Atheists Are Fools

[JoeyKnothead]

I see the Bible verse about 'the fool has said there is no god' bandied about by some of the forum members and it really does appall me. This kind of teaching is among the most insidious of all the Bible teachings, and it leads to the worst kind of beliefs. When a person holds this view, that those who disagree with you are evil, Satan, or fools, it really stops all attempts at understanding one another. To this atheist it is seen as a clear attempt to insult, and to slander. It prevents the theist from being able to accept new ideas, or ideas that clearly disprove a given biblical concept. It is no better than using the 'n' word, and no better than a child throwing a tantrum. When logic and reason can be short circuited by a simple phrase, then what is there left to debate?

What is even a bit sadder about the use of this term, its usually the ones holding the most foolish of ideas who dare claims someone else the fool. There is no shame in saying you think someone is wrong, and there should be no shame in being called wrong. But declaring an opponent in a debate forum a fool is the height of hypocrisy. What bigger fool could there be than one who would debate a fool?

The Christian religion uses these demonizing terms to stop debate. To stop honest discussion. To stop the honorable seeking of truth. Only a scared individual, or a scared ideology would use such tactics to defend itself. Only an ideology that knew it was questionable would dare try to stop someone's asking questions. A religion which has in itself a history of abuse, torture and murder of anyone who challenges it? And the atheist is the fool? What fool is there that would blindly adhere to something which he disagrees with?

I see often, in life and these forums, the Christian who will skirt around, under, or totally avoid discussion of the issue at hand. Many will resort to rhetorical trickery before they will discuss the issues, but they will call anyone who disagrees a witch. A fool. A demon. Who is so righteous they can make this declaration? Can we not agree that our differences are just that, differences, not demonic possessions? Why must someone who tries their best to understand this wonderful life we share always be a fool?

I'll tell you what a fool is. A fool is the person who has stopped learning. A fool is one who would declare they have the answers before they are even asked the question. They have stopped trying to understand people, and instead they want a chance to feel superior. How better to feel superior than to use the internet to call someone a fool. A faceless, otherwise anonymous debater, who comes in here to seek knowledge, and share their own. You would call them a fool? Have you never heard the expression, "You catch more flies with honey"? If you have, and you continue to call those you are debating with a fool, then really, what is there left to say to you?

What is it going to take the Christian religion to realize that differences of opinion can actually be a good thing? They can lead to new discoveries, to new ideas, and to better understanding. Even wrong opinions have value, because they allow us to discuss why they are wrong, how to correct them, and how to prevent them in the future. Why is it foolish to take the sum total of all available information and come to a conclusion based on that information? You are wrong about believing there is a God. But you're not a fool. You're not evil. You're just wrong. Surely we can get along long enough to debate why I am correct, or you are, without having to declare one another fools, or worse.

I will declare all who believe in a God wrong. But a fool? I have only been in these forums for a short time, but I will tell you this, there are some highly intelligent folks here, from atheist to theist, and I have learned from them. I learned from them because I know if I keep my mind open, I can learn. If I try to understand a person's point, even if I don't agree with it, I can learn about that person. And let me tell you, knowledge gained is good. It is good for the theist and the atheist alike. It is good because through understanding one another we can hopefully see that we are all wrong about something, we are all right about something, we are all bad for something, and we are all good for something. We are humans, each and every one of us, and we deserve a certain level of respect.

Atheists have families they love and care for. We have jobs we like, and jobs we hate. We have fears and dreams and wants and needs. We bleed red blood when we are cut. We have goals, and hopes, and we fail and we succeed. We do all of the things the religious do but one. Should the one single thing that separates us make us evil, or fools? Just because a book declares it? Just because one can hide behind a biblical passage, and deny a certain responsibility for declaring it? Are we really that bad that our lives are no better than a dog's? Really? Is there not some way we can be thought of as worthy of this life? Just because we don't believe a book? Just because we don't believe your book?

Ultimately I suppose I am here to 'preach atheism', but surely there can be a greater, more noble dialog.

[Beto]

One thing there's no shortage of is atheist quotes ridiculing religion and religious people, and they're all legitimate signatures. I rather not use any as childish provocation, but I know I could, so there's really no need for a double standard. I see no significant difference between implying "the Bible says you're a fool" and implying "Hemingway says you don't think". Unless I couldn't use a quote implicating the latter. I'd have an issue with that. Recognized atheist quotes are as legitimate as Bible quotes in a religion debate forum. I guess it all boils down to how unsophisticated someone is willing to get to answer a "legitimate" provocation.

[Evales]

Interesting point from Beto. Since we are debating Christianity most of the people on the opposing team would be atheists. Does this mean that we are allowed to use atheist comments that imply people to be fools for their belief? I will PM a moderator

[JoeyKnothead]

My whole argument here hinges on someone quoting a book, and placing an insult from that book into a signature where it is basically undebatable. If someone is allowed to use their words/book to insult me in a signature, fairness says I should be allowed to do the same. Only problem is I'm gonna reply with my bathroom reader, and not scripture. I'm gonna use the language of the real world, and not the language of supposedly comforting fairy tales.

Admittedly this point came about for me while I was under medication that made me a jerk, but my argument is still valid in my sober state. I have read more than one book. I have learned two languages, and I am not allowed to use my language to respond back. I absolutely do not, nor have I ever believed theists to be retarded. However, in proving my point I used that term, because colloquially it is equivalent to being called a fool.

Again, if one can use the language of the Bible to insult me through signatures, then I should have the right to use my language in return. However there are many theists who would have a cow if I started using the language I am most comfortable with, and which allows me to get my point across most effectively. But no, I am expected not to use harsh, swearing, derogatory language. Fine, I am totally cool with that. I don't use it with my momma or my old lady, and y'all in these forums deserve that same respect. But how come I don't deserve the very respect that is asked of me?

Trust me when I say this, I have endured much worse from Christian fundamentalists than being called a fool. Its not about being called a fool per se, but fairness. Call me what you want, cuss me, holler at me, call me every name in the Bible. But don't go crying to the moderators when I respond with my language.

There is a soldier in the US Army as I type this who is under guard because he dared try start an atheist organization. The Army. You know, the ones who are protecting our freedoms. He is under guard because Christian fundamentalists don't like what he has to say, and have threatened him with death in order to silence him.

Christian fundamentalists love to condemn those with whom they disagree, and they cry like three year olds when they get it served back to them. Either these forums are going to maintain civil debate, or we can all wallow around in the mud. All I'm asking is for there to be an equal amount of mud for all sides.

If the Christian fundamentalist has the right to spew insults, why do they not have the right to hear them? If God is so loving, why would He allow theists to insult non theists, but then get all bent out of shape if the non theists dare have the nerve to reply in kind? Is God so weak that he can only insult, but he get's his feelings hurt when He's insulted back? If that's the case, then God is a bully.

[Beto]

If the Christian fundamentalist has the right to spew insults, why do they not have the right to hear them?

They have the right to quote Biblical passages that imply something insulting. We also have the right to quote famous atheists, with statements that imply theists are fools. I'm not saying we should, but don't you agree that's pretty much the same thing?

[Evales]

My whole argument here hinges on someone quoting a book, and placing an insult from that book into a signature where it is basically undebatable. If someone is allowed to use their words/book to insult me in a signature, fairness says I should be allowed to do the same. Only problem is I'm gonna reply with my bathroom reader, and not scripture. I'm gonna use the language of the real world, and not the language of supposedly comforting fairy tales.

Admittedly this point came about for me while I was under medication that made me a jerk, but my argument is still valid in my sober state. I have read more than one book. I have learned two languages, and I am not allowed to use my language to respond back. I absolutely do not, nor have I ever believed theists to be retarded. However, in proving my point I used that term, because colloquially it is equivalent to being called a fool.

Again, if one can use the language of the Bible to insult me through signatures, then I should have the right to use my language in return. However there are many theists who would have a cow if I started using the language I am most comfortable with, and which allows me to get my point across most effectively. But no, I am expected not to use harsh, swearing, derogatory language. Fine, I am totally cool with that. I don't use it with my momma or my old lady, and y'all in these forums deserve that same respect. But how come I don't deserve the very respect that is asked of me?

Trust me when I say this, I have endured much worse from Christian fundamentalists than being called a fool. Its not about being called a fool per se, but fairness. Call me what you want, cuss me, holler at me, call me every name in the Bible. But don't go crying to the moderators when I respond with my language.

There is a soldier in the US Army as I type this who is under guard because he dared try start an atheist organization. The Army. You know, the ones who are protecting our freedoms. He is under guard because Christian fundamentalists don't like what he has to say, and have threatened him with death in order to silence him.

Christian fundamentalists love to condemn those with whom they disagree, and they cry like three year olds when they get it served back to them. Either these forums are going to maintain civil debate, or we can all wallow around in the mud. All I'm asking is for there to be an equal amount of mud for all sides.

If the Christian fundamentalist has the right to spew insults, why do they not have the right to hear them? If God is so loving, why would He allow theists to insult non theists, but then get all bent out of shape if the non theists dare have the nerve to reply in kind? Is God so weak that he can only insult, but he get's his feelings hurt when He's insulted back? If that's the case, then God is a bully.

As Beto says, and I tend to agree, atheist quotes yes. But I wouldn't go so far to say that we should be able to quote anything. Anything is not credible and if you are doing that you aren't doing it because its your right, your doing it to hurt. You, for example, do not have the right to post pornographical quotes. That is just silly. They have no relevance in a debating Christianity and Religion forum.

[McCulloch]

Yes, but what you put in your signature reflects your own character. If you wish to put something in your sig that is insulting, what does that say about your character?

[OnceConvinced]

One thing there's no shortage of is atheist quotes ridiculing religion and religious people, and they're all legitimate signatures. I rather not use any as childish provocation, but I know I could, so there's really no need for a double standard. I see no significant difference between implying "the Bible says you're a fool" and implying "Hemingway says you don't think". Unless I couldn't use a quote implicating the latter. I'd have an issue with that. Recognized atheist quotes are as legitimate as Bible quotes in a religion debate forum. I guess it all boils down to how unsophisticated someone is willing to get to answer a "legitimate" provocation.

Very good point. I guess one could say that what I have in my thread at the moment is an insult to theists. One might claim that I am saying that all theists make up their own stuff and use the bible to support it.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means."
George Bernard Shaw

[C-Nub]

As Beto says, and I tend to agree, atheist quotes yes. But I wouldn't go so far to say that we should be able to quote anything. Anything is not credible and if you are doing that you aren't doing it because its your right, your doing it to hurt. You, for example, do not have the right to post pornographical quotes. That is just silly. They have no relevance in a debating Christianity and Religion forum.

I disagree here. I don't even have a signature, mostly because I don't think I have anything so important to say that I bears being repeated at the conclusion of every complete (or nearly complete) thought I post around here, but at the same time, I find much of the bible to be significantly less welcome in my life than pornography.

I don't feel that the Bible is particularly credible, myself, and if I should happen to find a quote in Penthouse Letters (which I do not own a copy of or read, for the record) then I think I have as much right to post that. Granted, the quote should be relevant to the subject matter at the forum, but beyond that, with the censoring built right in, it should be the only requirement.

I don't think that any individual or group of individuals has the right to decide which literature is offensive, pornography is a lot less offensive to me than a graphic war novel, which depicts suffering instead of pleasure.

Not that a dirty sanchez is pleasant for everyone involved.

[JoeyKnothead]

Yes, but what you put in your signature reflects your own character. If you wish to put something in your sig that is insulting, what does that say about your character?

Good one. I oughta use that for a sig.

[Thought Criminal]

Yes, but what you put in your signature reflects your own character. If you wish to put something in your sig that is insulting, what does that say about your character?

Perhaps it says that you're willing to be insulting to prove a point.

TC