Is rational responders just a vehicle for a new religion style doctorine?

Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Is rational responders just a vehicle for a new religion style doctorine?

I thought I'd post this in the free thinking forum as it seemed most relevant. 

[MOVED BY MOD OUT OF FREETHINKING FORUM AS NOBODY FROM RRS CORE BELIEVES YOUR UPCOMING SENTENCE]

I am for the record an atheist myself, but also a great believer in free speech.

I'm just curios as to whether this whole movement is about educating people to the truths of theology or just an attempt to impose the minorities viewpoint on others, which to me is the greatest problem with religion. I don't have a problem with people believing in god, just like I don't have a problem with kids believing in the tooth fairy or Santa. The only thing I ever found particularly distasteful about religion is the imposing of ones ideas upon another.

Just a thought. I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted.

[it wont be deleted unless by error or server crash]


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
If religion kept to itself

If religion kept to itself no one would take issue with it.  But it imposes itself on our governments, our laws, our way of life.  It forces children to close themselves off from the real world in order to take on horrid values such as "faith is a virtue". 

To extend that a bit farther, religious moderation encourages and breeds fundamentalism.  So the only way to stop fundamentalism is by stopping the originating hoax and the credibility it gains by moderation.

Furthermore, there are no life values being imposed on you by this religious movement.  It is a movement about self education.  About encouraging critical thinkin and getting people to come to an educated conclusion about the universe rather than accepting something that they have no basis for.

The accusation of this movement is comparable to religon may seem like it has some merits on the surface, but if you look at the message being delivered you will quickly realize that it is in no way the case.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Old Master wrote: I thought

Old Master wrote:
I thought I'd post this in the free thinking forum as it seemed most relevant. I am for the record an atheist myself, but also a great believer in free speech.

I'm just curios as to whether this whole movement is about educating people to the truths of theology or just an attempt to impose the minorities viewpoint on others, which to me is the greatest problem with religion. I don't have a problem with people believing in god, just like I don't have a problem with kids believing in the tooth fairy or Santa. The only thing I ever found particularly distasteful about religion is the imposing of ones ideas upon another.

Just a thought. I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted.

I seriously doubt it will ever be deleted as long as this website exists.

I don't see anything really offensive in the slightest about your post.  I think this "movement" is simply trying to make people think about something they were always told to unquestionally believe.

Everyone's free to disagree.

Most of us are ex-religious and are of the mindset that if you put religion on the chopping block  of intellectual questioning like most people do most ideas, it will be marginalized pretty quickly by the vast majority of people.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just a thought. I

Quote:
Just a thought. I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted.

You're new here, so you can be forgiven for this remark.  Take a look around.  There are plenty of distasteful or disagreeable opinions all over the place.  We don't censor.

Quote:
I'm just curios as to whether this whole movement is about educating people to the truths of theology or just an attempt to impose the minorities viewpoint on others, which to me is the greatest problem with religion.

What would possibly give you that idea?  Seriously.  That's not a rhetorical question.  Where'd you come up with this?

Have you read through this site at all?  We want everyone to be free to practice whatever belief or non-belief they want.  If they choose Christianity, or any other theism, we feel free to tell them it's a really stupid choice.

Our goal is that the public realizes the absurdity of religion and makes their own decision to abandon it.   We have no desire to legislate what people can and can't believe.  Of course, we have quite strong feelings about the Christians' desire to turn America into a Christian country.  That sort of goes against the separation of church and state, which we firmly support.

 

Quote:
The only thing I ever found particularly distasteful about religion is the imposing of ones ideas upon another.

You should do some more reading on the site.  There's a lot more that's distasteful about it.

You're free to disagree, of course.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


dead_again
Special AgentWebsite Admin
dead_again's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
It would appear that way to

It would appear that way to some until you take a broader look. Some of the things this "movement" is focused on are keeping theology and other irrational things out of places they should not be (government, school, etc.), and to inform everyone that we exist in number much larger than most imagine and we also have 1st amendment rights, though some wish to deny those to us. I personally do not impose my beliefs on anyone. If topics such as religion come up in casual conversation, I do not hesitate to claim I am an atheist, but I do not treat those that believe in a deity as inferior.

Also, welcome to the forums. If you would like, please introduce yourself over in General Conversation, Introductions, and Humor

Your god's silence speaks loud and clear


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Just a thought. I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted.

You're new here, so you can be forgiven for this remark. Take a look around. There are plenty of distasteful or disagreeable opinions all over the place. We don't censor. 

Quote:
I'm just curios as to whether this whole movement is about educating people to the truths of theology or just an attempt to impose the minorities viewpoint on others, which to me is the greatest problem with religion.

What would possibly give you that idea? Seriously. That's not a rhetorical question. Where'd you come up with this?

Have you read through this site at all? We want everyone to be free to practice whatever belief or non-belief they want. If they choose Christianity, or any other theism, we feel free to tell them it's a really stupid choice.

Our goal is that the public realizes the absurdity of religion and makes their own decision to abandon it. We have no desire to legislate what people can and can't believe. Of course, we have quite strong feelings about the Christians' desire to turn America into a Christian country. That sort of goes against the separation of church and state, which we firmly support.

 

I understand you have political goals underpinning your views. But really, telling somebody "it's a really stupid choice" to beleive in god or whatever they perceive him/her/it to be is just insane.

Quote:
The only thing I ever found particularly distasteful about religion is the imposing of ones ideas upon another.

You should do some more reading on the site. There's a lot more that's distasteful about it.

You're free to disagree, of course.

 

 

I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith. But it isn't that simple. I don't believe in any kind of supreme being, however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.

 

I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate, claiming my views must come from a devout religious type. It's a shame. I genuinely think I had something neutral to offer.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Master

Old Master wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Just a thought. I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted.

You're new here, so you can be forgiven for this remark. Take a look around. There are plenty of distasteful or disagreeable opinions all over the place. We don't censor. 

Quote:
I'm just curios as to whether this whole movement is about educating people to the truths of theology or just an attempt to impose the minorities viewpoint on others, which to me is the greatest problem with religion.

What would possibly give you that idea? Seriously. That's not a rhetorical question. Where'd you come up with this?

Have you read through this site at all? We want everyone to be free to practice whatever belief or non-belief they want. If they choose Christianity, or any other theism, we feel free to tell them it's a really stupid choice.

Our goal is that the public realizes the absurdity of religion and makes their own decision to abandon it. We have no desire to legislate what people can and can't believe. Of course, we have quite strong feelings about the Christians' desire to turn America into a Christian country. That sort of goes against the separation of church and state, which we firmly support.

 

I understand you have political goals underpinning your views. But really, telling somebody "it's a really stupid choice" to beleive in god or whatever they perceive him/her/it to be is just insane.

Quote:
The only thing I ever found particularly distasteful about religion is the imposing of ones ideas upon another.

You should do some more reading on the site. There's a lot more that's distasteful about it.

You're free to disagree, of course.

 

 

I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith. But it isn't that simple. I don't believe in any kind of supreme being, however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.

 

I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate, claiming my views must come from a devout religious type. It's a shame. I genuinely think I had something neutral to offer.

 

A belief in no God is not the same as the lack of belief in a God. 

The first is a positive claim - the second is a doubt. 

Most here hold the latter view. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


dead_again
Special AgentWebsite Admin
dead_again's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
The reason he said those

The reason he said those things to you is that more often than not, new members that have your mindset tend to be theists posing as atheists. If you read the forums long enough you will see why many here feel the way they do. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but some are very skeptical from the beginning, resulting in what many newcomers see as hostility.

Your god's silence speaks loud and clear


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Old Master

jcgadfly wrote:
Old Master wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Just a thought. I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted.

You're new here, so you can be forgiven for this remark. Take a look around. There are plenty of distasteful or disagreeable opinions all over the place. We don't censor.

Quote:
I'm just curios as to whether this whole movement is about educating people to the truths of theology or just an attempt to impose the minorities viewpoint on others, which to me is the greatest problem with religion.

What would possibly give you that idea? Seriously. That's not a rhetorical question. Where'd you come up with this?

Have you read through this site at all? We want everyone to be free to practice whatever belief or non-belief they want. If they choose Christianity, or any other theism, we feel free to tell them it's a really stupid choice.

Our goal is that the public realizes the absurdity of religion and makes their own decision to abandon it. We have no desire to legislate what people can and can't believe. Of course, we have quite strong feelings about the Christians' desire to turn America into a Christian country. That sort of goes against the separation of church and state, which we firmly support.

 

I understand you have political goals underpinning your views. But really, telling somebody "it's a really stupid choice" to beleive in god or whatever they perceive him/her/it to be is just insane.

Quote:
The only thing I ever found particularly distasteful about religion is the imposing of ones ideas upon another.

You should do some more reading on the site. There's a lot more that's distasteful about it.

You're free to disagree, of course.

 

 

I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith. But it isn't that simple. I don't believe in any kind of supreme being, however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.



I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate, claiming my views must come from a devout religious type. It's a shame. I genuinely think I had something neutral to offer.

 

A belief in no God is not the same as the lack of belief in a God.

The first is a positive claim - the second is a doubt.

Most here hold the latter view.

 

Surely that would make you agnostic if it it only doubt that prevents faith in a deity? 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Master wrote: jcgadfly

Old Master wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Old Master wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Just a thought. I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted.

You're new here, so you can be forgiven for this remark. Take a look around. There are plenty of distasteful or disagreeable opinions all over the place. We don't censor.

Quote:
I'm just curios as to whether this whole movement is about educating people to the truths of theology or just an attempt to impose the minorities viewpoint on others, which to me is the greatest problem with religion.

What would possibly give you that idea? Seriously. That's not a rhetorical question. Where'd you come up with this?

Have you read through this site at all? We want everyone to be free to practice whatever belief or non-belief they want. If they choose Christianity, or any other theism, we feel free to tell them it's a really stupid choice.

Our goal is that the public realizes the absurdity of religion and makes their own decision to abandon it. We have no desire to legislate what people can and can't believe. Of course, we have quite strong feelings about the Christians' desire to turn America into a Christian country. That sort of goes against the separation of church and state, which we firmly support.

 

I understand you have political goals underpinning your views. But really, telling somebody "it's a really stupid choice" to beleive in god or whatever they perceive him/her/it to be is just insane.

Quote:
The only thing I ever found particularly distasteful about religion is the imposing of ones ideas upon another.

You should do some more reading on the site. There's a lot more that's distasteful about it.

You're free to disagree, of course.

 

 

I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith. But it isn't that simple. I don't believe in any kind of supreme being, however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.



I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate, claiming my views must come from a devout religious type. It's a shame. I genuinely think I had something neutral to offer.

 

A belief in no God is not the same as the lack of belief in a God.

The first is a positive claim - the second is a doubt.

Most here hold the latter view.

 

Surely that would make you agnostic if it it only doubt that prevents faith in a deity? 

agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism.

Agnosticism is a standard of knowledge - atheism is a standard of belief.

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know for certain that there is or isn't a God. Because I don't know, I can't believe in a god 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
you can be both agnostic

you can be both agnostic and atheist.  I suggest reading this bit from the links on the left:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: you can be

Tarpan wrote:

you can be both agnostic and atheist.  I suggest reading this bit from the links on the left:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

Thanks, Tarpan. My brain is fogging and my eyes are crossing. I should've thought of the link myself. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   .... Gods ?I have a

  .... Gods ? 

I have a huge distaste for anyone who believes in the god of abe.

They are a real problem to progress in my world. I AM GOD AS YOU.

 HELL is anyone that disagrees with me GOD....

(( smile, as you are GOD too ))  or burn you do , and I don't like the smell of sulpher,

I have zero tolerance, but much patience  Tongue out


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
"[I am] a great believer in

"[I am] a great believer in free speech ... I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted."

Someone is trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. You troll the message board implying the Rational Response Squad doesn't support free speech, thus violating rule 2.1 on antagonism by combing trolling with libel, to possibly bring about the deletion of your thread or suspension of your message board account to lend a superficial credence to your argument that they do not support free speech. That's a clever trick.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't mean to get

Quote:
I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith.

A lack of faith does not = faith.  This shouldn't have to be explained.

Quote:
however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.
 

Just for the sake of brevity, I'll overlook the bigotry of your moronic suggestion that an atheist has faith in nothing.  I have faith in many things: Friendship, Love, the power of reason to overcome hate, etc.

Only those who have faith in man made fairy tales hold a faith in nothing.

Quote:
I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate

I've listened to dozens of Sapient debates. If he shouted repeatedly at you, the odds of you being rational, reasonable instead of dogmatic/irrational during this debate, I'd put at several thousand to one. But say for the sake of argument say he was unfair to you....if he didn't threaten to harm you, torture you, damn you, kill you or send you to eternal torment I'd say he's STILL infinitely kinder than the irrationality that he (& most here) oppose. 

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: you can be

Tarpan wrote:

you can be both agnostic and atheist. I suggest reading this bit from the links on the left:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

 

That is a complete retardation of the meaning of atheist. The original meaning was not only an insult and something one would never call oneself. But it was also a word directly associated with Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.

Where do you guys stand on Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc? Are they included in this new atheism? Let's face it, Some of those have many deities while others have none.

I think the political agenda far outstrips the original meaning in this case.

I'm sorry if my impression of this organization has been clouded, but if that is the case, Sapient should not be an ambassador for this cause. You must realize the guy speaks as though he is speaking for all of RRS. Maybe he is, I dunno. That's what I'm trying to find out I suppose. 


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote: "[I

Visual_Paradox wrote:

"[I am] a great believer in free speech ... I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted."

Someone is trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. You troll the message board implying the Rational Response Squad doesn't support free speech, thus violating rule 2.1 on antagonism by combing trolling with libel, to possibly bring about the deletion of your thread or suspension of your message board account to lend a superficial credence to your argument that they do not support free speech. That's a clever trick.

 

Not really. It's not very clever at all.

 

Depends on perspective i suppose lol 


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle

AmericanIdle wrote:

Quote:
I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith.

A lack of faith does not = faith. This shouldn't have to be explained.

Quote:
however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.

Just for the sake of brevity, I'll overlook the bigotry of your moronic suggestion that an atheist has faith in nothing. I have faith in many things: Friendship, Love, the power of reason to overcome hate, etc.

Only those who have faith in man made fairy tales hold a faith in nothing.

Quote:
I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate

I've listened to dozens of Sapient debates. If he shouted repeatedly at you, the odds of you being rational, reasonable instead of dogmatic/irrational during this debate, I'd put at several thousand to one. But say for the sake of argument say he was unfair to you....if he didn't threaten to harm you, torture you, damn you, kill you or send you to eternal torment I'd say he's STILL infinitely kinder than the irrationality that he (& most here) oppose.

 

 

No, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I don't know what kind of relegios nuts you have had to put up with and I'm sorry you had to take abuse from any. But the guy was totaly unreasonable and didn't want to hear anything I had to say. Accusing me of being a theist or agnostic only served to quite any rational responses I had.  

 

by the way, I totaly agree about a total faith in nothing. Anyone who beleives there is no deity is as dumb as anyone that beleives in one. After all, wouldn't proof of a gods existance destroy all chance of what we call faith? Just like proof or there being no god equaly be the end of atheists faith that there is no god?


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
 he word atheist stems from

The word atheist stems from a combination of the prefix a-, the word -theos-, and the suffix -ismos. The Greeks didn't use the suffix, using atheos as meaning "ungodly." It was a moral condemnation. The Romans were the first to add the suffix and use the term as "godless," though they meant it as "those people who don't have the true gods of the Romans." Ironically, Christians were perhaps the first atheists [see "The Martyrdom of Polycarp"]. After Christianity gained influence, Christians began using it as "those people who don't have the true God of the Christians," meaning the Gnostics, Muslims, and so on were atheists. As time passed, the stupidity of the squabbling became obvious and the term came to mean "those people without any god at all."

The word still didn't mean "a person who positively believes there is no god." It continued meaning "a person without gods." The evidence of this is Baron d'Holbach's book "Good Sense" published in 1772. He wrote, "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Baron d'Holbach was not just an ordinary person writing on the subject. He was the first self-avowed atheist. He was a prominent philosopher and his home became a meeting place for philosophers and scientists, such as David Hume and Benjamin Franklin. People called him the "maitre d'hotel of philosophy," which means "owner and host of the townhouse of philosophy." He was an encyclopedist who translated German science works and contributed articles to the French Encyclopédie, which later inspired Encyclopedia Britannica's creation. He knew what he was talking about. It would be difficult to find a more authoritative person on the meaning of atheism.

The meaning of "a person who positively believes there is no god" is recent, unsupported historically and by most of today's dictionaries and encyclopedias. This new idea of atheism is a redefinition. Society redefines words all the time and redefinitions are not necessarily bad but deceit is the motivation for this one. The motivation is not to keep the word inline with what atheists now consider it but the want of shifting the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. How can someone "positively believe there is no god"? To say a god played no role in the cosmos' creation is to say one has a good idea of how the cosmos did come into existence. Most atheists don't pretend to know the origin of the cosmos. Using this mischaracterization of atheism, crackpot theologians shift the burden of proof by saying, "You say there is no god [according to the new definition of atheist] but if that's true then how did the cosmos come to exist?" Atheists never pretended to know that. The theologians' readers and listeners, after seeing atheists unable to answer the question, begin to think atheism is unsupportable and that strengthens their faith in the theologians' positions. People use the redefinition to mischaracterize atheists and to create straw-person arguments.

Atheist means "a person without gods," no more and no less.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote: The

Visual_Paradox wrote:
The word atheist stems from a combination of the prefix a-, the word -theos-, and the suffix -ismos. The Greeks didn't use the suffix, using atheos as meaning "ungodly." It was a moral condemnation. The Romans were the first to add the suffix and use the term as "godless," though they meant it as "those people who don't have the true gods of the Romans." Ironically, Christians were perhaps the first atheists [see "The Martyrdom of Polycarp"]. After Christianity gained influence, Christians began using it as "those people who don't have the true God of the Christians," meaning the Gnostics, Muslims, and so on were atheists. As time passed, the stupidity of the squabbling became obvious and the term came to mean "those people without any god at all."

The word still didn't mean "a person who positively believes there is no god." It continued meaning "a person without gods." The evidence of this is Baron d'Holbach's book "Good Sense" published in 1772. He wrote, "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Baron d'Holbach was not just an ordinary person writing on the subject. He was the first self-avowed atheist. He was a prominent philosopher and his home became a meeting place for philosophers and scientists, such as David Hume and Benjamin Franklin. People called him the "maitre d'hotel of philosophy," which means "owner and host of the townhouse of philosophy." He was an encyclopedist who translated German science works and contributed articles to the French Encyclopédie, which later inspired Encyclopedia Britannica's creation. He knew what he was talking about. It would be difficult to find a more authoritative person on the meaning of atheism.

The meaning of "a person who positively believes there is no god" is recent, unsupported historically and by most of today's dictionaries and encyclopedias. This new idea of atheism is a redefinition. Society redefines words all the time and redefinitions are not necessarily bad but deceit is the motivation for this one. The motivation is not to keep the word inline with what atheists now consider it but the want of shifting the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. How can someone "positively believe there is no god"? To say a god played no role in the cosmos' creation is to say one has a good idea of how the cosmos did come into existence. Most atheists don't pretend to know the origin of the cosmos. Using this mischaracterization of atheism, crackpot theologians shift the burden of proof by saying, "You say there is no god [according to the new definition of atheist] but if that's true then how did the cosmos come to exist?" Atheists never pretended to know that. The theologians' readers and listeners, after seeing atheists unable to answer the question, begin to think atheism is unsupportable and that strengthens their faith in the theologians' positions. People use the redefinition to mischaracterize atheists and to create straw-person arguments.

Atheist means "a person without gods," no more and no less.

 

You got a source for that? Or is that post really all your own work?

 

HHMMM! 


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
That's my own work. I

That's my own work. I copied it directly from my blog and added in a remark about "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" and corrected a typo.

Are you done making baseless accusations in the form of implications? HHMMM!

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Old Master

Old Master wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:

Quote:
I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith.

A lack of faith does not = faith. This shouldn't have to be explained.

Quote:
however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.

Just for the sake of brevity, I'll overlook the bigotry of your moronic suggestion that an atheist has faith in nothing. I have faith in many things: Friendship, Love, the power of reason to overcome hate, etc.

Only those who have faith in man made fairy tales hold a faith in nothing.

Quote:
I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate

I've listened to dozens of Sapient debates. If he shouted repeatedly at you, the odds of you being rational, reasonable instead of dogmatic/irrational during this debate, I'd put at several thousand to one. But say for the sake of argument say he was unfair to you....if he didn't threaten to harm you, torture you, damn you, kill you or send you to eternal torment I'd say he's STILL infinitely kinder than the irrationality that he (& most here) oppose.

 

 

No, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I don't know what kind of relegios nuts you have had to put up with and I'm sorry you had to take abuse from any. But the guy was totaly unreasonable and didn't want to hear anything I had to say. Accusing me of being a theist or agnostic only served to quite any rational responses I had.  

 

by the way, I totaly agree about a total faith in nothing. Anyone who beleives there is no deity is as dumb as anyone that beleives in one. After all, wouldn't proof of a gods existance destroy all chance of what we call faith? Just like proof or there being no god equaly be the end of atheists faith that there is no god?

It's starting to become apparent why you got such a poor response from Brian.

Quote:
Anyone who beleives there is no deity is as dumb as anyone that beleives in one.

Uhh-huh !!  Now apply this "logic" to Alien spirits who live in volcanoes and were dumped there by the warlord Xenu.  Don't buy it ? Why then you're just as dumb as those who do !

Your arguments could use some work ! 

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox

Visual_Paradox wrote:

That's my own work. I copied it directly from my blog and added in a remark about "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" and corrected a typo.

Are you done making baseless accusations in the form of implications? HHMMM!

 

Are you done making baseless accusations about a simple question being an implication?

 

Good work there. No really, very concise. Congratulations. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Is rational

Quote:
Is rational responders just a vehicle for a new religion style doctorine?

No.  But people who believe it is... deserve a religion. 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
That's a shame really. I

That's a shame really. I don't beleive in any god. I never have and never will. Moving this thread only proves what i thought in the first place-This is all about being part of something bigger than yourselves. The move from relegion to atheism left you with a big gap in your lives, this organisation filled it. Congratulations on being so obvios with your lack of faith in yourselfs as individuals.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
So did you come here

So did you come here looking for answers and discussion or are you just here to troll? If a person grows up their whole life without ever hearing about the concept of god, are you suggesting they are not an atheist?

I gave you a pretty fucking honest reply in my first post, and then linked you some information about common misconceptions about agnosticism and atheism and you come back with a non-sensicle bitch?

At this point I'm going to label you a 'likely just a fucking troll' since you're clearly acting that way.  If you want a discussion, have a discussion.  These are accepted terms and meanings and if you don't accept them, accept that they are what they are being used for by the people using them.

You have a problem with Sapent? Who cares.  I don't know Sapient.  I've never met the guy, talked with the guy, or really read all that much of his shit even.  I don't know why you'd take issue with him by coming on a public forum he associates himself with and act like a dick to other people just to get your jollies out.  You have a problem with someone, take it up with them instead of making yourself look like a complete tool. 


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Quote: Is

Sapient wrote:

Quote:
Is rational responders just a vehicle for a new religion style doctorine?

No. But people who believe it is... deserve a religion.

 

Hahahaha

That's a pretty good response. I don't have much to come back with from that man lol 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Old Master wrote: That's a

Old Master wrote:
That's a shame really. I don't beleive in any god. I never have and never will. Moving this thread only proves what i thought in the first place-This is all about being part of something bigger than yourselves. The move from relegion to atheism left you with a big gap in your lives, this organisation filled it. Congratulations on being so obvios with your lack of faith in yourselfs as individuals.

Because it got moved to 'general discussion'?

What a fucking disgrace! My topic is only 'general discussion' that's as good as it being deleted!

Lack of faith in ourselves as individuals? I can't believe I wasted text on you. I don't have faith in myself, I have confidence and knowledge.  I don't need faith.

 


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote: Old

AmericanIdle wrote:
Old Master wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:

Quote:
I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith.

A lack of faith does not = faith. This shouldn't have to be explained.

Quote:
however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.

Just for the sake of brevity, I'll overlook the bigotry of your moronic suggestion that an atheist has faith in nothing. I have faith in many things: Friendship, Love, the power of reason to overcome hate, etc.

Only those who have faith in man made fairy tales hold a faith in nothing.

Quote:
I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate

I've listened to dozens of Sapient debates. If he shouted repeatedly at you, the odds of you being rational, reasonable instead of dogmatic/irrational during this debate, I'd put at several thousand to one. But say for the sake of argument say he was unfair to you....if he didn't threaten to harm you, torture you, damn you, kill you or send you to eternal torment I'd say he's STILL infinitely kinder than the irrationality that he (& most here) oppose.

 

 

No, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I don't know what kind of relegios nuts you have had to put up with and I'm sorry you had to take abuse from any. But the guy was totaly unreasonable and didn't want to hear anything I had to say. Accusing me of being a theist or agnostic only served to quite any rational responses I had.

 

by the way, I totaly agree about a total faith in nothing. Anyone who beleives there is no deity is as dumb as anyone that beleives in one. After all, wouldn't proof of a gods existance destroy all chance of what we call faith? Just like proof or there being no god equaly be the end of atheists faith that there is no god?

It's starting to become apparent why you got such a poor response from Brian.

Quote:
Anyone who beleives there is no deity is as dumb as anyone that beleives in one.

Uhh-huh !! Now apply this "logic" to Alien spirits who live in volcanoes and were dumped there by the warlord Xenu. Don't buy it ? Why then you're just as dumb as those who do !

Your arguments could use some work !

 

 

Why? Anyone who beleives in alien spirits is equaly dumb. Or am I missing something here? 


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: So did you

Tarpan wrote:

So did you come here looking for answers and discussion or are you just here to troll? If a person grows up their whole life without ever hearing about the concept of god, are you suggesting they are not an atheist?

I gave you a pretty fucking honest reply in my first post, and then linked you some information about common misconceptions about agnosticism and atheism and you come back with a non-sensicle bitch?

At this point I'm going to label you a 'likely just a fucking troll' since you're clearly acting that way. If you want a discussion, have a discussion. These are accepted terms and meanings and if you don't accept them, accept that they are what they are being used for by the people using them.

You have a problem with Sapent? Who cares. I don't know Sapient. I've never met the guy, talked with the guy, or really read all that much of his shit even. I don't know why you'd take issue with him by coming on a public forum he associates himself with and act like a dick to other people just to get your jollies out. You have a problem with someone, take it up with them instead of making yourself look like a complete tool.

 

No I am genuiny here for disscusion. If I was here to troll I would be posting in as many threads a possible. I'm sorry if having a less political/borderline militant view is offensive to people here.

 

Hell, I'm even more sorry this thread was moved from the supposed "free speach" forum. I thought this would be a good place to disscuss what atheism is all about with like minded people. Instead I get doctorine and beleif rammed down my throat. I may as well be in church lol 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Master

Old Master wrote:

Visual_Paradox wrote:
The word atheist stems from a combination of the prefix a-, the word -theos-, and the suffix -ismos. The Greeks didn't use the suffix, using atheos as meaning "ungodly." It was a moral condemnation. The Romans were the first to add the suffix and use the term as "godless," though they meant it as "those people who don't have the true gods of the Romans." Ironically, Christians were perhaps the first atheists [see "The Martyrdom of Polycarp"]. After Christianity gained influence, Christians began using it as "those people who don't have the true God of the Christians," meaning the Gnostics, Muslims, and so on were atheists. As time passed, the stupidity of the squabbling became obvious and the term came to mean "those people without any god at all."

The word still didn't mean "a person who positively believes there is no god." It continued meaning "a person without gods." The evidence of this is Baron d'Holbach's book "Good Sense" published in 1772. He wrote, "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Baron d'Holbach was not just an ordinary person writing on the subject. He was the first self-avowed atheist. He was a prominent philosopher and his home became a meeting place for philosophers and scientists, such as David Hume and Benjamin Franklin. People called him the "maitre d'hotel of philosophy," which means "owner and host of the townhouse of philosophy." He was an encyclopedist who translated German science works and contributed articles to the French Encyclopédie, which later inspired Encyclopedia Britannica's creation. He knew what he was talking about. It would be difficult to find a more authoritative person on the meaning of atheism.

The meaning of "a person who positively believes there is no god" is recent, unsupported historically and by most of today's dictionaries and encyclopedias. This new idea of atheism is a redefinition. Society redefines words all the time and redefinitions are not necessarily bad but deceit is the motivation for this one. The motivation is not to keep the word inline with what atheists now consider it but the want of shifting the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. How can someone "positively believe there is no god"? To say a god played no role in the cosmos' creation is to say one has a good idea of how the cosmos did come into existence. Most atheists don't pretend to know the origin of the cosmos. Using this mischaracterization of atheism, crackpot theologians shift the burden of proof by saying, "You say there is no god [according to the new definition of atheist] but if that's true then how did the cosmos come to exist?" Atheists never pretended to know that. The theologians' readers and listeners, after seeing atheists unable to answer the question, begin to think atheism is unsupportable and that strengthens their faith in the theologians' positions. People use the redefinition to mischaracterize atheists and to create straw-person arguments.

Atheist means "a person without gods," no more and no less.

 

You got a source for that? Or is that post really all your own work?

 

HHMMM! 

 

Aren't you from the UK?  Have you by chance ever heard of the Oxford English Dictionary?  It's the most respected dictionary in the world for the English language.  I believe you referred to the page in which we have reference to it on the site as retarded.  Visual Paradox was nice enough to post another explantion for you since you can't seem to grasp the dictionary definition he was kind enough to spell it out for you.  Fuck the source... get back to dogmatically adhering to the position you came here with.  Oh wait... you already are doing that.

As you dogmatically adhere to that which the OED can disprove you accuse us of being religious.  Project much?

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
All I saw was you bitch

All I saw was you bitch about Sapient, accuse someone of plagerism, not accept commonly used definitions of words and fail to accept the simple and honest attempts at answers given to you.

That has nothing to do if you are militant or not, you are just coming accross is a total tool.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Master wrote:   That

Old Master wrote:
 

That is a complete retardation of the meaning of atheist. The original meaning was not only an insult and something one would never call oneself. But it was also a word directly associated with Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.

Obviously, being the opposite of theism, it would be associated with god belief in so far as it's the exact antithesis. I'm assuming by your calling it a "retardation of the meaning of atheist" that you presume yourself to have superior knowledge of the english language than the compilers and editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines it as a "lack of belief in god/gods" OR "belief that there are no gods".

 

Quote:
Where do you guys stand on Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc? Are they included in this new atheism? Let's face it, Some of those have many deities while others have none.

Yeah, ok, there's no moe evidence for Krishna, Brahmin, Shiva, Ra, Ameterasu, or Odin than there is for Yahweh. All would classify as irrational beliefs. Buddhism, being largely atheistic, is only problematic in that it presupposes a single path by which all people can attain "enlightenment", whatever that is.

Quote:
I think the political agenda far outstrips the original meaning in this case.

Well, that would be an opinion, correct?

Quote:
I'm sorry if my impression of this organization has been clouded, but if that is the case, Sapient should not be an ambassador for this cause. You must realize the guy speaks as though he is speaking for all of RRS. Maybe he is, I dunno. That's what I'm trying to find out I suppose.

Sapient is the founder of this group, along with Rook, and has not declared himself the ambassador of anything. As far as speaking for the RRS, some of our members may disagree with us on certain points, but ultimately, we have defined the official stance for the group that we run. It seems completely logical to me. We may have differing opinions on occasion within the core members (Brian, Rook, Kelly) but not often. We all approach things differently, and that is why we are a group and not an individual.

Chances are, if Brian yelled at you, it was because your irrationality and attempts to redefine words combined with subtle dishonesty that irritated him and you deserved it. Sorry--around here, we call a spade a spade. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

BTW - try to avoid coming here and telling us what we should do with our organization. It's rude and presumptuous. This is our group, k thx. 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Old Master

Old Master wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:
Old Master wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:

Quote:
I don't mean to get too philosophical on this but isn't the belief in no god, ie atheist, a belief, a faith. Ok so it's a a faith in no faith.

A lack of faith does not = faith. This shouldn't have to be explained.

Quote:
however I can't help but feel such a strong, unshakable faith in nothing is in itself a faith.

Just for the sake of brevity, I'll overlook the bigotry of your moronic suggestion that an atheist has faith in nothing. I have faith in many things: Friendship, Love, the power of reason to overcome hate, etc.

Only those who have faith in man made fairy tales hold a faith in nothing.

Quote:
I only get these ideas about RRS being so unreasonable from Sapient to be honest. The guy shouted me down for over an hour during a chat room debate

I've listened to dozens of Sapient debates. If he shouted repeatedly at you, the odds of you being rational, reasonable instead of dogmatic/irrational during this debate, I'd put at several thousand to one. But say for the sake of argument say he was unfair to you....if he didn't threaten to harm you, torture you, damn you, kill you or send you to eternal torment I'd say he's STILL infinitely kinder than the irrationality that he (& most here) oppose.

 

 

No, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I don't know what kind of relegios nuts you have had to put up with and I'm sorry you had to take abuse from any. But the guy was totaly unreasonable and didn't want to hear anything I had to say. Accusing me of being a theist or agnostic only served to quite any rational responses I had.

 

by the way, I totaly agree about a total faith in nothing. Anyone who beleives there is no deity is as dumb as anyone that beleives in one. After all, wouldn't proof of a gods existance destroy all chance of what we call faith? Just like proof or there being no god equaly be the end of atheists faith that there is no god?

It's starting to become apparent why you got such a poor response from Brian.

Quote:
Anyone who beleives there is no deity is as dumb as anyone that beleives in one.

Uhh-huh !! Now apply this "logic" to Alien spirits who live in volcanoes and were dumped there by the warlord Xenu. Don't buy it ? Why then you're just as dumb as those who do !

Your arguments could use some work !

 

 

Why? Anyone who beleives in alien spirits is equaly dumb. Or am I missing something here? 

What you're missing is a coherent thought or remotely compelling argument.  My only regrets here are that I spent any time responding to you and that the forum doesn't allow me to shout as well.

Happy Trolling !

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Old Master, your post is

Old Master, your post is poorly-worded, vague, and sounds baiting. That's why you're having problems here, not because, you're "less militant," whatever you think that means.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
     I agree Tarpan,

     I seem to agree Tarpan,  but was wondering,

who's definitions ???


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Master wrote: Tarpan

Old Master wrote:
Tarpan wrote:

So did you come here looking for answers and discussion or are you just here to troll? If a person grows up their whole life without ever hearing about the concept of god, are you suggesting they are not an atheist?

I gave you a pretty fucking honest reply in my first post, and then linked you some information about common misconceptions about agnosticism and atheism and you come back with a non-sensicle bitch?

At this point I'm going to label you a 'likely just a fucking troll' since you're clearly acting that way. If you want a discussion, have a discussion. These are accepted terms and meanings and if you don't accept them, accept that they are what they are being used for by the people using them.

You have a problem with Sapent? Who cares. I don't know Sapient. I've never met the guy, talked with the guy, or really read all that much of his shit even. I don't know why you'd take issue with him by coming on a public forum he associates himself with and act like a dick to other people just to get your jollies out. You have a problem with someone, take it up with them instead of making yourself look like a complete tool.

 

No I am genuiny here for disscusion. If I was here to troll I would be posting in as many threads a possible. I'm sorry if having a less political/borderline militant view is offensive to people here.

 

Hell, I'm even more sorry this thread was moved from the supposed "free speach" forum. I thought this would be a good place to disscuss what atheism is all about with like minded people. Instead I get doctorine and beleif rammed down my throat. I may as well be in church lol

 

Doctrine? Where was that? I also didn't see any "ramming" of anything. Perhaps you're a tad too sensitive to be around honest people. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
    Hint: If you don't

 

 

Hint: If you don't want aggression, don't start out aggressivly. 

 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I seem to agree Tarpan, but was wondering,

who's definitions ???

I can't rmember who posted say they were both, and then I posted the link.  So the definition is the ones provided within the link which is also the oxford definition.

The presented definition of the topic to justify why agnostic and atheist don't conflict.  The discussion wasn't around validity of terms, it was presented as a question of not understanding and countered with a disagreement and pre-formed opinon as to what those things 'should mean' which is the ultimate fault.  If he had pre-set defintiions he shouldn't have inquired in the first place as he clearly feels himself superior to the sources provided.

Ultimately whether someone is an agnostic atheist or not, they ultimately are able to define such on their own and to what degree.  My intent was merely to point out that there are misconceptions due to the nature of the words and how people use them as discussed on that page.

Sadly the guy was apparently not seeking information so he just wasted my time.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Master wrote: That's a

Old Master wrote:
That's a shame really. I don't beleive in any god. I never have and never will.

See how your mind works dogmatically?  If I had proof of god, you still wouldn't believe in it, eh?

 

Quote:
Moving this thread only proves what i thought in the first place-This is all about being part of something bigger than yourselves. The move from relegion to atheism left you with a big gap in your lives, this organisation filled it. Congratulations on being so obvios with your lack of faith in yourselfs as individuals.

Funny how this was meant as an insult, yet you think so backwards it's actually a huge compliment.  

That's right I have no faith in myself or anyone, and proudly.  Why use faith, when I can believe in things based on actual... ya know... evidence and facts, and stuff?

 Yes, we filled a gap left by religion, a wise thing to do.  We get all the fringe community benefits of religion and don't have to pretend to believe in bullshit in order to have said community.

 Oh... while you're learning logic, stay away from absolute statements.  They make you look stupider than you looked when you were sticking with the dogma routine.

Quote:
Moving this thread only proves what 

Actually it also proves I can click a 4 button combination to steer a post to the proper forum as well.  Once you're a freethinker, come back and hang out in the freethinker forum.

 

 Oh c'mon... someone tell me I'm being punked.

 If you're really an atheist (which I'd bet $100 against) this blog post was for you:  Atheist Divisiveness and Dogmatism

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    if you want

    if you want attention start a FIGHT

If you want change , start a FIGHT

Bring on the SWORD !


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Old Master

Sapient wrote:
Old Master wrote:

Visual_Paradox wrote:
The word atheist stems from a combination of the prefix a-, the word -theos-, and the suffix -ismos. The Greeks didn't use the suffix, using atheos as meaning "ungodly." It was a moral condemnation. The Romans were the first to add the suffix and use the term as "godless," though they meant it as "those people who don't have the true gods of the Romans." Ironically, Christians were perhaps the first atheists [see "The Martyrdom of Polycarp"]. After Christianity gained influence, Christians began using it as "those people who don't have the true God of the Christians," meaning the Gnostics, Muslims, and so on were atheists. As time passed, the stupidity of the squabbling became obvious and the term came to mean "those people without any god at all."

The word still didn't mean "a person who positively believes there is no god." It continued meaning "a person without gods." The evidence of this is Baron d'Holbach's book "Good Sense" published in 1772. He wrote, "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Baron d'Holbach was not just an ordinary person writing on the subject. He was the first self-avowed atheist. He was a prominent philosopher and his home became a meeting place for philosophers and scientists, such as David Hume and Benjamin Franklin. People called him the "maitre d'hotel of philosophy," which means "owner and host of the townhouse of philosophy." He was an encyclopedist who translated German science works and contributed articles to the French Encyclopédie, which later inspired Encyclopedia Britannica's creation. He knew what he was talking about. It would be difficult to find a more authoritative person on the meaning of atheism.

The meaning of "a person who positively believes there is no god" is recent, unsupported historically and by most of today's dictionaries and encyclopedias. This new idea of atheism is a redefinition. Society redefines words all the time and redefinitions are not necessarily bad but deceit is the motivation for this one. The motivation is not to keep the word inline with what atheists now consider it but the want of shifting the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. How can someone "positively believe there is no god"? To say a god played no role in the cosmos' creation is to say one has a good idea of how the cosmos did come into existence. Most atheists don't pretend to know the origin of the cosmos. Using this mischaracterization of atheism, crackpot theologians shift the burden of proof by saying, "You say there is no god [according to the new definition of atheist] but if that's true then how did the cosmos come to exist?" Atheists never pretended to know that. The theologians' readers and listeners, after seeing atheists unable to answer the question, begin to think atheism is unsupportable and that strengthens their faith in the theologians' positions. People use the redefinition to mischaracterize atheists and to create straw-person arguments.

Atheist means "a person without gods," no more and no less.

 

You got a source for that? Or is that post really all your own work?

 

HHMMM!

 

Aren't you from the UK? Have you by chance ever heard of the Oxford English Dictionary? It's the most respected dictionary in the world for the English language. I believe you referred to the page in which we have reference to it on the site as retarded. Visual Paradox was nice enough to post another explantion for you since you can't seem to grasp the dictionary definition he was kind enough to spell it out for you. Fuck the source... get back to dogmatically adhering to the position you came here with. Oh wait... you already are doing that.

As you dogmatically adhere to that which the OED can disprove you accuse us of being religious. Project much?

 

 

 

I adhere to the position of being a non political, non aggressive atheist. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp? Is it perhaps because you couldn't cope with life outside religion so had to be part of something bigger than yourself? Just the same as you where before you stopped believing in a god?

 

By the way. You are a mod here right? What basis did you use to determine I'm a theist and used that misinformation to move this thread? Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can make assumptions on my stance religiously. Let's face it. Anyone who did believe in god wouldn't claim to be atheist unless they wanted to go to hell or whatever else happens with those guys. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote: "[I

Visual_Paradox wrote:

"[I am] a great believer in free speech ... I wonder how long this thread will take to be deleted."

Someone is trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. You troll the message board implying the Rational Response Squad doesn't support free speech, thus violating rule 2.1 on antagonism by combing trolling with libel, to possibly bring about the deletion of your thread or suspension of your message board account to lend a superficial credence to your argument that they do not support free speech. That's a clever trick.

 Nice "self-fulfilling prophecy."  I just refer to it as reverse psychology.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Master wrote: I'm sorry

Old Master wrote:

I'm sorry if my impression of this organization has been clouded, but if that is the case, Sapient should not be an ambassador for this cause.

What cause?

 

Quote:
You must realize the guy speaks as though he is speaking for all of RRS.

Hello mcfly... I'm kinda the guy who started it.   I speak for myself and myself only.

 

Quote:
Maybe he is, I dunno. That's what I'm trying to find out I suppose. 

You should practice the art of asking questions when you aren't sure of something.  It would have avoided many of the problems you are having.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Old Master

Sapient wrote:

Old Master wrote:
That's a shame really. I don't beleive in any god. I never have and never will.

See how your mind works dogmatically? If I had proof of god, you still wouldn't believe in it, eh?

 

Quote:
Moving this thread only proves what i thought in the first place-This is all about being part of something bigger than yourselves. The move from relegion to atheism left you with a big gap in your lives, this organisation filled it. Congratulations on being so obvios with your lack of faith in yourselfs as individuals.

Funny how this was meant as an insult, yet you think so backwards it's actually a huge compliment.

That's right I have no faith in myself or anyone, and proudly. Why use faith, when I can believe in things based on actual... ya know... evidence and facts, and stuff?

Yes, we filled a gap left by religion, a wise thing to do. We get all the fringe community benefits of religion and don't have to pretend to believe in bullshit in order to have said community.

Oh... while you're learning logic, stay away from absolute statements. They make you look stupider than you looked when you were sticking with the dogma routine.

Quote:
Moving this thread only proves what

Actually it also proves I can click a 4 button combination to steer a post to the proper forum as well. Once you're a freethinker, come back and hang out in the freethinker forum.

 

Oh c'mon... someone tell me I'm being punked.

If you're really an atheist (which I'd bet $100 against) this blog post was for you: Atheist Divisiveness and Dogmatism

 

No really. I don't beleive in any god at all.

 

Do I get the $100 now? lol

 

Really though. Why is it so hard to beleive that I am totlay atheist?  


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: You should

Sapient wrote:

You should practice the art of asking questions when you aren't sure of something. It would have avoided many of the problems you are having.

 

 

If he did that, who would I get to bitch at for being a nob? You'd just end up with more sarcastic half-ass jokes from me if I couldn't waste my time here.  And I know no one wants that. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    Old Master ,

    Old Master , "Really though. Why is it so hard to beleive that I am totaly atheist? " 

 OKAY, you're in , welcome to heaven,

your friend, GOD !

, but I could change my mind ....

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Even though you evaded m

Even though you evaded my questions and asked these without intent to accept reality.... 

Old Master wrote:

I adhere to the position of being a non political, non aggressive atheist. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?

When did I say I couldn't? 

 

Quote:
Is it perhaps because you couldn't cope with life outside religion so had to be part of something bigger than yourself?

No, but do you know what a strawman fallacy is?  

 

Quote:
Just the same as you where before you stopped believing in a god?

A projection in the form of a question... how rare.
 

Quote:

By the way. You are a mod here right?

No, I'm the owner.

 

Quote:
What basis did you use to determine I'm a theist and used that misinformation to move this thread?

Where did I positively assert with certainty that you were a theist?  You know what begging the question is?  How about muddying the waters?  Familiar at all?

 

Quote:
Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can make assumptions on my stance religiously.

As the owner here and the creator of the freethinker anonymous forum I can state with certainty that your closed mind is not what we intended to allow to be posted in that forum. 

Furtermore, I can make assumptions based on whatever I want, however that is not what I did here.  

 

Quote:
Let's face it. Anyone who did believe in god wouldn't claim to be atheist unless they wanted to go to hell or whatever else happens with those guys. 

 Let's face it... you said that while being ignorant of the issue.  We have exposed dozens of theists who have come here and claimed to be atheist.  

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Old Master , "Really though. Why is it so hard to beleive that I am totaly atheist? "

OKAY, you're in , welcome to heaven,

your friend, GOD !

 

 

 

 

Oh come on. Don't tell me that is supposed to be a joke?! Anyone should know if there is the slightest beleif in any god. Denial of it's existance according to the usual rule would exclude me from any celestial beifits as I already admitted being atheist.

 

Just because somebody doesn't agree doesn't make them a big bible basher. I signed up here bacause I like the idea of atheism having a voice. It's looking more and more like that voice is the same over enthusiastic one I heare from religios people all over the world though.

 

I was under the impression fundimentalism would be considered a bad thing here. Doh! 


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
 ld Master, you said, "Are

Old Master, you said, "Are you done making baseless accusations about a simple question being an implication?" I would appreciate it if you'd stop lying. My accusation wasn't baseless—your implication of plagiarism was obvious to everyone. You posed a question with two possible answers. You said, "hhmmm" with an exclamation mark, showing the sarcastic nature of your question, meaning you thought one answer was obvious. If your own actions are used to eliminate one of the answers, only the other answer could be seen as obvious from your perspective. If you thought it were obviously my own work, you wouldn't have posed the question. The act of posing the question eliminates the "it's your own work" answer as being the obvious answer from your perspective. Thus, only plagiarism remains. Was my accusation baseless? No, it was completely justified given the information available. Because it's justified and you know your own intent in posing the question, it can be deduced that you knew my accusation had a solid justification. Thus, it can be deduced that you were lying when you said my accusation was baseless. I would appreciate it if you'd stop lying.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Old Master
Old Master's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Even though

Sapient wrote:

Even though you evaded my questions and asked these without intent to accept reality....

Old Master wrote:

I adhere to the position of being a non political, non aggressive atheist. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?

When did I say I couldn't?

 

Quote:
Is it perhaps because you couldn't cope with life outside religion so had to be part of something bigger than yourself?

No, but do you know what a strawman fallacy is?

 

Quote:
Just the same as you where before you stopped believing in a god?

A projection in the form of a question... how rare.

Quote:

By the way. You are a mod here right?

No, I'm the owner.

 

Quote:
What basis did you use to determine I'm a theist and used that misinformation to move this thread?

Where did I positively assert with certainty that you were a theist? You know what begging the question is? How about muddying the waters? Familiar at all?

 

Quote:
Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can make assumptions on my stance religiously.

As the owner here and the creator of the freethinker anonymous forum I can state with certainty that your closed mind is not what we intended to allow to be posted in that forum.

Furtermore, I can make assumptions based on whatever I want, however that is not what I did here.

 

Quote:
Let's face it. Anyone who did believe in god wouldn't claim to be atheist unless they wanted to go to hell or whatever else happens with those guys.

Let's face it... you said that while being ignorant of the issue. We have exposed dozens of theists who have come here and claimed to be atheist.

 

 

You need to stop making assumtions. I am 100% genuine in all that I have said.

 

It may be more convebiant to make assumtions about my true beliefs etc. But it would be far more realistic to take me at face value. Also your arguments would have a solid footing that way. Think what you will though.

 

Also your "free speach" forum really does need to be renamed. Let's face it, it doesen't really represent what the title implies its intention as.