[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

the debate continues....excellent!

Issues of organised religion and the pursuit of man to gain power in the name of religion aside......it seems to me that the main issue as to why atheists are angry is what it would mean for them if God did exist.

Is the anger directed towards God therefore a response to the notion of sin? This idea that as humans we have missed the mark, that we have intentionally chosen to do wrong despite knowing what is right and as a result we are seperated from God - who is described as the very essence of good?

In response to the fire and brimstine debate.....what are folks thoughts on the idea that hell is not God's choice for man, rather man's choice to be seperate from God?

it seems to me that the main issue as to why atheists are angry is what it would mean for them if God did exist.

Really? Did you not listen to the video in the OP?

It seems that you don't need to watch the video to start questioning and casting doubt.

it seems to me that the main issue as to why atheists are angry is what it would mean for them if God did

I think that once you've set your stall out as vehemently as someone here have, the idea that you might, just might, possibly actually be wrong is something that needles away mercilessly in the backs of their minds, hence why they're so evangelical about their beliefs...

Certainly seems that the ones that 'need' to be [i]right[/i] more than others are in fact the atheists.

I'm an atheist and I am right

Well, there is actually the possibility that you might be wrong, you know?

NO I AM NOT WRONG I AM AN ATHESIST THERE IS NO GOD WE ARE NEVER WRONG!

*EXPLODE*

😆

All very entertaining, all all very wrong. The basic premise, that atheists are angry, is wrong. Atheists are not angry because there isn't much to be angry about; I think we have already covered most of the ground, probably ad nauseaum.

It is interesting to see the way people like Elfin argue about this; ascribe a negative emotion to others, then criticise it. It's hardly a sensible way to debate is it?

The positive things that this thread have brought out, the way religion works at a personal level, the way the contradictions inherent in religion are played out at a personal level have been interesting to see. The blustering and silliness from others, much less so.

All very entertaining, all all very wrong. The basic premise, that atheists are angry, is wrong. Atheists are not angry because there isn't much to be angry about; I think we have already covered most of the ground, probably ad nauseaum.

But that atheist, claiming to speak for atheists said that they were angry, so in the same way that christians or muslims or whatever are held responsible for the actions of others who identify themselves as such, you will need to account for her actions.

It is interesting to see the way people like Elfin argue about this; ascribe a negative emotion to others, then criticise it. It's hardly a sensible way to debate is it?

It's the way most of you 'fundamantalists' come across. That you can't see it is due to your own lack of self-awareness.

Sorry, but that's how it is.

I mean, look; you're getting angry now. As you did last night. Hence your poorly veiled attempt to rile me. Others have said pretty much what I have, yet it's me who you single out for 'attack'.

It's cos deep down, you love me really. 😀

X

Elfin - putting the fun in fundamentalist
Crikey - putting the dam in fundamentalist
aracer - putting the mentalist in fundamentalist

Excellent. Proof that Elfin is wrong and I'm right . Again. Thanks 😀

[i]I mean, look; you're getting angry now. As you did last night. Hence your poorly veiled attempt to rile me. Others have said pretty much what I have, yet it's me who you single out for 'attack'.[/i]

Of we go again with the schoolboy nonsense. I'm not interested in riling you, but I object to the way you treat this place as your own private fiefdom and break up threads with stupidity. No need for it; you are intelligent enough not to have to do it.

I'm not going to answer Charlie; he can sense what I'm thinking..

Charlie and Elf; putting the fundament into fundamentalist.

crikey - Member

Of we go again with the schoolboy nonsense. I'm not interested in riling you

No of course not ...... perish the thought.

This was you yesterday trying to wind up Elf on a thread titled "Feeling pretty down at the moment" in which the OP expressed how she was "struggling"

crikey - Member

Ego pwned...

crikey - Member

Really? I shall begin calling you 40 watt egosafety, cos you are not bright. Do tell how many logins you are up to now?

crikey - Member

Tell you what, why not use Sue_Ws thread to boost your on-line ego... Oh, you already have.

crikey - Member

p
w
n
e
d

You couldn't resist trying to start a slagging match with Elf, despite it being on a sensitive and serious thread. Shameful, to say the least.

Selective editing there ern, Elf started off on a how do you know about poverty thing and was stopped in his tracks. So yes he did get it.

No, Crikey, let's have this right, seeing as how you obviously want to make something out of nothing here:

I questioned Zedsdead's 'experience' of abject poverty, something I have in fact witnessed myself, as he/she was on an internet forum, which requires access to a computer with internet connection, which costs a hell of a lot more money than those in abject poverty have, if indeed they have anything at all. Such people in places like India where ZD works, are also often illiterate, and certainly would be incredibly unlikely to have a mastery of the English language necessary to converse on said forum. So, I thought that ZD was trying to make a point but being overly emotive about things, hence why I questioned them the way I did. It seemed extremely unlikely that someone actually 'experiencing*' such poverty would in fact be on the forum.

*I took 'experiencing' to mean someone actually 'suffering' poverty. Maybe our wires got crossed somewhere. I have a better understanding of where ZD's coming from now, anyway.

Ok so, I think there was a reasonable understanding between us in the end, and I understood the point ZD was trying to make, as did others, it seems. Ernie certainly understands where I'm coming from anyway.

So, quite a bit of understanding going on.

You, on the other hand, simply used it as an excuse to have a pop at me, which I thought was uncalled for and unfair. I attempted to bring a bit of humour into proceedings, but you seemed intent on 'winning'. So I din't bother any further.

Lately, you seem to have taken umbrage with me, which I think's a bit of a shame cos we seemed to get on ok on here previously.

Let's just draw a line here, and move on.

Excellent. Proof that Elfin is wrong and I'm right . Again. Thanks

As for you, Graham; I shall deal with you once I've calmed down from the outrage caused by your quite frankly [i]slanderous[/i] claim, which may actually even be racist I jolly well have not quite worked it out yet cos I'm too upset. 😐

'Elfin is wrong' indeed. [i]Elfin is wrong[/i]?? I BEG your pudden? What perversion of thought could possibly produce such a preposteration??? 😕

'Elfin is wrong' indeed. Elfin is wrong?? I BEG your pudden? What perversion of thought could possibly produce such a preposteration???

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand Human Behaviour is all.
So, why do you spend so much time trying to claim you're right?

Constantly. You can deny this, but you speshly Elf are someone who needs to be 'right' in arguments on here, much more than others.

😉

I thought of a really interesting and thought provoking post to add to this thread a couple of days ago whilst I was doing the washing-up.. I really think it would have revolutionised the way that [i]we all[/i] think about religion and belief systems..
flippin' [i]awesome[/i] post it was..

ho hum.. 😕

Constantly. You can deny this, but you speshly Elf are someone who needs to be 'right' in arguments on here, much more than others.

I don't think this is something Elfin does deliberately. We don't crticise him for always neeeding to be short or being braaaahn. He can't help the factthat he is always right, i think we just have to accept him like that.

Sounds a bit like the start of the hitch hikers guide
Edit: yunkis post that is

holy krakatoa! I missed this one. Is everyone cool! and if yer not then chill out and have a biscuit. I have biscuits.

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand Human Behaviour is all.
So, why do you spend so much time trying to claim you're right?

Constantly. You can deny this, but you speshly Elf are someone who needs to be 'right' in arguments on here, much more than others.

😆

I love you Graham. 🙂

I don't think this is something Elfin does deliberately. We don't crticise him for always neeeding to be short or being braaaahn. He can't help the factthat he is always right, i think we just have to accept him like that.

Again, 😆

Love you too Elf.

[img] ?w=460[/img]

Only just noticed this thread. I struggle with long sentences, summary anyone?

'Elfin is wrong' indeed. Elfin is wrong?? I BEG your pudden? What perversion of thought could possibly produce such a preposteration???

I've been waiting ages for a good opportunity to use this one: elf - do you have 3rd party insurance for cycling?

Don't need it. If I'm in an accident, it's clearly the other person's fault. 😐

Only just noticed this thread. I struggle with long sentences, summary anyone?

You expect a summary of a 1200+ post thread? 😯

Well I suppose it's something like this:
atheists are angry because of bad things that happen in the name of religion
religious types claim that those things are actually nothing to do with religion
atheists say religion is bad
religious types say atheism is bad
religious types suggest that atheists are angry because they're doomed
atheists and religious types argue about whether or not there's a god
thread gets sidetracked into debate about the meaning of "peer-reviewed" 😉
stuff which got discussed 1000 posts ago gets repeated
nobody bothers listening to the video in the OP

I've probably missed out quite a bit in the middle there - gave up reading it for quite a while whilst they thrashed out whether or not god exists.

If I'm in an accident, it's clearly the other person's fault

Self-insurance via Tower Hamlets assertion?

But that atheist, claiming to speak for atheists said that they were angry, so in the same way that christians or muslims or whatever are held responsible for the actions of others who identify themselves as such, you will need to account for her actions.

aracer - putting the mentalist in fundamentalist

😆

gave up reading it for quite a while whilst they thrashed out whether or not god exists.

Who won ?

The Tower Hamlets assertionis particular problematic in these situations as clearly the fault lies with the non Elfin citzen. However this naturally means that the other person has by defi ition acted in way which was not very nice, the TH defence requires the victimto leave the scene, thus perhaps committing a crime himself, however as he is incapable of being wrong. Then either there was no accident or the TH dweller di not leave it, thus we end up in the Tower Hamlets paradox[img] [/img]

Who won ?

Me, check the tags

I account for her actions by telling you to listen to the video in the OP

You watch the utts video, then I'll watch the op vid

Me, check the tags

You're god? 😯

You watch the utts video, then I'll watch the op vid

Not watching utts until you prove it was peer-reviewed. Do you really want to go there? 😈

it's the duck's fault for introducing a whole number of random , y'know, duck things. If you're bringing ducks into it do it properly. They're about 18 inches wide...

People are angry, Kev, but they can't explain why. 🙁

I think athieists, God types, us, anyone, whatever all looking for a solution. life ain't that simple unfortunately, so get on with it with ducks. fat bastards. re: Elf. people are assholes. so? nothing new.

You watch the utts video, then I'll watch the op vid
Not watching utts until you prove it was peer-reviewed. Do you really want to go there?

Not really, because it makes your stance very clear. You are arguing for the sake of it and finding any trivial excuse not to engage with evidence. Any 'proof' i show you would only be further quetioned. I can't 'prove' that the conference took place and wasn't some elaborate hoax. So i'm not going there, but your line of reasoning is very simplistic

I'm quite happy to accept basic stuff like that the conference happened. Less willing to take at face value things you consider "obvious" such as that it being presented at a conference proves that it was peer-reviewed, when my experience suggests otherwise, and the evidence you provided that papers presented at academic conferences have been peer-reviewed didn't actually prove that (it didn't even make that claim!) Just to come back to another point you ignored, the circular argument that academic conferences are defined as ones where the papers are peer-reviewed (even if that was universally true), therefore a paper at an academic conference must have been peer-reviewed, still leaves the issue of whether that conference was an "academic-conference" within that definition. Not when I have personal evidence of scientific conferences where that isn't the case (don't get the idea they were mickey mouse ones either - nice official sounding titles, and numerous people who were world-leaders in their field presenting and attending).

I might be arguing for the sake of it (like most people on this thread, shirley?), but that doesn't mean you're right.

I'd suggest the fact you didn't bother to watch the video in the OP, yet have commented on it also tells a tale.

Charlie, do you believe in esp?

I might be arguing for the sake of it (like most people on this thread, shirley?), but that doesn't mean you're right.

No, but it does mean that you are not interested in the evidence. After all if you are arguing about the credibilty of the evidence just for the sake of the argument rather than actually being interested in wheter or not the evidence is credible then that kind of proves the point. I can't easily prove to you, beyond all doubt that the paper was peer-reviewed. But I think even you know that the work has been peer-reviewed, given the circumstances of it. The best i can do is to say that I presented at the same conference and my work along with everyone else giving proper presentations had their work peer-reviewed, but i know, you only have my word for it. So, if you are interested inthe evidence, then watch the video, if you are interested in arguing or winning and losing, then i suggest you chose a different partner.

I'd suggest the fact you didn't bother to watch the video in the OP, yet have commented on it also tells a tale.

Well, you didn't watch the utts video or read the paper, yet you were happy to have an extended argument about it. I'd also suggest the fact that you think that i commented about the content of the video in the OP, when in fact I didn't, tells a more important tale.

Clearly you relish the battle of wits which is an argument,, it is a shame you came half prepared.

Charlie, do you believe in esp?

I am open-minded about it. I used to think it was rubbish, but having considered the evidence, I think there is some evidence for its existence. I'm no longer sure.

"TJ bores underpants gnomes" has to be up there in the tag top ten. good work!

Well, you didn't watch the utts video or read the paper, yet you were happy to have an extended argument about it. I'd also suggest the fact that you think that i commented about the content of the video in the OP, when in fact I didn't

Yes I did, and yes you did.

CharlieMungus - Member
"Can anyone summarise what she said, because i am not spending an hour watching that."
Nothing new...

The best i can do is to say that I presented at the same conference and my work along with everyone else giving proper presentations had their work peer-reviewed

Well you could have just said that before, rather than relying on the argument that it was an academic conference and all academic conferences are peer-reviewed - anybody might think you were just after an argument. I'm not totally disbelieving of anything anybody writes on here - first hand evidence isn't too bad. Of course that just leaves the issue that it wasn't actually the paper in question being presented.

Of course that just leaves the issue that it wasn't actually the paper in question being presented.

Get a room guys.

I might be arguing for the sake of it (like most people on this thread, shirley?), but that doesn't mean you're right.