Comments on: You’re Now Leaving Kansas

By: Zin

Zin — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:01:50 +0000

@Antonio- You’re not talking about atheists. You’re talking about ‘antitheists’. Without a god, and against a god, respectively. Dawkins is a good example of an antitheist.

I realize the use of the term has been thoroughly hijacked, but the average atheistic person would just like to be left alone by religious people.

And the fact is that the vast majority are *not* willing to do that.

By: antonio donato nobre

antonio donato nobre — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:33:22 +0000

No intention to offend the folks here. I only meant to say, agreeing, that yes, the burden of the proof falls on whoever claims whatever about a controversial subject. But it should be either way. I understand an agnostic, but have the perception that atheism is an active affirmation of a negative. Atheism would be imponderable without any sort of “theism”, it is a denial campaign. Therefore, as a campaign, it appears in my view not to stand on its own, as a philosophy of existence. I have sympathy for a denial campaign against dogmatism, of any sort. I have trouble when the campaign becomes dogmatic in its own right. I think of waste of energy when I remember people like Richard Dawkins, and his dogmatic campaigns, which have hurt legitimate scientists, like Lynn Margulis (for different subjects). A last word: sorry for the agressiveness of my former comment. I grew tired of many atheist’s statements, which are not friendly at all. I might’ve been unjust in commenting it here, at the friendly atheist.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:53:38 +0000

that should read “prove a negative”. Can you prove that they don’t exist?

By: Mitch

Mitch — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:52:26 +0000

Looney: If complexity necessitates a creator then wouldn’t a God require a creator also?

Antonio: The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, as it is logically impossible to disprove a negative. I’m sure you don’t believe in unicorns, but can you disprove their existence?

By: Juggy

Juggy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:22:10 +0000

Antonio Donato Nobre, what’s really frightening is that I’m willing to bet you have no idea how arrogant and insulting your statement is.

By: Noodly James

Noodly James — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:36:45 +0000

What in the world makes anyone think atheism takes energy? Does it take energy for you to deny the existence of santa or is it just a non issue? The only time I even show my atheism is when a “holier than thou” bible humper harangues me on Sunday about how immoral I am and how I should be afraid of being so immoral due to the postmortem consequences. Other than that, some of my best friends are ultra conservative and I just ignore them.

By: casey

casey — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:34:17 +0000

Antonio doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

By: NEWK

NEWK — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:21:49 +0000

Kansas isn’t like this. Come visit us and see for yourself. It’s only full of bigots if you enter the place thinking it’s full of bigots, but trust me, the South is vastly worse.

We just had a few “Intelligent Design” assholes get on the school board a few years back…and every single one of them was voted out in the next election cycle.

By: Antonio Donato Nobre

Antonio Donato Nobre — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:49:59 +0000

Atheism appears to be a reaction to the indignity of blind faith in religion, it cannot be a philosophy in its own self. The simple logic being that if a God can’t be “proven” existing (from the material perspective), on the same accord It cannot be “proven” non-existing. Although the fight against pharisees of religion is a useful one, atheism as a “religious” practice makes no sense at all. It is a waste of time and energy.

By: tj

tj — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:13:43 +0000

Funny! There are so many creative variations of the “progress of man” image, I guess we will never run out of them. thanks friendly atheist! Jesus loves you!