Taking The Gloves Off...

I didn't tell you what you meant, I told you what you SAID.

And I the reason I think it is absurd to lump those two groups together is due to their size: there has been exactly one abortion doctor murdered by a Christian fanatic. There have been almost 20K murders by Islamist fanatics since 9/11.

"Did you ever hear of “The Law Of The Hole?” When you are in one, quit digging. It’s time you put down your shovel"

By all means! Please take your own advice. The reason that I keep "digging" is that, as an Atheist, I refuse to be tarnished by nutcases that advocate for the eradication of other people, or even the forced eradication of their beliefs. Even if I grant you every benefit of every doubt, your article advocates for intolerance, just as every murderous Islamist psycho does. (Don't deny it - you explicitly state as much!) You were vague about the methods to use, but the underlying principle is identical. I want no part of it.

Well given that you provide no evidence to back up your claims I wonder who it is that is really misinformed. You claim to be free thinkers yet your bahavior is anything but open minded (which is also typical of most atheists I've known). I wash my hands.

Your elitist vitriol is fairly indicative of the anger your belief system is based upon and kinda proves my point that it is emotion not science that motivates atheists. And your heavy reliance on insult further suggests you don't have a whole lot in the way of cogent counterarguments.

Accordingly I'm not going to waste a lot of time on you but i will say one thing. I believe in the Big Bang and evolution and pretty much everything else currently proposed by modern science. and there is nothing in it that conflicts with my belief in the God of Judeo/Chroistian tradition. (And the same is true of most every Christian I know). Where you and I differ is that you seem to think that science is your exclusive domain. It isn't. Science simply looks at empirical evidence and makes judgments on the hows and whats and whens of natural history. But it has nothing at all to say of the why. The why is reserved for theology.

But simply because science does not address the why you assume it does not even exist. And this belief is based not on science (whihch says nothing of the why) but, as I said, on emotion. In short, it takes faith to say emphatically that God does not exist. And in my opinion from having been on both sides of the fence, that given all the evidence to the contrary it takes far more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.

Now yes there are some who believe that the Bible is in conflict with mainstream science and they steadfastly refuse to accept the idea that their interpretation of the Bible is exactly that, just one of many possible interpretations of Scripture. But how does that differ from that of the atheist who has his own interpretation of Scriutpure and refuses to accept that there can be any other.

I personally pity both groups. You are both in the fundamentalist and extremeist camps and because of it you miss out on a lot. But I would vastly prefer being under the rule of the absolutist fundamentalist than that of the relativistic fundamentalist (that is, the atheist) because those reigimes always seem to end up thinking genocide and death camops are a good idea. Do you have any evidence at all to dispute this fact? I've brought this up in all of my posts and thus far it appears to be something you atheists prefer to sweep under the carpet.

Your elitist vitriol

My...what? It's not elitist. I treat everyone that way.

is fairly indicative of the anger your belief system is based upon and kinda proves my point that it is emotion not science that motivates atheists.

Here we go...again. GROAN.
A. Atheism isn't a belief system, &
B. science is a methodology, not a catalyst.

And your heavy reliance on insult further suggests you don’t have a whole lot in the way of cogent counterarguments.

I might suggest that your heavy reliance on old, tired, constantly debunked talking points might be indicative of a lack of originality.

Accordingly I’m not going to waste a lot of time on you but i will say one thing.

You've already 'washed your hands' once, & threatened to go away.

I believe in the Big Bang and evolution and pretty much everything else currently proposed by modern science.

That's not a big surprise for me.

and there is nothing in it that conflicts with my belief in the God of Judeo/Chroistian tradition.

Judeo/Chroistian? Is that yet another obscure sect?
There's the flat earth, the 6 days of creation, the flood, the tower of babel, people wandering around in a desert for 40 years (it's a ten-day walk in a sandstorm), there's zombies, a darkness that covers the earth only TWO people saw - & yet somehow you can tailor this to your convenience.
How nice.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to think that science is your exclusive domain.

You should do abstract stand-up. That's HILARIOUS. I don't consider science (or any other damn thing) my 'exclusive domain'. I know how to share. You make a great deal of your assumptions based on no evidence. Which is standard fare for the religionist.

Science simply looks at empirical evidence and makes judgments on the hows and whats and whens of natural history.

Oh wow, a calendar day. You actually got a reasonable handle on science. How this is an 'exclusive domain' or a catalyst for my non-belief system is still yet to be explained cogently.

But it has nothing at all to say of the why. The why is reserved for theology.

There is no why.

But simply because science does not address the why you assume it does not even exist.

If the positive is unproven, the negative is given.

And this belief is based not on science (whihch says nothing of the why) but, as I said, on emotion.

This is known as the Negative Proof fallacy. I'm not making the extravagant claim here, you are. Prove it.

In short, it takes faith to say emphatically that God does not exist.

It takes evidence to say it does.

And in my opinion from having been on both sides of the fence, that given all the evidence to the contrary it takes far more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.

Your opinion ain't worth much. The 'former atheist' trope is usually trotted out by some malcontent who was a lazy thinker & didn't bother to address the context, but rather was an atheist because it was too much work to be religious, till they changed their minds.

Now yes there are some who believe that the Bible is in conflict with mainstream science and they steadfastly refuse to accept the idea that their interpretation of the Bible is exactly that, just one of many possible interpretations of Scripture.

The wholly bibble is in conflict with REALITY. You obviously haven't approached the topic objectively.

But how does that differ from that of the atheist who has his own interpretation of Scriutpure and refuses to accept that there can be any other.

See, it's insulting stupidity that invokes vitriol, not elitism. You manifest so very many fallacies, it's hard to take you seriously. This is the tu quoque fallacy.

I personally pity both groups.

I think everyone will get over that quickly.

You are both in the fundamentalist and extremeist camps and because of it you miss out on a lot.

You really don't know enough about me to make that call.

But I would vastly prefer being under the rule of the absolutist fundamentalist than that of the relativistic fundamentalist (that is, the atheist) because those reigimes always seem to end up thinking genocide and death camops are a good idea.

A. Move to Saudi Arabia, &
B. since atheism isn't a belief system, you can't make that claim.

Do you have any evidence at all to dispute this fact?

Of course I do. You wouldn't listen anyways. Hitler wasn't an atheist, you mook. Mussolini was. Hitler youth had to swear an oath to your 'Judeo/Chroistian' deity, they had belt buckles that said 'Gott Mitt Uns', & Mein Kampf is shot thru w/Christian scripture & statements.
It'd be nice if you knew wtf you were talking about.

I’ve brought this up in all of my posts and thus far it appears to be something you atheists prefer to sweep under the carpet.

Yeah, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. We've all heard it before. It's horseshit, plain & simple. People do what people do, regardless of what they believe. It's the biology, not the ideology.
Which you'd know, if you did any deep thinking & research on the topic.

@JV: It's disbelief, not denial. I'm atheist. I don't have a belief system. I lack a belief in gods. It's that simple. However, I'm always in search of the Talking Snake. Until the chatty creature is Fedexed to my house, I shall continue to lack belief. If you insist on metaphor, then we can certainly haul the Dead-Guy-On-A-Stick down the same road as the Talking Snake. I don't accept violence because enough violence was done to me as a child of Mexican Opus Dei parents in the name of the Bearded Guy, his Brat and the Pigeon. You never forget the images.

In response to just a few of the comments here.

Yes it is true that Hitler seems to have payed lip service to Christianity like a lot of modern politicans. But in private conversation it was understood that he was anything but. Now there are those who will dispute it but we also have the evidence. 6 million Jews killed in the gas chambers, 10s of thousands of Christian clergy thrown into death camps. This was a regime that was clearly at war with God. And if Hitler worshipped any God at all, it was himself. That said the argument stands. The atheist and statist regimes of 20th century stand as a constant reminder what can happen when a state adopts a relativistic moral philosophy. As they clearly demonstrate there is no end to how low we humans can degrade under such systems. This is not to say that on an individual level an atheist cannot be moral. They can. But when atheism become's the official (or unofficial in the case of the 3rd Reich) platform of the state the results are disastrous.

Moving on to one last item. I firmly reject the idea that a statement has to be falsifiable in order to be meaningful. There are plenty of incidences in life that are known with certainty that are not falsifiable. And while it is quite true that there can never be an empirical proof for the existence of God. It is possible to know that God exists as millions can attest, even though they have no falsifiable statements to confirm it. Beyond this though there are falsifiable statements that can invoked in an attempt to prove the existiecne of God. That booklet I suggested earlier is one of them. But given the closed mindedness I've seen demonstrated in this website, my guess is there is no one here that is interested. You all have your minds made up and anyone who disagrees or claims that they can prove otherwise is a simpleton or a jerk.

Yes it is true that Hitler seems to have payed lip service to Christianity like a lot of modern politicans. But in private conversation it was understood that he was anything but.

Yeah, we've heard all about the 'table talk' crap. He wasn't an atheist. Atheists don't wander around w/belt buckles that say "god is with us". They don't include oaths to gawd in their rites of passage for children. They don't PUT IT IN WRITING.

Now there are those who will dispute it but we also have the evidence.

Dispute what?

6 million Jews killed in the gas chambers, 10s of thousands of Christian clergy thrown into death camps. This was a regime that was clearly at war with God.

1st off, the Jewry being killed is a direct Christian legacy. Martin Luther was AH's hero (but you'd know that if you did anything resembling research) - it's the blood libel. 2nd, you clearly have no evidence that your deity exists.

And if Hitler worshipped any God at all, it was himself. That said the argument stands.

What argument? That he was an atheist? You wonder why people treat you w/such contempt on an atheist blog? You clearly don't have a clue.

The atheist and statist regimes of 20th century stand as a constant reminder what can happen when a state adopts a relativistic moral philosophy.

You don't even know what moral relativism is, do you? Or that it's not the default -ism for atheists. Those statist regimes were just that: statist. Blaming the ideology is stupid. People performed these acts, like they did in Bosnia, or the WTC towers. People just need an excuse.

As they clearly demonstrate there is no end to how low we humans can degrade under such systems.

Oh, that's right - because historically, Christianity is such a shining example. [/sarcasm off]
Oh but wait: you have excuses for all that blood shed.

This is not to say that on an individual level an atheist cannot be moral. They can.

Oh, that's mighty white of you.

But when atheism become’s the official (or unofficial in the case of the 3rd Reich) platform of the state the results are disastrous.

Really, how fucking stupid are you? They BANNED ATHEIST GROUPS! They paraded about claiming god was on THEIR SIDE! AH was no atheist, nor was he an xtian. He was a madman who wandered about borrowing whatever he felt like from wherever he liked. 1 might note, that under a materialistic viewpoint, crazies like Jones, Manson, Hitler, & numerous other republican serial killers would've been incarcerated, instead of being granted a free pass 'cause they're 'religious'.

Moving on to one last item. I firmly reject the idea that a statement has to be falsifiable in order to be meaningful.

Falsifiability:
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

There are plenty of incidences in life that are known with certainty that are not falsifiable.

Duh.

It is possible to know that God exists as millions can attest, even though they have no falsifiable statements to confirm it.

Oh yes, because we all know that the masses NEVER indulge in wishful thinking.

Beyond this though there are falsifiable statements that can invoked in an attempt to prove the existiecne of God.

None of which has been invoked here.

But given the closed mindedness I’ve seen demonstrated in this website, my guess is there is no one here that is interested.

Dawkins: "It's all right to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains spill out."
I'm interested. Just not 4$ worth of interested.

You all have your minds made up and anyone who disagrees or claims that they can prove otherwise is a simpleton or a jerk.

Claiming that Naziism was an atheist regime when all the historical data contradicts that puts you squarely in both camps.
Having an opinion is insubstantial without evidence.

How does mentioning something once become construed in your brain as whinging, or as I prefer whining on?
This is the only post I had a complaint about, because with all the words, there is no substance.
That is with the exception of your posts, which not only have no substance, you pride yourself on the lack of any.
All you do is give bitter commentary to other people's opinions.
And you do it in a most boring way.

How does mentioning something once become construed in your brain as whinging, or as I prefer whining on?

I meant in terms of annoying, not persistent.

That is with the exception of your posts, which not only have no substance, you pride yourself on the lack of any.

Wrong & wrong, but no surprise.

All you do is give bitter commentary to other people’s opinions.

Pot.kettle.black.

And you do it in a most boring way.

I'm crushed. (yawn)

Krystaiiine
What you said was "your whinging ON".
That denotes persistence.
If as you say, I'm wrong & wrong, please point out anything you have said of substance on this entire page.

That denotes persistence.

& you prove my point by continuing to respond.

If as you say, I’m wrong & wrong, please point out anything you have said of substance on this entire page.

Terribly sorry old chap, if I'm not spoon-feeding you your usual pabulum, but your lack of comprehension isn't my lookout.

Krystalline
When I asked you how mentioning something once is construed in your brain as "whinging on", you replied, "I meant in terms of annoying, not persistent."
I pointed out that whining "on" denotes persistence.
Now you say I proved your point.
Which point would that be?
Your first lie when after one short remark, you claimed I was whining on, your second lie when you claimed to mean it as annoying, not persistent, or this lie, which takes us back to your first?
When I ask you a very easy thing to do, if it existed, show me one thing of substance you have said on this entire page.
What's your response?
You choose to insult me rather than provide one example.
You say you have been posting here for six years, and I see why.
You could never hold your own on a forum that was not slanted to your point of view.

When I asked you how mentioning something once is construed in your brain as “whinging on”, you replied, “I meant in terms of annoying, not persistent.”
I pointed out that whining “on” denotes persistence.

My, you certainly are...PERSISTENT about this.

Now you say I proved your point.

Hoo boy.

Which point would that be?

Irony fail.

Your first lie when after one short remark, you claimed I was whining on, your second lie when you claimed to mean it as annoying, not persistent, or this lie, which takes us back to your first?

I wasn't lying: & your personal attacks are pretty lame.

When I ask you a very easy thing to do, if it existed, show me one thing of substance you have said on this entire page.

Do your own homework.

You choose to insult me rather than provide one example.

I say I've provided ample substance.

You say you have been posting here for six years, and I see why.
You could never hold your own on a forum that was not slanted to your point of view.

Gee Dr. Phil, you've found me out! GASP! Oh, whatever shall I do? (clutches pearls, faints onto couch)
Anyways, over it already.

Game, set, match.
Loser.

Game, set, match.
Loser.

WOW. I mean...WOW. How substantial. How...persistent.
You're about as intellectually challenging as arm-wrestling a toddler.
YAWN.