and knowledge.

I don't think belief is a conscious thing. Certainly we can consider what we believe, rationalize it and examine it. But I doubt any of us has any actual control over it. Most of the people in this country are Christian and I truly can't understand why. I went to Sunday school and sang "Jesus Loves Me", but the minute Christianity was explained to me at a point I was able to understand the explanation I was amazed that anyone could believe it. That was not a conscious choice. The first time I read a book on Buddhism I realized that is what I believed. I was not converted, I just finally had a name to put on what I already believed to be true.[/QUOTE]

For God's sake, pardon the expression, please learn to use the quote function properly.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think some of you are misstating the atheists argument for proof.

The argument is:
If there is no evidence/proof for the existance of something, then there is no reason to believe it does exists.

Another way of saying this is:

If there is reason to believe something exist, then there is evidence for it.
(Is the above true? )

If there is no evidence for something, then there is no reason to believe it exist.(the Atheist argument concerning god)


Note that we can't cut the word believe out. Why? Because we could have evidence of something that no longer exist. Also we could lack evidence for something that currently/previously did exist.




The mis-statement that some of you are making is
"If there is no evidence, then it does not exist"
Which is not the atheist argument. The argument is based on the belief on whether something exist or not. Not if it actually exists or not.

(I guess this is where some believers try to claim that atheism is a religion.)

There could be a god. But I don't believe in the God of Abraham because the only evidence I have for it is circumstantial and hearsay--some of it including obvious elaborations that makes me doubt the sources of these claims even more.

By the way, once you can't believe in the God of Judaism, Western religion is no longer viable for you.

I fully understand the argument. However, just because that is the claim does not make it so. I go based upon the statements made, not what I am told is the argument.

When the claim is made that anyone who does believe in a God is stupid, and that claim has been made many times, that is more than just not believing. When the claim is made that theism is a mental illness, also made many times, that is more than just not believing.

This, in a thread claiming that "atheism is a fringe kook theory cult"? Whatever. Religious people proselytize a "hell" of a lot more than atheists, and invest a lot more time and energy claiming that those who disagree with them are evil.

There are definitely atheist assholes. If you want to hold them up as representative of everyone who doesn't believe in your god, go for it. But don't be surprised when the 'favor' is returned.

I don't care if you believe in my god. I don't even want you to. This has absolutely nothing to do with my god. This is about how people believe, not what they believe. Believe whatever you like, but at least acknowledge that is what you are doing. Don't pretend you are on some higher intellectual ground because you believe B rather than A. Because that makes you exactly like the people saying you're going to hell.

If the actual definition of an Atheist is someone who lacks beliefs in God, then I am probably the closest thing to an Atheist here... and I am a Theist.

I doubt that. You seem to be making all of unwarranted - and in at least one case, wholly inaccurate - assumptions about what people here believe.

Which part was wholly inaccurate?

I'm not pretending I'm on some higher intellectual ground because I believe B rather than A.

Sorry. I was using a general "you" rather than specific to you. I should have been more careful with my language.

That claim is not unwarranted. Would you like samples from this very board?

 

[PratchettFan]

For God's sake, pardon the expression, please learn to use the quote function properly.[/QUOTE]

That would be nice. They improved the system so this seems to be what I get. I notice you get the same thing. Any suggestions?

 

[PratchettFan]

I also wouldn't call myself an atheist, since I think gods are very real things - as real as you and me.

As do I. Of course, that begs the question of how real we are.

 

[PratchettFan]

For God's sake, pardon the expression, please learn to use the quote function properly.

Just testing.

 

[PratchettFan]

For God's sake, pardon the expression, please learn to use the quote function properly.

Just testing.

Thanks. Sometimes you just need a nudge to figure something out.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That has to be one of the most incoherent posts I seen outside of the drivel from where-r-my-keys and jimbowie.

Read it again when you sober up!

You'll catch on... or if not, have a sentient coworker explain it to you...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure they are. Because the people who run those schools are hired by school boards, who are all radical
Atheists. And they are elected by the citizens of the school district. Who are all radical Atheists. It is amazing how many people are radical Atheists. It can't possibly be the young girl decided to disrupt the class and got exactly what she deserved. (Which, btw, was not a suspension no matter what you would like to believe) Oh no, how could you blame these radical Atheists if that were the case?

I can only speak to the situation in California; but out here, school boards do not hire teachers or principles. They hire the district superintendent, but that's about it.Dealing with schools means dealing with a bureaucracy that is in place to block discovery and over site - especially by the school board.

Teachers in general follow a liberal arts educational path - which is radical atheist in curriculum. Where did you think the views of Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill came from?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope! This discussion is about the endless atheism bashing that those who imagine they are going to heaven feel free to indulge themselves in whenever they need someone to blame.

There is a war against civil rights underway. The attacks on the 1st amendment are some of the most egregious. The Atheist Taliban is behind these attacks. I am agnostic and do not believe in a god, but I do believe in liberty. BECAUSE I support liberty, the Taliban is my enemy.

The Taliban seems to be always lurking, ready to pounce to silence speech that differs from their rigid dogma. There is no heaven, but as you of the Taliban strip us of civil rights, you do create hell.

 

[PratchettFan]

Sure they are. Because the people who run those schools are hired by school boards, who are all radical
Atheists. And they are elected by the citizens of the school district. Who are all radical Atheists. It is amazing how many people are radical Atheists. It can't possibly be the young girl decided to disrupt the class and got exactly what she deserved. (Which, btw, was not a suspension no matter what you would like to believe) Oh no, how could you blame these radical Atheists if that were the case?

I can only speak to the situation in California; but out here, school boards do not hire teachers or principles. They hire the district superintendent, but that's about it.Dealing with schools means dealing with a bureaucracy that is in place to block discovery and over site - especially by the school board.

Teachers in general follow a liberal arts educational path - which is radical atheist in curriculum. Where did you think the views of Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill came from?

I grew up in the Los Angeles school system and my children as well. The school board makes policy. The superintendent enforces policy. The employees follow policy. It doesn't flow from the bottom up. Your claim that a liberal arts educational path is a radical atheist curriculum is absurd.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I grew up in the Los Angeles school system and my children as well. The school board makes policy. The superintendent enforces policy. The employees follow policy. It doesn't flow from the bottom up. Your claim that a liberal arts educational path is a radical atheist curriculum is absurd.

If you grew up in Los Angeles, you know the Union hires all teachers and principles. The Board makes broad policy, but this must be approved by Sacramento and the Union before it can be used. A local school board can't even fire a teacher for molesting children, but you think they are running things?

{The issue of how difficult it can be to fire a teacher accused of molestation arose after the 2012 arrest of Mark Berndt, a teacher at Miramonte Elementary School in Los Angeles. Berndt was sentenced to 25 years in prison as a result of lewd acts against dozens of young students, which included feeding them semen from a spoon. The Los Angeles Unified School District moved to fire him shortly after his arrest, but ultimately paid him $40,000 to drop his appeal of the dismissal.}

A speedier way to fire some teachers - LA Times

The Union alone decides how schools are run.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I grew up in the Los Angeles school system and my children as well. The school board makes policy. The superintendent enforces policy. The employees follow policy. It doesn't flow from the bottom up. Your claim that a liberal arts educational path is a radical atheist curriculum is absurd.

If you grew up in Los Angeles, you know the Union hires all teachers and principles. The Board makes broad policy, but this must be approved by Sacramento and the Union before it can be used. A local school board can't even fire a teacher for molesting children, but you think they are running things?

{The issue of how difficult it can be to fire a teacher accused of molestation arose after the 2012 arrest of Mark Berndt, a teacher at Miramonte Elementary School in Los Angeles. Berndt was sentenced to 25 years in prison as a result of lewd acts against dozens of young students, which included feeding them semen from a spoon. The Los Angeles Unified School District moved to fire him shortly after his arrest, but ultimately paid him $40,000 to drop his appeal of the dismissal.}

A speedier way to fire some teachers - LA Times

The Union alone decides how schools are run.

Exactly and the educational establishment from DC on down is controlled by atheist socialists who are using an approach developed by a Prussian to make the minds of children less resistant to authority and resistance.

 

[PratchettFan]

I grew up in the Los Angeles school system and my children as well. The school board makes policy. The superintendent enforces policy. The employees follow policy. It doesn't flow from the bottom up. Your claim that a liberal arts educational path is a radical atheist curriculum is absurd.

If you grew up in Los Angeles, you know the Union hires all teachers and principles. The Board makes broad policy, but this must be approved by Sacramento and the Union before it can be used. A local school board can't even fire a teacher for molesting children, but you think they are running things?

{The issue of how difficult it can be to fire a teacher accused of molestation arose after the 2012 arrest of Mark Berndt, a teacher at Miramonte Elementary School in Los Angeles. Berndt was sentenced to 25 years in prison as a result of lewd acts against dozens of young students, which included feeding them semen from a spoon. The Los Angeles Unified School District moved to fire him shortly after his arrest, but ultimately paid him $40,000 to drop his appeal of the dismissal.}

A speedier way to fire some teachers - LA Times

The Union alone decides how schools are run.

I guess no one told the LAUSD...

LAUSD cracks down on teacher misconduct 100 fired 200 resign 300 housed

 

[NYcarbineer]

For God's sake, pardon the expression, please learn to use the quote function properly.

That would be nice. They improved the system so this seems to be what I get. I notice you get the same thing. Any suggestions?[/QUOTE]

My suggestion is that when you upgrade a forum, don't downgrade the 'preview' feature of posting out of existence.

 

[PratchettFan]

For God's sake, pardon the expression, please learn to use the quote function properly.

That would be nice. They improved the system so this seems to be what I get. I notice you get the same thing. Any suggestions?

My suggestion is that when you upgrade a forum, don't downgrade the 'preview' feature of posting out of existence.[/QUOTE]


They didn't ask my opinion. But you are doing the same thing I was doing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I guess no one told the LAUSD...

LAUSD cracks down on teacher misconduct 100 fired 200 resign 300 housed

Outrage by parents has forced some show of a crackdown, but your own article says;

{
The current dismissal process includes a mandatory settlement conference, with a mediator trying to negotiate a compromise between the district and teacher before the case goes to a hearing. It was at this point that Berndt, the accused Miramonte teacher, received a $40,000 payout to drop the appeal of his dismissal.

Deasy said he has put an end to that type of incentive.

"We're not doing that anymore," he said. "Not on my watch. "

Schwab, the UTLA attorney, said many veteran teachers opt to resign rather than pursue an administrative hearing because they fear losing their lifetime health benefits if the ruling goes against them.}

Not exactly full compliance. The Union still runs the show.

 

[sealybobo]

Conspiracy Theory Poll Results - Public Policy Polling
I am am Atheist. You are brainwashed.beyond all belief. The tragic thing is that is peobably the way you like to be. It's such a dirty rotten shame. If you are ever willing to consider burning your religious "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. First, there is a documentary that you need to watch. I don't know the price of it. But it would be worth every penny. It's called "Religious." For an even greater example of how sick, filthy and evil the bible is, you need to go into your browser and enter, "our holy hell: the causes, the solutiions." If nothing else, that should wake you up.



25% of Brits think the lunar landings were a hoax, though only 6 to 7%% of Americans do.
Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so - CNN.com

But LESS THAN 3% of Americans are atheist!
5 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center

That is right, more people believe that Elvis is still alive, that the world is ruled by lizard people, that Big Foot stalks our Rocky Mountains and that the US government caused 9-11 than believe that there is no God.

Atheists are simply kook-burgers like the 9-11 Truthers or the lunar landing denialists.

You present them with evidence like the Big Bang and you get things like 'Oh, I don't believe in the Big Bang.' You tell them how the infinite regression fallacy demonstrates that time had to have a starting point and they duh into silence. Show them alternative explanations that present Christianity in a better light than the Zinn bullshit people are fed these days and they simply repeat the propaganda and insist that it is all true no matter how Christians try to 'spin it'. Lol, now these morons cant distinguish between Russell and quackery or tell a good argument from a pile of nonsense.

Why do we theists give them the time of day?

They really cant be taken seriously any more. The Bertrand Russells are long gone, just the jack asses remain among atheism today; why bother?

Whatever grampa. You don't see the writing on the wall here?

Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans. Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations were when they were young. Fully one-in-four members of the Millennial generation are unaffiliated with any particular faith. Indeed, Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than members of Generation X were at a comparable point in their life cycle (20% in the late 1990s) and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults (13% in the late 1970s). Young adults also attend religious services less often than older Americans today. And compared with their elders today, fewer young people say that religion is very important in their lives.

Maybe you live in the bible belt. Because consider that here up north in the big city there are a lot more atheists than there will be down in the deep dirty hick red neck bible belt south where people are poor and stupid.

Yesterday I asked a friend if he believed in god. He said yes. After maybe 2 or 3 questions he cracked a smile and said no he doesn't believe or "hasn't given it much thought"

So just consider that a lot of the people who say they do believe are just giving a knee jerk response. What exactly do they believe? They don't even really know. Or maybe they were told as kids if they don't believe they will go to hell so of course they are brainwashed to say yes without even questioning.

He told me he told his religious sister that he had his doubt and she had a stern hard long talk with him. LOL. Do you think she's thinking objectively when she believes not believing will send her and/or her brother to HELL? LOL. Dumb as lady. Poor thing.

Ahh.... the beliefs of the young. You did know the hard nosed, bible thumping, old fogeys you so love today were the hippies of the 60's, don't you. Every generation says they are the ones who will change things, and then become their parents. I'd say talk to me in 40 years, but luckily I will be long dead by then. I won't have to see the incredible mess you all will be making of things. Seeing the mess my generation made was quite enough for one lifetime. But by all means, you enjoy the show.

That's my point. This belief in Jesus hasn't made this a good society. Maybe a scientific society that isn't fooled by wedge issues like god gays and guns will do better with the environment and figuring out fair wages and affordable healthcare.

Right now our society is filled with greedy ignorant selfish people. These are all christians. Well most of them. You know the saying if it ain't broke don't fix it? Well we're broke. We need fixing. And believing in god makes people stupid sheep. Just look at all the arabs in the muslim praying to allah 5 times a day.