Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

Yes you've made it abundantly clear that your only purpose in this thread is to troll.

I'll apply the same standard to you. I posted an url from a philosophical encyclopedia. Since you haven't addresed it you're affirming everything in that link. Cool, this might be useful.

 

[Retro Rob]

The thing with "skeptics" is that they are so uncritical of their conclusions whenever a theist is involved.

l'd go a bit further and say they're not skeptical of their own conclusions period.

So, skeptics are only "skeptical" of conclusions that are different from those of their own -- which generally is the case.

 

[buckshot24]

l'd go a bit further and say they're not skeptical of their own conclusions period.

So, skeptics are only "skeptical" of conclusions that are different from those of their own -- which generally is the case.

Right, they take self replicating crystals seriously for the origin of life.

 

[Juddog]

The thing with "skeptics" is that they are so uncritical of their conclusions whenever a theist is involved.

Skeptics want to see evidence - when no evidence is shown, then they generally discard the argument from the other side until evidence is presented. I can postulate that there are magic bunnies on the other side of the galaxy that run around pooping out chocolate that tastes great, but until I see evidence of it, I'm not going to draw conclusions.

No, just on words that are large enough to warrant it.

I didn't realize that "atheism" was such a big word.

You're fine with being defined by one sentence but these sorts of philosophical words are much more nuanced. I wouldn't say to do that for "red" for instance. Atheism entails much more than 5-7 words.

How many words does "theist" entail?

Hey, I've moved on I don't expect anything from you.

It's clear you've moved on, when you continue to not post in the thread. Yet here you are, still posting.

Never insinuated otherwise. You have beliefs, overkill talked about how you seemed to get those beliefs. You then go on about non belief in God. He wasn't talking about that belief.

I was giving clarification on the definition of a word - no more, no less.

I think you've conflated the terms because overkill talked about beliefs in general and not about God. I've got it now, you have beliefs. Thanks for clearing that up.

Whether or not I have beliefs doesn't change the definition of a word. Glad to have cleared that up for you. Maybe now that you finally understand the difference between not having a belief and believing that something doesn't exist are not the same thing.

 

[Retro Rob]

Skeptics want to see evidence - when no evidence is shown, then they generally discard the argument from the other side until evidence is presented. I can postulate that there are magic bunnies on the other side of the galaxy that run around pooping out chocolate that tastes great, but until I see evidence of it, I'm not going to draw conclusions.

Within reason. Why do you guys make these asinine analogies? No one going to ever ask you to believe there are magic bunnies in space. 🙄

Sometimes, we need to be a little bit serious... is that possible?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

l'd go a bit further and say they're not skeptical of their own conclusions period.

Do you even understand WHY atheists are so adamant to correct theists that try to paint atheists as holders of affirmative beliefs that zero gods exist?

So, skeptics are only "skeptical" of conclusions that are different from those of their own -- which generally is the case.

I don't affirm that zero gods exist because I am compelled to maintain a real degree of skepticism of THAT belief, also. But you go on living in your tidy little private universe.

 

[buckshot24]

Skeptics want to see evidence - when no evidence is shown, then they generally discard the argument from the other side until evidence is presented. I can postulate that there are magic bunnies on the other side of the galaxy that run around pooping out chocolate that tastes great, but until I see evidence of it, I'm not going to draw conclusions.

Yet you've made conclusions about my mental state with very little evidence. In fact you're so confident in your conclusion that you basically accuse me of lying when I told you I wasn't mad. Double standards?

 

[sandorski]

Within reason. Why do you guys make these asinine analogies? No one going to ever ask you to believe there are magic bunnies in space. 🙄

Sometimes, we need to be a little bit serious... is that possible?

To explain a principle.

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you even understand WHY atheists are so adamant to correct theists that try to paint atheists as holders of affirmative beliefs that zero gods exist?

Correct them is one thing, but championing how cool your "non-stamp collecting" is and how bad our "stamp-collecting" is, is why I personally say atheists carry their non-belief the same as a theist carries his Bible.

 

[buckshot24]

I was giving clarification on the definition of a word - no more, no less.

So you're saying it wasn't relevant to his point?

 

[ThinClient]

It is a belief, there is no solid evidence if there is a god or not, and thus any opinion on the matter is a belief. Inb4 everyone suddenly turns agnostic. Which is more like a cop out. Agnostics have an opinion, they just won't share it or stick to one.

No no. It's not a belief at all. It's a lack of belief. We don't believe that there is no evidence. We believe that no evidence has been presented to support the positive claim that god exists.

Until evidence is produced, there's no reason to believe the positive claim is true.

You fail.

Religion is like the extacy of the drug world, honestly. You pop a few pills and you feel GREAT for a while until you need to pop a few more pills. You go to church, say a few prayers, read a few scriptures, meditate on the bible and listen to other people's rationalization to justify the loopholes and contradictions you just read, and ultimately feel good about yourself and feel good about being accepted by a large group of people which reinforces that your choice to believe was correct because you can't fathom that there are THAT many stupid people on the planet.

...meanwhile, while you're in your ignorant drugged-up stupor, the drug is almost literally taking ice cream scoops out of your brain.

Reason. Logic. Rationale. All go out the window. Evidence? We don't need evidence. My pastor made a convincing argument and HE didn't use evidence so why should I need to show evidence to anyone else? It MUST be true!

🙄

 

[ThinClient]

Yet you've made conclusions about my mental state with very little evidence. In fact you're so confident in your conclusion that you basically accuse me of lying when I told you I wasn't mad. Double standards?

Every time you post, you provide us with more evidence. We compare that new evidence with the old evidence and then we check the existing conclusion to see if it needs to be adjusted based on new evidence.

This is the scientific method.

You are still a fucking troll.

 

[shadow9d9]

Correct them is one thing, but championing how cool your "non-stamp collecting" is and how bad our "stamp-collecting" is, is why I personally say atheists carry their non-belief the same as a theist carries his Bible.

One is oppressing others by using their beliefs and the other is trying to push back against it... and they are equal? Brilliant.

 

[shadow9d9]

It is a belief, there is no solid evidence if there is a god or not, and thus any opinion on the matter is a belief. Inb4 everyone suddenly turns agnostic. Which is more like a cop out. Agnostics have an opinion, they just won't share it or stick to one.

You can't have evidence of something that doesn't exist. Until evidence exists, it doesn't make much sense to make something up and believe it to be true.

 

[Juddog]

Within reason. Why do you guys make these asinine analogies? No one going to ever ask you to believe there are magic bunnies in space. 🙄

Sometimes, we need to be a little bit serious... is that possible?

Please explain how the analogy is asinine - you believe in a sky fairy, and I say there is an equal chance of bunny fairies that poop chocolate exist on the other side of the galaxy - both are completely unproveable, so why bother believing in these fairy tales when there is no proof?

 

[Juddog]

So you're saying it wasn't relevant to his point?

I was giving clarification on a very specific thing - how is that not relevant?

Can you not understand granular ideas?

 

[Juddog]

Yet you've made conclusions about my mental state with very little evidence. In fact you're so confident in your conclusion that you basically accuse me of lying when I told you I wasn't mad. Double standards?

There's been plenty of evidence for your mental state throughout this very thread. 😉

 

[Retro Rob]

Please explain how the analogy is asinine - you believe in a sky fairy, and I say there is an equal chance of bunny fairies that poop chocolate exist on the other side of the galaxy - both are completely unproveable, so why bother believing in these fairy tales when there is no proof?

I am assuming you're a reasonable person...reasonable enough to realize that those kinda analogies are designed, not to draw a parallel, but to embarass your opponent.

It looks like you have no real counter-arguement, so an appeal to ridicule is probably the only option, or a last-ditch attempt to save your arguement, or to regain crowd momentum.

 

[Juddog]

I am assuming you're a reasonable person...reasonable enough to realize that those kinda analogies are designed, not to draw a parallel, but to embarass your opponent.

It looks like you have no real counter-arguement, so an appeal to ridicule is probably the only option, or a last-ditch attempt to save your arguement, or to regain crowd momentum.

The analogy is perfectly reasonable - both objects have zero evidence of existing and no way to prove their existence, so it's all conjecture as to whether they exist or not.

 

[sandorski]

I am assuming you're a reasonable person...reasonable enough to realize that those kinda analogies are designed, not to draw a parallel, but to embarass your opponent.

It looks like you have no real counter-arguement, so an appeal to ridicule is probably the only option, or a last-ditch attempt to save your arguement, or to regain crowd momentum.

It may make you feel ridiculed, but it's meant to show a principle. How you feel is your own doing.

 

[Retro Rob]

The analogy is perfectly reasonable - both objects have zero evidence of existing and no way to prove their existence, so it's all conjecture as to whether they exist or not.

People HAVE evidence that they attribute to the existence of God... and that's the "design" they see.

You have to deal with that. Citing "flying monkeys" just sidesteps the issue and doesn't provide any couter-argument to the design argument.

Every piece of written material I've read from atheists always try to avoid the ridicule appeal becasue that doesn't at all address "why are we seemingly designed if there was no designer", question.

If you say that why not the FSM, that only addresses the source, my argument would still stand.

 

[JD50]

People HAVE evidence that they attribute to the existence of God... and that's the "design" they see.

You have to deal with that. Citing "flying monkeys" just sidesteps the issue and doesn't provide any couter-argument to the design argument.

Every piece of written material I've read from atheists always try to avoid the ridicule appeal becasue that doesn't at all address "why are we seemingly designed if there was no designer", question.

If you say that why not the FSM, that only addresses the source, my argument would still stand.

Wow, back to this again?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Correct them is one thing, but championing how cool your "non-stamp collecting" is and how bad our "stamp-collecting" is, is why I personally say atheists carry their non-belief the same as a theist carries his Bible.

Where did this happen? Outside of your head, I mean.

 

[Retro Rob]

Wow, back to this again?

No, you idiot... I was demonstrating a point.

Read, come back, then talk...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That doesn't show anything. Is that seriously your argument?



Did you have anything intelligent to say?

*crickets*