A problem with the word "atheist"

[Brian37]

I was just thinking that there may be idiots out there who think that "atheist" means someone who is against god and therefore with the devil. 

Am I just being paranoid?

Why is their bullshit paranoia your baggage? That is their baggage not yours. 

I am NOT against human rights, so in the context of law, I have no desire to use government to force the end of any religion.

BUT, in the context of a mere literary character, which is how I view ALL characters of all holy writings of EVERY religion, as mere characters of antiquity, sure, I do have an opinion about those fictional characters, in the same way I would have an opinion of Lex Luther vs Superman or Darth Vader vs Yoda.

I am certainly against the idea that old books of mythology are equal to our modern scientific knowledge. I am against pulpit politics just as most in the west cringe at the theocracies of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I'll certainly side with an empathetic liberal theist like Martin Luther King Jr, Ann Frank or Malala, but even in doing that, that does not mean I agree that our species behaviors are being manipulated from above or tempted from below. I see our species ability to be cruel or compassionate as being in our evolution, not old mythology.

I think most humans are good, or at least they think they are doing good. I simply doubt where my fellow humans think our species behaviors are coming from.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not as if a person answering the question "do gods exist" with a simple "No" is dogma either.  It's just the brief and factually accurate response to the question being asked.  

What color is the sky?  Blue  - Well that's like..just dogma, man.  

[Cyberman]

Will any of this sink in? I have very little hope it will.

The object it pleases LR to call his brain is like blotting paper. It soaks up everything it's exposed to, but it all comes out backwards.

[Fake Messiah]

[Little Rik]

Atheism = no God.
No God is a clear statement that imply evidence.

No evidence turn a statement invalid.
An invalid statement that is repeated again and again as a real truth automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

[Angrboda]

Atheism = no God.
No God is a clear statement that imply evidence.

No evidence turn a statement invalid.
An invalid statement that is repeated again and again as a real truth automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

No, a statement without evidence is simply unproven.  You need contrary evidence to make it invalid, which is something you are sorely lacking.
An unproven statement that is accepted or repeated as truth is merely a belief.  Nothing to do with dogma whatsoever.

And despite what the spittle you slurped from Sarkar's lips tells you, dogma is still "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" which doesn't describe an unproven belief, but does very accurately describe this bullshit definition of what dogma is that you have which was laid down by an authority (Sarkar) and which you treat as incontrovertibly true.  The same goes for your belief that by embracing Sarkar's spiritualist beliefs you have avoided dogma; that very sentiment was laid down by an authority (Sarkar, in his writings) and which you also treat as incontrovertibly true.

Contrary to your unproven belief that you are free of dogma, you are actually full to the brim with dogma.  But being the deluded crank you are, you'll simply deny the obvious.  Denying obvious reality doesn't make you clever or spiritual, it just means you're a deluded cunt.

[tjakey]

We don't usually get to pick our own labels. I don't believe in any gods, so "atheist" is the label, and I am okay with that. Unfortunately, in most people's minds (including atheists) "atheist" is usually synonymous with "materialist". Yet, strictly speaking, i am not a materialist. There are a lot of mysteries in the cosmos, mysteries that do not seem compatible with the claim that bits of matter bouncing around explains everything. Does that mean I leave room for gods in there somewhere? No. It just means that I suspect our species is simply too limited, too young, and (likely) not intelligent enough to grasp much. I suspect the myriad of things that are beyond us are an embarrassment to a species so deeply proud of being "an intelligent species", and so we create gods to make us feel better about ourselves. But I also suspect that, if we really could get our minds around what actually is, we would find our concepts and claims of god to be laughable, perhaps a bit pathetic, and certainly not worth serious consideration.

[Little Rik]

Atheism = no God.
No God is a clear statement that imply evidence.

No evidence turn a statement invalid.
An invalid statement that is repeated again and again as a real truth automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

No, a statement without evidence is simply unproven.  You need contrary evidence to make it invalid, which is something you are sorely lacking.
An unproven statement that is accepted or repeated as truth is merely a belief.  Nothing to do with dogma whatsoever.

And despite what the spittle you slurped from Sarkar's lips tells you, dogma is still "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" which doesn't describe an unproven belief, but does very accurately describe this bullshit definition of what dogma is that you have which was laid down by an authority (Sarkar) and which you treat as incontrovertibly true.  The same goes for your belief that by embracing Sarkar's spiritualist beliefs you have avoided dogma; that very sentiment was laid down by an authority (Sarkar, in his writings) and which you also treat as incontrovertibly true.

Contrary to your unproven belief that you are free of dogma, you are actually full to the brim with dogma.  But being the deluded crank you are, you'll simply deny the obvious.  Denying obvious reality doesn't make you clever or spiritual, it just means you're a deluded cunt.

Wrong once again yog.  

1) You just try to go to court with an unproven evidence.
It doesn't really matter whether somebody prove you wrong or not.
The other party can simply say........... NOT true your honor ...........and your unproven evidence is throw out of court and declared invalid.

2) The idea that a dogma can only come from an authority is pure crap.
Anybody can come up with a dogma.
Why only an authority?
Are you discriminating?
I would have thought that a feminist like you are the most anti-discrimination person around but again I was wrong yog.
You are a real disaster.  

[Cyberman]

Little Dick - the gift that keeps on giving!

(Have we still got the receipt?)

[Succubus]

Little Dick - the gift that keeps on giving!

(Have we still got the receipt?)

Hmm, I don't think it's a good idea to send him back he might end up being restocked. I mean there's no external signs of wear and his brain is brand new so Amazon will probably sell him on at a slight discount then some other unfortunate bastards will have to contend with him.
Nah, just pull his four triple A's and chuck him the car boot sale box along with the external floppy drive and the eBay letric tin opener.