1712 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

Not to mention, and I have mentioned this before, your asking for 'evidence for atheism' is literally you asking for evidence that someone doesn't believe in the gods. Your use of English is retarded and it always muddies a discussion. Your only excuse is that English is not your first language, which I've asked you about before. I've told you before that 'evidence for atheism' does not compute with me.

What would you consider evidence of some people not believing your religion's claims? Why do you need evidence that a person has dismissed your definition of god?

Edited by Duchykins, 29 July 2014 - 05:42 AM.

[Duchykins]

I can either dismiss your definition of atheism, or simply shrug off the 'atheist' label because you defined me out of atheism. In both cases, your anti-atheist arguments are useless against me since they are prepackaged to address stereoptyical atheist positions.

You are incapable of having an original thought in all of the topics we've been in. That is why you cannot engage me, you are unable to deviate from your cookie cutter arguments, stagnant ways of thinking, and improvise.

[shadowhawk]

More and more name calling.  And where is  your evidence?  None  I didn't label you an atheist.

 

1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502597
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502599
http://www.longecity...120#entry506777
http://www.longecity...270#entry510904
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612
Atheists are agnostics?
http://www.longecity...360#entry639932
http://www.longecity...360#entry639934
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647374
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612
 

[shadowhawk]

Duchkyins:  "You preached at me many times in your other thread. Most of your pro-Christian arguments are preaching."

 

What total nonsense.  I bet you think this is all about  you, don't you? 

[Duchykins]

Dumbass, you preached at everybody in that thread. You're so dense you don't even realize what you're doing.

Edited by Duchykins, 30 July 2014 - 04:38 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Name calling is all you have.  Typical.  Off topic but I am not preaching at you but discussing evidence for various viewpoints.  You do think this is all about you. 

[DukeNukem]

A new atheist TV channel went live today:
 

http://www.atheists.org/atheistTV/live

 

I watched the opening minutes of the launch today, and it's going to focus on reality, science, flaws with religions, etc.  The History channel, science channels, and most of the others have gravitated to pseudo-science, like Ghost Hunters, Ancient Aliens, and shows about psychics.  This new Atheist TV channel will avoid silliness like this, and actually cover real topics and issues that never rely on supernatural, faux science answers.  I suspect in 10-20 years, well after this channel gets listed on cable and dish networks, this will be seen as a landmark in human rationalism.

 

People like SH will soon be in the minority.  And once we cross that line, this world will be far better off.

[Duchykins]

I like the Atheist Experience show

[Duchykins]

I don't know about the TV channel. Probably there will be some good stuff, but American Atheists has a small history doing things that I consider douchebaggery and sometimes even bigotry, further damaging the image of atheists everywhere and making it more difficult for people to accept atheists. I'm hoping it won't spill over into the chamnel

Edited by Duchykins, 30 July 2014 - 09:57 PM.

[shadowhawk]

https://www.youtube....TYxMYibC4#t=172

[Duchykins]

The video is not working on my mobile. But the phrase 'militant atheist' is in the comments at least twice, if the guy who made the video used that phrase to describe atheists like Hitchens, then I'm not interested in anything else he has to say about religious matters. Militant is a violent word associated with weapons and sometimes terrorism. Militant Christians, militant Muslims, militant Jews, militant Buddhists, these have always been used to describe terrorist-like or actual terrorist factions. It is an absolutely disgusting double-standard to take that word and stick it to antitheists just because they have big mouths.

[shadowhawk]

Good He is an Atheist and describes many Atheists.  Just look at this thread.  Don't forget the real big killers such as the atheists of the last century.  But Atheists often do that.  Ever hear of a Militant Atheist?  Was Hitchens an atheist like addressed in the video?  Oh yes, forgot you can't watch videos.  I liked the debate between the brothers Hitchens which I watched on video.  Did you know he had a Christian brother?  Great debater and kind.

[Duchykins]

Yes I gathered the guy was an atheist from the comments, he is not the first atheist I've seen stupidly using that phrase to describe loud atheists, something that was revived by (surprise) Christians. That's why I have no interest in what he has to say.

Yes I know of Peter Hitchens. I doubt there is anything you know on the topic of religion that I do not.

Militant atheist groups, real ones, are fairly rare simply because irreligious atheists aren't that common. THEY KILL PEOPLE like any other extremist group.

I'm sure you would wish that the big mouthed atheists were really 'militant' like this. Then you could say 'I told you so, look how evil they are'.

It's just like a Christian to want people to be murdered in order to protect or advance your beliefs.

Big killers? Oh you mean less than a handful of atheists in very high positions of power, delegating misery? Out of how many atheists? Statistically, atheists will never top theists in producing killers per capita. With their bare hands.

Edited by Duchykins, 02 August 2014 - 01:22 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I love the way Atheists always deny their great civilizations killed far more than any other,  Then they want to blame Christians for everything wrong in the world.  Just be consistent humans are nothings but animals given atheism and we all know the ethics of nature.

[Duchykins]

I denied that? No I didn't you filthy liar. Those atheists had access to all kinds of technology that made killing more efficient. Of course they killed more in a shorter amount of time than their technologically primitive theistic predecessors.


Christians like to say humans are nothings. Christians like to say life has less value than death and 'afterlife', whatever that is. Why do you think so many scorn humanism?

[shadowhawk]

Good you do not deny Atheists are the worlds greatest system of killers.  Technology made me do it,  Yes and Atheists have used it very well on hundreds of millions.

[xks201]

I think  lumping all atheists as technocratic people who do not care about human life  is childish. Atheists are united around the idea that they do not worship a specific God which is a far greater bond in my opinion than the average bond between the different clashing religious beliefs of the various religions. I just don't see the point in rolling this argument out for 2 years when every page I read attempts to generalize the humanistic beliefs of all atheists into one and claim that they are the antithesis of the positive aspects of Christianity for example. To me whether or not you believe in a god in the sky, the idea of treating one's neighbor as one would want to be treated is more or less common sense. I don't think atheists need to sell anything. Either you buy into a group of religious teachings or not. I personally do not see the need for religion to ensure the survival of humanity. Look at the middle east and you'll see it is fueling wars left and right. Hell, even wars are started by the united states all in the altruistic values of christianity and saving people from their evil dictators...only to see those regimes fall and far more devastating rebel groups take over with zero value for any human life who claim to be doing their work for God or against the next religious rebel group. How you can sit here and generalize the ideas of atheists to produce the "greatest system of killers" as you put it is beyond ridiculous. Childish if I might say. The fact that you so vehemently attack all atheists as having the same moral values and everything else to me is a little strange. Not sure what your goal of this thread is because I don't see it convincing anyone of anything. 

Edited by xks201, 02 August 2014 - 03:39 AM.

[shadowhawk]

No one is bonding all atheists together and they are not united either.  There are all kinds of Atheists and they suffer the same failures that humanity does.  But is there evidence for Atheism?  So far they believe by blind faith.

[DukeNukem]

  But is there evidence for Atheism?  So far they believe by blind faith.

 

Officially the dumbest claim in this thread.

 

The entire point of atheism is evidence over faith.  Religions require blind faith (and the Bible, for example, makes this claim numerous times).  Not atheism.

 

Religions also require ontological arguments, because, let's face it, their gods are not bright enough to provide clear and convincing ongoing evidence.  (2000 year old stories are not convincing in the least, especially when those stories are so ungodly, filled with intolerance, lack of mercy, suppression, mass killings of innocent children, and outright incorrect science--like a worldwide flood and a moon that shines its own light.)

[Duchykins]

No one is bonding all atheists together and they are not united either. There are all kinds of Atheists and they suffer the same failures that humanity does. But is there evidence for Atheism? So far they believe by blind faith.

Typical retarded response from SH. As if atheism requires greater faith than theism, rather than equal to or less.

[shifter]

Athiesm is the lack of any belief or faith. I can see why some people might come to the conclusion that atheism requires some sort of 'faith' to 'believe' what they understand however. But actually, it is the complete abscense of any faith. I personally do not think it is a healthy viewpoint as it assumes we already have the answer. (my understanding of it).

 

But I will say this. Until mankind can fully comprehend both the origin and the entire working of the universe (or multiverse), until he knows everything thats ever happened at any place at any time, there is no 'evidence' for any religion and no evidence for athiesm. We simply do not know. It should be mankinds goal to seek this knowlege no matter how long it takes and no matter what the answer at the end may be. We simply do not know the workings and complexity of our universe yet to make a completely informed judgement on any case.

 

I like the maxim (even if it is from a computer game assassins creed) "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted"

 

 

 

 

[DukeNukem]

>>> It should be mankinds goal to seek this knowlege no matter how long it takes

 

Humankind does seek knowledge, and we've learned enough to bring us from the stone age to where we are now, beginning space travels with a huge understanding of the universe (but still growing).

 

And this is all without any gods lifting a finger to help us.  (Frankly, if they were real, I wish they'd lift their finger to help now in then, and prevent much of the unjust suffering on this planet.)

[shadowhawk]

 

  But is there evidence for Atheism?  So far they believe by blind faith.

 

Officially the dumbest claim in this thread.

 

The entire point of atheism is evidence over faith.  Religions require blind faith (and the Bible, for example, makes this claim numerous times).  Not atheism.

 

Religions also require ontological arguments, because, let's face it, their gods are not bright enough to provide clear and convincing ongoing evidence.  (2000 year old stories are not convincing in the least, especially when those stories are so ungodly, filled with intolerance, lack of mercy, suppression, mass killings of innocent children, and outright incorrect science--like a worldwide flood and a moon that shines its own light.)

 

Well where is your evidence?  Where in the Bible does it claim blind faith is the Biblical view.  If you have evidence your belief is not blind.  So, show us the evidence you claim to have for Atheism. 

[shadowhawk]

Athiesm is the lack of any belief or faith. I can see why some people might come to the conclusion that atheism requires some sort of 'faith' to 'believe' what they understand however. But actually, it is the complete abscense of any faith. I personally do not think it is a healthy viewpoint as it assumes we already have the answer. (my understanding of it).

 

But I will say this. Until mankind can fully comprehend both the origin and the entire working of the universe (or multiverse), until he knows everything thats ever happened at any place at any time, there is no 'evidence' for any religion and no evidence for athiesm. We simply do not know. It should be mankinds goal to seek this knowlege no matter how long it takes and no matter what the answer at the end may be. We simply do not know the workings and complexity of our universe yet to make a completely informed judgement on any case.

 

I like the maxim (even if it is from a computer game assassins creed) "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted"

 

Well shifter i disagree with this definition of atheism.  That would make my cat an atheist because she does not believe.  We have talked about this.

http://www.longecity...-28#entry678007

 

Atheists think they have no burden of proof because they do not believe anything.  They do believe there is no God and are quite vocal about it as witnessed by this thread.  They DO have a burden of proof.
 

[Duchykins]

The burden is on the claimant, actually. If an atheist is merely refuting a theist's argument without making his own claim on the existence of gods then he has no burden.

Otherwise everybody would have the burden simply because they don't believe in others' gods. If that sentence confuses you, as I'm sure it does, I'll put it in terms you can better understand: by sheer disbelief in the gods of other religions, without ever claiming that those other gods do not exist, you incur a burden of evidence against each of those gods. And preaching the virtues of your own religion does not sufficiently prove all other religions wrong about their gods.

Edited by Duchykins, 03 August 2014 - 05:17 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Shadowhawk, if someone tells you they don't believe in unicorns, according to what you've claimed in this thread, the burden of proof would be on them to provide evidence that unicorns do not exist.

 

(Now do you see how silly your whole approach is with this thread?)

[johnross47]

 

Athiesm is the lack of any belief or faith. I can see why some people might come to the conclusion that atheism requires some sort of 'faith' to 'believe' what they understand however. But actually, it is the complete abscense of any faith. I personally do not think it is a healthy viewpoint as it assumes we already have the answer. (my understanding of it).

 

But I will say this. Until mankind can fully comprehend both the origin and the entire working of the universe (or multiverse), until he knows everything thats ever happened at any place at any time, there is no 'evidence' for any religion and no evidence for athiesm. We simply do not know. It should be mankinds goal to seek this knowlege no matter how long it takes and no matter what the answer at the end may be. We simply do not know the workings and complexity of our universe yet to make a completely informed judgement on any case.

 

I like the maxim (even if it is from a computer game assassins creed) "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted"

 

Well shifter i disagree with this definition of atheism.  That would make my cat an atheist because she does not believe.  We have talked about this.

http://www.longecity...-28#entry678007

 

Atheists think they have no burden of proof because they do not believe anything.  They do believe there is no God and are quite vocal about it as witnessed by this thread.  They DO have a burden of proof.
 

You've been told before, many times....they don't, "believe there is no god".....they don't believe there is a god, which is subtly different.

 

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk, if someone tells you they don't believe in unicorns, according to what you've claimed in this thread, the burden of proof would be on them to provide evidence that unicorns do not exist.

 

(Now do you see how silly your whole approach is with this thread?)

 

That is not what Atheism is.  I don't believe in lots of things, that does not make me an atheist.  The thread is about atheism not agnosticism.

 

http://www.longecity...-28#entry678007

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 August 2014 - 06:44 PM.

[shifter]

You've been told before, many times....they don't, "believe there is no god".....they don't believe there is a god, which is subtly different.

Thanks for pointing out my double negative. What you said is what I meant to say. Like I said at the start. A lack of any belief