I truly feel bad for atheists.

[LoneMateria]

Yrreg there is soooooooooo much factually wrong with what you say it is staggering.  Your mind is filled with so much religious dogma that is has blinded you from reason and critical thinking and those same religious convictions have made you divisive.  You are the type of person who goes to atheist sites, muslim sites, hindu sites, and every other website that doesn't 100% agree with your dogmatic world view and you just troll.  Do you have nothing better to do?  Or is your life so pathetic that the only thing you can do all day is repeat lies and hate speeches directed at a group of people who don't share your religious convictions?  Get a girlfriend ... you need to get laid bad.  If Jesus were alive today he would bitch slap you for using his name so you can express your hate.

Besides don't you know anything, The Flying Spaghetti monster made your god with the perception of being the creator of all things.  He will share his truth to you only if you accept him into your heart.  And when you die you will join him and become a meatball on him and will forever be at his side.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is known to all and you know him deep down in your heart.  I used to be an A-Flying Spaghetti Monsterist too, but I realized I was angry at him just like you are.  But I realize now I just wanted to sin and deny his noodley goodness but I know everyone believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster whether they want to admit it to themselves or not.  Repent and go spread his good word for if you do you will be rewarded with his sauce in noodle heaven for all time.

[Yrreg]

There is obviously and conspicuously a conflict in the US between atheists and theists, predominantly represented by Christians.

You deny that?

Good that so far it is a conflict in words, as for example with words in public notices; but unless this word conflict is resolved to the satisfaction of both sides, things can get violent.

Please keep your accusation that I am a troll here out of this discussion.


Important is that people with eyes to see and ears to hear realize what is going on, namely, a conflict that is escalating between atheists and theists represented predominantly by Christians, and these people interested in keeping peace and order in society exert their efforts to resolve the conflict by peaceful ways and means.

And government people in the US should ex officio involve themselves in the quest for peaceful ways and means to resolve the conflict.
 



Yrreg

[Heretical Rants]

Please keep your accusation that I am a troll here out of this discussion.

Then don't ask blatantly troll-like questions.

Example:  "Why do atheists hate America?"
or, as you said,
"Do you want to kill all theists, or would you prefer to burn the scriptures and outlaw religion?"

[karadan]

Please keep your accusation that I am a troll here out of this discussion.

Then don't ask blatantly troll-like questions.

Example:  "Why do atheists hate America?"
or, as you said,
"Do you want to kill all theists, or would you prefer to burn the scriptures and outlaw religion?"

It is a troll. I say poke it with a shitty stick until it stops trolling, or at least until it starts answering all our most pertinent questions.

 

[SSY]

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.

[LoneMateria]

There is obviously and conspicuously a conflict in the US between atheists and theists, predominantly represented by Christians.

You deny that?

Good that so far it is a conflict in words, as for example with words in public notices; but unless this word conflict is resolved to the satisfaction of both sides, things can get violent.

Please keep your accusation that I am a troll here out of this discussion.


Important is that people with eyes to see and ears to hear realize what is going on, namely, a conflict that is escalating between atheists and theists represented predominantly by Christians, and these people interested in keeping peace and order in society exert their efforts to resolve the conflict by peaceful ways and means.

And government people in the US should ex officio involve themselves in the quest for peaceful ways and means to resolve the conflict.
 



Yrreg

Yes, I deny there is a conflict between atheists and theists.  Come live here for a little bit.  There is a battle for basic human rights and the side prodominately against basic human rights happens to be the fundamentalists and the side who is in favor happens to be lead by a few atheistic organizations.  The fundamentalists want to vote away basic human rights and replace it with dogma and the bible.  They want to remove the teaching of evolution for intelligent design and trade knowledge for willing ignorance.  The battle is between rationality and superstition and the undisputed champion of superstition is religion and the voice of reason just so happens to be atheists with some liberal theists in the mix.

If you would quit making blatant troll posts then we would quit accusing you of trolling.

Now if we are talking about peace religion claims they are all about peace.  Also when they go around shooting abortion doctors, blowing up clinic, defacing signs that disagree with their opinions, and get a boner over telling people that they will burn alive forever and spend eternity in pain then they are not a religion of peace.  They act like they are and when stuff like this happen they try to cop out by saying oh those people aren't true Christians they only sacrificed everything they had for their view on god (and/or Jesus), not a true Christian.  If they were truly a religion of peace then they would sit down at a table and say we disagree with your opinion how can we meet halfway here.  They don't we do and they say there is no compromise we are right you are wrong your evidence is wrong and I hope you get tortured forever for thinking differently than us.  They only want to compromise when they are at very bad disadvantage such as when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of what they are spouting that they want to compromise to have their view shown.  Then when we don't agree because they want to teach lies as the truth they say we are persecuting them and they want to have a vote and let the majority decide what is true.  Truth doesn't work like that, the majority doesn't decide the truth.  We've operated like that for more than 1700 years and it doesn't work.  If they truly were a religion of peace and truth then they would agree with the truth and revise their ideas (as a work in progress), they don't (at least not the staggering majority).  The majority say the truth was inspired by barbarians who believed slavery was okay and that people who don't share your views must be killed.  And those are the people who we should be like and get our morals from.

They have used and continue to use their superstition to discriminate, terrorize, bully, and lie to our communities.  I could care less what these people believe as long as they don't try to legislate their beliefs on everyone else.  They do, our politicians have to answer to the religious right of the country and they pander to their beliefs so that they can be reelected.  We have had enough but we are not going to burn bibles and discriminate against them.  We never have and we wont sink to their level.  You hear about book burnings what comes to mind?  Religion burning books.  You hear about abortion clinic bombings and the assassination of abortion doctors what comes to mind?  Religion.  Hell one of the last abortion doctors was executed in his own church.  95% of people in our prisons are Christian which is disproportionately greater than Christians in our general population.  Atheists are disproportionately fewer in prison then in our general population.  Why?  Because religion is not about peace its about control.  If you go out and rape and kill 5 little girls its okay your god in his infinite mercy will forgive you for raping and killing 5 little girls and you will still go to heaven.  All you have to do in return is give them your unconditional support and that is blatantly obvious.  Besides who doesn't agree with their church on 99% of matters?  That number can probably be safely upped to 99.9%.

The absolute scariest thing in MY country is that 1/3rd of our population claim they are born again Christians.  Meaning they take the word of the bible literally.  When they become the majority we will cease being a democracy and we will become a theocracy.  That is what the founding fathers of this country feared the most, thats why they advocated a wall of separation between church and state.  We are fighting to stop ignorance and superstition and keep our democracy.  For the day it becomes a Christian theocracy then the world is fucked (i'm saying that because we ARE a superpower).  Take a look at other theocracies, and imagine Iran with enough military and nuclear weapons to destroy the world 100 times over.  That is the future of our country if superstition and religious dogma isn't stopped.  There is no religion of peace they are all religions of control and that makes it particular difficult to be peaceful with them.  They don't want equal rights, they don't want shared time in classrooms, they want absolute 100% control and they will resort to any tactic to get it.

[Yrreg]

I am thinking of really thoughtful and well-intentioned people among atheists and theists, to work together to resolve the conflict between atheists and theists predominantly represented by Christians.

But specially government people to undertake measures to defuse the conflicting postures and gestures between atheists and theists, for the sake of peace, order, and safety and security for everyone, in particular the protagonists of this conflict, but also even more importantly for everyone not wanting to get actively involved in the conflict, even though they don't believe in God or they believe in God.


Now, this is my idea.

Let us sit back, all of us, atheists and theists, and consider that it is a game, the conflict between atheists and theists, and use our brain cells to figure out what kind of a game or contest (in place of the word conflict, let us use the word contest) atheists and theists want to play.

First, the way I see it, they want to show each other that they from one side are the rational camp, and the other camp non-rational at least or at worst irrational.

So, the contest is who have more and better reasons, for atheists to be atheists or for theists to be theists (predominantly represented by Christians -- henceforth abbreviated as prbc).

Atheists here, What do you say about my idea?

If it is all right with you, atheists, as also with theists, our next task is to choose mutually acceptable judges to decide from listening to both camps thus to determine who have more and better reasons: atheists to be atheists or theists prbc to be theists.

Think about that, instead of putting up ads about "not believing in God" from the side of atheists and "atheists hate America" from the side of theists.



Yrreg

[Karras]

Think about that, instead of putting up ads about "not believing in God" from the side of atheists and "atheists hate America" from the side of theists.

The two are not comparable. More comparable statements would be "I do not believe in God" and "I believe in God".

Your suggestion leads to the imbalance (that already exists in some places) that theists can publicly declare their belief but atheists cannot. How is this fair? How does one even declare which side they are on to participate in your "game"?

[Yrreg]

I am still waiting for anyone here to take up my idea of a contest to be presided by mutually acceptable persons to be judges on which side has more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

In the meantime may I just react to the number of posts given over to shampoo from the part of atheists here?

*I have noticed time and again that it is part of the discussion methodology of atheists, they regularly resort to frivolity, thinking that in this manner they are being smart, but they are actually evading the issues.



The thing is to ask them what is the ultimate premise of your being an atheist, i.e., one who denies the existence of God or who lacks belief in God.



They will resort now to their lack also of belief in Thor, etc., and also in Santa, etc., and the flying spaghetti monster, etc.



When anyone with any exposure to English knows what is meant by God, but they just want to bring in frivolous characters or obsolete characters, to muddle up the issue.

Ah yes, they will tell you that for them God is no different from Santa, and Thor, and the flying spaghetti monster, and the celestial teapot, because they are all bereft of evidence.



And that is where they show themselves to base their pseudo arguments on the premise that what they maintain to be bereft of evidence is equivalent to no evidence for other people who do have evidence but which they will stubbornly deny to be acceptable and sufficient evidence.

So, their number one premise in exchange of thoughts on God or no God is their insistence that there is no evidence, not to themselves that is.



Ask them whether they then have for the very first explanation for everything that now exists is matter in randomness, they will say that they don't know, and no one can know for sure.



That is their refuge in ignorance.

No, they will not accept the common conclusion of physicists about the Big Bang to be the beginning of the physical universe, insisting that for them it is pure speculation.



Best not to exchange thoughts with them, just point out their wrong premises which give them a pseudo excuse to conclude to their denial of God or as they like to evasively put it, their lack of belief in god(s).



The study of atheists should be their psychology of why they proclaim themselves atheists, not what are their cognitive grounds for being atheists.*

[/list]

Yes, I am firmly of the conviction that we must really get together because we are all fellow human beings here, atheists and theists, to set up a grand international debate to be presided by mutually acceptable judges, to decide which side has more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

Otherwise we are just wasting the time of readers here and our own resources to no useful purpose for mankind at large -- except and this is a losing proposition, to satisfy our respective pet peeve.



Yrreg

*If you read the above text in another forum, it is also from me.

[Tanker]

SHAMPOO TIME! please let it be shampoo time. I think this post has more then earned a shampoo discussion.

[Karras]

Yes, I am firmly of the conviction that we must really get together because we are all fellow human beings here, atheists and theists, to set up a grand international debate to be presided by mutually acceptable judges, to decide which side has more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

So, you think what, that the matter of whether God exists can be decided my committee?

I do hope you will be inviting members of every other religion on Earth as well, as their opinions are just as valid as that of a Christian. And yes, that does include Pastafarians and Jedi. Should be quite an eclectic gathering.

Edit: Just realised, we should also invite a Dark Lord of the Sith to provide a dissenting opinion to the Jedi. I say we get this guy to come along:



Not sure if it would create a conflict of interests that he also represents the Catholics though.  

[Yrreg]

Will you be susceptible to the idea as I have described it, or you want to only pose objections and nothing else?

So that we will miss altogether working on the idea and thereby missing on the at least possibility of establishing peace and harmony between atheists and theists, by finding out who or which side has more and better reasons for being atheists or being theists.

Because if it should turn out that one side has less of reasons and and not as good reasons, then that is a great ground why they should be more reasonable and thereby adopt a more reasonable position.


Is that bad or unacceptable to you, because you don't think that it is or any use, in your own view?

Well, in which case you don't have to concern yourself with the idea as I have described in my message above.

And you can just let people who are interested occupy themselves with the idea, and you just leave us alone to pursue our objective of bringing about peace and harmony between atheists and theists, to the best of our intentions and our resources.



Yrreg

[jcpopm]

ergerg
erg
erg
erg
erg
er
ge
rg
erg
er
ge
rg
erg
erg

[Yrreg]

Now, we have to first set up a panel of judges acceptable to both atheists and theists who will determine by listening to both sides which camp, atheists or theists, have more and better reasons in their respective position of being atheists or theists predominantly represented by Christians.

I suggest that we both look for the most relevant government office in the USA which can be impartial, to choose together people there who will be guided solely by logic to judge which camp, atheists or theists, have more and better reasons to be atheists or theists.

Or people in the academic sectors of unimpeachable reputation for impartiality on the one hand and mastery of logic on the other?


What do you say?




Yrreg

[Tom62]

I was stupid enough to give a very long reply to your questions in this thread, which you ignored. I'm not going to make the same mistake again. Sorry, but I've got better things to do, like washing my hair.