Of course Frank doesn't play favorites at 24

[SyberBitch]

Please point out to me one war in the history of humanity caused by "fanatical" atheists?

One doesn't have to start wars to be a fanatic.

Perhaps it wasn't the greatest choice of words, but my point remains that atheists can be just as pig-headed about their (lack of) beliefs as fundamentalists are about their beliefs.

[OnBendedKnee]

SyberBitch, If I were to tell you I believe in the story of Jack and the Beanstock and you listened and stated you do not I would not think of you as fanatical.

It is up to the person stating beliefs that requires faith to step up and offer proof, not the other way around.

Stating atheism is even a belief is like stating bald is a hair color.

It just isn't so. The disbelief in and of itself is not required to be proven.
To further my example: You not believing magic beans grew a stock and a little boy climbed to the top of it and met up with a giant doesn't require you to prove it didn't happen. But, if I'm stating it did I better produce some kind of evidence and not just a faith and conviction that is based on "a burning in my heart".

The person(s) telling you it is true must provide the evidence- such is the rule all scientists and really any logical thinker subscribe to.

[SyberBitch]

SyberBitch, If I were to tell you I believe in the story of Jack and the Beanstock and you listened and stated you do not I would not think of you as fanatical.

First of all, it's beanSTALK (beanstock would be soup)

Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. I don't think that many atheists are fanatics because they don't believe in god, I think they are fanatics because they RABIDLY don't believe in any higher power.

It is up to the person stating beliefs that requires faith to step up and offer proof, not the other way around. Stating atheism is even a belief is like stating bald is a hair color.

Lack of belief is still 'belief' that they (the person in question) think they are correct. Do not confuse 'belief' with 'religion'.

It just isn't so. The disbelief in and of itself is not required to be proven.

It is if that person is arguing against the existence of something, such as fundamentalists who 'disbelieve' in evolution.

In this case, I am arguing that atheists and fundamentalists share the same sort of dogmatic mindset... and I'm being damned dogmatic about it myself.

[OnBendedKnee]

Thank you for correcting me on my spelling. That's my pet peeve too.

Please, show me or link to this thread three "RABIDLY" fanatical atheists.

I can think many RABIDLY fanatical Christians (let alone RABIDLY fanatical believers/leaders in other religions), but can't do so with non-believers.

And, again, a disbelief is not a form of belief.

[SyberBitch]

Thank you for correcting me on my spelling. That's my pet peeve too.

Please, show me or link to this thread three "RABIDLY" fanatical atheists.

I can think many RABIDLY fanatical Christians (let alone RABIDLY fanatical believers/leaders in other religions), but can't do so with non-believers.

And, again, a disbelief is not a form of belief.

1. Opie

2. Although, I agree with most of what this guy says, I'd say he's pretty much 'rabidly fanatical'
[real=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/ZhmF8NTWJ4I[/real]

3. [real=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/AYNKin0wXZc[/real]

[Borndragon]

3.

[SyberBitch]

3.

::lmao::::thumbs::