So Awesomely Offensive Toward Religion
-
ZAROVE — 11 years ago(November 21, 2014 03:50 PM)
You're trying way too hard ot maintain the status quo of the Arygkents you roefer.
When I say I sometiems see other peopels Deities as just thir exoression of the same god, soemhow I'm sayign tey are wrng. WHen I say soetiems the gods of old were personificatiosn of naturalforces, I'm still sayign their gods are fictional. Meanwhile, youhave the Right toi tell me what I beleive and what I'm saying, but heaven frbid I do the same for you.
This is really simple. I don't beleive that Atheism is a mere lack of beleif in gods ebcause that's not only not how the word is acually deined, but also because it makes no sense o define it that way. I also don't buy into the insistence that Atheism is a lakc of beeif because those who insist on it generlaly argue that gods din't exist. It's splittign hairs mroe to tll me that someen is saign "My" god doesnt exist but doenst say all gods dn't exist then it is for me to say itherwise, and frankly, its shallow of you.
We both know that popel can claim things that arent True and that peopel can get caught up in stock arguments and proaganda, I just realise that Atheists are liek that tooin rtegards to Atheism.
No, I'm not sayign all Athusts are alike, but lets face Reality, you haven't really even tried to convicne me I'm wrong, somuch as youve ust decided ot attack aythgi I say. -
hadmatter — 11 years ago(November 30, 2014 04:37 PM)
I don't need to convince you that you are wrong, because all the evidence is in my favor, meaning that
nothing
will convince you. The only truth that matters regarding
another person's
belief is what that person claims to believe, and how they express that belief. Your refusal to accept an individual's personal testimony is not an argument, dude, it's just denial.
The idea of simply lacking a belief in something does not make sense
to you
. Fine. But that is merely your own shortcoming, and does not actually undermine the entire concept. You seem to fall short when it comes to the relatively simple idea of
being unconvinced
. If someone is
unconvinced
by evidence that has been presented, it does not mean that they are forced to pick a side anyway. They are completely within their rights to remain on the fence. To
lack belief
one way or the other.
The idea of gods is
utterly unconvincing
. But I certainly cannot claim absolute knowledge of the universe. I do not discount the possibility of gods
as a concept
because there may well be evidence out there. Somewhere. That neither I nor anyone else has ever encountered.
And there are plenty of people who feel the same way. But you discount them because you don't share their point of view.
All you have shown me is that
some
claim that there are no gods. You have not shown me why I should feel obliged to take that same position just because somebody else does.
You have also shown me that when an atheist makes the claim that
your
god doesn't exist, you someone extrapolate from that a claim that
no
gods exist. That is dishonest.
This is really simple. I don't beleive that Atheism is a mere lack of beleif in gods ebcause that's not only not how the word is acually deined
No. There are multiple definitions, because people who call themselves "atheists" are not all the same. You have chosen to only acknowledge
one
definition, another example of your dishonesty.
but also because it makes no sense o define it that way
to you.
Obviously, many disagree, which is why you are forced to make this claim over and over again.
I also don't buy into the insistence that Atheism is a lakc of beeif because those who insist on it generlaly argue that gods din't exist
Even if this were true and unassailable, you yourself have been forced to add "generally" because
you know that it is not true of all who make this claim.
It's splittign hairs mroe to tll me that someen is saign "My" god doesnt exist but doenst say all gods dn't exist then it is for me to say itherwise, and frankly, its shallow of you.
It is
accurate
of me. When someone says that they believe
your
god is fictional, it
makes no claim
about the veracity of any other god. I can believe in Bigfoot but not the Loch Ness Monster. They are both cryptozoological animals, but some people still believe in one but not the other.
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
Ironman54 — 10 years ago(August 16, 2015 10:31 PM)
-
Ironman54 — 10 years ago(August 16, 2015 10:32 PM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope
f'n numbnutz -
DepressedOptomist — 10 years ago(February 28, 2016 04:50 PM)
So you're like the individual walking down the street with his friend. The friend looks up in the sky, and sees a Boeing 747 flying across. The friend says, "Isn't it remarkable all the engineers, machinists, electricians, and others that came together to fashion a several ton flying steel structure like that?"
You reply, "Are you kidding me. There was no intelligence behind making that object fly. I'm sure all those parts were lying around in a junk yard, and a great wind came up and those parts came together to form a Boeing 747!! Intelligent design my ass!!"
So please tell me how living tissue and complex life forms and organisms came randomly into being from rock and goo since you believe in science and intellect. -
Woodyanders — 2 months ago(January 14, 2026 01:58 AM)
I wasn't remotely offended at this movie's jabs at religion and evolution. They were done in a spirit of good-natured fun that was more amusing than offensive.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.