So why don't atheists proselytize?

[Kidlicious]

You can't force someone to believe something. You can only force them to pretend to believe something, what's the point of that?

For a modern reference ask the government of China.

[Kidlicious]

If you can't apply reason and science then it's not even an arena worthy of discussion.

Then why are you discussing it?

[MikeH]

I am unreasonable.

Supernatural and non-existent are synonymous.

[dannubis]

And (I've said this before too) if "God Helmets" disprove God in any way, my ability to masturbate makes the existence of women highly suspect.

???

The natural urge to remove old seemen from your body in fact increases the chance of having children with said women.

[dannubis]

I never worried less and enjoyed my life more than since I became a Christian.

Then you are not doing it right

[Caligastia]

I am unreasonable.

Supernatural and non-existent are synonymous.

That certainly is an unreasonable position.

[Dauphin]

If you can't apply reason and science then it's not even an arena worthy of discussion.

Economic discussions have some merit nevertheless.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That isn't really atheism. It's more like Pragmatic Agnosticism.

[Kitschum]

Or Asthmatic Prognathism

[Ben Kenobi]

That isn't really atheism. It's more like Pragmatic Agnosticism.

I love it how no one is 'really' an atheist. Athiests are rarer than true scotsmen.

[C0ckney]

That isn't really atheism. It's more like Pragmatic Agnosticism.

i remember reading about that poster. my favourite part of the article was where they talked about a spilt (a schism, if you will) between those wanted "there is no God" and those who wanted it in the form that eventually appeared.

[Elok]

???

The natural urge to remove old seemen from your body in fact increases the chance of having children with said women.

I think you misunderstood the analogy there. The "God Helmet" phenomenon (using magnets to provoke a supposed religious experience) is often used to question the truth of religion, by showing that the whole thing is a state of mind (it was implied somewhere in this thread, not going to bother looking up who again). My counterargument here is that the ability to artificially stimulate a reaction says nothing about it except that you can artificially stimulate it.

And now that I've overexplained it, the analogy is dead. Maybe that was your sinister plan?

[MikeH]

Economic discussions have some merit nevertheless.

Not on Apolyton they don't.