"Atheist Life Vs. Religious Life" [video]

I do whenever I see you type :D

I'm calling wrong specifically on the bolded part.

you and your potato fetish.

<3 <3 <3

I like the feeling of Starch on my skin

The sock puppet icon I see is just hilariously apt

:D

I was showing the difference between the eras in our history where religion had the greatest expansion (the dark ages) and where science/reason had the greatest expansion (the age of enlightenment).

And yes, I do get a hard on when I read what I type, because it feels so good schooling you baby.

Well in some minds it is just the same.
One says "There is a god"
One says "There is no god"
I say to both "Prove it"
If neither can, it is just the same to me.
Do I think that either are crazy for their belief or "non-belief"?
Nope
Do I think that either viewpoint will ever be proven?
Nope
Is it wrong to try to convince others of your belief or "non-belief"?
Nope
Is it right to trash talk someone on the sole grounds of their belief or "non-belief" because it conflicts with your own?
Nope
Is it much wiser to accept everyone regardless of their belief or "non-belief"?
Yep

Oh, Nuestra, how you delude yourself.

/yawn

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. :)

But I crush more theists with logic than honey.

I took a class this term, Discrete Structures, and in it we once spoke about how you can argue anything if you have a faulty base argument. Hence you may argue that chickens are a form of vegetation or some other such stuff.

In this case, I feel as though you are taking the premise that "They are the same" when there is ample evidence to state that they are not the same. If you hold on to this premise that asking for proof of existence and against existence are equivalent then we are unable to get anywhere in this discussion.

Again. Like so many others, you assume that the majority of the population here is theist. That's just sad if you make it your business to "crush" people too.

Atheists aren't people that are presenting the hypothesis that there isn't a god, they're people that are presenting other hypotheses for origin (ones based on evidence). We've done a pretty good job of support our hypotheses thus far (all of science, reason, and history).

Theists are the ones presenting there is a god as a hypothesis for origin, and thus they're responsible for supporting that hypothesis.

Since they have no evidence, they get no credibility.

It's why the word faith was created: They needed a word to describe "believing something that conflicts with evidence" besides gullible.

The concepts are not "equal". Creationism is not on the same platform or credibility as Evolution. The two ideologies are not comparable.

edit: @Zahrah - I don't assume people are theists, but I do address theistic ideologies. And if you've never crushed someone, then try it out. It's quite pleasurable. It's like getting a *** from Jessica Alba while driving your Porsche down the autoban and smoking a Cuban while the president thanx you for the economic advice over your speakerphone. Feels good.

Also, if you haven't picked up my sarcasm/levity in posts, and are still taking them serious in my attempts to "crush theists", then go grab a beer. I may think theists are logically fallible and clinically insane, but I still think some of you are swell people. Sometimes.

What evidence is there, that asking for proof of or against existence is not the same concept, besides human philosophy?

Reading isn't your strong suite is it Kosmik?

There you go assuming that I definitively believe in the existence of a god too.

You as in the collective "you people".

...

Okay...Okay...Humor is always a good route when these end up taking a turn for the questionable. Nice to see that you're not THAT serious about it.

Do you know when you don't have the exact words but know what you want to convey? I feel like I need my Sicilian hand motions to be translated into words, and I am about to do a very horrible job at explaining my response because of that.

To claim that something exists you are dealing with creation. You are saying "Here are the components to prove my claim, this is how they work together to show that this thing exists."

You cannot disprove something's existence, however. To "disprove" a deity is impossible; I have no problems admitting that. To disprove something you need to explain why this evidence is invalid. You are using what is already claimed to show that the outcome is not what was originally claimed.

Am I making any sense? I can't really translate these thoughts out well.

Religion makes a claim: "there is stuff beyond our physical world".

Antitheism makes a claim: "there is no proof of that" by using what religions explain by deities (weather, health, agriculture) and showing that these are actually done by different things.

I may need to rework on this at a later time. I'm not doing so well with the words this time around.

Regardless of your beliefs, if you honestly take these threads seriously you'll only give yourself a heart attack.

Very true.

I was thinking. That your hard on comes from your image you have on FFXI AH pretty cute girl.

All of my favorite people are in here... goats.

<3<3<3

that was to neostura's image not anyone else's:)

lol'd
You are strong suite is shooting yourself in the foot, yes?

I disagree, you can be serious without getting miffed.
I'd say vesting your emotions in a conversation is where the problem lies, not the whole "taking it seriously" part.
What I think Neosutra may have meant to say is to not take it to heart.
Which is completely different than taking something seriously in my opinion.

But this is a simple semantics argument, "taking something serious" and "taking something to heart" can be two different things depending on how they are taken, sooooo yeah.

I know the difference between your/you're asshat Q.Q. iPhone autocorrect strikes again.

And stop trying to tell everyone what I meant to say.

I *** meant to say: Don't take these thread's seriously.

Take the message seriously.

Don't take the conflict seriously.