I don't want this to be a chance for you to tell me what is wrong with the theocratic abscess burrowed; the thorn in your side or the vacant imperfection imposed upon the resident scapegoat. I care not to afford you the opportunity to lick your wounds in my sight or to appease the cultural norms subscribed.
Without the fear on the other side of the fence nor the ruckus in the alley way I want you to tell me what the benefit of an atheist lifestyle is had the social and political majority not absolved you and the necessary protestation of that artificial insemination had manifested itself in hindsight.
In other words, had there been no myth where would you see yourself rather than where would you see yourself in light of it.
Tags:
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Permalink Reply by David Henson on January 14, 2013 at 10:41pm You have not became David Henson.
You can not imagine.
Permalink Reply by Gallup's Mirror on January 7, 2013 at 1:02pm This has been the central point of (one of) my ongoing contention(s) with Unseen, in that I assert we are all born atheists - without a belief in a god - while he maintains that atheism is a DISbelief in a god, and that since babies can't hold beliefs, neither are they capable of disbeliefs.
It's less about the definition of atheism than the reason why a person (infant or adult) is an atheist: implicit atheism and explicit atheism.
If you're unaware of the concept of gods, you're an implicit atheist. If you reject the concept of gods, you're an explicit atheist. Either way, you're an atheist, and that includes newborns.
Permalink Reply by David Henson on January 14, 2013 at 10:54pm Gallup,
No. You got it wrong. I think.
The definition of atheism is a farce. A sort of propagandist metaphor for social and political unrest. Not without reason. In fact, for good reason. But stymied nevertheless by the political and social means.
On that front you lose. Take it to another format, dear, and you would have it.
Permalink Reply by Gallup's Mirror on January 15, 2013 at 12:00am No. You got it wrong. I think.
That's exactly why I pity you, David. Your words in this forum persistently reflect that you have a deeply impaired ability to engage in critical thinking.
This is the source of your frustration: your inability to form a coherent argument to back your claims. This is the reason you so often ignore difficult challenges, respond to them with double-talk, or sink to abusive language.
The definition of atheism is a farce. A sort of propagandist metaphor for social and political unrest. Not without reason. In fact, for good reason. But stymied nevertheless by the political and social means. On that front you lose. Take it to another format, dear, and you would have it.
Here is a prime example. You make several outlandish claims but fail to include the specifics of what you're referencing. Your words in the paragraph above are meaningless gibberish.
What exactly about the definition of atheism is farcical? What propaganda is contained in the definition? What is the metaphor in the definition of atheism that represents social and political unrest? If there is a good reason for including the metaphor in the definition, then what is the reason? Why refer to that reasoning but fail to provide any of it? What "social and political means" stymie the farcical metaphor contained in the definition of atheism? How exactly do they stymie it? What "front" and "format" do you mean?
My sense is you'll either ignore the questions, respond with more abuse, or post more content-free double-talk.
I've said repeatedly that your position is too weak for an honest discussion; so you disrupt rather than debate. You're a poor chess player who dashes the board against the wall and tells the laughing spectators that you won the game.
Permalink Reply by Milos Cakovan on January 15, 2013 at 8:59am The definition of atheism is a farce. A sort of propagandist metaphor for social and political unrest.
Oh, please, please, pleeeeeease explain! This should be rich.
Permalink Reply by David Henson on January 14, 2013 at 10:40pm Gregg
Homosexual and heterosexual biological is nonsense. Speculative, irrelevant, conjecture, stupid.
Permalink Reply by David Henson on January 14, 2013 at 10:36pm Marc,
I don't know that we are born atheist. But it doesn't matter.
How could you love the religious lifestyle?
Nobody walks around thinking about religion.
It's a destructive meme. Look at you. Look at me.
It was a simple question. What is atheism without theism.
The answer is noting more.
Permalink Reply by Milos Cakovan on January 15, 2013 at 9:02am Nobody walks around thinking about religion.
Umm, the pope?
It was a simple question. What is atheism without theism.
The answer is noting more.
This I actually somewhat agree with. But, without any defined religion, we would still not believe in it, thus we would still be the same atheists we are, just without the need to use the word. To go back to the teapot, we are also ateapotists, but since there is no need to defend that stance, there is no need for the word.
Permalink Reply by David Henson on January 14, 2013 at 10:31pm Excellent! Unseen. Thank you. I appreciate your honest reflection in the light of the rest of the shit.
I am not sure how to answer your obvious question. I'm gay. And that lifestyle I hate, love, reject, I don't think the atheist "lifestyle" is really any different than the theistic.
Excellent question, man. Much better than the rest.
Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 5, 2013 at 2:11pm Don't you agree, that when one posts, one should TRY as far as possible to use words, expressions, and acronyms or abbreviations which are common coin and shouldn't send the reader on a googlequest? Communications works best when we are using a common set of expressions and not jargon understood by The Few.
Started by Keith Pulley in Advice. Last reply by Barry Adamson 1 hour ago. 11 Replies 0 Likes
Posted by Rob Klaers on June 17, 2013 at 2:00am 6 Comments 3 Likes
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
