FREE BBS!!!

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

A theist is most likely trying to get an atheist to "see the light" as it were and convert the atheist to a more meaningful existence. An atheist would be trying to convert a theist to a less meaningful existence. Its a complete apples and oranges comparison.

More meaningful how?

Well, numerically speaking, there is one facet to a theist's life that an atheist cannot partake in: faith in god(s). A theist can enjoy everything that an atheist can, +1.

[chang50]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

Intellectual stimulation is enough motivation for me.Now I've answered your question how about tackling the question of the theist needing to disprove the 99.9999 % of gods he does not adhere to?

You are confusing me for someone who has chosen a side on the subject on here and I haven't. You are asking the wrong person.

So you get to ask questions and expect answers yet rarely answer any yourself hiding behind your supposed neutrality,how very convenient??

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

Intellectual stimulation is enough motivation for me.Now I've answered your question how about tackling the question of the theist needing to disprove the 99.9999 % of gods he does not adhere to?

You are confusing me for someone who has chosen a side on the subject on here and I haven't. You are asking the wrong person.

So you get to ask questions and expect answers yet rarely answer any yourself hiding behind your supposed neutrality,how very convenient??

Why does this bother you so? It's really entirely irrelevant.

[chang50]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

A theist is most likely trying to get an atheist to "see the light" as it were and convert the atheist to a more meaningful existence. An atheist would be trying to convert a theist to a less meaningful existence. Its a complete apples and oranges comparison.

More meaningful how?

Well, numerically speaking, there is one facet to a theist's life that an atheist cannot partake in: faith in god(s). A theist can enjoy everything that an atheist can, +1.

\
Can the theist enjoy the intellectual stimulation to be found in honest scepticism?

[oss spy]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

I hope you realize that you and a bunch of other atheists are just as dumb when it comes to debating about any possible deity as the religious that argue opposite you.

And this is coming from an atheist.

I hope you realize that you have no idea how I debate religion because I've never debated religion on CC.

[oss spy]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

A theist is most likely trying to get an atheist to "see the light" as it were and convert the atheist to a more meaningful existence. An atheist would be trying to convert a theist to a less meaningful existence. Its a complete apples and oranges comparison.

Assuming that what you're saying is true, how exactly is false hope more meaningful than a realistic and true outlook?

"Reality is infinitely more preferable over any delusion, no matter how comforting." -Carl Sagan

[chang50]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

Intellectual stimulation is enough motivation for me.Now I've answered your question how about tackling the question of the theist needing to disprove the 99.9999 % of gods he does not adhere to?

You are confusing me for someone who has chosen a side on the subject on here and I haven't. You are asking the wrong person.

So you get to ask questions and expect answers yet rarely answer any yourself hiding behind your supposed neutrality,how very convenient??

Why does this bother you so? It's really entirely irrelevant.

I enjoy a good debate on equal terms,but your tactics really are unfair.If you really are neutral in the debate why do you keep entering it and invariably on one side?

[john9blue]

that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

I can't agree more with you on this point.

See, this is where you guys are stupid. You're equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. Do you have ANY IDEA what a ridiculous comparison that is? Do you even CARE what a ridiculous comparison that is?

anyone who logs onto the internet and tells other people that they are an atheist is not 100% agnostic. the act of declaring yourself an atheist is a statement of belief (since atheism is not a fact and is not proven).

saying "i am an atheist" is equivalent to saying "i don't think god exists"

Oh, look. Dumb people who think atheism is a religion and that atheism requires proof.

Since when did YOU require proof for being skeptical that unicorns, big foot, and leprechauns existed?

But you guys do have a point; we atheists do need to show how we reached our conclusions. Tell you what: you tell me how you disproved Zeus and I'll use your method.

are you a backglass multi?

Well said,not just Zeus but the countless other deities that have been followed,has anyone honestly systematically researched the evidence for every single god in human history and disproved them all?An atheist only believes in the existence of one less god than the theist.

oh lol, so you're one of the dudes who doesn't understand why a believer in a MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION rejects every other god other than his own.

someone let me know when an atheist gives evidence for their beliefs.

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

Intellectual stimulation is enough motivation for me.Now I've answered your question how about tackling the question of the theist needing to disprove the 99.9999 % of gods he does not adhere to?

You are confusing me for someone who has chosen a side on the subject on here and I haven't. You are asking the wrong person.

So you get to ask questions and expect answers yet rarely answer any yourself hiding behind your supposed neutrality,how very convenient??

Why does this bother you so? It's really entirely irrelevant.

I enjoy a good debate on equal terms,but your tactics really are unfair.If you really are neutral in the debate why do you keep entering it and invariably on one side?

Don't blame me, blame the subject matter!

[chang50]

that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

I can't agree more with you on this point.

See, this is where you guys are stupid. You're equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. Do you have ANY IDEA what a ridiculous comparison that is? Do you even CARE what a ridiculous comparison that is?

anyone who logs onto the internet and tells other people that they are an atheist is not 100% agnostic. the act of declaring yourself an atheist is a statement of belief (since atheism is not a fact and is not proven).

saying "i am an atheist" is equivalent to saying "i don't think god exists"

Oh, look. Dumb people who think atheism is a religion and that atheism requires proof.

Since when did YOU require proof for being skeptical that unicorns, big foot, and leprechauns existed?

But you guys do have a point; we atheists do need to show how we reached our conclusions. Tell you what: you tell me how you disproved Zeus and I'll use your method.

are you a backglass multi?

Well said,not just Zeus but the countless other deities that have been followed,has anyone honestly systematically researched the evidence for every single god in human history and disproved them all?An atheist only believes in the existence of one less god than the theist.

oh lol, so you're one of the dudes who doesn't understand why a believer in a MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION rejects every other god other than his own.

someone let me know when an atheist gives evidence for their beliefs.

Whether you like it or not my evidence for my atheism is what I perceive to be the lack of evidence for theism.It seems reasonable to me if I am expected to give reasons for disbelief in 100% of gods,monotheists should equally give reasons for disbelief in 99.9999%.Thinking gods do not exist is the same as believing they don't exist,and both are different to knowing they don't exist,hence agnostic atheist is a coherent position.This distinction between belief and knowledge is really quite elementary but seems to crop up regularly.

[Funkyterrance]

Oh, look. Dumb people who think atheism is a religion and that atheism requires proof.

Since when did YOU require proof for being skeptical that unicorns, big foot, and leprechauns existed?

But you guys do have a point; we atheists do need to show how we reached our conclusions. Tell you what: you tell me how you disproved Zeus and I'll use your method.

Atheists are not skeptical that god exists, they believe god does not exist. Get your facts straight please before entering into the conversation in such a manner.
How does giving a name to a face in your Zeus example support any argument about whether god(s) exist or not? Its the concept we are dealing with so pointing at specific gods is an attempt at a sidetrack and ultimately a pointless waste of time.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, I really wish you would stop calling other people stupid.

I really wish other people would stop saying stupid things.

Lovely, now you're going to act like a petulant child?? This is helping your stance in your opinion?

Perhaps instead of saying stupid things, you'd discuss the issue that was being discussed before you started saying stupid things.

I would be happy to keep to issues being discussed if you wouldn't constantly interrupt them with "you're stupid" whenever you are at a loss of words. Deal?
At any rate I am starting to see a pattern of you derailing the convo. when your argument starts to falter. Its the equivalent of taking a "time out".

You're blaming ME for derailing the thread, when it's YOU who did it? Brilliant. Dishonest, which isn't surprising...but brilliant.

[Woodruff]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

For me personally, the only time I've ever really bothered to talk about it much is one of three situations:

1. They asked me about it (usually by starting with asking me what religion I am).
2. To get them to stop trying to recruit me.
3. Like now, I like the intellectual diversion.

[Woodruff]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

A theist is most likely trying to get an atheist to "see the light" as it were and convert the atheist to a more meaningful existence. An atheist would be trying to convert a theist to a less meaningful existence. Its a complete apples and oranges comparison.

I disagree. From an agnostic-atheist perspective, being an atheist is in no way "less meaningful" than being a theist, and in fact I would say that you've given away your own theism by making that statement. I consider it much more meaningful to live my life the right way BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT WAY than I would to live my life the right way BECAUSE GOD TOLD ME TO.

[Woodruff]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

Intellectual stimulation is enough motivation for me.Now I've answered your question how about tackling the question of the theist needing to disprove the 99.9999 % of gods he does not adhere to?

You are confusing me for someone who has chosen a side on the subject on here and I haven't. You are asking the wrong person.

So you get to ask questions and expect answers yet rarely answer any yourself hiding behind your supposed neutrality,how very convenient??

He's not neutral. His very suggestion that a theist life is more meaningful gives that away.

[Woodruff]

that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

I can't agree more with you on this point.

See, this is where you guys are stupid. You're equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. Do you have ANY IDEA what a ridiculous comparison that is? Do you even CARE what a ridiculous comparison that is?

anyone who logs onto the internet and tells other people that they are an atheist is not 100% agnostic. the act of declaring yourself an atheist is a statement of belief (since atheism is not a fact and is not proven).

saying "i am an atheist" is equivalent to saying "i don't think god exists"

It would only be equivalent to someone who doesn't understand what agnosticism is. Do you understand what agnosticism is?

someone let me know when an atheist gives evidence for their beliefs.

Mr Moderate...ever the neutral.

[Woodruff]

Oh, look. Dumb people who think atheism is a religion and that atheism requires proof.

Since when did YOU require proof for being skeptical that unicorns, big foot, and leprechauns existed?

But you guys do have a point; we atheists do need to show how we reached our conclusions. Tell you what: you tell me how you disproved Zeus and I'll use your method.

Atheists are not skeptical that god exists, they believe god does not exist. Get your facts straight please before entering into the conversation in such a manner.

Speaking of getting your facts straight...words have meaning. You should use them correctly. I suggest you look up the definition for the word "skepticism", and then you can come back and point out how you didn't have your facts straight before entering into the conversation in such a manner.

[oss spy]

Oh, look. Dumb people who think atheism is a religion and that atheism requires proof.

Since when did YOU require proof for being skeptical that unicorns, big foot, and leprechauns existed?

But you guys do have a point; we atheists do need to show how we reached our conclusions. Tell you what: you tell me how you disproved Zeus and I'll use your method.

Atheists are not skeptical that god exists, they believe god does not exist. Get your facts straight please before entering into the conversation in such a manner.
How does giving a name to a face in your Zeus example support any argument about whether god(s) exist or not? Its the concept we are dealing with so pointing at specific gods is an attempt at a sidetrack and ultimately a pointless waste of time.

What a retarded comment. I am atheist and I am skeptical that God exists- I find it silly to assert that it is impossible for all loosely defined Gods do not exist. Please get your facts straight before replying to someone. Learn the difference between a strong and weak atheist.

Now please- provide me the method you used to disprove Zeus. I'll use your method to disprove Yahweh.

[BigBallinStalin]

What a retarded comment. I am atheist and I am skeptical that God exists- I find it silly to assert that it is impossible for all loosely defined Gods do not exist. Please get your facts straight before replying to someone. Learn the difference between a strong and weak atheist.

Now please- provide me the method you used to disprove Zeus. I'll use your method to disprove Yahweh.

Zeus is merely a false god of Satan, the Great Deceiver. The idea of "Zeus" exists, but Zeus himself is a mere illusion. This is part and parcel of the Great Deceiver's work!

[thegreekdog]

What a retarded comment. I am atheist and I am skeptical that God exists- I find it silly to assert that it is impossible for all loosely defined Gods do not exist. Please get your facts straight before replying to someone. Learn the difference between a strong and weak atheist.

Now please- provide me the method you used to disprove Zeus. I'll use your method to disprove Yahweh.

Zeus is merely a false god of Satan, the Great Deceiver. The idea of "Zeus" exists, but Zeus himself is a mere illusion. This is part and parcel of the Great Deceiver's work!

Militant atheists are funny. The "live and let live" worldview just doesn't compute with them and that worldview usually only doesn't compute with the ultra, super, religious. Ironic, no?

[fadedpsychosis]

wow this thread exploded while I was at work... I need to sort through it a bit better, but one thing popped out to me and I have to say this: doubt as to the veracity of something is NOT the same as disbelief in it. for an example, you hold up a certain number of fingers, then tell me you are holding up two. if I had trust in you (you could read it as faith) I would believe you and say you are holding up two fingers. if I didn't have trust in you I would say you are not holding up two fingers. in between there is the stance that I do not know if I can trust you or not, and lacking any evidence one way or the other I would say that I do not know if you are holding up two fingers. I'm not saying you are, I'm not saying that you aren't, I'm saying I do not know.
(and if that doesn't answer any and all questions as to my stance on theism I don't know what will)

[Funkyterrance]

Woodruff, I really wish you would stop calling other people stupid.

I really wish other people would stop saying stupid things.

Lovely, now you're going to act like a petulant child?? This is helping your stance in your opinion?

Perhaps instead of saying stupid things, you'd discuss the issue that was being discussed before you started saying stupid things.

I would be happy to keep to issues being discussed if you wouldn't constantly interrupt them with "you're stupid" whenever you are at a loss of words. Deal?
At any rate I am starting to see a pattern of you derailing the convo. when your argument starts to falter. Its the equivalent of taking a "time out".

You're blaming ME for derailing the thread, when it's YOU who did it? Brilliant. Dishonest, which isn't surprising...but brilliant.

I honestly believe you derail the thread whenever you resort to name calling. It's disruptive to the flow of a conversation and has no weight whatsoever, therefore pure interruption.
Dishonest? Wtf?

[BigBallinStalin]

What a retarded comment. I am atheist and I am skeptical that God exists- I find it silly to assert that it is impossible for all loosely defined Gods do not exist. Please get your facts straight before replying to someone. Learn the difference between a strong and weak atheist.

Now please- provide me the method you used to disprove Zeus. I'll use your method to disprove Yahweh.

Zeus is merely a false god of Satan, the Great Deceiver. The idea of "Zeus" exists, but Zeus himself is a mere illusion. This is part and parcel of the Great Deceiver's work!

Militant atheists are funny. The "live and let live" worldview just doesn't compute with them and that worldview usually only doesn't compute with the ultra, super, religious. Ironic, no?

This Winter at BigBallinStalin's Training Camp, we're holding a special on Militant Atheism. You'll learn how to properly use and maintain a variety of small arms, coordinate with teammates in small team attacks, and effectively annoy theists/deists in all debates about religion.

[2dimes]

[fadedpsychosis]

so... my sum up of the past few pages (slightly out of order, but I'm trying to follow the thought flow):

Woodruff: I don't believe because I see no evidence
john9blue: what about all this evidence? where's your evidence?
Wood: absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and I don't believe your evidence so it doesn't count to me
john: whatchoo talkin bout woodruff? unthinking unbelief is just like unthinking belief
Funkyterrance: I agree!
PLAYER57832: me too!
wood: you're stupid!
(FT and wood go back and forth about accountability)
FT: can you stop calling people stupid?
wood: then quit being stupid!
FT: now you're derailing! (changes subject to motive)
chang50:(simplistic answer) now back to what we were arguing about!
FT: (goes back to motive argument, dragging chang and oss spy with him)
chang: you say you're neutral but you're not neutral!
FT: objection! irrelevant!
(more arguing, topic shifts slightly to meaningfulness, blame thown at FT)
FT: don't blame me for the subject I brought up, blame the subject! I'm innocent I tell you!
Wood: wait, WTF? you're blaming ME for derailing??
(more words from wood at FT)
(back and forth between oss and FT)
BBS: trollolololol!
Wood: (to john) you don't know what agnosticism means!
fadedpsychosis: you keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.