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.

[JoeyKnothead]

What you fail to understand is the demonizing of those who disagree with a religion is how that religion controls people, and suppresses debate. You are not in any way debating your signature. You are using your signature to declare all who disagree with you fools. You are hiding behind the Bible to try to insult people, and I will not stand for it. I have no problem should you wish to introduce the statement as a topic for debate, but you know it would be quickly dismissed, and proven wrong. Instead you hide your hateful language in your signature, and then feign ignorance as to why it would be considered an insult.

No, to be honest, I think you are demonizing them by interpreting the verse to mean what you think it says and then spreading it around that it means what you say it does.

fool1 Audio Help /ful/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fool] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2. a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4. an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually prec. by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5. a weak-minded or idiotic person.
–verb (used with object)
6. to trick, deceive, or impose on: They tried to fool him.
–verb (used without object)
7. to act like a fool; joke; play.
8. to jest; pretend; make believe: I was only fooling.
—Verb phrases
9. fool around,
a. to putter aimlessly; waste time: She fooled around all through school.
b. to philander or flirt.
c. to be sexually promiscuous, esp. to engage in adultery.
10. fool away, to spend foolishly, as time or money; squander: to fool away the entire afternoon.
11. fool with, to handle or play with idly or carelessly: to be hurt while fooling with a loaded gun; to fool with someone's affections.
—Idiom
12. be nobody's fool, to be wise or shrewd.
[Origin: 1225–75; ME fol, fool < OF fol < L follis bellows, bag; cf. follis]

—Synonyms 1. simpleton, dolt, dunce, blockhead, numskull, ignoramus, dunderhead, ninny, nincompoop, booby, saphead, sap. 2. zany, clown. 5. moron, imbecile, idiot. 6. delude, hoodwink, cheat, gull, hoax, cozen, dupe, gudgeon.
—Antonyms 1. genius.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

[twobitsmedia]

What you fail to understand is the demonizing of those who disagree with a religion is how that religion controls people, and suppresses debate. You are not in any way debating your signature. You are using your signature to declare all who disagree with you fools. You are hiding behind the Bible to try to insult people, and I will not stand for it. I have no problem should you wish to introduce the statement as a topic for debate, but you know it would be quickly dismissed, and proven wrong. Instead you hide your hateful language in your signature, and then feign ignorance as to why it would be considered an insult.

No, to be honest, I think you are demonizing them by interpreting the verse to mean what you think it says and then spreading it around that it means what you say it does.

fool1 Audio Help /ful/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fool] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2. a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4. an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually prec. by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5. a weak-minded or idiotic person.
–verb (used with object)
6. to trick, deceive, or impose on: They tried to fool him.
–verb (used without object)
7. to act like a fool; joke; play.
8. to jest; pretend; make believe: I was only fooling.
—Verb phrases
9. fool around,
a. to putter aimlessly; waste time: She fooled around all through school.
b. to philander or flirt.
c. to be sexually promiscuous, esp. to engage in adultery.
10. fool away, to spend foolishly, as time or money; squander: to fool away the entire afternoon.
11. fool with, to handle or play with idly or carelessly: to be hurt while fooling with a loaded gun; to fool with someone's affections.
—Idiom
12. be nobody's fool, to be wise or shrewd.
[Origin: 1225–75; ME fol, fool < OF fol < L follis bellows, bag; cf. follis]

—Synonyms 1. simpleton, dolt, dunce, blockhead, numskull, ignoramus, dunderhead, ninny, nincompoop, booby, saphead, sap. 2. zany, clown. 5. moron, imbecile, idiot. 6. delude, hoodwink, cheat, gull, hoax, cozen, dupe, gudgeon.
—Antonyms 1. genius.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

And if you take away the "In the heart" part of the verse, then it becomes a blanket statement that could mean that. But, in context, I think it means as I previously mentioned. Again, it it God who judges the heart, not me. So I could not use it that way in any logical sense.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment
Because this has come up in the No Proof the Bible is Untrue thread and I posted the moderators decision there, let me copy it in here as well.

Moderator Rulings

After some discussion, the moderators have decided the following:

1. twobitsmedia signature is allowable. It was deemed that trying to ban selective passages of the Bible from being quoted, even if they could legitimately be considered offensive, would not be feasible on a site where religion in general, and the Bible in particular, are topics of debate. It was noted that another member has the following Biblical quote in his signature.

"He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord." Deuteronomy 23:1

2. However, we have asked members not to refer to other members in their signatures, and will continue to enforce this per the rules concerning personal remarks.

3. All members are to be reminded that the forum exists to promote civil debate. The specific rules are meant to foster this goal. However, we do ask all members to keep the higher goal in mind, and not make a practice of trying to get away with as much as possible under the 'letter of the law.'

4. All members are also reminded to keep the debate on the topic for debate and not on each others behavior.

5. Finally, challenges and comments on the moderating are NOT to appear within a thread. This is a pretty clear cut rule, and those who violate it should expect swift action. ANY comments regarding the moderating should be made via PM to one or more of the moderators.

6. This thread will be opened in the hope that debate on the topic can proceed in a civil manner.


I do thank you for your attention to these rulings and ask all of you to help maintain the civil tone that is one of the goals of the forum.

Now, I can see how joeyknuccione and others might find the 'fools' verse upsetting, and I noted your point that it appears in a signature and not as a topic for debate. However, I do think we would be going beyond our purpose as moderators to ban the signature.

Part of what people find inflammatory is going to depend on their point of view. Some would find expressions of support for abortion rights as upsetting, inflammatory, even repulsive. They equate abortion with murder. Whether it is or not has been the subject of quite a number of threads on the forum.

In the past, some non-theists on the forum have taken issue with the Christian doctrine that would suggest non-theists will burn for eternity in hell. Debates on this issue have been quite contentious. However, at this point I don't think we would act to ban the use of verses which discuss the fires of hell.


At this point, let's proceed with the thread. Despite the contentious nature of the issue, I will ask everyone to be as civil in their posting as possible. We obviously have a deep division of viewpoints here, but that does not mean we cannot get some understanding of our opponents positions.

[daedalus 2.0]

What you fail to understand is the demonizing of those who disagree with a religion is how that religion controls people, and suppresses debate. You are not in any way debating your signature. You are using your signature to declare all who disagree with you fools. You are hiding behind the Bible to try to insult people, and I will not stand for it. I have no problem should you wish to introduce the statement as a topic for debate, but you know it would be quickly dismissed, and proven wrong. Instead you hide your hateful language in your signature, and then feign ignorance as to why it would be considered an insult.

No, to be honest, I think you are demonizing them by interpreting the verse to mean what you think it says and then spreading it around that it means what you say it does.

fool1 Audio Help /ful/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fool] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2. a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4. an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually prec. by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5. a weak-minded or idiotic person.
–verb (used with object)
6. to trick, deceive, or impose on: They tried to fool him.
–verb (used without object)
7. to act like a fool; joke; play.
8. to jest; pretend; make believe: I was only fooling.
—Verb phrases
9. fool around,
a. to putter aimlessly; waste time: She fooled around all through school.
b. to philander or flirt.
c. to be sexually promiscuous, esp. to engage in adultery.
10. fool away, to spend foolishly, as time or money; squander: to fool away the entire afternoon.
11. fool with, to handle or play with idly or carelessly: to be hurt while fooling with a loaded gun; to fool with someone's affections.
—Idiom
12. be nobody's fool, to be wise or shrewd.
[Origin: 1225–75; ME fol, fool < OF fol < L follis bellows, bag; cf. follis]

—Synonyms 1. simpleton, dolt, dunce, blockhead, numskull, ignoramus, dunderhead, ninny, nincompoop, booby, saphead, sap. 2. zany, clown. 5. moron, imbecile, idiot. 6. delude, hoodwink, cheat, gull, hoax, cozen, dupe, gudgeon.
—Antonyms 1. genius.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

And if you take away the "In the heart" part of the verse, then it becomes a blanket statement that could mean that. But, in context, I think it means as I previously mentioned. Again, it it God who judges the heart, not me. So I could not use it that way in any logical sense.

Yes, of course, you don't take responsibility for what you say...

1. I find it hillarious to be called a fool by a religiot.
2. The Psalm was about all people on Earth, not just atheists. It shows TBM doesn't even understand his Bible.
3. It is an obvious lie that "there is none that doeth good." TBM is just pointing out that his Bible lies - at least the authors of the Psalm.

Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it's an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in "I Hate Gates" Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug? Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the "Green Revolution" that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.

All three don't/didn't believe in their heart that God exists/existed. Borlaug alone saved more people than all of Xianity combined.

[JoeyKnothead]

Well said daedalus, but since its in the Bible its fair and right. Just because God said it, its okay to use it to spread hate and bile, and anyone who argues against it will be shouted down. Say something bad about a theist and you face recrimination, but they will be allowed to say anything they want about you because God said it.

[Goat]

Well said daedalus, but since its in the Bible its fair and right. Just because God said it, its okay to use it to spread hate and bile, and anyone who argues against it will be shouted down. Say something bad about a theist and you face recrimination, but they will be allowed to say anything they want about you because God said it.

Of course, it is also written in the bible

But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to punishment. And whoever says to his brother 'Raka!' will be subject to the Council. And whoever says 'You fool!' will be subject to hell fire.

[daedalus 2.0]

I'll repost some of what I did on the companion thread of "atheists are stupid - but I didn't say it, "god" did" (Even though they are quoting a song written by men in honor of their god... That's what a Psalm is but these pious Xians don't realize this!)

So, first, we look at Strong's Lexicon.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/tr ... fool&t=KJV


Let's take Psalm 14:1 (53:1 uses identical words)
[To the chief Musician 05329 , [A Psalm] of David 01732.]] The fool 05036 hath said 0559 in his heart 03820, [There is] no God 0430. They are corrupt 07843 , they have done abominable 08581 works 05949, [there is] none that doeth 06213 good 02896.

The first thing that pops out immediately is that "god" in this context (0430) is the PLURAL: 'elohiym (Singular root: 'elowahh which means both "god" and "false god"). Elohiym is PLURAL.

So, the TRUE interpretation is "....says [there is] no gods". Ooops, I may have stumbled upon something that will make Biblists look foolish themselves! (not even good grammar! "there ARE no gods" is correct translation).

Now, the plural is sometimes used as the singular in usage but only later. In context it is plural and, in fact, is plural: gods....ssssssss... More than one.

(Why the singular can mean both "god" (small "g", btw) and "false god" is beyond me. MAybe someone else can do the leg work.)

The fool
nabal (naw-bawl')
stupid; wicked (especially impious) -- fool(-ish, -ish man, -ish woman), vile person.

Now "fool" is "nabal" in Hebrew: it means fool or stupid. This shoots WS's theory that fool can mean a wise fool. You can't be stupid and wise. (Well, maybe in a Theist's world where up can be down, but that's for another day...).

So, the Bible is calling people stupid for saying there are no gods.





Here are the refutations of Jesters claim:

- Psa 53:1 - [[To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.

King James Version 1611, 1769
NKJV - Psa 53:1 -
PSALM 53
To the Chief Musician. Set to "Mahalath." A Contemplation of David.
THE fool has said in his heart,

"There is no God."
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity;
There is none who does good.

Footnote:
Hebrew Maschil

New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
NLT - Psa 53:1 - For the choir director: A meditation of David. Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; no one does good!

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NIV - Psa 53:1 -

For the director of music. According to mahalath. Amaskil of David.

The fool says in his heart,

“There is no God.�

They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;

there is no one who does good.

New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV - Psa 53:1 -

To the choirmaster: according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.�
They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity;
there is none who does good.


Footnote:
Probably musical or liturgical terms

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
RVR - Psa 53:1 - Dice el necio en su corazón: No hay Dios. Se han corrompido, e hicieron abominable maldad; No hay quien haga bien.

Reina-Valera copyright © 1960 Sociedades Bíblicas en América Latina; copyright © renewed 1988 United Bible Societies.
NASB - Psa 53:1 - The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good.

New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV - Psa 53:1 - To the choirmaster: according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none that does good.

Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
ASV - Psa 53:1 - For the Chief Musician; set to Mahalath. Maschil of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none that doeth good.

American Standard Version 1901 Info
Young - Psa 53:1 - To the Overseer. -- `On a disease.' -- An instruction, by David. A fool said in his heart, `There is no God.' They have done corruptly, Yea, they have done abominable iniquity, There is none doing good.

Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Darby - Psa 53:1 - {To the chief Musician. On Mahalath: an instruction. Of David.} The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God! They have corrupted themselves, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
Webster - Psa 53:1 - To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, [A Psalm] of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.

Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
HNV - Psa 53:1 - For the Chief Musician. To the tune "on machalat." A maskil by David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity. There is no one who does good.

Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info
Vulgate - Psa 53:1 - [Vulgate 52:1] victori per chorum eruditi David dixit stultus in corde suo non est Deus [Vulgate 52:2] corrupti sunt et abominabiles facti sunt in iniquitate non est qui faciat bonum

Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

If his pastor is right, all bibles are wrong. Not a very good showing for the pious men of the evil Bible (that is, the heretical bible because it isn't Marcion's).

If his pastor is wrong, we have another example of a man of the cloth exerting his heretical authority on one of his flock.


Jester, please look at these in context:
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/tr ... +God&t=kjv

You will see that if you rephrase the verse to "no, god" you will essentially re-write the Bible.

For example:

Gen 40:8 And they said 0559 unto him, We have dreamed 02492 a dream 02472, and [there is] no interpreter 06622 of it. And Joseph 03130 said 0559 unto them, [Do] not interpretations 06623 [belong] to God 0430? tell me 05608 [them], I pray you.

Becomes:

Gen 40:8 And they said 0559 unto him, We have dreamed 02492 a dream 02472, and no, interpreter 06622 of it. And Joseph 03130 said 0559 unto them, [Do] not interpretations 06623 [belong] to God 0430? tell me 05608 [them], I pray you.

Why is the atheist, me, the only one looking this up?




Shall we continue?

(We can also discuss how errant the King James Version has been since its beginning!
http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/KJV.htm
)

Of interest is the part:

(23) undated, "Fool" Bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God" instead of "there is no God."

I think I should use this as my signature. After all, it's in the Bible, and since it is up to interpretation, I am free to use this Bible above others.

Any objections that this Bible has authority?

[CriticalThinker]

To take a direct shot at what knowledge you dont understand is highly rude and ignorant...which sadly most people who apply their faith tend to be. You need to learn more about science and how both religion and science are NOT intertwining and that saying "science can't prove religion wrong" is also letting everybody know that your brain is the size of a walnut because obviously religion can't prove science wrong either! You never even backed up your explanation as to why Athiestic basis is "wrong".

by the way...I am all for science and have strong disbelief in religion, although my respectful nature causes me to accept that religion is very important and is just as controversial (didnt spell that right) as science......if you want to chat, aim me at rjblan (screen name)

[C-Nub]

This actually made for a pretty fascinating read, and I have a few thoughts on the overall subject.

First off, I think 'hate' is a crazy strong word for the act of calling someone a 'fool' or 'foolish'. It isn't hate. Arrogance, sure, igorance too, when you say they do 'no good', but hate? No. Hate is raping and killing and hurting, not insulting. I think referring to it so frequently as 'hate' really hurt Joey's stance and credibility. Don't like saying it, since I'm more or less on his side, but there you have it.


I think anyone trying to argue that the quote in TwoBit's signature is doing anything but calling all 'confirmed' atheists 'fools' for not believing in the magical bearded wizard of the heavens is basically shoving fertilizer at us. Should it be banned? Of course not. They're only words. If I'm allowed to classify (in my opinion only) 'faith' as a form of brain damage, they're certainly allowed to think (and express the opinion) that I'm a fool for not seeing how Jesus is different from Harry Potter.

And honestly, the more thought you put it into it, the more reason you have to let this one slide. In a 'debate' (not an 'argument') we atheists hold all the cards. All the evidence supports alternative, non-godly explanations for the existance of pretty much everything. Christians who keep looking to us to disprove something are demonstrating only that they don't understand the nature of science, while any unbias, neutral observer who happened to 'judge' these debates using any sort of scale or quantifiable scoring method would have no choice but to declare the theist population the losers. I'm not saying this with hubris, but rather referencing the rules of a court wherein evidence has to be presented and supported historically. Theists simply don't have that.

On top of that, while we're required by the rules to be civil, we are also all adults here, and there's no reason to think we have to handle those that think us fools with kid gloves. I do not, nor will I, speak of 'faith' with anything even bordering on respect. It is a foolish, ignorant belief to hold, it is superstition and magic and in my opinion, highly dangerous, and this is an opinion I can support, not just a throw-away quote in a signature that asserts something that anyone who takes the time to read most of our arguments on these boards can plainly see is far from true. We are many things, at times condescending and confrontation, arrogant and hostile towards those we see as trying to convert us, zealous in our percieved 'rightiousness' and overbearing in our relentless attack on the faith of those who would debate us more politely than we ourselves sometimes are, but we are not fools, no matter what was written in Psalms centuries ago.

[Beto]

This actually made for a pretty fascinating read, and I have a few thoughts on the overall subject.

First off, I think 'hate' is a crazy strong word for the act of calling someone a 'fool' or 'foolish'. It isn't hate. Arrogance, sure, igorance too, when you say they do 'no good', but hate? No. Hate is raping and killing and hurting, not insulting. I think referring to it so frequently as 'hate' really hurt Joey's stance and credibility. Don't like saying it, since I'm more or less on his side, but there you have it.


I think anyone trying to argue that the quote in TwoBit's signature is doing anything but calling all 'confirmed' atheists 'fools' for not believing in the magical bearded wizard of the heavens is basically shoving fertilizer at us. Should it be banned? Of course not. They're only words. If I'm allowed to classify (in my opinion only) 'faith' as a form of brain damage, they're certainly allowed to think (and express the opinion) that I'm a fool for not seeing how Jesus is different from Harry Potter.

And honestly, the more thought you put it into it, the more reason you have to let this one slide. In a 'debate' (not an 'argument') we atheists hold all the cards. All the evidence supports alternative, non-godly explanations for the existance of pretty much everything. Christians who keep looking to us to disprove something are demonstrating only that they don't understand the nature of science, while any unbias, neutral observer who happened to 'judge' these debates using any sort of scale or quantifiable scoring method would have no choice but to declare the theist population the losers. I'm not saying this with hubris, but rather referencing the rules of a court wherein evidence has to be presented and supported historically. Theists simply don't have that.

On top of that, while we're required by the rules to be civil, we are also all adults here, and there's no reason to think we have to handle those that think us fools with kid gloves. I do not, nor will I, speak of 'faith' with anything even bordering on respect. It is a foolish, ignorant belief to hold, it is superstition and magic and in my opinion, highly dangerous, and this is an opinion I can support, not just a throw-away quote in a signature that asserts something that anyone who takes the time to read most of our arguments on these boards can plainly see is far from true. We are many things, at times condescending and confrontation, arrogant and hostile towards those we see as trying to convert us, zealous in our percieved 'rightiousness' and overbearing in our relentless attack on the faith of those who would debate us more politely than we ourselves sometimes are, but we are not fools, no matter what was written in Psalms centuries ago.

I agree. There's probably more self-hatred for the lack of a rational platform to support one's religious beliefs, than actual hatred towards atheists in general. It makes more sense to feel sorry for them, than to feel insulted by them.