quote:

Originally posted by Alex If this is the new face of atheism God is looking like a good option right about now

atheism is not a religion. Only the religious have to prove there is a god in the first place. It's not a dichotomy logic of one or the other. You insist on the notion of a fictional character, then the onus is on you to prove it. You would rather be willfully ignorant and delusional?! God is as much an option as believing this is the matrix.

Once again, read my damn post. I never said atheism was a religion.

I was mocking you for sounding like a dumbass, not questioning the legitimacy of atheism or religion.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Once again, read my damn post. I never said atheism was a religion. I was mocking you for sounding like a dumbass, not questioning the legitimacy of atheism or religion.

"face of atheism" you dumb ass or do you need an explanation of your own writing?

You seem to think there is a face of atheism. Atheism is not a belief, like religion. There's no need for a "face" of atheism as there's no need for a "face" of reality, like there is for religion. The irony is you didn't read or comprehend my last post. If someone points to a tree and says that's a ghost behind the tree, then the burden of proof is on them to prove it, so it's their belief. If someone points to a tree and says that's a tree, then that's pointing the obvious reality. That's not a belief. That's reality. You bring up hypothetical notions, then you have to prove it. It doesn't automatically make it valid or equal to reality just by bringing up a hypothetical notion. Otherwise, anyone can bring up any idea and if you don't believe them, then you are "believing" in reality, as if the two are equally valid?

Dude.

You completely missed out on what my post was about.

I didn't make any claims, I didn't even present any arguments or anything.

The sole point to take away from my post was that you have the equivalent intelligence of a gorilla that they taught sign language to.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Dude. You completely missed out on what my post was about. I didn't make any claims, I didn't even present any arguments or anything. The sole point to take away from my post was that you have the equivalent intelligence of a gorilla that they taught sign language to.

Talking to you is like talking to a gorilla. You don't even understand your own writing, despite your failed point. The irony of you talking about intelligence. What is "face of atheism" to you?

BTW how old are you? Just curious.

quote:

Originally posted by rainbowunicorn Talking to you is like talking to a gorilla. You don't even understand your own writing, despite your failed point. The irony of you talking about intelligence. What is "face of atheism" to you? BTW how old are you? Just curious.

I'm going to make this as clear as possible.

1) I insulted you because your views on atheism are primitive and boring.

2) When I joked about you being the "face of atheism" it was just that, a joke.

3) Many atheists would argue there is a face, or rather multiple faces, of atheism such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. Not everyone agrees with that and that's fine, but at the very least these guys are (were in Hitchens' case) the faces of "new atheism".

EDIT:

Why do you want to know my age? I'll inform you that I'm old enough for you not to be interested in me sexually.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I'm going to make this as clear as possible. 1) I insulted you because your views on atheism are primitive and boring. 2) When I joked about you being the "face of atheism" it was just that, a joke. 3) Many atheists would argue there is a face, or rather multiple faces, of atheism such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. Not everyone agrees with that and that's fine, but at the very least these guys are (were in Hitchens' case) the faces of "new atheism".

Reasoning or critical thinking is lost on you for not understanding what you're inferring when you said "face of atheism" like atheism is a religion or something to you, and turn around, denying your allegation of atheism being a religion. It's not a belief, like religion is! Oh well. Your loss. Stay ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex EDIT: Why do you want to know my age? I'll inform you that I'm old enough for you not to be interested in me sexually.

WTF?! Even your comeback is childish.

quote:

Originally posted by rainbowunicorn Reasoning or critical thinking is lost on you for not understanding what you're inferring when you said "face of atheism" like atheism is a religion or something to you, and turn around, denying your allegation of atheism being a religion. It's not a belief, like religion is! Oh well. Your loss. Stay ignorant. WTF?! Even your comeback is childish.

So is asking me my age so that you can dismiss/insult me.

And again, not saying atheism is a religion, but even movements can have a "face". And NEW atheism qualifies as a movement.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Alex So is asking me my age so that you can dismiss/insult me.

Didn't I say "Just curious"? Don't jump to conclusions and presume.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex And again, not saying atheism is a religion, but even movements can have a "face". And NEW atheism qualifies as a movement.

Reality has or needs a "face" now?

quote:

Originally posted by rainbowunicorn Didn't I say "Just curious"? Don't jump to conclusions and presume. Reality has or needs a "face" now?

Come on man. Saying atheism is reality can't be objectively proved and you know it.

Science is all about reality and there are many "faces" of science.

Maybe using the word "face" isn't the word we should be using.

How about "prominent figure" or something like that?

___________________

And although you used the word "curious", you dismissed me about 3 minutes ago in another thread by calling me a kid. So you knew you were using it as an insult.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Come on man. Saying atheism is reality can't be objectively proved and you know it. Science is all about reality and there are many "faces" of science. Maybe using the word "face" isn't the word we should be using. How about "prominent figure" or something like that?

The point is there shouldn't be a leader needed to persuade people to reality.

Instead of me explaining to you the difference between reality vs religion again, I'll just copy and paste the past post:

quote:

Originally posted by rainbowunicorn If someone points to a tree and says that's a ghost behind the tree, then the burden of proof is on them to prove it, so it's their belief. If someone points to a tree and says that's a tree, then that's pointing the obvious reality. That's not a belief. That's reality. You bring up hypothetical notions, then you have to prove it. It doesn't automatically make it valid or equal to reality just by bringing up a hypothetical notion. Otherwise, anyone can bring up any idea and if you don't believe them, then you are "believing" in reality, as if the two are equally valid?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex And although you used the word "curious", you dismissed me about 3 minutes ago in another thread by calling me a kid. So you knew you were using it as an insult.

To gauge your intellect, so I know to continue to talk to you or not, since we can't tell on the internet.