Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so sick of hearing "be good for goodness sake and just treat people well, you f'ing religious a$$hole." E.g. the eye-rolling atheist above. Are some of you really that clueless?

+1

The irony seems to be utterly lost on them.

I think you're mixing up a couple of posts. There's the one that says this:

"So, what you are saying is I should believe in your God because their might be a God? Or, how about I live a decent life, do no harm to others, treat my family well, etc. and then if there is a God, I think I'd do far better in the afterlife than someone who believes in God and did all kinds of horrible things while they were alive.

I don't need to provide proof God doesn't exist because there is no proof of existence. Your logic makes no sense. I'm not going to waste my life believing in something that may or may not exist."

And then the one with the eye roll. Neither one says anything remotely like "you f'ing religious asshole". Can you direct me to the post you're referring to?

You seem to be the one confused and missing up posters. Carry on.

In what way am I mixing up posters? (I assume you meant "mixing", rather than "missing", please correct me if I'm wrong.) Please give a detailed response, thanks.

In that I am the wrong poster? Is that detailed enough?

The first PP made a statement, and you agreed with it, assuming you're the "+1" poster. I responded to both of you. If either one of you could respond in some cogent way to my question, that would be great. Thanks!

Next time try responding to the original poster! Welcome to DCUM! Glad you're here.

I very specifically responded to both of you. As you might be aware, "+1" indicates that you agree with someone's post. Since you apparently agree with the first PP's post, perhaps you could go ahead and respond to my question?

How does one respond "very specifically to both of you". What is the difference between that and a normal response?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so sick of hearing "be good for goodness sake and just treat people well, you f'ing religious a$$hole." E.g. the eye-rolling atheist above. Are some of you really that clueless?

+1

The irony seems to be utterly lost on them.

I think you're mixing up a couple of posts. There's the one that says this:

"So, what you are saying is I should believe in your God because their might be a God? Or, how about I live a decent life, do no harm to others, treat my family well, etc. and then if there is a God, I think I'd do far better in the afterlife than someone who believes in God and did all kinds of horrible things while they were alive.

I don't need to provide proof God doesn't exist because there is no proof of existence. Your logic makes no sense. I'm not going to waste my life believing in something that may or may not exist."

And then the one with the eye roll. Neither one says anything remotely like "you f'ing religious asshole". Can you direct me to the post you're referring to?

You seem to be the one confused and missing up posters. Carry on.

In what way am I mixing up posters? (I assume you meant "mixing", rather than "missing", please correct me if I'm wrong.) Please give a detailed response, thanks.

In that I am the wrong poster? Is that detailed enough?

The first PP made a statement, and you agreed with it, assuming you're the "+1" poster. I responded to both of you. If either one of you could respond in some cogent way to my question, that would be great. Thanks!

Next time try responding to the original poster! Welcome to DCUM! Glad you're here.

I very specifically responded to both of you. As you might be aware, "+1" indicates that you agree with someone's post. Since you apparently agree with the first PP's post, perhaps you could go ahead and respond to my question?

How does one respond "very specifically to both of you". What is the difference between that and a normal response?

It means that I purposefully responded to your "+1" post, rather than just PP's. But you know this, and are clearly stalling at this point.

I'll just go ahead and conclude that you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to respond to my (very simple) question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so sick of hearing "be good for goodness sake and just treat people well, you f'ing religious a$$hole." E.g. the eye-rolling atheist above. Are some of you really that clueless?

+1

The irony seems to be utterly lost on them.

I think you're mixing up a couple of posts. There's the one that says this:

"So, what you are saying is I should believe in your God because their might be a God? Or, how about I live a decent life, do no harm to others, treat my family well, etc. and then if there is a God, I think I'd do far better in the afterlife than someone who believes in God and did all kinds of horrible things while they were alive.

I don't need to provide proof God doesn't exist because there is no proof of existence. Your logic makes no sense. I'm not going to waste my life believing in something that may or may not exist."

And then the one with the eye roll. Neither one says anything remotely like "you f'ing religious asshole". Can you direct me to the post you're referring to?

You seem to be the one confused and missing up posters. Carry on.

In what way am I mixing up posters? (I assume you meant "mixing", rather than "missing", please correct me if I'm wrong.) Please give a detailed response, thanks.

In that I am the wrong poster? Is that detailed enough?

The first PP made a statement, and you agreed with it, assuming you're the "+1" poster. I responded to both of you. If either one of you could respond in some cogent way to my question, that would be great. Thanks!

Next time try responding to the original poster! Welcome to DCUM! Glad you're here.

I very specifically responded to both of you. As you might be aware, "+1" indicates that you agree with someone's post. Since you apparently agree with the first PP's post, perhaps you could go ahead and respond to my question?

How does one respond "very specifically to both of you". What is the difference between that and a normal response?

It means that I purposefully responded to your "+1" post, rather than just PP's. But you know this, and are clearly stalling at this point.

I'll just go ahead and conclude that you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to respond to my (very simple) question.

I never posted the OP and merely agreed with them, but I will admit to find it entertaining that you continue to go after me, despite me explaining this to you multiple times. But don't let me stop you, carry on.

[Anonymous]

By kind to PP. He slurs his words when he gets drunk. And also gets confused easily. Maybe you should re-post the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give me proof that God exists and then I will believe. Seems simple enough.

The problem is no one cares enough to convince you. Why would they?

Again, provide some kind of proof. You obviously care or you would not be posting. No one is giving you a hard time about believing in God, so why do you have to give those who do not believe a hard time? Maybe this is your about you and your faith than about others faith?

I don't know how to tell you this, but I am not your servant. I don't have to provide "proof" to you, lol. I don't care whether you believe it or not. The "why would I" is genuine- how do you think it affects anyone else whether you believe or not?

So, you have an issue with Atheists as they don't believe in God. But, you are right in believing in God, but when someone asks you for proof so they can share in your beliefs, you refuse and use lame comments like: "I am not your servant." I am asking you to share your wisdom and knowledge of a world I am not a part of. That has nothing to do with being a servant. A servant is when I ask you to bring me a glass of wine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give me proof that God exists and then I will believe. Seems simple enough.

The problem is no one cares enough to convince you. Why would they?

Again, provide some kind of proof. You obviously care or you would not be posting. No one is giving you a hard time about believing in God, so why do you have to give those who do not believe a hard time? Maybe this is your about you and your faith than about others faith?

I don't know how to tell you this, but I am not your servant. I don't have to provide "proof" to you, lol. I don't care whether you believe it or not. The "why would I" is genuine- how do you think it affects anyone else whether you believe or not?

So, you have an issue with Atheists as they don't believe in God. But, you are right in believing in God, but when someone asks you for proof so they can share in your beliefs, you refuse and use lame comments like: "I am not your servant." I am asking you to share your wisdom and knowledge of a world I am not a part of. That has nothing to do with being a servant. A servant is when I ask you to bring me a glass of wine.

I have no issue with atheists. Literally none, as I don't think of them, ever. Not unless I come on the religious forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By kind to PP. He slurs his words when he gets drunk. And also gets confused easily. Maybe you should re-post the question.

Heh. It was a very simple question! Just asking for clarification on the "f-ing religious asshole" comment. It's a shame, I enjoy an intellectual debate about these sorts of things, but I have to assume PP is a little out of her depth here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so sick of hearing "be good for goodness sake and just treat people well, you f'ing religious a$$hole." E.g. the eye-rolling atheist above. Are some of you really that clueless?

+1

The irony seems to be utterly lost on them.

I think you're mixing up a couple of posts. There's the one that says this:

"So, what you are saying is I should believe in your God because their might be a God? Or, how about I live a decent life, do no harm to others, treat my family well, etc. and then if there is a God, I think I'd do far better in the afterlife than someone who believes in God and did all kinds of horrible things while they were alive.

I don't need to provide proof God doesn't exist because there is no proof of existence. Your logic makes no sense. I'm not going to waste my life believing in something that may or may not exist."

And then the one with the eye roll. Neither one says anything remotely like "you f'ing religious asshole". Can you direct me to the post you're referring to?

You seem to be the one confused and missing up posters. Carry on.

In what way am I mixing up posters? (I assume you meant "mixing", rather than "missing", please correct me if I'm wrong.) Please give a detailed response, thanks.

In that I am the wrong poster? Is that detailed enough?

The first PP made a statement, and you agreed with it, assuming you're the "+1" poster. I responded to both of you. If either one of you could respond in some cogent way to my question, that would be great. Thanks!

Next time try responding to the original poster! Welcome to DCUM! Glad you're here.

Yes, PP. Glad you could join us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By kind to PP. He slurs his words when he gets drunk. And also gets confused easily. Maybe you should re-post the question.

Heh. It was a very simple question! Just asking for clarification on the "f-ing religious asshole" comment. It's a shame, I enjoy an intellectual debate about these sorts of things, but I have to assume PP is a little out of her depth here.

It's spillover from another thread. He is still all fired up about it. Probably the same person who has posted 1000 athiest posts in the past few days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By kind to PP. He slurs his words when he gets drunk. And also gets confused easily. Maybe you should re-post the question.

Heh. It was a very simple question! Just asking for clarification on the "f-ing religious asshole" comment. It's a shame, I enjoy an intellectual debate about these sorts of things, but I have to assume PP is a little out of her depth here.

It's spillover from another thread. He is still all fired up about it. Probably the same person who has posted 1000 athiest posts in the past few days.

I did notice an uptick in these sorts of threads...I just assumed it was someone all riled up after spending Christmas with their more-successful atheist cousin or something.

[Anonymous]

And now the atheist club is chatting about me. All because I gave a +1. Gee, who knew one could intuit so much from an agreement? It almost seems... mystical!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are lots of atheists whose minds need "proof" of religious concepts, but they haven't found it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It's just a different set of mental requirements.

Sure, a strict religious background will cause some people to rebel.

There are also plenty of atheists who share that basic human need for a tribal identity. I don't think that's necessarily bad either. Celebrate your own choices. It's only bad when you start bullying people of faith as a way of solidifying your own choices.

There is a subset of atheists who need to feel victimized and persecuted and seem to seek it out even where it may not exist (like the recent Christmas thread). In their case, the root of the problem probably lies elsewhere in their lives and and many could probably benefit from help.

Signed, a religious person

Maybe those people are just the loudest? They seem to make up a large part of the DCUM atheist voices, at least

The whole premise of this thread makes no sense. In my experience on DCUM, what I see are believers insulting and starting fights with atheists for no reason. Then when the atheists reply to these insults - or hit back in the fights - they are further insulted.

OP, atheists are atheists because they do not believe in God. Some do not believe because there is no proof. Some cannot believe that God can exist in a universe in which some individuals must undergo such terrible pain. Others were brought up that way by their parents and never really gave it a second thought.

Whatever reason atheists have for being atheist, respect it, and stop insulting them. Their lack of belief has no impact on and is not a statement on your belief. Please move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And now the atheist club is chatting about me. All because I gave a +1. Gee, who knew one could intuit so much from an agreement? It almost seems... mystical!

Gosh. Maybe we should start a new religion so we can control people. That's all it takes, right? A little mysticism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now the atheist club is chatting about me. All because I gave a +1. Gee, who knew one could intuit so much from an agreement? It almost seems... mystical!

Gosh. Maybe we should start a new religion so we can control people. That's all it takes, right? A little mysticism?

Sounds like you guys have the "magical thinking" down pat! Next you all will be reading each other's tarot cards! A new kind of atheist, I get- a believing one!

[Anonymous]

^get=guess