@ LemonJello

From LemonJello:

"I don't know about you, but I do not go out of my way making "decisions" about things that I would take as nonexistents."

What, exactly then, is an atheist?

An atheist does not believe in imaginary friends who create the universe and are interested in humans sex lives.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
From LemonJello:

[b]"I don't know about you, but I do not go out of my way making "decisions" about things that I would take as nonexistents."

What, exactly then, is an atheist?[/b]

FAIL

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
From LemonJello:

[b]"I don't know about you, but I do not go out of my way making "decisions" about things that I would take as nonexistents."

What, exactly then, is an atheist?[/b]

Perhaps, like I already told you, you should reread Thread 129755.

Originally posted by 667joe
An atheist does not believe in imaginary friends who create the universe and are interested in humans sex lives.

===========================================
An atheist does not believe in imaginary friends who create the universe and are interested in humans sex lives.
==============================================

That's funny. I knew a lot of atheists who didn't want to believe in an imaginary enemy who would ruin their fun. They wanted to have recreational sex with whomever they wanted with no conviction in the conscience that such was morally wrong.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===========================================
An atheist does not believe in imaginary friends who create the universe and are interested in humans sex lives.
==============================================

That's funny. I knew a lot of atheists who didn't want to believe in an imaginary enemy who would ruin their fun. They wanted t ...[text shortened]... ex with whomever they wanted with no conviction in the conscience that such was morally wrong.[/b]

Why is recreational sex morally wrong?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Perhaps, like I already told you, you should reread Thread 129755.

Admittedly, you played at it, but ultimately, you really didn't say much more than you're saying here. Namely, your position is contradicted by your quote in the OP.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Why is recreational sex morally wrong?

...especially in a case where someone might do more harm if they dont get their "release".
I had a pretty (older) friend who was a girl (not a girlfriend). She was 45 and extremely attractive,(and very "spiritual" in her own way). Anyway she was charged with the possesion of 396grams of amphetamines. She had quite a decent lawyer and no prior convictions. Still it was most likely a jailable offence, a fate she wanted to avoid at all costs, especially because she didn't know what to do with her two beautiful rotweillers that were her family.
Well she got all dolled up for sentencing and the night before she "prayed/meditated" long and earnestly that the judge get laid that night so he would be in a good mood for her sentencing the following day.
Call it luck or whatever you want but she got out of going to jail. She got 400 hours of community service- the most amount of community service that one can be sentenced to..(it may have even been a record, anyway...) I don't know if the judge got laid , perhaps he had a wet dream about her. Who knows for sure, but I believe there was some "psycic influence" going on there, which ended up saving her bacon.
I tell this story because this lady was an absolute inspiration in my life at a time where I was confused about spirituality, as I was discovering my own. You could say she (and others) set me on the right path. (My Path). This was ten years ago. I am eternally greatful for knowing her.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Admittedly, you played at it, but ultimately, you really didn't say much more than you're saying here. Namely, your position is contradicted by your quote in the OP.

First of all, an atheist need not hold even so much as a concept or notion of 'god'. That's because atheism is at it roots simply an absence of theism. (Now, you'll notice that I am just repeating what I already wrote in the other thread -- you know, the one I suggested you reread.) So, if you are trying to say that atheists are thereby committed to "decisions" about something they take as a nonexistent, you are wrong. If you are trying to say that atheism is inherently reactionary; again, you are wrong. You persist in these types of ridiculous claims in part because you are simply ignorant of the different delineations of atheists (e.g., implicit vs explicit, passive vs active, weak vs strong, etc). Again, all this is spelled out in the other thread I referenced.

Second, even when we distill the conversation to the subject of explicit or active or strong atheists, guess what: you are still wrong. You have this caricature of 'atheism' in your head in which 'atheism' is inherently reactionary and related to willful rejection of a concept. That is simply false. The only thing even a strong atheist is committed to is that the concept 'god' fails to be instantiated; that the term has no actual referent. (And what's more, absolutely nothing about this need be willful or reactionary: even a stance of strong atheism is consistent with passive belief formation brought about under study of the evidence at one's disposal.) Now I am just repeating what bbarr already made clear in the other thread -- again, you know, the one I suggested you reread, the one I referenced.

Originally posted by LemonJello
First of all, an atheist need not hold even so much as a concept or notion of 'god'. That's because atheism is at it roots simply an absence of theism. (Now, you'll notice that I am just repeating what I already wrote in the other thread -- you know, the one I suggested you reread.) So, if you are trying to say that atheists are thereby committed to "d ...[text shortened]... r thread -- again, you know, the one I suggested you reread, the one I referenced.

Maybe it's the God thing that troubles you so much so that you're unable to see the forest sitting there among the trees.

Do you consider atheism a position? Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

From Wiki:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Sure, there is the whole implicit/explicit aspect, but let's just talk about someone we both know to have formed a position on the matter... someone like you. Do you consider your denomination of atheism a position or not?

Originally posted by LemonJello
First of all, an atheist need not hold even so much as a concept or notion of 'god'. That's because atheism is at it roots simply an absence of theism. (Now, you'll notice that I am just repeating what I already wrote in the other thread -- you know, the one I suggested you reread.) So, if you are trying to say that atheists are thereby committed to "d r thread -- again, you know, the one I suggested you reread, the one I referenced.

He's just trolling (just look at the amount of threads initiated by him on this subject for evidence).

Originally posted by Palynka
He's just trolling (just look at the amount of threads initiated by him on this subject for evidence).

As opposed to threads about... what, exactly? Is there a more critical point than this? If so, by all means, start a thread about it!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As opposed to threads about... what, exactly? Is there a more critical point than this? If so, by all means, start a thread about it!

It's trolling when you just repeat and repeat and repeat the same issue, with the only difference being the unsubstantiated provocations that you pepper them with.

People have explained their atheism to you dozens of times. You're either incredibly thick or a troll.

Choose.

Originally posted by Palynka
It's trolling when you just repeat and repeat and repeat the same issue, with the only difference being the unsubstantiated provocations that you pepper them with.

People have explained their atheism to you dozens of times. You're either incredibly thick or a troll.

Choose.

Let's take a look at your claim.

Go back ten pages to see the posts I've created. There's ten of them, which makes percentages oh-so-easy. Their subject matter, in reverse order, are as follows:

God's interruptions in human history
Orthodox confession
MLK, Jr.
Wondering about an old friend
Universality of justice
Atheism as a religion
Atheist's demand for God
Prophecy
Acceptance of a gift
Contradiction of atheistic position

As you can see, a full 30% of my last ten self-initiated threads have been about atheism. However, that leaves 70% of my threads about something other--- mostly spiritual concerns. Given (ha-ha) that an unusually large number of folks herein are self-proclaimed atheists, I do not consider spending a little bit of time on their religion an obsession; rather, it just seems like good old polite manners.

EDIT: By the way, these ten posts generated 715 posts (including mine, obviously). When you consider that one of them generated only two, the average is still 72 posts per thread. Apparently others find the subject matters I raise at least somewhat compelling.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's take a look at your claim.

Go back ten pages to see the posts I've created. There's ten of them, which makes percentages oh-so-easy. Their subject matter, in reverse order, are as follows:

God's interruptions in human history
Orthodox confession
MLK, Jr.
Wondering about an old friend
Universality of justice
Atheism as a religion
Atheist r thread. Apparently others find the subject matters I raise at least somewhat compelling.

Weight them by number of posts in each thread. What do you get?

Regardless, this is about repetition of the same arguments. Other threads are actually irrelevant towards the fact that you seem unable to understand what atheism is. Or are unwilling to for trolling purposes.