Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
This is a rational post. You've asked a question, stated a position, asked a clarifying question, etc.
I think you can see that rational posts get rational, honest, direct answers.
I, too, am new here. I am, in fact, much newer to the forum than you are - Having only joined a couple of days ago. That being said, I have had an entirely different experience than you have and I'm pretty sure I know why. Allow me to explain:
When I post things here I attempt, to the best of my ability, to use the rules of logic and formulate posts which are well thought out, include evidence of my claims, have explanations of anything which may start off as nebulous and, in general, attempt to be very clear in what I'm asking or stating.
In doing so, I present myself in a completely different way than I have seen you present yourself which has, for the most part, SEEMED arrogant, closed minded and unwilling to engage with others in logical, adult discourse.
You have to realize that we, as atheists, have heard so many bad, illogical and irrational arguments that in most cases we instantly roll our eyes when we see another one.
Now, I am known to be a very direct, very blunt person; I mean in the real world, by the way. In my professional life, I don't have time to mince words or beat around the bush so when I am dealing with anything, I meet it head on and full force. I do the same in my personal life and, let me tell you, it's liberating.
That being said, I am going to be direct with you, right now, as I would be with anyone else.
The posts that I have seen you make have been disjointed. They have been, for the most part, unformatted and long, with minimal punctuation and long, rambling sentences. This makes them look like word-salad. For clarification:
word sal·ad
noun
a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, specifically (in psychiatry) as a form of speech indicative of advanced schizophrenia.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here. I'm telling you, quite honestly, how your posts come off, to me, and I'm sure my thoughts are similar to the thoughts of others. If you were to format your posts better, use appropriate punctuation, make sure your spelling is on point and post rational statements and arguments, I'm entirely sure you'll get a better response.
Another thing I'd like to recommend is that you learn the rules of evidence and burden of proof. In another thread you made a claim in a post that was filled with personal impressions and anecdotes, and I asked you to provide evidence of that claim. You responded to me that you had already provided evidence and that it was up to me to use that evidence to come to a conclusion.
Here's the problem: Personal impressions, anecdotes, feelings, presuppositions...These things are not evidence. Evidence is FACTS. Evidence is things that can be demonstrated and tested. Evidence is objective, not subjective. Evidence must be presented clearly, objectively and honestly, or it isn't evidence. And on to the subject of "burden of proof", it's simple.
The party making the claim is the party who is responsible for proving that claim. If you claim that a god or gods exist, the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU must prove your claim. It is not on someone else to DISPROVE your claim. It is also not on anyone else to find the evidence. That is on you, 100%. If you claim that you don't believe in god but that you worship the spirit of love, you must be prepared to provide evidence for the existence of the spirit of love. This should include a definition of what a "spirit" is, along with testable and demonstrable evidence of its existence. If you don't have such evidence, you should not make a claim.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat
The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies
I would also suggest that you learn and embrace the various philosophical razors. These principles are intended to "shave away" the BS and get to the core of a matter. Here are the ones I apply most often:
Alder's razor: If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.
Occam's razor: Simpler explanations are more likely to be correct than complex ones, or: If two explanations exist, the less speculative is more likely to be correct..
Hitchens's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable.
Hume's razor: If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect.
Be careful with Hume's razor...Theists are very guilty of using the second part to make their god match whatever they want.
Last suggestion: Learn and utilize the laws of logic. Not only in the forums but also in your life. Once you do that, you will instantly see that things go a lot more smoothly for you. The questions that are asked of you, here, will make sense. You will understand why people dismiss your claims, out of hand, and start to deride you when you respond to requests for evidence with fallacious arguments or more non-evidential claims.
Do these things and I can promise you a couple of things: First, your time here and the experiences you have here will be much more fruitful and fulfilling. Second, you will start to see things in your life very differently and that new viewpoint will have myriad advantages for you.
Try it on for size.
@Terraphon
Thanks for your input. It is much appreciated and gave me some clarity.
Perhaps I may have made my hypotheses unclear in a muddy glass of water. I will attempt to clarify it in a more concise and scientific approach in the future.
The only objection I have is when proof is demanded. If I can lay out an experiment that can be tested, is the onus not on the others to test it out? Let's assume that if I can repeat the experiment a hundred times and come to the same conclusion can we agree that this does not constitute proof but that it must be carried out by other objective parties to put the hypotheses to the test to see if the same result is concluded? Isn't this how our world accepts or rejects claims? I could be wrong. I'm just asking. What other way creates proof?
HOLY SHIT!
In Spirit Wrote something that resembles a clear thought. I AM COMPLETELY IMPRESSED. GOOD JOB. Yes, the ability to duplicate experiments and get the same results is essential to the scientific method,
@In Sprit
A couple of points here:
"The only objection I have is when proof is demanded."
Proof will always be demanded. I promise you that if I tell people in here that I built a car, with popsicle sticks, gorilla tape and desk-fans and that car can go 500 miles per hour on a 20% grade, people are going to demand proof...And they're going to demand proof of everything.
"If I can lay out an experiment that can be tested, is the onus not on the others to test it out?"
Yes, and I said as much in the other thread. It is incumbent upon the one making the assertion to provide the evidence. It is then incumbent upon the one demanding the evidence to validate it and then once it is validated, test it.
This brings up a good point, though. The evidence must be valid. It must follow the rules of evidence. One mistake most, if not all people who make spiritual claims make is that they provide impressions or anecdotes or feelings as "evidence" of their claims. This is a favorite of theists and it goes something like this:
Theist: "I know god is real"
Skeptic: "Please provide evidence for your claim"
T: "I can feel his presence!" (Not evidence)
S: "How do you know what you 'feel' is 'god's presence'"
T: "Because I feel it!!!!" (circular argument)
S: "How are we supposed to test that?"
T: "Accept god into your heart and you'll feel it tooooo!" (Invalid methodology)
S: "Prove god exists and that I can accept him into my heart"
T: "He MUST exist!" (beginning of circular argument or "god of the gaps" argument from ignorance)
S: "Provide evidence for his existence"
T: "A couple billion christians can't be wrong!" (OH GOD, CURVEBALL!! argumentum ad populum!!")
S: "That's a fallacious argument...try again, sparky!"
T: "Well, I know god exists because it says so in the bible!" (here it comes...circular argument!)
S: " How do you know the bible is true?" (trap set, baited and waiting)
T: "Because it's the word of god!" (Theist eyes the bait)
S: "How do you know the bible is the word of god?" (wait for it...)
T: "Because it says so in the bible" (and the trap is sprung, debate over, thank you, have a nice day)
During that entire exchange, there is not one iota of evidence presented. There isn't a single shred of logical thought on the part of the asserter. Not one...single...statement from T even approaches the standards of evidence required to prove that scrambled eggs exist, let alone that a god exists (See Sagan's Standard).
So, yeah...if you provide evidence which follows the rules of evidence and meets the standards of evidence, it is on the skeptic to test that evidence and attempt to falsify it. If you provide testing methodology that follows the rules of science and is truly repeatable and provides demonstrable facts, then that methodology should be tested for validity and then, assuming it is valid, should be followed to check results.
@Terraphon
Well said. I can assure you that my hypotheses and experiment include nothing on the list you mentioned. I will post it at a later date
Terraphon: Such Clarity. Such organization. Such Rationality... Hope you stick around,.
"The only objection I have is when proof is demanded. If I can lay out an experiment that can be tested, is the onus not on the others to test it out?"
Hypothesis, testing, findings, conclusions. Proof is never demanded after the aforementioned is shown. If you personally bring forward a hypothesis, this is demanded. If you bring forward a thought, make sure you post it as so...clarify that no testing has been done by you. If you are presenting a hypothesis that is not yours, but has been tested...include the testing conclusions. The onus is on the presenter to present the hypothesis, testing and his conclusions...if you have a method of testing...then the onus is on you to test it.
Firstly welcome to the forum.
Secondly this is a debate forum, and an atheist one at that, so if you think your beliefs are too fragile to have frank and critical or even derogatory views expressed by atheists against then then it may not be the place for you, and I must say that it is absurd to demand people respect your views beforehand.
that said most of the atheists on here are jaded from relentlessly dishonest and fairly arrogant preaching and trolling from theists. So if you avoid that behaviour then you will be respected, your beliefs will have to take their chances though.
Good luck.
@Sheldon
Thanks Sheldon.
I take your word for it that many here have been jaded. I have had my fair share as well in my personal life.
Time will tell whether this is the place for me to express my views but regardless of that, I sense I will be making new friendships here
Terraphon - Beautifully put there, that is quite par for the course on most athiest forums I meander about on.
The arguments tend require far more evidence because of the magnitude of the claim...
It's the old, I have a car in my garage/ I have a dragon in my garage experiment.
One demands a higher burden of proof.
However this is simply one of a few standard claims/positions made by theists, they tend to be as follows...
- Logical Arguements (that tend to be piss poor)
- Claims that rely on an appeal to authority
- Claims that are underpinned by physics but they won't use the scientific method when questioned... I.e. peir review etc...
- Shifting the burden of proof
- Or just generally being a dick in not answering questions.
@ In Spirit
Seems to have finally got the picture.
I know I can seem condescending. Ever listen to Christopher Hitchens? That is just way I am.
rmfr
It's at this point, that I shall enter this thread, and point out a few elementary concepts applicable here.
First, whilst effort is made to treat persons with respect, ideas are a free-fire zone for whatever invective one may choose to deploy. Quite simply, ideas exist to be subject to destructive test, and those ideas surviving said test, become part of our collection of accepted postulates. Those that fail said test are considered discardable, except for pedagogical purposes.
Unfortunately, some people (and I find supernaturalists are especially prone to this elementary error) regard a vigorous refutation of their ideas as some sort of personal affront. Especially if the refutation is accompanied by various slings and arrows aimed at the ideas in question. Which is one of the reasons that various pleadings to "respect my beliefs" tend to be given short shrift here, because any proper discoursive arena treats blind assertions as entities to be tested, on the basis that said assertions possess the status "truth value unknown" until a proper test has been conducted thereof.
Among the issues that have been encountered here (and elsewhere on the Internet where atheists gather), frequently arising from apologetic duplicity on the part of the usual suspects, have been:
[1] Evasion when presented with substantive questions requiring an answer (sometimes manifest as full-bore stonewalling);
[2] Substitution of apologetic parrotings for genuine answers;
[3] Summary dismissal of valid data or research findings, when these conflict with dogma;
[4] Outright fabrication (in short, lying);
[5] Deployment of known and documented fallacies;
[6] Quote mining of scientific papers and scientific material in general (creationists are especially fond of this piece of mendacity), and the treatment of science as a branch of apologetics;
[7] Scatter-gun peddling of assertions (otherwise known as the Gish Gallop, after the creationist who invented this abuse of discourse).
Anyone resorting to the above will be dealt with ruthlessly.
There's also the little matter of the need to educate certain individuals about the rules of proper discourse, one of which I have presented above.
Quite simply, the proper rules of discourse, as understood in any properly constituted, rigorous academic discipline, were formulated specifically to weed out error, weak inference, and irrelevance. As a corollary, whenever any of those three undesirables puts in an appearance, the discoursive ordnance is unleashed. Indeed, in certain scientific circles, the resulting exchanges can appear to be utterly brutal to an outsider viewing proceedings with an untrained eye, but the whole point of those exchanges is to ensure that bad ideas do not escape scrutiny and elimination. Some very hard lessons have been learned in the world of the empirical sciences, with respect to such matters as the proper treatment of data, and as a result of the requisite endeavours, the standards for evidence and discoursive honesty are now pretty high in those sciences. The view taken by many here, myself included, is that it is not for us to lower our standards in order to hand out free passes to fanciful speculation or wishful thinking, but for those who want us to accept the validity of extraordinary assertions to develop some basic competence in the matter, and if they are not willing to do that, they are going to experience a thorough blowtorching of the fingers, so to speak.
Frequently, the more florid appearances of invective are a signal that a certain point of exasperation has been reached, with respect to the emergence of yet more repetitions of the same discoursive offences we've seen so often before. Some here take the view that the requisite displays of discoursive criminality are wholly deserving of being hosed with hot laser death, and it's not unusual to see hair-trigger DefCon 1 responses when the offences are particularly egregious.
This should hopefully prove informative about the environment here.
@Cali
Hot DAMN! I certainly do like having you around! As always, a most enjoyable pleasure reading your posts.... *tipping hat in sincere appreciation*....
"First, whilst effort is made to treat persons with respect, ideas are a free-fire zone for whatever invective one may choose to deploy. Quite simply, ideas exist to be subject to destructive test, and those ideas surviving said test, become part of our collection of accepted postulates. Those that fail said test are considered discardable, except for pedagogical purposes."
BAM. :)
@ doG
10K Agree, but I can officially only give one. Nyar!
If I had a penny for every time I have said this to Religious Absolutists, and it was doubled every time, I'd be sailing the South Pacific Islands with mine own yacht with so much money, I'd never spend it all in a 100 lifetimes.
rmfr
@In Spirit
I'm going to put Calilasseia's post in a really short, succinct summary:
"Talk smack, get smacked."
Learning with each step.
Unfortunately, most of you have not shown to stay on topic, but prefer to blame others of getting off topic and preferring to sling poo when the rules YOU impose are not followed. You want to be the ones who state the rules of the debate, the meaning of atheism and the meaning of religion and god. Even theists can't agree on what is the best definition of god and/or religion, but you set the rules and you set the trap, how convenient. Even atheists have not fully agreed on the ONE single definition to best describe atheism.
When evidence is produced you start whining and ignore the evidence because it is much more important that you win the debate (or rather delude yourselves that you did) than to have an actual debate or conversation. You enjoy dribble and babble when you have nothing intelligent to say. You attempt to redirect the topic and avoid the OP when you have nothing else to say.
You prefer to ask questions that have nothing to do with the OP to create a trap. You do not even follow the rules of Atheist Republic. You consistently reveal how childish you are. You pretend to not understand the OP, when it is quite clear and concise at times.
You start going into a fantasy world and put it down in black and white for all to read. Everything you accuse theists of doing is exactly what you yourselves do.
Winning at all costs is your goal.
If you can't or don't wish to debate the OP then anything else is one or more of the following: babble, boring, uninteresting, ignorant, childish, drivel, unintelligent, off topic, manipulation, intimidation, bullying, whining, moronic, idiotic, ludicrous, from your arse, bullshit, moronic, brain dead and many more childish words........... SOURCE of childish words: your own remarks
You forgot
bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks bollocks
Thank you David.
I had forgotten to mention, "please add on to the list".
Thanks for sharing your level of maturity and vocabulary.
@ In Spirit
Quite the most arrogant yet passive aggressive post I have seen in a long time.
Well done, so far you have exemplified everything appalling in a pseudo theists armoury.
False generalizations, lack of coherent writing, inability to accept the correct definitions of simple terms like 'atheist'.
Constant refusal to define your deity/spirit/thingy of choice.
Finally of course, the whining when your inability to provide coherent and convincing evidence for your assertions is exposed.
Now of course you will stamp your ickle metaphorical feet and say this is an example of bullying. I can assure you by the very definition (of which you must be ignorant) that it is not.
I am however discriminating, but again none of the attributes you have displayed make my discrimination unlawful or even antisocial. My discrimination and replies are based solely on the information and misinformation you have posted on several threads.
Put up or shut up 'In Spirit" and please, stop playing the victim card. You chose to spout your nonsense here. We did not seek you out.
Old man, it is like going through the seven stages of grief. I have not paid enough attention to the theist process, but it certainly includes arrogance, combativeness, denial, and passive aggressive. I really need to start charting this out and figuring out the order.
Just trying to help.
re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
I don't know why anyone would have a problem agreeing on a definition of "religion". There it is, right there.
a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
That's the definition of atheism I've always seen used. Everyone here uses that definition, to the best of my knowledge. Would you be so kind as to present a circumstance in which an atheist disagrees with this definition?
Nobody whines. We ridicule people's lack of understanding of what constitutes evidence. I have never, for example, seen you provide evidence of anything. Redefining a word or relabeling a definition to suit your usage is not evidence. It's ridiculous.
If someone asks questions that appear to not be related to the OP, it is usually for the sake of clarification or due to something someone else has interjected in order to deflect and attempt to defend the original poster. i.e. OP says "god created the universe" and someone says "how do you know it wasn't magical, universe creating pixies?" We're looking for clarification. If the questioned party then goes off on a tangent, we will sometimes follow that tangent, which I don't necessarily agree with. I am much happier when people hold the poster accountable to their statements and don't let them deflect and wander off.
Finding the truth is our goal.
SOURCE of REASONING for "childish words": Read your own remarks. The ridiculous will be met with ridicule. Posts which are babble, boring, uninteresting, ignorant, childish, drivel, unintelligent, off topic, manipulation, intimidation, bullying, whining, moronic, idiotic, ludicrous, from your arse, bullshit, moronic, brain dead etc., will be called out as so.
"When evidence is produced you start whining and ignore the evidence"
I wondered how much of your dishonest semantics we'd have to endure before you used this cliched theistic canard. Weeks of providing naught but dishonest semantics and vapid saccharine rhetoric, then unsurprisingly we have all somehow missed the evidence you presented.
By all means link this evidence that you alone seem to recognise as evidence?
You do make me laugh, like SFT you come here to proselytise atheists, then sulk when they dare ask for objective evidence. Your beliefs are no different to all the others that are based on vapid superstition, and you prove it more with every new post that offers nothing objective or tangible to support them.
"Evidence", you do make me laugh.
@ In Spirit
Sun, 03/17/2019 - 09:44
Permalink
Have you truly? Your post does not prove such.
Where have we never stayed on topic? Show us. All I have seen is us refuting your arguments. If refuting your arguments is considered, BY YOU, as not staying on topic, then perhaps do not offer your arguments. Then we won't go off-topic so much.
I have said repeatedly about my Fourth Commandment of Humanity: “You shall respect the right of ALL persons to believe whatsoever they wish to believe; even if contradictory to your beliefs. You may discuss beliefs; however, forcing your beliefs onto others is condemnable.”
Notice it says to respect the right of a person to believe whatsoever they wish to believe. However, also notice it says NOTHING about respect the beliefs themselves. If you do not wish for your beliefs to be, probably as you see it, slandered, then do not post your beliefs. I have had many I have posted refuted. I either supply more logical evidence to back it up, or I admit I am wrong. I cannot remember how many times I have admitted I am wrong on these forum threads. And I ain't gonna go sifting through them all to show you. You can go and look back through all the past threads yourself if you truly wish to find out.
If wondering, here they are:
My Ten Commandments of Humanity
And these ten are more relevant than any ten thousand you could come up with from your Sky Faerie.
As for the rules of debate, go read this book.
The meaning of atheism is simple. And, I for one, cannot understand why any Religious Absolutists, and their lesser brethren, theists, cannot comprehend the simple definition of Atheism: From the Greek: θεος (theos) = God, Lord, Creator; ενα- [usually shortened to α-] (ena- [usually shortened to a-]) = to be without; thus αθεος (atheos) atheist = to be without God.
However, in today's terminology, atheism actually means "a lack of or disbelief in any claims for the existence of any deity."
BTW: If you do not shorten the prefix, you would get “εναθεος”, which is the basis for the English word “a•nath•e•ma”: noun, plural a•nath•e•mas; 1) a person or thing detested or loathed; 2) a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction; 3) a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication; 4) any imprecation of divine punishment; 5) a curse, execration.
And everyone of those definitions for anathema is something ALL you damned Religious Absolutists apply to us atheists. Hell, I was even excommunicated twice as a child (8yr & 9yr) And why do ALL you Religious Absolutists and theists fear us atheists? Because we have sound logical and scientific reasons as to why we do not believe or accept your preposterous claims for ANY deity's existence? Because as AC Grayling put it (I paraphrase), “Religious Absolutists and Apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you never argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. All we are now doing is, we are presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions you cannot answer, and you complain like little spoiled, whiney-ass, childish brats.” The only arguments you religitards have is fallacious logic, fallacious arguments, and absolutely no OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, or any kind of evidence at all. Furthermore, religitards favorite tactic is to Shift the Burden of Proof.
Burden of Proof
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
That is Latin for “he who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about… Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist” OR, “There is no evidence God does not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.
Here is actually where the burden of proof lies. You Religious Absolutists claim there is a supernatural super-being who has ultimate-power, ultimate-knowledge, and ultimate goodness (I beg to differ). We Atheists are simply saying, “We do not believe you. Show us the evidence.” Thus, the burden of proof is on you Religious Absolutists.
The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL religious texts are nothing more than 100% hearsay. Thus, I have no reason to believe any religious text as any kind of proof.
Until you Religious Absolutists can present any hard empirical evidence to support your claims, then your claims shall forever be preposterous, and summarily dismissed.
The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If you are going to claim that scientists are lying, doctors are being paid off, there is a global conspiracy against religion, etc., the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim. Just saying it proves nothing, except you possess just enough intelligence to speak.
For a primer (and web portal) about the Scientific Method, use this Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. See the sections of “See also,” “Notes,” “References,” “Further reading,” “Bibliography,” and/or “External links.” Pay particularly close attention, and read, the papers at science and university WWW sites.
And therein lies the problem for the religitards. You NEVER your definition of your "deity" and expect us to read your mind to know it automatically. If you want talk about your religious beliefs, you first have to define your "deity" and your "religion." Do not force us to assume what you mean, explain it. Otherwise, expect us to throw your bullshit back at you.
Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back.
Yes we have. I have NEVER seen any atheist use any other definition than this one (or it is very very close as to be non sequitor): “a lack of or disbelief in any claims for the existence of any deity.”
Show us where any atheist has used any other definition. As Terraphon put it, "Talk smack, get smacked."
We do not whine and ignore the evidence since none has been provided. Please show us where you have provided ANY OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Thus far, the only dribble and babble I have seen has come from the Religious Absolutists. Everything I have seen posted by the atheists here (excepting me) has been cogent, eruditic, logically deductive, rational, thought-provoking, and knowledgeable. And many have been backed by evidence most Religious Absolutists will refuse to accept, knowing it will destroy their arguments. The exception is my posts which you say is childish, ridiculous, bullshit drivel, and I agree.
I have seen no such thing. Prove it.
And you claim you Religious Absolutists do not perform the same insane and psychotic entrapment. In fact, Religious Absolutists who have had their arguments completely destroyed often perform this insane and psychotic entrapment to fulfill the God of the Gaps Fallacy.
And what rules have we broken? Prove it.
This I can agree with. However, have you ever fully thought about why we sometimes will use "childish" arguments? Do you even remember what the Eleven Razors are? Here is the one we may use: Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount. This is a butter knife because Tin-Man's SoulMate refuses to allow him to handle sharp objects. ***shudder*** And if it gets deep, we will resort to this one: Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back. And you have made a pretty large pile which have thrown back at you.
You are the one showing your childishness with irrational accusations, perverted and distorted data, preposterously presupposed assumptions, incredulous statements, unreasonable logic, inane and asinine confirmation bias, whiney-ass pleas, … need I go on?
OPs that are quite clear and concise written by religitards at times are actually a rarity. Thus, there is no pretending to not understand since we tend to ask questions for clarification. It is you Religious Absolutists who will then pervert, distort, misconstrue, warp, and corrupt the questions we ask and claim that we are not intelligent enough to understand. Why is it when we ask questions, you Religious Absolutists claim we are ones being obtuse when in fact it is you.
Again, prove it. I have only seen religitards do this since they are ones who believe in a fantasy world they can NEVER substantiate with OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, or any evidence.
If saying theists live inside their own schizophrenic delusional fantasy world is what we do, then you truly need to reevaluate your mental disorders of RSTD.
And where have I heard this before. Oh yeah, this belief of ALL religitards: “The ONLY ultimate message of ALL Religious Absolutists: ‘You are condemned to Hell forever, unless you believe and do as WE say.’ ”
And then you expect your saccharine postulate of Heaven to make anything sweeter. Who would want an eternal existence doing nothing more than dropping to one's knees and bowing before an oppressive totalitarian despotic tryant screaming, “Holy, Holy, Holy is our Lord.”? I am sorry, but I would rather have an ending. I would rather there be a NOTHING after my life is finished. Hell, if I live to be 100 years old, that is enough. I do not want any more existence. Well, if it gets pushed to 120 years, what could I do about it? Suicide? Although thought of every day, it is not an option.
Besides, if I were to have an eternal existence where I would eventually have done absolutely everything, had every possible conversation with ever other possible entity, and would have absolutely nothing else to do, I would literally become like Q in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space 9, and Star Trek: Voyager. Or, in other words, I become the next Satan, just to liven things up again. Besides, how do we know it ain't an eternal entity like me that is causing all the havoc across this incredibly vast universe? Hell, for all we know, it could be an eternal entity with one hell of an angry temper keeping the molten outer liquid core of the Earth hot enough to remain liquid, which drives the plate techtonics, creating all the earthquakes and volcanoes, and creating the magnetic field that protects the surface. How could we prove this wrong? We cannot. It is an unfalsifiable fallacy as fallacious as you religitards' preposterous claims of a Magical Sky Daddy.
You Religitards have Murdered, Raped, Tortured, Lied, Extorted, Sacrificed, Ravaged, Swindled, Exploited, Plundered, Abused, Coerced, Pillaged, Tormented, Harassed, Rampaged, Insulted, Endangered, Threatened, Oppressed, Persecuted, Committed Genocidal Ethnic Cleansing, Terrorized, Mutilated Genitalia, Enslaved, Molested and Raped Children, Corrupted, Practiced Slave Trading and Sex Slave Trafficking …in the name of your Gods for centuries around the world to spread such a theological message.
But I am the one going to Hell for not believing in this nonsense?
And if us Intelligent Rational Infedels had not risen up against you condemnable Religitards and gotten laws passed, you would still be Murdering, Raping, Torturing, Lying, Extorting, Sacrificing, Ravaging, Swindling, Exploiting, Plundering, Abusing, Coercing, Pillaging, Tormenting, Harassing, Rampaging, Insulting, Endangering, Threatening, Oppressing, Persecuting, Committing Genocidal Ethnic Cleansing, Terrorizing, Mutilating Genitalia, Enslaving, Molesting and Raping Children, Corrupting, Practicing Slave Trading and Sex Slave Trafficking …in the name of your Gods for centuries around the world to spread such a theological message.
In fact, y'all are still practicing such to this day. One of the greatest example is the Durham Rescue Mission which exploits persons who have had horrible circumstances force them into homelessness. The DRM exploits all persons in their "program" so the Administrators and other upper echelon members can make ridiculously large sums of money through their "program." Additionally, they forcefully require all members in their program to become Religious Absolutists. Virtually ALL religious based homeless shelters I have infiltrated and investigated do this EXPLOITATION of such persons without regard of ANY respect to the person and their beliefs or lack of beliefs. Only one allowed it members shelter while allowing them the capability of getting THEMSELVES back on their feet and back into society without forcefully requiring them believe in any woo woo.
As for the DRM website, do you honestly think they will publish the Pure Evil they do behind the smoke screen of religion?
Other examples including widespread genocidal ethnic cleansings: former Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, etc. Terrorizm: Iraq, Pakistan, unfortunately New Zealand, the 9/11 WTC, etc. Swindling and Extorting: every last Christian church in America. Lying: any word spoken by any Religitard having to do with their woo woo. Molesting and Raping Children: Catholicism and the Baptist Bible Belters. Persecuting: every word spoken against any unbeliever. As you said once, about a trillion and one examples. I have provided enough to show how religion is Pure Evil.
As far as I am concerned, 50 years of personal religious discrimination and religious persecution by you bigoted Religious Absolutists AGAINST ME gives me the right to turn the tables and do the same to those who did it to me. You know the adage: “Do unto others as they have done unto you.” I think it is y’all’s Golden Rule. Or, is it, “Do unto others before they do unto you.”?
And if you don’t like it, that is your problem. I have learned one thing in my many decades of life. You cannot say anything with any kind of substance without offending someone somewhere sometime. And in no way could I even begin to number how many times things I have writen and spoken has offeneded someone somewhere sometime. When it comes to this Politically Correct bullshit, it is just that BULLSHIT!
I shall never, ever try to NOT offend anybody anymore anywhere anytime. This does not mean I shall go out of my way to purposefully offend people (excepting those who truly deserve it), but I shall never not be able to not offend someone somewhere sometime. Forever more, here is my official definition of Politically Correct: “A hypothesis created by cruel and heartless persons and spread by an uncaring and unscrupulous media in the belief that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by its clean end.”
And… always… remember… this: Only YOU can give a word, phrase, sentence the power to offend YOU!
Whine like a little baby, you are going to be treated as such. "Talk smack, get spanked."
I ain't seen atheist here who ain't been spanked by us and left. And I cannot number the religitards we have spanked and left here.
And this actually is only applicable to you religitards that come here to these forums.
“If Religitards cannot or do not wish to debate anything, then all else is one or more of the following: religious babble, boring religious claims, uninteresting religious claims, ignorant religious claims, childish religious claims, religious drivel, unintelligent religious arguments, off topic (shift burden), manipulative religious fallacies, religious intimidation, religious bullying, religious whining, moronic religious babble, idiotic religious babble, ludicrous religious babble , reading how the turds lie in toilet from your arse, bullshit (all religion), brain dead religitards, and many more whiney-ass childish religious words........... SOURCE of childish words: your own religious fallacies...”
See how easy that was to make it a truthful statement (your entire post), converting it from being {[[[((((UTTER BOLLOCKS) ^∞)^∞)^∞) ^∞]^∞]^∞] ^…} ^….
I have a $100 that says In Spirit will say this post is nothing more than ignorant, unintelligent, off topic (although not), moronic, ludicrous, brain-dead drivel. Any wanting to bet me?
rmfr
arakish
You are falling behind the times. Most of us are moving forward. I am making amends with people and trying my best.
I have no more interest in holding on to grudges and in placing blame. It serves no one any good.
Have a great day!!
EDIT: Sorry, I thought your post was from today but was not
In Spirit, how can I believe you? Just a few hours before you posted this (Wed, 03/20/2019 - 09:50 (Reply to #97)), you stated ...
"This is what I meant by the position that atheists hold. "There is no deity. Prove it under strict scientific verifiable methods and we, the atheists, will engage in a merited discussion."
Despite the many times it has been pointed out that the definition of an atheist is lack of belief, you had to slip in the "There is no deity" falsehood.
David
"Despite the many times it has been pointed out that the definition of an atheist is lack of belief, you had to slip in the "There is no deity" falsehood. "
I should have put in a standard dictionary definition to suffice. Mia culpa
HOWEVER:can you admit that atheists here have given several definitions of atheism. If so don't blame me if what I wrote doesn't fit your explanation.
As for the rest... "Prove it under strict scientific verifiable methods and we, the atheists, will engage in a merited discussion."
Is this not what atheists demand? Prove it and/or give evidence:
In Spirit, you claim you are attempting to build bridges, yet despite repeated attempts by many, you slipped in the "there is no deity" falsehood. Just saying "oops, my bad" displays the opposite. You can't say that you are trying when your actions indicate otherwise.
"As for the rest... "Prove it under strict scientific verifiable methods and we, the atheists, will engage in a merited discussion."
Is this not what atheists demand? Prove it and/or give evidence:"
So what? We are still waiting for any proof. So what if any atheist demanded strict scientific verifiable methods, that is proof. In a court of law that is required. Or is that a bar too high for you?
Because if your standard of evidence falls below that, then the entire Iliad is accurate and Apollo is as real as your jesus.
I do not, and I am sure you do not agree that Apollo actually exists, and that reason is because Apollo cannot be proven by strict scientific methods.
In Spirit: "HOWEVER:can you admit that atheists here have given several definitions of atheism."
As I said before, prove it. I have never met any atheist who uses any other definition than, "disbelief or lack of belief in any claims for the existence of any deity." Or at least very very close to this.
Either prove atheists are using any other definition, or shut the fuck up. We are all tired of hearing you drone about this particular bullshit with absolutely no evidence to back you up.
rmfr
Pages