Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/8/09 07:12 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Not really. You can pretty much piss on what he said by changing 'believe' with 'accept'

And think about what happens if I do that to you.

At 4/8/09 12:40 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Well I would call that state of nature not atheism.

I explained at great length in my last contribution that they are one in the same.

At 4/8/09 07:32 PM, Bolo wrote:
I explained at great length in my last contribution that they are one in the same.

There aren't any other qualifiers for nature than not believing in god?

Really?

Really?

I would think that atheism is a mere quality of the state of nature. An aspect.

In fact according to your post you agree that they are not the same thing.

Last paragraph you say it's an aspect. Not the thing itself.

At 4/8/09 06:57 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Atheists believe theories that are proven.

Atheists are humans who form beliefs about the world based on vast reams of illogical and often contradictory pieces of information, like who they see on television more, and their genetics, and what their parents tell them. Like every human.

The two aspects of the world on which atheism is clearly right, evolution and contemporary miracles, aren't a major part of most people's faith. On the aspects which are important to most believers, like the nature of Jesus, the moral value of certain acts, how moral certain groups of people are, you most likely have unproven beliefs. Unless you're a very knowledgeable scholar.

At 4/8/09 07:34 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: There aren't any other qualifiers for nature than not believing in god?
I would think that atheism is a mere quality of the state of nature. An aspect.

Where did I say this? I said that atheism is a fundamental constant of nature, not the entire definition of it.

At 4/8/09 09:25 PM, Bolo wrote:
Where did I say this? I said that atheism is a fundamental constant of nature, not the entire definition of it.

Yes that's what I said. Alright then.

Out of curiosity, what would other aspects of a state of nature mindset be about?

At 4/5/09 12:08 AM, homor wrote:

At 4/4/09 11:56 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Atheism is NOT a religion.

it is in a sense.

No, it isn't. It's the belief of not believing, like agreeing to disagree. I think OP stated it well as a philosophy.

I don't know, OP. I really like seeing atheist/theist arguments. They make my day, because they generally follow the same track.

"I believe in god, so I feel the need to tell all of you that Jesus is awesome."

"I don't faggot. Get out of here with all your voodoo bullshit."

"ENJOY BURNING IN ETERNAL HELL!"

"At least I'll have fun above ground. More than I can say for you."

"I live for the afterlife"

"What afterlife? There's nothing under the ground but dirt."

This carries on for about an hour and a half before they all go to bed.

At 4/8/09 10:30 PM, Strategize wrote:

At 4/5/09 12:08 AM, homor wrote:

At 4/4/09 11:56 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Atheism is NOT a religion.

it is in a sense.

No, it isn't. It's the belief of not believing, like agreeing to disagree. I think OP stated it well as a philosophy.

I don't know, OP. I really like seeing atheist/theist arguments. They make my day, because they generally follow the same track.

"I believe in god, so I feel the need to tell all of you that Jesus is awesome."

OK...

"I don't faggot. Get out of here with all your voodoo bullshit."

Alright, its all good

"ENJOY BURNING IN ETERNAL HELL!"

Lame

"At least I'll have fun above ground. More than I can say for you."

Haha, from some I guess

"I live for the afterlife"

OK

"What afterlife? There's nothing under the ground but dirt."

Guess we'll all see soon enough.

This carries on for about an hour and a half before they all go to bed.

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm going to bed now. Read the whole thing from first post to last. Interesting but what's the point in posting anything anyways right? G'nite!!

Jack... you misinterpreted "constant of nature" to mean "the state of nature."

In the post in which you attempt to separate atheism and "the state of nature," you leave out the article so that it reads only "state of nature." Then Bolo assumed you meant it the same way he meant "a fundamental constant of nature," which would be the reasonable assumption.

So Bolo never said, "atheism is the state of nature," even when he said, "I explained at great length in my last contribution that they are one in the same."

... Because when he said that, he was saying that, "atheism is a state of nature."

(Though honestly. It'd still be acceptable english to identify an aspect of the state of nature and call it the state of nature.)

There's gotta be a joke in here somwhere..

"Atheism/Theism arguments are..."

... funny because once the definitions are meted, conceptualized scenarios are simply dismissed as slippery slope, speculation and/or some other form of inane justification as to why one belief is inherently better (if not simply and merely comparable) to the other.

It's like comparing two breeds of banana, and dismissing the individual qualities/flaws presented in the two sets of bananas in front of you. It's all about YOU, people.

Chiquita may be the better overall brand, but rot and spiders will always find their way into a percentage of the population. Life, and theistical study, requires the broader spectrum of analysis (breeds as well as specimens), and as such prevents a conclusive answer derived from isolated variables. Complexity and individualism prevent the critical mind from forming a concrete conclusion without sacrificing some other aspect of critical thought concerning a person's choice to adhere to a set of beliefs.

Yep.

At 4/9/09 10:13 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Yep.

And then come the people who argue that you can't make generalizations. :P

At 4/8/09 10:41 AM, thedo12 wrote: yeah thats exactly what I mean

Ok cool. So here's my issue.

"I actualy have lots of beliefs im just lacking one in god." Is disingenuous, along with stuff like "not collecting stamps is not a hobby."

In application, atheism is not its pure definition. So running back to the definition every time someone suggests atheism is a belief, is dishonest - not representative of what you and other atheists are doing - unless you're a toddler or a shut in (to reference my previous post).

Atheism is not "just lacking a belief in god," if you've any familiarity with the concept of a god. And in fact, you hold beliefs of a far closer relationship to the concept of a god than what-you-think-may-happen-when-you-press -a-key-on-a-keyboard.

Such is the power of words, Bach. My mistake.

At 4/8/09 09:25 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 4/8/09 07:34 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: There aren't any other qualifiers for nature than not believing in god?
I would think that atheism is a mere quality of the state of nature. An aspect.

Where did I say this? I said that atheism is a fundamental constant of nature, not the entire definition of it.

...because, you know, it's not like a natural being has ever invented a religion for itself, right?

At 4/9/09 10:58 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/9/09 10:13 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Yep.

And then come the people who argue that you can't make generalizations. :P

Say, didn't you say a bunch of stupid stuff in this thread already? I could make a generalization based on the limited responses you've given insofar, but that wouldn't be entirely true, so I wouldn't tread that far without qualifying the assertion :)

I think it's funny as fuck you generalized my opinion, some others may not see it that way though. Ya know?

At 4/8/09 06:57 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Atheists believe theories that are proven.

I'm sure theists believe in some theories that have been proven.

At 4/9/09 11:22 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Such is the power of words, Bach. My mistake.

I realize I sorta pinned it on you (sorry), but it's more the type of situation that irked me.

At 4/9/09 12:06 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Say, didn't you say a bunch of stupid stuff in this thread already? I could make a generalization based on the limited responses you've given insofar, but that wouldn't be entirely true, so I wouldn't tread that far without qualifying the assertion :)

The sass is bogging me down.

Is the question the (potential) generalization to which you refer in the next sentence?
What wouldn't be entirely true: the generalization? or that you could make a generalization based on what I've said?

Or is this all a protracted way to say, "I could call you a mean name, but I won't bother."?

I think it's funny as fuck you generalized my opinion

If you mean to identify irony here you should note my comment was referring to your argument, not my own. I'm well aware I generalize, and not arguing against it. I may have completely misunderstood your argument though.

some others may not see it that way though. Ya know?

Actually I don't know what you're getting at. Are you trying to say something like, "it doesn't bother me, but you look like an idiot to everyone else."?

At 4/8/09 07:24 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/8/09 07:12 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Not really. You can pretty much piss on what he said by changing 'believe' with 'accept'

And think about what happens if I do that to you.

I rarely use the term 'believe' in a serious discussion so feel free.

is it just me or is the guy who started this topic not even joining the discussion?

christianity made the image of god because they need to cope with god, and they can't cope with the image of god they have for themselves, instead they made an image of god recognized by nearly everybody. even by people that are probably atheist. what sense does it make that god is a plausible matter yet everything that's know about him is made and though of by man? it doesn't, all arguments that proof ''god'' is real just wants to proof that god can exist.

anyway, atheists and christians that have arguments just clash, it won't go nowhere.

At 4/9/09 03:04 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I rarely use the term 'believe' in a serious discussion so feel free.

I'm not going to explain the significance of that it should be obvious.

At 4/9/09 06:21 PM, DarkSytze wrote: christianity made the image of god because they need to cope with god, and they can't cope with the image of god they have for themselves, instead they made an image of god recognized by nearly everybody.

So it's not that they can't cope with God... it's that they can't cope with other people not believing in their god... and that's why they made God? What the hell?

even by people that are probably atheist.

Yes well... that's how words work. You define them, so that other people understand what you're talking about when you use the word.

what sense does it make that god is a plausible matter yet everything that's know about him is made and though of by man? it doesn't,

By this logic, any abstract is implausible - for instance: math.

all arguments that proof ''god'' is real just wants to proof that god can exist.

Yes, this is a flawed method according to the scientific method... but wouldn't it be more important that most of that proof is inconclusive or disproved?

At 4/9/09 07:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Yes well... that's how words work. You define them, so that other people understand what you're talking about when you use the word.

Gah. When you use THEM.

*stabs self in face*

At 4/9/09 07:31 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/9/09 07:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Yes well... that's how words work. You define them, so that other people understand what you're talking about when you use the word.

Gah. When you use THEM.

*stabs self in face*

My point is that it's easy to lose sight of the "overarching" goals each of these NG threads presents. Posters get caught up in their own image and demeanor, worrying after the fact they've posted as to what they've written.

For instance, you don't proof-read your posts here. It's not a big deal. I give my posts a once-through, so technically I'm the better poster in that respect. I need to qualify what I say with what I do. I really did laugh when you noted "the generalizers are here now, too"... because it tacitly acknowledged the generic point with something of a zinger had it gone over my head.

A lot of stuff goes over heads on NG.

At 4/9/09 07:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: So it's not that they can't cope with God... it's that they can't cope with other people not believing in their god... and that's why they made God? What the hell?

they needed an image for the 'being' that they created. honestly; what proof is there of god? none, what proof is there of that there isn't a god? none, but some people with some common sense can figure out whether what to believe or not. nobody has seen god, people have never heard god speak. everything that's 'done' by god is created by man, and people talk for god's behalf.

By this logic, any abstract is implausible - for instance: math.

who says math isn't made up by man? i'd name some big names like Pythagoras, but instead of the thinkers; religion isn't in the same league as something as math, belief systems and the science behind patterns and numeric calculations aren't linked.

Yes, this is a flawed method according to the scientific method... but wouldn't it be more important that most of that proof is inconclusive or disproved?

what proof is there of god? if there was proof that god would exist then surely there wouldn't be as much atheist and agnostics running on this world.

At 4/9/09 07:02 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/9/09 03:04 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I rarely use the term 'believe' in a serious discussion so feel free.

I'm not going to explain the significance of that it should be obvious.

I'm not going to explain the significance of your short and irrelevant posts.

At 4/10/09 12:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I'm not going to explain the significance of your short and irrelevant posts.

Really? I thought I was contributing. I guess I suck.

So. If you change where you say, "I don't believe, or I have no belief," to "I don't accept, have no acceptance," of that, does the meaning not change?

I was merely trying to illustrate that many religious people act like the word belief is the word accept, when it isn't.

Did you get that or were you just being mean to me.

because that's rude when I'm trying to converse and share my thoughts, when I easily could choose not to post at all

I completely agree, but some are actually stupid enough to think they can change minds.

At 4/10/09 04:00 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Did you get that or were you just being mean to me.

What you're saying is well known, well established and it's the latter. Examples of this can be shown in Creationist/Evolution debates. Generally a person supporting evolution will say 'accept/reject' and a opposer will say 'believe/disbelieve when referring to Evolution. I have seen examples of this working vice versa.

At 4/10/09 05:48 PM, Brick-top wrote:
What you're saying is well known, well established and it's the latter.

Why did you not say this before. I suppose I beat around the bush a bit.

My bad.