Of course it isn’t. The abrahamic religions have turned you into good little sheeple. Even the muslims kill -themselves- because they think there is a god. LOL talk about getting ripped off.
You’re either a troll or just fucking stupid.
“You’re either a troll or just fucking stupid.”
Clearly both. And, arrogant and intolerant as well as having a position that imho is totally at odds with libertarianism. Live and let live is supposed to be our philosophy not “down with all those that aren’t exact copies of me!”
Rest assured this clown does not speak for most of us atheists.
You clearly did not understand the point of my post, but that is A-OK. Not everyone learned to read in elementary school. I will just assume you are one of the unfortunate in that category
Very interesting.
About the thread, I’m an atheist and I tend to agree. What I’d ask is of some to refrain from insulting only because they find themselves disagreeing with the OP. it’s not civil of this forum. If we can refrain form directly insulting Keynesians, we can certainly manage to refrain form insulting fellow travelers.
I really should ignore you, but I’d like to point out one obvious fact: conversations over Internet forums require literacy from all parties. The fact that he responds to your unforgivably arrogant and ignorant posts implies some degree of literacy on his part.
Blind arrogance doesn’t deserve civility. Also, he’s not a “fellow traveler,” but rather an immature child seeking attention, who finds it entirely appropriate to (a) attack only straw men, and (B) belittle that which he doesn’t understand. Never mind the fact that he’s already posted about this very same topic before. It’s quite obvious that he knows nothing about libertarianism or theology.
I suggest we have one thread for the militant atheists who think of nothing but religion. This way, we can avoid the constant bombardment of boring, homogeneous, and quite frankly, entirely meaningless “debates,” if we can them that.
It’s interesting how some people in this closely knit cult, sorry!, community are even more of a zealot than religionists.
It seems that some ‘libertarians’ are pretty concerned with being tolerant of religious delusions, for whatever reason. So in the name of ‘tolerance’ they fiercely attack persons who have the guts to not fake intellectual respect for things that don’t actually deserve intellectual respect (like revealed religion)…
Wow you sure do know a lot about me for us never having had spoken! But please let me correct you. I know enough about ‘theology’ to know its bunk and I know enough about libertarianism to know its diametrically opposed to religion. Now go play on the playground little kid
His posts have nothing to do with “guts” and everything to do with ignorance. If he wishes to refute theism then he needs to provide an actual argument, and not a series of belligerent immature talking points. A socialist who says “lol capitalism rewards greed and evil look at Goldman Sachs, lol gg pwned” is not putting forth an argument; he’s just wasting everyone’s time.
If he wants to be taken seriously then he needs to, for example, resolve Cartesian doubt without appealing to a God, or solve the problem of induction without appealing to God. He could, if he so chooses, attempt to refute the cosmological argument, or present the problem of evil.
I know enough about ‘theology’ to know its bunk and I know enough about libertarianism to know its diametrically opposed to religion. Now go play on the playground little kid
-
What do you know about any religion?
-
How is libertarianism opposed to religion?
Hmmm
Maybe theists should start by actually proving theism? How can one refute something that’s unrelated to reality? If I say that I’m seeing pink elephants and that pink elephants exist, how do you refute me?
Why? Descartes ‘solution’ is not a real solution and doesn’t prove the existence of god, let alone the truth in the claims of revealed religions.
Same thing. Your opinions about ‘God’ don’t solve that problem either.
“About the thread, I’m an atheist and I tend to agree. What I’d ask is of some to refrain from insulting only because they find themselves disagreeing with the OP. it’s not civil of this forum. If we can refrain form directly insulting Keynesians, we can certainly manage to refrain form insulting fellow travelers.”
I agree 100%, which is why he shouldn’t have started a thread doing just that.
“is to be a moronic non-moron.”
“lunacy that is religion”
It can’t be argued that he is being unfairly attacked since he threw the opening punches.
He is entitled to his opinion, as are you. I share the atheist part but I guess I just take a different view since the one thing in this world I’m sure of is that I don’t know everything. I find no use in insulting those who believe differently than me so long as they don’t interfere with me. I, however, have no problem returning fire (even on behalf of those I disagree with) when people are being needlessly insulted and attacked.
I’d hang around at revleft if this was the kind of intolerant behavior I wanted to be a part of.
Live and let live, and don’t be an asshole. That’s what I shoot for and that’s what this forum mostly provides, which is why I don’t like to see a thread like this.
I agree. A theist who makes a thread titled “Why atheist’s are stupid” has to actually support his position. He can’t say, for example, “lol look at bananas, clearly God exists and atheists are stupid, lol gg pwned.”
That’s an empirical statement which can be verified/falsified; it can be tested. The existence of God can only be deduced. (I don’t want to have this debate now; have to study for finals).
Did I say Descartes proved the existence of God, or did I ask him to resolve Cartesian doubt without appealing to God? Pay attention.
Theism takes the problem one step backwards. If God exists then there is no problem of induction, but that begs another question. Either way, your knee-jerk reaction is entirely unnecessary. All I’m saying is that civilized debate requires (a) understanding the position you’re attacking, (b) maturity, and (c) understanding the position you’re defending.
Is this controversial? Why do debating norms suddenly vanish once an uneducated atheist (or theist) opens his/her mouth?
99% of the world population believe in god, good luck.
Religion is not a problem if it doesn’t attack individual rights and property rights.
I am sick of religion and other quackery and superstition, though at the same time I think, religion should be left as personal thing and only bashed when it is an organized crime/fraud (yes, read carefully) when idiots from Vatican tell gulible people, that condoms are bad, that it creates HIV (wtf) and etc. etc. etc. It’s a lie, it’s a fraud and it is immoral (to my standards at least) and same would be in free society. Organized religion and State is very very dependant on each other.
So I am ok with religion as a personal belief, but I am very not ok with religion when it’s made political and trying to push non-sense as if it were science (hence intelligent design folks).
Same goes with atheism and trying to convert people, as if atheism will help them understand modern physics or meaning of life. That’s almost equally bad. Look at thunderf00t. He is very smart fella when talking about Evolution, but becomes very defensive when someone wants to discuss critically the State’s legitimacy.
I am skeptic, rationalist and try to think critically wherever I can and do not trust and question people with funny clothes/hats (police-men, politicians, priests and so on) .
So OP, take it easy. I was anti-theist just like you. It will fade away after some time.
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Thanks for the great material my friend. First of all, if you are going to be a religious zealot at least learn to spell the word the right way. Second, the guy who developed the internet you are using to parade your idiocy is an atheist. Most scientists are atheists/agnostic. I guess your tendency to make up BS statistics like “90% of the technologies” and your tendency to believe in an imaginary man in the sky are derived from the same lack of an object capable of engaging in rational thought, namely, a brain."
- I’m an atheist
Or technically a radical agnostic, the fact is that you cannot disprove that a concept which can claim that “god does not wish to reveal himself”, that is to say a concept which can claim that it is true but cannot be disproven CANNOT BE DISPROVEN. I do still consider religion fairly childlike
- Sorry I misspelled something on the internet
I hope that someday, deep, deep down inside your heart you can begin to start to consider the possibility of forgiving me 
- You didn’t address the fact that you said you wanted to get all the support for libertarianism which it can possibly have
The fact is that if not the majority, then a very large minority, of people in all developing countries are religious, barring them from entry into the movement would almost certainly ensure failure particularly because much of the development of libertarianism finds its roots in religion and many prominent members of the movement are religeous. Such a policy would be disastrous, contrary to your stated goal, and would do absolutely nothing positive for the cause, your reasoning behind this is a mystery to me.
- Technology
The internet was developed by many different people no single person developed it even if many prominent developers were religious. You failed to understand my point which was that nearly all technology we owe to today was PRODUCED BY THE RELIGEOUS or was at least partly developed in such a manner, or at very least has its roots in the works of the religious. It is only more recently that many scientists are unreligious but before the 1950’s almost all developments were made my men who believed in a god. Yet you propose the exclusion of all openly religious peoples from contributing to the libertarian movement and you call anyone who defends religion for a moment a zealot. Also I find it interesting you laugh at my statistics which has a very clear reasoning behind it, with that little pyramid up at the top.
- Being an ass doesn’t help your point
Have you ever considered the possibility that people don’t like being mocked and insulted, and that this won’t help them agree with you and it only makes you look like an unintelligent troll? As far as I can tell every atheist who has posted on this page (including myself) considers that you’re being foolish and making an old argument employed many times before with an equal amount of failure. It’s also a good thing to understand exactly what it is that people believe before attacking them and calling them idiotic upon a false assumption, you’re right I don’t believe in an invisible sky wizard, life after death, an all knowing divine entity, or a 2,000 year old Jewish god zombie.
So piece of advice, if you want to actually get your point across BE CIVIL AND DON’T ATTACK PEOPLE… Unless you really do just enjoy a life spent dwelling under bridges
The burden of proof is not with him.
I think the main problem with the OP’s posts is his rudeness, not his lack of arguments, since he shouldn’t even need arguments in the first place.
It might not be opposed to all religion, but it is opposed to certain aspects of the Abrahamic religions; things like God punishing man for non-aggressive sins like working on Saturday or adultery come to mind.
This doesn’t mean “opposed” as in “banning” religion, obviously, as that would be aggression.
Quoted for truth. Even I, who agrees with some of the OP’s propositions, is put of by his behavior.
I would consider myself an anti-theist and an atheist, but I am not evangelical about it. I would certainly wish that more libertarians were also atheists, but I don’t think its really that big of a deal, just as long as the ones that are religious do not try and justify libertarian ideas with religious arguments. I don’t like to see Christian libertarians arguing with other Christians convincing them to be libertarians because that is actually the Christian thing to do. What if that person drops their beliefs later? If the person was only sold on libertarianism in order to be Christian, the libertarian beliefs might go out the door with the religious ones.
On a semi-related note. Does anyone else get accused of ‘being in a cult’ when talking about AE? Anyone have a good, witty retort other than 'you are mistaken