Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I agree with you in this respect, GrammarNazi, you are not the perfect atheist if you unquestioningly are an atheist. How does that make you any better than those who are unquestioningly theists?

Because there is exactly one rule to being an atheist, and I fulfill it. Furthermore, I am not following a rule set down by other people. I wouldn't believe in a God even if there wasn't a definition for the word Atheism.

Nobody can adhere to EVERY RULE of the Bible, so NOBODY can be a perfect Christian. They, however, ARE following rules set down by others, and we all know that Christianity wouldn't exist if the Bible was never made.

There's an enormous difference.

At 5/4/09 09:18 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 09:05 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I have no idea what you're saying

The recurring theme in you're posts has been using the decentralized nature of your beliefs as a way to distance yourself from any actions that you do not favor, especially those taken by others whom fly the atheist flag. But at no point have you actually taken responsibility for what you've said, and anything I've tried to ascribe to atheist viewpoints you have conveniently side-stepped and brought up how they don't apply to your atheist philosophy, much like the dude in the "bad muslims" example that was given earlier.

And in doing so, you have fullfilled the point I was making earlier in this topic.

Congratulations.

You see, the thing is, Atheism is a very simple thing to defend. I'm not going to repost it's definition because if I see that sentence one more time it will be burned into my fucking retinas, but it has only one rule. It's a very easy rule to follow too. I can follow that rule and be the Pope, assuming I'm very good at fraud. I can follow that rule and want to kill all religious people. I can follow that rule and believe in ghosts. However, none of those things break that rule, or are in any way related to it. Therefor, when I say that there are people who are both atheists and religious-haters, and that those two things do not cross over, I am correct.

If what you're trying to say is that those two traits are related, then you're in luck! They are! You know what other trait is related to hating other religions? Being religious. The difference is, a requirement of atheism is not to oppose people with different beliefs. Religions, however, do have such a requirement.

So when I say, 'Opposition to religion is not an adherent trait to Atheism', I am not bending any definitions to say or imply what a 'true' atheist would do. I am telling the truth.

As far as I'm concerned, being imperfect is not a legitimate similarity between religion and atheism.

That's right, you're philosophy is perfect, excuse me for implying otherwise.

As I said, it is perfect within the logical and deductive capabilities humans have. And we judge our world based on our ability to percieve it. So in the eyes of you and me? Yes, Atheism is perfect. Unless, of course, God is proven to exist.

So not having a religious belief means I've never been exposed to it?

Atheist; "There is no God!"
Agnostic; "I don't know if there is a God!"
Irreligious; "What is this 'God' you speak of?"

You provided the definition for someone who is irreligious, when you have identified yourself as atheist. Therefore, you and your philosophy are FLAWED, or at the very least, misinformed or misrepresented.

When exactly did I stray from atheism and go into irreligionism? You'd be hard-pressed to find a person on the planet who doesn't know what God is, in one form or another. I have provided the definition, 'The lack of a belief in a God' as in, 'Not believing in God', as in,'There is no God'.

You implying that anti-religious fervor is an atheistic belief.

I said "there are atheists out there in favor of it," at no point did I equate atheism with a desire to see all religions burned to the ground.

If you're not equating Atheism with a lack of a belief in a God, then what the fuck are we talking about?

Sure I can!

Not by the argument you presented you can't.

Explain. My argument is that I perfectly fit the one and only definition of Atheism. That's a pretty solid argument.

Maybe the fact that he wanted to establish a state where everybody thought HE was God?

So... he went from "There is no God" to "I am God."

No, he never believed he was a God. He just wanted other people to believe that. If he actually though he was God, he would not be an Atheist.

*scratches head*

Quit playing stupid.

Can anybody other than me see what he's doing?

They'll probably give me the same two-bit song and dance number you're giving me now, avoiding taking responsibility for their own actions and beliefs.

Because that's what this all adds up to, isn't it? It's not about what you actually believe, it's about what you can get away with, right?

I have no idea what you're saying, but go read Grammer's post again. That should settle things up for you.

enraged toddler.

I was just having fun watching you get pissed off and rant, but hey, if this is the way you choose to describe your own expressions of rage and anger, so be it.

I'm getting annoyed because you are overstepping key points to my argument to challenge me on issues that have already been settled.

I kind of pointed that out with the whole "atheist, christian, taoist" line of argument.

As far as I'm concerned, being imperfect is not a legitimate similarity between religion and atheism.

'The lack of belief in a God.'

Atheism is an avowed (i.e.; expressly stated) disbelief in a God or Gods. Lack of belief in a God or God's is Irreligion, or more simply put, a lack of religious belief because you've never been exposed to it.

So... you're philosophy, by definition, is flawed. >:-D~

So not having a religious belief means I've never been exposed to it? What? No, I can not believe in God and be a fucking Pope. Once again, read Grammer's post, you're having trouble grasping the concept that not believing in a God and being anti-religious aren't the same thing.

No, you implied this.

Where?

WHEN YOU SAID PEOPLE WHO ATTACK RELIGION ARE FOLLOWING ATHEISTIC PRINCIPLES.

All I have to do is point at Pox's posts for proof that there are atheists out there who seek the destruction of organized religion as we know it, the problem is that any answer I provide to you will be conveniently written off as BULLSHIT because you distance yourself from any atheist who's belief you don't necessarily agree with because you're a damn coward who doesn't see the flaw in his own argument.

^
You implying that anti-religious fervor is an atheistic belief.

At 5/4/09 07:26 PM, aninjaman wrote: Do you represent all of christianity?

No, and I never claimed to. My point with that was that he couldn't even identify himself as an atheist by his own argument.

Sure I can! Atheist- A person who does not believe in a God.

Me- A person who does not believe in a God.

At 5/4/09 07:36 PM, Grammer wrote: Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism, but he actively sought the destruction of all religions in his communist state.

Despite his being atheist. So I wonder what drove him to do such actions?

*ponders*

Maybe the fact that he wanted to establish a state where everybody thought HE was God? Which may have been hindered if churches were still up? Or maybe that he didn't want anybody to have the authority to challenge his rule? Like God? No no, wait, I think it's because he wanted to focus the collective interest of the nation on his goals and nothing else.

So, uh, make of that what you will.

There's nothing to make of it. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks

So you don't even claim to represent atheism, that's RICH.

No, I don't. I do, however, think that I adhere to it as well as any person can.

IF PEOPLE USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO ATTACK RELIGION, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF A FLAW IN ATHEISM, IT IS A FLAW IN HUMANS.

And what do they justify this action with? A disbelief in God, namely, ATHEISM.

Right. The next time an atheist attacks religion, ask him what motivated him. Do you think he'll say, 'I don't believe in God', or, 'religious people are wrong'? No, he'll say something that is not justified by or supported by atheism. He might say religious people are wrong, and then tack an a, 'And people who are wrong need to die.' But if he says that, we're obviously dealing with a lunatic here.

You'll never hear Newdow or any of the others justify their actions with their own names, they justify their actions because of the -ism the proscribe to. You can preach on personal responsibility for actions all day long for all you want, but until you justify your actions because of who you are and not what you believe, you're argument will never hold any water.

Sure it will! Ask any of them if they're doing what they do in the name of atheism. Tell me what they say.

Reduced myself to what? Grating your nerves? Making you loose your cool completely?

No, saying, 'Atheism is wrong because it is a system devised by imperfect beings.

I'm quite enjoying this show you're putting on.

And now you're trying to cover up the fact that you have nothing to say by acting like you're dealing with an enraged toddler.

No, what I said was your flawless belief could not be flawlessly executed to the fullest extent possible because you are a flawed individual, which could by extension be taken to mean you've set an impossibly difficult philosophy for yourself to partake of, and therefore can never call yourself a "true" atheist, just a poser.

1. That logic applies to every idea ever, even simple ones, like, 'we exist', or 'the sky is blue'. So we might as well drop that point.

2. I am a true atheist because I adhere perfectly and unquestionably to it's one principal, 'The lack of belief in a God.'

Right now

... can I wait five hours and THEN respond, or are you about to have a stroke? I'm just curious about what the rush is.

Because you aren't answering half the questions I put out. You just select tidbits to use arguments against which I have disproven.

explain to me how wanting to attack a religion is solely an Atheistic

You're asking me for proof for something I wasn't making claim to, find you're own damn proof.

No, you implied this. You said that we distance ourself from atheists who attack religion. I said that because attacking a religion is not an atheistic belief, it cannot be used to critisize atheism.

If you can't explain to me how attacking a religion is an atheistic principal, it is not a justifiable flaw in atheism, but a flaw in humans.

Or, go play with whatevers in your sock.

At 5/4/09 06:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 05:47 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: atheism is inherently flawless.

Except for one tiny little detail; it's followers. Why? Because they are human and therefore imperfect, as you have so dolefully noted.

The followers of a belief do not actually represent the belief. Furthermore, if you're going to bang atheism on the premise that humans are imperfect, we might as well stop here.

I want you to post a link that explicitly says that atheist's goals are to oppose religion. If you can find one, that person is WRONG.

All I have to do is point at Pox's posts for proof that there are atheists out there who seek the destruction of organized religion as we know it, the problem is that any answer I provide to you will be conveniently written off as BULLSHIT because you distance yourself from any atheist who's belief you don't necessarily agree with because you're a damn coward who doesn't see the flaw in his own argument.

Pox's posts are fueled by both his lack of a belief in a God AND his own personal vendetta against religion. Which I'm not necessarily saying are wrong, but are unrelated.

I will say it to you one more fucking time.

ATHEISM IS THE LACK OF A BELIEF IN A GOD.

NOTHING ELSE.

IF PEOPLE USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO ATTACK RELIGION, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF A FLAW IN ATHEISM, IT IS A FLAW IN HUMANS.

And how can I distance myself from an atheist I don't agree with? All atheists agree on atheism. The ones who believe in various levels of destroying religion are unrelated beliefs that stupid people tack on to atheism like they're fucking related.

I made a dozen good points in my argument and you ignored them to pick out two points to use arguments against which I disproved IN THE POINTS OF MY ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH YOU IGNORED.

And guess what I'm about to do with this statement?

Ignore it and spout the same bullshit you've been spewing?

My argument is a flawless logical wall.

Except for the whole "human followers" part, turn yourself into a robot and then come back to me with this line about flawless logic and belief.

It's almost pathetic that you've reduced yourself to this. Fine. My flawless argument is, in fact, flawed because it was constructed by an imperfect being. The same can be said for everything ever.

Atheism is flawless when compared with humans' level of logic and comprehension. I'm sure a flawless God-creature being could fuck my argument right up, but since he's nowhere to be seen, I'm still winning.

You know what you just said?

"Your argument is wrong because somebody smarter than anybody who has ever lived can prove you wrong."

Right now, explain to me how wanting to attack a religion is solely an Atheistic trait AND that it is part of the one, unanimously accepted description of atheism- THE LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD. If you can't, then it is not a part of atheism and you can give the fuck up right now.

At 5/4/09 05:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 05:10 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Because the undesirable qualities that make those people 'extremists', or at least as much so as an atheist can be, are not tied to their atheism.

Oh, so they're doing their actions for the hell of it, then?

They're doing their actions because of an inherent flaw in humans that causes some of us to treat those with different beliefs as lesser people. You know those crazy people who kill others to defend a belief of theirs? Unless their belief explicitly tells them to kill others, it is not the belief's fault, it is the person's.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God.

The next person who tries to explain to me what atheism is as though I'm a damned idiot is going to get a black eye when my fist travels through their computer screen. How you say? BECAUSE I KNOW VOODOO, BITCH.

And check you're girlfriend's birth control while you're at it, you'll find that it has disintegrated.

If you don't want us to treat you like an idiot, then GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL THAT ATHEISM CANNOT BE TRACED TO ANY FLAWS. AT ALL. The ONLY flaw it could be traced to is, in the even that there is a God, atheism believes otherwise. Unless you can prove there is a God, atheism is inherently flawless.

you see, denying that the fanatic is a true atheist or distancing himself from the fanatic's atheist beliefs.

And if you review my posts thus far, you'll find that I never made that point, it was proscribed to me because somebody naturally assumed a given set of beliefs about me without actually comprehending the argument I was putting forth.

Ah. Well, I kind of jumped into this page, but my point still stands. We would not distance ourselves from the atheistic beliefs he has, only that he is a psychopath.

He's distancing himself from the lunatic part. Just like we all would.

Yes, he's distancing himself from the lunatic fringe of his belief. That's all I said, that's all I meant, THANK YOU.

NO. NO NO NO. Not the, 'lunatic fringe of his belief.' Wanting to hurt religious people is NOT a part of atheism. I want you to post a link that explicitly says that atheist's goals are to oppose religion. If you can find one, that person is WRONG.

The only thing to distance yourself from is the 'lunatic' part. The 'lunatic' part is NOT tied to atheism.

I made a dozen good points in my argument and you ignored them to pick out two points to use arguments against which I disproved IN THE POINTS OF MY ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH YOU IGNORED.

Religious people attack other religious people all the time, so the characteristic of attacking other religious people does not stem from atheism, just from human nature. Every belief in the world has a person willing to kill others to support it, so it isn't tied to atheism in the slightest.

My argument is a flawless logical wall.

At 5/4/09 04:36 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 04:33 PM, smiler661 wrote: Brick-top has said that he agrees that these people are Atheists, he just doesn't agree with them. He isn't distancing himself from them.

How is that NOT distancing yourself from them?

Because the undesirable qualities that make those people 'extremists', or at least as much so as an atheist can be, are not tied to their atheism.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. If an atheist acts unduly towards religious people because they are religious, it is not because he doesn't believe in a God, it is because he has a grudge against religion.

Religious people attack other religious people all the time, so the characteristic of attacking other religious people does not stem from atheism, just from human nature. Every belief in the world has a person willing to kill others to support it, so it isn't tied to atheism in the slightest. Now, if the document detailing that system of belief ORDERED people to attack non-believers, well, then, that's a different story.

Furthermore, while disagreeing with a person can be considered distancing himself from that person, that condition doesn't hold up in this case. Imagine this conversation.

News reporter- Brick-Top, you are a well-known atheist. This anti-religious fanatic is atheist too. Do you disagree with him?

Brick-Top- On which case? Fanaticism is always bad, and in that regard I disagree with him. However, he is spot-on about the atheist bit.

News reporter- So are you distancing yourself from him?

Brick-Top- No, but I believe fanaticism is wrong.

You see, you don't distance yourself from people on grounds like that. Brick-Top would say that person is just as much of an atheist as himself, just wrong on other points.

Have you ever met a person who you agree with on every level? No? Well, that's the problem. Brick-Top isn't, you see, denying that the fanatic is a true atheist or distancing himself from the fanatic's atheist beliefs. He's distancing himself from the lunatic part. Just like we all would.

But when Atheists talk about another Atheist, who, in an unrelated event, killed his family, do you think those Atheists try to explain that the family-murderer wasn't a true Atheist? OF COURSE NOT! That would be stupid! But would they all agree that family-murdering is wrong? I certainly hope so. Does that mean they are distancing themselves from that man's atheists beliefs? No.

Well maybe you shouldn't have fucking done drugs.

I'm torn on the CoD 4 ending.

On one hand, the escape from the base and killing the final target was handled beautifully and was an amazing end to the game.

On the other hand, OH SHIT GUYS WE BLEW UP THE NUKE NOW WE NEED TO ESCAPE WAIT NOW WE'RE TRAPPED NOW WE EXPLODED NOW BAD GUY IS DEAD NOW WE'RE RESCUED

At 5/2/09 01:52 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 5/2/09 01:34 PM, dySWN wrote:
Self-avowed anarchists calling mainstream political ideas "warped." Oh, the irony...

I don't care how mainstream the ideas are, Conservatives want to deny people their freedom, amongst other things.
Nothing ironic about it, especially since my views aren't warped at all, they're common-sense.

Like how society will somehow get along without government-funded infrastructure?

At 5/1/09 05:25 AM, MrDark01234 wrote:

At 5/1/09 01:29 AM, Dragonberry wrote:

At 5/1/09 01:14 AM, slowz wrote: Ha? Spider? Thats not a spider. Now this is a Spider!

Y'ain't seen nothing yet.

Silly, Pholcidae longlegs may be a bit creepy, but you learn to see them as normal fucking animals after you learn they can't even bite.

So you're telling me that if you looked up and saw that you WOULDN'T completely lose your shit and try to burn your house down?

At 4/30/09 12:14 AM, LegendaryRobot wrote: And 9 out of every 10 socialist / leftist are friendly towards extreme Islam.

Is that so? Want to provide resources detailing how you came to this conclusion?

I have never had a soft drink in my life. This is the price you all pay for an unhealthy lifestyle.

I'm a mans man, so I don't do cardio, only LIFTING. This has resulted in me being an enormous mound of muscle.

See: Children of Bodom, Slipknot, etc.

Want to explain to me what's wrong with Children of Bodom?

As far as I'm concerned, it's not possible to commit war crimes against Nazis.

Murder is always wrong, but it is sometimes justified.

At 4/20/09 02:23 PM, Contipec wrote: The USA is a whole, big lie. They talk about opportunities, but the three or four people I have met from the USA all of them earn barely enough to survive. Around $400 to $500 a month. If people in the USA manage to live in a trailer, they will be lucky. The system in the USA is made in such a way that poors cannot progress in any form or shape.

My father worked his way up from a poor family in Alabama who lived in a house supporting 12 people.

His alcoholic father left when he was 12.

He now works in Hollywood and we all enjoy a 6-figure salary in our house in Beverly Hills.

I think Zelda is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills Triforce and doesn't afraid of anything.

The motherfucking mannequin scene from Condemned.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point.

People throughout history have incited genocides, so it's perfectly alright to start the greatest war man has ever seen AND incite one of the largest genocides (The largest?) in history?

At 4/22/09 12:05 AM, thatoneguyfromDD wrote:

At 4/22/09 12:01 AM, Sunglasses wrote: You reminded me I need to shave, but whatever, here's this.

lol, bad lighting is bad

Your hair is fucking awesome.

But the rest of him...

Why kill people? They're just going to respawn anyway.

Where's the part where the news story tells us they're black?

That baby can count to potato.

At 4/20/09 05:37 AM, shaggytheclawn17 wrote: Because if you do brick, you're ridiculous and stupid. And people like you are destroying the world.

I however, have no personal quarrel with anyone who thinks differently than I do. I'm just here to show atheists that they do.

Atheists are retarded
Posted by Shaggytheclown17
Feb. 28, 2009 @ 1:31 AM EST
Just thought I'd let everyone know that, its a fact n there nothing anyone can do about it.
Atheists are filthy and dangerous n they should all be put on an island and left to do what they've always wanted, see who is the fittest in whatever psycotic world they live in.

Now let us rejoice in the fact they will never have power and will never take away the God or Gods we love, amen.

At 4/16/09 09:50 PM, B4gle wrote: Hm, your second story was more believable than your first. Your first one sounded like it came out of Doom3 or something.

I like the dream that you posted, but will ever dream I post be critiqued on its realism?

I just dream things.

At 4/16/09 10:34 AM, Toxik-King wrote: Take a break from videogames.
Seriously.

Alot of this seems to be influenced by videogames and movies.

Everything has been done in a movie or a video game before.

I don't even play games/watch movies all that often.

I read.

I just have an active imagination.

I think you're all just mad that I manage to be interesting even in my sleep.

At 4/16/09 10:23 AM, thelittleemo wrote: Well...as I said before, your mind is fucked up. I think that this is possible one of the best stories I've ever heard in my life. Please do more :D

The funny thing is that I'm actually both extraordinarily mentally and psychologically stable. My brain just likes fucking with me.