Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

Page 75 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ThinClient

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2013
3,980
4
0
lmao. Seriously?

Rocks lack the ability to believe, feel, see, hear, or anything else that comes with "life".

But if you want to include rocks in the discussion and you think that belief/lack of belief of the supernatural is proof, there are far more rocks on the planet than people. Those rocks don't believe in god and therefore that is evidence that god does not exist, right?

HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

holy crap LOOOOL :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Yes, I know. If you gathered that I was implying otherwise then you misunderstood me. When I say "research" or "science" I always mean that the scientific method is involved. When I say that scientists research the supernatural or paranormal I don't mean that they are trying to prove it with unscientific means.
Then your point was meaningless in addressing the question. Science has nothing to say about supernatural claims because it can never conclude it because it presupposes naturalism.
 

ThinClient

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2013
3,980
4
0
Then your point was meaningless in addressing the question. Science has nothing to say about supernatural claims because it can never conclude it because it presupposes naturalism.

So why do you believe in the supernatural if there is no evidence to support the existence of the supernatural in the first place?

What evidence have you seen that proves that YOUR supernatural fairy tale is correct when it claims to be the one true supernatural fairy tale when other supernatural fairy tales claim the same solitary truth?

How do you know that you're right and Muslims and Hindus are wrong?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Atheism is not a spiritual replacement. What's a spirit? What's a soul? Show me one. Save my what? I didn't realize I even had one of those, let alone that it needed saving by someone who invented what the soul needs to be saved from and who is responsible for condemning me to said place if I don't accept the soul saving.

How convoluted. What a joke.

You're just proving my point about how obnoxious you can be in defending your beliefs. Thanks for playing.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
lmao. Seriously?

Rocks lack the ability to believe, feel, see, hear, or anything else that comes with "life".
I know that. Which is why the "lack of belief" definition is incoherent.
But if you want to include rocks in the discussion and you think that belief/lack of belief of the supernatural is proof, there are far more rocks on the planet than people. Those rocks don't believe in god and therefore that is evidence that god does not exist, right?
The problem is I don't really think rocks are atheistic. It's just that they express the same exact characteristics of the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Which is why it is an incoherent definition.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
lmao. Seriously?

Rocks lack the ability to believe, feel, see, hear, or anything else that comes with "life".

But if you want to include rocks in the discussion and you think that belief/lack of belief of the supernatural is proof, there are far more rocks on the planet than people. Those rocks don't believe in god and therefore that is evidence that god does not exist, right?

LOL

Getting owned by your own tard logic. Priceless.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
I know that. Which is why the "lack of belief" definition is incoherent.
The problem is I don't really think rocks are atheistic. It's just that they express the same exact characteristics of the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Which is why it is an incoherent definition.

You do know the definition of "Athiesm" only applies to humans right? If not, that may be your problem.

You're welcome.
 

ThinClient

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2013
3,980
4
0
You're just proving my point about how obnoxious you can be in defending your beliefs. Thanks for playing.

Obnoxious or not, that's your perception which I care zip for.

I'm kinda glad you're irritated. That means you're paying attention to what I post and that the emotional reaction you're experiencing is a result of the logic and reason centers of your brain exploding under the pressures of truth and rationale in my posts.

... :)
 

ThinClient

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2013
3,980
4
0
I know that. Which is why the "lack of belief" definition is incoherent.
The problem is I don't really think rocks are atheistic. It's just that they express the same exact characteristics of the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Which is why it is an incoherent definition.

It's not incoherent. A rock cannot have a belief. A rock has a lack of belief. This is not a system of beliefs or a belief system. It's a lack of belief system.

You can't call a rock an atheist because it does not have the capacity for reason to come to that conclusion in the first place.

Go quote some Ray Comfort videos with him talking about the perfectly designed banana for the human hand

LOL
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
I know that. Which is why the "lack of belief" definition is incoherent.
The problem is I don't really think rocks are atheistic. It's just that they express the same exact characteristics of the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Which is why it is an incoherent definition.

lol, dude. just stop with the rock thing.. I love you man, you got me lol'ing, my kids want to know my I'm laughing...
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
You're just proving my point about how obnoxious you can be in defending your beliefs. Thanks for playing.

Typical "you hurt my feelings, boo hoo!" card; when pure logic gets crushed and you have nothing else to fall back on.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that for many, many people Atheism has taken the spiritual place of a religion and it's adherents are just as obnoxious in advocating for it as any Jehovah's Witness. As proven in this thread.

How many atheists have knocked on your door and tried to convert you?

We are having a rather civil discussion/debate here in a forum that is meant for debate. If you don't like the topic you don't click on it and you are not inconvenienced by it at all. OTOH, I have had a lot of people knock on my door and in my futile attempt to not be rude wasted quite a bit of my time. I would not equate "not answering my door" to "not clicking on a thread on an internet forum", would you?

I am actually sort of enjoying the debate yet I understand that I will not convert anyone and that isn't my goal. I personally think the best way to "create" more atheists is to simple encourage people to read the bible, its how I got there.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
I know that. Which is why the "lack of belief" definition is incoherent.

No it is not. Here, let me help you out a bit:

in·co·her·ent
adjective
adjective: incoherent
1.
(of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
"he screamed some incoherent threat"
synonyms: unclear, confused, unintelligible, incomprehensible, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected, disordered, mixed up, garbled, jumbled, scrambled, muddled; More
antonyms: intelligible
(of a person) unable to speak intelligibly.
"I splutter several more times before becoming incoherent"
synonyms: delirious, raving, babbling, hysterical, irrational More
antonyms: lucid
(of an ideology, policy, or system) internally inconsistent; illogical.
"the film is ideologically incoherent"

Rocks do not have the ability to either believe or not believe which is why we don't need a term for their "lack of belief". They don't have a heartbeat yet we don't say that they died, why don't we say that they died? The rock was never alive in the first place. Seriously? This is what you want to continue to argue?

The problem is I don't really think rocks are atheistic. It's just that they express the same exact characteristics of the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Which is why it is an incoherent definition.

Are you serious? My dick expresses a lot of the same characteristics of a rock when I am fucking yet my dick is not a rock. Do you understand the difference? Holy shit I could have fun with your above statement but it would just be plain unfair to you..... Just way to easy.

Okay, can't resist this one. Unicorns (would have said Bigfoot but there is more evidence of bigfoot) and Jesus express the "exact same characteristics" of "requires blind faith to think they exist" so faith is an incoherent definition. See how that works? Any rational and intelligent person understands the difference, as you do, the question is why are you being purposely obtuse?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
How many atheists have knocked on your door and tried to convert you?

We are having a rather civil discussion/debate here in a forum that is meant for debate. If you don't like the topic you don't click on it and you are not inconvenienced by it at all. OTOH, I have had a lot of people knock on my door and in my futile attempt to not be rude wasted quite a bit of my time. I would not equate "not answering my door" to "not clicking on a thread on an internet forum", would you?

I am actually sort of enjoying the debate yet I understand that I will not convert anyone and that isn't my goal. I personally think the best way to "create" more atheists is to simple encourage people to read the bible, its how I got there.

LOL!

I like how you're not denying your atheistic preaching...but you're just acknowledging you're doing it with a different goal.

FWIW, JW's are trying to convert you -- they only want to give you information. Actually, atheists have the goal of "freeing" people from religious dogma, so you are converting.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
LOL!

I like how you're not denying your atheistic preaching...but you're just acknowledging you're doing it with a different goal.

FWIW, JW's are trying to convert you -- they only want to give you information. Actually, atheists have the goal of "freeing" people from religious dogma, so you are converting.

Is this a problem?

It's ok for one group of people to gain followers, but not another?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Is this a problem?

It's ok for one group of people to gain followers, but not another?

No, it isn't a problem....I just like to see some honesty. Religious people aren't ashamed and aren't coy about trying to bring people over to Jesus, and I respect honesty, and if they believe this, they should preach about it.

Atheists need to practice this same honesty. So what if you're out to educate people about the fairy tales of religion and pull them from it.... we already know this -- atheists don't seem to, though.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Then your point was meaningless in addressing the question. Science has nothing to say about supernatural claims because it can never conclude it because it presupposes naturalism.

Shrug, a fuckton of what has in the past been considered to be supernatural has been proven to be of natural cause. That is what I was talking about and you know it, I don't mind you playing semantics but I will call you on it.

Hell, I'll even let you have this point. The supernatural has never been proven but 99% of what has been considered supernatural has been proven not to be. Happy?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
No, it isn't a problem....I just like to see some honesty. Religious people aren't ashamed and aren't coy about trying to bring people over to Jesus, and I respect honesty, and if they believe this, they should preach about it.

Atheists need to practice this same honesty. So what if you're out to educate people about the fairy tales of religion and pull them from it.... we already know this -- atheists don't seem to, though.

I would personally like to see more atheists but I know that changing the mind of a theist is not something I can do, they must do that themselves. Where does that put me in your book?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
LOL!

I like how you're not denying your atheistic preaching...but you're just acknowledging you're doing it with a different goal.

FWIW, JW's are trying to convert you -- they only want to give you information. Actually, atheists have the goal of "freeing" people from religious dogma, so you are converting.

huh?

Could you please restate your post? I think I know what you are trying to say but I truly respect you and don't want to assume and go the wrong way. Thanks in advance bud.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Rocks do not have the ability to either believe or not believe which is why we don't need a term for their "lack of belief". They don't have a heartbeat yet we don't say that they died, why don't we say that they died? The rock was never alive in the first place. Seriously? This is what you want to continue to argue?
Sigh...

Rocks do not need to have the ability to do something for them to lack it. I perfectly agree that this is incoherent and that is why the definition fails.

So yes, a rock lacks a heartbeat and if you define something dead. Saying they lack a heartbeat, I agree, is ridiculous but nobody is trying to define death as something that "lacks a heartbeat". The absurdities arise because of the "lack of belief" definition of atheism.
Are you serious? My dick expresses a lot of the same characteristics of a rock when I am fucking yet my dick is not a rock. Do you understand the difference? Holy shit I could have fun with your above statement but it would just be plain unfair to you..... Just way to easy.
Sure, if you're trying to define a rock as something hard then you have a point but nobody is trying to do that.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
I would personally like to see more atheists but I know that changing the mind of a theist is not something I can do, they must do that themselves. Where does that put me in your book?

More or less what my reply was going to be.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I would personally like to see more atheists but I know that changing the mind of a theist is not something I can do, they must do that themselves. Where does that put me in your book?

I feel the same way about you all -- I am not interested in "changing your minds" because that means I'd have to somehow attempt to force you to.

That isn't a option... it's not my job to change your mind no more than it is a teacher's to force you to learn math.

You're still OK in my book.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
huh?

Could you please restate your post? I think I know what you are trying to say but I truly respect you and don't want to assume and go the wrong way. Thanks in advance bud.


Basically, I took your post as not denying your "preaching", but I took it as simply denying the goal of "converting".