Religion
Related: About this forumIn Defense of “Asshole” Atheism
December 28, 2013 7:31 pm
Written by Johnny O’Coileain
Editor, One Nation Under Nothing/Crackpot Chronicle
Johnny “Knockem’stiff” O’Coileain is a writer of comedy, polemics, and contrarian non-fiction, is an award winning tube-sock model, and a student of philisophic logic and realism. Armed with the influence of George Orwell, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Marcus Cicero, and George Carlin, Johnny gravitates toward bullshit like flies to a shit-cart, and throughly enjoys advertising how much it really fucking stinks.
Countless times I’ve experienced politically correct atheists who magically believe in the idea of Unicorns and Rainbows Atheism. One such person recently commented:
First off, religions and ideologies don’t have human rights like people; they are fair game for ridicule. “Respecting” an idea is based on the merit of the idea, not on the masses having an emotional attachment to it. The fact is this: You can be the most friendly atheist on the planet, and even hire the fucking Care Bears to write your rebuttal to a religious person. But no matter how tactfully you pillow your words, it’ll always amount to some version of: The beliefs you dedicated your entire life to are a colossal mistake.
The notion that there’s a polite way to deliver this to a true believer, is like believing there’s a friendly way to piss on an electric fence. There isn’t a happy way of saying someone’s heartfelt beliefs are a lie. Oppositely, there’s no jovial method of saying atheists are destined for totalitarian hellfire for the imaginary crime of doubting. At the heart of disbelief is the idea that others are mistaken; and within Abrahamic theism is the doctrine of non-believers eternally set ablaze. This is what such bogus endeavors sound like to me:
Mr. Fundie, “Pretty much.”
Politically Correct Atheist, “Oh that’s nice. I can respect that. Wanna hold hands, skip, and whistle in the park?”
With the above, I’m not encompassing fence-sitters and liberal Christians. Such people aren’t really Abrahamic theists; they ignore the genocide, rape, chauvinism, and slavery, while only focusing on the happy lines. Cherry picking the nice parts don’t really make you a true believer. In actuality, they’ve created a new ideology distinct from the Biblical reality. They are Christian-ish. They can be reasoned with, because they never accepted the entire book to begin with.
http://crackpotchronicle.net/main/2013/12/28/in-defense-of-asshole-atheism/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=in-defense-of-asshole-atheism
Et cetera.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
arcane1
(38,613 posts)If that were the case, then this entire website would be a shrine to "bigotry" against conservative beliefs.
"Bigotry" is against what people are, not what they believe.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)You took the trouble to edit it in. Explain it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)You let your mask slip.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And if you're gonna quote me, quote me.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If you're gonna quote me, quote me.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If you're gonna quote me, quote me.
rug
(82,333 posts)Never again will anyone be tempted to consider your posts to be the product of logic, reason or evidence.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Such a simple question, yet such a strong defense.
rug
(82,333 posts)Yes. Why don't you answer it?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Other than the obvious conclusion.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Obvious only to you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Did you have a point you wanted to make by using homophobic language?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That's no explanation. That's a question.
rug
(82,333 posts)I put to you a question that you cannot explain credibly, as your whirling demonstrates.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Why would you assume homophobia?
spin
(17,493 posts)than a man's makes me appear to some here as a homophobe.
In passing I have known and worked with a good number of gay people in my lifetime. I found my gay co-workers to be intelligent and interesting people. I have no problem with those who enjoy the gay lifestyle but I personally have no interest in experimenting with it.
I have been approached by gay men several times in my lifetime and always viewed it as somewhat of a compliment but I politely refused by saying, "Sorry, but I am straight."
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)between a woman's or a man's asshole.
spin
(17,493 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)They are insulted by the mere fact that somebody would actually challenge their beliefs. All one has to say is that I don't believe in gods. They ask why, and when we explain it, they get all hurt and insulted.
And then, some will say that their gods will send us to eternal torture, with grinding and gnashing of teeth after we die.
But that's okay. So maybe we should make nice?
I generally do. But I also have sympathy towards a polemic once in a while. Myself, I prefer ridicule. But like any spice, too much overwhelms. Best to mostly tone it down. But sometimes a really hot tamale tastes good.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)He seems to be his usual evasive self tonight. I've asked several times now and he just keeps dodging.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If you're gonna quote me, quote me.
rug
(82,333 posts)Hint: your words are in quotes.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Hint: not in your posts they're not.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I bow before your rational discussion.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Great.
Did you have a point you wanted to make by posting this article?
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If you're gonna quote me, quote me.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Howard Beale comes to mind.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I can see how you would identify with him.
rug
(82,333 posts)Or maybe Lady Macbeth and her spots.
longship
(40,416 posts)Maybe a couple dozen more times will get him to respond.
Frankly, I don't know what your point is either.
Sorry, friend.
I have tried to post responses to the thread.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)One that he refuses to answer.
I don't think asking him three dozen more times will result in anything other than continuing to not get an answer.
rug
(82,333 posts)Did you have a point you wanted to make by posting "attraction to anything with asshole"?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If you're gonna quote me, quote me.
rug
(82,333 posts)Did you have a point you wanted to make by posting "attraction to anything with asshole"?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Indeed. Your evasion of such a simple question is plainly obvious.
And if you're gonna quote me, quote me.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)This is the religion forum where all sorts of religion and atheist topics appear. Making it about rug instead of the content of his post is not likely to get very far, IMHO.
Just a gentle suggestion.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Surely that's not too much to ask.
longship
(40,416 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)My favorite part was being intentionally mis-quoted and slandered. Dozens of times.
Good stuff.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)2. Did you have a point you wanted to make?
Or was this just a public service announcement?
While your attraction to anything with "asshole" in the title is understandable, there must be a better reason than that for posting it.
rug
(82,333 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)That's why I often respond but rarely get pissed off on these things (which is not much use, at any rate).
But it can be an opportunity to express a related point. That I can get into. And, of course, any resulting discussion. Good sport there, too. I try to keep it friendly amongst friends. E.G., here at DU, and mostly with individuals who want to talk religion. But I'll hold nothing back from people who, for instance, tell me I'm going to hell for not believing like them.
Interesting post, rug.
rug
(82,333 posts)He's linked to that site before.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It's hypnotic watching this bizarre behavior.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Indeed, it is. Who would avoid answering such a basic question?
Did you have a point you wanted to make by using homophobic language?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)More evasion.
rug
(82,333 posts)Or maybe it's simply your last word urge.
Either way, you haven't answered:
Did you have a point you wanted to make by using homophobic language?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)For your reward, you may have the last word and play with yourself.
Since you can not own your own words, that's the most productive thing you can do.
longship
(40,416 posts)I do not disassociate from this approach. Not that it is for everybody -- I tend to soften my rhetoric -- but I firmly believe that we need some people to stir the pot with great vigor on occasion to get to the goal where religion evolves into avirulence. Certainly humans will have great tribulations (sorry!) until that happens.
I don't think I'll live to see that day, but I will nevertheless soldier on.
Unbending religion will be the end of us all.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)That saddens me, but no more than seeing people watch Duck Dynasty or idolize no-talent singers or spend their whole existence wandering around a grocery store talking on their cell phone to some person whose life is equally wasted. If that is all people want to do with their lives, it really is none of my business.
The greater problem is the fact that religious beliefs are often used to justify really bad ideas -- ideas that are destructive to our society and to the very future of humanity.
Bad religion is far worse than bad science because at least you can have a discussion about bad science. Granted, that isn't always productive, but at least purveyors of bad science can't hide behind the argument that "only God knows the answer".
longship
(40,416 posts)But as I wrote up thread, I do love an occasional atheistic polemic. It's important to show contrast to the lunacy of religion once in a while.
rug
(82,333 posts)
edhopper
(33,587 posts)this is the very kind of argument we have heard from the defenders of Mr Duck Dynasty. That his hate speech should be respected because he is using the bible as it's basis.
I appreciate that you posted this, because he makes a great point.
rug
(82,333 posts)Are you claiming this article is bigoted?
rug
(82,333 posts)Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder but I wouldn't put stock in either of them.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)beliefs need to be respected no matter how absurd, irrational or hateful I guess?
rug
(82,333 posts)A sign of a mind that is not bigoted is the ability to discern the absurd, irrational and the hateful from things you do not agree.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)which you find as bigoted?
rug
(82,333 posts)I've done it once. I won't do it twice, not even for you. Sorry, ed.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)tongue in cheek condescension rather than bigotry.
He says you can be reasoned with, don't you feel good about that? 
rug
(82,333 posts)What he hasn't learned, and what he doesn't want to learn, is that it takes two rational people to reason together.
Having read his site, I'm still one short. Not to be condescending.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)He really is an asshole? But most atheist here like what he said. Go figure?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)how it is said may be offensive, depending on the where and when and to whom it is being said.
I have said similar things to believers who want to engage in that conversation, or to those who have tried to shove their beliefs down my throat, but I would never purposefully hurt someone who held such beliefs just because of what they believed. Why be cruel to those who are probably already victims of abuse?
Fact is, we all cherry pick in one way or another and there's nothing wrong with that. Being a hypocrite is one thing, confronting our own hypocrisy is another.
rug
(82,333 posts)Hope you're feeling better.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)btw, there was nothing really revelatory in the "funeral vid". It was just a sympathetic commentary on the case by a non-journalist. All the newspaper articles I read were similar and all but one referred to the victim in the feminine, as did the mayor and clergy.
pinto
(106,886 posts) Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts) rug
(82,333 posts)at least thanks for agreeing on the reason behind your OP.
rug
(82,333 posts)Go figure who agrees and why.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)Do you agree with the author that there are beliefs that don't deserve respect. Or does he have no excuse for being a self-named asshole?
rug
(82,333 posts)The whole argument about respecting or disrespecting beliefs or opinions is stupid. They are abstractions. Respect or disrespect adheres to human beings.
No, assholes have no excuse for being assholes. Cloaking it under some faux principled crusade alters that not in the least.
This guy is simply a purer specimen.
I wish I could say I was surprised that more don't get it.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts) Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Just one example of many, of dozens of very destructive elements in traditional religion/Christianity.
Finally there are SO many such elements, that it should lose our respect, as "sacred," or "perfect," or "holy," or even particularly "good."
Given this very destructive past history, we can only assume that not only past, but also "modern" and "liberal" religion will one day be found to be likewise flawed, and often immensely destructive.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Tell me, do you think these are novel thoughts?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Do something productive and find the classic answer.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Generally I prefer original arguments. But why ignore existing good ones ... that you still have not answered.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do your own homework. The Christmas break is almost over.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)That needs a bit more work.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)There never was enough water on this planet to have done that and there never was a time that we lost species to the point that the survivors would fit on one boat.
It is complete nonsense.
There might have been a very rainy time -- even 40 days of rain. And this would have cause a lot of flooding -- so much that a person without weather satellites might actually think the whole planet was flooded. And there might have been a delusional old man who had a lifetime passion of building such an ark.
But as a literal, accurate story, complete BS. And therefore, what is the significance of the story? I see none.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)But what is the point of the Noah's Arc story? That God will flood the earth if He gets pissed off? Really, I don't see any point to that story.
The problem with allegory is that it gives insane people a lot of liberty to interpret as they wish -- and that is the history of the world, basically.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The standard reading is that God or Good at times, kills huge masses of people, when he thinks they are bad; even say floods the whole world. This he does even literally, in many parts of the Bible, killing whole villages and peoples, including women and children and so forth.
If these are only allegories? Still even as allegory this seems bad.
While there is much evidence that many of these actions are not just allegories; real genocides often take place.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)and filter it through a sin and guilt obsessed culture.
rug
(82,333 posts)Frankly, the myths are more interesting to discuss than this.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)"intellectually bankrupt".
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Typically it posits excessively negative results for violating its simplistic moral rules. Those results are often taken literally, and zealots enforce their murderous judgments; with actual pogroms and genocide.
In this case, the killing of innocents involved in relatively indiscriminate killings 1) of say, "all the earth" outside of Noah and his friends, or 1) "all first-born Egyptian sons" is excessive and crude, in that it ignores the possibility that some of the executed might have been innocent children, and so forth.
Do you seriously thinking you have a plausible argument that would justify such things?
rug
(82,333 posts)http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=didactic&searchmode=none55
There is nothing negative about teaching or learning.
You confuse it with literalism and fundamentalism. You'll probably find more sport on the Rapture Ready boards,
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Try the full, 20-volume OED; Oxford English Dictionary.
Nothing wrong with teaching - except say, Pedantry. Being moralistic. Presenting False Teachings, inflexibly, as absolute truths.
Literalism and fundamentalism are typically related. Both take things too simply.
rug
(82,333 posts)BTW, that link wasn't a dictionary.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)There were some articles a few years ago when it put out the last print edition about it becoming digital only.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)The OED entry for 'didactic' is:
Having the character or manner of a teacher or instructor; characterized by giving instruction; having the giving of instruction as its aim or object; instructive, preceptive.
B. n.
†1. A didactic author or treatise. Obs.
2. didactics n. [see -ic suffix + -s-] pl. The science or art of teaching.
rug
(82,333 posts)It was a sad day.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/7970391/Oxford-English-Dictionary-will-not-be-printed-again.html
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)but this version is, as far as I'm aware, the full dictionary (and I can't find anything saying otherwise). That is a fairly short entry for the OED, it's true. It does specify that is the Second Edition (1989) reference, and has not been revised since. There are separate entries for different parts of speech, but they don't extend the general meaning.
They do also point to "didactic: quick current definition in Oxford Dictionaries Online":
in the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to appear patronizing:his tone ranged from didactic to backslapping
okasha
(11,573 posts)It still means "teaching" or "educational." Much of great art teaches, whether the message is political, historical, religious or even scientific. The difference between, say, Goya, and the Soviet Realists is not what they did,but how well or badly they did it.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)of Jesus being born in a manger of a Virgin and proclaimed King by three wandering wise men?
rug
(82,333 posts)There's also a lot of myth in the story of the American Revolution.
But there's a reason most of us don't sing "God Save The Queen".
and lots of reason people worship Jesus and the Christian religion is so big. None of them point to a scintilla of truth about the nativity story.
If that was your point, because I'm not sure.
spin
(17,493 posts)Study: Laurentide Ice Sheet Melting Caused "Noah's Ark" Flood And Led To European Agriculture
By News Staff | November 18th 2007 09:13 PM
New research published in Quaternary Science Reviews says the collapse of the North American (Laurentide) Ice Sheet caused the flood believed to be behind the "Noah's Ark" story 8000 years ago that kick-started modern European agriculture.
The results indicate a catastrophic rise in global sea level led to the flooding of the Black Sea and drove dramatic social change across Europe. The research team argues that, in the face of rising sea levels driven by contemporary climate change, we can learn important lessons from the past.
***snip***
Before this time, a ridge across the Bosporus Strait dammed the Mediterranean and kept the Black Sea as a freshwater lake. With the rise in sea level, the Bosporus Strait was breached, flooding the Black Sea.
This event is now widely believed to be behind the various folk myths and the biblical Noah’s Ark story. Archaeological records show that around this time there was a sudden expansion of farming and pottery production across Europe, marking the end of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer era and the start of the Neolithic. The link between rising sea levels and such massive social change has previously been unclear.
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/study_laurentide_ice_sheet_melting_caused_noahs_ark_flood_and_led_to_european_agriculture
Many theorize that the Noah's Ark story is based on myths from Sumer which was located in the "cradle of civilization" or the Fertile Crescent.
The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh
by Frank Lorey, M.A.
The Epic of Gilgamesh has been of interest to Christians ever since its discovery in the mid-nineteenth century in the ruins of the great library at Nineveh, with its account of a universal flood with significant parallels to the Flood of Noah's day.1, 2 The rest of the Epic, which dates back to possibly third millennium B.C., contains little of value for Christians, since it concerns typical polytheistic myths associated with the pagan peoples of the time. However, some Christians have studied the ideas of creation and the afterlife presented in the Epic. Even secular scholars have recognized the parallels between the Babylonian, Phoenician, and Hebrew accounts, although not all are willing to label the connections as anything more than shared mythology.3
There have been numerous flood stories identified from ancient sources scattered around the world.4 The stories that were discovered on cuneiform tablets, which comprise some of the earliest surviving writing, have obvious similarities. Cuneiform writing was invented by the Sumerians and carried on by the Akkadians. Babylonian and Assyrian are two dialects of the Akkadian, and both contain a flood account. While there are differences between the original Sumerian and later Babylonian and Assyrian flood accounts, many of the similarities are strikingly close to the Genesis flood account.5 The Babylonian account is the most intact, with only seven of 205 lines missing.6 It was also the first discovered, making it the most studied of the early flood accounts.
***snip***
In brief, Utnapishtim had become immortal after building a ship to weather the Great Deluge that destroyed mankind. He brought all of his relatives and all species of creatures aboard the vessel. Utnapishtim released birds to find land, and the ship landed upon a mountain after the flood. The story then ends with tales of Enkidu's visit to the underworld.16 Even though many similarities exist between the two accounts, there still are serious differences.
***snip***
From the early days of the comparative study of these two flood accounts, it has been generally agreed that there is an obvious relationship. The widespread nature of flood traditions throughout the entire human race is excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a legal/historical point of view.20 Dating of the oldest fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it was older than the assumed dating of Genesis.21 However, the probability exists that the Biblical account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements (with alterations) to the original.
http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/
intaglio
(8,170 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)I've forgotten what the OP was about. Tho I have a new idea how to get an OP to hit *milestone* status.
Seriously, interesting article.
Did you have a point you wanted to make?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)it stimulated so far.
What a waste of bandwidth all the way around.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)This little corner of the world has its ups and downs.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)to the religious, the existence of atheists is offensive, being polite or trying to "respect beliefs" is wasting your breath.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)religious issues with religious people, it usually ends with the religious person personally attacking me with some form of direct insult, which is generally a response to a perceived(or real) slight I made on a idea that sprung from that religion. For some reason, the religious simply cannot separate their religion from their ego, so when you attack the religion, no matter how polite, they think you are personally attacking them. This explains why religious people can be so over the top in their reactions towards the non-religious, apostates, etc.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)religious issues with some anti-theists, some of them personally with some form of direct insult. This is sometimes a response to a perceived (or real) slight I made that sprung from their anti-theist POV.
For some reason, the anti-theists simply cannot separate their anti-theism from their ego, so when you challenge their position, no matter how polite, they think you are personally attacking them.
This explains why some anti-theists can be so over the top in their reactions towards the religious.
See how that works?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Can you give an example of an over-the-top reaction from an anti-theist?
Here is what I am talking about, as illustrated here:
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the most lame and inaccurate things I have ever seen on this topic.
Over the top reactions by anti-theists? Not sure what you mean by "over the top". Do you have examples of "over the top" reactions from members of DU who identify as religious?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)over the top reactions by religious DUers, though there are a lot more examples IRL and elsewhere.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That tends to be the case with extremists.
I don't see much point in making it a contest, though, and am satisfied that it happens on both ends.
However, if one sits towards one end or the other of any scale, one is much more likely to see the other "side" doing it.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)with not calling everyone who rejects the idea of Gods as anti-theists. Many of us just don't find any reason to accept their existence.
In discussions with believers we naturally take on the opposing position. But that is the nature of debate.
Other times atheists might feel insulted is when it is assumed they are an atheist because of a traumatic event or were hurt by religion in the past.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have made the distinction very clear and am very aware that there are many atheists who post here who are in no way anti-theists.
I'm not sure what the "opposing side" means. You don't believe in gods, other people do, some just plain don't know and there are a bunch who really don't care.
And then there are people who denigrate others who are not in their "camp" and make broad brush sweeping comments about their intelligence, psychiatric state, level of maturation, trustworthiness, etc.
When they go on to say things like "Religion poisons everything" or "Religion: Together we can find the cure", they have moved into an anti-theist position. Gone is tolerance or a sense that some people just have a different experience. It's now become a poison and a disease which must be erradicated.
your post sounded like you were substituting anti-theist for atheist. I misread it.
I know you don't like it. But we do debate here the existence of God. Therefore we make arguments why we don't see any reason to accept he,she, they exist while pointing out the flaws we see in believers statements.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)even though I think it's a totally useless, circular debate for which there is not answer.
Those kinds of debates don't interest me.
And since there is no definitive answer, nor do I expect to ever see one, I don't think there are many "flaws" in the arguments on either side. Or they are both deeply flawed.
It's the scoring of points that gets under my skin, since I strongly believe that neither "side" can be shown to be right or wrong.
I have a question that I have asked previously, but never gotten an answer to.
The non-believers on this site use the second person plural frequently, while I rarely see believers do that. They tend to talk primarily about themselves and their personal beliefs.
What do you make of that?
edhopper
(33,587 posts)Maybe because we don't see it as personal beliefs based on feelings or "knowing" but on objective reality and reason. If we ascribe that viewpoint to my fellow atheist, then I think that might account for it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's curious to me.
Atheists who post here repeatedly say that the only thing atheists hold in common is a lack of belief in a god, but then repeatedly appear to speak for a group on lots of different issues.
I find that odd.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)and ask us.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And there you go with the "us", lol.
I've asked a lot of people individually. I think it's a tribal thing, but I'm not sure anyone really knows.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)WE feel it's tribal at all.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
