Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by skekUng
You have not been paying attention. I do not say that as though you are stupid, but I've certainly been involved in my own part of this angle of the conversation since I first started participating in it. I do not mind being confronted. I have stood in a parking lot for three hours and argued with Mormons until they decided to leave. This hasn't been about confrontation. It [b]has been about placing yourself in an innocent, nonconfrontational position so you can "argue around the intellect" of anyone that disagrees with your religious perspective, because you profess to be "just asking questions" and letting the other person in on some truth you think they're too stupid to accept or figure out for themselves. I get that christians have a mandate to spread their faith. I've only involved myself in this discussion so far as to point out how so not innocent their tactics are meant to be. It's a very calculated and trained way of presenting the argument for their own religious choices. The whole wounded and innocent curious act is just a veil for the proselytizing they've been trained to do. Again, to reference an earlier statement in this thread or another, it's all about getting butts in the pew and making themselves feel more secure in their own choices. Their choices are none of my concern. But, I'm not going to let someone flat out decieve others into believing their academic curiosity has a damn thing to do with expanding their own outlook, especially when coupled with statements about the truth of noah's ark and arguments to everyone's response to their baiting questions. If you think I took the bait, that's fine. I just chose to point out the flaws in it's strategy, not to give it the rope with which to hang my own position. Even you're trying to do that. [/B]

😆 You are totally oblivious.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, surely, that doesn't mean that hostile beliefs=peaceful beliefs. I don't see under what logic a belief that has purposely violent tenants would still be equal to one that doesn't.

What are the two thing you are talking about? What is this "belief that has purposely violent tenants"? Also, what is this "one that doesn't"? Can you put some nouns in there?

Originally posted by inimalist
you mean in a forum where people discuss their personal beliefs with eachother?

or more in general? is interest not a satisfying enough answer? curiosity? comprehending other people?

There was just two people fighting. I was asking one of them, the one that was there, why they gave a shit. However, I enjoyed the debate I had with Symmetric Chaos, that followed. So, you can see I already know the answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 You are totally oblivious.

It's okay to respond to my post with the same accusation I made of your understanding. I know you are, but what am I?" is a totally valid method of rebuttal. Several times, in several threads I believe, I've asked you to support the accusations you've leveled at me, and you have not once done anything of the sort.

When you feel like putting more effort into your response than a emoticon and childish avoidance, we'll talk.

Originally posted by skekUng
It's okay to respond to my post with the same accusation I made of your understanding. I know you are, but what am I?" is a totally valid method of rebuttal. Several times, in several threads I believe, I've asked you to support the accusations you've leveled at me, and you have not once done anything of the sort.

When you feel like putting more effort into your response than a emoticon and childish avoidance, we'll talk.

You never addressed my question, and just talked around it. You obviously didn't read or understand any of my posts, so from my point of view, you were completely oblivious.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What are the two thing you are talking about? What is this "belief that has purposely violent tenants"? Also, what is this "one that doesn't"? Can you put some nouns in there?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm trying to understand how you can claim Buddhism is more peaceful than Christianity, and then say Atheism=Christianity on the basis that "humans are more alike than different". That kind of idea applies to everything, but you are only using it when it suits you.

It is very simple. I never said "=", and when you put that word in my mouth, I said, no, I wouldn't say equally violent.

Are you saying that Atheists have some kind of teaching that says do not cause harm, like the Buddhists do?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is very simple. I never said "=", and when you put that word in my mouth, I said, no, I wouldn't say equally violent.

Right you would say "just as" which is a synonym to "equally". See:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is exactly why I think atheism is just as prone to violence as Christianity, they are both humans.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Right you would say "just as" which is a synonym to "equally". See:

Yes I know. I should have made myself more clear.

Oh wait, I did several times.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is very simple. I never said "=", and when you put that word in my mouth, I said, no, I wouldn't say equally violent.

Are you saying that Atheists have some kind of teaching that says do not cause harm, like the Buddhists do?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think that atheism has no teachings whatsoever. I would assign it a "harm value" of 0 if pressed. I think there are lots of interpretations of christianity that do promote harmful acts. Those are more dangerous than atheism, to me.

No, no, no! Humans have a higher number then 0 without any teaching. Humans have to be taught not to be violent. Therefore, a religion like Buddhism would be closer to 0, and atheism would add nothing to the equation.

I'll put it another way; Christians are at war with Satan, and Atheists are at war with Christians. Again Buddhism is not at war with anyone.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, no, no! Humans have a higher number then 0 without any teaching. Humans have to be taught not to be violent. Therefore, a religion like Buddhism would be closer to 0, and atheism would add nothing to the equation.

I'll put it another way; Christians are at war with Satan, and Atheists are at war with Christians. Again Buddhism is not at war with anyone.

The atheists are at war with Christians, is nonsense of course, the "it does not add anything" is true though. Which explains why Buddhists can not be at war with anyone and still be atheists (as they are).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'll put it another way; Christians are at war with Satan, and Atheists are at war with Christians. Again Buddhism is not at war with anyone.

Atheism can't be at war with anyone since it has no teachings to give to its followers.

And wait a second if people are naturally violent and Buddhism has teachings against violence then wouldn't Buddhism be at war with, at least, violence itself and, at most, human nature?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You never addressed my question, and just talked around it. You obviously didn't read or understand any of my posts, so from my point of view, you were completely oblivious.

These are the only two questions you asked me in the post I addressed.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was talking about being confrontational. If you don’t like when Christians are confrontational with you, then why would you do the same?

Then why have you spent most of the last few posts talking about The MISTER as “it”?

I answered the first one:

Originally posted by skekUng
I do not mind being confronted. I have stood in a parking lot for three hours and argued with Mormons until they decided to leave. This hasn't been about confrontation. It [b]has been about placing yourself in an innocent, nonconfrontational position so you can "argue around the intellect" of anyone that disagrees with your religious perspective, because you profess to be "just asking questions" and letting the other person in on some truth you think they're too stupid to accept or figure out for themselves. I get that christians have a mandate to spread their faith. I've only involved myself in this discussion so far as to point out how so not innocent their tactics are meant to be. It's a very calculated and trained way of presenting the argument for their own religious choices. The whole wounded and innocent curious act is just a veil for the proselytizing they've been trained to do. Again, to reference an earlier statement in this thread or another, it's all about getting butts in the pew and making themselves feel more secure in their own choices. Their choices are none of my concern. But, I'm not going to let someone flat out decieve others into believing their academic curiosity has a damn thing to do with expanding their own outlook, especially when coupled with statements about the truth of noah's ark and arguments to everyone's response to their baiting questions. If you think I took the bait, that's fine. I just chose to point out the flaws in it's strategy, not to give it the rope with which to hang my own position. Even you're trying to do that. [/B]

The second one has a fairly obvious answer. It calls me she, and so do you; so I'll call it an it.

Originally posted by skekUng
The second one has a fairly obvious answer. It calls me she, and so do you; so I'll call it an it.

You could just set you Gender to "male" on the User CP area.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You could just set you Gender to "male" on the User CP area.

Oh

I was unaware that I hadn't.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, no, no! Humans have a higher number then 0 without any teaching. Humans have to be taught not to be violent. Therefore, a religion like Buddhism would be closer to 0, and atheism would add nothing to the equation.

I'll put it another way; Christians are at war with Satan, and Atheists are at war with Christians. Again Buddhism is not at war with anyone.

what is even more absurd, if you look at the people commonly pointed to as being the intellectual leaders of atheism (by mainstream culture), you get Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins (the so called 4 horsemen).

If you had to pick a religion these people took a stand against, it would be, inarguably, Islam.

Originally posted by inimalist
what is even more absurd, if you look at the people commonly pointed to as being the intellectual leaders of atheism (by mainstream culture), you get Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins (the so called 4 horsemen).

If you had to pick a religion these people took a stand against, it would be, inarguably, Islam.

This is also why those who subscribe to the religions are invariably arguing the perspectives put forth by those people. I'm sure shaky's concept of this conversation would be valid if he were arguing with Christoper Hitchens.

I think this is just a tactic if you pretend that athiests don't exist as a group and don't believe in anything, you can't attack it. Also we could get into a semantical debate about what an athiest is.

Originally posted by inimalist

If you had to pick a religion these people took a stand against, it would be, inarguably, Islam.

I don't know man Dawkins doesn't have beef with religion and spirituality in general?