'Shock' atheists
Options
Comments
-
Hyde Parke wrote: »nice try at the smoke & mirrors act on posting definitions on belief, but failing to explain your own disbelief which is in question. now expound on your statement there^^^ what is the foundation for your rejection of said "unfounded belief"?
Explanation via reason is not the same as belief. Your mistake is conflating these concepts. -
Where did you people get the idea that Atheism has some sort of belief system OR that atheists can be labeled by belief?
All atheism means is "I don't think a deity of any sorts exists". And to further clarify, when I say deity, I mean a "divine" form of life that is in tune/has control over the fundamental forces of the Universe and may have contributed to the conscious creation and shaping of natural/intangible/forces and aspects of said Universe; and thus is both our spiritual and physical creators worthy of worship and praise.
So, If I think Alien Unicorns from a technologically advanced society in a parallel universe accidentally unleashed nanobots that constructed the planets, stars, dark matter, and various objects of this Universe, Id still technically be an Atheist as I wouldn't think that divine beings worthy of worship consciously contributed to creating the Universe.
Just because a good portion of Atheists may subscribe to evolutionary and Big Bang theory as the true origins of the life and the Universe doesn't make these fundamental aspects of atheism. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Explanation via reason is not the same as belief. Your mistake is conflating these concepts.
keep tappin and dancing, lol. i got your type. you know better than to answer because you have no where else to go. explantions, reasons, principles, and just about every other idea floating around thru your head are nothing more than concepts "beliefs" you have about whatever, picked up from wherever, and adopted for whatever "reasons" you have, that are beliefs that you adopt to shape your identity. your mistake is not knowing any better that you are the believers ? . your mistake is in not realizing you wouldnt exist without them. -
Knives Amilli wrote: »"I don't think a deity of any sorts exists"
While I agree with the substance of your post I actually don't think this is the right definition. I think a better definition is to say "I reject belief in a deity" ... subtle difference but a critical one when arguing with theists -
Hyde Parke wrote: »keep tappin and dancing, lol. i got your type. you know better than to answer because you have no where else to go. explantions, reasons, principles, and just about every other idea floating around thru your head are nothing more than concepts "beliefs" you have about whatever, picked up from wherever, and adopted for whatever "reasons" you have, that are beliefs that you adopt to shape your identity. your mistake is not knowing any better that you are the believers ? . your mistake is in not realizing you wouldnt exist without them.
I'm not tapdancing, I just know how to differentiate the concepts. You clearly don't. Explanations, reasons, principles, are all differentiable concepts with different definitions, none of which are the same as "belief" ... subtlety and nuance aren't for everyone though, I know -
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »I'm not tapdancing, I just know how to differentiate the concepts. You clearly don't. Explanations, reasons, principles, are all differentiable concepts with different definitions, none of which are the same as "belief" ... subtlety and nuance aren't for everyone though, I know
its official, your comprehension is off . Being able to identify differences of concepts does not lessen or remove the fact that it is still a concept, "idea" idea-conception, concept, opinion, "opinion"-belief; judgement, view. surely you have a "view" on your "idea" of there being no ? , and surely that understanding was founded on some concept, which you've ducked and dodged out of explaining knowing that if you do, the jig is up, lol its all good, just dont get all worked up when others who see this point it out
Now i dont know if you are really this stupid or just playing the part, either way its not a good look -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Oh and btw:
no, but taking the time to leave the thread, search for gif, then return to the thread, click on my response, pull out the one word that attracts you the most, clearly shows you feel some type of way about it, shrugs im all for self help when done correctly -
Jonas.dini wrote: »It would be a profound waste of my time to respond to all this, so I'll just go with the bolded:
(1) You have a way with semantics, yet don't seem to understand that it does not follow from the existence of linguistic yin and yang that the two are logically equivalent, which in this case they are not.
(2) Yes, a forum for talking about religion, including the many ways in which its adherents reject logic.
(3) Sad and failed attempt at equivalency. The fools c/sing you want to believe this is true so bad... and you can tell the people you roll with whatever you want but you and I know what's goin on.
Far as going back and forth with passages from scripture, that would be, as I noted above, a profound waste of my time. But that should be neither here nor there since the crux of your original statement was to say that theism and religiosity are not one in the same.
1) yin and yang are not equivalent. another thing you choose to comment on that u know nothing of. i study the tao of all things. yin and yang are complementary opposites. besides your disbelief is still a belief in a manner of speaking- because YOU DONT KNOW IF THERE ISN'T A CREATOR. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PERCEIVE OR UNDERSTAND SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST AS AN ABSOLUTE. youre just guessing.
2.) i'm not rejecting logic. you have not produced any sound logic. but i will say that everything in reality is not logical anyway..but thats besides the point. this is your fallacious attempt to shrug away the actual point of paragraph that followed the sentence you chose to bold. oh that was worth a response but the rest was beneath you??? lol...u are extra transparent but unfortunately not at all lucid.
3.) another dodge, eh? well then let me elaborate further. you are stupid because you cannot see that your way of thinking does no more good than religion. prove me wrong.
i like how you ignored the rest of my post and played it off as a "waste of time" to respond when in reality i shattered your little egocentric conception that people of a spiritual nature can be easily bulldozed by your pseudo-intellectual atheist posturing.
you made a claim about scriptures. prove it. you atheists are fond of challenging one to prove existence of a ? because that is an assertion right. you made a few unsubstantiated assertions and i'd like to see if maybe u can surprise me by being intelligent and brave enough to back up your claims or at least admit u dont know what the ? youre talking about. im not into evangelizing so i dont personally care what u "disbelieve". but since we quoting pac---- 'you ain't gotta lie to kick it". u shouldn't have to make up ? about something u dont believe in. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Atheism isn't a belief, it is the rejection of a belief
a rejection of belief that requires rejection of something you cant prove or disprove by empirical means.
atheism=bizarro belief -
I've never understood why it matters what atheism is...
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »False, but nice try...
Rejecting an unfounded belief does not constitute a belief.
noun /biˈlēf/
beliefs, plural
An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exist
- his belief in the value of hard work
- a belief that solitude nourishes creativity
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction
- contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language
- we're prepared to fight for our beliefs
s
A religious conviction
- Christian beliefs
- I'm afraid to say belief has gone
- local beliefs and customs
Trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something
- a belief in democratic politics
- I've still got belief in myself
wow...you would think the reading comprehension of atheist would be better seeing that they dont have that old spooky prayer in school to distract them but.....guess that aint the case.
you don't accept that any kind of deity exists but you ACCEPT THE STATEMENT THAT NO DEITIES EXIST AS TRUE.
this is a FIRMLY HELD OPINION OR CONVICTION. it is not fact because you can't prove it.
yet...you have trust and confidence that your firmly held opinion and conviction is correct...
belief is belief ? -
a rejection of belief that requires rejection of something you cant prove or disprove by empirical means.
atheism=bizarro belief
EDIT: your post doesn't even make sense, of course I reject something for which there is no evidence. Burden of proof is on the believers -
ACCEPT THE STATEMENT THAT NO DEITIES EXIST AS TRUE.
As I explained over and over, atheism means reject belief in deities, not the belief that deities don't exist. I've said that a million times in this thread so seems like you're the one who has trouble with reading comprehension -
1) yin and yang are not equivalent. another thing you choose to comment on that u know nothing of. i study the tao of all things. yin and yang are complementary opposites. besides your disbelief is still a belief in a manner of speaking- because YOU DONT KNOW IF THERE ISN'T A CREATOR. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PERCEIVE OR UNDERSTAND SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST AS AN ABSOLUTE. youre just guessing.
2.) i'm not rejecting logic. you have not produced any sound logic. but i will say that everything in reality is not logical anyway..but thats besides the point. this is your fallacious attempt to shrug away the actual point of paragraph that followed the sentence you chose to bold. oh that was worth a response but the rest was beneath you??? lol...u are extra transparent but unfortunately not at all lucid.
3.) another dodge, eh? well then let me elaborate further. you are stupid because you cannot see that your way of thinking does no more good than religion. prove me wrong.
i like how you ignored the rest of my post and played it off as a "waste of time" to respond when in reality i shattered your little egocentric conception that people of a spiritual nature can be easily bulldozed by your pseudo-intellectual atheist posturing.
you made a claim about scriptures. prove it. you atheists are fond of challenging one to prove existence of a ? because that is an assertion right. you made a few unsubstantiated assertions and i'd like to see if maybe u can surprise me by being intelligent and brave enough to back up your claims or at least admit u dont know what the ? youre talking about. im not into evangelizing so i dont personally care what u "disbelieve". but since we quoting pac---- 'you ain't gotta lie to kick it". u shouldn't have to make up ? about something u dont believe in.
(1) Yin/yang stuff was rhetoric dogg, although it was the appropriate metaphore since you were talking about disbelief and belief being of opposite meanings yet needing one another... but the point that matters is your fallacious equivalency.
Also, as I've noted repeatedly, I never said there isn't a creator, just that I reject belief in one... subtle but important difference. Although certainly there is no reason to believe in a creator.
(2) What does that have to do with my second point about this being a forum to diss... I mean discuss religion?
Also, you're talkin like an empiricist a few lines down... seems like you're all over the place with your conception of logic.
(3) It isn't a dodge, just my noting your false equivalency, again.
And you didn't shatter ? b. Far as going back and forth with scripture, that would as I said before be an enormous waste of time, especially since you and I both know the scriptures are full of passages advocating violence and other ugliness. You want to talk sequencing to try to explain away all the advocacy of ugly ? but that wouldn't do it for me even if I felt like wasting the time finding passages to post (which I don't). Scripture is full of contradiction, superstition and supernatural silliness.
And just for kicks, u believe in the tooth fairy too b? THat would be about as logical by your standards since it can't be proven or disproven empirically -
Jonas.dini wrote: »As I explained over and over, atheism means reject belief in deities, not the belief that deities don't exist. I've said that a million times in this thread so seems like you're the one who has trouble with reading comprehension
since you like definitions:
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no ? .
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »(1) Yin/yang stuff was rhetoric dogg, although it was the appropriate metaphore since you were talking about disbelief and belief being of opposite meanings yet needing one another... but the point that matters is your fallacious equivalency.
Also, as I've noted repeatedly, I never said there isn't a creator, just that I reject belief in one... subtle but important difference. Although certainly there is no reason to believe in a creator.
(2) What does that have to do with my second point about this being a forum to diss... I mean discuss religion?
Also, you're talkin like an empiricist a few lines down... seems like you're all over the place with your conception of logic.
(3) It isn't a dodge, just my noting your false equivalency, again.
Far as going back and forth with scripture, that would as I said before be an enormous waste of time, especially since you and I both know the scriptures are full of passages advocating violence and other ugliness. You want to talk sequencing to try to explain away all the advocacy of ugly ? but that wouldn't do it for me even if I felt like wasting the time finding passages to post (which I don't). Scripture is full of contradiction, superstition and supernatural silliness.
And just for kicks, u believe in the tooth fairy too b? THat would be about as logical by your standards since it can't be proven or disproven empirically
contradiction, superstition, supernatural silliness. unsubstantiated claims.
how can u refute me with rhetoric? YOU CANT. i know what the hell isaid in a right and exact manner. you are ignorant of the concept i mentioned and got caught with ur pants down.
empirical knowledge as well as knowledge that cannot be perceived via the five senses are on the same par with me. i embrace it all. i told u- i study the tao of all things. balance is HOLY. u aint chopping it up with a christian zombie so i suggest u quit engaging me in a battle of wits unarmed. it amuses me when im obviously over someones head and their too stupid and bullheaded to concede.
if u dont have evidence to produce (the phantom scriptures u mentioned) then why mention them and then act like u are above it all when challenged on the notion? because u were bullshitting from the jump. its ok lil' buddy. we understand. go google the atheist site of ur choice and use the same ol' out of context passages you idiots allways do. u know most of ya'll say the same ? . thats why u like to pick on christians because most of them dont study or at least not objectively.
as far as the tooth fairy thing. i think u missed my point on empirical data but i will address your statement. i stayed up ALL night one time when i lost a tooth as a child and nobody came to put ? under my pillow but my mother. so by experiential knowledge i know it does not exist. -
since you like definitions:
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no ? .
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
That first definition was probably put in by some religious person trying to distort atheism for the benefits of theists debaters...
but real talk let me break out of shock atheism mode for one minute to say that I don't care for that definition and never have -
Jonas.dini wrote: »EDIT: your post doesn't even make sense, of course I reject something for which there is no evidence. Burden of proof is on the believers
for what? how arrogant. nobody is trying to convince u. no one but religious zealots would care what u believe or disbelieve if u didnt have to express it by insulting people.
its your life idiot. whatever u choose to think is true or untrue, the burden of proof is ON YOU FOR YOU. if there actually was a physical fiery hell i wouldnt lose a wink of sleep over u roasting for eternity. whnever u see me on here and u choose to quote me or i do the same just know that prosletyzing aint my bag. im not debating wheteher there is a Creator or not. thats stupid. thats too important of a subjest to be debased by mortal polemics. what i am addressing is your false claims and fallacious reasoning u use to describe your position. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »That first definition was probably put in by some religious person trying to distort atheism for the benefits of theists debaters...
but real talk let me break out of shock atheism mode for one minute to say that I don't care for that definition and never have
it is what it is. -
contradiction, superstition, supernatural silliness. unsubstantiated claims.
how can u refute me with rhetoric? YOU CANT. i know what the hell isaid in a right and exact manner. you are ignorant of the concept i mentioned and got caught with ur pants down.
empirical knowledge as well as knowledge that cannot be perceived via the five senses are on the same par with me. i embrace it all. i told u- i study the tao of all things. balance is HOLY. u aint chopping it up with a christian zombie so i suggest u quit engaging me in a battle of wits unarmed. it amuses me when im obviously over someones head and their too stupid and bullheaded to concede.
if u dont have evidence to produce (the phantom scriptures u mentioned) then why mention them and then act like u are above it all when challenged on the notion? because u were bullshitting from the jump. its ok lil' buddy. we understand. go google the atheist site of ur choice and use the same ol' out of context passages you idiots allways do. u know most of ya'll say the same ? . thats why u like to pick on christians because most of them dont study or at least not objectively.
as far as the tooth fairy thing. i think u missed my point on empirical data but i will address your statement. i stayed up ALL night one time when i lost a tooth as a child and nobody came to put ? under my pillow but my mother. so by experiential knowledge i know it does not exist.
First, it is not unsubstantiated to say scriptures are full of supernatural, silliness, and contradiction. The deity itself is supernatural, as are many of the characters across scripture, 'silly' is subjective but I certainly find it to be so.
Second, please, my pants never came down, you're trying to play rhetorical games. And fact is you're trying to distract from the real point about false equivalency, and doing so in a rather weak way if I do say so myself.
I'm not bullshitting, I never really made any claims about scriptures except in response to this by you, which indicates that you do indeed know that there is in fact lots of ugliness in the scripture:you have on one hand nut jobs who claim to be based in the afore-mentioned but cherry-pick scriptures as an excuse to exercise their nuttiness.
They're clearly cherry picking something ugly, no?
And your point about empirical data is so out of place in the wider context of your argument that I would only entertain it in jest. But I will say that most empiricists would reject your qualitative tooth fairy study. -
for what? how arrogant. nobody is trying to convince u. no one but religious zealots would care what u believe or disbelieve if u didnt have to express it by insulting people.
its your life idiot. whatever u choose to think is true or untrue, the burden of proof is ON YOU FOR YOU. if there actually was a physical fiery hell i wouldnt lose a wink of sleep over u roasting for eternity. whnever u see me on here and u choose to quote me or i do the same just know that prosletyzing aint my bag. im not debating wheteher there is a Creator or not. thats stupid. thats too important of a subjest to be debased by mortal polemics. what i am addressing is your false claims and fallacious reasoning u use to describe your position.
The irony of this post, first saying I'm a mean ol atheist for insulting grown men who believe in fantasy and then calling me an idiot and then going so far as to wish me eternity in hell!!! I see you're not one of those benevolent theists
Burden of proof is on he who believes something based on nothing.
And I don't recall accusing you of being the proselytizing type, although based on your headgear I'm assuming you're part of an expansionist religion (If I'm wrong about that my apologies) -
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »The irony of this post, first saying I'm a mean ol atheist for insulting grown men who believe in fantasy and then calling me an idiot and then going so far as to wish me eternity in hell!!! I see you're not one of those benevolent theists
Burden of proof is on he who believes something based on nothing.
And I don't recall accusing you of being the proselytizing type, although based on your headgear I'm assuming you're part of an expansionist religion (If I'm wrong about that my apologies)
u proved the idiot thing. i said IF I HELL EXISTED I WOULDNT GIVE A ? IF U WENT. thats not wishing u there. i dont even believe in it. sheesh.
i have no religion and some ? that u can buy from the korean store for a few bucks is not an indicator of a man's spiritual inclination. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »First, it is not unsubstantiated to say scriptures are full of supernatural, silliness, and contradiction. The deity itself is supernatural, as are many of the characters across scripture, 'silly' is subjective but I certainly find it to be so.
Second, please, my pants never came down, you're trying to play rhetorical games. And fact is you're trying to distract from the real point about false equivalency, and doing so in a rather weak way if I do say so myself.
I'm not bullshitting, I never really made any claims about scriptures except in response to this by you, which indicates that you do indeed know that there is in fact lots of ugliness in the scripture:
They're clearly cherry picking something ugly, no?
And your point about empirical data is so out of place in the wider context of your argument that I would only entertain it in jest. But I will say that most empiricists would reject your qualitative tooth fairy study.
ill accept ur supernatural claim:
su·per·nat·u·ral adj
\ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Definition of SUPERNATURAL
1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to ? or a ? , demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
that can refer to a lot of things other than deity. and btw i dont believe in a deity. that word is like the theos thing i discussed earlier.
de·i·ty noun \ˈdē-ə-tē, ˈdā-\
plural de·i·ties
Definition of DEITY
1
a : the rank or essential nature of a ? : divinity
b capitalized : ? 1, supreme being
2
: a ? or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3
: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
See deity defined for English-language learners »
See deity defined for kids »
Examples of DEITY
<to the ancient Greeks, Zeus was the deity who ruled over the sky and weather, and Poseidon was ? of the sea>
<we prayed to the Deity for guidance>
Origin of DEITY
[COLOR="rgb(255, 0, 255)"]
Middle English deitee, from Anglo-French deité, from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus ? ; akin to Old English Tīw, ? of war, Latin divus ? , dies day, Greek dios heavenly, Sanskrit deva heavenly, ?
First Known Use: 14th century[/COLOR]
im not latin so ? a deity.
and my equivalency is on point. dictionary.com agrees with me.
as far as ugliness in scriptural texts of the abrahamic vein, the ugly parts are neccesary. there is beauty and ugliness in life. the point is whether or not it is advocated or not. it is not and u cant POSSIBLY prove me wrong. EVERY time somebody does some ugly ? in a narrative THEY PAY FOR IT. thats an essential point you are missing while you throw the baby out with the bathwater. u cant see the forest for the trees but you CANNOT refute the essential principles of something u dont even comprehend.
