Groundhog's day

[ghoulslime]

Jerry seems to think that if he thrusts his wanton ass vigorously against the gang bang, some how he will no longer be the bukake bottom bitch. It's a matter of faith for him. Time for Jerry to pray for the rock-hard cock of his salvation!

[The Judge]

selliedjoup wrote

ha I've got 2 kids. Keep projecting sweetheart, your level of hyprocrisy and your apparent failure to recognise it is alarming. I find it scary that you point people in the right direction when it comes to advising them on emotional stability. That said, it does tend to be those who are more flawed than the average bear who take any interest in establishing a cause for thought patterns. It's like a politician (theortically) looking to create some form of utopia, yet the vast majority of people who are have no business being there.

I'm intrigued:
1.) How is it exactly that bears are flawed?
2.) The tone here seems to say that psychologists (those who take "any interest in establishing a cause for thought patterns") are...bad???

[The Judge]

selliedjoup wrote

I think that Athiesm in general is espoused as 'correct' here, it has a few items in the fine print but the level here of criticism directed at those who think otherwsie reeks of "indisputable facts". Or do most here just go on a hunch for their athiesm?

It is ironic how "indisputable facts" are so repugnant to you yet you label your "god" in his way with no physical proof.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Let us begin anew sellied, since you seem to think that I'm not responding to the things you've said. You see, I am willing to entertain the possibility that I am wrong, so I am willing to go back and "try again," as you suggested.

selliedjoup wrote

After browsing through the posts here it seems many regulars go over the same arguments again and again and again and again and again...

True enough. That is because the believers who occasion our little corner of the vast Interwebs tend to offer the same arguments in the defence of their beliefs again and again and again and again and again.

The fact that some of us still take the time to explain to each subsequent theistic guest the failings of their arguments rather than telling them to bugger off in increasingly-vulgar terms (thought some of us do that as well) is evidence that some of us are incredibly patient people.

And those of us who tell believers to bugger off in increasingly-vulgar terms are some incredibly creative people, because inventing ever-more imaginative ways to tell people to go away is no easy task.

selliedjoup wrote

How can so many here dedicate such a lot of their free time to negate something they can’t either define or conceptualize?

In the same way that so many in Christian churchs can dedicate such a lot of their free time to worship something they can't either define or conceptualize.

None of us comes here to negate anything. None of us here (as far as I know) believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Sasquatch, and we don't go to any lengths to "negate" them either.

But we live in a world where the theistic beliefs of other people are frequently imposed on us, either by believers acquiring positions of power and thereby enacting laws that enforce their religious beliefs or simply by dealing with believers insisting that, because we don't agree with their beliefs, we are evil and will be subjected to eternal punishment.

It's a stifling environment out there, and so we come here, like patrons to a dingy little cyberpub, to get away from it all. That's it. Just a little peace and quiet from all the institutionalized superstition out in the big bad world.

Now, when a believer decides to ignore the huge neon sign out front that says "RAVING ATHEISTS" and come into our little pub anyway to make their religious arguments, then we will negate their arguments. And we answer with the same arguments again and again because we deal with the same arguments again and again. And we've dealt with them before.

Every theist who comes here does so under the delusion that they're going to tell us something we've never heard before. None ever has. Most of us used to be believers, and we know what flawed thinking and arguments believers use to prop up their beliefs.

Why is it, do you think, that believers come here, to a website called The Raving Atheists Forum? Would they appreciate a nonbeliever walking into their church and laying waste to all of their precious beliefs? Why do they do unto us what they would not have us do unto them?

selliedjoup wrote

If so, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

The correct quote is: "The lady protests too much, methinks."

[ghoulslime]

The Judge wrote

1.) How is it exactly that bears are flawed?

Jerry is trying to establish his superiority as a twink.

[ghoulslime]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

None of us here (as far as I know) believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Sasquatch...

Sir, you go too far!

[anthonyjfuchs]

It's not like I demeaned the almighty Leprechauns or anything.

I'm a skeptic, not a fool

[Choobus]

selliedjoup wrote

The highjacking of science to present some atheist viewpoint is not justified.

what the fuck are you on about you fool? Hijacking science from theists (which is the implication of your inane ramblings) is not dissimilar to stealing soap from the great unwashed.

[anthonyjfuchs]

The great wonder of science is that it's not a singular, discrete thing. There's not just one "science" being kept in a vault somewhere in Europe where you have to go and sign it out in order to use it. It is not a thing that can be "hijacked."

Anyone who employs the rigorous methodology of researching, hypothesizing, experimenting, analyzing and interpreting is engaging in a scientific pursuit. Atheists can use scientific methodology at exactly the same time as fundamentalist Christians in researching different matters.

The reason that it appears that nonbelievers have "hijacked" science is because they are the only ones using it. If Christians used science, there would be no Christians. But they can use it any time they want, if they're prepared for the faith-shattering consequences.

[Choobus]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

If Christians used science, there would be no Christians. But they can use it any time they want, if they're prepared for the faith-shattering consequences.

I am not sure that they can, since being a christian (or any theist) requires a mindset that is not compatible with science. If christians seriously tried to use science they would probably just shit themselves and fall over well before reaching any faith shattering conclusions, and then just spend the rest of the day lying on the floor in their own shit stinking the place up (although it is true that lying and stinking is a lot like what they normally do).

[ghoulslime]

Choobus wrote

I am not sure that they can, since being a christian (or any theist) requires a mindset that is not compatible with science. If christians seriously tried to use science they would probably just shit themselves and fall over well before reaching any faith shattering conclusions, and then just spend the rest of the day lying on the floor in their own shit stinking the place up (although it is true that lying and stinking is a lot like what they normally do).

That might explain all of Jerry's lying and stinking.

[selliedjoup]

Choobus wrote

I am not sure that they can, since being a christian (or any theist) requires a mindset that is not compatible with science. If christians seriously tried to use science they would probably just shit themselves and fall over well before reaching any faith shattering conclusions, and then just spend the rest of the day lying on the floor in their own shit stinking the place up (although it is true that lying and stinking is a lot like what they normally do).

It's simple, science disproves literal religion (e.g. life bgean 6000 years ago) and that's all. If you've got scientific evidence which guarantees why Atheism is correct I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, as per usual, you're just spouting and shouting shite.

[anthonyjfuchs]

We don't have evidence, which is why we don't believe.

That's what atheism is, after all. Not believing.

As long as you fail to present evidence for supernatural claims, atheism will remain correct.

[Choobus]

selliedjoup wrote

It's simple, science disproves literal religion (e.g. life bgean 6000 years ago) and that's all. If you've got scientific evidence which guarantees why Atheism is correct I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, as per usual, you're just spouting and shouting shite.

I tell you what cuntface, you tell us what properties your god has that could be tested, and then we will see if there is any evidence that suggests that your god actually exists. Although I don't claim to gave any psychic powers, I nevertheless predict that you won't be coming up with anything testable, and thus your silly god will remain in the same category as bigfoot, alien anal probes and thetans; that is, absurd nonsense believed primarily by simpletons or the mentally ill.

[Simoon]

selliedjoup wrote

If you've got scientific evidence which guarantees why Atheism is correct I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, as per usual, you're just spouting and shouting shite.

I guess no matter where atheists debate, theists will continue to post crap like this demonstrating that they completely misunderstand atheism and worse, misunderstand where the burden of proof lies.

Theists make a claim that a god exists. Atheists simply disbelieve that claim.

What evidence would you like to be presented that there are people (atheists) that disbelieve theists claim that a god or gods exist?