Atheism's Wrong Turn II

[jillian]

Atheism is a belief. A rose by any other name ....

Had what said to me? That I was going to Hell? More than once. I just tell 'em to get off their religious high-horse with me and don't talk about it. I don't preach, nor do I allow anyone to preach to me.

Ah.. but you should have been there when my brother's ex father in law said it to him before he got married. Was a beautiful thing. *rolls eyes*

Almost ALL religions, to include yours and mine are exclusive. It's the nature of the beast.

Actually, my religion expects non-believers to get to heaven if they're righteous.

I myself have pretty much rejected organized religion and do not follow a specific doctrine. The Bible says what it says, and you can take it or leave it as far as I'm concerned and whether or not you got Heaven or Hell is between you and God, not you and me.

On that we can pretty much agree.

 

[Gunny]

Ah.. but you should have been there when my brother's ex father in law said it to him before he got married. Was a beautiful thing. *rolls eyes*

I'd have just smiled and said whatever.


Actually, my religion expects non-believers to get to heaven if they're righteous.

Your religion is very much punishment-oriented, and suffering God's wrath seems to permeate the Old Testament. And I would have to check, but it seem your statement does not agree with the Old Testament of the Bible. Belief is the key requirement of almost all religions. If Judaism is teaching otherwise, then it is not teachin in accordance with God's word.


On that we can pretty much agree.

/

 

[jillian]

/

Actually, what my brother said was that he'd hold on to his ex so tight he'd go to heaven with her.

Let me explain. First. I am not orthodox. I have no fundamentalist beliefs about my religion. And Judaism is kind of funny, it's pretty much whatever your rabbi says it is.... and that can mean a million different things. Second, by a righteous person can go to heaven, there are kind of different requirements for jews and non-jews. But ultimately, it comes down to mitzvot, or good deeds.

You don't really think most of us believe in the stuff in Leviticus, do you? I wear mixed fibers and don't believe that adulterers should be stoned. Nor does any other Jew I know.

The way most of us believe is that the bible is allegory mixed with some history. It's a morality primer....

 

[Gunny]

That's your view but as we all know sometimes the transmitter and the receiver are picking up different messages. What you perceive as "remarks in that vein" may not be intended that way.

Or maybe they were and I'm full of it.

I dunno.

You feeling guilty about something?

 

[Gunny]

Actually, what my brother said was that he'd hold on to his ex so tight he'd go to heaven with her.

Let me explain. First. I am not orthodox. I have no fundamentalist beliefs about my religion. And Judaism is kind of funny, it's pretty much whatever your rabbi says it is.... and that can mean a million different things. Second, by a righteous person can go to heaven, there are kind of different requirements for jews and non-jews. But ultimately, it comes down to mitzvot, or good deeds.

A difference between our religions. Christ says good works alone will not get one into Heaven.

You don't really think most of us believe in the stuff in Leviticus, do you? I wear mixed fibers and don't believe that adulterers should be stoned. Nor does any other Jew I know.

The way most of us believe is that the bible is allegory mixed with some history. It's a morality primer....

I really haven't given much thought to what y'all believe. I only know that youo believe Christ was a prophet rather than the Messiah, and that according to the Bible you are God's chosen people, and I've always wondered how "God's chosen people" fits in with not believe Christ was the Messiah.

But again, you can work that out with God, not me. When I reach "exalted" status I'll let you know.

Of course, none of this includes Diuretic. If ANYONE is a heathen .....

 

[Diuretic]

You feeling guilty about something?

Guilty? You want guilty? I do guilt! Let me tell you I do guilt! My paternal grandmother was Jewish. My mother is Roman Catholic Irish from the Republic.....and you ask me about "guilt"? George Constanza is well-balanced compared to me when it comes to guilt!

 

[Diuretic]

I'm a heathen.

I feel guilty about it but it's true. I am.












Did I tell you how guilty I feel about being a non-believing heathen?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Right here in this thread is an atheist claiming intelletual superiority with his condescending remarks.

Why is there a difference? If you don't believe in atheism then he's full of crap. If you don't believe in the religion of the person condemning you, then he's full of crap.

One has the same impact as the other. What is the threat of Hell to someone who doesn't believe they are going their in accordance with someone else's religion?

I don't see any difference between that and being spoken down to or treated like a pariah for my beliefs because of someone else's beliefs. It all boils down to words and whether or not you choose to take offense to them.

I jst don't see the difference in the words that you seem to.

The UNBIASED Christian Moderator said,

It all boils down to words and whether or not you choose to take offense to them.

You mean like the Rome suckholing (I hope that doesnt offend any faux "Christians" here! ) Christian Norman conquerors did?

Yeah, Gurney, it really excretes me to tears when I am forced to edit my native tongue by some bigoted, intercoursing vagina of a "Christian" fascist, who feigns offence at any non-Latin word that mentions any excretory or reproductive part or function of the disgusting human body.

You know, some crepuscular little Creeping J**zus, (one can never be TOO safe! ) who thinks he is personally responsible, runs his own personal Star Chamber, for sparing the precious shell pinks of his murdering rectum opening of a God from profane Anglo-Saxon.

I better shut my mouth now, before Torquemada has me facing an auto de fé made up of the of the board's mutually antagonistic crew of cafeteria "Christians"

 

[Kid Pickle]

Don't mean to butt in, but there's some good stuff here...

Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief.

Atheism it the belief that there are no supernatural forces, there is no God or gods. It is a faith like any other. The existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven, so it is a matter of faith either way.

Atheists may think they have it right in terms of an intellectual analysis of the likelihood of the existence of G-d, but they aren't smug enough to tell me I'm going to burn for eternity in some fiery furnace because I don't share their lack of belief.

Again, atheists, jews... we don't proselytize. So no one is preaching those things.

Christopher Hitchens calls himself an "anti-theist." He believes that God is keeping humanity back from some type of humanist utopia. He is actively engaged in destroying the idea of God. He has likened the teaching of the existence of God to children to child abuse. Pullman has said his purpose in writing His Dark Materials is to kill God for children. On a broader scale, anyone who actively proports Socialism must first destroy the idea of God because the State must become God for people to accept it.

Probaby because you aren't among the 1.5% of the population that I'm in that IS being told that we're going to hell for our beliefs by some who think their beliefs are superior.

I think, also, it's rather different because I DO believe in a deity. And, frankly, I can't imagine a G-d who would reject his children because they don't believe the messiah has come yet. I also can't imagine a G-d who would reject one of his chldren who did good with their life and did good for others for that reason.

The entire Old Testament, the foundation of your beliefs, points to the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies and the types and shadows. If you were to study the scripture, you would find everything Jesus said to be true and everything he did to be a fullfillment of scripture. That is the point of all of it. God created man to be with him, man failed. He set aside a chosen people to be His, consecrated by the Law. They failed. However they set the stage for a Savior to be born, prove himself, and give the ultimate blood sacrifice necessary for the absolution of sin for all mankind. God is not just the "god of the Jews." He is the One True God of all mankind. Jesus is the gate that brings the family of humanity to truly know their Creator and be reconciled to Him, to return to the state of Adam and Eve, created to live forever after executing His will on Earth, according to each individual's circumstance and ability. Those who choose not to be with God won't be. That is what Hell is, an eternity separate from God.

 

[Larkinn]

Atheism is a belief, it is a belief that there is no God. It is not a belief about other supernatural forces. It is very simply a belief that there is no God. That doesn't rule out ghosts, pixies, Santa Claus, leprechauns, or what have you.

Secondly thinking that one knows that something is not true because of the evidence (or lack of evidence) is hardly stupid. This entire website is built around peoples opinions about things they they don't know for sure. The arguments based around purely factual matters are generally dispatched of quickly with a link.

Thirdly, I've always found it interesting that people find it rational to disbelief in a whole host of things because of lack of evidence (ghosts, pixies, etc, etc), but when it comes to God well then that principle just doesn't stand. If you want to believe in God, go for it, but don't pass it off as rational. Its not. A lack of evidence that something exists generally means something does not exist. Want to believe it anyway? Go for it. But if you want to be rational than you should give equal weight to the FSM. If you don't want to be rational, thats fine, few people are inherently rational.

Fourthly, there are atheists who prosletyze. There just are very very few of them. Interestingly enough they tend to be fairly brilliant. Hitchens, Dennet, and Dawkins are among the greatest minds of our generation. Oh and KP...Hitchens is hardly a socialist. Nor is he a liberal, he is a bit difficult to define which is a rarity these days. As for your "hell", I'm rather enjoying the beginning of my time being separated from God. I suspect many atheists/agnostics are.

 

[Kid Pickle]

Atheism must dismiss all supernatural phenomena. It is based on the idea that reality is all that is observable and rational. Because all reality is not always observable and not subjectively rational, it fails. It is Agnosticism that says "Okay, there's stuff out there that is spooky and weird, but I don't know if it means there is a God or gods, if it even truly exists at all."

I didn't mean that Hitchens or other atheists were socialists, it was an additional example of atheistic prostheletising. Also, I think that the original point of this thread was the trend of Atheism becoming "Evangelistic," so to speak.

The existance of God can be rationally obtained. An excellent example of such a line of reasoning is C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. He was without question a brilliant man who was, at one point, an Atheist attempting to disprove the existance of God. He followed the reasoning and eventually came around to the other side. Another example is Lee Strobel, a journalist, who upon examining the science to disprove the existance of God instead found the overwhelming evidence of a Creator.

All effects must have a cause. The Effect must have a Cause.

Finally, I know that this life has its pleasures, but ultimately one must not accept the fact that it is all meaningless. Why would we have the concept of meaning in life if there is none? Why would we have the concept of eternity if we are not a part of it? Why has mankind always looked to something larger than ourselves if it does not exist? Animals aren't concerned with these things because they are programmed to live a certain way. We are not. We have choices. These things are not accidents. We can experience joy, love, peace, all the good things in this world because God is in it. However, once this world is over, there is an eternity to deal with. An eternity devoid of God is devoid of ALL good things. Out of sincere love, I hope and pray that you do not have to experience that.

 

[Larkinn]

Atheism must dismiss all supernatural phenomena. It is based on the idea that reality is all that is observable and rational. Because all reality is not always observable and not subjectively rational, it fails. It is Agnosticism that says "Okay, there's stuff out there that is spooky and weird, but I don't know if it means there is a God or gods, if it even truly exists at all."

Incorrect. Atheism is a base belief, that God does not exist. The idea that reality is all that is observable and rational is not necessary for the belief. It may be one way of supporting the Atheism, but it is not inherently conditional on those two things.

Agnosticism merely says that we don't know whether God exists or not. Both theories deal exclusively with the existance of God. Arguments supporting one or the other are supports to them, not inherent parts of the theory.

Although you say that all reality is not always observable. Have any evidence for that idea? It seems, definitionally, an impossible observation to support and so to offer it up for evidence for anything seems absurd. As for whether reality is rational or not, that doesn't seem to be coherent. Reality can be explained through rationality, but surely you believe that.

The existance of God can be rationally obtained. An excellent example of such a line of reasoning is C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. He was without question a brilliant man who was, at one point, an Atheist attempting to disprove the existance of God. He followed the reasoning and eventually came around to the other side.

Feel free to provide both arguments. I will show you why they are incorrect. I guarantee that CS Lewis did not come up with his own ontological argument , however. He likely stole it from someone else. By the way...as a thought experiment try using the arguments that prove your idea of God on my idea of God as explained here: http://www.venganza.org/

Another example is Lee Strobel, a journalist, who upon examining the science to disprove the existance of God instead found the overwhelming evidence of a Creator.

I asked for a rational argument for God, not for evidence that individuals believed in God. I am well aware that people believe in God, presenting me evidence of that is unconvincing.

All effects must have a cause. The Effect must have a Cause.

So what caused God?

Finally, I know that this life has its pleasures, but ultimately one must not accept the fact that it is all meaningless.

I'm undecided as to whether its meaningless or not. But tell me why must I not accept that it is all meaningless? Besides that it might disappoint you.

Why would we have the concept of meaning in life if there is none?

We are pretty industrious thinkers really. We also have concepts of Unicorns, leprechauns, santa clause, etc, etc. Do you think anything we can think up must exist because if we can think of it, it comes from somewhere? Thats absurd.

Why would we have the concept of eternity if we are not a part of it? Why has mankind always looked to something larger than ourselves if it does not exist?

This is also basically circular. You are asking a why question assuming an anwser exists...why are you assuming an anwser exists? Because you think that everything is done for a purpose which is dependent on your belief in God.

Animals aren't concerned with these things because they are programmed to live a certain way. We are not. We have choices.

Actually we are also programmed to live a certain way. We just developed minds and so can overcome that programming. And animals have choices as well. Ever had two people on opposite ends of a field call a dog? The dog looks back and forth frantically trying to choose who to go to, and then decides.

These things are not accidents. We can experience joy, love, peace, all the good things in this world because God is in it.

This is not an argument, this is a statement of ideological belief.

 

[Kid Pickle]

Ah, a Pastafarian. So I know you are not stupid and I know that you have a healthy sense of humor.

I do not wish to recreate the entire argument Lewis makes in is work, only to point you to it and The Case for A Creator as an exersise in exploring the other side of the argument. I have looked at the case for the FSM before and I find it hard to take seriously anything that A) simply dismisses the idea of a Creator as outright nonsense despite the perfectly reasonable arguments in support and B) mocks the deeply held, sustaining belief of millions of people that has shaped civilization as we know it. I haven't found the test you are talking about, however. Perhaps I misunderstood you or it is a matter of poor web design.

Of course, the things I am saying are ideological statements. Yours are as well. I am in my arguments appealing to you, human to human, out of love, to not simply dismiss what I am trying to convey to you simply because it doesn't make sense or because your experience tells you differently. My experience and thinking led me to the very same conclusions as you at one time in my life. I know where you are coming from. Now I see things diffently and, to my disadvantage, it is a difference better experienced than explained. I am doing the best I can to learn how to better explain it, and, if the opportunity arises, would like to go more in depth with the arguments of Lewis and Strobel. In the meantime, all I can say is crack the books, suspend your preconcieved notions, and follow the evidence.

 

[Diuretic]

Synchronicity. I'm reading Mere Christianity now.

I loved The Abolition of Man, especially Men Without Chests - we castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful - I love that line.

I probably won't get to Surprised by Joy. But if I can find it in a second hand bookshop (my favourite type) I'll get it. I like his prose.

Good discussion, if I may say so.

 

[Larkinn]

I do not wish to recreate the entire argument Lewis makes in is work, only to point you to it and The Case for A Creator as an exersise in exploring the other side of the argument.

I have explored the other side of the argument. Ontological proofs are ridicuous and there aren't any that come close to being rational. Google tells me that CS Lewis's argument is one from morality. That is, essentially, because humanity has similar moral leanings we must all get our morals from the same place (God). First of all, we don't have similar moral leanings. In this world there are people who have thought it moral to eat other humans, sacrifice other humans, enslave other humans, etc, etc. Secondly even if I grant the incorrect premise that morality is the same everywhere, there are alternate more plausible explanations than a pie in the sky being. Try that we have a similar history and have similar genetic traits. Or that we are all, at core, preoccupied with the same things (food/water/housing/sex/etc) and these morals arose as a reaction to those needs. Both extremely plausible explanations without having to resort to the supernatural.

I have looked at the case for the FSM before and I find it hard to take seriously anything that A) simply dismisses the idea of a Creator as outright nonsense despite the perfectly reasonable arguments in support

It doesn't dismiss it. You don't seem to get the point of it. Any "perfectly reasonable arguments in support" of a creator apply exactly as equally well in support of the FSM. So if you believe that the proofs provide evidence for God, then you also think they provide evidence for FSM. Ridiculous, no?

and B) mocks the deeply held, sustaining belief of millions of people that has shaped civilization as we know it.

Ah so truth must arrive with perfume and a rose? Whether its rude or not has no bearing on its effectiveness as a valid argument.

I haven't found the test you are talking about, however. Perhaps I misunderstood you or it is a matter of poor web design.

Err what test? The thought experiment? That is merely that any "proof" of the Christian God applies equally well to the FSM.

Of course, the things I am saying are ideological statements. Yours are as well.

Not really. I am arguing from an epistemological standpoint of trying to figure out what the truth is. I'm not even arguing for atheism, I'm not an atheist. I'm arguing that the "rational" proofs of God are ridiculous and irrational. As I said before, believe whatever you want but don't fool yourself into thinking that believing in God is rational. Its not.

I am in my arguments appealing to you, human to human, out of love, to not simply dismiss what I am trying to convey to you simply because it doesn't make sense or because your experience tells you differently.

No disrespect intended, but your love will never overpower my rationality. I really don't care how much you want me to believe something, or how much you believe something. My beliefs come, as much as I can make them, rationality, not whether they make me happy or not.

My experience and thinking led me to the very same conclusions as you at one time in my life. I know where you are coming from. Now I see things diffently and, to my disadvantage, it is a difference better experienced than explained. I am doing the best I can to learn how to better explain it, and, if the opportunity arises, would like to go more in depth with the arguments of Lewis and Strobel. In the meantime, all I can say is crack the books, suspend your preconcieved notions, and follow the evidence.

I've read the ontological theories. I'm not saying I can disprove them because I have faith in my own rational abilities, I'm saying I can disprove them because I've seen them before, and have done it. That you are getting proofs from CS Lewis makes me believe you haven't done the same. He did not come up with that proof, he just popularized it. I believe that it is, at root, a Platonic argument but I could be wrong about that.

And honestly...something that is better "experienced than explained" is usually something that is an irrational appeal to emotion or our humanity. It might make you happy to believe in God. If so, Kudos. Go for it, have a blast. But its not your rationality that is making you happy, its your emotions. I suspect before you felt like life didn't have a meaning. You didn't know what to do, felt lost, etc, etc. Found God and now you feel like it has a meaning. Congrats, but your feelings don't make it true.

By the way...as for "suspending preconceived notions", I should suspect you've read the opposing viewpoints and read Hitchens/Dawkins/Dennet? Not that I agree with them on this particular vein, but they do make very compelling arguments. And my preconceived notion is that God doesn't exist, Christianity is a fraud, and people buy into it because they don't have the courage to live a life where they aren't pampered by an imaginary deity to give their life meaning. But regardless I try not to go past my evidence and so despite my dislike of that belief, and of Christianity in general, I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic.

 

[Gunny]

The UNBIASED Christian Moderator said,



You mean like the Rome suckholing (I hope that doesnt offend any faux "Christians" here! ) Christian Norman conquerors did?

Yeah, Gurney, it really excretes me to tears when I am forced to edit my native tongue by some bigoted, intercoursing vagina of a "Christian" fascist, who feigns offence at any non-Latin word that mentions any excretory or reproductive part or function of the disgusting human body.

You know, some crepuscular little Creeping J**zus, (one can never be TOO safe! ) who thinks he is personally responsible, runs his own personal Star Chamber, for sparing the precious shell pinks of his murdering rectum opening of a God from profane Anglo-Saxon.

I better shut my mouth now, before Torquemada has me facing an auto de fé made up of the of the board's mutually antagonistic crew of cafeteria "Christians"

'Scuse me, your hineyness ... where have I ever claimed to be unbiased? I'm actually one of the few that understands the definition of the word as well as the fact that we are ALL biased.

You must have missed the two key issues which would have precluded you wasting the time and effort on your post ...

1. I don't give a fuck what you think about what I believe. Feel free to believe in something else.

2. When I start preaching to you, THEN you can act all offended. In case it zoomed over your flat head, this WAS a nice calm discussion, not a sermon.

You are every bit the warped extremist Fred Phelps is. Y'all only part ways where it comes to what specifically you choose to believe in.

 

[jillian]

Don't mean to butt in, but there's some good stuff here...

Atheism it the belief that there are no supernatural forces, there is no God or gods. It is a faith like any other. The existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven, so it is a matter of faith either way.

No. You can make up definitions for things if you'd like. But words have set meanings. Atheism is non-belief, not belief. I'm not quite sure why some feel the need to engage in type of mistatement, but there you go. This is atheism's definition:

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,

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

Christopher Hitchens calls himself an "anti-theist." He believes that God is keeping humanity back from some type of humanist utopia. He is actively engaged in destroying the idea of God. He has likened the teaching of the existence of God to children to child abuse. Pullman has said his purpose in writing His Dark Materials is to kill God for children. On a broader scale, anyone who actively proports Socialism must first destroy the idea of God because the State must become God for people to accept it.

Hitchens is an anti-theist. But he is also extreme and not generally representative of atheists.

I'll take your word on Pullman, but I'm afraid that sounds like some type of right wing christian propaganda, like the loonies who think Harry Potter is the devil. If you have credible proof he said it, well, I'll take that back.

As for socialism... er... no. It's Marxist "communism" which believes that religion is the opiate of the masses. Now, I say this, again, as someone who believes in G-d... but, honey, religion has been used to manipulate people for the political power of others' since its inception.

The entire Old Testament, the foundation of your beliefs, points to the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies and the types and shadows. If you were to study the scripture, you would find everything Jesus said to be true and everything he did to be a fullfillment of scripture. That is the point of all of it. God created man to be with him, man failed. He set aside a chosen people to be His, consecrated by the Law. They failed. However they set the stage for a Savior to be born, prove himself, and give the ultimate blood sacrifice necessary for the absolution of sin for all mankind. God is not just the "god of the Jews." He is the One True God of all mankind. Jesus is the gate that brings the family of humanity to truly know their Creator and be reconciled to Him, to return to the state of Adam and Eve, created to live forever after executing His will on Earth, according to each individual's circumstance and ability. Those who choose not to be with God won't be. That is what Hell is, an eternity separate from God.

Please don't proselytize to me and please don't try to tell me about my religion and how jesus fulfilled the prophesies. I find it boring and I would only be forced to say things that a) I probably don't fully mean; and b) would sound far more disrespectful than they are.

So, please don't address me if you're going to start trying to "help" me that way. Seriously. It makes me gag. And I don't mean that disrespectfully. It's not your beliefs that make me gag... it's the effort to disrespect mine. I didn't ask you for your spiritual guidance. I'd suggest you restrict your efforts to people who do. The rest of us just find it partly amusing, but mostly annoying. The story of Adam and Eve is an interesting allegory told to a wild desert people to keep them in line. I also do not believe the messiah is even what you say it is in terms of concept. It is a biblical king of the line of David who would bring 1,000 years of peace after the Temple is rebuilt. There is no Hell in my religious construct.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian lets try this shall we?

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,

in order to NOT believe in Dieties one MUST believe they do not exist. Your definition does not say atheism is not a belief system, it says it is a belief system that does NOT believe in dieties.

try this....http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

and this

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/belief

belief
2 entries found.


Main Entry:
be·lief Listen to the pronunciation of belief
Pronunciation:
\bə-ˈlēf\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date:
12th century

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.
synonyms see in addition opinion

They BELIEVE that Gods do not exist. That is their BELIEF. Further they have FAITH that that Belief is true. An atheist is a very powerful believer and has loads of faith. Or they would not be atheists. Most religious people only have a fraction of the faith in Gods as an atheist has in the non existance of Gods.

 

[Diuretic]

What a crock. Jeez you're a hysterical panic-merchant RGS, frothing yet?

Ready?

There is no god. There is no afterlife. There is no heaven. There is no hell.

I just made some statements. They're not "beliefs". They are rejections of belief. If you want me to get particularly scathing keep pushing. You want me to use phrases such as "invisible friends", I will. I don't like to because I tend to not want to get into verbal fist fights and get down in the gutter. I will though. I am prepared to get there but don't whine if, in the discussion, you take me down there.

You try and tell me, an atheist, about "belief" and I'll see you down in that gutter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What a crock. Jeez you're a hysterical panic-merchant RGS, frothing yet?

Ready?

There is no god. There is no afterlife. There is no heaven. There is no hell.

I just made some statements. They're not "beliefs". They are rejections of belief. If you want me to get particularly scathing keep pushing. You want me to use phrases such as "invisible friends", I will. I don't like to because I tend to not want to get into verbal fist fights and get down in the gutter. I will though. I am prepared to get there but don't whine if, in the discussion, you take me down there.

You try and tell me, an atheist, about "belief" and I'll see you down in that gutter.

LOL, your argument is retarded. So I can say safely, according to you, that you do not believe Hell exists, By the way I agree, Satan's domain is the earth.

Every one of your NON beliefs is in fact a belief. You believe God does not exist. Since no one can prove he does or does not exists you CHOSE to believe he does not.

You believe there is no after life, again since no one can prove or disprove it, you chose to believe there is none.

By the way, your beliefs are not bad. They just ARE.

Why is it rational thought leaves the room when you think a word or words are some how dirty. EVERYONE believes many many thinks. Everyone has faith in some things. They are not horrible words, nor bad in any way, they are just words to express an idea.