your favorite religious propaganda

[Sativied]

Some people do have a mind block though that won't allow them to see reason or think in a certain way, i've seen this time and time again. We've spelled it out for him in complicated ways, and easy ways... but nothing can change a mind that refuses to change.

Yes, the ones that are so clearly brainwashed rather than knowledgeable or enlightened. Although we cannot proof the absence of Gods, the bible has been disproved over and over again with cold hard scientific facts and yet many refuse to acknowledge that for example the world is in reality much older.

Which makes debating a pointless exercise. One side uses facts, the other believes. No fact or logic or explanation of labels will affect their beliefs, if that were possible they obviously wouldn't believe such nonsense in the first place. Which in turn is why the writers of the bible stressed how important it is to "believe" - cult 101, they got it all covered.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I think maybe he just want's to give atheists a bad wrap, or keep a notion in his mind that atheists are stupid/bad people. Some people do have a mind block though that won't allow them to see reason or think in a certain way, i've seen this time and time again. We've spelled it out for him in complicated ways, and easy ways... but nothing can change a mind that refuses to change.

Let me try just one more time.

Atheist: is someone that does not believe in god. This has nothing to do with knowledge of the existence or non-existence of gods, it is merely the statement that one has yet to be convinced that there is a god. Or more simply, the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Atheist agnostic: is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don’t believe in gods because they haven’t seen any evidence that supports their existence.

Atheist gnostic: is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.

Agnostic: is someone who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

Theist: is someone who believes in the existence of a god or god.

Theist gnostic: is someone who believes in a god/gods and thinks that the existence of gods can be known. This position is usually referred to as just ‘theist‘, since people who believe in gods, usually also think that their existence can be known.

Theist agnostic: is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. Another fairly unusual position, as people who have faith in gods usually also think that their god can be known to be real.

Maybe this will help clear things up... but probably not. Once a mind is set... it tends not to budge.

Protip: Philosophy is NOT equivalent to opposition to religion or faith. philosophers before the 18th century were generally theologians first, philosophers second.

what you got goin on here is SOPHISTRY. it is as poorly constructred as abandonconflict's "Libertarian Socialism".

under the rules you establish, Plato Aristotle, Confucius, Mencius, Buddha, and all the rest are just religious crackpots and thus assumed to be daft.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yes, the ones that are so clearly brainwashed rather than knowledgeable or enlightened. Although we cannot proof the absence of Gods, the bible has been disproved over and over again with cold hard scientific facts and yet many refuse to acknowledge that for example the world is in reality much older.

Which makes debating a pointless exercise. One side uses facts, the other believes. No fact or logic or explanation of labels will affect their beliefs, if that were possible they obviously wouldn't believe such nonsense in the first place. Which in turn is why the writers of the bible stressed how important it is to "believe" - cult 101, they got it all covered.

actually my gods are adequately proved to me, leaving your assertion that "the bible has been disproved" lying there like a dead salmon in the moonlight, shining and stinking.

disproving the bible's claims is easy, thats naught but a strawman. proving your assertion that my gods do not exist is far beyond your ability, but i really am comfortable with your disbelief. it doesnt bother me, or my gods.

the common atheist's assertion that my faith in my gods is just stupid, is offensive, egotistical and ridiculous, as you are incapable of disproving their existence, just as i am incapable of proving their existence to you.

your insistence that everything must be your way, and any who hold a different view are just stubborn or stupid is just a conceit. just as zahet's inability to comprehend that some philosophies and some philosophers have theology, and mindphuk's embracing of sophistry and semantics neither prove nor disprove ANYTHING.
they are assertions based on your belief, nothing more.

and remember, all this is about my assertion that SOME atheists are just poseuers. this remains just as true as it was when i said it. the fact hasnt changed. all thats changed is the assumption that "some' means "every last one"

some metalheads are poseurs too, playing dress up and make believe,, with no love of the powerchords, or the driving beat and bassline found within iron Maiden, or Judas Priest's collected works.
some punk fans are just posuers too, wearing mohawks and liberty poles, but they cant tell you what who Mike Ness or Tesco Vee are.

but apparently with atheists alone, it's all or nothing. they move as a single unit, guided by the Pope of Atheism, richard dawkins, and there can be no schism or heresy.

yep. atheism is a monolith. every person who claims to be one IS one, no questions asked. even if they are only pretending because they think it's a cool stance to take, until next week when they discover buddhism, or kabballah, or numerology, or astrology, or whatever else might strike their fancy.

 

[Sativied]

actually my gods are adequately proved to me,

Adequately to believe, not to know. If you do, please do share the proof. The only reason you can believe is because you do believe. No proof, no facts, no reason, no logical debate, just believes.

The only proof I see in your post is you proving the point I made in mine. You're hopelessly brainwashed to a point where reason no longer has influence on your thinking. That should be the modern meaning of the term "lost soul".

My claim that a purple dragon lives in my garage, is countered by a lack of acceptance of that claim, not a new positive claim that dragons don't exist.

your insistence that everything must be your way

That's just the pot calling the cattle black much like the rest of your post. My lack of acceptance doesn't imply I want others to say there is no god. I don't need to disprove anything, I'm not the one trying to convince others of and control others with fairy tales, I'm not the one scaring people into believing, I'm not the one claiming to have proof there is one true god in the sky controlling everything. I don't need to proof to you or myself that you are wrong, my common sense and human intellect tells me with near certainty there is no purple dragon living in your garage and there's no God either.

If you (and other believers) would keep their believes to themselves I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but it's a virus that kept humanity back way too long already and I just hate to see modern people like yourself swallow that shit (without being able to proof anything) any longer. I sometimes feel an urge to go out on the streets and de-evangilize... if I can just save one soul...

 

[Dr Kynes]

Adequately to believe, not to know. If you do, please do share the proof. The only reason you can believe is because you do believe. No proof, no facts, no reason, no logical debate, just believes.

you know not what i know, you only ASSUME what you BELIEVE i know, and thus your assertion is merely your faith that i am as daft as any person who might disagree with your close-held beliefs in disbelief. or is that too complex?

you can never know my mind, nor can you know anyone's but your own. only your personal beliefs alllow you to make the assumption that i must be cracked, stupid, brainwashed or stubborn. i could make the same assertions about you, and it would be based on exactly the same level of evidence.

The only proof I see in your post is you proving the point I made in mine. You're hopelessly brainwashed to a point where reason no longer has influence on your thinking. That should be the modern meaning of the term "lost soul".

thanks decartes, now contemplate your navel and tell me what that means about my own.
you assert that im brainwashed, but you make this claim based on your assumptions, which are entirely unfounded, you apparently assume im a christian too, which is typical, you assume that im part of the easy to dismiss majority who have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe in a socially accepted religion. another failed assumption.

That's just the pot calling the cattle black much like the rest of your post. My lack of acceptance doesn't imply I want others to say there is no god. I don't need to disprove anything, I'm not the one trying to convince others of and control others with fairy tales, I'm not the one scaring people into believing, I'm not the one claiming to have proof there is one true god in the sky controlling everything. I don't need to proof to you or myself that you are wrong, my common sense and human intellect tells me with near certainty there is no purple dragon living in your garage and there's no God either.

the pot, calling the kettle black is a common cultural meme that indicates the hypocrisy of the accuser. what i believe you are grasping for is the schoolyard aphorism "I'm rubber you're glue..." but again, a failed assumption i care not what you believe, you can believe anything you like,, but when you make an erroneous assertion regarding any matter then you should expect disagreement. especially on a matter as contentious as the theist/agnostic/atheist roundabout.

If you (and other believers) would keep their believes to themselves I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but it's a virus that kept humanity back way too long already and I just hate to see modern people like yourself swallow that shit (without being able to proof anything) any longer. I sometimes feel an urge to go out on the streets and de-evangilize... if I can just save one soul...

funny, it YOU who is squawking and bleating about hoiw upset you are that anyone disbelieves your disbelief. you make the very point i originally asserted, some, and in fact MANY so-called atheists assume that stance as a pose, a demonstration of their individuality,, and their desire to be seen as part of the in-crowd who hold believers in any faith in contempt. (lol irony)

your obvious disdain for any religious faith is especially venomous for the christians, who you clearly hold beneath contempt, is just a sure sign that your faith in your disbelief is on shaky ground, and when the long cold nights come, youll be looking for answers you have so vehemently denied to others.

if you are confident in your disbelief, why do you need converts? thats the sign of a faith that needs a herd to rally around, a belief that needs more people to agree just to reassure the evangelists. like Scientology.
if you are confident in your disbelief then why does my belief bother you so?

 

[mindphuk]

aldous huxley can pound sand, i care not what he claims, nor do i consider him an authority on any subject save implausible fiction novels.

I was quoting Thomas Henry Huxley, the person that coined the term agnostic.

i know many self identified agnostics, and they dont know if there is or is not a god. you may consider this heresy, but they do not, nor do i.

Many self-identified agnostics also happen to be atheists. Their position on knowledge has no bearing on whether or not they believe. That's the mental hurdle you seem to have such trouble getting over.

i know many self identified atheists and nearly every one insists there IS NO SUPERNATURAL, and usually follow it up with a lengthy screed about how dumb christians are, and how superior atheists are.

Still waiting on links and/or quotes to all of these atheists that claim knowledge about the non-existence of gods. As to supernatural, that's a different subject altogether. There actually may not be a supernatural, it all depends on how one defines it. It seems however, you cannot seem to stop mixing up your arguments. Theism and atheism are the answers to one and only one question, the existential nature of deities. I know plenty of atheists, i.e. don't believe in a god but clearly believe in all sorts of 'supernatural' and magical things. They generally do not identify themselves as atheists but since they are clearly not theists, they are justifiably labeled as such.

atheism brings with it smug certitude, the sort bill maher trades in, this is not "not knowing" atheisim as delivered by many including yourself, iis declarative, and specific. "religion is dumb, and people who believe are superstitious fools"

Can't wait for these quotes. Since you include me in this group, I wonder if you can find any quote where I have claimed certainty with respect to gods. I can call you a fool, not because you are superstitious but because you keep making untrue claims as if they are fact. Continued assertions about supposed atheist is not evidence. Repetition is not persuasion.

endlessly repeating the same drivel, that agnosticism is some convoluted epistemological bizzaro world of not understanding how impossible it is to understand what cannot be comprehended is specious. agnosticism conveys an uncertainty and lack of knowledge on a subject, not the impossibility of anyone ever understanding the subject. that shit might fly in a particularly fucked up philosophy class, but it does not comport with the facts, nor the usage of the phrase.

Now you have misrepresented my posts once again. Maybe I should type slower so that you don't keep misunderstanding.

Definition of agnostic
noun

• a person who believes that nothing is known or can be knownof the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

This definition says the same thing I have been saying. It's about knowledge, NOT belief. YOU are the one that continues to claim it is a middle ground wrt belief.

• a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

This does unfortunately seem to reflect the common usage, the non-technical one that everyone thinks agnosticism means. It is not how Huxley used the term and since "...it was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, and so there can only be one single point of departure for any discussion of the essence of agnosticism. That point is the definition of agnosticism chosen by Huxley himself:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
-- "Agnosticism", 1889"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html​

Definition of atheism

noun

• disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin:

late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

So where in this definition is does it say that an atheist makes a positive claim that gods don't exist? A lack of belief in a god is the same as a lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster. It is not a claim that god or Nessie doesn't exist or people that believe in them are stupid. Those continue to be your own baggage and stubbornness in realizing what you once thought was true is not.

so, as you can see, not knowing = agnosticism,

Do you disagree that one can not know but still believe or not believe? Are you still attempting to claim that not knowing is mutually exclusive to belief in something? I'm agnostic about us living in a multiverse. I believe it is probably the case however. I am agnostic about the many-worlds theory. I actually do not think this is how things are. So it appears I can be agnostic about something and hold either a positive or a negative belief about it too.

insisting there is not = atheism.

Even your dictionary definition doesn't support you here. This is you continued assertion and have been proven wrong by not only etymology but by also by common usage. It appears you hold onto this definition in order to attack and marginalize those that you disagree with. I see no other reason to not accept the consensus of the vast majority of people that use this term to label themselves.

Continue to use this narrow definition of atheism, then fine, I will just deny being an atheist. Not really a problem. It only becomes a problem for you when you attempt to assign specific beliefs and claims to someone merely on their identification of being an atheist.

your philosophy professor was a sophist, not a philosopher. he fucked you over.

Keep trying to attack and insult since it merely demonstrates you have run out of reason and thoughtful replies.

 

[Sativied]

you know not what i know, you only ASSUME what you BELIEVE i know, and thus your assertion is merely your faith that i am as daft as any person who might disagree with your close-held beliefs in disbelief. or is that too complex?

If you think that is complex matter I can see why reality is hard to grasp for you. I don't assume anything more than the obvious from what I read.

you assume that im part of the easy to dismiss majority who have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe in a socially accepted religion.

Not exactly but more or less yes. People don't get infected by the major religions without someone or something else infecting them (something that by itself says it all). Whether that happened at childhood, or later, by people, or from reading a book, at some point your brain did get washed. You didn't make up your gods yourself (though that would explain a few things).

the pot, calling the kettle black is a common cultural meme that indicates the hypocrisy of the accuser. what i believe you are grasping for is the schoolyard aphorism "I'm rubber you're glue..."

Nope, I meant you are the pot calling me the cattle black. Which simply means you are accusing me of what you do yourself. For example:

but when you make an erroneous assertion regarding any matter then you should expect disagreement.

And that was just an example because it applies to most of the rest I didn't quote as well. Including the "failed assumptions".

it YOU who is squawking and bleating about how upset you are that anyone disbelieves your disbelief.

Disbelieving my disbelief? What a ridiculous far fetched attempt to twist. I'm starting to see why you refuse to see the main point made by others several times now, it would completely destroy your argument and thinking. AGAIN, just that I don't believe you have a purple dragon living in your garage doesn't mean I claim to know with certainty there is none and certainly doesn't mean I'm upset if you disbelieve my disbelief (I feel ridiculous typing that even though they aren't my own words).

your obvious disdain for any religious faith is especially venomous for the christians, who you clearly hold beneath contempt,

Hell yeah! If I had to pick I'd say I have a bigger problem with Islam though simply because the latter is even more backward. Christianity is the biggest problem because it's the religion in Western society, where holding back mankind has the largest influence.

is just a sure sign that your faith in your disbelief is on shaky ground, and when the long cold nights come, youll be looking for answers you have so vehemently denied to others.

Faith in my disbelief? There's no such thing. Still not getting it... it's not just black and white... You can't go from not believing to faith in disbelieving, that makes sense only if you want it to for the sake of convincing yourself.

Interesting assumption though, which leads me to another one myself: you are just scared and looking for comfort. I however do not fear the long cold nights, I do not fear life nor dead, but above all I do not fear admitting I don't know.

Just like you don't know, you believe. I was going to say blindly believe but ah well, blindly is implied when it comes to believing isn't it.

if you are confident in your disbelief, why do you need converts?

Speaking of "too complex"... that was sarcasm. Add "but I don't because I don't pretend to know".

why does my belief bother you so?

Oh yeah why would that bother me... it's all so innocent isn't it... See previous post:

If you (and other believers) would keep their believes to themselves I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but it's a virus that kept humanity back way too long already and I just hate to see modern people like yourself swallow that shit (without being able to proof anything) any longer.

Now let me ask you a question: why does it bother you so much that not every non-believer is a disbeliever? SO much even that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of someone not believing in your god but at the same time not ... oh wait... you already answered that:

i know many self identified atheists and nearly every one insists there IS NO SUPERNATURAL,

Clearly you don't know enough of them. Anyone who "insists" there is no supernatural is to me as ignorant as a christian simply because absence of proof is no proof of absence. Anyone who insist there is supernatural without showing proof is a charlatan.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I was quoting Thomas Henry Huxley, the person that coined the term agnostic.

Many self-identified agnostics also happen to be atheists. Their position on knowledge has no bearing on whether or not they believe. That's the mental hurdle you seem to have such trouble getting over.
Still waiting on links and/or quotes to all of these atheists that claim knowledge about the non-existence of gods. As to supernatural, that's a different subject altogether. There actually may not be a supernatural, it all depends on how one defines it. It seems however, you cannot seem to stop mixing up your arguments. Theism and atheism are the answers to one and only one question, the existential nature of deities. I know plenty of atheists, i.e. don't believe in a god but clearly believe in all sorts of 'supernatural' and magical things. They generally do not identify themselves as atheists but since they are clearly not theists, they are justifiably labeled as such.

Can't wait for these quotes. Since you include me in this group, I wonder if you can find any quote where I have claimed certainty with respect to gods. I can call you a fool, not because you are superstitious but because you keep making untrue claims as if they are fact. Continued assertions about supposed atheist is not evidence. Repetition is not persuasion.

Now you have misrepresented my posts once again. Maybe I should type slower so that you don't keep misunderstanding.


This definition says the same thing I have been saying. It's about knowledge, NOT belief. YOU are the one that continues to claim it is a middle ground wrt belief.
This does unfortunately seem to reflect the common usage, the non-technical one that everyone thinks agnosticism means. It is not how Huxley used the term and since "...it was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, and so there can only be one single point of departure for any discussion of the essence of agnosticism. That point is the definition of agnosticism chosen by Huxley himself:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
-- "Agnosticism", 1889"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html​

So where in this definition is does it say that an atheist makes a positive claim that gods don't exist? A lack of belief in a god is the same as a lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster. It is not a claim that god or Nessie doesn't exist or people that believe in them are stupid. Those continue to be your own baggage and stubbornness in realizing what you once thought was true is not.

Do you disagree that one can not know but still believe or not believe? Are you still attempting to claim that not knowing is mutually exclusive to belief in something? I'm agnostic about us living in a multiverse. I believe it is probably the case however. I am agnostic about the many-worlds theory. I actually do not think this is how things are. So it appears I can be agnostic about something and hold either a positive or a negative belief about it too.

Even your dictionary definition doesn't support you here. This is you continued assertion and have been proven wrong by not only etymology but by also by common usage. It appears you hold onto this definition in order to attack and marginalize those that you disagree with. I see no other reason to not accept the consensus of the vast majority of people that use this term to label themselves.

Continue to use this narrow definition of atheism, then fine, I will just deny being an atheist. Not really a problem. It only becomes a problem for you when you attempt to assign specific beliefs and claims to someone merely on their identification of being an atheist.

Keep trying to attack and insult since it merely demonstrates you have run out of reason and thoughtful replies.

yeah yeah yeah you want "Proof" that many atheists insist there are no supernatural forces, deities etc...

All from the "Philosophical Meme and Quote" thread. All posted by Zahet Strife, who apparently believes that philosophy is the polar opposite of faith.



nuff said.

since you have now made it quite clear that the FACTS mean dick, and the little details like "Some atheists are poseurs" doesnt mean "All atheists are posuers" and your insistence on indulging in endless semantic wrangling, with admittedly some points, but still failing to accept that "Not Knowing" does not equate to "It's Unknowable", no matter what aldous huxley says (yes, im sticking with that cuz it struck me funny) makes this argument a tempest in a jock strap.

you may in fact have good reasons for your insistence that there is not such thing as god or gods, and thats fine, you roll with that, i likewise have good reasons for my certainty that they DO exist, but ill never prove it to you, and youll never disprove it to me.

meanwhile the bitter whingeing and petulant mewling of some clowns in this thread is why i rarely wander this way. might as well have a pilow fight over who would win a fight between mighty mouse and superman. it's all irrelevant.

insistent adamant and obnoxious atheists like that dingleberry bill maher still piss me off with their "all religious people are idiots" bullshit, and the can eat a sack of dicks.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Not exactly but more or less yes. People don't get infected by the major religions without someone or something else infecting them (something that by itself says it all). Whether that happened at childhood, or later, by people, or from reading a book, at some point your brain did get washed. You didn't make up your gods yourself (though that would explain a few things).
Clearly you don't know enough of them. Anyone who "insists" there is no supernatural is to me as ignorant as a christian simply because absence of proof is no proof of absence. Anyone who insist there is supernatural without showing proof is a charlatan.

i have no interest in sharing with you the proofs that made me a believer.

you should probably look within yourself and see what makes you so bitter angry and incapable of understanding that "Some _______ are ___________" does not mean "All ____________ are ____________"

you can fill in that madlib with whatever noun and adjective you like, it still works out the same.

"Some Flowers are Yellow" is NOT equivalent to "All Flowers are Yellow"

"Some French People are Smelly" is NOT equivalent to "All French People are Smelly"

"Some People are Idiots" is NOT equivalent to "All People are Idiots"

yep. you sure are mad that not everybody has accepted the dubious joys of your belief system.

me, i got no problems with anybody believing whatever they like,, you're the one who cant shut up about how everybody needs to embrace atheism or they are just brainwashed or stupid.

 

[Sativied]

All from the "Philosophical Meme and Quote" thread. All posted by Zahet Strife

And what an awesome post that is. So much wisdom from such wise people and you still stuff your head a little further up your ass - impressive.

yep. you sure are mad that not everybody has accepted the dubious joys of your belief system.

Are you really sure about that? Just as sure as there being a god? Still not getting it... I do not have a belief system just because I don't swallow the nonsense you do. It is not that black and white. Don't pretend to know what goes on in my mind (either... double-edged sword...). You can continue to believe I am "upset" or "mad", but in reality I am not. I can dispute your nonsense and ridicule christians without applying any emotions or increasing my heart beat one bit. I speak from the mind, not the heart. And unlike you I am not afraid.

me, i got no problems with anybody believing whatever they like,, you're the one who cant shut up about how everybody needs to embrace atheism or they are just brainwashed or stupid.

A poor and failed attempt... As long as there are people like you spreading fairytales as if they are proven truths and something more than mere believes I won't "shut up" (either).

i have no interest in sharing with you the proofs that made me a believer.

And you say my non-existing faith is on shaking grounds? What are you afraid of, that someone might shoot a few holes in your "proofs"? There IS no proof, stop kidding yourself.

you should probably look within yourself and see what makes you so bitter angry and incapable of understanding that

All this talk about me being angry/mad/upset is just you reflecting your own state of mind on me. And again with the pot-cattle thing... you insist on labeling and stereotyping atheists incorrectly but when that is pointed out you only talk about "some" of them and not all? And you accuse me of hypocrisy

 

[Kite High]

my problem with religion is RELIGION

 

[mindphuk]

yeah yeah yeah you want "Proof" that many atheists insist there are no supernatural forces, deities etc...

Your bombardment of quotes did not show ONE that INSISTED any certainty with regard to gods. Railing against superstition and specific instances of religious bullshit is NOT supportive of your claim that atheists are making positive claims against the reality of a god. I will just have to concede that your inability to recognize the difference between expressing doubt and asserting a claim will continue to be an issue.

All from the "Philosophical Meme and Quote" thread. All posted by Zahet Strife, who apparently believes that philosophy is the polar opposite of faith.

Another claim about a person that you cannot possibly demonstrate. Are you likewise claiming that someone that doesn't have faith cannot participate in philosophy or promote philosophical views?

nuff said.

Hardly, but since subtlety is beyond your comprehension, I guess we will have to let it go at that.

since you have now made it quite clear that the FACTS mean dick,

and you have made it clear that you like to cherry pick your 'facts'

and the little details like "Some atheists are poseurs" doesnt mean "All atheists are posuers" and your insistence on indulging in endless semantic wrangling, with admittedly some points, but still failing to accept that "Not Knowing" does not equate to "It's Unknowable", no matter what aldous huxley says (yes, im sticking with that cuz it struck me funny) makes this argument a tempest in a jock strap.

You pointed to me specifically as 'evidence' for claim that atheists are hipster, pseudointellectuals. Now you try to back away from that by implying I accused you of calling 'all' atheists posuers when in fact I merely asked you to prove you assertion about 'some' by explaining how you can tell the difference between a posuer and a true atheist that comes to his conclusions by skeptical inquiry. The only response you could muster seemed to stagnate in a puddle of your personal prejudices.

I have not once claimed that not knowing equates to unknowable. In fact I made it quite clear there is a distinction, and T.H. Huxley clearly explained that something doesn't need to be unknowable for one to take the agnostic position, which is ultimately merely one of skepticism. So it appears you are the word wrangler, while I'm attempting to educate.

you may in fact have good reasons for your insistence that there is not such thing as god or gods, and thats fine, you roll with that, i likewise have good reasons for my certainty that they DO exist, but ill never prove it to you, and youll never disprove it to me.

You still have not found a quote by me where I insist and am certain that there is no such thing as god, yet here you are expressing clear certainty, something that is counter to skeptical, reasoned thought. You have no idea if you can ever prove your gods to me, you haven't even attempted, only asserted. If you actually have, good, rational, reasons to believe there are gods, then why shouldn't you be able to convince another rational, reasonable person that they are real? Is it possibly because your reasons are not actually rational and can withstand the scrutiny of skeptical, critical thinking?

meanwhile the bitter whingeing and petulant mewling of some clowns in this thread is why i rarely wander this way. might as well have a pilow fight over who would win a fight between mighty mouse and superman. it's all irrelevant.

You are welcome to quit visiting or put me on ignore

insistent adamant and obnoxious atheists like that dingleberry bill maher still piss me off with their "all religious people are idiots" bullshit, and the can eat a sack of dicks.

You keep implying that many atheists are clueless and fickle and deify Dawkins. At least Maher is able to expose and demonstrate the vacuous position that many religious people have. And let's stop conflating theism with religious. They are related but not synonymous. It is your constant equivocating that is one of your most annoying features.

 

[Dr Kynes]

And what an awesome post that is. So much wisdom from such wise people and you still stuff your head a little further up your ass - impressive.

and youre so far off the point of why i re-posted those images you need the hubble telescope to spot it.

every last one of those images quotes, memes, and flowcharts demonstrates the beilief by the quoted (sagan, russel, maher, einstein, etc...) the creator/drawer of the image and the person who posted them each and every one, as "philosophy quotes" (zahet strife) that all faith is foolish superstition, and anyone who was smart or clever or brave enough to be one of the cool kids would throw off the shackles of superstition and faith.

and then you even go on to intimate that i should reject my beliefs because these other guys are so smart and wise...

this is EXACTLY THE SAME as "The Bible Says It, I Believe it, That Settles It" but this is too hard for you to figure out. Accepting or rejecting any idea based on the perceived wisdom or authority of another, whether that other is Richard Dawkins, or the prophet Mohammed, or L Ron Hubbard is EQUALLY FAITH BASED! to insist that anyone should accept or reject any idea based on a bumper sticker slogan or a motivational poster is just stupid. even a 2000 year old desert fairy tail about burning bushes and dudes with giant beards makes more sense.

Are you really sure about that? Just as sure as there being a god? Still not getting it... I do not have a belief system just because I don't swallow the nonsense you do. It is not that black and white. Don't pretend to know what goes on in my mind (either... double-edged sword...). You can continue to believe I am "upset" or "mad", but in reality I am not. I can dispute your nonsense and ridicule christians without applying any emotions or increasing my heart beat one bit. I speak from the mind, not the heart. And unlike you I am not afraid.

ORLY? maybe youre afraid of not being invited to the cool athiest table on un-christmas, or youre afraid youll get tarred with the brush of christianity, or maybe youre just afraid of anything not served up to you on a silver platter with quotes and memes from a wirerd blend of drug addicted poets, communist radicals, hollywood celebrities, failed stand up comics, physicists, and science fiction writers?

bearded desert nomads are really starting to sound authoritative and wise when you stack them up next to bertie russel and bill maher.

A poor and failed attempt... As long as there are people like you spreading fairytales as if they are proven truths and something more than mere believes I won't "shut up" (either).

you dont even know what my "fairy tale" is specifically, so how can you claim im spreading it? im talking in generalities about ALL religions, from ancestor worship to psychotherapy, and all points between (except scientology, which is a cult) and their utility in stabilizing society, and their usefulness in the individual none of which is provided by bill maher's smug blanket rejection of all things he doesnt understand, and from his collected statements that covers pretty much EVERYTHING from how economics and governments work to how the moon keeps itself from falling out of the sky.

And you say my non-existing faith is on shaking grounds? What are you afraid of, that someone might shoot a few holes in your "proofs"? There IS no proof, stop kidding yourself.

nope. im rock solid in my beilefs, even if you dont understand the who, what, when, where, why, and how of my dao. but you dont seem to have a handle on WHY you believe these nothing, save that bill maher and carl sagan think the same way.
the wisdom of the village elder, and his assertion that "This is the way things are" is groovy. but if youre taking his word, youre taking it on FAITH, and you dont seem to have any reason beyond "bill maher said so" for your insistence that im wrong.

and apparently you are blind to irony. thats what comes from hypocrisy. i suppose thats why you think a pot is calling some "cattle" black.

All this talk about me being angry/mad/upset is just you reflecting your own state of mind on me. And again with the pot-cattle thing... you insist on labeling and stereotyping atheists incorrectly but when that is pointed out you only talk about "some" of them and not all? And you accuse me of hypocrisy

nope, nope and yep.

nope, you are mad, angry and insistent that im wrong, because you HAVE TO BE RIGHT, or your shaky poorly constructed worldview collapses, since it's built on the shifting sands of bill maher quotes, and your assumption that learned and wise people dont believe in gods, so youll not either. thus you become wise by association. meanwhile, im cool with my beliefs, and if you really do believe that thers no gods and that im wrong, thats cool too, but i suspect you dont even believe that, and you certainly dont KNOW it.

nope, i insist on declaring that SOME atheists are trendy followers who simply want to LOOK like they know some shit, like the asshole who carries around Plato's Republic, and pretends to read it, but in fact is illiterate, or the chump who wears a red thread tied to his wrist because that means he's "very spiritual, just like madonna" these are both displays, affected to give others a false impression, and to associate the posuer with some philosophy or theology they dont even understand. if you think that no person claiming to be an atheist could possibly be so shallow, ignorant and stupid, then i would suggest you have made a seriously erroneous assumption, which of course will pile up neatly with the other erroneous assumptions you have made. SOME atheists are posuers, that was my original assertion, and it still stands. some of them are idiot followers, some of them are actually learned and wise skep[tics and disbelievers, and some are justpretending so they can stand next to carl sagan and shout "Yeah! That's exactly what I was gonna say!"

and finally, yep. youre a hypocrite. you accuse me of being a brainwashed fool, insist im wrong, and that youre right, when you dont even know what i believe, and i suspect you dont even kn ow what YOU are pretending to believe. now go stand next to bill maher and shout "Yeah!! That's exactly what I was gonna say!"

 

[Sativied]

and then you even go on to intimate that i should reject my beliefs because these other guys are so smart and wise...

this is EXACTLY THE SAME as "The Bible Says It, I Believe it, That Settles It" but this is too hard for you to figure out. Accepting or rejecting any idea based on the perceived wisdom or authority of another, whether that other is Richard Dawkins, or the prophet Mohammed, or L Ron Hubbard is EQUALLY FAITH BASED! to insist that anyone should accept or reject any idea based on a bumper sticker slogan or a motivational poster is just stupid.

Maher is an odd duck in that list and not necessarily one I would include in "wise men" (not saying he isn't just don't know him well enough - after that awesome quote that will change soon) but it's not me who has a hard time figuring things out. It's clear that it's all just black and white to you. Just because you swallow the same crap that has been parroted over and over doesn't mean those who don't swallow it also do that based on the same info being parroted over and over.

I agree it would be stupid to accept or reject ideas solely based on the words of another. But once you combine it with logic, history, common sense, scientific prove, and everything you can and can't see, hear, smell and feel, it becomes rather obvious that your fairytale is unlikely reality. And why you need to "believe", and can't prove it and start responding like an angry child that isn't getting "her" way.

The main message in those memes is that religious people should knock that shit off. Wake the fuck up. Open your eyes and enjoy reality (which again doesn't mean I claim to know there is nothing beyond what I consider reality). Stop holding mankind back with your fairy tales (and the inherit limitations fairy tale believers want and way too often do enforce on others).

ORLY? maybe youre afraid of not being invited to the cool athiest table on un-christmas, or youre afraid youll get tarred with the brush of christianity, or maybe youre just afraid of anything not served up to you on a silver platter with quotes and memes from a wirerd blend of drug addicted poets, communist radicals, hollywood celebrities, failed stand up comics, physicists, and science fiction writers?

Nope none of the above. Most of what is said in those memes is what I've been saying for DECADES. That's the great thing about reality, you don't need others to brainwash you to learn about it. It seems genuinely hard to understand for you, but yes really, I'm not so afraid of living and dying that I need to make up a purple dragon to give me comfort - like you. Reality is so wonderful.

you dont even know what my "fairy tale" is specifically

Of course if you can cherry pick facts you can also cherry pick believes. Based on your "love" for Bill Maher I don't need to know specifics about your fairy tale, of which you don't want to share proof. But do you even have a name for your new cult yet? err... fairy tale.

You speak to me of not understanding and not being able to figure things out. Is that what the person who brainwashed you pulled on you? Again the reflective behavior. I am not you. What worked on you won't work on me. It's the typical loser answer in any debate but especially popular amongst religious people. You settle for fairy tales not because reality is too hard to figure out for you, you're just scared and need the comfort of the idea there is a purple dragon watching over you so you refuse to see reality and get a little pissy if someone confronts you with it.

nope, you are mad, angry

Again mere reflections of an angry Christian incapable of having a logical debate, added with anger against Bill Maher (who you quoted yourself in a failed attempt ). You insist I am mad and angry while you clearly stated you are (yes read your own posts). Clearly you are seeing things there are not. If imagining comes that easy to you... then I can see how you think you have proof for your believes. I won't get angry because you believe (imagine) it, just like there is no god because you believe (imagine) it. I personally don't have a problem with you, I don't know you. Try to place yourself in my shoes for second and think how unlikely it is for me to get angry towards someone who makes up his own fairytale and claims to have proof for it but doesn't want to share it, and then calls me a hypocrite. That's way too ridiculous to get upset about.

Does it make it easier for you to believe your fairytale if others would get angry for you believing it? I can see how that would work... they did cover that quite nicely in the bible didn't they.

insistent that im wrong,

Still not getting it... I'm not insistent you are wrong, just that you cannot prove you are right and unlikely are. How can you still call yourself an intelligent human being after missing that point in nearly a dozen posts...?

and finally, yep. youre a hypocrite. you accuse me of being a brainwashed fool, insist im wrong, and that youre right, when you dont even know what i believe, and i suspect you dont even kn ow what YOU are pretending to believe.

Wow... see question above And again the pot calling the cattle black (may want to google that one...)

now go stand next to bill maher and shout "Yeah!! That's exactly what I was gonna say!"

And somehow that should prevent me or anyone else from doing exactly that? Another technique borrowed from your brainwasher(s)? Schoolyard level behavior... not going to work on me, and Bill Maher is fucking awesome just for saying that outloud (what many others perceive as reality, more and more fortunately). I wasn't going to say what he said, as I try not to point out the obvious. Funny how you get some (hopefully 'many') people would feel the urge to do that but refuse to see why (cause he's saying what many people are thinking after they figured it all out by themselves based on facts, logic and proof).


Just as me not getting angry over a religious debate, or any other discussion on the web for that matter, I rather not have someone getting upset/angry/mad on the other side of the line sort of speak. Keep in mind Bill is a comedian, bringing it in such a way that it gets that kind of response from similar minded people is the whole point (and why he's a bit rude... still an awesome quote though... especially how he finished it off...)

 

[skunkd0c]

but this also toke and talk where pretty much anything can be posted. Right now im toking and talking so whats the problem??

ocd .

 

[nameno]

I had to live it to see what he could do,now I believe,but to each his on,I don't want to change anybody.Bye

 

[Dr Kynes]

Your bombardment of quotes did not show ONE that INSISTED any certainty with regard to gods. Railing against superstition and specific instances of religious bullshit is NOT supportive of your claim that atheists are making positive claims against the reality of a god. I will just have to concede that your inability to recognize the difference between expressing doubt and asserting a claim will continue to be an issue.

yeah, that "bombardment" of quotes, none of which apparently had anything to do with a positive denial of the veracity of any faith, and the direct rejection of the possibility of deity, except EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, is just me pissing in the wind. yep with phrases like "...such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls" are totally consistent with an "I Dont Know" position. yep, "I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition" is not at all a declaration that he might "condemn and vilify this mythical deity" nope. not a bit. but at least he had the good manners to state it was his OPINION, unlike say...

​

which declares definitively that all religious or supernatural belief is "bollocks" . yeah i guers im to unsubtle to understand the finer points of " grownups with imaginary friends are stupid" and other such bumper sticker slogan atheistic "philosophies"

Another claim about a person that you cannot possibly demonstrate. Are you likewise claiming that someone that doesn't have faith cannot participate in philosophy or promote philosophical views?

no, a claim based on a thread started by himself (zahet strife) which he declared was a place to post philosophical memes quotes etc..., and his own contributions were nearly exclusively what might best be described as "religion is dumb" posts,, and included very little in the way of philosophical musings of any sort. it was a groovy thread and i enjoyed it, but his opinion seemed to be "philosophy = anti-religion" rather than the actual reality: "most philosophers before the 1800's were theologians first, philosophers second"

the counter argument, that you now make is entirely specious. atheists can have philosphical musings all they like, and many do. many also hold the opinion (which many also state as a fact, not an opinion) thats there IS NO GOD (or gods). full stop. plain statement, not "i dont believe", no "nobody can prove to me that theres is a god" no "i have doubts as to the veracity of your religion" no "i suspect youre indulging in superstition", just plain bold uncompromising declarations.

the sort of statements which would be called "Pontification" if it professed the opposite opinion.

philosophy and theology are not inextricable, though they do share a large number of the same notable quotables.

just to be clear though, so you dont run off making more wild claims of things i never even implied:

all religious persons are NOT philosophical,, but some are
all non-religious persons are not primitive savages interested only in eating, excreting and reproducing, but some are

all philosophers are not religious but some are
all religions are not based on solid philosophical principles but some are

You pointed to me specifically as 'evidence' for claim that atheists are hipster, pseudointellectuals.

REALLY??? i do not believe i did that at all.
thaty does not sound like me, nor does it reflect my opinion of you. i think YOU PERSONALLY have sound reasons and a logical basis for your skepticism.
i also suspect that if you had sufficient evidence of the existence of a deity, you would most likely accept it.

kindly direct me to the statement you felt targeted you as a hipster posuer psuedointellectual.

Now you try to back away from that by implying I accused you of calling 'all' atheists posuers when in fact I merely asked you to prove you assertion about 'some' by explaining how you can tell the difference between a posuer and a true atheist that comes to his conclusions by skeptical inquiry. The only response you could muster seemed to stagnate in a puddle of your personal prejudices.

you want me to offer you up evidence of persons i know, like say video of them being dumbass hipsters, embracing atheism one week, and reading "the Secret" and talking about how it 'really opened their eyes" the next week?

you really should be able to think of some posuers you know personally and agree on principle, that in any group, theres ALWAYS some assholes who are just following the crowd. unless you can offer up some evidence that disproves that principle, it is unarguable.

I have not once claimed that not knowing equates to unknowable. In fact I made it quite clear there is a distinction, and T.H. Huxley clearly explained that something doesn't need to be unknowable for one to take the agnostic position, which is ultimately merely one of skepticism. So it appears you are the word wrangler, while I'm attempting to educate.

did i not say you made some good points? they were strong points backed up with decent evidence. i just happen to disagree. in greek "agnostic" means not knowing, a lack of certainty or expertise,, etc. atheist likewise means "without theology"

your assertion creates a situation which when used with a singe faith, such as judaism, would place any person who is "not a believer in jewish the faith" in the same category as a crazy person who doesnt believe that jews exist at all. it just doesnt make sense,, not logically, not etymologically, and not rhetorically.

You still have not found a quote by me where I insist and am certain that there is no such thing as god, yet here you are expressing clear certainty, something that is counter to skeptical, reasoned thought.

i never asserted that YOU made those claims i said SOME ATHEISTS DO and this is a fact. you did not demand i prove YOU made those claims, you demanded i show you where ANY ahteist made those claims.

lets look back a little ways and see it ourselves:

Being agnostic does not mean you don't have an opinion on a subject. That's ridiculous. Quit changing the meaning of things to suit your agenda.Until you can produce,as requested, a quote from atheists that any of them have claimed to have knowledge about the lack of gods, this assertion of yours will continue to stink as most shit does.

now this clearly does not indicate that you felt i had selected you as one of the atheists who insist there simply is no god, as a fact, despite the impossibility of any such proof. this asserts that you wish to see "a quote from atheists" and i provided several, froim well known atheists,, delivered in pretty pictures, courtesy of a nearby thread, where they had been posted by Zahet Strife (self identified and unabashed atheist) with whom i only disagree as to the nature of philosophy as a subject, and it's relation to religion.

this new assertion that i somehow targeted you as a pseudo-atheist poseur is perplexing.

even the portion of the above quote excerpted here:

"Being agnostic does not mean you don't have an opinion on a subject."

is entirely an argument outside of the context to which it pretends to object. the statement which apparently triggered this response was about the BUTTHURT expressed by SOME theists over those who hold a differing opinionon religion to their own, and the equal and opposite BUTTHURT expressed by SOME atheists who likewise hold a differing opinion. the opinions may come from different sides, but the BUTTHURT is identical in both subgroups.

the closest thing to an accusation leveled against you personally i can think of is my accusation thats you are exopressing BUTTHURT, because well... bro, some of your posts have come off extremely butthurt.

whether this butthurt is real, or merly implied by your adamant insistence that agnostics have somne particular opinion about how god is totally 100% unknowable (which is a pretty wild claim in itself...) ir if this is merely inadvertently implied butthurt or if it is mistakenly inferred butthurt, the butthurt levels in this thread are reaching Lollercaust levels.

meanwhile can you honestly think of a single person who would fall into the "i dont know if there is or is not a god" category, whatever you wish to call it who ever got butthurt over somebody else believing, or disbelieving any claim regarding religion?

those who say "i dont know if there is or is not a god" dont have an opinion on whether there is or is not a god, and thus their butts are immune to religious hurtings, provided of course, nobody squeezes their peaches.

if you wish to once again disagree on semantics, then why dont YOU tell ME what you would call someone who "does not know if there is or is not any god(s)" because thats what i would call agnostic.

You have no idea if you can ever prove your gods to me, you haven't even attempted, only asserted. If you actually have, good, rational, reasons to believe there are gods, then why shouldn't you be able to convince another rational, reasonable person that they are real? Is it possibly because your reasons are not actually rational and can withstand the scrutiny of skeptical, critical thinking?

becuase it is personal, and i doubt it would mean shit to you. you would have to experience it yourself just as i did. it's complicated

you would never take my word for it, much in the way i dont buy that "auditing" will remove fictional alien ghosts from my body and soul, or that eventually scientiology can give me superpowers.

^^^ see that there? ^^^

thats me saying definitively that scientology is bullshit. thats a declarative statement. and ill say it again. "Scientology is 100% bullshit."

now, i can say that because i can PROVE scientology is bullshit, cuz i can show you the creator of scientology's own words, written by his own soft pink hand in which he declares he intends to create his own fake religion as a tax dodge and a profit making enterprise. also, it's a "space opera" by his own admission.

You are welcome to quit visiting or put me on ignore

perish the thought. your insights on many things are fascinating i just disagree on this.

You keep implying that many atheists are clueless and fickle and deify Dawkins. At least Maher is able to expose and demonstrate the vacuous position that many religious people have. And let's stop conflating theism with religious. They are related but not synonymous. It is your constant equivocating that is one of your most annoying features.

"some atheists are poseurs"
"some atheists simply accept Richard Dawkins as their messiah"
"bill maher is one of those fools who hold a position of atheism yet do explain why they hold it beyond "cuz religion is dumb" which is hardly a rational and reasoned response."
"bill maher's athieism IN SPECIFIC and appertaining solely to him, appears to me, in my own personal opinion, to be nothing more than anti-religion, not any sort of rational or epistemological conclusion"

see those are quotes you can argue for or against.

and i still say agnostic means "dont know"

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

just look at the wrangling in this very forum over who is or is not an atheist or agnostic. these two words have simple easy to understan meanings yet they have been tortured into bizzare forms which would do a pentecostal televangelist proud.

Agnostic: A: lacking Gnostic: Knowledge. those who dont know if there are gods or a god or dieties in general etc. this simple logical principled belief in proof before acceptance is what most logical persons actually are. Agnostic.

Atheist: A: lacking Theist: Deties. this is a step beyond having no proof, and into a real of certitude, a pretense of "Gnosis" or absolute knowlege on a subject, and when that subject is the supernatural, there can be no such Gnosis. only belief.

Atheism is in fact a rejection of the agnostic's "Prove to me there's a god" or a theist's "You will never convince me there's not a god" into a whole new realm, whereby the atheist declares "There simply is no god, and you're a fool to believe otherwise."

most people who talk about their atheism do so with a false cetainty that there is no supernatural force of any kind, which is impossible to disprove, as are the theists claims that there IS a supernatual force in whatever form that force might take, from a bearded monotheistic skydaddy who loves to dole out punishments and torments willy nilly, to the new age "energies" and "vibrations" to the george lucas self aware "Force" which only maniufests itself to special persons, or my own pantheon of gods and powers who do their thing for their own reasons, and who's existence i could never prove to you, no matter what proofs i have seen.

you are as unlikely to convince me to reject my gods as i am to convince you to embrace them. but i dont get butthurt over it, cuz my gods dont care about that shit.

many atheist DO get butthurt when for example, a christian tells them "The Bible says if, i believe it, that settles it" or a moslem starts raging about how your disbelief makes you an enemy of islam, or a buddhist's benign smile, with the absolute certainty that eventually youll see, just maybe in the next incarnation.

your own rage at the very idea that SOME people who assert their atheism as a trendy hipster fashion, or fake intellectualism proves the delicate nature of the atheistic posterior, and the ease with which some atheist booties become bothered.

unclench before you do yourself an injury, and ask yourself why, if there really is no god, it bothers you that i believe in several, or why if atheism is a reasoned and wise position, youre so upset that some so called atheists are just poseurs, and some are just blind followers muttering "Richard Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it" you certainly know a few clowns who shout their atheism from the rooftops, but cant explain why they believe so, beyond "cuz christians are dumb"

i've certainly met quite a few of those myself.

^ This! lol

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Anyone who claims with certainty that they know without a doubt that god or gods do or don't exist... in my opinion, is a liar. I don't care what experiences you have had, or what dreams you have had, or anything. They could all just be a manifestation of your brain trying to understand and make sense of an existence that doesn't really make any sense at all... not one bit.

We all must do whatever it takes to fill our lives with meaning, understanding, happiness and joy... but I think, it is more courageous to accept reality and what we can really know within it... rather than to persist in what we want it to be...whether that be delusion, or or desired wishful thinking, no matter how satisfying it may be.

*claps* This is the first time I seen you present this idea like its just that, an idea, rather than an absolute truth.

 

[mindphuk]

yeah, that "bombardment" of quotes, none of which apparently had anything to do with a positive denial of the veracity of any faith, and the direct rejection of the possibility of deity, except EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, is just me pissing in the wind. yep with phrases like "...such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls" are totally consistent with an "I Dont Know" position. yep, "I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition" is not at all a declaration that he might "condemn and vilify this mythical deity" nope. not a bit. but at least he had the good manners to state it was his OPINION, unlike say...

Do you have a problem with people stating their opinion? I too am of the opinion that there is no god. I do not, however, insist I know or claim any certainty about my opinions. I also have good reason to believe that the world's religions are all bullshit, but once again, that doesn't make the possibility of some sort of deity, maybe one I haven't been exposed to could be real. Every single one of those quotes were directed either at specific gods (like Einstein's, Russel's, Randi and Maher's), religions or superstitious thinking in general (Sagan and Beecher). I cannot see how you think that every one is making a claim that it is impossible for ANY type of god to exist. Everyone should doubt the existential nature of things that have never been demonstrable shown to be true. I can reject the idea of gods as easily as I reject faeries, unicorns, dragons and crockaducks almost all the same. Not all possibilities in nature have equal probabilities. Things that have no evidence for existence can be dismissed without much thought, but it appears you would argue - except when discussing god because it might insult someone.

The knowledge we have about how the brain works, how our perceptions, including profound religious experiences, can be manipulated, even replicated in the laboratory, how myth and legend are made and endure, especially during times when lack mankind was more ignorant about much of how nature works, all lead me to conclude, that even my own personal experiences are suspect, and absolutely no one has actual evidence of any god beyond these internal experiences, I can induce a very low probability that there is anything literally beyond nature in the way that a god is usually represented. This allows me to conclude that a god or gods probably do not exist. Every single one of those quotes can come from the same position I take here.

We already discussed the Randi quote, how he asserts his opinion and makes some observations about the lack of evidence... let's look at the other quote you chose, Einstein, " "...such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls" is clearly taken out of context if you are arguing he's referring to ALL gods because what you didn't quote was referring to a certain type of deity, one with specific characteristics.

So once again, you fail to demonstrate what you assert you did. There is a big difference between taking the position that religion, superstition and the types of uncritical thinking that leads people to believe in stuff like gods, the afterlife, astral projection, and Scientology is bullshit and the position that I KNOW with certainty that no gods can or could have ever existed. Your appear to lack the ability to recognize subtlety. You cannot, with any honesty, continue to conflate religion with theism.. or the supernatural, afterlife or any other claim with the god hypothesis.