A problem with the word "atheist"

[The Grand Nudger]

So, for clarity, you're recognizing that your god concept is gibberish, and hoping that by describing some other thing as gibberish this will somehow rescue what you consider to be gibberish?

Has it occurred to you that this, too, might be gibberish?

[LadyForCamus]

I dunno...establish integrity?  I mean, if you’re here to counter bad arguments in the name of logic, I’d think you’d want to be countering all of them, regardless of which side they come from.

 

I already explained that I do counter arguments from both sides, it's just that the majority of my disagreements with theists  here are political, not so much religious. So how about we finish addressing God's existence before we start arguing any religious doctrine.

Sure.  Would you like to make an argument for god’s existence?  I’m all ears.

It’s not that hard, really.  There is no evidence for any god, therefore I have no rational reason to believe one exists.
False analogy.  We actually have evidence of life existing here, now don’t we?

How is that a false analogy? Are you saying you believe in extraterrestrial life because life exists on earth?

I didn’t say anything about what I believed.  I said it’s a false analogy, because it is. We have demonstrable evidence of life, Huggy.  We know what biological conditions are necessary to support it.  We know that there are other galaxies, solar systems, suns and planets that exist outside of our own.  We are in possession of this referential, reality-based evidence, so it’s not that hard to posit a statistical probability about life elsewhere in the universe.  On the other hand, we have zero physical evidence of your god, or any other god; that it is, or could ever be.

So then how can you not believe that because life exists in this dimension it can exist in other dimensions?

What now?  What does that have to do with evidence for the existence of god?  

Two years at this forum, and I haven’t been presented with even a meager shred of evidence to make me to think otherwise.  If a Theist can come to me with something, I’m all ears.



LOL.  I don’t know why I bother.  Yes, thank you, actually, for linking to that stupid thread so that anyone following along can check out your earth-shattering evidence of light.

Again as I have explained many times, if you were to take a picture of a being from another dimension it would appear to you as gibberish.

What's interesting though is the eyewitness account of Marilyn Hickey whom described a light that looked like a "wheel within a wheel" at 2:05 in the video.

---

---

That is exactly how you'd describe a 4th dimensional object.

I’m not rehashing this idiotic argument with you.  You linked to the original thread.  That’s more than enough.  People can go down that rabbit hole if they’re in the mood for a crippling migraine.

Actually, unless I’m misremembering , it seems you’ve added to it since then. Do you know what an ad hoc hypothesis is?

[Whateverist]

 

I already explained that I do counter arguments from both sides, it's just that the majority of my disagreements with theists  here are political, not so much religious. So how about we finish addressing God's existence before we start arguing any religious doctrine.

Sure.  Would you like to make an argument for god’s existence?  I’m all ears.

It’s not that hard, really.  There is no evidence for any god, therefore I have no rational reason to believe one exists.
False analogy.  We actually have evidence of life existing here, now don’t we?

How is that a false analogy? Are you saying you believe in extraterrestrial life because life exists on earth?

I didn’t say anything about what I believed.  I said it’s a false analogy, because it is.  We have demonstrable evidence of life, Huggy.  We know what biological conditions are necessary to support it.  We know that there are other galaxies, solar systems, suns and planets that exist outside of our own.  We are in possession of this referential, reality-based evidence, so it’s not that hard to posit a statistical probability about life elsewhere in the universe.  On the other hand, we have zero physical evidence of your god, or any other god; that it is, or could ever be.

So then how can you not believe that because life exists in this dimension it can exist in other dimensions?

What now?  What does that have to do with evidence for the existence of god?  

Two years at this forum, and I haven’t been presented with even a meager shred of evidence to make me to think otherwise.  If a Theist can come to me with something, I’m all ears.



LOL.  I don’t know why I bother.  Yes, thank you, actually, for linking to that stupid thread so that anyone following along can check out your earth-shattering evidence of light.

Again as I have explained many times, if you were to take a picture of a being from another dimension it would appear to you as gibberish.

What's interesting though is the eyewitness account of Marilyn Hickey whom described a light that looked like a "wheel within a wheel" at 2:05 in the video.

---

---

That is exactly how you'd describe a 4th dimensional object.

I’m not rehashing this idiotic argument with you.  You linked to the original thread.  That’s more than enough.  People can go down that rabbit whole if they’re in the mood for a crippling migraine.

They'll never take me down there whole.  They'd have to grind me up into cold, dead pieces.

---

Not bad with a migraine.

---

[LadyForCamus]

Sure.  Would you like to make an argument for god’s existence?  I’m all ears.


I didn’t say anything about what I believed.  I said it’s a false analogy, because it is.  We have demonstrable evidence of life, Huggy.  We know what biological conditions are necessary to support it.  We know that there are other galaxies, solar systems, suns and planets that exist outside of our own.  We are in possession of this referential, reality-based evidence, so it’s not that hard to posit a statistical probability about life elsewhere in the universe.  On the other hand, we have zero physical evidence of your god, or any other god; that it is, or could ever be.


What now?  What does that have to do with evidence for the existence of god?  





I’m not rehashing this idiotic argument with you.  You linked to the original thread.  That’s more than enough.  People can go down that rabbit whole if they’re in the mood for a crippling migraine.

They'll never take me down there whole.  They'd have to grind me up into cold, dead pieces.

---

 Not bad with a migraine.

---

LOL.  God damnit!  Is there still time?!  

*runs to check for the edit button*

---

Phew! That was a close one...?

[Cyberman]

That's like The 'Joke' from the otherwise almost offensively atrocious Carry On Columbus, regarding sharks:

"Will they eat me whole?"
"No, I'm told they spit that bit out."

[iameatingjam]

The word atheist does seem to have a negative stigma surrounding it, which is probably due to people not understanding what it means. I don't think rebranding is necessarily a bad idea. Though we might just end up in the same predicament.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The word atheist does seem to have a negative stigma surrounding it, which is probably due to people not understanding what it means. I don't think rebranding is necessarily a bad idea. Though we might just end up in the same predicament.

Even thinking rebranding might be a good idea is, IMNSHO, allowing the other side to control the conversation.

[Little Rik]

The word atheist does seem to have a negative stigma surrounding it, which is probably due to people not understanding what it means. I don't think rebranding is necessarily a bad idea. Though we might just end up in the same predicament.

Whichever way you put it it will not make any difference.
None of whatsoever.
Atheism is based on guessing and guessing alone.
There is no evidence in all statements that atheists bring forward.
From the idea that God doesn't exist to the idea that the universe doesn't need a creator  and an operator to the idea that the consciousness is a product of the brain to the idea that once the body die also the consciousness die.

All 100% guessing that by the way also goes against the physical science that atheists love to rely to so much.

To put it in few words........A TOTAL DISASTER FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END.  

[Whateverist]

Whichever way you put it it will not make any difference.
None of whatsoever.
Atheism is based on guessing and guessing alone.
There is no evidence in all statements that atheists bring forward.

You're right but that is hardly our fault.  We answer "no" to the "do you believe in God" question, even though "God" is never defined.  So when I say the whole idea seems absurd on the face of it, that's really all I have.  Don't have a clue what this God thing is you guys seem so excited about.  But while we're waiting for that term to make sense I'm just going to leave it in the "makes no sense" basket, and no, I definitely don't believe in shit that makes no sense.

From the idea that God doesn't exist to the idea that the universe doesn't need a creator  and an operator to the idea that the consciousness is a product of the brain to the idea that once the body die also the consciousness die.

All 100% guessing that by the way also goes against the physical science that atheists love to rely to so much.

To put it in few words........A TOTAL DISASTER FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END.  

Everything needs a creator?  Who creates the creators?  Is it creators all the way down then?  Guess you never thought about that, did you mate?

Oh my, and you even know what happens to your consciousness when you die.  Definitely ahead of me there, mate.  From all appearances death is the end of consciousness, leastwise no dead person has ever given me reason to think otherwise.  I'll just go on naively assuming consciousness goes off the air when the brain gets unplugged because I'm not impressed with the fruits of intuitional science.

I wonder why people who disagree with you seem to you to be a total disaster?  I don't think you're a disaster, just a garden variety nut job.

[iameatingjam]

The word atheist does seem to have a negative stigma surrounding it, which is probably due to people not understanding what it means. I don't think rebranding is necessarily a bad idea. Though we might just end up in the same predicament.

Even thinking rebranding might be a good idea is, IMNSHO, allowing the other side to control the conversation.

Yeah, well they can kinda do that since they are the majority. We can give them all the facts and evidence and it wont mean a fucking thing because they don't think like us. Maybe a new word, without that stigma would cause some people to have a second thought about their faith.

Maybe. I don't know, I'm not married to the idea.