Hilarious Mailbag Pattern

[Paperbackslave]

About angry atheists....

Someone posted this a while back, and I saved it because I reallllly think she nails how many of us feel, and why we may be perceived as, 'They're always so angry', or bitter.   I think mostly, I at least, am frustrated.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html?cid=87202278

[jetson]

About angry atheists....

Someone posted this a while back, and I saved it because I reallllly think she nails how many of us feel, and why we may be perceived as, 'They're always so angry', or bitter.   I think mostly, I at least, am frustrated.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html?cid=87202278

Yes, that blog catapulted Greta into atheist fame.  Great blog, and true to life.

[Death over Life]

I am really enjoying this thread. Everybody has made some great posts, and I practically agree with everything concerning context.

I may have stepped on the wrong foot into the forums, but yes, Hguols is a best friend of mine who I will come to the aid of if needed. That didn't mean He needed my help to discuss with you guys on anything. I had chosen to, because I was curious, and the fact that a friend is already on here, hey why not? As I've also had some atheist stereotypes in my head, which the quote Paperbackslave points out, where I was heavily surprised by some, some I consider family myself, there were others, who did nothing but prove the stereotype already in my head True. I understand we Christians do the exact same thing. I think it would be far greater to speak on an individual perspective rather than Christian vs. atheist like I see much of this whole forum is.

Where we do get great discussions, it is mostly a gang-warfare, like Bloods vs. Cryps for example, or Nazi vs. Jew as another one. I think this is what may be going on actually, although intentional or not.

About angry atheists....

Someone posted this a while back, and I saved it because I reallllly think she nails how many of us feel, and why we may be perceived as, 'They're always so angry', or bitter.   I think mostly, I at least, am frustrated.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html?cid=87202278

This atheist has brought up some great stuff.

To summarize much of them, discrimination against ANYONE should be unacceptable. The fact that this exists, is staggering imo.

I will specifically speak on some though.

I'm angry that almost half of Americans believe in creationism.

Having dealt with what I or you or someone else personally view to be a minority, when it comes to just believing, I personally don't care what other people believe. I do love talking to others about it, and I'm cool with what ever you believe, but being angry over what somebody else believes, (having done that myself and looking back) is stupid. I don't know any way to say that more nicely. Just be concerned about what you believe, and the rest can buzz off. It doesn't mean we should not discuss, quite the contrary. I'm just saying, your beliefs shouldn't be formed on what other's believe.

The School Boards, whether preaching creationism or evolution, is all screwed up. I think we should rather concentrate on an overhaul on our education system instead of arguing over something so trivial.

The abortion thing, is definitely a can opener for such harsh discussions. I won't delve into that. I just want one curious question (technically 2) answered. Why not send to the adoption agency instead? Or why not meet a family that REALLY wants a child, but can't have one?

I'm angrier when religious leaders explicitly tell children – and adults, for that matter -- that the very questioning of religion and the existence of hell is a dreadful sin, one that will guarantee them that hell is where they'll end up.

Alright, guess I'm going to Hell then! I especially encourage the questioning of religion and the existence of the Grave. Questioning is not a sin, quite the contrary, it is actually encouraged.

I get angry when religious believers make arguments against atheism -- and make accusations against atheists -- without having bothered to talk to any atheists or read any atheist writing. I get angry when they trot out the same old "Atheism is a nihilistic philosophy, with no joy or meaning to life and no basis for morality or ethics"... when if they spent ten minutes in the atheist blogosphere, they would discover countless atheists who experience great joy and meaning in their lives, and are intensely concerned about right and wrong.

I would personally apologize for this one, as that is something I have done. I can testify she proved me right with what she said here. I will ask this though: How can you be concerned about right or wrong, when according to what I’ve seen from atheism, right and wrong are only suggestions, not absolutes? To me, why care about a suggestion, when you can do whatever you feel is what you should do?

I get angry when religious believers base their entire philosophy of life on what is, at best, a hunch; when they ignore or reject or rationalize any evidence that contradicts that hunch or calls it into question... and then accuse atheists of being close-minded and ignoring the obvious truth.

With all due respect, I agree with you. However, this is the double-standard some atheists have, that I constantly see. Christians may do this to you guys, but you can’t deny, atheists do the same thing to Christians. Instead of accusing one or the other, we should just drop accusations from both sides. With this quote alone, I honestly don’t know if the author is an atheist or Christian, because both do it to each other.

As for everything else, I agree with, and definitely should open up some eyes.

The only thing I can possibly say on any that I agree with is, it is True what she says. However, this view will be valid on someone who actually discusses with you, then the second they do what they do (get angry and start damning) then act like they are superior, that anger she feels is justified. I think it is wrong however, for a brand new person who introduces themselves, and just so happens to claim they are Christian, with no prior discussion to them or thought of who they are, and the atheist just already throws the sword up to the Christian’s neck. It is the same on the Christian’s end that she pointed out, which is sad.

[jetson]

With all due respect, I agree with you. However, this is the double-standard some atheists have, that I constantly see. Christians may do this to you guys, but you can’t deny, atheists do the same thing to Christians. Instead of accusing one or the other, we should just drop accusations from both sides. With this quote alone, I honestly don’t know if the author is an atheist or Christian, because both do it to each other.

There is no double standard here - unless an atheist actually tells you with 100% absolute certainty, that there is no god (I am as close to that as I can get, I think, but I cannot say it with 100% certainty.)  The atheist position is correct, insofar as there has never been a proven god, ever.  The Christian has always been forced to admit that their belief is based on faith, and that their god cannot be proven to exist unless faith is invoked.  And invoking faith gives the advantage to the atheist every single time.

Unless you can show me otherwise?  I'm willing to admit there is a god, if it were shown to exist.  Can you do that?

[Death over Life]

With all due respect, I agree with you. However, this is the double-standard some atheists have, that I constantly see. Christians may do this to you guys, but you can’t deny, atheists do the same thing to Christians. Instead of accusing one or the other, we should just drop accusations from both sides. With this quote alone, I honestly don’t know if the author is an atheist or Christian, because both do it to each other.

There is no double standard here - unless an atheist actually tells you with 100% absolute certainty, that there is no god (I am as close to that as I can get, I think, but I cannot say it with 100% certainty.)  The atheist position is correct, insofar as there has never been a proven god, ever.  The Christian has always been forced to admit that their belief is based on faith, and that their god cannot be proven to exist unless faith is invoked.  And invoking faith gives the advantage to the atheist every single time.

Unless you can show me otherwise?  I'm willing to admit there is a god, if it were shown to exist.  Can you do that?

Here's the problem, there is no 100% certainty. It is all speculation and interpretations.

I can't prove my God the same way you can't disprove my God. I can prove my God the same way you can disprove it. Neither atheist nor Christian were there at creation, so even Science is nothing but a guessing game.

How can I directly prove God? I can't. I don't have that kind of power. Indirectly? Yes I can. As it is said, the creator always leaves it's mark on the creation. If you wish to see the creator, you will need to look at the creation. We were not here by chance. Every company, every life form, wasn't here by chance. We all had a creator. For us, it is our parents, for them, it is our grandparents, and so on for family trees. For plants, they are caused by seeds from other trees, just like us. Computers, electronics, were by companies, which were made by people. Every animal, has parents.

Everything has an origin. By the end of the night, once you get to the very beginning, you are only going to be left with 2 answers. Either NOTHING created our planet with the Big Bang, or that SOMETHING created our planet (Big Bang or not).

And, with this "prove it" attitude lying among atheists. Here is a challenge: Because of what I said being True, and because Science says nothing can be created from nothing and something can create something: I will drop my faith, if I can have True Scientific proof, that absolutely NOTHING (no molecules, no micro-organisms, NOTHING) can create SOMETHING (microbes, food, another human being I don't care). Until this is proven, I will always believe in some sort of God or Goddess. So, I can't prove God directly, now I say: Prove to me that nothing can create something. If you can prove this, then I will be shocked, and will really take atheism into consideration, instead of the stance I have right now on it.

[jetson]

Here's the problem, there is no 100% certainty. It is all speculation and interpretations.

I can't prove my God the same way you can't disprove my God. I can prove my God the same way you can disprove it. Neither atheist nor Christian were there at creation, so even Science is nothing but a guessing game.

How can I directly prove God? I can't. I don't have that kind of power. Indirectly? Yes I can. As it is said, the creator always leaves it's mark on the creation. If you wish to see the creator, you will need to look at the creation. We were not here by chance. Every company, every life form, wasn't here by chance. We all had a creator. For us, it is our parents, for them, it is our grandparents, and so on for family trees. For plants, they are caused by seeds from other trees, just like us. Computers, electronics, were by companies, which were made by people. Every animal, has parents.

Everything has an origin. By the end of the night, once you get to the very beginning, you are only going to be left with 2 answers. Either NOTHING created our planet with the Big Bang, or that SOMETHING created our planet (Big Bang or not).

And, with this "prove it" attitude lying among atheists. Here is a challenge: Because of what I said being True, and because Science says nothing can be created from nothing and something can create something: I will drop my faith, if I can have True Scientific proof, that absolutely NOTHING (no molecules, no micro-organisms, NOTHING) can create SOMETHING (microbes, food, another human being I don't care). Until this is proven, I will always believe in some sort of God or Goddess. So, I can't prove God directly, now I say: Prove to me that nothing can create something. If you can prove this, then I will be shocked, and will really take atheism into consideration, instead of the stance I have right now on it.

You are misunderstanding me, seriously.  Atheists are NOT making any claims.  The claims of gods are rejected by atheists, which places 100% of the burden on theists to prove their god is real.  There simply is NO burden whatsoever on atheists to disprove anything.

Everything you say about your god above is purely special pleading, and personal belief.  None of it has any basis on which I can go out and validate in any way. 

You don't get to sit back and make some claim that because everything must come from somewhere, that a creator is required.  It does not work that way.  And until you realize your error here, you will never be able to objectively see why there are atheists in the first place.  If there was a god, there would be very few nonbelievers.  Like nonbelievers in Bigfoot, the rest of the world moves on, without a single concern about disproving the existence of Bigfoot.  Gods are no different, you just think they are.

Of course, having said all of that, I suppose I don't have any right to tell you what you can and cannot do or think...but I can show you where your logic is flawed.

[Death over Life]

Here's the problem, there is no 100% certainty. It is all speculation and interpretations.

I can't prove my God the same way you can't disprove my God. I can prove my God the same way you can disprove it. Neither atheist nor Christian were there at creation, so even Science is nothing but a guessing game.

How can I directly prove God? I can't. I don't have that kind of power. Indirectly? Yes I can. As it is said, the creator always leaves it's mark on the creation. If you wish to see the creator, you will need to look at the creation. We were not here by chance. Every company, every life form, wasn't here by chance. We all had a creator. For us, it is our parents, for them, it is our grandparents, and so on for family trees. For plants, they are caused by seeds from other trees, just like us. Computers, electronics, were by companies, which were made by people. Every animal, has parents.

Everything has an origin. By the end of the night, once you get to the very beginning, you are only going to be left with 2 answers. Either NOTHING created our planet with the Big Bang, or that SOMETHING created our planet (Big Bang or not).

And, with this "prove it" attitude lying among atheists. Here is a challenge: Because of what I said being True, and because Science says nothing can be created from nothing and something can create something: I will drop my faith, if I can have True Scientific proof, that absolutely NOTHING (no molecules, no micro-organisms, NOTHING) can create SOMETHING (microbes, food, another human being I don't care). Until this is proven, I will always believe in some sort of God or Goddess. So, I can't prove God directly, now I say: Prove to me that nothing can create something. If you can prove this, then I will be shocked, and will really take atheism into consideration, instead of the stance I have right now on it.

You are misunderstanding me, seriously.  Atheists are NOT making any claims.  The claims of gods are rejected by atheists, which places 100% of the burden on theists to prove their god is real.  There simply is NO burden whatsoever on atheists to disprove anything.

Everything you say about your god above is purely special pleading, and personal belief.  None of it has any basis on which I can go out and validate in any way. 

You don't get to sit back and make some claim that because everything must come from somewhere, that a creator is required.  It does not work that way.  And until you realize your error here, you will never be able to objectively see why there are atheists in the first place.  If there was a god, there would be very few nonbelievers.  Like nonbelievers in Bigfoot, the rest of the world moves on, without a single concern about disproving the existence of Bigfoot.  Gods are no different, you just think they are.

Of course, having said all of that, I suppose I don't have any right to tell you what you can and cannot do or think...but I can show you where your logic is flawed.

You can show me all the flawed logic, could we just drop the constant "we have nothing to prove" posting, and just actually answer the question/experiment at hand? If my logic is flawed, then the question should be an easy one. If my logic is correct, then why aren't you answering the question?

Why is it you demand Christians prove their God, then when we say disprove the gods you don't believe in, you claim it's solely our responsibility? That is what I call, ducking and dodging the challenge. I can put my views to the test. Do I really have to approach to you, and have sex with someone in front of you to show you that something (me and a partner) can procreate something (child)? You know (and even Science says it) that there is nothing that is created without something. Something can create something and nothing, but nothing can only create nothing. It can not create something.

Why can't you reply to that, instead claim my logic is flawed?

You can disprove Christianity to me, and make it valid. Let us see something be created from nothing for the 1st time ever (or 2nd if the Big Bang Theory is indeed correct), and we will have witnessed the True Deicide of the God belief you guys proclaim never existed to begin with. Yet, we see every day, almost every second, something creates something.


Anyways, despite that, I am honestly interested in what you have to say about my logic. And, I am also interested in what atheists say about how our planet was created. That would make a great thread imo. Apologies for the staying of the thead.

[Positiveaob]

Allright 2 things.

First with regards to the something can't come from nothing argument.  You're right, at least according to what we can observe in our view of the universe around us.  Soooo, tell me again where this god you speak of came from?

Something doesnt have to come from nothing.  For all I know time goes infinitely in both directions, in the future and the past.  Nothing about the big bang makes a claim that something came from nothing.  Just states that at one time all mass and energy was compressed in a really really tiny space.  Doesn't say what happened before that.

YOU are the one making the something came from nothing claim.  You are just prefacing it with the phrase "and a god said let there be..." before it. 

Second, with regards to the "you guys can't disprove my god", I dont know why this has to be brought up over and over and over because it is a pretty simple logical concept that doesnt at all represent a double standard.  You cannot disprove the existence of imaginary things.  It is impossible.  The burden of proof is on the person claiming they exist not the one calling bullshit.

I also can't prove that Casper the friendly ghost doesn't exist.  I can't prove that leprechauns don't really exist.  I can't prove that there's not an alien warship orbiting on the other side of the sun.  Does that provide evidence that these exist?  That I can't show they don't?  After all, you have to weigh the proof on both sides by your logic, right?

On the flip side, you absolutely can prove that something does exist.  You just show it. 

If I make the claim that I have a rare valuable coin in my possession how can you prove me wrong?  Wherever you look in my house or yard, I can just claim it's hidden somewhere you're not looking.  So you can't prove I don't have it.  But I CAN prove I have it, if I'm telling you the truth.  I can just show it to you.  See the difference?  You can prove existence, you cannot prove non-existence.

So does that mean you just dismiss everything you don't see?  No, certainly not.  Thats where common sense and reason enter the picture.  But if there is no evidence at all for the existence of something when there absolutely should be, then you rightfully call BS.  For example, instead of a rare coin, I tell you there's an 800 pound gorilla somewhere in my house and you dont find it, guess what?  That's pretty much all the evidence you need to "prove" it doesn't really exist. 

The same goes for an invisible being in the sky, who selectively reveals himself to a few individual members of his creation and expects them to get the word out to everyone else over thousands of years, but somehow expects us all to believe in him or else.  You can safely call BS on that one too.

[pianodwarf]

Why is it you demand Christians prove their God, then when we say disprove the gods you don't believe in, you claim it's solely our responsibility?

Because the burden of proof lies on the theist.  The atheist bears no burden of proof because he is making no claim to prove.

That is what I call, ducking and dodging the challenge.

Then you are wrong.  It is simply placing the burden of proof where it belongs.  It's kind of like in criminal trials: the defendant does not need to prove that he is innocent, it's up to the state to prove that he is guilty.  If the state cannot make its case, the defendant is acquitted.  (N.B. that this is not the same thing as saying that he is innocent.)

Similarly, it's not up to atheists to prove that deities don't exist.  It's up to theists to prove that they do.  If the theist cannot make his case, reason resides with the atheist.  If you really can't get this, please read Sagan's "The Dragon In My Garage":
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

Why can't you reply to that, instead claim my logic is flawed?

Done.

Let us see something be created from nothing for the 1st time ever (or 2nd if the Big Bang Theory is indeed correct)

Strawman.  The Big Bang Theory does not say that something was created from nothing.

I am also interested in what atheists say about how our planet was created.

The only thing that all atheists have in common is that they lack belief in deities.  That having been said, we do tend to have certain traits in common, chief among them a strong adherence to what science says about the world (inasmuch as science is the chief alternative viewpoint to religion).  Most atheists therefore accept the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe and, by extension, the creation of our planet.

[jetson]

OK, let me start by saying that even though we are at odds, I like the way you handle these replies!

You can show me all the flawed logic, could we just drop the constant "we have nothing to prove" posting, and just actually answer the question/experiment at hand? If my logic is flawed, then the question should be an easy one. If my logic is correct, then why aren't you answering the question?

You have not posed a question from what I can see.  All you have done is asserted that I cannot prove God does not exist, and made that a position that you call equal to yours.  An atheist is NOT making a positive assertion that a god does not exist - rather, they are making a statement that rejects the theist claim.  Keep in mind, there was never a time in human history where someone stood up and declared "there is no god" before the first humans declared there was a god.  The god claim is what started this mess, and proving it is real is what will end it, or at least eliminate that aspect of the argument.

Why is it you demand Christians prove their God, then when we say disprove the gods you don't believe in, you claim it's solely our responsibility? That is what I call, ducking and dodging the challenge. I can put my views to the test. Do I really have to approach to you, and have sex with someone in front of you to show you that something (me and a partner) can procreate something (child)? You know (and even Science says it) that there is nothing that is created without something. Something can create something and nothing, but nothing can only create nothing. It can not create something.

I have never made a single claim or rejection of any "something from nothing" idea.  Humans tend to reach a logical conclusion that something that exists, had a cause, or was somehow created.  I agree with that idea, and it makes a lot of sense to me logically.  I will point out though, that I include any and all god claims in that logic.  If there is a god, what created it, or caused it?

Why can't you reply to that, instead claim my logic is flawed?

I wanted to focus on the logic, instead of specific claims, because I think it is fundamental to how we each approach problems.

You can disprove Christianity to me, and make it valid. Let us see something be created from nothing for the 1st time ever (or 2nd if the Big Bang Theory is indeed correct), and we will have witnessed the True Deicide of the God belief you guys proclaim never existed to begin with. Yet, we see every day, almost every second, something creates something.

I think Christianity has been disproved for a very long time already.  As far as I can see, the only thing that holds Christianity together is The Bible.  And honestly, if there were more extra-biblical evidence of the books, chapters and verses, I would concede that The Bible has valuable historic information.  Unfortunately, I have not seen very much credible evidence to back up most of the claims in The Bible (miracles being something obviously mythological.) 

As far as the big bang, it is only the current, very well researched theory on the expansion of our known universe.  Science does not know the cause, but is actively trying to figure it out.  Maybe science will find God at the helm?

Anyways, despite that, I am honestly interested in what you have to say about my logic. And, I am also interested in what atheists say about how our planet was created. That would make a great thread imo. Apologies for the staying of the thead.

Science has done an excellent job of describing how the expansion of the universe has lead to galaxies, stars, solar systems, and planets.  This is a very easy thing to google and read up on.  But feel free to start a new thread, and you will see that the formation of our planet is not really a mystery at all.  What you will not see, is a single reason to give any credit to any gods, as they of course are all imaginary!

[ParkingPlaces]

DoL

The something from nothing thing is perceptual. Scientists studying the issue say that it would be harder for there to be nothing than something. Out in open space, trillions of miles from here (and everywhere else for that matter) particles pop in and out of existence millions of times a second, even in a one square inch piece of space. Some disappear immediately, converted back into energy. Others stick around awhile and if you get enough of them they make stuff.

That christians argue "something can't come from nothing" and then say "So God did it" amuses us no end. We keep asking "Where did this God come from?" And most christians look at us like we're crazy.

Having an answer that explain everything without making any sense may seem like an advantage to believers, but it doesn't cut the mustard with us.

There is the video we always link to when theists say it is impossible for something to come from nothing. I knew where to find it in the old forum but not here. Who has the link? Guys?

[kin hell]

G'day DoL

I realise you are busy, but if you find the time can you tell me what is the basis of your belief?

Is it rational, in the sense that you believe because you have some crucial evidence that convinces you, or does it not require evidence, in the sense that you "know" or "feel" it to be right?

[MadBunny]

Everything has an origin. By the end of the night, once you get to the very beginning, you are only going to be left with 2 answers. Either NOTHING created our planet with the Big Bang, or that SOMETHING created our planet (Big Bang or not).

This bears striking resemblance to something known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 

It works like this:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

It is a beautiful and elegant argument, the problem is that it only works if you assume some things.  Assumption is the sister of speculation  You seem pretty clued in on logical arguments, so I'm sure you can see the problem. 

[Hguols]

H-daaawg,

+1 (pseudo) for being the most fun christian I've ever seen on the forum. In a lot of ways you remind me of myself when I was a christian.

I can see what you're saying in this thread and, for the most part, I tend to agree with a lot (not all) of what you're saying.

I find a few of the atheists here to apply such a rigid double-standard that it has, on occasion, made me feel ashamed to be a part of the community. I often see atheists provoke hostile responses from theists and get away with it while the theist is busted for responding in kind.
Then again, this is an atheist forum. That said, many atheists here are moderated for being too mean to theists, so the door does swing both ways.

I don't like intellectual snobbery. Never have and never will. There's too much of it flying around here for my liking and, frankly, at times, I fantasise about punching some of those snot-noses into the back of their heads. But I suppose that’s another story.

I mean, you're right in what you say. The ratio is daunting.
A few months ago I tried an experiment where I set up a thread and tried to defend my old beliefs from a christian perspective. Basically, I pretended to be a Christian and several atheists tried to argue with me to prove me wrong.

I kid you not, it traumatised me so much, literally, that I had to spend a few weeks off of the forum to get over it! It was bloody hard work trying to keep up with so many atheists demanding answers and creating lots of very long posts for me to respond to. Never mind the fact that my arguments were ripped apart and stomped on, it was just so hard trying to keep up with all the replies.


Some people didn't realise what was going on and actually thought I was a christian, so they were pretty rude to me.
Here's the hypocrisy: the moment they cottoned on that it was just an exercise, they started being nice to me again elsewhere on the forum. I no longer speak to those members.

It really is very, very hard to keep up when you're outnumbered on this forum.

I don't agree with anything you say about god, obviously, and I may not agree with the way you've handled yourself in every single post, but I have respect for you like no other christian who's arrived here because, well, you're just a normal, down to Earth fella. Warts and all. You're not perfect, and neither are any of the atheists here.

My gut tells me that if you stick around you'll be hounded and be given a hard time over your beliefs (if that's all you talk to us about). My gut also says that you could work out how things work around here and make contributions that aren't always focused on your god-belief and, I, for one, would like to see them.


Cheers mate.

Thanks for this post.  I'm glad that there is someone here who can truly empathize.
I'm thankful for you here.

I think if a few other members here did a similar experiment, some of the attitudes wouldn't be so prominent, but then again....   trying to get a fundamentalist to see differently than what they "disbelieve" is easier said than done.  The willingness isn't even there to walk in someone else's shoes. 

What does a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist atheist have in common?
They're both right without proof (or lack of proof) and they both discriminate. 

What's the difference between a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist atheist?
The Christian threatens your afterlife, the atheist threatens your sanity and intelligence.

Even thought that's in joke format, but it's more sad than anything.

I know we disagree in regards to beliefs.  To me, it's little more than disagreeing on favorite foods. 
It's hardly grounds for dismissing someone as a person. 

I know you said people would give me a hard time here because of my belief.  I think that's true.  I think people will also deliberately push my buttons so I retaliate....   because they know they won't be out of bounds for doing it, and I will.

You are misunderstanding me, seriously.  Atheists are NOT making any claims. 

Why is it you demand Christians prove their God, then when we say disprove the gods you don't believe in, you claim it's solely our responsibility?

Because the burden of proof lies on the theist.  The atheist bears no burden of proof because he is making no claim to prove.

Some Noun definitions of "claim" from dictionary.com:

- a  demand  for  something  as  due;  an  assertion  of  a  right  or  an  alleged  right:
- an assertion of something as a fact:
- a right to claim or demand; a just title to something:

One of the rules in regards to posting:

Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.

Why would atheist forum members be expected to back up assertions, when making assertions is something atheists don't even do?

Like what my signature states, the refusal to choose is a form of choice; disbelief is a form of belief...   Even "claiming" not to have claims, is still a claim.

Someone has stated, "Is not collecting stamps a hobby?" in regards to the belief/disbelief, but comparing a hobby and someone's "personal view" is like comparing elephants and pancakes. 

If not-collecting stamps involves, on a regular basis:

- arguing with stamp collectors,
- debating the purpose of collecting stamps,
- denying the existence of stamps,
- written statements that not collecting stamps is more logical than collecting stamps

...then it's a damn hobby to not-collect stamps.

[Omen]

1) An unconventional perspective gets dumped into the den

I think there is a bit more build up to this than simply the action itself.  It takes quite a bit of knee jerk emotional reaction to motivate someone to go to the lengths of finding an obscure email on a website just to tell them what they think.  That person is already acting out of a polemical emotional motivation and a dysfunctional conversation is bound to happen.

[jetson]

What does a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist atheist have in common?
They're both right without proof (or lack of proof) and they both discriminate.

This again, seriously?  You continue to imply that atheists are "right, without proof."  But this is not at all what atheists are saying, strictly speaking.  Atheists reject all gods as real or possible.  They make statements like "all gods are imaginary" and "your god is not real", but you would do well to consider that most atheists will not go all the way to the point of telling you that you are wrong, with 100% certainty.  It just feels that way, because of your emotional investment in your beliefs.  If you find an atheist on this board telling you this, point it out, and that atheist will be called out by others (it has happened to me, so I know it happens.)

You see, the atheist is in the only possible correct position, that being, we don't really know.  And perhaps you are also in that position if you would also agree that you are not sure if there really is a god, even if you lean towards yes, there is.  The difference is subtle, but very, very real.  Do you believe that Zeus or Thor are real gods?  Or would you give them any serious benefit of the doubt?  Do you believe that Santa is real?

I could go on and on, but the point is this: the theist has NOTHING to point to that even begins to look like a god, much less a specific god, such as in The Bible.  So why in the world should the atheist even consider it as objectively as you think we should?

I know you said people would give me a hard time here because of my belief.  I think that's true.  I think people will also deliberately push my buttons so I retaliate....   because they know they won't be out of bounds for doing it, and I will.

No, once again you are trying to play victim here.  Yes, there are more atheists on this forum, but the rules apply to everyone, so if an atheist is out of line you can click the report button.  You do not have to sit back and take any unnecessary abuse from anyone on this forum. 

[Agamemnon]

Hguols, for someone that complains about the "butthurt" of atheists you sure do seem to have a lot of "butthurt" about atheists.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentalist

1. One who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts.

2. (finance) A trader who trades on the financial fundamentals of the companies involved, as opposed to a chartist or technician.

3. (Christian) Originally referred to an adherent of an American Christian movement that began as a response to the rejection of the accuracy of the Bible, the alleged deity of Christ, Christ's atonement for humanity, the virgin birth, and miracles. These points were first listed in a book series entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth" published in 1909 and affirmed by the PCUSA in its 1910 Minutes of the General Assembly.

4. (pejorative) A fundamentalist Christian (also fundie or fundy)

There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist." This is a strawman you have created.

Atheists have no religion and no core or original texts to interpret strictly.

[Hatter23]

Someone has stated, "Is not collecting stamps a hobby?" in regards to the belief/disbelief, but comparing a hobby and someone's "personal view" is like comparing elephants and pancakes. 

If not-collecting stamps involves, on a regular basis:

- arguing with stamp collectors,
- debating the purpose of collecting stamps,
- denying the existence of stamps,
- written statements that not collecting stamps is more logical than collecting stamps

...then it's a damn hobby to not-collect stamps.

Wrong, the only reason we non-stamp collectors do any of those things is due to philatelists who assume not collecting stamps makes us morally inferior, tell us it is wrong to not collect stamps, and use stamp collecting as a basis to make laws that affect us, and wish to have their stamp collecting subsidized by the government.

[Omen]

Not holding a position to be true is not equivalent to holding a position to be true.

[Positiveaob]

What does a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist atheist have in common?
They're both right without proof (or lack of proof) and they both discriminate. 

<<Long sigh with eyes closed and palm on forehead>>
Hgouls, it has been explained to you ad nauseam the difference between proving existence (possible) and proving non-existence (impossible).  I dont know why it hasnt sunk in, I will just give you the benefit of doubt that you are in extreme state of denial/brainwash-ed-ness, rather than being less than bright.  But what about this concept do you not understand?  Prove there is no zeus, no apollo, no thor, etc.  Prove there are no leprechauns, invisible dragons, etc.  Give it a shot.  Please dont bring up some sorry "billions dont believe that..." nonsense.  It has already been shown to you repeatedly why the ad populum argument fails.  Besides the fact that "billions" DID believe in such gods as zeus, thor, the mayan gods, the incan gods, etc etc.

What's the difference between a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist atheist?
The Christian threatens your afterlife, the atheist threatens your sanity and intelligence.

How is your sanity or intelligence being "threatened"?  Show us a valid argument demonstrating why we should believe in the existence of an invisible god or gods.  So how is asking for that "threatening" to you?

Even thought that's in joke format, but it's more sad than anything.

Certainly sad, yes. 

I know we disagree in regards to beliefs.  To me, it's little more than disagreeing on favorite foods. 
It's hardly grounds for dismissing someone as a person. 

No one is dismissing you as a person.  You keep putting up this "you guys are just angry at me, whaahh!" defense and STILL have not offered up any sort of argument on your part aside from "I just have faith, that's all".

I know you said people would give me a hard time here because of my belief.  I think that's true.  I think people will also deliberately push my buttons so I retaliate....   because they know they won't be out of bounds for doing it, and I will.

Make a damned argument!  Give us one reason at all for believing in the existence of your god!!!  I feel like I am arguing with a 5 year old that keeps saying "it is because I say so.  LALALALALALAAA!  Stop making fun of me.  MOMMYYYYY!"

Why would atheist forum members be expected to back up assertions, when making assertions is something atheists don't even do?

We make assertions, just not with respect to non-existence.  For example, I assert that there is no more plausibility to  christianity than any other form of mythology throughout mankind's history.  I back this up by pointing out other religions throughout history and the similarity in their thought processes, and how they eventually vanished and are now considered "mythology".  I assert that it is not possible for 2 of all the animals of the world to fit on a wooden boat the size described in the biblical tale.  I back this up by describing the necessary space requirements for the animals, the food, the waste, the impossibility of their walking to one region of the world and surviving.  I also back it up by pointing out they would have no food upon leaving the ark, and that numerous cultures would have apparently survived such a flood since they records both before and after such an event would have occurred.

I assert that such a god as yours, if he existed, would have to be going well out of his way to stay hidden from his creation and I back it up by pointing out that life is essentially the same (with regards to health, lifespan, propensity to commit crime, divorce rates, violence, etc) regardless of whether you choose to hold such beliefs.

But as far as asserting that your god most likely does not exist, I back it up by pointing out that there is no evidence whatsoever he DOES exist and there SHOULD be.  If you have evidence, lets hear it.  Because all I am hearing is post after post of "you guys are mean to me".

Like what my signature states, the refusal to choose is a form of choice; disbelief is a form of belief...   Even "claiming" not to have claims, is still a claim.

No, No and NO.  I dont know why you think just saying it makes it so (or finding someone else to quote who says it).  It aint true. 

Someone has stated, "Is not collecting stamps a hobby?" in regards to the belief/disbelief, but comparing a hobby and someone's "personal view" is like comparing elephants and pancakes. 

If not-collecting stamps involves, on a regular basis:

- arguing with stamp collectors,
- debating the purpose of collecting stamps,
- denying the existence of stamps,
- written statements that not collecting stamps is more logical than collecting stamps

...then it's a damn hobby to not-collect stamps.

If those collecting stamps interfered with my life, routinely halted the progress of science, interfered with the education of children, caused war after war after war, prevented people from living their lives the way they want and marrying those they want, etc etc etc etc, then hell yes I would actively argue with stamp collectors.  Otherwise, your analogy fails miserably.

[Asmoday]

Like what my signature states, the refusal to choose is a form of choice; disbelief is a form of belief...   Even "claiming" not to have claims, is still a claim.

It's nice to see that even though not too long ago a good dozen of people have spent considerable time and effort to explain to you that this is not true, you still go on as if nothing ever happened.

I'm having this slight masochistic feeling today so just for the fun of it:

I say the great ARGLGARBL is watching over us all. He can't be seen, he can't be smelled, he can't be touched and he can't be tasted. The great ARGLGARBL is completely undetectable for all of us. But I tell you he's there. Do you believe me?

If you don't, then there's a simple Yes or No question for you: Does your disbelief in my claims and your disbelief in the great ARGLGARBL require active faith?


And just for laughs:
Does your disbelief in Zeus require active faith? Do you have to believe Zeus does not exist?
Does your disbelief in the Easter bunny require active faith? Do you have to believe the Easter bunny does not exist?
Does your disbelief in Xenu require active faith? Do you have to believe Xenu does not exist?

I do know that you already said you don't believe in all of the above. And you also said you don't care for all of these entities. But this time I'd like you to actually answer the question.

I want you to tell me, if you need to have faith Zeus does not exist in the same way and of the same amount that you need to have have faith that your god does exist.

If what you say is true, then your disbelief in Zeus and your belief in God should be the very same thing. You'd need active faith for both. Do you?

[Positiveaob]

...

I say the great ARGLGARBL is watching over us all. He can't be seen, he can't be smelled, he can't be touched and he can't be tasted. The great ARGLGARBL is completely undetectable for all of us. But I tell you he's there. Do you believe me?

If you don't, then there's a simple Yes or No question for you: Does your disbelief in my claims and your disbelief in the great ARGLGARBL require active faith?

...

Unless he's planning on changing his course, his response is likely to be something of the effect of: "well, billions of people dont believe in and have their lives changed by ARGLGARBL."  Then several of us will point out that billions of people DONT believe in his god either and have no demonstrable difference in their lives overall compared to those who do believe.  Several will point out that there arent billions who believe as he does, he has his own unique view on such a god figure formed in his head as his own perfect being, there are just many others who loosely share a similar god and call themselves "christian" as a group.  Several of us will point out that "billions" have believed all kinds of wacky things that have subsequently been shown to not be true.  Several of us will point out that "billions" believed in several other gods mentioned in your post, but I assume he doesnt believe truly exist.

Then, if the pattern continues, he will "fight back" with "you guys are just angry, christians are never angry" and retreat.

This has become tiresome.

[Hguols]

So, why is it when something like this gets posted....

H-daaawg,

+1 (pseudo) for being the most fun christian I've ever seen on the forum. In a lot of ways you remind me of myself when I was a christian.

I can see what you're saying in this thread and, for the most part, I tend to agree with a lot (not all) of what you're saying.

I find a few of the atheists here to apply such a rigid double-standard that it has, on occasion, made me feel ashamed to be a part of the community. I often see atheists provoke hostile responses from theists and get away with it while the theist is busted for responding in kind.
Then again, this is an atheist forum. That said, many atheists here are moderated for being too mean to theists, so the door does swing both ways.

I don't like intellectual snobbery. Never have and never will. There's too much of it flying around here for my liking and, frankly, at times, I fantasise about punching some of those snot-noses into the back of their heads. But I suppose that’s another story.

I mean, you're right in what you say. The ratio is daunting.
A few months ago I tried an experiment where I set up a thread and tried to defend my old beliefs from a christian perspective. Basically, I pretended to be a Christian and several atheists tried to argue with me to prove me wrong.

I kid you not, it traumatised me so much, literally, that I had to spend a few weeks off of the forum to get over it! It was bloody hard work trying to keep up with so many atheists demanding answers and creating lots of very long posts for me to respond to. Never mind the fact that my arguments were ripped apart and stomped on, it was just so hard trying to keep up with all the replies.


Some people didn't realise what was going on and actually thought I was a christian, so they were pretty rude to me.
Here's the hypocrisy: the moment they cottoned on that it was just an exercise, they started being nice to me again elsewhere on the forum. I no longer speak to those members.

It really is very, very hard to keep up when you're outnumbered on this forum.

I don't agree with anything you say about god, obviously, and I may not agree with the way you've handled yourself in every single post, but I have respect for you like no other christian who's arrived here because, well, you're just a normal, down to Earth fella. Warts and all. You're not perfect, and neither are any of the atheists here.

My gut tells me that if you stick around you'll be hounded and be given a hard time over your beliefs (if that's all you talk to us about). My gut also says that you could work out how things work around here and make contributions that aren't always focused on your god-belief and, I, for one, would like to see them.


Cheers mate.

...it gets ignored.  But when someone says basically little more than a "nu-uh" with you guys, you're all over it?

I'd like some discussion on Agga's post that was quoted. 
Unless you guys just aren't up to it....

[Positiveaob]

I'd like some discussion on Agga's post that was quoted. 
Unless you guys just aren't up to it....

What is there to discuss?  He/she is trying to tell you he understands why you feel overwhelmed because you're outnumbered.  And you want us to "discuss" this?

I've been on christian forums and the comments I received from them were alot harsher than anything you've seen here, believe me.  You persevere by arguing your point with logic, evidence and reason, not by putting your fingers and your ears and closing your eyes and screaming "lalalalalalal". 

When are you going to make an argument?  Just ignore everything else for a moment and tell us one reason why YOUR god belief has any merit to it compared to any of the thousands of gods and cultural superstitions throughout mankind's history.  Just give us one reason.

[jetson]

H-daaawg,

+1 (pseudo) for being the most fun christian I've ever seen on the forum. In a lot of ways you remind me of myself when I was a christian.

I can see what you're saying in this thread and, for the most part, I tend to agree with a lot (not all) of what you're saying.

I find a few of the atheists here to apply such a rigid double-standard that it has, on occasion, made me feel ashamed to be a part of the community. I often see atheists provoke hostile responses from theists and get away with it while the theist is busted for responding in kind.
Then again, this is an atheist forum. That said, many atheists here are moderated for being too mean to theists, so the door does swing both ways.

I don't like intellectual snobbery. Never have and never will. There's too much of it flying around here for my liking and, frankly, at times, I fantasise about punching some of those snot-noses into the back of their heads. But I suppose that’s another story.

I mean, you're right in what you say. The ratio is daunting.
A few months ago I tried an experiment where I set up a thread and tried to defend my old beliefs from a christian perspective. Basically, I pretended to be a Christian and several atheists tried to argue with me to prove me wrong.

I kid you not, it traumatised me so much, literally, that I had to spend a few weeks off of the forum to get over it! It was bloody hard work trying to keep up with so many atheists demanding answers and creating lots of very long posts for me to respond to. Never mind the fact that my arguments were ripped apart and stomped on, it was just so hard trying to keep up with all the replies.


Some people didn't realise what was going on and actually thought I was a christian, so they were pretty rude to me.
Here's the hypocrisy: the moment they cottoned on that it was just an exercise, they started being nice to me again elsewhere on the forum. I no longer speak to those members.

It really is very, very hard to keep up when you're outnumbered on this forum.

I don't agree with anything you say about god, obviously, and I may not agree with the way you've handled yourself in every single post, but I have respect for you like no other christian who's arrived here because, well, you're just a normal, down to Earth fella. Warts and all. You're not perfect, and neither are any of the atheists here.

My gut tells me that if you stick around you'll be hounded and be given a hard time over your beliefs (if that's all you talk to us about). My gut also says that you could work out how things work around here and make contributions that aren't always focused on your god-belief and, I, for one, would like to see them.


Cheers mate.

I bolded some points you may have ignored in your quote!

You could be a great person to discuss your beliefs with, as soon as you stop playing the persecution card.  And by the way, I was hammered by some atheists for claiming that all gods are imaginary!  I have felt the wrath of some here in the past, and it is not easy to take lying down.  I could tell I wasn't going to convince some people, but I ultimately realized that my argument is just another argument, and that it is more important to learn from each other, and ultimately agree to disagree.

[Ashe]

Hi, Hguols.

Some Noun definitions of "claim" from dictionary.com:

- a  demand  for  something  as  due;  an  assertion  of  a  right  or  an  alleged  right:
- an assertion of something as a fact:
- a right to claim or demand; a just title to something:

One of the rules in regards to posting:

Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.

Why would atheist forum members be expected to back up assertions, when making assertions is something atheists don't even do?

Like what my signature states, the refusal to choose is a form of choice; disbelief is a form of belief...   Even "claiming" not to have claims, is still a claim.

Someone has stated, "Is not collecting stamps a hobby?" in regards to the belief/disbelief, but comparing a hobby and someone's "personal view" is like comparing elephants and pancakes. 

If not-collecting stamps involves, on a regular basis:

- arguing with stamp collectors,
- debating the purpose of collecting stamps,
- denying the existence of stamps,
- written statements that not collecting stamps is more logical than collecting stamps

...then it's a damn hobby to not-collect stamps.

I've been reading through the threads you've participated in, and I think you may misunderstand what atheism is, so I'll try to give an example and then explain the problems I believe I see in the portion I've just quoted above.

You ask, "Why would atheist forum members be expected to back up assertions, when making assertions is something atheists don't even do?"
Because atheists may make claims unrelated to atheism, or there are "strong" atheists who are making claims such as, "There are certainly no gods" or there are atheists who are outright rejecting specific gods based upon stated criteria laid out by believers (for example, the claim "The Christian God does not exist" because of logical contradictions between free will and God's omnipotence). But atheism =/= the claim "there are certainly no gods."

Atheism, at its core, is the lack of belief in a god, and that's not the same as making a claim. I'll give you an example.

I do not believe in a 30 foot, orange, flying zebra with angel wings that occasionally orbits my home on Tuesdays.
Reading that, I'm pretty sure you don't believe such a thing, either.
And you didn't believe it before I mentioned it now. In fact, the thought of a 30 foot, orange, flying zebra with angel wings that occasionally orbits my home on Tuesdays never in your life crossed your mind until this moment when I mentioned it, but you lacked a belief in it all the same. This is why disbelief is not a kind of belief. You disbelieved without ever knowing the entity you didn't believe in in the first place.
That would make you an a-30 foot, orange, flying zebra with angel wings that occasionally orbits my home on Tuesdays-ist, but it wouldn't have meant there was a claim involved.

Let's say I tell you about this creature and I believe in it.
"I don't believe in it," you say.
Does that make our positions equal? Are you making a claim? No, you're rejecting a claim.

As someone stated in a post elsewhere, theists started this whole debate in the first place. Mankind didn't start with a specific belief in a god; someone had to bring it up first ("Hey, maybe water comes from the sky because a big powerful spirit gets drunk and pees on us after partying").

The "Claiming not to have claims is a claim" is true if you're trying to be pedantic.

Last, you say,

If not-collecting stamps involves, on a regular basis:

- arguing with stamp collectors,
- debating the purpose of collecting stamps,
- denying the existence of stamps,
- written statements that not collecting stamps is more logical than collecting stamps

...then it's a damn hobby to not-collect stamps.

No. You're confusing the hobby of religious debate with atheism. Atheism is not about going on forums to discuss theology, just as Christianity is not about playing baseball. Some atheists enjoy debating theology. Some Christians enjoy playing baseball. But you cannot mix the two and say, "Since some atheists spend a lot of time talking about religion, atheism must be a belief."

[monkeymind]

Hgouls:

    What does a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist atheist have in common?
    They're both right without proof (or lack of proof) and they both discriminate.

I am interested in exploring this idea a bit further. First I'd like to address something else:

7) Group high five when "another one bites the dust" (theory, not proven fact)

I want to mostly address the second half of that statement. IMO it's mostly about finding the truthiness of things. Logic, reason and the scientific method are the best ways I know to do this.   Don't expect me to cover that in detail, as I only want to point out how important the three words; theory, proven and fact are. Sorry I am limited in my time on this as I have a sister coming from out of town.

Theory is better described as an explanation. Proof to me means a high degree of probability an explanation is correct. Nothing in science is ever really proven. There is always the searching for a better, or alternative explanation. New data comes in. Science rewards anyone that disproves a theory, and is therefore self-correcting, and the scientific method requires that a theory be falsifiable...

Which leads us to your statement about what a fundamentalist Christian and an atheist have in common.

Here is an article from a site often quoted in these forums:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

In it Richard Carrier makes his case for why he thinks you can prove a negative. Weather or not one agrees with Carrier on this point, it explores the idea of falsifiability and proving a negative a bit.

[Gnu Ordure]

Positiveaob:

Like what my signature states, the refusal to choose is a form of choice; disbelief is a form of belief...   Even "claiming" not to have claims, is still a claim.

No, No and NO.  I dont know why you think just saying it makes it so (or finding someone else to quote who says it).  It aint true.

I think the first part is correct, but the second isn't. "Choice" and "Belief" are in different categories, and to equate them is a category error.

If one is faced with a range of choices, one of which is "Do nothing", then refusing to make a choice is in effect the same as choosing that option.

Analogy with medical treatment. Say you have some condition and your doctor offers you three different treatments, or you can let nature take its course and have no treatment.

If you refuse to make a decision, you are in effect choosing the "No treatment" option.

But, this doesn't mean that "No treatment" is a form of treatment.

Compare that with choosing a theistic belief system. You are offered a choice of three different kinds of theism, or you can do nothing, and lack belief in any of them.

As before, refusing to choose is the same as choosing the "Do nothing" option.

And exactly as before, this doesn't mean that "Lacking belief" is a form of belief.

So Mr Barron is wrong: disbelief is not a form of belief.

Gnu.

[kin hell]

 
retract