First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
90% of Atheists/Agnostics are idiot posers
1112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / F
Offline
Posted 5/7/08

Auriga wrote:


digs wrote:
Hardcore atheists truly respect others beliefs and acknowledge that they practice them. True atheists wouldn't be offended by prayer or religious symbols. Why would someone be offended by something they view as having no meaning or truth? A true atheist wouldn't try and indoctrinate people or act rude because they think they are right. They would try and live at peace with others and not mind what others believe or practice as long as it isn't law breaking (like some murder cult) or as long as the religions aren't violent to nonbelievers and try and shove it down their throats. A true atheist would hold to the "fact" that they believe there is no higher power or afterlife, and would not be phased by any religion. If they truly hold to that belief, it shouldn't matter what someone else believes. Because in their mine, in the end, good, bad, poor, rich, religious, or atheist, everyone winds up dead and alifeless rotting corpse that ceases all existence and function.


Why must hardcore atheists be the only ones who truly respect other beliefs and acknowledge that others practice them? This thread is proof that Christians do not respect atheist beliefs. We don't believe that God exists - yet Christians always travel across the world trying to spread their influence and beliefs onto others. When you guys do it, its called "teaching." If we debate against it, we are "arguing." When you guys believe that God exists, you "believe." While you accuse atheists as being "posers"? God is just as likely to exist as to not exist. You chose to believe that he exists, while atheists chose otherwise. This does not make us any less of a person, or any less intelligent.

While we believe that there is no such thing as an afterlife, we do not view death in such a cynical way as "winding up as a rotting corpse." It's simply the end of life - and that's all there is to it. Life is temporary, and you must make the most of what you have.

You argue that atheists are wrong - well guess what, we think the same way. However, in this thread, you aren't giving atheists the same respect that you demand from them.


You know you can use this same argument against atheists. Each person tries to persuade others to their viewpoint not only Christians. Don't you try to persuade others not to believe that God exists? Furthermore, isn't debate a constructive argument? I don't see why you have to be offended by the term. Also, the creator of this post said that some atheists were posers not all.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 5/8/08
Response to OP:

1. I am not sure that being an intellectual is necessarily something to be proud of. Some of them seem only to bend the language to express an absurd idea that is more unclearity than philosophy. Some intellectual theories only makes sense if you allow for an uncommon if not false use of language. And being an intellectual is not the same as knowing philosophy. A certain degree of philosophy was compulsory when I went to the university, I acquired the knowledge, but I never became an intellectual. Being an intellectual is more like having advanced theories that makes sense universally if you allow for it than knowing philosophy. There are for instance many left-wing intellectuals that know little philosophy. They are still intellectuals. And what people talk like determines not only their own will but upbringing, education, where they have lived and live. Some never think about how they want to talk, and talk like people around them.
2. It must be said, that in some countries religion control things like law, education, budget, etc. For instance, I do not hate religions, but I do not like the religious education (in protestantism) and the fact that taxes go to the State church in my country. Also some other things connected with the state. This is not a beef with protestantism, strictly speaking it is with the state.
3. Same as before. But also it should be noted that there are loose and popular concepts of religious matters going around that disgusts some people and makes them react. Some do not draw any line between church teachings, popular concepts, theology and/or holy writings. These are in reality different things. The point is that you may object to one or more of these, but perhaps not all. This is not a case of misunderstanding really, just what impression you recieve depending on your relations. Was it the church message, some sort of media, an interpration of scriptures or the scriptures themselves that made you react to religion? This may form an attitude different from another. Noone is really to blame here, it is just a problem. Like something as important as the concept of god.
4. Really? My experience is that people that are very stubborn in their belief or disbelief can not even accept a premice for a debate ("for the sake of argument let us assume that god.." "There is no god!"). This turns up in every anarchist debate. Even when I name places where it worked, to get theball rolling to discuss the theories behind, people stop there unwilling to accept that it can work. And the debate ends before it begins, always.
5. Some maybe, but most object to religion like superstition, or hate things related to it. Like hating the Catholic church for having scandals concerning priests with choir boys, the muslems for fatwas and jihad, et cetera.

You failed to mention Believing In Science. Some of them have an immense belief in science. Scientific theories becomes fact. Anything not proven by science in present day becomes hocus pocus (ironically theories still stay Facts). They sometimes say you can either believe in religion or science. They certainly do believe in science too. Things they are only told, theories becomes more than theories. Even science they have not checked up on becomes facts. Take physics. Some physics is conveyed to me. I do not disbelive it, and if there are facts backing it and I know I believe it. But if I only know it as unopposed I assume it is true, if there are alternative theories I assume that the more general one is probably true but it could be different. and I accept how little I know. But some does swallow everything that is generally accepted.
101 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/8/08

YouAreDumb wrote:
...


By 90% you mean the people you meet in day to day live, or do you mean the people you meet on the web?
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/8/08

jestorebo wrote:

Response to OP:

1. I am not sure that being an intellectual is necessarily something to be proud of. Some of them seem only to bend the language to express an absurd idea that is more unclearity than philosophy. Some intellectual theories only makes sense if you allow for an uncommon if not false use of language. And being an intellectual is not the same as knowing philosophy.
Quote true though most people who know something about it tend to be rather intellectual.


A certain degree of philosophy was compulsory when I went to the university, I acquired the knowledge, but I never became an intellectual. Being an intellectual is more like having advanced theories that makes sense universally if you allow for it than knowing philosophy. There are for instance many left-wing intellectuals that know little philosophy. They are still intellectuals. And what people talk like determines not only their own will but upbringing, education, where they have lived and live. Some never think about how they want to talk, and talk like people around them.
2. It must be said, that in some countries religion control things like law, education, budget, etc. For instance, I do not hate religions, but I do not like the religious education (in protestantism) and the fact that taxes go to the State church in my country. Also some other things connected with the state. This is not a beef with protestantism, strictly speaking it is with the state.
3. Same as before. But also it should be noted that there are loose and popular concepts of religious matters going around that disgusts some people and makes them react. Some do not draw any line between church teachings, popular concepts, theology and/or holy writings. These are in reality different things. The point is that you may object to one or more of these, but perhaps not all. This is not a case of misunderstanding really, just what impression you recieve depending on your relations. Was it the church message, some sort of media, an interpration of scriptures or the scriptures themselves that made you react to religion? This may form an attitude different from another. Noone is really to blame here, it is just a problem. Like something as important as the concept of god.
4. Really? My experience is that people that are very stubborn in their belief or disbelief can not even accept a premice for a debate ("for the sake of argument let us assume that god.." "There is no god!"). This turns up in every anarchist debate. Even when I name places where it worked, to get theball rolling to discuss the theories behind, people stop there unwilling to accept that it can work. And the debate ends before it begins, always.
5. Some maybe, but most object to religion like superstition, or hate things related to it. Like hating the Catholic church for having scandals concerning priests with choir boys, the muslems for fatwas and jihad, et cetera.

You failed to mention Believing In Science. Some of them have an immense belief in science. Scientific theories becomes fact. Anything not proven by science in present day becomes hocus pocus (ironically theories still stay Facts). They sometimes say you can either believe in religion or science. They certainly do believe in science too. Things they are only told, theories becomes more than theories. Even science they have not checked up on becomes facts. Take physics. Some physics is conveyed to me. I do not disbelive it, and if there are facts backing it and I know I believe it. But if I only know it as unopposed I assume it is true, if there are alternative theories I assume that the more general one is probably true but it could be different. and I accept how little I know. But some does swallow everything that is generally accepted.


Belief in things for which there is empirical evidence can not be compared the faith religious people have in god.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 5/8/08

jestorebo wrote:

You failed to mention Believing In Science. Some of them have an immense belief in science. Scientific theories becomes fact. Anything not proven by science in present day becomes hocus pocus (ironically theories still stay Facts). They sometimes say you can either believe in religion or science. They certainly do believe in science too. Things they are only told, theories becomes more than theories. Even science they have not checked up on becomes facts. Take physics. Some physics is conveyed to me. I do not disbelive it, and if there are facts backing it and I know I believe it. But if I only know it as unopposed I assume it is true, if there are alternative theories I assume that the more general one is probably true but it could be different. and I accept how little I know. But some does swallow everything that is generally accepted.



I second this addition to the list.

The bit about anything not proven by science becoming nonsense is troublesome in another way. When enough people think like this, it can become difficult for the unproven to even be investigated properly. Yet, in the face of proof later on, these people have the pleasure of being able to just shrug their mistake off.

And somehow the faith in believing that Antarctica exists without ever having been there is not just a lesser version of that in believing that God exists, but actually not faith at all. Science is a new deity for people to follow with absolute certainty, scientists the new priests to convey the message of the Almighty. If it's not one system, it's another.
5137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAA...
Offline
Posted 5/9/08

YouAreDumb wrote:

Let me start by saying I am an agnostic. I have to say though that most people who are non religious are doing it to be part of the growing trend. They do not have real reasons for their stance any more than religious people do.

Ways to tell if someone is a stupid poser:

1. They talk like they are intellectuals yet they have could not name any philosophers(religious or otherwise) to save their life.

2.They hate religious people, and fail to realize this makes them just as stupid as the fundamentalists.

3. They are "mad" at god.Real atheists/agnostics are not mad at him, since they do not believe in him. When people say they do not believe for this reason they just an idiot.

4. They can be converted using something stupid, such as the ontological argument for god.

5. They are rebelling against religious parents.

There is a lot more, but you get the picture. These people are giving us a bad a name, and most stopped before they make everyone dismiss atheism/agnosticism.


FLYING SPEGETTI MONSTER ftw
516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Waterdeep
Offline
Posted 5/9/08

YouAreDumb wrote:

Let me start by saying I am an agnostic. I have to say though that most people who are non religious are doing it to be part of the growing trend. They do not have real reasons for their stance any more than religious people do.

Ways to tell if someone is a stupid poser:

1. They talk like they are intellectuals yet they have could not name any philosophers(religious or otherwise) to save their life.

2.They hate religious people, and fail to realize this makes them just as stupid as the fundamentalists.

3. They are "mad" at god.Real atheists/agnostics are not mad at him, since they do not believe in him. When people say they do not believe for this reason they just an idiot.

4. They can be converted using something stupid, such as the ontological argument for god.

5. They are rebelling against religious parents.

There is a lot more, but you get the picture. These people are giving us a bad a name, and most stopped before they make everyone dismiss atheism/agnosticism.


I'm also agnostic and these fundamental like atheist are destroying how Chrisitans view us.
We should act unique and respect their beliefs but flame them if they use their belief against us.

1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 5/9/08
Ho Ho Ho! I see some religious nuts have come in for a celebration but thats to be expected since quoting scripture actually confounds them.

In response to the original poster however, you forgot something. Anyone can change their mind, so if they change their mind later are they "real" or "poser" especially if you keep in mind the definition of of atheism and agnosticism.

1. I believe that some cannot quote any philosphers but any logical person who read the bible would have know the christian god either promoted incest or did not know everything. That the writings are a muddle would have turned some of the people off. In the absence of alternate acceptable (to them and peers) theologies, these people would be de-facto atheists. Even if they converted to taoism or buddhism or similar, they would still be atheists since those don't have a single god being.

2. Heck i highly dislike religious people to get all preachy yet cannot answer any questions. In fact i believe any buddhist, taoist, muslim, hindu or similar would dislike such people as well. This could hardly be used as a criteria of any sort

3. Depends. Some people don't really believe, they just give lip service until they encounter something that causes them to "hate" the religion, they tend to reject it by the same level of "hate" caused.

1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 5/9/08
Youaredumb: evidence. Actually what you need is thorough research. And you need to know all the factors. I have seen statistic research on tv violence/violence, for instance. However, the problem with those I saw, was that it did not take into account all factors. For instance, how active children will become when they have sat down and watched tv for hours, no matter what was on. Statistics will not necessarily prove anything, even with immense research. You need to know all the factors. Frenology was once a science. People saw a criminal's skull that would prove the theory of the skull/crime- relation. But research proved it wrong. And some theories are held in 100% belief as a counter against religion, especially the THEORY of evolution and the big bang THEORY. The reason why people believe in these although not knowing enogh or perhaps nothing about them, is because they want to counter religion. Some theories are even presented as facts in education. The point is that you may find evidence, but unless it's proven, it's about your willingness to accept, maybe your faith in science.

Regulus: actually you can sometimes see the evidence when it comes to science. Numbers, photograps, etc. Science in itself may be throughly backed by evidence to the level of proven. The point is rather that people are subjective when it comes to their acceptance of the unproven science. And some people insist on believing without facts or presenting the conflict between religion and science like one (hocus pocus) and the other ("backed" by facts, even if not).

It may not be the same level of belief, at least not because a life may be dominated by religious belief (what you do, worship) but not usually by a belief in science, but both may dominate how you think. And both may lead to fanaticism.

Glob: 1. I do not see your point about promoting incest. Firstly, why cannot a god promote incest? You can not lay rules on a god. Secondly, genesis and leviticus I believe are delivered through oral tradition. They are the most doubtful parts in the bible, because they were written down later I believe. They are kept as "allegorical explanations", I do not think many churches take them literally. Also: what would it prove if god did not know everything? Does a god have to? I do not see your point. Are you giving god bad marks or something?
2. If the religious people you have talken to can not prove anything, you have been talking to very oblivious ones. I think most will explain things. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but they are answers.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 5/9/08 , edited 5/9/08

jestorebo wrote:Glob: 1. I do not see your point about promoting incest. Firstly, why cannot a god promote incest? You can not lay rules on a god. Secondly, genesis and leviticus I believe are delivered through oral tradition. They are the most doubtful parts in the bible, because they were written down later I believe. They are kept as "allegorical explanations", I do not think many churches take them literally. Also: what would it prove if god did not know everything? Does a god have to? I do not see your point. Are you giving god bad marks or something?
2. If the religious people you have talken to can not prove anything, you have been talking to very oblivious ones. I think most will explain things. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but they are answers.


1: If god is promoting it (by your words), christians should engage in incest to abide by god's will. Its after all not a sin since god wants you to do it. As for not knowing everything, i wasn't the one who said god knew everything. Guess who did. And surprisingly you have not made a logical connection to what both means together.

2: Sure, "god works in mysterious ways", "god has a plan you haven't seen yet", nice answers. Next time i'll tell teachers that 1+1="god works in mysterious ways". I'm sure they'll give people full marks!

and finally 3: if you are denying genesis and leviticus's correctness, then pray tell which parts of the bible are true and in on what authority do you think those parts are true?
Posted 5/10/08

YouAreDumb wrote:

Ways to tell if someone is a stupid poser:

1. They talk like they are intellectuals yet they have could not name any philosophers(religious or otherwise) to save their life.




I think it's absolutely hypocritical of Atheists/Agnostics to hate religious people. Continuously atheists have to explain or defend their beliefs, and find it hard for people to not just let them be, so how could they turn around and judge people for believing in a god, or gods, even if it is excessive? what gives you that right? And are atheists/agnostics so certain in their beliefs that they can divide people as "posers" who claim to be atheists for some sort of benefit? The world would be much more peaceful if we allowed each other to believe in for whatever reasons. No judgment attached.

*However* religion and politics should never (never? never ever!) mix.



Also, I don't think being able to list philosophers proves anything, some people come to conclusions on their own without having to rely on other people's ideas and/or philosophies.
2769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Monterey
Offline
Posted 5/10/08 , edited 5/10/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


1. They talk like they are intellectuals yet they have could not name any philosophers(religious or otherwise) to save their life.

2.They hate religious people, and fail to realize this makes them just as stupid as the fundamentalists.

3. They are "mad" at god.Real atheists/agnostics are not mad at him, since they do not believe in him. When people say they do not believe for this reason they just an idiot.

4. They can be converted using something stupid, such as the ontological argument for god.

5. They are rebelling against religious parents.

There is a lot more, but you get the picture. These people are giving us a bad a name, and most stopped before they make everyone dismiss atheism/agnosticism.


1) you don't need to know historical figures to be atheist/agnostic (or to come to a realization that you are).. though, if you want.. Voltaire, David Hume, John Locke, or keyword: Empiricism

2) i do not hate. i laugh(at anything i think is funny), but i do say mean things, i suppose, but eh..*shrugs*

3) i think they're just expressing their hatred for the people using god as an excuse and what not. by blaming god.. maybe =/

4) yeah.. but see, that's part of propagandas and shit. okay, when one person gets converted. the story spreads all over, because religious people want to convert more and more people, so they basically advertise it. "haha, we got one. how's that nonbelievers"(basically).and we all listen.. making that one or two story sound like a lot. but you also kinda have to look at statistics. people are also getting converted to atheistism and agnosticism, you just don't hear it as often because.. well. when was the last time you advertised your agnosticism to convert someone else.

5) yeah, that's common, but stereotypical. i mean. plenty of people rebel. and plenty of others don't

last OP message. um, agnosticism and atheistism has always had a bad name(yes, religion can be blamed for that). it's not that they are giving us a bad name, it's just that, well.. people advertise stupid people. don't atheists and agnostics do the same?

come on, i'm sure you can find a youtube video that deals with religious contradictions with agnostics or atheists criticizing it.




Posted 5/10/08
Apparently , you folks don't actually understand what agnostic means .


Here you go .

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/10/08

Gev wrote:

Apparently , you folks don't actually understand what agnostic means .


Here you go .

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Well one can be an atheist agnostic(when you admit we can not know if there is a god, but do not believe there is) or an agnostic theist (the reverse)
475 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 5/10/08
I guess I'm apart of that 10%...
Until someone can answer my questions with something else besides, "Because god says so," I'll be agnostic...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.