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.
Sounds about right. And they really don't like hearing that they're apologists as well, or that it's possible for an atheist to have a burden of proof, unjustifiably intolerant, etc.
atheism is not a religion but we have groups of atheist (sects) that sure do make us look bad.
1) do we have a base "faith" statement? It has no observational data to make such a claim. "anti-religion".
2) meet with like minded people to discuss and talk about the clarity logic and reason we have?
3) Do the individuals claim "this is not a religion" I see many religions claim this.
4) do we have people running about leading "meetings" or are appointed atheist sages? like Hitches?.
5) do we have fundamentalist that completely screw the pooch in presenting atheistic views as a valid choice? Indeed the only logical truth? literally?
6) do we want all other religions "removed" because "they are bad and we are truly good"? "anti religion"?
7) Do we need a Chaplin in the army.
8) do we want buildings for teaching the good news of atheism?
9) do we ignore observation that counter our views to maintain the integrity of our personal view?
10) Ignore the validity of a "good rule" just because a theist said it? Do we openly reject people that do not support "exactly" what we want ... no god, gods, or anything?
11) claim to have real truth, logic, and understanding?
12) Use our belief in trying to influences "state laws" based on our base belief statement?
13) personal emotional observations is all we need to self verify our stance.
I don't care whether you are biased or not. A person can be as biased as hell, but if their argument is sound, that's all that matters. if their argument is unsound, they can be as middle ground as they like. They are still unsound.
If the goal is to persuade, in other words, where one person adopts the claim of another person, then claims must be identified, analyzed for biases, and participants have to agree on the meaning of vocabulary being used. Once the claim is accepted, an argument can be built. Content is just as important as emotions. Biases and unwillingness to share the meaning of words can bring negative feelings. It will be difficult to get people to listen to the "argument."
I don't care whether you are biased or not. A person can be as biased as hell, but if their argument is sound, that's all that matters. if their argument is unsound, they can be as middle ground as they like. They are still unsound.
translation ... "I don't care about truth or consequences ... stop religion at all cost."
i just can't buy into the central dogma. It would involve far to many injustices being forced on the population.
The issue is WHO is qualified to assess the soundness and on what basis, certainly NOT you, Arq, despite your ubiquitous anal-sourced proclamations.
Irony overload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You seem stuck in the rut of religions (specifically Christian) and seem unable to deal with theism itself. You do not indicate even a recognition that theism is a separate issue from ANY specific religious beliefs. This causes you to argue against religions when the issue is theism (belief in the existence of God).
Strange, Transponder often argues against both positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is also why you and other atheists try to muddle the waters with the definition of atheism (belief in the non-existence of God). The ones doing all the "wriggling" are the atheists, especially with their unsupported (and unsupportable) defaults.
A concession I'm happy to see. Because it means you have no evidence against Christianity, since if only a few defining points in the bible are true we have a confirmation of Christianity on our hands! I'd say, that if there is a god and Jesus was his son who was crucified but rose on the third day and ascended to heaven where some/all of us will eventually join him, then that's Christianity right there.
Circular logic based on unreliable sources, and ignoring how probability works.
Come on Vic, you can waste our time better than this.
Circular logic based on unreliable sources, and ignoring how probability works.
Come on Vic, you can waste our time better than this.
oh, so treat thy enemy as yourself is from unreliable sources? to base ones life on love compassion, understanding, and forgiveness is a baseless concept?
again, one liners don't prove or disprove anything.
oh, so treat thy enemy as yourself is from unreliable sources?
Yes, a source that says there is one god, two gods, Jesus is separate from God, Jesus is God. A book with a section written by a man who had been dead for 100 years. I could write a very long list pointing out how unreliable the NT is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
to base ones life on love compassion, understanding, and forgiveness is a baseless concept?
Of course not, no one is arguing this silly little non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
again, one liners don't prove or disprove anything.
But you are so good with them.
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.
