Satanic Baphomet statue unvealed in Detroit

[Len Cnut]

Go into the General chat thread and see the post about 'autosum'

[magisme]

Shut the fuck up. You know I'm onto you.

[DieselDaisy]

But I am not talking about an argument against theism (or in favour of atheism), but an argument against gods that interact with the material world. You still don't get it

As I said, the only example of gods which behave as you imply is the anthropomorphic deities of the Ancient Greeks. What do you require here? Gods who shop at Sainsburys? I do not understand your argument at all. Even the god of the New Testament was interpreted through the ministry of a son (of god).

is based on the smug conceited arrogance that ''atheism is the only true belief'' and to differ is some sort of crime. This is what it all goes back to: ''it is fake...leprechauns and unicorns...I'm right and you are wrong'' shouty shouty posturing.

Atheism isn't a belief, it is he absence of belief. Just like you don't have a belief in the non-existence of unicorn, I don't have a belief in the non-existence of gods. You have an absence of belief in unicorns, and I have an absence of belief in gods. Get it?

As for what you say it goes back to, well, yes, leprechaus and unicorns are with very high probability not real. If you believe they are real then I will actually be so blunt as to say you are wrong and I am right. As for believing in gods that interact with the material world, I don't go quite that far, for various reasons (one of them not wanting to insult an actual widespread belief and one that you can at least theorize an active god that through stealth remains unseen), but suffice say that you are most likely wrong and I am most likely right, based on the very simple fact that you have no evidence supporting the belief in an active god.

This diversion in semantics is certainly not reflected here: to all intents and purposes in regards to how you, Lithium, Dazey (et al) act, it is a belief and a belief that is obviously very passionately held! An absence of belief usually transpires into indifference.

It is the argument of absolute intolerance, every bit as intolerant as some of the more extreme examples of religion such as today's young advocates for Sharia Law and the 17th century's Puritans.

The huge difference being that we don't want to force anyone to follows tenets from our absence of belief (largely because we are nice people and largely because there are none), whereas many from the extreme side of theism actually want to impose their beliefs and correlated laws on others. That difference is pretty crucial, don't you think?

The posts here by three-four people are proof that this is blatantly untrue.

I dunno, I haven't seen anyone in this thread trying to force anyone to follow anything. I must have missed them. Which posts are you thinking about?

If somebody is going ''It is fake. I'm right and you're rock'' etc etc., on a daily basis, the implication is certainly there.

[Dazey]

As I said, the only example of gods which behave as you imply is the anthropomorphic deities of the Ancient Greeks. What do you require here? Gods who shop at Sainsburys? I do not understand your argument at all. Even the god of the New Testament was interpreted through the ministry of a son (of god).

Sounds like you just didn't get what he meant.

[SoulMonster]

But I am not talking about an argument against theism (or in favour of atheism), but an argument against gods that interact with the material world. You still don't get it

As I said, the only example of gods which behave as you imply is the anthropomorphic deities of the Ancient Greeks. What do you require here? Gods who shop at Sainsburys? I do not understand your argument at all. Even the god of the New Testament was interpreted through the ministry of a son (of god).

is based on the smug conceited arrogance that ''atheism is the only true belief'' and to differ is some sort of crime. This is what it all goes back to: ''it is fake...leprechauns and unicorns...I'm right and you are wrong'' shouty shouty posturing.

Atheism isn't a belief, it is he absence of belief. Just like you don't have a belief in the non-existence of unicorn, I don't have a belief in the non-existence of gods. You have an absence of belief in unicorns, and I have an absence of belief in gods. Get it?

As for what you say it goes back to, well, yes, leprechaus and unicorns are with very high probability not real. If you believe they are real then I will actually be so blunt as to say you are wrong and I am right. As for believing in gods that interact with the material world, I don't go quite that far, for various reasons (one of them not wanting to insult an actual widespread belief and one that you can at least theorize an active god that through stealth remains unseen), but suffice say that you are most likely wrong and I am most likely right, based on the very simple fact that you have no evidence supporting the belief in an active god.

This diversion in semantics is certainly not reflected here: to all intents and purposes in regards to how you, Lithium, Dazey (et al) act, it is a belief and a belief that is obviously very passionately held! An absence of belief usually transpires into indifference.

It is the argument of absolute intolerance, every bit as intolerant as some of the more extreme examples of religion such as today's young advocates for Sharia Law and the 17th century's Puritans.

The huge difference being that we don't want to force anyone to follows tenets from our absence of belief (largely because we are nice people and largely because there are none), whereas many from the extreme side of theism actually want to impose their beliefs and correlated laws on others. That difference is pretty crucial, don't you think?

The posts here by three-four people are proof that this is blatantly untrue.

I dunno, I haven't seen anyone in this thread trying to force anyone to follow anything. I must have missed them. Which posts are you thinking about?

If somebody is going ''It is fake. I'm right and you're rock'' etc etc., on a daily basis, the implication is certainly there.

- All the abrahamic religions believe in various degrees in a god that interacts with creation, like when it responds to prayers by changing outcomes of diseases, interferes with accidents, helps athlets win, etc etc. I am astounded this was new to you.

- Absence of belief would mean indifference only when it isn't contrasted by strong beliefs that make the world we live in worse. In case you didn't get that sentence: I would only be indifferent about theism if I felt theism was indifferent to me and my life and the world I live in. I happen to think that theism is bad for us, that it holds us back, that we would be better off without it. I am sure this will spur another of your attempts to counter that by pointing to esoteric instances of religion being good, or poiting to your favurite examples of religious art that wouldn't exist f it weren't for the folly of man, but let go.

- No, just because you think someone is wrong, like you think I am wrong, or when you think someone else is wrong, which surely happens regularly, then that doesn't mean you would like to force them to accept your position. Just because I happen to think we'd be better off without theism that doesn't mean I don't think freedom of religion is even more important. Freedom of speech, of mind, of thoghts, of beliefs, is MUCH more important to the world than that we all embrace rationality in regards to godly existemce. I am appaled that you are not able to understand that just because we disagree with you, then that makes us to bad persons who would like nothing more than the power to force you to submit to our will.