Atheism, a dangerous idea?

It all goes back to the Puritains.Those were the first settlers, you know, and they were religious wackos.

quote:

---

Remember that the christian fundamentalists only represent a small portion of the voting population here in the U.S.

---

Really?I thought that it was an important voting block which had a very high voter turnout rate.Wouldn't that make it a large percentage of the voting population?

Er, while I completely agree with everything you wrote in your post, tnone of it actually addresses what I was saying.I thought that the fundamentalist vote was a rather large proportion of the US voting public compared to the population as a whole.You have stated that they are actually a small proportion of the voting public.Which is it?

quote:

---

One thing that scares me about an Atheistic point of view, is the uncertainty of what they believe in. Even when I was agnostic, I always felt the golden rule was a good thing to follow. This came from "God".

---

No it didn't.It came from people.It is not unique to Chirstianity, nor to any other religion or belief in the supernatural.Buddhism is based upun the golden rule to some extent.

quote:

---

Liberals and athiests believe in the "greater good", which is whatever they think it should be at the moment. I know that is way to general of a statement, but it represents a good portion of people.

---

Christianity does the same thing.It used to be considered by Christians that it was "for the greater good" for white men to run things.

quote:

---

Your response made no sense at all. Did you misunderstand me?

---

nwr just fed you back your own reasoning, rat.If it makes no sense...

quote:

---

But an atheist can do what ever he wants. He act how he feels at the moment, and does have a set of morals to live by, and if he does, we just don't know what they are.

---

You write the most offensive, insulting things, rat.

quote:

---

IT's amazing how you both mis-interpret what I say, then gang up on me.
Way to go.

---

Rat, look.You write in simple declarative sentences that leave little room for interpretation.Over and over again you have claimed that you are being misunderstood and misinterpreted, but I find it difficult to believe that all of us could have such incredibly poor reading comprehension.I think you are quite clear, actually, but when we kick the crap out of your arguments, you just whine that you have been misunderstood while not bothering to explain yourself more effectively so that we do understand.I think you are using the "I've been misunderstood" thing as a ruse to not have to address our rebuttals, since you have been known to be as slippery as a greased weasle under a sprinkler.

NPR does an essay series in which they invide various people to expound upon the phrase "This I believe".Penn Gilette's was entitled "I Believe There Is No God"You may read and/or listen here.Enjoy. It's good.Edited by schrafinator, : fixed caps

quote:

---

It's not all of us, only a select few, who's ideals seem to coinside with each other.

---

Er, no.Lots of members here don't even bother responding to you anymore rat.

quote:

---

You are not "kicking that crap" out of anything other than your own misunderstanding.

---

Like I said.You write in simple declarative sentences.There is not much to misinterpret or misunderstand.If we get it wrong, it's because you were unclear. If we continue to get it wrong, it's because you continue to be unclear.However, I don't think this is the case. I think you mean exactly and precisely what you write. I don't think we misunderstand you in the least.But when we demolish your argument, you slide behind being "misunderstood".

quote:

---

You know for a fact, if I am wrong, I admit it, something I have never seen you do.

---

I do it all the time.You do it far less than you think you do.

quote:

---

I am honored by that statement, really I am.

---

You shouldn't be.I just called you a dishonest debater.

quote:

---

Robinrohan is right, atheism often leads to sentimental tripe in the place of Purpose.

---

Penn Gilette seems intelligent, happy, compassionate, and loving.If you think that this is "sentimental tripe", then I pity you.

quote:

---

I don't know who Penn Gilette is, but being happy and loving and so forth has got nothing to do with either morality or purpose.

---

Er, sure they do.To love others and feel compassion for them are part of many moral codes.It is also part of many people's chosen purpose.

quote:

---

Wow, you can speak for everyone here, amazing.

---

I never said I spoke for everyone.I said only what I know, and I know that many posters here don't bother responding to you anymore.Why did you change "many" to "everyone"?

quote:

---

Well, thats just not true.

---

I'm just telling you what things seem like to me.You write in simple declarative sentences. If we get it wrong, it's because you were unclear. If we continue to get it wrong, it's because you continue to be unclear.However, it seems to me that you mean exactly what you say, and that we understand you perfectly well the first time we read your posts.But hey, if you would rather be considered to convey your ideas so poorly that many people continually misunderstand you, then OK.

quote:

---

I know what you called me, I am just honored that you think I can be so slick, when I am really not slick at all. It's pretty funny actually, and just another mark in the belt of marks where you have decided to attack the person, and not the arguement. Congrats.

---

I'm not attacking you, I am attacking your debating tactics.I don't think that dishonest debating tactics arise from particular cleverness or "slickness". I think that they are a symptom of a combination of not thinking through all of the logical or factual ramifications of a position before stating it, a tendency to forget one's own claims and position in the midst of debate, and also a tendency to dig one's heels in and refusing to budge no matter what.They are a last resort; a grasping of straws, as it were, in debate. It's done without needing to think about it much; sort of like the man who says "It's not what it looks like!" to his wife when she walks in on him in bed with some woman he's having an affair with. Trying to weasel out of things occurs naturally, as a reflex.You just indulged in one above; I said "many" and you changed it to "everyone".Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Keep attacking me, and that is what you'll get. Lots, and everyone, are a lot closer to each other, than the actual truth.

---

Digging your heels in now, are you?Funny how you keep fulfilling my description of your tactics, be they consciously done or not!

quote:

---

You make it sound like there is some kind of EVC conspiracy against the ratboy from hell.

---

If you call my honest assesment a conspiracy, so be it.

quote:

---

If .999... can equal 1, then lots can equal everyone, whats the problem?

---

So, by this logic I may make note of a position held by "many" Christians and then state that "all" Christians hold that position.Is this what you are saying?If "many" Christians in Pre-Civil War America supported the institution of slavery, then it can be said that "all" Christians in Pre-Civil War America supported it.Correct?"Many" and "all" have practically the same meaning, according to you, don't they?Or, have I just "misunderstood" and "misinterpreted" you when you said:

quote:

---

...then lots can equal everyone, whats the problem?

---

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Something you always do. You seem to think by proving that lot's and everyone are different, that somehows proves your point, when it doesn't matter whether lots and everyone are the same or not, for purposes of this forum rule breaking sidebar.

---

No, it is precisely that "many" and "everyone" are NOT equivalent words that is the point of this sidebar.You misrepresented me.You accused me of speaking for "everyone" when I most certainly did not.Now that I have called you on it and have you backed into a corner, you are rather astonishingly suggesting that it doesn't really matter.I am sorry that you feel so persecuted, but when you persistently do these things, and then pretend like you didn't, or that it doesn't really matter, then I am simply forced to press the matter.However, this time, you win. I give up."Many" and "all" really do mean the same thing, as you say.I fully expect to hear absolutely no objection from you, EVER, if I make a claim about all Christians holding a certain position, even if only "many" Christians actually hold it.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It is just funny how the conversation went from there. Very defensive.

---

Don't you tend to get defensive if people constantly characterized your worldview as completely evil, if the president himself said that you and people who believed like you shouldn't be allowed to call yourselves citizens of the United States, or patriots of saidsame country?