I am an Aatheist

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jo's picture
I am an Aatheist

If you look at my profile, or any of my posts, you will see that I am a Christian.
So why am I saying that I am an Aatheist?
I am not making a claim. I am simply rejecting the Atheists statement.
I do not beleive in Atheism or in any of its arguments (if it makes any).
I have lack of faith in Atheists lack of faith.
I am using the same line of reasoning that Atheists use.
Maybe I should state what I do believe, but that would not be in keeping with the logic behind atheism.
Do you see how meaningless my “Aatheism” is?
Can you see how meaningless it is if I remove one of the “A’s”?

Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods.
I don't believe any deity or deities exist, is a typical statement.
Here is what else it is not, or does not:
1. Is not an answer.
2. Draws no conclusions.
3. Makes no claims.
4. Is just a philosophical statement.
5. Makes no claims as to what valid evidence of Gods existence would look like.
6. Has no opinion about Gods existence or non-existence.
7. Does not answer any questions about God.
8. Does not believe that no God or gods exists.
9. Says nothing about what is believed.
10. It is a negative statement.
11. Is neither true nor false.
12. Presents no evidence.
13. Is not statement about science.
14. Is not a scientific statement.
15. Is not falsifiable.
16. Is not an empirical statement.
17. Is not testable or falsifiable.

Did I miss any?
Please comment or make a counter argument.
If you are unable to attack the argument being made.
The custom of many is to attack the person making the argument.

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.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: OP

Re: OP

...*voice of Yoda*.... Mmm... The Farce is strong with this one.

Sheldon's picture
Even though Jo is a tedious

Even though Jo is a tedious liar, you have to admit that some of his BS is pretty hilarious. Check out 6 and 7 in his post...

Atheism ...

6. Has no opinion about Gods existence or non-existence.
7. Does not answer any questions about God.

So I don't believe any deity exists is not an opinion now? Priceless stupidity there Jo.

7 is even better, how many questions about unicorns does your lack of belief in them answer Jo? Fucking hilarious fair play...the real hilarity is that you then get 9 and 10 absolutely right...and they contradict the earlier claims.

Jo

"9. Says nothing about what is believed.
10. It is a negative statement."

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Tin Man

@ Tin Man

"Strong in the Farce,this one is ..."

(Edit)

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Once again:

Once again:

Over the weeks

Jo has failed to:

Logic his God into existence
History his god into existence
Apologetic his god into existence
Biblical Hermeneutic his god into existence
Philosophise his god into existence
Evidence his god into existence
Misrepresent his god into existence
Misquote his god into existence
Openly lie his god into existence

What is left? Ridicule his god into existence?
This OP is a good start on that area....

Some search for truth Jo....some search for truth.

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

The great thing is that we don't have to counter any of this. The ridiculous nature of the OP pretty much speaks for itself.

David Killens's picture
Yup. These days I just watch

Yup. These days I just watch Jo's antics and give myself a face-palm at when I once believed he had integrity.

The sole question on my mind: is this a Shakespearean tragedy, or an episode from Abbot and Costello?

Mutorc S'yriah's picture
@Jo . .

@Jo . .

{I am an Aatheist
If you look at my profile, or any of my posts, you will see that I am a Christian.
So why am I saying that I am an Aatheist?
I am not making a claim. I am simply rejecting the Atheists' statement.
I do not believe in Atheism or in any of its arguments (if it makes any).
I have lack of faith in Atheists lack of faith.
I am using the same line of reasoning that Atheists use.
Maybe I should state what I do believe, but that would not be in keeping with the logic behind atheism.
Do you see how meaningless my “Aatheism” is?
Can you see how meaningless it is if I remove one of the “A’s”?
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods.
I don't believe any deity or deities exist, is a typical statement.}
===============
Here is what else it is not, or does not:
1. Is not an answer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is an answer ~ about what I believe, or at least do not believe.
===============
2. Draws no conclusions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a world view, that is true. Atheistic world views are derived, and as an atheist, my world view is derived in the light of my not being convinced of the actual existence of any gods.
===============
3. Makes no claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am an atheist so I claim to be unable to accept that any gods exist. That claim is my honest position.
===============
4. Is just a philosophical statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a statement of belief, or the inability to take on a particular belief, (or set of beliefs, derived from belief in a god or any gods).
===============
5. Makes no claims as to what valid evidence of God's existence would look like.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The statement given does not identify any god in particular. If a god is claimed to answer prayers, for instance, we would expect to see prayers being answered, (in a way that cannot be accounted for by other means - for example co-incidence).
===============
6. Has no opinion about Gods existence or non-existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is all about opinion - in my opinion, no god has succeeded in proving its existence, and no theist has succeeded in meeting the burden of proof for their god-belief claim(s). So in my experience, if there is a god, it has not shown itself to actually exist, in any way that I can fathom.
===============
7. Does not answer any questions about God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Theists must answer those questions, and back up the claims with satisfactory evidence.
===============
8. Does not believe that no God or gods exists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some atheists would say that no god or gods exist. I just say that I am not convinced, (either way).
===============
9. Says nothing about what is believed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is entirely about what is believed, or more accurately, what lies in the pile of potential beliefs that are not adopted by me. IMHO. What I do not believe tells you something about what I do believe. I do believe that I am not convinced.
===============
10. It is a negative statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the question of the existence of a god or gods, It can be, but in my case it is more a neutral statement. It would be a negative statement if I were a strong atheist, in which case I would have a burden of proof.
===============
11. Is neither true nor false.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Atheism is a category of beliefs held by a certain group of people, (beliefs in the plural, because there are two broad categories of atheism ~ strong and weak). My statement about my belief is the truth as I perceive it. I am unconvinced, and the burden of proof of the theists has not been met to my satisfaction.
I hold to be the truth, that I am unconvinced on the existence of any gods.
===============
12. Presents no evidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depending on the god being proposed, the lack of evidence, when evidence ought to be discernable, points to the absence of the god in question. If prayers don't seem to be answered any more than coincidence under pure chance, then a god that answers prayers would seem NOT to exist.
===============
13. Is not statement about science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True.
===============
14. Is not a scientific statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just answered that
===============
15. Is not falsifiable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a position, it is in fact confirmed ~ I am after all, an atheist myself. In principle, the CLAIM(s) of THEISM is(are) provable, but IMHO has (have) not been.
===============
16. Is not an empirical statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answered in 13. above.
===============
17. Is not testable or falsifiable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you don't think I am an atheist, then you must think I am a liar, or something else. You just have to take my word for the fact that I don't believe in any gods. My word is all you have, and I don't accept the Biblical theory that: [In my heart, I know that "God" exists, even if in my mind, I don't acknowledge it].
===============
If you are unable to attack the argument being made.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above seventeen points make no arguments, so I fail to see how one could see the answers I have been giving as an attack on anything. However, the analogy in :-
===============
@jo
{I am not making a claim. I am simply rejecting the Atheists statement.
I do not believe in Atheism or in any of its arguments (if it makes any).
I have lack of faith in Atheists lack of faith.
I am using the same line of reasoning that Atheists use}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You may reject my statement that I do not believe, but you can only do so, if you think that I am a liar, or something else.
Atheism is a response to a claim. That claim is that a god or gods exist. The response is one of a belief position. If YOU say that YOU do believe, and you want OTHERS to follow suit, then YOU have a burden of proof. The proof burden arises, because theism is a positive belief, and reflects what the believer accepts about reality. So if you want to convince non-believers that the god exists, you need to provide evidence or proof that will convince the atheists.
A LACK of belief on the other hand stops with: 'I don't, (yet) believe'. There is no burden of proof for me on that, except my honest evaluation of my belief position.
===============
@Jo: {I am simply rejecting the Atheists' statement}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is saying that you are rejecting my position of: 'I don't, (yet) believe'. If so, it is insulting, but I doubt that it is what you are saying. Really your whole post mixes the position of the strong and weak atheist, and you should not do that. Perhaps you should convince me that I ought either to be a strong atheist, or else a theist, but not a weak atheist. If so, then you should know that it would not, (yet), change my position of weak atheism.
===============
@Jo: {Maybe I should state what I do believe, but that would not be in keeping with the logic behind atheism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But my atheism is NOT A LOGICAL POSITION; it is simply a lack of belief. If you want a logical position, then you ought to give me a logical argument pro-god-belief, and ask me to evaluate it using logic.
===============
The custom of many is to attack the person making the argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I'm not doing that, Jo.
===============
Cheers,
Mutorc.

Grinseed's picture
@Jo

@Jo

The term "atheist" was coined by theists, in the first place, to brand other earnest theists, with whom they disagreed, and tortured and killed, on all sorts of issues concerning their gods.

If you insist on adopting the claim to be an Aatheist, then I will have no other option than to be an Aaatheist...and the only sensible outcome will be my newly avowed position will beat Aardvark in any dictionary list.

Let this one go Jo, its making you look silly.

My claim to being an atheist is only a single position that only answers theist claims for the existence of a god or a gap of gods.

I more often refer to myself as a "naturalist humanist" as it covers far more about my perception of this life than just one issue i.e. my understanding of deep space science, evolutionary biology, philosophy, psychology, and human social and political history.

Call us what you will, but don't expect us to answer, or even take seriously, your assumptions about what you would like to think the term means or not.
It's a theist term.
Deal with it.

In any case, no matter what you think, the word will continue to mean that we still simply dismiss theist claims about the existence of gods. Any further assumptions comprise baseless accusations.

edited for clarity's sake

Cognostic's picture
@JO: I do not believe in

@JO: I do not believe in Atheism
That's fine. There is nothing to believe in. Atheism is not a belief system. There is no dogma, no belief, no ritual. There is merely a lack of belief in god or gods. It's like being a non-soccer player. The only reason we have the world atheist in use today is because the Church needed a word to describe non-believers. Heretic, apostate, doubting Thomas, unbeliever, disbeliever, nontheist,
infidel, blasphemer, cynic and other derogatory names directed at anyone who does not go along with your insane belief system all work just as well.

RE: I do not believe in Atheism or in any of its arguments: There is nothing called Atheism to believe in. Atheism is a lack of belief in theological claims. I don't believe in Atheism either. I also don't believe in God or gods. I am an atheist because that is the name the theists use to describe my non-belief in their silly system of religion.

RE: YOU CAN STOP HERE - ANYTHING ELSE YOU ASSERT IS OUTSIDE OF ATHEISM.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. "I don't believe any deity or deities exist, is a typical statement."

Here is what else it is not, or does not: #9 SAYS IT ALL. "Says nothing about what is believed."
Atheism says nothing at all about what else might be believed. 100% correct!

What argument is being made? I think we are in complete agreement. Have I misunderstood your assertion. "Atheism is a position of non-belief in God or gods and nothing more." That's it! You got it.

Sheldon's picture
You're a duplicitous theist

Same old lying BS Jo. You're a duplicitous theist who has a long reputation of lying and sad attempts at trolling like this one.

Your relentless mendacity is not nearly as impressive as you appear to imagine Jo. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are though, and how your beliefs have produced a petulant closed minded bigot.

Atheism is the absence or lack of theism, get over it Jo. The fact you don't possess the integrity to acknowledge this fact, no more changes the definition of atheism than the fact you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between atheism, atheist, and atheistic. Sadly your execrable grasp of language is on a par with your grasp of rational debate.

I'll give you a clue one more time, why should not believing in a deity need to provide any answers for anything or suggest evidence for the non existence of deities anymore than not believing in unicorns requires such nonsense. You're a dishonest clown Jo.

However do show the objective evidence you have for the non existence of each of the deities you don't believe in. A number just 1 digit less than the number atheists don't believe in, yet you can't produce the very nonsense you're seriously demanding atheists do.

Can you demonstrate evidence for the non existence of unicorns Jo?

Dear oh dear.

Sheldon's picture
Well I've stopped laughing

Well I've stopped laughing now, so I'll give it a go.

"Jo

Atheism

1. Is not an answer.
2. Draws no conclusions.
3. Makes no claims.
4. Is just a philosophical statement.
5. Makes no claims as to what valid evidence of Gods existence would look like.
6. Has no opinion about Gods existence or non-existence.
7. Does not answer any questions about God.
8. Does not believe that no God or gods exists.
9. Says nothing about what is believed.
10. It is a negative statement.
11. Is neither true nor false.
12. Presents no evidence.
13. Is not statement about science.
14. Is not a scientific statement.
15. Is not falsifiable.
16. Is not an empirical statement.
17. Is not testable or falsifiable.

1. Yes it is, it is an answer to the question of whether a person does or does not believe any deity exists.
2. Actually it draws only one, that an atheist does not believe any deity or deities exists, but atheism itself does not draw conclusions, how can it? What conclusions does your disbelief in invisible unicorns draw Jo?
3. Correct, atheism makes no claims. Though of course any atheist is free to do so.
4. Incorrect, it's a statement about a person's position on a single belief. I'd not call that a philosophical statement. Though atheist are again free to make such statements, but atheism does not.
5. Of course not, why on earth would it? Does your disbelief in invisible fairies make claims as to what valid evidence of invisible fairies existence would look like? You are funny Jo.
6. Correct, though again an atheist may hold such opinions, but atheism does not as it is simply the absence of belief.
7. Of course not, why would it? Does your disbelief in flying invisible dragons answer any questions about flying invisible dragons Jo. Funnier and funnier fair play.
8. Correct, though again an atheist would be free to believe this, and some do.
9. Correct, just as your disbelief in garden fairies tells us nothing on it's own about what you believe Jo, why would it?
10. Correct, atheism is by definition a negative statement. As it deal with what is not believed, and nothing else.
11. Atheism is not a claim, though the claim that someone lacks belief in any deities or deity, in that sense at least, it is either true or false, you have clearly made it a false claim about yourself here Jo.
12. Of course not, again why would it Jo? What evidence do you present to disbelieve in invisible leprechauns Jo? Hilarious fair play.
13. Correct, though your point escapes me?
14. See 13.
15. It's not a claim or an assertion of anything, it simply identifies disbelief in the claim a deity or deities exist, so why would it need to be falsifiable? Is your disbelief in unicorns falsifiable Jo? Your hypocrisy is manifest.
16. It's an empirical fact that I'm an atheist, again your reasoning is incomprehensible Jo. Is your disbelief in fairies empirical or falsifiable? Why the double standard Jo? As if we don't know.
17. Again see 16, is your disbelief in unicorns testable or falsifiable Jo? You are a hypocrite and a liar Jo sadly, and your latest duplicitous histrionics merely reinforce this fact.

Your dishonesty is matched only by the sheer petulance of this display Jo. Dear oh dear, how very very sad for you...

Mystical Theist's picture
This is why i dont relate

This is why i dont relate with most religious theist, they dont undertand that Atheism is a very logical conclusión specially wheb presented with the Dogmatic\Religious ideas of God.

I will have to say that i find Agnostic Atheism one of the most logical postures on the subject while Radical Atheist remind me to much of Religious people.

Cognostic's picture
@Mystical Theist: Most

@Mystical Theist: Most atheists, I feel, would agree. Sheldon does a fine point by point breakdown above while I simply point out that #9 says it all. The issue I see is that "Theists live in a world of "belief" and "faith."

Having belief and faith is like wearing a pair of yellow sunglasses. Everything they see is colored yellow. Everything they see is based on "faith" and "belief." Because of this, they are constantly asserting, "Well the atheists have faith. Atheists have belief. Atheists believe in no god." The theists are incapable of grasping the idea of "non-belief." They are unable to remove the yellow tinted glasses from their little heads.

With that said, some do occasionally manage to rip those puppies away from their eyes. In this case, they become lost. Nothing means anything any more. On what will they base their values? In what can they trust. These folks become lost because they are looking for an external locus of control. Something in the world that they can base their values, beliefs, and opinions upon. Looking internally never occurs to them. Imagining they are the author of their own morality is a complete non-sequitur. After all, if they are the author of their own moral behavior they must look to themselves. They can not longer blame the evil forces in the world, God or Satan. They can no longer claim being influenced. This world without a yellow tint makes no sense to them and they are lost without their glasses.

Sheldon's picture
Mystical Theist "Radical

Mystical Theist "Radical Atheist remind me to much of Religious people."

As a theist is it like looking in a mirror then? I've not really noticed most of the atheists I've met being radical to be honest, quite the opposite. All the theists who come here and in other forums I have been to, are utterly closed minded, and exhibit a shocking bias in favour of their a priori religious beliefs, and yet not once have any of them had the self awareness to comprehend this. The evidence for this of course is in the fact they can't demonstrate any objective evidence for their belief in a deity, yet can't offer a single belief outside of their religious beliefs, that they hold without any objective evidence.

They of course never fail to ignore this closed minded bias, and again the dishonesty of them not even acknowledging this, let alone addressing it, speaks volumes about those beliefs and how closed minded they are.

CyberLN's picture
Mystical, what on earth is a

Mystical, what on earth is a “radical atheist”?

Cognostic's picture
Most "radical atheists" have

Most "radical atheists" have their heads up their asses and are just angry at religion. We give them the same treatment when they come in here spewing their nonsense. An anti-theist position is taken with care and calculation. It is certainly contingent on a defense of a specific god or a specific assertion about Churches or religions. Assert that morality comes from religion and you will draw out the "anti-theism" from every person on this site.

My actual thoughts on this is that new Atheists, people that were theists just a year or two ago, come in here treating atheism like a belief system, "There is no god. Religion is bad. Christians believe in woo woo." and they are unable to support their opinions with anything but belief and anger. Perhaps they have been on another atheist site where their ignorant assertions were not challenged. Well, they get challenged here. Nothing is as embarrassing as an ignorant atheist spouting nonsense. These people are not "Radical Atheists" they do not understand atheism and are merely ignorant.

Simon Moon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

I am not making a claim. I am simply rejecting the Atheists statement.
I do not beleive in Atheism or in any of its arguments (if it makes any).
I have lack of faith in Atheists lack of faith.
I am using the same line of reasoning that Atheists use.
Maybe I should state what I do believe, but that would not be in keeping with the logic behind atheism.
Do you see how meaningless my “Aatheism” is?
Can you see how meaningless it is if I remove one of the “A’s”?

Most of your thoughts here are so incoherent, it's hard to even point out what is wrong with them.

So, you don't believe atheists exist? That's the position you want to hang your hat on?

Yes, I am of the position that faith is not a virtue. Faith is not a path to truth. People of all religions use faith to get to their (contradictory and mutually exclusive) theistic beliefs. And you disbelieve in everyone of their faith based beliefs. I do not even know what lack of faith in lack of faith means. Please restate it in a different way.

I am using the same line of reasoning that Atheists use.

The hell you are...

I have no problems stating what I do believe. I believe, to a high level of certainty, that throughout history, theists have continued to fail to meet their burden of proof to support their claims that a god or gods exist. I believe that, as long as this failure continues, I will remain unconvinced that a god of gods exist.

Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods.
I don't believe any deity or deities exist, is a typical statement.

Yes, both of these statements are correct. However, there are some atheists who go further and claim to know gods do not exist.

Here is what else it is not, or does not:
1. Is not an answer.
2. Draws no conclusions.
3. Makes no claims.
4. Is just a philosophical statement.
5. Makes no claims as to what valid evidence of Gods existence would look like.
6. Has no opinion about Gods existence or non-existence.
7. Does not answer any questions about God.
8. Does not believe that no God or gods exists.
9. Says nothing about what is believed.
10. It is a negative statement.
11. Is neither true nor false.
12. Presents no evidence.
13. Is not statement about science.
14. Is not a scientific statement.
15. Is not falsifiable.
16. Is not an empirical statement.
17. Is not testable or falsifiable.

1. Whether atheism is an answer depends on the question.
2. It draws a conclusion as to whether one thinks the case made by theists has met its burden of proof, or the belief in gods is warranted.
3. This is correct. Atheism is a response to a claim, not a claim itself. What's your point?
4. OK. Seems kind of unimportant.
5. Partially true. But this in not unusual. Before the microscope was invented, how would one know what the evidence would be to prove microscopic flora and fauna were the cause of disease?
6. Partially true. Many atheist's position is, that theists have not met their burden of proof to convince us that gods exist. As to whether gods actually exists, may be unknown, or unknowable.
7. Partially true. Atheism is the response to theist's claims about the existence of gods, not about the specifics of said gods. And since gods continue to fail to demonstrate their existence, theist's failed case is all we have to go on.
8. I disbelieve that any god exists. A slightly different statement than yours.
9. I believe plenty of things. With regards to the existence of gods, I disbelieve they exist.
10. Not sure what you mean. Please restate.
11. Since atheism is not being convinced that gods exist, there is no real truth statement involved, so it is not true of false in the way I think you mean. I also disbelieve bigfoot exists, but I am not claiming to know, with absolute certainty, that they do not exist. So, there is nothing about my position on bigfoot (ot gods) existence that could be said to be 'true of false'.
12. True. Atheists do not have to present evidence, since we are not the ones making a claim. This is basic logic 101 and not specific to atheism. I do not have to present evidence that bigfoot does not exist, in order to be unconvinced that they do exist.
13. Partially true. Atheism resides in the realm of logic and philosophy. However, the atheist position is supported by the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of gods.
14. Same as above.
15. Atheism is absolutely falsifiable. Demonstrate a god exists, and atheism is falsified.
16. Partially true. But it may be supported by the complete lack of an empirical case made by theists.
17. Again, this is a failure logic 101. The disbelief of theist's claims does not require a testable/falsifiable case.

And I'll bet you know a lot of this already with regards to other existential claims besides your god. I am pretty sure you probably disbelieve at least some of these: bigfoot, alien abductions, Yeti, crystal healing, Loch Ness monster, Jinn, garden fairies, other gods, etc, etc. Did you need to falsify, test and provide an empirical case for the nonexistence of any of these in order to disbelieve? No. The simple fact that those claiming these exist have failed e to meet their burden of proof is probably plenty for you not to believe them.

Now the question that would follow would be, why do you make a special case for your god beliefs?

Sheldon's picture
So we already knew from

So we already knew from objective evidence that Jo is a relentlessly dishonest poster, and he now proves this unequivocally with his latest petulant trolling thread. Shame on you Jo, and it is sad that you can't see how this latest OP reflects on your beliefs, especially after the lies and BS you have tediously peddled since you first came here.

Shame on you....and so much for christian morality....I'll take secular morality every single day.

Simon Moon's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Yep.

I am pretty sure that everyone here as xplained, ad infinitum: the burden of proof and why it lies with the claimant, the basics of epistemology, many logical fallacies which Jo is guilty of using on a continuous basis, the difference between: believing a claim is false and disbelieving a claim is true, the many reasons (backed by valid and sound logic) why we are unconvinced that gods exist, and quite a bit more.

So, either Jo is too dense to understand these pretty basic concepts, or dishonest.

It is probably better to be too dense to understand, than dishonest, at least from an ethical standpoint.

Sheldon's picture
Simon Moon "So, either Jo

Simon Moon "So, either Jo is too dense to understand these pretty basic concepts, or dishonest."

Indeed, though I suspect they are not mutually exclusive, and have been explained to him exhaustively, and he has not even acknowledge this. So whilst his posts evidence his intellectual limitations, he is manifestly dishonest.

Though I must say your post meshed with me in another way, as I am watching my favourite film Cool Hand Luke...

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate" seemed apropos...

I suspect much of the failure is Jo's duplicity, and some of it because he is being dense, how much of that is deliberate I shall let others decide.

Incidentally I love the gospel songs in this film by the late great Harry Dean Stanton, and Kudos to George Kennedy who won an Oscar for best supporting actor, very much deserved.

"I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I've got the plastic Jesus sittin (sic) on the dashboard of my car"

Newman playing the banjo and singing, and crying after he gets the news his mother has died, while the whole chain gang watch in reverent silence. They simply don't make films like this anymore....

CyberLN's picture
Cool Hand Luke....I wasn’t

Cool Hand Luke....I wasn’t able to eat eggs for months after watching it.

Sheldon's picture
@Cyber

@Cyber

I have never like hard boiled eggs if I'm honest and its fair to say this film didn't change that.

I'm sure I heard recently about some idiots who had a race to see who could eat the most hard boiled eggs the fastest. One of them died unsurprisingly...

Explaining Jo's duplicity in misrepresenting atheism is how I imagine swallowing hard boiled eggs one after the other feela....

Simon Moon's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Though I must say your post meshed with me in another way, as I am watching my favourite film Cool Hand Luke...

One of my favorite movies too!

Not to be pedantic, but the quote is, "What we have here, is failure to communicate".

Tin-Man's picture
I just decided I'm an

I just decided I'm an Aaatheist. I don't believe in Jo's view of atheism.

Sheldon's picture
Tin man

Tin man

"I just decided I'm an Aaatheist. I don't believe in Jo's view of "

Is that an atheist who's a recovering alcoholic?

My head hurts now....

David Killens's picture
Us Canadians have you guys

Us Canadians have you guys beat, we already have an "eh" at the beginning of every sentence.

I am an ehtheist.

Grinseed's picture
@Tin

@Tin

If Jo goes Aaaatheist it will be all your fault.

Tin-Man's picture
@Grinseed Re: "If Jo goes

@Grinseed Re: "If Jo goes Aaaatheist it will be all your fault."

It is a responsibility I am willing to accept to defend my lack of belief in his lack of belief in our lack of belief in his god.

Sheldon's picture
Tin-Man "It is a

Tin-Man "It is a responsibility I am willing to accept to defend my lack of belief in his lack of belief in our lack of belief in his god."

I don't believe that you don't believe that Jo doesn't believe that we all don't believe in his deity. I think you're just messing with him, but kudos, as I am enjoying it anyway.

Cognostic's picture
RE: JO. I really don't

RE: JO. I really don't think we need him on our side. I really don;t.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.