If we are atheists on an atheists forum why do we discuss something we don't believe exists?
More to the point, why do we discuss the books and writings, tenets and dogma that are written on a subject that doesn't exist?
Why do we take religion seriously when we don't believe there is a god?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I won't speak for 'we' since I don't really think there is a 'we'...
I discuss religions in this forum because I find it all too often dangerous and want to keep a keen eye one it; discussing it is entertaining; discussing it might help someone who is teetering on the fence so to speak; I learn a great deal from others; it is a predominant thing in most societies and I think it needs to be discussed; etc.
The "we" I refer to are the self-avowed atheists. If you're not a self-avowed atheist then you are correct, there is no "we".
It is my observation that discussion of religious books, particularly quoting them as proof of anything, tends to lend credence to them rather than minimize them.
Well, anser, I think I get your point but disagree. For me, as one who identifies as atheist, to quote someone's book to them is usually to point out, therefore demonstrate (proving, if you will) its failings. Where I would agree is that the use of a books quotes to prove what it says as true is bupkus.
Does it ever work for you? In the past I often pointed out the inconsistencies in religious teachings but I can't recall anyone I pointed them out to suddenly seeing the light. Mostly it just made them dig deeper and to find justifications. I often refer to the bible as the "Big Book of Excuses". Interestingly, I have had people of faith agree with me.
I don't know how often it has worked out. I suspect that a lot of fence-sitters lurk on forums like this. When they read a debate, it may provide them with precisely that which will tip their scales. And it's likely none of us will know when that happens.
Discussion, comparing notes, exchanging ideas is always beneficial. Explaining the benefits of being free from erroneous belief systems is productive. In my opinion, trying to counter a person's beliefs using their dogma is counter-productive. If someone engages in an exchange regarding their beliefs they have already seen the paradoxes their religion poses. They are already questioning. I contend that it's better to encourage them to think for themselves rather than proposing they they have been stupid, ignorant, uninformed, in error in their beliefs. People tend to try and justify their positions rather than consider them.
@ Anser
The problem is that being an atheist who cares, means to care not only about yourself.
When what you care about are, freedom of speech and the truth with fairness and justice, it comes only natural that when someone preaches the opposite in the name of those qualities, you get upset and want to fix the lies and exaggerations, especially if they effect society.
Let us take just one example;
The Christians preach to love your enemy to bring peace, thus forgive every time.
This is of course an exaggeration since if you love your enemy then he would not be your enemy anymore.
This can only lead to injustice and disaster since it promotes unpunished criminal behavior.
Try loving the person who raped and killed your wife the same way you would love your son.
Non-sens!! if you care you would make sure he pays for his crime and thus help in reducing such actions for others.
Another example is when the church promoted the idea that gay people should not adopt children because of the claim of bad influence to the children(proven wrong).
Non-sens!! bad influence is being raped by a priest, or being raised without being loved in some orphanage.
One of the ways to be able to successfully destroy their flawed claims is to show them that their claims do not come from their religion but from their current church.
Since it is proven that the church did mistakes before, even sided with Hitler in WW2, thus it's much easier to get your point across.
Also learning the theology helps you in debates when they invent excuses in an argument.
One such example is confession.
Nowhere in the bible exists confession, yet a preacher can easily claim that you should confess your sins to a priest as god will be forgiving this way.
Mandatory mass is also not in the bible, Jesus never said one word about mass every Sunday.
All he said was; remember him when having your dinner in the last supper.
Big jump to a mandatory mass once a week.
So when you see a christian saying, I cannot miss mass once a week, you know he is doing it not because his religion says so, but because his church says so.
Another valid reason to know the theology is to understand the position of the people who can effect society as a whole.
You simply cannot claim that their opinion should not be considered if you know nothing about the reasons for that opinion.
Example:
If the religious people want to punish anybody for stem-cell research as it is killing "babies".
You cannot claim to dismiss such an opinion without knowing the reasons behind it.
If the reason are bias, prejudice and radicalism, then you have a valid good reason to dismiss such cruelty.
But this can only be done once you understand their reasons for it.
To do so, you must have an understanding of their theology.
In fact their religion does not say anything on the subject, their own god lets babies die by the thousands everyday and does nothing but promises a better life, including killing them himself during the flood and boasting about it.
So if they have any valid points they are not religious ones.
Funny that they don't take the "better afterlife" approach when it is for the good of mankind, only in defense of their imaginary god, it is OK to kill babies.(when he could have found better ways mind you)
(not even starting about stem cells are not babies topic)
Once their theology is understood, really they cannot win a single argument because they know they are wrong on the subject since they are starting from a weak(non existent or directly opposite) position.
Other than winning arguments, of which the positive aspects are debatable, what positive results of debating someones tenets and dogma have you seen?
winning arguments is the main reason laws pass in a society.
Do you truly think that gays would have got their rights if the argument for human rights applying to everyone(inc. gays) was lost?
"what positive results of debating someones tenets and dogma have you seen?"
Atheist population growing is one such example
More people coming out of the closet.
Well the most vivid example is when no secular/religious debates are held because the state forbids them in an Islamic country.
You seem to forget that when Christianity was in power, it was because there were people who did the hard work and actually studied the theology that they managed to convince the christian rulers at the time to be reasonable.
(with phrase like: "even god agrees/disagrees with this in the bible")
Galileo Galilei is one such example when this method was not used from start, and we all know how it ended.
Today we face the same problems even in a secular society, if you want to be president you have to be nice to at least 1 religion.
Winning Debates and "winning arguments" helps in this en-devour.
I do not see how you don't see this as a very important matter.
"Atheist population growing is one such example. More people coming out of the closet."
"Winning Debates and "winning arguments" helps in this en-devour."
How much of that do you attribute to your arguing dogma and tenets with theists?
I have never seen a theist convert to anti-theism by using their religion against them.
Well it works if someone cares for the truth.
It surly helps to make a crack in their blind belief that everything in the bible is the truth.
try watching The Atheist experience show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwZNN110bGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icMyRaOyiVw
The one condition to call, is that you care for the truth.
Only after realizing the strength of understanding your opponents position will you be able to reason with those who are searching for the truth.
Theists are just mislead people, some are too far gone, but some are not even presented the information to have a chance of questioning everything around them.
You are simply throwing all theists under the bus when you assume that theists cannot be converted by presenting a proper interpretation of their loved book.
You have to understand that they have just 1 radio station and cannot be blamed to believe it(indoctrination), if you point out that the radio station is not reliable you cannot seriously believe that does not make a difference.
"Theists are just mislead people", I look at it differently. I see them as a brainwashed people. You might argue that brainwashing is misleading but brainwashing definitely has a different connotation. It is consciously altering a persons thought with purpose. Misleading can be accidental, brainwashing can't.
I do, when asked, often get theists see sense. I don't do it by using what they were convinced of, often as children, to prove what they believe is wrong. I don't try to convince people of what I believe to be truth until they're ready to listen to it. If they're still of the mind to say "but the bible says" I won't even engage.
"Theists are just mislead people", I look at it differently. I see them as a brainwashed people. You might argue that brainwashing is misleading but brainwashing definitely has a different connotation."
Why can't they be both?
Some are just mislead and not brainwashed, most are brainwashed true, but all could be both.
If you only hear one radio station that says the earth is flat, and you had no means to check it, are your brainwashed or mislead?
If you were told the bible says X and you never really bothered to check it, are you brainwashed or mislead?
"Misleading can be accidental"
Do you think there are no Christians that mislead by accident?
Most of them just repeat what they been told without even knowing it.
I think most theists are brainwashed AND mislead.
"I do, when asked, often get theists see sense."
Then you are not an open anti-theists that does something about it.
You are a passive declared anti-theists that is not motivated enough to change things for others unless asked.
It is fine to be like that, i do not blame you or anything, just understand your position and don't pretend to be what you are not.
Neither you, nor your wife are open about what you believe to help the community about it.
Thus you cannot comprehend the problem of choosing a partner that cannot recognize or appreciate the effort you are doing for the community. A partner that would be happy if you rather ignore the community or support her ideals instead.
I find the idea rather disturbing to say the least.
I see such a person a deeply confused person. Thus engaging in a relationship with this kind of partner is like a relationship that AT BEST is like a Shepard marrying a sheep.
Where the sheep is deeply confused about what love means and the Shepard JUST WORKS since he delivers the sheep's most basic needs(food).
There is no understanding of what love truly means, and thus love is simply superficial, and when problems arise(which mostly do) the castle will come crumbling like as if it was built on sand, because it truly was built on sand.
How can I trust my partner that she loves me, when she loves also the most evil character imaginable as if he is the most good and benevolent being.
That it is OK for her to be a slave of this character and suffer all kinds of torture(he designed) in this life for being with him in the next.
The fact that she cannot recognize that i would not want her to be my slave while her god character does, and yet she loves him more then me, is unbearable to say the least.
If I had the power i would close such a person in a mental hospital until they get a basic sens of morality and reality, not marry them.
Anyway, apart from what I think I also see no mutual deep understanding of one another if one of the two truly understands the importance of progress and wants to help the community.
To be frank, if the "community" wants my opinion they'll ask it. However, I will not go out and preach. Personally, I dislike preachers.
As to love, acceptance of others on their terms, rather than just your own, is the most honest form of love I've ever known. I'm not so fragile or young in my beliefs that I find it necessary to pair myself up with a like minded individual. I find the differences to be every bit as pleasurable as the similarities. Sitting around and agreeing on everything is boring. I don't do boring well.
"To be frank, if the "community" wants my opinion they'll ask it."
I already know that you do not care about progress or anybody else in general for that matter, and I do not expect you to be.
preaching and and discussing in a mature way are 2 different things.
please google the term preaching, because you clearly don't know what it means.
"I'm not so fragile or young in my beliefs"
Re- read my previous post because I re-edited it to make it more clear while you made this reply, so you must have missed my main points.
"I find the differences to be every bit as pleasurable as the similarities."
yea i agree, but if you are the type of person who wants to improve things, you would choose a partner which at least understand you and loves you for who you are, not dislikes what you are since you are sending people to be eternally tortured for eternity.
Come on you cannot seriously believe that she would like/love you for that without being a psychopath or something.
"I already know that you do not care about progress or anybody else in general for that matter, and I do not expect you to be."
What don't you expect me to be?
If your idea of being an "OPEN anti-theist" is discussing anti-theism in a mature way then I'm a OPEN anti-theist. Do I go out and look for people to discuss anti-theism in a mature way with? No I don't, that's preaching.
"Come on you cannot seriously believe that she would like/love you for that without being a psychopath or something."
She is something you don't "believe" exists, she's an intelligent theist. In fact an intelligent, well educated and accomplished theist. I've met a number of them over the years. They don't quote bibles unless the discussion is about scripture, they don't preach and if you ask them why they believe they'll tell you the same thing, they believe because they choose to believe. They're usually people who are old in their faith as I am old in my lack thereof. In other words, if you ask them, they'll tell you. A lot like me.
"What don't you expect me to be?"
I do not expect you to be caring of society in general, not everyone has the will, character or even the stomach to deal with people who are usually arrogant, immature and stubborn(just to name the nicest of qualities), because you will meat those people if you are open about your position.
Try checking the hate mail SAM Harris has if you doubt what I just said.
So no i do not expect anybody to care sufficiently to go through that type of experience.
As i said, preaching is different then informing/teaching others about things.
Am i preaching to you if I inform you that there are different translations of your bible?
No, i am informing you of the facts that you can verify yourself, if you know about it, or someone informed you about it.
Preaching is when i impose my conclusions upon you without supporting them in a reasonable way.
I can claim that the moon is not made out of Swiss cheese and if i do not support that claim and just quote some book that says so, which is not an acknowledged authority on the subject without giving a reason, then I would be preaching.(regardless of how true my claim is)
But if I just inform you that according to basic common sens, the moon cannot be made out of Swiss cheese since according to history it was there before Swiss cheese was even invented, then I am just informing you on some facts you can easily check for yourself.
I am not imposing my conclusion, I am letting you know why my conclusion is the right one based on things you can confirm in the historical record.
"She is something you don't "believe" exists, she's an intelligent theist."
well i do not know her, so it be arrogant of me to claim things about her.
However you are not an OPEN anti-theist that INFORMS other people about some facts and the importance of evidence and reason, like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens.
If you were and your wife were a devout christian that truly believed that converting Christians to reason would mean sending them to eternal torture, then it would be immoral for her to like you for it.
what i currently think is that you are a declared moderate anti-theist and she might be a moderate christian.
thus you both love the respect you have for each-other differences and it makes it easier to tolerate/close an eye on things.
The truth though is that none of you is actually a strict evangelical believer or a an open anti-theist that actually does something against the harm theism does to society.
My friend, It occurs to me that you have a messiah complex.
As to my being a moderate anti-theist, what are the alternatives. Do you think I should be a radical anti-theist or a militant anti-theist? That you make up a term "OPEN anti-theist" and make up a definition for said term means as much to me as the bible does.
BTW: I've never been called a moderate anything by anyone before so thank you for that. It's the best laugh I've had today.
"The truth though is that none of you is actually a strict evangelical believer or an open anti-theist that actually does something against the harm theism does to society."
The truth is that you have no idea what you're talking about and you rush to judgement much like an evangelist. That exclusionary side to your nature is what will keep you from ever becoming the messiah you obviously desire to be.
"My friend, It occurs to me that you have a messiah complex."
define a messiah complex?
moderate anti-theist
you can be a moderate in any position you hold, it means you close eyes on some thing and less strict to the letter in what your position most basic attributes are.
Anti-theistic = against theistic concepts.
OPEN anti-theist = apart from being against those concepts you are also OPEN to the public about it like Christopher Hitchens, etc..
(don't wish to argue semantics, so i made it clear what i meant)
You have claimed before that to be open about it means a preacher, yet you did not answer my question when I asked you directly.
Is Christopher Hitches a preacher when he is open about it to the public?
"you rush to judgement"
I just reported what you told me about you.
You are not an OPEN anti-theist, you claimed you would not go out and spread information about what can be verified.
But originally you thought you fit my initial condition of being an open anti-theist.
also this whole thing is getting out of hand.
my main point was that.
The relationship would work, like yours does unless one of you is open to the public about his position like Hitchens, etc....
If that happens then it means that one of you is either evangelical or open about his position to the public.
This would create more problems and break the tolerance and respect you guys have when some other bad things happen because both of you would be at best tolerating each other.
The anti-theist tolerating the evangelical christian spreading lies and misinformation to innocent children.
The christian tolerating the burning of innocent people to hell by her partner's doing.
All i said is that this is a very fragile relationship at best.
Now we can agree to disagree on this, I do not want to change your mind about it.
However you are on a public forum where debates are held, if you wish to make a mature debate on this matter you better bring something more then just personal experience to the table.
For one, you have not even convinced me that your personal experience is even relevant to the claim I made supported with basic logic.
"define a messiah complex?"
" A state of mind in which an individual holds a belief that they are, or are destined to become, a savior."
"moderate anti-theist
you can be a moderate in any position you hold, it means you close eyes on some thing and less strict to the letter in what your position most basic attributes are."
In other words you believe I don't adhere to the strict dogma of anti-atheism. News flash Jeff, atheism doesn't have a dogma and it only has one tenet that being that religion is BS.
It occurs to me that you've disavowed one belief system only to entangle yourself in another.
Anti-theistic = against theistic concepts.
OPEN anti-theist = apart from being against those concepts you are also OPEN to the public about it like "Christopher Hitchens, etc..
(don't wish to argue semantics, so i made it clear what i meant)
You have claimed before that to be open about it means a preacher, yet you did not answer my question when I asked you directly."
By your definition I am an OPEN anti-theist unlike you I don't feel a need to proselytize.
"Is Christopher Hitches a preacher when he is open about it to the public?"
Is Billy Graham a preacher when he is open about it to the public?
"I just reported what you told me about you."
You reported what you think I told you while trying to fit it into your definition.
"You are not an OPEN anti-theist, you claimed you would not go out and spread information about what can be verified.
But originally you thought you fit my initial condition of being an open anti-theist."
I really don't care about your initial condition of being an open atheist and I believe that you are confusing being open and proselytizing.
"also this whole thing is getting out of hand.
my main point was that.
The relationship would work, like yours does unless one of you is open to the public about his position like Hitchens, etc....
If that happens then it means that one of you is either evangelical or open about his position to the public.
This would create more problems and break the tolerance and respect you guys have when some other bad things happen because both of you would be at best tolerating each other."
You mistake mutual respect for tolerance. Bad things happen all the time. She handles them her way and I handle them mine. As for Hitchens et al, I'm not inclined to reject the words and ideas of one belief system only to turn around and adopt another.
"The anti-theist tolerating the evangelical christian spreading lies and misinformation to innocent children.
The christian tolerating the burning of innocent people to hell by her partner's doing."
My wife doesn't spread lies. She doesn't preach. Her faith is personal to her as my lack thereof is personal to me.
"All i said is that this is a very fragile relationship at best."
A forty-four year old relationship is a lot of things but fragile isn't one of them.
"Now we can agree to disagree on this, I do not want to change your mind about it."
You don't have the ability to change my mind about it and the way you approach the subject I sincerely doubt you can change my mind about anything.
"However you are on a public forum where debates are held, if you wish to make a mature debate on this matter you better bring something more then just personal experience to the table."
And what pray tell are you bringing to the subject. Your opinion, based on what exactly? Since you reject personal experience you must be bringing your opinion based on someone elses opinion and claim it's fact because you believe that opinion. I'll stick to personal experience and my interpretation of what that experience means. Others opinions are just that, their opinions.
"For one, you have not even convinced me that your personal experience is even relevant to the claim I made supported with basic logic."
And again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am sharing my experience. Your claim, based on your terms which are only supported by your definition of said terms has nothing to do with logic. It only has to do with your imagination. In my opinion, you haven't discarded religion you've only replaced it with another set of beliefs. You are as insistent as any religious individual that I've ever spoken to that you hold the answer as long as someone else accepts your parameters. I don't accept your parameters. Anti-theism doesn't hold parameters other than the disbelief in religion. I do agree with you on one point though and that is that religion is dangerous. I believe it to be the root cause of most of the (for lack of a better term) evil perpetrated on the populace of this planet.
" A state of mind in which an individual holds a belief that they are, or are destined to become, a savior."
And you base the claim that I have a Messiah Complex on what exactly?
support your claim.
"moderate anti-theist
you can be a moderate in any position you hold"
is not:
"In other words you believe I don't adhere to the strict dogma of anti-atheism."
This straw man does not work as a mature debate.
I never said anti-theism has a dogma but that it has principles.(every positions has some principles)
One of which is that it is against the theistic concepts and if you are against the theistic concepts then it means you disagree with them.
If you think brainwashing little boys is bad, then if you see it happening you speak up against it.
If you are a moderate about what you are against, it means you are against something but if you see it you might ignore it for some other reason.
I am a moderate when it comes to my diet, my principle is to eat chocolate only once a day, but sometimes I close an eye about it and take more then once because I cannot resist temptation.
Where is the dogma there?
Most people are moderate in most of their positions in life.
There is nothing wrong with that.
"Is Christopher Hitches a preacher when he is open about it to the public?"
"Is Billy Graham a preacher when he is open about it to the public?"
Answer the question in a yes or no please.
Only people who know they are wrong about something, answer a simple yes or no question with a question.
"I really don't care about your initial condition of being an open atheist and I believe that you are confusing being open and proselytizing."
All I said was, are you like Christopher Hitches(an OPEN atheist) or not?
I do not see why you need to accuse me or Hitchens of proselytizing because you cannot answer a simple question.
I did not even say if i am an OPEN atheist like Hitchens or not yet.
"you haven't discarded religion you've only replaced it with another set of beliefs."
This could easily apply to you since I have mostly asked questions here.
"I don't accept your parameters."
"Anti-theism doesn't hold parameters other than the disbelief in religion."
Where did i say that anti-theism has parameters? I said it has some basic principles, one of which is against theistic concepts.
"disbelief in religion."
Btw that is not the definition of Anti-theism but atheism.
You can be believer and an anti-theist at the same time.
"My wife doesn't spread lies. She doesn't preach. Her faith is personal to her as my lack thereof is personal to me."
Did I claim or say otherwise?
You keep sprouting nonsensical accusations, as if you activated your self defense mechanism or something that is shooting random bullets everywhere.
calm down a bit and think before you post.
All i am asking here is clarify your position to me since now you claimed that you are both an OPEN anti-theist and also that you are not one before.
Are you an Open Anti-theists like Christopher Hitchens, SAM Harris etc...?
yes or no
I am not asking if you go preaching door to door or not.(since you know they do not do that)
I am asking whether if you are asked in public or in a debate, would you be open about your position against some theistic concepts like indoctrination, just like Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc... would?
An OPEN anti-theist.(you might call it whatever you want, I call it Open anti-theist)
very simple Yes or No
Synopsis:
Since this conversation began you have obscured the subject, changed the subject, invented terms and definitions and now demand that I answer in a yes or no manner.
You're not used to listening only talking.
The original subject is/are my "Questions about discussing religion on an atheists forum."
If we are atheists on an atheists forum why do we discuss something we don't believe exists?
More to the point, why do we discuss the books and writings, tenets and dogma that are written on a subject that doesn't exist?
Why do we take religion seriously when we don't believe there is a god?"
You think there's some benefit in "winning arguments" using Christian writing against Christians.
I disagree.
Because I disagree and you can't defend your erroneous point of view you've dragged this conversation all over the place and now think it's about being an "OPEN anti-theist". I don't accept your invented term of "Open anti-theist" or your manufactured definition of said term. It is irrelevant to the conversation as are Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al.
If there is an immature person in this conversation I contend that it is you based on your incessant deflections from the original subject matter.
"I am asking whether if you are asked in public or in a debate, would you be open about your position against some theistic concepts like indoctrination, just like Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc... would?"
I have answered that question multiple time but since obviously you only talk but you don't listen you haven't realized it yet. I suggest that before you go out and try to set the world on fire and save the gays and the children and whatever else you aspire to save that you learn to listen.
Demanding yes or no answers and trying to control a conversation through controlling definitions are tactics children use, not adults.
"If there is an immature person in this conversation I contend that it is you based on your incessant deflections from the original subject matter."
Do you understand that it is just your unsupported claim that what I said is not relevant to the original subject?
"If we are atheists on an atheists forum why do we discuss something we don't believe exists?"
I clearly demonstrated that god does exist, it exists in the minds of most of the general public and to get it out of there, there is only a few ways to do so, one of which is; informing the public about things that can be verified by winning discussions on it.
The job of OPEN anti-theists like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc...
You are claiming that this is not relevant to the topic now, and you are wrong, it is the most relevant thing to the topic.
It is how gays got their rights in the first place.
You claimed I changed subject when I mentioned gay rights, but I just gave you an example of how winning discussions works.
The people voted here in Malta and people realized that gays are also humans through anti-theistic information and thus the gays got their rights.
It is a proven effective method.
The fact that a debate and a voting were needed shows the damage theism does and how it effects innocent people.
It shows that OPEN anti-theists are needed to inform the public about this danger.
Though, you cannot be a good Open anti-theist(against theistic claims) and you do not know much about the theistic claims, thus you must read the evil book to be able to be against it's claims.
Thus avoiding to make arguments from ignorance in public which would make you like a preacher, instead of an informer of what there is when you know what you are talking about.(knowing the theistic claims is a requirement)
One example where knowing the claims helped in the gay rights subject proposed by the OPEN anti-theistic idea was:
"If god asks Christians to love everybody like yourself, how come the church and some Christians want to discriminate against gays, are gays not people like us, don't they have feelings, etc... why should you love them less? "
Basically appealing to reason using their own contradictory scripture against them rather then going reason alone vs religion.
(using the concept of gathering all the support you can for your position)
If every singe point I make is dismissed as out of subject because you wish it is, then you are not capable of reasoning honestly about a subject when you get challenged or get emotional.
"Demanding yes or no answers and trying to control a conversation through controlling definitions are tactics children use, not adults."
No, it is actually a tactic which makes people who are wrong realize they are wrong.
If you are right then you should find no problem in answering it.
You should try it sometimes.
The religious questions are tiresome to me, but it's nice that this site has a debate forum just for that.
What I find refreshing as a newbie is that compared to other sites where atheists are dismissed as radicals, here we are wooed by believers, even whilst they hold their throat slitters behind their backs and plant their widest smiles.
I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been said.
I have no problem with theists posting here, provided they want to actually discuss things. What is tiresome is the posting of large sections of religious texts which mean nothing to me. I don't even read that garbage so it's a waste of time. Jamal is a case in point.
Maybe there should be a limit on that sort of thing, so that people can only quote passages which are directly related to the discussion at hand.
Anser is right. A great deal of letters on these forums in spent denying the very existence of something most here don't believe in. What is the point of that? If people would come out of the woodwork and say they converted from theism to atheism strictly because of some sagacious post of this thread ATTACKING them and their beliefs, I will concede my point.
This site is named The Atheist Republic. But I see nothing resembling a Republic among the atheists (just a mish-mash of ideas and A LOT of meaningless bickering for pecking order)
I came here to discuss secular things, which atheism is under. Seldom do I see threads to that point, and when I do, it is always derailed by people like Jeff for no discernible reason other than them wanting to here themselves talk.
Jeff will do what he always does now and demand that I prove it, then dodge around the proof with a non-sequiter, then claim I am in the wrong, then report me for trolling, and start a pointless grudge match with me. I would quote, but it's more of the texture of the posts from these people and it's already found all over these forums (I'm asserting this ad hominem facetiously to illustrate point - that there is a lot of personal attacks and derailings on this forum)
Now I will make that thread.
" then report me for trolling"
Did I ever report you for trolling?
Well if someone lies about you, just like you just did here, it is quite reasonable that any sane person would ask for proof.
This just proves you are the one with the "pointless grudge" and everything you say against me needs to be put into question.
Regardless of that, you ignored the points I raised here, may I assume that you just have nothing to say against what I contributed to this topic and just wanted to be a FAN of the idea:
"YESSS Jeff is the problem"
Well have fun with that, unless you bring something related to the topic, I see no reason to engage your "pointless grudge".
Though I have nothing against you, if you or Anser choose to hate me, it is all 1 sided.
I will judge your arguments with out any bias against you either-way.
I was using a rhetorical exercise, Jeff. I never said you were the problem. The main issue I have with you is your posts are too long to properly countermand with oppositional logic. So I've given up on that. Unless you decide to make your writing more compact, I am not on equal footing and cannot debate you. I assumed my facetiousness was enough to demonstrate I was using hyperbole and satire.
When I made short comments I usually get misunderstood or straw-manned a lot by people who just want to commit a genetic fallacy and show how wrong I can be to discredit my claim.
It happens every single time.
So I make sure I am quite clear on what I mean to avoid just that.
"I assumed my facetiousness was enough to demonstrate I was using hyperbole and satire."
It seemed to me that it was not enough, maybe you should try my method of describing your position a bit more to make it more clear.
To me it appeared that not only you did not contribute to the topic at hand but painted me in a bad light as if it matters to the topic at hand at all.
Anser seems quite convinced I have a "Messia Complex", your satire does not help at all here, quite the opposite.
If you wanted to make an example, next time use someone else, your message would have come across much better if you did not use me.
(Also your last line does not indicate when you started the satire)
I honestly understood it, that you are claiming that I am the one doing personal attacks.
I was shaking my head, what the hell did I do to this guy now ? I can't remember ???
lol
I mention you here:
"I came here to discuss secular things, which atheism is under. Seldom do I see threads to that point, and when I do, it is always derailed by people like Jeff for no discernible reason other than them wanting to here themselves talk."
My main beef is that threads get derailed and spin off into a nothingness. I see you and many others do this at times. I've been guilty of it on occasion. I do not like it. the rest was satire for no discernible reason
Pages