Forum Index            

Cookies Consent Information
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.
Share
Try These Selectors:
Best college values

Good jobs in gig economy

Right religion for you

Presidential candidates

Best US city for you

Know your philosophy

Landmark decisions
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.

Posted by tuk22 
Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
July 16, 2014 06:06PM
Quote

Nick Spencer begins his spirited history of atheism with a fairy tale. Once upon a time, people lived in ignorant superstition, offering sacrifices to monsters in the sky. Then some clever folks used special weapons called “science” and “reason” to show that the monsters had never really existed in the first place. Some of these clever folks were killed for daring to say this, but they persevered, and now only really stupid people believe in the monsters.


Spencer’s point, of course, is that this received wisdom is naive nonsense—it gets the history of science and the nature of religious belief wrong, setting up an opposition between reason and faith that the church fathers would have found rather puzzling. (Spencer focuses on Europe, whence modern atheism arose, and hence on Judeo-Christianity.) Few historians take this myth seriously, but it retains its hold on the vulgar atheist imagination. To believe it requires the misconception that religion exists primarily to provide explanations of natural phenomena. (“You seriously believe in God?” “Well, how do you explain thunder?”)


A formal definition of religion is notoriously difficult to formulate, but it must surely involve reference to a particular way of life, practices oriented toward a conception of how one should live. “You must change your life,” as the broken statue of the god Apollo seems to say in Rilke’s poem. Science does not—it isn’t designed to—recommend approaches to what Emerson calls “the conduct of life.” Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins claims that religion “is a scientific theory,” “a competing explanation for facts about the universe and life.” This is—if you’ll forgive my theological jargon—bullshit.


To be sure, several scriptures offer, for instance, their own accounts of creation. But Christians have recognized the allegorical nature of these accounts since the very beginnings of Christianity. Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine—they all assumed that God’s creation was eternal, not something that unfolded in six days or any other temporal frame. In the third century Origen of Alexandria wrote:


To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a “first day” and a “second” and “third,” in which also “evening” and “morning” are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven (Gen. 1:5-13)? …. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries.


Well, no one but Richard Dawkins. As Marilynne Robinson writes:

The notion that religion is intrinsically a crude explanatory strategy that should be dispelled and supplanted by science is based on a highly selective or tendentious reading of the literatures of religion. In some cases it is certainly fair to conclude that it is based on no reading of them at all.


Science and religion ask different questions about different things. Where religion addresses ontology, science is concerned with ontic description. Indeed, it is what Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart calls their “austere abdication of metaphysical pretensions” that enables the sciences to do their work. So when, for instance, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne and pop-cosmologist Lawrence Krauss dismiss the (metaphysical) problem of how something could emerge from nothing by pointing to the Big Bang or quantum fluctuation, it is difficult to be kind: Quantum fluctuations, the uncertainty principle, the laws of quantum physics themselves—these are something. Nothing is not quantum anything. It is nothing. Nonbeing. This, not empty space, is what “nothing” signifies for Plato and Aquinas and Heidegger, no matter what Krauss believes. No particles, no fluctuation, no laws, no principles, no potentialities, no states, no space, no time. No thing at all.


Atheists: The Origin of the Species seems to have been born out of frustration with these and other confusions perpetuated by the so-called “New Atheists” and their allies, who can’t be bothered to familiarize themselves with the traditions they traduce. Several thoughtful writers have already laid bare the slapdash know-nothingism of today’s mod-ish atheism, but Spencer’s not beating a dead horse—he’s beating a live one, in the hope that Nietzsche might rush to embrace it. Several critics have noted that if evangelical atheists (as the philosopher John Gray calls them) are ignorant of religion, as they usually are, then they aren’t truly atheists. “The knowledge of contraries is one and the same,” as Aristotle said. If your idea of God is not one that most theistic traditions would recognize, you’re not talking about God (at most, the New Atheists’ arguments are relevant to the low-hanging god of fundamentalism and deism). But even more damning is that such atheists appear ignorant of atheism as well.


For atheists weren’t always as intellectually lazy as Dawkins and his ilk. (Nor, to be sure, are many atheists today—Coyne accused me of “atheist-bashing” the last time I wrote about religion for Slate, but I really only bashed evangelical atheists like him. My father and sister, most of my friends, and many of the writers I most admire are nonbelievers. They’re also unlikely to mistake the creation myth recounted above for anything more than the dreariest parascientific thinking.) What Spencer recounts is the true history of atheism, which had only a limited amount to do with reason and even less with science. The creation myth in which a few brave souls forged weapons made of a previously unknown material, to which the religious were relentlessly opposed, is an invention of the later nineteenth century, albeit one with ongoing popular appeal. In reality … modern atheism was primarily a political and social cause, its development in Europe having rather more to do with the (ab)use of theologically legitimized political authority than it does with developments in science or philosophy.




To demonstrate this, Spencer ranges from the early Christians (accused of atheism by the Romans) to early modern Europe (where “the word was thrown about with as much abandonment as Communist during the McCarthy years, and to a similar effect”) through the forerunners and “pioneers” of atheism in our sense—Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, Rochester, Mandeville, D’Holbach, the philosophes, Hume, Nietzsche, several others. Obviously many of these precursors, like the early Christians, were, from our perspective, theists. But Spinoza’s naturalistic theism, for instance, was a far enough cry from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy in an age that discerned little light between skepticism and atheism.


Spencer’s account too often trades depth for breadth, but one of his most trenchant themes is that it is more proper to speak of atheisms and of various species of atheist. (One wonders, therefore, why his subtitle adds a definite article to Darwin’s title.) Atheism in the sense of unbelief is probably as old as the gods—although you often had to keep your unbelief under your heretical hat if you wanted your head to remain under it as well. But there is a monster-crammed abyss between finding the notion of a creator implausible and the full-blast anti-Christianity of Nietzsche, who, as Terry Eagleton writes in Culture and the Death of God, “has a strong claim to being the first real atheist.” “The only really effective antidote to the dreariness of reading the New Atheists,” Hart has written, “is rereading Nietzsche.”


This is wise counsel for believers and atheists alike. In Nietzsche we find the full power and terror that atheism is capable of, for Nietzsche scorned mere unbelievers, who, Hart writes,


do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.


Nietzsche’s atheism is far from exultant—he is not crowing about the death of God, much as he despises Christianity. He understands how much has been lost, how much there is to lose. As he writes in The Gay Science:


The event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude’s capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet. Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means—and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality.


Nietzsche realized that the Enlightenment project to reconstruct morality from rational principles simply retained the character of Christian ethics without providing the foundational authority of the latter. Dispensing with his fantasy of the Ãœbermensch, we are left with his dark diagnosis. To paraphrase the Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, our moral vocabulary has lost the contexts from which its significance derived, and no amount of Dawkins-style hand-waving about altruistic genes will make the problem go away. (Indeed, the ridiculous belief that our genes determine everything about human behavior and culture is a symptom of this very problem.)



The point is not that a coherent morality requires theism, but that the moral language taken for granted by liberal modernity is a fragmented ruin: It rejects metaphysics but exists only because of prior metaphysical commitments. A coherent atheism would understand this, because it would be aware of its own history. Instead, trendy atheism of the Dawkins variety has learned as little from its forebears as from Thomas Aquinas, preferring to advance a bland version of secular humanism. Spencer quotes John Gray, a not-New atheist: “Humanism is not an alternative to religious belief, but rather a degenerate and unwitting version of it.” How refreshing would be a popular atheism that did not shy from this insight and its consequences.


I’m not holding my breath. What’s most galling about evangelical atheists is their epistemic arrogance—and their triumphalist tone: If religious belief is like belief in the Easter Bunny, as they like to say, shouldn’t they be less proud of themselves for seeing through it? Gray put the matter starkly:


Driven to the margins of a culture in which science claims authority over all of human knowledge, [religious believers] have had to cultivate a capacity for doubt. In contrast, secular believers—held fast by the conventional wisdom of the time—are in the grip of unexamined dogmas.


This will already have occurred to anyone who has spent five minutes browsing, say, the comments sections of Dawkins’ website. Though, as it happens, the most affecting response to this sort of arrogance I’ve encountered is also there, courtesy of an Orthodox believer calling herself Saint Cecilia. (I don’t know her real name, but she certainly has the patience of a saint.) On a comment thread devoted to misunderstanding Hart’s arguments, she gently corrects a few of the usual fallacies. The “pitch” of Christianity, she points out, has “nothing to do with the Big Bang or evolution or anything like that at all.” Nor is the existence of God a scientific proposition: “Christians aren’t talking about a math problem, they’re talking about a Person. And in the vast experience of people who claim to have had a genuine encounter with the Personality called Christ, there are certain things that are involved, such as willingness [and] humility.”


The modest atheists respond with their customary persiflage: “Can you spell g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e?” Cecilia isn’t ruffled: “I spell gullible exactly as you did. Well done.” She continues:


If someone is really interested in whether or not God exists, I’d say the best way is to have a little humility and experiment, with an open mind and heart, with the paths that Christians have claimed take you directly to him, in the ways that have worked. If someone isn’t willing to do such a thing, and insists that a discussion about painting be one about mathematics, then the conversation isn’t going to go anywhere.


This spirit of invitation and inquiry is far from gullible, a calumny better directed at the evangelical-atheist faithful who thoughtlessly parrot what Emerson called “the tune of the time.” Again, the point is not whether God does or does not exist, but that, as Cecilia writes elsewhere in the thread, “Everyone is talking past each other and no one seems to be elevating the conversation to where it could and should be.”
[www.slate.com]
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
July 16, 2014 07:03PM
Atheists are know nothings? In comparison to whom? Certainly not in comparison to the religious!

[m.psr.sagepub.com]

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
July 19, 2014 07:00AM
Driven to the margins of a culture in which science claims authority over all of human knowledge, [religious believers] have had to cultivate a capacity for doubt. In contrast, secular believers—held fast by the conventional wisdom of the time—are in the grip of unexamined dogmas.



LOL! What a load of tripe. Yes - it's the religious with their demonic possessions and the universe revolving around Earth that have always been ahead of the science game. eye rolling smiley

Ludicrous at face value - and anyone selling it is either delusional or a narcissist of the highest order.
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
July 29, 2014 03:14AM
Quote

The notion that religion is intrinsically a crude explanatory strategy that should be dispelled and supplanted by science is based on a highly selective or tendentious reading of the literatures of religion. In some cases it is certainly fair to conclude that it is based on no reading of them at all.

I disagree. I think that it is a reaction to the biblical literalist movement that began about the 17th century and most recently manifested itself with the opening of and popularity the Creationist museum and organizations like the ICR (Institute for creation research) and AIG (Answers in Genesis) .

Admittedly, this literalist interpretation of the bible does not apply to the majority of Christians, but it does apply to a very vocal minority. Thus the statement "In some cases it is certainly fair to conclude that it is based on no reading of them at all" is certainly incorrect.

Further, in some ways, some of the protestant reformation groups set themselves up for this by declaring the bible as the ultimate authority of Christian doctrine rather than more sensible theological interpretations of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2014 03:33AM by Cincinnatus.
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
August 10, 2014 06:19AM
Cincinnatus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Admittedly, this literalist interpretation of the
> bible does not apply to the majority of
> Christians, but it does apply to a very vocal
> minority. Thus the statement "In some cases it is
> certainly fair to conclude that it is based on no
> reading of them at all" is certainly incorrect.


I would argue that a good portion of the majority would fall in line with the "very vocal minority" if societal pressures didn't prevent them from doing so. If it ever came down to the logic and science of the atheist/agnostic or the ranting nonsense of the born again loons - the majority of Christians would shun (read: stone, hang, crucify) the former long before they would debate the latter.
Anonymous User
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 23, 2014 11:11AM
i also disagree as Cincinatus about thatttttt
Sam
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 24, 2014 02:16AM
Tuk trying to justify his secret godism. Nothing ever changes here.
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 25, 2014 07:47AM
Oh it's you? An article that rips new atheists is quite jimmy rustling, no doubt. But you can continue to assume whatever makes you feel good that's what you're best at. And I'll continue to think that you are too dense to understand that I argue against new atheism because the philosophy disgusts me. It's unjustified meaninglessness that you confuse and think is quite rational or scientific. Look deep into what you believe Sam. Become an actual skeptic, and then maybe you will come back and apologize for your foolishness...

I couldn't begin to assume how you arrived at your world view, it's way to fractured to comprehend. Think about what you are doing... Is it really valuable? Is it to promote anything meaningful? I would like to know! What I see from new atheists is. 95% ridicule towards fundamentalism. That's like playing cards against a 5 year old. It's not interesting or fun. And even if, and it's a very big if, you somehow had good intentions... After you do tell the 5 year old there is no Santa, what do you replace that belief with? Unjustified meaninglessness.

Yeah, this must be Godspeak huh?
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 25, 2014 07:52AM
Don't think I'm picking on you... Dick didn't address the article. He came back with a "just look how smart we are" study. Cin was kind enough to point out a minor flaw, something that I'm sure the author would qualify. And Indy is... Well, Indy. He's on ignore. But you want to say something, right?
Sam
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 25, 2014 04:45PM
First, I'm not a "new" atheist. I've never been anything but an atheist on the question of whether or not I believe gods are real. And atheism is not my "philosophy". It's nothing more or less than me weighing the options whenever I'm asked and remaining unconvinced that gods are real. There's never been one bit of convincing evidence or logical argument in my entire life that would make me even consider for a second that any god exists. There's not even any evidence to support agnosticism whether you use that term to describe not knowing if gods exist or not knowing what you believe. Your endless ramblings about how rational you think it is to believe it's just as likely as not that some kind of creative and intelligent entity is real only serves to demonstrate your own cognitive dissonance. You think you've already proven that a god is necessary so who can argue with that kind of logic and that level of delusion? I'd rather just keep pointing out those of you who others should not take too seriously when they post about gods. Second, I can't believe I even posted here. I followed Curt's link to read the new poster's offerings and ended up in this wretched place. If only I could read something new and interesting around here but, alas. Believers haven't changed since time immemorial. Keep on believing, tuk. Seems to help you somehow. lol

Here's what I think of you, tuk. You were raised a believer surrounded by believers. You grew an extra brain cell and started doubting the literal interpretation of your belief system at some point in adulthood (after the seed of god was firmly planted in your brain). You took a little baby step towards big boy skepticism, read some "philosophy" and now spend your days rationalizing why it's ok to believe some creative and intelligent entity with a personality has existed forever in some realm or form not of a physical nature but which can and does interact with humans, lol. You actually believe a god is necessary for the existence of the universe. How can I treat you with any respect knowing this? You will never be able to dislodge that goddy seed no matter how hard you try and you don't want to because that would make you waaaaay too different from your delusional loved ones and everyone else around you. "New atheism"? pfft Just another way of saying "dear god help me find a rational way to explain your existence to these mean people who keep pointing out that there is no reason to believe in you", lol...

Oh, yeah, and you hate Dawkins so you love to try to discredit all non-believers. So transparent. And immature.

I know it's hard for you and Spencer and the like to exist without some sense of meaning in your lives and you typically derive that meaning (and morality) from your gods. Just know you can find meaning and morality within yourself if you just try. It's silly to imagine some god with a turkey baster injecting you with it while you dream pretty dreams of heavens and hells. Just plain silly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2014 05:50PM by Sam.
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 12:33AM
First, I'm not a "new" atheist.

Yes, you are. It doesn't matter what you call yourself.

There's not even any evidence to support agnosticism whether you use that term to describe not knowing if gods exist or not knowing what you believe.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what it is. I use the term 'agnostic' for people who do not believe God exists AND the people who do not believe that we live in a world absent of God.

Your endless ramblings about how rational you think it is to believe it's just as likely as not that some kind of creative and intelligent entity is real only serves to demonstrate your own cognitive dissonance.

No. I have said countless times it's not rational to believe God exists just like it's not rational to believe we live in a world absent of God. You refuse to pay attention. You would rather ramble on about witches and Goblins or other such nonsense acting like it's epistemologically equivalent to philosophical foundations... New atheists do this. i.e. know nothing (read the article again)

I'd rather just keep pointing out those of you who others should not take too seriously when they post about gods.

And you are terrible at it... If you would pay attention you might become a better defender of your faith...

Second, I can't believe I even posted here. I followed Curt's link to read the new poster's offerings and ended up in this wretched place.

Good God... get a grip... The only difference between this place and the philosophy board is a different web-link. eye rolling smiley

Keep on believing, tuk. Seems to help you somehow. lol

Anytime, chump. drinking smiley

Here's what I think of you, tuk. You were raised a believer surrounded by believers.

No. We didn't go to church or have any religious education growing up. My Mom is a bleeding heart liberal. We were taught strict humanist philosophy... The value of love, charity, patience (didn't take)... Good solid Christian morality without the fear of God. I didn't even care and was glad we didn't go to church...

You grew an extra brain cell and started doubting the literal interpretation of your belief system at some point in adulthood

This is true. I was given an apologist book long ago and was amazed by the history of Christianity and had no clue that it could be defended that well. I'm still amazed by the consistency of the intellectual fundy; it's not an easy task at all... When I first starting reading Christian apologists books I defended what I was reading because at the time I truly thought it was the strongest arguments out there... Then I read more... And more... and on and on for about 20 years now and counting, and it still fascinates me. But about 10 years ago I wanted to start my own worldview and I'm constantly changing and adapting when I hear stronger arguments. It's very easy to change my mind... All you have to do is bring it... Say something interesting or rational and I'll consider it... If it's stronger, I'll agree... Good luck, though. I really doubt you are capable of it...

You took a little baby step towards big boy skepticism, read some (just some?) "philosophy" and now spend your days rationalizing why it's ok to believe some creative and intelligent entity with a personality has existed forever in some realm or form not of a physical nature but which can and does interact with humans, lol.

It's OK to believe in God, I have no problems with that at all. I'll even help someone make their faith stronger. I, however, do not. I am an agnostic and the main difference between you and me (not the obvious ;P) is that I do not hate religion. I'm not on a quest to rid the world of it. I have not had bad experiences with religion, at church, or with other believers...

You actually believe a god is necessary for the existence of the universe.

And that would imply atheism is impossible, so of course I have never said this nor do I believe it. You just don't pay attention... or your not following... One of the two...

How can I treat you with any respect knowing this?

smoking smiley I'm not looking for respect here... I'm looking for a challenge... A real one...

Oh, yeah, and you hate Dawkins so you love to try to discredit all non-believers. So transparent. And immature.

No, not at all... I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but there are some atheists I have argued with in the past that I have much respect for. But yeah, I don't like this 'new-atheism' at all. It's unjustified meaninglessness and I see no value in it... Seriously, I'm not fuking around... Understand what you are selling...

I know it's hard for you and Spencer and the like to exist without some sense of meaning in your lives and you typically derive that meaning (and morality) from your gods.

And of course I believe in 'oughts' with our without God... You won't hear me make "if God doesn't exist what's the point of being moral' arguments... eye rolling smiley

It's silly to imagine some god with a turkey baster injecting you with it while you dream pretty dreams of heavens and hells. Just plain silly.

So is a teapot orbiting a nearby planet, but you didn't understand that argument either... spinning smiley sticking its tongue out

So are you going to go the Indy route? I must be lying/have hidden agendas? I always though I was pretty open with myself here... sad smiley
Sam
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 01:17AM
Your decades of mental masturbation don't interest me. And your fake intellectualism is just laughable. Agnosticism is just a lack of balls to commit to an idea that makes the most sense to you and you can't do it. Bottom line: you prefer to masturbate with no balls and no happy ending. Good for you, little fella. Maybe practice will make perfect someday and you can actually start feeling sure of something in this life? Oh, but what if you make a claim one way or the other and you're wrong? The horror! lol
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 01:42AM
Your decades of mental masturbation don't interest me.

It's not surprising you don't care to learn...

And your fake intellectualism is just laughable.

Indeed. Says the poster who always had to ask Dick for help... eye rolling smiley

Agnosticism is just a lack of balls to commit to an idea that makes the most sense to you and you can't do it.

No, it's what I just told you it was... And now that we know you don't care to learn anything it makes you just another atheist troll... thumbs down

Bottom line: you prefer to masturbate with no balls and no happy ending.

That's stupid. I have many faith-based beliefs I defend...

Maybe practice will make perfect someday and you can actually start feeling sure of something in this life? Oh, but what if you make a claim one way or the other and you're wrong? The horror! lol

eye rolling smiley Do a quick SS search and it's clear I defend ideas ALL THE TIME HERE!

Go away, troll... Come back when you can make a serious argument...
Sam
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 02:18AM
You are saying nothing, fundy. As usual. At least Dick's got balls. Yeah, I'll go but not because you want me to. Just too boring.
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 03:18AM
So boring you had to come in here to comment instead of ignoring the topic... You are worthless...
Sam
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 05:26PM
Who is not worthless? You? lol There is no one more worthless than a godist pretending to be agnostic. Ironic you id as someone who knows nothing and believes no one can know anything=agnostic yet start a thread about how atheists specifically know nothing, lol...duh...Try posting something interesting and/or meaningful for a change. Too bad your religion has you pondering to the point of exhaustion. You could just do what normal people do and believe things for which there is evidence and not believe things for which there is no evidence. K.I.S.S.S.S. lol
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 06:55PM
I already told you what I mean by agnostic grandma... But I know you would rather have this meaningless exchange because you have no game... All you can do is go the Indy route now... Assume a bunch of BS and pretend that it means something.
Sam
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 08:25PM
Agnostic has a definition, daddy. You don't get to make up your own. But then you do seem to live in a fantasy world that flipflops for your masturbatory pleasure so it's no surprise you are more interested in calling out people who bug you rather than in dealing with reality. I don't play games with others or with myself. You got game? lmao
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 09:18PM
You are an idiot if you think it's impossible to not believe God exists and to not believe God doesn't exist... Senior moment?

And your insistence that it's necessary to choose sides is equally absurd.

What else u got troll?
Sam
Re: Know Nothing: The true history of atheism.
September 28, 2014 11:19PM
There are no sides. I know you and everyone else who is not full-on delusional know gods are not real. The rest is the game you play with yourself to satisfy your psycho/social/emotional needs. Truth is you are upset because of my attitude of certainty because you are trying to be intellectually humble by taking the popular stands both for and against the existence of gods. Deny it all you want, self-deceiver. I know what I know and you are just a silly agnostic theist. (yes, the word agnostic is intended as an adjective not a noun.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2014 11:39PM by Sam.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!