Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/12/07 12:05 PM, Me-Patch wrote: Sounds to me like Athiest does mean a firm disbelief in God. If it didn't originaly it does now, and thats why we have the word agnostic. And if you can prove that those two words mean the same thing than we need another word.

I believe Douglas Adams used the term "radical atheist" in order to avoid confusion.

In any case, that's what makes these arguments fun: Theists constantly attacking statements that atheists aren't making, and atheists floundering around rather than pointing out that there's been a failure to communicate properly.

At 6/12/07 12:10 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/12/07 12:05 PM, Me-Patch wrote: Sounds to me like Athiest does mean a firm disbelief in God. If it didn't originaly it does now, and thats why we have the word agnostic. And if you can prove that those two words mean the same thing than we need another word.

I believe Douglas Adams used the term "radical atheist" in order to avoid confusion.

Who's that the author of watership down.

In any case, that's what makes these arguments fun: Theists constantly attacking statements that atheists aren't making, and atheists floundering around rather than pointing out that there's been a failure to communicate properly.

Id'e say both sides love to argue phantoms on this forum. Thread makers are always lashing out at the supposed infringment upon their views thats taking place inside of their heads.

At 6/11/07 04:33 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: How about we all agree that all people need something to believe in.

I believe I'm going to have another Beer ! -I have today off yay!

Even if that be that something doesn't exist.

Whether a supreme being exists or not. Does not take away that many so called religious leaders use their positions to foster what 'they believe' to be the way the followers of that religious group behave.
That is why I am so against organized religions.

I truely believe that the values that treat every human equally, no matter what gender, nationality, race, religion or sexuality is what is truely important.

Any religion that deviates, in any way from this, is wrong.
Any political party or group that attempts to treat anyone, as a lesser citizen ,should be outlawed on this planet.

If we are all gods children, anyone who puts themselves above another, or as better than someone else, must be wrong .
It then follows that if any discrimination to any of the above named groups is even considered by a religious group, whether leaders or members, then those views are fundamentally mistaken.

Just because I don't believe that any major religion is anywhere near my ideas, does not mean I do not believe in god.

Like everyone else who is truthful to themselves, I Don't know .
But I have been taught & brought up in a religious family ( my mom & grandparents ,aunts, uncles) and from that start & research on my own, I cannot agree with what these religions put forward.

I'm not saying everything about any religion is wrong, the fact a religion is in many ways doing good for many people, isn't good enough. If your in any way conflicting with anyone based on gender, nationality, race, religion or sexuality.

So here are a small sample of why organised religions, to me , are not worth the effort.
<for example muslim>, attacking all progressive , modern values & attempting to put/keep womans rights back into the middle ages. That act alone makes me want nothing to do with this religion. Not that I in anyway condone terrorist tactics, but that is too often the only subject that comes up when Muslim's are mentioned.

<a s an example>Catholic's, this religious group tries to put forward that the Pope is somehow divinely ordained. -c'mon, he's voted into position by a group of his peer's. Saying that vote is divine is like saying God elects the president of the U.S. Their views on birth control, marriage are archaic as well, just like the old boys clubs in the 1700's ,you know women as chattel.

<a nother example> christians, being outraged (my mother among them) that gay people should have marriage rights & the right to become church leaders (priests) themselves. these are predjudicial views that condemns someone for no logical reason.
Being against someone being gay is as stupid as being against someone being hetro . We are all individuals, if we all treated each other the way we wish to be treated, what a different place this world would be.

So I close with, I am not an atheist, although I have been labeled with that here on Newgrounds & in the real world as well. I'm not a woman, gay , or a visible minority (as they say here in sticksville ,Canada)
To the religious newground members, I live in sin (I'm living and sexing it up) with my girlfriend. & we are actively practicing birth control, and as many of the karma sutra positions as we can bend ourselves into.
We both refuse to bend to our families views & displeasure at discarding our religious upbringing -she Catholic , me Protestant from United Church.
Does that truely make me a bad person?

I'm just someone who's enjoying my life, but still curious about possible answers to these really not so important questions about god.

Do you know why it is so unimportant right now .
Cause one way or the other, we're all going to find out one day.
I can wait.
and hope for a better world by continuing to be a good person.
have a nice day.

At 6/12/07 12:02 PM, Elfer wrote: I think there's a lot of confusion as to what atheist actually means.

It doesn't necessarily mean that a person believes that there is no god, it just means that they don't believe in a god (i.e. God may exist, but they don't have faith in it).

How many atheists actually say "of course there could be a God... I just don't believe in any"? For them to seriously entertain the possibility that diety exists would be be going against the very reasons they chose atheism in the first place.

Then, later on, the term "agnostic" was created, which further muddled things because now everyone thinks that all atheists firmly deny the existence of any sort of god.

The term 'agnostic' wasn't created any later than 'athiest'.

I believe it's the exact same reason some religious guy would talk about their religion.

Christians have organizations that are made so that people who want to convert to Christianity can do so. The same goes with Islam. That's why the belief spreads

Judaism does not have as great as an incentive to do this, therefore it does not spread.

Atheism does not have an organization that converts you from religiou to Atheist because Atheism is an irreligious philosophical view, no conversion process is needed. Therefore, it is up to the Atheists themselves to try to "convert" someone through persuasive speaking.

At 6/12/07 12:59 PM, EKublai wrote: Christians have organizations that are made so that people who want to convert to Christianity can do so. The same goes with Islam. That's why the belief spreads
Judaism does not have as great as an incentive to do this, therefore it does not spread.

Those just have to do with the fact that early Christians and Muslims were exhorted to go out and actively spread their religion to all people whereas Judaism never had that aspect in it to begin with.

At 6/12/07 12:41 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 6/12/07 12:02 PM, Elfer wrote: I think there's a lot of confusion as to what atheist actually means.

It doesn't necessarily mean that a person believes that there is no god, it just means that they don't believe in a god (i.e. God may exist, but they don't have faith in it).

How many atheists actually say "of course there could be a God... I just don't believe in any"? For them to seriously entertain the possibility that diety exists would be be going against the very reasons they chose atheism in the first place.

Count me in! I believe that the question of God is irrelevant. Much in the same way that the question "are there icebears on the south pole?" is irrelevant to a house mite. Or less metaphorically: I believe a God is a fully transcendent concept and therefore irrelevant to our reality.

At 6/12/07 12:41 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: The term 'agnostic' wasn't created any later than 'athiest'.

I think it was, actually. I did some quick wikipedia research and on the Atheism page it says:

"In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587."

And on the Agnosticism page it says:

""Agnostic" was introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to describe his philosophy which rejects Gnosticism, by which he meant not simply the early 1st millennium religious group, but all claims to occult or mystical knowledge"

I know we have to be wary when it comes to wikpedia research but I believe these have been properly sourced on their respective pages.

So it sounds like we did get the term "atheism" before the term "agnosticism". Correct me if I'm wrong though.

At 6/12/07 12:02 PM, Elfer wrote: I think there's a lot of confusion as to what atheist actually means.

It doesn't necessarily mean that a person believes that there is no god, it just means that they don't believe in a god (i.e. God may exist, but they don't have faith in it).

Then, later on, the term "agnostic" was created, which further muddled things because now everyone thinks that all atheists firmly deny the existence of any sort of god.

Oh well!

Yeah, Elfer is right here. There is something called weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism simply means that you lack a belief in a God(s). Strong atheism means you positively believe there is no God(s). The very greater majority of atheist are weak atheist.

What people seem to do is take the most extreme of atheist and judge everybody else like them. This is exactly the same as taking suicide bombers and saying that everybody who believes in God is like them.

You may find a lot of atheist assholes on the net, like any other group. But, when you look at atheist as a whole, you'll see that they are actually a quite gentle people. You don't see atheist massing hate campaigns with posters and megaphones shouting "Darwin hates fags!". You don't see suicide bomber atheist targeting civilians. You don't see doctors being killed by atheist for doing their job.

These actions are not the doing of one group of people, but sick individuals who happen to be in the group. A Christian killing somebody does not make all Christians murderers. A atheist being an asshole on the net does not make all atheists assholes. It is as simple as that, yet a lot of people here seem to miss that point.

At 6/12/07 12:41 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: How many atheists actually say "of course there could be a God... I just don't believe in any"?

Almost all of them.

At 6/12/07 01:08 PM, Togukawa wrote: Count me in! I believe that the question of God is irrelevant. Much in the same way that the question "are there icebears on the south pole?" is irrelevant to a house mite. Or less metaphorically: I believe a God is a fully transcendent concept and therefore irrelevant to our reality.

This makes since. I support this because it makes since.

At 6/12/07 12:26 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

<a nother example> christians, being outraged (my mother among them) that gay people should have marriage rights & the right to become church leaders (priests) themselves. these are predjudicial views that condemns someone for no logical reason.

Why not?

Heh, the most interesting thing about the homosexuality topic is how no one (because everyone seems to have a sensitivity issue) will ever acknowledge that something might be wrong.

First, someone will say that people choose to be a homosexual. Of course, everyone will deny this and claim that they are born that way. And the whole problem with that is, if they are truely born that way, then there is something mentally or hormonally wrong with that person.

And then what do they say? "Well, they're not hurting anyone". And it's true!
And what else do they say? "Some animals do it, so it's normal". Yes, that makes perfect sense. Because a few animals go against the laws of biology and nature, it makes it "normal"... right...

And then, there is the most interesting topic I've ever read on this forum. I can't remember what it was called, but in it was an article how scientists might have and could possibley remove the gay gene. But what I found truely fascinating was that the same people who are for abortion rights, were against making a fetus to grow up 'not gay'.

Ah, yes. The "homosexual" topic. Why does no one wish to talk about it? Because everyone is too sensitive.

However, if you are homosexual and someone starts mistreating you in some way, then you should have full right to beat the shit out of that person.

At 6/12/07 02:39 PM, Memorize wrote: But what I found truely fascinating was that the same people who are for abortion rights, were against making a fetus to grow up 'not gay'.

Without a gay fetus who will make our designer pants?

At 6/12/07 02:39 PM, Memorize wrote: First, someone will say that people choose to be a homosexual. Of course, everyone will deny this and claim that they are born that way. And the whole problem with that is, if they are truely born that way, then there is something mentally or hormonally wrong with that person.

It's a genetic, biological mutation, a la being born with six toes. Did they choose to have six toes? Should they be condemned by society for having six toes?

And then what do they say? "Well, they're not hurting anyone". And it's true!

Okay, then. If they don't hurt anyone, why are you arguing?

And then, there is the most interesting topic I've ever read on this forum. I can't remember what it was called, but in it was an article how scientists might have and could possibley remove the gay gene. But what I found truely fascinating was that the same people who are for abortion rights, were against making a fetus to grow up 'not gay'.

Because it isn't a problem. If a baby will ruin a mother's life, having an abortion or not has a huge effect on her life. If a mother does want to have a baby, whether or not it turns out gay doesn't.

Ah, yes. The "homosexual" topic. Why does no one wish to talk about it? Because everyone is too sensitive.

We're talking about it right now.

However, if you are homosexual and someone starts mistreating you in some way, then you should have full right to beat the shit out of that person.

......I'm confused as to your stance on this "issue."

At 6/12/07 01:43 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: So it sounds like we did get the term "atheism" before the term "agnosticism". Correct me if I'm wrong though.

It all goes back to ancient Greek. 'theos' = 'God' and 'gnosi' = 'knowledge' or 'to know'. Negate them and you get 'atheos' = 'no-God' and 'agnosi' = 'no-knowledge' or 'to not know'.

At 6/12/07 01:51 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/12/07 12:41 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: How many atheists actually say "of course there could be a God... I just don't believe in any"?

Almost all of them.

Alrighty, if'n you say so. At least they're keeping their options open then. :P

At 6/12/07 03:21 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/11/07 07:30 AM, Drakim wrote: It is pretty easy actually. It is like how people who are against something often debate about the subject. How can you not see this?

Because no matter how much you debate you're never going to prove any side wrong, as opposed to a legitimate debate topic?

What the heck are you talking about? You should read my post again. I was talking about how being AGAINST something doesn't mean that you won't be in debates about it. Infact, it is very likely you will be. As in, atheist talks much about religion. It has nothing to do with proving somebody wrong or anything like you suggest. oO

At 6/12/07 02:39 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/12/07 12:26 PM, morefngdbs wrote: <a nother example> christians, being outraged (my mother among them) that gay people should have marriage rights & the right to become church leaders (priests) themselves. these are predjudicial views that condemns someone for no logical reason.

Why not?

Heh, the most interesting thing about the homosexuality topic is how no one (because everyone seems to have a sensitivity issue) will ever acknowledge that something might be wrong.

What is wrong is your Predjudice is showing. If it can get you banned for being racist, why are Gay & Lesbians somehow less of a person than one of different skin pigment?

THis goes along with your pathetic attempts to show how you are somehow better than others who don't conform to your belief's.

And then what do they say? "Well, they're not hurting anyone". And it's true!
And what else do they say? "Some animals do it, so it's normal". Yes, that makes perfect sense. Because a few animals go against the laws of biology and nature, it makes it "normal"... right...

You can very easily (too easily) change homosexuals in your chosen attack here to women, to any other religious group, or to a visible minority.

And then, there is the most interesting topic I've ever read on this forum. I can't remember what it was called, but in it was an article how scientists might have and could possibley remove the gay gene. But what I found truely fascinating was that the same people who are for abortion rights, were against making a fetus to grow up 'not gay'.

Ah, yes. The "homosexual" topic. Why does no one wish to talk about it? Because everyone is too sensitive.

"the Black topic"
the different religian than MY great religion topic"
"the inferior woman topic"
"the different nationality topic"

You are a perfect example of why I have nothing but distain for organized religous groups & most of the so called religious people in them.

At 6/12/07 05:08 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

What is wrong is your Predjudice is showing. If it can get you banned for being racist, why are Gay & Lesbians somehow less of a person than one of different skin pigment?

Who said they were?

Heh, you probly clicked reply before reading my entire post.

THis goes along with your pathetic attempts to show how you are somehow better than others who don't conform to your belief's.

What are you talking about?

All i'm saying is that people are too sensitive about it. They don't want to hurt their feelings.

I'm not saying they're "less human". I'm saying people need to grow up.

You can very easily (too easily) change homosexuals in your chosen attack here to women, to any other religious group, or to a visible minority.

I'm speaking in Nature terms.

But, of course, you're going to be an idiot about it.

You are a perfect example of why I have nothing but distain for organized religous groups & most of the so called religious people in them.

Hahaha! And you're the perfect example of an idiot. Just another worthless piece of shit who is incapable of comprehending even the most simple of subjects.

You're an example of what i'm talking about. Rather than look at a homosexual and say "there's something wrong with that", you'll instead say "oh, it's perfectly natural" just so you won't feel bad or make anyone else feel bad. When the truth is, it isn't normal. It's not natural.

But just like the other guy who posted to me, it shouldn't matter as "It's a genetic, biological mutation, a la being born with six toes. Did they choose to have six toes? Should they be condemned by society for having six toes?"

But what are you going to do? Force every religous institution to allow, say, a gay preacher? If I walked into a store and they didn't have the shirt I wanted, should I sue to force them to put it on the rack?

This is why people like you are so worthless.

At 6/12/07 03:12 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

It's a genetic, biological mutation, a la being born with six toes. Did they choose to have six toes? Should they be condemned by society for having six toes?

That was the whole point of my damn post.

Did you not read what I said? They don't harm anyone. It's true!

Okay, then. If they don't hurt anyone, why are you arguing?

Because, people are too sensitive to say "yep, somethin's wrong up there" because they don't want to hurt anyone's poor, wittle feelings.

Because it isn't a problem. If a baby will ruin a mother's life, having an abortion or not has a huge effect on her life. If a mother does want to have a baby, whether or not it turns out gay doesn't.

Hypocricy alert!

Why is it ok to kill it off than make it... straight?

Really, all I hear is "whaaaa this, whaaa that, i'm being descriminated against because of my sexual preference". Well, just like how you want to make it easier on the mother by letting her have an abortion, why not "Save the child" from being descriminated against and make him/her straight?

We're talking about it right now.

Ah, yes.

But you'll never hear anyone in public say "there's something wrong with these people!" without getting some kind of backlash.

......I'm confused as to your stance on this "issue."

Simple!

Discrimination = wrong
Are you gay? Who cares!
Is there something biologically/scientifically wrong? Yes.
Do people have the balls to say that? No.

They try to sugar-coat things!

Who says there's something wrong with homosexuality? Maybe it's an evolved trait that some of the species will naturally be homosexual in order to stem population overgrowth and furnish the rest of the population with snazzy interior designs and fabulous cocktails.

At 6/12/07 05:53 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/12/07 05:08 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Because it isn't a problem. If a baby will ruin a mother's life, having an abortion or not has a huge effect on her life. If a mother does want to have a baby, whether or not it turns out gay doesn't.

Hypocricy alert!

some one should really revoke your right to use that word.

At 6/12/07 08:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

some one should really revoke your right to use that word.

Haha, it's not my fault you people keep screwing up with your logic.

At 6/12/07 08:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/12/07 08:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

some one should really revoke your right to use that word.

Haha, it's not my fault you people keep screwing up with your logic.

as well as the word logic.

Its beacuse before a game most teams pray that no one gets hurt
All I really ever wounder was why does the winning team always thanks god...
Soes that losing team hate Satan more beacuse they lost?

At 6/12/07 08:44 PM, SolInvictus wrote: as well as the word logic.

You're my hero. But seriously, Memorize, applying your beliefs to your opponent's facts does not make what they say hypocrisy.

At 6/12/07 08:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/12/07 08:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

some one should really revoke your right to use that word.

Haha, it's not my fault you people keep screwing up with your logic.

Okay, but the problem is that a double standard and hypocrisy aren't even the same thing.

At 6/12/07 09:05 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/12/07 08:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/12/07 08:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

some one should really revoke your right to use that word.

Haha, it's not my fault you people keep screwing up with your logic.

Okay, but the problem is that a double standard and hypocrisy aren't even the same thing.

You disagreed with Memorize! You must be an idiot, or just stupid.

At 6/12/07 03:20 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: It all goes back to ancient Greek. 'theos' = 'God' and 'gnosi' = 'knowledge' or 'to know'. Negate them and you get 'atheos' = 'no-God' and 'agnosi' = 'no-knowledge' or 'to not know'.

Wow, you are so wrong here. It WAS aldous huxley's grandfather that coined the term agnostic (in reference to what we're discussing here). While agnosticism does come from the ancient greek word, gnossis, it had never before been used. Huxley created it and defined it to represent his own views...even though they were much more atheistic than how we use and define agnosticism today.
Please do some more research. If you look up anything about Thomas Henry Huxley, in google or any encyclopedia, you will be much more informed about agnosticism for future conversations :)

i agree a lot with what SyntheticTacos had to say. as an atheist and someone who has tried to hear what other atheists have to say about their beleifs. im going to put this in bullets so its quicker to read

~Atheists do not agree - while atheists are united under the notion that there is no god, they sometimes dont share anything else is common. very rarly will you find two Atheists that totaly agree with you. if you look at this topic it has many different veiws from atheists. Because not all Atheists beleive the same thing it is hard to generalize the actions or ideas of some Atheists and beleive that they are the actions of the whole group. for this reason i will trie to keep my ideas general, but if i do say a generalation it expresses my veiw and not nessisarily the veiws of other Atheists.

~Atheists are people, usualy when we get attacked we want to express our opinon - attacked can be lots of things, like when someone comes to your door and tries to convert you, or when you're cousin who is a reborn christian tries to convert you at 1 in the morning, or when slackerzac says something like "Well when it come down to it most atheists are idiots who dont like god for some stubid reason." obviously we're going to feel that we need to explain ourselves and explain our beleifs, which are about religion. also with WillPostForFood and Memorize's debate of wether religious people are in Atheist face, from my experience it is not accepted well. when i have told peopel im an atheist i have had them tell me that they hate me, and some try to convert me. and if you dont beleive atheist are being attacked, honestly read through this complete thred, how many times were atheists bashed... although yes i reolize it was a two way street.

~No, we dont think we're a religion - out of all the questions i think most Atheists would agree with me on this, we dont think we're a religion. so ForkRobotik is correct, we're not a religion. We're a group of people who share a similar view on a topic.

~No, most of us do not beleive that all religion is wrong - KingRugger questions "dont athiests believe all religion is wrong?" no we do not, we just beleive there is no god. there are plenty of religions that we have no problem with. and most of us arn't "against" anything, we dissagree but we arn't agaist religions except for other reasons then our beleife of god.

~Agnostics are not in the same catigory as Atheist - this also came from KingRugger's comment. he said that he thinks its agnostics who take a more laid back aproach to religion, like there may be a god/there may not be a god is a better. the thing about this is that that simply isnt what Agnostics beleive. Agnostics/Gnostics is the different beleifs of wether or not there is proof of god. for example someone who is a Theist (beleives in god) can also be an Agnostic (doenst beleive there is proof) because that person just accepts that they are taking a leap of faith. so Atheism/Theism is wether or not there is a god, Agnosticism/ Gnosticism is wether or not there is proof of a god. then again things get more confusing with weak/strong atheism and all that stuff. this is why soo many people beleive Atheism is differnet things. for instence what Elfer described atheism to be is weak atheism, while strong is ur more thought of "god does not exist" although weak and strong have lots of different equivilent names.

~We want religious symbles out of public places because of seperation of church and state - our goverment was not founded on a christian nation, it was founded by christian men who wanted to take their religion out of their goverment because they looked historically and saw that soo many people had been / are being killed over religion. for example all of the crusades, how many wars has religion been used as a reason to fight, iraq, ext. in hisory putting religion in the goverment has made a bad ending. I beleive that including religions statues or like the ten comandments in courtrooms is the begining of christianity moving into our goverment.

~Atheists have lots of different beleifs about the afterlife or lack there of - some of us beleive that nothing happens, you stop thinking and its like before you were born, nothing. Some just dont think its worth time considering and that they will figure it out when they get there.
'
~EvilEgg - this is responce to EvilEgg. who said "Plain and simple atheists are just lost souls with no answers ,but don't want direction." well no, we just dont want yours. we beleive that our direction can be found without god. we can make the direction of our life without having to beleive that god is holding our hand the whole way. he also said "In other words they just are trying to be different. They don't want answers they wanna find their own and eventually they will make up something stupid...." we arnt trying to be different, we are trying to live a normal life without the beleive that there is a god.. because we beleive there isnt and it was made up. if you look at the time where most religions were created it was in a time where there was a horrible standard of living and people were lost and confused, looking for something to make them feel better or get them through their rough hours. but he was right, we are trying to have a normal life without the beleive that there is a god... good job...? and later when EvilEgg starts his little atheist reads dude was killed for spicific reasons... ext, no, we read dude was killed and roborn but his mom had never had sex and then he went and led his people while another dude was saving his people by spreading water and creating wine from water... and thats when we question it. most of us are fine with your beleifs as long as you accept that ours can be different too...

i want to end this with my favorate quote. "Everyone is Atheist about some gods, Atheists just go one god further." -Richard Dawkins

At 6/12/07 09:23 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

You disagreed with Memorize! You must be an idiot, or just stupid.

You keep talking about me? Looks like what i'm doing is working.

At 6/12/07 09:05 PM, Elfer wrote:

Okay, but the problem is that a double standard and hypocrisy aren't even the same thing.

But which is more insulting?

At 6/12/07 10:01 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/12/07 09:23 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

You disagreed with Memorize! You must be an idiot, or just stupid.

You keep talking about me? Looks like what i'm doing is working.

Can't you see? I love you.