I truly feel bad for atheists.

[rlrose328]

Yrreg, you have ignored the few responses you've gotten.  It's as if you are conducting a conversation with yourself.  YOu have consistently refused to reply to ANYONE who answers your questions.  We can remove all of the posts on this thread by everyone else and it would read the same on your side.  So why should we bother?

There is no way a contest between these two sides will solve anything.  Of course, by our saying it's not possible, that just leaves you to say we won't cooperate, which is not true.

You're lucky at this point that anyone is even bothering to respond here.

[LoneMateria]

Yrreg i'm not going to give you a long response its a waste of energy.  You are ignoring any point that contradicts your world views and either repeating what you say or moving onto another topic.  You are a fucking moron for thinking that the truth of anything can be decided by majority vote instead of determined by testable and indipendently verifiable evidence.  Let all the atheists on this thread vote on whether or not you have a brain.  I vote no.  If the majority of us agree does that mean you don't have a brain? Lets keep a running tab everyone.

Does Yrreg have a brain?
Yes / No
0 / 1

[Karras]

A contest eh?

I haven't played dodgeball in ages... can it be an epic contest of dodgeball between atheists and theists?

If so, I'm in.

P.S. If you are resorting to contests as a way to "prove" that you are right and we are wrong...I think you are proving our point.

I would recommend against playing dodgeball with the Jedi.

[Sophus]

I have come to conclusion, that classing himself as a "rational theist" is in fact, the pinnacle of irony so far reached by humanity. Congratulation to you sir.

I do love your barbed wit.  :hail:  

[Yrreg]

So, no atheist here is interested in any suggestions that atheists and theists get together to choose some really impartial and most learned men in logic to judge between atheists and theists as to which side has more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.


Suppose you now sum up your reasons against, in a few statements, like enumerating them as 1. 2. 3. 4. etc.

That will be a clear and definite explanation for your opposition to my suggestion.



Yrreg

[Miss Anthrope]

So, no atheist here is interested in any suggestions that atheists and theists get together to choose some really impartial and most learned men in logic to judge between atheists and theists as to which side has more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.


Suppose you now sum up your reasons against, in a few statements, like enumerating them as 1. 2. 3. 4. etc.

That will be a clear and definite explanation for your opposition to my suggestion.



Yrreg

1)It's pointless.
2)It's pointless.
3)It's pointless.
4)It's pointless.

[Karras]

So, no atheist here is interested in any suggestions that atheists and theists get together to choose some really impartial and most learned men in logic to judge between atheists and theists as to which side has more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

I have a suggestion. How about you first get together with Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Hinus, Pastafarians, Jedi, Invisible Pink Unicorn believers, Pagans, Pantheists, Deists and representative of all the other religions. Once your impartial and learned men have settled on which is the right religion, come back to us and we will discuss whether it is worthy of our consideration.

[curiosityandthecat]

So, no atheist here is interested in any suggestions that atheists and theists get together to choose some really impartial and most learned men in logic to judge between atheists and theists as to which side has more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.


Suppose you now sum up your reasons against, in a few statements, like enumerating them as 1. 2. 3. 4. etc.

That will be a clear and definite explanation for your opposition to my suggestion.



Yrreg

1. When dealing with theists like evangelical Christians, a dialogue like you are suggesting cannot exist. It is in their very nature, the rulebook by which they live, that they must convert non-believers.
2. How do you define impartial? Who would that possibly be? It couldn't be an American, and Americans wouldn't let foreigners decide domestic policy. Maybe a computer? Who writes the program?
3. You can't make an argument like you're suggesting. It doesn't work because you're arguing for two different sets of desires. It's akin to arguing between which is better to watch, a touching drama or an educational documentary. Arguments can be made for both sides, the main difference being that the drama is fiction while the documentary is non-fiction. The argument between theists and atheists is no different.
4. I'm very willing to sit down with theists (prbc, to use your term) and figure out how they can leave atheists, non-believers, and those from other religions the hell alone and stop trying to turn their views into our laws. I'd also be willing to figure out how they can stop using the name of their god as justification for intolerance, violence, and the retardation of science, including but not limited to stem cell research that could be used to fight cancers and illnesses like the ones they so fervently pray against.

Does that clearly and definitely explain the opposition to your suggestion?

[LoneMateria]

curiousityandthecat oh no.  Thats not good enough for him.  Logical arguments don't work against people like him/her/wtf ever.  This person expects us to stop thinking when he/she/it says, "Jebus loves you how can you be mad at him?"  And we are supposed to drop on our knees and say OMFG JEBUS ROXXORZ YOU ARE RIGHT THANK YOU FOR SHOWING ME THE ABSOLUTE ERROR OF MY WAYS!!!!11111  I DONT CARE THAT YOU NEVER SHOWED EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS BECAUSE I'M NO LONGER A THINKING PERSON BECAUSE OF YOU PRAISE JEBUS' NAME AHMEN.  For those of you whose first language isn't english thats absolute 100% total sarcasm.

[curiosityandthecat]

curiousityandthecat oh no.  Thats not good enough for him.  Logical arguments don't work against people like him/her/wtf ever.  This person expects us to stop thinking when he/she/it says, "Jebus loves you how can you be mad at him?"  And we are supposed to drop on our knees and say OMFG JEBUS ROXXORZ YOU ARE RIGHT THANK YOU FOR SHOWING ME THE ABSOLUTE ERROR OF MY WAYS!!!!11111  I DONT CARE THAT YOU NEVER SHOWED EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS BECAUSE I'M NO LONGER A THINKING PERSON BECAUSE OF YOU PRAISE JEBUS' NAME AHMEN.  For those of you whose first language isn't english thats absolute 100% total sarcasm.

I know I'm just throwing pearls to swine, but at least he can't say "none of you has answered my question though you have consistently claimed all my inquiries have been responded to" or something like that.  

[Yrreg]

No need to bring in harsh unkind words, but of course you will deny that you are into harsh unkind words, that is to be expected since you are always into denial.

Perhaps by way of humor atheists are denialists.


Okay, one of you suggests that he can get together to talk in private and on a personal level with me about how to resolve conflicts between theists prbc* and atheists.

I like that idea, but others here are again into denial, that it is useless and they go into harsh and unkind words again.

Here is the post of curiosityandthecat:

Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:40 pm

So, no atheist here is interested in any suggestions that atheists and theists get together to choose some really impartial and most learned men in logic to judge between atheists and theists as to which side has more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.


Suppose you now sum up your reasons against, in a few statements, like enumerating them as 1. 2. 3. 4. etc.

That will be a clear and definite explanation for your opposition to my suggestion.

1. When dealing with theists like evangelical Christians, a dialogue like you are suggesting cannot exist. It is in their very nature, the rulebook by which they live, that they must convert non-believers.
2. How do you define impartial? Who would that possibly be? It couldn't be an American, and Americans wouldn't let foreigners decide domestic policy. Maybe a computer? Who writes the program?
3. You can't make an argument like you're suggesting. It doesn't work because you're arguing for two different sets of desires. It's akin to arguing between which is better to watch, a touching drama or an educational documentary. Arguments can be made for both sides, the main difference being that the drama is fiction while the documentary is non-fiction. The argument between theists and atheists is no different.
4. I'm very willing to sit down with theists (prbc, to use your term) and figure out how they can leave atheists, non-believers, and those from other religions the hell alone and stop trying to turn their views into our laws. I'd also be willing to figure out how they can stop using the name of their god as justification for intolerance, violence, and the retardation of science, including but not limited to stem cell research that could be used to fight cancers and illnesses like the ones they so fervently pray against.

Does that clearly and definitely explain the opposition to your suggestion?

4. I'm very willing to sit down with theists (prbc, to use your term) and figure out how they can leave atheists, non-believers, and those from other religions the hell alone and stop trying to turn their views into our laws. I'd also be willing to figure out how they can stop using the name of their god as justification for intolerance, violence, and the retardation of science, including but not limited to stem cell research that could be used to fight cancers and illnesses like the ones they so fervently pray against. -- curiosityandthecat

Thanks, curiosityandthecat, at least you are curious if nothing else; can't say the same about a lot of or almost all atheists, they are rather if I may use the word or term closed-minded.

By way of humor that should get their goat up again, why do you atheists have to be so cantankerous?

Ah yes, you will say the same about theists prbc.*

And that is why we should really get together to thrash out our mutual cantankerousness, because it is not good for both atheists and theists, I submit it is not mentally and emotionally healthy and it is socially disruptive if nothing else.

Okay, let's get started, curiosityandthecat, shall we?

4. I'm very willing to sit down with theists (prbc, to use your term) and figure out how they can leave atheists, non-believers, and those from other religions the hell alone and stop trying to turn their views into our laws. I'd also be willing to figure out how they can stop using the name of their god as justification for intolerance, violence, and the retardation of science, including but not limited to stem cell research that could be used to fight cancers and illnesses like the ones they so fervently pray against. -- curiosityandthecat

There are several grievances in the text above from atheists against theists.

1. Theists' views are made into laws binding also on atheists.

2. Using God's name to justify their (theists')


a. intolerance,

b. violence,

c. retardation of science, for examples:


stem cell research that could be used


aa. to fight cancers and

bb. illnesses like the ones they so fervently pray against.

Let's go to #1 grievance, do you have any specific law in mind which is due to or founded on a theists'* view?



Yrreg

*prbc = predominantly represented by Christians.[/list]

[Karras]

*prbc = predominantly represented by Christians.[/list]

I expect this will be another of my posts you ignore but why is this? By what right do Christians speak for everyone else in the world of religion? I thought you wanted impartial, unbiased people to decide this difficult issue.

And no, an argument from popularity ain't gonna cut it. Christianity has as much evidentiary support as does the idea that you can see the future in chicken entrails.

[Yrreg]

Let's be logically systematic here.


See the post of curiosityandthecat's post detailing grievances of atheists against theists, which I have reproduced and laid out more in order for easy reading in my immediately previous post here.

Please start with the grievance about why there are laws which represent theists' views.

Now, tell me what law you have in mind in particular which represents the view of theists but also binding on atheists as well.




Yrreg

[Brizz]

"Yrreg"..."Yrreg"...is that something Nordic?

[jbeukema]

"Yrreg"..."Yrreg"...is that something Nordic?

sounds very trollish to my ear