How atheists"debate" religion

A: Where you do you get that information. 

T: Myths

A: Well aren't you are retard moron with no common sense, a murderer, child abuser and should have no right to your religion. 

T: OK. Or if you say what you should which is fuck you, your a violent child molesters who deserves to die. 

If you follow atheist/theist 'debates' you'd think there are only two sorts of people; a) credulous fools who are frightened of dieing and b) megalomaniac and genocidal would-be baby rapers.

The fact that 99.9% of people fall into neither category is ignored.

 

I would hve went with...

Appealing to knowledge when dealing with the ignorant.

Appealing to epistemelogical nihilism when dealing with someone who is educated.

Atheists don't really have a case when the God they are arguing against is The Ultimate Reality. There is no argument against this God.

Atheists know this, so instead they in effect reduce the debate to arguing that the map isn't perfect, that means the territory doesn't exist!

There is not much difference between a pagan and an atheist. An atheist is a pagan in denial usually. In the case of both the pagan and the atheist, they have for them a god that isn't God. While the pagan will usually acknowledge their gods, the atheist has an aversion to the very concept.

In the defense of atheists though, they tend to deny the reality of gods, and are wholly ignorant of God. Only the true blue nihilists in their heart deny The Ultimate Reality. The former simply don't know anything but gods, and may actually in their heart believe in God. The later have embraced their wickedness, and they are truly fools.

That's certainly the first impression I get after reading the OP.

ATHEIST ?  no such human exists....this word was invented by Church PSYCHOPATHS as a TOOL

to degrade-demoralize-dehumanize and ultimately MURDER all humans that do not accept the

totally insane DOGMA these Church parasite vampires have attached to their GOD invention..

Would the JESUS infant turned boy GOD accuse and condemn those humans who do not accept him ?

perhaps they accept KRISHNA...or BUDDHA teachings...+++ many other "Divine Entity" options...

NO NO NO says the Hypnotized Jesus or Allah GOD Parasite Vampire sheeple drone....

YOU MUST ACCEPT and BELIEVE or DIE................

This insanity for power and control is a HUMAN construct...GOD = acronym = G -genius O -of  D -deception

GOD is a human fabricated TOOL used as a scapegoat to MURDER the open mind and life of independent

thinkers...they want total MIND and LIFE CONTROL....

If YOU do NOT ACCEPT...then you are CONDEMNED and labeled ATHEIST....this is the work of clever 

PSYCHOPATH child raping Parasite VAMPIRES cloaked in halloween Glory Gowns and hiding behind

and within the fake CHURCH facade...= a TORTURE CHAMBER for weak minded FOOLS who have

surrendered themselves into slavery of some Church or Mosque CLOWN

I'm an atheist and I don't know what you are.

ATHEIST ?  no such human exists...it is a LABEL attached to humans that do not accept the GOD construct...SO ?

Why is a human labeled by others and that LABEL becomes a part of the humans identity....how utterly RETARDED

Humans are versatile LIFE FORMS...thoughts-beliefs are subject to change...subject to interpretation...YOU do not

accept any GOD ENTITY  ...so what....it does NOT MATTER....except to the PSYCHOPATH MIND MOLESTER

who uses the LABEL as a TOOL for power and control...

Most of the humans that say they BELIEVE in som GOD entity are LIARS they could care less...they want attention

they want to be empowered, they use the GOD as a control/scapegoat TOOL for personal GAIN....

BUDDHA is not a GOD...just an open minded thinker....without using FEAR-INTIMIDATION-VIOLENCE to force

others to accept his view....agree or not SO WHAT....do you understand and accept Calculus as a priority in life ?

if NOT ...YOU are an ANTI-MATH HERETIC.....how utterly RETARDED...place GOD in the example and the 

outcome is the same...GOD is a human construct...nothing worth dying for...nothing worth arguing and destroying

over...

BELIEVE ?  or NOT ?   so what....no human needs to validate themselves according to the HYPNOSIS GOD PSYCHOSIS

planted between the ears of weak minded humans.....let them rot with their GOD garbage....it's the CRIMES they cause

and the deliberate destruction of the OPEN MIND that makes them the greatest THREAT to humanity and EARTH

Often accurate.

Political 'debates' aren't much better.

It seems like for some, politics is their religion.

Please link a thread on these forums that follows your claimed pattern.

Where is ZEUS ?   ODIN ?    OSIRIS ?    Jesus....?   the Jew God of Moses ?   and of course Allah ?

Between the EARS of hopeless HYPNOTIZED sheeple drones that do all the filthy dirty work for the

Parasite Vampire clowns in Halloween Glory Gowns....

How sad...2000 years after the Jesus HOAX...and he is still a NO SHOW !   and since his inception

as an infant born of some illiterate Jewish tribal girl ? (what a joke)  the jew God of Moses has been

reduced to a nuisance to humanity....recognized by the remaining 15 million + JEWS on the planet !

Then 600 years after the Jesus invention...Allah shows up followed by a rampage of death and 

destruction to assimilate all humanity...?   he to is a NO SHOW since his inception by Muhammad

meets GOD in the desert (kind of like Moses !)   what a JOKE !

Regardless, the good news is that the new generations are trashing all the GOD stupidity...they

would rather develop apps...play video games...travel...and live LIFE...not drown in some TOILET

of Jesus / Allah  Church / Mosque Bible / Koran ...VOMIT....

The Middle East God hoax of Jesus-Jew-Allah are going the way of ZEUS and ODIN = Mythology

and forgotten Comic Book characters of an older dying generation....

ime for the GODS to get lost and HUMANITY to rise to the extraordinary LIFE FORMS they truly

are...

No human ever needs to be validated and approved to EXIST and DIE by some Parasite Vampire

Middle East God inventing psychopath preacher...

Good riddance idiot MIND and LIFE destroying DOGMA of these Middle East VAMPIRES for power

It's like an old version video game...OBSOLETE ......

There is nothing to DEBATE....just forget and go forward...   

I think I'm in category A, at least right now.

 I'm one of the 99.9%.

Sounds more like the schizophrenic stereotypical confused soul who knows neither A or T beyond what is read in Pogo. Angry, to be sure. About what is less conclusive. Perhaps angered by a mirror; the nemesis of all, the 99.9% included.

But if out of both of us, one person fits into a category that only .1% of the population fits into, it’s likely that more than .1% of the population fits in that category.

Mopac, the Bible rewriter in the name of Satan,

.

.

WisdomofAges,

As you can see, the totally Bible stupid and ignorant FAUXLAW in his post # 15 has called you schizophrenic relative to your position, whereas you have to remember, if you can get FAUXLAW to actually stand his ground to discuss your modus operandi, but if he starts to fumble like he usually does, he will run away and report you for harassment to the moderators to try and save face like he has done to me.

FAUXLAW represents the true definition of a pseudo-christian runaway.

.

Exactly.

But .1% of germs always survive.......If one believes the statistics.

I think that 99.9% is somewhat arbtirary.

Plus..... You could just as easily put 100 people into 100 categories as you could put them into 3.

non-theists don't debate theology -  it is impossible because theology means - the study of god and non-theists don't believe in god. 

non-theists debate or discuss or rather dogmatically affirm discussions about some kind of god we think might exist but cant prove or disprove.  Really we are fools.  

How can we debate about something we don't actually know how to define - and by that I mean - there is no consensus on what god is? 

Hence it is all - about pissing in each other's pockets.  

So most of us take the piss out of religion by declaring the number one strawman definition of god to be true - so we can say it is not true.  

We give a three pronged approach - to try and imitate some kind of rationale for why we reject god. an all knowing and all powerful benevolent person.  

It does not matter that most religious people reject it - we just say we know people who believe it.  And that is all that matters because intellectual honesty is not really important to us. 

We are non-theists.  we have not seen evidence for god and we think theists are idiots anyway - so we don't care how we treat them. Especially in debating. 

But I am a non-theist who does believe in intellectual honesty.  I don't think we should use strawman arguments - why? Because we have the truth - and the truth will win. Yet I don't believe in the ends without going through the process.   It is not fun to win by cheating. It only makes people doubt themselves.  

We need to start being proactive. We need to take the bull by the horns. We need to give ourselves the b.o.p. to prove that God exists. Why? Because we have the truth.  

Let us stop playing their games - and prove that god is a nonsense. until we can do so honestly and without resorting to weak and pathetic games like most non-theists tend to do - because of our perceived intelligence, then the same old results will continue to keep happening. This is why we find it difficult. We give in to their mind games - we do so because of our belief we are smarter - yet - this foolishness results in what? How many people do you know switch from religion to atheism? Some - but there are much more going the other way. We need to be smarter - we need to take back control - we need to walk first - speak first - take on the presumptions - and write the rules ourselves. 

But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place in things.  Let's take it back. 

So book reviews can't review fiction? And movie critics can't discuss fiction? Theology is usually based on myth and myth is written down. You can discuss the points without believing in them. If what you posted is true you wouldn't even be in this forum or made this post. 

.1% of germs survive, but this is barely any germs, so your hands are basicly clean.

I'd expect the number to be somewhat close to the truth.

A non-theist idea of god is always a strawman.   Hence in every discussion of theology, his or her reasoning is going to be in relation to a god that does not exist except in the mind of the non-theist.  A non-theist has no conception of god - otherwise he or she or ? would be a theist.  This is why it is an impossibility. I have no proper definition except the one I can think of - which is a strawman figure - and which most non-theists say they don't believe in. 

Persons from different religions and even denominations can discuss and debate theology proper because they have their own definition and understanding of god and are able to compare and contrast and analyze the similarities and differences.  Yet a non-theist has neither a working definition by consensus (except within their own group) which incidentally is why non-theists can often talk about their strawman god together and laugh and joke about it. It is also why 99% of arguments by non-theists are like water off a duck's back with theists.  It is always chalk and cheese.  Apples and oranges.   If you refute an apple exists - it does not affect the theist who believes in oranges. It does not matter how often the theist attempts to talk the theist into thinking their god is an apple - the theist knows the difference - because they are the one who believes. The non-theist keeps coming back to the same points over and over again.  Why? because they so desperately need to prove that the apple does not exist - yet they need to stop and pause and realize that the power of persuasion will only ignite if they prove the orange does not exist. But to prove the orange does not exist - they have to take on board more than the strawman conception of god. They need to take on the orange position of god, of which they are unable to get their heads around - which is why they always resort to the apple god.  

Book reviews must be able to review the books they are reading.   That makes sense - but if a book review started discussing the myth behind the Jedi for instance it has moved from review into a different genre.  Theology is not based upon myth - except to those who don't believe in that particular definition of a god.  To the religion or people who do believe in a particular god it is not myth per se. 

This discussion I am having is not debating theology.   In fact I don't think any of what appears on this forum is a debate about theology. It is varied persons opining about their own thinking and talking about it.  This forum is a format for that kind of expression - not a debate.  The debate arena is more about debate. But even it really rarely debates theology. It might discuss religious ideas - but that is not the same as theology. 

They just spit the truth 

So you will not be posting here

Are you asking me to leave? Or are you interested in how diverse views about such topics are looked at by various persons? 

Theology by definition is wholly debateable , by anyone that wishes to debate/discuss theology.

Theist and atheist are merely labels we apply to each other,  and in no way affect ones ability to output data relative to theology.

The difference between someone that assumes an existent GOD and someone that doesn't, all boils down to a slight variation in how individuals, input, assimilate and output similar data.

There, but for the grace of a GOD, goes an atheist. Ha Ha.

Hi Zed,

it appears you think I thought non-theists should not debate theology.  I am not opposed to such a concept. I just think that if such a debate is going to take place it ought to be one that actually has a place of debating such a discussion properly.  

Currently, this is not the case. I have not seen any debate or discussion on this forum which actually debates such theology with such an objective. 

I do not agree with you. The terms atheist (which incidentally I reject and why I call myself a non- theist)  is based entirely on a false premise.  Theists - yes they have a reasonable basis to call themselves theist. They believe in a theist.  

To put this difference as a "slight variation in how individuals, input, assimilate and output similar data" is one of the naivest things I have ever heard."  I mean - what a load of crap. Do you seriously believe it is only a slight variation? What an enormous load of codswallop - AND  so insulting to all theists.  Do you really want a debate or do you simply want to tell them what you think? 

It is ridiculous and elitist. It is mindboggling that anyone would actually think such a thing is appropriate.  It is embarrassing. It makes me be embarrassed to be a non-theist.  Stop being such a jerk. 

the difference between a theist and a non-theist is striking.  it is important. It is not simply a slight variation. Far out Zed. If it was only such a slight variation - then it would really not make much difference at all. 

you insult both theists and non-theists.  With respect you reduce what is one of the most profound questions in the universe almost to a "typo" and that is not good enough. It demonstrates that you - have not given significant thought to this question as all.  

No. You just keep saying you can't discuss religion while in a religion forum. Makes no sense.  

Hi Tim.

Religion is neither a question nor profound.

Religion is a response to a profound question.

Same question in....Same process...Variable output relative to conditioning.....Label if you will.

And you're very good at codswallop and attempting to insult.

But I just don't do insulted.

I can discuss this sort of BS with you, all day long.

And if you've read my stuff, you will see that I run with the idea of a GOD principle, but not one of the Arabian floaty about blokes.

So how would you label me?

And stop being a jerk and discuss if you are serious.

Though I have my doubts.