Re: God or religion, which are atheists more unhappy with?

[LoneMateria]

Kylyssa this is the easiest way to go about this without getting angry or frustrated.

There are all kinds of non-realities,

Prove it.

and God is a very special non-reality for atheists

Prove it.

one which they write so much about to deny that He does exist as the moon and your nose exist

Prove it.

of course in His own manner, but no less real as you and I and our nose and the moon and the sun are real.

Prove it.

Please don't bring in lying in our exchange of views, we are just exchanging views about atheists being unhappy with God and with believers in God.

Prove that while you are at it.

If you don't share my observation, you just say that I get it all wrong, even though I insist that my observation is real.

Prove it's an observation.

No one is accusing no one of lying, not me of you and I am certain not you of me.

Then why are you rejecting what we are saying?

You give one reason why you are not happy with believers in God, because they want you to observe what they observe owing to their faith in God.

Reread the conversation in the thread if you really think that.

Is it really that bad, that they want you to observe what they do observe owing to their faith in God, i.e., knowledge that God really exists?

When they are trying to pass laws because of it ... then yes.

Suppose you be specific and itemize concretely what they don't tolerate you doing or not doing owing to your not accepting God as real.

Can you rephrase that into a cohesive sentence please?

Okay, so they don't vote you to government elective offices because they don't want people who don't believe as they do in God, to be occupants of government offices, isn't that totally within their political rights?

Let me fix this:  So what if we don't vote for Christians in government elective offices, we don't want Christians to be occupants of government offices, we are totally within our political rights to do so. (Now replace Christians with Blacks, Jews, Muslims,  and Gays)

You do the same, don't vote for God believers.

Prove it.

Now, what other things do they insist, mind you, insist that you also observe to do or to not do as they who believe in God's really existing?

Your grammar is terrible.  And prove that is all they do.

Like for examples, no stealing, no murdering, no making a racket at night in the neighborhood when people are trying to get some sleep for tomorrow?

Prove that is all they do.

[Yrreg]

You are unhappy with me or with my opinions?

And are my opinions so bad for your taste that you have to be unhappy with me?

Do I engage in blatant foul language on you here?

I am just saying that I am of the valid observation that you atheists are not happy with God and with believers in God.

Now it turns out that you have no reasons to be unhappy with God because God for you does not exist, but you are unhappy with believers in God because they in effect get in your way with having a happy existence and life.


Come to my country, the Philippines, it is a Christian country but the peoples are the most tolerant when it comes to religion.

Wait, except in the very tip of the southern islands, because there are Muslims there who claim to be fighting for autonomy, even when they have already an autonomous big slice of land there, and they can have very unhappy ways and means (for the rest of the country) of raising funds for their cause.

But right in the USA it is a very big country, I am sure you can live elsewhere where there are no fundamentalist believers in God who can send you death threats for being unbelievers in God.

Bill Gates is supposed to be an atheist but he is not unhappy with believers in God, is he? well not the way you are in this forum.

So, what is preventing you from becoming like Bill Gates, very rich and very happy and a good citizen and a moral one of the USA?

Even without believing in God.

Tell you what, you atheists should all get together and work together to buy a very big slice of land in the USA like what the Mormons did (in a way), and live among yourselves but still enjoying all the fabulous opportunities of being citizens of the USA, to get ahead in life and have a very happy existence.



You know what, you should be like infants which you claim also to be born atheists, then you would not have to be unhappy with believers, because infants are just happy to be alive and comfortable and fed regularly from mama's breast.



By the way is this the forum where I was once banned temporarily, because I kept repeating my idea about how atheists when they get to be in charge of the government will do terrible things to believers in God, like what they did in Russia during the cold war years?

But now there are no more militant atheists in Russia, everyone is now proud to be Russian and heir to the great tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church.

-----------------

You know what, you are unhappy with believers in God because they give you the suspicion of their being happier than you with their existence and life and world.



Ryrge

[Kylyssa]

You know what, you are unhappy with believers in God because they give you the suspicion of their being happier than you with their existence and life and world.
Ryrge

You know what, you came to the conclusion you planned to come to when you wrote the original post.  Coming to a conclusion, asking people what they think, then ignoring it and sticking to the conclusion you started with - par for the course.

You know what, you are unhappy with believers in God because they give you the suspicion of their being happier than you with their existence and life and world.
Ryrge

You come to this conclusion after completely ignoring what we all said about the problem we have with believers.  You ignore the rape and death threats mentioned, the vandalism, the stalking, the fear for jobs and safety - and you come to the conclusion atheists aren't upset by the threats, violence, terror tactics, and legislation but that, no, those things don't bother us a bit, we're just jealous that believers are happier than us.

But you know what?  I don't go to Christian forums and tell them they are wrong.  Why do you need to go to atheist forums and basically try to prove your superiority?

[plinkoblinko]

Which is just fine so long as your rules don't infringe on other people's rights and safety (i.e. letting your child die without medical treatment, harming others) and you don't make your rules into laws and force everyone to follow them.

Those rules are not "my" rules. If those rules are actually made into laws, we've got a serious problem.

Anti-blasphemy laws, anti-homosexuality laws. And seriously, you haven't noticed the religious fundamentalists trying to get evolution and science-based sex ed out of schools? Haven't you seen the book burnings?

Not really. But that is some pretty crazy stuff. Do you really think that's going to happen? People (I hope) are just a little smarter than that.

So your answer is leave America, how original. No thanks, I'd rather speak up and try to change it.

No, It's not.
Whatever you want to do though to get away is great. And If you want to change things, that's great too.

So that makes it fine. It's OK if Christians make people suffer because other people make Christians suffer? Seriously? What kind of morality is that?

No, It's not OK.
I was simply saying that there has been suffering concerning beliefs since the beginning of time. Everyone suffers, and it takes an individual or group to respond and change that.

[Yrreg]

When I started with this thread it was to find out whether atheists can know the distinction between God and believers in God, or God and religion.

Because they voice out their frustrations and dissatisfactions with one and the other confusedly, so that God is religion and religion is God as if they make up the same lump in their (atheists') throats.


You say I started with the conclusion already that atheists are unhappy with God and religion.

Yes, that is true but not so much the conclusion as the valid observation that atheists are unhappy with God and religion.

However, I was ready to hear from atheists whether they should and could be objective in their self-examination, why they are unhappy with God and believers in God, specifically the Christian faith or in particular Christians.


What I am now aware of is that atheists feel the need to project themselves as not being unhappy with God, because He does not exist, and not with Christians except that Christians are a pain in the neck for them, to say the least.

So I have the impression now that atheists want to convince themselves and everyone else that logically they have no reasons to be unhappy with God, and not with Christians unless Christians restrict their freedom to do what they want to do and also of course to not do, all within the lawful constraints of a society founded upon the institution of law.

And just the same emotionally they are unhappy with God and with religion.

You cannot cease being emotional just because you can manipulate concepts and words to logically convince yourselves that you are not unhappy with God and religion.



My impression now in sum is that atheists want to by logic show themselves and others that they are not unhappy with God and with believers in God, but for being emotional entities as humans all are emotional entities they cannot keep from being emotionally unhappy with God and with believers in God.

Can you agree with me that emotionally you are not happy with God and with religion, more with religion than with God, no matter how you want to be logical that you need not be unhappy with them, because it is impossible for being human entities which are essentially emotional before anything else.


Now, you are unhappy with me because I see you as being unhappy with God and with religion, which you want to convince me with words and concepts and logic that you are not, but you are emotionally unhappy, that is what I see in you -- with God and with religion.

The only way you will not give me the idea that you are emotionally unhappy with God and religion is: when you should be robotized and your master programmer did not program God and believers in God into your operating system.

In which case you could be like smart bombs but not humans.


And as long as the powers that be here don't ban me forever from this forum, you just have to live with me in this forum with my idea that you guys are emotionally unhappy with God and religion, no matter how you want me to join you in your conviction that you are not, not even emotionally unhappy with God and with religion.

Rest assured however that I have other topics I like to raise up here with you, not connected -- is that possible? -- with God and religion.

Wait and see -- if I am still around.

[  If I don't appear here again because I have been banned in perpetuity, then I am glad to have met you atheists here and know about you, and also of course fellow theists here. ]

Yrreg

[Heretical Rants]

I seriously couldn't care less about what you believe until you start passing legislature limiting my rights based on it, or threatening my rights or the rights of others in other ways because of it.

I have nothing against the church when it stays nice and separate from the state.

Would you like it if a Muslim majority voted that all women had to wear burkas at all times?

[Kylyssa]

Anti-blasphemy laws, anti-homosexuality laws. And seriously, you haven't noticed the religious fundamentalists trying to get evolution and science-based sex ed out of schools? Haven't you seen the book burnings?

Not really. But that is some pretty crazy stuff. Do you really think that's going to happen? People (I hope) are just a little smarter than that.

Ireland passed anti-blasphemy laws similar to the ones groups in the US are proposing.  Anti-homosexual laws have already been passed preventing homosexuals from marrying.  Fundies are trying to introduce legislature to remove evolution from school curricula.  So far they've only succeeded in putting disclaimers in textbooks, but they admit they want more.  For about ten years, many science-based sex education programs were replaced with religion based "abstinence only" education at a cost of something like $75 million per year with a net result of not preventing teen pregnancies or STDs and not increasing the age at which teens become sexually active.

[LoneMateria]

crap

Look when you admit to having preconceived notions and are blatantly looking for some way to validate them including lying (which you are doing) then you make yourself and your religion look foolish.  We've all told you that you are not listening to what we are saying.  Maybe it's because of these preconceived notions that you distort your view with.  All you have done here is constantly assert more and more garbage and when asked to defend it you conveniently ignore the challenge and any criticism you get, and then moan about getting banned.  No one feels sorry for you because you don't listen and you don't learn.  You are like the kid who sticks his finger in the light socket for the twelfth time and is debating about going for thirteen.  No one feels sorry for you because you haven't learned a damn thing.

If you honestly came here to look at what atheists have to say then READ WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.  Don't glance at it and reject it because it doesn't fit into the view you had at the start.  When you do this you are lying to yourself.  This is called willful ignorance and there is no nice way to put it to you.  If your argument is so poor that it can't handle criticisms and challenges then what makes you think it is correct?  Please give us some evidence that atheists are angry at your god and show why it doesn't apply to already well known made up characters.  If you can't do it then your argument isn't worth the amount of space it takes up on the internet.

[pinkocommie]

God or religion, which are atheists more unhappy with?



Yrreg

Oh we all knew what this was from the get go, right?  Let's just respond with equally absurd questions -

Science or reality, which are theists more frightened of?  

Yrreg, can you honestly not understand how blatantly unfair a question like that is?

[Yrreg]

Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/[/list]

You get it a bit wrong there, mate.



Where there is doubt there is liberty should be better formulated as: where there is no intolerance and that includes intolerance from atheists, there is liberty of thought and speech.


---------------

I see that you all seem to have failed to grasp the distinction between logical stance and emotional stance.

You keep harping on logic but your words are all about unhappiness with God and religion, that you would be happy if there be no God and no religion and no one to even so much as mention God and practice religion.


And the fact that you accuse me of lying is the proof that you are unhappy with me.

Haha!

It does not at all convince anyone on the veracity of your accusation, but it does show how you can be against a person and not just limiting yourselves to his observations which he expresses as much as possible impassively.



Yrreg

[Sophus]

You keep harping on logic but your words are all about unhappiness with God and religion, that you would be happy if there be no God and no religion and no one to even so much as mention God and practice religion.
And the fact that you accuse me of lying is the proof that you are unhappy with me.

Haha!

Can we just ban this guy and be done with it?

[pinkocommie]

Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/[/list]

You get it a bit wrong there, mate.



Where there is doubt there is liberty should be better formulated as: where there is no intolerance and that includes intolerance from atheists, there is liberty of thought and speech.

Uh oh, must have touched a nerve...sucks being on the receiving end of that kind of irrational question, huh?  You seem, dare I say, unhappy.    :ban:[/quote]

I'm shocked this person hasn't been banned already.  Oh, wait...

[Recusant]

I've stayed out of this thread because to me the initial question was pointless and smelled strongly of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  So Yrreg's subsequent posts have not been all that surprising to me.  However, after (yet another) careful reading of the Forum Rules, I don't find any which are being blatantly violated by him.  You might conceivably accuse him of trolling, but I think that he's honestly here to attempt dialog (even though he seems to have trouble accomplishing that, in light of his refusal to take statements by other forum members at face value), rather than merely provoke and rile.  Indeed, there is an occasional glimmer of actual give and take in his posts, before he reverts to his preconceived position.  

 

From the Wiki definition of trolls, as quoted in the masterful OP of Trolling 101:

...someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community...  ...with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

This thread has been undeniably on topic, in as much as it has been about atheism.  The "provoking emotional response" issue is dubious in this context, in that many of the topics discussed at HAF are inevitably emotion laden.  I think that a good part of the "normal on-topic discussion" at HAF is responding to crusading clowns in various striped, polka-dotted and zig-zagged get-ups, most of them wielding cross or crescent moon shaped slapsticks, so once again, this thread is not pushing the limits of what's "normal" here.  While Yrreg does seem intransigent/thick-headed, I don't get the feeling that he's here merely to provoke.  That's a hard call, though, and his posts could be read either way.  I would vote for the "more rope" approach, because it doesn't hurt any of the members of  HAF to give Yrreg a chance to prove himself definitively a troll or not, and because of the following:

I admit that I have a tendency to defend borderline cases such as Yrreg, merely because I find reading the threads in which they are involved somewhat entertaining.  That's a purely selfish motive, but I don't think I'm the only one with a semi-morbid sense of humor.  

As for the OP:  I'm at least as unhappy with YHVH as I am with any other fictional thug.  Religion per se I take on a case by case basis, but I hold to Mencken's statement, as seen in the second of my signature quotes.  

Which are you more unhappy with Yrreg:  Atheist lack of belief in your favorite deity, or the ongoing discovery and understanding of the universe as a godless place?

[Whitney]

Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/[/list]

You get it a bit wrong there, mate.



Where there is doubt there is liberty should be better formulated as: where there is no intolerance and that includes intolerance from atheists, there is liberty of thought and speech.

Don't derail your own thread in an attempt to beat up someone who responded to you....that's not nice and it makes jesus cry.

[LoneMateria]

Got to love South Park, "The otters are attacking us sir!" (reference to the link yrreg posted)

I still haven't seen you back up anything you've said Yrreg ... so you are still sinking with the failboat.