Why I'm an atheist and what atheism means to me. My perspective.
Disclaimer: I do not proofread for grammar or spell check my blogs.
First off, atheism is not a set of beliefs or non beliefs. If you study or have studied linguistics, you know that words are used to describe ideas or issues or things. Atheism stems from the word theism, which means; the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods. There is monotheism (the belief in one god), polytheism (the beliefe in many gods), henotheism (stems from heis or henos, which means one. It’s not a synonym for monotheism, even though it has the same etymological meaning.), pantheism (the belief that the universe is god and we have to worship it), and panentheism (A panentheistic belief system is one which says that god interpenetrates every part of nature, but is nevertheless fully distinct from nature); I believe I covered most of them.
Now, atheism is used to describe those that simply deny to believe in a god. It is not a belief system. However, it is not just a simple denial, it describes an individual who thinks critically and rationally. I cannot subscribe to theism based on evidence, therefore by default I'm an atheist and am linguistically categorized in a group of people that fall within a set of nonbeliefs; but remember this a definintion that is used solely for lingustical purposes, so that it makes sense to us. How else would you describe an atheist? Atheism stems from being rational, not emotional. It stems from being sensible, not knee jerk reactional. It stems from an intellectual view that empirically rejects the idea of a god or of any supernatural untestable idea based solely on empirical analysis and evidence. An atheist would never use a story of suffering to convince everyone to become an atheist (ahem, The story of the crucifixion) because as I said an atheist does not function based on emotional issues to convince people of "atheism". Athesists live their life in a manner of rational and sensible manner who use critical thinking to help them make decisions in life. Atheists are not "faith based"
Athiesm is not a set of beliefs or a set of non beliefs, it is not an idea, we don't go to achurches, celebrate achristmases or aesters; we do none of what someone who follows a "set of beliefs" would do; we live a life that may or may not be morally right (yet from what I've been seeing atheists seem to have upper hand knowledge on morality based on the fact that they actually pay attention to the world and not blindly believe into something).
We see the world for what it is and we are seeing religion and theists destroying this world with their holy wars, we see the theists making a mockery of our constitution here in the US, and in recent years have seen an uprising of religion used for scoring political points with politicians. We have seen religion being used to discredit science, we are seeing religion attacking every single aspect of our lives, including our education. The US already has a very very low standard in education and now, the theists are trying to lower that standard even more. With the introducution of intelligent design we are going to see less scientists, less cures for diseases and when you go to the doctor you will be told to "Say two prayers, and call me in the morning." We are seeing pharmacists passing moral judgements as opposed to scientific ones. It is getting bad, very bad. Another example on how religion is getting in between science (medicine) and you is this. Recently scientists have developed a vaccine that would innoculate you from HPV (Human Pappiloma Virus). This virus, however, only causes pathogenesis in women. It is responsible for cervical cancer. Now, many atheist sceintists would like this vaccine to be mandatory before entering high schools so as to reduce the risks of cervical cancer. Makes sense right from an epedimiological and public health perspective. However, the theists want to put a halt to this vaccination due to the fact that THEY belive will promote sex. This is how bad it's gotten.
It is not the atheists that are the enemy, even though we are being protrayed as such. We don't care that people believe in God, but now these sets of belief systems are starting to spill over on OUR lives and OUR choices, based on a handful of extreme religious right politicians who feel that the biblical law MUST be imposed on everyone. They are slowly trying to change this free democracy into an enslaving form of theocracy.
The theists are trying to fight the battle using their terms. We are letting them describe the terms of discourse. For years scientists refused to engage the Intellingent design folks because they were looked as a bunch of religious loonies that would never have a chance to push forward with their atenda Well, look at Kansas. It has gotten so bad that Scientists are now forced to defend what has been accepted and proven for centuries. The religious right have spent millions of dollars on a campaign to discredit science, and did they do this sceintifically? No. They did it using Public Relations propaganda and conspiracy theory-type arguments to convince the ignorant masses. They use peoples ignorance of science against them to gain support. They present "flaws" and then turn around and say "See? It's obvious that evolution is flawed. So ID is the ONLY answer" But they give no explanation to back up their story, they give absolutely no evidence, just FAITH".
This is why atheists have become more vocal in recent days to make sure that the extreme theists who are not only happy making millions of dollars (Jerry Fallwel, Pat Robertson, Dobson, and many others) off of their gullible followers, but now they want to change the course of this country. Money leads to power, which leads to more power and a hunger to conquer. This is why the ultra rich extreme right wing theists are building theist law schools, universities, think tanks to help in changing the course of our democracy into a theocracy.
This is what I, and many other "atheists" stand against. The idealogical takeover of our lives by biblical laws. We believe in the constituion of the United States and the clause of separation of church and state. We believe that all should be able to worship anything they want or nothing at all. And all laws and decisiosn should be made based on the church/state separations clause. Of course the argument I get is that churches and religious beliefs are being suppressed etc..etc.. I respond with this... When was the last time you were forced to close your church? When was last time someone prohibited you from going to church? When was the last time you were told that you were FORCED to have an abortion based on secular laws? When was the last time that the thousands of television and radio evangelical programming was shut down by the FCC? When was the last time you were prohibited to worship in your churches, mosques or synagogues? NEVER. Becase this is a FREE country and any laws made are never to advocate or impede religion. The theists are mad because we wont' allow the ten commandments on a public tax payer building, well let me ask you this how do you think they would feel if I wanted to build a monument commemorating the qu'ran on the state capital? Most theists would be appalled at that, and woud never allow it they would then start touting the church/state clause. This is the hypocrisy we see. They dont' want freedom of religion, they only want freedom of XTIAN beliefs ONLY.
The whole argument that our fore fathers started this country based on xtianity is a fallacy as well. Our fore-fathers were deists, not theists, and purposely left God out of the constitution to ensure that TRUE freedom of worship, free from the endorsement or chastisement of government would be allowed. Sure some were theists as well, but they believed in democracy over their religious beliefs, that is why they drafted the constituion the way it was. Free to worship without endorsement or chastisement from government. However, the religious zealots of today are trying to completely turn around what our fore fathers had envisioned for us. Why? because the more followers the church has, the richer the church gets. I will not get into the Straussian philosophy of the use of religion for controlling the masses here, except that the neoconservative movement is very well awar of the power of ignorance and religion. Keep that in mind.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- LeftofLarry's blog
- Login to post comments
My reply
Hi LeftofLarry, Thanks for responding.
I think to be fair the readers should have known what you were responding to. This is what LeftofLarry responded to:
http://atheismsucks.THISLINKWILLNOTBESHOWNONTHISSITE.com
[mod note: Frank, if you want to have a discussion with us, have it with us. If you want to link people to your site from our site, you can pay us for ad space.]
Now, here's my reply to him:
http://atheismsucks.THISLINKWILLNOTBESHOWNONTHISSITE.com
[mod note: Frank, if you want to have a discussion with us, have it with us. If you want to link people to your site from our site, you can pay us for ad space.]
Welp LeftofLarry, I brought the debate to your place at least.
Thanks,
Frank
- Login to post comments
MODERATOR
MODERATOR COMMENTS:
"AtheismSucks" is named Frank Walton. LeftofLarry recently responded to Franks ad hom attack of Larry in a blog of his own.
Frank recently responded to 4 items on our forum by making a post on his blog that you can't post at unless you register, and he deletes your comments if he doesn't like them. (he's deleted tons of comments in the past)
Frank is an ad hom king and a liar. A shining example of Christianity, note the love in his name "atheismsucks."
Evidence of lying here. He represented himself as "Uponthisrock" and claimed to have found someone elses blog, when in reality it was his.
We will not allow Frank to link to his site from our site, enforcing an InfidelGuy.com policy. See here.
We are tempted to ban him however he deserves a fresh start should he choose to accept it, we would be glad to allow him to post here. FRANK, that means, post HERE. This will be your last warning, DO NOT link your site again.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
*SIGH* People
I responded to LeftofLarry's original testimony here (my response is NOT in bold):
***BEGIN QUOTE***
Notice that LeftofLarry tells you that atheism isn't a "set of beliefs" nor is it a "belief system." Yet he contradicts himself and says what atheism is in essence a belief:
Now, atheism is used to describe those that simply deny to believe in a god.... it is not just a simple denial, it describes an individual who thinks critically and rationally.... Atheism stems from being rational, not emotional. It stems from being sensible, not knee jerk reactional. It stems from an intellectual view that empirically rejects the idea of a god or of any supernatural untestable idea based solely on empirical analysis and evidence. An atheist would never use a story of suffering to convince everyone to become an atheist (ahem, The story of the crucifixion) because as I said an atheist does not function based on emotional issues to convince people of "atheism". Athesists live their life in a manner of rational and sensible manner who use critical thinking to help them make decisions in life.
LOL! Sure sounds like a belief system to me. If atheism is not a set of beliefs or committed to any worldview why then are there these types of beliefs in atheism? "Atheism is this"? "Atheism is that"? "Atheism isn't this"? "Atheism stems from so and so"? None of this should apply to something that doesn't have a belief system. Indeed, why does LeftofLarry say that "[atheists] see the world for what it is" if it is not a worldview?
Furthermore, why should an atheist be "thinking critically" or be "rational" or be "sensible", etc. if it isn't a belief system? LeftofLarry never says why. You can't have your cake and eat it too, LeftofLarry.
LeftofLarry says a rather peculiar line:
I cannot subscribe to theism based on evidence, therefore by default I'm an atheist and am linguistically categorized in a group of people that fall within a set of nonbeliefs...
How can someone fall within a set of nonbeliefs? A nonbelief isn't anything at all! In fact, LeftofLarry's definition of atheism (the non-belief in God) is meaningless, too. My sunglasses have a non-belief in God. My car keys have a non-belief in God. *SHRUGS* I guess my sunglasses and car keys fall within a set of nonbeliefs too. But I have a problem with LeftofLarry's definition of atheism just like Dr. Robert Morey had a problem with atheist George Smith's definition (Smith and LeftofLarry share the same definition of atheism - the non-belief in God):
My... problem with Smith's definition (of atheism) is how he can attempt to disprove the theistic proofs if he cannot make any assertion about anything. By what standards does he judge these proofs as invalid? On what basis and by what methods can he criticize the theistic proofs if he does not have his own belief system? Why does he have to appeal to such things as "logic" on page 61, and to "reason" on page 110? By doing this he is implying as his confession of faith, "I believe in logic. I believe in reason." He evidently asserts his belief in such things. When he says that every "advocate of reason must begin with an unequivocal condemnation of Christianity's brutal past" (p. 114), to make such moral judgments requires a prior commitment to ethical standards by which he can judge something. If he does not assert anything, however, he then cannot condemn anything.
The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom (Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1986, p. 47-48)
Apparently, LeftofLarry is making the same mistake by saying that atheism is not a belief system or a set of beliefs.
Also, realize LeftofLarry has just made a false dichotomy - "I cannot subscribe to theism based on evidence, therefore by default I'm an atheist..." Can't one be an agnostic if they don't find the evidence for God's existence compelling?
LeftofLarry exudes some hypocrisy as well:
An atheist would never use a story of suffering to convince everyone to become an atheist (ahem, The story of the crucifixion) because as I said an atheist does not function based on emotional issues to convince people of "atheism".]
The story of the crucifixion was not based on emotions or feelings. But even if that was the case, LeftofLarry makes a bundle of emotional claims for atheism here:
We see the world for what it is and we are seeing religion and theists destroying this world with their holy wars, we see the theists making a mockery of our constitution here in the US, and in recent years have seen an uprising of religion used for scoring political points with politicians. We have seen religion being used to discredit science, we are seeing religion attacking every single aspect of our lives, including our education. The US already has a very very low standard in education and now, the theists are trying to lower that standard even more. With the introducution of intelligent design we are going to see less scientists, less cures for diseases and when you go to the doctor you will be told to "Say two prayers, and call me in the morning." We are seeing pharmacists passing moral judgements as opposed to scientific ones. It is getting bad, very bad. Another example on how religion is getting in between science (medicine) and you is this. Recently scientists have developed a vaccine that would innoculate you from HPV (Human Pappiloma Virus). This virus, however, only causes pathogenesis in women. It is responsible for cervical cancer. Now, many atheist sceintists would like this vaccine to be mandatory before entering high schools so as to reduce the risks of cervical cancer. Makes sense right from an epedimiological and public health perspective. However, the theists want to put a halt to this vaccination due to the fact that THEY belive will promote sex. This is how bad it's gotten.
Talk about argument by emotion!
LeftofLarry says,
We don't care that people believe in God, but now these sets of belief systems are starting to spill over on OUR lives and OUR choices, based on a handful of extreme religious right politicians who feel that the biblical law MUST be imposed on everyone.
You read this type of stuff throughout his whole essay. This is clearly stereotyping Christians and making strawmen attacks toward Christians. But assume the opposite... not once has LeftofLarry ever considered what atheism (Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.) has done to religious people. Not once!
LeftofLarry goes on:
And all laws and decisiosn should be made based on the church/state separations clause.
Now ask yourself why does LeftofLarry want decisions based on the the separation of church and state? Obviously it's the moral thing to do. But if atheism is not committed to any sort of beliefs then obviously being moral is illusory. Furthermore, argue all you want one can make a convincing claim that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. In fact the phrase "separation of church and state" is not even in the Consitution! See more about Thomas Jefferson.
LeftofLarry asks, "When was the last time you were forced to close your church? When was last time someone prohibited you from going to church?" Answer: March, 2006 here (sorry RR won't let me give the link... gotta follow the rules.)
LeftofLarry asks, "When was the last time you were told that you were FORCED to have an abortion based on secular laws?" Answer: A few years ago in China, plenty of people were forced to have an abortion here (sorry RR won't let me give the link... gotta follow the rules.)
LeftofLarry asks, "When was the last time that the thousands of television and radio evangelical programming was shut down by the FCC?" Answer: *SHRUGS* I dont' know, but I don't always agree with the FCC anyway.
LeftofLarry says, "When was the last time you were prohibited to worship in your churches, mosques or synagogues? NEVER." Answer: LOL, as we've seen that's not the case. It appears LeftofLarry needs to do more homework.
Aside note: LeftofLarry says, "I will not get into the Straussian philosophy of the use of religion for controlling the masses here, except that the neoconservative movement is very well awar of the power of ignorance and religion." Not all conservatives (or Christians) are Straussian. In fact, some of them reject Strauss!
All in all, LeftofLarry has proven contrary to his belief that atheism is a set of beliefs or a belief system. Furthermore, all he's done was give stereotypical views of Christians and made assertions without proofs.
(if LeftofLarry would like to reply to this post he can email me his reply and I'll be happy to post it in my blog)
***END QUOTE***
You can see LeftofLarry's reply here in the comment section. Now...
Here's my current reply to LeftofLarry's comment response (my response is NOT in bold):
***BEGIN QUOTE***
SO..SOME GUY NAMED FRANK, READ MY BLOG
Submitted by LeftofLarry on Fri, 2006-09-01 14:32.
In response he writes a blog on his eblogger.com site called atheism sucks....and decides to start ad hominen attacks etc..etc...the usual theistic argumentative and fallacious arguments you hear...so, instead of being a true debater, and post his comments on here, he decides to steal bandwith (my pic..hahahaha) and posts it on his blog with a copy of my blog. then he starts with his "rebuttal" and at the end he says that if I want to reply I would have to email him, so that he can post the email on his blog. So...seeing as this guy probably has a list of maybe...25 or so readers. I will write my reply here, where we have thousands of listners and readers. And if he would like to reply he can be a man..and start debate here.
*SHRUGS* We can have it both ways where the reader can go back and forth between sites to read the responses. I don't care. Heck, I don't care if he refuses to put a link to my blogsite, but the least LeftofLarry can do is put my full name and the name and date of my blogpost so people can look it up through a search engine. At least I did that for LeftofLarry. But hey, if thousands of listeners and readers are going to read what I wrote against LeftofLarry, that's great. It's a shame LeftofLarry doesn't want you guys to visit my blogsite. Funny how LeftofLarry questions my manhood and wants me to debate there at his website; yet all the while he won't email me a response so I can post it in my blogsite.
So this is how he attempts to break down my argument:
I will refer to him as mr. atheistssuck for fun
LOL, I have to say it's ironic that an atheist would be happy to call me "atheistssuck." Does that make any of you atheists happy?
atheistssuck wrote:
MY ASSESSMENT: Notice that LeftofLarry tells you that atheism isn't a "set of beliefs" nor is it a "belief system." Yet he contradicts himself and says what atheism is in essence a belief:
from leftoflarry's blog wrote: Now, atheism is used to describe those that simply deny to believe in a god.... it is not just a simple denial, it describes an individual who thinks critically and rationally.... Atheism stems from being rational, not emotional. It stems from being sensible, not knee jerk reactional. It stems from an intellectual view that empirically rejects the idea of a god or of any supernatural untestable idea based solely on empirical analysis and evidence. An atheist would never use a story of suffering to convince everyone to become an atheist (ahem, The story of the crucifixion) because as I said an atheist does not function based on emotional issues to convince people of "atheism". Athesists live their life in a manner of rational and sensible manner who use critical thinking to help them make decisions in life.
atheistssuck wrote: LOL! Sure sounds like a belief system to me. If atheism is not a set of beliefs or committed to any worldview why then are there these types of beliefs in atheism? "Atheism is this"? "Atheism is that"? "Atheism isn't this"? "Atheism stems from so and so"? None of this should apply to something that doesn't have a belief system. Indeed, why does LeftofLarry say that "[atheists] see the world for what it is" if it is not a worldview?
ok...let me clarify...so that mr. atheistssuck here doesn't get too confused and convoluted.
Actually, you have yourself to blame for that, LeftofLarry. No offense. But you said that you "do not proofread for grammar or spell check" your blogs. If you would be more clear there wouldn't be any confusion or convolution. Just a suggestion.
I'm sure he obviously missed the point of my blog, due to the fact that he didn't even make any refence to the point that I was speaking from a linguistical categorization of atheists.
That's a lie. I noted that in my last reply. Go ahead and read it again.
Atheists do not partake in religious belief systems due to the fact that all atheists are not one in the same. We have no set rules..that guide our "being an athiest" we do not subscribe to "atheist churches" or have an "atheist bible" Each and every single on of us has our own, unique sets of beliefs which define who we are on an individual level and on how we live life. We do not subscribe to any particular set of belief system and or some sheepish mind controlling idea that we need to live our lives a certain way for fear of a punishment after we die (or conversly for the ultimate reward). When I defined my argument in the beginning, I defined it juxtaposed to organized religion. That was my premise. Mr. Atheistssuck, did not seem to grasp that context and proceeded on his diatribe by setting up the strawman argument.
So, what? Is LeftofLarry saying that atheism isn't "used to describe those that simply deny to believe in a god"? Or that it is "just a simple denial"? That it doesn't "describes an individual who thinks critically and rationally"? And that atheism doesn't "stems from being rational, not emotional"? And it doesn't "stems from being sensible, not knee jerk reactional"? And that it doesn't "stems from an intellectual view that empirically rejects the idea of a god or of any supernatural untestable idea based solely on empirical analysis and evidence"? And that an atheist would "use a story of suffering to convince everyone to become an atheist"? And that atheist don't "live their life in a manner of rational and sensible manner who use critical thinking to help them make decisions in life"? Can you believe this without juxtaposing religion? If so, then LeftofLarry defeats his own premise. If not, then I'd tip my hat to LeftofLarry because atheism sure doesn't stem from "being rational."
Atheism, in and of it's own IS NOT a set of beliefs. It is an idea, a linguistical materialization of the non-BELIEF in god. IT IS NOT...a SET of beliefs. It is an antithetical linguistical term to theism. It describes an individual who lacks a belief in god--plain and simple. my examples stem from MY views...and MY beliefs....but they are certainly NOT representative of all atheists. that is why the title of it has my PERSPECTIVE.
But is his perspective right? Sure, this is his perspective on atheism (and I noted that by the way), but is it valid? Just because I have my perspective on Christianity doesn't necessarily make my view on Christianity right? What if someone said, my perspective on Christianity has nothing to do with Christ? Can you really call that Christianity?
atheistssuck wrote: Furthermore, why should an atheist be "thinking critically" or be "rational" or be "sensible", etc. if it isn't a belief system? LeftofLarry never says why. You can't have your cake and eat it too, LeftofLarry.
Notice here, how Mr. atheistssuck fails to define how a belief system ties in to rationality or critical thinking.
Sure, I did. I quoted Robert Morey.
Why does one have to subscribe to a belief system in order to think rationally or critically?
Because a belief system may entail one to think rationally or critically.
Critical thinking is indeed antithetical to set belief systems..it questions belief systems.
And how did LeftofLarry come to this belief? Did he have a belief system that taught him this? Anyway, a set of beliefs can be antithetical to thinking critically unless the set of beliefs are not antithetical in nature.
So, I wonder if Mr. Atheistssucks would care to elaborate here.
In order to think logically or rationally you have to have a foundation for it. Logic just doesn't justify itself ("we have to be logical because that's logical" or "logic is logical because that's just how they are") - that's circular reasoning and begging the question. I want to know why an atheist needs to use logic or rationality in the first place. All LeftofLarry said was, "atheism... is not just a simple denial, it describes an individual who thinks critically and rationally." Yet earlier he said that it isn't a belief system in the context of religion. *SHRUGS* Okay. Say that there was no religion, is an atheist still obligated to think critically and rationally? If so, how and why? If not, I'd tip my hat to him because in atheism being irrational is fine because there is no obligation in life.
He fails to back up his own straw man here.
As we've seen that wasn't the case.
atheistssuck wrote: LeftofLarry says a rather peculiar line:
from leftoflarry's blog wrote: I cannot subscribe to theism based on evidence, therefore by default I'm an atheist and am linguistically categorized in a group of people that fall within a set of nonbeliefs...
atheists suck wrote: How can someone fall within a set of nonbeliefs?
see above
Saw it, and you haven't backed it up.
athiestssuck wrote: A nonbelief isn't anything at all! In fact, LeftofLarry's definition of atheism (the non-belief in God) is meaningless, too.
That is not my definition...hahaha....but good try.
Actually I didn't have to try at all because you said, "Atheism, in and of it's own IS NOT a set of beliefs. It is an idea, a linguistical materialization of the non-BELIEF in god" (bolds mine). LOL, honestly, LeftofLarry, you have to let go.
But a-thiesm really means "without gods"
M'kay.
Just like agonstic means "without knowledge"
M'kay.
Atheism is characterized, linguistically, however, by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
Wrong. Atheism comes from the word "atheos." "A" mean without. And "theos" means god. So it means "without god" as you noted. Thus, it means the belief in no God. You're trying to show that "atheism" means "lack of belief" from the greek meaning? Well, Greek has no suffix "ism."
So how is this meaningless? Mr. atheistssuck, lost me here.
I'm not surprised. You lost it here, too, when you quoted me:
athiestssuck wrote: My sunglasses have a non-belief in God. My car keys have a non-belief in God. *SHRUGS* I guess my sunglasses and car keys fall within a set of nonbeliefs too.
Fallacy...
Nope.
...keys and sunglasses have no thought processes either.
Correct. But by saying that one needs a thought process in order for atheism to be applicable, you're holding to it as a belief system. Because you're saying that atheism only applies to people with thinking. So far, your belief system says that atheism is the non-belief in God and that it only applies to people with thinking.
What kind of logic is this?
The right kind.
comparing an preposition to inanimate objects? This just doesnt' make sense?
LOL! Are you seriously suggesting you CAN'T compare a preposition to inanimate objects? Here's one: "The book is beside the table like the man is beside the table." See?
How are sunglasses and keys relevant to atheism?
Becuase they both have non-beliefs in God.
So now you're claiming that sunglasses do not have a belief in god? how do you know?
LOL, are you suggesting that sunglasses are capable of a belief?
do you see the logical flaw here?
Not in mine but in yours.
atheistssuck wrote: But I have a problem with LeftofLarry's definition of atheism just like Dr. Robert Morey had a problem with atheist George Smith's definition (Smith and LeftofLarry share the same definition of atheism - the non-belief in God):
Mr. atheistssuck has made this claim, not me. but I'm not really sure how this is relevent. because this completely seems like another straw man argument.
It's relevant because you said that atheism is the non-belief in God. And it is utterly meaningless.
athiestssuck wrote: My... problem with Smith's definition (of atheism) is how he can attempt to disprove the theistic proofs if he cannot make any assertion about anything. By what standards does he judge these proofs as invalid? On what basis and by what methods can he criticize the theistic proofs if he does not have his own belief system? Why does he have to appeal to such things as "logic" on page 61, and to "reason" on page 110? By doing this he is implying as his confession of faith, "I believe in logic. I believe in reason." He evidently asserts his belief in such things. When he says that every "advocate of reason must begin with an unequivocal condemnation of Christianity's brutal past" (p. 114), to make such moral judgments requires a prior commitment to ethical standards by which he can judge something. If he does not assert anything, however, he then cannot condemn anything.
The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom (Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1986, p. 47-48)
Apparently, LeftofLarry is making the same mistake by saying that atheism is not a belief system or a set of beliefs.
The assertions made to disprove theism are made within the context of logic and science. Although the philosophy of science may infact be debated, it does not conclude that science OR logic are wrong.
Logic and science may be the very nature to disprove theism or atheism (or whatever) though. How does the atheist justify logic? How does the atheist justify induction to make sense of science?
You do not need a belief system per se to show one is not true.
Yeah, you do. And you haven't shown how “you do not need a belief system per se to show one is not true.” All you did was assume it and say that that was good enough, when you never considered the fact that logic and science may be the very thing in question. Again, how do you justify logic given the atheistic worldview? Worse of all, you think a belief system is antithetical to critical thinking.
I can say I do not believe in aliens without having to believe in god. Follow the logic?
... Yeah. LOL, brother, is this priceless!
Plus also, Mr. atheistssuck here is MISTAKENLY and fallaciously tying my perspective with that of George Smith, seemingly, due to the fact he cannot, alone, debate my argument, logically. So again, must set up a straw man.
Well, I'm debating you now. But when it comes to atheism there's little difference between you and George Smith because you both believe that atheism is not a belief system and that it's the absence of belief in God.
Also believing in logic is not faith-based, because logic follows steps to prove a theory.
That's what logic does but how is it justified, LeftofLarry? By what it does? Then that begs the question.
Theism does not.Theism does not follow any steps to prove it's preposition (ie. the belief in god). It just tells you to do so, blindly, without giving it a second though, which brings me back to the critical thinking aspect which defines most atheists. Follow the drift here?
I do, but you're wrong. The only thing you did was assert that theism does not follow any steps to believe in God. I can say that the transcendental argument for God is the reason why I believe in God. That's a step.
atheistssuck wrote: Also, realize LeftofLarry has just made a false dichotomy - "I cannot subscribe to theism based on evidence, therefore by default I'm an atheist..." Can't one be an agnostic if they don't find the evidence for God's existence compelling?
wrong..First off, I think Mr. Atheist here is taking my statement and making generalizations from it without placing it into context. Again, my perspective based on my views.
Well, they're wrong.
However, if Mr. atheistssuck looked at my statement more closely and if he had understanding of the definition of the word agnosticism, he would've realized that I am talking strictly from lack of empirical evidence to prove the existence of a god, therefore following a line of thought that leads me to atheism. I am not discussing agnostics or those who lack the knowledge, therefore choose not to say either way...no, I am talking about evidence, following logic and science.
Well, it doesn't matter if you're "talking about evidence, following logic and science" becuase you used the word "therefore by default" - next time use your words more carefully.
atheistssuck wrote: LeftofLarry exudes some hypocrisy as well:
fromleftoflarry's blog wrote: An atheist would never use a story of suffering to convince everyone to become an atheist (ahem, The story of the crucifixion) because as I said an atheist does not function based on emotional issues to convince people of "atheism".
atheists suck wrote: The story of the crucifixion was not based on emotions or feelings. But even if that was the case, LeftofLarry makes a bundle of emotional claims for atheism here:
from leftoflarry's blog wrote: We see the world for what it is and we are seeing religion and theists destroying this world with their holy wars, we see the theists making a mockery of our constitution here in the US, and in recent years have seen an uprising of religion used for scoring political points with politicians. We have seen religion being used to discredit science, we are seeing religion attacking every single aspect of our lives, including our education. The US already has a very very low standard in education and now, the theists are trying to lower that standard even more. With the introducution of intelligent design we are going to see less scientists, less cures for diseases and when you go to the doctor you will be told to "Say two prayers, and call me in the morning." We are seeing pharmacists passing moral judgements as opposed to scientific ones. It is getting bad, very bad. Another example on how religion is getting in between science (medicine) and you is this. Recently scientists have developed a vaccine that would innoculate you from HPV (Human Pappiloma Virus). This virus, however, only causes pathogenesis in women. It is responsible for cervical cancer. Now, many atheist sceintists would like this vaccine to be mandatory before entering high schools so as to reduce the risks of cervical cancer. Makes sense right from an epedimiological and public health perspective. However, the theists want to put a halt to this vaccination due to the fact that THEY belive will promote sex. This is how bad it's gotten.
umm..ok...first... Mr. Atheistssuck is placing an assumption here: apparently he has a predisposition that allows him to know my emotions.
I'm not making an assumption because you made those emotional claims against theism. Anybody can see that.
Secondly, what I have written was based on fact not emotion.
Well, you haven't even backed up those "facts."
And Mr. atheistssuck has failed to argue anything I have said here, proving to me that his argument is ad hominem.
It wasn't ad hominem because I showed the hypocrisy in your statement. I can see how that's offensive, but, honestly dude, you were being hypocritical.
Thirdly, the story of the crucifixion is completely based on emotion, Mr. Atheistssuck perhaps has not seen that blockbuster money making hit "Passion of the Christ" completely used to exploit the human emotion of compassion and empathy to make you completely shut down all critical thinking and subscribe to a belief system based on "feeling sorry for the guy".
I wasn't a fan of that movie. But I think a better criticism against the crucifixion (if LeftofLarry wants to make a case against it) is actually using the Bible not a movie. LOL, talk about strawmans? Using the movie against my argument is a total strawman because I never used the movie as an argument nor did I bring it up.
The story of the crucifixion is only ONE example on how theism plays on emotions....the birth of christ, how he was born in poverty in the cold in a manger..
Jesus wasn't born into poverty. That's no where in the Bible. But even if that was the case it's a question of history not emotion.
all stories designed to appeal to and more importantly, exploit, emotion, specifically the emotion of compassion and empathy.
That begs the question. But if LeftofLarry tried using the Bible (which he hasn't even bother to quote) he'd know it wasn't about emotions. Read John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." It doesn't say, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall be happy."
atheists suck wrote: Talk about argument by emotion!
See above.
Ditto.
athiestssuck wrote: LeftofLarry says,
from leftoflarrys blog wrote: We don't care that people believe in God, but now these sets of belief systems are starting to spill over on OUR lives and OUR choices, based on a handful of extreme religious right politicians who feel that the biblical law MUST be imposed on everyone.
atheistssuck wrote: You read this type of stuff throughout his whole essay. This is clearly stereotyping Christians and making strawmen attacks toward Christians. But assume the opposite... not once has LeftofLarry ever considered what atheism (Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.) has done to religious people. Not once!
How is this stereotyping all xtians?
By making a false generalization on us.
I am discussing how religion is infiltrating our politics? It is ironic, here how mr. atheistssuck claims I am making strawman arguments, when in fact, he himself fails to prove me wrong? Show me HOW religion then is not affecting our politics? If I am wrong.
I never said you were wrong. In fact, I hope it does infiltrate our politics. It's better than atheism that's for sure. But not all Christians would say that all the laws described in the Bible are applicable to America.
As far as Mao, Pol pot and stalin, Mr. Atheistssuck, fails to claim that they were all dictators...
LOL, so, what? *SHRUGS* But okay, they were atheist dictators. Atheism led them to their dictatorship, and led them to persecute Christians. Wait a minute! You're not saying that atheism necessarily doesn't bring one to a dictatorship are you? Heck, that sounds like a belief a part of a belief system. So far, your belief system says that atheism is the non-belief in God and that it only applies to people with thinking and that it doesn't necessarily lead to a dictatorship but necessarily leads to democracy.
and those sysetms of governance were not even close to the idea of inclusion that our democracy is supposed to espouse..try again.
I wouldn't have to because these atheist dictator claim they're for democracy.
oh the fallacies here are giving me a headache..
I'll pray for you.
LeftofLarry goes on:
leftoflarry's blog wrote: And all laws and decisiosn should be made based on the church/state separations clause.
atheists suck wrote:Now ask yourself why does LeftofLarry want decisions based on the the separation of church and state? Obviously it's the moral thing to do. But if atheism is not committed to any sort of beliefs then obviously being moral is illusory. Furthermore, argue all you want one can make a convincing claim that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. In fact the phrase "separation of church and state" is not even in the Consitution! See more about Thomas Jefferson.
aye aye aye...the first ammendment clearly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" known as the clause of separation of church and state.
Nay nay nay... the first ammendment doesn't assume that. You put your own assumption into the context of the establishment clause.
This implies that congress cannot make laws pro or con on religion and that any state funded organization, building etc...cannot be utilized to promote religion. Many times over has this been proven in court.
*SIGH* The establishment clause simply prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a national church or from interfering with the establsihed churches in the states. Remember, several states already had state-supported "establsihments of religion." Any history book would show you that.
Whether Mr. ATheistssuck here, likes it or not. A secular government is what the diests founding fathers had envisioned for us. Any other form of government would have mimicked the oppressive theistic monarchy of england.
The latter is true but not the former. But even the "deists" founding fathers knew that America is to be built on Christian philosophy. Thomas Jefferson for sure believed that. It's a shame you didn't leave the link for it in your response to me.
Mr. atheistssuck as well as most other theists, also fail to understand that it was indeed a theocratic state that forced many of the pilgrims to come here to the "new" land. Our founding fathers knew that and understood it, which is why, you have the first ammendment right and you also do not see the word GOD or anything to do with GOD in our consitution.
Nor do you see "separation of church and state." LeftofLarry doesn't tell you that even the pilgrims were open to freedom of religion, not freedom from it. They didn't want a theocracy and I don't want one either, but that doesn't necessarily entail separation of church and state.
Again here also, the argument Mr. atheistssuck is full of fallacies, tying morality to religion again...a neat trick the theists try to use all the time.
LOL, just as much as it is a trick that atheists would try to pull by tying morality to atheism.
atheists suck wrote: LeftofLarry asks, "When was the last time you were forced to close your church? When was last time someone prohibited you from going to church?" Answer: March, 2006.
His silly answer refers to an eminent domain decision and was not based on religious ideology whatsoever..
Yes, correct, eminent domain that took away the church was not based on religious ideology. Ya got that right!
nice try though....I wonder whether he cares to give us MORE REAL? The churches are all up in arms with fears that Eminent Domain will be used to shut down churches in order to build condo's etc...however, even though I do not agree with eminent domain, this is not related to religious silencing, as mr. atheistssuck would have you believe. He is joining two completely different arguments to make his believable...
Factual errors and strawman arguments.
*SHRUGS* But you asked a simple question and I gave you simple answer. Besides, atheistic countries like China and North Korea definitely closed churches (via eminent domain) - but of course you can't concede that point with the ol' "those are dictatroships though" line. Honestly, LeftofLarry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You gotta let go, buddy.
atheists suck wrote: LeftofLarry asks, "When was the last time you were told that you were FORCED to have an abortion based on secular laws?" Answer: A few years ago in China, plenty of people were forced to have an abortion.
china? who said anything about being a dictatorial totalitarian communist governemnt?..
See, there you go again. But we were talking about atheism, and China is surly an atheist country. It seems like you deliberately miss that fact. And if that's the case how much more can people trust you to give us historical facts like the establishment clause?
his straw man arguements are crushed like a chinese made paper plate, i didn' know china had such influence here?..in the states...wanna try again with united states example?
Not with the United States but with atheist countries.
atheistssuck wrote: LeftofLarry asks, "When was the last time that the thousands of television and radio evangelical programming was shut down by the FCC?" Answer: *SHRUGS* I dont' know, but I don't always agree with the FCC anyway.
ok...? I guess there almost was a point here.
Almost? The point is I don't agree with the FCC rulings sometimes... as do many Christians. There's a point right there for ya.
atheistssuck wrote: LeftofLarry says, "When was the last time you were prohibited to worship in your churches, mosques or synagogues? NEVER." Answer: LOL, as we've seen that's not the case. It appears LeftofLarry needs to do more homework.
again factual error here....eminent domain has not been shown to attack ONLY churches for the sake of religious cleansing, which is the obviuos point atheistsuck is trying to have you believe.
Why wouldn't I want anybody to believe that when I linked to the website specifically describing it as eminent domain? Dude, they took away their church. Atheistic countries took away Christian churches but you (no surprise) always have an excuse for them. You of all people who believe in democracy should admit that there was religious persecution in those countries... because of atheism.
It is a weak attempt to discredit what I'm saying and it is baseless and cowardly.
As we've seen that wasn't the case.
atheistssuck wrote: Aside note: LeftofLarry says, "I will not get into the Straussian philosophy of the use of religion for controlling the masses here, except that the neoconservative movement is very well awar of the power of ignorance and religion." Not all conservatives (or Christians) are Straussian. In fact, some of them reject Strauss!
I never said they did....but look at our dear friends in the white house, lobby group and congress...you WILL find straussians there...with their hegemonic wet dreams. And he cannot refute straussian politics. At least him and I agree on one thing.
Great! I'm not a fan of George W. Bush by the way.
atheistssuck wrote: All in all, LeftofLarry has proven contrary to his belief that atheism is a set of beliefs or a belief system. Furthermore, all he's done was give stereotypical views of Christians and made assertions without proofs.
Wrong..wrong and...um wrong.....but nice summation of a pointless diatribe.
LOL, And yet you decide to reply to a pointless diatribe?
Proof is everywhere, it only takes a thinking mind to find it. Mr. Atheistssucks is obviously too caught up in his ego, that he fails to make cognitive points.
here is what his eblogger site says:
"Frank has demonstrated unprecedented mastery at scalding refutations, hasn't he? He really leaves all the other apologists in the dust. How does he do it?" from atheist Dawson Bethrick (May 15, 2006 7:31 PM)
Well, as I said before Dawson Bethrick was saying that sarcastically and I used his quote just to anger him.
athiestssuck wrote: (if LeftofLarry would like to reply to this post he can email me his reply and I'll be happy to post it in my blog)
hahaha nice try..my reply stays on the original board. I do not go behind people's back to try to hide behind my own forum. If I want to attack or debate someone, I will do it openly on their forum.
You'll go on their forum publicly but you won't go on their blog publicly? ... Okay.
What mr. atheistsuck did here is that he copied my blog, took the bandwith for my pic and placed it in the comfort of his own blog.
And? I didn't edit what LeftofLarry said. I copied everything he said there (and here) word for word. Isn't that the right thing to do?
Instead of coming here and confront me personally, he did it in a cowardly manner.
It's cowardly to tell you that I'll post what you have in response in my blog for all (Christian and non) to read? *SHRUGS* Oh, well. But you haven't even bothered to use my full name. Are you afraid that people will look up my blogsite? LOL, talk about cowards. No offense.
THEN, he has the nerve to tell me to send him a reply by email?
It gets on your nerves that I want everybody to read what you wrote against me? I'm just trying to be fair.
Are you kidding me?
No.
what....does he maybe want to edit it? hahaha......if he wants to attack me he can do it in plain view with everyone to see. on the original post.....hahahaha....
Well, all my readers know I never edit what a person says. Go ahead. Read what I copied from LeftofLarrys' blog and see if I deliberately took anything out. You'll see that I didn't.
Also, we don't care to give this guy attention to his blog. If he wants to debate he can come to the original message, and so can his 20 or so readers. This is why I did not leave a link.
LOL, that's a good way to preempt anybody from calling LeftofLarry a coward, huh?
Well folks, as we've seen LeftofLarry thinks that you can't compare a preposition to inanimate objects, says that he didn't say that atheism was a non-belief in god but then did, thinks that atheism is not a belief system yet concedes that atheism has a number of beliefs, never takes into account that atheism is responsible for dictatorships in countries that persecute Christians, hardly knows the Bible, and can't say what the jusfitications are for rationality or logic, hasn't even given an account for why one should be moral or rational in an atheistic view, and hasn't considered the fact that the very nature of logic or science may be the point of the argument to disprove atheism (*SHRUGS* or theism). LeftofLarry hasn't even begun to scratch the surface. If indeed all atheism is is a disbelief in God and that's all... then that makes it by definition amoral and a-rational (since there is no particular view on morality or rationality in atheism). But if LeftofLarry says that an atheist should indeed be rational and moral then he has conceded that atheism is indeed a belief system of sorts.
***END QUOTE***
- Login to post comments
Beautiful
You have clearly and precisely stated the definition of atheism I would use - "It stems from an intellectual view that empirically rejects the idea of a god or of any supernatural untestable idea based solely on empirical analysis and evidence." Likewise I would agree with the contrast you draw between the emotional basis of theism and rationality of atheism.
You are not alone in believing that religion has become a dangerous force which has become more and more intrusive, especially in terms of science and education. It is true that the religious zealots "use peoples ignorance of science against them to gain support," but I believe that if we can amass a suitable and sizable resistance we can at least fight those that would seek to distort and hide the truth.
I look forward to your next blog...
As for spellchecking- I use Spellbound for Firefox - http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/.
Thanks for the comment. I
Thanks for the comment. I too agree that a resistance needs to be born. And I believe the RRS is a good start.
I don't write many blogs....but I do appreciate your positive comments and thanks for the spell check website. The reason why I don't spell check, grammar check etc.. is solely because I really don't have the time. but thank you.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Thank you for the post, it
Thank you for the post, it is truly a joy to see more people who both understand the history and implications of atheism and are able to articulate said points coherently.
A point concerning the resistance that is being discussed. It is morbidly ironic that the very thing christians have feared for hundreds of years is a world-dominating movement that forces them to hide in caves awaiting the return of christ and yet that very type of movement is what they are actually implementing and it is everyone of dissimilar opinion that are increasingly having to watch what they say for fear of being persecuted. Granted, such a movement is only possible with an absolutist religious basis, i.e. fascism, but that point is simply the proverbial icing on the cyanide-laced cake.
So where does all this leave us? What resistance are we capable of doing? After the last presidential election, I attended a local democratic group in which the theme was essentially taking back the social institutions, a point the democrats have been harping on for years now, so devoid of new ideas that they steal from their opponents. The problem with this is that the institutions like education, the courts, FDA, etc. exist only because society at large accedes to their will. When force and power are looked upon as the means to gain access to the institutions of society, the seeds of their destruction are sowed and watered.
Reading "Democracy in America" by Alexis deToqueville (a book I highly reccommend), a most interesting point is made concerning the court system, that their power exists only in so far as the majority of citizens accept that power as legitimate. It is quite clear that with the growing influence of corporations and the religio-conservative mentality, the power of the courts is slowly being belittled. Recently, after the supreme court declared that military tribunals could not be used to try terrrorists in Guantanamo, the majority leader for the House expressed outrage and asked the question "what right does the court have to tell the executive what to do?"
Such tactics should caution us in our pursuit of resistance. As atheists, freethinkers, and humanists, we are devoted to humanity in relation to all of existence and as such reality is our blessing and our curse. A blessing because in it we refuse to be lessened by imaginative constructs and cursed because without the comforting blanket of religion we feel the pain of the world.
How is resistance possible then? By love. Only with the daily, continual exposition of our empathy to the pain of each individual, expressing our passion that in every sloppy picture created by a child taped to a fridge there is more beauty than any theological tome and that even in the smallest acts of kindness it is there that we call that person "brother", can we give to the world a view without hate, without demogoguery, without self-mortification.
Every one of your relationships to man and to nature must be a definite expression of your real, individual life corresponding to the object of your will. -Erich Fromm
I absolutely agree and thank
I absolutely agree and thank you for the comment.
It is indeed ironic that the very essence of the "supposed" morality of religion, love of our fellow women and men, is perhaps more prevalent within the atheist community for the simple reason that we see the world under an unfiltered lense and are able to see the bigotry and hatred which this disease called theism has spawned.
The theo-fascists of this country belittle the courts because the courts are constitutional and fair. The Neo(theo)conservative agenda and ideology is completely antithetical to constitutional rights. They believe in absolute power and the courts do not allow that, which is why they are saturating the courts with like minded anti-constitutionalists. Part of the PR propaganda game the theo(neo)CONS play is the whole "activist judges" facade. By using words such as these, they manage to get the people to start believing the lies they spew....
It is indeed fascist and the resistance from atheists and moderate theists must be strong and concise. Love, yes...but also social battles, court battles and information battles. The truth must not be allowed to be twisted by the neo(theo)CONS.
Again,
Thank you for the comment
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
SO..SOME GUY NAMED FRANK, READ MY BLOG
In response he writes a blog on his eblogger.com site called atheism sucks....and decides to start ad hominen attacks etc..etc...the usual theistic argumentative and fallacious arguments you hear...so, instead of being a true debater, and post his comments on here, he decides to steal bandwith (my pic..hahahaha) and posts it on his blog with a copy of my blog. then he starts with his "rebuttal" and at the end he says that if I want to reply I would have to email him, so that he can post the email on his blog. So...seeing as this guy probably has a list of maybe...25 or so readers. I will write my reply here, where we have thousands of listners and readers. And if he would like to reply he can be a man..and start debate here.
So this is how he attempts to break down my argument:
I will refer to him as mr. atheistssuck for fun
ok...let me clarify...so that mr. atheistssuck here doesn't get too confused and convoluted. I'm sure he obviously missed the point of my blog, due to the fact that he didn't even make any refence to the point that I was speaking from a linguistical categorization of atheists.
Atheists do not partake in religious belief systems due to the fact that all atheists are not one in the same. We have no set rules..that guide our "being an athiest" we do not subscribe to "atheist churches" or have an "atheist bible" Each and every single on of us has our own, unique sets of beliefs which define who we are on an individual level and on how we live life. We do not subscribe to any particular set of belief system and or some sheepish mind controlling idea that we need to live our lives a certain way for fear of a punishment after we die (or conversly for the ultimate reward). When I defined my argument in the beginning, I defined it juxtaposed to organized religion. That was my premise. Mr. Atheistssuck, did not seem to grasp that context and proceeded on his diatribe by setting up the strawman argument.
Atheism, in and of it's own IS NOT a set of beliefs. It is an idea, a linguistical materialization of the non-BELIEF in god. IT IS NOT...a SET of beliefs. It is an antithetical linguistical term to theism. It describes an individual who lacks a belief in god--plain and simple. my examples stem from MY views...and MY beliefs....but they are certainly NOT representative of all atheists. that is why the title of it has my PERSPECTIVE.
Notice here, how Mr. atheistssuck fails to define how a belief system ties in to rationality or critical thinking.
Why does one have to subscribe to a belief system in order to think rationally or critically? Critical thinking is indeed antithetical to set belief systems..it questions belief systems. So, I wonder if Mr. Atheistssucks would care to elaborate here.
He fails to back up his own straw man here.
see above
That is not my definition...hahaha....but good try.
But a-thiesm really means "without gods"
Just like agonstic means "without knowledge"
Atheism is characterized, linguistically, however, by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
So how is this meaningless? Mr. atheistssuck, lost me here.
Fallacy: keys and sunglasses have no thought processes either. What kind of logic is this? comparing an preposition to inanimate objects? This just doesnt' make sense? How are sunglasses and keys relevant to atheism? So now you're claiming that sunglasses do not have a belief in god? how do you know? do you see the logical flaw here?
Mr. atheistssuck has made this claim, not me. but I'm not really sure how this is relevent. because this completely seems like another straw man argument.
The assertions made to disprove theism are made within the context of logic and science. Although the philosophy of science may infact be debated, it does not conclude that science OR logic are wrong. You do not need a belief system per se to show one is not true. I can say I do not believe in aliens without having to believe in god. Follow the logic? Plus also, Mr. atheistssuck here is MISTAKENLY and fallaciously tying my perspective with that of George Smith, seemingly, due to the fact he cannot, alone, debate my argument, logically. So again, must set up a straw man.
Also believing in logic is not faith-based, because logic follows steps to prove a theory. Theism does not. Theism does not follow any steps to prove it's preposition (ie. the belief in god). It just tells you to do so, blindly, without giving it a second though, which brings me back to the critical thinking aspect which defines most atheists. Follow the drift here?
wrong..First off, I think Mr. Atheist here is taking my statement and making generalizations from it without placing it into context. Again, my perspective based on my views.
However, if Mr. atheistssuck looked at my statement more closely and if he had understanding of the definition of the word agnosticism, he would've realized that I am talking strictly from lack of empirical evidence to prove the existence of a god, therefore following a line of thought that leads me to atheism. I am not discussing agnostics or those who lack the knowledge, therefore choose not to say either way...no, I am talking about evidence, following logic and science.
umm..ok...first... Mr. Atheistssuck is placing an assumption here: apparently he has a predisposition that allows him to know my emotions.
Secondly, what I have written was based on fact not emotion. And Mr. atheistssuck has failed to argue anything I have said here, proving to me that his argument is ad hominem.
Thirdly, the story of the crucifixion is completely based on emotion, Mr. Atheistssuck perhaps has not seen that blockbuster money making hit "Passion of the Christ" completely used to exploit the human emotion of compassion and empathy to make you completely shut down all critical thinking and subscribe to a belief system based on "feeling sorry for the guy". The story of the crucifixion is only ONE example on how theism plays on emotions....the birth of christ, how he was born in poverty in the cold in a manger..all stories designed to appeal to and more importantly, exploit, emotion, specifically the emotion of compassion and empathy.
See above.
How is this stereotyping all xtians? I am discussing how religion is infiltrating our politics? It is ironic, here how mr. atheistssuck claims I am making strawman arguments, when in fact, he himself fails to prove me wrong? Show me HOW religion then is not affecting our politics? If I am wrong.
As far as Mao, Pol pot and stalin, Mr. Atheistssuck, fails to claim that they were all dictators and those sysetms of governance were not even close to the idea of inclusion that our democracy is supposed to espouse..try again. oh the fallacies here are giving me a headache..
LeftofLarry goes on:
aye aye aye...the first ammendment clearly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" known as the clause of separation of church and state.
This implies that congress cannot make laws pro or con on religion and that any state funded organization, building etc...cannot be utilized to promote religion. Many times over has this been proven in court.
Whether Mr. ATheistssuck here, likes it or not. A secular government is what the diests founding fathers had envisioned for us. Any other form of government would have mimicked the oppressive theistic monarchy of england.
Mr. atheistssuck as well as most other theists, also fail to understand that it was indeed a theocratic state that forced many of the pilgrims to come here to the "new" land. Our founding fathers knew that and understood it, which is why, you have the first ammendment right and you also do not see the word GOD or anything to do with GOD in our consitution.
Again here also, the argument Mr. atheistssuck is full of fallacies, tying morality to religion again...a neat trick the theists try to use all the time.
His silly answer refers to an eminent domain decision and was not based on religious ideology whatsoever..nice try though....I wonder whether he cares to give us MORE REAL? The churches are all up in arms with fears that Eminent Domain will be used to shut down churches in order to build condo's etc...however, even though I do not agree with eminent domain, this is not related to religious silencing, as mr. atheistssuck would have you believe. He is joining two completely different arguments to make his believable...
Factual errors and strawman arguments.
china? who said anything about being a dictatorial totalitarian communist governemnt?..his straw man arguements are crushed like a chinese made paper plate, i didn' know china had such influence here?..in the states...wanna try again with united states example?
ok...? I guess there almost was a point here.
again factual error here....eminent domain has not been shown to attack ONLY churches for the sake of religious cleansing, which is the obviuos point atheistsuck is trying to have you believe. It is a weak attempt to discredit what I'm saying and it is baseless and cowardly.
I never said they did....but look at our dear friends in the white house, lobby group and congress...you WILL find straussians there...with their hegemonic wet dreams. And he cannot refute straussian politics. At least him and I agree on one thing.
Wrong..wrong and...um wrong.....but nice summation of a pointless diatribe. Proof is everywhere, it only takes a thinking mind to find it. Mr. Atheistssucks is obviously too caught up in his ego, that he fails to make cognitive points.
here is what his eblogger site says:
"Frank has demonstrated unprecedented mastery at scalding refutations, hasn't he? He really leaves all the other apologists in the dust. How does he do it?" from atheist Dawson Bethrick (May 15, 2006 7:31 PM)
What mr. atheistsuck did here is that he copied my blog, took the bandwith for my pic and placed it in the comfort of his own blog. Instead of coming here and confront me personally, he did it in a cowardly manner. THEN, he has the nerve to tell me to send him a reply by email? Are you kidding me? what....does he maybe want to edit it? hahaha......if he wants to attack me he can do it in plain view with everyone to see. on the original post.....hahahaha....
Also, we don't care to give this guy attention to his blog. If he wants to debate he can come to the original message, and so can his 20 or so readers. This is why I did not leave a link.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.