The Law Of Contradiction

To paraphrase:The mere fact that [fundie Christians] spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to [per]suade you in [their] faith coupled with the fact that many of them turn rabid against [anything but fundie Christianity] speaks very loudly that there is still part of them that [that is terrfied that they are wrong], and in certain respects, [understand how absurd their ideas are].

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

There it is, plain and simple - arrogance.You and your ilk are utterly unable to accept, even conceive, that anyone who disagrees with you could have possibly given the matter deep thought, serious thought, and come to a different conclusion.There is no introspection going on inside of me. I'm 45 years old. I've spent a great deal of time contemplating the possible existence of some diety. I am not agnostic. I'm not uncertain. I'm not undecided. I don't believe the jury is still out. I have concluded that there is no god.You want another reason why atheists talk about gods? It's simple. I'm sure you've heard it before. But you dismiss it out of hand. It's the truth, at least as far as we believe it to be. I'm willing to accept at face value your motives as you state them. Are you willing to accept mine? If not, I suspect it's your arrogance getting in the way.I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting that if you simply gave the matter more thought you'd agree with me. I'm not that arrogant. But I will close with this quote:"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts.If you are interested in understanding the atheist position, and not just concocting a straw man that you can easily demolish, think about that statement.Edited by subbie, : To provide complete quote.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

You gave the first reason, something about all atheists deep down believing that god does exist, that's why we can't stop talking about it, or something along those lines. I've perused your posts in this thread and I'm not sure I know why you believe it's irrational and self-refuting. If you could spell it out for me, I'll let you know if I accept it or not.As far as the Roberts quote goes, can you supply a rational reason for rejecting the other gods that you don't believe in that does not similiarly explain a disbelief in all gods?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I said this: Your response was: I see absolutely nothing there that shows that atheism is either irrational or self-refuting. At most it makes the charge, without any evidentiary support, that some indeterminate number of atheists are vociferous in their criticism of religion because of their insecurity in their beliefs.At least one answer to your question has been provided several times in this thread. Your arrogance apparently prevents you from even considering that the proffered explanation is accurate, so it must be a subconscious belief in god. Quite interesting that you chose Zeus as your example. I'm not aware of any religions active today that actually worship Zeus.What about Allah? I've certainly seen great number of christians, almost always fundie types, argue with great passion that islam is not a true religion. For that matter, we're all aware that in some parts of the world christians are killing one another because they don't worship christ properly. Do some atheists get over excited in debating godstapo types? I've never met any, but you claim to have. I'll take you at your word. Are you so quick to assume that those who vehemently argue against islam suffer a similar insecurity? Do you suppose that the protestants and catholics who kill one another are both secretly afraid that the other side has the truth and they don't? If not, what's the difference?I'll say it again; your assumption that anyone who argues with you about god might be doing so out of insecurity in their own beliefs is arrogance in the extreme. I don't expect you to see it that way, that would be completely inconsistent with such arrogance. I don't even expect you to spend any time seriously thinking about it.Dr. Adequate asked why you spend time arguing against atheism. Your explanation: Of course the atheist is able to claim this. I claim it. I don't think that any belief in any deity has ever provided any benefit to any person that they could not have found through another medium. What's more, I don't think you can point to a single organized religion that hasn't done a great deal of harm. I think if we could convince everyone to give up religion, the world would be a better place.Here's the difference: I acknowledge that most individuals who try to "spread the gospel" do so because of their genuine belief that it is in the best interests of those they are trying to recruit. You, however, in your arrogance, cannot even conceive that the evil atheists could possibly have anyone's best interests in mind.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Would you say the same thing about the statement, "I believe there is no Zeus," or Thor, or Santa Claus, or Satan, or Bigfoot? Why is is irrational and scientifically indefensible to deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and which is inconsistent with the laws of physics?Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin