There were no intended tactics in my post. I am not trying to be against you, simmer down, geez.
I was hoping that you would explain why it's important.
It is time for us athiests to stand up for ourselves.
- Thread starter fellowtraveler
- Start date
There were no intended tactics in my post. I am not trying to be against you, simmer down, geez.
I was hoping that you would explain why it's important.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
LOL... whats mor "evil" than the God you bow down to who tortures people for eternity.??? ”
Rule # 1 seems to be... not to acknowledge you'r God is a monster... eh
Do babys that dye at birf beleive in God.???
Assumin you dont beleive in "elfs"... do you hate them.???
LOL... whats mor "evil" than the God you bow down to who tortures people for eternity.??? ”
Rule # 1 seems to be... not to acknowledge you'r God is a monster... eh
Do babys that dye at birf beleive in God.???
Assumin you dont beleive in "elfs"... do you hate them.???
Right which is ad-hominem. A debate tactic that people more often use unintentionally than intentionally. Even when there is no actual disagreement present. Not only that, the "why is this particular matter so important" or "you seem to be taking this matter very personally" is a very common ad-hominem tactic.
The fact is that in discussions, we respond to something being said. We make our points. Then people respond making their points. Then we respond back. etc. It's never that a particular matter being discussed is personally important. It's that all matters being discussed require logic, listening, understanding, interpretation, feedback, etc.
If somebody makes a statment that you consider to be invalid. You give the correct explanation and proceed with productive discussion if necessary. It doesn't matter what the subject is. One isn't necessarily more important than the other.
All i can say is... when ND passes thru the universe an sees the glow from Quetzalcoatl... he will then understan the err of his way... to bad it will be to late
A-Man.TTT
Seriously, I really just wanted you to explain to me why that is important.
But you don't seem to want to. It seems that you want to e-fight me. I am in no mood for a e-fight though, so I'm going to leave the thread quietly for now.
Yes please do because this isn't about efighting. You are using ad-hominem even where there is no debate. Even after I've clearly explained the circumstance.
If a matter is about whether or not X is true. Simply state your position, and discuss your points. No need to go into ad hominem and other debate tactics.
Last edited:
That is what I did in like 3 of the posts. And then you started claiming something about efighting.You don't need to explain anything other than what I asked
You explained the subject. You didn't explain why it matters, which is what I asked.
I ask because I have seen this discussion unfold a number of times and I don't understand why people are talking about this.
If you don't want to explain that, it's fine too.
I ask because I have seen this discussion unfold a number of times and I don't understand why people are talking about this.
If you don't want to explain that, it's fine too.
Couldn't agree with you more; Hence my sarcastic Southpark reference which nobody seems to have recognised so far! How disappointing.
What gets me is why the theists care so much to insist atheism is a religion of some kind, it's not as though anyone encounters testing situations and thinks WWAD (What Would Atheists Do?). :shrug:
Atheism is soooo a religion. It's not just some santa or toothfairy. Atheists get pissed off when they see people praying in public. When watching a movie, an actor might make the exclaimation "Jesus!" or "Oh God" or something similar. To normal people, they wouldn't even notice or remember that the actor said it. It would just disappear in the dialogue. An atheist on the otherhand will get all pissy about it, and start claiming that the movie is propagating religion. Atheists also like to blame religions for wars. That's like slicing somebody up, and blaming the knife.
I personally know people who might be obsessed with religion. Who if they weren't, they would be out killing and fucking their lives up. I can't count how many people I know that used to be complete burn outs until they discovered Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Kabbalah, or some other religion.
Atheists on the other hand claim to be fairly apathetic. Yet they sit around all day complaining about how religion is so horrible. And the worst of the worst is when they say - "Oh it's not that I believe there is no God. It's that I just don't believe there is God. Ya that's it.". Now who exactly is living in fantasy psychosis? Atheism isn't a religion? Bollocks!
Philosophically, what is the difference between the question of God and some fairytale like the toothfairy? Why do atheists and non-atheists alike approach this question differently? Because it's a question about reality and existence itself. Whether or not there is a creative intelligence within and without the physical universe. Whether or not the universe was intelligently created.
The topic is about the tendency to refer to people as atheists even though they don't fall under the B position regarding the proposition of the existence of God. This topic is very important. Just like the topic of whether I should eat pizza or tacos for lunch. These are very important matters in life and humanity. The dilemma of this is, of course, is the fact that the term 'atheism' implies Godlessness in the same way that theism implies that there is a God. So to call somebody that is not in the B position atheist is no different from calling somebody that is not in the A position a theist. When you do stuff like that, you open up a plethora of dilemmas in the logical flow of discussion.
I personally know people who might be obsessed with religion. Who if they weren't, they would be out killing and fucking their lives up. I can't count how many people I know that used to be complete burn outs until they discovered Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Kabbalah, or some other religion.
Atheists on the other hand claim to be fairly apathetic. Yet they sit around all day complaining about how religion is so horrible. And the worst of the worst is when they say - "Oh it's not that I believe there is no God. It's that I just don't believe there is God. Ya that's it.". Now who exactly is living in fantasy psychosis? Atheism isn't a religion? Bollocks!
Philosophically, what is the difference between the question of God and some fairytale like the toothfairy? Why do atheists and non-atheists alike approach this question differently? Because it's a question about reality and existence itself. Whether or not there is a creative intelligence within and without the physical universe. Whether or not the universe was intelligently created.
Because the earth, animals, and humankind deserve the truth. Truth is always important.
The topic is about the tendency to refer to people as atheists even though they don't fall under the B position regarding the proposition of the existence of God. This topic is very important. Just like the topic of whether I should eat pizza or tacos for lunch. These are very important matters in life and humanity. The dilemma of this is, of course, is the fact that the term 'atheism' implies Godlessness in the same way that theism implies that there is a God. So to call somebody that is not in the B position atheist is no different from calling somebody that is not in the A position a theist. When you do stuff like that, you open up a plethora of dilemmas in the logical flow of discussion.
Ok, I get it. You are trying to prove that atheism is a religion, and that's why you think it's so important to put people in their right categories.
Oh well, carry on.
I thought the topic was about atheists not hiding their atheismness from people to keep them from being shocked or looking down on us.
But then, there are groups that are sort of considered religious, but have no god, so can't be considered theists, even though they share a lot more of the theist mindset than the atheist.
Maybe we should just call atheists non-religious.
Oh well, carry on.
I thought the topic was about atheists not hiding their atheismness from people to keep them from being shocked or looking down on us.
But then, there are groups that are sort of considered religious, but have no god, so can't be considered theists, even though they share a lot more of the theist mindset than the atheist.
Maybe we should just call atheists non-religious.
I dont have a beleif that thers no God... i also dont have a beleif that ther is a God... so you'r sayin my religon is "atheism".???
Just because atheists have an attitude about theism, that doesn't make it a religion. If I believe that there should be no discrimination against black people, and I get pissed off when people do, does that make it a religion?
So why the following statements?
You're so intent on "proving" your point that you're prepared to invent "facts" and distort (to say the least) actuality.
Evidently the truth is less important to you than being considered right.
It's not about 'proving' atheism is a religion. Technically, it's not. "Atheism is a religion" is more of a figure of speech to exemplify atheist behavior as well as how atheists are apporached when not in the realm of being "politically correct". I'm not going to argue that if you wan't to be 'politically' correct, you don't refer to atheists as self-righteous religious fanatics. But sometimes, there's just no sense of realism in it. That's why I kinda miss samcdkey because she would probably be with me on this.
You're right: it's about you inventing "facts" to support your position.
What's the point discussing anything with you when you'll simply make up your own evidence?
There are no facts or evidence when it comes to ad-hominem/generalizations. It's impossible to measure, provide evidence, or prove with fact how a group of people generally behave. If somebody stereotypes a certain group such as atheists, you can have some form of discussion, but there can be no facts or figures behind it. In the case of my 'position' regarding how atheists generally behave, I never implied or 'invented' any facts or figures.
So if you were to say that I have no proof for the generalizations that I'm making, it wouldn't really make a difference. All I'm doing is providing information about why anybody (such as myself) would treat atheism as if it were a religion. So what evidence and facts exactly am I making up?
So a claim of how "atheists generally behave" is... what?
A supposition? (With no evidence).
A statement of belief? (With no evidence).
You claim that this is how atheists generally behave: when it's simply an invention on your part.
No, you aren't providing information, you're stating supposition as if it were a fact.
Hence the reason the word "fact" was placed in quote marks, because it isn't a one, even though it's stated as such.