What’s that? You say that no matter how hard somebody believes something, that doesn’t make it true? Well hell, then maybe we should stop trying to shove our beliefs down people’s throats and let them live their lives.
This thread isn’t about whether or not God exists. It’s about respecting threads that take that existance as a given for the purpose of discussion. There’s absolutely no reason to go shitting all over such threads. If an athiest sees such a thread, he should take a deep breath, count to 10, and go onto something else. That’s all. And if you’ve never shitted all over a thread like that, then thank you.
Really, I’ve got no beef with what you believe or how you act. It’d be nice if y’all could show me the same courtesy.
Regardless of whether you do or do not believe in God (or any shade of belief in between), can you at least agree that it’s rude to go in to a thread whose premise requires some sort of belief and then hijack it by categorically asserting the contrary?
Sorry, but you’re a liar. I didn’t shit in your god thread because I don’t intrude in clubby type threads, anymore than I would if you were discussing Star Trek or Barbie dresses. I responded in this thread because it was a direct challenge to atheists to shut up, and you called me “intolerant” for saying what I believed and for bweing less-than-reverent to theism.
I’d say it’s also rude to go into a thread like “So who here’s an atheist” and say “God exists. That’s all there is to it.” If it isn’t a debate thread, why bother starting shit in it? It isn’t like folks are discussing their favorite Beatles album or something similarly mundane.
(Your post quoted so my post wouldn’t look like a non sequitur. I mean no implication that you have done what I detailed above.)
If you like hair splitting then yes, both are opinions, one based in facts and logic, and the other not; I spare you wich one has more weight on me.
Almighty beings beliefs have been around much longer than that, besides since then it has yet to be proven the existance of God, not the other way around, you can´t prove a negative and all that.
I agree, wholeheartdly so.
Nope, the existance of God (any one) has yet to be proved, therefore it is NOT a fact that there is a God, so you can´t state that both positions, wheter there´s a God or not it´s a fact.
I´d like to point out that I´m perfectly fine with people beliving whatever they fancy, but I draw the line when they start mudding the waters with things like satating that the existance of God is a fact, or that Creationism is a valid theory (not that it has been proposed by anyone here, just and extreme example), etc… Belive what you want, but don´t twist reality like that.
I agree, people should be free to maintain a conversation or debate on a topic without external, tendentious interference.
Perhaps they should consider it. Maybe that’s the movement’s problem: it isn’t sufficiently media-savvy.
They could start their own anti-religious network–a Trinity Broadcasting for atheists. I, for one, would like to see what their counter-proselytizing shows would be like.
Well, this thread makes clear how much fucking good I’ve done in six years here – to wit, and with cites, fuck all, zero, zilch, forget it – you could have saved your breath.
Not because people disagree about God – that’s life. But because they have no idea that it’s possible to respect each other, and care about each other, even if they disagree.
I didn’t really need to have to face this right about now. But it’s probably a good thing that it came out, and I did.
Enjoy your battles – you seem to like them more than the idea of peace, after all.
However (and this may just be because, as a theist, I’m more sensitive to theistic threads getting shat in), on the SDMB, I think it’s way, way more common for debates or discussions on religious topics to get hijacked with “There is no God. You may as well believe in a pink fairy” type stuff then for atheist-themed threads to get hijacked with “Y’all are goin’ to burn in he-ell!”
A) I didn’t start this thread. Go take a look at the OP, note the difference between my name and his.
B) I never accused you of taking part in what the OP described. In fact, I believe I wrote “And if you’ve never shitted all over a thread like that, then thank you.”
C) No, I don’t have a problem with what you believe or how you act. The fact that you remind me an awful lot of other evangalists, yeah. That bothers me a little.
But regardless of all that, if you don’t make a habit of doing what the OP outlined, then I don’t see any real issue here. This thread is about them, not you.
The premis of this thread is that it is an opinion, not a fact.
Anybody who disagrees with that premis is saying that it is a fact. Therefore the onus is on them to prove that fact, that there isn’t a god. If anybody wants to take a shot at that go ahead.
If someone claims “there is a god” is fact then the onus is on them to prove their fact. However that is not the claim of this thread.
It’s pretty damn simple logic. “You can’t prove there is a god” is not a falsification of the statement “You can’t prove there isn’t a god”. Both statements can be concurently valid and since I am not aware of any argument in the 10,000ish years of humanity that prove either way, both statements are true. Which pretty much, by deffinition, means that either thought is an opinion.
The funny thing is that in my opinion it’s perfectly logical to study theology without believing in a god anyway.
In the context of the linked thread, “There is no God” doesn’t even answer the OP all that well anyway. (Maybe one could make an argument that there is no importance to theological study, but I think it would need to be fleshed out a whole lot more.)
Don’t despair, just yet, Poly. I suspect that the participants in this thread are not your actual audience, anyway, having chosen their sides, their views, and their approaches to their opponents years ago.
Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as you theists love to hammer into our poor little heads.
Fine.
How about, given the predominantly fictional nature of the Judeo-Christian scriptural account of World History (just to pick an example), the utter lack of any objective reason to lend credence to the posited view of the Ultimate as the munificent, concerned, and all-knowing-and-powerful Diety of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the extant plethora of other religious traditions, all making equally unsupportable, often mutually-exclusive claims to absolute truth, with no objective means of discerning which should be favored, and the wealth of evidential information being uncovered on a daily basis strongly suggesting no supernatural agents are required to explain the natural world, I say I find the whole notion of the existence of a worshipful God pretty damned unlikely.
That seem more intellectually honest and sufficiently respectful of your delusion?
(Now, if I were to start a Pit thread on religious issues, I believe that I would rant against the notion that I was worshipping a being whose sole concern was what I ate, based on the overwhelming prevalence of references to some (never quite identified) Diety. Theist or atheist, could you people please learn how to type “Deity”?)
