Freedom From Atheism

The atheist argument that follows along that trail is like trying to convince me that because you arent concerned with breathing you arent breathing.

 

No, it's not about science. We agnostics just don't believe it's possible to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of a Higher Power. If something or someone could be anywhere, and could be invisible, choosing to hide from us, I can't imagine how anyone could ever prove to a 100% confidence level that it doesn't exist. We can't search everywhere.

If a Higher Power does exist, I'm about 99% sure it doesn't bear any significant resemblance to the God of the Christian Bible. That's just one opinion that got written down by an ancient group of superstitious, uneducated, somewhat primitive men. They were nobody special. Parts of their book sound true because they knew a few things about human nature, just like the original Buddha did, and the authors of the Tao and the Satanic Bible and the Book of Mormon. Lots of smart, superstitious people have sense enough to put together a religious book that sounds halfway convincing. That proves nothing.

People tend to assume that a Higher Power would feel some sort of obligation to communicate with us and help us understand things. I think that's wishful thinking. If he's out there and has been watching us for a long time, he probably thinks we're idiots, and has no more desire to talk to us than you have to go to the city bus station in Berlin and start up a serious conversation with the stupidest person you can find there. Or maybe he's just an asshole, like most of us. Nobody knows.

 

It's called having an online reputation. You made it, now you have to live with it.

 

Yes, never heard any atheist threaten any believers to conform to their non-beliefs or be tortured for eternity.

-
"Believe what I believe of burn in hell forever"

EVIL

"Also, I will justify destroying or converting you by any means necessary"

EVIL

"Also, I'm a sinner and subliminally expected to sin by my religion and only need to ask for forgiveness"

EVIL

"Gott mit uns"

TEUFLISCH

 

OP, if you are with evil, it can only be maliciously fallacious to claim someone is keeping you from evil. Likewise, if you are with belief, it is dishonest to claim someone is blocking that belief. Your belief is in itself freedom from non-belief.

 

Claiming someone is 'free' to believe is patently absurd since there is no possible way anyone can prevent it or take it away. It should be crystal clear by now this is not about what cannot be taken away, its about what can be taken away which is freedom of religion in which one of the constituent elements is belief.

Simply denying that believing there is no god is the same as nonbelief in god carries identical meaning.
Feel free to posit your proofs that it is not.

 

For those whose research takes them only as far as 'your' part of the definition while refusing to acknowledge the philosophical arguments that examine this in great depth made by renowned philosophers that I have given you time and time again, well I suppose those people would consider you correct.

Until you can counter the arguments 'precisely on point' (which you have not thus far), rather than the continual context shifting that has been done, in which case, no you are not correct on any of the points as I have stated.

Your responses are designed to attract agreement from those who only desire to take a quick glance without any bonafide research.

The unending presumptuous context shifting and refusal to deal with the arguments in the same terms I presented them is why I skipped most of your posts and ultimately stopped responding to your posts on that topic.

Like above simply quoting my statements without 'direct' on point rebuttals either now or then fails in a debate which I why I would appreciate if you would not restate what you think my position is because you got it close to right only once.

 

Simple, you ask them their opinion about murder and instantly prove they are religious regardless of the answer they give, extremely simple if this were a court

About the only way I can think of that someone is not religious on some level is if they are brain dead or in a coma

 

I think I am in good company with these brain dead people..........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxyv00ze_Ac


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUWqBNMYihM

 

These are the kind of responses that tire me.

it has nothing to do with fragile, it has nothing to do with destroyed.

The gays had the opportunity to go one lousy block away to a gay friendly wedding cake store giving rise to the question if this was set up from the beginning to attack religious people and use the government to extort money from them.

There is no reasonable or principled on any level in fining the kliens 135,000 dollars for protecting their right to practice their religion on their property.

The atheists are demanding a right to trespass and walk all over long held religious practices of Christians.

Yes the atheists did in fact force their will and their religion upon the kliens.

Yes it did destroy the kliens, who are the targeted people.

Your doctor lawyer explanation is meaningless without any context and you failed to state any 'religious' context. That and are we to suppose to accept that there is only one doctor or lawyer in the country and no doctors or lawyers of the same religion, or accommodating religion to fill the gap?

Your example draws completely unrealistic situations leaning to frivolous and even absurd.

I already posted the supreme court case that explains the government does not have the authority to force people to operate against their religion along with the philosophical understanding and ground work. Is that not good enough?

 

good for you, too bad its entirely off topic and meaningless.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Z8XquDJT0

 

Your patience is commendable. I think the OP's case rests on the faulty premises that because religion "is and always has been 100% about 'good v evi', '[moral] right v wrong', 'good v bad', that atheists who have these concerns are being religious. This statement is fallacious in two respects. (1) religion has never been 100% about these things and for much of human history had little or nothing to do with them; and (2) even if that statement about religion were true, it would not follow that all people who are concerned about such matters are religious. Since the major and minor premises are invalid, the elaborate syllogism based on them must collapses like a stack of cards.

 

It's sad that your understanding of other people is so limited.

 

Such meek and meaningless attacks....i might have expected them, anyway....predictable, really.

 

Where do you live? I live in Oklahoma, the Buckle of the Bible Belt, where there are plenty of atheists. Nice folks.