Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies.
66 comments
Because the bible is not inconsistent in the slightest.
And no, I am pretty damn sure I do not believe in god.
Theists don't believe in god, they just believe they believe in god. They are just walking sacks of bullshit.
Some of us believe in multiple Gods and Goddesses, just not yours.
Are we living in denial too?
The arrogance and self-satisfaction of christians still manages to astound me.
Well, like a broken clock which is right twice a day, Jason is correct: an atheist who believes in god is logically inconsistent. I will add, inconsistent to the point they do not exist.
Well, thank you so much for calling me a liar, shithead.
One can't help but think there's a simple way to resolve the inconsistencies he sees, by simply assuming we actually mean what we say.
But dat ain't all, brother! Dem atheismists dun don't believe dat dey believe dat dey believe in Gawd!
Stop tryin' tuh take m'guns, athesits!
The fact that these folks can't comprehend that some folks don't believe in Deity/Deities is astounding.
I swear....Frums have a brain disorder. I've never seen more limited cognition.
Even when I was one of them I understood what an Atheist really was. People like Jason Lisle, here literally cannot fathom that Atheists even exist!
It's no shocker that fundies have to pretend that we secretly agree with them. On pretty much all fronts, secularists have begun forcing the fundies to retreat. If they face us as we are, they lose. Period. Paul of Tarsus discovered thousands of years ago, however, that it's easy to pwn someone when you take it upon yourself to write their position down for them.
Athiests are generally interested in finding meaning and purpose in their lives, and their place in the universe. In this they are in fact similar to fundies, and it stands to reason that all such people will tend to explore existing commonly held systems for explaining these things. In the case of religion, athiests reject this particular explaination, and go on to look for something else.
I could therefore agree that to a large extent we are ultimatley interested in the same question as you. However, simply because that question could be charcterised as a search for 'god' (in the very wide sense of a higher purpose), there is no justification (unless you are dishonest or stupid) for suggesting we secretly believe that 'god' must be narrowly construed as a supernatural sky daddy.
What did I just read?
Dear conservatives, just because you can put something into words doesn't make it true even if you really, really, really want to believe it.
image
image
Also:
image
image
image
image
image
At least we can [I]see[/I] them.
Princess Celestia is a god...:
image
...but at least she shows herself to her subjects.
'Belie f' in a so-called deity that is supposedly 'Omnipotent ', yet isn't enough to actually appear , so as to convince everyone he exists. Thus is fundie 'Faith' proved to be the shittiest concept imaginable, which has no right to exist in the minds of sane people. Ergo Atheism .
Because when a rainbow - which doesn't physically exist - can be seen (and easily replicated & explained ), thus at a stroke destroying the concept of the 'Spiritual'/'Supernatural', then who are the inconsistent ones, o Jase LIEsle?
I believed that I believed in god once.
Much like Santa and the Tooth Fairy, I've grown up and no longer need such delusions.
@Professor von SCIENCE!!!!!!!,
Did you just quote...... that ..... movie? ...... Watch what you drink. That's all I can say.
In jest, of course.
Well, I've seen Christian apologetics before so I'm used to absurd, unworkable bullshit but functional five year olds like Jason here still push the stupid just a bit further each post.
Learn the language and logic at an eight year olds level before you type another word.
Unbelievably stupid.
"does not believe that he believes in God"
This again, one for the flock, they'll buy ANYTHING but sensible discourse.
And again
@Anon
Thanks for the images, I'm an artist and am all over image sites but you continually provide things I've never seen but love AND I'm not a fan of the Anime. Never say those first two before.
@ Daryl:
I thought it was a poor derivative of the, "No atheists in foxholes." fallacy.
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day," unless it's broken because it has no hands, and/or no face! Jason is more like that broken clock.
"but does not believe that he believes"
No. I don't even need to know what the rest of the quote is about, you automatically fail with this absurd statement. The mind does not work this way!
@breakerslion,
Pretty much all of the presuppositionalists use Romans 1 as the basis of their apologetics. Ray Comfort also does. It's a pretty common theme among apologists; they cannot confront skepticism, so they simply bury their heads in the sand and insist it doesn't exist. Then they project their denial onto us.
@ Nemo
Your assesments are correct. The fundie gig is to convince their sheep that atheist really do, deep down, believe in their madjick sky ghost. But they "deny" him/it/her because we :
1. Want to sin
2. Are morally weak
3. whatever the "atheists are bad" sermon of the day is.
The word "deny" is a subtle prank. To say it assumes that you actually do believe in something, but choose to disobey or reject it. As opposed to not believe it exists.
The fundie crowd wants the xian to believe that everyone believes in their gawd, but only unsaved sinners deny him/it/her. It makes it easier to not have to convince them to believe in a phantom.
Jason, of all the nonsensical things you've written - and there are vast volumes of nonsense attributed to you - this is perhaps the most nonsensical.
You're caught in an idiocy loop with this one.
@Goomy pls
"What about Goomy and the LORD HELIX?"
...them too.
@D Laurier
"or Unicorn"
image
Twilight Sparkle is on the Pillar of Autumn. Your argument is invalid. ~_^
image
I also ship Rainbow Dash with the Romulan Valdore -class Warbird. Gilda would make a good Tal Shiar officer, I think. /)^3^(\
Of course atheists can be inconsistent. I've known atheists who denounce Christians for being moral absolutists yet in the next breath announce that women have an absolute right to abortion. So what's the difference? For the Christian his god's truth is absolute because it's god's. Circular, I know, but no worse than the atheist's absolute which is absolute by his subjective decree. Who wants moral subjectivism in any form? It's no defence on your way to the Camps or the Gulag.
@anon-e-mess
So you get your ideas from reading comic books and adolescent science fiction obsessions. No wonder your posts are a mess.
And learn to use the concept of argumentum ad hominem correctly. Criticising a group like gays, Fundies and dummies like you cannot be an ad hominem.
I'm not inconsistent. Well, yeah, I am, sometimes.
Mostly consistent. On the other hand.
Well, on the other hand she had warts.
I'm SO confused. Apparently.
Because Jason Lisle does believe in Gaia, but does not believe that he believes in Gaia, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies.
See the stupidity in your statement now, dearie?
I'll just repeat what I posted in another such thread with this clown:
Not only is this arrogant as hell, but Lisle is using a bible verse (Romans 1:18) that is contradicted by others which admit that *not* everyone knows that "god" exists.
2 Thessalonians 1:8
1 Thessalonians 4:5
1 Samuel 3:7
Exodus 5:2
Jeremiah 9:3
1 Corinthians 8:6-9
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.