🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:TH7od.198361$9b.92369@edtnps84...
> In article <Sj0od.175168$df2.60004@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >Its an important distinction.  Many atheists are pretty nasty to those
> >"narrow-minded theists" as theists can be to dissenters from their faith.
> >Only those who aren't really sure couldn't really care what your beliefs
> >are.
>
> bullshit.  I am sure and I don't give a crap whether you are or not.  Soft
> atheism (aka agnosticism) is for the weak.  Oh wait, I just made a
negative
> judgement so that must mean I do give a crap, right?  Not hardly. I LIKE
the
> fact that most people are stupid and inferior.
>
>
There you go.  Since you obviously view anyone who doesn't share you views
as being stupid and inferior, you clearly do give a crap.  Otherwise, you
would have no measuring stick.  You have just proven the point not argued
against it.  You have shown you beliefs to be no different than a
fundamentalist theist; that someone who does not share your beliefs ( in the
absence of proof) is inferior in some way.
>
> > I am a non-believer; not because I can say for can't say for certain
> >one what or the other, but because I also am not sure one way or the
other.
>
> Here's an excellent essay that I think demonstrates how lame your position
is:
>
> http://www.airs.com/ian/essays/atheist/atheist.html
>
>
>
> >> Pascal's Wager has one inherent problem, what if the believer believes
> >> in the wrong god? In other words, what will Allah do with Christians
> >> and Jews in the hereafter?
> >>
> >I don't imagine He will care.  But even if He does, a theist has MUCH
better
> >odds of winning; ie. better than zero
>
> Pascal's wager is bunk because it assumes that there is no cost to the
organism
> in harboring faith, when in fact it is costing him cognition in his life,
which
> he expends until his death, afterwhich there is no compelling evidence
that his
> existence will continue..  It's a fool's wager.
>
And there is no compelling evidence that his existence won't either.  In
addition, that assumes that cognition takes resources and is finite; in fact
life-limited.  There is no evidence of that either

> The key to being atheist is to realize that most people function better as
> superstitious twits, so it's better for the superior atheist to NOT try to
> bully worship of god and magical-thinking away from these people.  They
are
> much easier for the atheist to socially exploit if their beliefs are
allowed to
> remain intact.  Of course that doesn't mean the atheist has to 'respect
> differences', and allow himself to slide down to notions of 'social
equality'.
>  The atheist should always be aware that the believer is inferior and
deserving
> of exploitation.  Technically, the believer is literally begging to be
> exploited by superior atheists.  But atheists won't improve their lot in
life
> by driving these people crazy with existential angst.
>

I see.  I didn't know that  atheism was attached to amorality, and while
many theists believe that no atheist can be moral, I have always refused to
accept one is dependent on the other.  Clearly that is not the case for all
people.