FLASHBACK: Mike Huckabee’s Phone Call From God
FLASHBACK: Mike Huckabee’s Phone Call From God
Last night at the CNN/YouTube debate, a questioner asked the candidates — “who would call yourselves Christian conservatives” — to answer what would Jesus do about the death penalty. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee jokingly responded, “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office. That’s what Jesus would do.”
It was fitting that Huckabee be asked what Jesus thinks because, in the past, the former Baptist minister has asserted an ability to talk directly to God.
At a Republican Governors Association Dinner in 2004, Huckabee took the stage and began to deliver remarks when his cell phone rang. He took the phone out of his pocket and proceeded to have a conversation with God about President Bush’s reelection:
HUCKABEE: Hello? I’m sorry. I’m right in the middle of an event. It’s who? It’s God? On the phone for me? How did he get my number? Oh, God has everybody’s number. OK? Yes, I’ll hold.
Huckabee then engaged in a 3-minute back-and-forth exchange with God, in which Huckabee asserted that God was with the Republicans and President Bush:
We’re behind [Bush], yes, sir, we sure are. Yes, sir, we know you don’t take sides in the election. But, if you did, we kind of think you’d hang in there with us, Lord, we really do.
Huckabee then ended his conversation and walked off the stage to roaring applause. ThinkProgress has obtained the video from this 2004 GOP fundraiser. Watch it:
As Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone, Huckabee’s religious zealotry has potentially serious consequences:
This God stuff isn’t just talk with Huck. One of his first acts as governor was to block Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teen-ager who had been raped by her stepfather — an act in direct violation of federal law, which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape. “The state didn’t fund a single such abortion while Huckabee was governor,” says Dr. William Harrison of the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic. “Zero.”
As president, Huck would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion and would give science a back seat to religion. “Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t,” he says. “So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict.” Huckabee’s well-documented disdain for science was reflected in the performance of the Arkansas school system when he was governor; one independent survey gave the state an F for its science standards in schools, a grade that among other things reflected Huckabee’s hostility toward the teaching of evolution.
Well before Rudy was taking calls from his wife, Huckabee was answering direct dials from God.
Transcript:
GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R-AK): We are so very glad that all of you could join us here tonight as we get under way to hear the president…
(PHONE RINGING)
HUCKABEE: Oh, my gosh. Excuse me.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: Hello? I’m sorry. I’m right in the middle of an event.
It’s who? It’s God?
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: On the phone for me? How did he get my number? Oh, God has everybody’s number. OK? Yes, I’ll hold.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: Yes, God? Yes, sir, I’m right in the middle of–the president’s coming. Yes, sir, he sure is. Oh, yes, sir, he’s here, too. He is.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: You see, you say you want–you need an autograph. Oh, for Sampson. I understand, yes, lord.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: And, you know, God, this is a pretty big event. We’ve got a lot of people and I’ve only got a very short time here. Oh, you’ve got all the time in the world. I understand. Yes, lord. And you want me to deliver a message. And that would be?
Yes, sir. Well, we want–yes, sir. We want to do what’s right. And our president does. And we’re behind him, yes, sir, we sure are. Yes, sir, we know you don’t take sides in the election.(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: But, if you did, we kind of think you’d hang in there with us, lord, we really do. So…
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: Yes, sir. We’ll pass those good words on. I see. You talked to the president and he talks to you anyway. And we know that. And we know that–yes, sir. Take care of the family and marriage and the people of America and all the people and the children.
And, yes, sir, I can tell you, every one of us are committed to doing that and a whole army of people out here, and we pledge we’ll do our very best to do that, sir. Yes, sir. Well, thank you for blessing me, and we’ll bless you, too. Thank you. And thank you.(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Isn’t it a very bad sin to claim to know what God is thinking and speak on His behalf?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThat is so phucked up it’s beyond belief. And the fact that the crowd cheered that performance is even scarier.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pmThis bit is so much better when its inventor and master, Bob Newhart, do it.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pmScience changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t
In other words, science advances, so it is worthy of suspicion.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:28 pmJeebus. He might disprove evolution by his mere existence. I’m sure he’s a nice man and all–by this is way freakier than Kucinich’s ufo.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI’ll take the UFO guy any day of the week, thanks.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pmUh, the God thing, you know the Magical Invisible Faerie in the Sky is made up by Primitive Man a couple thousand years ago. There is no such thing as this “God”, it is a faerie tale, like the easter bunny and Santa, all made up.
I do not like any candidate to believe in something that does not exist, it shows that they cannot think their way out of primitive caves, much less make intelligent decisions about anything.
Atheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 2:30 pmComment by Menehune — November 29, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Aaaah, damn. At the same time, no less.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:30 pmThat’s why Pat Robertson who always speaks to God supported Giuliani,and not Hcukabee. Pat does not like comptetion.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pmgeez. Amazing how something that is obviously a joke, and meant to be a joke, is twisted around to look like something it isn’t. George Burns claimed to be god three times, i guess he was a whacko neo-con. Steve Carell claimed to talk with God. Another right wing nut job, i guess. Please, folks – learn how to take a joke!
November 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pmHuman beings are stupid animals that need to be completely eradicated from the planet as soon as possible, before they do any more damage.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:33 pmIt is a joke to be for the death penalty and against abortion. Likewise, it is also a joke to be against the death penalty and for abortion.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmHence, Huckabee is 100% unqualified for the highest office in the land. End of story.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmgeez. Amazing how something that is obviously a joke, and meant to be a joke, is twisted around to look like something it isn’t. George Burns claimed to be god three times, i guess he was a whacko neo-con. Steve Carell claimed to talk with God. Another right wing nut job, i guess. Please, folks – learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill — November 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Huck was NOT joking. Dont be a turd and say he was. Any so called christian that claims to ahv a convo with the almighty is in need of a mental evaluation. Oh…and the rapture is made up bull*his.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmHuckabee and the other politicians will do anything, say anything just to get votes. Their supporters should see this as farce and corrupt.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmHuckabee and the other politicians will do anything, say anything just to get votes. Their supporters should see this as farce and corrupt.
Comment by celtic cynic — November 29, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
But they wont. Theyve been raised just as narrow-minded as the wahhabist murderers that hunt our people now. Dont give them any credit for thought. They werent taught how to think, just what to do…not a good deal for the rest of us.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pmGeorge Burns claimed to be god three times, i guess he was a whacko neo-con. Steve Carell claimed to talk with God. Another right wing nut job, i guess. Please, folks – learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill — November 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Another wingnut who can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality.
George Burns didn’t “claim to be God”. He played God in a movie. Three times. The words were written down for him to recite.
Steve Carell didn’t “claim to talk with God”. He played a character who talked to God in a movie.
Sheesh. This explains why the wingnuts like torturing people. They think “24″ is a documentary.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pmPlease, folks – learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill — November 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
We know how to take a joke. We consider Huckabee’s entire campaign a joke, and thus we make fun of it at every opportunity.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pmGod speaks English pretty well, considering it’s a second language.
-Austin Lounge Lizards, Jesus Loves Me But He Can’t Stand You
November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pmRogerX2
I think God is a socialist.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#21 You think God is against Freedom and Democracy? You aren’t Castro are you?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:40 pmR2, no one is “for abortion”. No one cheers when a fetus is aborted. No one thinks MORE abortions would be a good idea. Except maybe Bill bennett when he’s talking about black babies.
The people you say are “for abortion” are actually for the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy safely and legally.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:40 pmMost of us who worship God prefer that He be treated with a bit more reverence. I guess this doesn’t matter to Republicans, who are so accustomed to exploiting Him for political purposes that the concept of “worship” has become foreign to them.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pmLet’s see…
First, Hillary plants a questioner at her own event, followed by the disclaimer that it was all a misunderstanding and “will never happen again.” Two or three weeks later, a Hillary operative gets planted at a REPUBLICAN event. CNN will say Hillary had nothing to do with it, of course, as will she (assuming the press ever asks her, on which I would not bet a whole lot). Only how did this guy come to CNN’s attention? By chance? And once on their radar screen, how does he get selected to be one of the few out of thousands to ask a question? Also by chance? Some cub CNN reporter just happened to think he was a good pick?
Ha!
This is the same Hillary who engaged in the most flagrant episode of prosecutorial abuse I ever saw in detail [pre-Mike Nifong]. To wit, this is the same Hillary who orchestrated the Billy Dale prosecution, the design of which was not to bring Mr. Dale to account for his misdeeds at the White House Travel Office, there having been none, but to pry him out of there so that she could give the travel business to her pals, the Thomasons.
And this is the Hillary who groans about the loss of integrity and politicization of the Justice Department.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pmAnother wingnut who can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality.
George Burns didn’t “claim to be Godâ€. He played God in a movie. Three times. The words were written down for him to recite.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
BTW, we all know God is a black woman anyway.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pmJT — off topic much?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pmRogerX2
God is a socialist because he likes people, in fact he loves them. He’s very social, perfectly socialist, in fact. None better.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pmWow. so all you folks think he went up on stage to “give an invocation” with a cell phone in his hand, and this was not a scripted joke? Just the fact that he never gave this “invocation” at all should tell you that this was planned from the beginning. Use some grey matter, folks…
November 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pmJeez TP, don’t be jealous that the Huckster has a direct line to God and you don’t.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pmHuckabee asserted that God was with the Republicans and President Bush
That’s positively Old Testement, God being so devious and all. When do we get to the part where the angel of the Lord stays Bush’s hand just as he reaches for the red button, saying “just testin’ ya out there Georgie”?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pmThe problem is that conservatives will love this – especially the abortion position, and that he can sound reasonable when he wants to as well — when he was on the Daily Show the audience (Jon Stewart’s audience!) cheered him repeatedly.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pmmike huckabee = nut job
November 29th, 2007 at 2:45 pmThat was funny. Thanks for posting it. But is this the best you can do?
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
i agree, it was funny!
but shouldn’t we be asking: is this the best huck can do?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pmYou aren’t Castro are you?
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 29, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
dude, i though you were castro!
November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm“we kind of think you’d hang in there with us, Lord, we really do.”
Ummm, no. I’m pretty sure God isn’t with them.
BTW, that was really savvy question he was asked. Typical political dodge of a response, too.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pmAnyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column:
November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pmhttp://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14
Who is “Sampson”?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:51 pmWeird stuff.
Please, folks – learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill
We don’t have to ‘learn’ to take a joke, we already have one as president. And a joke of a troll too, if you ask me.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pmI gave RogerX2 chancesX2 to give me his definition of “socialism” but he dodgedX2. I guess I’ll just say ByeX2 for now.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pmOh, crikey. I’m gonna hurl.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:54 pmcold hard left:
Hey there.
Just wanted you to know I responded to your post about Crist yesterday. I was just late back to the thread. Wanted you to know I wasn’t ignoring you. Happy threads to you. :)
Now back to the topic at hand…
November 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pmAnother yawn thread…
November 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pmToasterhead: “Isn’t it a very bad sin to claim to know what God is thinking and speak on His behalf?”
During the time of Jesus, one could be stoned to death for claiming to know what God was thinking.
And Roger, God may not be a socialist, but Jesus was more like a communist than anything else.
“For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.†— Luke 12:48
And, he was definitely a “bleeding-heart liberal”
“For when I was hungry, you gave me food; when thirsty, you gave me drink; when I was a stranger, you took me into your home, when naked you clothed me; when I was ill you came to my help, when in prison you visited me.” Â
November 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pm   - Matthew 25: 35-37
Why is it that the creator of the universe only talks to rich old white Republican men? Is god a lobbyist?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pmSo is my God the same as the Jewish God? Or the Hindu God? Or the Muslim God? Or the Morman God? Or the Aztec God? Or the Jehova’s Witness God? Or the So. Baptist God? Or the Catholic God? Or the Protestant God? Or the Quakers God? or the…oh nevermind.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pmThe Catholic one of course.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmRet. Col. Jack Ripper
Jesus was more like a communist than anything else.
And he also had the magical ability to turn one fish into two fish, and to heal people.
Until there is a cost free method of doing that in the real world, any comparisons/references are severely lacking.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmIt’s a delightful and funny bit when Bob Newhart does it.
Very scary when a member of the American Taliban does it.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pm“Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t,†he says. “So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict.â€
God doesn’t change? Didn’t the world use to be flat? Wasn’t earth the center of the Universe? Didn’t God back up these bogus theories (with penalty of death)?
Man’s perception of God changes with every generation. People accept and reject various parts of their respective holy scriptures according to whatever they want to prove or disprove at that particular moment in time.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pmGod speaks to using bolts of lightning, fire and brimstone, pillars of salt and an I-phone.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pmYanno, we all know that Huckie’s bit is supposed to be comedy…
But the thing is, after suffering through 6 years under a president who is a raving sociopathic lunatic who claims that God talks personally to him …
Well, let’s just say it just ain’t funny anymore.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pmHuckabee = Nucking Futz
November 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pmBARTLEBEE
God wants you to vote your conscience.
Is that a new candidate running this year?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:11 pmAnd he also had the magical ability to turn one fish into two fish, and to heal people.
Until there is a cost free method of doing that in the real world, any comparisons/references are severely lacking.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
You completely miss any lesson in the Bible with that comment. You suggest that people would do the right thing so long as it didn’t cost them anything. And you get that from the “magical abilities” of Jesus. Consider the “magical abilities” of George Bush. With a wave of his hand he could have directed trillions of $ to help the poor and needy. Instead he waved them and the planes flew, the bombs dropped, the soldiers attacked. Had he waved it in favor of the poor you’d be no worse off then you are today, that would make it cost free as far as you’re concerned. You can justify spending your money on attacking a country for no valid reason but you need some greater justification to use that money to help the sick & poor. Strange priorities.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:11 pmThe real question here is who’s God’s Telcom, and how long
before 9/11 did God’s Telcom start spying on the
American people?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pmBARTLEBEE
God wants you to vote your conscience.
Is that a new candidate running this year?
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Not from what I’ve seen.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pmIn last night’s Republican CNN/YouTube debate, Rudy Giuliani provided Americans with a rare moment of candor about the Bible and himself. Asked if every word of the Bible was literally true, Giuliani replied that much of it was “allegorical.” Given his repeated distortions, exaggerations and outright falsehoods, Giuliani could have been describing his own campaign. In the Gospel According to Rudy, the tale of the 9/11 hero fighting terrorist evil isn’t literally true, either.
For the details, see:
November 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm“The Gospel According to Rudy.”
That’s just bad writing… It actually started out kind of funny, and I was impressed with Huckabee’s performance, then at the end, when it was supposed to become kind of serious (”we pledge we’ll do our very best, sir!”), it really really fell flat. Typical GOP “humor”… awkward, weird, and not very funny.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pmDave C
You suggest that people would do the right thing so long as it didn’t cost them anything. And you get that from the “magical abilities†of Jesus. Consider the “magical abilities†of George Bush. With a wave of his hand he could have directed trillions of $ to help the poor and needy.
You’re right, instead of helping any one, Jesus should have only helped the rich/powerful. Think of all the opportunity costs he absorbed by helping people who were incapable of moving him into a greater position of power or wealth.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pmIt all makes perfect sense when you consider that the “god” that the GOP worships is in fact a Diebold computer.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm“Theres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot”
Yeah, right….Sorry Bartlebee but you’re wrong, you just don’t know it yet.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pmComment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Whatever dude. Upon further reflection your original thought… “Until there is a cost free method of doing that in the real world, any comparisons/references are severely lacking” is flawed. Even given such “magical abilities” to help people in a cost free method a Republican would commercialize the ability, screw the poor people and try & become a brazilianaire.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pmBart – zealots come in ALL varieties – not just religious. I mean, take a look at our trolls – they’re zealots.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pmHmmm. But then again, I suppose the Cult of Bush *could* qualify as a religion. …
November 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pmAs I said before, an Atheist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
That’s an incredibly narrow view based on an incredible lack of information.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pmI prefer the Cult of Hello Kitty. Extra adorability for everyone!
November 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pmDave C
Even given such “magical abilities†to help people in a cost free method a Republican would commercialize the ability, screw the poor people and try & become a brazilianaire.
Well sure, because your still missing one important part. Jesus was the son of God. There’s no real upward mobility at that point unless he’s going to try and dispose his father, therefor anything he does has 0 real or opportunity costs associated with it, it’s like he’s playing a video game, why not be nice for no reason, it doesn’t cost him anything. For a normal person to have magical powers along the line of Jesus’s, there are still opportunity costs based off of gains that can be realized in this world, the only world we are sure exists, as opposed to Jesus being able to go to Heaven once he got bored here.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt is a joke to be for the death penalty and against abortion. Likewise, it is also a joke to be against the death penalty and for abortion.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 29, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
—————————–
Allow me to explain the flaw in your logic. You don’t seem to consider the REASONS for people’s beliefs:
Republicans oppose abortion because they view the lives of “God’s Children” as “sacred” and “precious”. The problem is that they don’t apply the same logic to the death penalty.
Democrats are against the death penalty because of the abundant evidence that MANY poor black people have been put to death for crimes they did not commit. We are “for” abortion because we view it as something that should be determined by a woman and her doctor – not by a bunch of Sunday-Morning Christians.
You see, the logic behind the Democrat’s views are not in conflict, as are those of the Repukes.
Right???
November 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pm** WARNING: NO JOKE **
If you think the cell phone routine is a joke then you are clueless. I personally know a fantastic number of Bush voters who were single issue voters for Bush. That one issue is God. These people are impossible to talk to about any social or political issue, because there are no issues just whether or not the candidate is walking with and talking to God. If you are one with their definition of God, then they have no problem with the Decider doing all of the deciding because it’s as if God is making the decisions. Essentially they don’t really need Democracy at all, just a God talking daddy to watch over the nation.
I wish everyone, including all Senate and House Dems, would spend a couple of hours each week watching Christian TV. If you think FOX is a GOPer love fest, try CBN. You’ll actually hear very little about your soul, and the 10 Commandments and all that stuff. It’s mostly political. Here’s a teaser:
* Did you know Democrats are evil racists
* Did you know blacks should thank Republicans for Civil Rights
* Did you know activist judges are taking God out of the schools
* Did you know Dubya is the first true Christian POTUS
* Did you know the founding fathers established a Christian nation
* Did you know Indians were slaughtered to make a Christian nation
* Did you know Jesus wants you to be rich
* Did you know America is persecuting Christians
* Did you know Muslims are pure evil
* Did you know multiculturalism is why America is going to hell
* Did you know Gays are why America is going to hell
* Did you know Gays cause abortions
* Did you know Hollywood is why America is going to hell
* Did you know God wants us to bomb Iran?
If you think Hucky’s cell phone to God is a joke, then you’re out of touch with the vast number of Americans who follow Evangelical hucksters down the GOP path. What pisses me off about all of this is that i know my tax dollars are supporting these ass-clowns. Every time Pelosi and all all BushCo to direct more tax dollars into their religious networks, those dollars end up in the pockets of these TV preachers. Our taxes are being spent to brain-wash more Americans to vote Republican because they are the party of God. Just ignore all of the underage sex, same sex relationships, wife cheating, stealing, taking bribes, and many, many other crimes because they’re the Godly ones.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pmAs I said, theres little difference between the atheist and the religious man. You’re both fanatics.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
I’ve got to diagree. “fanatic” is defined as: marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea.
One can be religous and not be fanatical.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pmOne can also be non-religous and still not be fanatical.
BARTLEBEE
And as it slowly dawns on you and Buckie Boy that you can no more prove that a God does not exist than Mike Huckleberry can prove one does, perhaps you’ll recognize the fanaticism of your own “religionâ€, that is, the religion of atheism.
Well there’s the flaw in claiming atheism is a religion.
Atheists(for the most part) ‘believe’ in what can be proven. Gravity, physics, mathematics, etc. So it isn’t really a belief. Making my usage of the term wrong. People don’t believe 1 + 1 = 2, the KNOW that it equals 2.
Religion requires you to believe in something that can not be proven(God), and in some cases, believe that which has been disproven (ie, the age of Earth).
Atheism requires that you know what can be proven or at least heavily supported with facts and observations(The earth being roughly 4.5 billion years old), and be skeptical of that which can not be proven or supported(God).
One requires Belief, the other requires Knowledge
November 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pmI know folks who don’t want their tax dollars being spent on war (including some people who take “turn the other cheek” and “blessed are the Peacemakers” from the Bible seriously). Why does the anti-abortion crowd get to insist that government money is not spent on abortions, but nobody else can dictate where their tax money goes?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pmBartlebee, How does “lack of proof” equal “fantacism”? It sounds like you’re confusing the term “fanatacism” with “belief”.
I’ve never seen any kind of mass movement of atheists seeking to impose their view of morality on anyone else. THAT would seem to me to be an indication of fanatacism.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThe only calls I get on my cell phone are from the Flying Spagetti Monster. He usually just calls to tell me god doesn’t exist.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pmBartlebee, maybe it would help if you offered some evidence of the fantacism of atheists?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pmBartlebee, there is a huge difference between an atheist and a religious man.
In case you haven’t noticed, religious men believe some text written by some ancient men and even more disturbing is some believe some text written by one man that came, supposedly, in a top secret tablet (or something silly). These men interpret these writings in different ways yet they want to impose their interpretations on all people of the world.
An atheist realizes that there has been no communication to or from one or any number of Gods.
If both atheists and religious men are fanatics, then what are you?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pmComment by ScrewBush — November 29, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
—————————–
No doubt!!! I’m not religious, not was I overly political until Bush ran for POTUS the first time. I never really knew (or cared) what an “EVANGELICAL” Christian was.
After seeing some video clips from their church services, I have to admit these people really freak me out!
Really makes you wonder what is the difference between Evangelicals and your average cult.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pmBart – I’m an atheist, but I’m not fanatical about it. I used to be the same kind of Christian.
*shrug*
November 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pmBARTLEBEE
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot.
Weird, I didn’t find that line anywhere in the wiki entry, but what I did find was:
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, also lack belief in a personal god.
Additionally:
Practical atheism
In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless
Theoretical atheism
Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal’s Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various psychological, sociological, metaphysical, and epistemological forms.
So it sounds like my original point still stands. You need to understand there is a huge difference between proving and disproving a negative(or in this case, belief in, vs disbelief in a negative). Then maybe you’ll begin to understand the difference between atheism and religion.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pmComment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
—————————-
But who’s on first? : )
This is quite a heated discussion on christianity vs. atheism. Is there anyone else who just doesn’t know for sure?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:55 pm“The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan values is the source of all religious fanaticism.” (American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr).
November 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pm“And we know that. And we know that–yes, sir. Take care of the family and marriage and the people of America and all the people and the children.”
Well, unless they’re poor.
And black.
And live in the 9th Ward in NOLA.
And rely on SCHIPs.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:59 pmTo decide “I believe in thisâ€, or “I don’t believe in thatâ€, based on no physical evidence whatsover on both parts, and then to passionately advocate one of the two, is the very definition of a fanatic.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
I don’t think you have a very good dictionary.
Here’s a couple of definitions of “fanatic” from dictionary.com:
a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Both examples here cite extreme as a primary criterion for a fanatic. You seem to think that anyone who believes something that cannot be proven is a fanatic. In other words, you equate “belief” with “fanaticism”. That’s wrong. It is possible to be a believer without being a fanatic. It’s actually the norm, in my experience.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pmGod is an Atheist.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pmBARTLEBEE
To decide “I believe in thisâ€, or “I don’t believe in thatâ€, based on no physical evidence whatsover on both parts, and then to passionately advocate one of the two, is the very definition of a fanatic.
Actually, do disbelieve in something with no evidence makes good sense. To believe in it with out evidence does not.
Think of it this way:
100+ years ago, people said the moon was made of cheese.
Here was the evidence at the time: You could see the moon.
Both views could be correct, and there was ways to prove/disprove it
Then, as science advanced, one was proven wrong, the other was accepted.
There is a god that is responsible for everything
Evidence: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, trying to use the fact that there is a universe to support any concept of a god is flawed, it would be like if there was no moon, but using Cheese to say there is a big floating orb in the heavens made of Cheese
With out anything to support the idea of God, besides some ancient peoples imagination, you are either forced to go the scientific route and disbelieve, or go the other route, and accept every idea of a god, including the Pastafarianism, Frisbetarianism, and any other cult or religion that has ever been, as being the correct choice.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWell thats the message I’ve been crucified for putting out there.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Ha ha ha. Crucified in a religious discussion.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pmGeorge Burns claimed to be god three times, i guess he was a whacko neo-con. Steve Carell claimed to talk with God. Another right wing nut job, i guess. Please, folks – learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill — November 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Those are examples of movies, nitwit. You’re kidding, right? If not, then you’re insane. Buhbye.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmAtheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
If you revise that statement to say “may be as fanatical”, I’d agree. I know atheist fanatics just as I’ve met religious fanatics–they’re people who believe so strongly in the nonexistence of God that they are willing to label any spirituality or religion as proof of the believer’s complete stupidity.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmNice. Now try addressing what I wrote, instead of inventing a strawman that I never said, and answering yourself.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
And check your definition. It confirms what I stated.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Post # 76. You said “You’re both fanatics” Do you now deny saying this?
And your making an inherently flawed arguement. Its impossible for anyone to debate your position. The non-existence of an object, person, thing, diety cannot be disproven (which is what you are asking me to do) How can I or anyone prove the non-existence of a non-existent object if the object never existed in the first place.
Please see the concept of falsifiability. Wikipedia has a good article about it.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmAtheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot. — BARTLEBEE
Sorry but I must respectfully disagree.
I am atheist. I do not believe in the invisible guy in the sky. I rely on the KNOWLEDGE of science, which can be proven.
I could give a flip who believes in that invisible guy in the sky, as long as they do not try to impose those beliefs on me.
Please explain why this is fanatical.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmSpeaking only for myself. I don’t “believe” there is no God. I merely see no evidence for the existence of any deity. I think that it’s safe to say most atheists feel the same way.
From Wikipedia:
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, also lack belief in a personal god.
Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[5] and naturalism,[6] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.
I’m definitely in the group which “rejects theism” and I’m “skeptical of all supernatural beings”. To assert that I (not speaking for anyone else) am “fanatical in my belief” demonstrates a lack of understanding of me and atheism. In fact, it demonstrates such a fundamental lack of understanding that it’s impossible to even argue the point.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pmIn here, on a regular basis I see people vehemenently denying the existence of God, while they ridicule those who believe in God as lunatics and fanatics. They dedicate thousands of comments to their fanatical belief that there is no God, which makes them fanatics, at least as fanatical as the typical armchair religious zealot.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I’ll grant you that there are some “fanatical” atheists on these boards.
But surely those fanatics are judged against others, who may or may not believe in God but do not loudly proclaim so.
The existence of a few fanatics does not prove your proposition that, to believe, one must be a fanatic. In fact, the existence of ANY believers (or non-believers, as the case may be) who are less than fanatical by your definition expilcitly disproves your contention that an atheist (or a professed Christian, for that matter) is by definition a fanatic.
Of course, if you define “fanaticism” the same way you define “belief” then you’re good to go. You’ve got a solid argument. It’s just based on a faulty vocabulary.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWell thats the message I’ve been crucified for putting out there.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm————————–
Dave C beat me to it. Crucified is an interesting choice of words. : )
I am told (by a fanatical atheist) that there are atheists and there are Atheists, a distinction which is apparently clear to a/Atheists and no one else.
I drift back and forth between agnosticism and various spiritual interpretations because, basically, I have no idea what is true. Sometimes I believe I know, and other times I’m thoroughly convinced I’m wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmThe message is mixed above, but most of it appears to be that Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a Christian.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
More proof, if any were needed, that you’re incapable of reading what is written.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmThe message is mixed above, but most of it appears to be that Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a Christian.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
No. He’s unfit for office because he’s a science-denying religious fanatic who pretends to talk to God on his cell phone.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmBARTLEBEE
Really?
Well let me help you there Flavius.
Try the FIRST TWO SENTENCES.
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities
Gee, that was hard, huh?
Weird, that doesn’t match what you first said wikipedia had, but rather what I said they had.
But lets try explaining again, simpler:
When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities
belief(lacking any possible proof) in deities is not the same as disbelief(due to 0 proof) in deities.
Just like:belief(lacking any possible proof) in deities is not the same as belief(due to empirical scientific studies, data, confirmed observations, etc) in things such as the explanations for thunder, earthquakes, the Sun. All things that have been explained by science that were once attributed to God, or gods will, or gods fighting each other, or god’s using chariots to pull balls of fire.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmAtheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
I do not like any candidate to believe in something that does not exist, it shows that they cannot think their way out of primitive caves, much less make intelligent decisions about anything.
Comment by Buckie Boy — November 29, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Question is; is it possible to be a declared atheist and win the presidency? I don’t think we’ve evolved that far yet – just my opinion.
Also, are there ANY candidates running right now who don’t believe in the great fairy tale?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmThis is quite a heated discussion on christianity vs. atheism. Is there anyone else who just doesn’t know for sure?
Comment by Vet — November 29, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Well thats the message I’ve been crucified for putting out there.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Wrong, Bartlebee. The message you’ve been “crucified” for putting out there is that an atheist is by definition just as big a “fanatic” as a Christian.
And this “crucifixion” consisted of various posters examining your claims and disagreeing with them. Pretty politely and reasonably, too.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pmBARTLEBEE
Its fanatical because you have no foundations for your “belief systemâ€.
Anyone with a belief system based on a lack of information can be deemed fanatical if they passionately herald that belief to others.
No. Fail. You need to take some logic courses, even by my normal trolling standards that is some seriously flawed logic.
IT does have a foundation. It’s foundation is the sciences. People believe in Earth because they live on it, there is proof of it’s existance, people believe in gravity because when you let go of something it falls to the ground.
Atheists are atheists because there is no proof currently, or ever(that has been verified) that supports the existence of any god. Until there is something that you can point to, scientifically, that supports a god, there is no reason to believe in one.
It’s that simple. Religion requires belief with no foundation. Atheism does not.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmAlso, are there ANY candidates running right now who don’t believe in the great fairy tale?
Comment by Namtillaku — November 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Not even close. Atheists are the single group which is, effectively, barred from public office for religious reasons.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmWrong, Bartlebee. The message you’ve been “crucified†for putting out there is that an atheist is by definition just as big a “fanatic†as a Christian.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Not from what I’ve seen. He seems to be saying that fanatical atheists are just as fanatical as fanatical Christians. Not all Christians proselytize, nor do all atheists. But those that do often make the rest look bad.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:15 pmNot as extreme as Tomas Torquemada to be sure, but fanatics nonetheless.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
what a load.
The message is mixed above, but most of it appears to be that Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a Christian.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
what another load.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmI feel like I’m talking to a two year old Troll.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
I feel like I’m reading one.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pmIts fanatical because you have no foundations for your “belief systemâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
As stated the foundation of my “belief” or KNOWLEDGE rather is of science.
That can be proved, whereas the invisible guy in the sky cannot.
You still have not shown why belief in science is fanatical.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:21 pmNot from what I’ve seen. He seems to be saying that fanatical atheists are just as fanatical as fanatical Christians. Not all Christians proselytize, nor do all atheists. But those that do often make the rest look bad.
Comment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
He has come to that message. But he started out by saying:
an Aethist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot. Neither of you can prove the veracity of your claims, yet both of you talk as if the matters been settled.
I took “an atheist” to mean the generic, when Bartlebee may have meant “an Atheist zealot is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot.”
But he didn’t make that distinction. More, he repeatedly criticized atheism itself as fanatical, with no logical basis for that criticism. it was only later in the discussion that he focused on “fanatical atheists”. Most of his criticism was based not on behavior but on the fact of belief or disbelief, with either being sufficient grounds to term one a “fanatic”.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pmIT does have a foundation. It’s foundation is the sciences. People believe in Earth because they live on it, there is proof of it’s existance, people believe in gravity because when you let go of something it falls to the ground.
Atheists are atheists because there is no proof currently, or ever(that has been verified) that supports the existence of any god. Until there is something that you can point to, scientifically, that supports a god, there is no reason to believe in one.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Einstein had some quite wonderful quotes on how his research solidified his belief in a creator. To him, God is the author of e=mc^2.
On the other hand, using the scientific method to prove the existence of God is, by nature, a false one. Religion is based on faith. Proof denies faith, rendering God useless. Particularly if the Babel Fish is ever discovered.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pmI think not having a predefined “belief system†is preferred to having one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
What is “predefined” about atheism?
You don’t believe in God? Isn’t that pretty much it?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pmBartlebee seems to think that Atheism is arrived at as a belief system. While I can’t speak for all of them, the atheists I know have become atheists because they could find no reason to support a system that relied on “belief” and “faith” rather than investigation and proof. True atheists are not agnostics, they have no question in their minds about the existence of a god, and don’t feel that it is a belief, but rather a fact that hasn’t been disproven since the dawn of humanity, in any way, shape or form that can be positively proven. To call that a belief doesn’t seem consistent with the definition of the word.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pmBack on topic. Here’s a quote from the Huckster’s web site:
My faith is my life – it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them.
As I wrote last night. This statement implies that no consideration, other than his faith, will influence his decisions. I might be wrong but, to me, such a position makes him unqualified for public office.
OT: The absence of belief in one thing does not entail belief in it’s opposite. Also, many religions lack a “Creator God” yet still fall under the definition of “theism”. I don’t follow any of them enough to change my status as an atheist but, I don’t ridicule them. I save my contempt for those who use religion to cause harm. I think the Huckster falls in that category. If my expressed contempt for him, and his ilk, is taken as an insult by another. It’s a self-inflicted wound.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pmComment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
I agree.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pmIts fanatical because you have no foundations for your “belief systemâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
The more I think about it, this statement is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen you post.
You have no facts to support the basis of you conclusion
November 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pmBARTLEBEE
BARTLEBEE SAID
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology
Weird, I have you as saying:
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot.
The second part of that never shows up even as a paraphrase in the wiki entry.
You did, came back with a load of horsesh$t claiming it did not, and then I posted the first two sentences which said exactly what I said.
Additionally, my first post on the wiki entry(post 99, which strangely enough was before you starting reposting those same two sentences and resorting to petty insults) also had those first two sentences, along with further definitions and explanations of Atheism, which you still seem to be ignoring, in favor of what can only be viewed as a ‘clif notes’ version of the definition. I was unaware we got to cherry pick the exact wording and definition when multiple ones are provided.
But back to my standard line I’m still waiting on an answer for:
Religion requires a belief in what can not be proven
Atheism requires a disbelief in that which has yet to be proven
Do you understand the difference inherent in those two lines?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmCrucify Him! Crucify Him!
-Andrew Lloyd Webber
November 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pmLefty Patriot
To call that a belief doesn’t seem consistent with the definition of the word.
That in itself gets in a sticky area if you don’t first define how you are using belief. Some people use it to describe things that can not be proven, but are just accepted, others use it in a looser form, where they believe 1+1 = 2, and they believe it because it can be proven to be true.
Even most of the standard definitions don’t seem to separate different kinds of belief, but just put out the basic, most simple definition.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pmBARTLEBEE
Religions is mans way of expanding his thought to allow for things beyond what science and hard data can teach them. It may be futile, but at least its an attempt.
Really? I think of Religion as mans way of explaining what can not currently be explained because science has yet to advance that far. Lightning used to be Zeus being upset, now we know it’s caused by electron discharges in clouds. Earthquakes were due to gods fighting, or just because he/it/they were angry, now we know it’s plate tectonics, etc, etc, etc. As science continues to advance, religion has less and less to offer people besides views on an afterlife, and who knows, science may get that far one day too.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmThe true conundrum, of those infected by belief, is that they can not conceive the absence of their belief without an alternative.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmBartlebee seems to think that Atheism is arrived at as a belief system. While I can’t speak for all of them, the atheists I know have become atheists because they could find no reason to support a system that relied on “belief†and “faith†rather than investigation and proof. True atheists are not agnostics, they have no question in their minds about the existence of a god, and don’t feel that it is a belief, but rather a fact that hasn’t been disproven since the dawn of humanity, in any way, shape or form that can be positively proven. To call that a belief doesn’t seem consistent with the definition of the word.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Fundamentally, everything is a belief system. What’s your proof that anything exists? Every fact is still an observation filtered through five human senses. At the most fundamental level, you must make the subconscious decision to believe that what you are seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting is in fact real and not a dream or hallucination. Every fact, every observation, every item of proof you take in subsequently still builds on your initial belief in reality.
Sorry, it’s a bit Matrixy, I know.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmI’ve never seen any kind of mass movement of atheists seeking to impose their view of morality on anyone else. THAT would seem to me to be an indication of fanatacism.
ralph the wonder llama
Gee, I dunno, seems like revolutionary and Napoleonic France, revolutionary Mexico, the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China come to mind…
THe problem is neither religiousity nor atheism. The problem is intolerance. An intolerant atheist is just as capable of persecuting as an intolerant Catholic.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pmThat in itself gets in a sticky area if you don’t first define how you are using belief. Some people use it to describe things that can not be proven, but are just accepted, others use it in a looser form, where they believe 1+1 = 2, and they believe it because it can be proven to be true.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
It’s not true. 1+1 can also equal 10.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pmSo Bartlebee, someone suggests the government do something specific based on their religious belief and you call me a fanatic for telling them to go stuff themselves?!?
You seem to want to put everyone in one of two camps – religious belief system and non religious belief system and yet you have no belief system. You are confusing the hell out of me.
I am a atheist in that I don’t believe God has spoken to anyone, or left any secret messages for anyone nor can anyone contact God or know what It thinks or desires.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pmtoasterhead
It’s not true. 1+1 can also equal 10.
Hey, I don’t care if you’re on a computer, no using binary to further confuse the issue.
BARTLEBEE
(Hint: When wiki told you it was a NON BELIEF that God exists, thats another way of saying a BELIEF that GOD does not exist)
Once again, please take a logic course. Just because A -> B does not automatically mean B -> A or !A -> !B
November 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI appreciate you standing by what you said, Bartlebee, but you ignored the rest of my statement. I acknowledged that i took what you wrote to mean the generic “atheist” wher eyou may have meant “an Atheist zealot”, not intending to claim that being an atheist was the same thing as being a fanatic.
Is that in fact what you meant? Because most of what you’ve written since seems to align with my original take — that you consider atheists by definition to be fanatics.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmYou can disbelieve the data to be sure, but to just rule out the existence of a greater power that may have a role in all of this is to me foolish.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
OK, so maybe we can create a hypothesis that the Big Bang was actually God sneezing. That would mean everything in the universe, including us, the Snot of God. =)
Though, as this is still a hypothesis and not yet proven, it cannot be stated as a fact.
Hey this is fun, we could create a new religion, the Church of the Snot of God, and it would have as much factual basis as any other church.
ok, adding the /snark tag =)
November 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmThe message is mixed above, but most of it appears to be that Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a Christian.
Comment by cold_hard_left
No, the message above is not mixed. Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a nutjob.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmReligion tends to be the most intolerant. I don’t care what fairy tales you believe, but keep it to yourself, and STFU when it comes to government running based on your fairy tales.
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
I disagree. Religion is not intolerant. Abstract concepts cannot be intolerant.
People, on the other hand, are intolerant, and they often use religion as an outlet for their intolerance.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmHey, I don’t care if you’re on a computer, no using binary to further confuse the issue.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
It’s all perspective, that’s all I’m saying :)
November 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pmReligion is not intolerant. Abstract concepts cannot be intolerant.
People, on the other hand, are intolerant, and they often use religion as an outlet for their intolerance.
Comment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Excellent point.
Religion tends to give people justifications for their own intolerance, but that’s a consequence of a human construct.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pmi’m declaring war on religion.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pmTHe problem is neither religiousity nor atheism. The problem is intolerance. An intolerant atheist is just as capable of persecuting as an intolerant Catholic.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Atheism can be intolerant of religions, but I defy you to show me an example of an atheist who has murdered a believer because of their belief, while examples of the opposite are ubiquitous.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pmReligion is a codification of conceptual dogma (concepts) – and yes it can be intolerant. Including explicit calls for eradicating other religions – a common concept in most popular religions.
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Fair enough, but who writes that dogma? Who writes those holy books that call for eradicating of other religions? People. Generally people in power, who want to stay in power.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pmi’m declaring war on religion.
Comment by LividLib
i’m getting religion on war.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pmSee, as I said RHF, you’re a fanatic.
You’re so blinded by your fanatical zeal to disprove the existence of God, you can’t even read the posts you’re responding to.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I don’t know Bartlebee, you’ve lost me in this thread. I seems to me you have written circles around yourself. I’m glad you understand what your getting at and I will continue to enjoy your posts on other threads but this has gotten out of hand.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pmUntil specific experiments exist to test this theory however, it’s just that a THEORY – just like your god.
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
This is “nit-picking” but gods are hypothetical rather than theoretical. A theory is a hypothesis that can be established, as true or false, through experimentation. So far as I know no one has developed a method to test the viability of various “divine hypotheses”.
Also, once again, atheism is the absence of belief. Not a belief system. One could argue the point till Jesus returns and won’t change that fact. Asserting that atheism is a belief system is ignorant, narrow minded, and demonstrably wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pmSee, as I said RHF, you’re a fanatic.
You’re so blinded by your fanatical zeal to disprove the existence of God, you can’t even read the posts you’re responding to.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Talk about a strawman. Burning Man, even.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pmLibs, keep your mouth off of Governor Huckabee.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
No one here wants to put their mouths on Huckabee, we will leave that to you Daryll.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pmBut, I thought you claimed you were not gay, what are you doing with your mouth on Huckabee?
Science is a method of studying and understanding the workings of the physical universe. As such, questions of whether or not God exists beyond the limits of that universe cannot be answered scientifically any more than questions of whether the earth orbits the sun can be answered by consulting scripture or oracles.
A person may reasonably choose to speculate as to the existence of God or not. What he cannot do is assert scientific support for his belief. The man who asserts that God does not exist is no more rational than the man who believes, he is simply more cautious.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pmLibs, keep your mouth off of Governor Huckabee. He is God’s child, whom has a prophetic ministry. This is the man that I want to lead my country.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Daryll my man, is your new found interest in Huckabee at all related to the alledged advancement of his campaign? I can’t remember you having much to say about this nobody in the past. If he fails to win the nomination will you take it that God doesn’t dig him or will you just shift gears and explain it away as the will of God?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pmI wondered when Daryll would show up. And this thread isn’t even about gays.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pmAFFIRMS THE NON EXISTENCE OF GODS.
Aethists “believe†in the non existence of Gods.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
affirm is not the same as believe.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pmI wondered when Daryll would show up. And this thread isn’t even about gays.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
daryll wants his mouth, and his mouth only, on Huckabee.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pmWhat he cannot do is assert scientific support for his belief. The man who asserts that God does not exist is no more rational than the man who believes, he is simply more cautious.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Hmmm. Sounds wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pmdaryll wants his mouth, and his mouth only, on Huckabee.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
I see. So, in his own way, Daryll made this thread about gays.
He’s good.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pmHebrews 11
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pmSo you often “affirm†things you don’t “believe†do you?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Affirming them makes them facts, not beliefs. Wordsmith.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pmLiberals, there is nothing wrong with being psyched about Jesus! Didn’t he die on the cross for you? Didn’t he wake you up this morning?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Um, no, and no.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmReally Wordsmith?
So you often “affirm†things you don’t “believe†do you?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
The word “believe” actually comes from the Proto-Indo-European base “leubh” meaning “to like or desire.” It’s the same root that produced the word “love.”
Food for thought.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmIt might give you a hint as to why you keep losing elections.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Thanks for ‘06.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmDaryll is a little like Johnny from Airplane! he wanders into a serious philosophical discussion (okay, with a few gratuitous insults thrown in) and giggles that he can make a hat out of a flight chart.
Thanks, Daryll! You keep at trying to save us “filthy liberals”! We get an enormous kick out of it!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pmMaybe all you “progressives†should take a long hard look at this anti Christian and Religious rhetoric you’re constantly selling in here.
It might give you a hint as to why you keep losing elections.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Well, perhaps you might want to take a similar look; it might give you a hint as to why we’re losing our country.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pmBARTLEBEE
Dude, still waiting on an answer on this simple question(or at least I think I am, I may have missed your response, if so, can you throw a comment # at me?)
Religion requires a belief in what can not be proven
Atheism requires a disbelief in that which has yet to be proven
Do you understand the difference inherent in those two lines?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pmComment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
In New Testament Greek the base word for believe is “eis,” which means “..to trust in.”
November 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pmLiberals, there is nothing wrong with being psyched about Jesus! Didn’t he die on the cross for you? Didn’t he wake you up this morning?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Steve Inskeep woke me up this morning, actually. And what he died on the cross for is open to interpretation. The Jesus I believe in is not the vindictive jerk being peddled by the likes of you and Mike Huckabee.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pmFrom WEBSTERS:
AFFIRM: validate, confirm b: to state positively
2: to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed
3: to express dedication to
intransitive verb
1: to testify or declare by affirmation as distinguished from swearing an oath
2: to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
I didn’t see anything about “belief” in there. Could you point it out for me?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pmSo Bartlebee, are you defending Huckabee or just hijacking the thread?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pmLet me guess, you are an atheist?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Only if he’s smarter than you.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pmI want a President that will restore traditionalism within our society. Governor Huckabee (or should I say President-elect) is the man for the job.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Since the LAST evangelical in the office failed so miserably at it?
And no, you shouldn’t say “President-Elect Huckabee”, since that title is reserved for the winner of the presidential election (if it’s not an incumbent).
November 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThe bible and Rome proves that this occured.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
I’m afraid not. Rome didn’t call me this morning, and the bible is a great work of fiction, especially all of the sex.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pmrepublicans hate facts
And you’ve repeatedly said that people that don’t believe in the existence of god are zealots. You’re a dickhead idiot.
He has said both those who believe and disbelieve in god(s) are zealots. He has also said that he doesn’t believe either way. I believe that makes him an agnostic.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pmI am trying to persuade you to come to Jesus before the rapture.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
How many seats are left on the rapture bus, Dingbat? And where in the Bible is that particular trip mentioned?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pmHi Darry l am no atheist just agnostic. Can you help me out. Is your faith better than someone else’s? How does that work?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pmI believe that makes him an agnostic.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Agnostics are zealots.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pmMy comments are not meant to be satirical. I am trying to persuade you to come to Jesus before the rapture.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
We know. It’s your earnestness that makes you so hilarious. If you were being satirical, you wouldn’t be half as funny.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pmAnd no, you shouldn’t say “President-Elect Huckabeeâ€, since that title is reserved for the winner of the presidential election (if it’s not an incumbent).
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Please, please, please, run Huckabee! That would be really fun.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pmLefty Patriot
Agnostics are zealots.
Well played.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pmI want a Jesus alarm clock. Does it have a bleeding heart that lights up, Daryll?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pmAgnostics are zealots.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Given the convincing case put forward by Bartlebee, I don’t see how one could argue this.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:17 pmrepublicans hate facts
To all of the religious people out there, who created god?
Could God microwave a burrito so hot, that even he could not pick it up with out oven mitts, or some other device to stop his hands from being burnt?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmComment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Probably one of those funky Hindu Gods
November 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
You are confusing, Daryll. You capitalize Governor and yet fail to capitalize “His” will or “Satan”. And then you claim that this 60 year old woman from Illinois is “satan”.
When will you start making sense?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Your God has really poor taste in cover bands.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmI refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
So what will you do if this happens?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmThis thread has been like a traffic accident.
Weirdly compelling, ugly, and hard to turn away from.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmReligion tends to be the most intolerant. I don’t care what fairy tales you believe, but keep it to yourself, and STFU when it comes to government running based on your fairy tales.
Who says Americans don’t do irony?
Let’s get a few facts straight:
1. I have absolutely no interest in imposing my religious beliefs on you, on our government or on anybody else for that matter.
2. I also have absolutely no interest in yielding to you my right to speak freely about whatever I want, wherever I want and whenever I want. If you don’t like it, then I suggest you master your impulse to censorship and instead read something else.
3. The records of atheist regimes like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and Communist China are soaked in the blood of millions and are guilty of murder on scales impossible in previous centuries.
4. Many wars have been fought and many killed in the name of religion, but by far more people have been slaughtered in the name of capitalism, greed, racism and territorial expansion. Oftentimes, religion has been exploited to justify the killing, but do you seriously suggest that human history would have been substantially less bloody without religion? Most people find competition over material things like land, wealth and dwindling resources are far more immediate and compelling reasons to gut their neighbors than questions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmHow are you able to make fun of our Lord and Savior, Jesus after all that he has done for you?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
I’m not making fun of Jesus, Daryll. I’m making fun of you.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Daryll, either you misunderstand, or you’re prone to wishful thinking. The term “President-Elect” has a strict use. It is to be applied between election day and inauguration day when the White House is to change hands. We are not within that period, therefore the term is inappropriate. May I suggest something to make you sound a little less retarded that would still convey the sense of misplaced optimisim you feel? How about “The next president of the United States!”
And it will be interesting to read your explanation a year from now if “satan” (Hillary Clinton) wins the presidency. Will that mean that God DIDN’T want a “man of stature” to lead us? Or will it mean that God sees Hillary Clinton as “a man of stature” and not as “satan”?
Only time will tell.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pmComment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Mass can be converted to energy and vicey versee. No “creation” necessary.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pmHow are you able to make fun of our Lord and Savior, Jesus after all that he has done for you?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
The Jesus I believe in has a sense of humor.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pmDaryll
This question should not be answered, but hell is consisted of fire and brimstone that is 10 times hotter than lava.
Did I just break your Magic-Eight ball, Bible edition or something?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pmTo all of the religious people out there, who created god?
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Oh pick me, pick me. Can I answer. Oh, you are asking religious people. I’m just some fanatic but I’ll answer anyway because I want to be a stubborn ass.
The answer is – MAN
Oh and Southern Man, All the matter in the universe emanated from a a single point, before that is what this whole ‘debate’ is about. We have not found any means by which to know how all this matter came to a single point – Hey, perhaps the single point is God and that means that God is everything. We have no way of knowing which frustrates everyone but most especially those who want to believe in a personnel God.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pmTo all of the scientist out there, please explain the theory of matter not being able to be created or destroyed. If it can’t be created or destroyed, how did it get to be?
theory, wingnut. It’s a theory. like god.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pmThis question should not be answered, but hell is consisted of fire and brimstone that is 10 times hotter than lava.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Where’d you get the thermometer? That seems pretty hot. Should whomever collected this data have been injured in someway?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pmLiberals, there is nothing wrong with being psyched about Jesus! Didn’t he die on the cross for you? Didn’t he wake you up this morning?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
But Daryll there is something wrong with being psychotic about Jesus. You need to take your meds. The lack of homosexual thread has your nerves on edge.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmYeah, bartlebee, we’re slow.
We’re not making fun of you or anything. Right.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmThanks guys, you are doing an absolutely wonderful job of why Atheistism is based on science and fact, not ancient superstition. Very nice read, although I really have to wonder now about Bart ability to see thru it all.
Good job.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmIt will not because a few brethren (from my church) and I will fast for a week before the 2008 election. We are praying that God intercede and ensure that she doesn’t win.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Your God works for Diebold?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pmSo what will you do if this happens?
Comment by dbadass — November 29, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
It will not because a few brethren (from my church) and I will fast for a week before the 2008 election. We are praying that God intercede and ensure that she doesn’t win.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Daryll is on FIRE today! Comedy gold!!!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThis question should not be answered, but hell is consisted of fire and brimstone that is 10 times hotter than lava.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
10 times? Are you sure? What if it’s 11 times? Why are you placing limits on eternal damnation, anyway? It could be a billion times hotter than lava. If you’re going to make this stuff up, at least use a little imagination.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pmIt will not because a few brethren (from my church) and I will fast for a week before the 2008 election. We are praying that God intercede and ensure that she doesn’t win.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Excellent idea. Would you consider a blog of your own so we can all follow you and your buddies in this endeavor. Now since you know it will not can you assure me the same of a Huckabee presidency?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pmNo, I will use the term President-Elect because the Governor is your next President, in Jesus name. The battle has already been one.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
“One”?
Get back to us if Huckabee even gets the nomination, Daryll.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:29 pmNo, I will use the term President-Elect because the Governor is your next President, in Jesus name. The battle has already been one.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Oy. Where do I start?
Maybe better leave it alone. Sounds like Daryll could use some “quiet time”.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI ask a question and of course you answer with a question. Must be projection. Go play with your dolls.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Hey guy I answered your question awhile ago. It was one of those funky Hindu Gods!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI’ll just sit back, and watch the two of you kill each other.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
I’m curious, and foolish to even ask, but does this mean that you pretty much define what a real progressive is?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmMan, something is going seriously wrong today if I have that many comments in the recommended section. Oh well, I’m out for at least the next hour, if I’m not back, have a great night.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
And yet Satan Bush is still in the White House.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:31 pmThe battle has already been one.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
It’s always war with you people, isn’t it… Everything’s a battle or a war or a fight.
Whatever happened to the Jesus who told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek and beat our swords into ploughshares?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pmI suggest reading my comments to discover their intent. I’ve said the same thing over and over and over.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
I’ve read them Bartlebee. You deny believing in god while acting like you are the all knowing center of the universe.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pmI ask a question and of course you answer with a question. Must be projection. Go play with your dolls.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
You mean you really wanted an answer? So you asked that particular question on a political blog because you figured it was packed with quantum physicists?
Amazing.
Here, read this book and then you can explain it to the rest of us.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
You are basing your BELIEF on some misconceptions. We have tried to inform you of your mistake yet you can’t, or won’t, see it. Maybe you just got a hold of a poor definition of “atheist”. Maybe you just feel a need to elevate yourself to a position of supreme authority. Maybe you got the crap kicked out of you by an atheist. Whatever the reason, your contention that:
On the other hand theres the Atheists, who ferverently believe that there is no God or deities, and work passionately as you’ve seen here tonight, to disprove and ridicule those who’s views differ.
is wrong. Period!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pmI’ve read them Bartlebee. You deny believing in god while acting like you are the all knowing center of the universe.
Comment by Shayne — November 29, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
He’s just playing double devil’s advocate (excuse the term), that’s all.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:37 pmTo all of the scientist out there, please explain the theory of matter not being able to be created or destroyed. If it can’t be created or destroyed, how did it get to be?
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Could somebody throw a fossil at Southern Man’s head and try to knock some sense into him. And for all of you tempted to explain physics to him, please keep in mind it’s “Southern Man”. If it’s not in the bible he’s not buying it.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pmand we don’t wanna hear the rabid lunacy on the other side, desperately trying to convince us there is no God.
No. Wrong. You don’t wanna hear that the atheist ’side’ wants the religious ’side’ to wake up to the lunacy of believing that ANYONE, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has every heard directly from God.
Shit man, it’s called reason. You call atheists fanatic because atheists just can’t understand how religious people can be so unreasonable.
Is it reasonable that stories about Jesus didn’t get written until years after he died?
Is it reasonable to believe stories written thousands of years ago to be Word of God?
Is it reasonable to believe that the Earth was flooded by 40 days and nights of rain?
Is it reasonable to disown your own child because he/she doesn’t believe in Mormonism?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pmOh God gummitch not you too?
Where did I suggest that?
Where did I even imply that?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
That does sound like you know what it means and the rest of us don’t.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pmI simply pointed out that these so called “progressives†are not too progressive when showing religious tolerance in a country that was built on relgious tolerance.
I also pointed out, that you’re driving off millions of potential votes by driving off good people who believe in God.
Do you honestly think some nice, decent person that believes in God but doesn’t believe in Bush and his crimes, is going to feel comfortable or the least bit welcome in this sh$t?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
You’re so full of shit, it is amazing. Your defensiveness is markedly indicative of your knowledge of how wrong you are.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Oh great, now Daryll thinks he’s god. I thought that was Bartlebee’s job.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pmIt wasn’t Christians and a society with a lack of morals, it was a combination of events. You are getting cuter everyday little guy.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
And you get better at avoiding the point every time you get smacked down. Good boy!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pmTo all of the religious people out there, who created god?
A very interesting question you pose – too bad you’re too closed minded and intolerant (not to mention boorish! Are you sure you’re not a Repugnican?) to engage in conversation about the matter. Personally, I like to learn about and try to understand other peoples’ points of view – especially those with which I disagree.
Oh well, it’s more your loss than it is mine.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:40 pmHow could I be acting like one then?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
He said acting like one, not being one. Are you Southern Man in disguise?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pmNo wonder we lose elections. Most of you guys probably just stay home.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
You’ll be running out of straw if you keep building the same guy each time.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:43 pmNo. Wrong. You don’t wanna hear that the atheist ’side’ wants the religious ’side’ to wake up to the lunacy of believing that ANYONE, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has every heard directly from God.
Shit man, it’s called reason. You call atheists fanatic because atheists just can’t understand how religious people can be so unreasonable.
Comment by Nature Rules — November 29, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I think the problem is the division of people into two camps – you’re either fully religious, believing that the Bible is the literal truth, or you’re fully atheist, believing that religion is of all types are lunacy.
There’s a wide spectrum in between these two, and I believe it’s possible to find a middle ground. Science is based in reason. Religion is based in love. It’s a comparison between apples and catalytic convertors.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:44 pmHow can you call a man of God satan.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Bush? a man of god? You don’t read much, do you, daryll? bush, the mass-murdering, coke-snorting, drunken deserter? man of god? good luck with that.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pmI am not God. God speaks to me through dreams.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Well, that explains why you’re so confused. Daryll, they are DREAMS. Even you call them dreams. Seek professional help.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pmHere are you atheists, in here rabidly attacking someone who’s stood along side you for 2 years now, because I dare to suggest that atheists are as fanatical as religious zealots.
And here you guys are, proving it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
This statement is closer than i would have thought to an accurate representation of the truth.
The reason you have drawn disagreement (or, “been attacked” if you like) is because you asserted more than once that “atheists are as fanatical as religious zealots”.
It’s a stupid statement. Had you qualified it, as someone suggested earlier in the following way: “Atheists CAN BE as fanatical as religious zealots” or “Some Atheists are as fanatical as religious zealots”, you would have found a lot less conflict.
But that’s not what you said, and it’s not what you’re saying now. You are saying that Atheists by definition are as fanatical as religious zealots.
And your contention that a disbelief in God is as irrational as a belief in one just doesn’t make sense either. But as long as you can tell yourself that it’s just Atheists attacking you because you dared to speak truth to their irrational belief system, then you won’t hear anything else.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:46 pmI am not God. God speaks to me through dreams.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Does God have an accent? What does your God think about all those other equally valid Gods? Does your God go bowling with them or anything like that?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
No. I haven’t “rabidly attacked” you. I sought to correct your false statements that “the atheists” are fanatic zealots. If you truly understood the subject you would realize that “the atheists” are not a unified group. They don’t share a common belief, or disbelief, for that matter. There are, at least, as many different forms of “atheism” as there are religions.
To make statements, which group all atheists together, is wrong. It’s inaccurate. It’s false and, one can only assume, based on ignorance or a desire to elevate your enlightened agnosticism above all other philosophies.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pmSuggesting that the “belief that there is no god†is based on absolutely the same thing the belief that there is one, is “acting like the all knowing center of the universe�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Not really. It’s more acting like someone with a shaky grasp of language, abstract concepts and logic.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pmIt’s a comparison between apples and catalytic convertors.
Comment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Ah but my catalytic converter can sap the energy out of your apple. :)
November 29th, 2007 at 5:49 pmHow can you call a man of God satan.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Explain how George Bush is any more a “man of God” than Hillary Clinton? Aside from Hillary being a woman, I mean.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pmHell is real!
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
got pictures? burns? anything?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:52 pmHell is real!
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
How do you know hell is real, Daryll? You ever been there?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:52 pmDaryll,
No hell, no God, if you decide that evidence matters, and reason wins out over faith (faith being nothing more than belief without reasons) then you will understnd this and be able to open up a larger world to yourself.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:52 pmDammit, Lefty Patriot! You beat me to it! And with a better comeback too!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pmDaryll,
You said – “Hillary wants communism.”
Can you show where she said this? Or are you one of those crazies that makes crap up to try to win an argument when you don’t have facts on your side?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmBush is a traditionalist who believes in ruling this country by utilizing faith methods. Hillary wants communism.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Oh. I see. You’re a retard. That explains it.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmBush is a traditionalist who believes in ruling this country by utilizing faith methods. Hillary wants communism.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
so, Bush is a traditionalist in the same sense as Osama Bin Laden, is what you’re saying. Well, we knew that.
Now, how do you know that Hillary wants communism? She’s never actually said so.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmHell is real!
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Yep. It can be found between your ears.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmDammit, Lefty Patriot! You beat me to it! And with a better comeback too!
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Bart awakened my inner fanatical atheist.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pmTo make statements, which group all atheists together, is wrong. It’s inaccurate. It’s false and, one can only assume, based on ignorance or a desire to elevate your enlightened agnosticism above all other philosophies.
Comment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Bertlebee will never understand. . . . .
November 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pmBush is a traditionalist who believes in ruling this country by utilizing faith methods. Hillary wants communism.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
The tradition of the Puritans, maybe the terrorists who killed a king and fled to the New World on a religious zionist crusade.
That’s not the tradition that the United States was built upon, though. The United States was built as a pluralistic society that accepted all faiths.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmToday she is appealing to the hard left to wrap up the nomination. Tomorrow, she pretends to be a moderate and goes after the moderate rights. She will claim to be a God feraring woman, but she won’t be able to pull it off like Bill did. She needs the people you despise in here to win. It will be fun to watch you when shae goes after the middle of the road crowd. The church going folk you turn off because of your contempt of their beliefs.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Judges? Translation, please?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmNow, how do you know that Hillary wants communism? She’s never actually said so.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Came to him in one of those dreams!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmThe empire was quite strong when they adopted Christianity, as strong as it had been for centuries, and no more corrupt. Yet within 150 years of this ’salvaging’, it completely collapsed…
No, not really. The empire lacked the economic vitality and the political flexibility to govern a sprawling multiethnic empire under pressure from barbarian invasion (both peaceful and violent) at a time when communication was limited to the speed of a horse or a ship.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pmBartlbee is right on when he says you are just a fanatical as the christian right. You are proving it in here.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
The misconception you have here is that the debate is over religion vs atheism. Its not. Its about whether ALL religious people and ALL atheists are somehow fanatical.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:58 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Stall 357 has run out of straw, more straw please!
No, not really. The empire lacked the economic vitality and the political flexibility to govern a sprawling multiethnic empire under pressure from barbarian invasion (both peaceful and violent) at a time when communication was limited to the speed of a horse or a ship.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Again, you’ve missed the point. God did not save Rome.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:59 pmI am not God. God speaks to me through dreams.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Daryll,
This is God. No really, I am serious as a heart attack this is your heavenly father speaking to you through this amazing “blog”. I hope to my God that I created a spell checker because an infallible god fcking up the English language would be awkward, what?
Mellow out my child. I know you think I talk to you in your dreams, but that’s just your uncle Rehofus having his way with you after the date drug kicks in. Have a little more faith in your fellow humans and less in some mythical creature.
Oh, and yes it’s true, Bush is the AntiChrist.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:00 pmBartlbee is right on when he says you are just a fanatical as the christian right. You are proving it in here.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
How would you know, having never been to church?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:00 pmShe needs the people you despise in here to win. It will be fun to watch you when shae goes after the middle of the road crowd. The church going folk you turn off because of your contempt of their beliefs.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
The Evangelical/Christian Zionist wing of the electorate she’ll never get to, and hopefully she won’t try to reach them because it will only alienate her from the secularists. Not all church-going folk are of that extreme wing, however. Some of us do understand that.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:01 pmDo you honestly think some nice, decent person that believes in God but doesn’t believe in Bush and his crimes, is going to feel comfortable or the least bit welcome in this sh$t?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
But you are the one labeling all progressives as atheist thereby creating your own strawman and huge circle jerk at the same time as disrupting this thread.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmShe supports a Universal Healthcare system and wants to over-tax the rich (even though they are paying 60% of Americans taxes).
So, she wants good health for all Americans, and she wants to tax the rich more in line with what they make. How commie!
She wants to create more Government programs that prevent self reliance.
Seems that Republicans have done that, for the rich. They are the Commies!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmDaryll sees the future? HE’S A WITCH! BURN HIM!!!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmDarryl
November 29th, 2007 at 6:03 pmIs your God against universal healthcare? yes or no or hasn’t this come up yet in any of your dreams. I would tend to think yes but you must think no. So what’s the Big Cheese’s beef with this issue?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Why do paint with such a broad brush? You’re generalizations are what is upseting.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:03 pmShe supports a Universal Healthcare system and wants to over-tax the rich (even though they are paying 60% of Americans taxes). She wants to create more Government programs that prevent self reliance.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Wouldn’t Jesus want us to provide health care and social safety nets for the least among us?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pmWouldn’t He want the rich to pay Caesar what is due Caesar?
You’d have no such records to present to support your claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Now you’re just a fool.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pmBe religious all you want. Just don’t entertain the idea that it is your duty to limit my liberty to appease your god.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — November 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pmWell said.
Bartlebee,
Your argument has huge problems. I’ll start with this nugget.
You said – “Had someone early on suggested agnosticism, then we could have toned it down. But no one did.”
Are you agnostic or atheist in regards to Zues? Odin? Or any other of the thousands of Gods that have come before yours. Many of those who call themselves atheist, simply believe in one less God than you.
You said – “YOU cannot produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of a God.”
Nor can you produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of Zues.
You said – “BOTH are empirical belief systems, one under the guise of non belief, and one under the guise of belief.”
This is patently false and kinda dumb. Religious people are heralded for their faith, even in the face of all evidence that their faith is at the very least, questionable, if not totally misplaced. The more faith (Faith being belief without evidence) you have, the more revered you are in religious circles.
If one were to prove you wrong in the world of science, it’s considered a penultimate moment. It’s the way science works. If one even attempts to prove you wrong in religion, they get offended, they lean on faith, and the argument shuts down. Their is no room for argument when it comes to faith.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pmWell obviously I wasn’t including all persons ascribing to athesim. Didn’t you bother to read my responses to Wayne? I was addressing the fanatics in here, who in the two years I’ve been in here, have mocked, ridiculed and harrased every religious person dumb enough to open their mouths.
…
And actually, if you think about it, the religious crowds got you beat. At least from a legal standpoint.
YOU cannot produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of a God.
They can introduce documented eyewitness testimony as well as supporting archialogical evidence to add credence to their theories.
:P
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Well, obviously, it WASN’T obvious, since you never bothered to include the kinds of qualifiers suggested, and you continued to make statements that sounded very much like:
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
No qualifiers in there. Pretty much a blanket condemnation of anyone who calls himself an Atheist.
And by the way, I’m not an Atheist, so your lame attempt to pigeonhole all of your critics falls flat. I’ve never attempted to produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of God, and I never intend to. Mostly because it’s an impossible task. just as impossible as proving that there IS a God. But that still doesn’t mean that the two positions are mirror images of one another in the way you’re trying to claim.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pmBartlebee,
You said – “You’d have no credible physical evidence to prove the phiosohpy of the atheist.”
What is the philosophy of an atheist?
I see atheism as the reasonable assumption that those who propagate the idea of an all powerful creative force that controls all, have the burden of proof for their hypothesis, and thus far have failed meeting that burden.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pmYou’d have no such records to present to support your claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Now you’re just a fool.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Barlebee has chosen to enter the world of the circular arguement. It is we who are the fools for attempting to reason with him/her.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pmWatch what happens if Hillary gets the nod. Today she is appealing to the hard left to wrap up the nomination.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
She is? She’s doing a crap job of it, then, because the “hard left” pretty uniformly dislikes her.
Oh, wait, when you said “hard left” you meant “anyone to the left of Trent Lott”. Never mind.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pmAgain, you’ve missed the point. God did not save Rome.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Actually, I didn’t. The point being expressed was twofold:
1. Christianity fatally weakened a previously sound Roman Empire.
2. God didn’t save Rome.
I responded to the first of the two points because it was so clearly specious and demonstrated the poster’s poor grasp of history.
Since you insist however, I will respond to his second point.
No, God did not save Rome. I am also happy to report to you that He didn’t butter my toast this morning. I’m just not sure what relevance either of those two true statements have to anything to do with proving or disproving His existence.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pmYOU cannot produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of a God.
or Babe, the Blue Ox, either, I would think.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:10 pmSuggesting that the “belief that there is no god†is based on absolutely the same thing the belief that there is one, is “acting like the all knowing center of the universe�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Proving the existence of something is not the same as proving the absence of something Bartlebee. And somebody could prove the existence of god to atheists scientifically they would believe. But if you could prove god does not exist to religious zealots it would not change their belief. Apathy to an issue which is what most atheists practice is not zealotry, no way no how.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:10 pmNo, God did not save Rome. I am also happy to report to you that He didn’t butter my toast this morning. I’m just not sure what relevance either of those two true statements have to anything to do with proving or disproving His existence.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Daryll has a Jesus alarm clock, but he refuses to tell me where he got it. Maybe Jesus butters Daryll’s toast, but I wouldn’t count on getting him to butter yours for you.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:11 pmMaybe Jesus butters Daryll’s toast, but I wouldn’t count on getting him to butter yours for you.
Comment by gummitch — November 29, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
He might be willing to butter Cheshire’s buns, if asked nicely.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pmHere Bart we will use some logic for you – this is simple, follow along.
Religion says, The Bible is God’s word.
God is supposed to be all knowing, because he is God.
If God is all knowing then how come the Bible has so many untruths in it?
If God is all knowing then it would have known that man would evolve and get smarter and more advanced and would discover the mistakes in the Bible.
There for the Bible is indeed not the word of God, but of man.
Man made up God. Just like man made up the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, the Aztec Gods, etc. etc.
Therefore God is the imagination of man.
Simple logic.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pmDaryll, I mean.
Daryll might be willing to butter Cheshire’s buns.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pmHell is real!
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
All I know is that if I had to spend eternity in Heaven next to Daryll it would surely feel like Hell.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pmThanks anyway ralph. I never liked toast, but I must confess my buns are to die for.
Thanks for noticing!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pmI am not God. God speaks to me through dreams.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Dreams or LSD?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pmIt will be fun to watch you when shae goes after the middle of the road crowd. The church going folk you turn off because of your contempt of their beliefs.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 p
Well I know how open minded you neocons cosider yourselves to be but not all progressives are atheists and not all of us support Hillary either. As yet I haven’t once seen her pander to the far left so I suspect that is also all in your mind. And since Evangelicals consider themselves the only real Christians all other denominations, like Catholics, are considered Gentiles and are welcome to join in the progressive movement.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pmThe problem most of have with your argument, Bartlebee, is not that you’re a religious person or not — it’s that you’re making claims that are at odds with reason. Or else they’re just really poorly expressed, which I doubt.
Now you’re trying to demonstrate that because proving a negative is impossible, your position that atheists are just as fanatical as religious zealots is proved. It’s a dumb argument and a dumb conclusion. It’s been explained to you why that is, several times already. If you want to focus on what you see as attacks (and you’ve absolutely given as good as you’ve gotten in that department) instead of the actual problems that people are demonstrating for you, that’s up to you.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pmThanks anyway ralph. I never liked toast, but I must confess my buns are to die for.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
I have no doubt that’s true.
Cheers.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pmYes, I made it very simple, and did not try to cover all forms of religion, just one of that was easy for anyone to understand.
But now I see, that the other posters here are indeed correct, you are an idiot Bart and there is no reasoning with idiots.
Don’t bother to reply, I won’t bother reading it.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pmWas that really you CaptainMantastic? That was cogent and sensible. I may have to put you in a different box.
Well said.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pmSimple logic says that “republicans hate facts” is emotionally unstable.
Dude, step away from the keyboard and get help – seriously.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:40 pmIt seems this one is none too bright, which might explain why we’re always losing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
You keep saying that as if it were true.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
It’s simple BART. You pissed him off. You pissed me off. You pissed a lot of people off.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pmAnyway I could care less if you guys are pissed off. I said nothing to piss you off, other than to denounce your fanatical attacks on the Christian left.
It disgust me the way you talk about those people, and it ought to disgust you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
More Straw! More Straw! Bart is building the world’s biggest strawman!
or is he just lying?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:56 pmHow does my adovcating tolerance for all belief systems and “non-belief†systems constitute my being like those who killed people for what they said?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
How does “people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry” constitute “advocating tolerance for all belief systems and “non-belief” systems“?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pmYes, RHF it is obvious, I am done with it’s posts anyway, no reasoning with it. Calling Atheists fanatical and then saying he didn’t makes no sense what so ever.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pmNO, Christians are NOT TOLERATE OF ATHEISTS as YOU PROVE! And you GET WHAT YOU DESERVE for that intolerance!
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
I think you captured it there rhf.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pmI said nothing to piss you off, other than to denounce your fanatical attacks on the Christian left.
It disgust me the way you talk about those people, and it ought to disgust you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
That’s a flat out lie. I have, on occasion, sarcastically “attacked” those, like the Huckster, who seek to turn our country into a Christian Theocracy. I even remember a night, not long ago, where we shared some light-hearted insults at the expense of “The Creation Museum”.
The one occasion where someone felt insulted by what I said, I apologized and it was accepted. I limit my attacks to full-blown “Psycho-Christians”, like Daryll, who use their Belief to excuse cruelty and destruction.
As you well know I try to be polite to people. I have no mercy on trolls.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pmBARTLEBEE, 7:15 pm:
Once more Nimrod, WHERE did I say ALL atheists are zealots?
BARTLBEE, 5:15 pm:
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pmAnd you’ve repeatedly said that people that don’t believe in the existence of god are zealots. You’re a dickhead idiot.
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
You’re a liar.
Show me where I said that.
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
And your rabid tirade in here tonight, coupled with your foaming at the mouth lunatic rants which prohibited you from ever reading or considering my position, has proven that fact.
Thanks.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Here’s your entire comment that I quoted above. Please show me where I left out the part where you “also said that not ALL people calling themselves atheists are fanatics.”
Thanks.
By claiming that because you didn’t use the word “ALL” when you said “people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs ” you weren’t saying “ALL ATHEISTS” is disingenuous and frankly, makes YOU sound like a troll. Kind of like Jake, in fact, who I suspect has reemerged lately as “Man Slag”.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pmBut if you think that was a lie, then you’re not thinking, or at least not reading the comments of the junior anti-christ here, our pal RHF.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
I gave up reading most of RHF’s posts long ago,lol.
Your “lie” was directed at me and I took it personally. I do not take comments directed at: “you”, “leftists”, “libtards”, “TPers”, or even “atheists” personally. When I get attacked for trying to correct a falsehood from a, usually, reasonable person; I take it very personally. Especially when that person has shared a few jokes on that very subject.
To reiterate, claiming that “atheists are just as fanatic as Christian zealots” is, like most generalizations, wrong and destructive to reasonable discourse. It’s as wrong, and destructive, as claiming all Muslims are terrorists or all Christians are like Daryll.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pmDoes it strike anyone else as familiar troll behavior to insist on a strict interpretation of one’s words when what they’ve posted later becomes uncomfortable?
For instance if a comment, taken in normal useage, is later directly contradicted or the poster even denies that he ever said such a thing, isn’t it usually the trolls who, when confronted with their own words, generally cling like a frightened baby howler monkey to a strictly literal interpretation of what they said earlier?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmTo reiterate, claiming that “atheists are just as fanatic as Christian zealots†is, like most generalizations, wrong and destructive to reasonable discourse. It’s as wrong, and destructive, as claiming all Muslims are terrorists or all Christians are like Daryll.
Comment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
On top of that, there is scant evidence of bart’s accusation. Almost all atheists are perfectly comfortable with the belief systems of the believers, unlike the believers when confronted with atheism. An occasional fanatic does not make all atheists fanatics. This seems to be lost on bart.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmAtheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
Comment by Buckie Boy — November 29, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Now, I’ve been responding to your questiions and attacks for hours, so now, a question for you mr Torqemada.
When you are attacking Religion, are you attacking ALL people who believe in or belong to a religion?
:|
Think about your answer carefuly Polonius.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
where is the attack? thou dost protesteth, etc.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pmin general, atheists are as foul and vehement to religious people as religious zealots are to non believers.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
NOW you start adding some precision to your invective?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pmBut you both believe in something you cannot prove. Are all of you fanatics? of course not. And I didn’t say that. But in general, atheists are as foul and vehement to religious people as religious zealots are to non believers.
You both have an axe to grind.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
And you are making things up out of whole cloth. In general, atheists are generously disposed towards the religious, seeing them as misguided and fearful, but understanding that the culture has them trapped in their beliefs. Atheists also tend to be realists, and know better than to antagonize the vast majority of their fellow humans. In fact, most atheists are very quiet about it, since there is no reason to preach to those who rely on faith, and it matters not to most atheists to start churches. You have overreached, and the attacks on you are as much your own fault as anyone else’s. Your snide assumption of superiority is a pretty good target, though, and your absolutist statements have painted you as extreme. You shouldn’t be surprised at angry responses.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:02 pmOh and what do you call labeling them loons, morons, calling their beliefs and books fairy tales and bullsh$t?
Proselyting them?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Your control group is out of control. You’re a very silly person to paint with such a broad brush. You don’t even really know who’s atheist and who isn’t.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pmSo, Bartlebee, ae you saying that your earlier language was imprecise, or are you saying that everyone who has taken issue with your stated position is a atheistic fanatic who is blinded by his disbelief?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pmAnd by the way, if you think that patronizing self indulgent description that lambasts religious people as mindless children helps your cause, you’re sadly mistaken.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
You are nearly as good at missing the point as you are at assembling straw men. If you think that my thoughts about religious followers are patronizing, self indulgent and lambasting them, then you obviously have no idea how the world works. Because I haven’t yet met a believer that didn’t try to convert an atheist, with threats of damnation or hell or some other such nonsense. So, basically, you have nothing. Atheists feel sorry for believers, and vice-versa. The difference is, atheists are routinely punished for their viewpoints, and are routinely denied equal access to the world of politics and power, unless they are quiet about it. and since atheists comprise maybe 5-6% of the general population, your bullshit about how mean and nasty we are to the poor, downtrodden Christian majority sounds very oddly like it was written for you by Bill O’Reilly. And if you think I have a cause that needs to be helped, you are sadly mistaken, as you are in your repeated lie that we have been losing all elections. tht’s a lie, easily proved, but you keep repeating it; another O’Reilly trait. Looks like your cause needs some help.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pmBut make no mistake about it. Other than the funny hats, I see little difference between the two.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
You see proof in the imaginings of the faithful? wow, I hope you’re not a lawyer. it’s called hearsay, junior, and you have much to learn, if not the capacity. I’ve spent a long life studying atheism and religion, and there is not a shred of proof that a god of any sort exists or existed. hearsay, not proof. And now we’re back where we started, and you’re still wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:23 pmThe fact is I said something that you cannot deal with.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
No, the fact is you said a number of things that were either poorly expressed, too broad a generalization or logically flawed.
When people called you on any of those issues, you assumed they were atheists who only wanted to attack you because you’d hit on some truth too close to home.
TPers can deal with people making ludicrous arguments; we deal with them from trolls all the time. There was nothing you said that people couldn’t “deal with”. Sure, RHF got pretty belligerant, but you matched him step-for-step. And most of the rest of us in the discussion stayed pretty rational — Pete, for instance, and Nature Rules, Lefty Patriot and others. But you ignored the even-headedness of those respondents and proclaimed that you were being “attacked” and used those attacks to claim repeatedly that your point about atheists was somehow proven.
And I suppose you’ll consider it an attack when I say your point was not proven. Attack or not, your point ain’t proven.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pmI for one don’t like any of the labels. How about just everyone admits we don’t know, and take it from there?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
Because I do know, that’s why, and until I am shown otherwise, that’s it. Atheism is not a philosophy designed to discount another, it is an acceptance of reality, and a rejection of the blindness of faith. It does not discredit religion, as it has no need to. It, in fact, is based on a positive premise: man is strong enough to take care of himself. Among my circle of friends, most are religious; some deeply so. I never discount or attack their personal beliefs, any more than, as a vegetarian, I would knock a steak out of their hands. Many of these friendships are decades old, and if I feel that they are somewhat misguided and misled, I am absolutely certain they feel the very same way about me. so, you are wrong. Wrong about the elections we lose, and wrong about atheism.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pm“Because I knowâ€
See? You both even chant the same mantra’s.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Aren’t you weak and cheap, now? Afraid that your faux superiority is being challenged? You adopt no position, right? I see that as the position of a coward. A fence-sitter, a wishy-washy scaredy-cat. You don’t even leave yourself open to learning. I KNOW where I am, but I will change the very moment proof is presented, because I love to learn. That’s how I became an atheist, by the way. Study, learning, investigating, inquiring, wondering. If my investigations had led to to god, that would have been just fine, since that is where I started (making me the very opposite of a fanatic, by the way). But they led me to Mankind, and that’s where I am. At least I have a position. You’re even worse-off than the religious fanatics.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pmBecause the truth is, all you’ve demonstrated here tonight, is that you don’t believe in God, as fanatically as a fundamental christian, does believe in him.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
It has nothing to do with belief, nor is it fanaticism. You have started with a flawed concept, and followed it with a flawed process, leading to a flawed and wholly-incorrect conclusion. Are you really Bill O’Reilly?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pmatheism is the absence of belief in deities
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
And there you have it. “Absence of belief”. That is not a “belief system”. It doesn’t seek to denigrate, or discredit, any belief system.
As for the name calling you’ve attributed to me. That’s a lie. I’ve never denigrated the beliefs of anyone online or in person. I have never called believers: foolish, misguided, loons, morons, or called their beliefs and books fairy tales and bullsh$t? And, I don’t think anyone has in this discussion though, I admit, I haven’t read most of RHF’s posts.
I have commented on the hypocrisies of hypocrites and, I will fight ANY person who tries to create theocracy. I will also “call bullsh!t” on anyone who tries to apply false labels to those he/she clearly doesn’t understand.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm“fanatical about your beliefs or non beliefs”
Now you’re the illiterate one. Non beliefs?
HEISM = the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
A-THEISM = the DISbelief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
This ain’t rocket science pete.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Whose definitions are those? They’re not mine. And even if they were, how can a non-belief or a disbelief be a belief?
This ain’t rocket science, bart. Buy a dictionary, for pete’s sake. You are looking ever more foolish with each post you hurl.
Sort of like O’Reilly.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pmWow, 500+ posts on how “progressives†are intollerant of organized religion. Amazing.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Another rightard who can’t read. Not amazing.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pmThis ain’t rocket science pete.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Not to me. I apply “absence of belief” to myself. I understand exactly what it means and it’s quite simple and obvious.
Many have tried to state the fact that disbelief, in theism, is not the same as assuming theism is false. I’m out of descriptions and analogies. All I can do is ask you to consider that I, at least, am an atheist who doesn’t “believe there are no gods”. I, simply, don’t believe in any gods. If you can’t see the difference, I’ve wasted an evening on a fools errand. But, I’ve done that before.
G’night all. I’m off to the bar for the second half of the football game.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pmYou know Bartlebee this whole argument seems like it was intended to keep yourself the center of attention and certainly there are better ways to accomplish that. The fact is that most Christians believe in evolution. It is only fundamentalist Christians that believe in the literal translation of the bible that atheists have any problem with. And as much as you claim to know about religion if you weren’t just looking for a fight you would have brought it up yourself. Fundamentalist Christians don’t even consider Catholics “Christian” but instead of talking to fundies about how they omit other Christians from their group you come here assuming all Progressives are atheist and going off on a tangent.
Next time you need to feel like a big man perhaps you should just run down to the local tavern and buy young ladies drinks and save us the aggravation.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:33 pmf you don’t like it, then tell your friends to stop quoting me and talking to me and then I can stop responding. But as long as someone challenges me, and they’re WRONG, I’m not going to just crawl off and hide cause YOU think I should.
Don’t like it? Change the channel.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Except I’m right, and you’re wrong. You keep conflating one word with another, as if they all mean the same thing. They don’t. Don’t like it? Buy that dictionary, and use it. In fact, the quote in your post 519 rests my case, completely and perfectly. It states a series of facts, not beliefs. Thanks.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pmThis is your entirely your fabrication that you fabricated to try and shore up your crumbling position.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Well, admittedly, she’s not as good at it as you are.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:50 pmprior to making any authoritarian and conclusive claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
In science there is no such thing as an authoritarian and conclusive claims, in opposition to religion.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:02 pmAtheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
Infidels.org
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Sorry, Bart, you’ve finished yourself off. Absence of belief and belief are not the same thing, even in your screwed-up world of “Bartlebee is always right, and everybody else is always wrong”. Shayne has you pegged, little man. You can continue with your delusions that I am a “devoted believer” in my “cause”, as if I need a defense from your ignorance and ego, or as if your uninformed opinion isn’t a “fanatical cause” on its own, but until you return to English instead of Bartspeak, your blatherings are textbook projection, and you lack the courage of your convictions, or even the convictions themselves. You’re not qualified to rewrite the English language, either.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pmTHEISM = the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
A-THEISM = the DISbelief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
This ain’t rocket science pete.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
If MAN hadn’t invented God then the definitions wouldn’t exits.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pmTHEISM = the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
A-THEISM = the DISbelief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
This ain’t rocket science pete.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
No, you’re right. It ain’t rocket science. And it’s a good thing. Because you have demonstrated ANOTHER fundamental misunderstanding of the English language and its roots.
“A-THEISM” does not mean, as you claim “the DISbelief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities”. The prefix “A” signifies a lack — amoral, for instance, is the lack of a moral code. Thus, “A-theism” means a LACK of a belief in the existence of a divine entity.
Not the same thing as a DISbelief, I’m sure you’ll agree. Well, I would be sure you’d agree, if you’d shown anything close to a reasonable nature thus far…
November 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pmWhen they can PROVE it, then we can graduate it to a fact.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
That sounds like a good point. However, I want to add what an atheist does: He DENIES the existence of Gods.
Now, what you are asking to atheists to do is really absurd, I would guess, because I can’t prove that gay vampire aliens are not amongst us. You could build a whole mythology based on this, and you would believe that and tell us to prove their NON EXISTENCE. Well, yeah, you would be correct, but it would be much more useful for believers in God that they PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE OBJECT OF THEIR BELIEF.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pmRalph, I guess I stepped into the mud with my denial comment.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:28 pmBartlebee’s entire argument seems to me much like that algebraic “proof” that 1=0… the one that rested on the trick of dividing something by zero. It’s a nonsense equation, but if you’re not following it closely enough, it might seem logical.
Bartlebee’s argument likewise rests on his contention that LACK OF A BELIEF is the same thing as BELIEF. If you can accept that, then there is a certain logic to his rant, shaky though that logic is. But if you recognize, like most of us do, that the qualitative equivalence he draws between Belief and its absence is nonsense, then nothng that follows that is ever going to make sense.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pmMight be right. Might be wrong. When you can prove that then it will be a fact.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Sorry, you have it backwards. When you can prove there’s a god, then it will be more than a belief. There is no need, scientifically or otherwise, for me to prove a negative. You can continue down that road, but you travel alone. I have proven there is no god (for me) by the very fact of the absence of any evidence or proof of the existence of same. Your only argument is based on hearsay and superstition, so you lose, in any court. It’s very much like you trying to bring me to trial for not stealing something. Is that what’s next for you, and will the trial be in the asylum you are sure to be inhabiting? And man most certainly invented god. Many gods, in fact, who have disappeared, one by one, as the questions get answered.
Well, it’s been nice showing you the error of your ways. I have plenty of love and respect for my friends and associates who disagree with me because of their beliefs, but a fence-sitting coward like you who makes such foolish arguments just for the sake of “winning” is deserving of only the derision of the people here, and you have certainly drawn a lion’s share of that.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pmNo, Juan, I think your denial comment was very well stated. Won’t help bartlebee understand, I fear, but we do what we can.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pmReligionists will provide lots of evidence, a lot of hearsay, but also first hand accounts of people who have claimed in one way or another, to have communicated with this deity.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
None of which PROVES a damn thing about the existence of God. It’s evidence of something, certainly, but it is not proof that there is a God.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pmIn many ways atheists are the same. They have faith, because they cannot prove a deity exists, that therefore one must not.
Oh, I’m an atheist and I have faith. I have faith in humanity to solve the current global problems. I have faith in my friends and in myself. That has nothing to do with religious thinking. The problem is that faith and religion are often taken as synonims (translation?).
The problem I see is that if you are willing to believe that there is a God and he did stuff like making the world, what stops you or anyone to believe a giant tomato did it. It is simply absurd. There. The idea of believing dogmatically a God has no limits because you can end up believing whatever you want. And, I really have no problem with that, but the idea of a God is, at the time, as absurd (but very entertaining and rich in culture and traditions) as any other mythology in the history of mankind.
Can you prove the existence of a 4th dimension?
How about a 9th?
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Of course those dimensions exist…in a topological (math) sense.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:43 pmA-THEISM is the anti-thesis of Theism.
It is the absolute DOCTRINE that there simply IS NO GOD, NO SPIRITUAL MATTER of any kind, and no afterlife, etc.
Actual athesim is as close to a religion in its so called philosophy as a thing that I can find, even though they don’t wear the funny hats.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Wrong again. There are certainly atheists who beilieve fervently that there is no God, but you have no more justification for describing “atheism” by those standards than an atheist has describing Christianity by the standards of Fred Phelps.
I was taking your cue when you claimed that the word “A-THEISM” meant the DISbelief in the existence of divine entities. I pointed out how, linguistically, you’re wrong. Linguistically, “ATHEISM” means the absence of belief. It is the lack of a theism.
Your overbroad generalizations do nothing to strengthen that argument that you made, which was based on a mistaken understanding of the mechanics of the language.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pmHey, RHF, could you stop the insults or they are really helping you to make your point go through?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pmThe problem I see is that if you are willing to believe that there is a God and he did stuff like making the world, what stops you or anyone to believe a giant tomato did it.
Comment by Juan C. — November 29, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Correction, Juan: it was not a tomato. it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pmWhen this f**ker says that atheists are fanatics, I’m just as obliged as when some moron says that you’re a commie anti-american because of your family’s history. Get it?
Comment by republicans hate facts
Well, this kind of answers really support that opinion.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pmIF atheism was merely a “lack of belief†then your statement would have merit.
It is not.
A-THEISM is the anti-thesis of Theism.
It is the absolute DOCTRINE that there simply IS NO GOD, NO SPIRITUAL MATTER of any kind, and no afterlife, etc.
Actual athesim is as close to a religion in its so called philosophy as a thing that I can find, even though they don’t wear the funny hats.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
well, I thought I was done, but this little turd keeps popping up.
I am an atheist, bart, you aren’t. therefore, i know what atheism is, i live it. You don’t, you teorize, and you twist the meanings of words as if we had the same lack of understanding of the language as you demonstrate.
atheism is “lack of theism”. Under no circumstances is it ANTI-THEISM. it is not a doctrine, it is the opposite of a doctrine. No church, no catechism, no holy book, no commandments, no thought about hell, heaven, punishment or reward, no doctrine whatsoever. I strive to live by the Golden Rule, because it’s right. I strive to be good, because it’s right. I strive to be honest, because it’s easier. If I err on the path of goodness and morality, my punishment is temporal and wordly: a speeding ticket, a loss in pay, a friendship broken, a sleepless night. No external doctrine, other than man’s own laws. You don’t even know what you’re going on about. You don’t even know what atheism is, or how it manifests itself. It is the very opposite of religion. You are speaking from a position of such ignorance, I might mistake you for a fundamentalist of some religious order. And your command of vocabulary is amazingly weak, or extraordinarily disengenuous. Your attempt to speak for atheists without knowing anything about exemplifies bigotry and ignorance, and is shameful behavior.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pmit was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
A strong argument against the idea of God is the way that ancient superstitions have been dispelled by human knowledge about physical phenomena. Changoo was the African God of thunder. Now we know thunder is produced by electrostatic discharges produced between a huge voltage difference in the atmosphere…not a mad guy.
That was a proof against the God of thunder, just like the one BART is looking and when scientists like Hawkin, were studying the beginning of the universe, John Paul II asked them not too. Unbelievable!!! He probably thought that he could be out of business.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Wow, Lefty. Beautifully done.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:59 pmNow, do you still want to play this silly word game about whether or not A-THEISM is a “belief system†with a set of “beliefs�
Or do you just want to admit that my points not so bad after all, and maybe A-THEISM has as much of an axe to grind, as does religion.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
Now who’s playing silly word games? Was this lawyer also an atheist? Do all atheists feel and think the same? did the lawyer represent the Congreational Atheists or the Unitarian Atheists? All of your information is second-hand, culled from within the system, without an understanding of atheism from the atheist’s point of view. it is proof of nothing except your inability to recognize your ignominious defeat tonight.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 pmthanks, ralph. 43 years of keeping my own atheistic counsel has only strengthened my confidence in Man’s ability to take care of himself. Plus I can sleep late on Sundays.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pmI’m in complete agreement Lefty Patriot. Thanks for putting in words what I cannot.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:08 pmPlus I can sleep late on Sundays.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Hahahaha. Brilliant.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:12 pmYou guys keep purporting all sorts of stuff, but so far I’m the only one backing anything up with facts from the official statements or records.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
I don’t belong to any atheist organizations, because they do, indeed comport themselves too much like the churches they have tried to get away from. old habits die hard, but none of the “official statements” or records has anything to do with me, or atheism as I live it. Atheism with a capital A is just another club. I need no club, just as a really true believer in god needs no church. atheism is the rejection of doctrine. Formal Atheism is weak, uncommitted, fearful atheism, closer to agnosticism. More of a fashion statement, really. And certain to attract cultists and weirdos, like god does so well. Your broad brush has missed me completely.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pmThey do however support everything I’ve said.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
In your fevered dreams, maybe. They actually show you to be a propagandist of some small skill, although with very poor follow-through. They show you to be a cherry-picking bigot, with issues that need some resolution, probably with some professional counseling. They show you to be a self-aggrandizing, small-time smear artist, with an audience of one. I’m glad you’re so damn stubborn, because this topic has been well-aired, and now many of our regulars have seen you for the small-minded creep you are, and have learned something about the seldom-discussed principles af personal atheism.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pmThe thing that surprises me, BART, is that you say you have presented FACTS for the atheist issue, but you have NONE about the real issue here, the existence of a GOD.
Could you present one fact to support your idea of GOD?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pmYou can strut around all you want, but the fact is the FACTS support what I said, NOT what you said.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Your only point was to conflate atheism with religion, and you have failed totally and mightily. Of course, you think you won, because that’s what you’re all about, but you are alone. You convinced nobody of your foolish bigotry, and most of your “facts” stood up and slapped your face. Most of the “facts” you presented were, by the way opinions and viewpoints, not facts at all. You really need that dictionary. And that therapist.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pmBartlebee, I reread your initial comments in this thread up to #68 and it is easy to see that you were itching for some discussion on this subject. But the second comment:
Atheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
is followed by a comment dissing Huckabee as Sampson (some character in an old book):
After all they both slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.
And then we have this:
Theres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot, other than the latter’s more likely to lend you money.
F * U * C * K * Y * O * U
November 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
You actually believe that? Any of it? You have proven nothing whatsoever, except that you can cherrypick, lie, and assign motives to someone you don’t even know. You’re a liar, and a shameless self-promoter with all the ethics of a Rove or O’Reilly. All three of your above points are lies, as anyone here can clearly see, and I have destroyed you and your credibility on this subject completely. You have been demoted to troll, 4th-class. Dismissed.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pmYour response proved that statement.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Actually, that response is perfect for the lies and bullshit you are spewing. It’s even more than you’re worth, especially in the face of such a cheap, low shot. that’s all you’re left with, now that your “argument” has been shredded. Your little cheap shots. Shayne had you pegged, little man.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pmI dont know how much higher up you wanted me to go, but you’ve produced NOTHING all night to support your denials of my positions, other than your own inane rhetoric.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
You cherry-picked from a few sources that seemed to back up your ignorant rantings, I get it. hey, you had to do something to try to prove you weren’t just an ignorant bigot. Too bad you failed so miserably. But keep at it, let’s see how ridiculous you can look. You’ve set some sort of a record, but why stop now? 578 posts later, you have absolutely no support for your ignorant blather. An audience of one. Mental masturbation, that’s what you are doing. The rest of the parade is out of step, you’re the only one who’s right. You’re a sad case.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pmNo whats happening here dickhead, is I’m getting an awfully good look what some of you are really are made of. In truth there are days I have more respect for the trolls, then for you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Well, that’s not surprising, since you are now squarely in the ranks of the most ignorant, bigoted, lying trolls that we have ever seen here. A direct posting from a Supreme Court case has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of god or the fact that there is no god. And those atheists were not speaking for all atheists, and certainly not for me. Your narrow-minded attempts to put every atheist into your little box stinks of bigotry and reflects your extremism. You lost this one, little man.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:04 amNo, I’m afraid you’re still lying because you cannot produce one shred of evidence to refute anything I said.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am
There is no need to refute your lies and imaginings. You were wrong from the beginning, and you are wrong now. The American Atheists organization represents only its members, and is quite small, existing mainly as a lobbying organization. it is not a religious group, nor a church, and was advocating for the return to the Constitutional separation of church and state. Those are the facts, and they have nothing to do with your idiotic, uninformed opinions. You’re just a troll, with a weird chip on his shoulder.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:09 amDo you people ever sleep, eat, ride bikes, or anything along those lines?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:17 amThat is what is nice about being an atheist, you don’t have to do anything.
But as a resident of the South, I am still trying to understand why you can’t hunt on Sunday but you can fish……and why I have to wait til everyone’s is leaving church to buy alcohol? If its really that disturbing to church-goers that someone is buying alcohol while they pledge their time staring at a wall and singing songs…isn’t really better for them that I buy my wine while they aren’t looking.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amAnd you call that a win?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:11 am
No, I didn’t call it a win. I’m not looking for a win, I don’t need a win. You have the deep-seated need for a win, even if you embarrass yourself with inane, psycho, illogical non-sequiturs and irrelevancies. Your documentation and links don’t prove anything about atheists or atheism in general, just a handful of cultists. You are demonstrating typical troll behavior, and an irrational need to win a point that you were wrong on to begin with. Your whole argument is moot, as you based it on proving a negative, thereby losing from your first move. Everyone who weighed in agrees with me on that point. I won 43 years ago, when I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the non-existence of god, and the error of blind faith. Not being a fanatic, however, in spite of your baseless and ignorant, not to mention rude, accusations of fanaticism, I am sure that if god were to appear or any good evidence or proof appear to me, I would have little trouble acknowledging Him, Her or It. So, no win necessary for me. As for you, when I say you lost, I mean you lost respect and credibility from many posters here. You are no different from the religious zealots you scorn, forcing your beliefs on everybody and insulting people as you go. You’re a loser. Nobody wins with your anger and bigotry infecting this blog. On top of that, you didn’t change a single mind or educate a single person, except to realize what a jerk you are. Congratulations.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amBart
I have read all of your rant, and you truly don’t understand what it means to most of us atheist. We don’t believe in anything. What I mean is, we don’t have to practice, pray or meet about anything…..we live our lives as though right is right and wrong is wrong with science creating known truths and religion creating blind faith.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:33 amAnd you don’t like the fact, that all the published data out there supports my theories, not yours.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:32 am
you have shown your ugliness and bigotry, and your hatefulness as well. your liberal credentials have always been suspect, because for all the time I have come here, you have been nasty and more interested in being right than anything else. I have said little about your crudeness and vicious behavior, because I am not kind to trolls myself, and because you have had the facts to back you up, most of the time. this time, you have made a blanket statement of raw ignorance, an opinion that you have been unable to back up with facts. You have attempted to paint me with your broad brush, and you have missed, every time. You have been profane and uncivil, you have lied repeatedly, and you have exhibited all the characteristics of a rightwing troll. You have insulted a group of people based on cherrypicking a few documents that have no relevance to most of us as individuals, and you have remained staunchly ignorant and opaque to other points of view, no matter how civily-presented. The only win you have is entirely in your own mind. You have constantly referred to outside data for a very personal issue, as if it were relevant, but it isn’t. I don’t know, nor do I care, why you hate the religious and areligious alike, but your hatred has distorted your common sense and reason. If you were a stupid person, I could feel sorry for your plight, but you have chosen an indefensible, hateful position, and made it clear that you think you are better than I. That is a serious character flaw, and I knew going in that you would be intractable and nasty, but I will not allow your lies and imaginings to go on the record uncorrected. You know naught of what you write when it comes to atheists. Nothing. Zero. You proved it with your logical fallacy, and you continued to prove it, time and again. We get it; you’re ignorant and bigoted. Shout it from the rooftops.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:52 amthat I’m still as right as I was 500 comments earlier.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:52 am
exactly. you are exactly as right as you were 500 posts ago.
totally, completely, wrong, all day long. shown to all to be a manic fool, proving your incorrect points only to yourself, over and over. characterizing anybody showing your errors as clowns, etc. risen to the challenge/ there was no challenge to rise to. one doesn’t challenge insanity. or false logic, one just points it out, and everyone else says “oh yeah, he’s wrong”. That’s what has happened to you, bart. Everyone here knows you are dead wrong, except you. your doctrine of absolutism has strangled you, and left you for dead. your doctrine of absolutism is but slander and bigotry, masquerading as idiocy. I have no need to prove the non-existence of anything; if it doesn’t exist, it isn’t there. I’m sorry that’s too deep for you to grasp, but so be it. You have clung to the same fallacy for the entire day, and you have gone nowhere with it. I guess you’re just a bonehead.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:00 amIf to you, the idea that the jury’s out on the existence of a deity constitutes bigotry, then you are in possession of a level of stupid that cannot be fixed.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 1:00 am
if you have the idea that the non-existence of something nobody can see, find or prove constitutes a valid point of discussion, then you haven’t even ascended to my level of stupid. Wrong all day, and none of your whining and lying will ever change that. that’s your legacy. Note that in the whole thread there is not a single post supporting your bullshit. You are alone in your stupidity. Center of your own little universe, such as it is.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:07 amYour willful stupidity is making me sleepy. You have proven your idiocy and irrelevance; I just ran through the thread, and you haven’t a single supporter for your bs, and I never resorted to the namecalling and profanity you did. Your absolutism has nothing to do with your agnosticism, that’s another of your straw men; you lie constantly, and you’re as wrong as wrong can be. your understanding of atheism is non-existent, like god, and that will only change if you let it. the lord helps those that help themselves. next time you want to be a big shot, pick a subject you have some personal knowledge of. that way you won’t go down in flames the way you have tonight.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:33 amI agree with Bartlebee, the reason you don’t see posts supporting him is because posts like those from “lefty patriot” alienate religious democrats from joining or affiliating themselves with this site. No matter how logical an argument is or is not, if it pushes people away, such as me, who was linked to this site; that argument will always be the losing one.
“Lefty Patriot’s” argument will always be a loss for the democratic party. Obama’s message, for instance, on faith playing a role in politics to grow the democratic base are undermined by agenda driven atheists such as Lefty Patriot.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:08 amComment by AndersonCooper — November 30, 2007 @ 2:08 am
No. The reason you don’t see posts supporting him is because his arguement is (1) flawed and (2) relies on broad generalizations. His arguement will always be wrong, not because of the people on this site, but rather because his arguement is inherently incorrect.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:28 amLooks like a core meltdown in here.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:56 amTheres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot, other than the latter’s more likely to lend you money.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
This is the one that stinks up Bartlebee. Can you imagine if anyone said, there is little difference between a jew and a religious zeolot, other than the latter’s more likely to lend you money?!?! Ahh the antisemitism cries would be loud and clear.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:23 amDamn, I can’t believe Bartybee came back for more. Not to mention he wrote what appears to be a crazy person manifesto in post #620.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pmBartlebee
You’re not a neutral 3rd party. I think that is clear.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:21 pmYou’re argument that atheism is a belief system lies in this concept:
“The fact is atheism, like religion, is a belief system, based on that which cannot be proven. Just because an atheist calls his position a method, or philosophy, doesn’t change the fact that to the neutral third party, it is no less a belief system than the religion is to the religionist.”
By having to prove the non-existence of god, the underlying assumption is that god exists.
Since I cannot prove the existence of god, I can not prove the non-existence of god.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pmNOT KNOWING means NOT KNOWING.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
How do you know I exist? How you “know” anything?
I guess you believe I exist and you BELIEVE what you claim to know.
I guess just like the athiest and the religionist, you also operate within your own set of unprovable beliefs.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pmseems a little off topic, but I guess I’ll take that one.
Not all Jews are fools, but I am sure there are some foolish Jews.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:38 pmWell for starters DimWit, I have your idiotic responses to my words that indicate a creature of limited intelligence is present.
its possible, though improbable, that all of my responses are a the product of random electrical impulses that caused all of my responses to be posted on this particular site.
You have no evidence to suggest this theory is incorrect.
You simply believe I exist, yet you have no evidence of my existence.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm“After all they feel their communications to him are responded to. ”
They do not “feel” their communications are responded to. They choose to believe they are.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI don’t know if RHF even exists. For all I know you could be using two handles.
I cannot speak for or on behalf of this RHF person.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
I have no idea why I give a rip but, here goes.
First, let me repeat, I seldom read RHF’s posts, once he gets his dander up. I specifically excluded his statements and I should have excluded statements which attacked you rather than religion in general. No offense to RHF but I get enough “hate speak” from other sources. And, I don’t think comments made to you, in anger, count as denigration of religion.
Also, I often comment without reading the previous posts, which I did in this case, so I missed LP’s “remark which started it all”. Though, to be fair, I think “primitive superstion” is an accurate description of religion. You may believe it’s denigrating but I don’t. I have a high regard for primitive superstitions, myths, etc. because they tell us much about who we are. Ditto for “fairy tales”. In the absence of “proof” all of these are fair, and accurate, labels.
Taken in context, “threats of damnation or Hell or some other nonsense”, is a fair description of proselytizing. Taken in context the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” was directed at the Huckster, not religion in general. So, you’re wide of the mark on two more points.
“Invisible guy in the sky”? Come on. Anyone who thinks that’s denigration better check the thickness of their skin. The minister of the church of my youth regularly said, “The Man Upstairs”. By your logic he, or anyone who says “Holy Spirit”, “Our Father”, etc. is being insensitive for not saying “Yahweh, the one true God” every time they refer to a deity. Perhaps “God” is the only name we may use?
So. We are now left with one example:
After seeing some video clips from their church services, I have to admit these people really freak me out!
Really makes you wonder what is the difference between Evangelicals and your average cult.
If those clips include: “Jesus Camp”, a couple preachers I’ve listened to, virtually any televangelist I’ve seen, or a Presidential candidate pretending to take a call from God, it’s a very fair question. What is the difference between evangelicals and your average cult?
My answer is that evangelicals are different only in the “legitimacy” lent by the Bible and their numbers. And, contrary to popular belief, “cults” are not uniformly evil. In fact, some of the earliest references to Christianity refer to it, accurately, as a cult. It merely depends on ones perspective.
There we go. All your points deflected and you still stand alone with your imagined insults. I did not intend to insult you, or religion, or Christianity, or anybody. My only point was to inform you that you were, and still are, operating under the misconception that “an Atheist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot”. It’s an inaccurate statement which I disprove every day of my life. I now know it’s impossible to dissuade you from your rash belief. I won’t make the same mistake again and would thank you to not include me in your own rigid structure of the universe. I am a whole person, alone and unique, my whole existence belies your false assumptions.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pmTo date, no evidence, claims, etc, have been made about “random electrical responsesâ€, that are somehow able to take over a computer and respond to specific questioning in detailed grammatics.
So just making stuff up is a childs game that shows you’re out of ammo.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
I see you have no intentions of having a legitimate debate. You are correct I made it up, but you choose to read the words and oversimply the concept which is at the heart of the statement.
What I am saying is that, if I don’t exist, I could still explain everything I have written here through a logical and possible set of actions. While it is highly improbable that a series of random electrical impulses put my responses on this post, it is not impossible.
My criticism of you is that you choose to believe I exist, knowing full well that there is a possibility, however slight, that I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination or a series or random electrical impules or some child just pushing buttons on his father’s computer and managing to have created sentences.
You choose to believe I exist because it is logical for you to choose this belief system. You are a believer in an unprovable set of actions. You are just as much of a believer as are the people you criticize.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:05 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
I can’t address the “facts” you claim to produce because the “facts” you claim are not actual facts. They are a set of experiences, beliefs, actions, and allegories.
Experiences which, having ocurred thousands of year ago, I cannot empirically prove or disprove.
Beliefs which, by definition, are unprovable.
Actions which I never witnessed.
Also, stop reducing your arguements to name calling and insults. I have never attacked you. Nor is there anyone else here, right now, who is attacking you personally.
Think about what you are saying and writing. Its denegrated from the stronger points you were trying to make yesterday.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pmComing back to LIE and MISLEAD is not going to help your cause any.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Are you really that stupid? You attacked me for a specific post, the one I made at 8:59 pm, where I specifically excluded RHF’s posts. Why? Because he’s an a$$ and doesn’t speak for me or anyone else. If you have a beef with him, leave me out of it. Plus, some of the posts you referred to were made after my 8:59 post. It’s difficult to read something before it’s posted. Furthermore, most of them were directed, squarely, at you as opposed to religion.
Point two:
Using YOUR logic, whats the difference between atheists and your average religion?
First of all, that’s not your original assertion that;“an Atheist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealotâ€.
Luckily I can answer both with the same logic. I am an atheist. I’m not a fanatic. I don’t profess, or promote, atheism in the face of contradictory evidence. I treat every person I meet with respect. Hell, I even treat trolls with respect until they lie, or attack me personally. I don’t denigrate religion, race, creed or party. I denigrate people who, by word or deed, prove themselves worthy of denigration. If that includes idiotic beliefs based on religion, or party loyalty, so be it. Even then, I attack the individual rather than the religion or party. I make every effort to distinguish between the object of my attack and whatever group they belong to. I don’t even attack Republicans, in general, when the problem is the neocon criminals who have hijacked the party.
That’s all the explanation you’ll get from me. If you can’t figure it out; that’s your problem and yours alone.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pmThird, as long as you LIE, and invent strawmen arguments and attribute them to me, I’ll call you anything I want.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
I’ve never lied.
Shit you still can’t even prove I exist, let alone invent anything.
BTW, the only evidence I’ve seen you present to all the”NUH UH” claims are your saying “UH UH”
You’re supposed proofs are worthless. You know it. Everytime someone puts up a legitimate and logical response to your supposed proofs you just discount, ignore, and belittle them.
You never post anything of substance to support your beliefs.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pmI made a simple statement yesterday. I said that I believe that atheism is like relgion, in that neither can prove their claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Bartlebee, much like people who believe in a particular religion cannot prove their claims, you cannot prove yours
November 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pmI have listened to insult after insult for 2 years now against religious people,
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Not from me. I don’t speak for anyone else so I can’t answer your claims about others. You have not only chosen an un-winnable fight but, the wrong target. By your logic, the Iraqis should charge you with war crimes because you failed to prevent the Bush administration.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
I see your chosen debating technique is to act in such a childish and remedial fashion that no one will tolerate you.
Your strategy is nothing more than to win by attrition.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:50 pmSo whats your point?
What are you doing in here after 2 days and 700 comments blabbeing about?
I made a simple statement yesterday. I said that I believe that atheism is like relgion, in that neither can prove their claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
That’s not your original, false, statement that “atheists are the same as religious zealots”, which is the only point I’ve responded to. And until this very moment, I haven’t “attacked” you as an arrogant, ignorant, self-agrandizing sh!t-stain.
If you are looking for a blanket statement that atheism is a religion, or like a religion, or whatever the Hell you think you mean; you’re not going to get it. Unless someone lies to shut you up.
Once again, If you have a beef with someone, take it up with them AND LEAVE ME THE FU(K OUT OF IT!!!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pmWHEN you can address the FACTS I spelled out, come see me. In the meanwhile, you’re just another idiot who doesn’t know he’s beaten.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
It appears your facts aren’t backed by actual facts.
Also, you’re not an atheist. How can you claim to know what one believes?
C’mon, lets hear it again. I can’t wait for you to claim I am just saying “Nuh uh” yet again.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pmThat’s an incredibly narrow view based on an incredible lack of information.
Comment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Yes, that’s an observation not an insult and was directed at you because you made a statement which is easy to refute. “Atheists are the same as religious zealots”. Not “like”, not “similar”, not “some atheists”. You made a general statement and then tried to change the English language rather then admit there might be a thoughtful, logical, route to atheism. Your a fool. And I’m a bigger fool for thinking you may realize it.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pmAnd another thing,
you seem to keep trying to choose the “facts” and what the “facts” are.
No one could win an arguement with you, becuase you believe what you want to believe and discredit everything else.
It doesn’t matter what I, or anyone else, says. You won’t accept it anyway.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pmBartlebee, he main drawback to your line of thought is that there is no good support for the theorem which you claim.
For example, scientists do not deny the existence of, say, tachyons (faster-than-light particles) simply because no good evidence has been produced that they exist. And the same is true for other entities postulated in other hypotheses. Scientists do not reason to the nonexistence of the postulated entity merely from the current absence of positive evidence for its existence.
The burden-of-proof principle is therefore not one that can be employed to counter your baseless arguement
November 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pmBTW, I’ve never visited any atheist website, or asked any other to define my beliefs, or lack thereof. And, I’ve changed my mind. You are definitely the King-God of all fools. At least for today.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pmDid Bartlebee give finally give up?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:14 pmI never personally attacked you.
I only attacked your hypothesis.
And I am forced to ignore most of what you say, because most of what you say is ignorable.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pmAlso, please keep your crazy person-type rants to a minimum.
Doing so increases the probability I will actually read them.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:17 pmbartlebee,
my work day is over
I’m out of here for now.
However, I’ll respond to your baseless rhetoric when I get home.
Please, I do request you keep your diatribes short and simple.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pmOh man, Buttlebee is still rambling on and on here. Goodness, get a life, atheist are not Fanatical, and yes, you did say this…can’t believe he is still at it, what a nut job.
Atheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
Comment by BARTLEBEE
November 30th, 2007 at 6:23 pmAnd I laugh at you for being a fool to waste so much time on this.
Atheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
And it still is true.
Buck Fush
November 30th, 2007 at 6:35 pmIt’ not hate speech, Religion is a Primitive superstition.
Looks like you’re gonna have a heart attack, better cool down, hehe.
Buttlebee = nut job galore.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pmWell, I got my laugh for the day at your expense, sorry that you are so obsessed with the subject, it sure it a nerve with you, wow.
Laters, I got some hate to spread….hehe, not really, I’m a better person than any christian I have ever met.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pmWell, I do have a life and only post here now and then. But then again you are so into the subject that you lost all perspective on it and quickly resorted to name calling and well, when you were getting ugly with everyone I just didn’t need to read how you were falling apart.
Gonna drop it now, and you should too, I have other things to attend to.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:47 pmSee, that’s what I mean, you lost all perspective and reduced yourself to name calling, which, well is what ugly (minded) people do.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:52 pmYour welcome.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:53 pmYou’re Welcome again.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:59 pmMerry Christmas, Bartlebee. Don’t open it till Christmas day now.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:01 pmDid not call religious people primitive or anything else, but I do believe religion is a primitive superstition.
And you are really being silly on this Bartlebee.
At least you have quit with the ugly name calling, it is unbecoming of you.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:16 pmAnd F$a##$k THE REST OF YOU LIMPDICK C0CKSUCKERS WHO ALLOW HATE SPEECH LIKE THIS, AND CONDEMN ME FOR MERELY STANDING UP TO IT.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Its not hate speech. Its a criticism of a particular viewpoint.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:28 pmAtheism and Religion BOTH are fanatical in that they BOTH can neither prove their own positions, nor disprove the other.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Btlb
You have so many original comments its hard to keep track of them.
In case you didn’t realize it, Bartlebee, but you are the epitome of fanatical.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:36 pmYes, I should have typed “religion”, because that is what I meant. And I should really have used, “Scientific” instead of evolved. My bad about not expressing myself more accurately.
I try to never attack people with verbal name calling and stuff, well almost never, but unfortunately you went off like a crazy person, sorry if I hit a nerve there.
And thank you for reframing from the naming calling, it is impolite.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pmBlood pressure check isle 718.
They all knew what I meant, you on the other hand went on some obsessed rant for 2 days about it.
And you are still name calling people, you get better results from suger than poo, you know.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:47 pmWhat constituted you clowns to sit here for 2 days bashing me and my position, IF his statement was just merely “criticism of a particular viewpoint�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
What? That doesn’t even make any sense.
The “diff” is that you called his comment hate speech. No one ever called your comment hate speech. This thread is a dialogue (or at least thats what I try to keep it) but you are the one making baseless accusations.
If you disagree with any comment I or anyone else has made, please feel free to disagree. But your simple disagreement does not make the other person’s viewpoint “hate speech”
—–
Either way, he attacked religion FIRST.
I merely responded, by pointing out that I think atheism is as fanatical as religion.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
And you have every reason to disagree with his comment and to respond to it. There is nothing wrong with that. From either him, you, or me.
—-
And when I responded though, my response somehow deserved to be bashed for 2 days and 700 comments straight?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007
You are being responded to. Yes, some of the posts are more critical (and childish) than others. I imagine if you stopped responding people would stop criticizing.
Think of all the other fabulous posts you missed out on today. I’m sure you could have made any point you wanted in those other posts and someone would be there to criticize it and someone would be there to support it.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pmDon’t forget that Bartlebee also believes atheists are tight wads with their money. Yes B, giving money to the poor and needy is something only religious people do.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:53 pmAs I stated, agnostics are fanatical. I see I’ve been proven right.
And F$a##$k THE REST OF YOU LIMPDICK C0CKSUCKERS WHO ALLOW HATE SPEECH LIKE THIS, AND CONDEMN ME FOR MERELY STANDING UP TO IT.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Bwahahahaha!
IF his comment, calling the religious “PRIMITIVE and SUPERSTITIOUS was simply “criticism of a particular viewpoint†then how DARE you self righteous assh0les sit here for two days for SIMPLY RESPONDING offering my criticism of HIS “particular viewpoint�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
Hehehehehe!
This is the reasonable one, folks!
And after all that, still wrong. Beautiful. poor bart.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWell, with all the childish name calling Bart is doing, I see that his obsession cannot be reasoned with, even politely.
You know Bart, I may have used the wrong words to exactly express myself somewhat there, and I’m sorry if it upset you so much, but really the constant personal attacks are unbecoming and I just don’t see the point of communicating with someone like that.
Calm down, breath, stop with the names, you will do better tomorrow.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pmThis jackass has the gall to sit here and pat Buckie Boy on the back, for calling the religious “SUPERSTITIOUS†and “PRIMITIVE†but I’m a peice of sh$t because I dared call atheists “FANATICâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Bartlbee,
ignore the childish name calling. Its not personal. I support both BuckieBoy’s and your right to criticize and disagree.
However, the issue at hand is that you made a baseless comment. Atheists are not necessarily fanatics
And neither are religous people.
Some may be fanatical. Many are not.
You, however, are most certainly fanatical.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:01 pmNewsflash. I’ll stop defending my postion, and my character from your attacks, when you stop attacking it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Oh. But you can call me cheap! Interesting.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:02 pmTheres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot, other than the latter’s more likely to lend you money.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Thanks for the memories. Insert insult here __________.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:08 pmA-THEISM is fanatical, because it is a belief system who’s sole creation was to denounce another belief system.
Dude, this makes no sense and nothing you have posted proves your statement.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:16 pmIt’s your statement and nothing you’ve said makes it true.
Not believing in a belief system does not constitute a belief system in itself.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:26 pmThe majority of atheists affirm a belief that after death, there is nothingness. This is a religious claim that doesn’t look at the facts. To the atheists, here are the facts.
“Scientifically, One’s mind/psyche is comprised of billions of cells known as neurons. It can be compared to flourescent lamps. Flourescent lamps do not give out a steady light, instead they fluctuate in intensity at a rate fast enough as to be unnoticeable to the human eye. This causes the intensity of the light to appear constant. The human psyche appears constantly conscious because the brain processes information in parallel, and the sheer number of neurons means the brain is always functioning on some level at any given time. On the level of the individual neuron clusters; however, they fire on and off, similar to the fluorescent light.
While we perceive the world, our experiences our recorded into memory by these neurons. Here is a story to use as an example for what I will soon discuss:
One day, you walk by a stop sign, and glance at it. Seconds later, when you try to recall what you saw, you recall it accurately, but you are actually viewing someone else’s experience. This someone else is your past self. Less than milliseconds ago, your present conscious was not directly associated with your past thoughts. You are likely using different neurons entirely. The sense of who you are (identity/psyche)never lasts beyond the present.
People use their brain’s memories to tell them who they are, and who they were ten seconds ago. Their memories tell them they are one in the same person. This preserves their sense of identity into the present. Using their own instinctive beliefs, people conclude that this view, which is a relative one, is the only logical perspective on life. This belief is valuable, useful, and essential for survival; but scientifically flawed.
If a mad scientist were to secretively take two unconscious patients and perform a brain transplant, in which all of the brain was transplanted except for the areas of the brain used to store memory, neither patient would believe that any transplant occurred. Even though one patient may now have the other’s talents, or have a changed sexual orientation, neither would be quick to realize their minds are in a different body.
Since a state of conciousness in present is the only allowable state of self awareness. You can never be aware that you were someone else or nothing at all less than second ago. Since your sense of existence is always shifting with time, whether one is dying or not. The only difference being, after death, your brain is no longer in a viable state for conciousness. But, other people’s brains will continue to simulate a sense of existence which will shift on immediately and continue on in someone or something else. Therefore, the sense of existence is always preserved. Where it is preserved depends on your reference frame of relativity.”
The atheists don’t want you to know these facts because it sounds like a bonafide scientific endorsement of reincarnation. Thus, this is a view of life after death that they wouldn’t promote if their lives depended on. However, I’m not afraid to acknowledge scientific facts that disagree with my personal views, because I’m not an agenda-driven atheist. Post this on an atheist forum and time how long it is before it’s deleted.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:36 pmWhat do you think of my post Bartlebee, it reveals the religious conspiracy behind atheism pretty well, doesn’t it?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pmOh you responded fast. My bad.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:47 pmAnd he calls me, who simply admits I don’t know one way or the other, the fanatic.
It boggles the mind.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
782 posts later, you’re not the fanatic, bart?
You’ve lost all touch with reality, or even sanity. You’ve spent two days posting opinions, without a single fact, and yet you think you’ve proven something. You’ve proven you’re a fanatic, and a lunatic. Congratulations.
I knew I could destroy your arguments, but I didn’t mean to destroy your sanity. It must have been rather fragile.
Now, however, i can borrow your ‘logic’ to state that all agnostics are fanatics.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pmSo don’t cry to me you simplemind prick, I could care less about your namecalling tattletale whinging bullsh$t. This ain’t Sunday School c0cksucker, and I’ve put up with all the smug bullsh$t from your kind that I’m going to.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
The intelligent, rational, ever-so-right Bartlebee, master debater.
I remember when Mr. P used to melt down like this, before he was banned. Good Times!
November 30th, 2007 at 9:58 pmHe calls what I’ve been doing, “defending religion†when the very FIRST COMMENT I made, called religion “fanaticalâ€.
:|
It boggles the mind.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
why are you alienating the religious? don’t you want their votes?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:01 pmsorry about the abscence.
It was dinner time over here….
—-
Yet here this dolt is, 2 days and 700 posts later, debating with himself whether or not religion is fanatical.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Yes bartlebee, I think it is obvious you are the only person capable of debating himself.
Congratulations.
So do you ever win these debates you have with yourself?
—-
And notice the dimwit still calls religion “superstitionâ€.
His tiny mind, brainwashed by his own relgion, the fanatical abolutism of atheism, cannot do anything but insult the religions that HIS religion, was created to denounce.
And he calls me, who simply admits I don’t know one way or the other, the fanatic.
It boggles the mind.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
I never claimed to be an atheist. I simply claimed that not all atheists are fanatical.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:06 pmI never claimed to be an atheist. I simply claimed that not all atheists are fanatical.
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Don’t you confuse him with facts. He has no way of processing them, and it makes him loonier. He’s not far from a psychotic break.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:10 pmI don’t think my calling a c0cksucker a c0cksucker, constitutes a “meltdown†skippy.
Its just accuracy in labeling.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
now now. the c*cksucker reasoning isn’t a very valid method to prove your point.
—
It’s your statement and nothing you’ve said makes it true.
Not believing in a belief system does not constitute a belief system in itself.
Comment by Nature Rules — November 30, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
See barlebee, doesn’t this simple sentence make so much sense? Its simplicity ….. makes so much sense.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:19 pmDon’t you confuse him with facts. He has no way of processing them, and it makes him loonier. He’s not far from a psychotic break.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 30, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
He’s not getting the last word in on this topic either.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:22 pmAnd notice in the abscence of any facts to offer to refute me, the dumber of the bunch resorts to absurdity.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
How is it possible that when I quote you word for word, I am the idiot but you are the genius?
—
Except I was man enough to admit my alleigence up front, instead of holding it back for a cheap shot later on in the debate when you’ve got nothing else to offer.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
My religion or lack there of is pointless to this conversation. I have defended the religious against your baseless attacks of calling them fanatical.
I have repeatedly noted not all religious people are fanatical.
And neither are atheists.
My religion (or lack of religion) is meaningless. How can that be a cheap shot?
—-
Fanatical: motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. – Dictionary.com
Yes bartlebee we all already know you are fanatical. We didn’t need the definition.
You are extreme & uncritical
You are a zealot
November 30th, 2007 at 10:40 pmFor as long as it takes.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
See bartlebee, we agree on something.
Considering you haven’t even spoken about whatever nonsensical comment it is you made in how ever many posts, you will agree you are simply trying to “outpost” all of those who disagree with you.
You continue with worthless arguements:
- Strawmen
- “Nuh Uh’s”
- name calling
Your strategy IS to win by attrition. You hope everyone will simply give up on trying to talk sense to you and you can feel “justified” that no one ever proved your unprovable thesis as being incorrect.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:48 pmAnother Red Herring from a guy who’s got nothing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
my apoligies, please be sure to add “Red Herring” to the list of otherwise worthless arguement phrases you like to use.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:52 pmNotice he calls me a fanatic, and a zealot, but he doesn’t bother to mention what I’m fanatical about.
To this guy, I’m a fanatic, because I “don’t know†whether there is or is not a god.
THIS is the definition of fanaticism from my opponent.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
So let me get this straight, using your thought process:
1) religionists are fanatical because they believe in something unprovable
2) atheists are fanatical becuase they also believe in something unprovable
3) Bartlebee is fanatical because he, like the religionist and atheist, also believes in something unprovable
So is there anyone out there who is not a fanatic? It appears no matter what you believe you’re fanatical.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:58 pmAnd look. Dimwit is still claiming my strategy is to win by attrition, when it is HE who just admitted in front of everyone that it was his goal to “get the last wordâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Bartlebee, do you read the comments people post? Because you seem to not understand the meanings of the words that are organized in the sentences that are written here.
In your simple little mind, you think that if everyone else just quits speaking to you, then you win. You think that if no one can prove you wrong (which is impossible because you choose to ignore or discredit any information which does prove you wrong) that you will be the victor.
I know getting the last word will not make all of the logical points I have made above any more correct than they already are. However, I also know getting the last word with you will be a thorn in your side to your ego.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:08 pmLike breathing and seeking the truth.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
You have been shown the truth, and are incapable of recognizing it. Atheism is not a belief system, and no matter how many times you try to sell that lie, it remains, at best, your misguided, ignorant opinion, and at worst, a lie, perpetrated by a fanatic. if you were an atheist, and you made that statement, it would be an informed opinion, even though still wrong. But you speak from zealotry, ignorance, and the inability to process information that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions. There is no coherent argument to disprove an incoherent statement, as there is no proof of the nonexistence of the nonexistent. A lie is a lie; your problem is simply that nobody has bought your lie. You can stay here and continue to try to sell your lie for the next several centuries, and you will still be unsuccessful. You are the Japanese soldier on the island, still fighting the war, long since over. A fanatic, a zealot, blinded by belief in your own narrow, simple-minded an intellectually bankrupt opinion, backed up only by your cherry-picked nuggets of others’ opinions. Now there are dozens of TP regulars marvelling at your stubbornness and snickering at you on several other threads, wondering if you’ve gone completely around the bend. It’s a valid question.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:20 pmAthesim is like religion, in that it is a belief system that can neither prove itself, or disprove the belief system it was designed to refute.
I’m waiting for a coherent argument that proves this is wrong.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
You say atheism was designed to refute “theism” While this is inherently incorrect in its own regard, lets just say that is the case.
“Theism” implies the existence of a god (or gods)
Your argument is therefore based on the underlying assumption that there IS actually a god.
This can’t be proven.
But instead of asking for theism to be proven, you choose to ask everyone to somehow disprove what was never proven in the first place.
While I understand what you are saying, I truly believe you are making a flawed argument.
I still like Nature’s statement: A lack of belief is not itself a system of belief.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:50 pmOur fore-fathers almost did not form this perfect union because of their fear of religious zealots. They compromised by inserting the separation of church and state edict! You damn republicas can not win without scaring, bullying, and damn right out cheating someone (i.e. Bushes first election!)
Coachslife
December 1st, 2007 at 12:20 amwondering if you’ve gone completely around the bend.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Thanks, your post here is exactly what people have been trying to explain to him, he was so obsessed that no one could break thru.
He’s instant turning to name calling made me ignore him, unfortunately I have lost all respect for him now and will “snicker” everytime I read one of his posts. Credibility is kapoot.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:25 amStill at it huh BART? Well, you saved your clearest argument for last. And, by last, I mean most recent in a universe with linear time. But, please let me put the emphasis where I think it belongs: “Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs”.
They are not necessarily my beliefs. Nor do they necessarily reflect the beliefs of any person, atheist or otherwise, who doesn’t belong to their group. That’s the problem inherent with groups. Invariably, some joker stands up and proclaims, “This is who we are”. And, invariably, someone says, or thinks at least, “Wait a minute, that’s not who I am”. So, that dissenter has to either: live with an imperfect “label”, find a new label, or refuse any label.
Me? I live with the imperfect label of “atheist”. It describes me better than any existing label and, usually, saves on argument. Plus, it’s shorter than saying, “I’m a person that accepts parts of many philosophies but I don’t have a perticular favorite and I really can’t get behind all the supernatural stuff that’s integral to some, but not all, of them”.
As I said early on, when I read the definition of “atheist”, I apply the part that says, “atheism is the absence of belief in deities”, to myself. That’s it. I don’t think it binds me to any particular belief and allows me to pick and choose, hopefully, the best of many. It serves as a base on which to build my own, personal and unique, belief system without defining it.
You still seem to maintain that atheism is a monolithic faith. This is no more accurate than to claim that, “all Christians share the same beliefs”. Heck, various Christians have been killing each other over their different beliefs, real or imagined, ever since the Crucifixion. Or shortly thereafter.
Is it really so hard to understand that many self-proclaimed atheists, including numerous TPers, have nothing in common with this, or any other, group? That many people view atheism as just that? “An absence of belief in deities”. Anger aside, that’s the only point I’ve been trying to make.
To me, and many others, “atheism” has no boundaries. While you maintain, as is your right, that “agnosticism” is the widest possible “imperfect definition” of philosophy; I maintain, as is my right, that “atheism” is the widest imperfect definition.
Speaking only for myself, I could accept a god but, I won’t lie and say “I think there is something there I can’t define”. I don’t think there’s “something there”. That’s why I no longer identify myself as agnostic. I got sick of people saying, “Ah ha! You do believe in God!” For it’s not true and to say otherwise would be hypocritical.
There. That’s my whole argument. Take it as you will. And, though I don’t expect you to accept it, I offer my sincerest apology for letting my anger get the best of me. You’re a stubborn cuss but, I shouldn’t have lost it. I’m sorry.
Now, I humbly suggest you get some sleep and have a great weekend. I know I will. I’m looking forward to the first snowstorm of the season! A virgin blanket of white always lifts my spirits. G’night you stubborn cuss.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:33 amBTW, no offense intended but, I still think RHF is an a$$. Don’t feel bad RHF, some of my best friends are a$$es. G’night to you too.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:36 amG’night you stubborn cuss.
Comment by pete
Exactly pete, thank you for stating everything in a way that I couldn’t, not that I did alot of debate with Bart once I understood that well, he has problems and all.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:44 amSorry, Bart don’t want to be rude or mean or anything, but you are touched in the head, and well, I’m done responding to anything you post anymore, seek help, you need it.
Here, get well, do some Bart one and one time and reflect abit, I am gonna hug my wife and her dog now, good night and good bye.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:05 amThe dictionary is wrong. Dictionaries need to be updated, obviously. Dictionaries are not written by atheists. Meanings change as man evolves. gods disappear, words become obsolete. Doctrinaire mindsets become insanity, leading zealots to conflate one thing with another, utilizing what ever tools they can find. Continue with your “beliefs”, find whatever “proof” you want, you haven’t the intelligence to separate opinions from facts anyway. You, and your dictionaries, are hopelessly out of touch with what a real atheist knows. Knows, not believes. You have allowed convention to limit your outlook. The whole point of personal atheism in to disregard convention, which is all that god is a construct, a belief, unproven and unproveable, and accept the truth, that man is what is real. when you have proof and evidence of any god, then you’ll have some kind of point to make. Until then, you’re just an unimaginative fanatic, following society’s conventions because you lack the strength to find your own path. Neither you, nor an outdated book, can put me in your little box. But you keep trying, at least you have a hobby.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:35 amMorning Bartlebee!
It appears your main concern really has nothing to do with beliefs, but is nothing more than an arguement over semantics.
So, from wiki we get:
“Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, also lack belief in a personal god.”
We also get:
“Writers have disagreed on how best to define and classify atheism,contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection.”
So the whole premise of your critique actually has nothing to do with beliefs, but really with the accepted definition of the word “atheism.” You define atheism as a set of beliefs. While, it is true some would agree with this, it is apparent many would not.
Much like the eskimos had dozens of words for the english word “snow,” philosophers have also come up with more descriptive terms for the types of atheism that exist.
For example, the term “implicit atheism” was developed to refer to “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” and the term “explicit atheism” to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.
Lets say we have a child. Lets say we allow that child to grow up in a theoretical world absolutely devoid of religion. This person now has no concept of god nor the conscious rejection thereof. Does this make him an atheist?
As I noted hundreds of posts ago, the broadness of your argument is one of the reasons why it is a flawed argument. Lets say you get a flat tire on your car and you need to get it replaced. You go to the tire store and say “I need a tire.” They give you a tire and you put it on your car, but its not the right tire. However if you went to the tire store and said ” I need a 155 r15 goodyear” you would get a more specific tire which fits your needs. Simply because both tires are actually tires does not mean both tires are correct.
If you would concede to more specific terms, I am sure we could all come to an agreement concerning this argument.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:13 amBartlebee,
You said – “The DICTIONARY says ATHEISM is a “DOCTRINEâ€.”
Leviticus says you should stone your children at the city gates for being disrespectful. Do you believe or act out on everything you read?
December 1st, 2007 at 10:50 amI had decided to let this thread go. I’ve grown weary of it. But, I figured I would do a little reading to see if I could figure out where BART came up with the idea that atheism is a specific belief system. Well, other than the fact he was in a seminary which, I would assume takes longer than 25 years from which to recover. It took me about three minutes to find a couple interesting tid-bits.
The first, I knew, and comes from Websters online dictionary:
The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning “without” or “not”) and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god or gods. The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist — including both those who assert that no gods exists and those who, for whatever reason, do not make any assertion regarding the existence of gods. Many cultures have also called anybody who did not believe in their particular brand of Religion an atheist; for example atheism was a frequent accusation of the pagan Romans against the early Christians. In modern usage as reflected in most dictionaries, atheism is the assertion that no gods exists, or that the existence of gods has infinitesimal probability. Atheism is not synonymous with irreligion; the idea of an eternal non-created universe is an important concept in some religions and as such it is possible to be very religious and very atheistic.
As is clearly stated; a- is the Greek prefix for “not” or “without”; rather then “anti”. This makes the literal meaning of atheism, as highlighted above “without a belief in a god or gods”.
Now, here’s the part I didn’t know and comes from wikipedia:
In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[10] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God”,[11] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[12] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[13] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[14] theist in 1662;[15] theism in 1678;[16] and deism in 1682.
So, in the English language; “atheism” was derived from the Greek, via French, BEFORE “theism”. Again in English, theism was coined as a response to the preexisting atheism. So, one is left with a strong impression that “theism” was coined as a kind of anti-atheism rather than the other way round.
Finally, here’s a bit from Wiki that I, and many of us here, knew and blows BART’s argument clean out of the water:
In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply “disbelief in God”[21]. Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as the “absence of belief in deities“, rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.
I humbly suggest, BART, that you discard that 25 year old seminary schooling. It’s out of date, limited to mainstream views, and of questionable veracity.
Have a great weekend!
December 1st, 2007 at 11:19 amSeriously the fact is you can no more disprove the existence of a God than Reverend Huckleberry can prove the existence of one.
And like a religous zealot, you throw out your “opinion†as if it canon itself, with no facts, evidence, argument or reasoning. Just “here it s, I’m right, you’re wrongâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Hey Bart, you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person asserting that a concept such a God exists. The person asserting God does not exist doesn’t need to prove anything.
You are shifting the burden of proof.
If I assert that the universe is made of the dreams of pink unicorns in heat, the burden is on me to prove that. You are saying that it is an acceptable defense for me to say that, because you cannot prove that the universe is NOT made of the dreams of pink unicorns in heat, my assertion is hence made valid until you can DISPROVE the universe being made from the dreams of pink unicorns in heat.
You are arguing from a position based in logical fallacy.
Atheists acknowledge that, because noone in the HISTORY OF MANKIND has proven that ANY deity exists, the burden of proof is on the theists to prove that Deity exists. Atheism is not a belief system based upon faith, as all religions are. Atheism is rather the opposite, where FAITH is an unacceptable response to an inquiry. Atheism is an absence of the definition of faith that religion uses (as opposed to the definition that applies to faith in one’s friend, faith in math, or faith in anything else that has EARNED that faith…aka trust…by proving itself worthy of that trust. Just so you know not to conflate the definitions of faith.)
In every single solitary other subject, the burden of proof always lies with he who asserts the positive. The shifting of the burden to he who asserts the negative is never valid. To do so in debate means a loss. To do so at work could mean a sanction or firing. To do so in court means losing the case. To do so on a paper for class earns you a failing grade in that class. Only in religion, and in the philosophical exercise known as sophistry, is shifting the burden of proof seen as anything but intellectually lazy and dishonest.
On the other hand, we DO have an extensive archaeological proof of the evolution of spiritual and religious thought. We have evidence that early man engaged in animism, giving a spiritual aspect to all things. We know that pantheons emerged next, assigning gods to the different aspects of reality, each with their own sphere of influence. We know that monotheism emerged next, with all of the polytheistic gods answering to a power higher than even themselves, until that higher power was acknowledged as the highest power, the creator of all that is. Religion EVOLVED from scared ancient man assigning anthropomorphic qualities to everything. When the likes of thunderstorms, volcanos, earthquakes, the sun, the moon, the seasons, are assigned human attributes and sentience, scared men do whatever they can to appease what is now perceived as a living entity whose enmity can be earned. When a couple of generations of a given community have lived that way, and NOONE in the community remembers a day that they DIDN’T sacrifice goats to prevent the angry Great Fire Spirit from waking the Angry Mountain and burning the village up, anyone who DOESN’T believe in the Great Fire Spirit is the CULTURAL misfit, or the person suffering from insanity.
The entire concept of God was created by man. Reality existed before man. Reality will exist forever beyond man.
An infinite natural reality does not require a fundamental paradox to exist. God fundamentally requires paradox to exist.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:44 amBart, you are touched in the head, seriously you need help, and I will ignore you from now on, no need to aggrivate some one who is unstable.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:02 pmWe violate a gun’s right every time we fire it, because guns believe in a pacifist religion. Prove me wrong.
Gravity is made from the ephemeral dreams of colors in the seventh dimension. Prove me wrong.
Our universe is one atom in the mole on the ass of a quark-flavored aether-blob from a higher universe. Prove me wrong.
You cannot shift the burden of proof in such a manner, for it makes ANY assertion a legitimate assertion. Logical…fallacy.
Finally, belief in something provable and/or consistently verifiable, such as mathematics, is not the same as a belief system grounded in the blind faith of an unprovable, unverifiable concept. It simply isn’t. One is based in reality, the other is on the same footing as belief in the truth of a fictionalized reality such as Star Wars or Harry Potter.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:14 pmThere…is…a…difference…in…a…belief…in…concepts…based…on…fact…versus…a…belief…in…concepts…based…on…faith.
It is not that difficult a concept to grasp. If you cannot understand why it is wholly different to believe in something you can yourself go out and VERIFY, TEST, and potentially DISPROVE, versus believing in something that can never, ever be verified, tested, or disproved, you have serious problems. It is cognitive dissonance in the truest sense of the phrase.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmGuys may I suggest that we all leave this threat and let Bart call everyone names with his rude and impolite rants all by himself, he is obviously a unstable person and has worked himself into a frenzy.
I was just checking to see if the nut case was still at it and frankly was amazed that he continues on this.
But anyway his obvious rudeness is unacceptable and I suggest everyone ignore him.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pmAww, what’s wrong Bart, not going to respond to me? Can’t confront the fact that you are arguing from a position of logical fallacy?
The entire basis of your argument is flawed, fundamentally.
belief
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
You are conflating definitions #1 and 3 with definitions # 2 and 4. Atheism is grounded in rigorous proof, so #2 is wrong. It is also specifically not religious, so is not #4 either.
Atheism is indeed a belief system. Like math and science, it is a belief system grounded in fact and reality. Religion is not.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pmBart, I just saw reference to your tirade on this thread on an above thread. So, I came to check it out.
To find the answer your own assertion of, “Now you can start to explain to me how you have PROVEN the NON EXISTENCE of a DEITY.”, you need but answer my first post in this thread, Bart. It’s at December 1, 2007 @ 11:44 am. Why don’t you try to do that? Then you might be intellectually honest. Perhaps.
Math and science are belief systems also, yes? If you tell me they are not, you are not following your own definition for a belief system. Knowing that math and science are repeatable, verifiable, and based on tremendous self-correcting long-term peer review, you must acknowledge that a belief in math and science actually has evidence to back it up. A belief in any religion’s dogma, a belief in any spiritual concept of a higher power, deity, or even spirits, has no basis in reality. There is nothing in REALITY to back up the assertions of God. There is tremendous amount of REALITY to back up the assertions of math and science. Hence, the fundamental difference.
Also, you did not acknowledge my point that you are conflating differing definitions of belief. There are, in fact, significant differences between the definitions of belief, and conflating them is a purposeful, and intellectually dishonest means of muddying the waters, and sowing confusion where none is present.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pmbelief
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
You want to acknowledge the differences in the meanings of belief? Hmm? Any time now? There are also multiple definitions of faith, and conflating those is equally intellectually dishonest:
faith
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
And of trust:
trust
–noun
1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.
6. the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.
7. charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone’s trust.
8. something committed or entrusted to one’s care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.
9. Law.
a. a fiduciary relationship in which one person (the trustee) holds the title to property (the trust estate or trust property) for the benefit of another (the beneficiary).
b. the property or funds so held.
10. Commerce.
a. an illegal combination of industrial or commercial companies in which the stock of the constituent companies is controlled by a central board of trustees, thus making it possible to manage the companies so as to minimize production costs, control prices, eliminate competition, etc.
b. any large industrial or commercial corporation or combination having a monopolistic or semimonopolistic control over the production of some commodity or service.
11. Archaic. reliability.
–adjective
12. Law. of or pertaining to trusts or a trust.
–verb (used without object)
13. to rely upon or place confidence in someone or something (usually fol. by in or to): to trust in another’s honesty; trusting to luck.
14. to have confidence; hope: Things work out if one only trusts.
15. to sell merchandise on credit.
–verb (used with object)
16. to have trust or confidence in; rely or depend on.
17. to believe.
18. to expect confidently; hope (usually fol. by a clause or infinitive as object): trusting the job would soon be finished; trusting to find oil on the land.
19. to commit or consign with trust or confidence.
20. to permit to remain or go somewhere or to do something without fear of consequences: He does not trust his children out of his sight.
21. to invest with a trust; entrust with something.
22. to give credit to (a person) for goods, services, etc., supplied: Will you trust us till payday?
—Verb phrase
23. trust to, to rely on; trust: Never trust to luck!
—Idiom
24. in trust, in the position of being left in the care or guardianship of another: She left money to her uncle to keep in trust for her children.
Endless conflation of definitions, meant to purposefully deflect.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pmYou are merely playing with words, Bart. You are using semantic arguments to “prove” your assertion, without indicating which of the meanings of the words you use that have multiple, loaded meanings, you are using. You are purposefully conflating the definitions because you cannot debate the other side on the merits.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmThere is a difference between belief systems. Lumping one system of beliefs with others is intellectually dishonest.
Now try responding to my post about WHY YOU CANNOT USE THE ARGUMENT THAT AN INABILITY TO PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. You can’t do it, and you know you can’t do it. The fact that theists cannot prove God exists DOES MATTER. The fact that atheists cannot DISPROVE God DOES NOT MATTER, because they do not bear the burden of proof.
You are the stubborn, thick-headed fool basing arguments on logical fallacy. You are the one who refuses to even acknowledge that you are arguing from a position of logical fallacy.
You are the one asserting that because atheism is a belief system that it in on equal footing as religion. Logical…fallacy. Cognitive…dissonance.
The burden of proof is on you, sir.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pmI said ATHEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM, a fact I’ve proven for two days without fail.
So you can take your “What the defintion of the word IS, is,†and shove it up your collective a$$es.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Hahahaha, you can’t stand it when you’re proven wrong beyond any doubt. You hate it when your semantic gameplaying is exposed, it makes you angry and crazy. You have proven nothing except your own limitations, and you can’t take it. You call opinions facts, you lay out dictionaries as if nothing has been changed in a dictionary since the beginning of printing. You’re very weak, bart, very weak, not strong enough to recognize the fool you’ve made of yourself for so many hours, while I was off not thinking of god, not believing one way or the other in the nonexistence of same, not creating an unnecessary doctrine of something so clearly true and obvious to me, who, after all, is all that counts as far as this subject concerns me. What you have accomplished changes nothing, except everybody’s view of you, and your rants and swearing and insults and meltdowns did not polish your image any! But it matters not, because you are always right, in your little twisted world, and if by some weird twist in the space-time continuum it became possible to prove the non-existence of something, I’m absolutely certain that you would refuse to accept it. I, on the other hand, will never believe in anything I don’t have good, solid evidence or proof of. I don’t even believe there is no god, I am knowledgeably certain of it, I assert it (look that up, nitwit. You don’t cherry-pick the points that make you look like an idiot, do you?). You have made so much noise, to so little effect. I think understand your anger and frustration; it must really suck to be you.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pmYou can’t argue with stupid like that. Only illuminate so others can see.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
You’ve certainly shone a bright light on your own limitations, Edison. and others have seen. You are a laughingstock.
Thanks for the chuckles, clown.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pmWrong DIMWIT.
I don’t have to prove anything about GOD because I don’t believe, nor DIS-believe that he\she\it exists.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
You’re the one who made the statement. Why should it be my responsibility to disprove a statment who refuse to prove.
——
Oh no, not you. In the light of SOLID PROOF that I was correct in calling ATHEISM A DOCTRINE and BELIEF SYSTEM, you simply DISMISS the DICTIONARY in favor of your own OPINIONS.
You can’t argue with stupid like that. Only illuminate so others can see.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Again, you choose broad definitions when there are more specific and more accurate words available.
You willfully choose to do this. By choosing the broadest definition possible, you allow yourself the greatest leeway to make your accusation.
—
In regards to your original argument, I see you no longer bother to even address it. Your argument is now nothing more than semantics. And, of course, you choose what ever definition fits your paradigm and ingore everything else.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pmBad Bart,
Here’s another word for you to choose to ignore: Antitheist
An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “One opposed to belief in the existence of a God.”
December 1st, 2007 at 3:33 pmBart, this is your first assertion on this thread:
You can no more disprove the existence of a God than Reverend Huckleberry can prove the existence of one.
Atheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
You are right, noone can disprove God. Noone has to disprove the existence of God. That is a negative assertion, and of course cannot be proven. Just like I cannot disprove that colors dream in black and white. The difference is, my assertion is MORE grounded in reality, as I can prove that both colors and dreams exist, I simply cannot prove that colors dream.
A fanatical belief system =/= religion. Religion requires dogma, religion requires belief in a higher being, a fanatical belief system most assuredly does not (neoconservatism, anyone?).
These a$$clowns argue for 2 days that atheism is NOT a “DOCTRINE†or “BELIEF SYSTEMâ€, I prove irrefutably that it IS a DOCTRINE or BELIEF SYSTEM, and then they send in this thing calling itself Moderation, to begin an entire new argument on the meaning of the word “BELIEFâ€.
This is the lowest, dirties of troll tactics as I have ever seen.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Again, BARTLEBEE, I saw comments in threads ABOVE this one referencing THIS thread, and assertions that this thread was STILL ACTIVE. So, I came, and I read the thread. Your assertions are bullsh!t, and I will gladly call you on them.
You are equating all definitions of “BELIEF”, when that is quite clearly not a valid position. Just as defining “faith” in only one manner to conflate the two is often used by theists to support their cause, when one definition of faith is equivalent to what atheists term “blind faith”, whereas another meaning of faith is equivalent to “trust” which most assuredly does not require “blind faith”.
Belief in an unprovable concept is NOT EQUIVALENT to belief in provable evidence-based concepts. In other words, belief in God is NOT EQUIVALENT to belief in math or science. You can say they are until you are blue in the face, that does not make it true. You are screaming and screaming that all you did was say that you called atheism a belief system, or a doctrine. Clearly, the VERY FIRST ASSERTION YOU MADE ON THIS THREAD reveals that such is not the case. This assertion also lays bare your assertions with regards to this matter:
As I said before, an Aethist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot. Neither of you can prove the veracity of your claims, yet both of you talk as if the matters been settled.
Theres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot, other than the latter’s more likely to lend you money.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Take some classes in logic, in debate, in rational thought, and in critical thinking. Perhaps you’ll learn why it is that one cannot prove a negative, only a positive. You’ll also learn that every single time you hear a theist fall back upon the assertion, “Well, you cannot disprove God either!”, they are undermining their own argument, and showing quite clearly their intellectual laziness. I have yet to meet a theist that, when all is said and done, falls back on either the above statement, the assertion that, “Well, when you die you’ll discover the truth, when you meet your maker”, or the assertion that the Bible’s very existence proves the existence of God. All of those arguments are based on logical fallacy, and all would lose you a debate most horribly with regards to any other subject. Religion gets a free pass strictly on the merits of cultural influence, and cognitive dissonance.
Finally, look up the word “moderation”, and you will see that IT TOO has more than one meaning, and you are ASSUMING you know which definition I was using when deciding upon my handle. Only in this case, you are making an a$$ out of yourself alone.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pmOops, the second to last paragraph above should actually say this (corrected text in bold):
Take some classes in logic, in debate, in rational thought, and in critical thinking. Perhaps you’ll learn why it is that one cannot prove a negative, only a positive. You’ll also learn that every single time you hear a theist fall back upon the assertion, “Well, you cannot disprove God either!â€, they are undermining their own argument, and showing quite clearly their intellectual laziness. I have yet to meet a theist that, when all is said and done, doesn’t fall back on either the above statement, the assertion that, “Well, when you die you’ll discover the truth, when you meet your makerâ€, or the assertion that the Bible’s very existence proves the existence of God. All of those arguments are based on logical fallacy, and all would lose you a debate most horribly with regards to any other subject. Religion gets a free pass strictly on the merits of cultural influence, and cognitive dissonance.
Agnostics say they do not know. Well, ask an agnostic if they believe that matter is made from seventh-dimensional leprechauns, gravity is actually magical leprechaun beer in the seventh dimension, and the only reason the universe stays together is because seventh-dimensional leprechauns really love their beer. They cannot prove that such as assertion is either true, but they also cannot DISPROVE such as assertion. Therefore, such as assertion is just as “up in the air” as the assertion that God exists. Anything assertion that cannot be either proven or disproved, regardless of how ridiculous that assertion may sound to a given individual, MUST stand on equal footing, and be just as valid, as the assertion of God. Any agnostic not willing to make such a statement is a hypocrite, in my opinion, for they also are suffering from cognitive dissonance. They are allowing one lone subject (the existence of deity) to follow the rules for fiction and sophistry, while giving it the weight of logic and ration.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pmIn fairness, BART is a victim. A victim of a “religious education”. Though he claims otherwise, he’s been “infected with faith”. And, having “a Faith”, he is incapable of realizing that others do not. So, from his perspective, he is “right”. Definitions that don’t fit his preconceptions aren’t valid. They may not even exist in his world.
This isn’t a character flaw. It’s simply the result of prolonged exposure to dogmatic thinking. Unfortunately, there’s no reliable cure and it’s often terminal.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pmThis thead is Faiz’s Christmas gift to me.
Thank you Faiz.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
This was Bart’s original post. Post #4
Bartlebee had been planning this tyraid for a long time.
To think, with all his planning, the best he could do was to question the defintion of a particular word.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
You’re absolutly right BART. One who denies the validity of alternative definitions, from the source they provided, is intellectually dishonest. And possibly deficient in their understanding of the English language or, even,reasoning ability.
Congrats. You finally introduced a lucid argument. I hope you can get some rest now. G’night.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pmRound and Round and Round
You’ve entered the Bartlebee Spin Zone!
—-
Since it is obvious you chose to ignore this post, I will repost it. I will let you read it and mull it over a bit:
“Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, also lack belief in a personal god.â€
We also get:
“Writers have disagreed on how best to define and classify atheism,contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection.â€
So the whole premise of your critique actually has nothing to do with beliefs, but really with the accepted definition of the word “atheism.†You define atheism as a set of beliefs. While, it is true some would agree with this, it is apparent many would not.
Much like the eskimos had dozens of words for the english word “snow,†philosophers have also come up with more descriptive terms for the types of atheism that exist.
For example, the term “implicit atheism†was developed to refer to “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it†and the term “explicit atheism†to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.
—-
So how about a logical response. Please ensure your response does not include anymore than three of the following bull$hit criticisms:
-Red Herring
-Strawman
-”Nu Uh”
-name calling
—–
lol, I’ve taken a few in my lifetime junior, probably when you were still crapping your pants and smearing it on yourself.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Please, Please tell me you are just a lonely teenager whose parents have a porn filter on your computer. I would hate to think that you are an adult who would resort to such childish and remedial comments.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:50 pmYou are obviously lying about taking logic courses, Bart. Atheists do not need to prove that God DOESN’T EXIST to “win” their side of the argument. Atheists do not need to prove that god DOESN’T exist to invalidate the assertion that God exists. All that need happen in invalidate the assertion “God exists.” is for those supporting said assertion to be unable to meet the burden of proof.
Atheism does not assert God does not exist, because you cannot legitimately prove a negative. Atheism asserts that, because there has never in all of human history been brought forth a single piece of evidence that God exists, the only logical conclusion is that God does not exist. Atheism does not need to assert that God does not exist, because the notion that God does not exist is the DEFAULT position. When two parties approach a discussion or debate, the POSITIVE ASSERTION is the only one that is even open to debate. That is the whole point. If you come with no evidence, YOU’VE ALREADY LOST.
And still, you persist in your hard-headed notion that all belief systems are equal. They…are…not.
You assert that doctrine = belief = faith = religion.
doctrine
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject.
alternatively…
doctrine
-noun.
1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
Anything that has a body of teachings behind it is a doctrine. Math has multiple doctrines. Science has countless doctrines. Law has doctrines. Learning how to scrape barnacles off the a$$ of a bloated whale is a doctrine. None of those are religious, none of those require the “blind” definition of faith. One definition out of SEVEN supports your assertion that doctrine = belief. One…out…of…seven. You are treating doctrine as though that lone definition is THE definition of doctrine.
Try actually addressing what I am telling you, you stubborn fool. The fact that atheists cannot disprove God means nothing. They do not bear the burden of proof. The burden of proof never lies with the party asserting the negative, less ANY ARGUMENT IS VALID. Do you f@cking understand, you daft man? Noone needs to DISPROVE any positive assertion, ever. The default of EVERY ARGUMENT, EVER is that any positive assertions are wrong unless they are PROVEN. You are trying to say that it is an acceptable default for any negative assertion to be proven right unless it is DISPROVED. You are so wrong it has got to f@cking hurt.
So your definition of belief is conflated to make your case. Your definition of doctrine is conflated. Your use of faith indicates you are conflating the meanings of that word as well. Your entire argument is predicated upon blanket statements, distortions and logical fallacy.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:58 pmYou said atheism = religion, BECAUSE both are systems of belief. You stated both are fanatics because they are both
Since there are multiple definitions to belief, some based upon blind faith, some not. Your said doctrine = system of belief. Only ONE definition of doctrine backs that up. One lone definition. Based upon the definitions more prevalent, and with greater precedent in the dictionary, a doctrine =/= a system of beliefs. Rather, only SPECIFIC DOCTRINES = a system of beliefs.
You still refuse to address the point that not all systems of belief are equal, either. Yet, you assert that atheism = religion because both are systems of belief. Do you also assert that science = religion because they are both a system of beliefs? Do you assert that math = religion, because both are a system of beliefs? Your assertion that atheism = religion, and that both are fanatics is 100% equal to an assertion that scientists are fanatical nutjobs because science is a system of belief.
You don’t need to actually define a word to give us the definition you are using for the word. It is your USE OF THE WORDS that indicate to the reader what your DEFINITION OF THE WORDS are. It truly is about context. What a f@cking dumb-nut.
Don’t quit your day job.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pmIncidentally, I was apparently the first to agree that atheism = a system of beliefs, but that your underlying assertion that atheism is a fanatical system of beliefs equal to religion is fundamentally flawed. So I know you aren’t directing that garbage towards me. Are you?
Your average mathematicians is vastly more fanatical about his or her system of belief in the truth, logic and consistency of mathematics than your average atheist is fanatical about their belief that, because there is no evidence, God does not exist.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:24 pmWhy don’t you show each of the other definitions each of the dictionaries you quote have for doctrine? Hmmmmmmmm? One definition each from four different dictionaries, when two of those dictionaries have two and three other definitions, respectively, that do not back your assertion, shows your extreme intellectual dishonesty with regards to this subject. Don’t just choice pick the lone definition. I could have done that, but I showed you three and four definitions from two different dictionaries. Of the two dictionaries I googled first, ONE definition BETWEEN the two entries, backed your claim. We could just go straight to the Oxford English Dictionary, where we can get all of the definitions and etymology. Then you can have even LESS definitions of the word support your assertion.
You say everyone else has trouble admitting when they are wrong. Project much, Bart? I have yet to see you admit you are wrong about anything, with regards to any subject. Ever. If you did, I missed it, so I’m not saying it’s impossible. But it certainly is extraordinarily rare. Certainly you are wrong more than you admit it, in all the time I’ve perused these boards.
Atheism =/= religion. Just because both are a system of beliefs, doesn’t make that assertion valid. Any more than the assertion that science = religion.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:33 pmHmm, do I cherry-pick my definition, use the more common definition (doctrine = teachings), or engage in full disclosure?
Hmm…which would be more correct, definition #2, or definitions #1, 3, and 4. Hmmmm….do I use this dictionary that doesn’t back me up at all, or this one that does once out of three times. Hmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Hmm, do I cherry-pick the intelligence, use the majority of the CIA’s intelligence, or engage in full disclosure?
December 1st, 2007 at 8:39 pmIt absolutely does matter, when you are using a definition of doctrine to back up the definition of another word. The definition of atheist = “the doctrine that there is no deity”. You back up your assertion indicating that said definition means, “the belief that there is no deity”. You do not acknowledge that more definitions support the assertion that doctrine = teaching, and a definition of atheist = “the teachings that there is no deity” is therefore MORE LIKELY than your assertion.
Incidentally, I do incredibly well at Scrabble.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pmYour very own exercise in Wikipedia:
Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a code of beliefs or “a body of teachings” or “instructions”, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.
Let’s see if you can find the important word in the very definition you asked me to look at.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:49 pmAnd yes, BY DEFINITION, picking only the first five words, when the sixth word is the very word that undermines your assertion, is CHERRY-PICKING.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:50 pmAtheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
—————————————————————————————-
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot.
—————————————————————————————-
As I said before, an Aethist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot. Neither of you can prove the veracity of your claims, yet both of you talk as if the matters been settled.
Theres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot, other than the latter’s more likely to lend you money.
—————————————————————————————-
You can disbelieve the data to be sure, but to just rule out the existence of a greater power that may have a role in all of this is to me foolish.
—————————————————————————————-
Here, Bart. These are just your own words from this thread.
Your stance is that it is foolish to disbelieve a wholly man-made, entirely unprovable concept such as God.
You specifically claim that because God cannot be disproved, and atheists point that out, that atheists are fanatical in their disbelief. Would you say that anyone who asserts that they talk every day to the ghost of Abraham Lincoln is making a legitimate assertion because we cannot DISPROVE that he is talking to said ghost? Would you say that anyone who asserts that they traveled to the moon and back with Peter Pan is making a legitimate assertion because you cannot DISPROVE that tale?
Not believing in an assertion that has never had an ounce of proof is not fanatical, it is reasonable. Suspending rational thought, and actively engaging in cognitive dissonance with regards to an assertion that has no proof is normally considered CRAZY. Except with regards to religion. Why are the rules different for religion? Because it makes people uncomfortable, nothing more.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:04 pmUhh, the sixth word is “ORâ€.
:|
How does the word “OR†refute that a DOCTRINE is a BELIEF SYSTEM?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Uhh, because it indicates that doctrine means belief system OR system of teachings, two quite different systems? You are cherry picking the definition that best suits your needs to define atheist, when the other, MORE PREVALENT definition of doctrine (system of teachings) is equally valid. The original meaning is “body of teachings” not “system of beliefs”.
Once more, not all systems of belief are equal, a point you still patently ignore. A system of belief grounded in reality, and rational thought =/= a system of belief grounded in faith, and irrational thought. You equate the two because one cannot be proven, and one cannot be disproved. That is not a valid comparison. One is applicable to the real world, one is relegated to purely philosophical sophistry, which is essentially philosophical masturbation. It’s like saying, “What if the moon is made of cheese?”, “What if the dream world is real, and the real world is a dream?” and so on. It is intellectually stimulating, but in the end is just whacking off in the corner.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:13 pmATHEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM.
RELIGION is a BELIEF SYSTEM.
NEITHER can prove their claims or disprove the others.
Therefore both are fanatical because they both ASSERT claims as facts that cannot be proven.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
No, Bart. You still fundamentally misunderstand how logic works. The side that asserts the positive (in this case, God exists) is the ONLY SIDE THAT, USING RATIONAL THOUGHT, NEED MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF. The fact that the other side (in this case atheists) say that the positive cannot be proven, and is therefore WRONG, is an example that they ARE using LOGIC AND RATIONAL THOUGHT. The atheists do not need to ASSERT that God does not exist, for you cannot present an ASSERTION to prove a NEGATIVE. The atheists NEVER need to prove that God does not exist to win that debate. That is not how reason and rational thought work.
Just like I NEVER need to DISPROVE that atoms love to dance to Bach in the pale moon light. I never need to DISPROVE that ephemeral motes of time sing beautiful dirges when eyelids flutter. I never need to DISPROVE that colorful nebulae in the Zyro’l universe fart aether-bubbles that explode in Big Bangs. That is not how it works.
Do you understand, Bart? Do you f@cking understand that little point that seems so inconsequential to you, yet is the very foundation for all logic and rational thought?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:23 pmNo, thats your twisting my words for your benefit.
You can disbelieve the data to be sure, but to just rule out the existence of a greater power that may have a role in all of this is to me foolish.
I am twisting your words? You said it is foolish to rule out the existence of an unprovable concept. I say, it is wholeheartedly foolish to believe in an unprovable concept. How is what I said twisting your (quoted above) words?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:36 pmBut when you claim they are “WRONGâ€, then THATS where the burden of proof is on you to prove they are wrong.
You call their evidence ridiculous, but their evidence has captivated some of the greatest minds of a dozens of generations.
You cannot just casually “dismiss’ them and call them “wrongâ€, unless you can PROVE they are wrong.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
That is called shifting the burden of proof, STILL, Bart. There is no evidence of God. None. Books written by men that cannot be corroborated by any contemporary authors is not evidence (nor can it be used to prove the existence of said books own assertions).
Testimonials with NOTHING VERIFIABLE TO BACK IT UP is not evidence outside of a LIMITED ROLE in a court of law, and even then requires the testimonials to, without collusion, corroborate one another. You must also take in to account that all testimonials by Hindi, Muslims, Jews, aborigines, Native Americans, and every other group that insists it talks with the higher powers must also corroborate one another, since they all claim contact with the same primal creator of reality.
Harry Potter has captivated the minds of millions. Star Wars has captivated more hearts and minds than many of the most important teachings in all of human history. Captivating the hearts and minds of millions is not a ringing endorsement for the truth. It merely indicates popularity, and cultural influence.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:00 pmYou cannot just casually “dismiss’ them and call them “wrongâ€, unless you can PROVE they are wrong.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
All that need occur to PROVE that they are wrong is to prove that their stories do not corroborate one another. You are more likely to find alien abductees whose stories match up than two theists.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:04 pmYou persecuted me, for making a statement that was in not one, but FOUR English Dictionary’s.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Bartlebee is the new jesus christ himself
crucified for his beliefs by an progressive pontius pilot
—
You call their evidence ridiculous, but their evidence has captivated some of the greatest minds of a dozens of generations.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
They, the theists, have never once provided any more evidence for their cause than you have for yours. Maybe this is why you think you are correct – You think nothingness is enough to prove your bogus little ideas true, yet you willingly choose to ignore hundreds of valid, logical reasons why you are wrong.
You are nothing more than a person who believes in myths. You believe them to be true – so they are – and anyone who contradicts you is a dim wit!
—
Sorry kiddo, the goal posts remain where they are.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
yeah they sure do . . . .firmly planted in crazy town.
—-
Now all you want to do is move the goal posts again, and change the focus to hide the fact I proved you, PETE, DIM WIT and that moron RHF were wrong, that ATHEISM is a DOCTRINE, “CONTRARY TO THEIR CLAIMSâ€, and that it is also a BELIEF SYSTEM.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
I can’t speak for anyone else, but you’ve NEVER proven me wrong.
Just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it true. Amazingly this is no different from all of your other supposed truths. The only truths you have are those thoughts which YOU BELIEVE to be true.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:14 pmThanks though for admitting that its impossible to prove a god does not exist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
That was one of the very first things I stated. One of the VERY first. Why? Because it supports the atheists, not the theists. Keep that head in the sand, buddy. The burden of proof is still on the theists to prove the positive assertion. All those testimonials you indicate are out there must still be proven to be admissible before the atheists need even bother to begin the rebuttal. Legitimate, verifiable evidence to back a positive assertion must be present before the other side need even bother with a counterargument. Religion doesn’t get a free out just “because”, it has to prove its assertions just like everything else does.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:24 pmI can’t speak for anyone else, but you’ve NEVER proven me wrong.
Comment by dim wit — December 1, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Not yet with regards to this matter. Bart has proven me wrong before. Only, I admitted it. On this matter, however, logic, reason and facts back me up, whereas Bart brings arguments based on logical fallacy, with no evidence to back up claims.
Still waiting, Bart. Is math = religion? It meets all of YOUR requirements, after all.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pmSo claiming Iâ€m making it impossible for you poor atheists to prove there is no god is a lie.
I’m not making it impossible.
I’m not making the claim.
YOU ARE.
You’re making it impossible on yourself, by making an impossible claim to prove.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Nope. Doesn’t work that way. The underlying assumption to your thesis is that a god does exist and you want us to disprove this god.
Can’t do it.
It is not up to the atheist to prove there is no god.
It is up to the theist to prove their is.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:28 pmI’ve explained that numerous ways, dim wit. Bart either cannot grasp the concept, or actively chooses to ignore it to support his assertions. Noone can prove a negative assertion, Bart. They are never required to, for it undermines the very concept of logic and reason. Again, Bart, if the only evidence required to prove a positive is that you cannot disprove it, than ANY ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE BECOMES A VALID ASSERTION.
I’m done explaining it, Bart.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pmAfter 990 posts no-one yet defined what God is for this agrument.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pmStill waiting, Bart. Is math = religion? It meets all of YOUR requirements, after all.
Comment by Moderation — December 1, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Good luck getting an answer on this.
I’m still waiting on how Bart knows I even exist. It appears Bart BELIEVES I exist, despite the fact he has no evidence to prove I actually exist.
Using his logic, I guess I’m Bart’s god.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:37 pmI asserted that only one definition of doctrine backs up your assertion, buddy boy. I didn’t say YOU gave only one definition, I said only one definition did, and that is indeed what I found when looking. In fact, the first entry of doctrine I found had NO instance of your definition of doctrine, so I had to go to the next dictionary’s entry for doctrine. You happened to find four different dictionaries each with one definition of doctrine that fit what you were looking for. Yet, the majority of the definitions in every entry I found say a doctrine is a system of teaching more times than a system of belief, at a 3:1 ratio on average. I accused you of cherry-picking your definitions. That accusation stands, for I still think that you did cherry-pick.
Read the words on your screen, not the words in your head you want to see on the screen.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:50 pmAgain, just grabbing the first set of definitions (American Heritage Dictionary):
belief
-noun.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
You are saying that a system based off of #1, a system based off of #2, and a system based off of #3 are equal. They are not. Two systems being based in belief does not make them equal, and does not mean they have equally firm foundations in fact, logic or reason. Or rather, after the fact, you are saying that, while you conflate atheism and religion as both being based in fanatical beliefs, it is up to US to determine which of the many definitions for belief (and doctrine) YOU are using. Based on the CONTEXT of what you WROTE, we did just that, yet you said we are WRONG, that what you said isn’t what you meant. Speak more clearly next time, perhaps?
Much like theists try to “disprove” evolution by saying it is a theory. What the THEISTS don’t tell you is that they are using the non-scientific DEFINITION of the word theory, when the reality is scientists use the SCIENTIFIC definition of theory when discussing evolution.
Words and the definitions you are use for them do matter.
Does math = religion? Both are belief systems, both are supported quite fanatically by their students/followers, both are very rigid in their beliefs. You will never get a mathematician to agree that 2+2 = 5. You can try for years with every trick in the book (and some that aren’t), but the mathematician will never, ever budge from the position that 2+2 = 4.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:10 pmStill conflating meanings of the word believe. A belief backed by reason, logic and evidence is nor the same as a belief backed by faith. you gonna acknowledge that any time soon, Bart?
Do you believe (haha) that a belief backed by reason and evidence = a belief backed by faith, Bart? Because your original assertion (”Atheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing”) indicates that you believe that is the case.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:20 pm(x-x)x=x^2-x^2=0
(x-x)(x+x)=x^2-x^2=0
hence:
(x-x)x=(x-x)(x+x)
Dividing by x-x gives:
x=x+x
December 1st, 2007 at 11:23 pmand dividing by x gives:
1=2
You are an agnostic who doesn’t carry over your agnosticism to other parts of life beyond religion then, Bart? Do you believe that the thousands of individuals who claim to talk to ghosts might actually be talking to ghosts? Do you believe that the thousands of alien abductees might have actually been abducted? Do you believe that the number 23 might REALLY have power? Do you believe that “The Secret” might ACTUALLY work?
Or does your agnosticism only apply to the concept of deity?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:24 pmThat first sentence above should read, “Are you an agnostic who doesn’t carry over your agnosticism to other parts of life beyond religion then, Bart?”
December 1st, 2007 at 11:26 pmIt is not an indefensible position. It is a position that does not need to be defended in the first place until the other side actually presents EVIDENCE backing up their ASSERTION. Much like noone needs to defend eighth-dimensional beings ruling the universe, until someone brings forth some evidence…ANY evidence…that eighth-dimensional beings rule the universe. Even if 1 billion people state, “eighth-dimensional beings rule the universe”, that is not sufficient evidence to defend the assertion, “eighth-dimensional beings rule the universe”.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:32 pmThat was not the troll known as BARTLEBEE’s only statement. BARTLEBEE also asserted that the atheist system of belief = the theist system of belief. Never mind that both use different definitions of the word belief.
BARTLEBEE has yet to rebut any of the counterarguments dealing with his original assertion that atheists = theists, with the implication that it was because both are fanatical systems of beliefs. BARTLEBEE has yet to indicate or acknowledge that his own system of beliefs, agnosticism if you go by the words he has actually written, is ALSO a system of beliefs, and therefore, by his own logical form must ALSO be fanatical (as there were no qualifiers for why he felt atheists were fanatical other than the fact that they follow a system of beliefs).
Therefore, using his own logic, BARTLEBEE (and all agnostics, for that matter) must also be fanatical, ergo atheism = theism = agnosticism.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:41 pmMy Scrabble Dictionary: Atheism: The belief that their is no God.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:42 pmAthiesm was a term coined by some guy, I think in the 70’s, he might still be alive, ask him what it means.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:44 pmMy bad, that was the word “agnostic”
December 1st, 2007 at 11:46 pmAnd of course they pull out the age old atheist argument, which is also indefensible, that because the many documented and personal witnesses that purport the many theories of god and an afterlife cannot irrefutably prove a god exists, that somehow, they do not have to prove their claims that he does not.
They simply dismiss theory, in the light of their own lazy thinking.
The juries already out of these guys, their minds completely made up, with no supporting evidence mind you, just a lack of evidence to support their theory, and therefore they don’t feel they have to prove anything that they claim.
Just like the relgionists do.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
Ahhhh, and the troll known as BARTLEBEE has yet to indicate whether or not he follows his own beliefs, and gives equal weight or possibility to any and every assertion that brings with it a body of eyewitness accounts and testimonials that are not verifiable or provable. Each and every concept every conceived by mankind that has a significant body of eyewitnesses and testimonials must bear equal weight in BART’s mind, right ladies and gentlmen? Right, BART?
You DO give all other subjects that have as much evidence as theism, and can be neither proven nor disproven, equal weight, don’t you, BART?
Or do you actually allow the rules of logic and reason to reign in non-theistic endeavors and subject matter?
December 1st, 2007 at 11:47 pmAtheism
A lack of faith in a god, supernatural being, or deity. This is a neutral position in regard to the question, “Does god exist?” It does not affirm any belief in god’s non-existence despite many people’s claims.
http://www.geocities.com/atheist_anon/terms.htm
Atheists anonymous. Took me 10 seconds. G;night, again.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 amDo you think it will take a googleplex of examples to sufficiently indicate that System of Beliefs A =/= System of Beliefs B?
Do you think that Bart believes that atheism = theism = agnosticism = science = math = misogyny = racism = homophobia = war profiteering? After all, all that is required is that they are both systems of beliefs in which its students/followers adamantly believe in their stance (preferably to the point of his definition for fanaticism, whatever that is) for his assertion that atheism = theism to be proven to him (apparently, since all we can go by is what he posts).
Why, Bart even commented that I was the first to admit that atheism is a system of beliefs, but now? Now, it is as though I never made that statement, and that such is the crux of his argument with me. Not that he is conflating the meanings of belief, and equating a belief that has the backing of logic, reason and evidence with a belief that has the backing of hearsay, faith and cultural bias, mind you. Oh, wait, he is? Crap.
Apparently, even though one of the first statements I made indicated that atheism is a system of beliefs, that is the only argument he can make with me. His original, conflated assertion has disappeared in so much smoke (and mirrors).
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 am“What is atheism?”
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
About 1 minute more. BTW, I clicked, precisely, 2 links from Webster’s online dictionary. Why don’t you try peddling your false assertions there BART. I’m sure Faiz would appreciate you spreading the bandwidth around. G’night, again. Again. Enjoy!
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 amNo bozo, I’m talking to the other stooges on that one who have yet to make the admission you have so wisely made.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Aww, how cute. Still ignoring the meat and substance, and commenting on the chaff. How adorable. Are you sitting on the end of a pencil like all good little trolls?
EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE that a person has any opinion about AT ALL is a system of beliefs, whether they have evidence, logic and reason to back their beliefs up, or not. Mathematicians are not fanatics because noone has ever been able to prove that 2+2=5, so they stick by their guns that 2+2=4. Biologists are not fanatics because they believe that evolution is real, and backed up by mountains of evidence. Atheists are not fanatics because they believe that a manmade concept that isn’t even as old as 25% of mankind’s time on earth is fantasy as opposed to fact. Historians are not fanatics because they prefer corroboration by writers who are contemporaries of the subject they are researching over hearsay, and don’t believe that Peter Pan, Hamlet and Odin are historical figures just because books were written about them.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 amWhen you can therfore PROVE the ATHEIST CLAIM, that “GOD DOES NOT EXISTâ€, then I will graduate your “BELIEF†to a “FACTâ€.
But until you can prove it, its just belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 12:25 am
So until someone can DISPROVE the SCIENTOLOGIST CLAIM that our souls come from ancient alien corpses dumped into a volcano, then you will graduate that “BELIEF” to a “FACT”? Until then, Scientologists might very well be right.
Until someone can PROVE the SOPHIST CLAIM that we are merely dreams, and our dreams are actually our REAL LIFE is WRONG, then you will graduate that “BELIEF” to a “FACT”? Until then, philosophical masturbation might be right.
On that fateful day that someone can PROVE that aliens DIDN’T butt-rape 20th-century American rednecks and laser beam their cows for sh*ts and giggles, then you will graduate that “BELIEF” to a “FACT”? Until then, little grey human-shaped aliens might very well have butt-raped rednecks and mutilated their bovine compatriots?
Do you use the logical progression you use with regards to religion when dealing with ANY OTHER SUBJECT, Bart? Hmm?
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 amAtheism is a Belief System, that is designed to contradict another belief system.
Its name A-THEISM (A=NO THESIM) No God or No God System, literally incorporates the name of the doctrine it was intended to refute.
The problem with A-THEISM, is that it, like religion, cannot prove its fundemental assertation.
THESIM- There is a God
A-THEISM – There is no God
Neither of these two claims can be proven.
Yet they are the foundation principals of both doctrines.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 12:34 am
You cannot even attempt to prove a negative, Bart. It isn’t allowed in logical, rational thought, because of the precedent it sets (giving any wild assertion validity until it can be DISPROVED).
Atheism is not designed to contradict theism. Atheism asserts that because theists have had all of human history, and have yet to bring forth even ONE piece of verifiable evidence, that the basic assertion of theism (”Deity exists.”) must be wrong. Atheism is, by all evidence, greatly increased as a society (or the observed portions of it) possesses more knowledge, and lessened as a society (or the observed portions of it) possesses less knowledge. In other words, as more and more knowledge is acquired, future atheists come to the conclusion that (as is the case with every other rational subject), since theism has no body of verifiable evidence supporting it, theism must be wrong.
Atheists are not making a positive assertion. They can never, ever prove a negative assertion (nor can anyone else about any other subject). The very fact that the only theistic counter to atheism is to require atheists to prove a negative to disprove theism’s positive assertion fundamentally undermines theism’s very assertion in the first place. ANY positive assertion with regards to ANY subject that can only be “proven” by showing that the opposition cannot DISPROVE said positive assertion, is a fundamentally flawed assertion to begin with.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 amThe THEISTS tell me there is a god, and to rejoice (or fear) at the idea of him.
The A-THEISTS tell me there is no god, and to mock and ridicule the idea of him.
I say to them both, the same thing.
Prove it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 12:40 am
You still haven’t responded (and I am sure I know why…you cannot reasonably rebut me) to my question. Do you apply this same standard to everything in life, Bart? Do you require that, with regards to all subjects, the party asserting the positive position must prove their case, AND the party defending the negative position must DISPROVE the opposition’s case? If not, you are a hypocrite.
I’d wager you don’t even apply that standard to anything not related to religious/spiritual thought.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 amYup, you are totally out of argument. So, you concede? You’ve stopped responding to the merits, and are repeating a…dare I say it…rather theistic mantra. You must be a fanatic, since you refuse to listen to any discussion based in logic, and must instead require one side of a specific debate subject to suspend the rules of logic, ration and debate for that one subject.
So, you believe in FOX News’ “Fair and Balanced” approach to journalism? You believe that both sides deserve equal time, equal say, and the like, even if the side asserting the positive is wholly unable to defend their assertion? Or, if you want it to be more like the atheist/theist debate, you think the side unable to defend its position deserved MORE airtime than the side using fact, logic and reality-based arguments, until the latter can DISPROVE the former?
You must. After all, that is the position from which you stand with regards to this subject of Deity. Surely you are not a hypocrite?
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 amFor thousands of years, all of humanity believed that the Earth was flat, that the heavens revolved around the Earth, that women gave birth to cats, and that bugs and birds sprang from dirt. For thousands more years beyond that, countless humans believed that volcanoes, storms, the sun, the moon, the stars, the animals, the trees, fire, and everything else was alive and had spirits associated with them. We STILL cannot DISPROVE ANIMISM, to this day. How many rational human beings take animists seriously? Today, you can bring together millions of humans who believe that the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or that the
We do have evidence of religion specifically EVOLVING from primitive animism, to an afterlife-based spirit world, to polytheism, onwards to monotheism, and now, in modern days, the most knowledgable cultures also have the highest rates of atheism, as theism is not compatible with rational thought. We have specific archaeological evidence of this progression. For tens of thousands of years, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that mankind existed without the concept of “God”, yet greatly feared what the being known as lightning might do, or the entity inhabiting the volcano’s wrath, etc. Yet we are to believe that people for whom there are no CONTEMPORARY writers acknowledging their existence, backed up by bodies of work that endlessly contradict one another, and moreover have specific cultural bias, are correct?
There are millions of writing of possession, and of nighttime visitations that SCIENCE, REASON and LOGIC have proven were specific forms of mental illness or various ilk for the former, and night terrors for the latter (which today manifest as, surprisingly…or not…angelic or demonic visitations amongst the faithful, and alien abductions amongst the heathens).
Theists want desperately to prove their positive assertion. Yet, they have not accumulated a verifiable body of evidence to back it up. They have had thousands of years to do so. The key is VERIFIABLE evidence. If your evidence is not verifiable, it carries no weight. There are zero, count them ZERO contemporary works verifying the existence of Jesus. The earliest writing indicating his existence is 20+ years after his DEATH, and most of the EARLIEST writing were discarded by the Church.
There is more evidence for men and women in the middle ages fighting against DRAGONS (with wings and fire) than there is for the fundamental assertions of any religion on Earth, because those writing were written by contemporaries of the subject, and from more than one source. Are you saying that DRAGONS were (or are) real?
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 amYet the A-THEIST disregards the answer, like he disregards thousands of years of data produced purported by billions of people all across the planet.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 1:17 am
Or, as you well know, oh underhanded one, I was in the middle of a post already.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 amAtheist will never, ever be able to PROVE their case. You are really thick-headed if you don’t grasp that simple fact. Even if every human on Earth became an atheist, humanity will still NEVER be able to PROVE that God does NOT exist. No human being can EVER prove a NEGATIVE, as hard as they might try.
Capisce?
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 amThe THEIST’ss cannot stand the fact that I do not believe in a god or gods.
The A-THEIST’’s cannot stand the fact that I do not dis-believe in a god or gods.
:|
I tell them both, “tough noogiesâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 1:22 am
atheists care not whether you believe or don’t believe. you’ve managed to put yourself in a position where you, and only you, are god, sitting in judgment with only your own measure. as a lifelong atheist, I have no interest in whether you believe or don’t believe, because I have the true and full knowledge that there is no god, never has been, most likely never will be, since it’s a construct with no factual basis. The idea that thousands of years of poor, frightened human falsehoods is some kind of evidence destroys your position from the start; even you admit that there is no rational basis for all of this “evidence’. I have proof of god’s nonexistence, it’s everywhere, but most especially in the very books that purport to be the words of god, which are full of contradictions and fantastical tales, and which characterize god in many ways which are proven every day not to be true. what you have for proof of your “belief system” nonsense is a list of Atheist organizations, of limited membership and with few real atheists involved. real atheists don’t need to organize, and all of the information you have marshalled to attempt to prove your point actually proves that atheism cant be defined as one thing by the likes of you. it may well be a belief system to some weak, unsure atheists, it may well be a doctrine to some opportunistic faux atheists. to a real atheist, like me, you are dead wrong in every assertion you have made, and your own belief system is what this thousand posts has been about. You claim to “not know”, and yet you insist that you do know. you cling to a belief system, yet are afraid to ackowledge it. you look to the outside for all of your ammunition, because you have none within. that’s what belief systems are all about: blind faith in something, anything that can calm the fears you have that you really don’t know shit about anything. your whole argument about theists providing thousands of claims and documents, is made a mockery by your own phrase”while not conclusive”, therefore, it’s worthless in proving your argument. nobody has asked you to throw out all that testimony and data, yet you reject it out of hand. and yet, all that data and testimony leads the thinking person to the conclusion that, indeed, there is no god. this shows me two things: that you are not a thinking person, and that there is no god. atheism is just a word, a convenient handle, nontheism is just as convenient. nonbeliever is even more convenient, and perhaps more accurate, if atheist bothers you so. as a nonbeliever, I am labelled an atheist, by you. you have created not a straw man, but a straw world, and all for naught, as you haven’t convinced a single person of your original thesis. becasue it was wrong, and still is. your fatal flaw was in letting a word lead the way, instead of the truth.
tough noogies.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 amAtheist will never, ever be able to PROVE their case.
Comment by Moderation — December 2, 2007 @ 1:47 am
:D
I know.
They have a name for a “case†that can “never, ever†be PROVEN.
:|
They call it, an UNTENABLE position.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 1:53 am
problem is, it’s not their case. it’s yours, and they don’t care about it. it’s not untenable, it’s unimportant, it’s irrelevant, it’s yours. there is nothing that needs proving, so it’s not even a case. you’re a case, but that’s another story. why do I have to prove anything to you? you could hardly be less important. if you want to cling to a belief system that insists on proving a negative, that really is your problem, certainly not mine.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 am:|
I tell them both, to blow me.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 1:24 am
and you think we have problems? your beliefs are making you uncivil and immature.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 amTechnically, ALL assertions proving a negative are untenable, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove ANY negative. Logically, you are not even allowed to try. THAT is why the burden of proof is on the party asserting the positive. Anyone DEFENDING the negative WINS if the party asserting the positive is UNABLE to prove their assertion. NO negative can be proven about any subject, nor does any negative ever NEED to be proven about any subject, as that is fundamentally impossible in logical thought.
In any other subject, with regards to any other matter, the party DEFENDING the negative stance bears absolutely, positively none of the burden of proof. Why does religion gets a free “out”, eh? With regards to any other subject, the burden of proof is not shifted, only in religious discussion is that deemed acceptable, even if it would cost you the debate if the discussion were not religious in nature.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 amYou know, I think he actually thinks I’m reading his long winded posts now.
Hint;, I’m not.
Too much bloviation with no substantiation.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 1:49 am
this is proof of someone afraid of facts, afraid of knowledge, afraid to admit the weakness o his argument. this is a sign of fear. this behavior, this rejection out of hand, this snide, puerile attack is a sure indication of a lost argument, and a defeated protagonist. yes, bart, you have lost by resorting to this snotty, childish tantrum, this rude, ignorant non-response. I knew you would arrive here; it’s where you’ve been headed all along.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 amAnd that makes it as UNTENABLE of a postion that could possibly exist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 2:15 am
only to you. you, alone, believe that. that makes you wrong. in so many ways, it’s not worth the listing. but wrong, nevertheless. you obviously have skipped over the posts that have the asnswers you fear, or have read and ignored them. you’re are an expert cherry-picker, but that’s to be expected from one with such a limited viewpoint. so limited, in fact, that you have posted the same two or three incorrect rants some 500 times. you really are the troll in the basement.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 amOr sell it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 2:19 am
well, it’s true that you won’t buy it. but, you’re alone. that seems fitting.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 amhere’s the fact; I’m a nonbeliever. no god exists for me. that’s the only fact pertinent to this thread. you don’t like it, tough noogies.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 amAtheism’s primary position is not, however, an assertion, for you are not allowed to make a negative assertion. It is a statement that, since theism cannot prove its positive assertion, it is an invalid assertion.
If you do not understand the difference between the roles taken in logic and debate, that’s not my problem. Ignorance is no excuse. The person on the side of the negative is rebutting the assertions by the opposition, the person on the side of the positive is making ALL of the assertions, and proving them. Any assertions that cannot be proven do not meet the burden of proof, and the defender of the negative position wins.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 am1. ATHEISM is a Belief System
2. ATHEISM is an UNTENABLE Belief System
:D
And thats just in the last few hours, lol.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 2:25 am
you believe what you like. your belief system has you imagining things, so it’s not much different from the religious belief system. neither of the “points” you made is true, you have engaged in intellectual dishonesty by replacing words and concepts to fit your preconceived beliefs. cheap,and transparent. typical freshman mistake. now do you see why nobody is buying your bullshit?
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 amwell, Moderation, I don’t know about you, but I am now tired of being lied to and insulted personally, while my own posts are ignored or cherry-picked by a cheap, tawdry student-level egomaniac. You may want to carry on; I only came by because Bartlebee is the laughingstock of TP, and I couldn’t believe that the “nut” the TP visitors are all snickering about was still beating this dead horse. I guess he’s more interested in fame than respect.
Later.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 amYou say I should not believe in god.
The religionists say I should believe in god.
:|
And I say I DO NOT KNOW.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 2:33 am
Actually, before I head off, I never said that; I was quite clear that I don’t care what you believe. I am also quite clear on the fact that you will lie to protect your fragile position as clown prince of TP. You’ve become a cheap liar, all in the cause of “winning”. You smell like a Republican.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 amModeration asks;
Is math = religion?
It’s according to whether you believe that
1. Geometry is a closed system which is based on axioms (postulates) which we assume which can not be reduced to further proofs.
Because if you claim that, you are left with an axiom in Euclidean geometry which states;
If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.
Known as the fifth postulate, which since ancient time mathematicians tried to prove.
It makes LOGICAL sense to people who exist in three dimensions, but the proof eluded mathematicians.
So a mathematician named Bernhard Riemann tried the opposite, if he couldn’t prove the positive, he tried to prove the negative, that you could do something the postulate said was not possible.
He found out that the fifth postulate did not hold, and actually discovered a different branch of geometry which was as concise and coherent as Euclidean Geometry, but disagreed with it on the fifth postulate.
Euclidean geometry fits Newtonian Physics, and Reimann geometry underlies Einstein’s theory’s of relativity.
So mathematics do allow contradictory systems of geometry, and also has anomalies which are not allowed because they do not produce any concise answer, the easiest to illustrate is division by Zero, which has NO provable mathematical answer, because all answers fit.
It is by working around those areas where proofs can not be provided and agreeing on certain axioms in the beginning that mathematics provides the coherent system we believe in.
The same is true for science, a lot of that which we accept can not be proved, but is agreed on because the THEORY which is used present provides the BEST explanation of observable evidence, however just like Einstein’s uprooting of Newtonian physics absolute rules of the universe, to being a set of physical principles which work for us in the dimension we seem to exist in, and the scale and speed we use day to day.
VERY LITTLE is proved for all time and science continues the march forward, but usually by over-turning a supposed truth, with a new “better” truth.
There are arguments over sections of biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, and even if all these are solved the solutions will raise MORE questions then answers. Yes science and mathematics do use a more rigorous system of epistemology then a religion, it does not have absolute truth, and that is the downfall of those who claim it is the end of a discussion.
Each has it’s place, and adherents, and the belittling of each by the other says MORE about the person doing the belittling then the system of epistemology, whether the system of science or religion they are attacking.
Just as the big bang and steady state theories both couldn’t be true, neither can the universe be an 11 dimension and 26 dimension entity, unless there is a quantum way that could occur.
BTW since HISTORICALLY the belief in some form of a god existed BEFORE the belief God did not exist, historically the proof rests on those who deny him, however logically the proof rests on those who claim he or she does.
Only if the particular PROOF OR NON-PROOF fits does a person usually assert a particular form of that arguement, whether logical or historical.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:10 amThe underlying assumption to your thesis is that a god does exist and you want us to disprove this god.
Comment by dim wit — December 1, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
No.
Thats the underlying assumption to your argument that you INVENT for me, to sell your bullsh$t.
I have stated on many many occasions in this thread alone, that I do NOT beleive in a god.
THAT makes you, a liar.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 1, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
Bartlebee,
I see again that your argument is baseless. Every argument you attempt to make is baseless.
I made a point that in order to disprove god, one must assume there is a god.
However, somehow, your maniac brain translates this into: dim wit says I believe in god. I don’t believe in god. This makes dim wit a liar.
How have I lied? I didn’t accuse you of believing in a god. I noted, as I, and others have repeatedly, that the very nature of your argument is based on a flawed premise. This doesn’t make me a liar.
- – - –
The THEISTS tell me there is a god, and to rejoice (or fear) at the idea of him.
The A-THEISTS tell me there is no god, and to mock and ridicule the idea of him.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 12:40 am
The premise of atheism is not to mock and ridicule someone else’s beliefs. That’s ridiculous and insulting.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 amHeres what they’ve admitted to just this evening.
1. ATHEISM is a Belief System
2. ATHEISM is an UNTENABLE Belief System
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 2:25 am
So let me ask you this. Is my cat an atheist?
My cat has no concept of god.
He neither believes nor disbelieves in god.
My cat has no belief system.
So is my cat an atheist?
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:03 amWell people, it’s moment of truth time. I should have done my summation earlier and I’m sorry if I wasted people’s time but, BART just kept going further out on a limb and I was, frankly, curious to see how he responded to some of your arguments. To any of you who bother to read this, this is the end of my involvement.
BART, I expect you won’t read this and certainly won’t concede anything but I’ve tortured you long enough for calling me a liar. And, if you do read this, perhaps you will learn something about logic.
When a logical person argues, said person should use the most complete, and up to date, information available. So, I’ll dismiss your precious, 43 year old, court case first. The American Atheists were pursuing a case under the establishment clause. In order to do so they had to ensure legal standing by convincing the Court that said clause applied to atheists; which they did. However, their argument was not designed to satisfy philosophers, linguists, or theologians. Only judges. And, it was meant to give atheism legal standing, not define the word itself. Philosophy and law operate under different rules and this may result in apparent contradictions.
Furthermore, philosophy, language and theology evolve. When this case was settled; “gay” meant happy and did not refer to homosexuals. Just like “gay”, the definition of atheism has changed since that time.
Dictionaries are not compiled by experts in the fields described, they are compiled by people who compile dictionaries. Often they are not updated until someone complains or, points out errors and changes in definitions. They are a good first source but seldom the best. So, hear are some definitions from people with some expertise in the subject.
Here’s the definition of atheism from Atheists Anonymous:
Atheism
A lack of faith in a god, supernatural being, or deity. This is a neutral position in regard to the question, “Does god exist?” It does not affirm any belief in god’s non-existence despite many people’s claims.
http://www.geocities.com/atheist_anon/terms.htm
And The Secular Web:
“What is atheism?”
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
http://www.infidels.org/ library/ modern/ mathew/ intro.html
And a few from About.com http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/atheists_modern.htm
How Atheists Today Define Atheism
A few contemporary atheists restrict the definition of atheism to just the sense of ’strong’ atheism, but most do not. Most have, instead, pointed out the difference between ‘weak’ atheism and ’strong’ atheism, arguing that the former is the broader and more commonly found form of atheism. Included here are quotes and definitions from nonbelievers from the latter part of the 20th century and later.
Antony G. N. Flew:
An atheist philosopher from Britain, Flew has written quite a lot on the nature of atheism and theism. In his 1984 book God, Freedom and Immortality, he said that
The word ‘atheism,’ however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of ‘atheist’ in English is ’someone who asserts there is no such being as God,’ I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix ‘a’ to be read in the same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as ‘amoral,’ ‘atypical,’ and ‘asymmetrical’. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels ‘positive atheist’ for the former and ‘negative atheist’ for the latter.
Barker, Johnson, Flew, and Kuvakin on the Definition of Atheism:
Dan Barker:
A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist that,
It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism [...] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...].
B.C. Johnson:
The author of The Atheist Debater’s Handbook, Johnson explains why the theist has the initial burden of proof in any argument by explaining that, “The atheist, for his part, does not necessarily offer an explanation; he simply does not accept the theist’s explanation. Therefore, the atheist need only demonstrate that the theist has failed to justify his position.”
Valerii A. Kuvakin:
Professor and chair of the Department of Russian Philosophy at Moscow State University, Kuvakin writes in his book In Search of our Humanity:
Atheism … goes back to the Ancient Greek (a — a negative prefix, theos — god), evidencing the antiquity of the outlook of those who saw no presence of God (or gods) in their everyday lives, or who even denied the very existence of God (or gods). There are different types of atheism, but atheism in one form or another has existed in every civilization.
[T]he concept “atheist” partially coincides with such notions as “skeptic,” “agnostic,” and “rationalist” and it borders with such notions as “anticlerical,” “God fighter” (theomachist), and “God abuser” (blasphemer).
It is wrong to identify an atheist as one who denies God, though this is what opponents of atheism usually claim. If such people exist, it would probably be more correct to call them the “verbal” murderers of God, for the prefix a- means denying as elimination. … I would like to stress that the prefix a- does not necessarily mean rejection. It can mean “absence of.” For example, “apathy” means “absence of passion.” Thus, the concept “atheist” does not necessarily mean nihilism.
Michael Martin:
The author of one of the most extensive and detailed books on the philosophy of atheism. He states in Atheism: A Philosophical Introduction that,
If you look up ‘atheism’ in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek ‘a’ means ‘without’ or ‘not’ and ‘theos’ means ‘god.’ From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
If one shops around About.com there are many more in the same vein. Please note, that in 1984 (a couple years before I started studying atheism in earnest), atheism was approaching it’s modern definition. In the later works it becomes explicit that atheism is not defined as a “doctrine”, “belief”, or “belief system”. These quotes also correctly define the Greek prefix (a) as “not” or “without”. (Anti), on the other hand, would be defined as “opposite” or “in opposition to”. Antimatter, or antithesis, for instance.
All of this proves, quite conclusively that BART’S information was incomplete and out of date. All of us who insisted, quite rightly, that atheism is a very broad declaration that need not entail a belief are, in fact, victorious. At least so far as the word “victorious” applies to a philosophical debate. And I concede that some atheists may be fanatical though it’s a conflict in terms.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 amAgnostics are cowards.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 pmBartlebee,
I think you have lost it. Really I do.
WTF?
It was a nice Sunday day, yet all you could think to do was sit here and blog to yourself?
Couldn’t you maybe go to the park? Fly a kite? Maybe see one of those new movies that came out recently? Really, just enjoy a nice weekend day?
I went to a party. Watched the Bears-Giants game (f**king bears can’t do $hit right). Downed a few beers.
Yet you sat here babling to yourself about atheism this and belief based system that. You babbled on for six hours with no response while everyone else enjoyed their day. Yet in that six hours you never even addressed my last question: Is my cat an atheist?
So I asked my cat. He answered “meow.” I thought about his answer for a while. While I’m not sure I understand what he means, I do think it was a more logical answer than you’ve been able to provide over the course of these last 4 days.
I should also note, your post # 1099 seems to suggest that you, after all this debate, actually agree with our position that disproving the existence of god isn’t possible because there is no evidence to suggest a god even exists in the first place.
As a little FYI, I’m going to get myself something to eat, gonna watch a little TV and probably fall asleep. I won’t be around to comment on your lunacy until the morning.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 pmWatched the Bears-Giants game (f**king bears can’t do $hit right)
Comment by dim wit — December 2, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Yay Vikes! Just good enough to keep a VERY iffy coach for another year. The (bleeps!) are, once again, building just enough hope to make it hurt when the rug gets yanked out. And I’m helpless cause it’s in my genes.
Why, oh why couldn’t I have been born to a nice Wisconsin family? For that matter, why did my parents have to leave Boston?
G’night dw.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 2, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Well, since Wise King BART has proclaimed me to be one of the morons, and I didn’t address him, he lied. Again.
I didn’t insult you, Oh God-King of LIARS. How fair. How very fair and just the God-King of LIARS is. I bow down before your wise lies.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 pmQuite the contrary God-King of LIARS. I established proof of every assertion I made. You, who don’t remember your own ravings, who misdirects debate to hide your failings, you dare reject the gift of knowledge? Your pathetic.
All you have to offer are LIES and abuse; half-truth, conflicted, and contradicted. I pity you God-King of LIARS. You have a malformed intellect.
Here’s a definition for you God-King of LIARS. My farewell gift to you; though you deserve nothing from me.
BARTLEBEE-ISM, The dogma of LIES and deception.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 amCorrection. You are pathetic.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 amMorning Bart.
So I read your commentary. You are starting to get quite repetitous.
I also noted you have not addressed my question. Is my cat an atheist?
I imagine you refuse to address it because you have no answer. You have no ability to refute the fact that someone who has no concept of god is an atheist, but the reason they are an atheist is not becuase they BELIEVE that a god doesn’t exist.
Their atheism is not the result of a “belief based system”
As I have mentioned before, you’re argument is nothing more than an argument over semantics. And your strategy is nothing more than to attempt to outlast everyone who criticizes you.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 amdim wit:
I don’t know about your cat’s religious beliefs, but I know about my cat’s religious beliefs:
She believes she is a goddess.
She pretty much gets away with it, too.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 amGood afternoon Bart.
I’m glad you finally made some time in you day for us.
Would you please address the issue noted in post# 1128?
I’ll check back in a few minutes…..
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pmYou know full well what my point is. However, you choose to ignore it.
You ignore it because you have no answer to it. . . . .
Why do you insist on calling all refutes of your theory “lies?” They are not lies. Simply becuase you disagree with them does not make them “Lies”
Bartlebee,
you have advised in the past that your are an agnostic. yet you make this claim:
“He lies by ignoring the thousands of years of supportive evidence, including archaealogical evidence providing peripheral support, thousands and thousands of historical records and documents and hundreds of millions of first hand testimony of those claiming to have communicated with a God.”
Considering you do not believe in god, we must assume that you also ignore the “thousands of years of supportive evidence” presented by the theists.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmThus we see that the A-THEIST, is indeed a fanatical “Belief System†based on completely untenable claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
You are quite the fanatical agnostic, aren’t you?
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pmPerhaps his Cat is a Cat-holic.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
HA HA Ha. Good one! Thanks for having a sense of humor.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmAnd all this time I thought he was a catheist!
Considering you do not believe in god, we must assume that you also ignore the “thousands of years of supportive evidence†presented by the theists.
Comment by dim wit — December 3, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
So how about this? Lile the atheists, do you also ignore all of this “evidence?”
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmsorry, typo:
So how about this? LiKe the atheists, do you also ignore all of this “evidence?â€
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:13 pmWell if I ignored it then I wouldn’t be quoting it, now would I?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
So, based on the evidence which has been presented to you, you believe there is a god.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pmelated to or characterized by or given to atheism; “atheist leanings”
someone who denies the existence of god
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Atheismentails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other deities.Absence of belief:*”Atheists are people who do not believe in a god or gods (or other immaterial beings), or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
Atheist is a progressive death/thrash metal band from Florida, USA, founded in 1984, whose music was technical and sometimes reminiscent of jazz. They combined brutal riffs with subtle latin music arrangements and jazz breakdowns. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist (band)
A person whose worldview embraces Atheism [noun] [OW]. The natural condition of all humans at birth and prior to indoctrination in or self-invention of Theism. Atheists claim there is no proof for God[s]. “Strong” Atheists claim God does not exist. …
members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm
One who rejects or is ignorant of theism.
http://www.jabcreations.com/philosophy/philosophy-definitions.php
A person for whom the idea of god is senseless. Not to be confused with a person who hates (and neccessarily believes in the existence of) god.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm“Since Man created gods, atheism is the natural state of man”.
Carl Sagan
BART, God-King of LIARS, LIES again. He claims the knowledge of the great Sagan, and knows not what he said.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pmCalling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
– Don Hirschberg
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 pmBART, God-King of LIARS, can never understand the Great Sagan for, he rejects the gift of knowledge.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm“Calling atheism a belief system is like calling not playing tennis a sport”.
I’m not sure, it may have been Richard Dawkins.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmBART, God-King of LIARS, has posted the same, contradicted, definitions ad infinitum. How very wise.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pmBART, God-King of LIARS, calls posts, which reaffirm previous posts, “spam”. No further comment is required.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pmAnd now; BART, God-King of LIARS, will post his discredited definitions, until someone decides to poke him through the bars of his cage. He’s a fine instrument that produces a single note. Witness how he is PLAYED.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pmThey ask me questions.
I answer them.
They IGNORE my answers, and ask more questions.
I answer them.
Then, unable to respond to my answers, they start up whole new arguments, hoping I’ll continue to follow their lead.
:D
I will not.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
I ask questions in the sense of the Socratic Method. I ask the questions in hopes you will realize the falacy of your argument.
What questions have I (or we) ever been asked which we have not answered?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pmIt appears Mr. Diagoras was an antitheist.
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pmI’ll be wating for that one too.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
I addressed this issue hundreds of posts ago. You just didn’t like my answer.
I noted how do you know I exist?
You have no proof I exist, yet you continue to insist I do.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pmBecause DIAGORAS the ATHEIST, was not an ATHEIST.
Thats the answer you’re going with?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Well, what else were they going to call him? Diagoras the actively opposed to theism-ist? The term Antithesim had not yet been coined, though I think you will agree it is a much more accurate description.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:39 pmFrom wiki:
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative á¼€- + θεός “god”) meant “godless”. The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of “severing relations with the gods” or “denying the gods, ungodly” instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebÄ“s) or “impious”. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as “atheistic”. As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotÄ“s), “atheism”. Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and pagans, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[8]
Pagans called Christians atheists and vice versa. They called each other atheists because the other did not believe in THEIR god(s). However, they both believed in gods. Your trying to ascribe a modern translation to ancient person.
Diagoras was, using modern terminology, an antitheist.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:46 pmNegative Proof refers to the fallacy of using an argument, about a phenomenon P, of the form:
P has not been observed
Therefore P does not exist
I have no issue with the negative proof fallacy. I agree it exists and it is a logical fallacy.
However, the real fallacy (on your part) is that you think this makes atheism a belief system.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:57 pmFrom Wikipedia: Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people.
Wikipedia lists BART, God-King of LIARS, as an ATHEIST. Why does the God-King of LIARS quote a source that proves he LIES?
From Webster’s online DICTIONARY:
Synonyms within Context: Agnostic
Atheist, skeptic, unbeliever, deist, infidel, pyrrhonist; giaour, heathen, alien, gentile, Nazarene; espri fort, freethinker, latitudinarian, rationalist; materialist, positivist, nihilist, agnostic, somatist, theophobist.
Even the DICTIONARY lists ATHEIST as a synonym of AGNOSTIC.
Again from Websters:
Synonym
Noun
1. Two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context.
AGNOSTIC and ATHEIST are interchangeable. BART, God-King of LIARS, is an ATHEIST.
(NOTE: Rational people who read this post will see that, according to his own “logic” BART, God-King of LIARS, is an ATHEIST. He has wasted days of precious life trying to discredit his own position! LMFAO!!!)
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:59 pmBlogsnark: Atheism Is A Belief System?
Atheism is not a belief system; if atheism were a belief system, it would consist of an integrated system of doctrines, beliefs, and ideas that would used to provide guidance and stability in people’s lives. Since it obviously does none of that, those who say that atheism is a belief system can’t have the slightest idea of what they are talking about.
KathyJo writes:
Atheism is a belief system. The dictionary defines it as:
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm“1a) Disbelief or denial of the existence of God or gods;
b) The doctrine that there is no God or gods.” Yes, those definitions appear in most dictionaries. Isn’t it interesting that none of those definitions is the equivalent of “a belief system”? Even the last one, “doctrine,” isn’t the same as a belief system. Imagine some traditional Christian doctrines, like the Trinity or that Jesus was the Son of God… are those each a belief system? Of course not. No Christian would say that they are. Doctrines are part of a belief system; they are not belief systems all by themselves.
From Wikiquote:
Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed.
Voltaire
One of the greatest intellects, in human history, hold that atheism and fanaticism are mutually exclusive. But BART, God-King of LIARS, is wiser than Voltaire because he’s a guy on a blog.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:09 pmBartlebee, please note, this is entire premise of your argument:
“Bartlebee must be right becuase their is no proof he is wrong”
Despite the fact there is proof you are wrong, the whole premise of your argument is based on the logical fallacy you claim proves you right!
You’re arguement is nothing more than the logical fallacy you continually post. Ha Ha Ha. I can’t believe you would actually attempt to support your argument in the same fashion that you would criticize it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:12 pmBART, God-King of LIARS and proven ATHEIST, is guy on a blog. He maintains that he is wiser than all the theologians, philosophers, and linguists quoted above.
BART, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, is incapable of understanding that “or”, in a definition, denotes alternative meanings of equal value.
BART, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, denies the same dictionaries he quotes as “proof”. He is so very wise.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pmYour argument requires we throw out all that, and reason too.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
You have already thrown out reason.
And I’ve been to atheist.org. How does it prove your right? There is nothing on that website which supports your claim.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pmOh so now you want to play the “please repost all the stuff from ATHEIST.ORG website†routine, huh?
Ok dick wit, I shall.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
NO!!
You don’t need to repost a thing!
There is nothing in your post which supports your position anyway.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:27 pmIt says that your argument, that the LACK OF EXISTeNCE OF A GOD PROVES A GOD DOES NOT EXIST, is a FALLACY
ANSWER that DIMWIT.
Until you do I won’t answer one more of the stooges questions.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
well, a lack of the existence of a god would prove a does not exist. I don’t believe that would be a fallacy.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:31 pmThe negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
“A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not existâ€.
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
“A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist“.
Until you stooges acknowledge this, you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
LOGICAL FALLACIES ARE A TRUE.
THIS DOES NOT PROVE YOUR POINT.
YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON A LOGICAL FALLACY OF ITS OWN.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 pmcorrected this:
It says that your argument, that the LACK OF EXISTeNCE OF A GOD PROVES A GOD DOES NOT EXIST, is a FALLACY
ANSWER that DIMWIT.
Until you do I won’t answer one more of the stooges questions.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
well, a lack of the existence of a god would prove a GOD does not exist. I don’t believe that would be a fallacy.
Comment by dim wit — December 3, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 pmNote the sudden switch to bold print. Now the infamous troll BART, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, is losing control. Note how he is played by using his own “logic” to contradict his hollow words.
BART, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, is nothing but our, predictable, fiddle. Hold the note until I grow bored and change your tune again. And again.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:42 pmWho are you bloviating to?
There is no one else here.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmWho are you bloviating to?
There is no one else here.
Comment by dim wit — December 3, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
sorry, apparently pete is here.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:47 pmIn order to accept the God-King of ATHEIST LIARS’ argument, we have to throw out WIKI now, even though he quotes from it himself when it suits him.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
I fixed that for you. Now be a good fiddle and hold the note.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:51 pmsorry, apparently pete is here.
Comment by dim wit — December 3, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Someone, somewhere, may disagree. Therefore its a FALLACY. I don’t like it when the figments of my imagination contradict me, LOL!
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pmCanadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001.
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
disbelief: 1. lack of belief 2. astonishment
Now we must throw out the Canadian Oxford Dictionary because, it contradicts BART, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:59 pmSo Bartlebee, we’ve proven that logical fallacies are true.
we’ve also proven that your argument claiming logical fallacies does not support your claim.
So where do we go from here.
What is bartlebee’s second line of defense?
or do you accept you are wrong?
if only diagoras was here to have a talk with you
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pmGosh D. W. It’s been a half-hour his last post. You don’t think his head exploded do you?
It’s time for din-din so, I’ll for now. Later.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pmI was worried about you oh God-King of ATHEIST LIARS.
Wiki also states:
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pmWhen defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities.
Why must that statement be ignored? I have to eat so you have plenty of time to fabricate an unconvincing LIE.
Following the “logic” of BART, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, the following is true and incotrovertable.
The Westboro Baptist Church defines “Christianity”. All Christians follow the precepts of the Westboro Baptist Church literally and faithfully. There are no Christian values other than those of the Westboro Baptist Church.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:48 pmBART, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS cites “Tucson Atheists”. From their web site: http://atheists.meetup.com/69/about/
Q: What is Atheism?
A: Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods or deities (”a” = without, “theism” = belief in gods or deities). A common misconception is that Atheists believe that gods or deities do not exist. While some Atheists do share this belief (called “antitheism”), not all Atheists do and it is not a defining belief of Atheism.
BART, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, need not visit a site to know the wisdom it contains.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 pmOf course the A-THEISTS assert, unequivocally that god does not exist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:03 pmGo ahead petey. Deny it.
I need another laugh.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
I deny it. Millions of atheists deny it. Scholars and theologians deny it. And, most of your other tormentors deny it.
http://atheists.meetup.com/69/about/
Q: What is Atheism?
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:13 pmA: Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods or deities (â€a†= without, “theism†= belief in gods or deities). A common misconception is that Atheists believe that gods or deities do not exist. While some Atheists do share this belief (called “antitheismâ€), not all Atheists do and it is not a defining belief of Atheism.
This one demands repeating, with emphasis.
Go ahead petey. Deny it.
I need another laugh.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
I deny it. Millions of atheists deny it. Scholars and theologians deny it. And, most of your other tormentors deny it.
http://atheists.meetup.com/69/about/
Q: What is Atheism?
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:16 pmA: Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods or deities (â€a†= without, “theism†= belief in gods or deities). A common misconception is that Atheists believe that gods or deities do not exist. While some Atheists do share this belief (called “antitheismâ€), not all Atheists do and it is not a defining belief of Atheism.
Atheist Aliiance International
http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php
An atheist is anyone who has no belief in any god, whether the god is called Jehovah, Satan, Vishnu, Allah, Loki, Zeus, or any other name. Therefore, atheists hold many varieties of social and political philosophies. There is no atheist dogma, and the Atheist Alliance International has no catechism.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:21 pmSo you are saying “I DO NOT BELEIVE GOD EXISTS†is somehow “differentâ€, than saying “I BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT EXISTâ€?
Yes, they are different in meaning. Most English speakers, including those who compile dictionaries, would also say they differ.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:25 pmPlay well oh King of ATHEIST LIARS, my little fiddle.. I have other fish to fry.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:28 pmOne last pluck of your strings:
Thats why SOME DICTIONARIES SAY IT ONE WAY, AND OTHER DICTIONARIES SAY IT THE OTHER WAY.
BECAUSE IT MEANS THE SAME THING.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Some dictionaries say one, or the other. Complete dictionaries say both. Because they are different.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:30 pmSo Bart’s second line of defense is the semantics argument.
Didn’t we already go down this road? I thought Bart had given up on this already.
Well with death of the logical fallacy argument (which PROVED Bartlebee’s entire argument to be a logical fallacy in itself) we now get the semantics argument.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:51 pmA-THEISTS exist only because THEISTS exist.
No THEISTS, no NON-THEISTS.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Atheists can absolutely exist w/o theists.
For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t know what a non-theist is. (?)
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:27 pmMy God, I thought we had put this to bed, but the bartlebee who speaks as if he is giving a great oratation decides to revive his misproven concept.
Please read post #1207. What does it say?
The negative proof fallacy is correct. However, it does not prove your point.
Neither does your statement: “I believe god does not exist†and “I do not believe god existsâ€. How does this prove that atheists are fanatical, you fanatical agnostic zealot, who speaks in third person?
I believe bartlebee is wrong = I believe bartlebee is not correct
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
SPAM
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 pmIf you actually read my posts, you’ll see i have answered all of your questions.
Ironically, they prove my case much better than they prove yours.
So please read my posts before you criticize them for “not answering” you.
And stop orating.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 pmWhat? That makes absolutely no sense.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 pmThe negative proof fallacy is correct.
Comment by dim wit — December 3, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
So now he admits, that the core foundational claim, and its rationale, that is, GOD DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE NO PROOF GOD EXISTS, is a FALLACY.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Don’t you see, the negative proof fallacy does not prove you right?
Why can’ t you grasp this. the same negative proof fallacy you claim proves you right actually proves you wrong.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 pmThere is a difference in a belief in concepts based on fact versus a belief in concepts based on faith.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 pmThats right.
And A-THEISM is a belief concept based on BELIEF.
Because it has not facts to prove its claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 3, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
Atheism doesn’t need facts because it doesn’t make any claims.
—
You cannot just “SAY†it proves me wrong. You have to SHOW it.
Here is your argument:
The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
“A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not existâ€.
Reworded we could also say:
“Bartlebee must be right, becuase there is no proof that he is wrong”
Again, this is the negative proof fallacy which you so strongly claim. Yet it is still a FALLACY. Simply because you BELIEVE you are correct, does not make you correct.
Furthermore, you make suggestions which you have no right to suggest. You say atheists
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 pmAnd here is the proof your arguement is based on a fallacy:
Reworded we could also say:
“Bartlebee must be right, becuase there is no proof that he is wrongâ€
Again, this is the negative proof fallacy which you so strongly claim. Yet it is still a FALLACY. Simply because you BELIEVE you are correct, does not make you correct.
I’ll let you ponder that one for a bit, but I imagine you’ll never actually respond to it.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:18 amSorry, not a Star Trek fan. Doesn’t make any sense to me at all.
however, I was wondering if the following sentence is a negative proof fallacy or a proof negative fallacy:
“A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not existâ€.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pmThe REST of us, are the ADULTS, watching TWO STUPID CHILDREN, argue about something NEITHER OF THEM CAN PROVE.
:\
There.
Does that tiny pea, rolling around in your brainwashed fanatical mind get it yet, dimwit?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 4, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Not Quite yet.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pmYpu are in denial, my friend.
DENIAL: the act of asserting that something alleged is not true
December 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pmAtheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods or deities (â€a†= without, “theism†= belief in gods or deities). A common misconception is that Atheists believe that gods or deities do not exist. While some Atheists do share this belief (called “antitheismâ€), not all Atheists do and it is not a defining belief of Atheism.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pmI’m not an atheist (at least today I’m not)
nor am I green (I am light shade of tan)
nor are you correct in your assertions (please see last 1000 posts)
December 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pmI’ve claimed many times not to be an atheist.
Whether I am an atheist or not has no bearing on the FACT that you’re entire argument is based on (1) a flawed concept and (2) semantics.
If you are so fond of reading wiki, why don’t you read the entire wiki entry for atheism. You will see there are many different schools of thought regarding atheim.
I have also noted many times that if you simply change the word “atheism” with “antitheism” I will agree your position is correct. You see that is something called compromise.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pmFace saving (or saving face) refers to maintaining a good self image. People who are involved in a conflict and secretly know they are wrong will often not admit that they are wrong because they don’t want to admit they made a mistake. They therefore continue the conflict, just to avoid the embarrassment of looking bad.
To avoid this problem, it is important to allow one’s opponents to make concessions gracefully, without having to admit that they made a mistake or backed down. Often a simple change in wording, or an exchange of concessions will help negotiators maintain a positive image, even when they are actually giving in very substantially. Negotiation expert William Ury, (1991, p. 105) recommends that negotiators “go slow to go fast.” By moving slowly, negotiators can trade minor concessions, and can focus more on what they have gained than on what they have lost. Superior power is useless, cautions Ury, “if it drives your opponent into a corner and makes him resist you with all his might. Leaving him a way out is a time-honored precept.”
One aspect of this principle is the rule of not gloating or bragging when one has won a victory. Gloating makes the other side look bad and feel badly, which can encourage them to withdraw their cooperation with any previous agreements.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:43 pmI’m trying to give you an “out” here Bart
You don’t even have to admit your wrong.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:44 pmBut this thing, this “troll†has not had the balls to admit what his beliefs were from day one, while still demanding I express mine.
So from here on in, I shall give this “trollâ€, only the attention it deserves.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 4, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
You shouldn’t have assumed I was an atheist. it was wrong of you.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:51 pmLets start a whole new game.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 4, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Fine. But please no more Batman or Star Trek references.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:55 pmBecause the DICK WIT, cannot.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 4, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
i think you may have misspelled my name. its diM wit.
Notice the “M” where you have “ck”
December 4th, 2007 at 4:06 pmI’m still waiting on how Bart knows I even exist. It appears Bart BELIEVES I exist, despite the fact he has no evidence to prove I actually exist.
Using his logic, I guess I’m Bart’s god.
Comment by dim wit — December 1, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Bart, do you believe in me?
Am I your god?
December 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWell, I checked in just in time to catch BAR-TROLL, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, in another LIE.
DUM WIT’s, been demanding that I am a THEIST since day one, at least thats the straw argument he kept assigning to me, like Pete
I have never claimed he’s a THEIST.
I’m definitely in the group which “rejects theismâ€
The A-THEISTs DO reject THEISM, and claim GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Another display of his ignorance of the English language and Greek roots.
To reject one philosophy does not mean I subscribe to it’s opposite. The Greek prefix (a) denotes “not” or “without”. BAR-TROLL, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, is incapable of realization that (a) is not equivalent to “anti”. He is incapable of understanding that one can not “win”, a debate, without convincing someone of, at least, one point.
BAR-TROLL, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, is either illiterate or stupid. Or both. In addition to being a LIAR.
Have fun BAR-TROLL, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, my little fiddle. I leave you to play the tune I have assigned you.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:23 pmDimwit
How can I or anyone prove the non-existence of a non-existent object if the object never existed in the first place.
Comment by dim wit — November 29, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
How can I? You ask for proof and I can give you none.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pmSorry about that dickhead.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 4, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
I don’t see how this proves your point.
Oh well
I guess the “lessons” will commence
December 4th, 2007 at 4:39 pmwhy do you quote everyone else but me?
You have nothing to prove I claimed to be an atheist.
Because I never did.
You assumed and you were wrong.
Why don’t you just read the wiki article about atheism, accept another word which would prove your claim to be accurate and we can agree upon it.
I am trying so hard to give you a reason to be right, but you won’t accept it.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:43 pmFrom Wiki:
A fairy tale or fairy story is a fictional story that usually features folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events. In modern-day parlance, the term is also used to describe to something blessed with unusual happiness, as in “fairy tale ending” (a happy ending)[1] or “fairy tale romance”, though there are notable examples and genres of fairy tales that do not end happily. Colloquially, a “fairy tale” or “fairy story” can also mean any far-fetched story.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:50 pmStrong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, “gods do not exist”. Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard. Because of flexibility in the term “god”, it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:18 pmIf we’ve learned anything here over these past 6 days and almost 1400 comments, is that you just cannot debate with someone who is willing to lie as in the case of BAR-TROLL, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 4, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
There, I fixed that for you.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:21 pmA lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else. A liar is a person who is known to have a tendency to tell lies.
I have not lied.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:28 pmLet us apply the “logic” of BAR-TROLL, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, to his agnostic assertions.
Gnosticism is a blanket term for various religions and sects most prominent in the first few centuries A.D. Many elements of second-century gnosticsm are pre-Christian. The name of gnosticism comes from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis (γνῶσις), referring to the idea that there is special, hidden knowledge (esoteric knowledge) that only a few may possess. The occult nature of Gnostic teaching and the fact that much of the evidence for that teaching comes from attacks by orthodox Christians makes it difficult to be precise about the differences between different Gnostic systems. Recently, the word Gnosticism has been used to describe more modern sects which have formed out of the New Age movement and who really do not share the main core idea of Theological dualism.
If, as BAR-TROLL, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, claims; (a) denotes opposition, agnosticism claims that gnosticism is false.
Thus, A-GNOSTICISM, being unable to prove its primary claim that GNOSTICISM is false, is a BELIEF based system. And, as a BELIEF based system, A-GNOSTICISM is FANATICAL.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:38 pmHe has no evidence God does not exist, than the fact that it has not been proven.
- – - -
You have no evidence I exist, yet you believe in me.
You have no evidence a person who does not know god and hence does not believe in god is not an atheist and yet sill is not a believer in a belief based system.
The only thing you have is this thread. I hope you believe in it.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:07 pmAnd when BAR-TROLL, God-King of ATHEIST LIARS, can come to grips with that argument, and abandon this “lack of proof†means conclusive evidence that GNOSTICISM is wrong, then he too will rise from a belief based system to a fact based system.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:17 pmHere’s a definition, for DELUSION, from Wiki:
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:
* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
I think it’s safe to say that BAR-TROLL, God-King of DELUSIONAL ATHEIST LIARS; by his false assertion that A-THEISM is the same thing as ANTI-THEISM fits the criteria.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:24 pmPlay your tune my little fiddle. I have real world duties to perform. Fear not. I’ll set you a new task before bed time.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:26 pmGood Evening Mr. Bart L Bee
A little nugget of wisdom for you to think about:
Absence of belief and belief are not the same thing, even in your screwed-up world of “Bartlebee is always right, and everybody else is always wrongâ€. Shayne has you pegged, little man. You can continue with your delusions that I am a “devoted believer†in my “causeâ€, as if I need a defense from your ignorance and ego, or as if your uninformed opinion isn’t a “fanatical cause†on its own, but until you return to English instead of Bartspeak, your blatherings are textbook projection, and you lack the courage of your convictions, or even the convictions themselves. You’re not qualified to rewrite the English language, either.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:32 pmIf there are some A-THEISTS out there, who do not make ths claim, then they’re not included in my statement.
;)
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 4, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
That’s all we asked BART. We win.
G’night
December 4th, 2007 at 11:10 pmwhen I mean “ALLâ€, I’ll say “ALLâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 4, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
You implied “all”
However, I am glad to see you have conceded and have acknowledged the fallacy of your claim.
I respect you for that.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:07 amHow fanatical is a guy, who claims, “I don’t believe that is correct†is somehow different than saying “I believe thats not correct�
:D
REAL fanatical.
BAWAHAHAHAAHHA
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 5, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
I presume somewhat less fanatical than you.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pmBut its fascinating to learn how in the A-THEIST belief system that their meanings are quite different.
:D
Mesmerizing stuff, really.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 5, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
fascinating indeed, how it is you can choose to ignore so many facts to justify your flawed position.
how you quote wiki like it is your gospel, but you fail to correctly interprete the words you read.
it is truly fascinating.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:37 pmYou cannot even summarize why I am wrong in one or two sentences, like I can for you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 5, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
2 Sentences:
1) Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods or deities.
2) A lack of belief does not equal a belief system.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:10 pm1. Another way of saying that is Atheism defined as a belief that no gods or deities exist.
2. A lack of proof that a god or deities does not exist means it is not fact, but only BELIEF.
:D
Hence, A-THEISM = BELIEF SYSTEM
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 5, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
No, actually that wouldn’t be another way of saying it. How is it that you could possibly think that a lack of belief is synonomous with having a belief.
You are butchering the syntax and you are arriving at a new statement which has a meaning different than the original statement.
The following phrases have entirely different meaning:
1) Eats shoots and leaves.
2) Eats, shoots, and leaves.
You cannot just choose to accept a different context to prove your point. It is so sad you do not realize this.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pmA-THEISM cannot prove its main premise.
Thus, A-THEISM is a belief based system, not a fact based system.
So sayeth WIKI.
So say us all.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 5, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
So say us all that Bartlebee ignores logic, reason, and fact.
So say us all that Bartlebee remains incorrect.
So say us all that the truth can be found in 2 sentences:
2 Sentences:
1) Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods or deities.
2) A lack of belief does not equal a belief system.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:54 pmHail BAR-TROLL, God-King of DELUSIONAL ATHEIST LIARS.
I’m glad you found something to blather, to yourself, about. Events in the real world have prevented me from setting your new task, my little fiddle. So, here’s another passage from The Gospel of Wiki. Now play us to sleep with your dulcet tones. See you in a day or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophical_isms
atheism – a condition of being without theistic beliefs; an absence of belief in the existence of gods, thus contrasting with theism. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods and those who have no beliefs at all regarding the existence of gods. However, narrower definitions often only qualify the former as atheism, the latter falling under the more general (but rarely used) term nontheism.
Remember, one can’t accept half a definition. It’s all or nothing. Unless your narrow mind can only process a narrow definition.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:05 am2 Sentences. Read them. Attempt to understand them. Stop changing the meanings of the sentences to fit that twisted little belief system of your own.
2 Sentences:
1) Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods or deities.
2) A lack of belief does not equal a belief system.
Belief is not a homonym. Belief does not have more than one meaning. That is precisely why the “lack of belief” is not the same as a “belief”
How is it possible that you think the word “belief” has the same meaning as its exact opposite “lack of belief?”
December 6th, 2007 at 10:32 amHey DICK wit.
I “BELIEVE†you are incorrect.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 6, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (argument) to be true without necessarily being able to adequately prove its main contention to other people who may or may not agree. – WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 5, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
- – - –
I’m glad you acknowledge your belief I am wrong is based of your inability to prove I am wrong.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:13 pmbartlebee, read this again. These are all your words and your thoughts.
I “BELIEVE†you are incorrect.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 6, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (argument) to be true without necessarily being able to adequately prove its main contention to other people who may or may not agree. – WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 5, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
- – - –
I’m glad you acknowledge your belief I am wrong is based of your inability to prove I am wrong.
Comment by dim wit — December 6, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
How do you ignore the fact you continually contradict yourself?
December 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pmNor does that fact that apparently your mom and dad were also your aunt and uncle.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 6, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
How does this support your case?
December 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmHa Ha
All of your responses are based on your inability to adequately prove the contentions of your argument.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pm:D
December 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pmatheism – a condition of being without theistic beliefs
December 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pmEnglish Tenses:
December 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pmPresent perfect
The present perfect is used to describe experience (without saying when), eg I’ve been to Hong Kong; things which happened in the past but have results in the present, eg she’s written six letters (here they are); and things which started in the past but are still continuing, eg they’ve lived there for twenty-nine years.
Questions: eg Has Ted seen Austin Powers? How long have you worked here? Have you ever been to Kyoto?
Negative sentences: eg I haven’t done my homework. He’s never been to America.
BTW, Atheism is not a belief system; if atheism were a belief system, it would consist of an integrated system of doctrines, beliefs, and ideas that would used to provide guidance and stability in people’s lives. Since it obviously does none of that, those who say that atheism is a belief system can’t have the slightest idea of what they are talking about.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pmhere, you must of missed this:
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
December 6th, 2007 at 5:53 pmwordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Comment by dim wit — December 6, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
there it is. right there in the dictionary you keep quoting over and over and over and over.
seems like you overlooked that definition on purpose. . . .
I guess if I was you, I would have overlooked the definition that proved me wrong too.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:01 pmIt says it is a “lack of belief in the existence of God or godsâ€, which is the SAME THING as their defintion right next to it that says – ATHEISM:the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Its clear you have no understanding of what you are talking about. You claim that a “lack of belief” is equivalent to “a beleif”
How is it possible a word can mean the exact opposite of itself?
To you, a “lack of food” would be the same thing as saying “food”
You are simply incorrect. Your error is dumbfoundingly obvious, though, I am sure, to you that means your error is NOT dumbfoundingly obvious.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:24 amArgumentum ad hominem
December 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pmAgnosticism – The belief that the existence of God is not knowable.
Appears you have a beleif system of you own.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:54 pmImplicit atheist (lower case atheism) is a person who has not yet learned about god(s), theism or religion. All people are born implicit atheists
Explicit Atheist (upper case Atheism) is an atheist who understands what a god is and who has concluded that no such beings exist
December 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pmha ha ha
your belief you are correct is as irrational as the theist belief in a god.
keep trying to prove your point – maybe one day you’ll be “right”
ha ha ha
December 7th, 2007 at 11:39 pmHowever, narrower definitions often only qualify the former as atheism,
You can consider me one of the “narrower†crowd.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 6, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Hail BAR-TROLL, God-King of DELUSIONAL ATHEIST LIARS. I applaud you for confirming your narrow world view.
Your new task is to prove you are not delusional. I wish you luck.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/delusional
Delusion
Noun
1. An erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.
2. A mistaken opinion or idea; “he has delusions of competence”.
3. The act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:43 pmDebate? I think not. The reason for debate is to explore the value of contradictory positions and persuade others to adopt the wiser. It is not defined by brow-beating and repetition.
Indeed, you have exhibited no facility for debate nor understanding of the concept. Where others debate you seek only to dictate. You make assumptions about what others believe, or don’t believe. You hurl abuse when you can’t force others to parrot your pet hypotheses. No BART. You don’t debate.
Now play a tune while I go out and enjoy the company of friends. Perhaps if you repeat your false assumptions, for another evening, you may start to believe them? No one else does.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pmYou have proven nothing except your own limitations, and you can’t take it. You call opinions facts, you lay out dictionaries as if dictionaries are gospel. How many of your dictionaries have multiple definitions for the same word?
PASTE FROM PRINCETON UNIVERSITY’S WORDNET
Noun
December 10th, 2007 at 9:51 amS: (n) atheism, godlessness
direct hypernym / inherited hypernym / sister term
antonym
derivationally related form
S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)
direct hypernym / inherited hypernym / sister term
derivationally related form
LOL, well genius, to those of us who speak “ENGLISHâ€, the Dictionary IS the “gospelâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 10, 2007 @ 11:32 am
gospel: religious doctrine: the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group
So now you worship the dictionary? Do you read passages from it every night? do you pray to it?
:(
- – - – -
What I’ve “PROVEN†is what I said is in the Dictionary, (atheism is a belief) and what you said (atheism is NOT a belief) appears NOWHERE, in ANY English dictionary.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 10, 2007 @ 11:52 am
You’ve proven nothing. Your precious dictionary clearly states:
atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, :^O
which, as you well know is the same as saying atheism is not a belief.
I should also note the dictionary doesn’t call all atheists fanatical either, so I wonder where you made up that from.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:24 pmBARTLEBEE writes:
BARTLEBEE is selectively quoting from Dictionary.com’s search results:
Dictionary.com: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
American Heritage Dictionary: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
[Wow, that's some nasty bias!]
Wordnet: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism] 2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Kernerman: the belief that there is no God
December 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pmSorry for accidentally omitting a closing bold tag there. At least my omission was not deliberate.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:51 pmArgument from authority fallacies aren’t going to get you very far with atheists.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:58 pmAnd you really don’t want to argue the Greek sense of the word, because to the Greeks, Jews and Christians were “atheists” for not believing in their pantheon.
ATTENTION BAR-TROLL!
Those mean ol’ atheists are picking on Christians, again.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/10/huckabee-wants-to-take-this-nation-back-for-christ/
December 10th, 2007 at 3:26 pmBart, you’re not entirely off base; most of the dictionaries you cite give two definitions for atheism, a narrow one and a broad one.
The narrow definition applies to those with a doctrinaire belief that there is no god.
The broad definition applies to those who lack a belief in a god, a much larger set including anyone who is not a theist.
The people in your narrowly-defined group of “atheists” are very few, a small subset of the non-theists that most other posters here refer to as “atheists”.
Your claims about that tiny minority do not apply to non-theists as a whole.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:42 pmComment by Robin Lionheart — December 10, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
That one was tried long ago. BAR-TROLL just starts blathering “A-THEISM….DICTINARY… ILLITERATE…”; non sequitur.
Any philosopher, Theologian, or linguist who states an opinion contrary to BAR-TROLL gets greeted with a volley of excrement. It’s amusing but sad.
BTW: POKE!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 5:27 pmNo, it’s not. I’ll alter your proposition to make the difference clearer.
B(x,y) = x believes proposition y
W(x) = x is white
“I do not believe Robin Lionheart is whiteâ€= not B(me,W(Robin)) [in other words, I do not hold the belief that Robin is white]
“I believe Robin Lionheart is not white†= B(me,not W(Robin)) [in other words, I hold a belief that Robin is other than white]
If you are neutral on W(Robin), then the former is true but the latter is false.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:08 pmnot B(me,W(Robin)) =/= B(me,not W(Robin))
I haven seen religious and anti-religious people of all different persuasions pick out choice bits of the Bible to make all manner of points about what God does or does not condemn or mandate. This is called “proof-texting” and is not a very persuasive form of arguement. Does anybody reading this thread see a form of dictionary “proof-texting” going on?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:40 pmBart:
Saying “the fact that the FIRST definition in the dictionary I posted” glosses over that it wasn’t the first definition in one of the four dictionaries you cited. That’s a bit dishonest.
And irrelevant. Go to OneLook and search 25 dictionaries, it will still comes down to the same thing:
You are using the narrow dictionary definition.
I am using the broad dictionary definition.
You, I assume, think agnostics are a third category between theism and atheism. (Is there a god? Theist: Yes. Atheist: No. Agnostic: I don’t know.)
I think agnostics can be either theists or atheists, because knowledge is not the same thing as belief. (Agnostic theist: I believe, but I don’t know for sure. Agnostic atheist: I don’t believe, but I don’t know for sure.)
You might be right by your definitions, while I might be right by my definitions. We could argue semantics all day, pointlessly spinning our wheels and getting nowhere.
If you didn’t comprehend my logic, then you won’t understand my point of view, so let’s not waste our time and agree to disagree.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pmThe BAR-TROLL is tougher than that. He hasn’t made it far enough into a dictionary to find the first definition of “or”:
or — a conjunction used to indicate an alternative
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/or
–conjunction
1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=or&x=0&y=0
I’m not sure, but, I think he skipped “alternative”.
al·ter·na·tive /É”lˈtÉœrnÉ™tɪv, æl-/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl-tur-nuh-tiv, al-] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility: You have the alternative of riding or walking.
2. one of the things, propositions, or courses of action that can be chosen: The alternative to riding is walking.
3. a possible or remaining course or choice
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alternative&x=0&y=0
I admit it’s hard to understand “alternative” without “or”.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pmAnd soon; He’ll say it’s Bullsh!t, or, something of similar grammatic authenticity and veracity.
BTW: POKE!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 10:27 pmOr, perhaps BAR-TROLL, God-King of ENGLISH, KEEPER of the HOLY DICTINARIES will claim to be “enlightened”?
WordNet – Cite This Source – Share This
enlightened
adjective
1. having knowledge and spiritual insight [ant: unenlightened]
2. characterized by full comprehension of the problem involved; “an educated guess”; “an enlightened electorate” [syn: educated]
noun
1. people who have been introduced to the mysteries of some field or activity; “it is very familiar to the initiate”
Would he choose the first? Or would he prefer the ALTERNATIVE definition.
BTW: POKE!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 11:01 pmMaybe I need to use them in a sentence?
An “ENLIGHTENED” person may choose the common DEFINITION, “OR” it’s “ALTERNATIVE”.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:44 pmAre we still bound by “BART’s RULES of ENGLISH”. Does the first thing always have precedence? Does it apply to the Thesaurus?
Roget’s New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus – Cite This Source – Share This
Main Entry: atheist
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: nonbeliever
Synonyms: agnostic, free thinker, heathen, infidel, irreligionist, pagan, skeptic
Notes: an agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God; an atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
Source: Roget’s New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Is BAR-TROLL, God King of ENGLISH, also KEEPER of the HOLY THESAURUS?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:57 pmBecause; the THESAURUS says AGNOSTIC is SYNONYMOUS with ATHEIST.
Synonym
Noun
1. Two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context.
Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved
Can it be that BAR-TROLL has danced to the tune of his betters trying to claim he’s “NOT an ATHEIST” and “ATHEISM is a BELIEF”? And all on the word of a DICTINARY? Does a DISTINARY tell you how to build a boat? Does a DIKSHUNARY tell you how love feels? Does a DUCKSANCTUARY tell you what you BELIEVE and who to CONDEMN?
Well, dumpkuck BAR-TROLL the DICTIONARY says synonyms can be interchanged. You are an ATHEIST. And still haven’t managed to shame one ATHEIST with your excrement.
You have only proved how utterly CONTEMPTIBLE your JUDGMENTS are to any ENLIGHTENED reader.
BTW: POKE!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 12:13 amha ha
Busy day yesterday.
- – - -
Thats why it doesn’t say “Atheism is not a beliefâ€.
Because it says “Atheism is a belief†and dictionary’s don’t contradict themselves.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 11, 2007 @ 1:38 am
How comical. When does the dictionary ever given the definition of a word by describing what it is not?
According to the dictionary a “Republican” is: a member of the Republican Party. But to you I guess the dictionary should read that a Republican is: not a member of the Democratic party, not a member of the Green party, not an independent.
Thats foolish. Then again, look at the source!
And just so you know, I’m not arguing with your precious dictionary. I would never want to make any heretical remarks against your bible-dictionary.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:37 amHmmm…what’s this thread for, anyway? I found it last night for the first time. I was searching for all the scary things Mike Huckabee has said so far. This thread is pretty scary of its own right, tho. Atheism can be described by some as a belief system. So what? Do we live in a one-size-fits-all world? I’m an Episcopalian but I don’t believe in much of the Nicene Creed. I’m a Democrat but I don’t agree with the whole party platform. In a narrow sense I’m also an atheist, because I don’t believe in a theistic god…I’m more of a Paul Tillich “Ground of All Being” guy. I agree that for some Atheism is a belief. For some Democrats the platform is gospel too. but not for all. So what? Whether you think it is or it isn’t, what’s the big deal? Boy, it took me a long time to read all these postings. I don’t think it was time well spent. Any of you guys read Richard Dawkins? Any of you guys fellow Brights?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI don’t think it was time well spent. Any of you guys read Richard Dawkins? Any of you guys fellow Brights?
Comment by alberic — December 11, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
I can assure you, your time was wasted.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 11, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
My god. its round and round with you.
Do you even read your posts? You make no sense.
Dictionaries do not define words by what they are not.
Atheism is not a belief
Not all altheists (or theists) are fanatical.
You’re wrong. End of Story.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pmWhen the Dictionary states what you state, instead of what I state, then we can move the debate forward.
Until then, you’re just an illiterate bunch of stooges arguing with a Dictionary.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 11, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Which shows that the BAR-BEE-TROLL never had the desire, or ability, to “move the debate forward”. And hasn’t been reading, or comprehending, my posts.
For, if he had, he would realize I haven’t been debating him, his asinine assertions, the DICTIONARY or anything else.
It’s called “baiting” not “debating”. And, he has not yet failed to take the bait.
Specialty Definition: Baiting
(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
December 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pmOn the Internet, baiting is similar to trolling, in that baiters, like trolls, try to elicit a response from other users. The difference is that the response is supposed to be embarrassing to the user in question, and humorous to others. Baiters frequently concentrate on groups they do not like, such as pedophiles, religious fundamentalists, or homosexuals. What the baiter says does not need to make sense, it is often simply written to baffle the bait, and to produce an interesting result. In that respect, baiting is similar to telephone prank calls, but often much more elaborate.
Glad to see you found your hole, but Sorry Bart,
there is no one here arguing with the dictionary.
However it is amazing how immensely clueless or ignorant you are.
the Truth:
1) Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods or deities.
2) A lack of belief does not equal a belief system.
The dictionary agrees.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:25 pmBTW: POKE!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 2:48 pmHow exactly does the dictionary support your claim?
You read what you want to read, ignore the rest and fill in the blanks with your imagination.
Thats not the truth.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:52 pmHowdy Bart. hi, Dim. Hey, everyone. This is Alberic, and I am in fact new here. Bart, I am neither anyone’s alter ego nor am I a dipsh$t…my teenagers may disagree on that last bit. yeah, Dim, this probably was a waste of time, but it is not as embarassing as looking at porn.Now, then…what IS this supposed to be about? kicking old Bartlebee around? Arguing for the sport of it? Because I don’t get what the big deal about Atheism being a belief system is. As Bart has said over and over, you can find it described thusly in dictionaries. Fine. It can be described as a belief system. So what? If I don’t believe in a theistic god, am I an atheist, or an A-THEIST or simply a panenthiest or what? Do these black and white labels really work in the real world? Are you a perfect archetypical hispanic/white/gay/black/hetero/anything that fits the so-called dictionary definition exactly? How ’bout that Mike Huckabee and his God phone? Is he scarier that Romney?
December 11th, 2007 at 6:16 pmIts like talking to a dishrag.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 11, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
I know the feeling Bart. I really do.
Everyone here is trying to get you to understand the most simplist of concepts, yet you are so ignorant you either refuse or are incapable of understanding it.
lack of belief is not the same as a belief.
Your precious dictionaries have more than one definition for a reason, but as is apparent in everything you say and do, you choose to ignore reality because you like yours so much more.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:22 pmThe song seemed simple enough when he first presented it to his bandmates, but it soon became impossibly difficult to learn: while they were practising it, Barrett kept changing the arrangement. He would then play it again, with the arbitrary changes, and sing “Have you got it yet?”. After more than an hour of trying to “get it”, they realised they never would and that they were simply bearing the brunt of Barrett’s rather obscure sense of humor.
From Wiki about Syd Barret and his psychotic behavior. Sound like anyone we know?
BTW:POKE!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 6:39 pmMy new mouse has one of those really fast-rolling scroll wheels. Thank God (or, thank the Ground of All Being) for that!
December 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pmYeesh, argumentum ad nauseum. If he repeats it enough times, we’ll stop refuting it and go away. Pathetic.
Yes, alberic, I’m a bright and have read The God Delusion. If you’d like to talk to other Dawkins readers, try the forums on RichardDawkins.net.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:49 pmPOKE, your Ma back at ya buddy. Of course, If she was WAVE in San Diego, I probably have.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:08 amLike I said. Two idiots, arguing with the dictionary.
:|
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 11, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
I attempted to argue with the dictionary last night. I called it mean and ugly things, noting with all its different definitions for the same word it was nothing more than a flip-flopper who couldn’t make a decision.
But the dictionary was stoic and proud. Never uttering even a single word against all my vicious attacks.
The dictionary proved to be quite a formidable foe, but in the end, the dictionary conceded that atheism was a lack of belief and that indeed a lack of belief is not synonymous with a belief system.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:11 amThe dictionary states atheism is the belief there is no god.
:|
The dictionary proves BARTLEBEE is right.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 12, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Really? Is that the same dictionary that lists the definition of atheism as:
S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)
Princeton University -WordNet
So, in all actuality, the dictionary proves you wrong. Maybe the next time we speak you can quote George W Bush again, seeing as he probably believes atheism is beleif too.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:21 pmWORD MEANINGS
Many people use a dictionary to find the meaning of words.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pmEach word that is explained in the dictionary is usually in bold type.
Entry words may be shown divided into syllables. (eg cal-am-ity)
Some words may have only one meaning.
Some have more than one meaning.
It might be necessary to scan all meanings to find the one that suits the context.
Man, you are even scarier than Mike Huckabee. My Oxford Dictionary defines ‘faggot’ as “a ball of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried.” That is the FIRST definition. go ahead, look it up. So, what are gay men, chopped liver?? Oh, yeah, and the first thing it says about atheism is “a theory…” THEN it says “or belief…” But by golly, theory was first, right? So that’s what we go with, right?
December 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pmClarification of my 2:58 post: Man, you, Bartlebee, are even scarier than either Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. Dim wit, you are only a little scary.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:03 pmMany people use a dictionary to find the meaning of words.
Each word that is explained in the dictionary is usually in bold type.
Entry words may be shown divided into syllables. (eg cal-am-ity)
Some words may have only one meaning.
>> Some have more than one meaning.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:36 pmtake the word FAST. It is defined as follows:
Noun
S: (n) fast, fasting (abstaining from food)
Verb
S: (v) fast (abstain from certain foods, as for religious or medical reasons) “Catholics sometimes fast during Lent”
S: (v) fast (abstain from eating) “Before the medical exam, you must fast”
Adjective
S: (adj) fast (acting or moving or capable of acting or moving quickly) “fast film”; “on the fast track in school”; “set a fast pace”; “a fast car”
S: (adj) fast ((used of timepieces) indicating a time ahead of or later than the correct time) “my watch is fast”
So Bart, if I have a fast car does that mean my car is abstaining from food?
December 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pmhey Bart–I realize I came to this party late…and I really don’t know anyone here (just sticking around for the free food, I guess). I’ll admit that you are right, that many dictionaries define atheism as a belief, if you admit that you are a stubborn, repetitious literalist with no concept of flexibility or context.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:20 pmAtheism admits they cannot prove their primary contention that god does not exist.
Therefore, their claim that god does not exist is not proven, so it therefore must be a belief.
Thus, atheism is a belief system. A “doctrineâ€, based on things believed but not proven.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 12, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
- – - – - – - –
Strong atheistic propositions do not imply certainty.
To understand this, we need to understand the difference between a claim and the confidence we put on that claim. We can make claims about a great number of things, but the nature of the claim itself does not indicate how confident we are in it.
To give a simple example, a fundamentalist Christian having a “crisis of faith†would maintain the claim that there is 100% chance that a god exists, while having less confidence in that proposition than he did before. His claim did not change: his confidence changed.
Science also affirms a great number of universals. For instance, Newton’s law of gravity is a universal. The attraction between two masses is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance: this equation is universal, it applies to all points of spacetime and all time (as long as the laws of physics exist, of course). Yet science is open to disproof or improvement of its laws and theories. And Newton’s law of gravity was indeed shown to be incomplete by Einstein’s General Relativity. So Newton’s law being universal did not make its confidence 100%: nothing in science, nor in rational thinking, is known with 100% confidence.
By the same token, a proposition such as “there is no god†may be universal, but it does not demand certainty. It demands that we prove it as knowledge, just like any other claim of knowledge.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:19 amI could have stopped with the first valid dictionary defintion that said just that. Because at the end of the day, thats all I needed.
One valid dictionary defintion that stated exactly what I stated, to be proven correct.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 12, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Yes Bartlebee, you should have stopped. You could have went on feeling all great about yourself, thinking you were right and never have had to worry about all these wasteful posts.
But you didn’t stop. You went on and on with your circular logic and your “my dictionary says this” and “my dictionary says that”
So here we are. Just trying to get you to understand the simplist of facts.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:41 amblah blah blah
blah blah Dictionary blah blah
blah blah idiot blah blah dip$hit blah blah
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Why don’t your repeat your worthless argument a few more time. Maybe soon you’ll actually beleive it yourself.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pmBart,
I’ve got to say I love your responses. I love them because they are just so damn stupid.
Do you even know what the words you are using mean?
Grammar is the study of the rules governing the use of a given natural language, and, as such, is a field of linguistics
A dictionary is a book of alphabetically listed words in a specific language, with definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, and other information; or a book of alphabetically listed words in one language with their equivalents in another, also known as a lexicon.
Illiteracy is the inability to read or write at a competent level.
- – - –
Dictionaries are not the “last word in English grammatics” as you so claim.
Illiteracy has nothing to do with one’s ability to use a dictionary
Dictionaries may have more than one definition for a word.
Dictionaries do not define things by what they are not.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
December 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pmI apologize for bringing in both facts and logic to the conversation.
My mistake
December 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmBart
I won’t be here to refute your nonsense tomorrow, but I expect there to be at least 100 rambling comments when I get back.
Please ensure your comments ignore all facts and logic while quoting as many possible dictionaries as often as you can. (be sure to ignore any other definitions which don’t support you, too). Also ensure your repeat the same argument over and over and over and over again.
BTW, you might want to read post # 1631 again.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pmBTW:POKE!!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:24 amHmmm. Something is amiss with a previous post so I’ll just repost the highlights. I don’t intend to be repetitious.
So, let’s dispel some misconceptions.
1.BAR-BEE-TROLL’s insane BELIEF that I have been debating him. Just in case it’s not obvious; I’ve been “baiting†him since long before I told him so at post 1174.
2.BAR-BEE-TROLL’s insane BELIEF “atheism†has anything to do with it. It got personal, to him, when I said he espoused an incredibly narrow minded and misinformed opinion. When I didn’t go away he attacked my character for things I had not done, based only on his BELIEF that he had any idea what I BELIEVED. He posted this filth at #423. Everything since then has been meant only to reveal BAR-BEE-TROLL’s true colors. Which, he has done in unbelievable detail.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:35 amBTW, for the record, I even told BAR-BEE-TROLL what I was doing at post 1174. He is the perfect mark. A loathsome minority of one who attacks without reason. Based on his opinion of what a real person stands for. Based on what he BELIEVES a person has said. And today he claims he’s just “hanging around to mock” us? ROTFL!!!
BAR-BEE-TROLL is a pitifully petty person. Read his posts and see him for what he is. A little critter who gnaws like a rat. Like a vile disease that you’re afraid to tell your doctor about.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:54 amOf course, the real clincher is that the BAR-BEE-TROLL never even bothers to ask his opponents what they BELIEVE. He PRESUMES and makes JUDGMENTS based on FAULTY INTELLIGENCE. Just like the Bush administration on Iraq.
Then he REJECTS anything that challenges his PRESUMPTION. Just like the Bush administration on Global Warming.
I imagine Mr. Bush would be almost as easy to bait as Mr. BAR-BEE-TROLL.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:19 amAtheism as a Stealth Religion
Posted December 14, 2007 | 04:50 PM (EST)
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 16, 2007 @ 12:58 am
Sure was nice to have a break from the crazy. Oh well, i see its still here.
So I read this article. It really is poorly written and is based on nothing more than Mr. Willson’s definition of atheism.
it amazes me that you and wilson have the exact same flaw. An inability to correct define the words you use. Wilson starts off with the general term “atheism” but then proceeds to use some made up new term he calls “new atheism” Of course “new atheism” is nothing more than antitheism, but why would wilson (or Bartlebee) use a more descriptive word when you can make general overemcompassing statements to make your blown out of proportion arguements.
I wonder if mr wilson (or the Bart) thinks there is only christianity or he understands there mare many many different sects such as methodists, amish, and catholics.
Bart, I have long ago said if you would simply change your wording to reflect something which is more descriptive, you statement would be correct. But you wont. You choose to be stubborn and ignorant, all the while knowing you are wrong.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pmAnd the expression of the one, excludes its opposite.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Actually, I think scientific classifaction (along the line of a Taxonomic rank) would be much more accurate than what you are claiming.
Such as:
Religion -> Christianity -> Protestism -> Baptist -> Southern Baptist
You’ll notice the as the classification moves from left to right the terms (or labels) become more specific in nature
December 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
Gee BART. Isn’t it amazing what one can learn when one listens to what someone else has to say instead of making presumptions? Of course it would derail the purpose of this, the BAR-BEE-TROLL’s personal, thread.
Alas, I gotta call BS on this one. The BAR-BEE-TROLL, himself, proclaimed that the testimony from “some guy on a blog” is inadmissible. I would think this is especially true when it’s possible the remark was meant as a measure to stop BAR-BEE-TROLL from completely taking over another thread with his spam.
Frankly, I’m disappointed. I had hoped,when given some alone time, the BAR-BEE-TROLL would have come up with something better than “some guy on a blog”.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pmAnd, I might add the BAR-BEE-TROLL has yet to explain why the words of Proffesor David Sloan Wilson are of greater value than Dan Barker:
A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist that,
It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism [...] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...].
or, any of the other various sources which contend with his presumptions. Of course, the BAR-BEE-TROLL has also failed to explain why these definitions:
New Dictionary of Religions, edited by by John R. Hinnells.
Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of any Gods or of God. This may take the form of: (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of theism; (b) scepticism about all religious claims; or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, irrational, or meaningless.
Although the above definition incorrectly suggests that agnosticism is incompatible with theism and most forms of atheism, it nevertheless recognizes that athiesm is more than simply the denial of the existence of gods. Instead, it also includes under the concept the idea of rejecting theistic claims without asserting the opposite and simply ignoring/not bothering with theistic claims.
Encyclopedia of American Religious History, by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, and Gardiner H. Shattuck
Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God, has always been a minority viewpoint in American culture.
Although the authors do not have much to say about atheism, they specifically describe it as being generally an absence of belief in the existence of God. Such an absence of belief encompasses both disbelief and denial.
But, I’m sure he’ll entertain with his wit as he proclaims all such contradictory evidence to be Bullsh!t. Let us watch.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pmAnd it’s virtually certain BAR-BEE-TROLL never clicked this link:
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/atheists_modern_2.htm
Nor has he explained why “a highly respected Professor of Anthropology and Evolution who also happens to be a prominent author” like David Sloan Wilson is relevant now: when equally prominent authors, who happen to be philosophers, theologians, or sociologists; are scorned as so much “internet bullsh!t”.
But then, BAR-BEE-TROLL still thinks my interest was held by his narrow world view. He actually operates under the misconception that I’ve been arguing with him, a person incapable of argument!
I sure hope the upcoming rant lives up to expectations. Gee! Do you think he’ll whine about parameters? I think that’s my favorite.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:16 pmThe BAR-BEE-TROLL tells such amusing stories. “Caught with my pants down”? In what way?
I still haven’t engaged in the religion bashing which you, untruthfully, accused me of. And,I have consistently provided proof of alternative interpretations of “atheism”. All while baiting you into ever more irrational behavior. Even after I took pity and told you I was only trying to piss you off.
I even noted your statements that, “some atheists may not claim there are no gods”,”my original statements wouldn’t apply to them”, and, “not all atheists are fanatics”: even though you constantly change position, and emphasis,on each. I was perfectly willing to leave the thread then, though I knew you would recant, but, you kept on with your false accusations.
I will continue to call BS, on you, until you get the simple fact that you condemned me for the words of others and compounded it by making presumptions about peoples beliefs including my own. You are not granted that privilege.
And please explain why this link:
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/theologians.htm
or this one:
http://atheism.about.com/ od/ definitionofatheism/ a/ atheists_modern_2.htm
is of less practical value than the dictionaries you’ve quoted? Assuming you bother to read, or are capable of comprehending, them.
By the way, I suggest you follow a few of the links, you provided, to atheist groups. They provide a number of perspectives on “what is atheism” including some that are quite contrary to The American Atheists. Of course, when I quoted a couple earlier, you dismissed them as “internet bullsh!t”.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:37 amThe BAR-BEE-TROLL has yet to explain why the words of Proffesor David Sloan Wilson (An author with a single work on the evolution of religion and no expertise in the subject of atheism. A Huffpo blogger with three posts to his credit. The kindest comment I’ve seen from his peers are that his theories are “unorthodox”, BTW) are of greater value than Dan Barker:
A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist that,
It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism […] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter […].
nor have you explained why you are free to discard half the definitions in the dictionaries you have quoted. You have failed to explain why definitions like these:
Richard Watson:
Well-known for his attacks on various freethinkers, including Thomas Paine, Watson states in his 1831 book A Biblical and Theological Dictionary:
Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature. It is compounded of the two terms … signifying without God.
Robert Flint:
In his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories, Flint notes:
The atheist is not necessarily a man who says there is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. …every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God.
In a later book, Agnosticism, published in 1903, Flint said much the same thing again, concluding with: “The word atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less. (I’ve always loved that one.)
Thomas Chalmers:
In his book Natural Theology, Chalmers states:
Judging from the tendency and effect of his arguments, an atheist does not appear positively to refuse that a God may be. …His verdict on the doctrine of God is only that it is not proven. It is not that it is disproven. He is but an atheist. He is not an anti-theist.
carry less weight than those provided by others. Can you form a simple argument to prove that you’ve read, and understood, the material that supports my contentions? If you wade back through your dissertation, you will find that you have already conceded to them, though, you have always managed to recant. Once you addressed the “weak atheist”, “strong atheist”, debate you satisfied me on that point. You also acknowledged you depended on the “narrow” definition of atheism.
Once you conceded those points (I’m curious, were you lying when you made those concessions, or, when you recanted?) all I’ve been doing is providing an occasional contradictory definition, and taunting. Just poking your cage.
I might add that after a quick glance at the other thread (all I could stomach) I’m not sure I would crow about “Bruce” agreeing with you. He might view his comments in a slightly different context than you. And I’m still waiting for evidence of me “mocking people’s religious beliefs”. While you’re at it, why don’t you come up with one instance of my “arguing with the dictionary” or any claim of knowledge re the existence of deities.
Indeed BAR-BEE-TROLL, you better get your imagination lubed up. You’re going to have to create pretty effective “evidence” if you desire to prove you are anything but a smug, lying, sh!t-stain. You know? A little self-absorbed POS who doesn’t bother reading the info provided and then makes up character attacks based on the words of other people. A little bastard (Please note that’s an attack on your character, not your pedigree.) who makes up offenses as a reason to denigrate those who call his B.S. Do you really think you can prove you are not that and more?
Please note. “It’s in the dictionary”. “It’s Bullsh!t”, “Nuh-uh”, and anything you make up and attribute to me is not acceptable evidence. In fact, you don’t have a chance.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:48 pmWell, since BAR-BEE-TROLL has acquiesced to the contention he’s a “smug, lying, sh!t-stain; my work here is done, for now. While I’ll look forward to the troll’s amusing lies, I don’t think I need to establish anything else.
Game, set, and match to “pete”.
See ya in the funny papers, sh!t-stain.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pmWow, after reading the rantings of Bartlebee I sure do hope he/she doesn’t own a gun. This is just the sort of person who might suddenly snap and show up at the local mall asserting his god-given right to bear arms against any and all who don’t agree with the narrow-minded conclusions his tiny little brain has reached. What an enormous amount of time he has spent these past weeks trying to prove he is right. Don’t you have a job, Bartlebee? Shouldn’t you be out CHRISTmas shopping?
Personally, I’m a pastafarian. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you all.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:34 pmDoes the word PARANOIA ring a bell, Bart? Perhaps you heard it last time you were in the asylum? Now I understand…you have gone off your meds. That’s where all this venom is coming from. I forgive you. Us pastafarians are a very forgiving bunch. Please, find your medication, take two, and call me in the morning. And, don’t forget, only 3 shopping days left until CHRISTmas.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:21 pmAmazing, truly amazing.
Pete comes in with a logical, well thought out (and documented) arguement and how does Bart respond?
by calling him names.
Bart, instead of wasting my time with facts, logic and reason, I will simplify this for you. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Just because you repeat the same argument over and over again doesn’t make your argument any less incorrect.
Just because you call people names, doesn’t make you correct.
Just because you quote other people’s incorrect beliefs doesn’t make your contentions anymore plausible.
You are simply wrong.
You ignore fact and reason. You quote your “expert” while ingoring the quotations of others. You ignore anything which proves you wrong and respond to it in the childish manner of name calling.
and most ironically, you think you are the one being attacked! LOL! You consistently berate people, yet you think you are the one being attacked? Not only are you wrong, you are delusional. You think you are bartlebee the Great, defender of your own little version of the “truth”
Why don’t you go back and read posts 1664 and 1665. Pete makes a wonderful argument. Instead of calling him names, why don’t you respond to it in a more adult manner? And why don’t you read my criticism of the HuffPo commenter? You will see your supposed expert has done nothing more than made up a new word and then based his arguments around this. While I imagine you probably think fabricated facts are entirely acceptable, the general population tends to think otherwise.
Enjoy your christmas holiday!
December 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pmLike I said a month ago, they’re just a couple of idiots, arguing with the dictionary.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 25, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
I see you have chosen to ignore facts, reason, and logic and go back to your “the dictionary says I’m right” arguement.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:04 pm