'Shock' atheists

[VIBE]

I've never understood why it matters what atheism is...

 

[judahxulu]

False, but nice try...

Rejecting an unfounded belief does not constitute a belief.

noun /biˈlēf/ 

beliefs, plural



An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exist

- his belief in the value of hard work

- a belief that solitude nourishes creativity



Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction

- contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language

- we're prepared to fight for our beliefs

s

A religious conviction

- Christian beliefs

- I'm afraid to say belief has gone

- local beliefs and customs

Trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something

- a belief in democratic politics

- I've still got belief in myself

wow...you would think the reading comprehension of atheist would be better seeing that they dont have that old spooky prayer in school to distract them but.....guess that aint the case.

you don't accept that any kind of deity exists but you ACCEPT THE STATEMENT THAT NO DEITIES EXIST AS TRUE.

this is a FIRMLY HELD OPINION OR CONVICTION. it is not fact because you can't prove it.

yet...you have trust and confidence that your firmly held opinion and conviction is correct...

belief is belief nigga

 

[Jonas.dini]

a rejection of belief that requires rejection of something you cant prove or disprove by empirical means.

atheism=bizarro belief

EDIT: your post doesn't even make sense, of course I reject something for which there is no evidence. Burden of proof is on the believers

 

[Jonas.dini]

ACCEPT THE STATEMENT THAT NO DEITIES EXIST AS TRUE.

As I explained over and over, atheism means reject belief in deities, not the belief that deities don't exist. I've said that a million times in this thread so seems like you're the one who has trouble with reading comprehension

 

[Jonas.dini]

1) yin and yang are not equivalent. another thing you choose to comment on that u know nothing of. i study the tao of all things. yin and yang are complementary opposites. besides your disbelief is still a belief in a manner of speaking- because YOU DONT KNOW IF THERE ISN'T A CREATOR. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PERCEIVE OR UNDERSTAND SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST AS AN ABSOLUTE. youre just guessing.

2.) i'm not rejecting logic. you have not produced any sound logic. but i will say that everything in reality is not logical anyway..but thats besides the point. this is your fallacious attempt to shrug away the actual point of paragraph that followed the sentence you chose to bold. oh that was worth a response but the rest was beneath you??? lol...u are extra transparent but unfortunately not at all lucid.

3.) another dodge, eh? well then let me elaborate further. you are stupid because you cannot see that your way of thinking does no more good than religion. prove me wrong.

i like how you ignored the rest of my post and played it off as a "waste of time" to respond when in reality i shattered your little egocentric conception that people of a spiritual nature can be easily bulldozed by your pseudo-intellectual atheist posturing.

you made a claim about scriptures. prove it. you atheists are fond of challenging one to prove existence of a god because that is an assertion right. you made a few unsubstantiated assertions and i'd like to see if maybe u can surprise me by being intelligent and brave enough to back up your claims or at least admit u dont know what the fuck youre talking about. im not into evangelizing so i dont personally care what u "disbelieve". but since we quoting pac---- 'you ain't gotta lie to kick it". u shouldn't have to make up shit about something u dont believe in.

(1) Yin/yang stuff was rhetoric dogg, although it was the appropriate metaphore since you were talking about disbelief and belief being of opposite meanings yet needing one another... but the point that matters is your fallacious equivalency.
Also, as I've noted repeatedly, I never said there isn't a creator, just that I reject belief in one... subtle but important difference. Although certainly there is no reason to believe in a creator.

(2) What does that have to do with my second point about this being a forum to diss... I mean discuss religion?
Also, you're talkin like an empiricist a few lines down... seems like you're all over the place with your conception of logic.

(3) It isn't a dodge, just my noting your false equivalency, again.

And you didn't shatter shit b. Far as going back and forth with scripture, that would as I said before be an enormous waste of time, especially since you and I both know the scriptures are full of passages advocating violence and other ugliness. You want to talk sequencing to try to explain away all the advocacy of ugly shit but that wouldn't do it for me even if I felt like wasting the time finding passages to post (which I don't). Scripture is full of contradiction, superstition and supernatural silliness.

And just for kicks, u believe in the tooth fairy too b? THat would be about as logical by your standards since it can't be proven or disproven empirically

 

[judahxulu]

As I explained over and over, atheism means reject belief in deities, not the belief that deities don't exist. I've said that a million times in this thread so seems like you're the one who has trouble with reading comprehension

since you like definitions:

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

[judahxulu]

(1) Yin/yang stuff was rhetoric dogg, although it was the appropriate metaphore since you were talking about disbelief and belief being of opposite meanings yet needing one another... but the point that matters is your fallacious equivalency.
Also, as I've noted repeatedly, I never said there isn't a creator, just that I reject belief in one... subtle but important difference. Although certainly there is no reason to believe in a creator.

(2) What does that have to do with my second point about this being a forum to diss... I mean discuss religion?
Also, you're talkin like an empiricist a few lines down... seems like you're all over the place with your conception of logic.

(3) It isn't a dodge, just my noting your false equivalency, again.

Far as going back and forth with scripture, that would as I said before be an enormous waste of time, especially since you and I both know the scriptures are full of passages advocating violence and other ugliness. You want to talk sequencing to try to explain away all the advocacy of ugly shit but that wouldn't do it for me even if I felt like wasting the time finding passages to post (which I don't). Scripture is full of contradiction, superstition and supernatural silliness.

And just for kicks, u believe in the tooth fairy too b? THat would be about as logical by your standards since it can't be proven or disproven empirically

contradiction, superstition, supernatural silliness. unsubstantiated claims.

how can u refute me with rhetoric? YOU CANT. i know what the hell isaid in a right and exact manner. you are ignorant of the concept i mentioned and got caught with ur pants down.

empirical knowledge as well as knowledge that cannot be perceived via the five senses are on the same par with me. i embrace it all. i told u- i study the tao of all things. balance is HOLY. u aint chopping it up with a christian zombie so i suggest u quit engaging me in a battle of wits unarmed. it amuses me when im obviously over someones head and their too stupid and bullheaded to concede.

if u dont have evidence to produce (the phantom scriptures u mentioned) then why mention them and then act like u are above it all when challenged on the notion? because u were bullshitting from the jump. its ok lil' buddy. we understand. go google the atheist site of ur choice and use the same ol' out of context passages you idiots allways do. u know most of ya'll say the same shit. thats why u like to pick on christians because most of them dont study or at least not objectively.

as far as the tooth fairy thing. i think u missed my point on empirical data but i will address your statement. i stayed up ALL night one time when i lost a tooth as a child and nobody came to put shit under my pillow but my mother. so by experiential knowledge i know it does not exist.

 

[Jonas.dini]

since you like definitions:

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That first definition was probably put in by some religious person trying to distort atheism for the benefits of theists debaters...

but real talk let me break out of shock atheism mode for one minute to say that I don't care for that definition and never have

 

[judahxulu]

EDIT: your post doesn't even make sense, of course I reject something for which there is no evidence. Burden of proof is on the believers

for what? how arrogant. nobody is trying to convince u. no one but religious zealots would care what u believe or disbelieve if u didnt have to express it by insulting people.

its your life idiot. whatever u choose to think is true or untrue, the burden of proof is ON YOU FOR YOU. if there actually was a physical fiery hell i wouldnt lose a wink of sleep over u roasting for eternity. whnever u see me on here and u choose to quote me or i do the same just know that prosletyzing aint my bag. im not debating wheteher there is a Creator or not. thats stupid. thats too important of a subjest to be debased by mortal polemics. what i am addressing is your false claims and fallacious reasoning u use to describe your position.

 

[judahxulu]

That first definition was probably put in by some religious person trying to distort atheism for the benefits of theists debaters...

but real talk let me break out of shock atheism mode for one minute to say that I don't care for that definition and never have

it is what it is.

 

[Jonas.dini]

contradiction, superstition, supernatural silliness. unsubstantiated claims.

how can u refute me with rhetoric? YOU CANT. i know what the hell isaid in a right and exact manner. you are ignorant of the concept i mentioned and got caught with ur pants down.

empirical knowledge as well as knowledge that cannot be perceived via the five senses are on the same par with me. i embrace it all. i told u- i study the tao of all things. balance is HOLY. u aint chopping it up with a christian zombie so i suggest u quit engaging me in a battle of wits unarmed. it amuses me when im obviously over someones head and their too stupid and bullheaded to concede.

if u dont have evidence to produce (the phantom scriptures u mentioned) then why mention them and then act like u are above it all when challenged on the notion? because u were bullshitting from the jump. its ok lil' buddy. we understand. go google the atheist site of ur choice and use the same ol' out of context passages you idiots allways do. u know most of ya'll say the same shit. thats why u like to pick on christians because most of them dont study or at least not objectively.

as far as the tooth fairy thing. i think u missed my point on empirical data but i will address your statement. i stayed up ALL night one time when i lost a tooth as a child and nobody came to put shit under my pillow but my mother. so by experiential knowledge i know it does not exist.

First, it is not unsubstantiated to say scriptures are full of supernatural, silliness, and contradiction. The deity itself is supernatural, as are many of the characters across scripture, 'silly' is subjective but I certainly find it to be so.

Second, please, my pants never came down, you're trying to play rhetorical games. And fact is you're trying to distract from the real point about false equivalency, and doing so in a rather weak way if I do say so myself.

I'm not bullshitting, I never really made any claims about scriptures except in response to this by you, which indicates that you do indeed know that there is in fact lots of ugliness in the scripture:

you have on one hand nut jobs who claim to be based in the afore-mentioned but cherry-pick scriptures as an excuse to exercise their nuttiness.

They're clearly cherry picking something ugly, no?

And your point about empirical data is so out of place in the wider context of your argument that I would only entertain it in jest. But I will say that most empiricists would reject your qualitative tooth fairy study.

 

[Jonas.dini]

for what? how arrogant. nobody is trying to convince u. no one but religious zealots would care what u believe or disbelieve if u didnt have to express it by insulting people.

its your life idiot. whatever u choose to think is true or untrue, the burden of proof is ON YOU FOR YOU. if there actually was a physical fiery hell i wouldnt lose a wink of sleep over u roasting for eternity. whnever u see me on here and u choose to quote me or i do the same just know that prosletyzing aint my bag. im not debating wheteher there is a Creator or not. thats stupid. thats too important of a subjest to be debased by mortal polemics. what i am addressing is your false claims and fallacious reasoning u use to describe your position.

The irony of this post, first saying I'm a mean ol atheist for insulting grown men who believe in fantasy and then calling me an idiot and then going so far as to wish me eternity in hell!!! I see you're not one of those benevolent theists

Burden of proof is on he who believes something based on nothing.

And I don't recall accusing you of being the proselytizing type, although based on your headgear I'm assuming you're part of an expansionist religion (If I'm wrong about that my apologies)

 

[Jonas.dini]

nice quote.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[judahxulu]

The irony of this post, first saying I'm a mean ol atheist for insulting grown men who believe in fantasy and then calling me an idiot and then going so far as to wish me eternity in hell!!! I see you're not one of those benevolent theists

Burden of proof is on he who believes something based on nothing.

And I don't recall accusing you of being the proselytizing type, although based on your headgear I'm assuming you're part of an expansionist religion (If I'm wrong about that my apologies)

u proved the idiot thing. i said IF I HELL EXISTED I WOULDNT GIVE A SHIT IF U WENT. thats not wishing u there. i dont even believe in it. sheesh.

i have no religion and some shit that u can buy from the korean store for a few bucks is not an indicator of a man's spiritual inclination.

 

[judahxulu]

First, it is not unsubstantiated to say scriptures are full of supernatural, silliness, and contradiction. The deity itself is supernatural, as are many of the characters across scripture, 'silly' is subjective but I certainly find it to be so.

Second, please, my pants never came down, you're trying to play rhetorical games. And fact is you're trying to distract from the real point about false equivalency, and doing so in a rather weak way if I do say so myself.

I'm not bullshitting, I never really made any claims about scriptures except in response to this by you, which indicates that you do indeed know that there is in fact lots of ugliness in the scripture:

They're clearly cherry picking something ugly, no?

And your point about empirical data is so out of place in the wider context of your argument that I would only entertain it in jest. But I will say that most empiricists would reject your qualitative tooth fairy study.

ill accept ur supernatural claim:
su·per·nat·u·ral adj
\ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

that can refer to a lot of things other than deity. and btw i dont believe in a deity. that word is like the theos thing i discussed earlier.

de·i·ty noun \ˈdē-ə-tē, ˈdā-\
plural de·i·ties

Definition of DEITY

1
a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity
b capitalized : god 1, supreme being
2
: a god or goddess
3
: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
See deity defined for English-language learners »
See deity defined for kids »
Examples of DEITY

Origin of DEITY

Middle English deitee, from Anglo-French deité, from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus god; akin to Old English Tīw, god of war, Latin divus god, dies day, Greek dios heavenly, Sanskrit deva heavenly, god
First Known Use: 14th century

im not latin so fuck a deity.

and my equivalency is on point. dictionary.com agrees with me.

as far as ugliness in scriptural texts of the abrahamic vein, the ugly parts are neccesary. there is beauty and ugliness in life. the point is whether or not it is advocated or not. it is not and u cant POSSIBLY prove me wrong. EVERY time somebody does some ugly shit in a narrative THEY PAY FOR IT. thats an essential point you are missing while you throw the baby out with the bathwater. u cant see the forest for the trees but you CANNOT refute the essential principles of something u dont even comprehend.

 

[judahxulu]

Thomas Jefferson

another jefferson quote from his one and only book "Notes on the State of Virginia":

The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. . .

I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.

u shit on scripture but u quote that dude? lol. i guess its ok to worship ur gods of liberal demonoc- oops..i mean democracy huh?

 

[judahxulu]

First, it is not unsubstantiated to say scriptures are full of supernatural, silliness, and contradiction. The deity itself is supernatural, as are many of the characters across scripture, 'silly' is subjective but I certainly find it to be so.

Second, please, my pants never came down, you're trying to play rhetorical games. And fact is you're trying to distract from the real point about false equivalency, and doing so in a rather weak way if I do say so myself.

I'm not bullshitting, I never really made any claims about scriptures except in response to this by you, which indicates that you do indeed know that there is in fact lots of ugliness in the scripture:

They're clearly cherry picking something ugly, no?

And your point about empirical data is so out of place in the wider context of your argument that I would only entertain it in jest. But I will say that most empiricists would reject your qualitative tooth fairy study.

tooth fairy addendum.

what i did was a controlled experiment not at all at odds with the scientific methods. there are specific claims about what the tooth fairies functons are. there are no stipulations on this function other than having a tooth under your pillow that came out of your mouth. it is supposed to occer at night. i sat up and observed and proved the tooth fairy assertion to be false. pure science buddy.

 

[Jonas.dini]

I said IF I HELL EXISTED I WOULDNT GIVE A SHIT IF U WENT

Oh my mistake... well tell ya what, right back atcha

 

[Jonas.dini]

another jefferson quote from his one and only book "Notes on the State of Virginia":

The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. . .

I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.

u shit on scripture but u quote that dude? lol. i guess its ok to worship ur gods of liberal demonoc- oops..i mean democracy huh?

argumentum ad hominem

 

[Jonas.dini]

i dont really see any ad hominem there. he's more so insulting jefferson and attempting to make argument of you being illogical for quoting him through inference of jefferson's racism

I meant he's trying to negate the truth of the quote by pointing out a negative characteristic of Jefferson, his racism... so ad hominem attack on Jefferson not me