The tyranny of religion and the freed...

The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism

There are 177 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 15, 2014, titled The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

On occasion, the atheist podcast and radio show " Reasonable Doubts " will feature an interview with a high-profile atheist who was formerly a religious activist.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#102 Jan 25, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
Life is not the sum total essence of everything.. You clearly don't know what the definition of Life is.. The second half your Answer is incoherent to the first half.
I don't know the definition of life? Are you fricking loony toons? lol.....there is no definition to life you fricking fool....lol. The definition of life is a personal perspective of one's own opinion of all that exists and why it exists for them. We could find at least a million fricking reasons for the definition of life....holy fricking moly...lol...way to funny dude really!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#103 Jan 25, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.. Nothing doesn't exist and can not be of existence. You obviously don't know the definition of "Existence" to understand the answer. Existence is literally defined as the totality of all that exists. Look it up.. Thus by definition, if Existence is GOD, everything of existence would by definition be GOD. Here is the definition of Existence:
<quoted text>
Existence is a single entity of all that exists. If you exist, you are a part of existence as a subset of existence itself. And if call Existence itself GOD, Everything by definition becomes GOD.. And likewise if you state Existence is not GOD, there is then nothing of Existence to which is by consequence of definition.. The term "Nothing" to which you are using here has no play in the subject.. We are not addressing "Nothing".
The word 'nothing' as I used it had an obvious abstract meaning you don't seem to understand as most understand it's usage. The word 'nothing' as I used it meant to imply the non-existence of something.
Allow me to school you here in the usage of this word. The question went....
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not(God)? One answer to this is nothing. Very simple to understand. To a theist existence is God and God is existence. They are one and the same to them. So of the question "...than what of existence isn't God?" (if God is existence), the obvious answer would be nothing. How don't you understand that? It's a very simple concept established by the writer. Need to go over it again?
Let's simplify what the writer said and asked and take the question apart.
1. Let's pretend all of existence is of God.(Q2: If Existence is GOD,). The writer is giving a pretend scenairo for the benefit of theists and how they believe that God is existence and existence is God. Follow?
2. What of all that encompasses the existence of God isn't of that God?(...then what of existence is not of this(God)? The writer is asking a question that has no obvious answer if the first part of the question is true.
Now if the first part of the question wasn't true that existence is God,, one could say everything as a possible answer to the actual question, than what of existence is not of this God since this God doesn't exist? Understand?

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#104 Jan 25, 2014
..........
Q1: What is GOD without existence?
A1. Nothing. The non-existence of God equals nothing.
Your answer provided is not the context of the question. The first part of your answer is correct, as if there is no existence, there isn't anything at all... That includes "GOD".. The second part is out of context because the First question is NOT saying Existence is GOD.. Clearly you have reading comprehension problems..
..........
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not(God)?
A2. Again nothing. If existence is predicated on God's existence, than God's non-existence
means nothing else exists.
This is incoherent.. Nothing doesn't exist, you are using the term incorrectly.. Your answer is not coherent to the context of the question asked. The question is not saying Existence is Predicated on God's Existence.., It is stating "IF Existence IS GOD", What of Existence is not? Your an idiot who can't even manage to understand basic English.. The question has nothing to do with whether or not Existence exists either, as the second half of your answer tries to imply. That is incoherent to the question. In simple terms, if Existence is GOD, everything is god, and if it is not GOD, everything of existence is not GOD.. Your Answer should have stated 'Nothing of Existence". Hence question only deals with whether or not Existence is GOD, and the consequences of stating one or the other. It has nothing to do with whether or not Existence exists. And yes, if existence didn't exist, there wouldn't be anything in existence. But it's clear you are unable to deal with the intended context while trying to play dishonest word semantics.
..........
Q3: If Existence is not GOD, then what of existence is(God)?
A3. Again nothing. If existence is not predicated on God's existence, that rationally
God doesn't exist.
Again the same problem of you changing the context of the question with an incoherent answer. And nothing can't be "GOD", nothing doesn't exist.. Nothing here can only correctly be used as a place card for everything in and of existence to denote that everything in and of existence would not be GOD.. Hence nothing of existence would be if existence is not. Please use proper English, and how to use the term "Nothing" properly so you can actually make coherent sense. But what is clear is that any concept of GOD is predicated on Existence just as everything else would be.. Existence does not require the concept of GOD to exist what-so-ever either as it would be the other way around..
..........
The writer was clearly separating God and existence to prove the non-existence of God. And as I stated before, "In theism existence is God. To an atheist they would of course be two separate things."
Again, your reading comprehension and lack of education of the English language is what is the problem here.. Quite Clearly noted:

1. That without existence there is no GOD..PERIOD...
2. That if Existence is GOD, Everything of existence is GOD. There is no shades of grey here..
3. That if Existence is not GOD, Everything in and of existence is not by consequence of Existence to which is everything in and of existence. Again there is no shades of grey here.

Logically, either everything is GOD, or there are no gods at all.. Take your pick..
It's not hard to understand that. And the only reason you are likely attempting to change the context is because you can't deal with the intended context. Hence you don't get to change the intended context to suit your own argument out of context.. Thus you are intellectually dishonest, or incapable of understanding basic English.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#105 Jan 25, 2014
The word 'nothing' as I used it had an obvious abstract meaning you don't seem to understand as most understand it's usage. The word 'nothing' as I used it meant to imply the non-existence of something.
We are not dealing with the non-existence of something in the context of Q2 or Q3. Everything in and of existence is still assumed existent in those questions.. Your use of the term nothing is incoherent to the questions asked.
Allow me to school you here in the usage of this word. The question went....
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not(God)? One answer to this is nothing.
WRONG!... WRONG WRONG lol.. Nowhere in the question is it stating existence doesn't exist, or that everything in existence doesn't exist.. It's amazing you can't read a question, but it's not surprising you change the context of the question to imply it states something it is not stating.. When the question asks you "What of Existence" it is not saying What of existence doesn't exist.. Hence your use of the term nothing here is completely incoherent. We are referencing Existence to which is reference to everything of Existence. This is basic English lol.. What that means, and I will repeat this, is that if Existence itself is GOD, Everything is GOD.. You cannot separate everything from existence here to which is what you're trying to do, and this is why your answer is incoherent.
Very simple to understand. To a theist existence is God and God is existence. They are one and the same to them. So of the question "...than what of existence isn't God?"
Only to a Pantheist can existence be GOD.. You seem to have no education on set theory here.. Thus an Antheist point of view is that when you make Existence GOD, it becomes moot. And when you don't consider Existence GOD, there simply isn't any GOD at all.., there is Existence to which is synonymous with the term Universe..
(if God is existence), the obvious answer would be nothing.
Nice try on the word swap by putting god before existence, but that doesn't change anything. And your answer is wrong, it would be Everything, not nothing.. You don't even comprehend your own sentence..
How don't you understand that?
Nobody can, your making a claim that Existence to which is the sum of everything as GOD, and that would somehow making nothing GOD.. That's incoherent, or similar to an Oxymoron in a form of a sentence.. Your comment in analogy is like claiming "If the Paper is all white, the obvious answer is that it's black".. Reading your arguments is like trying to understand the four corner time cube..

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#106 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, I never said "I KNEW" as in having foreknowledge of who your are prior to our first speaking to each other.
Next, I "KNOW" of you only from what you reveal as in your nick name and short description....
Reason Personified
“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”
I know you a atheist because you declared it in your description. Understand?
Next. Being a theist or an atheist for most people on this planet comes by way of a decision they make at some point in their mental growth of accepting or rejecting what is taught/indoctrinated to them that parental figures structure them to become or not to become.
I repeat >> (your words and proof) You said >>> "Being a theist or an atheist comes by way of making a decision to be that thing"<< . That sentence claims that you know me and know my mind, and what my choices were.

Rejecting indoctrination makes a person a non-believer. They were atheist, before they were indoctrinated to become theist. When they throw down that theism, they again become atheist. The "a" means not, as in not theist, which they were before and now are again
MORMON vs M00NBAT

Gridley, CA

#107 Jan 26, 2014
We'll be WAITING to see that Great Atheist Civilization's

ELECTRONIC SPACE & INTERNET AGE

you DIG UP on ***MY*** CHRISTIANIC EMPIRE'S

ELECTRONIC SPACE & INTERNET AGE,

any time you find it and come here and compare it to mine.

Hillbillies.
LETS COMPARE SPACE AGES

Gridley, CA

#108 Jan 26, 2014
YOU take YOUR TIME.

You're gonna need it.

Matter of fact
You're gonna need it to go backward.

Now; in my book I've got a record of a man making time go backward.

In yours, you had to have theists invent clocks.

AFTER we invented language.

AFTER which we invented writing.

Subsequently to which we invented things like the entire spread of human history,

since before us,

there was no writing.

And if you say there was, SHOW US. Ought to be easy, SHOW US ALL the GREAT ATHEIST CIVILIZATION.

That had the ability to scratch it's name in mud, "I are atheyist, I r heeyur!

Y'a'W!
MineFIRSTYOUdont Have One

Gridley, CA

#109 Jan 26, 2014
We don't even care if they can't spell atheistical clownbilly, if they R wun thay must rite it on sumthinge. sum whair. Ya'W.

Pfft. You people are what gave soviet starvation and freezing to death in concentration camps a reputation for brainsless dunderheads.

Not the theists they mass murdered because they figured that morality crap was an old fashioned buzz kill.

LoL.

You just dredge up that space age and you'd better not be late we've been waiting weeks for something besides frivolous twittering about how deep you sound when you add enough syllables.

Hurry up.
One Atheist Civilization

One Atheist invented language

One Atheist invented bronze, iron, steel, modern industrial age,

One Atheist Empire which invents writing in books maybe. A printing press age from Atheism.

You're the one claiming you have an eighth million years head start on us all.

Actually you claim you hear your mom home and you've gotta get off the internet.

The Christianic Empire internet
we invented

to mock the low intelligence of atheists, in the Soviet Union, as a matter of fact.

You stay here and add syllables and we'll check our rover on Mars for the latest Modern Chemical analysis,

using our electromagnetic radiation communications and controls branch

of our semiconductor based Electronic Light Truth Space Age.

The one we invented with all the extra wealth the Christianic Empire had lying around

while the great Atheist Utopia was busy systematically starving to death or otherwise murdering 20+ million innocent people,
then STILL
starving to death itself

because the atheists running it were so stupid.
Maybe a PRINTING PRESS

Gridley, CA

#110 Jan 26, 2014
Now remember

all you have to show,

is JUST ONE Great Atheist Civilization
in
ONE
single

Book.

A book is that thing we theists invented
after you laid around an eighth million years
and didn't get past the

"rooting for grubs, beneath downed forest growth" thing.
Anxious to become Atheist

Gridley, CA

#111 Jan 26, 2014
Hi I'm wondering if you guys can show me the great atheistic civilization I have to look to, if I and all my family, the whole tribe of us, the whole nation,

decide to finally ditch this whole backward "Electronic Electromagnetic Space/Internet Age thing.

LoL!

Oh well there's always alternate reality. For you.

For us - we've gotta stay in contact with our Solar System Instrumentation Probes, for news about what else is new.

In our interplanetary space age.

Should we bring our own grub rooting gear or shall we just fashion rudimentary lathes from downed forest litter, and just go with the flow of living naked and illiterate in the forest?
Signed,
Anxious to become Atheist
EasyWithThatStic kEugene

Gridley, CA

#112 Jan 26, 2014
Just kidding. Don't start throwing things you'll break your termite fishing sticks and starve out.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#113 Jan 26, 2014
MORMON vs M00NBAT wrote:
We'll be WAITING to see that Great Atheist Civilization's
ELECTRONIC SPACE & INTERNET AGE
you DIG UP on ***MY*** CHRISTIANIC EMPIRE'S
ELECTRONIC SPACE & INTERNET AGE,
any time you find it and come here and compare it to mine.
Hillbillies.
Cern brought you the internet.. Atheists brought you the OS, and a Gay Atheist wrote the instructions on how the cpu should operate. If you think it's yours, your less educated than those that think the Flintstones is a documentary.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#114 Jan 26, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
Your answer provided is not the context of the question. The first part of your answer is correct, as if there is no existence, there isn't anything at all... That includes "GOD".. The second part is out of context because the First question is NOT saying Existence is GOD.. Clearly you have reading comprehension problems..
Plllllleaseeeeee.....lol. This comes from the person that states life has a specific definition from them and the world should know it as you accused me of not knowing it. Too fricking funny.

The question.....
Q1: What is GOD without existence?
What is God, without existence. That is the question.
This question is made up of two parts. The first is the pretend scenario that a God exists as in God is existence or God is a part of existence or vice-versa. Are you confused still?
The second part without existence is concerning existence and God and if you take one from the other. Implying in the question God needs existence to exist because it asks what is God without it, existence.
So the response should be, if God is existence or existence is God how ever you wish to state it as the question goes and you remove one from the other, what does that leave? It leaves nothing. God without existence is nothing. I said....
A1. Nothing. The non-existence of God equals nothing. I will further state if you take God from existence and leave just existence, God becomes a non-existing factor while existence remains an existing factor.
This is a atheists leaned question to show existence is not based on God and that if you remove the "god factor" existence would continue to exist as it does.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#115 Jan 26, 2014
Anxious to become Atheist wrote:
Hi I'm wondering if you guys can show me the great atheistic civilization I have to look to, if I and all my family, the whole tribe of us, the whole nation,
decide to finally ditch this whole backward "Electronic Electromagnetic Space/Internet Age thing.
LoL!
Oh well there's always alternate reality. For you.
For us - we've gotta stay in contact with our Solar System Instrumentation Probes, for news about what else is new.
In our interplanetary space age.
Should we bring our own grub rooting gear or shall we just fashion rudimentary lathes from downed forest litter, and just go with the flow of living naked and illiterate in the forest?
Signed,
Anxious to become Atheist
Actually the greatest civilizations, or most peaceful and successful were and are secular. Civilization was not built by anyone group, and anyone with a 2nd or 3rd grade education ought to know this. And if you decided to ditch the how modern civilization, Atheists would still contribute to civilization... I must ask how you would suggest they wouldn't?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#116 Jan 26, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
Logically, either everything is GOD, or there are no gods at all.. Take your pick..
It's not hard to understand that. And the only reason you are likely attempting to change the context is because you can't deal with the intended context. Hence you don't get to change the intended context to suit your own argument out of context.. Thus you are intellectually dishonest, or incapable of understanding basic English.
I skipped the rest of your post as your arguments are mostly moot. Also you're arguing points as if I had disagreed and that really makes points in your post moot.
Also I established the questions were a heavy lean to atheism beliefs as the article was written by an atheist.
The unbiased way he should have presented the first question is like the following.
1A. If God is existence and existence is God in theism, what would happen if you could remove God from being existence? Would only one exist or could they both exist or would neither exist?
So to bypass an unbiased question he leaned it and asked,
1A. What is God without existence? To an atheist God is nothing and existence is everything without a god. So the question kills itself in the end as being meaningless in context because the writer doesn't believe existence is predicated on a god. Get it yet?
We Are Still Waiting

Gridley, CA

#117 Jan 26, 2014
You don't even rate a response to that CERN quackery but I'm gonna shove it down your throat anyway. If you're evil-stupid enough to say it

we're all entertained enough to watch you eat it:

"See also: History of the Internet
ARPANET
Arpanet logical map, march 1977.png
ARPANET logical map, March 1977
Commercial? No
Type of network data
Location United States
Protocols NCP, TCP/IP
Established 1969
Funding DARPA
Current status defunct, superseded by NSFNET in 1990
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was one of the world's first operational packet switching networks, the first network to implement TCP/IP, and the progenitor of what was to become the global Internet. The network was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later DARPA) within the U.S. Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US. The packet switching of the ARPANET, together with TCP/IP, would form the backbone of how the Internet works. The packet switching was based on concepts and designs by American engineer Paul Baran, British scientist Donald Davies[1][2] and Lawrence Roberts of the Lincoln Laboratory.[3] The TCP/IP communication protocols were developed for ARPANET by computer scientists Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, and also incorporated some designs from Louis Pouzin."
=======

You don't deserve a response at all for such obtuse frivoling.

I said show me the great atheist civilization. I didn't ask you if Theism's idea rich age provided a lap for people who were atheists to sit on to reach the dinner table like real adults.

I said if you people had any real intrinsic worth separate from we theists provision for your existence you wouldn't be functionally extinct in the wild.

As far as the rest of your twiddlings go they all are filed under "Yeah But!"

Show us the great Atheist Civilization that led you to believe atheists aren't the first Darwinian Dog Snack to be snapped up at ever gathering.
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
Cern brought you the internet.. Atheists brought you the OS, and a Gay Atheist wrote the instructions on how the cpu should operate. If you think it's yours, your less educated than those that think the Flintstones is a documentary.
We Are Still Waiting

Gridley, CA

#118 Jan 26, 2014
When you show up so stupid you don't know who invented the internet

your work representing yourself as a trustworthy, believable character

is about over. Hillbilly.

Now we want to see, what it is you have to show, that indicates atheist civilizations can

(1)survive in the wild alone

(2)resist overtake by theism.

Because if it can
then somewhere along the line
you'll have some point.

If you can't show it
your bullsh** story's been called.

END of ANALYSIS.

You can either PROVE it's worth comparison to my Theist Age

or you don't have a printing press/modern chemistry/electronic age.

=======
Since the claim admire atheist computer nerds is non answering,

we'll all assume you've given up the hunt for YOUR
ATHEIST
modern age.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#119 Jan 26, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
Nobody can, your making a claim that Existence to which is the sum of everything as GOD, and that would somehow making nothing GOD.. That's incoherent,
You do have reading comprehension issues. The writer of the questions formed the first question on the pretense that God is existence or because of existence God is. He proved that by asking what is God without existence.

Q1: What is GOD without existence?

Well the reverse would have to be logically included to derive an answer. What is existence without God? But that's not a good question to favor an atheist's reasoning because it insinuates without God there would be no existence.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#120 Jan 26, 2014
Plllllleaseeeeee.....lol. This comes from the person that states life has a specific definition from them and the world should know it as you accused me of not knowing it. Too fricking funny.
Cite me a dictionary in which cites "Life" as the totality of all that exists and synomynous with the definition of Universe and Reality.. And even if you were to argue such, it doesn't matter what you call it if you are inferring to the same context. But we both know you weren't.
The question.....
Q1: What is GOD without existence?
What is God, without existence. That is the question.
So what, that is the first question.. These are separate questions lol.. This one deals with the problem of with or without existence. The other questions do not deal with whether or not existence and all that of existence exists or not.
This question is made up of two parts. The first is the pretend scenario that a God exists as in God is existence or God is a part of existence or vice-versa.
Nope, there is only one context and one question to which only has one part in Q1. Q1 only establishes that you will be required to agree that without existence there would be no GOD, and that you will require existence to even have concept of GOD at all, or the possibility of a GOD if one is argued for.. The next two questions deal with the argued for Pantheist GOD under the presumption that Existence exists..Hence the presumption that the object of Pantheist worship exists. The two questions go over the problem with stating Existence as GOD..
Are you confused still?
Not at all, I understand basic English and can comprehend the context of the questions asked. You clearly cannot.
The second part without existence is concerning existence and God and if you take one from the other.
These are separate Questions... You do recall that we are addressing the Pantheist GOD in these questions correct? The furthest you can move the goal post... Q2 doesn't continue from the premise of Question 1, it has it's own context. Anyone with reading comprehension of a 3rd grader would know this. Your argument is so incoherent that it's ridiculous.
Implying in the question God needs existence to exist because it asks what is God without it, existence.
This only establishes two facts in Q1..
1.) You can't have a GOD without existence (this fact alone makes creationism and the concept of GOD meaningless), Thus yes that means that any argued for concept is slave to require existence just as is everything else is. It needs Existence. If we wanted to pit theism vs theism, or Christianity vs Pantheism...., Pantheism is higher on the totem-pole because Christians would need the Pantheist's GOD to even have a concept of GOD.. And this is much to do with why I address the Pantheist god "Existence" in Q2 and Q3..
2.) Even if Existence exists, A god without existence doesn't exist.. Hence existence without GOD is still Existence.. At no point does existence require a GOD, or even a concept of GOD to exist. Hence it's literally meaningless to existence itself. So when an Atheist says Existence is causality, at no point does an Atheist need to infer to a "GOD" what-so-ever. We only need say that it is Existence itself to which Causality and source origin to everything in and of existence. Everything in which is emergent, is simply an emergent property of Existence itself, and that includes consciousness, life, stars, galaxies, love, essence of being, or whatever...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#121 Jan 26, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text> I repeat >> (your words and proof) You said >>> "Being a theist or an atheist comes by way of making a decision to be that thing"<< . That sentence claims that you know me and know my mind, and what my choices were.
Rejecting indoctrination makes a person a non-believer. They were atheist, before they were indoctrinated to become theist. When they throw down that theism, they again become atheist. The "a" means not, as in not theist, which they were before and now are again
REJECTING is a decision.
Listening isn't a decision even if one is listening about theism or atheism and how well and good each is from the person trying to convert the listener.
After hearing and listening comes the time when one makes a decision concerning what they have heard and whether they will or won't apply said info to their life.
No one on this earth has ever been proved to have been born a believer in a god or a disbeliever in a god.
The word 'theist' as one calls oneself means they have made a decision at some point in their life to be one.
The word atheist as one calls oneself means they have made a decision at some point in their life to be one.
Thus. If you call yourself an atheist, that means you have chosen/decided to be an atheist. You call yourself a patriot. That means you have decided to be a patriot. Understand?

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min Subduction Zone 28,579
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 39 min Regolith Based Li... 3,517
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Science 67,076
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 18 hr superwilly 21
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 18 hr superwilly 462
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web