Atheism

Author: RaymondSheen
Atheism

Posts

Total: 302
#181
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Im guessing theists have some kind of god / religious dictionary book. 

The Meaning of the word ., 
atheists / Atheists. 
Clearly Reads. 

Knows heaps about science.    ×
Wears a white coat and saftey specs.   ×

Has to " belive in the TOE " . ×

The Big bang, 
Yes . 
thats a must.  

And ya gotta be smart. 

=  ATHEIST.

You can picture this picture in the theists mind. 

Ive personally used a bunsen burner sòooooooo, yeah, im pretty much a scientific .
I mean a scientist 

The hardest part about being a atheist for me issss, 
having to "belive" in the theroy of evolution.  
 I don't like it. Buttttt,  i am a atheist sooooo, i know the deal. 
Of course Evolution is real. 

#182
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The hardest part about being a atheist for me issss, 
having to "belive" in the theroy of evolution.  
 I don't like it. Buttttt,  i am a atheist sooooo, i know the deal. 
Of course Evolution is real. 
evil-looshun
#183
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The hardest part about being a atheist for me issss, 
having to "belive" in the theroy of evolution
Yeah, I hate evolution and how it basically just disproves Bible.

Wait, can you be an atheist but believe in something like matrix, and go around door to door telling people that they are in the matrix?

It could be a new religion, an atheist religion!

That way we no longer have to argue about if atheism is a religion or not, and if atheists have the burden of proof to disprove God's existence, or if Christians need to prove their claims or not.
#184
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
So is this a "yes" which would be one of only two answers to the question I asked?

If it's not , it's only a "no". Do atheists believe no gods exist? 

Yes or no.
Do pro-lifers believe in exceptions for rape? Yes or No?
#185
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Mall
So is this a "yes" which would be one of only two answers to the question I asked?

If it's not , it's only a "no". Do atheists believe no gods exist? 

Yes or no.
My answer to your question is the most direct, complete, and informative answer I can give. That you reject it leads me to be believe that you have an underlying agenda of some sort here.

Topic's author
#186
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Yeah, I hate evolution and how it basically just disproves Bible.
Idiots, like you, that "believe" evolution, are very much like idiots that believe in God in that they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. It always cracks me up when idiot believers present themselves as morally supreme because they think God is on their side and when "evolutionists" present themselves as intellectually superior. Especially when I point out that evolution doesn't disprove the Bible, it proves it. The Bible teaches things evolve, but disproves that they evolve into anything outside of the parameters given by the Bible. The evolution of the Bible is and always has been commonly observed. The evolution contrary to the Bible has never been observed. Never. It's a racist eugenic fantasy. I especially like the surprise on idiot evolutionists face when they are informed that evolution is an ancient Greek philosophy that predates Christ. Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander and Aristotle.

Idiot pseudo-intellectuals who scoff idiotic modern-day Christianity think the great thinkers of the past like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were preservers of some sort of secular reason when 15 minutes research online would set their ignorant asses straight. Those ancient philosophers taught the modern-day Christian nonsense they so unintelligently loath while the Bible taught the proven science. It just goes to show you. Idiots are idiots with or without God and the new religion, science. 

#187
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
You were slightly misrepresenting theoretical thinking and consequent study, by inaccurately pigeon holing with both the "ist" suffix and the word "believe".


1. Though for sure, there are lots of people who without methodical consideration, will blindly accept or reject ideas because they have been conditioned to do so.

We tend to refer to such people as believers.

2. Whereas people who are not prepared to blindly accept or reject ideas without necessary consideration should be referred to as sceptics.

3. And those who actually dedicate their time to the methodical study of such ideas should be regarded as scientists.

Here I am attempting to pigeon hole, somewhat more accurately.


Then there are those who gather together to bleat their distain at others who might seek to question the veracity of conditioned beliefs.

We might refer to these people as sheep.

This is a bit of a jibe.

But they do often gather in what is often referred to as a flock.
#188
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Oh and then theres the great Atheists hierarchy. 

At the very top we've 
Atheists that have been Atheists for over 50 years. 
These great and Noble folks we calll.
( Atheists )  

On The next level of atheism we have the 20 years plus atheists . 
These guys are referred to assssss. 
Now get this. . 
( Atheists ) 

Next on the level of command  weve. 
10 plus year atheist. 
Any guesses on what we might call this bunch? 
Whats that. ?
Correct.  ( Atheists ) 

Then its the over 5 years of being a atheist group .
Better known as 
( Atheists ) 

The lesser then 5 years being a atheist.  
We call em 
Yep
( Atheists. )  

Ok so the lot we put on the very very top here at atheist R US.
Areeee. 
The Atheists. 
Closely followed by the second tear guys. 
The Atheists.  
Then it goes 
The Atheists. 
Then 
The Atheists. 

Let me now tell you about our female atheists. 
These guys are known and referred to as .
Ya ready for it. 
( The Atheists ) 
Female atheists can be in all demo's 
50 plus 
20 plus
So on and so on . 
Female atheist are Atheists.  
Male atheist are Atheists. 

A atheist tree would resemble somthing like this 

ATHEISTS. 
THEN
ATHEISTS AND ALSO ATHEISTS. 
ATHEISTS,  ATHEISTS,  ATHEISTS 
AND .
ATHEISTS. 

THE LEADER OF THE SO CALLED ATHEISTS 
WE CALL THEM 
A  ATHEIST. 

OVER HERE WE CALL HOMOSEXUAL ATHEIST, ,, 
DRUM ROLLL.. 
ATHEISTS. 

WHERE DO ATHEISTS MEET FOR MEETINGS and other scally wag behavior?   
WE DON'T 

WITH NO WEEKLY ATHEISTS  MEETING POINT / CLUBHOUSE 

( Atheists  )  DONT do MEET UPs AND HANG OUTs. 

Now With No atheist clubhouse or regular meeting point you guys the theists are probably wondering. 

( WELL WHERE ON EARTH DO THe  ATHEISTS MEET UP TO SING SONGS TOGETHER  ? ) 

The answer to this is simple. 

Its a collaborative. 
Why the fuck would we meet up to sing songs together ya dickheads ? 

The "price" and the effect  for not having a weekly meeting point to meet for singing  together is still being studied.  

▪○⊙°•▪○⊙°•▪¤○⊙▪•○¤▪°•○¤▪⊙○¤▪⊙°○《●°○¤●

WARNING.    WARNING.    WARNING.  

OH FUCKING NO . 
I knew this would happeN 
 Fuck fuck fuck. 

THE Theists have just put OUT a challenge to the atheists. 

A   GROUP SINGING SING OFF IF YOU WILL. 

Fuck. 
We ain't got a chance guys .
I MEAN. 
Sure we are the SMARTER AND MUCH MORE EDUCATED LOT. 
BUT IN the ( GROUP SINGING ) department.  
Weve nothing. 

Any IDEAS guys.  ?  

Think of the years of mockery we will face,  losing a singing comp to the bloody christians.   

I say we make an announcement declining the
( GROUP SINGING SING OF COMPETITION ) 
And we declare the theists  the far superior group when it comes to a,  group sing song sing along.   

Can we live with this ?  

Soooooooo.
Believing in god makes people better at group singing then not believing.  
Sounds right hey. ? 

Here.


Wankers.




#189
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@RaymondSheen
idiots that believe in God
Well said.

Topic's author
#190
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Shhhh . . . 
Topic's author
#191
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
. . . be quiet. 
#192
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@RaymondSheen
Shhhh . . . 
Yes daddy, I will be quiet.

#193
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I was just watching dooms day prepers. 
And this lot where prepping because of the "second coming"  thing thats gonna happen in approx,   four months , two weeks , three days and 17 mins.   
"Bible prepares" they are called. 

They come across as ummmm , fucking dickheads. 

I want to meet a person that " guesses the second coming will happen in a few hundred years time. 
Like after there dead.  

Every person that believes in the second coming. Know .
They know it will happen in there life time.,
They just know it. 


God is a sick dude mentioning a " second coming " thing will happen anytime real soon now.  
No not now . 
But like pretty soon 
Yet to be specified. 

I wonder how many folks have died,  sitting on the edge of their seats in ready ness.  


Hold . 
Any day now . 
Hold 
Wait for it. 
Ok 
Wait. 

God said.   
It will come at any moment. 
What a great guy .
It will happen
.   ♡♡♡♡♡ At Any moment. ♡♡♡♡♡♡♡

So thats not Now, 
but at  " Any moment " 
So With this knowledge.  
We sit in wait. 

HOLD .
NOT YET . 
READY .
HOLD . 
NOT JUST YET.
WAIT FOR IT .
GET READY NOW .
HOLD. 
OK.
Get ready. 

SOON NOW. 
Wait. 
Hold. 

That rat bastard.  
It will occur at 
Any moment o'clock. 
So that not today but. 
WAIT FOR IT. 

HOLD 
HERE WE GO. 
Ready now.
Soon . 

Wait now. .
No.

What a fucken great guy hey. 

Its almost lke Gods not sure of the occurrence of this up and coming. 
Third coming .
I mean " second coming " 

The bastard had jesus believing in this second coming thing didnt he.
Any way . Thats a diffrent post. 

God can be a real  dick to us his children , i mean belivers sometimes.

Can the bible be fully studied, 
Im sure it could . 

It sucks that god speaks in a monotone scripture like format.  

L RON invented one of these religion things like that you guys are in andďddddd. 
God . 
God being a evil alien dude. 
Any guesses what language he spoke ? 
Well not language butttt. 
He spoke in a scripture like format. 

Good old joe joe smith talked with god right. ?
And when good talks via   plates and  rock from the botom of a  hat.
The translations comes out innnnnnn. 
Well 
A scripture like format. 

Soooooo,  Up thete baldy . And god sent 40 bears to mall the kids


Thanks for that god . 

With alll the diff versions. 
I cant find a.  ( Specific and ultra clear version.  ) 

Its the year 2024.
If a person today gets caught with a bible with the scriptures scratched out and replaced with the actual meaning of said scripture. 
What punishment would they face. ? 

Will they be put to death ?  

Surly today we are alowed to do this right.? 

I bet allllll you guys have scriptures or two scrathed out in ya king james's
With the what you think as , the true scripture meaning. 

I dont even think you go to jail these days for  Highlighting versus and shit in the bible. 

It must be like the " important " parts in the bible that one highlights right ? 
Anyways .
Back to the studying guys. 
Again.   Please take your time . 
You've A whole one book  to study. 
When you finish this "study"  of the book )
You'll need to study it more 

Ok 
Give me you predictions for 
○○○○○second commings o'clock . ○○○○○
Keeping in mind . In the bible it says 
It will happeN ATTTTT 
(  any moment now.)  

 
Im giing with  In ( 5 years 3 months 2 days and 2 hours. )        
( Any moment now.  ) 


Picture them one ar two guys who whilst writing Abrahams book book thing said 
 Hey. 
He goes hey . 

We should have god comunicarto in . 
 " A  scripture like format. " To us. 

Topic's author
#194
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
You were slightly misrepresenting theoretical thinking and consequent study, by inaccurately pigeon holing with both the "ist" suffix and the word "believe".
It is what it is.  

1. Though for sure, there are lots of people who without methodical consideration, will blindly accept or reject ideas because they have been conditioned to do so.
Not only or necessarily because they've been conditioned but also group think. To keep up appearances. 

We tend to refer to such people as believers.
A liar is someone who is either stupid enough to think that lying is the only way to get what they want or intelligent enough to think that lying is the easiest way to get what they want. Like a sock puppet they operate on the assumption that no one will possess the ability to detect their deception, but really this only makes them predictable and easy to detect. We refer to such people as atheists or theists. 

Believing isn't stupid, deceiving is. I think of it like a puzzle to solve. A riddle. But it gets old after a while when you've done the same puzzle over and over. Like I told you early on, words are a prison. 

2. Whereas people who are not prepared to blindly accept or reject ideas without necessary consideration should be referred to as sceptics.
The further you get away from the truth the more skeptical virtually everyone is. Lying or ignorant skeptics are profoundly more prevalent in our zeitgeist than lying believers. Here we escape the prison of words, deviate from the puzzle and adapt to the show or theater. Theatre? Therapy? The eater and the rapist. Poets, Priests and Politicians. You see? I A. 

3. And those who actually dedicate their time to the methodical study of such ideas should be regarded as scientists. 
Which ideas? Theological or scientific. You would agree that there are incentives to corrupt and neglect both, in the past most notably for the former just as in the present most notable for the latter? Note how if one is paying attention, they will get bored at the repetition. The ritual of deception. Ritual. Religion. Theater. Hypocritical, from the Greek form of theater in which everyone and everything is magnified. Costumes, devices - Deus Ex Machina. Imitatio Dei. Deus Vult. Amor Dei Intellecualis. The new normal and the old. Meet the new boss, same as the old, but potentially far more destructive. 

"I Am the science. God is on our side. God wills it." Ideas within ideas within ideas. 

Here I am attempting to pigeon hole, somewhat more accurately.
Then which would you consider yourself - a student or a skeptic? You're not really a believer in the subject unless you are diligent in both capacities, aren't you? 

Personally, I believe most people don't believe they just like the idea. For a plethora of reasons. Social, traditional, cultural, wishful thinking, superstition, blind morbid fear, virtue signaling, et cetera.

Proof is evidence indicating truth; evidence is data indicating truth; fact is a thing proved to be true; truth is data accepted as true. That isn't sequential, it's just circular reasoning. They are empty terms meaning truth is what we make it. The same as reality. What is accepted? Look at history, it's just copy/paste. Find scholars that are respected and repeat, verify. At one time everyone thought the concept of God is true. The concepts have been pretty much the same throughout time as far as we can tell. At that time science was regarded as suspicious. Science hasn't changed. It's always been what we think is true as far as we can tell.

Times changed. People now think science is true and the God concept is suspicious, but the only thing that has really changed is the times. Zeitgeist. Spirit of the Machine. 

Take the immortal soul. Please. The Bible "believer" and the allegedly "skeptical" will both perceive the Biblical soul concept of Socrates and Plato as the traditional scholar will attest to. And it is completely stupid. Just read Ezekiel 18:4 and Matthew 10:28. What is the difference between a believer and a sceptic in a debate? Master debaters!

Huh? That stupid. How much of what follows do you think you would read as a student or sceptic?

Genesis 1:1 - The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action. At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point in the narrative the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards. The universe wasn't created in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago. Not according to the Bible. 

Genesis 1:2 - The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. It was likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

Genesis 1:3 - Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable. The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate progressive action. The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

Genesis 1:4 - Light and darkness are divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.

Genesis 1:5 - Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15) The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding was indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)

So, here . . . you still reading?! We've effectively shot in the head, directly between their eyes wide shut, the traditional ideas of theology and scientific skepticism.

It doesn't matter, do you know why? 

FAITH

As Jesus pointed out at Matthew 13:10, God doesn't want the skeptical or the traditional believer to learn the truth. To contend, wrestle or grapple with God and prevail thus being worthy of salvation. "You are permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not."

They, the disciples didn't cling dogmatically to the corrupted Jewish tradition. 

The Latin word credit means "trust/belief." The sceptics appeal to the authority of the scholars if they have credential. But scholars trust only tradition. Jewish or Christian. God wants someone with a good credit rating, not in the traditions of men, but the truth that sets you free from the prison of words. Those that don't cling to ideas have to defend them with lies. Including the skeptical. 


Then there are those who gather together to bleat their distain at others who might seek to question the veracity of conditioned beliefs.

We might refer to these people as sheep.

This is a bit of a jibe. 

But they do often gather in what is often referred to as a flock.
Yeah. I got that. Evolutionists call it survival of the fittest, which is actually infinately more amuzing ironically. Tribal. Group think. 

The shepherd would break the leg of a lamb if it develops the tendency of wandering too far from the flock, and then carry it from place to place until it can walk again on its own. For its protection from predators. The strength of the flock is the sheep, and the strength of the sheep is the flock. 

The strength of the pride is the lion, and the strength of the lion is the pride. Before the fall. 



Topic's author
#195
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
All of you be quiet. It doesn't matter to me who you all are it only matters to me what all of you say. Pretending doesn't make it any more interesting. 
Topic's author
#196
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
[sigh]

I was just watching dooms day prepers. 
And this lot where prepping because of the "second coming"  thing thats gonna happen in approx,   four months , two weeks , three days and 17 mins.   
"Bible prepares" they are called. 
According to the Bible the end times began at the conception of Adam and Eve's first child. The founding of the world. And the Bible doesn't say that Jesus would return other than the time he did so before his disciples. That was a long time ago. So, you can watch the "Bible preppers" as they are called and you can marvel at how silly they look all the while not knowing any better than they. 

They come across as ummmm , fucking dickheads.
No. They come across as stupid, you come across as fucking dickheads. But why always female? More cunt than dick. 

I want to meet a person that " guesses the second coming will happen in a few hundred years time. 
Like after there dead. 
After there dead. After they're dead. The puzzle calls for one to distinguish common mistakes, narrowing down those typical of the female/male, young/old, believer/unbeliever, british/american, cerebrial/emotional, accademic/traditional [yawn] stupid/religious . . . nice/not so nice . . . on my side/not on my side only if I take sides. I never take sides. Apolitical/irreligious. Keep up, boy!

God is a sick dude
Never an original thought. It takes all of the fun out of it when you make it so easy. Terms. Expressions. Fuck! Do you want me to show you how to do this right?! You don't want that. Atheists worldwide cower at me definitely, you see? Poet, jester, songsmith. Sock it to me. Maybe I am Hugh. Maybe I am also Legion. Only the chickens guard the henhouse. 

Clues within clues within clues while you look up into the sky and down into the why. Don't be shy. 

mUltiplacation up in the house wigger.  



#197
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
People now think science is true and the God concept is suspicious.
So, your response was another interesting read.

Form which I've extracted the above statement for consideration.

I would suggest that science will either come to a satisfactory conclusion or not.

And there are still plenty of contented deists with a penchant for eschewing science.


Which ideas? Theological or scientific.
And this question.

Well, both I suppose, if they lend themselves to the methodical scrutiny of a plausible/reasonable theory.

Do you think/ not think that theism/deism has always been a scientific theory of sorts?

A tad naive today perhaps, in light of what has been concluded since.

But nonetheless, a reasonable proposition at the time. 

Which isn't to say that certain aspects of the GOD principle are not still reasonable.

A supreme intelligence for example.
#198
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@cristo71
"My answer to your question is the most direct, complete, and informative answer I can give. That you reject it leads me to be believe that you have an underlying agenda of some sort here."

Nothing more direct than a yes or no. It is totally incomplete by not answering yes or no which is what the question was directly asking for. Why should I accept anything else but a yes or no?

I'm rejecting anything than what the question is asking, why not? Highly unlikely I would reject a yes or a no which is nowhere in this response you made.

You believe I have an ulterior motive because I'm being strict on the answering of a yes or no question with a yes or no answer. Something like a "trap" ,  a "gotcha" question you must be thinking right.  This should not make people apprehensive to truly answer questions specifically with either or, binary choice responses. It's just a forum. Not a phishing net.

Someone else had the courage to answer yes even though a lot of unnecessary statements, filler and rambling was piled on it.

Do atheists' believe no gods exists?

- or this maybe alternatively easier

Atheists believe no gods exist. Is that true or false?

Come on just one or the other , that's all.
#199
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
"Do pro-lifers believe in exceptions for rape? Yes or No?"

I'll deal with this after you answer the actual relevant question in all fairness. You don't answer this with a question.
Do atheists believe no gods exist?

Can you say yes? (holding your hand)

#200
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Well either way, so what?
 Nevertheless,

Do atheists believe no gods exists?

You could say you don't know.
#201
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Mall
This is precisely why you are called “BK at the Mall.”
Topic's author
#202
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
So, your response was another interesting read.
I disagree. 

Form which I've extracted the above statement for consideration.
The above statement? [Looks up. Looks down]

I would suggest that science will either come to a satisfactory conclusion or not.

There's a safe bet. Nothing ambiguous about that. 

And there are still plenty of contented deists with a penchant for eschewing science.
What if you're wrong, she asked Richard Dawkins, to which he responded in turn. If he was right he would at least have amassed a considerable fortune selling dimestore novels to atheist idiots when he should have been out doing science. If he was wrong he would have inspired millions to be cheated out of not only a lot of dimes but also everlasting life in paradise and in peace without sickness or death.    

And this question.

Well, both I suppose, if they lend themselves to the methodical scrutiny of a plausible/reasonable theory.
[Laughs] We're all screwed. 

Do you think/ not think that theism/deism has always been a scientific theory of sorts?
If you define science as knowledge, no. If you define theism/deism as bullshit, yes. 

A tad naive today perhaps, in light of what has been concluded since.

But nonetheless, a reasonable proposition at the time. 
Since when? Which time?

Which isn't to say that certain aspects of the GOD principle are not still reasonable.

A supreme intelligence for example.
A supreme intelligence without intelligence? A sentient non-being? 
Topic's author
#203
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Mall
Someone else had the courage to answer yes even though a lot of unnecessary statements, filler and rambling was piled on it.
Oh, hey, whoa! Not me! 

Do atheists believe no gods exists?
Atheists don't believe in theists, so they're right more often than not, at least in that regard. But they do believe in atheists so there's the balance. 

#204
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
"Do pro-lifers believe in exceptions for rape? Yes or No?"

I'll deal with this after you answer the actual relevant question in all fairness. You don't answer this with a question.
Do atheists believe no gods exist?

Can you say yes? (holding your hand)
No, I can’t say yes, because the question is ill informed. Some atheists hold this belief, some atheists do not. Therefore “Yes” is not the correct answer to your question, and neither is “No”.

Do you understand? If you do not, please proceed and answer my question so you can enlighten us as to what we’re missing.
#205
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RaymondSheen
Atheists don't believe in theists, so they're right more often than not, at least in that regard. But they do believe in atheists so there's the balance. 
Is this a serious point?
Topic's author
#206
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Double_R
Is this a serious point?
As an atheist all I knew was that religion was stupid. I didn't know why - call it a hunch. At a very early age I had already come to the conclusion that politics and science were stupid as well. By stupid I mean fake, dumb ideology. Nothing real. Just bullshit. You can't have the atheist vs. theist debate with data. Everyone says data i.e. facts, truth, etc. is important, but it isn't. At all. The atheist vs theist debate is always only ever religion, politics and science. Not being very well aquinted with your thinking I would hazard a guess. With you it's politics. 

The point is nothing is real. Not atheists. Not theists. 

#207
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
@RaymondSheen
@Raymond


Good stuff.



If you define science as knowledge.
I don't.

I define science as science.

One might define scientific outcomes as knowledge.


And if Dawkins makes a good living at it, then don't knock it.

He'll be able to survive into decrepitude without the need to scavenge on rubbish dumps.



Since when? Which time?
Whenever.

Though perhaps since the time when Og gazed at the sky, went Hmmmmmmmm, and realized that he/she had just had an idea.



A supreme intelligence without intelligence? A sentient non-being?
Whatever.

I'm currently running with purpose rather than chance.

Though it struck me earlier when I was replying to IlDiavolo, 

Isn't any purpose, ultimately purposeless?

Though NOTHING is always an image that I find  really difficult to simulate. 
#208
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
"No, I can’t say yes, because the question is ill informed. Some atheists hold this belief, some atheists do not. Therefore “Yes” is not the correct answer to your question, and neither is “No”."

Ok well say "both" yes and no. All you had to say from jump my friend instead of going through all this.

"Do you understand? If you do not, please proceed and answer my question so you can enlighten us as to what we’re missing."

I'm unable to answer your question and know I'm correct about it.

I don't know. I'd have to talk to every individual that says he or she is in support of no abortion.

Maybe after the talk people will realize they're not truly pro life. 
It's suppose to be the same across the board right.

Just like atheists that believe no gods exists are the same across the board. This is what distinguishes them from theists that don't believe no gods exist.

You're saying yes and no. Atheists also do believe gods exists so whatever definition you're using would be the same as theism so I advise you to definitely be clear on this subject because it'll spread confusion.

Alrighty.

#209
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@RaymondSheen
Do atheists believe no gods exists?

Yes or no.
#210
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@cristo71
I got you guys scared to answer these questions.

Do atheists believe no gods exists?

Yes or no.