Atheists Attacked in America

Prince_James said:
Technically, there is nothing either illegal or immoral about these acts:

Freedom of speech works both ways. You can treat anyone in this country - so long as one is not breaking the law - however you want.

Sucks to be them, though. But truly, what did they expect? The deep South is especially religious.
Click to expand...

Is that to say that if people aren't religious they should an area that is? (Forgive me if I am mistaken and that is not your viewpoint)
If so,that would be analogous to not living in Siberia if one didn't like the cold. or not living in the desert if one doesn't like heat, right?
 
Theists are the worst bunch of hyppocrites on the planet. Peace, love tolerance... guess who practices those the most? Atheists. Simply because we have no idiotic predetermined cult leaders to appease. I still can't believe how arrogant and sanctimonius theists really are.
 
That's a bit of a generalized statement. It's the egocentric ones that are mere gloryhounds that piss me off to no end ... but thankfully they're easy to spot - they're the ones with their mouths constantly open.
 
I am not convinced atheism is part of the human psyche\human condition. In the end the facts bear this out, fundamentalism encapsulates the opposite end of the spectrum...suffice it to say it is a learned condition.

what can i say?
 
Zenbabelfish:

In essence, yes. Avoid areas where religiousity is extreme if one does not want to participate. Similarly, avoid cold areas or hot places if one is not fond of either.
 
I'm shocked at CNN for having such a biased & ignorant panel. I expected Paula Zahn to wipe the floor at least the two women.

Sam Harris would have been an excellent panel member.

(Since when has the US become a "Christian country"?)
 
You have the freedom to believe in unicorns of any color you wish as well. You also have the freedom to not believe in unicorns at all.
 
spidergoat said:
The difference is that with atheists it's only an intellectual challenge. Theists tend towards groupthink and defending their culture through intimidation.
Click to expand...
You say it's a intellectual challange, to simply not believe? If so, I'm more sad for you than the rest of the atheists.

Why don't you relax and take a look at what you have!
 
Mythbuster said:
You have the freedom to believe in unicorns of any color you wish as well. You also have the freedom to not believe in unicorns at all.
Click to expand...
But you do have imagination? Why not use it? Are you afraid that you would start believing in something that is not real? I can use it and find that it is a nice imagination, but it doesn't really exist. But with God it is otherwise. God is an original concept, just like any color you wish.
 
Cyperium said:
You say it's a intellectual challange, to simply not believe? If so, I'm more sad for you than the rest of the atheists.

Why don't you relax and take a look at what you have!
Click to expand...

Argument/debate is an intellectual challenge. Also, you shouldn't feel sorry for atheists, we're the scum of the earth.:) I'm not sure what the last part of your post is talking about though.
 
Oniw17 said:
Argument/debate is an intellectual challenge. Also, you shouldn't feel sorry for atheists, we're the scum of the earth.:) I'm not sure what the last part of your post is talking about though.
Click to expand...
Well it depends on the argument I suppose, but from what he said I understood that it was a intellectual challange to go from theist to atheist, which is also what I think he meant. If it is a intellectual challange to believe in nothing, then he must have ideas that takes intelligence to get rid of, and if he has so much inside him that it takes a intellectual challange to get rid of, why not take a look at what he has in order to honestly see if it could be real or not? My supposition has allways been to defend what you have, instead of having nothing. But if what I have cannot hold reality then it must be accepted that it is not real, like with unicorns (which there really are no reason to believe in, why I think that is a bad argument).
 
Cyperium said:
But if what I have cannot hold reality then it must be accepted that it is not real, like with unicorns (which there really are no reason to believe in, why I think that is a bad argument).
Click to expand...

I know you don't understand this, but you sound like such a hippocrate. I can prove that the Easter Bunny exists to the same exten that you can prove that god exists. Anyway...
 
But if what I have cannot hold reality then it must be accepted that it is not real, like with unicorns (which there really are no reason to believe in, why I think that is a bad argument).
Click to expand...

I can prove santa clause exist.

Statement 1: All gifts have to come from someone. In other words, all gifts must have a cause.

Statement 2: An infinite regress of gifts doesn't exist because a "person" is not himself a gift.

Statement 3: Since there isn't an infinite regress of gifts, there has to exist a "first gift".

Statement 4: Since according to statement one, all gifts have to come from someone, this "first gift" would also have to come from someone. We call this someone Santa Claus.

Therefore Santa Claus exists.

QED
 
Mythbuster:

The problem is that Santa Clause is not known to be "the first giver". Moreover, there is nothing at all irrational about "the first giver", although I'd attack the notion of an infinite regress being irrational.
 
zenbabelfish said:
I am neither an atheist or a theist or anything else to do with religion or the lack of it.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but you are definable. This means you are either a theist or an atheist, you believe in some supernatural being(s) or you don't believe in any. If you're neither, then you don't exist.

Yorda said:
In my country religious people like Christians and Muslims are the minority so most people seem to hate them.
Click to expand...

That isn't good. :(

By the way, which country do you live in?

zenbabelfish said:
"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess...ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that."

Deuteronomy 12:2

Incitement to violence in the eyes of the law?
I can't believe that this book is given to children...
Click to expand...

Me neither! I think I should make it a mission to find opportunities to read these sorts of passages to children. If people are gonna expose the goody-goody parts of this shit, I'm gonna expose the gut-wrenching parts of this shit.

Enterprise-D said:
I'm shocked at CNN for having such a biased & ignorant panel. I expected Paula Zahn to wipe the floor at least the two women.
Click to expand...

And they say CNN has a liberal bias! :rolleyes:

Enterprise-D said:
(Since when has the US become a "Christian country"?)
Click to expand...

Since the neocons started saying it was.

Mythbuster said:
I can prove santa clause exist.

Statement 1: All gifts have to come from someone. In other words, all gifts must have a cause.

Statement 2: An infinite regress of gifts doesn't exist because a "person" is not himself a gift.

Statement 3: Since there isn't an infinite regress of gifts, there has to exist a "first gift".

Statement 4: Since according to statement one, all gifts have to come from someone, this "first gift" would also have to come from someone. We call this someone Santa Claus.

Therefore Santa Claus exists.

QED
Click to expand...

Nice. :m:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top