Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,445

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking. Full Story

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10302 May 5, 2013
Where is the positive part of infidel is?( Typed in Muq style english ) We have to answer your question with a question because you lack the intelligence to understand.

So by asking you a question this can help guide you to the answer.
MUQ wrote:
Ans.

You should not answer a question with another question, this is called etiquette!!

Where did I say that Athiest is a Person who denies the existence of GodÂ….but this is not a complete definition. It is only a negation, where is the Positive part of what Atheism is.

And one more thing, when you do not have answer, you start attacking the person and using insults and abuses and personal attack.

And to me this is TELL TALE Sign that you have no answer to my request.

PS:

Why you bother to even answer my post? I do not ask replies from ignorant persons like you!!

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#10303 May 5, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't find any definition for "altheist". I guess it could mean a group of Saudi people. Possibly Al atheists? Though I can't imagine that surviving culture would continue there.
How about this definition?

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless +-ist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheis...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10304 May 5, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
No, there's nothing wrong with MUQ.
Here we go again with you agreeing with MUQ's positive look on pedophilia, murder, and sexism.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10305 May 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Don't you guys wish the theists could come up with something new once in a while?
I'm starting to get bored...and while "ALL GAYS ARE NAZI ZOMBIES" is a temporary fix (I've actually heard that one before), it lasts a very short while due to the lack of any cognitive process.
The problem is that extreme theists like MUQ and ezdit (I know I keep forgetting a letter in there, but I really don't care) are indoctrinated. They have a set of beliefs laid out, written down, and there for them to memorize. Anything outside of those beliefs do not compute, they can't come up with anything by themselves so they revert to their doctrine's manual.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10306 May 5, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Defamation is any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, intended to harm a person's reputation; to decrease the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or to induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against the targeted person.
You are a pathological liar and what you have posted is unequivocally defamation.
Another equally repulsive poster has just been banned from Topix for this cowardly behavior.
Would you like to be next?
You obviously never read MUQ's posts.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10307 May 5, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been reading MUQ's posts in response to the questions posed to him on various threads for about three years now. I've always been impressed with how calm and civil he remains despite the number of filthy insults and accusations from sick, ignorant perverts and bigots on Topix.
Explain bigotry and how the people you claim are bigots fit the description.

Explain perversion and how the people you claim are perverts fit the description.

Explain pedophilia and how the MUQ doesn't fit the description, when he claims 12 year olds are fit to marry.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10308 May 5, 2013
MUQ wrote:
I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Edzdit for his support to me.
I am "used" to the harsh words and the abuses and insults and they make little impression on me.
But it is the world of love and kindness that pierce my shield and wound me deep inside!!
I thank you Sir, with the bottom of my heart.
May God reward you for your kindness and you have a very nice and good day.
Salaam
MUQ
You should go rape an 8 year old girl together to celebrate your new-found friendship.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#10309 May 5, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand that the majority of posters on this thread who claim to be atheists are actually anti-theists, misotheists, altheists, and not atheists?
Atheists don't believe in deities and are indifferent to religions.
Anti-theists, misotheists, altheists, on the other hand, are not indifferent to God. They are defined by their HATE. They HATE God, HATE religion, HATE people who love God, and are obsessive-compulsive about expressing and acting out their hatred.
There you are wrong.

Most of the atheist here have been quite for most of their life, but are fed up with being degraded by society for not “following the flock” in a mindless herd mentality to follow and believe as they do.

As far a hate a god “NO”, but will correlate the belief of a said god with the writings of man that preach that the “god or gods” are loving when there is no direct correlation to any love of said god in the writings. Henceforth the actions of the said god in mans writings act out in evil fashions.

After being called many names by society and a few higher people nationally a person gets tired, fed up and yes mad about being talked down to and considered non-human, un-patriotic, non-citizen, and evil especially most of the evil actions come from the “religious” in society.

Therefore topix can give a route to let out some of the pined up frustration. If people of religious persuasion venture into the atheist topics forum then they should expect to be hammered by the people that they condemn and treat as lower life forms.
If they cannot take it they should cease and desists form the conversation.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#10310 May 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I just wish for them to come up with something new and not just a rehash of the tired old stale logical fallacies and attempts to change the subject.
Sigh
<quoted text>
There is nothing new that they can defend their belief system with, but they could try to defend it with reason and some hint of logic even if it is a default position of reason. Then we might be able to find a level ground for civil debate. I have tried to have conversions in a civil manner many a times, and after about the third post a lot of them in the conversation began with the hate comments.

After that the gloves come off, by then some other person enters into the conversation and right of the bat starts with the hateful comments without any knowledge of what perpetrated the use of language.

Since: May 11

UK

#10311 May 5, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Defamation is any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, intended to harm a person's reputation; to decrease the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or to induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against the targeted person.
You are a pathological liar and what you have posted is unequivocally defamation.
Another equally repulsive poster has just been banned from Topix for this cowardly behavior.
Would you like to be next?
...there is a critical factor which you omit.

You must be personally identifiable for something to be defamatory.

Your internet persona doesn`t count unless you are doing the defaming of someone under their given name or the name of a corporate entity.

The authority for this is Cohen v. Google, Inc., 25 Misc.3d 945, 887 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y. Cty. Aug. 17, 2009)...or it may be referred to as "The New York Skanks Case".

I do `law` for a living, you aren`t even a gifted amateur.
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#10312 May 5, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
...there is a critical factor which you omit.
You must be personally identifiable for something to be defamatory.
Your internet persona doesn`t count unless you are doing the defaming of someone under their given name or the name of a corporate entity.
The authority for this is Cohen v. Google, Inc., 25 Misc.3d 945, 887 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y. Cty. Aug. 17, 2009)...or it may be referred to as "The New York Skanks Case".
I do `law` for a living, you aren`t even a gifted amateur.
Pro Bono? ;)

I've been using Dewey, Cheatum & Howe for years.

When they reclaim a debt the victims credit is so bad they need a Cosigner to pay cash!

Kidding aside do you deal in criminal law?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10314 May 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bwhahahahahahahah...
1. Can you name a concept human beings DID NOT invent?
2. Do you not recognize that "disbelief" and "lack of belief" are different?
3. Would you like me to explain it to you?
I love it when a stupid slagstomping atheist supplies a defintion for his case, and it supports the other side.
You are quite a jewell, Milkdud.
1 - Fair enough.

2 - Nope.

3 - No need.

But then I guess I shouldn't be surprised that basic English ain't your strong suit either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10315 May 5, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What is this dubious standard, when you do not believe in any religion, why is it different from saying "there are no religions".
The same way you saying "There is no God" means God will cease to exist.
It is only a show of you own stupidity that you reject God, while this Whole Endless Universe is in front of you.
Only a "perfect idiot" can deny the Presence of a Creator while the Universe is in front of them.
Why should I define an infidel for you, am I a dictionary?
You should not answer a question with a counter question.
No, only a perfect idiot can deny the presence of a Creator while the Creator is in front of them. As it happens all we have is the universe.(shrug)

The existence of the universe is ONLY evidence of the existence of the universe. It is NOT evidence that it was created by an invisible magical Jewish wizard because he was bored one day in infinity.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10316 May 5, 2013
MUQ wrote:
Where did I say that Athiest is a Person who denies the existence of God….but this is not a complete definition. It is only a negation, where is the Positive part of what Atheism is.
There is no positive assertion. There is no need. For a positive assertion, seek Skippy the Skeptic. He is the answer to your prayers.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10317 May 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Don't you guys wish the theists could come up with something new once in a while?
Besides socks?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10318 May 5, 2013
But Jeff Chase movies are his strong suit! He steals his pictures and adventure stories from them :)

http://www.hotflick.net/pictures/005TRT_Kate_...
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>1 - Fair enough.

2 - Nope.

3 - No need.

But then I guess I shouldn't be surprised that basic English ain't your strong suit either.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10319 May 5, 2013
Well played! Touché indeed :)
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Besides socks?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10320 May 5, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who believes God is evil. Richard Dawkins is an example of an altheist, He referred to God as "the immortal knob-twiddler" at his last debate.
He was wrong on that one, wasn't he? We all know that if the sky monkey buybull myth-god could do something as concrete as twiddling a knob, he could be proven to be real.

Someone who believes god is evil, would be a believer in some god or other, and that wouldn't be someone who is considered an atheist.

An altheist would be defined by you and no one else. I doubt you could get Al to agree though.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10321 May 5, 2013
Abusive Christian gets caught red handed abusing people with sock accounts.

MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#10322 May 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
No if we asked what a Hindu is we would listen to their answer and accept it. We wouldn't shriek at them that their definition for themselves is incorrect like you do Muq.
I guess being a janitor at the airport is tough on you yes?
<quoted text>
Do ask Hindu to define who is a Hindu and you will see.!! You listen to every one except what Muslims say about Islam.

Because you seem to know about Islam more than the Muslims!!

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min James 231,907
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 5 hr thetruth 25
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 6 hr tha Professor 1,012
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 9 hr Catholic Girl 27
Why the Internet is slowly strangling religion 19 hr Dally Mama 3
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 20 hr Carchar king 4
Why Christians should stick up for atheists 20 hr Carchar king 6

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE