Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

^^ TBH I usually skim or blow past the longer preachy paragraphs on this forum. If I wanted to hear rants, random shouted words, bad metaphors and faulty logic coming out of a stranger who thinks they know more about myself than I do, I'd get up earlier on a Sunday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

^^ TBH I usually skim or blow past the longer preachy paragraphs on this forum. If I wanted to hear rants, random shouted words, bad metaphors and faulty logic coming out of a stranger who thinks they know more about myself than I do, I'd get up earlier on a Sunday.

Did you just reply to yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

^^ TBH I usually skim or blow past the longer preachy paragraphs on this forum. If I wanted to hear rants, random shouted words, bad metaphors and faulty logic coming out of a stranger who thinks they know more about myself than I do, I'd get up earlier on a Sunday.

Did you just reply to yourself?

No-- to the "Hey, thanks" poster above.

So, are you the preachy pp above? If so, look at the words in all-caps that you are yelling. You sound frightening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

^^ TBH I usually skim or blow past the longer preachy paragraphs on this forum. If I wanted to hear rants, random shouted words, bad metaphors and faulty logic coming out of a stranger who thinks they know more about myself than I do, I'd get up earlier on a Sunday.

Did you just reply to yourself?

No-- to the "Hey, thanks" poster above.

So, are you the preachy pp above? If so, look at the words in all-caps that you are yelling. You sound frightening.

Where is the all caps? I don't see it from any of the above responses. Are you sure you're on the right thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

^^ TBH I usually skim or blow past the longer preachy paragraphs on this forum. If I wanted to hear rants, random shouted words, bad metaphors and faulty logic coming out of a stranger who thinks they know more about myself than I do, I'd get up earlier on a Sunday.

Did you just reply to yourself?

No-- to the "Hey, thanks" poster above.

So, are you the preachy pp above? If so, look at the words in all-caps that you are yelling. You sound frightening.

Where is the all caps? I don't see it from any of the above responses. Are you sure you're on the right thread?

"VERY ANGRY
EVIDENCE PROOF
PROVE EVIDENCE
TRUE PROVED"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

^^ TBH I usually skim or blow past the longer preachy paragraphs on this forum. If I wanted to hear rants, random shouted words, bad metaphors and faulty logic coming out of a stranger who thinks they know more about myself than I do, I'd get up earlier on a Sunday.

Did you just reply to yourself?

No-- to the "Hey, thanks" poster above.

So, are you the preachy pp above? If so, look at the words in all-caps that you are yelling. You sound frightening.

Where is the all caps? I don't see it from any of the above responses. Are you sure you're on the right thread?

"VERY ANGRY
EVIDENCE PROOF
PROVE EVIDENCE
TRUE PROVED"

I do think you might have the wrong thread. What you have quoted is nowhere on the above quoted or even the rest of the page. Best of luck

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

^^ TBH I usually skim or blow past the longer preachy paragraphs on this forum. If I wanted to hear rants, random shouted words, bad metaphors and faulty logic coming out of a stranger who thinks they know more about myself than I do, I'd get up earlier on a Sunday.

Did you just reply to yourself?

No-- to the "Hey, thanks" poster above.

So, are you the preachy pp above? If so, look at the words in all-caps that you are yelling. You sound frightening.

Where is the all caps? I don't see it from any of the above responses. Are you sure you're on the right thread?

"VERY ANGRY
EVIDENCE PROOF
PROVE EVIDENCE
TRUE PROVED"

I do think you might have the wrong thread. What you have quoted is nowhere on the above quoted or even the rest of the page. Best of luck

Why do you always need evidence for everything. Can't you just believe PP?

[Anonymous]

Im sn atheist bc i just dont believe. Look at this world and all the suffering and then go hail your God. My mother was religious and died in a horrible way by cancer. What religionyou are most likely reflects who you were born to. How does that reflect faith? How does it make you right and domeonebornto another faith wrong? Think for youself and if you still believe in God, wonderful. If not, well there you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist who is only out to some people in my life because they all seem to take it personally (despite my being demure and respectful, before you all jump down my throat). Which is always so interesting to me that they get defensive if they have such strong faith. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about agnosticism (which seems to grate on theists less) vs atheism. There is no practical reason to believe in god or entertain his existence because we have been provided with no evidence whatever. So when I do "come out" I just say I'm an atheist. I don't do it to be different. I do it because that's who I am. Most of my friends and family are atheists so it's not nonconformity. I think that when you do tell a believer, they think to themselves "this person thinks I'm wrong." But if a christian told a muslim they were christian, they might just think "well, that I can at least respect." We are definitely underground. It sucks.

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of god or not, because "evidence" can be anything and you don't have to believe that "evidence" proves anything if you don't want.

What's VERY interesting about what you posted is that you actually leave the door open FOR the existence of [a]God by implying that your atheism is predicated on a lack of evidence to prove God exists. So, that means if someone was able to produce evidence of God's existence, you would believe God existed. To me that doesn't sound like an atheist at all.

What you are actually doing probably subconsciously in these conversations you have is subtly challenging religious people to somehow provide you with the evidence you seek to prove to yourself that God exists. I think that's where a lot of atheists are coming from too. They are ANGRY and disillusioned because there is no EVIDENCE that god exists which removes a sense of order from the universe. They are mad at people who believe in god based on faith rather than evidence--atheists want PROOF. Atheists are always saying "but you can't PROVE god exists, there is no EVIDENCE for it" confusing god with a science project.

Why should it make any difference at all to an atheist if someone says they have "evidence" for god's existence? What level of evidence would sufice? Even if god actually talked to an atheist, the atheist, applying logical reasoning, would be forced to assume he was having a delusion, and that the evidence was not real.

Listen, the existence of yourself and the universe is sufficient "evidence" of the existence of god if you want it to be. However, it does not "prove" god exists. The existence of the universe is merely consistent with the existence of god. It is also consistent with the non-existence of god. As Godel or was it Goldbach proved, in any logical system, there will always be statements which are true but cannot be proved. So our Universe may be a system in which the statement "God Exists" is TRUE but cannot be PROVED. Or it may not.

However, you can't seriously claim to be an atheist based on the reasoning that no one has proved the existence of god to you, or that you haven't proven it to yourself, or disproven it.

Hey thanks for showing up and giving a great example of a religious person espousing incredibly mean and ridiculous stereotypes about atheists!

^^ TBH I usually skim or blow past the longer preachy paragraphs on this forum. If I wanted to hear rants, random shouted words, bad metaphors and faulty logic coming out of a stranger who thinks they know more about myself than I do, I'd get up earlier on a Sunday.

Did you just reply to yourself?

No-- to the "Hey, thanks" poster above.

So, are you the preachy pp above? If so, look at the words in all-caps that you are yelling. You sound frightening.

Where is the all caps? I don't see it from any of the above responses. Are you sure you're on the right thread?

"VERY ANGRY
EVIDENCE PROOF
PROVE EVIDENCE
TRUE PROVED"

I do think you might have the wrong thread. What you have quoted is nowhere on the above quoted or even the rest of the page. Best of luck

Why do you always need evidence for everything. Can't you just believe PP?

pp pulled words in caps from an earlier post. As for the need for evidence, it's not a unusual or weird thing. We expect (and receive) evidence for a lot of what we believe and act on. Religion is in a different category, where people are expected and encouraged to believe without evidence or even despite evidence. Some people can manage that easily, others try unsuccessfully and others just don't do it and don't see the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

You have to see how that feels like meaningless semantics to us

It is meaningless semantics. That's the whole point. It's not sufficient for an atheist to simply say they don't believe in god or have no religion. They have to attack religion. That's what being an atheist is really all about. It's not metaphysical, it's psychological and political.

Has an atheist ever answered that question by saying "I prefer not to discuss my personal beliefs" or "that's private"?

Do you think it's a political position to declare yourself a Christian if asked about your religion? Or do you just say that its private?

In my mind when someone asks me what religion I am and I say atheist I'm saying I don't believe in god. That's it, that's what atheist means, nothing more nothing less.

You just made what appears to be about 4 very combative posts in a row being very rude to atheists. It would be refreshing of your theist pals called you out on that considering I have called my fellow atheists out on their rudeness.

............crickets..............

Theist here who hasn't been involved in this part of the discussion yet. If only one of you could be bothered to call out Groundhog on her anti-Catholic bigotry (and it's not even obvious that was an atheist) then you can't expect lots of us to help you out here. I'm not catholic, but I was appalled by the lack of tgere from you atheists.

Groundhog's straight-up bigotry is a lot "meaner" and more "hateful" than whatever pp is speculating about here. I'm not getting the faux outrage. It doesn't hold a candle to all the stuff you guys say about religion and believers on a daily basis and then plus one each other over. Stop whining, and just tell her she's wrong and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im sn atheist bc i just dont believe. Look at this world and all the suffering and then go hail your God. My mother was religious and died in a horrible way by cancer. What religionyou are most likely reflects who you were born to. How does that reflect faith? How does it make you right and domeonebornto another faith wrong? Think for youself and if you still believe in God, wonderful. If not, well there you are.

OK this is pretty typical of how a lot of atheists reason. They argue or imply that we should be able to see that God doesn't exist because of all the misery and suffering in the world. How could a just God let that happen?

Now, the problem with this mode of reasoning is that the existence of misery in the world isn't logically speaking an argument against the existence of God. A religious person could argue that God made the whole package including all the misery and therefore the bad comes with the good. Sweet and sour. Yin and yang. Or, maybe God is evil (maybe a Satanist would argue that). But an evil God who creates a world full of misery is still a God.

What it actually is, isn't an argument against a non-existent God. It's actually a complaint TO God--"God--why should I believe in you if you cause all this misery and suffering?" So again atheism is perceived as a reaction against the existence of God, because God is not doing a very good job--not an argument for God's non-existence.

[Anonymous]

"pp pulled words in caps from an earlier post. As for the need for evidence, it's not a unusual or weird thing. We expect (and receive) evidence for a lot of what we believe and act on. Religion is in a different category, where people are expected and encouraged to believe without evidence or even despite evidence. Some people can manage that easily, others try unsuccessfully and others just don't do it and don't see the point."

Again another typical atheist argument. This one isn't really saying God doesn't exist. Rather, it says the evidence presented for God's existence is insufficient to satisfy the atheist's need for tangible certainty of God's existence. Which implies that the atheist believes there is some form or quantum of evidence, which if provided, would satisfy the atheist that God in fact exists (although what that evidence that would satisfy the atheist of God's existence isn't specified). It's not a statement that God is non-existent, it's an affirmative demand that God's existence be proved with evidence, because the atheist actually would like that proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

You have to see how that feels like meaningless semantics to us

It is meaningless semantics. That's the whole point. It's not sufficient for an atheist to simply say they don't believe in god or have no religion. They have to attack religion. That's what being an atheist is really all about. It's not metaphysical, it's psychological and political.

Has an atheist ever answered that question by saying "I prefer not to discuss my personal beliefs" or "that's private"?

Do you think it's a political position to declare yourself a Christian if asked about your religion? Or do you just say that its private?

In my mind when someone asks me what religion I am and I say atheist I'm saying I don't believe in god. That's it, that's what atheist means, nothing more nothing less.

You just made what appears to be about 4 very combative posts in a row being very rude to atheists. It would be refreshing of your theist pals called you out on that considering I have called my fellow atheists out on their rudeness.

............crickets..............

Theist here who hasn't been involved in this part of the discussion yet. If only one of you could be bothered to call out Groundhog on her anti-Catholic bigotry (and it's not even obvious that was an atheist) then you can't expect lots of us to help you out here. I'm not catholic, but I was appalled by the lack of tgere from you atheists.

Groundhog's straight-up bigotry is a lot "meaner" and more "hateful" than whatever pp is speculating about here. I'm not getting the faux outrage. It doesn't hold a candle to all the stuff you guys say about religion and believers on a daily basis and then plus one each other over. Stop whining, and just tell her she's wrong and why.

My post from the Christmas thread after someone explained to me what groundhog meant

Well the groundhog poster clearly seems a big unhinged.

-atheist

This anti atheist PP is being very mean and hateful actually. You'll see in this thread if you feel like reading it that while you clearly have a couple of atheist trolls here, when you actually call atheists out, real rational and not mean people show up. I'm an ex catholic that has nothing but respect for catholicism and who has frequently chimed in on anti catholic posts from time to time actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im sn atheist bc i just dont believe. Look at this world and all the suffering and then go hail your God. My mother was religious and died in a horrible way by cancer. What religionyou are most likely reflects who you were born to. How does that reflect faith? How does it make you right and domeonebornto another faith wrong? Think for youself and if you still believe in God, wonderful. If not, well there you are.

OK this is pretty typical of how a lot of atheists reason. They argue or imply that we should be able to see that God doesn't exist because of all the misery and suffering in the world. How could a just God let that happen?

Now, the problem with this mode of reasoning is that the existence of misery in the world isn't logically speaking an argument against the existence of God. A religious person could argue that God made the whole package including all the misery and therefore the bad comes with the good. Sweet and sour. Yin and yang. Or, maybe God is evil (maybe a Satanist would argue that). But an evil God who creates a world full of misery is still a God.

What it actually is, isn't an argument against a non-existent God. It's actually a complaint TO God--"God--why should I believe in you if you cause all this misery and suffering?" So again atheism is perceived as a reaction against the existence of God, because God is not doing a very good job--not an argument for God's non-existence.

Your logic is bad. There aren't rational or hard logic arguments for good because God is speculative. Believing in him requires faith. Your argument against this idea is all predicated on the existence of god (ie, it's just a coolant to good not an argument against). Atheists don't have faith, faith is a critical part of believing.

[Anonymous]

When talking about atheists, you have to distinguish between vocal atheists and chill atheists. It's like differentiating between in-your-face evangelical Christians and Christians who keep their religion personal... not ashamed of it, but just don't bring it up all the time.

Vocal atheists are annoying as hell and probably do enjoy being non-conformists. It would make sense that that's your most common "sample."

Chill atheists are atheists because they don't believe in God, and they really just don't put a lot of time into thinking about their atheism. You probably don't even know they're atheists, maybe you just have never talked religion with them or figure you don't know where they go to church. Non-conformism is probably much less likely to be a factor for them.