I was anticipated by a Greater Mind.

[williatw]

Oh and BTW I think you're on a lee shore with number 33 anyway.

?! WTF does that mean?

A "lee shore" is a shore the wind is driving your sailing ship toward, usually with sharp rocks, and big waves from the wind.

In context it means I think you're breaking up on the rocks for picking the Nazis first, specifically because of Baez' Crackpot Index number 33.

Number 33 is Baez' Crackpot Index number 33, which refers to accusing your enemies of being Nazis and Hitler and so forth and awards 40 crackpot points for it.
Do try to keep up.

In other words you argued "atheists == Hitler."

Hitler wasn't an atheist.

Maybe you forgot.

Uhh...no I didn't. I didn't accuse you or atheists in general of being "Nazi", my point was the elimination of religion tends to default to a religious like idealogy taking its place, of which I gave several examples of where only one was Nazis. And whether Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Hirohito were personally atheists is irrelevant to my argument.

[williatw]

Remove religion and it will be ideology, or you will end up being conquered, enslaved, converted (or murdered) by an intolerant virulent religion that does not brock what it sees as heresy. How many ultra-rational atheists who don't believe in much other than a general preference for "reason", "logic", etc., would willingly if not enthusiastically wire themselves up with explosives and blow themselves to kingdom come, as long as they get to take a bunch of unbelievers with them? People who fanatically believe in something will go the extra mile to impose their point of view on another even at the cost of their own lives.

Personally I wouldn't blow myself up to prove a religious point, or to kill religious people. I might if someone raped and murdered by wife or mother, but this is the stuff of adolescent fantasies. More likely I'd buy a .45 and confront them and shoot them and either shoot myself or take my chances. I don't have what it takes to torture someone. I step on spiders, though.

You seem to have an almost pathological ability to ignore the other person's argument substituting it with what you decide they really think. I wasn't accusing you or atheist persee of wanting to blow people up, I was saying eliminate religion and it will either be replaced by some kind of state driven idealogy, or be replaced by another religion run by fanatical followers who will do whatever it takes (including blowing people up--and themselves) to get power over the rest of us.

[Schneibster]

Uhh...no I didn't. I didn't accuse you or atheists in general of being "Nazi", my point was the elimination of religion tends to default to a religious like idealogy taking its place, of which I gave several examples of where only one was Nazis. And whether Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Hirohito were personally atheists is irrelevant to my argument.

Backpedal backpedal backpedal.

Next you'll be claiming you never mentioned any dictators.

Go look at Stubby's cartoon.

[williatw]

Uhh...no I didn't. I didn't accuse you or atheists in general of being "Nazi", my point was the elimination of religion tends to default to a religious like idealogy taking its place, of which I gave several examples of where only one was Nazis. And whether Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Hirohito were personally atheists is irrelevant to my argument.

Backpedal backpedal backpedal.

Next you'll be claiming you never mentioned any dictators.

Go look at Stubby's cartoon.

Is that how you respond when you see yourself losing an argument? Just re-define the other person and/or their argument to be whatever you want? I & others here say that eliminate religion, and it defaults to ideological quasi-religions, like Communism or Nazism, you don't have a really good answer to that, so you respond by saying that I obviously think that atheist in general including you are Nazis....yeah that's what I meant alright.

Or your long soliloquy about the origin of the Universe....that would be an argument against the factuality of a particular religion or religion in general, not what the effect of eliminating religious beliefs in people would be, the actual discussion topic.

[Schneibster]

Uhh...no I didn't. I didn't accuse you or atheists in general of being "Nazi", my point was the elimination of religion tends to default to a religious like idealogy taking its place, of which I gave several examples of where only one was Nazis. And whether Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Hirohito were personally atheists is irrelevant to my argument.

Backpedal backpedal backpedal.

Next you'll be claiming you never mentioned any dictators.

Go look at Stubby's cartoon.

Is that how you respond when you see yourself losing an argument?

You're just denying what you said.

Whatever man. I don't bother arguing with people who won't acknowledge their own words.

I clip people who deny their own words off above the knees.

You get to try to retrieve your reputation with your next post. Use it wisely.

[Schneibster]

When someone puts NAZIs in their post, in huge type, sorry, I kinda tend to assume (silly me) that it might be important in their post.

Apparently you're denying it. Next you'll get graphics that subliminally flash swastikas at random intervals and pretend they don't mean anything either.

[Schneibster]

Meanwhile if it doesn't matter if they were atheists, how come you brought it up? You're the one who pointed it out.

[Schneibster]

I don't think religions are evil, I think they need to be wormed, flea-bathed, and have their nails clipped and their toilet habits corrected. And we're going to have to breed those ovipositors out of them.

[Diogenes]

When you completely eliminate religion, the part of the human psyche that yearns for such (rational or not) fills the vacuum with ideology...which sets the stage for the quasi-god of the state, ruled by the "evil bastards" who conveniently materialize.

That is a beautifully eloquent way of stating the concept. Yes, the state becomes god.

[Diogenes]

Oh and BTW I think you're on a lee shore with number 33 anyway.

?! WTF does that mean?

WTF is the only reasonable response to anything scheisser writes. He is simply not rational enough to argue with.

[GIThruster]

WTF is the only reasonable response to anything scheisser writes. He is simply not rational enough to argue with.

What was your first clue?

I told you weeks ago he was going to ruin this forum just like all the other forums he has entered and trashed. had we all put him on ignore weeks ago, we would not have the trashing of common sense we have. Yet people keep reading his notes and responding to them.

Just put him on ignore and eventually he'll go away. That is the only way to deal with trolls.

[Schneibster]

I told you weeks ago he was going to ruin this forum just like all the other forums he has entered and trashed.

Yeah, by "believing in" satellites and peer review.

You are a joke.

Next I'll start "believing in" weird things like refrigerators, televisions, and exploratory spacecraft leaving the solar system.

And the only forums that have been wrecked are the PopSci forums which were shut down because they couldn't shut up the climate cranks and Darwin deniers like you.

[GIThruster]

An atheist will only assert that there is no credible evidence for a god.
An anti-theist will assert there are no gods.

What, you took a page out of the troll's book and started fabricating your own definitions?

Here's a tip: no one cares about the private definitions you cook up. We already speak the language and knew what atheists were well before you were born.

[Stubby]

An atheist will only assert that there is no credible evidence for a god.
An anti-theist will assert there are no gods.

What, you took a page out of the troll's book and started fabricating your own definitions?

Here's a tip: no one cares about the private definitions you cook up. We already speak the language and knew what atheists were well before you were born.

I can't help it if you and other theists have the wrong ideas of and definitions for atheism and atheists. You folks have had the ball in your court for so long (2000 years) you got to invent your own stuff based on your own biases.
It used to be that an atheist would feel alone and isolated much like the LGBT community used to feel. Where does one go to find a fellow atheist? We did not have parades and bars and the other community building opportunities. Now we have the internet where information and communities are a click away. Non religiousness is growing. At last poll it was 20% in the USA.

So here is a tip for you GiThruster:
You no longer get to define us. We are tired of being misrepresented, misconstrued and misidentified. The definitions we use are now easily available. I did not invent them.

http://atheism.about.com/

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement [HUGE UNDERSTATEMENT] about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point [often called anti-theism]. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god — if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

[underlining added]

We will define ourselves from now on thank you very much.

[GIThruster]

Yes well, you just contradicted yourself. No surprise there.

And seriously, just look in a dictionary of you don't know what the term means. Don't make stuff up. That just leaves you looking childish.