Why people hate atheists (Buddha, believe, atheist, pray)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
trans, you are not addressing the main point. That you answer to the central dogma of "anti-theist" first.
For example, You have made it clear to me that we should be asking ourselves "How will theist use this?" before we talk about any deep notions on how the universe works. And then modify how we speak to it based on ow they react. Thats the problem we are addressing.
secondly. You are telling us about what Christians are doing. I don't care what they do past talking about how they form a belief. And when people do an injustice, we address the injustice. You are constantly adjusting your position based on other people's beliefs, mainly theism. We only suggest adjusting our beliefs to what we see (observations) going on around us.
third, the victim card. you whip that out every time your base faith statement (anti-religious) is called into question. It has nothing to do with trying trying to silence you. It has everything to do with comparing your claims to other claims and seeing what ones are more, less, or equal in their validity.
we evaluate claims on observations and accepted science. You evaluate claims on how it lines up to how you can save people through anti-religious teachings. You pick the best claim based on "how a theist will react." . we pick the most valid claim on, well, I hate to say it, science. That's the problem we see.
You are more theist-in-the-head then us.
Arach mate, that has little or none relation to me or how I think and argue, and everything to do with your hostile prejudices against the kind of atheist you dislike, for political reasons more than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Can someone translate that please?
Yes. It was a string of half -assed prejudices and half misremembered (bad) arguments that anti atheists (there, I've Said It ) came up with, strung incoherently together with his wild leaps to his peddling of his own pet 'The hills are alive' Hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Not totally true. we do not "oppose religion" That would be like opposing "accounting."
We oppose some accounting practices. we do oppose some of religions claims and how they form their claims. And obviously we appose how some people use it as a weapon. The latter cancels out when compared non religious doing the exact same thing too.
Cobblers. Of course we oppose religion, at the very least in not accepting the claims and saying why (the only non -opposition is keeping mousey -quiet just as we did in the Good Old Days), and more, in proselytizing reasons why we should not accept the claims of religion - and we do that, too, though some don't and some *koff*Stavrakopulou *koff* even have a bash at us because we say why it is not believable, and pretty much why not true - which is what she says herself so I don't know what her beef is.
And the stuff seen as extremist anti theism (actually not even anti religion but anti religious authority) Dogma, hate and aggressiveness and all the other accusation levelled at us by those whose other arguments have collapsed and they are getting desperate, if not shirty .. is the 'Cause', Mission or campaign. It's there, we are in it (even if we were just in the catering corps) and we are collecting a fair bit of Flak including from our own side (friendly fire is a bit of a US tradition, so I heard) which or whom (should the cause succeed will be loudly claiming how instrumental they were in freeing US society from religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
what we are talking about phet is that if you list the personality traits of a "riligion-ist" that those type of people are in atheism too.
we are asking you to list the traits of a relgion-ist and predict how they would express atheism? what would atheism look like expressed by a an atheist with the religion-ist personality traits that you assigned to them?
That's always been your cheat. You can interpret ANYTHING as being evidence of ..Extremist atheism (you being the centrist, of course) and you'd even misinterpret what was said in order to provide your evidence.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-26-2019 at 09:26 AM..
That doesn't answer the question I asked you. Do you believe that they might/could exist?
?
I did answer you. I do not believe in God or gods. But that doesn’t mean, as an atheist, I shut the door on learning. Could there someday be proof there is a God? If there is proof someday, then I guess I won’t be an atheist anymore - lol.
I did answer you. I do not believe in God or gods. But that doesn’t mean, as an atheist, I shut the door on learning. Could there someday be proof there is a God? If there is proof someday, then I guess I won’t be an atheist anymore - lol.
I agree. Atheist is not a knowledge position as theist try to portray it.
Nor can we agree the possibility of something that we don't believe exists. It was hard work but you got there in the end. Well done!
Actually, no. The point isn’t whether God exists or not (we are in agreement there). But because I don’t believe in God does not make me anti-theistic or closed off to learning - or any possibility to life. That’s incredibly narrow-minded, in my opinion.
I did answer you. I do not believe in God or gods. But that doesn’t mean, as an atheist, I shut the door on learning. Could there someday be proof there is a God? If there is proof someday, then I guess I won’t be an atheist anymore - lol.
...and that is exactly what I have been saying since I first started discussing it. Now go back and read it again and see where you went wrong. Shutting the door on learning is something that I have never advocated. Find me a post where I have and thus prove me wrong.
Being open to future knowledge had no effect on present B.E.L.I.E.F.S Presently I do not believe that gods exist or might exist. In the light that other information comes to light, I might change my beliefs.
...and no, you didn't answer the question. It was quite a simple one. Do you believe that gods might/could exist. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Actually, no. The point isn’t whether God exists or not (we are in agreement there). But because I don’t believe in God does not make me anti-theistic or closed off to learning - or any possibility to life. That’s incredibly narrow-minded, in my opinion.
Again. You are straw-manning. I never said that it did or that it should. Go find me the posts where you think that I said that we should not be open to future learning.
It started with me saying that I don't believe that gods exist and I don't believe that they might/could be lurking somewhere that we don't know of.
From there I was accused of being no different to a fundie theist in that I was not open to the possibility of gods. Since then I have been trying to explain that, should any verifiable evidence for the existence of gods emerge, I would be willing to review my beliefs. However, that does not mean that I have to accept that gods might/could exist. Of course I don't know what might or might not emerge in the future but that doesn't change my present BELIEF that gods do not and cannot exist. It's a difference between knowledge and belief.
OK. But I wasn't commenting on why you were defending your position but the following statement, which appears to support what you've just said above.
Quote:
You can't be atheist AND be open to the possibility that gods might exist.
And you are correct that it could be about the difference between knowledge and belief, if one draws a distinction between the two.
If one assumes the definition of atheist to be 'person who does not believe in god(s)', atheism becomes a position on belief.
However, the possibility of something being true or not (in terms of existence) is a position on knowledge.
So the blue part of your statement addresses belief position and the dark orchid one refers to knowledge claim. If there is indeed a difference between belief and knowledge, there is absolutely no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive.
EDIT: I used the wrong wording in my last sentence so corrected that.
Last edited by Itzpapalotl; 02-26-2019 at 09:32 AM..
Even that doesn't necessarily come with atheism, although we're more likely to oppose specific religious beliefs than we are to oppose religion/theism itself.
True. If you count in Buddhism, Jain and scientology, atheism can even be a religion. Or rather, a religion can be atheistic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) came up with, strung incoherently together with his wild leaps to his peddling of his own pet 'The hills are alive' Hypothesis.
Of course we oppose religion, at the very least in not accepting the claims and saying why (the only non -opposition is keeping mousey -quiet just as we did in the Good Old Days), and more, in proselytizing reasons why we should not accept the claims of religion - and we do that, too, though some don't and some *koff*Stavrakopulou *koff* even have a bash at us because we say why it is not believable, and pretty much why not true - which is what she says herself 
so I don't know what her beef is. 
will be loudly claiming how instrumental they were in freeing US society from religion.
