The Religion of Atheism

sauce
sɔːs/
noun

1. 1.
   a liquid or semi-liquid substance served with food to add moistness and flavour.
   "tomato sauce"
   synonyms: relish, dressing, condiment, ketchup, flavouring; More
   
2. 2.
   informal
   alcoholic drink.
   "she's been on the sauce for years"
   synonyms: alcohol, liquor, alcoholic drink, strong drink, intoxicating drink, spirits; More
   
   
3. 
   
   
   

verb

1. 1.
   provide a sauce for (something); season with a sauce.
   "the vegetables were deliciously spiced and sauced"
2. 2.
   informal
   be rude or impudent to (someone).
   "a boy had sauced a monitor who wanted his shoes shined"

 

Ha ha. Thanks for the expanded definition!

I will go with 1.1

But I like 2.2, "she has been on the sauce for years!"

 

As something of an agnostic, I actually found this comment rather funny.

 

I think that was the idea.

 

I take door #2.

 

Toledo is not the focus of that sentence structure!

Thats the problem with all these neo atheists, they are literally illiterate, no small pun intended of course.

"you lack the gas" we have subject verb and object predicate, that said toledo can be omitted with no change in focal meaning since toledo is part of a prepositional phrase, 'I lack the gas' also stands alone.

In the course of the discussion the example used was clearly intended to convey lack as NOT ENOUGH since that is what the discussion was about and repeated to you countless times and there you go, once again cleverly made a fool out of yourself. Looks very trollish too, well except to neoatheists of course.

When applied to atheist it means anyone that is not 100% theist is an atheist according to that ridiculous illogic and unreason which once again successfully wipes out weak atheist, weak theist, well damn near everything. ****ing laughable!

Great job!

how high's kokos score mama?







3 for 3 and rising1!

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

I lack disbelief, I am a theist!

 

If you remove toledo, then you just lack gas, which means don't have any gas. If you 'lack the gas' you have to identify for what, or you just don't have any. If you lack the faith to believe in a god, then you don't have enough, and that's all that is important. Now stupid discussions about meaningless semantics aside, if you don't like lack, use a different word. I know you desperately look for menial details to argue about so you don't have to argue the meat of the subject, but just get past this stupid topic and pick WHATEVER word you would like that means 'you don't have any', or whatever it is that conveys the message to your crazy brain.

And, since god cannot be proven real, then you are saying god must NOT be real. I agree, it's stupid logic, but it's your logic. I even asked you if that was what you meant, and you insisted over and over and over.

So, why do you do things like this? There can't possibly be anyone who is fooled, and you can't really think you are fooling anyone? So who is this for? For that matter, why are you on here so obsessively at all? Nothing you say could possibly be convincing to anyone outside of the chaos in your head, so why not just shout it to yourself in the mirror?

 

Uncertainty is my principle belief

 

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG

I already explained it to you more than 3 times I suggest its time you try a different approach, like reading for comprehension for a change

I lack disbelief I'm a theist!

 

I think it is a false premise to state that atheists believe that a belief in god is behind most atrocities. Where is the data and/or basis to support this claim?

 

I gather by the use of quotation marks around the word experts you do not recognize proven science or history that conflicts with whatever religious mythology you subscribe. The atheists I know have confidence in proven science, but I wouldn't say they have "faith" in science. You need to educate yourself on what the word "faith" actually means.

 

Your Bible is false/fake. Your proof it is the word of god is what exactly? Those of us who have not suspended our critical thinking want to see some proof to back up your extraordinary claims. People like you prove one thing, i.e., brainwashing really works.

 

No need for the mumbo jumbo. Just provide some proof that supports your claim that a god exists.

 

An essential being that the Old Testament Jews claimed to carry around in a tent.

 

Those of us who live in the United States and know that the US Supreme Court once defined a Black man as 3/5 of a Citizen, also ask the same question about relevance.

 

Some of the Ian Stevenson research seems to provide some evidence of reincarnation. Not to the level of proof, but still interesting.

 

Just looked him up. It looks like he was trying to argue that an apparent correlation between birth marks on babies and wounds on deceased people was evidence of reincarnation. Seems pretty silly to me.

 

You have drawn a conclusion without reading the book Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects (1997). It is somewhat of a painful read, written in a scientific and methodical style. Stevenson was a scientist, university professor, Medical Doctor, and Psychiatrist. He actually makes no claims of reincarnation, rather he simply presents facts gathered via scientific research. He is not affiliated with any religion, nor is he trying to sell any religion. I am not saying I was convinced of reincarnation reading any of his books but I found a lot of the facts he presented to be somewhat disturbing.

 

define God

welcome to politics!

 

Facts of how these birthmarks and birth defects resembled the injuries of deceased people, you mean? I expect that he did find some fascinating similarities. I guess my question would be, what else does he present beyond that?

 

The people described in the birthmark book can recall memories of deceased people in depth and have birthmarks that match up to how the person whose memories they recall died. His book presents 30 years of research. I could not do justice in my words trying to describe his methodology and science. He does not rely on or use at all the bogus and discredited retro-hypnosis so often used by various frauds. I know it sounds bogus, but the fact is he did research as a scientist and wrote as a scientist. The sad thing is I just looked on Amazon and the birthmark book is being sold for $363.00. Time for me to read it again and try to sell my copy. Maybe this book is available in a large library.

The following is a somewhat interesting read (that is affordable) written by a reporter who had the objective of debunking Stevenson.
https://www.amazon.com/Old-Souls-Co...UTF8&qid=1533752743&sr=1-1&keywords=old+souls

Again, I am not saying Stevenson proves any religion. Rather, he was a scientist who was not constrained by orthodoxy. The only thing that disturbs me a little about Stevenson is that he was exposed in his childhood (from what I have read) to Theosophy and I wonder if exposure to this religion could have impacted his later research.

 

I wonder what lengths he went to, if any, to vet his sources. People could lie or be coerced by others into believing that they're reincarnations of these deceased persons. Then there is always the chance that this guy was himself a fraud, inventing details, which is why peer review and so on is so important.

 

I would say that with respect to the birthmark case studies it would have been very difficult for someone to become intimate with the life of a dead person and somehow have a birthmark associated with how that person died, e.g., gunshot, hanging, etc. I don't know to what extent he was peer reviewed. His work was published in medical journals and similar publications. Certainly there is some chance he could have been a fraud or the people that went with him on field trips could have been frauds.