Top 10 Atheist Who give People A Bad Name

[Blackking]

The thing is that the very essence of organized religion and cults is that priests, popes, imams and whatever are supposedly "representatives" of God/Allah on the one hand (otherwise why would believers listen to them) and on the other hand speak "in the name of" religious persons. The very point of being an atheist for me is that I THINK FOR MYSELF, believing in what I want to believe (and not because someone told me to believe) and not letting anyone act or say something in my name. Therefore not a valid argument for me.

I personnaly don't say that religion in itself is a problem, but rather religion as an organized political force that can very easily brainwash persons. We know that atheists have done horrible things, same with religious persons, but the difference is that while you can kill a dictator and move on ,you can't kill a religion.

(I have no idea who Jim Jones is, not sure if that comment was adressed to me)

I don't think that believing in God, or even practicing some religious dogma - or not believing in God and practicing purposeless randomness.. are what determines if a mans mind is free and independent.

I know religious people who you can't tell them sh1t because they know everything - due to some man telling them it's true... I know atheist who are the same way. I know atheist who claim to think independent but are followers in every other facet of life. I know militant atheist think and say antagonizing sh1t just to be antagonist and not to enlighten anyone.

So even if there isn't a purpose to sh1t, even if the intelligent life forms all came from inanimate material, even if we are living in an illusion - Even in that case, I would rather hear some Buddhist tell me about his views because he Wants to enlighten me than to hear some atheist go in for hours because someone sees designers in perceived design or know basic probability- and he hates them for it.

If you're intelligent enough to decided - then your choice is independant. And if I chose something that billions have chosen before me- this in itself - doesn't disqualify me as independent thinker. Being part of a group isn't always interdependent- especially if that group is based on individual dedication and faith.

 

[Slang]

I don't think that believing in God, or even practicing some religious dogma - or not believing in God and practicing purposeless randomness.. are what determines if a mans mind is free and independent.

I know religious people who you can't tell them sh1t because they know everything - due to some man telling them it's true... I know atheist who are the same way. I know atheist who claim to think independent but are followers in every other facet of life. I know militant atheist think and say antagonizing sh1t just to be antagonist and not to enlighten anyone.

So even if there isn't a purpose to sh1t, even if the intelligent life forms all came from inanimate material, even if we are living in an illusion - Even in that case, I would rather hear some Buddhist tell me about his views because he Wants to enlighten me than to hear some atheist go in for hours because someone sees designers in perceived design or know basic probability- and he hates them for it.

If you're intelligent enough to decided - then your choice is independant. And if I chose something that billions have chosen before me- this in itself - doesn't disqualify me as independent thinker. Being part of a group isn't always interdependent- especially if that group is based on individual dedication and faith.

Well thought out.

 

[Blackking]

More Atheist filth

Five atheists who ruin it for everyone else - Salon.com

clean it up

This article is debatable as far as the personalities... it doesn't ruin because most atheist aren't like these people, and really aren't like some of the lames online.

I do disagree on how they get to their atheist number. They count the number of atheist.... then count the number of people who aren't practicing a religion and throw them in the count as well. That doesn't make since. For some reason they want to fluff the "godless" number so they throw everyone in the pot, even people who might believe in something and are trying to figure out their beliefs.

 

[mbewane]

I don't think that believing in God, or even practicing some religious dogma - or not believing in God and practicing purposeless randomness.. are what determines if a mans mind is free and independent.

I know religious people who you can't tell them sh1t because they know everything - due to some man telling them it's true... I know atheist who are the same way. I know atheist who claim to think independent but are followers in every other facet of life. I know militant atheist think and say antagonizing sh1t just to be antagonist and not to enlighten anyone.

So even if there isn't a purpose to sh1t, even if the intelligent life forms all came from inanimate material, even if we are living in an illusion - Even in that case, I would rather hear some Buddhist tell me about his views because he Wants to enlighten me than to hear some atheist go in for hours because someone sees designers in perceived design or know basic probability- and he hates them for it.

If you're intelligent enough to decided - then your choice is independant. And if I chose something that billions have chosen before me- this in itself - doesn't disqualify me as independent thinker. Being part of a group isn't always interdependent- especially if that group is based on individual dedication and faith.

Breh, I can't even lie, this post is quite powerful if a choice -either way- is well thought out, there's not much one can argue about.

 

[thekingsmen]

I don't think that believing in God, or even practicing some religious dogma - or not believing in God and practicing purposeless randomness.. are what determines if a mans mind is free and independent.

I know religious people who you can't tell them sh1t because they know everything - due to some man telling them it's true... I know atheist who are the same way. I know atheist who claim to think independent but are followers in every other facet of life. I know militant atheist think and say antagonizing sh1t just to be antagonist and not to enlighten anyone.

So even if there isn't a purpose to sh1t, even if the intelligent life forms all came from inanimate material, even if we are living in an illusion - Even in that case, I would rather hear some Buddhist tell me about his views because he Wants to enlighten me than to hear some atheist go in for hours because someone sees designers in perceived design or know basic probability- and he hates them for it.

If you're intelligent enough to decided - then your choice is independant. And if I chose something that billions have chosen before me- this in itself - doesn't disqualify me as independent thinker. Being part of a group isn't always interdependent- especially if that group is based on individual dedication and faith.

Post of the Week.

 

[Captain]

He was headed to the service but I guess he never made it

 

[NoMayo15]

This article is debatable as far as the personalities... it doesn't ruin because most atheist aren't like these people, and really aren't like some of the lames online.

I do disagree on how they get to their atheist number. They count the number of atheist.... then count the number of people who aren't practicing a religion and throw them in the count as well. That doesn't make since. For some reason they want to fluff the "godless" number so they throw everyone in the pot, even people who might believe in something and are trying to figure out their beliefs.

Sure. I agree. Being an atheist doesn't mean the person's positions on other topics are sound just like being a Christian doesn't make someone automatically morally superior than non-Christians.

As far as your second point I'm also interested in how they determine these statistics. Generally, these studies classify people as 'non-believers', and not necessarily atheists. I mean, this all gets into semantics, but technically, to be an atheist a person just has to not have a god belief. They don't necessarily have to hold the positive position that no gods exist. So, I think they generally lump those who only claim they don't know in that 'non-believer' group because a theist holds a positive belief in a god. Those that classify themselves as agnostic generally don't.

 

[Blackking]

Sure. I agree. Being an atheist doesn't mean the person's positions on other topics are sound just like being a Christian doesn't make someone automatically morally superior than non-Christians.

As far as your second point I'm also interested in how they determine these statistics. Generally, these studies classify people as 'non-believers', and not necessarily atheists. I mean, this all gets into semantics, but technically, to be an atheist a person just has to not have a god belief. They don't necessarily have to hold the positive position that no gods exist. So, I think they generally lump those who only claim they don't know in that 'non-believer' group because a theist holds a positive belief in a god. Those that classify themselves as agnostic generally don't.

some people simply say they don't know. Many of these people, because of the over saturated with organized religion world we live in, have been exposed to belief by their parents. They typically don't hold most people they know as believes in a bad light. So they are neutral and leave it at idk, they aren't negative towards belief or positive towards non-belief, so they shouldn't be just conveniently thrown into the atheist non-believer group.

It's easy however, for them to be lumped in because atheist welcome the fluff, because the atheist common sense and even technical arguments don't make since in a world built on logical fallacies - with them being the few % minority. Also, believers don't even unite as simply believers in God, they hate each other more over who told the story than they dislike atheist- so they usual identify as a Christian, Muslim, fake Jew (see I'm do that here) or whatever.

 

[NoMayo15]

some people simply say they don't know. Many of these people, because of the over saturated with organized religion world we live in, have been exposed to belief by their parents. They typically don't hold most people they know as believes in a bad light. So they are neutral and leave it at idk, they aren't negative towards belief or positive towards non-belief, so they shouldn't be just conveniently thrown into the atheist non-believer group.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by positive belief. When I say positive.... I just mean that ... having a belief is an active thing. If you aren't actively believing in some thing or position, then you are, by default, not a believer -- a non-believer.

It's easy however, for them to be lumped in because atheist welcome the fluff, because the atheist common sense and even technical arguments don't make since in a world built on logical fallacies - with them being the few % minority.

Maybe it's because I'm in a rush, but none of this makes sense.... I'll try to translate it again later.

Also, believers don't even unite as simply believers in God, they hate each other more over who told the story than they dislike atheist- so they usual identify as a Christian, Muslim, fake Jew (see I'm do that here) or whatever.

....again, more nonsense. What are you saying here?

 

[Blackking]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by positive belief. When I say positive.... I just mean that ... having a belief is an active thing. If you aren't actively believing in some thing or position, then you are, by default, not a believer -- a non-believer.




Maybe it's because I'm in a rush, but none of this makes sense.... I'll try to translate it again later.

Also, believers don't even unite as simply believers in God, they hate each other more over who told the story than they dislike atheist- so they usual identify as a Christian, Muslim, fake Jew (see I'm do that here) or whatever.[/QUOTE]

....again, more nonsense. What are you saying here?[/QUOTE]
I'm at work, so I have small pockets to type, however,

religious people aren't united so we don't openly accept random agnostics into our stats, the way atheist do ( studies, articles, stats, etc)

If makes sense for atheist to do this considering the worlds landscape.

I know what you mean by positive and not having an active belief in God does not make you by fault a non-believer in God because a non-believer is actively not believing.... and is not neutral like an agnostic would be. Agnostic's leave it open either way.

 

[Blackking]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by positive belief. When I say positive.... I just mean that ... having a belief is an active thing. If you aren't actively believing in some thing or position, then you are, by default, not a believer -- a non-believer.




Maybe it's because I'm in a rush, but none of this makes sense.... I'll try to translate it again later.

Also, believers don't even unite as simply believers in God, they hate each other more over who told the story than they dislike atheist- so they usual identify as a Christian, Muslim, fake Jew (see I'm do that here) or whatever.

....again, more nonsense. What are you saying here?

I'm at work, so I have small pockets to type, however,

religious people aren't united so we don't openly accept random agnostics into our stats, the way atheist do ( studies, articles, stats, etc)

If makes sense for atheist to do this considering the worlds landscape.

I know what you mean by positive and not having an active belief in God does not make you by default a non-believer in God because a non-believer is actively not believing.... and is not neutral like an agnostic would be. Agnostic's leave it open either way.

 

[NoMayo15]

I know what you mean by positive and not having an active belief in God does not make you by fault a non-believer in God because a non-believer is actively not believing.... and is not neutral like an agnostic would be. Agnostic's leave it open either way.

No @ the bolded. This is basic logic. A equals A, and not not A. To be in the group of believer, you must believe. Anything else, by definition, is a non-believer. You don't have to believe god doesn't exist to be an atheist .... you just have to lack a belief in one. That's a very subtle but important difference. This is why agnostics get lumped in with non-belief in these studies, and it's completely consistent -- because generally they don't have a god belief.

 

[Fervid]

More Atheist filth

Five atheists who ruin it for everyone else - Salon.com

clean it up

Slanderous article. Well except for the part about S.E. Cupp; he was spot-on there.

 

[Blackking]

No @ the bolded. This is basic logic. A equals A, and not not A. To be in the group of believer, you must believe. Anything else, by definition, is a non-believer. You don't have to believe god doesn't exist to be an atheist .... you just have to lack a belief in one. That's a very subtle but important difference. This is why agnostics get lumped in with non-belief in these studies, and it's completely consistent -- because generally they don't have a god belief.

There is around 5 or 6 million atheist in America. Some studies show it's less than 2%. I was just saying I don't agree with actual articles or studies attempting to lump all the so-called 'non-believers' into one group because it gives an unrealistic impression... wtf is the point of an article if it will be misleading?

I mean, I guess we can re-construct common ideas and definitions, and constantly move goal post to satisfy our points and positions as you're doing - However, I do not think at that BS is necessary. You can say semantically fubar sh1t like the bold part of your post above - but you and I both know what an atheist is. We know that it is at contrast with theism, while agnosticism is relatively neutral due to the person simply leaving possibilities open.

With the job I do, most people are atheist, but they don't walk these made up lines that you feel the need to draw. They are just honest about their beliefs and they feel that there is no God so they are atheist. It's not any more complicated than that breh.

In elementary school you learn how to spell, in middle school you learn how break words down... so based on a middle school education one would concluded that if you take the word theist and add the NEGATIVE prefix 'a' to it, you then have the word atheist. Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists..... so if it was necessary to create one- then a new word would have been created.. it wasn't, so the word atheism was formed- because it accurately describes someone who believes the idea of God is made up.

"this is basic logic" IF A equals B and B =/= C, c= d, B is still equal to A, While C is equal to d. You can't redefine at will and claim A = C.

And just in case you are completely clueless or aren't understanding what I said... William L. Rowe said that in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively, and that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist.

 

[NoMayo15]

I mean, I guess we can re-construct common ideas and definitions, and constantly move goal post to satisfy our points and positions as you're doing - However, I do not think at that BS is necessary. You can say semantically fubar sh1t like the bold part of your post above - but you and I both know what an atheist is. We know that it is at contrast with theism, while agnosticism is relatively neutral due to the person simply leaving possibilities open.

Well, if you think my definition is FUBAR, then only one of us knows what an atheist is. It's in fact you that's using the reconstructed definition of these terms, not me. Atheists aren't as certain and positive as their believing counterparts, and historically, agnosticism isn't this completely neutral middle ground. In modern times it has been redefined to mean that, but historically agnosticism doesn't mean one is neither a believer nor disbeliever.

With the job I do, most people are atheist, but they don't walk these made up lines that you feel the need to draw. They are just honest about their beliefs and they feel that there is no God so they are atheist. It's not any more complicated than that breh.

Sure. But just like there are different types of theists, there are different types of atheists. Talking about something not being complicated. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

In elementary school you learn how to spell, in middle school you learn how break words down... so based on a middle school education one would concluded that if you take the word theist and add the NEGATIVE prefix 'a' to it, you then have the word atheist. Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists..... so if it was necessary to create one- then a new word would have been created.. it wasn't, so the word atheism was formed- because it accurately describes someone who believes the idea of God is made up.

Sure, the English language is based on a lot of root words from other languages. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you don't understand what they mean. "Without Theism" doesn't mean every atheist believes the God idea is made up. It's just simply they don't have a theistic belief! You're taking it 10 steps forward, and strawmanning atheism to make it seem irrational. I'm sorry, but that's not going to fly here.

"this is basic logic" IF A equals B and B =/= C, c= d, B is still equal to A, While C is equal to d. You can't redefine at will and claim A = C.

If anyone is redefining A to equal C it's you. You're the one that's defining atheists to mean believing that God is made up. That's not necessarily true for all atheists.

But I think you missed my point entirely. You can't be neither a theist nor an atheist, as these are mutually exclusive. Just like you can't be both a human, and not a human. What you're doing is saying agnostics are neither human, nor not human. That doesn't make sense logically because either a thing is human or it's not. Or red and not red. Something can't be neither of those things. If you understood logic (A=A & A=/=notA), you'd understand why the term is nonsensical in the way that you're using it

Maybe I can put it a different way: Imagine a venn diagram with two circles that do not overlap. In one circle marked Theism you have Christians, Jews, Deists, Hindus, etc...every religion/god belief ever known to man. Any position outside of those beliefs is atheism. If one isn't in those groups that have a belief in god, then they are atheist. Agnostics are included because they also do not have a belief in god. You don't have to hold the position that god is made up, or god 100% doesn't exist to fall in that category.

And just in case you are completely clueless or aren't understanding what I said... William L. Rowe said that in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively, and that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist.

Yes, and see what I posted above in response to that. Sure, in recent history, the term agnosticism has been used popularly to describe that person, but it's a redefinition of the word.