No one even noticed that I wrote Trotsky instead of Tolstoy (earlier), in reference to short stories. Buncha illiterate bastards.
Master and Man is like 10 pages. Go do it.
While you are right that some people consider the mere suggestion that god might not exist as a personal insult, the problem here is that your delivery of that accurate message is often clouded by the fact that your approach belittles the belief in God by comparing it to a belief in leprechauns.
A less belittling comparison would be to use something like ghosts. The same person who calls me a Godhater® for pointing out the possibility that God might not exist or the bible might not be accurate would probably find it absurd to call me a ghost hater for the same thing, but wouldn't find the comparison of God's existence to the existence of ghosts to be as derogatory.
Because it is *IDENTICAL* to believe in leprechauns. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever.
It likely wouldn't matter, they'd still call you a Godhater no matter what you do because their imaginary friend means more to them than rationality.
Ayn Rand simply created a fictitious political ideology of selfishness to create a story around it.
L. Ron Hubbard created a fictional religion to sell.
Both were delusional and narcisisisitic and it is revealed in their writing imo.
Literature.org, here I come.
Kickass! After that do Anthem if you haven't (~100 pages). You've then garnered the conversation-credential equivalent of War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged in a mere ~120 pages. Throw in the aforementioned Niet and Mach (Prince) to cover the "History of Uberman", and Dost's "The Uberman Thing is Not Real"... and you're an expert too.
I'm not sure what that has to do with scientology, as I never much read Hubbard (not into sci-fi, I'm more a classics guy). Also, I'm not sure if reading Hubbard's scifi has anything to do with scientology. I'm willing to bet, though, that if one has Spock ears then they are probably willing to believe in volcano people.
Vonnegut is a favorite of mine. I saw him speak about literature when I was in HS ~'88, at the FIU auditorium (my gf got us tickets). It was amazing. (Damn, I'm such a nerd). Anyway, have you tried John Irving? His early stuff is Catch-22/Mockingbird quality.
So you undermine your own points for the sole purpose of being offensive to those who believe? How does that benefit you?
Most of these people lack the capacity to question their beliefs regardless, therefore the chances of convincing them that they're wrong are somewhere between slim and none. It's done for those watching from the sidelines, who can recognize that belief in gods and belief in leprechauns are equivalent and equally silly. If nothing else, there is entertainment value is watching crazy people try to justify belief in imaginary friends. Zealots don't change their minds. They're great for laughing at though.
Why bother then, if you have so much disdain for them?
For the same reason people debate racists and the like. They're not going to change their minds, but it's not for them, it's to discredit their arguments for those watching. And trust me, it's not at all hard to discredit the claims of the religious.
The reason to debate racists is because racism is a bad thing, in and of itself. Do you really think believing in God is truly as bad, on it's own, as racism?
Nice victim-mentality conspiracy theory. Irrational as all hell, but nice nonetheless.
As a True Atheist™, I feel it my duty to say that when atheists do this, it's nearly always within the context of Christians enforcing legislative policy that affects them, and which is based solely on their interpretation of the bible. The True Atheist™ rarely cares when Christians practice their faith in a way that does not infringe on the freedoms of others. When this occurs the resulting reaction really does become "Like whatever."
What a bizarre statement. What does this even mean?
So it's a conspiracy theory to think Atheists who obsess over God aren't really Atheists. Righteos.
And the reason to debate religion is because religion is a bad thing, in and of itself. Our beliefs inform our actions, when our beliefs are faulty, as the beliefs of the religious are, then their actions are faulty. Keep in mind, I'm talking only of the people who actually believe this stuff, not the probably majority who only claim belief because they think it's expected of them. When one's beliefs are actually delusional, when they think there are imaginary friends in the sky that they have to please, when they think that the only life that matters is the one that happens after you die, not only do they harm themselves but they harm their children and society in general. Religion, by it's very existence in this country, harms the advancement of society.
Nobody is obsessing over God. In fact, if theists would keep all their irrational crap to themselves, keep it out of the schools, keep it out of the political arena, atheists would have no reason whatsoever to ever bring it up.
Want to know who to blame? Look in the mirror.
So it's a conspiracy theory to think Atheists who obsess over God aren't really Atheists. Righteos.
If it weren't for religion, millions of people like you would be dead already to murder, so show some respect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?