Who is the most stident about their atheism here?

Post Reply New Topic

Hey, I have a thread asking for votes. Y'know, if you want to make a sale, just make me an offer, I'm the guy who wants to hear from my constituents.

Well, this is politics, so y'know, I've gotta invoke the dogmas I can, just as a matter of pragmatism to bog down your insanity.


Actually, I believe it has been found that people who leave the fold are very unlikely to come back.

Even further, going back is still very unlikely, too many weird emotional scars. I once tried sitting through a UU service, UU services being so tolerant they would allow for atheists anyway. Yeah, just the very structure of the thing stirred up bad memories.

Frankly Dent, I think what you've done says worse about you. My religion was just my college experiment, but you, as a grown man, freely entered church without any gimmicks to tug you in! For shame!! !


"Atonement" is for sissies, and religious people. Which is to say that I refuse to atone and stridently oppose your stance on this Dent. To be awarded for stridency has nothing to do with past failings, but rather has everything to do with my current opposition to all that is holy, and as such, it wouldn't matter if I was a former pope, in fact, one could even argue that such would promote my claim even better:



(Ok, if you've read the entire thing maybe this will be less convincing, but few people on this forum have likely read a lot of Nietzsche in the first place)


Actually, I didn't grow up religious, which makes the fact that I am the formerly religious one sort of a strange thing. I mean, my family was nominally Christian, and we didn't really go to church. In college, I went to church because I heard that women tended to be more religious, so, I mean, my interests in joining were a heck of a lot purer than yours Dent, and I just happened to get brainwashed and later fall out.

As it stands though, do we really need a person who has been godless so long? Or do we need one who knows religion on a much deeper level? Who has explored the enemy to our dignity and freedom as people? I say the latter, as knowledge is power.

Well, yes, but you have to recognize that the central public atheism promotion usually happens through agencies that claim to be SKEPTICS, who promote SCIENCE and REASON.

The fact that Dent is inconsistent on those points does not mean that we would want him to represent the pinnacle of atheist stridency.

Sorry to burst your bubble, AG, but it seems in this case the opposite is true. Christians, and those among us who mistakenly believe they have some magical, mystical hold on God impossible for us mainstreamers to possess, won't even TOUCH this stuff. Ever try teaching a Jehovah's Witness who knocks on your door? Ain't gonna happen. The fact that I'm even POSTING here flies on the face of my more fundamentalist roots. I would say that, in the purist sense of atheism, you are irrevocably tainted from your previously religious background, however brief.

I don't know what you mean by "this stuff".

Yes, most fundamentalists don't actually engage people on the internet, at least in more open forums.

Yeah, I am pretty much irrevocably tainted from my previous religious background. I used to feel sad about that too because it meant that I could never go back, but I have reached the point where the facts I accept are such that becoming theist makes no sense of reality. Just a little bit of thinking about minds can really upset such an idea as theism too, because for the "God-mind" to be plausible, there has to be a such thing as a "basic mind" and if it is all just neural structure, then how can a "basic mind" really make sense. It would be sort of like a "basic TI-83 calculator", this complicated thing that wouldn't ever be expected as a matter of spontaneously existing.

I don't think so, but you might be close. Sometimes I get the impression that AG still believes in God but he is pissed off at him for punishing him for his sins, so he retaliates by denying his existence. Some might think that deifying an existent God would actually make him more ungodly though in contradicts atheist dogma.

Hmm.... this is rather amusing. You fit exactly into some of the previous jokes, so I am amazed.

Maybe you got that impression at one point, but here's what I am going to say:
1) God does not exist.
2) A major reason why God is implausible is because there is no such thing as a "basic mind", just as there is no such thing as a "basic supercomputer". Minds are too complex to consider mental realities basic.
3) Even further, any being that fits the theoretical perfect God idea is irreconcilable with the workings of this world, as it is filled with evils that few people could ever tolerate.
4) Finally, the human cognitive flaws we have are too much to be reasonably trusted by anyone in the first place on something so abstract.

Now, it is true that I rejected God morally before I rejected his existence, which is weird, but by this point, I've settled the existence debate.

How typical of a jesus botherer to misrepresent and slander. I think nowhere on this forum will you find me 'advocating' homeopathy, instead you will find that I posted a thread asking IF it does work HOW could this be. I raised the question because of anecdotal evidence and I wanted a rational answer for the perceived effectiveness of the 'treatment' and the subject of the treatment was not my self rather my mothers dogs.

But then I should not be so surprised at a your smear attempt; religionists have beem misrepresenting, slandering, down right lying and murdering for centuries in an attempt to hoodwink the feeble minded and protect their positions

Orwell said it, therefore it is a fact. I've already spread the word! Now it is your word against Orwell's.

I think that a simple principle motivates Orwell: better dead than red!

That being said, how do you murder to hoodwink somebody?

You dont, you murder to protect your position.

While were at it it does somewhat concern me that a person promoting themselves for the position of MOST STRIDENT ATHEIST on WP, did as an adult and I quote " just happened to get brainwashed" do we as a community want to be represented by some one who is so easily manipulated. I think not, we dont need someone who can be so easily overcome!! !! !!

So sayeth our Marx cultist.

As I said before, it was a college experiment. But for you, a man in your 30s, to not have learned when younger to avoid crazies like the plague? That's a real black mark for your character. Young people lack common sense, but at some age it is supposed to come to you.

Even further, you just copied the STRIDENT thing anyway. Don't we want innovators instead of copycats? Innovation is brave, and copying is cowardly.

You are superstitious enough to use homeopathy for yourself, your family, and even your pets in place of real medicine as developed by naturalistic researchers. You have given yourself up to magical thinking.

Wow, dude... Dent, how can you respond to a THEIST claiming that you are engaging in magical thinking??

I am sorry, but you can't really be so STRIDENT if you have these kinds of concerns still to deal with.

Once again you show your lack of suitability for the cause; my use of STRIDENT is not one of flattery rather one of contempt and ridicule, if you cannot recognize that and think that everything is said in awe of you then our leader you must not be.

So, Dent, you're basically saying that you aren't even a real autistic? I mean, to suggest that any real autistic should be able to tell a cue like that is absurd. But, you *DO* suggest that I should be able to tell that. So, you are saying that the most STRIDENT atheist of an autistic board should be an NT, or something very close???

Hmmm interesting how my mothers use of Homeopathy in the UK whilst I live in Australia, can be turned into the above. Once again you demonstrate the ability of religionists to ignore all known facts and publish what ever the 'truth' fits the agenda. Of you go 84 its time to feed your pet dinosaur