Atheists... Your life is pointless

I think you belong in the "agnostic" thread, although I doubt there is one. Atheists, like I am, feel there is no possibility of a god.

That's a bit confusing fresco and philosophically incoherent.

Are you saying that in the USA religiosity is directly correlated with intelligence as I strongly suspect after reading posts by atheists for years?

I suppose you are defining intelligence as a capacity to declare oneself to be intelligent rather than playing golf on the moon, having the highest standard of living ever known on earth, having, as a few witnesses to Chilcot have said in evidence, a seemingly unlimited military capacity, having foisted a load of dodgy paper onto our banks, having an unquestioned AAA credit rating, having bankruped communism which was so intelligent it thought it could keep up, and having a president whose every word is listened to with care in all governments of the world.

I cannot imagine that the spectacularly inefficient atheists over there have made much contribution to all that. There are too few of them even though they are "thinking" Americans. They are probably such great thinkers that they would have felt flattered by your remarks. I shouldn't think many Americans give a shite whether the athesists are embarrassed. That ensures the contracts are shared out between less people as is the case with the respectable young ladies.

That is a bare-assed lie as anyone who reads the evolution threads will be able to see. When did Bobby Jindal, whose home team won the Superbowl, display any rude manners? You have called many people names who never displayed any rude manners or boorishness.

What rude manners had that religious congregation displayed that you attempted to disrupt with your shouting and bawling?

You have called the world's most renowned book "bullshit" on more occasions than I care to think about and anybody who sticks up for it a "dipshit" and an "IDiot" and accused them of talking out of their arse or having their head stuck up it. To relieve the monotony you call them "drunk".

You must be off your head to start a post with those words. They are utterly ridiculous with your track record on A2K.

Ahh, you bring back some fond memories of my better interdictions of your blather. Bobby Jindal, by all evidence, an educated man in science would rather follow the easy path of IDjicy than attempt to improve hi own states education system, one that, in the times I lived in New Orleans, ws not too bad an institution. So, to attempt to destroy his own education system is not exactly evidence of an intelligent being. no? I ve never removed myaelf from that position and, I believe, several noted journalists agree with me, while only people like Srah Palin agree with you (great minds and all that eh?)

Its also tru that Ive called you an idiot and a fool, but that was after several tedious months of trying to be accomodating to your rapidly deteriorating logic. When you fisrt appeared on A2K you werent too bad an individual; and infrequently made some sense. As time went on and your illogical contrarian modus expanded and your rude communication was suffered by many , theyd gradually put you on "ignore". As it stands, Im in a minority of thise who still even read your rubbish.

Your representation of my "visit" to an "ANTI_EVOLUTION REVIVAL" at a church is so incorrect as to be slanderous. I was there with several really excellent technical questions which the "speaker" was ill equipped to answer. (HE was playing in my court after all). He couldnt answer simple techniccal follow up questions and so I was asked to leave because I was an atheist "evolutionist".
They were within their rights to expell me, but they merely showed to the less dogmatic in the group that their speaker was not equipped with any revealed truth. He was short on facts and was merely a biblical "shill".
As far as the Bible being Bullshit, I dont disagree that you make a correct representation of its use, I just dont think those are my words, I can be much more descriptive. Bullshit is usually reserved for the person to whom I am speaking, LIKE YOU.
As far as calling you a drunk, I plead guilty many times. This very week you obvioulsy came home from the pub a bit on the wasted
side and you were attempting to put < as Wndel called it, "A coherent thought>" and it didnt come out too well in print. Then the next morning you tried to sediment it over by laying some irrelevancies on us. It was a less than stellar performance on your part , but it was spendi at his post-peened best.

So you don't deny that was a bare-assed lie?

You call my posts "blather"--that's an assertion.

You claim that Mr Jindal would rather follow the easy path of IDjicy than attempt to improve his own states education system. That's an assertion in which you don't say what "improve" means. It is calling Mr Jindal names.

You say that he is attempting to destroy his own education system. That's an assertion. And on the assertion, which the voters of Louisiana don't agree with, you nearly say, by which I mean you give the impression of saying, that he is not an intelligent being. That is also an assertion and patently ridiculous in view of his record as a Rhodes scholar and his winning the govenorship of a state of 4.5 million people. You have offered no evidence that he is attempting to destroy the education system in Lousiana other than that you disagree with him from a position carrying no responsibilty.

Then you say you "believe" that "several noted journalists" agree with you. Which is not an assertion even. How many is several and who are they?

I very much doubt that Sarah Palin agrees with me. All that is is a pathetic and pointless attempt to link me with someone who is the great Satanic Majesty of the liberal fraternity.

You try to maintain that it took several months of my posts before you began calling me names. I challenge your veracity on that too. You say the months were "tedious". That is an assertion. You say that my logic rapidly deteriorated which is also an assertion and belied by it taking several months to do so.



icm is an assertion and that it expanded is also an assertion. I was put on Ignore by people who couldn't stand their long and fondly held position being undermined. And saying my posts are rubbish is also an assertion.

You described your visit to the revival meeting. You went, and accompanied by your wife, and at some trouble to yourself, to disrupt the meeting and they gave you the bum's rush. That your questions were "technically excellent" is an assertion. And it is an assertion that the speaker was ill equipped to answer them. It may be that he thought his audience was ill equipped to receive the answers. And you were in his court. That you were "asked to leave" because you are an atheist evolutionist is no different from me being invited to leave the evolution threads because I'm a defender of Christian ideology, as I have been numerous times, or my being put on Ignore, which amounts to the same thing. It is fair to assume that the speaker was entertaining his audience.

Obviously I was not there but I took your description at the time to be accurate and my remarks are not in the least slanderous.



You have called the Bible **** this very day and many times previously. Your descriptive capacities are of a very low order which is why you constantly employ the language you do. All of them are assertions.

I explained the other day why you use expressions like "Bible ****" and "bullshit".

It is impossible to get drunk on 2 pints of 3.5% beer or even get a bit on the wasted side. And that is my daily ration. At that level I am not even half way to the drink driving limits. And I walk to the pub. Some doctors recommend that level of consmption.

It is no concern of mine what wande thinks is a coherent thought. I imagine he wouldn't know one if it bit him on the arse if it had more than one verb in it.

Your assertions are in roundabout mode. Everything you say about me, Mr Jindal, the DI and the speaker at the gig are obviously true if your categorisation of what is said is true. Which it isn't.

Your post is pure unadultered bullshit.

BillRM, have you read "Godless" by Dan Barker? I have new ways of explaining my positions after reading that book. It is well-written. His voice is not in your face or confrontational...he lacks the angry tone of most current books about atheism and agnosticism. Also (big deal for me,) he is well versed in Logic 101.

Barkers book is ac tually enjoyable for an apologetic (even though he left the ministry).
Everybody was getting "instructions" from a god who even spoke in plumbing fixtures. ourse it was a lot better written than Ann Coulters attempt

Farmerman, an apologetic for what? Not any religion surely, and I'd hardly call it an apologetic for atheism (whatever that would be.) You speak of a god who spoke through the plumbing fixtures as though that were a more questionable reality than a man who walked on water or who was born of a virgin.

Why did you use "anthropogenic" earlier fm? You are well known as A2K's big-worder.

And on the subject of "coherent thought" I can tell you that every post I have made including my first, which was my member profile, and my Trivia contributions, was inspired by one basic thought and the defence of it. It pops out straight occasionally. And it's a scientific one.

Why would you want to read Mr Baker's book? Do you confine your reading to stuff you are already in agreement with. What could you learn from that? Surely you know all the arguments already for getting out from under religion? You're in a box. It implies you are searching for constant reassurance.

As he escaped Evangelical Christianity I recall his associate p[astor had taken guidance from the name on the Plumbing as a sign from heaven.
I thought that one can read things on many levels and dont get too excited about why one accepts or denies anytghing. SOme people respect evidence more than others.

If you recall in Matt, Jesus was to have given Simon his handle of Peter-ie Simon Peter (Pet'-ros)

It had another meaning fm.

It is a mistake to think that the explanation one knows is the only one possible.

There is a danger that the explanation one knows is the one that shows one in a glowing aura of golden light and that it has been chosen for that very reason and latched onto with an obsession similar to a bad tempered and hungry terrier with its nose into a bowl of Pedigree Chum with marrowbone jelly.

Read the "atheists more intelligent" thread which I can't be bothered to link at the moment.

http://able2know.org/topic/95799-1

Found it .

That would be because the scientific commisariat uses employment and educational discrimination against religious people. It is engaged at the moment, with help from its media lickspittles and lackeys who have a vested interest of a fiduciary nature, in making the discrimination total at which point life will become one giant pisser.

I refer you to my previous post fresco.

Thats why there is A Vatican Observatory

I actually think a lot of atheists, such as myself, would disagree with this statement. Atheism is a lack of belief, not an assumption. All of my ontological commitments are based on empirical evidence, and there is no way empirical evidence can ever prove there is no possibility of something. It's not agnosticism because agnosticism is saying you don't know. I'm not agnostic about big foot, but I'll admit that there is an off chance that he could turn out to be real. But I certainly won't believe in him until I see the evidence. Same with God. I'll assert there is a very good chance there is no God, and if there is a God, he has provided us with no evidence of his existence. But I won't jump to a positive belief in no God.

Frankly you can not state anything is completely impossible however I place the likelihood of the small and limits god of the bible being the behind the scene creator of this wonderful universe in the same class as there being a tooth fairy.

For any practice purpose it is zero.

You are splitting hairs. I and others can empirically show that fundamental beliefs in, say, Christianity are contradicted by evidence. To this extent, I can prove a negative.

That's not really of any imporance Bill. What is imporant is the consequencies of a belief or a non-belief. It's the knowledge v action problem.

The atheist gets a free ride on the religous belief. He does not have to consider a society entirely atheist. That is what he is duty bound to make a case for. Saying that the concept of God is in the same class as the concept of the tooth fairy takes us nowhere on its own. The statement must be intended to persuade others to make the same comparison and to get them to see how foolish belief in God is.

And what if they are all persuaded as the preaching atheist must intend. You can get no other outcome than 301 million atheist Americans being controlled entirely by laws made by whoever is temporarily in power. Not bothering to consider how that would work out is a cop out.

It is the preaching of atheism with its derogatory remarks about the believer that is the problem. Not atheism per se.

The preaching is essentially revolutionary. I would say subversive. As such it is an expression of dissatisfaction or possibly simply opportunism.

Hence Christian values are associated with conservatism. We can act "as if" there is a Christian God without us necessarily having the knowledge that there is such a God. Just as we act "as if" a lady is pretty when dressed up despite our knowledge that she is underneath just as Schopenhauer, and some other cynics, have portrayed her. And just "as if" she is being wined and dined in a posh restaurant rather that that she is stuffing her face with the various temptations of the chef. We can even act "as if" we are interested in the conversation she is making rather than in the event coming afterwards which our expenditure is hopefully rewarded with.

It doesn't do to be too clean with words. The stark truth is rarely acceptable in polite company.