Atheism

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

What strange planet in a galaxy far, far away have you been living on for the last few years?

What is your definition of a rebel? I don't count words in mine. I don't even count chaining yourself to the railings in Parliament Square.

All I said is that it is hard to be a rebel. What are you saying to contradict that? The ridiculous assertion that I've been living on another planet is no answer to anything or is an all-purpose answer to everything.

Johnny Rotten sang "I am an anti-Christ". But he wasn't. And isn't. He's a daisy. Advertises butter on TV.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

. I need my right to be an atheist and have equal citizenship.

You have that surely?

"Sure" followed by "I guess" is a bit disingenuous. Consider 300+ million atheists in the US. You might well say "I guess".

There must be many millions in the US who can't afford a computer. Are they your equal. What do you mean by equal citizenship?

If you hadn't the right to be an atheist you wouldn't be allowed to come on here and declare that you are one. Why do you need something you have already?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

That and because he's a misogynistic misanthrope.

That's too easy to blurt. What do you mean? I know you're a misogynist and declaring me to be one helps you to hide it.

I don't see that your finding my posts to have little structure and no connection is proof of anything other than you finding my posts to have little structure and no connection.

This series of overnight posts I'm answering is proof that communication is breaking down. Extrapolating, admittedly from a low base, it suggests that 300+ million atheists would result in a complete breakdown of communication. And with no way back.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

rl--I think Imagine is one God-awful song. Nearly as bad as My Way.

Try Dylan's Ain't Talkin'.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

"Sure" followed by "I guess" is a bit disingenuous. Consider 300+ million atheists in the US. You might well say "I guess".

Well, it was a response to a rather silly question. I don't know what about any number of atheists requires preparation.

spendius wrote:

What do you mean by equal citizenship?

It means not creating a second class of citizen. Why does this require explanation to you?

spendius wrote:

If you hadn't the right to be an atheist you wouldn't be allowed to come on here and declare that you are one. Why do you need something you have already?

It's not only the acquisition of a right, but the defense of it from those who wish to take it away.

Most of the groups that aim to do this like to promote some patriotic notion of the USA and a "christian tradition."

A
R
T

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I could not agree more. And people persist in feeding the trolls--i scroll past post after post by Anus and Spurious, and people keep responding to their drivel.

2 Replies

@failures art,

It was not a silly question fa. Kant his very self laid down the rule that if you preach something you have to be ready for everybody accepting it. You preach atheism. Are you up for 300+ million atheists in the US? It is not a silly question.
I'm up for everybody being voluntary Christians. It's the promotion of something that matters rather than the belief. I have not the slightest objection to anybody being an atheist. How could I have?

I asked you what you meant by equal citizenship. You have not answered the question. It requires an explanation because you used the expression and however nice it sounds it has no meaning without an explanation. I think there are many Americans who are not equal to you except in the crudest sense and that takes us nowhere but into a word game.

I certainly have no wish or right to take away your wish or right to be an atheist. You entered a debate before an audience and I'm in it. We are not stood in a pub arguing about it on our own. Your task on here is to sell atheism to that audience. I could do that far better than you lot are doing. I can sing the Devil's tunes. Goodstyle. None of you have the nerve.

I do not speak on behalf of any of the groups you refer to but I don't think any of them are wanting to remove your wish and right to be an atheist either. It is the promotion of atheism they are objecting to. I can't see how they, or me, have any power to prevent you thinking as you do.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Jeeze. Not again. Setanta is objecting to other atheists now.

What would he do without drivel writing trolls?

He's atacking A2K and debate itself.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It was not a silly question fa. Kant his very self laid down the rule that if you preach something you have to be ready for everybody accepting it.

I said "sure." Sure I'm ready. No preparation is required for any number of atheists. Does Kant outline what self tests a person must exercise to know if they are "ready?"

spendius wrote:

You preach atheism.

I don't preach anything. If I did, it wouldn't be atheism, but skepticism. Atheism is only an outcome.

spendius wrote:

Are you up for 300+ million atheists in the US? It is not a silly question.

It remains a silly question. If the question had any value, we wouldn't have any religions at all. History demonstrates that religions don't just target those that are different, but internally attacks itself and has many schisms.

spendius wrote:

I'm up for everybody being voluntary Christians. It's the promotion of something that matters rather than the belief.

When religious orthodoxy pollutes law, we get involuntary Christians.

spendius wrote:

I have not the slightest objection to anybody being an atheist. How could I have?

It begins with your false notions of atheism. You address it as if it was a religion itself.

spendius wrote:

I asked you what you meant by equal citizenship. You have not answered the question. It requires an explanation because you used the expression and however nice it sounds it has no meaning without an explanation. I think there are many Americans who are not equal to you except in the crudest sense and that takes us nowhere but into a word game.

If your nations laws grant special privilege to a specific group of people based on their religion, then you've created a secondary class. You are playing word games, not I.

spendius wrote:

I certainly have no wish or right to take away your wish or right to be an atheist.

I don't really believe you based on our almost 5 years of discussions here on a2k.

spendius wrote:

You entered a debate before an audience and I'm in it. We are not stood in a pub arguing about it on our own. Your task on here is to sell atheism to that audience.

I don't know where this idea got started that there is this huge silent audience of people just watching and reading A2K. You are our most narcissistic poster, so I'm not that surprised that 4 out of 5 times I hear this line, it's from you.

spendius wrote:

I could do that far better than you lot are doing. I can sing the Devil's tunes. Goodstyle. None of you have the nerve.

The "Devil's tunes?" Atheists don't believe in devils either.

spendius wrote:

I do not speak on behalf of any of the groups you refer to but I don't think any of them are wanting to remove your wish and right to be an atheist either.

They usually settle for social double standards.

spendius wrote:

It is the promotion of atheism they are objecting to.

Why object?

spendius wrote:

I can't see how they, or me, have any power to prevent you thinking as you do.

That is because they have failed to institute the ability to police thought.

A
R
T

1 Reply

Thanks for feeding the worst troll here and hopelessly clogging the thread. No, no, really . . .

2 Replies

@failures art,

Can't you behave yourself fa and follow Setanta's simple strictures. What's your excuse for disobeying him?

Quote:

Does Kant outline what self tests a person must exercise to know if they are "ready?"

Is that not self evident. Analyse, objectively of course, the implications. Sexual behaviour controlled by legislation. Dissolution of the churches. Removal of the bulk of English Literature. Statues put up of the Marquis de Sade as Swinburne predicted would happen. Abolition of private property outside of knives and forks and underpants.

Quote:

I don't preach anything. If I did, it wouldn't be atheism, but skepticism. Atheism is only an outcome.

Being here is preaching. I'm preaching. Mephistopheles is said to be the Patron Saint of skepticism.

Quote:

When religious orthodoxy pollutes law, we get involuntary Christians.

Law is a secular institution determined by votes. Get your people elected. That's the way. Y ou are criticising democracy.

Quote:

It begins with your false notions of atheism. You address it as if it was a religion itself.

It's a belief. It has organised institutions with hierarchy. It unifies its members. It's a religion. End of story. Assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Quote:

If your nations laws grant special privilege to a specific group of people based on their religion, then you've created a secondary class. You are playing word games, not I.

You are playing word games. You know very well that every nation grants privileges to specific groups. I pointed out one group for you. Those that can afford computers. Those that benefit from monogamy.

Quote:

I don't really believe you based on our almost 5 years of discussions here on a2k.

Watch my lips. I have no wish or right to take away your wish or right to be an atheist. Nor any chance of doing so.

Quote:

They usually settle for social double standards.

That's a species of Setanta's pram position. Your opponents in debate are simply accused of using double standards (or trolls) and you are absolved. It isn't an argument. It's a variation on putting out your tongue and going mmmmhrrur!!

Quote:

I don't know where this idea got started that there is this huge silent audience of people just watching and reading A2K.

I said nothing about huge. But there is an audience. If there wasn't I wouldn't give it the time of day. Do you seriously think I would debate with you with no audience. Blimey!!

Quote:

Why object?

Because they see the consequences mentioned above and many more. The idea that Setanta wins the argument is unthinkable. He's completely stupid. And doesn't even know.

Quote:

That is because they have failed to institute the ability to police thought.

The expression "thought police" derives from Orwell's vision of an atheist society in which only power counts and is exercised for its own sake. The "biggie" consequence and nobody is leading us there without me saying something as long as it is legal for me to do so. Christians tolerate atheism. Atheists don't tolerate Christianity. The Soviets, the Chinese, the North Koreans. And the first two have backed off now. Libya is a secular state for the time being.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Analyse, objectively of course, the implications. Sexual behaviour controlled by legislation. Dissolution of the churches. Removal of the bulk of English Literature. Statues put up of the Marquis de Sade as Swinburne predicted would happen. Abolition of private property...

The religious seem far more interested in legislating sexual behavior. You've got that backwards along with the rest of this. English lit? Private property? You're thoroughly hysterical.

Quote:

Law is a secular institution determined by votes. Get your people elected. That's the way. You are criticising democracy

It is no longer a secular institution if those voted in install religious mandates.

Quote:

It's a belief.

It is the lack of a belief. Gods simply aren't amongst the things I believe.

Quote:

It has organised institutions with hierarchy.

This does not make something a religion, if it was then few things in the industrial world aren't religions. More spendi word games.

What's the hierarchy? Whose on top? What is the order of authority? You're making a fool of yourself. I know you don't care, but it deserves repeating.

Quote:

It's a religion. End of story. Assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Rather withstanding.

Quote:

You know very well that every nation grants privileges to specific groups.

We are talking about religion. The laws here in the US are supposed to prevent special privileges for religious groups.

Quote:

Do you seriously think I would debate with you with no audience. Blimey!!

You say far too much about yourself here. You value an audience over intellectual exchange. I'm only surprised that you're admitting your vanity.

Quote:

Christians tolerate atheism. Atheists don't tolerate Christianity.

Atheists have been tolerating them for over 2000 years. Tolerance for the groups prior to the Christians as well. In the future, the atheists will be tolerating whatever religion takes center stage after Christianity is gone. Christianity (and religion at large) envies Atheism's immortality.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

You're thoroughly hysterical.

You're uneducated. First for using such a childish argument as that is and second for seemingly having no clue what I meant which your childish argument is just a strategy to hide under.

Quote:

It is no longer a secular institution if those voted in install religious mandates.

Like I said--you're at odds with democracy.

Quote:

It is the lack of a belief. Gods simply aren't amongst the things I believe.

That's agnosticism. You believe there is no God as I understand it. And you have no proof just as those who believe there is a God have no proof. Both are beliefs. Agnostics have nothing to say either way.

Quote:

This does not make something a religion.

It does if there's an organised society based on a belief and with united followers and a hierarchy.

Quote:

What's the hierarchy? Whose on top? What is the order of authority? You're making a fool of yourself. I know you don't care, but it deserves repeating.

You are. The British Humanist Association. I don't know the structure of the organisation. It won't be a mob. There are others. The US will have a few. The BHA does weddings.

Quote:

The laws here in the US are supposed to prevent special privileges for religious groups.

What is 'supposed to' supposed to mean?

Quote:

You value an audience over intellectual exchange. I'm only surprised that you're admitting your vanity.

Your vanity not being a factor I suppose. You couldn't do intellectual exchange if it was on a dinner plate. A2K daren't do it on this subject. I'm censoring myself. Like the defence did at Dover. It really is an embarrassing subject in a Puritan heritage. Being ignorant of that fact or pretending it's under the carpet gives atheists an unfair advantage and still they can't make much headway.

Quote:

Atheists have been tolerating them for over 2000 years.

That's just a face-saver for not being able to do anything about it. Toleration is the last thing to expect from atheists. It's like saying you tolerate the snow.

Bow to Setanta's and ed's pleadings fa for ****'s sake.

1 Reply

@spendius,

"just a strategy to hide under. "

interesting choice of phrase, Spendi...

"Toleration is the last thing to expect from atheists."

how do you support this?

3 Replies

@Rockhead,

He can't; he's oblivious to how christians are trying to a) convert everybody, b) include creationism in our schools, c) deny women the right to their own body, and d) deny equal rights to gays and lesbians. Yup, they're the christian in the crowd - not atheists.

spendi is blind to reality.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Experience here and where I worked for 30 years. There's nothing to compare with a scientific methodologist for intoleration. I've known dozens. There's none on here though. On here it's a pose. They are all into marital bliss on here.

1 Reply

@spendius,

so, therefore, all atheists must fit that mold...

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

No no Rocky. I didn't say that.

Have you read the evolution threads? It's intolerance city. Did you not see them drive Frank Apisa out of A2K for being agnostic? They think they can do that to me.

I asked you if you are an atheist? No reponse. I must have asked them a thousand questions. Face to the wall. Ask them do they want everybody to be atheists. They won't answer that. They daren't. They are gutless. Get them off their soapbox with their one way megaphone and they put their heads under the sheets. I wouldn't stand in the pub with a single one of them. They are humourless, bigoted, uneducated and impossible. They called me a dipso for drinking two pints a night (many times) and I gave them US alcohol consumption figures. They didn't register. Calling me a dipso is an argument to them you see. I was called "hysterical", "a fool", I'm "denying women rights over their bodies", I'm "blind to reality", I'm "vain", I'm crying for attention", I'm "talking out of my arse", I'm a "troll", I'm a "waste of time", I'm on Ignore, I've "got it ass-backwards", I "don't understand evolution" etc etc etc etfuckingcetera on and on and on. It's there to read.

You socialise with the fuckers. It's no skin off my nose. Do you think any of those things, and thousands of others of the same sort, address an argument?

Well--do you?

Did you ever hear of anybody outside of this crew who promotes a policy for education, or anything else, who refuse to discuss the potential consequences of what they are promoting when education is designed for no other reason than to have politically chosen consequences. Did you ever take part in a discussion for seven years with people who say the same things now as they were doing at the start. They were empty of argument in a week and all they can do is repeat it. wande's quotes from what look superficially to be a range of local newspapers are like putting the same shirt through the wringer n-hundred times.

I address neutrals. Don't think I address these people because I don't. Public debate doesn't work like that. And I'm content to let the neutrals think what they will. If there are any.

I'm saying we need religion. It doesn't matter what I think about religion. Or them. It's a sociological and psychological question. A scientific question. They haven't a shred of science between them. They're just pretending because they think it makes them look superior. They should be on Facebook with their infantile witterings. Not a science thread.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Nobody drove Frank off of a2k; he did that all by his lonesome. There is no possible way to drive anybody off of a2k beyond the rules and regulations that have been established since day 1.

What makes you think we're trying to drive you off of a2k? You are definitely challenged, but drive you off? Thought you had a thicker skin than that!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Read his last post sometime. Admittedly he was a bit sensitive. What about Momma Angel. Fancy driving somebody with a name like that off A2K. Making her cry. I'd want her to think she had a Guardian Angel rather than think herself a meaningless dollop of protoplasm and cellulite fit together by either a complete idiot or a Jokerman prankster. After all, if evolution did the construction complaining about her is like complaining bullrushes are indigestible.

You needn't worry about me getting like Frank did. An ex-Air Force man like yourself. Frank was okay. Sort of bloke I would stand in the pub with every night of the week. He couldn't take you lot. He just didn't understand he had an audience. I do. Carry on as you are doing. If you were on my side I would post you to the rear as being a bigger danger than the enemy.

I know I'm right like you know which foot to put which sock on first or which leg to put in your underkecks last.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know