My main problem with Theists is that they demand submission.

"Thou shalt bow down and worship before this idol."

In the question of belief systems, I dont see any one of those any better or worse than any other. The act of believing what you don't have to believe is, in my opinion, superstition. With that statement, I mean to say that the problem is in the relation. You can relate to both science and rationality in a superstitious manner, meaning that you will uncritically accept axiomatic tenets, without investigating the matter for yourself, then move on to using it as a "weapon" against people with whom you disagree. It is the authority principle that I have a problem with.

Saying "I don't know" is an honest thing. Saying "I don't know but I believe what that guy says, even if I don't really understand any of it" is stupid.

 This is from about a month ago. (I HAD to save it.) I'm Danielle W, and the theist is Danielle M. There were some comments I deleted because they were irrelevant to the debate and just included comments such as, "God is primitive," and "i would wear an inverted pentagram shirt with a huge inverted cross necklass to the conformation sponsor meeting or whatever they do lol." It would have been a lot shorter if the girl I was debating with didn't repeat all of her points and make something that could have been 2 sentences into 20. 

My local news station covered this "controversy" with all the outraged christians from Las Vegas about the atheistic billboards placed around the city.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/us/02atheist.html

At least in my area of the country, especially in the farm areas outside the cities, there are plenty of billboards featuring religious messages.  My feeling is what's good for the goose is good for the gander - in that if you want to post a billboard telling me I'm going to hell, I should be free to post a billboard saying you're not and there is no hell. 

How do the theists here view this?  Atheists?  Is it disrespectful to target it during the holiday season?  Is it better that it is christmas as opposed to easter (a more important christian holiday)?

Or does everyone agree with me (as well they should!) :D 

I was reading back back through some old threads, and I saw some comments which bought to mind something that I've often wondered. Whenever homosexuality (or most other sexual ethics for that matter) comes up in discussion, why do people get so obsessed about the act of sex? Would it not be better to focus on social structures implied by same-sex relationships (oh wait, they're the same), or the validity of certain emotional states?

Now, it does tend to be the 'Homosexuality is sin' lot that get fixated like this. Maybe they're just a loveless bunch who think everything in the world boils down to sex. Maybe there's nothing to argue if the terms in which you speak don't let you introduce some artificial requirement for procreation or make an argument from fear about STIs.

I think I may have answered my own question, unless someone has some other insight. I just wish people could talk about this in terms of "Why would it be more valid to have romantic feelings for one gender than for another?" instead of "Why you should put your thing in one hole instead of another?".

Some of you might remember me, you turned me into an atheist a couple months back. At work I am having a friendly debat with a Jehova's Witness. He really knows his stuff. He has been using knowledge biblical characters had about things such as the shape of the cosmos, disease, and weather patterns as proof that they had gleaned some sort of divine knowledge from God about things they couldn't have known. I really don't want to put much effort into researching all that stuff. Have any of you ran into such arguements, and if so, how did you fire back?  Sigh, I guess I will never get away from reading that damn bible...

Chris

 ...I know, we've had quite a few low life frequent the forums (myself included), but I'm pretty sure this one takes the cake.

So, the claims made so far by this one:

 - She's an engineer.

 - She's been raped at least 3 times in her pre-teen years.

 - She's lived in a rat-infested house in New Orleans.

 - She watched her grandfather die at her feet of malaria.

 - She participated in the relief efforts / reconstruction efforts in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit.

Anyone want to play, 'How naive are you?' ?

All of these claims, of course, are used to downplay the trauma of things like rape, poverty and disease so she can continue championing her deity ('Hey, Yahweh's just letting us bowl with the bumper's off!' Oh, I'm sorry - the judeo-Christian God can't possibly be named Yahweh, since apparently the ancient Hebrews were unable to pronounce 'Wuh' back in the day).

Of course, Furry is more than welcome to provide evidence that substantiates the profoundly dramatic claims of her allegedly turbulent life & professional credentials. Until said evidence is forthcoming for such an extraordinary story, however, I'd say it's pretty safe to call bullshit on these reprehensible fabrications. 

There should be a God
Not anthropomorphic, no.
Not in the fashion of Allah or Jehovah; evil.
A real cosmic Friend.
Religion wouldn’t be necessary.
No atheism, either.
Heaven on Earth.
Would we ever be able to create one like that?

 I wrote this email to the webmaster of this site... But I also feel like it should be discussed openly:

I believe you have a very serious problem in your article "Am I Agnostic or Atheist?"

You punch home the fact that you must choose to either believe or not believe. I feel like this is totally incorrect.

As a Theological Noncognitivist and all-around ignostic, i believe that the question of wether I have belief in God is totally and completely meaningless.

It would not be to correct for me to say.. "I do not believe in God." Because I personally have no understanding of what a God, or any God would be.

I can't say I am an a-theist, because I don't know what the tenants of theism are.

By acknowledging that you must either be an atheist or a theist, is almost self-defeating to the atheists movement.  You are condoning that the term God has a meaning, you understand that meaning, and therefore give credence to it.

As an ignostic, I am saying the term God has NO meaning, I can't understand any already existing explanation, and I therefor dismiss the entire subject of theism.

For example: I am a Vampire Strong Atheist. I believe that Vampires, DO NOT EXIST and COULD NEVER EXIST. However, I know what a vampire is... It is a humanoid creature, that feeds on the blood of living people with fangs. It is like this because of a viral infection that has mutated the body.

SOURCE

To be fair to Pineapple, I should also include this quote. "They were gonna give him an appointment, but they wanted $300 up front, and we didn't have the money," said Webb."

So, instead of, you know... taking a collection from church, or calling family members to ask for help, or going to a free clinic, or the emergency room, or SOMETHING... he sat in his chair for eight months, read the Bible, prayed for healing, and told everybody about how wonderful Jesus was for the healing he was going to receive.

Existence is the capacity to be. Obviously everything that exists has the capacity to be. This
means that everything that exists is contingent upon this capacity including the capacity itself.
Any entity lacking this capacity is impossible. The impossible is that which cannot exist.
Anything that cannot exist represents an analytic contradiction. A trivial example of such an
entity would be a married bachelor.

One of the most profound analytic contradictions is an entity that exists and is both
distinguishable from and more fundamental than existence. Such an entity is impossible because
for anything to be both more fundamental than and contingent upon existence would be
inconsistent with the meanings of the terms fundamental and contingent. The impossibility of all
such entities means that the most fundamental thing in existence is existence itself.

Those who believe in a certain characterization of the one true God will generally take issue with
this conclusion. This is because these believers regard God as the most fundamental entity that
exists. This belief is based on their wholehearted embrace of the following propositions:

1. God exists
2. God is the Supreme Being
3. God is the source of every being that is distinguishable from it