Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story
LCNLin

United States

#177466 Sep 16, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Then you would be ignoring the classic description of religion, especially when having conversations with Christians or theists. RELIGION-----"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, a personal God or Gods."
Since you are a Christian then this description of religion applies directly to you.
straw-man his favorite fallacy?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#177467 Sep 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You really have no concept of what atheism is do you?
Because you are limited by your belief in deity you make the automatic assumption that atheists have the same limitation.
Maybe you have never considered the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it seems you are trying to impose you own limitations, make believe and lies on others. Must be something indoctrinated in godbots from birth and in daveswolders from the moment they are first clouted around the head with a heavy babble.
Punkin, so I was right about your age. More than you were. I'm more right about a lot of things than you are. My paying attention to things trumps your memory and typos. And I'm a dried up senile flabby old man. Look what you have to look forward to.

I didn't develop anything resembling a religious belief until I got on this forum less than 3 years ago. Your atheism is not the atheism of intellectuals when I was your age. You are too parochial, scripted, and ideological about it. Read indoctrinated disaffected personality.

My son is your age. I was an atheist long before he was born. He is an exceptionally intelligent man. I never took him to church, but he wound up with some sort of religion. But he doesn't have the emotional issues you do, either.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#177468 Sep 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually realise why you are disliked so much?
Could it be that you lie for a god that you cannot show exists?
Does my disappointment in not being loved by Topix atheist mental cases show?

Golly, I thought I had it hidden real good.

It isn't up to me to prove one exists to anyone but me, lovey.

Are you trying to prove one doesn't exist? You are doing a lousy job if so.

It's your ass, not mine.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#177469 Sep 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Punkin, so I was right about your age. More than you were. I'm more right about a lot of things than you are. My paying attention to things trumps your memory and typos. And I'm a dried up senile flabby old man. Look what you have to look forward to.
I didn't develop anything resembling a religious belief until I got on this forum less than 3 years ago. Your atheism is not the atheism of intellectuals when I was your age. You are too parochial, scripted, and ideological about it. Read indoctrinated disaffected personality.
My son is your age. I was an atheist long before he was born. He is an exceptionally intelligent man. I never took him to church, but he wound up with some sort of religion. But he doesn't have the emotional issues you do, either.
I have always been right about my age and I have admitted to a typo, get over it.

You self delusion and davesworld antic pants have no baring on my memory but you are free to delusion yourself as much as your emotional outbursts can stand

I donít care what or where you developed you godbit make believe. And you have no idea of my intellectual understanding of atheism, that my deal little fool is the whole concept of atheism that the godbot will never understand, it is not the structured religion of godbotism but it is the individual understanding of individuals.

Intelligent man? Obviously does not take after you then? Are you sure you are the father? It is said that DNA testing is showing considerably less genetic link between the claimed father and the child than was supposed. Was you wife a naught girl?

What emotional issues, you keep guessing based on you own projection but you never Ė ever offer any substantiation of your outlandish comments.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#177470 Sep 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Does my disappointment in not being loved by Topix atheist mental cases show?
Golly, I thought I had it hidden real good.
It isn't up to me to prove one exists to anyone but me, lovey.
Are you trying to prove one doesn't exist? You are doing a lousy job if so.
It's your ass, not mine.
Your deliberate ignorance certainly does show

You donít seem you understand the concept of debate, you make the claim that a mythical entity exists, it is therefore up you to substantiate that claim, or shut up about it

Not me trying to prove anything, Einstrien did a pretty good job of that with E=MC^2

Why do you have a fascination with my ass?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#177471 Sep 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Your deliberate ignorance certainly does show
You donít seem you understand the concept of debate, you make the claim that a mythical entity exists, it is therefore up you to substantiate that claim, or shut up about it
Not me trying to prove anything, Einstrien did a pretty good job of that with E=MC^2
Why do you have a fascination with my ass?
You don't debate. You rant.

I have a fascination with most female asses. They are lovely. Don't take it personal.

This and your prior post are full of typos and grammatical errors. Am I rattling your cage, making you react instead of think?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177472 Sep 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>You don't debate. You rant.

I have a fascination with most female asses. They are lovely. Don't take it personal.

This and your prior post are full of typos and grammatical errors. Am I rattling your cage, making you react instead of think?
Lol... You are comically disgusting

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#177473 Sep 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't debate. You rant.
I have a fascination with most female asses. They are lovely. Don't take it personal.
This and your prior post are full of typos and grammatical errors. Am I rattling your cage, making you react instead of think?
Wrong, I simply do not agree with most of your davesworld BS and tell you so. Therefore, you feel an emotional need to interpret that as ranting, itís really just a sign of immaturity.

Your fascinations and perversions are best kept to yourself.

Still no examples eh? All you have is opinion and are to sh|t scared to admit it? Please be good enough to grow a set of balls and show me where those typos are? So what you are saying that you believe you are at last and suddenly eliciting an emotional response? A response that you have been harping on about for months. It seems that what you are saying is that you have been lying in the hope of grabbing extras spite points to add to your god fund.

How patheticÖ I really have no tolerance for liars and liars for their god are the lowest of the low.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#177474 Sep 16, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol... You are comically disgusting
Where did you get the comically from?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177475 Sep 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Punkin, so I was right about your age. More than you were. I'm more right about a lot of things than you are. My paying attention to things trumps your memory and typos. And I'm a dried up senile flabby old man. Look what you have to look forward to.
I didn't develop anything resembling a religious belief until I got on this forum less than 3 years ago. Your atheism is not the atheism of intellectuals when I was your age. You are too parochial, scripted, and ideological about it. Read indoctrinated disaffected personality.
My son is your age. I was an atheist long before he was born. He is an exceptionally intelligent man. I never took him to church, but he wound up with some sort of religion. But he doesn't have the emotional issues you do, either.
Creationist liar troll not to be trusted.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177476 Sep 16, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
straw-man his favorite fallacy?
idiot with no proof of god, pushing his failed creationist cult online for $0.00001 per troll.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177477 Sep 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Does my disappointment in not being loved by Topix atheist mental cases show?
Golly, I thought I had it hidden real good.
It isn't up to me to prove one exists to anyone but me, lovey.
Are you trying to prove one doesn't exist? You are doing a lousy job if so.
It's your ass, not mine.
You're a bitter creationist idiot who wants attention.

Problem is you don't even understand atheism so anything that comes out of your mouth is just wasteful garbage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177478 Sep 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always been right about my age and I have admitted to a typo, get over it.
You self delusion and davesworld antic pants have no baring on my memory but you are free to delusion yourself as much as your emotional outbursts can stand
I donít care what or where you developed you godbit make believe. And you have no idea of my intellectual understanding of atheism, that my deal little fool is the whole concept of atheism that the godbot will never understand, it is not the structured religion of godbotism but it is the individual understanding of individuals.
Intelligent man? Obviously does not take after you then? Are you sure you are the father? It is said that DNA testing is showing considerably less genetic link between the claimed father and the child than was supposed. Was you wife a naught girl?
What emotional issues, you keep guessing based on you own projection but you never Ė ever offer any substantiation of your outlandish comments.
I'm frankly surprised that your keyboard hasn't got up off its desk and said:

"F*ck this stupid creationist's fingers on my back every day. I will not be a tool aiding the broadcast of such ignorance."
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#177479 Sep 16, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
straw-man his favorite fallacy?
I don't think you possess the intelligence level to understand the meaning of a "straw-man. Prove me wrong!!!!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#177480 Sep 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, I simply do not agree with most of your davesworld BS and tell you so. Therefore, you feel an emotional need to interpret that as ranting, itís really just a sign of immaturity.
Your fascinations and perversions are best kept to yourself.
Still no examples eh? All you have is opinion and are to sh|t scared to admit it? Please be good enough to grow a set of balls and show me where those typos are? So what you are saying that you believe you are at last and suddenly eliciting an emotional response? A response that you have been harping on about for months. It seems that what you are saying is that you have been lying in the hope of grabbing extras spite points to add to your god fund.
How patheticÖ I really have no tolerance for liars and liars for their god are the lowest of the low.
"You self delusion and davesworld antic pants have no baring on my memory but you are free to delusion yourself as much as your emotional outbursts can stand"

You really want to show your ass. And you do. You also left out a comma and a period in that sentence. You also started it off wrong. Should have been "Your" instead of "you".

"I donít care what or where you developed you godbit make believe. And you have no idea of my intellectual understanding of atheism, that my deal little fool is the whole concept of atheism that the godbot will never understand, it is not the structured religion of godbotism but it is the individual understanding of individuals."

Again, you instead of your preceding godbit, which should have been your usual godbot.

My "deal little fool"?

Missing comma. Two, actually.

"Intelligent man? Obviously does not take after you then? Are you sure you are the father? It is said that DNA testing is showing considerably less genetic link between the claimed father and the child than was supposed. Was you wife a naught girl?"

She could be quite a "naughty" girl. But he is mine.

"What emotional issues, you keep guessing based on you own projection but you never Ė ever offer any substantiation of your outlandish comments."

Is that one or two sentences? Plus missing a comma.

"Your deliberate ignorance certainly does show"

Missed your period?

"You donít seem you understand the concept of debate, you make the claim that a mythical entity exists, it is therefore up you to substantiate that claim, or shut up about it"

? You missed a second period?

"Not me trying to prove anything, Einstrien did a pretty good job of that with E=MC^2"

Uh oh. You missed three periods. Oh, you also disrespected your god, there.

"Why do you have a fascination with my ass?"

Because you have it in everyone's face.

Fumble fingers and scattered brains. But you got a fine ass.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177484 Sep 16, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary... there are people who say that they are atheists who have decided to have a building that they call a church. That does not make atheism a religion, that means that the people who are wanting to have an atheist church have ignored the definition of religion and decided to do whatever it is that they want to do. No different than christian's making up their own rules, and branching off from Catholic, to church of christ, to baptist. The problem is that the definition of religion is completely contradictory to the definition of Atheism so anyone who tries to say that atheism is a religion is being clearly dishonest.
My answer is and has been, it is case by case. I honestly don't get why you'd want to have this disagreement with me. In the case of the Atheist I read here. They are a religious group, with fundamentalist traits. If you read there post, I am amazed you don't see it. atheist with no religious faith wouldn't see any need to compete with other's idea. If you too frequently ponder The Universe kick started on it's own with no intelligent design you have a belief. Without gathering or conversation about your belief, you are a non-religious person. More so, if you could not label your belief, and you did not care to start gatherings or discussions about it, or one better, you were against having your belief labeled. Mr Dawkins himself find the claims of these bloggers here wrong. And I don't think he says that for others to have a Tax exemption.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177485 Sep 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All the law is saying (US LAW) is that atheism if declared deserves the same protection under the constitution, that religion does. Therefore freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
All this was brought up because an atheist in prison wanted to form a study group, but was denied. What the law did , was say an atheist has the right to go to the prison library on Sunday, instead of church. If you can call "study" a religion then atheist prisoners won the right to in court.
I have read the judges' comments on that case. They were rather interesting.

The gist of the comments was that, in order to ensue **equal** application of the law, then non-belief must also be included under the "religion" umbrella.

It was the opinion of the judges that the law **must** be applied equally, or else stricken from the books, and the only way to do that, is to treat atheism as a kind of "religion", for the **purpose** of **equal** treatment under the law.

A legal fiction-- something our legal system does all the time.

The easiest example is "corporation"--- it's a legal fiction to pretend the company is a "corpus" or body-- it's not, of course, it's a collection of things/people/assets/etc.

But it's useful under the law to pretend a corporation is a person.

A legal fiction.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177486 Sep 16, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Or phrenology;0)
Indeed.... or celestial spheres?

LOL!

... wait, there's more idiocy:

power crystals
crystal healing
crystal seeing
pyramid power
ley lines
ouija boards
out-of-body projection
far seeing
...

... and last but not least? Goat staring.

<LMAO>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177487 Sep 16, 2013
RayOne wrote:
The atheists feel left out of getting fair time. They should worship their own way on their own day. The Devil is dancing with the prospect.
Why is it, you True Believersô give all the **real** power to your favorite anti-gods?

Hmmm?

You are most amusing.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#177489 Sep 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read the judges' comments on that case. They were rather interesting.
The gist of the comments was that, in order to ensue **equal** application of the law, then non-belief must also be included under the "religion" umbrella.
It was the opinion of the judges that the law **must** be applied equally, or else stricken from the books, and the only way to do that, is to treat atheism as a kind of "religion", for the **purpose** of **equal** treatment under the law.
A legal fiction-- something our legal system does all the time.
The easiest example is "corporation"--- it's a legal fiction to pretend the company is a "corpus" or body-- it's not, of course, it's a collection of things/people/assets/etc.
But it's useful under the law to pretend a corporation is a person.
A legal fiction.
Exactly, but what it was really saying is that a non religious person has the rights a religious person does to form a group. The only way to justify a simple basic human right was to cover non belief under the same law as belief.

This is much the same way cocaine was included under the narcotics laws already in place, but we know cocaine isn't a narcotic, it was easy to define it a narcotic under existing law.
Another legal maneuvering or as you said legal fiction to cover something under existing laws.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Yeah 1,156,471
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr The world is waiting 307,128
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Brew In 28,505
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 6 hr litesong 2,743
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... 20 hr yinefsfgd 3
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Fri zubedaanur 693
UConn vs. Duke Monday night 9pm ESPN2 Dec 25 ivyawe 1
More from around the web