• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nasty militant atheists

zyzygy said:
What separates a militant atheist from the common, run of the mill atheist?
Click to expand...

A militant atheist tends to spend an extreme amount of time on anti-religious stuff and is disrespectful to religious people.
 
distraff said:
A militant atheist tends to spend an extreme amount of time on anti-religious stuff and is disrespectful to religious people.
Click to expand...

And that is more cliche than observation. Most atheists have spent some time looking at the problem of theism. While on the other hand there are many theists who have never even bothered to read the bible.

And personally, i make no favourites. I am disrespectful to every one, regardless of religion.
 
Lisa said:
Religion needs to be debated critically and logically. If it is pissing on it because I am not fawning over with religious apologetics and praise then yes it needs to be pissed on.

Why do you want to belive in something that you don't understand and can not support that it exists? That to me is a fool's errand. Belief and faith are emotional decisions that are made in the absence of logic and facts, so why is it is seen as something beneficial to reject reality, logic, and intelligence?

Do you understand the Socratic idea of "An unexamined life is not worth living"?



Socrates | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Click to expand...

bbelief and faith is a great thing
 
TypicalRussian said:
bbelief and faith is a great thing
Click to expand...

Belief and faith are a overt rejection of reality and fact and as such, they should not be viewed with a positive social perspective.
 
Lisa said:
Belief and faith are a overt rejection of reality and fact and as such, they should not be viewed with a positive social perspective.
Click to expand...

everybody believes stuff and they are good

faith and evidence is different and both point to same conclusion with God
 
TypicalRussian said:
everybody believes stuff and they are good

faith and evidence is different and both point to same conclusion with God
Click to expand...


Where is the evidence that pioints to god?
 
soylentgreen said:
The only thing you have proven is that you are not impressed. And i am going with a "so what" on that.

Otherwise what i have shown is that your excuse that a constitution gives atheists rights is as laughable as asking a trump supporter what a gay atheists rights are in america. Let's makes that a black, muslim, gay, atheist female.
Click to expand...

Tell us what country you are posting from so that we can compare it to the United States. I dare you. I doubt that you will. You will run and hide, no doubt.
 
watsup said:
Tell us what country you are posting from so that we can compare it to the United States. I dare you. I doubt that you will. You will run and hide, no doubt.
Click to expand...

To your left. Under join date is the word location. It has always been there.
 
distraff said:
A militant atheist tends to spend an extreme amount of time on anti-religious stuff and is disrespectful to religious people.
Click to expand...

Some people are atheists and some people are assholes....
 
When I moved back to SE Georgia in '06, as I got to make friends, including my retired neighbor who was born in a house I thought was an old barn, I was told I should keep that atheist thing to myself till I was sure who I was talking to. I'm not an activist atheist, much less a militant atheist. But I know a few things about the theists I am surrounded by. You will not get elected to any local position unless you have an add in the paper about the church you attend and how many guns you own. You will need at least a few people attesting your standing as a "godly man". You could be the absolutely best candidate for council and if it's known you are an atheist, you won't get squat for votes. Your god-fearing adversaries will run adds about how you are "without a moral compass", "don't understand the people who live here".
I don't want to take christ out of christmas. I don't want to take away your church's tax status. But, I do want you to stop trying to put your dogma on my life. Leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. (An easy example down here is you can't buy alcohol on Sunday. You can buy anything else. How is that not a religious imposition)
The first amendment gives you the right to practice your religion without government interference. It also give me the right to live my life without your interference.
 
NWO_Spook said:
No, they are flawed, and I've demonstrated why previously. You asserted otherwise without any explanation or demonstration (as you are doing here), so why should anyone take you seriously?
Click to expand...

how are they flawed?
 
NWO_Spook said:
*Sigh* I've been through this with you. Are you just trolling me?
Click to expand...

yes i understnad that we have been through this but it is my understanding that the ontoogical argument is flawless
 
TypicalRussian said:
yes i understnad that we have been through this but it is my understanding that the ontoogical argument is flawless
Click to expand...

To save my time, I'll just leave you with the following:

5. Objections to Ontological Arguments
Objections to ontological arguments take many forms. Some objections are intended to apply only to particular ontological arguments, or particular forms of ontological arguments; other objections are intended to apply to all ontological arguments. It is a controversial question whether there are any successful general objections to ontological arguments.

One general criticism of ontological arguments which have appeared hitherto is this: none of them is persuasive, i.e., none of them provides those who do not already accept the conclusion that God exists—and who are reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc.—with either a pro tanto reason or an all-things-considered reason to accept that conclusion. Any reading of any ontological argument which has been produced so far which is sufficiently clearly stated to admit of evaluation yields a result which is invalid, or possesses a set of premises which it is clear in advance that no reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc. non-theists will accept, or has a benign conclusion which has no religious significance, or else falls prey to more than one of the above failings.

Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Further reading:

Ontological Argument (Criticisms) | Introduction to Philosophy

https://www.anselm.edu/sites/defaul...ical Argument Paper -- submission revised.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom