Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/4/09 10:02 AM, Ericho wrote:

Do you think that just because you have more posts than most people you're allowed to call people "morons"?

Nope, I think it's because they're morons.

God is a logical concept because it allows you to think about how we are not here simply because.

Man I really don't feel like explaining so many things today -_-
Drakim... you do it.. haha

To say that life has no purpose and that the end of civilization means nothing to you is illogical.

See, just because you say things are illogical, it doesn't make them illogical.
Especially if you don't even explain why it's illogical or whatever the hell you mean by "illogical".

I am annoyed at people like you who honestly think you're so much smarter than us just because you don't believe in God.

No, see I don't believe in God BECAUSE I'm so much smarter.

boner = in my pants @ my awesome arrogance

Yes, religion doesn't make any sense, but neither does atheism.

Wow, really? See, this is why you're stupid. You admit religion makes no sense, but you still think it's great to believe in it.

ouch :,(

Religion is a way of people finding meaning in their lives because they allow themselves to be happy through their belief in higher being. It's not a matter of what you believe in, it's what you do with it.

Religion is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

I'm no fan of atheism, but I'd never call someone a "moron" for believing in it, even if I don't believe it.

I'm actually a satanist and I pray every day that all religious people ( including me ) will go to hell. Also I believe that the sky is red, that potatoes can speak and that I could shit gold and fairy dust if I could maintain a constant diet of toothpaste and daily confessions to a sodomite.

Hope you don't think I'm a moron for my beliefs.

It's people like you who enforce bigotry and allow us not to settle our differences through kind words.

What differences?

At 5/4/09 10:37 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Well... that reads differently.

Still not following you.

Your bowlers vs non-bowlers analogy only works if atheism is only "lack of belief." In application, it's not.

Yeah, it is.
How is it different than just not believing? I do exactly all the things that a person who doesn't believe in any Gods would do. I.e., whatever the hell I want.

Even animals are atheist when you think about it. Even rocks. Being an atheist requires nothing more than just not believing in Gods.

Now I think you were trying to make a point that it's impossible to define God, so like maybe it's impossible to not believe in the thing you can't define?
Is that what you were saying?

To which I would reply: God is that which WILLED the universe into existence by magic. There's 0 evidence of even the faintest trace of that so I don't even have to ponder anything really. Maybe if one day we do find the creator of the universe sitting in a corner somewhere, then I can start wondering if I should call him God or not based on how his powers work, but for now, I don't even have to try.

There's no evidence of God. Not even close. So it's easy to keep not believing without having to get philosophical about it.

Your argument is like saying we can't measure 12 inches because we can't reach an infinite distance from 0.

Purpose is always an infinite regression. Always, always, always. You can't compare it to something finite.

Don't believe me? Again, try to name any purpose for anything you want that I can't top with another batch of "why?" :O

At 5/4/09 11:16 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/3/09 03:27 AM, poxpower wrote: ( there isn't one )

Nihilist, much?

Whatever that means.
It just seems incredibly obvious to me that there couldn't possibly even be an ultimate purpose to anything.

Pretty much in the same way that there's not any possible way to ever fully explain the universe. You'll always have that "why is this like that?" question. Always always always. That's how it is.

Even if you decide to "explain" it all by saying that God wants it like that. You still have to answer "why is God like that?". Good luck with that.

Because you can attract more flies with honey than you can vinegar (old Southern saying).

Ew I don't want flies.

Basically; if all you're doing is poking fun and laughing people for their differences, you give them no reason to pay attention to you or take your opinion's seriously.

I dunno, I like to believe I talk to people smart enough to understand the difference between being convinced and being seduced.

---

At 5/4/09 11:49 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: How would an atheist view drug-induced spirit journeys? Is soul searching such an abhorrence and offense to atheists to merit the spite and foolishness running rampant around here?

the fun thing about atheism is that beyond the belief that there is no god(s) there are no common beliefs or doctrines (no canon). so while one may not believe in god, one may still believe in the soul, pixies, a flat earth and umpa-lumpas.

---

At 5/4/09 11:44 AM, SolInvictus wrote: because he isn't applying the goodness of his friend to others like his friend

Actually, that's what it implies. He's responding to what he views as a converse accident offense with a converse accident defense.

And that was the whole point of my jab against atheism, by bringing up Newdow and O'Hare and the like. I wanted to see who would get the point and who would completely miss, and defend themselves in a similar manner.

At 5/4/09 11:53 AM, poxpower wrote: It just seems incredibly obvious to me that there couldn't possibly even be an ultimate purpose to anything.

And as such, the reference to nihilism; a believe that everything is purposeless and meaningless.

I dunno, I like to believe I talk to people smart enough to understand the difference between being convinced and being seduced.

And everyone else?

---

At 5/4/09 11:53 AM, poxpower wrote: Still not following you.

Atheism is tied to...

- that which is derived from it
- that from which it is derived
- other things derived from that which derived it

Yeah, it is.
How is it different than just not believing?

So your lack of belief is completely unjustified and/or completely without reason?

Even animals are atheist when you think about it. Even rocks. Being an atheist requires nothing more than just not believing in Gods.

Yes. But atheism comes with alittle baggage when it's not tabula-rasan - when it's derived - when you're not a new-born, a zebra, or a rock.

Now I think you were trying to make a point that it's impossible to define God, so like maybe it's impossible to not believe in the thing you can't define?
Is that what you were saying?

No. I'm saying that a rejected concept is a defined concept.

To which I would reply: God is that which WILLED the universe into existence by magic.

Behold... a definition of a concept.

There's 0 evidence of even the faintest trace of that so I don't even have to ponder anything really. Maybe if one day we do find the creator of the universe sitting in a corner somewhere, then I can start wondering if I should call him God or not based on how his powers work, but for now, I don't even have to try.

Behold... the rejection (for now) of the defined concept, based on further definition of the concept.

"a qualification of [concept A] beyond his/her/its basic definition."

Purpose is always an infinite regression. Always, always, always. You can't compare it to something finite.

So "everywhere" always includes the entire universe. Always, always, always.

Well... until I say "everywhere in my house."

Don't believe me? Again, try to name any purpose for anything you want that I can't top with another batch of "why?" :O

... but that's not the point of contention.

Besides. This philosphical issue isn't even a problem if you believe in God. So we're back to whether God is viable as a variable.

---

At 5/4/09 12:06 PM, Proteas wrote: Actually, that's what it implies. He's responding to what he views as a converse accident offense with a converse accident defense.

how so? generalizations present something as a rule whereas a single exception is enough to undermine the integrity of said rule.

---

At 5/4/09 12:37 PM, SolInvictus wrote: how so? generalizations present something as a rule whereas a single exception is enough to undermine the integrity of said rule.

Because in the generalization that's being presented as a defense is being done so as a rule, or at least that's the way I'm seeing it.

---

At 5/4/09 12:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

And as such, the reference to nihilism; a believe that everything is purposeless and meaningless.

Well I don't know enough about the whole nihilist philosophy to call myself or anyone else one.

I dunno, I like to believe I talk to people smart enough to understand the difference between being convinced and being seduced.

And everyone else?

Everyone else.... who?
The people I don't talk to?

At 5/4/09 12:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Atheism is tied to...

- that which is derived from it
- that from which it is derived
- other things derived from that which derived it

Yeah in a way.
But never forget that atheism is about one thing and one thing only: no belief in God.
It's not about science, it's not about morals, it's not about hating religious people.

Yes. But atheism comes with alittle baggage when it's not tabula-rasan - when it's derived - when you're not a new-born, a zebra, or a rock.

Well we're humans so everything we do has baggage.
I forgot what we were talking about.

No. I'm saying that a rejected concept is a defined concept.

Yeah... ... .. ..

To which I would reply: God is that which WILLED the universe into existence by magic.

Behold... a definition of a concept.

Yeah... .. ?

"a qualification of [concept A] beyond his/her/its basic definition."

?

So "everywhere" always includes the entire universe. Always, always, always.

What the hell...
I mean I don't think I'm explaining something really complicated here :O

Don't believe me? Again, try to name any purpose for anything you want that I can't top with another batch of "why?" :O

Besides. This philosphical issue isn't even a problem if you believe in God. So we're back to whether God is viable as a variable.

No, it's still there. God doesn't explain away purpose.
What's the purpose of doing God's purpose?

It doesn't end. It CAN'T end. There CAN'T be an ultimate purpose.

---

At 5/4/09 11:16 AM, Proteas wrote: My point was that you're just as guilty as a theist for distancing yourself from extremist factions of your own philosophy. In short, you think your shit doesn't stink.

The thing you're not getting is, I don't distant myself from them. I don't try to make it seem like they're not 'true' Atheists, I don't say they've added on concepts or idea's to their Atheist beliefs or anything of that sort. I'm perfectly aware they're Atheists just like me and I wouldn't be surprised if some of their opinions, idea's and reasons to being an Atheist is similar to mine.

However there is a problem. I haven't done all the homework on these people but I'm sure they haven't blown up a building in the name of Atheism. Atheists aren't dictated their morals and then interpret it however they wish. Muslims have the ability to interpret their scripture in a way which they feel can justify harming others and since they think it's divine morality, it's inherently good.

---

At 5/4/09 01:37 PM, Brick-top wrote: The thing you're not getting is, I don't distant myself from them.

Actually, yes you do. Remember?

They're all Atheists with WIki Articles but that doesn't make them any more or less of an Atheist nor does it make them a spokesmen for Atheists, nor does it makes them a representative for Atheists.

Great thing about us is we don't have established leaders who looks like the bad guy in star wars. Woo yippe (happy dance)

You distanced yourself from the people I mentioned (along with every other atheist on this board) by bringing up the fact that atheism has no centralized belief or church to subscribe to. In essence, you're saying that the atheism these guys practice isn't the atheism you practice, and is no different that the "NUH UH! Muslims aren't all bad!" bit from the example cited earlier.

I'm sure they haven't blown up a building in the name of Atheism.

True, but they haven't gone out of the way to endear themselves to the general population either.

---

At 5/4/09 02:21 PM, Proteas wrote: You distanced yourself from the people I mentioned (along with every other atheist on this board) by bringing up the fact that atheism has no centralized belief or church to subscribe to.

You're really not getting this are you?

Atheism has no established leaders or representatives unless you can offer any sort of dictionary definition saying otherwise. There is no 'Atheist Pope' who was assigned by the council of Atheists in the Atheist church who all follow the book of Atheism. There's no such thing.

I also said Muslims go by scripture and interpret it any way they wish and this is where their morals come from. Atheists don't have that. There is no magical little book to tell us how to live.

I'm not distancing myself from Atheists, I'm showing you the differences between Religion (Islam in this case) to Atheism because we don't have any holy scripture.

In essence, you're saying that the atheism these guys practice isn't the atheism you practice, and is no different that the "NUH UH! Muslims aren't all bad!" bit from the example cited earlier.

I also like that you completely missed the part where I said:
I don't try to make it seem like they're not 'true' Atheists, I don't say they've added on concepts or idea's to their Atheist beliefs or anything of that sort. I'm perfectly aware they're Atheists just like me and I wouldn't be surprised if some of their opinions, idea's and reasons to being an Atheist is similar to mine.

There is only ONE way to practice Atheism, and that's have a disbelief or lack of belief in God. If they do this, they're Atheists. That's it, there is no more than that. The non-existing magical book doesn't tell them to go out and do what they're doing, there's no magical book to tell them to do anything. That is where your argument fails on a cataclysmic scale. We share only one trait and anything else has absolutely fuck all to do with Atheism and you cannot prove it otherwise because we have no scripture to go on.

---

Atheism isn't immune to criticisms when the wielders of said [dis]belief justify their [non]belief with criticisms of the foundations of religious institutions. These institutions are now the rejected system of belief rather than the concept of a God.

Congrats.

Any other criticisms from the godless, organized religion-haters?

---

At 5/4/09 03:07 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Any other criticisms from the godless, organized religion-haters?

qué?

---

At 5/4/09 02:52 PM, Brick-top wrote: You're really not getting this are you?

Nope, not a damn bit of it. You're a termite and my brain is a red brick paver stone.

</sarcasm>

Atheism has no established leaders or representatives unless you can offer any sort of dictionary definition saying otherwise.

*Ace Ventura style deep drawing in of breath*

And I wasn't talking about atheism as an organized religion or anything of the sort, I was talking about extremist atheist practitioners who garner media attention for themselves while the rest of you sit back and twiddle your thumbs and act like they don't exist and aren't representative of what you believe as a way of comparing how you would react to them being brought up to the way a theist would react to theist extremists garnering media attention during a conversation....

*hyperventilating*

---

At 5/4/09 03:19 PM, Proteas wrote: I was talking about extremist atheist practitioners who garner media attention for themselves while the rest of you sit back and twiddle your thumbs and act like they don't exist

Yet in your example the Muslim was blowing up a building and the Atheist is chatting away to (whoever).

On the severity scale what's going to be worse?

Also I've criticised Dawkin's ample times. He seems to get the most attention especially from the States. You can keep him we'll stick with David Attenborough.

and aren't representative of what you believe as a way of comparing how you would react to them being brought up to the way a theist would react to theist extremists garnering media attention during a conversation....

They aren't representatives because Atheism doesn't establish one and like I said, if you can prove otherwise be my guest.

My other point was as long as they have a lack of belief or disbelief in God whatever they do has nothing to do with Atheism while the Muslims have a holy book riddled with 'what and what not to do'. If you want to point out the fact every Muslim interprets their scripture differently then there wouldn't be a thing called 'true Muslims'.

Also Leeloo-Minai if you're going to reply to me keep it in the Thread. Just because you sent me a PM it doesn't mean you're going to get more attention.

---

At 5/4/09 03:41 PM, Brick-top wrote: On the severity scale what's going to be worse?

Obviously, the two don't compare. However, going on national tv and being the atheist equivalent of such talking heads as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson... two individuals you're average southern baptist wouldn't be caught DEAD hanging around with in public... kind of makes my point for me.

Theists don't like associating themselves with extremist television figures, and niether do you.

---

At 5/4/09 01:20 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/4/09 12:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

And as such, the reference to nihilism; a believe that everything is purposeless and meaningless.

Well I don't know enough about the whole nihilist philosophy to call myself or anyone else one.

That's pretty much it...

From wiki: Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical position that values do not exist but rather are falsely invented. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist

I remember you saying morals are bullshit.

---

At 5/4/09 11:53 AM, poxpower wrote: I'm actually a satanist and I pray every day that all religious people ( including me ) will go to hell. Also I believe that the sky is red, that potatoes can speak and that I could shit gold and fairy dust if I could maintain a constant diet of toothpaste and daily confessions to a sodomite.

;;;
I always think of the sky being colorless, clear like window glass... we just see blue because of reflected light . I've had potatoes talk to me before...Ok, it was french fries...& I was fried myself... but I swear they were speaking (screaming actually when I ate them !)
I tried the toothpaste diet...never managed any gold or fairy dust , but I didn't confess to anyone at all , perhaps that's why I failed. But the upside was my breath was always minty fresh.

Hope you don't think I'm a moron for my beliefs.

Absolutely not !
that would be very judgemental of me... & I'm not a judging kind of guy. Its all got to do with glass houses , throwing rocks... you know what I mean .

---

At 5/4/09 03:51 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 03:41 PM, Brick-top wrote: On the severity scale what's going to be worse?

Obviously, the two don't compare. However, going on national tv and being the atheist equivalent of such talking heads as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson... two individuals you're average southern baptist wouldn't be caught DEAD hanging around with in public... kind of makes my point for me.

Theists don't like associating themselves with extremist television figures, and niether do you.

Which kind of proves Brick-tops point. People like Fallwell do things that others who share thier religion disagree with. But that does not change the fact that they are still members of that religion. 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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

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.

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.

---

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

---

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

*duly.

The point being that any belief is flawless in theory, but in practice, there is no "flawless" belief because it cannot be "flawlessly" carried out by human beings, who by nature, are flawed.

That goes for atheism, christianity, islam, taoism, pastafarianism....

---

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.

This is a good point.

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.

You can point to individual atheists that try to destroy organized religion, but that does not make the idea that "atheism's goals are to oppose religion" any more true.

As I have said many times before, atheism is a mere aspect of a philosophy; atheism is formed around ideas, not vice versa. What I mean is that one who is an atheist usually has a large amount of personal philosophies and morals, and the idea that a god does not exist is merely an addition to them.

And merely accepting the idea that a god does not exist does not necessarily make you opposed to religion.

---

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 06:34 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: The followers of a belief do not actually represent the belief.

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

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.

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.

It's almost pathetic that you've reduced yourself to this.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Or, go play with whatevers in your sock.

---

At 5/4/09 03:07 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Any other criticisms from the godless, organized religion-haters?

You know that a "religion-hater" is an anti-theist, as in someone openly and directly opposed to the concept of religion, right? And that you don't have to be atheist to be anti-theist, right? As well, was "godless" meant to be an insult? If so, you should know it's really just a statement of fact to an atheist.

---

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 07:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 06:34 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: The followers of a belief do not actually represent the belief.

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

Do you represent all of christianity?