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.

Views: 2990

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

You have not became David Henson.

You can not imagine.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Gregg

Homosexual and heterosexual biological is nonsense. Speculative, irrelevant, conjecture, stupid.

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.

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.

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.

IPA verb? India Pale Ale is a noun.

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.

I was not criticizing you, but if you took it that way, maybe I should have!

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Science Isn't About Truth

Started by Ari E. S. in Philosophy. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer 2 minutes ago. 5 Replies

Blog Posts

I am tired

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 12:09am 4 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service