I see QCMBRs bollocks and raise with bullshit!
And I see that you wish to engage on a more "personal" level with pejoratives.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is hardly a statement which is not counterfactual or delibrately controversial Terrys post, but this one do stand out:
Pray tell me, since you have apparently a deeper insight in these ugly secrets than I do, where the "unyielding close-minded grandiosity writ large" reside in (for instance) the following sentiment which i believe quite accurately describe the beliefs of the majority of professed atheists on this site:
"Most likely there is no God or Gods"
Conveniently, you've chosen a most tepid example! Atheism has a history and a provenance. All sorts of atheists have made statements.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I simply fail to see the Absolutes (which apparently require capatalization) in the above statement, and if your post was intended as anything more than simply being provocative and silly i do hope you will either
(1) give concrete examples of the Absolutes which (supposedly) follow quite naturally from the above atheistic sentiment and which are thus held by a significant fraction of professed atheists on this site
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I personally commending you for admitting that you "fail to see". A couple of quick quotes from professional writers first.
Agnosticism is a perfectly respectable and tenable philosophical position; it is not dogmatic and makes no pronouncements about the ultimate truths of the universe. It remains open to evidence and persuasion; lacking faith, it nevertheless does not deride faith. Atheism, on the other hand, is as unyielding and dogmatic about religious belief as true believers are about heathens. It tries to use reason to demolish a structure that is not built upon reason.
SYDNEY J. HARRIS, Pieces of Eight
Since ancient times, the philosophers' secret has always been this: we know that God does not exist, or, at least, if he does, he's utterly indifferent to our individual affairs--but we can't let the rabble know that; it's the fear of God, the threat of divine punishment and the promise of divine reward, that keeps in line those too unsophisticated to work out questions of morality on their own.
ROBERT J. SAWYER, Calculating God
I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion, I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, Letters to a Young Contrarian
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(2) in case you think the above statement is an Absolute in itself, demonstrate the negation is less of an absolute (ie. more likely to be true)
I can't parse what you're after here. Sorry. My turn to "fail to see."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(3) if you for some reason believe my statement is entirely inaccurate to describe the average elevator-farting superiority-complex-suffering insensitive atheist with tendency towards closely-held absolutes, do give us some more insight in what we /really/ believe. It is rare you get this kind of analysis for free!
While I sense the emotional tone level of your response I think it is rather self-indulgent and irrelevent. Consider the rudeness with which Christopher Hitchens assaults the good name and character of an almost universally adored humanitarian nun Mother Teresa in his book HELL'S ANGEL:
“[Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.”
? Christopher Hitchens
Then read Slate magazine artilce by Hitchens with this banner:
By Christopher Hitchens|Posted Monday, Oct. 20, 2003, at 4:04 PM ET
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bonus question: figure out why your usage of "superiority complex" is a tad ironic.
I'm guessing that you've taken a public Discussion personally. Since you weren't singled out--I can only wonder "why"? Is your ego connected in some way to impersonal topics? I can't fathom it. You imply I consider myself "superior" in some way.
Really? Why? Am I not allowed to voice an opinion in a Discussion Group without you getting your knickers in a wad?
