The philosophy and mindset of religion forum trolls

[LifeIsAbsurd]

**I grow and learn, ****and **found out that billions are living in hunger.

According to the 2010 United Nations FAO report closer to 925 million people go hungry. That estimate is used by the WHO, Wikipedia, WorldHunger, USFoodAid, etc.

our societies will continue to use all resources to produce consumer goods.

I don’t believe that’s a fair characterization of our world. Most countries spend resources on other things as well. For example, in the United States, vast sums of money are expended protecting its citizens and providing economic support for those unable or unwilling to work. This is well-documented in our public budget: The U.S. also spends more on foreign aid than any other country, about $30 billiion/year, including:

“In fiscal year 2009 (October 1, 2008-September 30, 2009), the United States provided more than $2.9 billion of food assistance to developing countries, providing approximately 2.8 million metric tons and reaching over 70 million people.”

alacoque:

[kk23wong] speak to us (others) in these fora as if we know nothing, are ''barbarians" (your term)

(US citizens also choose to donate about $300 billion to private charities each year.)

We can debate whether a particular country is spending enough–or too much–but certainly they’re not all ignoring hunger or other world problems.

 

[alacoque]

According to the 2010 United Nations FAO report closer to 925 million people go hungry. That estimate is used by the WHO, Wikipedia, WorldHunger, USFoodAid, etc.

I don’t believe that’s a fair characterization of our world. Most countries spend resources on other things as well. For example, in the United States, vast sums of money are expended protecting its citizens and providing economic support for those unable or unwilling to work. This is well-documented in our public budget: The U.S. also spends more on foreign aid than any other country, about $30 billiion/year, including:

“In fiscal year 2009 (October 1, 2008-September 30, 2009), the United States provided more than $2.9 billion of food assistance to developing countries, providing approximately 2.8 million metric tons and reaching over 70 million people.”

(US citizens also choose to donate about $300 billion to private charities each year.)

We can debate whether a particular country is spending enough–or too much–but certainly they’re not all ignoring hunger or other world problems.

Good points, L-I-A! Of course, if we read, listen and pay attention, we all know these things. Unfortunately, I don’t know how ‘fertile’ the ground is where you scattered your wisdom. This person can confidently state all the world’s problems and their causes (it’s always someone else’s fault; usually a big, bad conspiratorial government somewhere). More amazingly, he has all the answers to the world’s problems as well. Makes for pretty barren ground in which to ‘grow’ any sense. :banghead: I doubt your facts will make a dent, but it needed saying.

 

[kk23wong]

Teru: You speak to us (others) in these fora as if we know nothing, are ''barbarians" (your term) and as if you are the only one who knows anything, has learned anything, has any opinions of value and truth. You are young. You will hopefully get over this tendency to believe you, and you alone, have discovered truth - and must correct and educate everyone else. You will learn humility and wisdom with age and more study, learning and listening to others.

There is indeed much suffering in the world. This has always been the case and will, to one degree or another, continue to be the case, until the end of time. If you choose to blame God for this, so be it. It shows at least that you are outraged by injustice and suffering - as any reasonable person should be. I suggest you stop talking down to others and learn to be humble. I also suggest you seek others’ opinions and thoughts - that you might learn even more.

My speeches have to be firm in order to speak out the truth. Everything has to be so straightforward in order to avoid meaningless arguments on “words / terms”. I regarded it (Lives in Different Levels) as a discovery. The quarrels on “consciousness” have been solved by neuroscience. Hence, souls must not exist. The problem in this world is too much people talking too much other things and created imaginations. Long ago, people said that “Religions (Imaginations) are opium”. I respect religions as HERITAGES from both the God and our ancestors. Our world will never have progresses if there are no one speak so firm and point out the NATURAL ROLE of humankind. **It is always easy to compromise (act like a sheep). **If I do not dare to speak out and learn to be humble, psychologists will tell you that the whispers of the God are “illusions”, you (or any of your family) will have to take drugs and suffer from the side effects. Again, I repeatedly saying that no “subjects” are equal and their experiments are invalid. It is a common knowledge. However, neuroscience has solved the problems of consciousness (end the empty talks on souls). It shows us that physical presence always comes first. Then we compare the Earth with a mother cell (a new biological perspective put forward by me). We immediately realize our “natural role (position / everything was born to be)” in the universe is the “life cycles” of this planet.

You, humble scientists and philosophers, please kindly read through all these. I am confident enough that you will soon find the nature of lives (lives have hierarchies) must work. It is the ultimate answer for all religious and philosophical debates.

Teru Wong

 

[alacoque]

My speeches have to be firm in order to speak out the truth. Everything has to be so straightforward in order to avoid meaningless arguments on “words / terms”. I regarded it (Lives in Different Levels) as a discovery. The quarrels on “consciousness” have been solved by neuroscience. Hence, souls must not exist. The problem in this world is too much people talking too much other things and created imaginations. Long ago, people said that “Religions (Imaginations) are opium”. I respect religions as HERITAGES from both the God and our ancestors. Our world will never have progresses if there are no one speak so firm and point out the NATURAL ROLE of humankind. **It is always easy to compromise (act like a sheep). **If I do not dare to speak out and learn to be humble, psychologists will tell you that the whispers of the God are “illusions”, you (or any of your family) will have to take drugs and suffer from the side effects. Again, I repeatedly saying that no “subjects” are equal and their experiments are invalid. It is a common knowledge. However, neuroscience has solved the problems of consciousness (end the empty talks on souls). It shows us that physical presence always comes first. Then we compare the Earth with a mother cell (a new biological perspective put forward by me). We immediately realize our “natural role (position / everything was born to be)” in the universe is the “life cycles” of this planet.

You, humble scientists and philosophers, please kindly read through all these. I am confident enough that you will soon find the nature of lives (lives have hierarchies) must work. It is the ultimate answer for all religious and philosophical debates.

Teru Wong

ok - whatever…

Guess we’ll just have to wait for you to grow up a little. Then again, beware putting all your ‘faith’ in science. Despite what you believe now, it will let you down in the end -

 

[Pieman333272]

My speeches have to be firm in order to speak out the truth. Everything has to be so straightforward in order to avoid meaningless arguments on “words / terms”. I regarded it (Lives in Different Levels) as a discovery. The quarrels on “consciousness” have been solved by neuroscience. Hence, souls must not exist. The problem in this world is too much people talking too much other things and created imaginations. Long ago, people said that “Religions (Imaginations) are opium”. I respect religions as HERITAGES from both the God and our ancestors. Our world will never have progresses if there are no one speak so firm and point out the NATURAL ROLE of humankind. **It is always easy to compromise (act like a sheep). **If I do not dare to speak out and learn to be humble, psychologists will tell you that the whispers of the God are “illusions”, you (or any of your family) will have to take drugs and suffer from the side effects. Again, I repeatedly saying that no “subjects” are equal and their experiments are invalid. It is a common knowledge. However, neuroscience has solved the problems of consciousness (end the empty talks on souls). It shows us that physical presence always comes first. Then we compare the Earth with a mother cell (a new biological perspective put forward by me). We immediately realize our “natural role (position / everything was born to be)” in the universe is the “life cycles” of this planet.

You, humble scientists and philosophers, please kindly read through all these. I am confident enough that you will soon find the nature of lives (lives have hierarchies) must work. It is the ultimate answer for all religious and philosophical debates.

Teru Wong

No, it hasn’t. It can’t account for some mysticism. It can’t account for NDE’s. It certainly can’t account for free will. Materialism is simply not proven. It’s possible, but not proven.

As for your “life cycles of this planet” bit, what about when the planet’s destroyed by the Sun, the Solar System collapses, and the Universe either crushes itself or enters a state where only energy stably exists? Humans, either as a race or as individuals, either have no purpose or a spiritual one. Not a Darwinian one, not a “Planet Helper” one, either none or a spiritual one. This, I know.

 

[limabeanerson]

**I grow and learn, ****and **found out that billions are living in hunger. By 2025, two thirds of us have no water. I found out that the God abuses the gifted power from birth (the ability to communicate with us) to create psychology. Putting those refused to compromise into the hospitals. I found out that consciousness can be fully explained by neuroscience. Then we come to the conclusion that physical presence always come first. I found out that most of us are unaware of our position in the universe. Religions are already heritages, but they influence our cosmology. Compare the Earth with a mother cell. We soon realize that the biosphere is the life cycles of this planet. This is a discovery. I feel like holding a globe to persuade the barbarians. “The Earth is the mother cell. Compare the most basic unit of lives with its structure. We have the clues of how the hierarchies of lives work.” I repeated endlessly in many forums. The God is the manipulator. If she refused to confess, the humankind (life cycles) can hardly bring it (the past concepts of the God in religions) down. The God must have made so many mistakes. The denial of her physical presence is fatal. It will push the population to the limit and our societies will continue to use all resources to produce consumer goods. The physical presence of the God has located our NATURAL ROLE in the universe. The truth gives us the sense of danger (to realize that LIFE CYCLES will eventually end). It completely changes the mindset of the public. We allow capitalism to stay, but invest most of the resources to do the right things (to slow down the aging of this planet / decaying of the biosphere by increase the government sectors / efforts since the government can mobilize more resources than any enterprise).

To achieve this aim, we have to let the public to realize the truth. Neuroscience has already explained “consciousness”. Physical presence comes first. We compare the Earth with a mother cell and get the clues on how “lives in different levels” work. If the societies continue to hide the truth, we are no different from a “barbarians planet”. The world will end with hates (against those who try to hide the truth including the God herself).

The origin of lives is actually “a-live”.

For those whom suffered from the abuses of the God
Teru Wong

I can’t be the only one that sees the humor in this guy posting things like this in a thread about trolls can I?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumb...id=3fd696d37af516411d29eec2c4e139ee&index=ch1

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

The quarrels on “consciousness” have been solved by neuroscience. Hence, souls must not exist.

This statement is wrong on so many levels it’s almost funny. First, the “soul” does not equal “consciousness”, no one at any level of theology would claim that. We’re pretty sure a dog has consciousness, no one’s claiming a dog has a soul. And second, even though your consciousness does not equate with your soul, the statement; “The quarrels on “consciousness” have been solved by neuroscience” is totally incorrect, neuroscience still has no clue how consciousness is formed in the brain, or where it is located; in the prefrontal cortex? in the parietal lobe? in the temporal lobe? They have no idea. In addition to that enigma, there’s the dilemma of qualia and the problem of how a material thing can have the conscious experience of colors, sounds, and a host of other “experiences”. Philosopher David Chalmers has wriiten extensively about the so-called “hard problem of consciousness” raising the issue of qualia to a new level of importance and acceptance in the field consciousness, only the most materialistic atheist philosophers and scientists try (and usually fail) to find issues with his arguments on qualia.

Of course, even if we do find out how consciousness is created in the brain, and how a brain develops experiences of qualia, that still is has nothing to do with an immaterial soul

 

[alacoque]

I was just wondering, how come if you go to a Sports Forum you don’t find “anti-sports” minded posters there mocking those posters who actually care about sports? Or if you go to a Cooking Forum you don’t find “anti-cooking” posters there condescending to all the lesser minds who care about cooking? Or if you go to a Politics Forum, you don’t find anyone there ridiculing those who care about politics. Why is it only on Religion Forums that you find these unhappy souls who seem to come there for a wholly negative purpose? You find them on all Religion Forum, for instance the Amazon.com Religion Forum is completely dominated by these types, there are hardly any “religious” people left on that one.

just wondering, what’s drives someone to spend so much of their valuable time mocking and ridiculing others, it seems a pointless, unhappy and empty way of life.

Ronnie: Because there’s nothing at all threatening about sports and cooking. I disagree with you on the political forums…there are plenty of political trolls there, too. But as with politics and religion, people must feel threatened, on some deep or uncomfortable level for them to become trolls. Trolls hang out around things they fear - and, being trolls, they have a great deal to fear from religion, but nothing at all about sports or food affects their eternal life or destiny.

 

[kk23wong]

This statement is wrong on so many levels it’s almost funny. First, the “soul” does not equal “consciousness”, no one at any level of theology would claim that. We’re pretty sure a dog has consciousness, no one’s claiming a dog has a soul. And second, even though your consciousness does not equate with your soul, the statement; "The quarrels on “consciousness” have been solved by neuroscience

" is totally incorrect, neuroscience still has no clue how consciousness is formed in the brain, or where it is located; in the prefrontal cortex? in the parietal lobe? in the temporal lobe? They have no idea. In addition to that enigma, there’s the dilemma of qualia and the problem of how a material thing can have the conscious experience of colors, sounds, and a host of other “experiences”. Philosopher David Chalmers has wriiten extensively about the so-called “hard problem of consciousness” raising the issue of qualia to a new level of importance and acceptance in the field consciousness, only the most materialistic atheist philosophers and scientists try (and usually fail) to find issues with his arguments on qualia. Of course, even if we do find out how consciousness is created in the brain, and how a brain develops experiences of qualia, that still is has nothing to do with an immaterial soul

If consciousness cannot applied on soul, soul does not require memories (See Alzhemier’s disease. It is not an intrusive disease but the damages of the brain tissues). Then soul has no memory, no immediate response to the outside word.

It is much more logical to look upon the Earth as a supreme being (lives in different levels). By applying biological principles onto the planetary level, we can find out the origin of lives more easily. Instead of the empty claims of “souls” in religions, we can figure out how the God (the real physical presence is the planet and the presence is correspondent to the cell nucleus) takes the advantages of the GIFTED POWER from birth. Lives have hierarchies. It depends on scale. Lives are everything (ranged from nano to cosmo). To be more specific, the Earth is a “supreme being” to us but a little blue dot only in the universe. The arrogance of the Earth to try to turn the clock back (preserve religions) and DENY the physical presence is **wrong on so many levels it is almost funny. **If my scientifichypothesis is correct, it is the truth every world (all lives – life cycles - end with it) must have. We are barbarians if we still fail to realize our natural role (life cycles of this planet) after 5,000 years of civilizations. If the God (the Conscious Earth) forces all the opponents of the religions to the hospitals, this planet is not as good as we may think of. The discovery of the hierarchies of lives must be the largest progress in our history. Please think twice before you comment on this serious attempt. I welcome opinions to develop this hypothesis and spread them in public forums (and other networking tools).

Teru Wong

 

[edward_george]

If consciousness cannot applied on soul, soul does not require memories (See Alzhemier’s disease. It is not an intrusive disease but the damages of the brain tissues). Then soul has no memory, no immediate response to the outside word.

It is much more logical to look upon the Earth as a supreme being (lives in different levels). By applying biological principles onto the planetary level, we can find out the origin of lives more easily. Instead of the empty claims of “souls” in religions, we can figure out how the God (the real physical presence is the planet and the presence is correspondent to the cell nucleus) takes the advantages of the GIFTED POWER from birth. Lives have hierarchies. It depends on scale. Lives are everything (ranged from nano to cosmo). To be more specific, the Earth is a “supreme being” to us but a little blue dot only in the universe. The arrogance of the Earth to try to turn the clock back (preserve religions) and DENY the physical presence is **wrong on so many levels it is almost funny. **If my scientifichypothesis is correct, it is the truth every world (all lives – life cycles - end with it) must have. We are barbarians if we still fail to realize our natural role (life cycles of this planet) after 5,000 years of civilizations. If the God (the Conscious Earth) forces all the opponents of the religions to the hospitals, this planet is not as good as we may think of. The discovery of the hierarchies of lives must be the largest progress in our history. Please think twice before you comment on this serious attempt. I welcome opinions to develop this hypothesis and spread them in public forums (and other networking tools).

Teru Wong

Mr. Wong, are you by any chance familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the soul as immaterial, and how if it were not immaterial, knowledge would be impossible? Please see Summa Theologiae, Part I, Questions 75-101.

newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

-ACEGC

 

[kk23wong]

Mr. Wong, are you by any chance familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the soul as immaterial, and how if it were not immaterial, knowledge would be impossible? Please see Summa Theologiae, Part I, Questions 75-101.

newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

-ACEGC

Many thanks for your suggestions.

Books cannot save humanity unless we solve the basic needs of lives.
Don’t you have the same feeling when you are sitting in the library, staring at piles of books on the shelf, but there are nothing helpful to the billions living in hunger and dirty water?

The situation must be worsening with population growth (it already exceed the limits of the Earth) and the aging of the planet (or you can refer it to the worsening global environment). We can only see more and more people died in famine and unclean water in this century.

What we need is a change. To achieve this, we have to let the public realize our natural role (the life cycles of this planet). Evolution has given us higher intelligence. It did not change our natural role. Humankind is a part of the biosphere.

We have to pull the resources (both natural resources and human resources) from producing excessive number of consumer goods back onto the right track i.e. the delay of the aging of this planet. Especially the latter one, many jobs are useless if you realize we are actually the life cycles of this planet. We are not doing the right thing. The priority of the life cycles of each planet must be delaying the aging of their own planet. If “Lives in Different Levels” really works, our world is mentally ill in this stage.

Please read these two lines below. They may keep you awake.

1. Alzhemier’s Disease is not an intrusive disease. In another word, memory rely on the neurons in our brains. Physical presence always come first.
2. Neuroscience has fully illustrated the states of minds by the activities in our brains. Hence, the most basic definition of lives cannot be applied on souls. The so-called "soul’ has no memories and no interactions with the outside world.

Religions are valuable heritages from both the God and our ancestors. The reluctances in information have created religions. The God also takes the advantages of the physical differences to magnify such imaginations.

Teru Wong

 

[edward_george]

I hope you will read through what I just showed you. As to your non sequitur (which is also very ironic, considering what this whole thread is about), may I ask you a question:

What have you done to help the poor? You come on here and preach all of this–and yet what have you yourself done? The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. You preach anti-religion and “let’s help the poor.” If you don’t believe in God, then how can you believe in a supreme good, which would include helping the poor? How can you say that we are evil for not helping the poor? The fact that there are poor people should simply be a part of life, just how the chips fall in our world, evolutionarily speaking–survival of the fittest, eh?

What have you done for the poor?

-ACEGC

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

edward_george:

The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world

That’s wonderful. It’s worth noting, the top two American philanthropists are agnostics, as are the top two donors in my corporate office:

businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual_2008.html?chan=magazine%252Bchannel_special%252Breport

If you don’t believe in God, then how can you believe in a supreme good, which would include helping the poor?

Agnostics and atheists don’t have to be charitable, we don’t fear a supreme being nor threats of damnation, but many choose to be charitable. My reasons for philanthropy are personal, but Warren Buffet states his here:

cms.givingpledge.org/Content/uploads/634159146750834110_Warren%20Buffett.pdf

What have you done for the poor?

Excellent question (for everyone to consider for themselves).

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

That’s wonderful. It’s worth noting, the top two American philanthropists are agnostics, as are the top two donors in my corporate office:

businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual_2008.html?chan=magazine%252Bchannel_special%252Breport

Agnostics and atheists don’t have to be charitable, we don’t fear a supreme being nor threats of damnation, but many choose to be charitable. My reasons for philanthropy are personal, but Warren Buffet states his here:

cms.givingpledge.org/Content/uploads/634159146750834110_Warren%20Buffett.pdf

dude, that’s embarassing. You’re trying to have atheists vicariously shine in the light of the charitable donations of ***TWO ***multibillionairs, who have so much money they don’t know what to do with it. We can be pretty certain that when many people get to the of wealth of Gates and Buffet, they do give huge sums to charity, whether they be a Rockefeller, or Carnegie or any of the hundreds or millionairs and billionairs that have hospital wings named after them.

Where the rubber meets the road is where do atheist and religious *middle class *compare when it comes to comparitive donations to charity. And for decades, as long as they’ve done studies on this subject, they always find that with average middleclass people, as well as lower class and upperclass, the religious people give around three times as much of their income to charity as non-religious folks. There are hundreds of studies that have shown this over the years, here’s just two I found in a minute of searching;

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009361375685394.html
hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

edward_george:

The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world… If you don’t believe in God, then how can you believe in a supreme good, which would include helping the poor? What have you done for the poor?

LifeIsAbsurd:

That’s wonderful. It’s worth noting, the top American philanthropists are agnostics… My reasons for philanthropy are personal, but Warren Buffet states his here… What have you done for the poor?

ronnie bonigli:

dude, that’s embarassing. You’re trying to…

I was trying to:

1. 
   *]clarify that charitable donations, atheism, and agnosticism are not incompatible,
   *]give four concrete examples to support that claiim
   *]provide the reason why one of them chose to donate 99% of his wealth to charity
   *]re-focus on “What have you done for the poor”
   

   who have so much money they don’t know what to do with it.

   I’m not embarassed in the least by any of the above goals, even if your follow-up implies I’ve failed to re-focus the thread onto “What have you done for the poor” and you would prefer to undermine the genorosity of the top American philanthropists by saying they don’t know what else to do with the money. I’ve also been told by (non-Catholic) Christians that my donations were not ‘true charity’. Its recipients seem not to care about that distinction.
   

   You’re trying to have atheists vicariously shine in the light of the charitable donations of TWO multibillionairs

   As a matter of fact, I cited four examples of agnostics and atheists, the top two philanthropists in America (wealthy) and the top two in my corporate office (middle class). Since I myself am one of my examples it’s absurd to think that I’m living vicariously through my own actions, and atheists in general have no need to–if we believe charity to be the right course of action, we’ll have personal examples to show like I do.
   
   And now I will make one final attempt, leveraging the dazzling power of large, colored, and unexpected fonts.
   
   
   edward_george:
   

   What have you done for the poor?

 

[Dale_M]

Ronnie: Because there’s nothing at all threatening about sports and cooking. I disagree with you on the political forums…there are plenty of political trolls there, too. But as with politics and religion, people must feel threatened, on some deep or uncomfortable level for them to become trolls. Trolls hang out around things they fear - and, being trolls, they have a great deal to fear from religion, but nothing at all about sports or food affects their eternal life or destiny.

I was intending to respond similarly, but with a slightly different take. Trolls are motivated by emotion: fear, anger, hatred, snobbery etc. Few people have strong negative feelings about cooking or sports (although a forum devoted to a certain sport might attract trolls e.g. those who look down on soccer.)

Political and religion forums, on the other hand, often attract trolls. The airing of opinions which challenge the deeply felt beliefs of the troll incites him/her/it to making hostile comments. They would be better off staying away, since there is no gain to be had, but it seems as if some inner need drives them. I think they derive pleasure from offending others. Its very odd.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Political and religion forums, on the other hand, often attract trolls. The airing of opinions which challenge the deeply felt beliefs of the troll incites him/her/it to making hostile comments. They would be better off staying away, since there is no gain to be had, but it seems as if some inner need drives them. I think they derive pleasure from offending others. Its very odd.

“The airing of opinions which challenge the deeply felt beliefs of the troll incites him/her/it to making hostile comments” does not apply to the religion forum trolls I’m talking about, the have no deeply felt beliefs (other than that they are the enlightened elite, surrounded by a human mass of ignorant fools). The ones that troll religion forums are solely there to fulfill some kind of vendetta against religious people with nothing more than mocking and ridicule, it’s a wholly negative purpose. Even on the Politics forums, the hard rightwingers or the hard leftwingers sometimes have positive posts about the political partys that are on “their team”, it’s not a wholly negative presence.

btw, here’s a story written about the trolls on Amazon.com’s religion forum a few years back. I used to post there and I can tell you the militant atheist trolls have turned it into an anti-religion cess pool, they OWN the forum. It would happen here too if the mods weren’t so diligent.
newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/04/22/amazon-com-s-forum-religion-great-place-bash-christians

 

[Dale_M]

“The airing of opinions which challenge the deeply felt beliefs of the troll incites him/her/it to making hostile comments” does not apply to the religion forum trolls I’m talking about, the have no deeply felt beliefs (other than that they are the enlightened elite, surrounded by a human mass of ignorant fools).

I guess I disagree. I think atheism is very much a religious belief, requiring as much faith as those who believe in God or gods.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Dale_M:

I guess I disagree. I think atheism is very much a religious belief, requiring as much faith as those who believe in God or gods.

Dale_M, if atheism simply amounts to not believing the claim “God exists”, I can’t imagine you successfully arguing faith is required to be an atheist. The only way I could see you accomplishing that would be to create a straw man argument, for example, defining atheism to mean something silly few atheists claim like “God is impossible”.

 

[Dale_M]

Dale_M, if atheism simply amounts to not believing the claim “God exists”, I can’t imagine you successfully arguing faith is required to be an atheist. The only way I could see you accomplishing that would be to create a straw man argument, for example, defining atheism to mean something silly few atheists claim like “God is impossible”.

I think the agnostic viewpoint is perfectly rational. There is no way of knowing whether or not a God or gods exist. If you are defining “atheist” as meaning that the existence or non-existence of God is unimportant to that person, then I accept your point.

However, the atheist trolls of whom Ronnie has complained take the position that God does not exist and that it is silly to believe in God. Such thinking is a faith statement, since they really have no way of knowing. It is their belief that God doesn’t exist and they want to mock the beliefs of others (which is also something Christians have been known to do, from time to time.)