Atheists... Your life is pointless

OK, then answer them now for me, For I wasn't here...

If you do...I will say thanks...If you don't or can't we know your full of bullshit!

Your basic principles are your basic principles, and not everybody's basic principles.. They're not the same that other people have thought were the basic principles over the years.

No. Go read the several thousand pages of the evolution thread for yourself.

Read above, I updated it...then it is bullshit to think you want people to accept an atheist society, like Spendi said...Nor do I "believe" it was ever answered like Spendi said....

And if your not willing to do that for me, than you care about yourself, not at all about others nor what is good for society....Surly this would be important indeed for someone to learn, and read, do you not agree?

i just want people to accept a society, period

i could give a flying **** how it comes about

one thing i tend to like about my politicians (and if you don't know, i'd have all politicians executed upon election if i could) here in Canada, is for the most part they don't advertise their religion, the Conservatives for the last few decades have moved towards a more american style of conservatism, but they still keep the religion side of the party under control, the planet is here for everyone, no matter what they believe, in the end we're all human beings, for better or worse

I have to look thru several thousands of pages, or you could just post your position from your perspective??

Geez, yeah, you care about people accepting an atheist society!! And what is good for "progressing humanity"

Your "evidence" destroys itself on this one! you took the bait, after the trap was laid!!

it has to do with spendius, not with atheism.

Actually, Spendius, I claim that some atheists are believers. Some atheists believe (which is to say, guess) that there are no gods. Some actually use the word "believe" when describing their atheism...they say, "I believe there are no gods."

Setanta is correct, however, that atheists who do not identify themselves as "believers" that there are no gods...actually are not believers. They are guessers.

They were not. Nothing close. I learned plenty from the answers.

And the teaching evolution thread has been stuck on 13030 posts for two or three weeks in which time the views increased by over 500.

You're blurting Jack. And nonsense too. You're scared of selling the atheist agenda. You're too hung-up for it.

Your semantics are of no interest Frank. To declare there is or there is not God/s is a belief because no one can know.

re spendius:
I didn't make clear what my post referred to. I was talking about the evolution threads, where you make exactly the same claim, that no one has answered your points. They were answered long ago. You did in fact learn nothing from them. And there is no such thing as AN atheist agenda. There are probably as many "agendas" as there are atheists, just as "religious" agendas seem to basically boil down to support for advancing whatever it is the person believes anyway apart from religion. Religion has supported some of the greatest atrocities humanity has committed, as well as some of the best. Atheism certainly can do no worse, and by all evidence has a greater regard for the evidence (and that is not a circular statement; different levels of analysis).
.

Your lack of interest IS interesting, Spendius. The observation I made (and which Setanta made earlier) is more than just semantics. There is an important item at stake here.





Actually, to declare there is or there is not a GOD or gods, is a guess or an assertion. It is a "belief" only when the individual terms it a "belief."

That also is more than semantics...and is the "significant item."

Calling a guess "a guess" is simply acknowledging you are making a guess; making a guess and calling it a belief is an attempt to disguise the fact that it is a guess. It can be argued that it is deception.

I'm afraid there is a particular type of atheist agenda that is pursued by people like Richard Dawkins who are every bit as evangelical as the most fervent Christian. I'm not saying all atheists are like that, but there is a particularly vocal part that are.

The British Secular Society has had to distance itself from the Dawkins mob, stating that secularism is the equal treatment of people of all faiths and none, not the aggressive atheism that Dawkins espouses.

Frank, I do have to disagree with you about "guess". In common usage, that means something like closing your eyes and pointing a finger at a list at random, or having no clue to the answer on an SAT question, and choosing 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 at by going eeny, meeny, miny, mo. I'd say most atheists, particularly in a society where we are surrounded and immersed in the pool of god-believers, make more of a reasoned choice than just a guess.

Yea, we expect common sense and some form of evidence. We don't base our trust and life on one book that has so many errors, omissions, and contradictions. That would be silly in any other issue of life.

When you have a serious illness, do you just rely on one doctor, or do you get a second opinion? When I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, I got the recommendations of three doctors before I made up my own mind on how to proceed.

None of which, of course, addressed the substance of my post. Theism is a belief system with a large and detailed dogma. Atheism is the rejection of the belief. There is nothing to "update" in the rejection of the belief.

No, they aren't "guessers," either. That is just a pejorative swipe at those who don't accept your dogmatic (and selective) agnosticism. I don't guess about whether or not there is a god. To every claim about a god which anyone has ever offered me, i just say "i don't believe that." That is not only not making a guess, that is refusing to make a guess.

Come up with a plausible definition for a god, and i might discuss that with you. Good luck.

I agree about Dawkins and his ilk. But to attempt to suggest that there is an atheist agenda based on someone such as Dawkins is akin to to ascribing to all white Englishmen an agenda based on the rantings of a handful of BNP fanatics. That there are people who vote BNP is not evidence that BNP speaks for all Englishmen, or even for a significant fraction of Englishman. That there are militant atheists like Dawkins is not evidence that they speak for all atheists, or even a significant fraction of atheists.

I've been down the road of the definition of guess with Frank. It's part of his dogma, he's not going to abandon it.

There is a benefit to believing, or not believing, and in a specific modality, in my opinion. I mean having a bumper sticker that alludes to the Rapture maintains one's neck of the woods with people that one can identify, even if they do not practice the same brand of religion. We see this self-segregation in the U.S. and even in the cities and towns of Israel (between secular and ultra-Orthodox Israelis).

It is a peaceful way, I believe, to maintain one's turf. The actual believing, for this purpose mentioned, is just academic, and is trumped, I believe, by the real world effect of having a place to live where one's neighbors are of a similar background, and one doesn't mind if one's teenage children dates the neighbor's teenage children. In effect, religion might be under the main heading of the old maxim, "There's more than one way to skin a cat."

I understand this thread is about belief in a god; however, if god is the entree, few eat a meal without the rest of the meal (aka, religion).