Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/7/14 11:52 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Yeah, no. That's called 'will to ignorance'. It's not because it's incompatible, simply because the people that practice the belief of god can't even prove it themselves, which is why faith is the whore that surrogates everybody's ignorance of their own practices.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, next time you wish to ramble about "atheist" or "atheism" being unnecessary labels, do keep in mind that you're assuming this from a biased perspective.

At 2/7/14 11:52 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 2/7/14 11:43 PM, Expectrum wrote: The is no evidence because it is simply incompatible with the scientific standards of it. Just because it doesn't fit that particular system or frame of study doesn't mean it cannot have validity in another scope.

Basically, you cannot tackle God from that angle. Either you believe he/she/it exists or you don't, and it just happens that believing he/she/it exists is the widely accepted notion.

Yeah, no. That's called 'will to ignorance'. It's not because it's incompatible, simply because the people that practice the belief of god can't even prove it themselves, which is why faith is the whore that surrogates everybody's ignorance of their own practices.

Why can't you express yourself in a more dignified and respectful manner? Telling people they're ignorant for not believing as you do reeks of arrogance and dogmatism.

At 2/7/14 11:57 PM, Expectrum wrote: That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, next time you wish to ramble about "atheist" or "atheism" being unnecessary labels, do keep in mind that you're assuming this from a biased perspective.

It's not my opinion, it's a statement based off of facts and logic; something you don't have apparently. atheism isn't a belief system; creationism is. If you can't put two and two together, which I am not surprised, since you think you can put nothing and nothing together, then you're solely ignorant and irresponsible to be so willing about it. I have said all that I needed to say. I'm done with your denial and "well, that's your opinion. what you think is not what i think, so ur wrongz".

At 2/8/14 12:22 AM, Insanctuary wrote:
It's not my opinion, it's a statement based off of facts and logic; something you don't have apparently. atheism isn't a belief system; creationism is. If you can't put two and two together, which I am not surprised, since you think you can put nothing and nothing together, then you're solely ignorant and irresponsible to be so willing about it. I have said all that I needed to say. I'm done with your denial and "well, that's your opinion. what you think is not what i think, so ur wrongz".

Regardless of whether you're sharing facts or opinions, you seem to always state things as incontrovertibly true. That's dogmatic isn't it?

Atheism is not a belief. That is like saying not riding a bike is a hobby.

At 2/8/14 01:27 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Atheism is not a belief. That is like saying not riding a bike is a hobby.

Excuse me? Do I have some shit in my eyes or am I reading that correctly?

At 2/8/14 12:22 AM, Insanctuary wrote: "well, that's your opinion. what you think is not what i think, so ur wrongz".

More like "well, that's your opinion. just accept that you might be wrong".

I understand, though. Your ego and arrogance wouldn't be able to withstand the possibility of not being absolutely right about your beliefs, much like a religious person won't take a blow to their faith.

Carry on.

At 2/8/14 01:33 AM, Sword-of-Kings wrote:

At 2/8/14 01:27 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Atheism is not a belief. That is like saying not riding a bike is a hobby.

Excuse me? Do I have some shit in my eyes or am I reading that correctly?

No, what he said is pretty much right.

I think I've suggested that myself, but I don't think that would happen. I mean, it's the same thing with dead religions. They died out, but that doesn't mean there are more people becoming part of them. Then again, there would be no religion in this case. Of course, several things that are considered BS by a lot of people like conspiracy theories die out, I think.

At 2/8/14 08:13 AM, Expectrum wrote: I understand, though. Your ego and arrogance wouldn't be able to withstand the possibility of not being absolutely right about your beliefs, much like a religious person won't take a blow to their faith.

Carry on.

Uh, no. I might of been frustrated the other day, but that wasn't about any of this. I'm just telling you guys like it is: how 'atheists' do not have a belief system; that not believing in a god isn't a position, since the people making the claim aren't the 'atheists'. Disagreeing with somebody else's claims doesn't mean the onus is your responsibility, as long as the claimer hasn't any evidence to prove their claim. It's very simple of a mutual exchange between ideas and theories. If you make a claim, you have to demonstrate the claim's validity; if not, then the claim has no more weight than a child's over-reactive imagination. It's also evident that the people making the claim are well aware they have no evidence, and they rest it all on faith. That's not going to get you anywhere in this world past your heart. The real world doesn't care about your feelings or your imaginary friends. You need proof. You need evidence. Faith is the enemy of reason, you can go on about how it's not, and talk about how science allegedly uses faith, when science can create computers, while you guys do nothing, then go ahead.

At 2/8/14 01:14 AM, cheezz wrote: Regardless of whether you're sharing facts or opinions, you seem to always state things as incontrovertibly true. That's dogmatic isn't it?

Well, no. I'd have to push it on people. Simply because I think its utterly atrocious to use terms like 'atheist'. To have such a black and white view about them (throughout this entire thread you've went to the edge to reinforce your ideas of atheism, when you're just simply wrong about what makes an atheist - that atheists do not have a belief system (ideological or not), like you keep thinking for no apparent reason). Instead of calling me dogmatic, why don't you look at yourself, since you are the one that evidently doesn't understand what they are talking about, and have shown enough evidence to entail that they are living a world inside their head that is nothing like the world we all currently live in.

Just wanna say I don't really know what Insanctuary's been going on about in this thread because I tend to ignore him, so I got nothing to do with that conversation.

At 2/6/14 07:23 PM, Otto wrote: Well

no

for example, majority atheists exists in several countries already. You are clearly American, I'm so sorry.

Not true, pretty much no country or nation has atheism as majority.

At 2/8/14 01:10 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Just wanna say I don't really know what Insanctuary's been going on about in this thread because I tend to ignore him, so I got nothing to do with that conversation.

Indeed, if anyone is reading Insanctuary and saying 'all atheists / religious people are douches just like Insanctuary' then they're wrong. Insanctuary is a special snowflake.

At 2/8/14 01:36 PM, Nor wrote:

At 2/6/14 07:23 PM, Otto wrote: Well

no

for example, majority atheists exists in several countries already. You are clearly American, I'm so sorry.

Not true, pretty much no country or nation has atheism as majority.

Google could prevent you from making mistakes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Lest you forget, a lot of the former Communist world was practically forced to be atheist for many decades. In East Asia the majority of people are atheist; Buddhists can be atheists too

Anyway just skim through the wiki, there's some European places like Germany and the Czech Republic where atheism is the majority

At 2/7/14 11:14 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 2/7/14 11:09 PM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: I always thought there was only 1 kind of atheist which is the kind that don't believe in God,but I belive in some conspiracys aswell

This then takes us back to the point that we didn't invent terms for people that disagree with any other belief, which are as popular, if not more popular than religion. Why is 'atheist' such an exception?

What other topic/subject is more common than God/religion ? It is the ONE thing we all have an opinion on cause God relates to us all.

Pleases elaborate

At 2/8/14 03:32 PM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: What other topic/subject is more common than God/religion ? It is the ONE thing we all have an opinion on cause God relates to us all.

Pleases elaborate

breathing
eating
defecation
sleeping
fucking
talking
thinking
you need to be able to do all the above before you can even contemplate god

At 2/8/14 04:06 PM, Earfetish wrote: breathing
eating
defecation
sleeping
fucking
talking
thinking
you need to be able to do all the above before you can even contemplate god

Fucking: Doing it with a pretty girl
Breathing: The result of fast moment
Eating: Gives you a blowjob
Talking: Yelling "Oh God"
Sleeping: What's happens when your done.
Thinking: What you are dreaming about
Defecation: The fetish you are dreaming about.

This is how you interpret. :D

At 2/8/14 04:06 PM, Earfetish wrote:

\: breathing

eating
defecation
sleeping
fucking
talking
thinking
you need to be able to do all the above before you can even contemplate god

He is obviously talking about topics beyond our basic needs, smarty pants.

At 2/6/14 05:00 PM, Byber wrote: Would all atheists become Christians because atheists would no longer be different from everyone else and feel smarter than everyone

yes can you go away now ps burn the crosses

At 2/8/14 04:06 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 2/8/14 03:32 PM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: What other topic/subject is more common than God/religion ? It is the ONE thing we all have an opinion on cause God relates to us all.

Pleases elaborate

breathing
eating
defecation
sleeping
fucking
talking
thinking
you need to be able to do all the above before you can even contemplate god

Ok I got you, but none of those really require extra depth to examine in terms of being able to relate and understand them maybe except for thinking and talking; its not necceasy to discuss defecating,breathing,or your love life for example;unless that is ones desire,but back to Insancts idea of there being no terms for other anti-whatevers you DO have terms like anti-social,asexual, etc. I think he was implying that "athesism" has a broader meaning other than a. lack of belife in God which I did not understand since "athesism" has a direct definition

ignore what Insanctuary says or you get sucked into the wormhole

At 2/8/14 04:32 PM, Earfetish wrote: ignore what Insanctuary says or you get sucked into the wormhole

What if I like getting sucked?

At 2/8/14 03:32 PM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: Pleases elaborate

Nightmares relate to us all. Every child is afraid of the dark at one point or another. Open your eyes and realize that the concept of god isn't even close to being the biggest ordeal. The human mind is certainly more mysterious.

At 2/8/14 05:34 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Nightmares relate to us all. Every child is afraid of the dark at one point or another. Open your eyes and realize that the concept of god isn't even close to being the biggest ordeal. The human mind is certainly more mysterious.

At 2/8/14 12:44 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Well, no. I'd have to push it on people. Simply because I think its utterly atrocious to use terms like 'atheist'. To have such a black and white view about them (throughout this entire thread you've went to the edge to reinforce your ideas of atheism, when you're just simply wrong about what makes an atheist - that atheists do not have a belief system (ideological or not), like you keep thinking for no apparent reason). Instead of calling me dogmatic, why don't you look at yourself, since you are the one that evidently doesn't understand what they are talking about, and have shown enough evidence to entail that they are living a world inside their head that is nothing like the world we all currently live in.

You can't turn the dogma label around me. You've deflected, you obfuscated, gotten defensive and thrown petty insults. You've done anything but consider another viewpoint. This is merely a discussion, it's not a contest.

I want you to answer these simple questions. Feel free to give your reasons why.

In recent years there has been a movement towards atheism. Agree or disagree?

A movement with books, blogs, youtube videos, etc. making the argument for atheism. Agree or disagree?

Usually accompanied with arguments for science advocacy and arguments against religious viewpoints. Agree or disagree?

There are self-identified atheists who espouse what's found in these books and blogs, etc.. Agree or disagree?

And by espousing to such things could constitute as a system of belief that you could call atheism. Agree or disagree?

At 2/8/14 07:34 PM, cheezz wrote: I want you to answer these simple questions. Feel free to give your reasons why.

Alright.

In recent years there has been a movement towards atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. You can't have a movement about not agreeing with somebody else's claims.

A movement with books, blogs, youtube videos, etc. making the argument for atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. This is not a movement, and it's people with reasons why they cannot believe in a god. There are plenty of people that do not agree with the claim, and they do not do any of the above, or below, and they are considered 'atheist' by your logic.

Usually accompanied with arguments for science advocacy and arguments against religious viewpoints. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. These are people that decided to do this, whether they are atheist, agnostic (yes, there are agnostics that argue against god), or a transvestite monkey boy that recently survived a car crash. It's not because they are atheists. It's because they are people that have reasons and want to voice that reason.

There are self-identified atheists who espouse what's found in these books and blogs, etc.. Agree or disagree?

Self-identified to an untrained eye. What makes them an atheist? It's not because they argue about god; it's because they disagree with the claim of god. Whatever these people are doing is an entirely irrelevant circumstance. If all 'atheists' did what you say they did, I wouldn't be arguing about the term.

And by espousing to such things could constitute as a system of belief that you could call atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. Reading a science book doesn't make you an atheist. Taking science over religion doesn't make you an atheist. Reading books written by scientists does not make you an atheist. Hatred towards religion does not make you an atheist. What makes one an atheist is basically "you don't agree that god exists, therefore atheist". It's basically the product of segregation, like "Ooh, that's an atheist. You don't want to talk to that person, they haven't accepted god inside their heart." Very few really ask themselves what makes an atheist. So again, your idea of an atheist is brain-washed, black and white, biased; one big happy obfuscation.

@Insanctuary:

So there's not a movement towards atheism because it's about 'not agreeing'? But 'not agreeing' has sort of been an integral part of every movement that's ever been. I don't why I bothered, I never had a chance at having a fair discussion and getting honest answers from you. Only denials.

At 2/8/14 04:32 PM, Earfetish wrote: ignore what Insanctuary says or you get sucked into the wormhole

I should've listened sooner.

At 2/6/14 09:46 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 2/6/14 09:40 PM, Slint wrote: Christianity IS observation science, the facts are in the bible stupid, just look at it, they're written there like in your "magic science" books except in your magic science books it all began with an explosion like a fucking Michael Bay movie which all magic science adepts like because it requires zero thought.

Please, let the professionals handle this.

Where my boy @Rahmemhotep at?

I had a power out for almost a week.

Anyway, while crude, hilarious and probably a joke, I think Slint handled that well.

At 2/8/14 07:57 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 2/8/14 07:34 PM, cheezz wrote: I want you to answer these simple questions. Feel free to give your reasons why.

Alright.

In recent years there has been a movement towards atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. You can't have a movement about not agreeing with somebody else's claims.

That's beyond autistic. A movement is ALL ABOUT a group of people banding together because they are not agreeing with somebody's else's claims.

A movement with books, blogs, youtube videos, etc. making the argument for atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. This is not a movement, and it's people with reasons why they cannot believe in a god. There are plenty of people that do not agree with the claim, and they do not do any of the above, or below, and they are considered 'atheist' by your logic.

http://www.atheists.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

There are more I didn't list. It was as simple as a google search you dumbass.

Usually accompanied with arguments for science advocacy and arguments against religious viewpoints. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. These are people that decided to do this, whether they are atheist, agnostic (yes, there are agnostics that argue against god), or a transvestite monkey boy that recently survived a car crash. It's not because they are atheists. It's because they are people that have reasons and want to voice that reason.

Are you purposefully ignoring reality? All I'm seeing here is you grasping at straw, looking like a douche. Doesn't anyone fucking READ ANYTHING ANYMORE?!

There are self-identified atheists who espouse what's found in these books and blogs, etc.. Agree or disagree?

Self-identified to an untrained eye. What makes them an atheist? It's not because they argue about god; it's because they disagree with the claim of god. Whatever these people are doing is an entirely irrelevant circumstance. If all 'atheists' did what you say they did, I wouldn't be arguing about the term.

And by espousing to such things could constitute as a system of belief that you could call atheism. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. Reading a science book doesn't make you an atheist. Taking science over religion doesn't make you an atheist. Reading books written by scientists does not make you an atheist. Hatred towards religion does not make you an atheist. What makes one an atheist is basically "you don't agree that god exists, therefore atheist". It's basically the product of segregation, like "Ooh, that's an atheist. You don't want to talk to that person, they haven't accepted god inside their heart." Very few really ask themselves what makes an atheist. So again, your idea of an atheist is brain-washed, black and white, biased; one big happy obfuscation.

I honestly didn't even bother with the rest of this shit. You can't talk sense to a person who willingly ignores facts, and has an agenda regardless of other good points being made.

I'm an atheist, but if someone showed me some pretty damn good proof, I wouldn't pretend that it didn't exist. I would make sure the "proof" didn't have any chinks in the armor, but I would except it if it turned out to make sense.

And you know, the more reading I do, and discoveries I make leads me to believe that if anything, we had alien beings, or inter-dimensional being visit us long ago. Maybe that might account for "god." but I've also read that most of these ancient societies simply looked up, and took a belief system from the stars themselves. I've also read of "miracles" but I highly doubt they were caused for the reasons people think they were caused. There are always going to be scam artists. A statue bleeding bloody tears has many explanations. Most obviously, that someone DID it to the statue on purpose. Not God.

The only other point I want to add to this conversation is that no matter if everyone is Christian, atheist or something else, there will always be zealotry and dogmatism. Some people are just more inclined to believe more deeply than others I think. Even being atheist doesn't guarantee that you won't have a limited world view due to beliefs and convictions.