Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'm an Omnist.
Though if I followed any particular religion, it'd be Discordianism.

I switch between Christianity and No Relegion depending on my current situation. I can't be atheist because I always believe that there's some kind of God somewhere in the universe.

Right now I'm on No Relegion.

At 2/15/13 10:36 PM, Chrausner wrote: I switch between Christianity and No Relegion depending on my current situation. I can't be atheist because I always believe that there's some kind of God somewhere in the universe.

Right now I'm on No Relegion.

You should just choose a legion.

At 2/15/13 09:04 PM, T3XT wrote: You're half the reason I'm never becoming a Christian again.

pretty sure he's messing around.

At 2/15/13 08:47 PM, somespammer224 wrote: Proud christian, you should read your bibles, sirs, you're find all kinds of weird shit in there. Like, did you know jesus was a jew?

"Hey, hey, the holy fucking bible, son."

At 2/15/13 09:08 PM, Protagonist wrote: HOW TO BE A MODERN ATHEIST

So, you weren't being sarcastic before about concurring with Slint's suggestion that this thread is full of wannabe edgy atheists?

- Generalize

This is pretty hypocritical if you're serious, unless you're going to go with the sarcastic bit again.

Advances in our understanding of the nature, such as physics and biology, have lead to the falsification of claimed facts written in religious text. ( For example radioactive dating and the earth being only 6,000 years old ) And in my personal opinion, even discredit conceptual ones. (For example the Miller-Urey experiment
Religion has grown less and less appealing as young people become less attached to belief systems and more attached to educational values. I don't think it's very "edgy"
Although I agree. Atheists tend to take pride in being able to recognize how religious explanations tend to disambiguate the big questions, such as; How did life begin? How does the universe exist and where did it come from? With explanations of no scientific basis. They sometimes get the sense all religious people must not fully understand modern science and biology. This however is not true. It may seem understandably paradoxical to some, but a person can be aware of science and still maintain a faith in religious views. For example American physician-geneticist: Francis Collins

I honestly don't blame them though, most religious people attempt to persuade others with mathematically flawed logic, so it can be frustrating to discuses while trying to maintain logical reasoning.

Stereotyping and ignorance don't help ether side understand each other, some of you on this thread are too immature to even discuss this...

No religion. Just an atheist.

Sources?

At 2/15/13 11:20 PM, Protagonist wrote:

At 2/15/13 11:15 PM, Natick wrote:

At 2/15/13 11:06 PM, Protagonist wrote: How is it edgy? Also, you got a problem with me boyo? You try to call me out every thread.

Problem? No problem bigger than your clear problem with the atheist community, I can assure you.

Oh you, always trying to grab smoke. I clearly specified modern atheists, and even so I don't mean the whole of them. The majority, are exactly as I described.

And sadly, that majority tends to be very aggressive in their beliefs which has made me slightly biased againt Atheism as a whole.

At 2/15/13 11:36 PM, Ma1achi wrote:

At 2/15/13 11:34 PM, 372 wrote: Advances in our understanding of the nature, such as physics and biology, have lead to the falsification of claimed facts written in religious text. ( For example radioactive dating and the earth being only 6,000 years old )

radioactive dating is inaccurate and inconsistent

Any sources that prove this? Also I understand what Radiometric dating actually is and understand that some terrestrial events may lead to inaccurate dates; this does not discredit the method as a whole.

Sorry for the double post.

At 2/15/13 11:41 PM, Provoke wrote: Atheist
I know god is there, I just don't like the way he does business.

Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist.

So technically, you're not an atheist. you just don't practice any religion.

At 2/16/13 12:05 AM, Ma1achi wrote:

At 2/15/13 11:42 PM, 372 wrote: Also I understand what Radiometric dating actually is and understand that some terrestrial events may lead to inaccurate dates

Right, such as dating live penguins and results say 8000 yrs old or dating one part of a mammoth and it's 30k years old and the other part is 100k years old.

Can you give sources to this information?

Dating methods are basically assuming that the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.

Also yes, that is a basic concept of chemistry...

At 2/15/13 11:20 PM, Protagonist wrote: Oh you, always trying to grab smoke. I clearly specified modern atheists, and even so I don't mean the whole of them. The majority, are exactly as I described.

Right, some extremely vocal teenagers posting links on niche Internet sites totally represent the majority of a group that (especially if you include agnostic and other non-religious people) comprises a huge amount of the world's population.

Also I don't get what the distinction of "modern atheist" is supposed to mean. What's a non-modern atheist? It's only fairly recently that it's become socially acceptable for people to publicly self-identify as atheists (at least in America, and there are still plenty of places here where that isn't the case).

After a little bit of Googling, I think what you're actually talking about is specifically called "New Atheism" (this would be the aggressive Dawkins-y brand), the idea that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

So I guess I understand what you mean by "modern atheist," but again, it's clearly just a vocal minority and it would unfair to characterize most atheists that way based on them.

It's hard to define a term for what I believe in. I guess I'm something of a mix between an Agnostic and a Protestant Christian. I believe in an all-powerful nameless god that transcends human understanding and I do believe Jesus Christ had a very deep connection with that God and was in fact, God himself in human form and at the same time his son. I also believe the various books of the Bible are flawed, for it was written by humans who are, you know, heavily flawed. I do believe God had a hand in it's making however.

At 2/16/13 03:50 AM, HomicidialFrog wrote: It's hard to define a term for what I believe in.

Well, based on your post: you're a Christian. Agnosticism is uncertainty about the existence of God, not about all of the tenets and texts of your particular religion.

There are plenty of Christian denominations and schools of thought out there that deemphasize strict adherence to the Bible and accommodate more progressive views. I mean, most Christians lead pretty secular lives, don't they? It's just a matter of finding the one that's right for you (which may well be none of them).

At 2/16/13 03:58 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 2/16/13 03:50 AM, HomicidialFrog wrote: It's hard to define a term for what I believe in.

I mean, most Christians lead pretty secular lives, don't they? It's just a matter of finding the one that's right for you (which may well be none of them).

The only churches near me are Anglican or Catholic and both of those churches have a history of corruption and aren't too tolerant of people questioning their rigid dogmas, so I'll stay away from other Christians IRL.

Im an atheist and as far as Im concerned people can think what the hell they want as long as they don't try to push any of their beliefs or doctorines on sane people.

I don't like religous disscusion they never achieve anything accept giving me some new ulcers.

And no english is not my first language, fuck grammar!

hail satan prince of darkness

--supergandhi64

GOD IS DEAD
AND NO ONE CARES
IF THERE IS A HELL
I'LL SEE YOU THERE

agnostics are that guy you know who doesn't really have any friends but everyone talks shit about people with him while he listens and says "mhm"

I suppose agnostic would be the closest, though I very much like the idea of Deism as well.

I follow the way Sheogorath.

At 2/16/13 09:33 AM, MentalMyles wrote: Agnostic

Technically, Atheism IS a religion as they would beleive in science (in other words, have faith in science), which is still theory at the end of the day

I heard a pretty good saying recently.

If atheism is a religion, then "off" is a TV channel.

People don't blindly follow any scientific theory in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's false. They reevaluate and change their thinking. Science isn't dogmatic and there is no believing in it, just considering what does and does not make sense and what can be proven. I don't have faith in electronics and modern medicine. I use them.