Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I find that respect's only true definition is the recognition of that objects place in your environment. "I respect this tree, for I know where and what it is."

Those who do not respect a thing, atheism or religion for example, just do not understand that certain thing.

So, uh, make of that what you will.

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

At 5/4/09 07:26 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Sure it will! Ask any of them if they're doing what they do in the name of atheism. Tell me what they say.

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?

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.

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.

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

'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~

No, you implied this.

Where?

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.

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*

At 5/4/09 08:49 PM, Proteas wrote: 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~

I don't quite get this point. Quite a few atheists are ex-Christians who became unhappy with Christianity.

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*

Stalin wanted everyone to worship him essentially as a god. He wasn't a very good atheist, in that respect.

At 5/4/09 08:57 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I don't quite get this point.

He misquoted the definition for his own philosophy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sure I can!

Not by the argument you presented you can't.

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."

*scratches head*

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

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.

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?

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?"

S: (n) irreligiousness, irreligion (the quality of not being devout) , or S: (adj) irreligious (hostile or indifferent to religion).

Religion does not necessarily equal God. One can be irreligious and believe in God. One can be atheist and be religious, i.e. Buddhists.

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 it comes to definitions, you seem to be misinformed.

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

*scratches head*

Stalin deserves many a head scratch.

At 5/4/09 09:29 PM, Tancrisism wrote: S: (n) irreligiousness, irreligion (the quality of not being devout) , or S: (adj) irreligious (hostile or indifferent to religion).

I was going by this, which implies a lack of Religion.

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?

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 10:06 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: 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'.

And I have corrected your definition, as being an atheist requires and expressed denouncing of God and Religion in addition to lacking a belief, whereas a simple "lack of a belief" lacks that expressed denouncement, and could therefore be taken to mean either (a) agnosticism or (b) irreligion.

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

Re-read what I said; I was not equating the whole of atheist philosophy with militant anti-religious overtones, despite the fact that such atheists do exist. That was a point YOU proscribed to me without fully understanding the argument I was putting forth.

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

"The followers of a belief do not actually represent the belief."

That's what you said, and by such, you can't claim to be atheist much less represent the philosophy.

Your argument, your words.

Quit playing stupid.

My knowledge of WW2 is somewhat lacking, so there's not much "play" there with regards to Stalin.

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

...?

I'm having a civilized conversation here, you're the one pitching a fit.

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

At 5/4/09 09:29 PM, Tancrisism wrote: S: (n) irreligiousness, irreligion (the quality of not being devout) , or S: (adj) irreligious (hostile or indifferent to religion).

I was going by this, which implies a lack of Religion.

No, more than anything it implies that the meaning of irreligion depends on the context. It even mentions "deism", which is a religious and theistic thought.

At 5/4/09 10:09 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: 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.

I see, you are just saying you fit the word by its exact syntax.

Nobody can adhere to EVERY RULE of the Bible, so NOBODY can be a perfect Christian.

To be a Christian you must be a follower of Christ. That is the one requirement. You don't need to believe in every word of the bible.

They, however, ARE following rules set down by others, and we all know that Christianity wouldn't exist if the Bible was never made.

But Christianity existed before the Bible was made, so that isn't actually true.

At 5/4/09 10:26 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 10:06 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: 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'.

And I have corrected your definition, as being an atheist requires and expressed denouncing of God and Religion in addition to lacking a belief, whereas a simple "lack of a belief" lacks that expressed denouncement, and could therefore be taken to mean either (a) agnosticism or (b) irreligion.

...
...
...You're right.
I misinterpreted what you said. Replace every time I have said, 'A lack of a belief in a God' with 'A disbelief in the existence of God' and we're all set.

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

Re-read what I said; I was not equating the whole of atheist philosophy with militant anti-religious overtones, despite the fact that such atheists do exist. That was a point YOU proscribed to me without fully understanding the argument I was putting forth.

I admit that I am both too tired and apparently not intelligent or old enough to understand what you put forth. Please repost your argument here with smaller words. I'm sorry.

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

"The followers of a belief do not actually represent the belief."

That's what you said, and by such, you can't claim to be atheist much less represent the philosophy.

Your argument, your words.

I'm not representing a belief when I'm saying I adhere to it perfectly. I can still claim to be an atheist, I just can't claim to be the spirit of atheism.

Quit playing stupid.

My knowledge of WW2 is somewhat lacking, so there's not much "play" there with regards to Stalin.

Ah. Well, that was the only subject I have ever gotten 104% on in History, so pardon my assumption.

I'm having a civilized conversation here, you're the one pitching a fit.

I am absolutely not pitching a fit, I just realized we've been arguing on two different points.

At 5/4/09 10:09 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: 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.

I see, you are just saying you fit the word by its exact syntax.

Right.

To be a Christian you must be a follower of Christ. That is the one requirement. You don't need to believe in every word of the bible.

There are verses in the Bible saying that you are not a true Christian if you don't, ect. ect. ect.

Then there's the verse that says the rules set down by the Bible are not open to interpretation.

Or is that the Qur'an?

They, however, ARE following rules set down by others, and we all know that Christianity wouldn't exist if the Bible was never made.

But Christianity existed before the Bible was made, so that isn't actually true.

All right, it would be VERY DIFFERENT had the Bible never been made.

At 5/4/09 10:29 PM, Tancrisism wrote: But Christianity existed before the Bible was made, so that isn't actually true.

Really? Christianity predates the old testament?

At 5/4/09 10:29 PM, Tancrisism wrote: No, more than anything it implies that the meaning of irreligion depends on the context. It even mentions "deism", which is a religious and theistic thought.

"Depending on the context, it may be understood as referring to atheism, deism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antireligion, skepticism, freethought, or secular humanism."

At 5/4/09 10:33 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

To be a Christian you must be a follower of Christ. That is the one requirement. You don't need to believe in every word of the bible.

There are verses in the Bible saying that you are not a true Christian if you don't, ect. ect. ect.

Then there's the verse that says the rules set down by the Bible are not open to interpretation.

Or is that the Qur'an?

They probably both do. But the people who simply believe Christ's teachings without all of the politics that the Bible brings are definitely to be considered Christians. They aren't Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. etc., they are Christians. You know? That's really all that's required.

The sects will of course say that their sect is the only sect, and so on.

Similarly, all you need to be a Muslim, technically, is to "submit to god".

They, however, ARE following rules set down by others, and we all know that Christianity wouldn't exist if the Bible was never made.

But Christianity existed before the Bible was made, so that isn't actually true.

All right, it would be VERY DIFFERENT had the Bible never been made.

Mainstream Christianity would be, definitely. Perhaps it wouldn't have even ever gotten to be mainstream except in places like Lebanon.

What I wonder about is what it would be like if the Council of Nicaea never happened...

At 5/4/09 10:35 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 5/4/09 10:29 PM, Tancrisism wrote: But Christianity existed before the Bible was made, so that isn't actually true.

Really? Christianity predates the old testament?

The Bible is a collection of the Old Testament and New, is it not?

At 5/4/09 03:53 PM, hippl5 wrote:

I remember you saying morals are bullshit.

Indeed.
Well I do sound nihilist alright. Cool.
Don't those idiots tend to commit suicide a lot?

At 5/4/09 06:34 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Pox's posts are fueled by both his lack of a belief in a God AND his own personal vendetta against religion.

lol
Religion has never done anything against me and I have never done anything against a religious person other than call them morons on the internet.
Woooo big deal.

The truth is that I do this because I'M RIGHT ALL THE TIME because it's so damn easy to be right about the issue of religion. There's NO DEBATE TO BE MADE. Religion IS BULLSHIT. 100% sure.

So I always win :D
It's awesome.

Also I'm waiting for the day a religious person really stumps me with some brilliant remark. But after having watched countless hours of debates featuring eminent religious minds ( the 4th graders of the intellectual world ) I can say that day will not come any time soon :D

It's mostly entertainment and consciousness-raising. People need to stop pretending like everything is an opinion of equal value and they need to be able to defend what they believe in.

At 5/5/09 12:02 AM, poxpower wrote: lol
Religion has never done anything against me and I have never done anything against a religious person other than call them morons on the internet.

Uh huh.

The truth is that I do this because I'M RIGHT ALL THE TIME because it's so damn easy to be right about the issue of religion. There's NO DEBATE TO BE MADE. Religion IS BULLSHIT. 100% sure.

Because you say so. Interesting.

So I always win :D
It's awesome.

It must be to live in that kind of world with that kind of surety.

Also I'm waiting for the day a religious person really stumps me with some brilliant remark. But after having watched countless hours of debates featuring eminent religious minds ( the 4th graders of the intellectual world ) I can say that day will not come any time soon :D

So religious people are 4th graders in mentality...says the guy who just got done claiming he's always right and calling everybody on that side morons...which is obviously such higher use of one's logical and intellectual faculties that no one could ever compare it with juvenile or elementary school level thinking. I think I understand this perfectly.

It's mostly entertainment and consciousness-raising. People need to stop pretending like everything is an opinion of equal value and they need to be able to defend what they believe in.

I agree, you should be able to defend what you believe in too...without resorting to name calling and the kind of tactics you're accusing your opponents of. You're not "raising conciousness" you're just pissing in the faces of people you think are inferior to you and laughing when they understandably get angry about it. You're cloaking what you're doing in righteousness, but it looks like just good old flame baiting and trolling from where I sit.

At 5/5/09 12:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/5/09 12:02 AM, poxpower wrote: lol
Religion has never done anything against me and I have never done anything against a religious person other than call them morons on the internet.

Uh huh.

What's that supposed to mean?

There's NO DEBATE TO BE MADE. Religion IS BULLSHIT. 100% sure.

Because you say so. Interesting.

Wow, nice argument. Is that how you plan on breaking it to NASA that there's actually life on the moon?

So religious people are 4th graders in mentality...says the guy who just got done claiming he's always right and calling everybody on that side morons...which is obviously such higher use of one's logical and intellectual faculties that no one could ever compare it with juvenile or elementary school level thinking. I think I understand this perfectly.

Wow, I'm mean. Boo hoo, get over it.

At 5/5/09 04:01 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/5/09 12:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

There's NO DEBATE TO BE MADE. Religion IS BULLSHIT. 100% sure.

Because you say so. Interesting.

Wow, nice argument. Is that how you plan on breaking it to NASA that there's actually life on the moon?

See Pox, this is your problem, you can't take critisizm n you're too ignorant to see things any other way n thats why people here don't bother dealing with you very much while you misunderstand by thinking you're right n everyone else is wrong. Its not that people don't have good arguments to oppose your stupidity, its that they don't bother since any attempt to break you out of your bitch tantrum, its a complete waste of time cuz you always manage to scurry back to your insecurity blanket n build your confidence back up while making sideways comments like "I'm 100% sure rleigion is bullshit!!!!".

Dude, if there was no need to debate, you wouldn't be here, yet you are and you're contradicting your own fucking words and now your position lacks even more credability than before.
Even worse you change the subject when a person makes a good point of how you seem to think you're right about everything when its crystal clear that you aren't.

Shaggy, 100% of your posts describe exactly one person: yourself.

Pox, why are you arguing with an alt? Do you think it's fun to be trolled? D:

They probably both do. But the people who simply believe Christ's teachings without all of the politics that the Bible brings are definitely to be considered Christians. They aren't Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. etc., they are Christians. You know? That's really all that's required.

The sects will of course say that their sect is the only sect, and so on.

Similarly, all you need to be a Muslim, technically, is to "submit to god".

Right, but both of those belief systems have been split into various factions because of different interpretations of their respective literatures. Atheism cannot divide, there is no interpretation.

At 5/4/09 01:20 PM, poxpower wrote: 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.
[. . .]
Well we're humans so everything we do has baggage.

Which is why it's disingenuous to characterize what you do as having no baggage.

This is kind of like defining bulimia as, "throwing up after you eat."

Ofcourse, if you want to start throwing dictionaries around stop pretending you've never read "the belief there is no God" in one.

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

Yeah... ... .. ..

Which means the rejection of certain aspects of theism, characterized as a lack of belief in God, is inherently dependant on positive assertions.

Just because the foundational logic isn't the same for every atheist doesn't mean there's no foundational logic. You're overgeneralizing. It'd be like observing two guys. One's cutting some chicken, the other's cutting some live people. They're both cutting so they're doing the exact same thing, right?

?

You interpreted the following...

"Posed the question "if god," and responding "without god," requires from any logical person a qualification of god beyond his/her/its basic definition."

... as me saying the following...

"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?"

Which I wasn't. So I used your argument as an example of the condition I was trying to illustrate.

Let's put it all together now.

Posed the question "if God," ...

- Bobby: Hey pox is there a God?

... and responding "without God," ...

- Pox: I have a lack of belief in God.

... requires from any logical person...

- that's you Pox ;)

... a qualification of God beyond his/her/its basic definition.

- Pox: There's no evidence of God [etc].

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

It's not. What you're saying is true. But it's a straw man in this discussion.

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

If you're looking for the step in the infinite regression that surpasses God, the question you want to ask is, "what's the purpose of God's purpose?"

Not, "what's the purpose of doing God's purpose?"

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

Have you ever taken a look at some of the ultimate purposes people offer? (don't worry, this is alittle roundabout but I'll be getting back to refuting "God doesn't explain away purpose")

At 5/5/09 01:22 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Ofcourse, if you want to start throwing dictionaries around stop pretending you've never read "the belief there is no God" in one.

Really no idea what you're talking about most of the time :O

To say people have baggage is moot since it in no way ties the word "atheist" to anything that any atheist person has accumulated as baggage. .

Just because the foundational logic isn't the same for every atheist doesn't mean there's no foundational logic. You're overgeneralizing. It'd be like observing two guys. One's cutting some chicken, the other's cutting some live people. They're both cutting so they're doing the exact same thing, right?

I have no idea what you keep talking about.

It just seems like random run-on paragraphs that don't really seem to make clear points.

Am I the only one here not getting any of what this guy says?

If you're looking for the step in the infinite regression that surpasses God, the question you want to ask is, "what's the purpose of God's purpose?"

What the hell are you even talking about?
??

My point is simply that there's no end to the questions of purpose.

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

Have you ever taken a look at some of the ultimate purposes people offer?

Yes and they're all stupid and none are final.

At 5/4/09 11:53 AM, poxpower wrote:

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

That's a little something I call arrogance.

boner = in my pants @ my awesome arrogance

Oh, how mature.

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.

Atheism is I think worse than religion as it teaches that things happen just because. Ridiculous as religion may be, it still gives a logical mesage.

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.

Exactly! To me it's something great, but to you it isn't and that's fine.

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.

See? You're just using immature jokes to mock me. That isn't a sign of intelligence.

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

What differences?

The ones that you're moaning about, of course.

At 5/5/09 02:02 PM, Ericho wrote:

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

That's a little something I call arrogance.

Deal with it.
Or better yer: prove me wrong.

boner = in my pants @ my awesome arrogance

Oh, how mature.

What are you? In 6th grade? Because that's about the last time I heard the "you're so immature" defense.

Atheism is I think worse than religion as it teaches that things happen just because.

bzzzzzzzzt, wrong.
Atheism teaches nothing.

It's a state of non-belief. It doesn't say or teach anything.

Ridiculous as religion may be, it still gives a logical mesage.

Yeah like "God is his own son" and "Your sins can be forgiven through human sacrifice before you're born".
Totally logical. And the classic "well God made the universe, because there has to be a first cause, and that's God! Nothing can come out of nothing! Except God! Because I said so!".

See? You're just using immature jokes to mock me. That isn't a sign of intelligence.

No, you don't get simple obvious points.
Like the fact that BELIEFS CAN BE MORONIC.

You've just randomly set the bar at "well what I believe isn't stupid so people can't make fun of me for it, but someone who believes ducks can transform into cars if you say a magic word... man that's totally stupid!".

You're a hypocrite. Just by your response, I can tell I'm right. I wrote out a set of beliefs so stupid that you thought it was an immature joke.
Now you know how I feel about YOUR beliefs.

The ones that you're moaning about, of course.

What differences did I moan about?

At 5/5/09 04:01 AM, poxpower wrote: What's that supposed to mean?

I was just trying to justify qouting that text, my whole argument is basically that as stupid as you think religion is, and how they're logic and arguments are at the level of elementary school kids, so are yours.

Wow, nice argument. Is that how you plan on breaking it to NASA that there's actually life on the moon?

Case in point, is all you have here just personal attacks and insults? Is that all?

Wow, I'm mean. Boo hoo, get over it.

If you weren't a mod dude...seriously, why are you even participating in this thread if all you've really got to "raise conciousness" and free people from the "evil" of religion is to just call everyone you don't agree with morons until they submit?