The question If atheism holds water, why does atheism only attack religious people, and why doesn’t atheism play along with atheism and leave us alone? was posted to the Quora site and led to this discussion beginning with when a certain Dirk Theurer took aim at a certain “Curiosity Killed the Cat” who posted the question.
Now, Theurer had written a reply and then edited to include that the Curiosity guys, “is just a jejune little [****]wit troll:
He then noted, Blocked, muted, reported for bigotry” yet, he failed to elucidate the most important part: what, on Atheism, is wrong with bigotry?
In any case, this was Theurer’s original reply:
Hey “Curiosity Killed the Cat” (link),
Hmmm… I see by your profile:
that you “like thinking and reading”. This question doesn’t necessarily say anything about the latter, but the veracity of the former is decidedly cast into doubt by it:
If atheism holds water
I’m baffled as to how answering “No.” to the question “Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?” can “hold water” — even metaphorically. Disbelief (in whatever) is a statement of fact; it doesn’t “hold” anything.
why does atheism only attack religious people
Atheism doesn’t “attack” anything or anyone, never mind “religious people” or “only”. Mind you, atheists don’t “attack” anything or anyone either.
why doesn’t atheism play along with atheism
Um, what?
leave us alone
Seeing as you aren’t specifying anyone, I’m unsure who “us” is. I can only assume (though, as anyone who knows the teensiest thing about me knows I horribly loathe assuming anything — particularly not about anything that someone might feebly be inferring) that you mean “leave theists alone”. If my (loathingly couched) assumption holds water, I can assure you those who sincerely answer “No.” to the question “Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?” only ever respond to those who are attacking them.
Hope I’m not making you think … or read … too much…
I, Ken Ammi, ignored the drama and replied
But “answering ‘No.’ to the question ‘Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?’” is myopic since you’re ignoring, at the very least, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.
As for, “atheists don’t ‘attack’ anything or anyone either”: you’re living in a fantasy world (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).
Just set yourself up a profile pretending you’re a Chrisitan, ask a few Atheists a question, and watch the attacking fireworks.
Also, Atheists set the world’s mass and serial murdering records in mere decades—even when competing, as it were, against “religions” that had been around for millennia.
But you neglected THEY most important part: what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape misrepresenting your worldview within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against an accidentally existing ape misrepresenting your worldview?
Dirk Theurer
Ken Ammi: “But “answering ‘No.’ to the question ‘Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?’” is myopic since you’re ignoring, at the very least, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.
As for, “atheists don’t ‘attack’ anything or anyone either”: you’re living in a fantasy world (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).
Just set yourself up a profile pretending you’re a Chrisitan, ask a few Atheists a question, and watch the attacking fireworks.
Also, Atheists set the world’s mass and serial murdering records in mere decades—even when competing, as it were, against “religions” that had been around for millennia.
But you neglected THEY most important part: what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape misrepresenting your worldview within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against an accidentally existing ape misrepresenting your worldview?”
Now, at this time, if you go to the discussion you will see, “Adding comments disabled” and my reply is the last of it because Theurer relied on censorship and deleting his further reply but I had been keeping a record of the discussion in an Word doc: which I learned to do after dealing with enough Atheists who ran away after hiding behind deleting and locking down the ability to reply to them directly.
His reply was:
“But “answering ‘No.’ to the question ‘Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?’” is myopic since you’re ignoring, at the very least, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.”
Except atheists don’t claim god/God/gods doesn’t/don’t exist.
Aside: I have precisely zero [****]ing clue what:
denomination of [the sincere answer “No.” to the question “Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?”]
could possibly mean. …and your pretentious capitalizing of “atheism” (here and elsewhere) when it does not start a sentence has been noted as merely your pathetic attempt to suggest atheism has religiosity of some form.
“As for, “atheists don’t ‘attack’ anything or anyone either”: you’re living in a fantasy world (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).”
Except atheists don’t claim god/God/gods doesn’t/don’t exist.
Aside: Of course, there are some people who like to demonstrate exactly how ludicrous various claims of god/God/gods existing are, but it seems the most egregious are theists attacking all god/God/gods except their own. (Atheists — the few who do demonstrate precisely how ludicrous various god/God/gods existing claims are — just don’t exercise such prejudice.)
“Just set yourself up a profile pretending you’re a Chrisitan”
Sorry, Bubba; I leave the lies and pretending to theists.
“ask a few Atheists a question, and watch the attacking fireworks.”
Those “attacking fireworks” are not because atheists believe god/God/gods doesn’t/don’t exist, Ken; they’re because theists are being moronic about their claims — you know, like those asserting atheism is something it isn’t.
“Also, Atheists set the world’s mass and serial murdering records in mere decades—even when competing, as it were, against “religions” that had been around for millennia.”
Citations? …but note that the citations must indicate that those murders occur because of the murderers’ lack of belief of claims of god/God/gods existing and not just because they have a screw or five loose.
“But you neglected THEY[sic; I’ll assume you meant THE] most important part: what, on your worldview”
Atheists’ worldviews differ from those of theists’ in precisely one specific way: their worldview isn’t [****]ed up by fairy tales.
But, let’s get back to your specious bullcrappery minus your false claim that worldviews are somehow dramatically different between theists and atheists:
“what [] would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape”
Um, what? Please do present us with “an accidentally existing ape”. I’ll wait…
…though note that if “accidentally existing ape” comprises some aspect of your worldview, you may need to check with reality and produce your “accidentally existing ape”. Then maybe we can continue this … well … I’ll call it a “conversation” but we both know that you’re just [****]ing with words.
Ken Ammi
Please mind your manners.
Why did you quote virtually everything I said? A best practice would be to opt or just writing cogent sentences.
If you think that “Except atheists don’t claim god/God/gods doesn’t/don’t exist” you’re tragically unaware of Atheism and Atheists. For example, see my article, “Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence…without evidence, of course.”
I’m not interested in your attempts to mind read about what is really just you emotively subjectively misinterpreting me as being “pretentious” due to the grammatic features of one single letter.
But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with being pretentious?
Likewise with “it seems the most egregious are theists attacking all god/God/gods except their own” which is only topped by Atheists attacking them all. But note that it’s another case of you being emotively subjective since your premise was, “it seems” but what seems or doesn’t seem to you isn’t a standard.
But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with theists attacking all god/God/gods except their own?
You then make a vaguely generic mere and grossly prejudice assertion about “lies and pretending.”
But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with lies and pretending?
Likewise with “being moronic about their claims.”
But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with being moronic about their claims?
Citations? Sure, the history of the early to mid-ish 1900s or, for a shortcut, read my book, “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist.”
https://www.amazon.com/Zeitgeist-Poltergeist-Consideration-Regarding-Communism/dp/1548475645
But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with making uncited comments, or with murder?
And when it came down to THE most important part: you literally fully collapsed by not even trying to make an attempt at a reply.
But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with holding to what you merely asserted are fairy tales?
As per the thousands of Atheist with whom I’ve interacted and those to whom I have listened and read, they view humans as “accidentally existing ape[s].”
Dirk Theurer
“Please mind your manners.”
Why? You’re not minding yours.
Ken Ammi
Friend, I’ve literally seen this 1,001 times: you make assertions, are called on them, realize you can’t back them, you run away: Atheism 101 tactic.
A best practice is to consider that the reason why you’re literally incapable of backing them is that your worldview is a collapsed failure, it’s not just that there might be something amiss without you personally.
Dirk Theurer
Ken Ammi: “Friend, I’ve literally seen this 1,001 times: you make assertions, are called on them, realize you can’t back them, you run away: Atheism 101 tactic.
A best practice is to consider that the reason why you’re literally incapable of backing them is that your worldview is a collapsed failure, it’s not just that there might be something amiss without you personally.”
Ken, your opening comment starts with:
But “answering ‘No.’ to the question ‘Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?’” is myopic since you’re ignoring, at the very least, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.
There are two falsities and one specious reference in this:
“the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence”
Atheists don’t “positively affirm God’s non-existence”. They simply don’t believe others’ affirmation of “God”’s (and god’s and gods’) existence.
“denomination of Atheism”
“denomination of Atheism” is a nonsense phrase. There is NO SUCH [****]ING THING as a “denomination of disbelief”.
“Atheism”
“Atheism” is only ever capitalized when starting a sentence. Any other capitalization is a specious attempt to cast some importance to that word that isn’t there.
Starting off your “commentary” with two false assertions and a pretention of your own lends you exactly zero credibility, Ken.
Ken Ammi
Please mind your manners.
Friend, another things I’ve literally seen this 1,001 times—especially on Quora—is that Atheist make assertions, are called on them, they make assertions, they’re corrected on them, they utterly fail to back their assertions, they rely on censorship by no longer allowing replies to them, and so they hide away in their safe spaces—only to do it all again and again.
[I noted this since he did just that, in which case I just go to the original question, type in their name with an “@” before it and still get my reply to them ;o)]
Friend, I realize that you demand on avoiding issues that are devesting to your worldview but a best practice would be to give up on your worldview that can’t handle those issues.
Key example, you merely jumped to the mere conclusion of a mere assertion based on merely hidden assumptions that, “Starting off your ‘commentary’ with two false assertions and a pretention of your own lends you exactly zero credibility, Ken.”
Now, that’s not in the least bit the case, on your worldview, since on your worldview there’s literally nothing wrong with an accidentally existing ape making (supposedly) false assertions an nor (allegedly) being pretentious (which is just an emotively subjective misinterpretation of yours). Thus, since you discredited yourself from complaining about those non issues, it’s a non sequitur to jump to, “lends you exactly zero credibility.”
Those are the implications of your worldview so will you accept them? You made the bed, will you sleep in it? Of course, that assumes that you’re consistent but since there’s no universal imperative to be consistent, on your worldview, Atheists are only ever consistently inconsistent. I have found that, sure, Atheist utterly abuse Atheism for self-serving pragmatic ends, but they utter despise it.
Note that I qualified my statement, “the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence nomination of Atheism” about which you demand, “Atheists don’t ‘positively affirm God’s non-existence’” but that only means that you’re tragically ignorant of your own worldview’s history.
Worse still, I ALREADY told you:
For example, see my article, “Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence…without evidence, of course.”
Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence…without evidence, of course
Yet, you obviously don’t want to expose yourself to verifiable facts that will burst your myopic bubble. In fact, the reason that Huxley coined the term “Agnostic” is that he noted that theist positively affirmed God’s existence and Atheists positively affirmed God’s non existence so he sought a middle position: a.k.a. “weak” Atheism versus the “strong” Atheism you deny exists—hey, you positively affirm the non existence of strong Atheism, beyond all demonstrably verifiable facts (that you conveniently ignore).