Has anyone here said we cannot disagree?
Rude is far from objective. For instance, I think it’s rude that you refuse to answer so many questions, particularly when the question is attempting to get more info about what you think and why.
It’s not hard, at least for me, to interact with someone with whom I disagree. That should be evident in the amount of interaction that’s taken place over the years here in these forums.
2 Likes
Suspect all you like about how they would think. Frankly, I don’t care if they would be appalled. I, however, am appalled at what I perceive to be a thinly veiled attempt at shaming some of the posters here.
Is someone trying to play the victim role now? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ah … I just want information* You can’t tell me why… therefore God!*** What in the hell is the matter with you folks! Quit picking on the theists. You know how sensitive they are!
2 Likes
You keep saying this as if beliefs can’t also be well supported by objective evidence or be factual? You have also failed to address the fact that framing atheism as belief would firstly contradict the commonly understood definition found in any dictionary, and secondly mean I was not an atheist, despite the fact I don’t believe in any deity.
This has already been refuted. You refused to accept the refutation that we remain insentient until birth, ipso facto we are bron without beliefs, I asked you if you had beliefs when you were born, you never answered. Though this is moot anyway, as holding beliefs does not make atheism itself a belief.
You used the word vacuous but when I reciprocate it’s vitriolic? You might want to read your posts from he start and ask yourself if you think you were showing any respect or courtesy to the atheists here, but I was actually just being factual, but if you had been respectful and debated in good faith I might be less inclined to be so blunt about it.
What vitriol, what hostility? If you had showed some courtesy and respect yourself the tone might be different perhaps, but telling others what their atheism must mean is not my idea of respect, nor is being dishonest, and you have done both. You have from the very start adopted an attitude of sneering intellectual superiority, so playing the victim now isn’t going to fly sorry. Respect requires reciprocity, and of course while I respect anyone’s right to believe whatever they want, no one can demand I respect the belief itself, that’s frankly absurd.
Did the theist intellectual in that debate open by telling Russel his lack of belief was a vacuous non position, that his notion of his own atheism was wrong, and that he denied the accuracy of the biblical claims in the gospels because he was simply biased with no epistemological grasp of what constituted evidence? Did he dishonestly accuse him of scientism just for declaring the existence of scientific facts that contradict biblical claims?
No I don’t think you can honestly try to play the victim now sorry, and I’ve been pretty patient as well. Respect requires reciprocity, and it can never be demanded for a belief.
My sentiment precisely.
Is that a respectful way to open a discourse with atheists? Now I know he qualified it, but it was an inauspicious start, and there has been more of course?
Belief. You’d think there wasn’t another word out there. Frankly, I rarely use it.
lol
Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
Perhaps 
it’s @Sherlock-Holmes opinion that when we state we have no confidence in unevidenced claims, it’s an “ideology”?
Perhaps addition synonyms to belief ( Synonyms: faith, principles, doctrine, ideology More Synonyms of belief
it’s @Sherlock-Holmes belief that when we state we have no belief in unevidenced claims, it’s a “belief”.
4 Likes
You could just logout without any intention of ever returning. No one said you had to be here.
It is a lack of belief in the existence of deities.
That’s because you’re a Christian and can’t comprehend Atheism. Sounds like a personal problem.
Because you’re wanting people to agree with your personal definition of what you believe it is and reality just doesn’t work that way. You can’t argue facts.
While you reserve the right to disagree with everyone here, we also reserve the right to remind you of the fact of what Atheism is. There is no “Christian definition” of Atheism. There is only THE definition. You’ve been reminded politely multiple times. How many times must a child sit in the back seat and ask 80 different times: “are we there yet” before the parents tell them to stop?
There is no hostility. You just don’t listen.
You can try to rationalize it however you want, but it falls under the concept of preaching.
1 Like
A teenager? 
1 Like
Very well, let me say a little more about that. I do avoid answering questions that I regard as diversionary, a way for the other party to avoid answering my earlier question, for example if I ask
“So how do you recognize evidence for God, how would you discern that?”
the response
“You are the one saying deities exist, so please explain, how do you recognize the evidence”.
Is evasion plain and simple, it is not rudeness for me to refuse to address that when my own question remains unanswered but it is rudeness to evade my question and replace it with your own.
So although I might truly miss a question sometimes, I think in most cases anyway, this is the reason, my own question has been cast aside and a new one asked and the implication then raised that I am at fault.
Yeah lmao that was my first thought as well. 
If anyone wants to ask me questions, put me “on the spot” as it were, then I’m more than happy to accommodate, just start a thread asking that question and tell me about it, but asking me a question as a response to a question I previously asked is usually an evasion, occasionally its a request for clarification but here and in the threads I’ve been in it is almost always tactical evasion.
You are not the arbiter of what is relevant here, that is astonishingly arrogant.
Which god? How is it defined? Your question is intellectually and epistemologically risible. What reason do you have for all the thousands of deities humans have imagined, that you disbelieve are real? This question exposes the hypocrisy of your argument, and that is why you have evaded it dishonestly from the very first.
A perfectly cogent and epistemologically reasonable response. To suggest otherwise in intellectually and epistemologically risible. Do you believe wapadooks are real? If not how did you recognise the evidence? Come off it anyone can play this duplicitous charade, but please don’t insult us by pretending this represents honest debate.
Yes it really is, and if you can’t see it then you ought really to refrain from your egregious and sententious lectures about respect and rudeness.
3 Likes
Would you prefer it if I no longer reply to you or respond to you? would you prefer not to be challenged on claims you make? perhaps that’s the kind of debate you’d be good at.
Wow, are you admitting defeat? Throwing in the towel already?
1 Like
I liked Tracy Harris’s response to a caller on the Atheist Experience. When the caller bombastically insisted “Nothing can come from nothing!”, Tracy didn’t even pause she said where did you get nothing from to test this?
3 Likes
Actually, I’ve asked a number of questions based on statements you’ve made in order to get clarification. You’ve not answered many of them.
A few of them are included here:
CyberLN:
Because atheism responds to the claim that god(s) exist. Theists make that claim. You, as a theist, are making that claim and must define your beliefs. We don’t do that. But you won’t.
Sherlock:
Well the assertion “God exists” is not a religious claim but a metaphysical one. I do not describe myself as a “religious person” in a similar way to Idris Elba’s recent statements that he does not describe himself as a “Black actor”, I refuse to enable you to stereotype me.
CyberLN:
Are you saying that the statement I made, that you are responding to with this quote, stereotypes you? Are you saying that the statement I made, that you are responding to with this quote speaks about religion?
Sherlock-Holmes:
Any claims about reality must be rationally, systematically evaluated in some way and a decision made upon the basis of that evaluation.
CyberLN:
Isn’t a belief in creator gods a claim about reality?
Sherlock:
“I claim that God exists, that the universe we are all part of was created,”
CyberLN:
And did the god you claim exists create the universe?
Sherlock-Holmes:
intent coupled with unfathomable power
CyberLN:
Your god’s intent? Does this unfathomable power include omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?
Sherlock-Holmes:
It seems that many a naïve atheist rejects the claim that God exists on the basis of their distaste for certain religious practices and organizational structures.
CyberLN:
Maybe. Not sure what the quantity of many is, though. The same or greater number may think this AND be atheists ( instead of BECAUSE).
Sherlock-Holmes:
The think that a belief in God is the cause of religious evil.
CyberLN:
Are you implying that religious evil is separate from a belief in god(s)?
Sherlock-Holmes:
I used to be an outspoken, very vocal atheist, I’ve crushed many a theist in the past in discussions about this and used my knowledge of science and mathematics and so on, as my main weapon, I know the territory well.
CyberLN:
I might be inclined to trust that if I’d seen a demonstration of it.
You may please yourself, vapid self aggrandising faux intellectualism is nothing I haven’t seen theists desperately trot out many times before.
You’ve already achieved that thanks.
Until you muster something beyond pretentious showboating, you will never know.
Reading your posts puts me in mind of the phrase “One should not enter a battle of wits, when one is unarmed.”
2 Likes
Atheism doesn’t aim or claim to answer this question, so not sure why it you see that as a “fundamental flaw”.
Atheism is simply a rejection of claims about gods because of a lack of evidence or rational argument.
Sorry, but this doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t seem to be describing what some people call the “hard problem of consciousness”. (btw, there isn’t even a consensus amongst philosophers and neuroscientists on if there even is such a “problem”)
The fact that we can experience in no way implies or suggests that there should be a supernatural element to the universe. That is quite the non sequitur.
2 Likes
[quote=“Sherlock-Holmes, post:146, topic:3295, full:true”]
After all if there’s no God, then there’s no rules, [/quote]
lol! not this old chestnut again. 
None of the reasonable, rational rules we have in society (sometime called “laws”) require a supernatural entity in order for them to exist.
Please try harder.
2 Likes