Gee, that is a really bad insult there. So bad that BARTLEBEE the cowardly sh!t sees it as being an indication of me being a fanatic.

BART can dish it out but when he is on the recieiving end? Pfft, like any wuss he cries about it forever more.

LOL, go read HUFFINGTONPOST you halfbaked idiot.

It also calls atheism fanatical, and worse.

Still anyone out there wanting to know why atheists are so angry?

And don’t forget – CNN basically doing the same. Plus just about every other media source engaging in what amounts to the exact same rhetoric against atheists that the German Nazi party used against Jews – except this time it is PC because atheists are doing things like writing books and posting in blogs to stand up for themselves and that makes them FANATICS – on a par with people who blow up abortion clinics.

BART, you are a coward. You are a theist who thinks that the real way towards being “Reasonable” is by never making your mind up on anything – even though deep down at heart you actually believe in there being a God out there.

And anybody who actually adopts a position on the argument over god? They are fanatics because they dare, actually dare, to form a conclusion based on their view of the evidence.

You aren’t standing up for “Don’t mock the religious” you are standing up for “Don’t disagree with BARTLEBEE.”

SO,

Did Huckster Google her kooter too?

.

Agnostics aren’t cowards. It takes courage to say “I don’t know.” It is just that BART isn’t an agnostic. Reading through his arguments he pretty clearly isn’t an agnostic.

Oh, and lets not proclaim ourselves the heirs to the one and only truth, we don’t know everything yet. Our belief system is based on where the evidence points, but the evidence isn’t all in yet (That is not to say, as the agnostics do, that gods are unproveable, but rather that they are unproven. Note the use of gods – as their are more faiths out there than just Christianity.)

BARTLEBEE

Yes, because when we believe the Democratic, Green or Republican parties to be right we do not try to argue our viewpoint do we?

And hey, if a religious person feels they are right and I am wrong, shouldn’t they try to argue with me on my views?

You seem to think that honest discussion is in some way objectionable – after all that was your whole objection on that Papal Christmas thread wasn’t it? That atheists were telling the truth about the origins of a lot of Christmas traditions. You even called me a Grinch for saying that the blend worked out to being quite good.

And while you have fanatically repeated that atheists are “Fanatics” no different to the religious (Which is to say you have called both sides of the arguments fanatics even if they aren’t.)

You aren’t presenting reasoned arguments, you are just repeating stale, bigotted, intellectually dishonest talking points. Heck, that is the core of this argument really, you don’t like people telling the truth.

You despise the truth and would much rather atheists pretend to be theists, then have atheists actually confronting theism the same way Democrats confront Republicans.

That we feel the need to tell the truth about who we are, simply disgusts you. That we take offence when lumped in with guys like Osama Bin Laden, simply disgusts you because hey, we should live lies and let you get on with calling fanatics every time we stand up for ourselves.

You are a coward BART, and you want atheists to be cowards too. Sorry, it isn’t going to work like that. We have reason to be angry, you have over a month by your own admission of repeatedly calling all atheists fanatics along with all religious people. Evidently you just think that guys like the Taliban are more likeable.

We are not going to let up on this. Sure call atheism a belief system, it is one, but you repeatedly calling us fanatics? That one isn’t going to fly you bigot.

ATHEISTS attacked theists, and BARTLEBEE merely responded with ONE, REASONABLE response to that attack.”

Always the liar, ever the liar, and in the third person, a sure sign of impending insanity. poor, poor bart.

Will you never win?

Atheism needs no beliefs. Atheism is a proven fact. That god doesn’t exist is an irrefutable fact. Until theists and agnostics can prove the existence of god, they are slaves to a belief system. Atheists broke those bonds with the realization of fact and reality. Agnostics are cowardly believers in their own faux superiority. bartlebee is a transparent liar, an a fanatic on the edge of insanity. he has utterly failed to prove his points, and has succeeded only in showing himself to be a loser.

Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 2, 2008 @ 1:13 pm

Newsflash dickhead.

Thats ALL I’ve been arguing.

What the hell you’re arguing, we haven’t a clue.

Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

Still the liar, ever the liar.

Will you never win?

I don’t have that authority and if it came across as an order I appologise – it wasn’t exactly meant that way.

I do have the authority to state what I think, and try to convince you on it, just as you have the authority to state what you think and convince me on it, but that is a different thing entirely.

To answer your question on “What then”?

And then, you are free. You are free of some overbearing being telling you just how limited the wonder of the universe is. You are free of being told not to explore, to learn to discover new things.

You are free like people no matter what they think of the state of the universe, and argue with them without feeling that you are imperiling your immortal soul.

You are free to do good because you want to do good, to take the blame and the credit for your actions without look to some higher reward or punishment.

You are free to love who you love, and to judge yourself based on your actions.

You are free to be who you are without fearing life or wishing for a better death. A lot of faith is living to die, living to find an eternal reward and not stopping to see how wonderful this world is, how far beyond anything religion could imagine this world really is.

55 to 61 percent, depending on the poll you read, of America’s population will never vote for an Atheist president. IE: You have a better chance of having a gay president than an atheist.”

AMEN, Bruce …. and yeah, I mean that … _secularly_! :^)

I understand spritituality – I just don’t agree with it.

Science is not proof, it is a system whereby we try and find proof – which is why I say I was mistaken in calling it a belief.

It is however a belief system, as it is a systematic means used by us to figure out what we believe with the intensity that we call it knowledge.

Faith is the same, except it goes not so much on evidence as what the preacher said. Needless to say, I am a touch cynical when it comes to what the preacher said because I am a touch cynical of people.

Okay, I think most people are good, and pretty good at rationalising things to themselves.

And it doesn’t really matter when they come from. A guy who lived 2000 years ago could lie just as well as a guy trying to sell me shares in a pyramid scheme today.

Now none of this makes me a fanatic. What would make me a fanatic would be if I said “You must all agree with me or I will kill you, or at least see to it that you go to jail for not agreeing with me.”

Fanaticism requires somewhat more fervour than the atheist movement has right now. Sure some of us get nasty on internet blogs, heck you saw the examples I put up wouldn’t you be getting nasty at times?

Even the “Civilised” arguments like the one around morality – all morality comes from God therefore those of us who don’t believe in God are all amoral – is really pretty insulting. It isn’t like the atheist movement has particularly set out to start the fight when it comes to this sort of thing.

When Christians stop treating us like we are second rate we will as a whole calm down somewhat and get on with our lives. Sure, I will never appologise for what I am and what I don’t believe, and I will always be vocal about it, but it isn’t like I am going out there burning churches down as it is. Go watch that CNN broadcast to see what I mean here – the atheist movement releasing books challenging religion isn’t exactly on the same scale as that.

Most atheists will just go back to living their lives when the fight for the right to not believe is over. Heck, we have 17% of the world’s population as it is, and atheism was illegal until the early to mid 1800’s – we seem to be doing fine in the argument in most cases by just quietly living our lives.

The thing is right now, you have a situation where the right to not believe is under attack. And this right to not believe is one which is actually used by 60 percent of America’s scientists, and 78% of America’s top scientists.

55 to 61 percent, depending on the poll you read, of America’s population will never vote for an Atheist president. IE: You have a better chance of having a gay president than an atheist.

We are the second largest “Religious” grouping in the world. The Jewish lobbies have America defending Israel through thick and thin while we are struggling to keep evolution in America’s schools.

And we are shunned by both the liberal movement – which thinks we must not respond to the religious right or be branded “Fanatics” and the right, which hosts the religious right.

And yet, how often do atheists actually do anything past angry writing in books and blogs? Not often. You don’t see atheists buying guns to take down the established churches. You don’t see atheists trying to actually ban religion (Much as though the Religious Right may claim otherwise.)

Heck, atheists normally don’t even champion things like giving religion equal treatment under the law to any other social club, except as a joke – and that is a fair amount in lost tax revenue right there.

Not everything, just things which lack satisfactory evidence and which contradict common sense.

I am operating out of another country with distinctly less broadband availability, so it takes a while for me to read your responses and answer them (Hence lots of painfully long multiple posts.)

Plus I am somewhat of a longwinded bore at times.

Anyway, onto science I was mistaken in calling it a belief in an of itself (Sometimes my fingers get ahead of my brain) but it is a belief system – in that it is a system whereby we examine our beliefs and strive to falsify them until we hit upon knowledge.

What we call knowledge is in fact a branch of belief, in that it is what we are pretty certain is the truth. It can however, be shown to be mistaken – such as people who knew the Earth was flat were mistaken.

Faith on the other hand, as I was using it, is to believe something without evidence, which in itself is a seperate system entirely.

Easy – Barrabas wasn’t. Chances are there was never a Barrabas in the first place, and even if there had been one, losing the death certificate wouldn’t be that hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Etymology

Something only qualifies as a theory after passing severals hurdles, and it doesn’t stop being a theory if it is proven. They are more general then Laws, which are not “Theories which have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt correct” but rather statements of how something will behave under a given set of circumstances.

It is why I argue that creationism is a hypothesis, and evolution is a theory. Creationism does not pass muster when it comes to meeting the criteria required to be a theory.

Yes, and the Romans, who were trying to pacify a unrully and rebellious province would really just release the most popular terrorist in the region.

Yeah, right. The tradition of clemancy didn’t happen. It was a lie designed to take the blame off of the Romans for Jesus’ execution and it was a pathetic one at that.

First, faith:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Then belief:

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

The highlighted portions are the definitions which I am using in the context where I term science and faith as being belief systems. Belief is an incredibly broad word.

You mean like evolution? How about the solar system? Earth being round? What about Archeology?

The first defeats Genesis because it contradicts the idea of a smooth progression from sea to land (As animals have gone extinct, some animals ended up evolving back into being sea goers like the dolphin and lets face it, etc…)

Solar system is a famous case, Gallileo. The earth being round likewise.

Archeology shows that there were older human settlements then the old testament allows.

Further, straight logic. The story of Barrabas is one of the most embarassing lies in the book. Basically, it would have us believe that the Romans, renowned for their administrative acumen and ability to maintain the peace, would send a governor to Israel who would make a habit of, at a certain anual festival, releasing the regions most popular caught terrorist.

It would be the equivalent of catching Osama Bin Laden and then letting him go because the Arabs like him and feel they can really get behind him.

The miracles I can live with. It is God after all, and he is supposed to do it. Heck it could even be explained as highly advanced science (Thankyou Arthur C Clarke) but Barrabas?