IAP Political Forum

Here's a more accurate explanation:

1. Theist: there are magic elves in your shoe box
2. Agnostic: LOLZ maybe! I can't decide! Don't have 100% certainty! LOLZ
3. Atheist: Fuck the elves. I don't believe it. The probability is so small, evidence tells me they likely aren't, therefore, I disbelieve it until good reason manifests.


Clearly, person 1 is delusional and person 2 is a smarmy asshole retard. the most logical course of action is disbelief. Agnostics are pussy fence sitters who like to bask in pseudointellectualism, assuming that "I don't know" is the safe decision. Of course, if you follow their logic to its conclusion, anything for which we haven't ultimate, absolute 100% certainty for we must suspend judgment. That epistemological view is incredibly worthless, as much of human knowledge doesn't have certainty. For almost anything one can come up with some implausible bullshit answer you cannot 100% beyond any unreasonable doubt disprove or prove: lepreuchans make combustion work. They just do. Just like God "just makes shit work."

You cannot disprove it. I can't prove it. Therefore, agnostic position.

Of course, agnostics don't like when you apply their bullshit philosophy outside the context of God because it makes them look like fucking morons. Boo fuckity fucking hoo.

Nothing I hate more than smarmy ass wipes who think they are ever so superior to everybody that doesn't think like them.

Why is it that every prick in the world HAS to be right?  And everybody else is stupid?

I am an asshole, yes. Proud of it. I am also correct, and that's why you think I am a prick. That I can show that your philosophy leads to mindnumbingly absurd bullshit results pisses you off. I know it does. That's the point. Your inane agnosticism can indeed be applied to everything in the universe anyone can imagine up as an explanation of something, and since you cannot absolutely disprove it beyond any doubt whatsoever, you must suspend judgment. The possibilities are limitless. For instance, for any activity you can think of, ou can invent, on the spot, an unfalsifiable metaphysical entity and claim he's involved or ultimately responsible. Let's call them Norks. What? Water freezes? It's those silly Norks manipulating the molecules, making them do that. If the Norks weren't there, the atoms wouldn't bunch up! We may think the atoms do this by themselves due to natural laws, but no no no. It's the power of the Nork. They also control melting too. When you add heat, it wouldn't do anything if it weren't for the Norks separating, causing the atoms to reverberate. You can't 100% disprove it. Therefore, you must suspend judgment, even though I just fucking made the shit up. Or did I?

It clearly shows the poverty of your "Durrr, I dunno, maybe" philosophy.

It was a general statement.  It wasn't aimed at you.  That you thought it was is instructive. 

Pisses me off?  Please.  You are not important enough for me to actually get upset at you.  let alone pissed off.  I am not that wed to any religious/philosophical discussion that I get 'pissed off' about them.  I simply have a more open mind than you do about these things.  If that bothers you, oh well, get over it.  And get over yourself. 

You build strawmen and argue with them.  Free country.  Have at it.  Makes you look stupid, but, don't let that stop you.  27 posts, and you know it all huh?  Wow. 

Not really gonna be bothered with reading your long winded post about your examination of your belly button.  Don't care. 

Nonsense. I have constructed no strawmen, since the position I attacked really does exist here. The agnostics claim they don't know and thus must suspend judgment. By the criteria they use to "suspend judgment" (lack of certainty either way), one could logically apply it to be agnostic about most anything, including every single made-up deity or metaphysical being someone could invent on the spot. You cannot disprove it or prove it. Therefore, you MUST by your own standard, suspend judgment.

You claim that absurd belief is "open minded" so you can sit on your high horse and smirk passive aggressively, all nice and safe in your
no duh" position. When someone calls you out on this it upsets your panties.

So you are unable to get over it.  Or yourself.  Thank you for clarifying. 

As to you having any insight into how I think, good luck there.  Most people that have been posting here longer than the last five minutes know me better than to make the kind of snap judgments that you seem to enjoy.  Either way, it doesn't sound like you actually need anyone else to have a debate.  You have shown yourself quite capable of debating your side, and mine.  Have at it then.

And yes, that is creating strawmen.  You are clueless as to my view, but you have repeatedly said you know how I feel. 

Technocrat, by your standards, anyone and everyone is a dumbass for having an opinion on the subject whatsoever.

Really?


Ah yes.  I see that now.


Indeed.

I would only add that I know atheists, real atheists, those who believe that god does not exist.  Of course, unless someone asks them about their beliefs, you wouldn't know they are atheists.  This is because they are not evangelical atheists.  They are just normal people with a theological belief I don't share.

I also know a cadre of guys I call "Bible guys", people whose christianity focuses very much on the book.  One of them I've known for years is JIMP.  He and I have lots of theological differences and even argue them on occassion.  He is smart, doesn't have an axe to grind, and doesn't have the sort of defective personality that would permit him to imagine that deception and poor manners further his advocacy.

I've met bible guys who were poor advocates becuase they were boorish or rude, don't know how to take no for an answer, and who make unwarranted assumptions about others.

Maybe it isn't the idea of atheism that is toxic.  Maybe some advocates are terribly defective people.

Incorrect again, young padawan. The targets are real. Ergo, they are not strawman. You seem to have difficulty comprehending the terms you use. Do fix that problem for next time. I won't take time to educate you again, son. Take notes if you need to. The refresher's over.


1. Agnosticism is a fence sitter position of people who think they cannot make a decision because there isn't certainty either way.

2. This is a fucking stupid belief because nothing has the certainty they want. Therefore, everyone should be agnostic about everything.

3. The agnostic position expressed on this forum requires this mentality. This is evident in the arguments: "You cannot be sure, therefore, you must suspend judgment. It COULD be true. Maybe" and "Your disbelief is itself faith." This assumes tacitly that you must have 100% certainty and the ability to disprove something, or else you cannot choose to disbelieve it. Clearly, that's fucking moronic, thus you get irritable bowel syndrome when someone points that out. You must logically hold the same belief in everything for which there's no 100% certainty or in cases you cannot absolutely disprove something.

Therefore, you must suspend disbelief and belief about Norks and their magic.

As is the case with most agnostics, they inherently assume their opinion is the "right" one, despite the retarded logic behind it. Of course, they don't see the poor reasoning because it's emotionally comforting to think they are untouchable on the fence and, again, because they don't consistently apply this reasoning outside the context of God. Of course you disbelief magic Norks, Faeries, and the invisible leprechaun raping you. Those are obviously silly, but a magic sky daddy...well darn, that's just to possible.

Agnostic/Christian Encyclopaedia of Tactics Entry 2:

2. When curbstomped and spanked like lil' bitches, they will try to claim atheists are "fundamentalists" or "evangelical," thus turning disbelief in something into something religious, despite the comparison being absurd on it's face. Ironically, they do this when it is THEY who first assault the atheist by deliberately misrepresenting what atheism is while religiously adhering to their own irrational dogma. When countered they retreat, whine while passive-aggressively flinging nonsense like the aforementioned insults to make themselves feel better and daemonize the opponent.

   

If you are going to try to condescend to a fellow who may be twice your age, you might omit the silly sci-fi insult.  The insecurity of youth is evident in your reply.


No.  A person can contemplate the matter of god’s existence and still doubt it.  Your anger is misplaced.

So eloquent.

I didn't "try to claim atheists are ...evangelical".  I did claim that some atheists are evangelical.

You seem to have difficulty comprehending the terms you read. Do fix that problem for next time.

You mean he is smart like a chimpanzee is smart?

Smart and religious fundamentalist don't go together. If you're a fundi you're automatically an idiot.

Atheist fundamentalist/evangelical are nonsense terms. They only exist because [doo head] theists want to make it seem like atheists are just as bad as they are, because they are locked in the little world of the golden mean. You are JUST the same, especially if you are passionate about the topic. Only Christians are able to be vocal. That's ok, but damned, if you fight back, you're a fundamentalist!

Typical dishonesty.

Offensive and uncivil speech removed.  Consider this a formal warning about your behavior in the P & R forum. 

-Biker

Techno, you don't like it when posters behave badly in the forum you moderate, so maybe you could show the same consideration to ours  :)

I see lots of posters behaving like that. Namely, the Christian who calls everyone morons. I don't see his posts being modified.

Yes, you claimed that SOME atheists are evangelical - the ones - as he points out that "When curbstomped and spanked like lil' bitches, they will try to claim atheists are "fundamentalists" or "evangelical," ..."

You simply missed his point.

FYI Baldar is not a Christian.... so how about you  tell me which one it is ;)

Whatever balderdash is, it's a nitpick. He does it fairly consistently.

You didn't direct your fury, anger and profanity at Baldar though.

You directed it at all agnostics,all christians, as well as all the people who posted on this thread in good faith.

You can make a point strongly without the use of profanity and coarse language, yes? I know you can, I have seen you do it before  :)

No offence Barnes, but I must admit I have seen classier and better taste avatars in my time.

It would be funny if you were as hard on yourself as you are on us. You make up excuses for your own silly beliefs and then you go on to tell us what we believe to make your own irrational believes seem rational.

You are a joke.

God forbid anyone have an openmind.  ;D

So now self proclaimed atheists are telling everyone else what their views "should" be.

The telling point, of someone who has a weak philosophy or a strong one, is whether or not  they can sell their point of view without the desperate need to attack someone else's.

I once had an evangelical come up to me and explain why my "looking for the truth" is ridiculous since it was "right there".  He tended to show how my belief system and views were ridiculous and childish.  And then he finished by stating that his was the only way.  So I allowed him his say and asked him to leave.

I had another evangelical who said absolutely nothing about what I thought or believed in, other than applauding the fact that I was looking and trying to live my life along the same lines as my philosophy.  He said he and his family were very happy being born again christians and they enjoyed sharing their glad message.  And so on... It was rare that I am impressed by such sincerity.

The atheists most active on this board are like those evangelical christians who denigrate other religions claiming theirs is the only way (its not bad to claim yours is the only way, it is bad however to denigrate others who aren't as convinced as you are).  I don't consider them worthy of the same level of respect for their actions.

Wasn't it delta nine who has admitted several times that his brain was wired to reject the idea there is a God?  Am I remembering this right?

The problem Balder's bullshit notion about open-mindedness is that he's so open-minded, his brain's fallen rought out his head.

He's attempting to paint it as closed-minded not to believe in magical faerietales, and "open-minded" if you do. This is, yet again, a typical tactic used by Christians and Agnosticis alike. It's similar to how Fox News calls everyone "extreme" when they oppose them, regardless if they are wrong or right. Case in point: Richard Dawkins. Incredibly intelligent, lucid, and informed man. Because he's passionate about his correct position, he's "extreme" just like Mullahs. Yea, bullshit. They are abusing the concept of toleration and extending it to ideas that are blately false, nonsense. Just saying it's bullshit is tantamount to prejudice and discrimination nowadays, which is absurd. This successfully puts YOu on the defensive while taking the attention away from them and their bogus claims.

This coincides with the tactic of redefining what you are so they can better strawman you.

Another example is how the word "liberal" is a dirty word today. they have successfully used pavlovian pyschology to make people associate "bad" with something just the opposite. Christians are attempting to attack atheism via the same method.

I like it. i can live out my homoerotic sadomasochistic Jesus fantasies. </deliberateoffensiveness>

You see there is where you are both crass and ignorant..  I don't care what you believe, I don't attack the idea of being an atheist.  I don't believe in it, but you poor benighted fool, I am not a christian either.  Or anything for that matter, I am still looking.

You guys seem are the bigots who attack religion and toleration and then whine when someone calls you on it.  Your mindset is he one in which crosses are burned, as well as books and people are turned to ash.  Intellectually, nothing better than pitiful trailer trash when you attack people because of their belief systems and cannot even or a second extol to anyone your own system and why you think its great, that is without denigrating the other side.  It reflects the base stupidity that you inculcate into your own belief system.

You think it's bigoted to express the fact that religious people are deluded and that their beliefs are bullshit. That's wrong, especially when you are in a discussion about it or when people go out of their way to talk, brag about it to you. If you are going to discuss and bring up the topic, then your ideas are free game, pal. This isn't a koom-bai-ya scout camp, but a debate board. I don't need to respect anyone's religious beliefs. IN fact, that's one problem with today's society: we pander to the religious and treat them with kid gloves.

Believing in a magical being who has a personal relationship with you, yet only YOU can hear him, ought to be mocked. It's patently stupid. That's not bigoted. It's not worthy of respect. The only difference between Scientology and Christianity is that one has been around longer. They are both just as fucking stupid.  Religion has too much power today for how retarded it really is. We give it artificial toleration and respect when, in reality, it ought to be ruthlessly attacked when it rears up in public.

Amen!!! Brutha!!

My thoughts exactly.

Personally bigots like you are deluded, full of bullshit, should be mocked (and often are), patently stupid, retarded and you ought to be ruthlessly attacked.

Did I pretty much get it all?

One part is interesting.


Seems like we have someone with inadequacy feelings here.  :'(

And now you are strawmanning, since I never said ruthlessly attack anyone. I said attack their ideas. I am not bigoted at all, because I dislike Christianity for a good reason: it's immoral dangerous, and wrong. Christians try their hardest to pretend it's not and attack anyone who would dare oppose it, even calling them...bigoted for pointing out their ideas are false and dangerous.

I can prove Christianity is bullshit. I can prove it's values are unethical. I can prove Christianity is wrong. You cannot prove anything other than your wang must be raw from all the circlejerking you do here.   ;D

But cute false analogy.

 

It is rude IMO. Well, at least that is how I was brought up. And I am not even religious.




What christian on this board goes out of their way to brag about it to you?


Why does it affect YOU, what other people believe in?

  

What? Too soon? ;)

Not false, I used your own words to describe how you are.

Don't his faux civility fool you. His attitude toward those who disagree with him (atheists in general) is inherently disrespectful. He disrespects them every time he deliberately misrepresents them and then proceeds to dictate to them what they believe, what they are. He's being rude every time he claims atheism is a faith and pretends atheism is no different intellectually from believing in magic beings. He's just disguising it with polite language. I can insult you while being polite too, as he does but I am more honest than that. Lying and stonewalling I think are far worse (what he does) than offending someone by calling their beliefs nonsense (what I do).


There are several threads here arguing this issue, and neither did I bring up. There are arguments put forth there by them arguing against atheism. I am merely responding to them. They saw fit to bring forth arguments. That makes them fair game. Frankly, I find the baseless accusation that atheists are evangelical and rabid faith-based "believers" offensive, but they don't give a shit about saying that, so why should I give a shit about responding in kind? That I don't insult you nicely doesn't mean passive-aggressive insults aren't insults.


Because they don't keep it to themselves. If they kept their delusions private and didn't try to thrust it on people by using it to influence political decisions, there wouldn't be a problem and they could keep their little delusions just fine. In the real world, the opposite happens. They use their doctrines to push religious bullshit on people. Why do you think we have real controversy over stem cell research? Religion. Evolution vs Creationism? Religion. Gay marriage? Religion. Faith-based government programmes? Religion.  They cannot keep their shit to themselves. This is why the idea must be targeted and undermined. If you let them go, they will just spread and get stronger like a virus. It's time for atheists to rise up against religions, which have dominated for long enough. We need a new Age of Reason to kill to finish what the Enlightenment started.

Seriously is he lying or that deluded.

Has technobrat even looked at the titles and the number of attacks against christians?

There is no false civility, nobody here hates atheists, not the way you bigots hate anyone who believes in anything other than your own narrow views.

Care to show me where I have lied boy?  Care to show us where reasoned faith has lied?  Or are you that deluded?



Such stupidity, have you looked at the threads moron?  Have you seen the authors of the titles?  People who believe in god have done nothing literally more than responding to baiting and queries buried under insults.

Stupid bigots.

Son, mostly everything you say is a bullshit lie, from your definition of "bigotry" to your assertions about atheism being faith-based. You're so far down the rabbit hole of delusion, you've reached Wonderland.  ;D

You're doing it right now...again! And, again, in all these threads, you are making ridiculous strawmen arguments and attacks on Atheism. In your bizarre world, criticism of Christianity that's honest = bigoted. You clearly don't comprehend what bigotry means, which is why you don't, as in the case of Atheism, use the terms correctly. You then rant and rave, again dishonestly pretending you aren't doing it. You deliberately misuse and invent terminology to suit you. Either I must assume you are just a blithering idiot (which I doubt) or you are deliberately dishonest.

It's about time someone called you out on your bullshit civility charade. You run around pulling definitions out of your ass, stonewalling, and then disrespecting people by lying through your teeth. Apparently, that's ok, so long as you do it "nicely."

Calling atheists fundamentalist evangelicals and asserting they have a 'faith' is not only inaccurate and a lie it's deliberately intended to piss people off to get a response out of them. Of course you know that, which is why you and your mob of headbobbing yesmen do it.

I have already proven that Christianity is irrational. I have shown that faith, by definition, is irrational. This is offensive to you. Too fucking bad. Learn to cope. I am not your school counselor.

Who created the thread is entirely irrelevant, although this thread is hardly "atheist-friendly."

The OP in this thread made by a christian was:



So, you could respond in either of two ways:

1)I am an atheist and I do not group myself with agnostics because .......

or

2)I am an atheist and I group myself with agnostics because.............



Your opening reply in this thread was:




So is the christian or the atheist behaving rudely and disrespectfully in this particular case??  :)

The OP in this thread made by a christian was:





So, you could respond in either of two ways:

1)I am an atheist and I do not group myself with agnostics because .......

or

2)I am an atheist and I group myself with agnostics because.............



Your opening reply in this thread was:




So is the christian or the atheist behaving rudely and disrespectfully in this particular case?? 

The OP in this thread made by a christian was:



So, you could respond in either of two ways:

1)I am an atheist and I do not group myself with agnostics because .......

or

2)I am an atheist and I group myself with agnostics because.............



Your opening reply in this thread was:



So is the christian or the atheist behaving rudely and disrespectfully in this particular case??

Coming from a person that is most likely still in his teens, this is funny.   A very dishonest attempt to paint yourself as 'knowledgeable' at least more so that the person you are addressing.  Everyone notices this, so it is not effective.  It makes you look small.
Once you can scientifically and conclusively prove there is no God, you might be right.  Until then, you will have to take it on faith.

Honest criticism is not an issue.  It is welcome.  Encouraged even.  Quite a few of your posts fall well short of this.  Either you know it, and are now crying wolf because Baldar has brought it to your door step, or you are not bright.  Doubt it's that one.  It usually is the first.

So he is lying?  About what?  A person would have to prove something like that.  We don't act based on a person say so.  Kinda like the real world in that aspect.

I think YOUR 'headbobbing yesmen', D9 and Barnes, would agree with you.  Most likely none else.  Again, prove your claim about aethism, or should we just take it on faith that faith isn't needed?

Nobody here has seen you prove anything.  Other than you can act like a spoiled teenager that has been asked to actually, gasp!, back up a claim.  Your proof has only been more of your own personal rhetoric.  Nothing more.  Should we take your claims on faith?

I could agree with this.  Threads can and do take on whole new lives, not always 'staying the course'.  This bothers some OP's, and not others.  As long as an honest discussion without the bombast ensues, I don't see the issue.

Funny, but also tasteless. The new one is better, because it takes a moment to register what is a little off about it.

i'm atheist myself but daedalus 2.0 remind me sort of
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42093000/jpg/_42093952_kashmir-ap416.jpg)

It's silly to get all up in arms about faith, religion, or lack thereof.

I think the question of what is an athiest, and what is an agnostic, what is a theist, is more than a little retarded, TBH.

Some call themselves athiests because they don't believe in god. Some call them selves athiests becasue they believe there is no god.

I tend to consider myself an athiest leaning agnostic, but to whatever extent I do imagine that there is a "god", I think it's dumb to argue about "him", even dumber if you don't believe in "him", or are convinced he doesn't exist.

I really don't understand the endless pages of people arguing something that is entirely unprovable either way. To me it's like arguing about a boxing match where neither boxer actually exists (the boxer in this case representing the "proof" from each side).



Is atheism a religion? Who cares?

"Religion" isn't the issue. IMO, it's dogmatic thinking that is the problem. Thiests and atheists alike can be dogmatic (I've even met dogmatic agnostics, very very odd people). It's not so much the message that usually bothers me from anyone, it's the fact that some people feel the need to throw whatever belief they have in people's face constantly that annoys me.

Very good points. It seems Techno has a severe case of cultural marxism!

OswaldTheOsprey

Oh yes, the hallmark of enlightenment.

Obviously anyone who doesn't make claims they can't prove is a smarmy asshole.


And this?

I had to check the URL twice, I thought I was reading some sort of scientific journal for a minute there.

I find it Ironic, because if anything, the viewpoint of the agnostic is more applicable to other situations. Unless of course the goal is to be a loudmouth and shout down those that disagree with you. The standard of proof seems to be much lesser under a paradigm like that.