Atheists! Is this true ?? (Page 5)

_SnugglePot_: ''crapping out pine cones and piss raspberry cordial.'' This would be a sight to see SnowRaven

level11: Ouch! It could even be quite a bit painful... LOL

SPIRIT-ONE: Let me be clear (for I never will say this again): The day I believe in any such 'god' is the day that I start crapping out pine cones and piss raspberry cordial.


I don't believe in gods but would sure hate to crap out pinecones

StuckInTheSixties: Wow! Robert_Paulson got banned!

Malobear: Yes SITS, he was asked to remove links to the wikileak post from a moderator. So, I guess he got the axe. News is the government is considering treason charges against the Wikileaks. Serious stuff. Might be a good discussion in the Freedom of Speech thread.

_SnugglePot_: Robert_Paulson got banned! for posting A link, that seems rather harsh. Don't they check to see if link is relevant to discussion?

But the link is still there, so how does that make sense to ban him but leave the link

EDIT in page Im referring to, was this it:

http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=1&ParentId=1082621&

KrAsH: Who knows why anyone gets banned in this place,ive seen people flaunt having multiple profiles and seen people post links all the time and nothing happens..

StuckInTheSixties: The rules are the rules. I violate them on occasion myself. Many people do. I guess it's in how you violate them that earns you the banning or not.

One of the rules is that you're not allowed to post unauthorized links. (I think they allow only Wikipedia and YouTube links.)

In Robert's case, he posted an unauthorized link, and a mod instructed him to remove it. Rather than complying, he argued. Unwise.

Poof. Gone.

_SnugglePot_: One should comply with the rules but I don't see much of an argument in that thread, I guess it was done in private.

Im going to check out this Wikileaks thing for myself.

StuckInTheSixties: It's a short argument, but it's there.

1. Robert posts the link. (He's even warned about it by another Wireclub user.)
2. Moderator Zhya asks him to remove it.
3. Rather than complying, Robert asks, "Please tell me why?" etc.

The enforcement of Wireclub rules is rather inconsistent, but attempting to justify breaking those rules by virtue of that inconsistency will get you in trouble. Think of it this way:

Speeding on the freeway is the violation of a traffic rule that is enforced rather inconsistently. But if a police officer stops you and tells you to slow down, it's not wise to argue with the officer that the rule isn't being enforced with consistency. Unless you're a fool, you refrain from that argument. You just say, "Yes, Officer. I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was speeding ..." and hope that the officer will let you off with a warning.

_SnugglePot_: Yes I get that but if the member understood why then he would comply (possible)

I do hope if I do something that is considered against the rules that its first explained to me so i don't repeat the same mistake. Being banned and not knowing why wouldn't be a nice thing.

Ill go read the rules more closely, rather than the skim over i did.

Thank you StuckintheSixties for taking to time to explain

So what was this thread about in the first place, thats right Atheists

SnowRaven: In my defence (or lack thereof) concerning pine cones and raspberry cordial, they'd hurt like hell but to me, at least, that's a bearable pain to endure than hearing about the salvation and love of a 'god' who is claimed to be all loving, but in reality is nothing more than a sadist who enjoys turning people to salt or flooding the planet just because it doesn't like what it sees.

I mean, COME ON! Religious fanatics preach 'all love' but have never once taken into account that their 'god' is also a vengeful bastard who'll turn you to salt should you even look at it the wrong way!

At least, that is my views on religion and I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree.

StuckInTheSixties: Well, I agree ... sort of.

_SnugglePot_: Al least Atheists don't come door knocking to preach their non belief, not in my neck of the woods anyway.

QuarterBreed: Most dictionaries like to define atheism as "the denial of the existence of God".

But is it really that simple?

In my experience, evidence and experience make up the proper foundation for any beliefs and those that make an assertion have the responsibility to prove it.

If a theist can't prove the existence of God to me, then I shouldn't have any logical reason to believe that God exists, now, should I? Why should I waste my time trying to imagine the non-existence of a concept as nebulous as a god? If someone told you that a sacred serpent in the sky ruled the universe, I'm sure that you wouldn't believe it either and although you would henceforth be known as "an aserpentist", you wouldn't be expected to start gathering evidence to disprove that an invisible creature resided up above, would you?

The closest to the theists' point of view that I am willing to go is to admit that God may exist as a powerful idea, which may be the cause of wars and horrible crimes, but also be an uplifting or at least a useful concept to some believers.

But that doesn't mean that there exists a physical presence that merits any kind of worship. Instead, I regard most theological elements as "useful lies", because they can teach you valuable lessons and other values, rather than letting you get depressed in certain situations or circumstances in life.

Thus, to me God only exists as just another such useful lie, at least until he decides that it's time to jump down and shake my hand.

†Jack☠OfHearts†™: JEEZ you all ask the wrong questions, there are MORE important questions like: WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF PINNOCHIO SAID HIS NOSE WILL GROW??!!!! seriously ...I find this question more important than religion.

RUBY: good point SITS

flashie: to believe in a creator doesnt negate evolution. as also belief in a creator doesnt mean you believe in sits or any other toilet frequenting 'man' in the sky. islam is as far removed from a beardy man in the sky than any religion ive ever heard of.

i believe in the poltergeist phenomenon as its been reported world wide for hundreds if not thousands of years. but that doesnt mean dead ppls souls wander the earth moving things around in ppls homes.

the phenomenon exists and is fact, the fallible human 'theory' of explaining it is wrong and incorrect.

same applies to evolution for me. i believe in the phenomenon but not in limited humans explanation and their huge egos.

the fact is science cant disprove god. NO ONE not even you sits knows, not theists or atheists.

maybe one day we can prove whether a creator exists or doesnt. until then we'll just keep arguing, and fighting, its our nature to do that.

food for thought, maybe a creator of the universe doesnt want to show itself. maybe thats the whole point? if the creator was on display everyone would believe and thered be much less fuel for hellfire.

amen

flashie: btw ninja turtle/gimp boot mask/etc etc has been banned tens of times. for being a troll. it doesnt require a story to understand it

flashie: people who think its their duty to ram their atheism as fact are as bad as ppl ramming their theology down ppls throats.

you both could be wrong, but instead of recognising that and being humble and open minded choose to point the finger at the other team.

youre retarded hypocrites imo.

im off to the rogan boards for some decent stimulating intelligent debate

peace be with yall

level11: Some years ago, I read a very interesting book about the poltergeist phenomenon, which explained it so neatly that I embraced the author's hypothesis on the spot.

What it basically boils down to, is that the subconscious mind of a person is able to suppress frustration, which then manifests itself as unexplainable noises and kinetic energy (things moving around by themselves). More often than not, such people are blissfully unaware that they are the cause of all the commotion, but it tends to follow them wherever they go until the conditon is treated by a psychiatrist.

Actually a far cry from dead people not being able to cross over into the afterlife, which is frequently used as a "supernatural" attempt to explain poltergeist.

flashie: personally id vie for the former explanation, which makes more sense to me in 2010.

but who knows? both explanations are possible

StuckInTheSixties: flashie says:
"the fact is science cant disprove god."

That is correct. It is also a pointless statement. See if you can relate that statement to this one:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Bertrand Russell - 1952

Do you understand the comparison?

flashie says:
"NO ONE not even you sits knows, not theists or atheists."

I agree. That's why I'm an agnostic. I'm not an atheist. Never have been. I'm not only an agnostic, but outspokenly so. What makes you think I'm an atheist?

flashie says:
"people who think its their duty to ram their atheism as fact are as bad as ppl ramming their theology down ppls throats."

I agree. That is why I object to references to religion appearing on money, in the USA's Pledge of Allegiance, being used within classrooms (other than in comparitive religion studies, etc.), prayers opening sessions of government bodies, etc. etc. I also would object to references to atheism appearing in the same way. If taxes pay for it, it should remain secular and neutral, without any references to either religion or atheism.

While I agree, generally speaking, I find it easier to coexist with atheists. They are generally less interested in "ram[ming] their atheism" than the religious are interested in "ram[ming]" their religion. For instance, as I just referred to religion being referred to in taxpayer funded entities, I don't see any atheists clamoring for atheist refereces being force upon the public in the same way. And no atheists seem to be shouting "(The inexistence of any) God is great!" just before triggering the suicide bomb in the crowded market.

flashie: well im glad were agreed on some things. i personally dont have a problem with atheists either, but for the sake of harmony and good natured debate on a website like this its polite to be open minded and avoid arrogance.

good for you being agnostic. i understand what youre getting at regarding the tea pot story and im glad you included the part about what is taught in schools en mass.

heres some quotes from a murdering atheist for balance, as its not just religious types who enjoy a bit of evil-

"Death is the solution to all problems - no man, no problem."

"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

stalin the athiest

flashie: "If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

^ever read 1984 by orwell or brave new world by huxley sits? those stories terrify me.