Nothing wrong with “I don’t know” but there is everything wrong with taking “I don’t know” as an excuse to attack everyone with an opinion on the subject as fanatics.

Oh, and when you call all strong atheists fanatics? Yeah, the guys who flow those planes into those towers? They were fanatics. People taking BS on a bunch of websites? Welcome to the frigging internt buddy.

Don’t deny what you posted BARTLEBEE, all your denials show is that you know you were in the wrong and now you are backtracking like crazy on it.

Aww, lets all feel sorry for poor bigotted Bartlebee, after all, it isn’t like he called all strong atheists the equivelent of guys who fly planes into buildings, just less likeable now is it?

Or like he called all strong atheists the equivelant of guys who protest funerals, but just less likeable is it?

Or like he called all strong atheists the equivelent of guys who declare hits out on people who write objectionable books about their belief system, but just less likeable now is it?

Or like he called all strong atheists the equivelent of guys who go around burning crosses on people’s lawns, but just less likeable now is it?

Yeah, us atheists must really respect the spineless worm who proclaims he just hasn’t made his mind up but that all theists, atheists or anybody with a position on God are fanatics now should we?

Yeah and if someones gets into an argument with a pair of black guys, well it is perfectly acceptable to proclaim all black guys to be fanatics now isn’t it?

Bartlebee, those atheists who started the fight with you were in the wrong. They were acting like jackasses. That doesn’t change you turning around and accusing all strong atheists of being fanatics.

You warranted the attack. You are a bigot, you are the reason why atheists cannot come out as atheists for fear of social rejection because the second an atheist stands up for himself there will be Bartlebee, of the moderate, reasonable left calling him a fanatic like a religious variant of Lieberman.

You want to know why religion gets mocked? Soldiers getting death threats because they want to put together a group meeting between atheists.

Religious people trying to proclaim that atheists cannot be citizens of America or patriotic towards America.

61% of America’s population would never vote for an atheist president.

There are American cops who will not protect atheists counter protesting a religious protest.

A frigging Darwin fish on an atheists car is an open invitation to get that car keyed.

You have CNN, showing a story about an atheist family being ostracised from their community simply for not believing, and CNN’s consensus being that the atheists brought it upon themselves.

And you have cowards like you, who can’t even take a position on the argument over God’s existance saying “Ooh, don’t stand up for yourselves, be cowardly little mice because if you stand up for yourself you will be a FANATIC!”

This is not about all agnostics. Most agnostics, are great people who just haven’t come to a conclusion past “I don’t know.” This is about you coming on here and proclaiming, as those posts showed, that all strong atheists are fanatics.

Perfectly intellegent people can be religious. Lots of nice, reasonable people are religious. They are not fanatics simply because they believe something I feel to be incorrect. I can say with a clear conscience that I think their beliefs are stupid, but that doesn’t make them stupid in the least.

And hey, they probably think that my opinion is stupid. Doesn’t make me stupid, and it doesn’t mean they think I am a fanatic.

You on the other hand, come on here and decide that all atheists are fanatics simply because they hold a different opinion to you. And lets be honest here, you think the same about all religious people too, because hey, your argument cuts both ways, you just think the religious guys who blew up the two towers are more likeable.

That is what defines the difference between you, a bigot, and me, someone who holds an opinion. This is what seperates you, a bigot, and say, Martin Luther King, who held an opinion.

BartleBee claims his comments were only directed at those two atheists who were attacking him.

First read

Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:44 pm

Then read

Thats why I said on day one of the debate, and again, about several hundred times, that my comments ONLY apply to those calling themselves atheists, who deny the existence of a god.

:|

Which is pretty much all of them, but I still made allowances for the “WEAK ATHEISTS”.

Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 2:50 am

To cover that obvious lie, BARTLEBEE then accused people of lying when pointing out just what he said.

Needless to say, if he had gotten into an argument with a black guy and characterised all black people as being fanatics, there would be more than one black guy coming on these forums and attacking him as an inbred racist pig.

That he expects it to be different when he accuses everyone who thinks there is no god of being a fanatic, strikes me as being somewhat odd.

Like you.

Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am

You then go on to proclaim that atheists cannot prove that god doesn’t exist, which makes them fanatics, and of course, the religious can’t prove that god exists which makes them fanatics too.

In short: “I refuse to take a position but everybody other than me is a fanatic.”

Also, when I am directly quoting someone I put it in italics or blockquotes. When I am paraphrasing someone’s point, I use “.”

Calling me a liar? Doesn’t work when you are the one who is lying.

Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:44 pm

Go read it.

I didn’t invent that quote. You said it. You get to take the heat for it, unless you want to retract it or say you didn’t mean it to apply to all strong atheists.

You can still apply it to me, that is just a personal insult, but I object strongly, to you applying it to all atheists, theists and anybody with a theory. That is bigotry.

Marauder

That is more or less my feelings on the matter. I mean, I feel that the specifically Christian God, as he is described, is not likely to exist to the same extent as fairies at the bottom of my garden.

And you can’t take mass testimony against that because, for a lot of the time disagreement was illegal, in fact it was only in the late 1700’s to early 1800’s that it stopped being illegal. You can’t take the Church, because there are definite lies contained in the Bible (The census when Jesus was born and the blood libel against the Jews.)

That said, gods are possible and though it is for the theist to prove they exist (Because hey, assertions need proof) and the balance of probability is against them, we cannot absolutely disprove what doesn’t exist without it having specific testable qualities.

We don’t know all the answers, I am pretty sure that gods don’t exist, but I can be wrong.

Just don’t blanket term all atheists fanatics simply because they hold an opinion based on where the evidence is pointing. Being a fanatic takes more then just believing something, a lucky rabits foot or a horse shoe doesn’t make a fanatic of someone who is just a little bit superstitious.

Nor does belief that the Democrats are better suited to running the country make a Democrat a fanatic. Nor does a preference for cardamon in curries make a chef a fanatic. Fanatic, as it is applied, really does go towards those who are willing to kill and die to force their beliefs on others. It is an extreme belief not because of its content but the extreme (As in, going beyond just blogging about it) fervor with which it is supported.

It is a term we apply to guys like Osama Bin Laden, it is a term we apply to guys who bomb abortion clinics. It applies to guys like Timothy McVeigh and to the American taliban type Christian. It isn’t even all fundementalists who are fanatics, the Amish are not fanatics, the Pentecostal Church is not populated by 100% fanatics (Though they do have a fair portion of them.)

To call people fanatics simply because of what they believe and not the intensity with which they believe it, that’s wrong and it is a strong insult to all of those who hold a particular opinion.

Whoa, Nelly, I think someone’s misunderestimating things a little…

There is nothing wrong with “I don’t know.” Call it what it is, agnostic, it is fine.

What is not fine is saying “I refuse to take a position but everybody other than me is a fanatic.”

What is not fine, is declaring the entire atheist movement liars.

What is not fine is then acting surprised when atheists start slinging insults because they figure if we are going to get the name we may as well express our feelings towards the person making bigoted attacks against us.

Now I included BARTLEBEE’s clarification of just who he was talking about. I do not see why I should act with the least bit of respect towards someone who says of atheists: atheists are as fanatical as the overly religious loons out there.
No difference whatsoever.
:\
Cept the religious folk tend to be more likable

Frankly, BARTLEBEE is a bigot.

How about seeing how CNN views atheists.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/i_had_no_idea_cnn_had_gotten_t.php

Unless of course, you think Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Coulter and both Bushs are images of distinct humility.

Here is a link to the basics of the story of Jeremy Hall (The guy I referenced earlier.)

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/62989/

You see, how he got treated, that is a result of fanaticism.

Atheists have been dealing with anti-atheist fervour since the 1950’s when “Under God” got included in the pledge of allegiance. You have had two weeks of being insulted repeatedly, atheists have had presidential candidates declaring them non-citizens and non patriots, and going on to win the presidency. (GHW Bush.)

Atheists have had hit pieces written about other people with names like “Godless” in them, intended to rile the masses against us. We get preached against in Pentecostal churches, we get called immoral on a daily basis simply because we do not believe.

Atheists who come out run the risk of being cast out of their families by their families – simply because they don’t believe.

I know of atheists who, living in America, can’t have a Darwin fish on their cars or their cars get keyed. I know of atheists who have tried to organise counter marches to religious protests, and been told by the police that they will not be protected.

While the religious are releasing tract after tract calling on people to convert, the second an atheist author comes out putting out a counter argument, you have endless shouts of protest – that we shouldn’t be doing that. Look at the explosion of atheist books, fairly flipping recent isn’t it? And the religious can’t take it even after years of them declaring everthing bad “Godless.”

Heck, we even get identified directly with Hitler, who was a Christian who persecuted atheists along with the Jews, the Gypsies and the the political left.

You are moaning about 2 weeks of getting exactly the same treatment. Please. It is like a white guy moaning about being called a honky.

And atheism? It isn’t a religion, it doesn’t even have a central doctrine, but it is a religious viewpoint.

In today’s polarized world, the conflict between atheism and religion is shaping up to be the fight of the century. In this corner, the new atheists, flexing their muscles with books such as God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. In that corner, the religious fundamentalists, who are responsible for 9/11, the Christian takeover of America, polluting the minds of their children, and numberless other atrocities. It’s science and reason against dogmatism and blind faith, making it obvious who the enlightened liberal should root for.

Read the rest of the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_b_76901.html

I have treat you to the same courtesy you have treated others on this forum. No more, no less.

You will note I did not include the statements which were specific to the guys who were unjustifiably stalking you, nor did I include the statements after I started reading.

This was because those statements were not against the atheist comunity as a whole. They were personally directed.

Nor did I include all of your statements against the atheist community as a whole, because frankly, that was enough.

That you are now objecting to the treatment you have meted out on others, is simply a sign of your lack of a spine. You have refused to take a position, even the position of not knowing (Agnostic) instead you have repeatedly insulted everbody who has taken a position as being fanatics. This was not the issue I had with you, but it shows what you are, spineless.

As does your inability to accept an appology or issue one.

I haven’t lied on this thread, but you have.

You claimed that I lied about your position. I haven’t lied. I have stated your position as I see it.

Also, I appologised about that insult, but I will only appologise once for something.

So, that appology is now withdrawn.

I wonder how belief in Santa would do if the Western world declared non-belief against the law for over a thousand years.

1. And btw, thanks for bringing in your pet poodle, the one you call RHF.
This rabid little runt proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that atheists are as fanatical as the overly religious loons out there.
No difference whatsoever.
:\
Cept the religious folk tend to be more likable.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:44 pm

1. And like fanatical theists, A-theists must turn to fanatical lies, like this poor demented fool here, who must paint me a religious republican, even though I’ve stated for 2 years I don’t believe, nor disbelieve in a god.
Thats because he lost the debate, has nothing, and must invent lies so he has something to argue against.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

1. To the Fanatical atheist, it is “cowardice and hypocrisy” to admit you do not know whether or not a god or gods exist.
Another prime example of the fanatical belief system of the atheist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 2:21 am

1. Thats why I said on day one of the debate, and again, about several hundred times, that my comments ONLY apply to those calling themselves atheists, who deny the existence of a god.
:|
Which is pretty much all of them, but I still made allowances for the “WEAK ATHEISTS”.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 2:50 am

1. When I said my comments only apply to those calling themselves atheists who claim that a god or gods do not exist, that should have rested the matter.
Not sparked another half million straw arguments claiming falsely that I am targeting ALL atheists.
Its a straw argument.
:|
A strawdog.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 3:05 am

Note how I stated you are bigotted agains strong atheists like me.

I would have put more up, but there is a limit to how much hate speech which I can stomach in an evening.