Why I am angry at atheists.

[yrreg]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.


When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.



Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.


Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.


Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.


In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.

What about hating theists?


I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.



Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.



And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.


I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.



But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.




Yrreg

[Quinn]

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.


Hateful? Nothing. I can't hate something I don't believe exists.

Unacceptable? Every reason I've heard put forth in favor of believing in him/her/it/them.

[Safe-Keeper]

At this very moment I am happy at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossibly easy to troll.We're glad to be of help:). Again, what's so amazing with this forum is that even threads that are so obviously started and fueled by one or more trolls still manage to be filled with civilized discussion and facts which make them delightful and educational to read.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Phlebas]

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.


If you insist on talking about the Christian god, then I object to it because according to the Bible, he either behaves like a monster, a jealous child, or an absentee father (or some combination). This whole doctrine of sin and repentance and forgiveness is insane and dehumanizing. The notion of trying to dictate people's thoughts and actions through fear of torture is simply evil.

But that's not why I don't believe in it. I don't believe for the same reason you don't believe in Ra. But in the Christian's god case, I also *hope* it doesn't exist.

Still angry?

[yrreg]

See, what I mean? you can't have any constructive exchange with atheists.




Yrreg

[Phlebas]

Oh, is Yrreg a troll? I don't wander in here much and have lost my sense of Troll Smell, I guess.

Still, there might be lurkers who feel the same way, so no harm done.

[Macoy]

I find the concept of god unacceptable as I see it as a man-made construct used to control the minds and actions of ordinary people, usually for selfish and hypocritical ends.

[Phlebas]

See, what I mean? you can't have any constructive exchange with atheists.

I have plenty of them. Maybe it's YOU that can't have consstructive exchanges with them?

[Safe-Keeper]

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.We've had this discussion a thousand times here. Anyone wanting to find out why I, for one, am so angry with God has only to read the Torah. Most Jews and Christians have rejected its stories and morals, and I don't view them as anything but fiction - they're obviously made up or plagiarized from other religions. But it's still the most disgusting read I've ever had. How anyone can manage to fit so much evil between two covers and offer it up as a proud history and source of morals is beyond me.

I'm being tongue-in-cheek here, but it's almost as if I don't understand the meaning of writing works like Mein Kampf (My Struggle) or the Protocols of Zion - all Hitler really had to do was tell everyone to take the OT literally and he'd have the "Evil Jew" image right there:D.

[Hokulele]

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.


Which version of a Christian God? Deistic? Theistic? Old Testament? New Testament?

[Cainkane1]

I find it impossible to worship a God who causes a virgin to give birth to himself and then sacrifices himself to himself. Why be angry at me for that?

[dbalsdon]

See, what I mean? you can't have any constructive exchange with atheists.Wrong. Seems to be you're the one nobody can have a 'constructive exchange' with. Quinn (would include mr. ottle, but since you posted at the same time as him, you haven't had a chance to respond yet) has provided a reasonable answer to your questions.

ETA. Plenty more reasonable responses have been posted, which willl no doubt be ignored.

[ImaginalDisc]

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.

Thiests, yes. God? No. God doesn't exist.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools,

Please quote a member here who says that. I am an atheist and I oppose mandatory school prayer. If a group of students want to pray without disrupting the class, they can feel free to do so.

and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

Has anyone ever explained the seperation of church and state to you?

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.

Again, since god doesn't exist, is a Christian is doing something illegal or unethical, the correct person to address is that Christian.




Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.

English is not my native tongue, but I don't think this is a sentence. If I have puzzled out your meaning clearly, you're essentially saying that atheism isn't rational, and fails as a moral guide?

That's a criticism? Whether or not atheism leads to good morals is completely irrelevant to whether or not god exists. You can't claim your imaginary friend exists merely because you think it would be better if that were so.


Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.


In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.

What about hating theists?


I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.



Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.

The Christian god is an angry, jealous, vindictive little brat who murders children incessantly and punishes people indefinately for finite crimes. Fortunately, he isn't real.






I covered these above, but let me make it clear. You can sing, dance, impersonate Elvis, or do whatever religious ritual you like. Just don't inflict it on children in public school, and don't ask for government support. That's unconstituional.


[quote]I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.

Most of the Founding Fathers were deists or atheists, including the chief architects of the Constitution. Were it it not for atheists, America wouldn't exist.

[Safe-Keeper]

* Safe-Keeper de-lurks.
* Safe-Keeper wants to point out that it's perfectly possible to be angry at persons in fiction and that he himself has been angry at the torturers in 24, Umbridge in Harry Potter, and Yahweh in The Torah, to give some examples.
* Safe-Keeper re-lurks.

[Fiona]

Yrreg, you have made up your mind what you think: you are not going to be satisfied with any true thing anyone here says: so I am going to give you what you want and perhaps you will feel better with these lies than you do with truth: that is, after all, the Christian way

So: I am absolutely furious with God. He doesn't call, he doesn't write; he doesn't turn my water into wine.

There you have it. Happy now?

[fuelair]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.


When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.



Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.


Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.


Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.


In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.

What about hating theists?


I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.



Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.



And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.


I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.



But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.




YrregGerry, this above is pointless, I am not "angry" at you or dog. You are you and either willfully or illogically ignoring this point, there is no dog so why should I be angry at it. It's like being angry at Homer Simpson or a rhinocerous running through the skies - they do not exist either. I do not hate xtians either - unless and until they try to force their beliefs on me, try to make them law or otherwise try to coerce others. I do hate the ones that do that - or at least wish them ill. The ones that do their thing and leave me alone to do mine are fine with me - and many of my friends and family are in that category. That actually covers my operating system for all people who believe differently than me. By the by, I have been an atheist since I was app. 6 years old - and it was purely a leap of logic.

You are free to choose to assume/believe that I am lying about this for some mysterious reason, I really do not care.

By the by, I have nothing at all against religious symbols in whatever place - as long as any/all religions are equally free to advertise. In the US, it has been xtians almost exclusively who have wanted their displays up - but not those of others. That is neither fair or lawful so , yes, I am against it in that form. And I do believe the groups that must tolerate others must also be required to tolerate Wiccans, FSM, etc. The state is free to recognize all religions or no religions (my honest preference) but not to pick and choose.

[Twiler]

Yrreg. you believe the US constitution should not be followed?

I find the concept of YHVH unacceptable because of the idea of absolute morals.

[X]

At this very moment I am angry at theists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.


When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they believe God is ineffable, so they don't have to give any idea of God.

I ask them why are you angry theists, they insist that they are theists but not angry theists or angry but not for being theists.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being theists, in other words, they are angry at reality and atheists.

From my part I am angry at theists because they don't want people to practice secular acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to supplant secular establishments with religious ones.

In his connection more generally I am angry at theists because they target atheists principally in their hostility to reason, but reason is their number one target; since they can't hit reason, they go after atheists and everything secular to vent out their hatred.



Please theists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.


Lastly, I really think that theists, who have the same mentality as with convert to theism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that theism gives them "morality and eternal life," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice morality, by embracing theism.


Anyway, since the way I see it God is the center piece of the theists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of theists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you theists find acceptable about God, the God of Christians, and my description of your God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.


In theist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the theists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being theists they do engage in hate against reality and atheists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they believe in God therefore they can't be incorrect.

What about hating atheists?


I said in another forum, why people in America take theists to be the most trusted majority in their midst, it is because they all belong to the same club, as opposed to any moral or rational standpoint.

Except that they do it in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like forcing children to pray in public schools and promoting religion in public places.



Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to theists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to theism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find acceptable about God.



And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as forcing children to pray in public schools, and they don't try to get thye government to establish structures promoting religion in public lands and buildings.

You know what the theists will say about their campaign for praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it the US is a "Christian Nation".


I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from theists for making children pray in public schools and seeking to establish their religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard theists as the most distrusted people in their midst.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the theists in their midst as the most distrusted majority: the reason being because theists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward secularism and atheists, and seek a cover in the government for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against atheists and secularism.



But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find loving or acceptable about God.



X






---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Note that the above statement is made to make a point, and does not necessarily reflect my views. I could have replaced "atheists/theists" with blacks/whites, men/women, etc. The point is still the same.


How does it feel, yrreg, to have someone tell you what you believe, based on their personal dislike of you?


You post, telling us what you think of atheists and what you perceive as their motivations.
You get told, repeatedly, that you are wrong in your interpretation.
Yet instead of learning from this, you tell yourself that the atheists' denial of your ideas is proof that they are hiding from reality, instead of accepting that you are wrong.


I do not hate god. Not more than I do the tooth fairy, or the boogieman.

The concept of god, however, I find (depending on the definition), outlandish, evil, stupid, impossible, petty, foolish, and/or wrong.

The description you gave,
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.describes nothing.

You establish god as the "Father Almighty" and "Creator of Heaven and Earth", but this does not provide any defining characteristics. It is an empty, useless description.

You might not think so, but think about, just for a moment, without considering your personal convictions.

Here, I'll make it easier for you: I believe in Qursad, the Brother Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

Does this give you any useful information about Qursad?

[Seismosaurus]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Having read many of your threads, I will say this to you. You pose your threads as questions, as seeking opinions and information. Yet in every thread, you come across as being here to simply preach your opinion. Your opinion never changes in any thread. When people respond in a way you feel doesn't answer your points, you criticise it. But when people respond in a way which DOES address your points, you generally simply ignore it, or just restate your original opinion. After a few pages of this you "summarise" the thread by restating exactly what you said in the first place.

I don't say any of that to insult you or your character. I suspect the attitude you show here is frustrating to many. It makes you look dishonest. I don't know if you intend to be so, but it certainly is how you have presented yourself here, in my opinion.

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.

Depends on which god we are talking about. If we take the example of the christian god, then what I find unacceptable about him is his morality.

For one, he regularly kills very large numbers of innocent people, and/or urges his followers to do the same.

For another, the creation of hell is in my view an immoral act, and the setting up of the rules by which people go there is immoral too.

In addition, the idea that his son can volunteer to be tortured to death and therefore absolve me is both absurd and immoral. I regard people as being responsible for their actions, and to shift the blame to an innocent is evil, in my view.

Also, the christian god presumes to set rules by which I am to live my life. I have never once had explained to me the basis for the authority which god claims over me. Put simply, by what right does god presume to tell me what to do and cast judgment on my actions?

[Tiktaalik]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.


When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

Yrreg


See, here is where it all breaks down for me.

If you can't understand how someone can answer that they can't have an idea of something that doesn't exist, then there's nowhere to go in this conversation.

If something doesn't exist, then there's no reason to give time to trying to develop what it might be like.

You can rephrase the question and ask, "If God were a fictional character like Harry Potter, what would you imagine it to be like?" but there's really no point to that.

Until you admit that it's possible for people to exist and to honestly have no idea about what a fictional god would be like, there's no further conversation possible on this subject that I can see.

I was raised Unitarian Universalist/atheist and do not see the point in constructing characteristics for something I see no evidence for existing and am not interested in reading about.

[Lonewulf]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.I find you impossible to talk with constructively, but I find it easy to avoid anger with you. After all, you can't help being what you are.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.Yes, defining what we mean is entirely wrong and shouldn't be tolerated...

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.So many things I could say to this, I think it's best I just ignore it. :)

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.Yes. I reject the idea of the Christian God as much as the Islamic God as much as Odin or Zeus or any other god concept. Why should I define rejection when I'm rejecting a plethora?

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.Uh, yes?

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.I'm not angry at God. I find the God that's touted about by people like you to be rather distasteful going by the holy books, but that's in the same vein as I find the Lord Sauron to be distasteful. I wouldn't want to worship either concept, yet I'm told by many Christians that I should...

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.I'm against people being forced to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, because forcing someone to go through such rituals is against what I believe is right, and against the idea of separation of Church and State.

And I wouldn't mind religious relics in public lands, if those lands could hold ANY and ALL religious or non-religious or even anti-religious relics. If you're going to use public land for speech, you need to include all speech.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.

Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.Uh huh...

Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.I read this several times over, and showed it to a friend of mine. I still cannot parse this paragraph in any meaningful way.

My friend suggests a translation that you're essentially saying, in your opinion, atheism doesn't have reason/logic and isn't intelligent enough to have rational consistency and guiltless masturbation.

To which I'd have to say... say wha?

Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.So you believe in the God from the bible... I assume along Protestant lines? Meaning you don't believe in Allah, or if you did, you would still disagree on what this God guy would want and stuff.

In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.Well, this isn't those forums, so get over it.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.They keep insisting on the truth? ONOSE!

What about hating theists?I don't like people that attempt to force their religion on me, tell me that they're angry at me, and show hate towards me...

I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.Handled above.

We actually obey the spirit of the Constitution, you know. As in, the separation of Church and State and the like... look it up sometime. Founding Fathers, all that junk. It's supposed to be pretty important.

Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.

Which concept?

Can I go by the Bible?

Can I go by the Old Testament?

If so, then I dislike everything about him. He's a callous bully that doesn't mind wiping out many people that he claims to love.

But again, fictional character. Might as well express anger at Sauron.

And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.You really obsess about this bit, don't you? :rolleyes:

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.


I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.Because they respect the Constitution and the wishes of the Founding Fathers? The horror.

As I said, I am not an American citizen,It shows.

but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians."Wicked"?

We're asking religion to not be forced on children. You can pray anytime you want in a school; asking the children to pray, however, is wrong. Perhaps you should go and research the position being taken before talking?

Also, it's not like we're baby eating. You want to know "wicked"? How about the Crusades? Where Christian Knights would feast on the flesh of the killed, and emptied entire cities of Muslim men, women, and children? The First Crusade was QUITE intriguing in lessons in cruelty.

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.You've gone on quite a tangent... if you want to stay on topic, it's best to stay on topic with your first post.

[billydkid]

Hateful? Nothing. I can't hate something I don't believe exists.

Unacceptable? Every reason I've heard put forth in favor of believing in him/her/it/them.
Atheists don't "embrace" anything. Atheism isn't something you embrace. You are mad at atheists for not embracing what you think they should embrace and you think they should embrace it because you do and you embrace it for no rational reason whatsoever. In fact, there would be lots of things to find hateful and repellent about the God of the bible, but in as much as there is zero evidence or reason to believe such an entity exists it would be stupid to feel hateful about him. It's like being hateful toward the Easter Bunny.

[Pardalis]

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.


It just doesn't follow, is all.

[Zep]

until ( 1=0 )
for all argument in JREF
if not YRREG_parse( argument ) then
response.write "See? Athiests have no argument!"
end if
next
loop



:shrug:

[Beerina]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Actually, it may seem hard to believe, but we think these are honest, and applicable questions. They aren't just throwing up confusion into the conversation to distract things.


When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

Two issues here:

1. "What god?" Typically they want to know since, for example, a creationist argues for a god, then "what god?" Christian. Which Christian one? Roman Catholic? Southern Baptist Convention of 1908? Etc.

It's an obfuscation some times, but it's based on something that's not. It's when they're trying to point out that [Generic argument for some kind of god] is not equal to [Argument for Southern Baptist Convention of 1908 god]. E.g. Pascal's Wager


2. I typically just accept the religion's definition of god, as-is. I feel comfortable using their definition, not mine. But that's just me.



From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

The genius of America was in disallowing politicians from mixing religion and government in an official capacity. Teacher-lead prayer in a public school is government performing religion in an official capacity. "Moments of silence" are not.

It isn't saying "religion sux so get that 10 commandments monument out of here!", though it may feel that way. It's saying "Government officials should not be promoting religion as an official part of their duties."

And yes, it is insulting to say a baby Jesus is bad, but a baby Jesus with a santa next to it is ok. I acknowledge that.




In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.

I attack god and the concept of god directly. As-is. As portrayed by the Bible. As portrayed by whatever philosophical notion.

Quite directly, I feel the concept of god letting himself get killed so he can show people can be resurrected, but only if they believe in it without proof, to be ludicrous, and I reject the notion that it is a perfect thing for a perfect being to have designed.



Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.

Nowadays, I would feel no guilt doing it even if God existed, as portrayed by any religion. It just demonstrates that god is an imperfect being with sexual hangups.

Truth.


...my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

That's fine, and is actually fairly innocuous. We atheists don't believe this. Fair enough. However, it's what comes after that's more of a philosophical problem.



In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

I would hope that doesn't happen here. Here they should only ban after multiple warnings, and for egregious behavior, like multiple, repeated personal attacks, drive-by postings (big philosophical treatsies they cut and paste, then never return to) and so on.

To most of us, banning is far too easy to use to silencing people for other reasons, and is thus to be avoided at all costs, lest it smudge otherwise rational debate.

[Seismosaurus]

See, here is where it all breaks down for me.

If you can't understand how someone can answer that they can't have an idea of something that doesn't exist, then there's nowhere to go in this conversation.

If something doesn't exist, then there's no reason to give time to trying to develop what it might be like.

You can rephrase the question and ask, "If God were a fictional character like Harry Potter, what would you imagine it to be like?" but there's really no point to that.

I have to say, that's pretty much the basis on which I talk about god. For me, "what don't you like about god" conversations are about like discussing whether the rebel alliance in Star Wars is a terrorist organisation. I don't find such conversations devoid of meaning; discussing theoreticals and fictional scenarios can inform real world thinking too, surely.

[Skeptic Ginger]

See, what I mean? you can't have any constructive exchange with atheists.




YrregI don't think any group, atheist or theist is as monolithic as you are claiming.

[six7s]

Anger as a strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger#As_a_strategy)
As with any emotion, the display of anger can be feigned or exaggerated. Studies by Hochschild and Sutton have shown that the show of anger is likely to be an effective manipulation strategy in order to change and design attitudes. Anger is a distinct strategy of social influence and its use (i.e. belligerent behaviors) as a goal achievement mechanism proves to be a successful strategy.[10][11]You can fool some of the people some of the time

[Madalch]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.
That's because you spout drivel, and refuse to understand what we are saying to you.
Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.
We thought you might understand us better if we spoke your language.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.
It is not obvious outside of your imagination. Atheists are not angry at God. We occasionally get angry at theists who attempt to force us to follow their religion, but we don't get angry at things that don't exist.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.
You can practice all you want, just stop trying to push it on us, or spend out tax dollars on it.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.
More drivel. If I believed that there was a god to be angry with, I wouldn't be an athiest.

[yrreg]

I am now responding up to #19 post.



Some of you state that you cannot talk about God much less hate Him because He does not exist: the idea of God is meaningless, so also His existence.

In which case then you can just keep repeating in your next post the following message:

"For me God does not exist, period."

And I thank you for your information about your own attitude toward God.


Before I forget I want to commend people who though being atheists do not think it necessary to make it mandatory for children to not pray in public schools, and/or to remove religious structures in public lands and buildings.

For those who do work to remove praying in public schools and also to remove religious monuments in public lands and facilities, that is your legal right to do so in accordance with the law, I grant you that.

The Christians who do care about God being attended to in the public domain, they can also do some legal thing about it.



The points I am making here might be overlapping, but you can get them clearly with a little allowance for the limitation of my language.



Then there are people here who are and will be insisting that I don't get what atheists are all about.

My reaction: They are all about denying God's existence and want the world (for atheists who are outspoken) to know that God does not exists, and to accept into practice the implications of God's non-existence, that is what I know about atheists the outspoken ones.


Next, there are atheists who want God to go on international public television, and into whatever public mass media display available today, to show forth His presence.

I guess they can exercise the option to address their demand to Him themselves, or do as many and I will say all theists or believers in God do: look at the moon for a starter and see the maker there, in other words: infer from what is visible to what is invisible, etc., etc., etc.


That leaves those atheists who find God abominable or answerable for all the evils in the world.

For these atheists, I must agree with them that we have to draw up a list of revisions for God to undertake of Himself, or for man to absorb in man's conception of God.




Yrreg

[ImaginalDisc]

INext, there are atheists who want God to go on international public television, and into whatever public mass media display available today, to show forth His presence.

<snip>

That leaves those atheists who find God abominable or answerable for all the evils in the world.



You seem to have no idea what "atheist" means.

[Fiona]

God is the Man in the Moon?

[Wowbagger]

For the record, I'm not angry at anyone.

[Safe-Keeper]

Before I forget I want to commend people who though being atheists do not think it necessary to make it mandatory for children to not pray in public schoolsOK, this one is so widespread that I have to address it, troll or not troll, because I feel it can't be overstated:

Kids can pray in public schools, as long as they don't interrupt education or lead other students in prayer.

That is all:).

[I Ratant]

...
That leaves those atheists who find God abominable or answerable for all the evils in the world.
....

.
There aren't any such.
There is no god, so why blame such a nothing for anything?
Those who follow the god noises in their heads now, these poor folk are worthy of being feared and held responsible for what they perpetrate on the rest of us.

[alfaniner]

I am now responding up to #19 post.



Some of you state that you cannot talk about God much less hate Him because He does not exist: the idea of God is meaningless, so also His existence.

In which case then you can just keep repeating in your next post the following message:

"For me God does not exist, period."

And I thank you for your information about your own attitude toward God.


Before I forget I want to commend people who though being atheists do not think it necessary to make it mandatory for children to not pray in public schools, and/or to remove religious structures in public lands and buildings.

For those who do work to remove praying in public schools and also to remove religious monuments in public lands and facilities, that is your legal right to do so in accordance with the law, I grant you that.

The Christians who do care about God being attended to in the public domain, they can also do some legal thing about it.



The points I am making here might be overlapping, but you can get them clearly with a little allowance for the limitation of my language.



Then there are people here who are and will be insisting that I don't get what atheists are all about.

My reaction: They are all about denying God's existence and want the world (for atheists who are outspoken) to know that God does not exists, and to accept into practice the implications of God's non-existence, that is what I know about atheists the outspoken ones.


Next, there are atheists who want God to go on international public television, and into whatever public mass media display available today, to show forth His presence.

I guess they can exercise the option to address their demand to Him themselves, or do as many and I will say all theists or believers in God do: look at the moon for a starter and see the maker there, in other words: infer from what is visible to what is invisible, etc., etc., etc.


That leaves those atheists who find God abominable or answerable for all the evils in the world.

For these atheists, I must agree with them that we have to draw up a list of revisions for God to undertake of Himself, or for man to absorb in man's conception of God.




Yrreg

Do you just have all these lines on index cards somewhere? One word... "paragraphs".

[Dunstan]

Shorter yrreg: "It's real annoying when people keep squirming out of the pigeonholes in which I've shoved them."

The sad thing is that, assuming yrreg isn't a troll, he really could have benefitted from this forum. He has so many obvious misconceptions about atheists that could be corrected if he wasn't so determined to ignore everything that doesn't fit his preconceived notions of what we think. And who knows, maybe we could actually learn something from yrreg if he could get past his urge to tell us what we actually think.

[Terry]

I know this is exactly what you don't want to hear, but there is no god, therefore your quesitons are meaningless.

[interwaff]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.


When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.



Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.


Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.


Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.


In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.

What about hating theists?


I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.



Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.



And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.


I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.



But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.




Yrreg


Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Safe-Keeper]

Kinda off-topic, but I really do not see the point of quoting a post half a page long only to reply with a one-sentence post. It seriously clutters up the forum threads.

I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road."We hate you because you're different. Why can't you just be more like us". Wonderful confession for a troll.

[Foster Zygote]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.
I feel the same way about you. But it doesn't make me angry.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.
Every time they tell you why they've embraced atheism, you go in another direction. You have completely ignored everything you've been told in favor of what you would like to be the reasons people become atheists.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.
Awwww... Don't be angry.

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.
It's very simple Gerry: Gods are defined by people who believe in them. Are you frustrated because you believe that you can spring some sort of logical trap if you can just get an atheist do devise a personal definition of a god or gods?

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.
So, you're angry because they answered the question in a way that you didn't like?

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.
I am not angry with any god or gods, Gerry. Gods are constructs of human imagination. There is nothing to be angry with. I am, however, angry with some theists. When I see theists crash airliners into buildings because they think it is what their god wants, or tell poor people in AIDS ravaged parts of Africa that they will anger their god if they use condoms, I feel anger. I'm sure that many other theists are in agreement about this.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.
People can practice private religious acts in public schools all they want. They can pray in groups if they want so long as they do not infringe on class time or otherwise interrupt the curriculum. What they are not allowed to do is force participation in any religious activity. Let me ask you this: Suppose your children attended a public school and they were expected to participate in Buddhist, Muslim or Sikh rituals? How would you feel about the separation of church and state then?

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.
You have a bit of foam on the corner of your mouth. No, the other side.

Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.
How about we discuss the fact that you claim to want to know what we think, but then ignore our responses in favor of your strawman arguments.

Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.
Is that because you feel guilty when you masturbate? That would explain a lot.

Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
This is where your problem starts.

Atheists lack belief in gods because there is no evidence of their existence. But you refuse to accept this answer because you really want to believe that atheists are angry at your God and are rejecting him. But atheists are no more angry with your god, or any other, than they are angry with the Tooth Fairy or leprechauns.

In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.
And that has what to do with this forum?

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.
I'm guessing that they became frustrated with your refusal to let them define themselves rather than allowing you to do it for them in accordance with your own convenience and this caused them to lose respect for you.

What about hating theists?
Why don't you ask people who hate theists?

I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.
So anyone who disagrees with the majority on any matter is worthy of distrust? Were the white Southerners who supported the American civil rights movement worthy of distrust because they went against the majority view? This is quite simply a stupid argument.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.
Children can pray in school all they want, Gerry. Prayer simply cannot be forced on anyone. Would you care to see another religion, say Hinduism, or Sikhism, forced on your own children at school? As for religious symbols in public buildings: Would you want to walk into your local court seeking justice for some grievance and feel that you are less likely to be treated fairly because you do not observe a certain religion?

Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.
Simple: God does not exist.

And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.
It is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.
Of course you can. You feel that forcing religion down other people's throats is perfectly acceptable as long as the religion is of your choosing. But if someone else were to force a religion that you do not care for down your throat I suspect that you would feel very differently.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.
There's quite a lot of foam around your mouth now. Would you like a towel?

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.
I do not accept God because God does not exist.

[RandFan]

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God. You are addressing atheists and you beg the question? I don't believe in god.

What I find unnacceptable with the Christian concept of god. Hateful, fillicidal, genocidal, homophobic, xenophobic, mass murderer.

To name but a few of my complaints.

[articulett]

People who are good at imagining an invisible creator of the universe who cares and speaks specifically to them are also good at imagining angry atheists where they don't exist. They imagine that not believing in something or other for which there is no evidence can cause people to be angry? Does Yrreg's lack of belief in Xenu or reincarnation or fairies make him angry? How in the world can he extrapolate that our not believing in his god would do so? And how are we supposed to respond to someone who has a desperate need to see us as angry?

The weird thing about delusions is that they seem "realer than real" to the person experiencing them. But I don't think conversation can cure them, and I'm not sure that such people are able to engage in dialogue anyhow. I think they are pretending to want answers to questions-- but the questions themselves are loaded. They don't want answers... they want to prove that their viewpoint is valid. But it's not. There's no evidence that atheists are angry because of their atheism or angrier than theists. Heck, I've never known any atheist as angry as theist, Fred Phelps-- have you? Or as wacked as Osama Bin Laden.

I try to imagine what kind of response yrreg expects or wants or why he thinks that he sounds less loony than a Scientologist or whatever it is that he finds crazy. What would he say to a Scientologists who wanted to know why Christians were so vapid or uptight or full of engrams or neurotic?

I don't believe yrreg wants a conversation-- I believe he's trying to prove that atheists are "angry" and that he's special or good or moral or logical for whatever magical think he "believes in".

But I like his threads, because it gives me a chance to goof on the self important and have fun with fellow heathens during this special time of year when some Christians seek to feel persecuted for their "faith".

[paximperium]

Come on peeps. Let's just give yrreg the answer he wants:

"I hate god because god came down one day, sexually assaulted me and kicked my puppy. He also gave my turtle cancer and made me rob that jewelry store leading to that incident in prison with Bubba. I also want to rape, murder, drink and use drugs but that god person says I can't therefore I hate him. Oh, yeah I'm also an alcoholic druggie gay child abuser evolutionist. I am an atheist."...I wonder if that'll make him happy?

[articulett]

I'm pissed at god for making me a nonbeliever.

Oh, how I wish I could be more like yrreg and other believers! They are such fabu people.

But, alas, god has not seen fit to bless me with faith.

Nor has Xenu, Mithras, Allah, or Satan or flying reindeer--nor the Heavens Gate UFO people.

I have not heard a single thing from any invisible supernatural entity ever. They must hate me. And so I am bitter, bitter, bitter. No magical entities will talk with me. Alas. I can't see the magical clothes of the proverbial Emperor either. I must not be worthy. No wonder I am so angry.

[Fontwell]

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.
...

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.

Yrreg

I believe there is no such thing as god. Unlike the jref regulars, I get quite annoyed by people who do believe in god. As far as I can see, it is so blindingly obvious that its all just made up stories I am still constantly stunned every time I meet a new person who really believes it all.

To help you get a feel for it... At the moment there is a world banking problem. A curious 5 year old might ask "Why don't we just print more money?" Now, you may not be able to give a snappy sound byte answer but one thing is for sure, you know that 'just printing more money' is not a solution. Now imagine the same question being asked by an adult. They would start to look a bit silly for believing that was serious option. Now imagine that the head of the treasury said "Right, I've got it chaps... we just print more money!!!" You would be stupefied that he could be so ignorant. That's pretty much how I feel about Christians.

Assuming you are a Christian (for some reason, I've not spotted many Muslims or Hindus here) try out this thought experiment. Your state is gradually infiltrated by Muslims. They gain positions of authority. You find yourself living in a state where you are woken by the call of the Muezzin, meetings are interrupted every few hours for prayers (To Allah, facing East) and during Ramadan you are forced to fast. Would that make you a bit miffed?

[articulett]

Oh and the hell thing...

God knows all, right? He's omniscient... he knows who's been naughty and who's been nice and who will be going to hell. Heck, he made hell. So I think it would just be better never to let people be born if he knew they could suffer forever. Non existence trumps eternal suffering, right? Since I'm slated for hell in just about every religion that claims that nonbelievers go to hell (Muslims, assorted Christian Sects, etc.) then that makes me pissed at the various invisible entities who came up with such a plot.

I'm not all loving-- but even I'd never make a life if I thought ETERNAL damnation was a possibility. That's sick and cruel-- and immoral. An infinite punishment for a finite crime and a life that could have been prevented?

When the average atheist is more moral than the magical entities that people worship, then that really doesn't speak well for the magical entities...nor the people who feel special worshiping such entities.

[Jeff Corey]

Time for kittens? No, muppets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhVeDYdRgr0&feature=related

[Traveler Steve]

I'm angry because I have to wait until level 77 to get my flying mount in Northrend.

A nice god would have allowed me to have it when I got there at level 70.

Stupid god. Now I actually have to work for something.

[RoboTimbo]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

So the anger you've foisted off on atheists is simply you projecting.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

No, they address your sentences point by point. You fail to address them back when they don't fit your pat responses.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.

Ad hom time again, yrreg?

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

It's not act, yrreg. Atheists haven't been shown evidence for the existence of your god or any others and you steadfastly refuse to provide any.

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.

Why do you disbelieve them? I think you're misinterpreting their frustration at YOU for simple failure to comprehend anything.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.

You will never get it through your head, will you? There is no anger due to being atheist. There is frustration at a perceived troll.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

Now we're getting somewhere. YOU are the one who is angry. Thank you for admitting it. Please don't project it in the future.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.

And then you project it again. There is no hostility to your imaginary sky buddy.

Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.

Now we have to define what you're angry at us for? I guess it follows since you wanted us to define your god for you.

Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.

You don't get to decide what is reasonable and intelligent.

Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

You may as well try to understand the psychology of non-stamp collectors. Oh wait, that's been pointed out to you before. You didn't listen then either.

In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

I hope you don't get banned here. You may learn something. I'm not hopeful.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.

What about hating theists?

I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

You sound like you were bullying them about it and acting like a troll. What did you expect.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.

Separation of church and state. Not just YOUR church, you know.

Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.

We'll try again in this thread to educate you. I'm not hopeful.

And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.

Off topic, of course.

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.

Ah, you've heard of separation of church and state. Good, saves time.

I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.

See above where you note separation of church and state.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.

Why do you hate Odinists for using public money for their religious rituals? You are such a close minded hating xtian.

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.

That would be off topic.


Yrreg

yrreg, why do you not respond to the points put to you? That is trollish behavior.

[logical muse]

Yrreg, I am not an atheist, so perhaps your questions aren't aimed directly at me. Being Greek, and raised in a traditional Greek household, I am bound to follow the beliefs my parents instilled in me. I imagine that your case is similar, after all, you are a christian, not a buddhist, hindu or muslim. Have you wondered why that is?

I believe, as do all Greeks, in the Greek Gods of Antiquity. From the formless void of Chaos from which sprang Gaia through to the King of Gods, Zeus; from the Olympian and Primordial Dieties to the River Gods, Nymphs and Giants, I believe in them all.

As a direct descendant of the God Momus, I am more qualified than most to speak authoritatively on this subject.

Yrreg, I am not angry, just disappointed. You are certainly aware of my Gods; evidence of their Creation is all around you and yet you deny them. You have forsaken the true Gods for a single, impotent, irrelevant, insecure, paranoid God.

I think you are angry at 'atheists', not because they don't believe in Gods, but because they don't believe in your God. You are angry because you know that atheists, upon learning the truth of the Ancient Greek Gods, will accept and believe in them, at the expense of your own false God.

In a final note of optimism, I would like to point out that it is not too late for you. Even though you are not Greek, you can still embrace the True Gods of Olympus. I suggest starting with Dionysus, the Party God. You need that after believing in your Christian God for so long.

[articulett]

And I don't like Christians who spread the prejudice against atheists... people don't trust atheists because of lies about atheists promoted by theists to make theists feel special about believing. There is no evidence that atheists are lest trust worthy and lots of evidence that makes them more trustworthy-- they never claim to have divine truths or divine authority, for example. Secular societies are healthier. Atheists are under represented in prisons. They are less likely to get divorced than their Evangelical Christian counterparts.

So, if atheists are distrusted or disliked, it's because of the meme that yrreg is trying to promulgate-- the myth that faith makes people good or moral in some way and that lack of it makes people bad or immoral or "angry". And yet that entire premise is built on a fallacy... and inculcated in the mind of simple folks who don't need evidence to accepts such claims as "truths". I think that is something atheists could be angry about. Though it's also funny. To me, yrreg is everlastingly trying to provoke atheists so he can prove to himself that they are angry and that his faith makes him "better" in some way. He wants to prove to himself that he's being persecuted for his faith. I guess it makes him feel like he's winning heaven bonus points.

But I am curious about the "gay friend" of yrreg-- do tell us more about him. Perhaps the answers you seek will become more apparent... that is, if you really are seeking answers to the questions you ask and not just trying to spin an opinion into a "truth" in your head.

[Hindmost]

Allowing Hurricane Katrina to hit New Orleans. Evil Q like god.

glenn

[arthwollipot]

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.Well, for a start, there's the bit about Christians always going around trying to convince non-Christians to become Christians. That's something I find pretty unacceptable, and was the basic cause for me leaving the church I used to attend.

Then there's God's absolute redundancy. There is no physical process that goes on in the universe that requires intervention by God in order to do so. Every process we have studied has a natural cause. God is completely and utterly redundant in this universe. I find it unacceptable that people still attribute things to him that demonstrably have natural causes.

I also find it unacceptable the way that certain of God's followers are required to compromise their intellectual integrity. I find it unacceptable that people can be convinced by the existence of God to do horrible things to other people. I find it unacceptable that children are brought up to believe in God before they have the intellectual capacity to understand the question.

I find it unacceptable that a divine being should eradicate entire populations of people just to glorify a minority (cv Joshua).

I find it unacceptable that a divine being should make laws that are clearly unjust, unfair and cruel (cv Leviticus).

I find it unacceptable that a divine being should threaten those who do not follow him with unending torture, while promising perfect bliss to those who bow down and offer him unending worship (cv Revelation).

Atheists have no reason to discriminate against homosexuals. Atheists have no reason to oppose medical research that could save millions of lives. Atheists have no reason to vilify or hate anyone because of what they believe. Atheists do good because doing good is its own reward, not because they are trying to get brownie points in the hope of perfect bliss after they die.

I find it unacceptable that Christians are incapable of understanding atheism, and hate and vilify atheists. I find that unacceptable.

[RandFan]

To help you get a feel for it... At the moment there is a world banking problem. A curious 5 year old might ask "Why don't we just print more money?" Now, you may not be able to give a snappy sound byte answer but one thing is for sure, you know that 'just printing more money' is not a solution. Now imagine the same question being asked by an adult. They would start to look a bit silly for believing that was serious option. Now imagine that the head of the treasury said "Right, I've got it chaps... we just print more money!!!" You would be stupefied that he could be so ignorant. That's pretty much how I feel about Christians.I like that. I agree and I was one who bought it hook line and sinker. It's silly bronze age myth. If you want to believe it fine but I'm not going to.

[Upchurch]

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.
Not a thing really, insofar as I have no reason to think such a thing exists. He's kinda in the same category as Santa Claus or Optimus Prime.


Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools,
um... there isn't anything stopping children from praying in public schools. School led prayer, sure, but nothing stops children from praying.


and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.
Because public lands and buildings belong to everyone, not just Christians. Is that not obvious?


You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.
er... That's exactly why and it's a darn good reason. The Constitution is the authoritative document in the US.


But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.
Again, not a thing. I don't believe in Indiana Jones either and I think he's pretty cool.

[articulett]

Yeah... come to think of it... what the Christians did to the Native Americans and other aboriginal people wasn't very cool.

And that witch burning thing sucked too.

But I'm a pretty forgiving person... I don't hold that against anyone today. I think my feelings for Christians and god are on par with by feelings towards believers in other woo and their woo. No more or no less. I am always curious about the indoctrination process... and I feel sorry for some people who were indoctrinated into some really miserable belief systems... like the Amish can't use electricity... and the Mormon women have it rough-- so do the Muslim women...

But I don't try to fix it or save them or enlighten them... I feel bad about kids whose parents think they are possessed or who pray over them instead of seeking medical help-- but mostly I don't care what people believe .... I don't even want to know... I think it's fine. But to me beliefs are like fetishes... the kind of thing people ought to keep to themselves.

[yrreg]

For the record, I'm not angry at anyone.


Anger is the intense emotion to at least neutralize if not destroy what is at least any resistance to what one wants to keep oneself free of, consisting of any harm, any obstruction, or inconvenience, or source of displeasure whatever, or disturbance to one's equanimity.

In a few words, anger is the passion to rid oneself of any to oneself disagreeable thing.


But mankind accepts the distinction between justified anger and unjustified anger.


Inside every person then he must judge for himself whether his anger is justified or not, and outside of himself someone or some people must determine and decide for him, and do something about it, otherwise the angry person can get bleeding ulcers in the most innocuous scenario, or exterminate mankind including himself in the worst scenario.



Dear Wowbagger, either you have achieved impassivity of the legendary Buddhist kind, or you are in a condition of general anaesthesia, but certainly the former because you can still participate here.


Just for humor, okay?

But I welcome your presence here.




Yrreg

[PixyMisa]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum
Ah, there we go.

Atheists are not angry
Yrreg is angry.

because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.
Yes indeedy. You find it impossible to talk constructively with atheists. Perhaps you should examine why this is so.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.
Yes, because you keep asking the wrong question.

Why are we atheists? Because we don't believe in gods.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.
Nope.

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.
Exactly right. We don't believe in gods, so it's not up to us to come up with specifications for the gods we don't believe in.

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.
Yep. I should note, that it is only you that appears to be angry here.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.
So you not only impute an emotional state to other people without any evidence, you impute a cause for that emotional state without any evidence?

And then you wonder why everyone tells you that you're wrong?

And remember, we're atheists. We don't believe in gods, and therefore have no reason to be angry with them.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools
Damn straight.

and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.
Sure.

That is, after all, what the US Constitution says.

If you don't like it, tough.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.
None of this is even remotely true.

Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.
"unruly in your words"?

Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation,"
None of us professed that. That's your idea.

because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence
Again, your idea.

it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.
That's ridiculous.

Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
And we don't.

In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.
So? Did you ask for a refund?

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists
Which they don't.

even though they keep insisting that they don't
Because they don't.

basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.
Correct.

What about hating theists?
I'm busy right now.

I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.
So, what you're arguing is that theists hate atheists?

That everything you've been saying heretofore was backwards?

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.
Yeah? Tough. You're not allowed to do that in the first place.

Again, your point is that theists are angry with atheists.

Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.
Nothing. There's no such entity.

And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?
Because you've never met one?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.
So, theists are angry with atheists. Yes, got it.

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.
More specifically, the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.
Tough. It's the law.

And anyway, all you are arguing is that theists hate atheists. We've got it, okay?

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.
Bzzt! Wrong!

You have not established that atheists are wicked, or that they hate God, or that they hate Christians.

You have established that they seek the protection of the First Amendment.

You have suggested that theists hate atheists.

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.
Nothing. There's no such entity.

[PixyMisa]

At this very moment I am angry at theists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.
Given the current crop, I'm not sure they're playing.

[Dancing David]

At this very moment I am angry at Doubters of Bigfoot here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace Doubting Bigfoot, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.


When I ask them what they have for an idea of Bigfoot, they will react with they don't believe in Bigfoot so they don't have to give any idea of Bigfoot.

I ask them why are you angry Doubters of Bigfoot, they insist that they are Doubters of Bigfoot but not angry Doubters of Bigfoot or angry but not for being Doubters of Bigfoot.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being Doubters of Bigfoot, in other words, they are angry at Bigfoot and Bigfootists.

From my part I am angry at Doubters of Bigfoot because they don't want people to practice Bigfoot related acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove Bigfoot related structures like giant footprints in public lands.

In his connection more generally I am angry at Doubters of Bigfoot because they target Son of Bigfoot followers principally in their hostility to Bigfoot, but Bigfoot is their number one target; since they can't hit Bigfoot, they go after Son of Bigfoot followers and everything Son of Bigfoot follower to vent out their hatred.



Please Doubters of Bigfoot here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.


Lastly, I really think that Doubters of Bigfoot, who have the same mentality as with convert to Doubting Bigfoot, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that Doubting Bigfoot gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing Doubting Bigfoot.


Anyway, since the way I see it Bigfoot is the anti-center piece of the Doubters of Bigfoot' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of Doubters of Bigfoot; but this time I will direct my interest on what you Doubters of Bigfoot find unacceptable with Bigfoot, the Bigfoot of Son of Bigfoot followers, and my description of Bigfoot is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in Bigfoot, the Hairy Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.


In Bigfoot Doubting forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the Doubters of Bigfoot there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being Doubters of Bigfoot they do engage in hate against Bigfoot and Bigfootists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in Bigfoot therefore they can't hate Bigfoot.

What about hating Bigfootists?


I said in another forum, why people in America take Doubters of Bigfoot to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being Doubters of Bigfoot they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from teaching about Bigfoot in public schools and removing structures of Bigfoot from public places.



Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to Doubters of Bigfoot here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to Doubting Bigfoot but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with Bigfoot.



And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from talking about Bigfoot in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove Bigfoot related structures like Footprints from public lands and buildings.

You know what the Doubters of Bigfoot will say about their campaign against teaching about Bigfoot in public schools and displaying Bigfoot related structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for Bigfootery, or the separation of Footery and state.


I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from Doubters of Bigfoot for stopping children from talking about Bigfoot in public schools and seeking to remove all Bigfoot related symbols in public places, why Americans should regard Doubters of Bigfoot as the most distrusted people in their midst.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the Doubters of Bigfoot in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because Doubters of Bigfoot are so plain wicked in their hatred toward Bigfoot and Son of Bigfoot followers, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against Bigfoot and Son of Bigfoot followers.



But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with Bigfoot.

[arthwollipot]

I think that there needs to be a distinction drawn between "what do you find unacceptable about God" and "what do you find unacceptable about Christians".

There are reasons I find the idea of God unacceptable, and there are reasons why I find the behaviour of Christians unacceptable. They are separate.

[drkitten]

See, what I mean? you can't have any constructive exchange with atheists.

No. YOU can't have any constructive exchange with atheists.

But since YOU can't have any constructive exchange with rational, thinking, beings, I wouldn't worry too much about atheists specifically if I were you.

[RandFan]

Anger is the intense... {blah, blah blah}.Care to respond to some of the posts?

[Foster Zygote]

In a few words, anger is the passion to rid oneself of any to oneself disagreeable thing.

Syntax aside, this is a pretty silly definition of anger. I have a friend who doesn't care for tomatoes. Is he angry at tomatoes? I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was about seven. Does that mean I'm angry with Santa Clause?

People can rid themselves of a belief without feeling any anger. But this answer is unsatisfactory to you, yes? You can't accept the fact that people can simply reject your beliefs for rational, unemotional reasons. You need to convince yourself that anyone who rejects your beliefs must do it for the reasons that you would like them to do so. You ask "why?" and are given a reasonable answer. But you desperately want a stupid answer. Therefor you ignore the reasonable answer and just pretend that the stupid answer you desired was the one given.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

@yrreg,

The IPU forgives you.

[Silentknight]

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.


I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.
For your information, the constitutional separation of church and state was actually implemented for the protection of the various religious groups-- from each other. The Puritans, Quakers, Anglicans, Catholics, and other Christian sects were constantly at each other's throats with their harassment, persecution, and disruption of church meetings. Religious minorities, including the Baptists, were the ones lobbying against support of an established church. The wall of separation was originally supported by Christian groups for the sake of Christian groups.

In addition, the First Amendment also guarantees you the right to freely practice your religion without interference or influence from the government, regardless of what your beliefs are. Without the wall of separation, there would be one national religion and the state church would be able to dictate what you should believe and how you should practice it. I think keeping your prayers, symbols, and commandments to yourself and out of government funded institutions is a small price to ask. The same atheists you despise so much are also fighting to keep the government from taking away your religious freedoms, in their insistence that the Constitution be upheld, whether you realize it or not.


As for the rest of your post:
(snip)
Fundy MAD! Fundy SMASH!
Translated it for you. You can thank me later.

[uruk]

~snip~
Before I forget I want to commend people who though being atheists do not think it necessary to make it mandatory for children to not pray in public schools, and/or to remove religious structures in public lands and buildings.

For those who do work to remove praying in public schools and also to remove religious monuments in public lands and facilities, that is your legal right to do so in accordance with the law, I grant you that. It's more than just a right. Our constitution specificaly state a separation of church and state. Our government cannot be seen as supporting a particular religion. Christianity is not the only religion being practiced in this country. Would you feel better if the US decided to support Buddisim or Islam as the "official" religion?

Our founding fathers also wanted to avoid the problems with a state sponsored religion. They saw those problems in Europe and decided that they did not want those problems in America.

And before you say that our country was founded on christian ideals, please read the biographies of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson for thier views on christanity. You will probably not be pleasanty surprised. You'll also get a better reason on why there is and should be a separation of church and state.

Hey, also think about it this way. You wouldn't want the government to meddle with your church do you? Your church certainly reapes the benefits of non-tax status.

The Christians who do care about God being attended to in the public domain, they can also do some legal thing about it. Hey on your own property or place of business or website is fine. But if you want to put it on public land you'll have to change the constitution.

[JoeTheJuggler]

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.


There's your problem right there. You make assumptions about other people, and when they answer you honestly (trying to disabuse you of your wrong notions of how they think), you reject their responses.

Yep. It's impossible to have a constructive conversation like that.

Atheists don't believe in God. We're not angry at God. For myself, I find the term "God" problematic strictly because it's poorly defined. (When people do give anything like an actual definition, it's usually easy to prove that their concept is internally inconsistent or self-contradictory in the same way 4 sided triangles are.)

We wouldn't be happier if we believed in God. Again, for myself, if I professed a belief in God, I'd feel very internally conflicted. It would go against all the evidence I've seen. In fact, asking how an atheist would feel if he believed in god is such a hypothetical question (much like "If you weren't you, would you be happier?") as to be meaningless.

[articulett]

I feel like Yrreg is saying, "why can't you just at least pretend to believe in god or pretend that it's respect-worthy to believe so that I can feel superior to you".

The solution is obvious-- Yrreg needs to take the Scientology free personality test and get cleared via the e-meter. His engrams and thetans are making him neurotic, angry, and prone to delusion. Where's fredcarr when you need him?

[PixyMisa]

Some of you state that you cannot talk about God much less hate Him because He does not exist: the idea of God is meaningless, so also His existence.

In which case then you can just keep repeating in your next post the following message:
"For me God does not exist, period."And I thank you for your information about your own attitude toward God.
This applies to all atheists.

Before I forget I want to commend people who though being atheists do not think it necessary to make it mandatory for children to not pray in public schools, and/or to remove religious structures in public lands and buildings.
First Amendment. Read it.

For those who do work to remove praying in public schools and also to remove religious monuments in public lands and facilities, that is your legal right to do so in accordance with the law, I grant you that.
In the United States, yes.

The Christians who do care about God being attended to in the public domain, they can also do some legal thing about it.
They can do whatever they like in private; they can move to a less enlightened nation; they can attempt to convene a Constitutional Convention.

Then there are people here who are and will be insisting that I don't get what atheists are all about.
Indeed.

My reaction: They are all about denying God's existence and want the world (for atheists who are outspoken) to know that God does not exists, and to accept into practice the implications of God's non-existence, that is what I know about atheists the outspoken ones.
Your God has no special standing vis-a-vis nonexistence. All gods nonexist equally.

Next, there are atheists who want God to go on international public television, and into whatever public mass media display available today, to show forth His presence.
I'd prefer Aphrodite myself.

I guess they can exercise the option to address their demand to Him themselves, or do as many and I will say all theists or believers in God do: look at the moon for a starter and see the maker there, in other words: infer from what is visible to what is invisible, etc., etc., etc.
I've looked at the Moon. It's a ball of rock.

That leaves those atheists who find God abominable or answerable for all the evils in the world.
I'll grant you that this is probably a non-zero set. But none of them are here.

For these atheists, I must agree with them that we have to draw up a list of revisions for God to undertake of Himself, or for man to absorb in man's conception of God.
Huh?

[jmcvann]

Care to respond to some of the posts?

Rhetorical question, right? Responding thoughtfully to other people would require ... er ... uh ... being thoughtful!

[wollery]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.Perhaps if you actually paid attention to what the atheists said you might be able to have a constructive argument with them.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.It's actually a fair question. How does one "embrace" a lack of belief in something. Do you "embrace" a lack of belief in Odin?

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.There are an infinite number of definitions for the word "god", why should atheists supply a single definition for something that can have an infinite number of definitions, and which they don't believe exists anyway?

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.So you're calling them liars?

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.I've yet to see you produce any actual evidence of this. Can you provide quotes to show that these atheists are angry, and more importantly, that the are angry because they are atheists?

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.No. The constitution of the United States of America prohibits the mandatory requirement of any religious act in a state funded organisation, and the state funded erection of any building or artifact of specific religious meaning on state owned land. Would you be at all happy if schools required christian student to pray to Allah 4 times a day? How about the erection of a star of David on state owned land? Why should Christianity get special treatment? Is it fair for non-Christian students to be forced to attend Christian prayer meetings?

In fact students are allowed to pray in schools. Prayer is a private matter, between a person and their god, and the state has absolutely no right to stop them from praying, provided the prayer is held at a reasonable time, in a reasonable place. If a bunch of students want to get together in an unused classroom during break or lunch, and pray as a group, then they have that right. This act can even involve teachers. It cannot, however, be made mandatory for all student in a class, or year group.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.It has nothing to do with anger at god, which you still have failed to show is even possible for an atheist. However, as to atheists targeting christians, this is because in the US, and more generally the West, Christians are by far the most outspoken advocates of mandated school prayer, and state sponsored religion. Atheists don't target christians because they are angry at god, they target christians because it is the christians who are trying to force their religion on everyone else, in clear contravention of the US constitution.

Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.Well, I'm trying to be as polite and reasonable as I can, and answer your points in as clear and coherent a manner as possible.


Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.I'm sorry, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make here!


Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview,Wrong. Just wrong. God is an irrelevance in the atheist world view. Until you understand that you will never be able to understand anything else about atheists.

let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians,Also wrong. It isn't that atheists find god unacceptable, it's that they don't believe it exists. There's a world of difference between unacceptable and non-existent.

and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.Not really much of a description. You could be describing the Big Bang with that sentence.

In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.Please provide links to these forums. It would be nice to actually see what happened there.

What about hating theists?I don't, at least, not generally. There are theists I hate, but there are also very many theists I like a lot.


I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

Except that they do it not in the traffic but in their hearts and minds, and thus also express their hearts and minds in their acts, like stopping children from praying in public schools and removing structures of religion from public places.Poor analogy. Atheists don't want to drive on the other side of the road, they just want to be free to have the option to ride a bicycle instead of being forced to drive a Ford Mustang.



Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:


Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.God doesn't exist, so there's nothing to find unacceptable. Many atheist do, however, find it unacceptable for their children to be forced to pray to an imaginary being, and to to be hated for exercising their constitutional right to believe whatever they want.

And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.As noted earlier, children are free to pray in public schools, but the schools are not allowed to make children pray. Huge difference. The constitution clearly states that the State is not allowed to show preference to one religion over another, so mandating prayer in public schools, or erecting crosses on public land, at public expense is specifically prohibited by the US constitution. It's illegal, according to the founding principles of the US .

You know what the atheists will say about their campaign against praying in public schools and displaying religious structures or monuments in public places? because it is against the US Constitution of no public money being spent for religion, or the separation of church and state.

I am not an American citizen, but I can understand with that kind of a justification from atheists for stopping children from praying in public schools and seeking to remove all religious symbols in public places, why Americans should regard atheists as the most distrusted people in their midst.So, atheists should be distrusted in the US for seeking to uphold the law of the US? Interesting logic.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.So, asking that the law be upheld is wicked? Umm, okay.....

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.Nothing. God doesn't exist.

[Dunstan]

How does one "embrace" a lack of belief in something. Do you "embrace" a lack of belief in Odin?

Oh, don't bring up Odin. Yrreg is very angry with Odin.

I'm not sure why, though. As far as I know, Odin is cool with homosexuality. He understands how it is: a cold night, a little too much mead.....

[MattusMaximus]

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.

Yrreg

Yyreg, I have a simple answer to your question: nothing.

I don't "hate" or find anything "unacceptable" with God, because I don't believe God exists. It is an irrelevant question, and it points out a common misconception among many theists that they think atheists are "mad at God." How silly is that? My answer: extremely. Because how can one be mad at something you don't consider to be real?

I might as well ask you what you find hateful or unacceptable with leprechauns or unicorns. It is, assuming you don't believe in leprechauns and unicorns, a meaningless question. Do you see my point?

The thing that does bug me is when people who have a particular belief-system (let's say, Christianity) feel their belief gives them the right to dictate laws that govern all the rest of us who don't share that particular belief-system (this includes numerous other non-Christian religious folk). That is an assault upon my personal liberty. You see this kind of thing running rampant in Islamic countries, for instance.

And while I'm at it, I cannot figure out why my lack of belief in your God drives you so nuts. Why do you care what atheists like me think, anyway? What is it about my non-belief which makes you so uneasy?

[articulett]

I think if all people kept their faith as private as they'd like the more obscure faiths to keep theirs, then there'd be no problem. I don't want to know what superstitions people have. I don't care. If it's good or true and their god is real-- my participation and belief is not needed. They can talk to their invisible friends in their head all they want, right? They can go to their tax free churches and erect their Nativity scenes, crosses, crescents, pentagrams, or whatever it is they hold sacred. They can get the respect they give believers in faiths they don't share-- the Scientologists, for example. They should expect no more rights than they'd grant such people. They should be as private as they wish other believers of things they find "cultish" to be.

I think if other religions started demanding the exact same rights as Christians like yrreg feel entitled to, then suddenly they'd see the wisdom of separation of church and state. If a percentage of our money needed to say "In Allah we trust" to satisfy believers in Allah and so forth then I think they'd be on the front lines promoting government neutrality.

Yrreg just wants freedoms allotted to those who share his faith-- not everyone equally. He wants special privileges to those who believe in the same unbelievable story he's been indoctrinated with. But he gives no reason or evidence as to why. He imagines persecution and anger when it's refused in the exact same manner that he'd refuse a Wiccans right to have daily out-loud incantations which everyone must be subject to. Nobody wants other peoples myths inflicted upon their kids as "truth". That's why the government must allow all or none when it comes to religious viewpoints. It cannot favor one over the other nor can it favor religion over non-religion. The first amendment gives everyone a freedom of conscience as a basic right, and it's an idea that worked so well, that it spread to all developed nations. It works so well, that societal health can be directly correlated to how secular their populations are.

And despite yrreg's claims to the contrary... I think he is angry at Buddhists... in fact whenever I think of someone who is specifically angry at Buddhists, I think of yrreg-- Who doesn't? Have you met anyone who is more angry at Buddhists than yrreg? I find his sudden backtracking on the subject laughable.

Why does he think he's not angry at Buddhists when he clearly is?... why does he think we hate Christians when his vitriol directed at Buddhism and Atheism far outweighs any anger I see directed towards gods or christianity on this forum. I think he just imagines anger when we, like consistent skeptics, treat Christian woo the same way we treat all woo-- the same way he treats all the woo he doesn't "believe in". We goof on all "woo"-- because it's funny. It's funny that people feel special and saved and holier than thou because of some imagined divine wisdom or belief in the woo that they think is true.

[articulett]

Oh, don't bring up Odin. Yrreg is very angry with Odin.

I'm not sure why, though. As far as I know, Odin is cool with homosexuality. He understands how it is: a cold night, a little too much mead.....

Ha... I read the last line as "a little too much head"

I think a lot of Greek gods are fine with homosexuality. Maybe a good Greek God could cure "his friend's" problem?

[yrreg]

I am now responding from post #20 to post #52, which is contributed by logical muse below.


Yrreg, I am not an atheist, so perhaps your questions aren't aimed directly at me. Being Greek, and raised in a traditional Greek household, I am bound to follow the beliefs my parents instilled in me. I imagine that your case is similar, after all, you are a christian, not a buddhist, hindu or muslim. Have you wondered why that is?

I believe, as do all Greeks, in the Greek Gods of Antiquity. From the formless void of Chaos from which sprang Gaia through to the King of Gods, Zeus; from the Olympian and Primordial Dieties to the River Gods, Nymphs and Giants, I believe in them all.

As a direct descendant of the God Momus, I am more qualified than most to speak authoritatively on this subject.

Yrreg, I am not angry, just disappointed. You are certainly aware of my Gods; evidence of their Creation is all around you and yet you deny them. You have forsaken the true Gods for a single, impotent, irrelevant, insecure, paranoid God.

I think you are angry at 'atheists', not because they don't believe in Gods, but because they don't believe in your God. You are angry because you know that atheists, upon learning the truth of the Ancient Greek Gods, will accept and believe in them, at the expense of your own false God.

In a final note of optimism, I would like to point out that it is not too late for you. Even though you are not Greek, you can still embrace the True Gods of Olympus. I suggest starting with Dionysus, the Party God. You need that after believing in your Christian God for so long.



There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.

Besides, if you look at the whole progression of man's knowledge of God, it has become more and more 'Occamic',* meaning: in consonance with the principle of parsimony, or as expressed in Latin, Entia non sunt multiplicanda since necessitate, i.e., entities should not be multiplied without necessity, scil., man's concept of God is most parsimonious at this point in time, no need to have so many of them, one supreme God is most economical in terms of all convenience in dealing with God.

Christians Protestants as opposed to Catholics conributed one big forward step to mankind in the parsimonizing trend toward man's concept and relationship with God, namely: no more intermediaries of priests and rites but each person directly to and with God by his heart and mind.

-------------------


A lot of atheists here want to point out that I am not attending to their contentions, but I am; however I look at the very big picture and see that your contentions are:

Those of you who claim not to see any reasons to find any meaningful content in the concept of God, much less in the existence of God, my answer to you is that you are exercising an act of free will but not of investigation and inference.

So, you are wilful deniers of God's existence, which is a free choice from your part; and against the free choice of a free agent there is no arguments that will convince the deniers to assent to the conclusion of any and all arguments presented.

If you care to give some attention to what you might call a myth, Satan rebelled against God, even though he knows that he is a creature, a being of contingency, and God His creator, a being of necessity.

That is Satan's act of free choice, and God can't deny him his free choice, not morally to be true to God's own word to respect a free agent's exercise of free will, because He did give Satan free choice.

In this regard, as a student of God and Satan, I would say that Satan won in his contest against God, and God lost: because Satan denies to God the satisfaction of accepting his (Satan's) being subordinate to God, by declaring to God's face, "I will not submit."


That is a myth if you will, but in myths there are truths discovered by man in his most pristine use of intellect to fathom the depths of goodness and evil.


So, to those who deny that there is any meaning to the idea of God and wherefore He does not exist, that is an act of free will, and you need not say anyting further except:


"For me God does not exist, period."


That is why I said in my post #31 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4270691&postcount=31), to please just repeat your declaration in your next post:

"For me God does not exist, period."

And as I said also in the post from me cited, that I will keep a note of your attitude in denial of God's concept and God's existence.



For all other atheists, you have what observant and thinking men see to be complaints against God, which complaints lead you to deny that God exists, because God is not compatible with your complaints.

Suppose you now put into specific statements of grievances your complaints against God.


Then we can work together to put up a list of revisions of God's dealing with mankind for God to consider accepting, so that atheists will not bring up the same complaints again and again and again.

And also we can incorporate these revisions into man's concepts of God, so that we can come to a more congenial over all concept of God, acceptable to everyone who otherwise has some gripe against God.




Yrreg

*Occamic, adjective, from Occam also spelt Ockam, 1285 - 1347(9) c.e., Roman Catholic Franciscan monk friar, author of the principle in the world of learning known as Occam's Razor, or the law of parsimony, inculcating that the best explanation should be the most simple one, in the choice of several explanations for any question.

This is a principle that is sancrosanct in all disciplines of human learning, specially in critical thinking.

So, if you want to find out whether you are speaking sense or nonsense, examine whether what you are saying is too complicated or it can be said in simple plain concepts and language.

[Doubt]

Before I forget I want to commend people who though being atheists do not think it necessary to make it mandatory for children to not pray in public schools, and/or to remove religious structures in public lands and buildings.


I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic.

I cannot know that no god exists. But every god I have ever heard of at part of organized religions have been absurd.

That said, the above statement is just plain wrong. I know of no person who wants to stop kids from praying in public schools. What most of us who understand the principle of separation between church and state want is for the state not to participate in religion. Little Johnny can pray if he wants. The faculty can not lead prayers or act as advocates for religion. Nor can they use the school assets to promote religion.

Many of those who desire this also believe in God and go to church, yrreg. Good practicing Christians and many others religious individuals who dislike the idea of the state getting into religion because they understand that the principle of separation between church and state exists not only to protect the individual and the state from undo religious pressure. The separation of church and state also exists to protect religion from undo pressure from the state.

Yrreg, you are either profoundly ignorant of this subject or a liar. Which is it?

What follows here is Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Which makes it clear why the separation exists.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html


Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.



Bolding by me.

[Madalch]

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.

Besides, if you look at the whole progression of man's knowledge of God, it has become more and more 'Occamic',* meaning: in consonance with the principle of parsimony, or as expressed in Latin, Entia non sunt multiplicanda since necessitate, i.e., entities should not be multiplied without necessity, scil., man's concept of God is most parsimonious at this point in time, no need to have so many of them, one supreme God is most economical in terms of all convenience in dealing with God.

It is even more parsimonious to believe in no gods whatsoever, and there is really no practical or reasonable, intelligent consideration to attend any.


Those of you who claim not to see any reasons to find any meaningful content in the concept of God, much less in the existence of God, my answer to you is that you are exercising an act of free will but not of investigation and inference.
So, you are wilful deniers of God's existence, which is a free choice from your part...

So the only evidence you can point to for the existance of God is to say, "Of course there's a God! If you don't believe me, you're being wilfully ignorant!"

Once again, projecting your own problems on others.

[MattusMaximus]

Uhhh, yrreg, I would just like to point out something kind of important about atheists.

We don't believe that Satan exists, either.

So attempting to explain to us all about our free will ("rejecting God") being the product of Satan's influence... it's going to fall on deaf ears, you must know. You might as well tell me my free will is the result of leprechauns - it will mean just as much as your previous argument: nothing.

ETA: And, btw, would you mind answering my question? Why does my non-belief in your God bother you so much?

[RandFan]

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Christian god, because man has today come to the knowledge that god is nonsensical and there is zero evidence that he or she exists.

[Sefarst]

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.

Besides, if you look at the whole progression of man's knowledge of God, it has become more and more 'Occamic',* meaning: in consonance with the principle of parsimony, or as expressed in Latin, Entia non sunt multiplicanda since necessitate, i.e., entities should not be multiplied without necessity, scil., man's concept of God is most parsimonious at this point in time, no need to have so many of them, one supreme God is most economical in terms of all convenience in dealing with God.

Christians Protestants as opposed to Catholics conributed one big forward step to mankind in the parsimonizing trend toward man's concept and relationship with God, namely: no more intermediaries of priests and rites but each person directly to and with God by his heart and mind.

Don't tell the Hindus that.

This is very strange. What you have here is an argument from convenience. It's more convenient to only believe in one God? Why should parsimony enter into whether or not God a) exists and b) is singular?

Following this argument, wouldn't it be most parsimonious for society to simply do away with the idea of God altogether? It would certainly make our use of time much more efficient. It would free up more land and resources that could be used for productive processes.

A lot of atheists here want to point out that I am not attending to their contentions, but I am; however I look at the very big picture and see that your contentions are:
Those of you who claim not to see any reasons to find any meaningful content in the concept of God, much less in the existence of God, my answer to you is that you are exercising an act of free will but not of investigation and inference.
So, you are wilful deniers of God's existence, which is a free choice from your part; and against the free choice of a free agent there is no arguments that will convince the deniers to assent to the conclusion of any and all arguments presented.

Is this anything besides a bald assertion?

So, to those who deny that there is any meaning to the idea of God and wherefore He does not exist, that is an act of free will, and you need not say anyting further except:

"For me God does not exist, period."
I do not choose for the idea of God to not make any sense to me. If it doesn't make sense, how can I believe it does?

That is why I said in my post #31 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4270691&postcount=31), to please just repeat your declaration in your next post:
"For me God does not exist, period."
And as I said also in the post from me cited, that I will keep a note of your attitude in denial of God's concept and God's existence.

I'm not sure why you're so hell-bent on this. Why do I need to declare anything to you so that you can "keep a note of [my] attitude in denial of God's concept and God's existence"? Why can't you just have a discussion on the idea without having to box us all into little categories?

For all other atheists, you have what observant and thinking men see to be complaints against God, which complaints lead you to deny that God exists, because God is not compatible with your complaints.

God is not compatible with reality, not our complaints. I don't keep a list of grievances against the notion of God.

Then we can work together to put up a list of revisions of God's dealing with mankind for God to consider accepting, so that atheists will not bring up the same complaints again and again and again.

And also we can incorporate these revisions into man's concepts of God, so that we can come to a more congenial over all concept of God, acceptable to everyone who otherwise has some gripe against God.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Your plan is to just make up a new idea of God? What kind of solipsism is this?

[logical muse]

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.

Besides, if you look at the whole progression of man's knowledge of God, it has become more and more 'Occamic',* meaning: in consonance with the principle of parsimony, or as expressed in Latin, Entia non sunt multiplicanda since necessitate, i.e., entities should not be multiplied without necessity, scil., man's concept of God is most parsimonious at this point in time, no need to have so many of them, one supreme God is most economical in terms of all convenience in dealing with God.
This is incredible! Are you saying that Man invented God? That for any society, Man has a concept of God; that which adheres to contemporary scientific and philosophical insights, tempered by parsimony?

[Tumblehome]

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.


It was Christians who included separation of church and state in the Constitution, and it's observed and enforced today by a government made up mostly of Christians, I would bet.

Why pin the blame on atheists?

[articulett]

Heck, yrreg would be demanding church state separation if faiths he didn't believe in started demanding the same rights and the same use of public space that he uses and inflicting their beliefs on his kids. I don't think yrreg would appreciate native american rituals and legends sharing the same forum as his god. And yet, he'd gladly inflict his god on others who don't share the belief. Would he be sympathetic to Native Americans crying foul because class time could not be used to perform rain dances and shaman rituals? Does he want to spend public funds to have foot washes in public schools so Muslim students can wash their feet regularly as their religion demands? Must school lunches cater to Kosher religions and vegetarian religions and Muslim religions? You can't demand special privileges for your faith without expecting other beliefs to demand the same... and someone needs to pay for these things.

[bruto]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively......

But for the purpose of this thread, tell me what you find hateful or unacceptable with God.

Yrreg

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so apologies if I'm repeating someone else's thoughts here. Getting too late and I need to get to bed. So.....

Why is it unconstructive or playing dummy to observe that your arguments are poor, and your understanding of the situation even worse?

To answer your loaded and essentially meaningless question as best I can, I will say I find nothing "hateful or unacceptable with God." It is true that I am not at all fond of that jealous, smiting, irrational biblical character some people try to pass off as a God. He's a jerk, or would be if he existed. But I can't say I'm angry. I'm quite relieved that no evidence is forthcoming that such a warped and psychotic demiurge is hovering over us. Thank god for that, right? The only problem I have with a real god is that there appears to me to be none, at least as the word is usually construed. This does not make me angry either, since I never really asked for one, and find a godless world a comfortable place. I like it here. I am not angry at whatever circumstances put me here, and though I would rather not die, I expect to, so I'm enjoying the trip.

Please note that I'm really trying not to be too flippant here, but you seem to be truly incapable of understanding what it means simply not to believe that what you call "God" exists. This is not the same as "embracing" atheism, or as believing anything about anything, any more than looking at a solid wall and acknowledging that there is no door in it can be said to be believing anything about the door that isn't there, or embracing some door-related belief. There's no window there either, I see, and no Geckos crawling up it, and the wall in question is not made of green cheese. Those statements, and all the other statements I could make about the things which that wall simply is not or has not are not belief systems of their own. A thing that isn't there cannot be the object of anger and abhorrence except in the imagination. I am neither angry at the wall for containing no door nor at the nonexistent door for not existing.

Beware of being trapped by the inadequacy of language to separate what exists from what does not. We cannot speak of nothing without representing it by verbal proxy. But this does not create something where nothing is. The idea you seem to have that atheists are angry with God shows a woeful inability to grasp the basic logic as well as the basic ontology involved when one speaks of something that does not exist at all.

[Robin]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.
And you think the problem is with atheists do you? You haven't even considered the problem is with you????
When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.
Strangely enough when I give a definition of God theists accuse me of advancing a straw man argument. But when I say that it is up to the proposer to define their own argument you guys react as you are doing now.

So you see there is no way for us to win this silly game you theists play.

I was once accused (by a Catholic on this forum) of inventing the concept of omniscience as a method of attacking religion. That is how silly it gets.

Richard Dawkins advanced a very clear definition of God in the GD, and a very prominent Catholic bishop announced that nobody he knew believed in that sort of a God.

If I have a claim that I want others to accept I don't expect those others to explain my claim back to me. That would not make sense. So why does it make sense when the claim is God?
and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
That is pretty much the definition rejected by the Catholic bishop I mentioned earlier.
Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.
As I have said before, if there was an embodiment of perfect love, of perfect justice, of infinite compassion, of perfect mercy who was to boot knew everything that could be known them I would pretty much be in his/her corner.

And I wouldn't even ask the bribe of eternal life that Christians extract before supporting God.

On the other hand if there was a God who was the architect of an everlasting torture chamber, as the Bible suggests, in which he will merrily watch his enemies agony, then I say, better eternal torture than eternity in the presence of the torturer.

But, and I don't know why this is such a difficult thing for theists to comprehend - I just don't think there is either sort of being.

[gdnp]

Besides, if you look at the whole progression of man's knowledge of God, it has become more and more 'Occamic',* meaning: in consonance with the principle of parsimony, or as expressed in Latin, Entia non sunt multiplicanda since necessitate, i.e., entities should not be multiplied without necessity, scil., man's concept of God is most parsimonious at this point in time, no need to have so many of them, one supreme God is most economical in terms of all convenience in dealing with God.

If the belief in one God is the most logical, why do you believe in 3? Father, Son, Holy Spirit? Allah is superior by your reasoning.

ETA: I don't think it is your best strategy to argue logic when discussing the existence of God. Stick with faith, which cannot be disproved. The idea that polytheism is incorrect because it would be more logical for there to be only one God is a non-starter. I think it would be more logical for everyone to have a God of their own, and for God to tell everyone what he wants them to do. Why doesn't he? The God of the Bible does so many illogical and contradictory things that the only response of Christians is "the Lord works in mysterious ways". The skeptics here work on evidence, not wishful thinking. Show us how one God is more compatible with what we observe than several Gods, and then why one God is more compatible with what we observe than no God, and then why your one God is more compatible with what we observe than all the others, and then you will start creating converts.

[Pardalis]

So, you are wilful deniers of God's existence, which is a free choice from your part; and against the free choice of a free agent there is no arguments that will convince the deniers to assent to the conclusion of any and all arguments presented.

I must have missed it, can you post your evidence again?

Suppose you now put into specific statements of grievances your complaints against God.
To me, it's a complete non sequitur.

Religious people say :"Life is so beautiful and so complex, therefore God must have made it all happen."

You could have just as well picked up any word at random in the dictionary instead of "God", and it would have the same result: it's a completely unnecessary and gratuitous conclusion to the stated premisse. You may think it is not, but to me it's completely nonsensical. It's a huge leap I'm not willing to take unless you give me good logical reasons to.

[arthwollipot]

I can see one major problem in our communication, and it's the same one that any theist/atheist discussions always have.

The theists assume that belief in God is the default position, and that atheists must take a positive step to move away from that position. Atheists assume the opposite, that non-belief is the default position. This is the main sticking point that believers and nonbelievers have, and a primary source of misunderstanding.

Once atheists realise that theists assume belief to be the default, and theists realise that atheists assume nonbelief to be the default, then some communication can start. One prime topic for discussion is why one's own position is or should be the default assumption.

[CFLarsen]

It is impossible for an atheist to describe what he finds hateful or unacceptable with God.

The only way an atheist can do that, is to describe what he finds hateful or unacceptable with someone else's God.

So far, I haven't found e.g. two Christians who believe in the exact same God.

[gtc]

Yrreg just wants freedoms allotted to those who share his faith-- not everyone equally. He wants special privileges to those who believe in the same unbelievable story he's been indoctrinated with. But he gives no reason or evidence as to why.

Can you quote the post where he wrote that?

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, yrreg --

I can't speak for atheists because I'm not one. I'm a theist, but not Christian. I just wanted to address some points.

First off, if I am interpreting your message correctly, you feel that Christians, in particular, are targeted by atheists for objection. Is this correct?

I think that what you are perceiving might be skewed a bit by the sample data. Most of what I see going on here consists of one of two things:

1) objection to the idea that there is a God (most often due to a lack of evidence)

2) objection to the behavior of religious persons -- usually gnostic evangelical type persons, who are usually Christian

Note that evangelical Christians are an extremely vocal bloc in the United States. You rarely hear about Buddhists trying to incorporate buddhist rituals in public schools, for example, because it's not an integral part of the Buddhist religion to evangelize and prostelytize. It is, however, an integral part of the evangelical religion to witness, to evangelize, and otherwise prostelytize.

So the evangelical gnostic types are going to be vocal about their beliefs, and vocal about how important it is to believe like them, and to try to incorporate their beliefs into the public arena (government, public schools). So the atheists (of this board, at least), when discussing stuff, are more likely to discuss them and their actions, because they come to attention more.

As has been pointed out to you, children are not forbidden to pray in [public] school, nor are they forbidden from owning bibles, or even having after-school bible-study or prayer groups. Their activities (and anyone else's, for that matter) simply can't interfere with the regular school day, nor can participation in any school-sponsored events require participation in a religious activity. Also, the school cannot give preference to their activities over another's (that is, if Wiccan kids want to have an after-school study group, or the atheist kids want to have an after-school discussion group, or the [insert group here] kids...etc, it has to be allowed).

There's actually a lot of freedom to engage in religious activities, as long as it is in a personal and non-interfering manner.

I don't doubt that there are people who deny God for emotional reasons, which is what (if I'm interpreting you correctly) you're implying. However, I do not think that this is the case for many (if not the majority) of people here. I think that most of the atheists here don't even think about God.

Do you understand the distinction? I'm sure that, as a religious person, there are things that other religious people do -- while claiming that they are doing God's will -- that upsets you, yes?

[Hokulele]

Can you quote the post where he wrote that?


This isn't exactly what articulett is claiming, but Yrreg has made it fairly clear that polytheists and Catholics need not apply.

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.

Besides, if you look at the whole progression of man's knowledge of God, it has become more and more 'Occamic',* meaning: in consonance with the principle of parsimony, or as expressed in Latin, Entia non sunt multiplicanda since necessitate, i.e., entities should not be multiplied without necessity, scil., man's concept of God is most parsimonious at this point in time, no need to have so many of them, one supreme God is most economical in terms of all convenience in dealing with God.

Christians Protestants as opposed to Catholics conributed one big forward step to mankind in the parsimonizing trend toward man's concept and relationship with God, namely: no more intermediaries of priests and rites but each person directly to and with God by his heart and mind.


And this would be a major derail, but look at most of his posts from earlier to see that he has a real issue with Buddhists, going so far as to ask the admins to "fire" the moderator who had Buddhist beliefs.

[PixyMisa]

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.
To wit: There ain't no such thing.

A lot of atheists here want to point out that I am not attending to their contentions, but I am; however I look at the very big picture and see that your contentions are:Those of you who claim not to see any reasons to find any meaningful content in the concept of God, much less in the existence of God, my answer to you is that you are exercising an act of free will but not of investigation and inference.You're wrong.

So, you are wilful deniers of God's existence, which is a free choice from your part; and against the free choice of a free agent there is no arguments that will convince the deniers to assent to the conclusion of any and all arguments presented.Nope, wrong. We ask merely for evidence. You have presented none.

If you care to give some attention to what you might call a myth, Satan rebelled against God, even though he knows that he is a creature, a being of contingency, and God His creator, a being of necessity.Yes, it's a myth.

That is Satan's act of free choice, and God can't deny him his free choice, not morally to be true to God's own word to respect a free agent's exercise of free will, because He did give Satan free choice.It's a myth. Neither Satan nor God exist.

In this regard, as a student of God and Satan, I would say that Satan won in his contest against God, and God lost: because Satan denies to God the satisfaction of accepting his (Satan's) being subordinate to God, by declaring to God's face, "I will not submit."It's a myth.

That is a myth if you will, but in myths there are truths discovered by man in his most pristine use of intellect to fathom the depths of goodness and evil.Or not.

So, to those who deny that there is any meaning to the idea of God and wherefore He does not exist, that is an act of free will, and you need not say anyting further except:
"For me God does not exist, period."What we are saying is Show us the evidence.

That is why I said in my post #31 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4270691&postcount=31), to please just repeat your declaration in your next post:"For me God does not exist, period."And as I said also in the post from me cited, that I will keep a note of your attitude in denial of God's concept and God's existence.We don't deny the concept of God. It's a real concept. Of an imaginary being.

For all other atheists, you have what observant and thinking men see to be complaints against God, which complaints lead you to deny that God exists, because God is not compatible with your complaints.No.

There is no evidence that any god of any sort exists.

Also, your particular imaginary God imaginarily committed multiple imaginary atrocities, which makes Him detestable within that particular construct of fiction.

Suppose you now put into specific statements of grievances your complaints against God.I don't like Voldemort either. Shall I put into specific statements of grievances my complaints against he who shall not be named?

Then we can work together to put up a list of revisions of God's dealing with mankind for God to consider accepting, so that atheists will not bring up the same complaints again and again and again.Uh, what, you're going to change your God for us?

And also we can incorporate these revisions into man's concepts of God, so that we can come to a more congenial over all concept of God, acceptable to everyone who otherwise has some gripe against God.If you claim your God is real and not imaginary, you cannot rationally do this.

[AZAtheist]

YRREG,

If you are sincerely interesting in the subject of Atheism, you shouldn't be here. While the JREF does have many Atheist members, its mission is not specifically secular. A more educational experience might be had by visiting a web site with the word "Atheist" in the title such as "The Atheist Community of Austin". They have a FAQ site; click here (http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/). They did a good job gathering together many of the answers to the standard questions about atheism. You can join in on their discussions through their weekly program. (Go to the site and check out their schedule)

I particularly like their take on the definition of Atheism and Agnosticism:



Q: What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you can prove. For any particular god that you can imagine, a "theist" is one who has a belief in that god. An "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in the god. A "gnostic" is one who believes that the god can be proved to exist, and an "agnostic" is one who believes that the god cannot be proved to exist.
Notice that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don't think one can prove the existence or nonexistence of gods, but you don't choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true and there is no word to describe this. You could call such a person an "untheist", perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a "gnostic atheist", one who doesn't believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.
So there are four possible ways one could be. 1. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but it can't be proved
2. Gnostic-Theist: believes it can be proved that gods exist
3. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved
4. Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist
Case 3 is sometimes referred to as "weak atheism" and case 4 is sometimes referred to as "strong atheism". Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.



Please educate yourself before wasting time trying to stir things up here.

[Hokulele]

And this would be a major derail, but look at most of his posts from earlier to see that he has a real issue with Buddhists, going so far as to ask the admins to "fire" the moderator who had Buddhist beliefs.


And before anyone asks, yes, he did.

I just hope that the JREF Forum remain true to the ideal of free thought and free speech, and make sure that not even closet or meditation Buddhists get to be moderators and administrators here.

Yrreg


The thread went downhill from there (as it should have).

[Mojo]

And before anyone asks, yes, he did.


And his reason for demanding that (that Buddhists are not capable of fairness to non-Buddhists) would apply to Buddhists in any position of power.

[Richard Masters]

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.[/B]

Yrreg

Are you talking about libertarian atheists by any chance?

[Richard Masters]

until ( 1=0 )
for all argument in JREF
if not YRREG_parse( argument ) then
response.write "See? Athiests have no argument!"
end if
next
loop

I'm not Turing or Von Neumann, or Gödel, but that's not an infinite loop by any chance, is it?

[Dysphemist]

Why I am angry

So this whole time you were the angry one, angry at atheists... It all fits now

[slingblade]

One Saturday, when I was very young, my mother took me to see the Soda Machine.
"See this?" she asked. "This is the Soda Machine. When you put in a coin, it will dispense a cold, flavorful soda to you."

"Wow!" I said, "that's neat!" I looked at the Soda Machine. It was quite large, or else I was quite small, and wonderfully shiny. It had lights that lit, and buttons that pushed, and it made sounds that went whirr and ping! and clunk. I was entranced.

"So, " I said, "every time you put in a coin, you get a soda?"

"Well..." my mother said, "that's what we believe will happen. It is a Soda Machine, after all."

I looked around and noticed there were a lot of other people around the Soda Machine, all watching the lights and listening to the sounds. People often approached the machine and put in their coins, but I was too small and too far away at the time to see what happened.

Sometimes, though, the Soda Machine would go ping! or clunk, and my mother would crane her neck to see, and say, "Oh! I wonder if he got his Soda?" or "Oh! I hope she got the flavor she wanted!"

"Mother," I said one day as we stood near the Soda Machine, "have you ever gotten a Soda?"

Mother looked thoughtful and serious. "I thought I had, many times, and I always keep trying. You should always keep trying. Maybe you put in the wrong coin, you see, or maybe you pushed the wrong button. You just have to trust that one day, you will get your Soda, and it will be cold and flavorful when you do."

So, I hung out around the Soda Machine. A lot. I put my coins in it, several times a day. Why, I practically grew up around that thing, and gave it a lot of my time and concern. I often polished the machine, or wiped off the coin slot where it got dirty after so many fingers had inserted so many, many coins. I listened very carefully whenever it went ping! or whirr or clunk, hoping to figure out the mystery of the Soda Machine.

Because you see, oddly enough, I never got my Soda.

I tried every coin I could secure, pushed every button, attended faithfully to the Soda Machine. But, no soda. No heavy can sliding down a chute to my waiting hand, no cold, flavorful goodness. Just a lot of time and coins wasted, as far as I could see.

I kept trying though, as I grew into adulthood and approached middle age. I mean, everyone I knew went to the Soda Machine. So many people couldn't all be wrong, could they? I figured the fault must lie with me. I wasn't doing something quite right. So, I tried foreign coins, coins in differing combinations. I pushed one button, many buttons, odd buttons, even buttons, no buttons. No Soda.

Finally, one day, I saw a man heading towards the Soda Machine with great purpose and a heavy bag. From his pocket, the man drew a key, and into the Machine, he put the key. He turned the key and pulled a small lever and...at last...the door to the Soda Machine swung open.

And as the man reached for the overflowing bin of coins, I finally saw:

The Soda Machine was empty. So empty, there were actually cobwebs in the high corners, and a tattered, abandonded squirrel's nest in the bottom.

I couldn't believe my eyes. All this time, all those people--including me--all that money--including mine--and the Soda Machine had been sodaless all along.

As the man walked away, I cried out to him, "Wait! Can you tell me, has there ever been any soda in that machine?"

The man stopped, turned, and shrugged. "Not that I've ever seen."

"But...but all those people, all that money, all those buttons and shiny and sounds! All those years! And you're telling me there's never been any Soda in the Machine? Then...then why do people keep coming back?"

The man shook his head and said, "Lady, I wouldn't know. I'm a milk-drinker, myself." And with that, he walked away.

[CriticalThanking]

Yrreg,

Please look at post 40. The poster was infracted. Does that make you feel better?

CT

[gtc]

This isn't exactly what articulett is claiming, but Yrreg has made it fairly clear that polytheists and Catholics need not apply.

If I read that right he was explaining why he thought that his beliefs were right and others' beliefs were wrong. Which isn't the same as saying that he wants others to have less rights than him.

And this would be a major derail, but look at most of his posts from earlier to see that he has a real issue with Buddhists, going so far as to ask the admins to "fire" the moderator who had Buddhist beliefs.

However, saying that Buddhists shouldn't be mods here is supporting religious discrimination.

[Lonewulf]

Anger is the intense emotion to at least neutralize if not destroy what is at least any resistance to what one wants to keep oneself free of, consisting of any harm, any obstruction, or inconvenience, or source of displeasure whatever, or disturbance to one's equanimity.

In a few words, anger is the passion to rid oneself of any to oneself disagreeable thing.

I have no problem with people being religious, as long as they don't thrust it upon me, and don't thrust it on children who have the right to believe as they wish to. It's Christians, not Atheists, that are working to end that.

But mankind accepts the distinction between justified anger and unjustified anger.Your anger at Atheists seems like the latter kind.

Inside every person then he must judge for himself whether his anger is justified or not, and outside of himself someone or some people must determine and decide for him, and do something about it, otherwise the angry person can get bleeding ulcers in the most innocuous scenario, or exterminate mankind including himself in the worst scenario.Go extreme much?

Just for humor, okay?Your sense of it needs work.

[Lonewulf]

Care to respond to some of the posts?

I think it's against his religious beliefs to engage in an actual intellectual discussion.

[Kotatsu]

If the belief in one God is the most logical, why do you believe in 3? Father, Son, Holy Spirit? Allah is superior by your reasoning.

Wouldn't it be even more parsimonious to believe in a half-god?

[Lonewulf]

How can someone be a half god without there being a full one? D:

[Rasmus]

The man shook his head and said, "Lady, I wouldn't know. I'm a milk-drinker, myself." And with that, he walked away.

*sighs* okay, okay, I guess somebody will have to do it - might as well be me:

Nominated!

[Evolved Wookie]

God is an abdication of responsibility.

That's what gets me when a believer tells me that God loves me, or some variant...may God bless me. To me it is saying "I can't be bothered to put my own effort into improving your day/life/bank balance, so I will invoke the will of my imaginary friend because it makes me feel better without having to put myself out".

God is used to justify the unjustifiable and as a moral cudgel to oppress those with whom the believer disagrees. Where belief perhaps once provided structure and cohesion to a scattered populace and helped them to survive, today it is nothing but divisive; teaching people to be afraid of novelty, to act without reason and, once more, to abdicate responsibility; for the believers' actions, fears and prejudices.

I am not angry at God, because he doesn't exist and, even if he did, I cannot accept that he would be the entity represented by the jealous and petty religions of the world. I am angry at the pig-headed, arrogant, ignorant and insulting teachings of a social structure that has run its course. It's a form of social control that has become redundant with the information age and if it didn't make such huge amounts of money for those at the top, I think it would die very quickly.

I've watched a number of your threads on this board, because it fascinates me how blind you seem to be to the arguments that are presented to you. The things you list as the reasons you can't discuss anything with atheists here are, in fact, the substance of their argument to you. Try to understand what they say to you, rather than dismiss it as evasion because you don't understand it.

[Dancing David]

Oh, don't bring up Odin. Yrreg is very angry with Odin.

I'm not sure why, though. As far as I know, Odin is cool with homosexuality. He understands how it is: a cold night, a little too much mead.....

Well you know what the 'old one eye' is right, which part of the body it refers to , yes, I mean it DOES stand for something... nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more...


Hard to say if the Norskis were cool with homo sex, what we have is heavily influenced by the conquering forces of love and compasssion.

[Dancing David]

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.



Computer with monitor: $450
Monthly Internet: $30
Sitting in chair: sore butt


Reading self contradictory nonsense on the Internet:

PRICELESS!


"because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights."

Yup, you know what they call that don't you,

Starts with 'a', ends with 't' and has an 'e' in the middle?

You know the most despised minority in the US?

Arfeist ?

[Dancing David]

ETA: And, btw, would you mind answering my question? Why does my non-belief in your God bother you so much?


Because you keep parking in the space reserved for theists?

[Dancing David]

And before anyone asks, yes, he did.




The thread went downhill from there (as it should have).

Many of those thread meandered around bottom of the valley and never went uphill, Yrreg also suggested that buddhist monks should starve because they live on the charity of others and suggested that they commit suicide. He did many strange things, but he is much more angry this pass, he says this is for humor, but it is just not funny. (It is like he is channeling Billo the Clown and Rush Limboom through his wierd archaic language filter and coming out with medieval vitriol.)

What is funny: Pes Oir Amsus.

[jenski]

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses, because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.



Translation: Your religion is silly but mine is not!

[Darth Rotor]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.
yrreg, such anger is a self indulgence that is an obstacle for you to overcome. Until you address and come to peace with why you allow yourself this anger, whatever it is you are trying to achieve is held back, if it is even achievable.

First, deal with the broken promise, or the unfulfilled expectation. Then, move to action.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I find the concept of god unacceptable as I see it as a man-made construct used to control the minds and actions of ordinary people, usually for selfish and hypocritical ends.
What a simple minded view of religion. There's more to it than that, a great deal more, but you've made up your mind, so why should I bother?

Peace be with you.

DR

[fuelair]

I'm pissed at god for making me a nonbeliever.

Oh, how I wish I could be more like yrreg and other believers! They are such fabu people.

But, alas, god has not seen fit to bless me with faith.

Nor has Xenu, Mithras, Allah, or Satan or flying reindeer--nor the Heavens Gate UFO people.

I have not heard a single thing from any invisible supernatural entity ever. They must hate me. And so I am bitter, bitter, bitter. No magical entities will talk with me. Alas. I can't see the magical clothes of the proverbial Emperor either. I must not be worthy. No wonder I am so angry.
I have faith in Xena!!

[Akhenaten]

megasnipposaurus was here.

*Occamic, adjective, from Occam also spelt Ockam, 1285 - 1347(9) c.e., Roman Catholic Franciscan monk friar, author of the principle in the world of learning known as Occam's Razor, or the law of parsimony, inculcating that the best explanation should be the most simple one, in the choice of several explanations for any question.

This is a principle that is sancrosanct in all disciplines of human learning, specially in critical thinking.

So, if you want to find out whether you are speaking sense or nonsense, examine whether what you are saying is too complicated or it can be said in simple plain concepts and language.


god

[bruto]

Yrreg
*Occamic, adjective, from Occam also spelt Ockam, 1285 - 1347(9) c.e., Roman Catholic Franciscan monk friar, author of the principle in the world of learning known as Occam's Razor, or the law of parsimony, inculcating that the best explanation should be the most simple one, in the choice of several explanations for any question.

This is a principle that is sancrosanct in all disciplines of human learning, specially in critical thinking.

So, if you want to find out whether you are speaking sense or nonsense, examine whether what you are saying is too complicated or it can be said in simple plain concepts and language.

I don't know where you got that definition, but it's a poor one. No surprise there, I suppose, but I don't think you quite get it.

[Tapio]

...remove religious monuments in public lands and facilities...

...until that day I'll be satisfied in simply defacing them.

:big:

Now, let's see the Big Guy try and stop me from doing that.
I'm not angry at your god (he was also mine for over 20 years, btw), I'm just calling his bluff.

[Macoy]

What a simple minded view of religion. There's more to it than that, a great deal more, but you've made up your mind, so why should I bother?

Peace be with you.

DR

Well, we're all striving for parsimony, eh?

[Darth Rotor]

Well, we're all striving for parsimony, eh?
That's not what I'd call it, but no matter. Where ya sit determines what ya see.

DR

[Safe-Keeper]

*Occamic, adjective, from Occam also spelt Ockam, 1285 - 1347(9) c.e., Roman Catholic Franciscan monk friar, author of the principle in the world of learning known as Occam's Razor, or the law of parsimony, inculcating that the best explanation should be the most simple one, in the choice of several logical explanations for any question.Fixed it for you:).

Let's say you leave a locked safe in your classroom/cublicle and go to the bathroom. Upon returning, you discover that the safe door has been opened. Now, 'the safe door just opened by itself' is certainly a more simple explanation than 'a co-worker, I don't know who, sneaked into the cubicle, opened the safe through means unknown to me, and vanished', but it's certainly not a rationalone.

[Nyarlathotep]

Fixed it for you:).


It's not even a matter of logical explanations where he is off, he's off from the very definition of Occams razor. Occams Razor is NOT that 'the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true' its that 'the explanation taht doesn't require the invention of any extra factors is most likely to be true'.

I.e. Say I leave a bowl of milk on my kitchen counter overnight and find it gone in the morning and two hypotheses are offered for the milk disapearing: One is that my cats drank it and the other is that the milk-fairy drank it. Occam's razor favors the first hypothesis not because it is simpler, both explantions are roughly equally simple, but simply because the existance of my cats can be established and we do not have to invent them, the same can not be sid of the milk-fairy.

[Autolite]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.


It's difficult to achieve "constructive" debate due to the very nature of issues themselves (Theism vs. Atheism). There is no common starting ground. Atheistic argument is logic/reality based whereas theistic argument is faith/delusion based. What you perceive as anger or hatred is likely a manifestation of the frustration that many Atheists feel (due to the futility of such discussions). As I've often said, it's like trying to win at a game of chess when the other guy is playing "dungeons and dragons"...

[MRC_Hans]

First: Practice making short posts.

There are two reasons:

1) People get fed up with long rants posts and that does not promote decent debate.

2) You are actually making yourself vulnerable, because those who choose to do so can take their pick as to which part to adress, thus leaving you with a spread of replies.

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

I have been watching your posts, and I suggest you contemplate the possibility that some of the fault is your own.


Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.


It is very difficult to answer a question like that without understanding what you mean by 'embrace'. I for one don't feel I 'embrace' atheism in any way.


Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.


I guess most of us can live with that.

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

Tell me, what is your idea of a weeblefetzer?

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.

Well, I suppose you'll just have to take their word for it. Or, alternatively, explain why YOU think they come over as angry.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.

I suggest you are very cautious about deciding what other people feel, and even more cautious about deciding why.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

Well, I guess you'll have to live with that, too, but since I'm all for religious freedom, I suppose that some of these subjects are open for discussion.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.

No, you are wrong. God is not the target of atheists. To atheists, God does not exist. Therefore the target must be those who believe in God.


Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.


Why? If you want to discuss any particular topic, well open a discussion, and if we find the subject interesting, we'll partake. However, the mere fact that it makes you angry is, quite frankly, not very interesting.


Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.


Of course not. If it was, you'd be an atheist.


Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians, and my description of God is summed up in the following words in the Apostles' Creed, the words in bold below:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.


I certainly see no reason for banning you for those words, nor do I take any offence at all. You are merely stating your beleif, which all people should be free to do. (note that this also extends to the freedom the express lack of belief)


And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.


Well, if they are truely atheists, then they cannot hate God. They might, however, hate the concept of God.


What about hating theists?


Well hating theists per se is discriminatory, but as long as it is kept as a personal feeling, you cannot hinder people.


I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.


Who gets to define which side of the road is the right one?


Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.



I find a number of things unacceptable with God. Most prominently that it does not appear to exist.


Hans

[Kotatsu]

How can someone be a half god without there being a full one? D:

I could tell you, but there's a lot of maths involved, which may detract from the reading pleasure of the present thread.

[RoboTimbo]

<snip>
Then we can work together to put up a list of revisions of God's dealing with mankind for God to consider accepting, so that atheists will not bring up the same complaints again and again and again.

And also we can incorporate these revisions into man's concepts of God, so that we can come to a more congenial over all concept of God, acceptable to everyone who otherwise has some gripe against God.




Yrreg

<snip>

You want atheists to come up with a list of things that they find objectionable about your god so that you can devise a god that they would find acceptable? I guess there's no irony in that.

[Dave Rogers]

Playing thread catchup here, but Yrreg asked atheists to respond, and I am one.

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

This seems to me to be a statement about you, not about atheists. Your inability to communicate satisfactorily isn't everyone else's problem.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

The phrase "embrace atheism" really doesn't mean anything to any of us. There isn't a positive belief system we embrace, rather there is a class of belief systems we don't hold. And this seems to be where your problem lies: you're treating this class of beliefs as if it were a single belief. I'm reminded of a scene in an old Ealing comedy where a witness claims he didn't bet on a particular horse race, and the barrister confuses him by demanding to know which specific horse he didn't bet on. That seems to be what you're doing here. Let's extend that analogy a little, to see if you can understand.

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

When you ask us which horse we didn't bet on, we point out that we didn't bet at all, so why whould we care which horse you're talking about?

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.

If you cannot conceive of anyone being an atheist for any other reason than anger, then the problem is not ours but yours. It seems that anger is a common theme in everything you post; anger at people who don't share your belief system, and projected anger perceived in them. I think you have a problem with anger, and that problem is nothing to do with me or any other atheist.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

In my country people practice religious acts in public schools, but are allowed to opt out if they so choose. I don't in general have a problem with this, although it may have a tendency to indoctrinate the young before they have the experience to make their own decisions.

In his connection more generally I am angry at atheists because they target Christians principally in their hostility to God, but God is their number one target; since they can't hit God, they go after Christians and everything Christian to vent out their hatred.

This is something I have never done, so is irrelevant to me.

Please atheists here in this forum, choose just one thing I am angry at you people for, and see if we can talk about it without you getting unruly in your words.

Here, though, I hear the voice of the abuser. You're angry with atheists, but you , in your world view, be something atheists are doing to make you angry. Therefore, you try to get them to stop doing whatever it is; but when they stop it, you're still angry at them. So it must be something else they're doing, and you have to get them to stop doing that. In the end, you'll find that you're angry at atheists merely for existing, and yet, because you refuse to own your anger, you see that point of view as entirely justified. Eventually, you may start taking action to prevent atheists from existing. I really hope you can find some other way to move on; the only way you'll ever break out of this cycle is by understanding that your emotions are your own, not an inevitable response to the actions of people you've never even met.


Anyway, since the way I see it God is the anti-center piece of the atheists' worldview, let me try to understand again, i.e., to penetrate into the true psychology of atheists; but this time I will direct my interest on what you atheists find unacceptable with God, the God of Christians,

The way you see it is entirely wrong. You're trying to persuade athesits to describe ourselves in a way consistent with your prejudices. God is not the anti-center piece of our world view, whatever that means; God is an irrelevance. And that means that we don't hate theists, either. We sometimes find you an irritation, particularly when you try to force us to do things we have no interest in doing. Apart from that, the concept of God is simply unworthy of consideration.

And all I was doing there was to show them that for being atheists they do engage in hate against God and theists, even though they keep insisting that they don't, basically because they don't believe in God therefore they can't hate God.

What about hating theists?


I said in another forum, why people in America take atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst, it is for being atheists they are like driving on the left side of the road, whereas everyone is driving on the right side of the road.

The irony here is extraordinary. You claim that atheists, by not sharing your belief system, are carrying out acts of hatred against you, and imply that this justifies hatred in return simply because atheists are different.

Your repeated comments about banning prayer in public schools and removing religious symbols from public land are largely snipped, BTW, because as a non-American they are largely irrelevant to me. One might ask, since you say you're not an American citizen, why they're so important to you.


Let me try again in this thread with this specific question to atheists here in this JREF forum (which is the most hospitable to me so far, because it is not dedicated to atheism but to critical thinking), this question namely:

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.


I find it unacceptable that other people seek to constrain my actions on the basis of an unproven hypothesis. That's about it.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.

You are defining atheism as wickedness and hatred, then using this to justify your own anger. This is prejudice in action, laid out in detail for all to see.

Before I forget I want to commend people who though being atheists do not think it necessary to make it mandatory for children to not pray in public schools, and/or to remove religious structures in public lands and buildings.

While I'm one of those people, I'd like to ask you a relevant question. How would you feel if it were permitted for a school to require all children in it to recite passages from the Communist Manifesto daily, and to study and revere the works of Marx and Lenin? If a child of yours were at a public school that required this daily of its children, would you accept this blatant political indoctrination of the young and impressionable, or would you campaign against it? And if you chose the latter course and found that the majority of parents in the school supported the practice, and that every other school in the area did the same, what alternative would you have but to campaign for it to be made illegal? And finally, if it turned out that it was illegal, would you hesitate for an instant in demanding that the law be observed? For many Western atheists, Christianity is no less an outmoded and philosophically discredited belief system than communism, yet you claim that your belief system should be indoctrinated into children, whereas I suspect you'd rather communism wasn't.

My reaction: They are all about denying God's existence and want the world (for atheists who are outspoken) to know that God does not exists, and to accept into practice the implications of God's non-existence, that is what I know about atheists the outspoken ones.

Again, what you "know" is wrong. As long as you insist on an account of atheism that corresponds to your own errors, then your errors will be perpetuated. Until you learn to admit you may be wrong, you'll never learn anything else.

Inside every person then he must judge for himself whether his anger is justified or not, and outside of himself someone or some people must determine and decide for him, and do something about it, otherwise the angry person can get bleeding ulcers in the most innocuous scenario, or exterminate mankind including himself in the worst scenario.

Read this again, then apply it to yourself. You've chosen to define atheism in terms you have chosen, and to reject any definition offered to you by atheists; in other words, you claim to understand atheists better than we understand ourselves. Your anger is based on your own definition, which has nothing to do with reality. Your anger is unjustified.

So, to those who deny that there is any meaning to the idea of God and wherefore He does not exist, that is an act of free will, and you need not say anyting further except:

"For me God does not exist, period."

I don't see any point in qualifying the statement in that particular way.

Based on the evidence available, I have formed the provisional conclusion that God does not exist. Pending further evidence, I act on the basis that my provisional conclusion is correct. Anger has no relevance to this decision.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Split off from my earlier post because this really addresses a different issue:

For all other atheists, you have what observant and thinking men see to be complaints against God, which complaints lead you to deny that God exists, because God is not compatible with your complaints.

You are asking a question of a group with a self-contradictory definition that arises purely from your own prejudices, so don't expect any serious responses. Your fantasy definition of atheists with complaints against God seem to me to be akin to discussing visible pink unicorns that can't be seen.

Suppose you now put into specific statements of grievances your complaints against God.


Then we can work together to put up a list of revisions of God's dealing with mankind for God to consider accepting, so that atheists will not bring up the same complaints again and again and again.

And also we can incorporate these revisions into man's concepts of God, so that we can come to a more congenial over all concept of God, acceptable to everyone who otherwise has some gripe against God.

Right, now this is getting a little scary. You're either (a) suggesting that God can be persuaded to change his nature because mankind doesn't approve of him, (b) you're prepared to lie to others about the nature of God to make him seem more acceptable, or (c) you don't believe in God any more than the rest of us, but you're prepared to modify your conception of God to something acceptable to more people because, since he doesn't exist, you can describe him as anything you like. Case (a) sounds far beyond megalomania; you're suggesting that you can change the nature of God. Case (c) means you're just a con-man. Case (b) may perhaps be the worst, if you believe that heresy is a sin, because in your belief system it makes you a recruiting agent for Hell.

I really think you need to reconsider whether you want to redefine God to suit his critics. There is no good interpretation I can place on it.

Dave

[rocketdodger]

I, for one, have no problem with God. I am an atheist because the existence/nonexistence of God would not affect any of the decisions in my life.

I, for one, have a problem with most theists, and for one reason only -- they have a problem with me. I am angry at theists because theists started being angry at me first.

Don't you get that yrreg? You got it totally backwards in your OP. Atheists aren't angry at God. Why would we be? We are angry with the behavior of many of those who claim to believe in God.

[Belz...]

At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

Maybe you just rub them the wrong way. I have several constructive conversation with atheists.

Everytime I want to talk with them to find out why they embrace atheism, they go into another direction like for example into what is the meaning of the word 'embrace', etc.. etc., etc.

Hey, I'll answer your question then. I'm an atheist because the concept of a god is nonsensical and is unsupported by the evidence. How's that ?

Namely, and I am getting angry now, they want to play dummy.

You'll nary find me playing dumb. Perhaps you should try discussing with me, then. A word of caution, though: I'm nearly as abrasive as Articulett.

When I ask them what they have for an idea of God, they will react with they don't believe in God so they don't have to give any idea of God.

Well if you ask senseless questions you usually get silly answers.

I ask them why are you angry atheists, they insist that they are atheists but not angry atheists or angry but not for being atheists.

Which is sensible. I'm not angry at anything, except maybe my salary.

Which to my observation is not really so, because it is obvious when I and anyone read their posts here and in other forums they are angry, and their anger is due to their being atheists, in other words, they are angry at God and theists.

Nonsensical. You cannot be angry at what you do not believe in. Angry at theists, however, is quite possible, at least sometimes.

From my part I am angry at atheists because they don't want people to practice religious acts in state-financed places like public schools, and they want to remove religious structures like giant crosses in public lands.

Damn straight. No single religion should be encouraged by the state, and just because a particular school is primarily Christian does not mean they should badger other faiths with the omnipresence (pun intended) of their religious symbols.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I don't.

In atheist forums I got banned for writing the way I write here, but the atheists there used all kinds of the most filthy words against me and they don't get any so much as a warning.

You'll find the JREF does not ban people for their beliefs. And they shouldn't.

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.

Nothing. He doesn't exist. What I find unacceptable in the concept of god, however, is that it is outdated and belies ignorance that can, in many instances, be dangerous.

[godless dave]

What I find unacceptable about the Christian god is the complete lack of evidence for his existence. That's the same thing I find unacceptable about all the other gods humans have worshipped over the millenia.

[Ausmerican]

yrreG,
kooL pu tsiehta ni eht yranoitcid. yrT ot parw ruoy daeh dnuora sht gninaem ti sevig uoy. esaelP esu taht noitinifed ni drager ot erutuf stsop.
knahT uoy

[bruto]

yrreG,
kooL pu tsiehta ni eht yranoitcid. yrT ot parw ruoy daeh dnuora sht gninaem ti sevig uoy. esaelP esu taht noitinifed ni drager ot erutuf stsop.
knahT uoy

Looking up <> understanding. alas.

e.t.a. ...by the way Yrreg, Ockham (or occam if you prefer) himself was quite explicit in asserting that the "razor" has no relevance to theology. It is a concept meant for scientific and logical pursuits, and Ockham maintained that theology is not science, and that an omnipotent God cannot be subject to the necessity of logic. He rejected Aquinas's ontological proof on theological grounds.

[six7s]

Looking up <> understanding. alas.
Looking down <> overlord. aha!

[Silentknight]

One Saturday, when I was very young, my mother took me to see the Soda Machine.

That reminds me. Just yesterday I walked up to a soda machine and saw that some idiot had pinned himself underneath it after he shook it to get a free soda. I tried to talk some sense into him, but he didn't seem to hear me over all his screaming and moaning about how people like me hate soda machines and want to have them removed from public places. I pointed out that there's legitimate concern that soda is high in calories and bad for your teeth, which is why many places want them replaced with more healthful snacks, but he insisted that soda machines be given special priority over all other vending machines. When I offered to call an ambulance, he somehow got it into his head that I had something to do with pushing the soda machine onto him. So I shrugged and left to go meet up with my friends. It simply wasn't something I wanted to get involved in.

The strangest thing is that as I was leaving, I heard him randomly shout, "Buddhists suck!" but I have no clue what he could have meant by that.

[Harpyja]

I am not angry at God. I am angry at bigots, regardless of their class or creed.

Religious structures on public lands are funded by the public's taxpayer money, so the spending of taxpayer money on structures should cater to the wishes of the taxpayers. For an individual to claim that the government has the right to use the money that I pay in taxes to cater to their religious dogma is selfish. I don't have a problem with prayer on public grounds, as long as I don't have to engage in it if I don't want to.

If atheists are treating you poorly, then it is the fault of the atheist, not their dogma. If a Christian comes up to me and insults me because I am an atheist, I will blame the person, not his dogma.


Lastly, I really think that atheists, who have the same mentality as with convert to atheism, Zygote Foster, are not being reasonable and intelligent in professing that atheism gives them "rational consistency and guiltless masturbation," because according to my idea of human reason and intelligence, it is not reasonable and not intelligent to see rational consistency and be able to practice masturbation without feeling guilty, by embracing atheism.


What?

[devnull]

What?

I think he feels guilty when he masturbates.

Poor guy. It could be pretty annoying feeling guilty 3 times a day.

be right back.......

[Harpyja]

There are far easier ways to guiltlessly masturbate than becoming an atheist.

Besides, if I was interested in guiltless masturbation, I wouldn't keep an old photo on my iTouch of my best friend for those occasions. What can I say? He's hot.

[D'rok]

Is that your iTouch myself? :covereyes


I'll be in my bunk.

[RandFan]

I love myself I want you to love me
When I feel down I want you above me
I search myself I want you to find me
I forget myself I want you to remind me

I dont want anybody else
When I think about you iTouch myself --Divinyls

[plumjam]

iTouch wanks are technically known as 'Steve Jobs'

[D'rok]

Steve Jobs in the back seat are technically known as "Quicktime".

[MattusMaximus]

Because you keep parking in the space reserved for theists?

Dude, that's harsh - funny, but harsh :p

Yo Yrreg! When are you going to answer my question? Why does my non-belief in your God bother you so much?

It's really a simple question, one which I have asked repeatedly in a polite manner. I'd like the courtesy of a reply. Thank you.

[RandFan]

Because you keep parking in the space reserved for theists?My thanks to MM. I had missed this. :D

[Macoy]

But Gerry has brought a lot into the open. He was going for the set. What do these collectivists want? Surely not paranoia?

[Kopji]

Angry?
Perhaps.
But if God exists
I am just another fool
Not sad or angry

If God does not exist
What keeps the idea of God going?

The blood of heretics
the unworthy
saints
sinners
angels
demons
unbelievers
but the greatest sacrifice
is those who would just live
a simple life
and not be labeled
holy

[Belz...]

People who are good at imagining an invisible creator of the universe who cares and speaks specifically to them are also good at imagining angry atheists where they don't exist. They imagine that not believing in something or other for which there is no evidence can cause people to be angry?

No, no. You see, believers often are so incapable of imagining that the fact that they "feel" god's presence is just in their mind that they, in turn, cannot imagine that other people could not "feel" the same thing.

In other words, they cannot even begin to consider that other people might not share their point of view.

[pgwenthold]

It's not even a matter of logical explanations where he is off, he's off from the very definition of Occams razor. Occams Razor is NOT that 'the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true' its that 'the explanation taht doesn't require the invention of any extra factors is most likely to be true'.

Actually, this isn't even correct. Occams razor says that "explanations that involve the invention of extra factors is most likely to be wrong." It doesn't say that there aren't any extra factors, but that if you try to guess at it, you will be wrong.

Sans outside information as a guide, there are an infinite number of possible "extra factors" that you could add to the explanation. Indeed, one or more may even be right, but the chance you would chose that randomly (which is what you must do, if you have no outside information) is effectively nil. So Occam says, you are better off to not even try. Your answer may not be complete, but at least it is not wrong.

It's like saying the indefinate integral of 2 is 2x + C, where C can be zero. That isn't a complete answer, because I don't know the actual function, but it's a better answer than 2x + 3, which is almost certain to be wrong.

To bring it back to the concept of god, it says that if you chose a god as an extra explanation, even if there WERE a god that was needed (and while god is a possibility, it isn't required) the chance that you have the correct properties are basically nil, so you've probably chosen the wrong god (for example, even if you argue the existence of god as an intelligent designer, you can't even support the assertion that such a god desires goodness - or, heck, has any care about human actions at all; the properties are all invented from nothing)

[Belz...]

Anger is the intense emotion to at least neutralize if not destroy what is at least any resistance to what one wants to keep oneself free of, consisting of any harm, any obstruction, or inconvenience, or source of displeasure whatever, or disturbance to one's equanimity.

No, that's not anger. Sheesh. You talked about atheists always insisting on defining terms; now I understand why. Gee, you can't even get the definition of everyday words right.

[I Ratant]

yrreG,
kooL pu tsiehta ni eht yranoitcid. yrT ot parw ruoy daeh dnuora sht gninaem ti sevig uoy. esaelP esu taht noitinifed ni drager ot erutuf stsop.
knahT uoy
.
:)
That must have taken some time to do without screwing it up!
A goodie!

[I Ratant]

I love myself I want you to love me
When I feel down I want you above me
I search myself I want you to find me
I forget myself I want you to remind me

I dont want anybody else
When I think about you iTouch myself --Divinyls
.
I treasure that video!
One fantabulous babe!
After looking...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTneO6UgRuM
Great lips, hair, face,rack..
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

[Ordover]

There is no point in discussing the issue until we have arrived at a shared definition of what is meant by the word God. :)

That said, to me, things exist if they can be shown to exist, usually by demonstrating how they interact with other things. I see no evidence of anything interacting with the progession of events other than the operation of physical laws.

[Belz...]

There is really no practical, or reasonable and intelligent, considerations at this point in time, 2008 c.e., to attend to the Olympian gods and goddesses

What are you talking about ? Vulcan is most definitely responsible for volcanic eruptions. Hence the name. Sheesh.

because man has today come to the knowledge of God that is the most in keeping with current scientific and philosophical insights.

I must've missed that issue of Scientific American. Could you link to that article, please ?

Besides, if you look at the whole progression of man's knowledge of God, it has become more and more 'Occamic'

Really ? So an omnipotent god, a concept that is, on its face, self-contradictory, which is not needed to exist by any known scientific theory about the origin of the universe, is somehow compatible with Occam's Razor ?

,* meaning: in consonance with the principle of parsimony, or as expressed in Latin, Entia non sunt multiplicanda since necessitate, i.e., entities should not be multiplied without necessity, scil., man's concept of God is most parsimonious at this point in time, no need to have so many of them, one supreme God is most economical in terms of all convenience in dealing with God.

I think you've forgotten a very important problem: TRINITY.

So, you are wilful deniers of God's existence

In that I say he doesn't exist. Yes. Wilful. So far, you're getting it.

If you care to give some attention to what you might call a myth, Satan rebelled against God, even though he knows that he is a creature, a being of contingency, and God His creator, a being of necessity.

Rice rhetoric. Unfortunately for you Satan also doesn't exist, so your point is moot. You seem to proceed from a false assumption that many theists have: namely, that "atheists" really do believe in god, but decide not to. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me put this in big fonts so you can follow:

I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS.

I am not "rebelling" or anything. My position is one of honest disbelief. There is nothing I see in my life that leads me to the conclusion that this god exists. Or any god, in fact.

In this regard, as a student of God and Satan, I would say that Satan won in his contest against God, and God lost: because Satan denies to God the satisfaction of accepting his (Satan's) being subordinate to God, by declaring to God's face, "I will not submit."

Which is not the case with atheists. The mythical Satan most definitely knows that god exists. He is not an atheist, he is a rebel.

That is a myth if you will, but in myths there are truths discovered by man in his most pristine use of intellect to fathom the depths of goodness and evil.

Just like the myth of Vulcan, right ? Pray tell, what "truth" is there in that one ?

For all other atheists, you have what observant and thinking men see to be complaints against God, which complaints lead you to deny that God exists, because God is not compatible with your complaints.

That makes no sense, whatsoever. The concept of the Christian God is illogical. The concept of a "god" is incompatible with the evidence so far known to us.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There is no point in discussing the issue until we have arrived at a shared definition of what is meant by the word God. :)

That said, to me, things exist if they can be shown to exist, usually by demonstrating how they interact with other things. I see no evidence of anything interacting with the progession of events other than the operation of physical laws.

Welcome to JREFF Ordover. You will soon discover that rationality does not apply to some of the members here. You are trying to convince one of the truly deluded. :D

[Dave Rogers]

No, that's not anger. Sheesh. You talked about atheists always insisting on defining terms; now I understand why. Gee, you can't even get the definition of everyday words right.

I think he's got a parity error in there somewhere. If there's something I want to keep myself free of, and there's resistance to that something, I probably wouldn't want to neutralise that resistance, let alone destroy it, even if I felt angry.

Dave

[Belz...]

Welcome to JREFF Ordover. You will soon discover that rationality does not apply to some of the members here. You are trying to convince one of the truly deluded. :D

Well, put up a sign that says "critical thinking here" and you're sure to attract your share of loonies.

[yrreg]

Uhhh, yrreg, I would just like to point out something kind of important about atheists.

We don't believe that Satan exists, either.

So attempting to explain to us all about our free will ("rejecting God") being the product of Satan's influence... it's going to fall on deaf ears, you must know. You might as well tell me my free will is the result of leprechauns - it will mean just as much as your previous argument: nothing.

ETA: And, btw, would you mind answering my question? Why does my non-belief in your God bother you so much?


I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.

If you don't believe me, just read my posts here in re atheists, and read the posts of atheists against God and against Christians.



What I have is a bemused anger about atheists and their behavioral stunts of self-conviction about the non-existence of God.

This is like a frustration with mathematicians who think that infinity exists in reality when if they are reasonable and intelligent, really intelligent instead of being robotically self-programmed, they will realize that infinity is one of those things in man's mind useful for some of man's mental constructions, but not of any substantial reality in objective existence.

But God is not only in the mind of man, because there was a time when man was not around with his mind, and the moon was already there to give testimony to pre-human life entities, that God made the moon together with all the laws that enable the moon to orbit the earth.


You see, atheists here, you are all worked up and losing your calm over God and Christians, I am talking about you in the USA -- because I still have to survey the mood of atheists in Russia today but I suspect it is a spent force or fanaticism, with the demise of all the old guards; that is why you see Putin together with some heavy Orthodox prelate engaged in religious ceremonies in a temple of what, God!.


Before anything else, you atheists are human beings, endowed by God with reason and intelligence, to what purpose?

I will let you into a secret that is known by all observant and thinking people, save atheists, for being humans mankind has been made by God to be judges of God Himself, to use his reason and intelligence to come to the judgment that God exists.

So, you and I, for being humans, possessed of reason and intelligence, we are judges of God, and He is having a hell of a good time looking at us to see who is being wise and who foolish.


If Martians were looking at us, they would at once judge who are wise and who foolish, notwithstanding the possession of reason and intelligence, unlike the ants and monkeys which are also God's creatures great and small, all things wonderful, they are not endowed by God with reason and intelligence, and all they do is to keep alive and reproduce to keep their kinds extant as long as they can manage to do so, according to the resources God has endowed them with, but no reason and no intelligence because God has dispensed them from coming to the judgment, that He is around all the time and everywhere, when He did make time and space together with the moon and the sun and everything.



No, I am not angry at atheists the way atheists are angry at me, I am just into this for a mental hobby of academic curiosity, and I must confess that I find atheists to be very foolish to not use their reason and intelligence productively and realize the existence of God.



Now I must apologize for earlier describing you atheists as wicked,* but I am referring to what or how your fellow Americans look at you, viz., the most distrusted minority in their midst -- I take back that word, wicked (but I am aware that your fellow Americans will not spare you that description, however they don't use expletives on you unlike you on them).



Don't take my posts here in regard to atheists personally, nothing personal, it's all academic curiosity.


If you care, just point out to me any words from me that are really angry the way you are angry at me, then I will take them back.




Yrreg

*"As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians."

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4270461&postcount=1

[Mister Agenda]

Snip
'however they don't use expletives on you unlike you on them).'


Led a sheltered life have we?

Try googling 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things'.

Thanks for taking out the 'wicked' thing though, it was decent of you.

[Lord Emsworth]

I am angry at God for Him living on the moon. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ...

[devnull]

Yrreg

Its not 'academic curiosity' at all - if it were, you wouldnt be ignoring everyone's replies.

Im not angry at god or jeebus, nor am I running with the devil (although I do enjoy the song). Are you angry at the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster?

What I think is happening is that you are feeling the normal angst people feel when others refuse to believe the same things as them, and you are projecting this onto us. You feel that since you are angry, the "other" side must be angry as well. We arent. Get over it. Repeating it ad nauseum won't change the fabric of time/space and cause us all to suddenly be angry at a non-existent entity.

We can't be angry at something that doesnt exist dude. We can, however, be angry at a guy who is being willfully obstinate. :)

As for your original question, I find that most of right-wing America views anything "different" as "evil". They want no change. They want the 1800s. Of course, they also want to drive SUVs. Such is the way with hypocrites. I won't be losing any sleep at any rate.

[Hokulele]

This is like a frustration with mathematicians who think that infinity exists in reality when if they are reasonable and intelligent, really intelligent instead of being robotically self-programmed, they will realize that infinity is one of those things in man's mind useful for some of man's mental constructions, but not of any substantial reality in objective existence.


If you believe infinity does not have a substantial reality, does that mean that god cannot be eternal?

[Autolite]

What I have is a bemused anger about atheists and their behavioral stunts of self-conviction about the non-existence of God.


Okay, this is getting creepy, because "what I have is a bemused anger about theists and their behavioral stunts of self-conviction about the existence of god". I'm beginning to think that perhaps yrreg and I were separated t birth...:eek:

[zooterkin]

.
:)
That must have taken some time to do without screwing it up!
A goodie!

Yes, pretty good, but not quite perfect ;)

yrreG,
kooL pu tsiehta ni eht yranoitcid. yrT ot parw ruoy daeh dnuora sht gninaem ti sevig uoy. esaelP esu taht noitinifed ni drager ot erutuf stsop.
knahT uoy

[yrreg]

This is incredible! Are you saying that Man invented God? That for any society, Man has a concept of God; that which adheres to contemporary scientific and philosophical insights, tempered by parsimony?


I am always occupied with thinking about man's discoveries and man's inventions.

Every invention of man is founded upon his discoveries of God's works and laws.


Now, with man's invention of God, in his mind that is, it is also founded upon his discovery of God.

But as with every invention which is modeled after something discovered by man in God's works and laws, man's invention of God falls short and very awkward but not totally off the mark in relation to the God that He is in Himself.



And as with every invention of man, so also with man's invention of God in his mind, for being founded upon his discovery of God, it is no less intended by man -- I refer to his invention of God, the concept of in his mind, to be useful to man himself in his self-governance as an individual and as a society and as a species.



And just as every invention of man can never achieve congruent perfection to the model of God's work on which it is based, for example, the the artificial satellite is based on the work of God, the moon that orbits the earth; so also man's invention of God as a concept in his mind can never equi-validate the concept of God as He is in Himself and knows Himself for a concept of Himself God.

Therein lies a lot of troubles with wilful atheists who do not want to transcend man's limitations to reach to the empyrean heights of God's reality, totally beyond man's grasp on the one hand, but on the other still essentially within man's grasp in his mental reach.

That is the versatility of the human brain which is the organ of his mind, it can contain infinity even though there is no infinity in substantial real objective existence but immensity.


Here is a puzzle for atheists to work out:

You say that my idea of God is being parsimonized down the ages of man’s acquaintance with God by man himself, to render God more and more economical and practical and feasible to deal with, to rationalize in other words the concept of God.

And you suggest that the ultimate parsimonization is to do away with God altogether.

Don’t you think that it is much more effective for your concern to parsimonize yourself to the ultimate parsimony by doing a self-departure of yourself, as indeed is the act resorted to by many a human fed up with existence?

Because the ultimate parsimonization of God by an atheist is a continuous ordeal, but with self-departure one act is more than enough and can be very quick and painless in one split second instant, to rid oneself of God.




Yrreg

[Madalch]

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.

If you don't believe me, just read my posts here in re atheists, and read the posts of atheists against God and against Christians.

If you'd bothered to read any of the posts in this, and other threads that you've started, you'd notice that atheists aren't angry at God at all. We're annoyed with you about your persistent and flagrant disregard for every reply you've received, along with your continued insistence that we're angry at something.
This is like a frustration with mathematicians who think that infinity exists in reality when if they are reasonable and intelligent, really intelligent instead of being robotically self-programmed, they will realize that infinity is one of those things in man's mind useful for some of man's mental constructions, but not of any substantial reality in objective existence.
Why are you so angry at infinity?

[Madalch]

And you suggest that the ultimate parsimonization is to do away with God altogether.
Don’t you think that it is much more effective for your concern to parsimonize yourself to the ultimate parsimony by doing a self-departure of yourself, as indeed is the act resorted to by many a human fed up with existence?


Are you actually suggesting that it's easier or better to commit suicide than to be an atheist?

You are mad.

[Hokulele]

Are you actually suggesting that it's easier or better to commit suicide than to be an atheist?

You are mad.


Not to mention, breaking the Membership Agreement.

[Tricky]

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.
No, not the same way at all, since atheists don't hate God. You have been told this many times in many ways by many atheists here, yet you persist in making this straw man. At some point we must begin to doubt that you cannot grasp this, and conclude that you are deliberately misrepresenting them.

If you don't believe me, just read my posts here in re atheists, and read the posts of atheists against God and against Christians.
We have read them. There are no posts of atheists against God. There are some against some Christians. Many people do not like having people lie about them, and they get angry at Christians who do that. Can you possibly understand why?

What I have is a bemused anger about atheists and their behavioral stunts of self-conviction about the non-existence of God.
LOL. A bemused anger? I can believe that. You do seem bemused. You either cannot understand, or, as I believe, are deliberately misstating the position of atheists and instead dwell in your little dream world of what you think atheists believe.

I This is like a frustration with mathematicians who think that infinity exists in reality when if they are reasonable and intelligent, really intelligent instead of being robotically self-programmed, they will realize that infinity is one of those things in man's mind useful for some of man's mental constructions, but not of any substantial reality in objective existence.
I suspect that you are about as knowledgeable of the beliefs of mathematicians as you are of those of atheists. Can you perhaps get some of those mathematicians who think infinity exists in reality to post here? In all my years as a scientist, I've never met one.

But God is not only in the mind of man, because there was a time when man was not around with his mind, and the moon was already there to give testimony to pre-human life entities, that God made the moon together with all the laws that enable the moon to orbit the earth.
It is true, the moon existed before men did. Then, men came along and invented stories, like the innumerable, disparate and unproven stories about the existence of God in order to explain things that they couldn't fathom at the time, like how a moon could exist. They got a lot of stuff wrong. They thought the sun also orbited around the earth.

You see, atheists here, you are all worked up and losing your calm over God and Christians, I am talking about you in the USA -- because I still have to survey the mood of atheists in Russia today but I suspect it is a spent force or fanaticism, with the demise of all the old guards; that is why you see Putin together with some heavy Orthodox prelate engaged in religious ceremonies in a temple of what, God!.
Oh, you've managed to make a number of people annoyed at you. Nobody is "worked up" at God though, since it would be pointless. But yes, religion is on the rise in Russia, now that official suppression is gone. More correctly, it is in the open. It never disappeared. I'm sure that makes you happy. Oddly, I'm glad about it too. I have always found that suppression makes a religion flourish. "Get it out in public where people can see its flaws," is what I say. Skeptics hate any suppression of information.

Before anything else, you atheists are human beings, endowed by God with reason and intelligence, to what purpose?
For whatever purpose we choose to assign. "Purpose", like "God" is a human invention. I decide what my purpose in life is. You don't, and your religion doesn't decide for me.

I will let you into a secret that is known by all observant and thinking people, save atheists, for being humans mankind has been made by God to be judges of God Himself, to use his reason and intelligence to come to the judgment that God exists.
Not much of a secret then, is it? :D

But your continued insistence on the function of this "God" fellow is still claimed, but never supported by evidence.

Oh, and by the way, I am a thinking person. I'm sure it was only your anger that caused you to make such a broad-brush insult against all atheists, including me, but since I realize you are saturated with the certainty of your rightness, I forgive you. We atheists do that too, you know.

So, you and I, for being humans, possessed of reason and intelligence, we are judges of God, and He is having a hell of a good time looking at us to see who is being wise and who foolish.
You presume to know what God is thinking? You give him human characteristics like "having a good time"?

I will say this. If there were a God who cares about people, I would not fear his wrath at me for using the brain He gave me. What sort of petty tyrant would do such a thing? I would think it would make sense that he regards the use of such a brain as "wise" and the slavish adherence to dogma as "foolish". But of course, we'd have to know what sort of God you're talking about to know if that is how you would envision a God. Perhaps you prefer the petty tyrant rather than the proud parent.

If Martians were looking at us, they would at once judge who are wise and who foolish, notwithstanding the possession of reason and intelligence, unlike the ants and monkeys which are also God's creatures great and small, all things wonderful, they are not endowed by God with reason and intelligence, and all they do is to keep alive and reproduce to keep their kinds extant as long as they can manage to do so, according to the resources God has endowed them with, but no reason and no intelligence because God has dispensed them from coming to the judgment, that He is around all the time and everywhere, when He did make time and space together with the moon and the sun and everything.
You started this run-on sentence talking about Martians, whom you seemed to about to ascribe some qualities, but in the confused jumble that followed, I was unable to ascertain which characteristics you were giving them. Are they endowed by God with reason and intelligence, or are you merely hypothesizing what they would do IF they were so endowed? I have no evidence that such intelligent Martians exist, but I suspect that if they did, they wouldn't appreciate you making straw men about them either. Most intelligent beings don't.

[Minarvia]

Are you actually suggesting that it's easier or better to commit suicide than to be an atheist?

You are mad.

That is the absolute scariest post I have ever read. For someone to say such a thing is....I cannot even think of an adequate word.

Yes, I think you are right and yrreg is mad. He/she may need professional help.

[yrreg]

Yrreg,

Please look at post 40. The poster was infracted. Does that make you feel better?

CT

Is that the one where the only text left is his reproduction of my post he was reacting to?

No, I was not happy about it insofar as I am an academic person, but I do feel some annoyance when people use foul language on me instead of focusing on my ideas.


About wanting to have Buddhists disqualified from being moderators and administrators here, yes I publicly suggested that to the owners and managers of this forum, because they Buddhists already have the mindset that there is no self, which worldview is contrary to critical thinking in the Western world.

Ask James Randi when he had some heart trouble serious enough to require bypass operation whether he believes there is no self.

I don't know what or where is Loss Leader these days, he was the one who reported me for hate speech, due to my sharing my mind about Buddhism not an incentive to mankind to develop the way mankind in the West has developed in all the crafts and arts and sciences and technologies, in what we might call the Christendom of the Western world -- which cannot ever occur in Buddhism-dom, owing to Buddhism's fundamental obsession with all existence of life being delusion, starting with the self in man.

Loss Leader reported me and some moderator gave me a public warning about hate speech, which later on was modified, if memory serves me faithfully.

It became a long story and even Darat got involved and things even reached the point of who posted when previous to which posts, etc., etc., etc.


No more of that scrap, just that Loss Leader wanted to bring the message to people here that I was instigating a holocaust on Buddhists the way Hitler did on Jews. He is some Loss Leader, just for humor though.



Here is my request to everyone here, don't report anyone, there are moderators doing their job; at most just put anyone you can't bear to know the presence of on ignore. Okay?



Yrreg

[Tricky]

Are you actually suggesting that it's easier or better to commit suicide than to be an atheist?
I don't think so, at least no more so than when atheists ask why, if Christians love God so much and look forward to heaven, why do they not seek a hasty death. I seriously doubt anyone here has been motivated toward a self-destructive path by the suggestions yrreg has made.

[Mashuna]

If you believe infinity does not have a substantial reality, does that mean that god cannot be eternal?

:D

[MattusMaximus]

Welcome to the Forum, Ordover! :D

There is no point in discussing the issue until we have arrived at a shared definition of what is meant by the word God. :)

Yeah, good luck. Trying to get people to agree upon a shared definition of God around here is like trying to herd cats... which is kind of the point - "God" is an arbitrarily defined thing!

That said, to me, things exist if they can be shown to exist, usually by demonstrating how they interact with other things. I see no evidence of anything interacting with the progession of events other than the operation of physical laws.

Sounds like a simple use of Occam's Razor to me. Why postulate the existence of God, or the supernatural in general, when it isn't necessary?

[I Ratant]

Okay, this is getting creepy, because "what I have is a bemused anger about theists and their behavioral stunts of self-conviction about the existence of god". I'm beginning to think that perhaps yrreg and I were separated t birth...:eek:
.
I'd say you're probably better off, too.
Imagine not being able to go elsewhere to get away from the noise! :(

[GeeMack]

Man, I don't think I ever saw anyone as dense. Not psychic believers, not UFO hunters, not 9/11 Truthers, not Michael Mozina. Well okay, maybe Michael Mozina. But other than him, nobody, never, no more willful resistance to hearing what people are saying than yrreg.

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.


Uh, right, because you actually are angry at atheists, whereas atheists aren't angry at or hateful about any gods. And no matter how desperate you are to reject the truth of the matter, atheists aren't angry at any gods because they don't accept that any gods exist.

[MattusMaximus]

What Tricky said in post #173 above.

Well said, Tricky :)

[Tricky]

Here is my request to everyone here, don't report anyone, there are moderators doing their job; at most just put anyone you can't bear to know the presence of on ignore. Okay?
As a moderator, here is my request to you. Since skeptics here tend to evaluate all the information and eschew using the "ignore feature", please do not post anything that would be easily construed as hate-filled. Believe me, we would be much happier if we did not have to deal with such things. Thank you.

[Madalch]

I don't think so, at least no more so than when atheists ask why, if Christians love God so much and look forward to heaven, why do they not seek a hasty death. I seriously doubt anyone here has been motivated toward a self-destructive path by the suggestions yrreg has made.
I didn't think he meant it as a suggestion. But it's a mad thing to ask.

[Almo]

See, what I mean? you can't have any constructive exchange with atheists.

Yrreg

At the point you posted this, I see Mr. Ottle gave a reasonable response.

[zooterkin]

Here is my request to everyone here, don't report anyone, there are moderators doing their job; at most just put anyone you can't bear to know the presence of on ignore. Okay?


I think you are misinformed about the moderators' job. They generally respond to reports from members, so choose which you want; the moderators to do their job, or members to suspend their right to report objectionable posts. The presence of moderators posting in this thread does not mean they are reviewing every post for compliance with the MA.

[articulett]

That is the absolute scariest post I have ever read. For someone to say such a thing is....I cannot even think of an adequate word.

Yes, I think you are right and yrreg is mad. He/she may need professional help.

I think he just needs to get his chakras aligned.

Either that, or he's furious at Xenu et. al. for bestowing Tom Cruise with higher truths (Tom's an OT 7 you know) while not even seeing fit to give yrreg a dash of charm. A few e-meter readings could clear that right up.

Yrreg is just is not able to see himself as others see him... and he is so sure that others see what he sees: a world filled with "rabid angry atheists" counterbalanced by logical loving theists. It must be weird living in his head.

[yrreg]

Please don't read anything and everything from me literally, look for the qualifications and reservations.

Disclaimer: I will not be liable to your kins and friends if you should become suicidal or actually enact a self-departure, even though you are doing overpopulation zealots a favor.


---------------

I said that it is very or almost impossible to have any constructive exchange with atheists, but there is hope with these two messages I came upon from presumably atheists:






Posted by yrreg
At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

It's difficult to achieve "constructive" debate due to the very nature of issues themselves (Theism vs. Atheism). There is no common starting ground. Atheistic argument is logic/reality based whereas theistic argument is faith/delusion based. What you perceive as anger or hatred is likely a manifestation of the frustration that many Atheists feel (due to the futility of such discussions). As I've often said, it's like trying to win at a game of chess when the other guy is playing "dungeons and dragons"...


Welcome to the Forum, Ordover! :D

Posted by Ordover
There is no point in discussing the issue until we have arrived at a shared definition of what is meant by the word God.

Yeah, good luck. Trying to get people to agree upon a shared definition of God around here is like trying to herd cats... which is kind of the point - "God" is an arbitrarily defined thing!

Quote:
That said, to me, things exist if they can be shown to exist, usually by demonstrating how they interact with other things. I see no evidence of anything interacting with the progession of events other than the operation of physical laws.

Sounds like a simple use of Occam's Razor to me. Why postulate the existence of God, or the supernatural in general, when it isn't necessary?



That is a very constructive suggestion, that we put up a list of concurring ideas.


First agreement is that things exist, starting with you and me.

Next is what?

What about...? better, you atheists advance some ideas for me to concur in with you.




Yrreg

[Roadtoad]

Tell me what you find unacceptable with God.

First, without realizing it, I have provided you with a partial answer to your question. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130920) My problem with "god" as it were, has more to do with those who proclaim his existence. When you consider the only evidence we have for the existence of any god is the believers, it boggles the mind that we've even maintained the fiction for as long as we have.

Second, my biggest problem with this whole thread is the damnable arrogance of the question. Why am I obligated to tell anyone why I do or do not believe there is a god to worship in the first place? I don't believe. The evidence does not support the existence of a god. That I should be regarded as a second-class individual because of this is insulting.

I used to recite both the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed on a regular basis. Neither one can be cited as evidence for the existence of a god. Those are merely affirmations of a belief. The belief itself ought to be backed up by facts, ideally observable and testable. Since "faith" can operate without evidence, it cannot be held as evidence in and of itself.

You're upset with people like me, because I refuse to give you an answer you like? Deal with it. I don't remember asking anyone to accept my beliefs as their own, certainly not in the same way that most Christians demand that I accept their beliefs as mine. If you want me to believe, you're going to have to show me there's a reason to believe it. Show me the cause, the effect, the results. Show me by your actions that there's a reason to alter behavior to work within parameters which were set down 7,000 years ago to direct the behavior of ancient middle eastern tribes, primarily to give their leaders control over the members of those tribes. Show me how those behavioral patterns apply to a civilization in the 21st Century. Show me how they are an example of compassion, mercy, restraint, forgiveness. Demonstrate there's a reason to listen to your multipage display of contempt for my rejection of the "divine" in our society, particularly since it takes such pleasure in the pain of others, in the disappointment and misery it breeds, and the emotional blackmail that holds those who follow it in check.

Before you demand that I explain why I don't believe, show me there's a reason TO believe. Then, we can talk.

[godless dave]

Here is a puzzle for atheists to work out:

[INDENT][I]You say that my idea of God is being parsimonized down the ages of man’s acquaintance with God by man himself, to render God more and more economical and practical and feasible to deal with, to rationalize in other words the concept of God.

No, you say that. We say that your idea of God is no more or less silly than the gods worshipped 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago.

[MattusMaximus]

Please don't read anything and everything from me literally, look for the qualifications and reservations.

Disclaimer: I will not be liable to your kins and friends if you should become suicidal or actually enact a self-departure, even though you are doing overpopulation zealots a favor.

WTF?!! Yrreg, are you high?

Why would anyone here become suicidal over this discussion? :boggled:

[Roadtoad]

WTF?!! Yrreg, are you high?

Why would anyone here become suicidal over this discussion? :boggled:

Because Yrreg's convinced that without GOD, we're DOOMED!

(Makes me wish I could resurrect the SPORK of DOOM thread...)

[Grimoire]

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.
yrreg, try this: speak the following out loud...

Atheists are not angry at God. Atheists do not hate God.

Ok, now repeat it, out loud, until you understand it. The reason why atheists are not angry or hating God is the same reason why atheists are not angry or hating the Easter Bunny. That reason? They are both mythical. Neither of them exist.

You can hate something that you don't believe exists...

[bruto]

Don't take my posts here in regard to atheists personally, nothing personal, it's all academic curiosity.



That's a lie, Yrreg. You have made it abundantly, repeatedly clear that you have no true curiosity and no interest at all in understanding what people here are actually saying.

[MattusMaximus]

You cannot hate something that you don't believe exists...

Fixed that for you, G.

[articulett]

I am, however furious, at the Great Pumpkin.

It's not my fault; I had a bad experience.

http://edigitaltimes.com/pumpkin-vomit.jpg

[Sunstealer]

I'm angry at Ra. Dunno what god yrreg is going on about. Bloomin' Ra refused to come out this summer and allow my pasty white body to get some semblance of a tan. Damn you Ra!

[Belz...]

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.

Certainly not because the latter is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

If you don't believe me, just read my posts here in re atheists, and read the posts of atheists against God and against Christians.

Speaking of reading, do you read any posts but your own ?

What I have is a bemused anger about atheists and their behavioral stunts of self-conviction about the non-existence of God.

I find it amusing when people use terms such as "self-conviction", as though there were any other kind.

This is like a frustration with mathematicians who think that infinity exists in reality when if they are reasonable and intelligent, really intelligent instead of being robotically self-programmed

...and aren't true scottsmen...

they will realize that infinity is one of those things in man's mind useful for some of man's mental constructions, but not of any substantial reality in objective existence.

Says who ? You ?

But God is not only in the mind of man, because there was a time when man was not around with his mind, and the moon was already there to give testimony to pre-human life entities, that God made the moon together with all the laws that enable the moon to orbit the earth.

Actually a big rock smacked right into the earth and made the moon.

The only evidence you have for God is your gut-feeling. As Scrooge said, it could be indigestion.

Before anything else, you atheists are human beings, endowed by God with reason and intelligence, to what purpose?

Trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in god that he is wrong by speaking of god in terms that are contrary to the reasons why said person doesn't believe in god is either indicative of lack of argumentative skills, at best, or folly, at worst.

I will let you into a secret that is known by all observant and thinking people, save atheists

So, basically you're saying that there are less observant and thinking people today as there was, say, five thousand years ago, where all of society was ruled by priests and magical thinking ? Woah! I'm sure they must have had kick-ass technologies and health care, back then.

So, you and I, for being humans, possessed of reason and intelligence, we are judges of God, and He is having a hell of a good time looking at us to see who is being wise and who foolish.

And exactly how did you come to this conclusion ? I'm, of course, asking this much like the rest of my post, to myself, because I don't actually expect you to read it, much less try to understand what I mean by it.

No, I am not angry at atheists the way atheists are angry at me

You know, beign angry at annoying people is not a bad thing. Anger can and does lead to good things, too.

Don't take my posts here in regard to atheists personally, nothing personal, it's all academic curiosity.

There is nothing intellectual about your posts, yrreg.

As I said, I am not an American citizen, but I do sympathize with Americans who look at the atheists in their midst as the most distrusted minority: the reason being because atheists are so plain wicked in their hatred toward God and Christians, and seek a cover in the letters of the US Constitution for a legality to the hatred in their hearts and minds against God and Christians.

Have you ever MET an atheist ?

Every invention of man is founded upon his discoveries of God's works and laws.

Only if you assume your conclusion. Alternatively you could provide evidence for your claim...

You say that my idea of God is being parsimonized down the ages of man’s acquaintance with God by man himself, to render God more and more economical and practical and feasible to deal with, to rationalize in other words the concept of God.

I thought it was YOU who said that.

And you suggest that the ultimate parsimonization is to do away with God altogether.

Indeed. Like unused keys on a keyboard, I say get rid of them!

Don’t you think that it is much more effective for your concern to parsimonize yourself to the ultimate parsimony by doing a self-departure of yourself, as indeed is the act resorted to by many a human fed up with existence?

Are you suggesting suicide ? I do believe that's against the rules, here.

Because the ultimate parsimonization of God by an atheist is a continuous ordeal, but with self-departure one act is more than enough and can be very quick and painless in one split second instant, to rid oneself of God.

No need to get myself rid of God, since HE DOESN'T EXIST, which is the WHOLE POINT of atheism. Sheesh, you learn slow.

[MattusMaximus]

Because Yrreg's convinced that without GOD, we're DOOMED!

(Makes me wish I could resurrect the SPORK of DOOM thread...)

More like he/she seems to think that...

1) we secretly acknowledge the existence of God though we publicly deny it,
2) we reject God anyway because we're angry or sad, and
3) eventually some of us atheists may realize how sad we are and decide to off ourselves.

A corollary to #3 is...

*3) eventually some of us atheists may realize how angry we are and decide to perform evil deeds in the world. Muha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! :mad:

At least, that's what I gather. The spooky thing is that at one brief point in my life, long ago when I was into religion pretty hard, I thought something similar. I've seen this kind of thinking from the inside, and it ain't pretty stuff, folks.

[Belz...]

As a moderator, here is my request to you. Since skeptics here tend to evaluate all the information and eschew using the "ignore feature", please do not post anything that would be easily construed as hate-filled. Believe me, we would be much happier if we did not have to deal with such things. Thank you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tricky, but advocating suicide of forum members is against the rules, is it not ?

[Dancing David]

Wow Yrreg,

How uncreative:

Don’t you think that it is much more effective for your concern to parsimonize yourself to the ultimate parsimony by doing a self-departure of yourself, as indeed is the act resorted to by many a human fed up with existence?

this is total straw, just because I don't believe in god, it does not mean I want to kill myself.

You are still twisted, see what your faith in god has done for you, make you hate filed and spiteful.

[Dancing David]

I will stop reading:

you are a liar Yrreg, shame on you, what a fiction you have concocted. But please lie on yourself, that is what Pes Oir Amsus would want you to do:

About wanting to have Buddhists disqualified from being moderators and administrators here, yes I publicly suggested that to the owners and managers of this forum, because they Buddhists already have the mindset that there is no self, which worldview is contrary to critical thinking in the Western world.

You wanted the buddhists to leave because you are hate filled and spitefu,l a sign that you are not even aware of AL, AL created all including atheists and buddhists but please tell the Creator what is good and what should not have been created. Hubris is your name and lying is your game.

Silly rabbit.

[Aerik]

And you know why I don't experience anger with Buddhists?

Because they don't do such things as stopping children from praying in public schools, and they don't get court's orders to remove religious structures like crosses from public lands and buildings.

We don't stop children from praying in public schools. You're either a liar or massively ignorant. What we believe in here is separation of church and state. It's mandated school prayer we don't like. Children can't be forced to pray over not praying, or pray as per one religion's guidelines over another. Kids can still bring all their scripture to school that they want and read it and pray so long as it does not interfere with the activities of other children. They can even get together and do it in a group. They can even form clubs, put those clubs on their college application letters and resumes. We don't do anything to prevent them from praying. We prevent them from being forced to. You're lying about what we do whether or not you know it.

We tend to favor removing religious structures from publicly-owned lands and buildings because that's also a principle of separation of church and state. When a governing body starts endorsing religion over non-religion, or religion over another religion, it is using its power to give undue rights to whom it favors and reduce the rights of those whom it does not favor. Symbols used by government do (and quite obviously) have the power of escalating conflict and encouraging oppression of the unfavored. You can see this happening all the time.

What the atheist sign and its controversy (since now Phelps wants a sign) has proven right now is that there should be no religious symbols or text whatsoever on publicly-owned property. The only way to not induce conflict is for the government to have no voice on religion at all.

And enough with your crap about hating god. We don't think a god exists. There's nobody for us to be mad at. Do you know how stupid you sound?

And what a poor metaphor with the driving lanes. "Do it because everybody else is, or you're a jerk." That's not freedom, that's not ethics, that's extortion.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Do not change user names when quoting them, and especially do not change them to personal insults. check the Membership Agreement if you have questions, or go to the Forum Management section if you need clarification of the Membership Agreement.

[Tricky]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tricky, but advocating suicide of forum members is against the rules, is it not ?
As I interpret it, the advocation would have to be aimed at a specific member, not just a general statement that "atheists should prefer suicide". I cannot see anything that yrreg has said as encouraging any specific members to harm themselves.

But that is just my opinion. Other moderators might see it differently. I doubt that this is worth pursuing further.

[Aerik]

By the way I've seen you in other forums...Attack the argument, not the arguer
Here

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=7664#p103387

you claim that Skeptics never discuss financial advisers or Buddhism. Have you even tried looking? There are literally thousands of blogs out there you could be googling.

I have to say you spend more time talking about what you think we do or don't do rather than actually listening to us or researching our much published opinions before you come in here yelling at us, and it's offensively arrogant.

[Roadtoad]

Aerik, please. Don't feed this troll.

This is why we have a goat around here.

[articulett]

Besides it's a backwards thought-- atheists, more than theists, should savor life-- because it's terminal.

I'm always surprised more theists don't seem eager to get to their "happily ever after"- before they sin enough to avoid the alternative. But since I'll be going to hell according to very many peoples' religion (of course, who isn't?), I encourage those who pity me to help make my pre-hell years here on earth blissful by leaving me alone. (They are free to pray for me to their hearts content, however.) Is that too much to ask from someone who will be suffering for all eternity?

[Dunstan]

We don't stop children from praying in public schools. You're either a liar or massively ignorant. What we believe in here is separation of church and state. It's mandated school prayer we don't like.

Ah, but it's mandated school prayer -- or, at a minimum, technically-not-mandatory-but-laden-with-pressure prayer -- that the school prayer crybabies want.

It's not enough for them that their little Johnny can pray with his Mommy and Daddy at breakfast, and alone or with friends on the school bus, and again at their desk before class starts, and again at every recess, lunch break, study time, or any time and manner that doesn't interfere with other work.

No, what they really want is to make sure that the two or three non-Christian kids in the class have to excuse themselves from the room or sit there while the teacher leads the other 95% of the class in prayer. They want to make sure that other people's children learn you're in the minority here, damnit, and don't you forget it! And if those kids get ostracized and picked on for daring to not conform with the majority religion, well hey, kids will be kids, right?

In other words, they want to use the authority of the state to send a message that their religion is the preferred one. Yet somehow they think this isn't an Establishment Clause problem.

[Silentknight]

I think he just needs to get his chakras aligned.

Yeah, but the trickiest chakra points (http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/chakra.html) to align are the three used in black magic that are located in the lower pelvis. Since everyone knows that the best way to realign one's chakras is with flashing colored Christmas lights (see Penn & Teller season 6 episode 2) the logical solution for aligning the lower three chakras would be to take a bundle of Christmas lights, which need to be plugged in, and forcibly insert them into the nearest available orifice.


Disclaimer: This is not directed at a specific member, as it's just a general statement that fundies (who love thesaurus insults, telling people what to think, and spelling things backwards) should prefer Christmas light enemas.

[quixotecoyote]

As I interpret it, the advocation would have to be aimed at a specific member, not just a general statement that "atheists should prefer suicide". I cannot see anything that yrreg has said as encouraging any specific members to harm themselves.

But that is just my opinion. Other moderators might see it differently. I doubt that this is worth pursuing further.

Sort of:

You are an atheist
Atheists should commit suicide
I did not say you should commit suicide
therefore this is not a personal attack

<braces for move to FM>

[Foster Zygote]

Disclaimer: I will not be liable to your kins and friends if you should become suicidal or actually enact a self-departure, even though you are doing overpopulation zealots a favor.

On the contrary, you have filled me with mirthful laughter.

[bruto]

Yrreg, suicide is not parsimonious. But shutting the **** up would be.

[articulett]

Yeah, but the trickiest chakra points (http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/chakra.html) to align are the three used in black magic that are located in the lower pelvis. Since everyone knows that the best way to realign one's chakras is with flashing colored Christmas lights (see Penn & Teller season 6 episode 2) the logical solution for aligning the lower three chakras would be to take a bundle of Christmas lights, which need to be plugged in, and forcibly insert them into the nearest available orifice.


Disclaimer: This is not directed at a specific member, as it's just a general statement that fundies (who love thesaurus insults, telling people what to think, and spelling things backwards) should prefer Christmas light enemas.

What if you have more than one orifice and they are equ-distant from the lower pelvis chakra?

[Foster Zygote]

Has anyone seen Gerry's user-created social group on his profile page? It isn't really directly related to this thread, but it certainly gives an enlightening insight into the sort of person who would create a thread like this.

[Foster Zygote]

What if you have more than one orifice and they are equ-distant from the lower pelvis chakra?

Double the fun!

ETA: I highly recommend using the small, new style bulbs that burn at a much lower temperature. The old style bulbs like we had when I was a kid in the '70s are pleasingly large, but burn like a mother-**********!

[articulett]

On the contrary, you have filled me with mirthful laughter.

I agree... what could be more mirthful than a woo wrapping himself up in fancy woo regalia and then barging into a skeptics forum to preach that woo?

I wonder if his intelligent designer sent him here for our express enjoyment.

Praise the IPU!

Tis the Season where the fundies are out in force bent on feeling persecuted... and they'll find angry atheists even if they have to make them angry themselves, dammit! They'll waltz into critical thinking lairs and demand an explanation as to why we hate their gods and then play the "I'm offended" card when we giggle with glee.

[articulett]

Double the fun!

Or triple.. there's 3. But I suspect that at least one says "no entrance (except by catheter)".

[MattusMaximus]

As I interpret it, the advocation would have to be aimed at a specific member, not just a general statement that "atheists should prefer suicide". I cannot see anything that yrreg has said as encouraging any specific members to harm themselves.

Except for my desire to shove my head through a cheese-grater at trying to make sense out of yrreg's posts - arrrgghh!!! :jaw-dropp

[Ysidro]

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.





You really don't read anything anyone writes unless it fits your worldview, do you?

As pointed out before, it's really hard to hate something you don't think exists. Oh sure, someone might say they "hate" Darth Vader but it's not really the same as hating that guy in school who tripped you in front of the head cheerleader.

But you'll ignore my point, I'm sure.

[Tricky]

Except for my desire to shove my head through a cheese-grater at trying to make sense out of yrreg's posts - arrrgghh!!! :jaw-dropp
Hard to say. Might have to call that euthanasia.:D

[MattusMaximus]

Hard to say. Might have to call that euthanasia.:D

More like a mercy killing.

[I Ratant]

What if you have more than one orifice and they are equ-distant from the lower pelvis chakra?
.
There are "appendages" that can used in one of those while the other is busy being sparked.

[articulett]

Except for my desire to shove my head through a cheese-grater at trying to make sense out of yrreg's posts - arrrgghh!!! :jaw-dropp

Ha--Ha... you try to make sense of them?? Do you also try to assemble your corn flakes back into corn on the cob?

[Foolmewunz]

Jerry,

I'm so sorry I'm late to the party. I could've cleared this up on page 1.

Here's the answer:

You're wrong. Once again. Just plain wrong. You have as little knowledge of atheists as you do of Buddhists.

Look, we still haven't figured out why you're angry at Buddhists. And now you've given up that crusade and are off to explain to atheists how worthless we are. I'm confused. Are we equally as worthless as Buddhists? Or are the Buddhists still the worstest most worthlessest? It'd be important over at my house to know. Young Marcello (pictured left) has a Buddhist mommy and an atheist daddy. He probably would like to know which of us should be ignored first.

Smiling for all of you, as I get called downstairs by my perfect family to have babinka for lunch....

Foolmewunz

[MattusMaximus]

Ha--Ha... you try to make sense of them?? Do you also try to assemble your corn flakes back into corn on the cob?

You're right. It's kind of like trying to shove toothpaste back into the tube :jaw-dropp

[Roadtoad]

Just noticed the warning given Aerik. So, Yrreg will be getting one, too?

In the meantime, unless there's some serious change in our "friend," and at least a willingness to read what's been posted, I'm done for the time being.

[uruk]

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God. Athiests aren't angry at god. How can you be angry at something you do not belive to exists. Can you be angry at Mickey Mouse or Zeus or Mithras? It's pointless to hate something that is not real.

Athiests hate what people do in the name of god.

They hate the way some religious people feel that they must force other people to think the way that they do.

They hate the way some religious people feel the need to force thier beliefs into areas where it is inappropriate.

They hate the way some peoples religious beliefs cause them to imposes divisions and prejudice amoung thier people.

They hate the way some people's religious beliefs forces them to kill themselves and others in the name of god or religious leaders.

They hate the way some people's religious beliefs stiffles free thought and expression of thought and squashes the progress of knowledge.

Atheists do not hate god because there is nothing to hate. They hate the actions of the people who believe in a god.

I know its important to your belief system to think that athiests simply hate god, but that is not the case. People can have no belief in a god and life fullfilling, happy, moral and charitable lives.

[articulett]

It's the most wonderful time of the year...

[RandFan]

.
I treasure that video!
One fantabulous babe!
After looking...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTneO6UgRuM
Great lips, hair, face,rack..
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!I couldn't agree more. :)

[yrreg]

Please give some attention to the latter half of this post from me , and no longer give vent to your anger against me.




Please don't read anything and everything from me literally, look for the qualifications and reservations.

Disclaimer: I will not be liable to your kins and friends if you should become suicidal or actually enact a self-departure, even though you are doing overpopulation zealots a favor.


---------------
[I]

I said that it is very or almost impossible to have any constructive exchange with atheists, but there is hope with these two messages I came upon from presumably atheists:


Originally Posted by Autolite


Posted by yrreg
At this very moment I am angry at atheists here in this JREF forum, because I find them impossible to talk with constructively.

It's difficult to achieve "constructive" debate due to the very nature of issues themselves (Theism vs. Atheism). There is no common starting ground. Atheistic argument is logic/reality based whereas theistic argument is faith/delusion based. What you perceive as anger or hatred is likely a manifestation of the frustration that many Atheists feel (due to the futility of such discussions). As I've often said, it's like trying to win at a game of chess when the other guy is playing "dungeons and dragons"...




Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Welcome to the Forum, Ordover!

Posted by Ordover
There is no point in discussing the issue until we have arrived at a shared definition of what is meant by the word God.
Yeah, good luck. Trying to get people to agree upon a shared definition of God around here is like trying to herd cats... which is kind of the point - "God" is an arbitrarily defined thing!

Quote:
That said, to me, things exist if they can be shown to exist, usually by demonstrating how they interact with other things. I see no evidence of anything interacting with the progession of events other than the operation of physical laws.


Sounds like a simple use of Occam's Razor to me. Why postulate the existence of God, or the supernatural in general, when it isn't necessary?




That is a very constructive suggestion, that we put up a list of concurring ideas.


First agreement is that things exist, starting with you and me.

Next is what?

What about...? better, you atheists advance some ideas for me to concur in with you.



Yrreg





Take a deep breath, and let's have a good laugh together:


Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!


Shall we now proceed to bring up ideas we can and are concurring in with one another, instead of wasting words to no purpose but to whet our appetite for animosity.


Number one idea we all concur in:


Things exist, starting with you and me.


Now, you continue with bringing up ideas which you are proposing to me for my concurrence.




Yrreg

[RandFan]

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.

yyreg: Why do you hate god?
EE: (everyone else): I don't he doesn't exist.

yyreg: Why are you angry at god?
EE: I'm not. God doesn't exist.

yyreg: I think it is wrong for you to hate god.
EE: You can't hate something that you don't think exists.

yyreg: You shouldn't be angry at god.
EE: But I'm not.

yyreg: Your hatred of god makes me angry at you.
EE: I don't hate god because there is no such thing.

yyreg: Why do you hate god?
EE: I don't hate god.

yyreg: But you shouldn't hate god.
EE: Is there something about "I don't hate god because he doesn't exist" that you don't get?

yyreg: See, you hate god.

[Hokulele]

Now, you continue with bringing up ideas which you are proposing to me for my concurrence.


Good beer does not have to be ice cold. Bad beer does.

[RandFan]

Now, you continue with bringing up ideas which you are proposing to me for my concurrence.Accusing people who don't believe unicorns exit of being angry and hating unicorns is a really stupid thing to do.

Wait, don't tell me....

yyreg: Why do you hate unicorns?

{sigh}

[articulett]

Why does yrreg see "animosity" where I see "joviality"?

[articulett]

How come theists suck at humor? No seriously... why?

[Dunstan]

Why does yrreg see "animosity" where I see "joviality"?

Because he gets everything sdrawkcab.

[articulett]

Because he gets everything sdrawkcab.

ah....
Do you think it was the theism that did it?
I tell you, that theism is dangerous stuff!

[Dunstan]

ah....
Do you think it was the theism that did it?


Yep. Theism did it, in the conservatory with the lead pipe.

[articulett]

Miss Scarlet has an alibi.

[arthwollipot]

Shall we now proceed to bring up ideas we can and are concurring in with one another, instead of wasting words to no purpose but to whet our appetite for animosity.


Number one idea we all concur in:

Things exist, starting with you and me.
Now, you continue with bringing up ideas which you are proposing to me for my concurrence.I don't understand what you're asking for, yrreg. Do you want us to start posting random things so that you can tell us whether you agree with them or not? What are you after? I'd like to help, but unless you give me something to work with, I'm going to find it hard.

[Foolmewunz]

Well, maybe this is a desperate attempt at irrelevance and a move to Forum Community. Yrreg may have never been there.

So I'll play..... There are loads of things we can all agree on. (WTF they have to do with reaching a consensus amongst theists, atheists, and agnostics, I don't know, but I'm a sporting type.)

1. Things exist, starting with you and me.
2. Pie is good. Mmmmm!

[Miss_Kitt]

Yrreg,

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to ignore 5 pages of posts and select a fraction of two messages and say, "There! That's what I'm after!" Especially when that explicitly contradicts what you, in your OP, said you wanted to know.

The questions many of us are waiting for you to answer are:

1) Do you now understand that atheists are NOT angry with god, because they don't believe there is any god to be angry with?

2) Why does the non-belief of atheists make YOU angry??

I'll try to phrase it a bit differently: While there is ample evidence that people believe in god(s), and have believed in gods for much of history, there is NO evidence of the existance of god(s) that is not dependent upon first postulating the existance and nature of the god(s).

Thus, your argument of "God made the moon before people existed..." is met immediately by, "There is evidence of the moon's existance before humans; there is no evidence of gods existing." When you say, "But God made the Universe! How else could there be a Universe?" we answer, "The Universe simply is."

You have no problem with a non-created Deity, which had the ability to create the Universe; we prefer the one-step-less version, with a non-created Universe. That is also less complex because god(s) is(are) sentient and act volitionally, whereas the Universe does not need to be sentient or have volition. I've never really grasped the mindset that thinks it's easier to have an eternal and limitless Being than an eternal and limitless Thing.

Not that I expect to have you actually respond to this, but best wishes for the holiday season, Yrreg. Regards, MK

[arthwollipot]

When you say, "But God made the Universe! How else could there be a Universe?" we answer, "The Universe simply is."Not that I disagree with you, but were I a theist, I wouln't find this answer at all satisfying.

[Zelenius]

I have to congratulate this troll. At least he avoided using the "Christians in the U.S are being treated just like the Jews were treated in Nazi Germany" line. Or has he? I've read nearly 3/4 of this thread, so can't say for sure. I encounter this Nazi persecution of Jews = secularist persecution of Christians more often now, especially during the holidays with the "War against Christmas" in full swing. Certainly, most Christians do not believe this nonsense that equates them with Jews in the 3rd Reich, but the fact that at least a few do believe in it illustrates how profoundly ignorant and paranoid some of them are. For many people, believing they are persecuted(when there is no evidence that they are actually being persecuted) is strangely empowering - this is the very core of paranoia.

I would ordinarily find such a comparison hilarious, if it didn't insult and display profound ignorance of the mass killing and extreme suffering of Jews in the Holocaust.

Although the troll avoids this canard, it is rare to see a mind that so fully encapsulates so many theists' common misconceptions about atheists.

For the record: I can't be "angry" with something that doesn't exist.

[Zelenius]

"When you say, "But God made the Universe! How else could there be a Universe?" we answer, "The Universe simply is." "Not that I disagree with you, but were I a theist, I wouln't find this answer at all satisfying.

Yet they are fine with answering "God simply is" if we ask "where did God come from?".

Yet they can't be satisfied with "the universe simply is". They have trouble with believing the universe can account for its own existence while at the same time, something supposedly more powerful than the universe can account for it's own existence. Talk about a double standard.

I suppose pantheism would be a little different, and maybe even a little more "logical", since "God" and the universe, which are one and the same, were created at the same time.

[six7s]

Because he gets everything sdrawkcab.

In that case, maybe we ought to change tack, like so:

Yrreg,

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to ignore 5 pages of posts and select a fraction of two messages and say, "There! That's what I'm after!" Especially when that explicitly contradicts what you, in your OP, said you wanted to know.

The questions many of us are waiting for you to answer are:

1) Do you now understand that atheists are NOT angry with god, because they don't believe there is any god to be angry with?

2) Why does the non-belief of atheists make YOU angry??

I'll try to phrase it a bit differently: While there is ample evidence that people believe in god(s), and have believed in gods for much of history, there is NO evidence of the existance of god(s) that is not dependent upon first postulating the existance and nature of the god(s).

Thus, your argument of "God made the moon before people existed..." is met immediately by, "There is evidence of the moon's existance before humans; there is no evidence of gods existing." When you say, "But God made the Universe! How else could there be a Universe?" we answer, "The Universe simply is."

You have no problem with a non-created Deity, which had the ability to create the Universe; we prefer the one-step-less version, with a non-created Universe. That is also less complex because god(s) is(are) sentient and act volitionally, whereas the Universe does not need to be sentient or have volition. I've never really grasped the mindset that thinks it's easier to have an eternal and limitless Being than an eternal and limitless Thing.

Not that I expect to have you actually respond to this, but best wishes for the holiday season, Yrreg. Regards, MK

And no, I didn't retype MK's post, vBulletin has tags
----------

How come theists suck at humor? No seriously... why?:confused:All theists? You ought to try mixing with a different breed of wooists... many, many of the ones I have known over the years are exceedingly funny, in a humourous way

[RandFan]

2. Pie is good. Mmmmm!

"We were to understand there would be punch and pie" --South Park.

Why are theists angry at South Park?

[Jackalgirl]

1. Things exist, starting with you and me.
2. Pie is good. Mmmmm!
3. I like turtles!

[Autolite]

In all fairness reference the OP, I would have to honestly admit that if god did exist I would likely be angry at him...(or at least mildly annoyed)...

[Dave Rogers]

I am not really angry at atheists in the same way that atheists are angry and hating God.

But you are angry in this way, in some sense. The idea that atheists are angry and hating God does not originate with atheists, it originates inside you. It's not an emotion we possess, but one you're projecting on to us. There's a feeling you have, somewhere in there, that you can't accept that you have, and you're disclaiming it by saying it originates with atheists and is somehow imposed upon you by our very existence. You'll never move on, and never be able to participate in any meaningful debate on atheism, until you acknowledge that you, not we, are the angry one.

Dave

[Mojo]

Take a deep breath, and let's have a good laugh together:


Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!


Basil Fawlty: “Sybil, do you remember when we were first manacled together, we used to laugh a lot.”
Sybil: “Yes, Basil, but not at the same time.”

Why does yrreg see "animosity" where I see "joviality"?


Because we're not laughing with him.