Evil Atheist Thread

[Eran of Arcadia]

Some are.

(After all, it is evidently surprising if an atheist is obsessed at all with God, whereas it is expected and thus unsurprising if a theist is even more obsessed. Or maybe that's not what he meant.)

 

[JollyRoger]

Atheists are surprisingly osessed with God.

But at least we aren't so obsessed with Satan.

 

[Perfection]

Some are.

Yeah, and some Christians are obsessed with little boys. Atticus implied commonality to most athiests not "some".

 

[Quiet Sound]

Atheism can be dangerous. If I don't believe in some form of divine retribution for my earthly sins, what's going to prevent me from committing them if and when I know that I could get away with it?

You're saying then that you only act decently towards other people because you believe some deity is offering you a carrot with one hand and waving a stick with the other? So you're a sociopath possessing no morality, capable of experiencing no empathy or compassion and kept from acting out only by your obedience to a Might-Makes-Right figure? Interesting.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

If you lived in a society where the people making public policy decisions were doing so partially because they thought it made their imaginary friend happy you'd probably be obsessed with it too.

 

[Reiko]

The problem with atheists isn't that they believe there is no god, the problem is that they think it is perfectly acceptable to waste thousands, if not millions, of dollars in tax money suing people and governments over religious symbols displayed in public.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

The problem with atheists isn't that they believe there is no god, the problem is that they think it is perfectly acceptable to waste thousands, if not millions, of dollars in tax money suing people and governments over religious symbols displayed in public.

I agree that frivolous lawsuits are bad, I disagree that all atheist lawsuits are frivolous.

 

[fishjie]

Why shouldn't you respect people? We all believe in things without evidence, and of course lots of people think they have evidence for their beliefs, but if you really think that not respecting the majority of the human race is a good idea, I think you set your baseline too high. We're not even talking about respecting the beliefs, just the people who hold them.

oh i'm sorry, i actually agree with you on the last point. i guess i posted poorly.

i have many christian friends. i love them to death. they are some of the most wonderful people i have ever known, no lie. do i respect them? yes. for example, my boss. incredibly smart man, has taught me so much on the job.

do i respect his beliefs? no. do i confront him on it? no, i dont want to get fired. but neither do i attack my xtian friends either. but this is the internet, and on the internet, people discuss things, so here is where i fight. but if it came down to it and my friends wanted to convert me back, i would not respect their beliefs and would attack them with all vigor.

again - why are some atheists passionate about god? well, if god existed, then it is incredibly important to model our entire society, culture, morals, policies (domestic and foreign), around god. incredibly important. if god does not exist, then doing so is incredibly dangerous and is bad for the advancement of all mankind. george bush and his fundamentalist agenda have made that much clear.

 

[Bill3000]

How about those who believe in a deity, but want to take It down?

They're the TRUE anti-theists!

No, they're raiders in Everquest.

 

[YonatanBlum]

I agree with the comments about atheists being obsessed with God; as a “true” atheist myself, I’m happy to say that I just don’t care when it comes to religion. Be religious when it fits you, (as in holidays) and be “atheist” when it doesn’t; be ideologically/religiously opportunistic, it’s a lot of fun.

 

[Perfection]

The problem with atheists isn't that they believe there is no god, the problem is that they think it is perfectly acceptable to waste thousands, if not millions, of dollars in tax money suing people and governments over religious symbols displayed in public.

Some atheist public policy objections are overreaching but many are not. Atheist tax payers should not be forced to subsidize groups that descriminate against them (the BSA).

 

[Tasslehoff]

Atheism killed the dinosaurs! We all know it's true!

 

[Shadylookin]

religion throughout history has been a uniting point among groups of people atheists don't jive with that, but only in recent times has anyone been able to say so without persecution. So many atheists go over the top over what they perceive as past grievances even though the oppressors are long dead. because of this they don't blend in well with society and go against the grain and do what religious people could consider evil.

well that's my best half arsed reason

 

[Reiko]

Some atheist public policy objections are overreaching but many are not. Atheist tax payers should not be forced to subsidize groups that descriminate against them (the BSA).

True but then no tax dollars should be spent on atheist law suits to remove a cross from a city seal or a bible donated to a city government displayed in front of a city hall. I know atheism is a lack of belief in a god or afterlife but the way those guys act they seem more zealous than the christians they love to attack.

 

[Perfection]

They're not worse nor more common then the whackjob Christians trying to get ID on the cirricula.

There are idiots on all sides of the table, let's not judge anyone by idiots that share the same philosophical stance toward or against the existance of a diety.

An really, the taxpayer money spent defending against atheists is far less then that spent descriminating against them.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Come on, I didn't invent that cheese planet stuff so you can weasel out from improving yourself by looking what illogical fallacy means. You wrote the same stuff, just in different words.

OK, let's have another example. For simplicity of the example let's say there's been only 99 monotheistic religions in the history of mankind. (Note: These are not mathematically correct, but it won't affect the point and will make it simpler, plus I'm just lazy to calculate)
Now we ask a question - "Is there a god?" - and not specify any particular god - just if there is any god. All right, the probability for there being a god would be 99%, 1% being there is none.
Now we ask - "Is there an islamic god?" - meaning what are the possibilities for just that one particular god being there. Percents would be 1% for yes, there is an god. While 99% would be there isn't an god.

Do you see the "awesomeness" of "I can't prove, you can't prove" logic there? Wrongfully often titled as common sense. Of course theres been thousands of religions and beliefs in world so the possiblity for there not being a god would be 99.9999...% and rising for each new religion. But for islamic (and christian and pastafari among the others) god 99.9999...% Gosh, I hope there's no concept of christian hell in most religions...
*gasp* What if the god is outside of the 99 religions range? What if god is this guy I just imagined, or saw at TV? (Why I have feeling that you, an agnostic, when talking about god you think about this jolly good bearded white sheet god with low masculine voice with a little echo?)

In short: Not the 50% chance with your flawed logic which disgraces the capability of human brains. Or can you say every lotto number from this day to 1322 (not 1321!) years into the future will be same because there's a chance for it? It can be or it can't be.

Your entire logic ignores agnosticism therefor is just as flawed as the fifty percent argument. I don't think you can really put the existance of god into a percantage range.

 

[obliterate]

The problem with atheists isn't that they believe there is no god, the problem is that they think it is perfectly acceptable to waste thousands, if not millions, of dollars in tax money suing people and governments over religious symbols displayed in public.

I've never heard of such case.

But then again I don't live in America.

 

[Azash]

Hmm, I don't understand why everybody is so diehard convinced that only their own view is correct. Atheists are as much arrogant as religious people, in my opinion

 

[Azash]

Come on, I didn't invent that cheese planet stuff so you can weasel out from improving yourself by looking what illogical fallacy means. You wrote the same stuff, just in different words.

OK, let's have another example. For simplicity of the example let's say there's been only 99 monotheistic religions in the history of mankind. (Note: These are not mathematically correct, but it won't affect the point and will make it simpler, plus I'm just lazy to calculate)
Now we ask a question - "Is there a god?" - and not specify any particular god - just if there is any god. All right, the probability for there being a god would be 99%, 1% being there is none.
Now we ask - "Is there an islamic god?" - meaning what are the possibilities for just that one particular god being there. Percents would be 1% for yes, there is an god. While 99% would be there isn't an god.

My shoe size is 46, therefore there is a 46% chance I am, ehum, of a considerable size.

DO YOU SEE THE LOGIC!?!?!?!+1+1+11+1+101PLUSELEVEN

Oh, and don't expect a lot of respect with that name.

 

[Bill3000]

Your entire logic ignores agnosticism therefor is just as flawed as the fifty percent argument. I don't think you can really put the existance of god into a percantage range.

In addition, it's silly to assume that each religion has an equal chance of being right... I'm pretty sure you can (sadly) rule out pastafarianism, for example.