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.
Then quit pushing your belief in active atheisim which incorporates all atheists. You just admitted your beliefs have no value.
Which is just as much as yours does. Neither of our beliefs have any value for anyone other than ourselves.
This is why it's stupid to say that something is right or wrong, because there is NO universal right or wrong. There is only right and wrong in an individual's mind. What's right for me, could be wrong for you, and vice versa.
If everyone was just a little more tolerant and respectful of the other person, there would be less trauma in the world. People that don't bother me are healthier than ones who do.
And other studies refute your claim. So what, you again prove nothing.
Now you appear to be claiming that the "militant" atheist is just the same as the rest of society. So what are you arguing about?
As for myself, I could care less about the average member of society. With the examples provided by to many of the posters here, it is doomed by you activists so why not try another way?
Oh that's right. Then you would have even less chance to control others.
By the way, if you've ever had a sociology class, you would learn how societies operate, if you haven't learned by simply observing. Why do you suppose laws get passed? Some people want to control what they think others should be allowed to do. I disagree with that notion. Let everyone do as they wish.
Where did you get the idea that I'm trying to make anyone DO anything? or THINK anything? I reject society, and I reject the control they try to exert on others. I reject laws, and rules, and all sorts of things. I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life, so just leave mine alone. Let me do as I will.
If you were laying in the street, dying, I'd walk right on by because it isn't any of my business. "Society" would think I'm a horrible person for that, but I'm only minding my own business. It doesn't have anything to do with ME.
Where would this Biblical viewpoint come from if I have not read the Bible?
Well, perhaps you can tell me. In fact there are not a few convinced Christians who haven't read the Bible but have picked up their belief through the ad hoc preaching which is directed at us all the time. I do not believe that this naming of your personal feelings as 'God' came independent of anyone telling about this mythical entity.
Not believing in God=belief that God does not exist.
Whether that is right or wrong is not a call I'm making. It's immaterial, actually. I don't care that you don't believe God doesn't exist. Why would that offend you? If I told you that your belief was WRONG, then I could see you taking offense, but I'm not saying it is right OR wrong, I'm simply making an observation.
"Not believing in God=belief that God does not exist."
Wrong. And not immaterial. If one is going to argue a point the rules of logic should apply. You can't get away with saying 2+ 2 = 5 (when it's part of an argument about god - belief as is the case here) and try to get away with it by pretending it's unimportant or just a matter of opinion.
I am not offended by your saying anything about my beliefs. I am saying that it is totally unacceptable that you state a logical untruth and claim it's true.
If I let you get away with that it is a raft for a whole package of illogic and I will not let you get away with it. Look mate, I have had this attempt to rewrite the rules of logic from some of the craftiest twisters on the board. You don't even come close.
In fact I see that you showed that you already understood the distinction .
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar Well, without any sort of evidence, I couldn't actually believe it, but if I wanted to pay it lip service, I could do that.
On the other hand, I couldn't disbelieve it either, without evidence to disprove it.
So it would be another case of "I can neither confirm nor deny."
I replied: "Bang on. You have not made a choice, but that refusal to make a choice neccessarily means that NOT believing the claim is a default but NOT a choice. To choose to believe that it is untrue IS a choice but you haven't made that choice. You have not chosen but wait confirmation. Do you now see that the non - belief default is NOT a choice?"
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-03-2010 at 06:39 AM..
"Not believing in God=belief that God does not exist."
Wrong. And not immaterial. If one is going to argue a point the rules of logic should apply. You can't get away with saying 2+ 2 = 5 (when it's part of an argument about god - belief as is the case here) and try to get away with it by pretending it's unimportant or just a matter of opinion.
I am not offended by your saying anything about my beliefs. I am saying that it is totally unacceptable that you state a logical untruth and claim it's true.
If I let you get away with that it is a raft for a whole package of illogic and I will not let you get away with it. Look mate, I have had this attempt to rewrite the rules of logic from some of the craftiest twisters on the board. You don't even come close.
It is YOU that looks to "rewrite rules".
What makes you think that one can't argue their opinion...or their intuition...or their perception? MOF, one can argue from ANY position they want...even from a position of absolute falsehood. So you find that to be "totally unacceptable"?...OH WELL, no one said life was a bed of rose petals! What ISN'T logical...is that you think you can only argue from a position of logic...ANYONE can argue from ANY standpoint they damn well please!
You are too hung up on "logic" and "empirical evidence". The REAL WORLD functions on 00.01% objective evidence, and 99.99% intuition and perception. If you waited for everything to be "absolutely objectively proven" before you acted or made a decision...you'd never move. In case you didn't know it...99.99% of all the living that has ever been done WASN'T done in a laboratory. Guys like you must be a real treat at intersections served by 4way stop signs, during rush hour...better wait for "absolute confirmation" that the others won't fail to stop and run into you before you proceed!!
And let's get something straight...that Atheists just don't seem to grasp--"God" is what ever someone perceives "God" to be.
Here, try this...I say that "God" is the whole universe and everything in it. That is "God" to ME. I can now prove "God Exists" by the fact that the universe exists. It DOES exist...and that is what I view as "God"...thus "God" does, in fact, exist...TO ME. And who is anyone to tell another what they can and cannot think/believe/perceive?!! THAT is the REAL crux of the "Why do Atheists care what people believe?" issue.
"Not believing in God=belief that God does not exist."
Wrong. And not immaterial. If one is going to argue a point the rules of logic should apply. You can't get away with saying 2+ 2 = 5 (when it's part of an argument about god - belief as is the case here) and try to get away with it by pretending it's unimportant or just a matter of opinion.
I am not offended by your saying anything about my beliefs. I am saying that it is totally unacceptable that you state a logical untruth and claim it's true.
If I let you get away with that it is a raft for a whole package of illogic and I will not let you get away with it. Look mate, I have had this attempt to rewrite the rules of logic from some of the craftiest twisters on the board. You don't even come close.
In fact I see that you showed that you already understood the distinction .
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar Well, without any sort of evidence, I couldn't actually believe it, but if I wanted to pay it lip service, I could do that.
On the other hand, I couldn't disbelieve it either, without evidence to disprove it.
So it would be another case of "I can neither confirm nor deny."
I replied: "Bang on. You have not made a choice, but that refusal to make a choice neccessarily means that NOT believing the claim is a default but NOT a choice. To choose to believe that it is untrue IS a choice but you haven't made that choice. You have not chosen but wait confirmation. Do you now see that the non - belief default is NOT a choice?"
This doesn't change the fact that A is equal to B. To anyone with sense.
As I've said, there is a difference between agnosticism and atheism.
Well, perhaps you can tell me. In fact there are not a few convinced Christians who haven't read the Bible but have picked up their belief through the ad hoc preaching which is directed at us all the time. I do not believe that this naming of your personal feelings as 'God' came independent of anyone telling about this mythical entity.
I wouldn't know. I think I only went to church for like 6 months, after I got married, Then she disappeared, and I stopped going.
This doesn't change the fact that A is equal to B. To anyone with sense.
As I've said, there is a difference between agnosticism and atheism.
Yes, but you don't truly understand what it is or what the logical implication are. You make up some illogical argument of your own. And it IS important that such matters be set straight for those who are concerned that their views are logically based/
It is YOU that looks to "rewrite rules".
What makes you think that one can't argue their opinion...or their intuition...or their perception? MOF, one can argue from ANY position they want...even from a position of absolute falsehood. So you find that to be "totally unacceptable"?...OH WELL, no one said life was a bed of rose petals! What ISN'T logical...is that you think you can only argue from a position of logic...ANYONE can argue from ANY standpoint they damn well please!
You are too hung up on "logic" and "empirical evidence". The REAL WORLD functions on 00.01% objective evidence, and 99.99% intuition and perception. If you waited for everything to be "absolutely objectively proven" before you acted or made a decision...you'd never move. In case you didn't know it...99.99% of all the living that has ever been done WASN'T done in a laboratory. Guys like you must be a real treat at intersections served by 4way stop signs, during rush hour...better wait for "absolute confirmation" that the others won't fail to stop and run into you before you proceed!!
And let's get something straight...that Atheists just don't seem to grasp--"God" is what ever someone perceives "God" to be.
Here, try this...I say that "God" is the whole universe and everything in it. That is "God" to ME. I can now prove "God Exists" by the fact that the universe exists. It DOES exist...and that is what I view as "God"...thus "God" does, in fact, exist...TO ME. And who is anyone to tell another what they can and cannot think/believe/perceive?!! THAT is the REAL crux of the "Why do Atheists care what people believe?" issue.
This post praises illogic and decries evidence. It whacks on about the God you at one time implied to us that you doubted, for the sake of putting us off our guard. You are utterly discredited and there is no possible reason to address the points in your post. Kramer is at least trying to argue sensible and I am spending the time showing where the flaes in the argument are.
If you don't care about logic and evidence, that's up to you.
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.
