Come on Tin. Who else is running Butt Bubble classes? If he does not learn from me, who in the hell is he going to learn from. He doesn’t have a twist off valve like some of us.
1 Like
That’s right, Doc. Exactly! It’s all part of The Plan. If I may, however, expand a bit for our dear Wily…
Ya see, Wily, what the theists who visit here do not realize is that we atheist members are simply following god’s Perfect Plan exactly as we were programmed to do. We just can’t help it. We have no choice. And even if we did have a choice, god planned it that way. So all this worrying you’re doing is all for nothing. Nevermind the fact god planned for you to worry. But the good news is that god also planned for all of us to tell you to stop worrying. See how good and mysterious god is? Ain’t it funny how we atheists understand this better than the theists?
Uh,not to feather his nest or anything, but I am as proud as a peacock. Hopefully @Cognostic will have some more insight to share when he gets back from cliche island…
.
.
Edit ( A bird does not sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song.)
2 Likes
You mean… We may have read the same books?
I don’t necessarily want to change anyone, or change their beliefs.
The approach I always take, is to highlight that lack of sufficient reason or evidence behind their beliefs.
Other than that, I can’t say I disagree.
That being said, I am feeling so much better after just a few days of no YouTube comments, and this ferments in my mind, that I am better off without them.
If someone comes here to peddle their superstition, then one assumes they have some interest in the views of the atheists here. It would then seem odd to object to hearing those views, yet we see this happen on occasion.
1 Like
Completely taken out of context .
I see no logic between a blind pitiless meaningless purposeless lifeless inanimate universe and Love . There is no correlation between them and the only way that atheists can account for Love is by stealing Theist values .
P.S. Posting pictures of fish “kissing” has got to be up there with the most ludicrous examples to try and explain Love as a product of a lifeless universe , although the orgasm example that was proffered as an example for Love and reproduction was running head to head with it .
Oh we know Sid… we know…
Sorry, I just wanted to demonstrate when something is ACTUALLY taken out of context.
Please continue to strawman our position, it makes me feel so happy.
Love existed before religion, and it will exist long after it.
There is NOTHING religion can offer us, that can’t be achieved without it, arguably more efficiently too.
Love is within us, it is not attached to a god or any irrational belief system.
Well that’s fascinating, how about you attempt to tackle the arguments presented to you HERE, rather than some nonsense you’ve fished out of the internet.
YOU make the claim a god exists.
YOU make the claim a god is necessary for love.
Until you provide something to back this up, we will just apply Hitchen’s razor and ignore your assertions.
We have ZERO obligation to demonstrate love is separate.
2 Likes
Oh really, well here’s the quote verbatim:
FYI this is not an atheist point of view, it is a scientific one. I am an atheist because i disbelieve in any deity or deities, and would remain so even if there were no alternatives to unevidenced superstition.
Which principle of logic am I violating, by withholding belief from your claim that the addition of an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic is a necessary addition to the existence of the universe and evolved human emotions?
Since you’ve offered none then your use of the word logic is demonstrably rhetorical here. That is the context, and it was and is manifestly true. Since you offered naught but the claim.
NB The universe is neither inanimate or lifeless, so it’s unclear why you keep rehashing those straw men? Again, equating straw man claims such as these with atheism, is precisely why others have called your posts dishonest. Also calling the universe pitiless and purposeless, has no more meaning than calling a rock the same, if you think the universe can possess such qualities, then demonstrate this with something more than unevidenced claims, rhetoric, semantics, and known logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.
Your error is elevating love to some divine position. Love is a simple bonding mechanism that allows many species to recognize and bond with their own kind. It is a survival tool and nothing more.
On top of that, there is no feeling of love outside yourself. You can not feel the love another has for you. What you have is evidence of the other person’s feeling for you by the way they treat you. You have no way of feeling their feelings of love. It is an internal brain state. And if you think your god loves you, it is only because you have convinced yourself that you are loved. Nothing more.
Most mammals love. Many birds love. Any animal capable of bonding is capable of loving another. There is nothing mysterious or godly about it. It is a survival mechanism of the animal kingdom.
4 Likes
Precisely so. quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur
1 Like
Please list five theist values you think were stolen.
3 Likes
I’d settle for one, and I’d also want to know what point @Sid is inferring if there are any? Theists are humans as are atheists, that we share values is hardly a startling revelation, and that theism contains human values hardly makes them uniquely theistic. Though I have encountered many religious apologists, who seem to love to try and pretend that the life of an atheist must somehow be devoid of things like love or morality.
I also feel it is necessary to point out each time that not having an alternative explanation or evidence for the existence of love, to @Sid’s unevidenced claim a deity must have done it, does not logically lend his claim any credence at all.
1 Like
Well that flounce out of the door was short lived, wasn’t it?
Though this is merely another well-documented part of the mythology fanboy aetiology …
Let’s take a look at the latest excursion into ex recto apologetic fabrication, shall we?
Oh look, another tireseomely familiar mythology fanboy mantra. Which is usually wheeled out as a deflection from the manner in which mythology fanboy assertions are routinely shredded, when facts are brought to the table.
Possibly the one true statement you’ve posted here.
Did Richard Dawkins boil your piss so much when he coined the requisite phrase, that you now feel the need to devote your life to a masturbatory obsession, centred upon twisting this phrase into a duplicitous apologetic misrepresentation of science?
The inadequacy of this pursuit of yours is darkly amusing to behold.
You’ve already been told repeatedly, that scientists have a proper explanation for this phenomenon, and indeed, have discovered a molecular basis for it.
Just because you’re incapable of imagining a world without a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, doesn’t mean that your ignorance in this matter dictates how reality behaves. Here’s a clue for you: reality pisses on your presumptions from a great height.
The scientists who found a molecular basis for the requisite phenomenon are laughing at you.
Bullshit. Your precious “theist values” have nothing worth stealing. Plus, that scientific work establishing a molecular basis for love did so while treating your cartoon magic man as a total irrelevance. Once again, stop lying.
What part of “this has been known to be an essential part of Cichlid courtship behaviour for nearly a century” did you fail to understand the first time I told you this?
Indeed, it was because you tried (and failed) to misrepresent my posting the requisite pages from the Innes book as “an appeal to authority”, that I posted supplementary material establishing that the content of those pages was RELIABLE FACTUAL REPORTAGE. But this is another elementary concept that flew past you, in your eagerness to peddle more duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications.
Oh, and we’re not dealing with a “lifeless” universe, we’re dealing with a universe in which one planet has harboured life for over 3 billion years. None of said life being the product of an imaginary cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology. You can’t even deliver your snide, condescending insults competently.
Oh, you mean reliably and repeatably observable phenomena? Something that is completely absent from your adherence to mythological garbage?
It’s really boiling your piss, isn’t it, that people here can point to reliably documented data backing up their statements, while all you have to offer is made up shit, leavened with a heavy dose of snide condescension and ad hominem.
As for your ludicrous and pretentious piece of bombast about us “stealing theist values”, your peddling of this feculent dreck really does speak of your fulminating desperation. We treat your precious “theist values” as a total irrelevance. Just as scientists treat your cartoon magic man as a total irrelevance, and by doing so, have been successful in providing an understanding of the universe and its contents, that makes your goat herder mythology look sad and pathetic by comparison.
Oh golly geeee… 
… Where have we all heard THAT before?
You crack me up, Sid.
2 Likes
As a daily observer of various birds and animals, I wholeheartedly agree…
Ain’t gonna lie… That made me snortle out loud. 
2 Likes
It wasn’t anyway, here’s the quote from the message he sent me verbatim:
Something is rational if it is in accordance logic, and I have asked him to explain what principle of logic atheism or the scientific theory of evolution violates, which is what he clearly claimed there. I anticipate more semantics and double negatives. It’s also a scientific point of view, not an atheist one, my atheism is a result of the lack of any objective evidence for any deity.
2 Likes
Do you ever say anything other than “blind, pitiless, meaningless” etc? Geez. By the way, your punctuation sucks, where are your commas?
The meaning of life is whatever you put into it, nothing more, nothing less. And there’s nothing “special” about the human race, we’re less than a speck of dust in the universe.
Are you a young earth creationist by any chance?
1 Like
Wow Sheldon, you sure do got a purty mouth using them fancy words. I’m afraid they’re above Sid’s head.