Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/4/09 03:51 PM, Proteas wrote: Theists don't like associating themselves with extremist television figures, and niether do you.

It's obvious you're not understanding what my point. Which would explain why you omit and don't address a large portion of my post. So I'll say it more simplistically and I'll assume I needlessly overcomplicate my posts.

Atheists have only one association. Which it Atheism itself, the disbelief in any sort of God. This is undeniable and I've already said I don't deny it. However Muslims have another association which is the Qur'an. This is full of guidelines and rules. Muslims cannot distant themselves because of this holy text. The only way to distant them self from the extremist chatters is to say they've interpreted the scripture differently. But that means all Muslims do this (and they do) so there is no right and wrong belief with Islam.

At 5/5/09 04:15 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

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

No, I have actual arguments in other posts, none of which you ever challenged.
Go ahead, single out any points I've made in this thread or any other. Try it. I frickin' DARE you.

Do you want some help?

How about this juicy one:

"Atheism teaches nothing.
It's a state of non-belief. It doesn't say or teach anything."

Feel like taking on that?

or maybe this:

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

or:

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

If you weren't a mod dude...seriously

What?

At 5/5/09 04:42 PM, poxpower wrote: No, I have actual arguments in other posts, none of which you ever challenged.

Because when you actually argue, you make some pretty good ones. But you're need for ad hominem, for calling people names and basically trolling is offensive and I wish you'd stop.

What?

Nevermind, I'm not getting into that sort of thing in public, forget I brought that up.

At 5/5/09 05:06 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/5/09 04:42 PM, poxpower wrote: No, I have actual arguments in other posts, none of which you ever challenged.

Because when you actually argue, you make some pretty good ones. But you're need for ad hominem, for calling people names and basically trolling is offensive and I wish you'd stop.

Trolling = trying to get a rise out of someone.
I'm not trolling.

Ad Hominem: to claim someone's position is wrong because of some unrelated personal shortcoming/ fact/ position.

ex: Hitler can't be wrong about cooking, he's Hitler!

You know what? I think some people should have a better grasp of these terms before they start citing them as reasons for bans.

Woooooops.

At 5/5/09 05:59 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/5/09 05:06 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/5/09 04:42 PM, poxpower wrote: No, I have actual arguments in other posts, none of which you ever challenged.

Because when you actually argue, you make some pretty good ones. But you're need for ad hominem, for calling people names and basically trolling is offensive and I wish you'd stop.

Trolling = trying to get a rise out of someone.
I'm not trolling.

You said earlier:

"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"

How is insulting people about their religious beliefs repeatedly not trolling? What is the reaction you expect to get from insulting them, if it isn't to get a rise out of them?

At 5/5/09 04:42 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/5/09 04:15 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

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

Lol Avi, took the words from my mouth.

No, I have actual arguments in other posts, none of which you ever challenged.
Go ahead, single out any points I've made in this thread or any other. Try it. I frickin' DARE you.

I'll humor you and play along yet this is pretty much why people don't respond well to you...because any kind of argument against what you say, you pretty much just brush it off n make little to no such response other than personal attacks in order to recoil and flee the subject.

How about this juicy one:

(drools) This place is kinda........JUICY 8)

"Atheism teaches nothing.
It's a state of non-belief. It doesn't say or teach anything."

Well that seems to be contradictory to what you n others have been saying for a long ass time now "atheism is science, science teaches theres no God, religion doesn't teach anything but violence, atheism is smart n religion is retarded". Those are only a fraction of what I've read in some of yours n other's posts,

In conclusion, you're just talking shit, you say atheism is the one true belief system to go by n that science leads to it and that is simply a lie.

Feel like taking on that?

I believe I just did.

or maybe this:

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

Insulting yourself now? You are alive right now because of your beliefs dude, you believe that food gives you energy and you trust, you have faith that your food hasn't been poisoned er whatever, you're calling yourself a moron and I find that fucking hilarious XD
You said that beliefs "CAN" be moronic, does that mean all beliefs but your own, if so then you're arrogant and just as ignorant as the people you seem to hate so much.

If you weren't a mod dude...seriously

What?

He's saying if you weren't a mod then your ass would be grass.

Also.... you fking nailed him Tan lol

At 5/5/09 05:59 PM, poxpower wrote: Trolling = trying to get a rise out of someone.
I'm not trolling.

Doesn't seem like it to me, seems very much like you're enjoying contiously going into any religion topic there is and proclaiming people's beliefs to be bullshit and how stupid they are. Sounds like what we tend to consider trolling and flameing and baiting to me.

You know what? I think some people should have a better grasp of these terms before they start citing them as reasons for bans.

Woooooops.

And I think some mods should set better examples for the forum then to constantly run around picking fights and calling everybody who disagrees with them stupid or full of shit.

If you want to start questioning each other's mod abilities, feel free to PM me or let's take it somewhere else that's out of the public view like we're supposed to do.

At 5/5/09 06:16 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

How is insulting people about their religious beliefs repeatedly not trolling?

Do I have to dedicate a really long post explaining what a troll is?
Really? Cause I'll do it.

What is the reaction you expect to get from insulting them, if it isn't to get a rise out of them?

For them to finally realize it doesn't matter if I call them stupid or not: they're still wrong.

At 5/5/09 06:28 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Doesn't seem like it to me, seems very much like you're enjoying contiously going into any religion topic there is and proclaiming people's beliefs to be bullshit and how stupid they are.

Yes I do enjoy that very much.
Woops I forgot the part where it's against the rules to point out people's stupidity or error.

And I think some mods should set better examples for the forum then to constantly run around picking fights and calling everybody who disagrees with them stupid or full of shit.

I've said it a billion times already; mods are not here to make users play nice. Mod are here to keep the spammers, the pirates and the criminally retarded away from the users who actually want to use the forums. We're not here to babysit people and give them the feeling that if they ever step out of line a little, we'll be right there to ban them while Stamper and Marc M. fill the portal with flashes about black people and gay teenagers.

That's the role model I want to be. I want users to know that I don't pull any punches, I speak my mind and I'm not a bastard who bans people just because they don't agree with me. In fact, they can feel free to tell me to fuck off and I won't do a damn thing about it.

At 5/5/09 07:11 PM, poxpower wrote:

For them to finally realize it doesn't matter if I call them stupid or not: they're still wrong.

And how do you figure that you have any right to say that anyone is wrong about anything hm?

You sound alot like me you know, I've had my bad times where i simply ignored everyone n claimed whatever anyone else did that I would be right in the end n that no one could do anything about it, but you know what, I grew up and I became a pretty good person, I don't judge people on what they believe n how they look n all that, I don't judge people at all unless its to protect my or other's own well being, or at least I try not to in any other case.

The thing that really buggs me is how you seem to claim that you have everything all figured out n that no one can tell you something you either don't know or wont care about n will ignore because its contradictory to your own beliefs.

I actually agree with some of the things you've said, in the part I quoted, lets say I'm the one who is right and you and everyone with your belief is totally wrong, how does that make you feel. are you going to go on another bitchspasm n ban me, its not going to do anything cuz you know I'm right XD

Well it seems retaliating doesn't do much good, which is why I really like to ignore other people too, people who have the stupid ideas like you, I can tolerate people who just say "hey, I don't believe in God." If that is all they say then its fine with me though I don't agree, but when somone makes sideways comments n insult people n say "I don't believe in God, try and prove me wrong, you can't, haha." That is when intelligence and reasoning goes out the window and that is where you stand my freind, you are probably beyond any logical sense n no amount of gunpowder is going to clear your head.

And so I'm simply going to agree with you sarcasticly and hope you will be an adult and apologize for all the bad things you've been saying, deal?

At 5/5/09 01:40 PM, poxpower wrote: Really no idea what you're talking about most of the time :O

This whole thing started by my distinction between a "purist definition" and a "definition in application." To this, you replied that there is only one definition - the definition I identify as purist.

The strength of defining atheism as a lack of belief in God, is that it is not an assertion. However, assertion is inherent to it, and in the case of belief-in-no-god it IS an assertion.

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. .

Maybe baggage was the wrong word to run with.

When I say baggage I'm talking about, "I lack a belief in God because, there is no evidence of God."

Not, "I lack a belief in God because, I hate everything and want to get away with murder." < That's shaggy's bullshit.

If you don't want to call that "baggage" that's fine, but the point remains.

I have no idea what you keep talking about.

Your line of reasoning, as far as I can tell by,"But never forget that atheism is about one thing and one thing only: no belief in God," is to imply that there is no difference between the atheism of a rock and the atheism of a human being.

This omission overgeneralizes atheism (and that generalization is excused by the fact that that is the extent of the definition of atheism).

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

Then why even make a point of throwing God into the equation? Why not ask, "what's the purpose of eating this ham sandwich?"

Your point was that there is no end to the questions. If you want to illustrate that point, it would serve best you to pick a step in the infinite regression that is not only relatively far along the regression, but also generally considered the end of the line.

The question, "what's the purpose of doing God's purpose?" is practically step one on the infinite regression, nor does it actually question God's purpose. Infact, this question could spur a tangent that never even gets to questioning God's purpose.

So I thought I'd help you out and provide you the question that actually makes the point I thought you were trying to illustrate by getting God involved.

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

Ever stop to think that maybe "ultimate purpose" then isn't meant to mean the unidentifiable extent of the infinite regression, but rather the most objective purpose within a given context? Cause it certainly wouldn't be a crime to call that an ultimate purpose.

At 5/5/09 08:30 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Your line of reasoning, as far as I can tell by,"But never forget that atheism is about one thing and one thing only: no belief in God," is to imply that there is no difference between the atheism of a rock and the atheism of a human being.

it entirely depends on the human,

there are differnt levels of atheism,

there are atheists who simply don't belive in god but don't deny he exsit's, but still know the concept of god ,

there are atheists who are atheists simply becuase theyve never heard of the concept of god ( aka the same kind of atheism rocks and animals have)

and there are atheists who say there is no god.

basicly if asked the question, "do you belive in god ?" and you awnser with anything other then "yes" (or equivilent ) your an atheist.

At 5/5/09 09:45 PM, fatape wrote:

Actually, I would say that there is not necessarily a difference between the atheism of a rock and the atheism of a human.

basicly if asked the question, "do you belive in god ?" and you awnser with anything other then "yes" (or equivilent ) your an atheist.

Unless they say they don't know, in which case they are agnostic.

At 5/5/09 09:45 PM, fatape wrote: there are atheists who simply don't belive in god but don't deny he exsit's, but still know the concept of god ,

Really? I've never heard of those. I'm not trying to be snipey or argumentative, just that my understanding of atheism was always you believe there is no god, no christian god, no pantheon of gods, nothing. This almost sounds like kind of an agnostic situation here.

and there are atheists who say there is no god.

Which is the standard definition, atheist=someone who believes there to be no god or theistic deity.

At 5/5/09 09:53 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 5/5/09 09:45 PM, fatape wrote:

Actually, I would say that there is not necessarily a difference between the atheism of a rock and the atheism of a human.

Hmm, yeah I agree. The concept itself though I know it may be flawed in some areas n can't be defined er described in one perfect line, which is why people have varrying beliefs n each individual finds their own way to try n do so, try as in exactly what the word insues, since we humans most likely lack the mental capacity to really imagine God as a whole, so they just look at everything around them, everything they can see hear ect, they associate God as all of those things as he created them n even in that is likely not even a fraction of what he really is , meaning all the things we know, will know, and may never know n probably will never know. I feel good about this paragraph 8)

basicly if asked the question, "do you belive in god ?" and you awnser with anything other then "yes" (or equivilent ) your an atheist.

Unless they say they don't know, in which case they are agnostic.

Right on, there are people who choose to not associate with a specific system of belief and there are those who do a /shrug to the question, I'm sure theres alot more variations of that but I dunno lol.

At 5/5/09 08:26 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: things

pssst, I'm not even reading your posts anymore.
I mean, I'm just doing you a favor by letting you know. You can stop trying now :,(

At 5/5/09 08:30 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

This whole thing started by my distinction between a "purist definition" and a "definition in application." To this, you replied that there is only one definition - the definition I identify as purist.

What's the other definition of atheism then?
:O

When I say baggage I'm talking about, "I lack a belief in God because, there is no evidence of God."

Isn't that a LACK of baggage, i.e. lack of evidence?
I don't need "baggage" to not believe in unicorns...so...

Still don't see where this is all going :o

Your line of reasoning, as far as I can tell by,"But never forget that atheism is about one thing and one thing only: no belief in God," is to imply that there is no difference between the atheism of a rock and the atheism of a human being.

Well as far as describing both of them as atheist, no, there's not :o
The main point being that you don't need to do a whole lot to be atheist. You can even be one without knowing.

So I thought I'd help you out and provide you the question that actually makes the point I thought you were trying to illustrate by getting God involved.

I got it involved to show that it's futile to invoke God as the final purpose of anything since his own purpose or the purpose of following his purpose ( etc etc ) can still be questioned forever and ever.

So yeah when people say "blabla atheists don't have a purpose, but I have one, since I believe in God" they're flat-out wrong :o

Ever stop to think that maybe "ultimate purpose" then isn't meant to mean the unidentifiable extent of the infinite regression, but rather the most objective purpose within a given context?

That's not how it's used in a religious context.
They are not talking about "why do we fill the pool with water" or "what should I do today?" they really think they've figured out what ultimately and objectively gives their existence a purpose.

aaaaaaaaaaanyway :D

At 5/5/09 10:26 PM, poxpower wrote: What's the other definition of atheism then?

This whole thing started by my distinction between a "purist definition" and a "definition in application."

What's the other definition of atheism then?

"purist definition" and a "definition in application."

Feel free to actually read what I post.

Isn't that a LACK of baggage, i.e. lack of evidence?

No. A lack of evidence is neither a lack of baggage, nor baggage.

Identifying a lack of evidence as a reason to lack a belief, however is chock full o' baggage.

I don't need "baggage" to not believe in unicorns...so...

And this is the whole problem of characterizing atheism-in-practice as atheism-as-purely-defined. You begin to think you're a rock.

Yeah. You do need baggage.

Posed the question "if unicorns," and responding "without unicorns," requires from any logical person a qualification of unicorns beyond their basic definition.

Well as far as describing both of them as atheist, no, there's not :o

Just a minute ago you said there's no baggage required for you to not believe in unicorns. The rock didn't make a conclusion. You did. Are you a rock or not?

The main point being that you don't need to do a whole lot to be atheist. You can even be one without knowing.

I know this. That's why I said... to you...

"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."

I got it involved to show that it's futile to invoke God as the final purpose of anything since his own purpose or the purpose of following his purpose ( etc etc ) can still be questioned forever and ever.

Actually pox...

You only invoked God to argue that "the purpose of following his purpose can still be questioned forever and ever."

Let's not rewrite history here. You asked...

"what is the purpose of doing God's purpose."

You didn't ask...

"what is the purpose of God's purpose."

So yeah when people say "blabla atheists don't have a purpose, but I have one, since I believe in God" they're flat-out wrong :o

Well... that was an awfully short rant.

That's not how it's used in a religious context.

Actually...

They are not talking about "why do we fill the pool with water" or "what should I do today?" they really think they've figured out what ultimately and objectively gives their existence a purpose.

Isn't that what I just said?

All I'm doing is identifying life/existence as the context.

At 5/5/09 10:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/5/09 10:26 PM, poxpower wrote: Isn't that a LACK of baggage, i.e. lack of evidence?

No. A lack of evidence is neither a lack of baggage, nor baggage.
Identifying a lack of evidence as a reason to lack a belief, however is chock full o' baggage.

I don't need "baggage" to not believe in unicorns...so...

Yeah. You do need baggage.
Just a minute ago you said there's no baggage
"But atheism comes with alittle baggage

Holy shit guys. stop saying baggage. It isn't working for either of you.

At 5/5/09 10:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

"purist definition" and a "definition in application."
Feel free to actually read what I post.

Yeah but what IS the definition?
As far as I can tell, it's only "One who doesn't believe in God".

What's the other?

Posed the question "if unicorns," and responding "without unicorns," requires from any logical person a qualification of unicorns beyond their basic definition.

what are...we... even talking about....?
hahaha

Just a minute ago you said there's no baggage required for you to not believe in unicorns. The rock didn't make a conclusion. You did. Are you a rock or not?

To be an atheist you need to make exactly 0 conclusions.
You can be one WITHOUT KNOWING IT. You don't need to reject the concept of God. Just NOT KNOWING ABOUT IT is enough :O.

You only invoked God to argue that "the purpose of following his purpose can still be questioned forever and ever."

Yeah.
This is what I JUST said :o

Let's not rewrite history here. You asked...

"what is the purpose of doing God's purpose."
"what is the purpose of God's purpose."

It's the same line of questioning. It's the exact same point :O

Isn't that what I just said?

I really have no idea what you said anymore.
haha

LUGGAGE

At 5/5/09 11:51 PM, poxpower wrote: What's the other?

"One who concludes (based off of some coherent logic) that it's acceptable/smart/valid/righteous to not believe in God."

what are...we... even talking about....?
hahaha

Alright... I'll do it again...

Posed the question "if unicorns" ...
( Me: Hey Pox do you believe in unicorns? )

... and responding, "without unicorns" ...
( Pox: No. )

...requires from any logical person...
(that's you)

...a qualification of unicorns beyond their basic definition.
( Pox: there is no evidence of them.)

So let's tie this all back in eh?

You said, "I don't need "baggage" to not believe in unicorns...so..."

By your usage of the term, you've familiarized yourself with the concept of a unicorn. You've concluded from the lack of evidence that you don't believe in unicorns (or that they don't exist). The baggage is every positive assertion in qualifying what constitutes evidence, what constitutes a unicorn.

You do need baggage. A rock doesn't. This is why it's disingenuous to characterize what you do as if you're a rock.

To be an atheist you need to make exactly 0 conclusions.
You can be one WITHOUT KNOWING IT. You don't need to reject the concept of God. Just NOT KNOWING ABOUT IT is enough :O.

At 5/5/09 10:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I know this. That's why I said... to you...

"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."

Maybe you have trouble understanding what I post because you clearly don't read it.

"what is the purpose of doing God's purpose."
"what is the purpose of God's purpose."

It's the same line of questioning. It's the exact same point :O

It's in the same line of questioning. It's not the same question. If they are exactly the same point, it would serve you just as well to have asked...

... instead of "what is the purpose of doing God's purpose"
... instead of "what is the purpose of God's purpose."

... "what is the purpose of my washing dishes?" (assuming the person here believes in God)

You were very clearly looking for a question that extended beyond God's purpose, not just a question in a line of questioning that eventually extends beyond God's purpose.

I really have no idea what you said anymore.

"Ever stop to think that maybe "ultimate purpose" then isn't meant to mean the unidentifiable extent of the infinite regression, but rather the most objective purpose within a given context?"

Life is a broad context, but it's still a context. The context is probably more accurately: God's creation.

You refuse to acknowledge the context because the purpose is sometimes referred to as ultimate (and generally implied as ultimate when not explicitly mentioned). It's fair to call a purpose ultimate when it's an objective constant for all life.

Maybe if I tie this back to the original statement that got us started on this tangent...

At 5/2/09 10:58 PM, poxpower wrote: The cool thing about atheism is that it has nothing to do with anything.

Atheism... when it's not derived... has nothing to do with anything.

In other words... atheism only has nothing to do with anything if the person who is atheist has never been exposed to the concept of God.

And this is completely disregarding the definition of atheism as a belief-in-no-God.

At 5/6/09 01:49 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: In other words... atheism only has nothing to do with anything if the person who is atheist has never been exposed to the concept of God.

I don't think that's true at all. You can be introduced to the idea of god, come to the conclusion that it's not worth considering anymore because of how ridiculous it is, and then continue as though it had never been considered.

And this is completely disregarding the definition of atheism as a belief-in-no-God.

At 5/6/09 02:19 AM, Tancrisism wrote: I don't think that's true at all. You can be introduced to the idea of god, come to the conclusion that it's not worth considering anymore because of how ridiculous it is, and then continue as though it had never been considered.

In your example...
1) the person has been exposed to the concept of God
2) their stance (atheism) was derived by finding the concept ridiculous

Do the Atheists on this forum like to debunk arguments made by other Atheists?

At 5/6/09 02:57 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/6/09 02:19 AM, Tancrisism wrote: I don't think that's true at all. You can be introduced to the idea of god, come to the conclusion that it's not worth considering anymore because of how ridiculous it is, and then continue as though it had never been considered.

In your example...
1) the person has been exposed to the concept of God
2) their stance (atheism) was derived by finding the concept ridiculous

But this person was an atheist before being exposed to the concept of god and remains an atheist after. The person's ideas and philosophies didn't change at all except for having been exposed to the idea. So, basically, nothing happened.

At 5/6/09 03:49 AM, Tancrisism wrote: But this person was an atheist before being exposed to the concept of god and remains an atheist after. The person's ideas and philosophies didn't change at all except for having been exposed to the idea.

1) He gained new philosophies (that the concept of God is ridiculous), by finding new application for philosophies he already held (whatever grounds upon which he considers the concept of God ridiculous) or may not have already held (but rather gained in process of finding God ridiculous).

2) His atheistic philosophy is now identified.

3) His conviction in an explicitly atheistic philosophy is likely strengthened.

4) His philosophy is now juxtaposed with an opposing one.

So, basically, nothing happened.

He switched from... "one without a belief in God" to "one who concludes that it's acceptable/smart/valid/righteous to not believe in God." Where there was no stance, there now is one.

At 5/5/09 09:53 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

Unless they say they don't know, in which case they are agnostic.

agnosticism and atheism refers to two differnt thing's,

atheism/theism = belife

agnosticism = knowledge

therefore you cannot be an an agnostic INSTEAD of an theist or atheist, and infact you can be both.

for example, I say god dosent exists but I don't know weither he dose or not , that makes me an agnostic atheist.

someone who say's I belife in god but I don't know he exsits is an agnostic theist.

people who claim to be just agnostic, (with all respect) don't know what agnosticism really mean's , and in fact are most always atheists. Atheism is a broad definition, "someone who dose not belife in gods or deities" and for some reason people have made it into to this tiny little subdivision which says " I don't belive in god and activly deny his exsitence". aka: strong atheism.

At 5/6/09 04:13 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/6/09 03:49 AM, Tancrisism wrote: But this person was an atheist before being exposed to the concept of god and remains an atheist after. The person's ideas and philosophies didn't change at all except for having been exposed to the idea.

1) He gained new philosophies (that the concept of God is ridiculous), by finding new application for philosophies he already held (whatever grounds upon which he considers the concept of God ridiculous) or may not have already held (but rather gained in process of finding God ridiculous).

2) His atheistic philosophy is now identified.

3) His conviction in an explicitly atheistic philosophy is likely strengthened.

4) His philosophy is now juxtaposed with an opposing one.

So, basically, nothing happened.

;;;;
These ideas about a person who decides they're an atheist can also be used by someone who decides " I am not an atheist ", but I do not believe the things being put foreward by this religion (or in my case ANY religion) are right.

There are some people who believe in the possiblity of a higher power(s) in the Cosmos. Doesn't have to be a 'god' as per the popular religious views of today.
IT would probably be easier to simply call oneself an atheist, but that wouldn't change the fact that , I may not know what God is about, but I know the feeling I get with any of the organized religious groups I've observed... & for the most part the dedicated members of these religous groups have serious mental issues.

But one only has to look at the extremeist side of any religious group to see the insanity peeking out at you. I would be happier to see humanity growing away from the religions of today, I feel that much of mans inhumanity against his fellow man is a direct result of differing religious views, as one group of "followers" attempts to forceably change the mind of others, or simply do away with them and their opposing views. Which then gets reciprocated.
I was raised within a religious family, some of them VERY religious, and decons etc. of the church. I've read much on different religious ideology & looked into meditation etc.
I see the problem not being of ,or from god(s), but simply & directly caused by the so called 'religious faithful' of -pick any religious group- that we are familiar with.

Also this isn't always about different religions...There are some very bad feelings between so called 'Christian' groups. Not too mention the savagery between different Muslim groups as well. For me its become very clear that any religion that tells you they are a religion of peace, or 'brotherhood of man' they are in fact in complete opposition to any concept that 'peace' & or actual 'brotherhood' is a part of.

At 5/5/09 10:26 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/5/09 08:26 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: things

pssst, I'm not even reading your posts anymore.
I mean, I'm just doing you a favor by letting you know. You can stop trying now :,(

Well thanks Pox for being so honest with me, I wonder how the hell you're still able to do that at this point 8P
Yeah I think I'm right, you ARE acting just like me.

At 5/6/09 03:36 AM, Brick-top wrote: Do the Atheists on this forum like to debunk arguments made by other Atheists?

Only for arrogant atheists like poxpower.

At 5/6/09 12:37 PM, Victory wrote: I think this kind of ignores the idea of God as beyond the constraints of this universe, and tries to pin it down with the same reasoning that we use for naturalism (God, by definition, being supernatural; beyond).

It's a self-defeating argument to say "something can't come out of nothing" since you have to either admit God can't come out of nothing or that something CAN INDEED come out of nothing.

And if something CAN come out of nothing, religious people have no evidence to show that it can only apply to God.