re amusing atheists and anarchists mccullou whipple cs wisc edu writes my turn i went back and reread your post all you did is attack atheism and say that agnosticism wasn t as funny as atheism nowhere does that imply that you are agnostic or weak atheist as most people who post such inflammatory remarks are theists it was a reasonable assumption sorry you re right i did not clearly state it rule condescending to the population at large i e theists will not win many people to your faith anytime soon it only ruins your credibility how am i being condescending to the population at large i am stating something that happened to be true for a long time i couldn t believe that people actually believed in this god idea it was an alien concept to me i am not trying to win people to my faith as you put it i have no faith religion was a non issue when i had the attitude above because it never even occurred to me to believe atheist by default i guess you could say the most common form of condescending is the rational versus irrational attitude once one has accepted the assumption that there is no god s and then consider other faiths to be irrational simply because their assumption s contradict your assumption then i would say there s a lack of consistency here now i know you ll get on me about faith if the positive belief that god does not exist were a closed logical argument why do so many rational people have problems with that logic but you probably like me seem to be a soft atheist sorry for the flamage the line about atheists haveing something up their sleeves is what seemed to imply that sorry been reading too much on the clipper project lately and the paranoia over there may have seeped in some what is the clipper project btw rule don t mix apples with oranges how can you say that the extermination by the mongols was worse than stalin khan conquered people unsympathetic to his cause that was atrocious but stalin killed millions of his own people who loved and worshipped him and his atheist state how can anyone be worse than that many rulers have done similar things in the past only stalin did it when there was plenty of documentation to afix the blame on him the evidence is that some of the early european rulers ruled with an iron fist much like stalin s you threw in numbers and i am sick of hearing about stalin as an example because the example doesn t apply you managed to get me angry with your post because it appeared to attack all forms of atheism it might have appeared to attack atheism in general but its point was that mass killing happens for all sorts of reasons people will hate who they will and will wave whatever flag to justify it be it cross or hammer sickle the stalin example is important not only because it s still a widely unappreciated era that people want to forget but also because people really did love him and his ideas even after all that he had wrought the evidence i am referring to is more a lack of evidence than negative evidence say i claim there are no pink crows i have never seen a pink crow but that doesn t mean it couldn t exist but this person here claims that there are pink crows even though he admits he hasn t been able to capture one or get a photo or find one with me etc in a sense that is evidence to not believe in the existence of pink crows that is what i am saying when i look at the evidence i look at the suppossed evidence for a deity show how it is flawed and doesn t show what theists want it to show and go on first all the pink crows unicorns elves arguments in the world will not sway most people for they simply do not accept the analogy why one of the big reasons is that many many people want something beyond this life you can pretend that they don t want this but i for one can accept it and even want it myself sometimes and there is nothing unique in this example of why people want a god can love as a truth be proven logically themselves namely a god or gods so in principle it s hard to see how theists are necessarily arrogant makes no sense to me they seem arrogant to make such a claim to me but my previous refutation still stands and i believe there may be another one on the net john the baptist boasted of jesus to many people i find it hard to see how that behavior is arrogant at all many christians i know also boast in this way but i still do not necessarily see it as arrogance of course i do know arrogant christians doctors and teachers as well technically you might consider the person who originally made a given claim to be arrogant jesus for instance are you talking about all atheism or just strong atheism if you are talking about weak atheism which i believe in then i refuse such a claim atheism is a lack of belief i used good ol occam s razor to make the final rejection of a deity in that as i see things even if i present the hypothesises in an equal fasion i find the theist argument not plausible i speak against strong atheism i also often find that the evidence supporting a faith is very subjective just as say the evidence supporting love as truth is subjective i believe i answered that i apologize for the as you stated incorrect assumption on your theism but i saw nothing to indicate that you were an agnostic only that you were just another newbie christian on the net trying to get some cheap shots in no apology necessary bake timmons iii there s nothing higher stronger more wholesome and more useful in life than some good memory alyosha in brothers karamazov dostoevsky
