A question for athiests

See, they are just personal attacks with no substance, nothing more. You can ignore them.

I can understand and respect that. However, I wasn't responding to the thread. I was responding to someone's comment in the thread... (No different than what many have done here) Who was bashing atheists and doing all the things Ive been accused of so far. Because it's wrong to do that. What is the difference? And you are right, I did not read it all, because I haven't decided if its one I want to participate in yet, and won't until I do read it all.

I don't have a "cause" here, other than not to swallow the BS of hateful religious types. You entitle your thread "a question for atheists" and then ask a question about "science," as though science were a discrete, independently existing entity; an entity which is the territory of atheists, one might reasonably assume.

Let me quote you once again:



Leaving aside the 21% of the U.S. population who claim no religious affiliation according to Pew Research's 2014 survey, there are about 9 and one half million to ten million people in the United States who identify themselves as atheists. How many of those do you know? Or do you just pull out your self-righteous gun and shoot from the hip?

Most people here are very likely christians. It seems to me that they're by and large a decent bunch. I don't include you in that group.

I choose not to look at it as a personal attack, otherwise it would be easy to become offended and frustrated, which is no help at all. Instead I will call it for what it is... A lame attempt to derail the thread because they don't like the topic or something... I guess it's a good thing I'm not here looking for approval or acceptance! Lol

You have still not explained why one would assume that atheists would be obliged to explain what positions science allegedly takes. Are you one of those holy rollers who equates science with evil atheism?

How have I been hateful Setanta? I brought up science because that was all that particular group I was talking to could throw at me... Insults and science. That is actually what sparked the question in me and caused me to want to learn more... To see if there even is an answer to that question. So, based on your answers thus far I am going to assume you are one of the been here for years people who are tired of it all. OK. I respect that. Then just ignore this post and skip about your merry way. It is obvious you have no intentions on attempting an answer, and regardless of why... It's OK. I just want to talk to someone who would like to talk about this.

Setanta has called you "hateful", "disgusting", a "holy roller" and "a religious hater". I haven't seen any reason for him to attack you this way, other than the fact you expressed an opinion he doesn't like.

How are these not personal attacks? Let's call it what it is, he is trying to shut down your opinion by name-calling.

He doesn't want a discussion with you, and he isn't content to just move on to something that interests him more. Instead he feels the need to try to prevent you from expressing your opinion. That is what he, and his little group of friends, are here for.

It is bullying. I don't like it.

Who gives a **** what you like, you phony baloney alleged scientist? You have trashed one thread after another of mine, usually because i have praised women (whom you fear and hate), and you take these opportunities to paint me in the blackest terms possible. You stalk me through the threads. How is that different than what you accuse me of?

Pot/Kettle.

Jesus wept, how many times do i have to quote your remarks about atheists to you? You have never explained what the link between science and atheists is. I don't give a rat's ass about your personal context, especially as it formed no part of the OP.

As for my "merry way," it is a part of my merry way to call out hateful, lying holy rollers like you.

There is a big difference between your posts and my posts, Setanta. Your posts are filled with personal attacks and name calling. I don't attack you personally. I don't believe I have ever called you a name (if you think I have then I challenge you to find an example).

This is a publicly accessible forum where people with diverse points of view can express their opinions. Criticizing someone's opinions is part of a civil discussion, as is disagreeing with the content of their posts.

I have criticized your posts (this is a good example of that), but my criticisms are valid and I back them up with what you actually said. And if I disagree with a position you have taken I express my opinion and I defend it.

Anybody can see the difference between my posts and your personal attacks which are designed not to disagree with opinions or posts... but are designed to shut down discussion.

Once you start calling someone a "sack of ****", you cross a line. You are clearly not trying to express your opinion or even to respond to mine. You are lashing out in anger in way that is inappropriate for a civil discussion.

The personal attacks never stop....

(Following my own advice, and ignoring the disruption).

Onevoice,

My answer to your question is that we can use the a term that stemmed from a religious belief even though we no longer hold that religious believe ourselves. The word "creation" implies a "creator", but I use even though I don't believe in a creator in the metaphorical sense in the same way that I ask what Santa brought you without believing in Santa.

Is this a sufficient answer? Or, is there more to discuss here? The discussion of how religion has impacted the English language (and other languages) might be interesting.

(I would sure appreciate a red ribbon... Ribbons make a troll happy!)

Whatever. I'm not here to argue. I am here to find out if there is an answer to my question or not. I am attempting to gather information to do so. I'm sorry you don't like to way I worded things, or whatever the case may be, but let me remind you again... I'm not here to prove or disprove anything to anyone but myself. If you would like to actually participate in that... Great. If not buh bye.

Onevoice,
I think it's an interesting question. I happen to believe in God so I won't speak for atheists. Don't let anyone discourage your seeking to interact with and exchange ideas with people here. There are some really smart people here and some really spiritual and kind people here. Don't leave before you meet them.

By the way, The individual that is trying so hard to poison your thread is someone I've found is a very disturbed individual. I think he has a really twisted, pathological need to be raining hateful crap on someone - and then accuse them of doing worse, so he operates in confusion and negativity. I've found he will never take accountability for all the harm he tries to do, so don't waste any time trying to find middle ground with him. Be careful because he has a few people that will rubber stamp agreement to whatever wretched bile he spreads - and they will gang up on you. Just my opinion, but probably your best bet with this person, once you're on his radar of people he decides to stomp on, is to put him on and leave him on ignore.

And if you haven't been here long, welcome to A2K.

I'm sorry.
I just can't imagine anyone on this forum would be such a troll.

I'm going to perform my ablutions now. . .
See ya.

Or that there is nothing there.

"Unknown" is a description of a state of knowledge. It does not carry an implication of a state of being.

The only thing that I can posit of what science calls the universe is- Theory. As in scientists can at least acknowledge that they don't really know how the universe came into being, hence they don't make definitive claims until they have empirical and experimentive evidence to support their claims. Theologians on the other hand seem to just know that the universe was created through account of scripture. Truth is no one really knows how the universe came to be. Not you, not me, not anyone on this forum, not the priest who lives down the street, not the athiests, not anyone who lived 6,000 years ago. Scientists can admit that, theologians cannot.

Really?
I am a card carrying Bible thumping believer and I would not begin to speculate on how the universe came to be, what order, how long ago, etc. None of that information is revealed in any scripture I know of, nor is it relevant to the human condition. The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise. It was written to explain why we have war and crime and sickness and death. It explains God's purpose in a way understandable for the least sophisticated of us and contains a reassuring promise of the future.

Instead of perusing what the 'experts' say about the bible, you might do well to carefully consider it on your own.

Did you just skip over the first pages of the Bible Neo?

This part no doubt covers a kazillion or so years before the first creative day: And, of course, you realize that the Hebrew word for day yom does not necessarily mean 24 hours. The time allotted for each day is not specified.