Lets be real, it's "Happy Holidays", most of us couldn't care less about Jesus Christ

[CavaliersFTW]

http://www.totaltalknonsense.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/jesus-dinosaur.jpg

The holidays this time of year are about family, friends, gifts, sharing, food etc. Hardly anyone gives a sh*t about those old stories desert savages who didn't know where rain comes from made up. Santa Claus living in the North Pole with his elf slaves making toys is no less plausible than Jesus being the son of a God born to a virgin mother. :cheers:

[CavaliersFTW]

Let's be more real, even though nobody gives a shit about Christ, it's still called christmas. So merry christmas you little bitch.
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Its-not-Merry-Christmas-its-happy-holidays-650x433.jpg

a gift for you good sir :cheers:

[travelingman]

Let's be more real, even though nobody gives a shit about Christ, it's still called christmas. So merry christmas you little bitch.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[fpliii]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/23/keep-the-saturn-in-saturnalia/

[CelticBaller]

Let's be more real, even though nobody gives a shit about Christ, it's still called christmas. So merry christmas you little bitch.
This, jeff is jewish and he clearly doesn't care either.

[Heavincent]

Happy Festivus!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS7-jcsB_WQ

[DonDadda59]

A Happy and prosperous Dies Natalis Solis Invicti to you, ISH brethren. He is risen! :cheers:

[Scoooter]

I've said "Happy Holidays" my whole life and never thought twice of it. Who wants to tailor an individual greeting for each celebratory persuasion? Ain't nobody got time for that.

[Fresh Kid]

lets be real that you are a bitch:coleman:

[niko]

In Cleveland Santa comes down the chimney, takes your presents and sends them to kids in Miami.

[Dolphin]

I'm in high school too and feel sooooo awesome when I take shots at organized religion and draw dinosaur Jesus. The term hipster was coined after me I assume. I also don't make my bed when my mommy asks.

I FEEL LIBERATED!!!

[Jailblazers7]

Lets be real, most of us couldn't care less about Wilt Chamberlain

[shaq2000]

Let's be real, Christmas is about the gifts.. not Jesus

[Fudge]

Let's be real, I am NOT gay.

[ROCSteady]

Jesus was likely a summer baby anyhow.

It's always funny to me though when people mock a symbol as wholesome & benevolent for humanity as Christ of the Bible. Like what does that really say about you?

Granted I don't even identify as a Christian but I respect what the representation of Christ sacrifice and the hope that people get out of his message has for many many people.

Sure there are tons of phony, hateful, bigoted hypocrites who are either dummies or just plain contradictory but there are MANY people who try their damnest to live Holy and in return do help others and spread more positivity and assistance to those who mock them and their cause.

[The_Yearning]

Christmas is probably the most overrated celebrated holiday.

[ace23]

Christmas is probably the most overrated celebrated holiday.
You're edgy, bruh. :oldlol:

[Fudge]

Merry Christmas you filthy fvcks.

[Patrick Chewing]

Merry Christmas to everyone.

[-p.tiddy-]

I am not Christian but Jesus Christ has had a major impact on humanity regardless of what really happened 2000 years ago...I am not too cool to admit I like what Jesus stands for.

Real or not, Happy Birthday Jesus

[Just2McFly]

Lets be real, most of us couldn't care less about Wilt Chamberlain
shots fired:oldlol:

[ukballer]

Let's be more real, even though nobody gives a shit about Christ, it's still called christmas. So merry christmas you little bitch.

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[longhornfan1234]

I am not Christian but Jesus Christ has had a major impact on humanity regardless of what really happened 2000 years ago...I am not too cool to admit I like what Jesus stands for.

Real or not, Happy Birthday Jesus


Dec 25th is not his birthday.:oldlol:

[Bandito]

Who is Jesus Christ?

[HardwoodLegend]

Dec 25th is not his birthday.:oldlol:

It's just a day designated to celebrate his birth since the exact day hasn't been pinpointed and unanimously agreed upon.

As an ex-Christian, I like what p. tiddy said and agree.

[hateraid]

Yeah! I'm all for MLK holiday as well! **** what he did but I'll take that day off! **** Independance Day anf our freedom, I'll take that day off too! Those days are about FAMILY!

[SpecialQue]

Let's be real, if you put a hamburger in the toaster it'll say "Happy Birthday."

[Dresta]

'I absolutely abominate absolutely everything about this season of the year...it's not just that attendance and observance are compulsory and conscripted (though that would be bloody bad enough). It's that ENTHUSIASM is COMPULSORY TOO. You can't just conform and get by. You are always being urged to join in. Of what does this remind me? Of Dear Leader's Birthday in some godawful one-party banana republic or people's democracy, that's what."


Thoughts on Christmas...

[lakers_forever]

I find it funny that some so called "rational" atheists are the most passionate about religion. I mean, look at some atheists billboards and threads like this on christmas, it usually mocks and attacks religion (thus, not meant to please people in a happy time of the year, but to cause controversy) instead of justing wishing happy holidays, christimas or whatever, to everyone.

Like the op, he could just wish everyone happy holidays and even say that regardless of one's religion or lack of religion, everyone should celebrate Christmas because it's time of "family, friends, gifts, sharing". But no, he does not stop there, because that's not his main purpouse, which is to attack religion (christianity), putting a stupid picture* and offending someone that means a lot to millions of christians around the world.







* Like many atheists, the OP thinks all christians are fundamentalists and creationists, when most christians around the world are not. This creationism is more of an american thing.

[lakers_forever]

How the hell can you be a Christian and not believe in creationism? :coleman:

Explain it to me.

Creationism, not in the sense that created the world, but in the sense that one should take Genesis literally, meaning the world was created in 6 days and earth is only a few thousand years old and so on.

Most christians in the world pre 19th century can answer you that. That was when creationism started to really rise (because some christians felt threatned by science). Someone like Augustine of Hippo said more that 1500 years ago that you should not use the bible to teach science. A christian who denies evolution for religious reasons is a fundamentalist (for instance, the biggest christian church, the catholic church has never condemned evolution) . I really doubt a man like Augustine would do so when he said this 1500 years ago:


It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.



With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

[lakers_forever]

So if the holy book is left to complete interpretation, then why even follow it at all? Would you still be a Christian if you were born as a random kid in Somalia or would you clearly be Islamic right now?

The Bible is not a book, it's a library. There are different kind of books within the Bible. There are poetic books, historical books, moral code books, allegorical books. You can't read poetry literally. Both radical atheists and fundamentalist christians read the whole Bible the same way, literally, without any sophistication.



Yes, I would be islamic (btw, i have great respect for islam).
But your question is irrelevant, cause it's the typical genetic fallacy. You can not assume a belief is right or wrong just because of its origin. If I was born in some canibalist tribe, I would think there was nothing morally wrong in eating human being's flesh... Does that discredit my belief that eating human flesh wrong? Of course not. I know there are some good argued reasons not to be a christian, but that is no one of them.

[lakers_forever]

About the interpretation, watch this (if you want and have the time, of course).
He speaks more elonquently about what I tried to explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxOjJHB5-8

[lakers_forever]

What? The point is it's odd to live your life that way knowing you only believe because of circumstances beyond your control. You were essentially born into this belief. Nothing about it makes it more right than any other, like you said. So why believe at all? Why dedicate your life and time to it?

To this day, I catch my self saying certain prayers because I grew up that way. It's ingrained in me, regardless of how secular I think I am. I was taught Jews were evil and anyone outside my faith would go to hell. :roll:

Why? Because I believe it to be true. Simply as that. So what? Why believe anything at all? Most of our beliefs (moral, politic, whatever) are product of where we were born as well...


Well, I'm catholic. I don't go to mass that frequently, but I still believe (yes, I have studied the subject a lot - God's existence and Jesus as a historic person - and have not lost my faith at all).
Well, I was not. I was taught to respect muslims, jews and so on.

[dr.hee]

The Bible is not a book, it's a library. There are different kind of books within the Bible. There are poetic books, historical books, moral code books, allegorical books. You can't read poetry literally. Both radical atheists and fundamentalist christians read the whole Bible the same way, literally, without any sophistication.

I know we'll agree to disagree on that one, but anyway...since you're talking about "sophistication"...what I honestly don't understand about more educated christian believers is their willingness to apply "sophistication" and critical thought to stuff like poetical and allegorical interpretations of biblical literature, while basically excluding all the supernatural events ( which in my opinion should be the main aim of inquiry instead) from that.

Reading theological writings, I often get the impression that these guys spend literally thousands of pages ( have you ever read Ratzinger's books on Jesus?) losing themselves in deep philosophical thoughts, but in the end everything is derived from the assumption that a few anonymous writings from ancient palestine are proof enought that a magical spirit impregnated a woman, resulting in a guy that walked on water, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven ( at least according to half of the gospels).
So as a non believer, I'm basically not that interested in anything regarding the bible other than the question whether this source allows for the conclusion that 2000 years ago the son of an objectively existing god lived in ancient Israel for something like 30 years. Especially since the bible as we know today was created well after Jesus lived, and the same sophisticated methods of interpretation could be applied to literally anything these dudes could've potentially decided to include in their collection of texts.

The problem I have with "sophisticated" theology in short is that they don't provide much information for me to really understand where they get their conclusions from. Even with a highly regarded authority like Ratzinger, I sometimes find literally dozens of unexplained assumptions the reader probably should agree on without further inquiry in just a few sentences. There's so much you simply need to assume to be true in order to get something out of theology, it's too much for me. Especially since everything ever written about the topic would become instantly irrelevant if another religious doctrine (or maybe none at all) would be in fact the real deal.
Another issue I have with "sophisticated" interpretations of the bible is the huge difference between conclusions people are drawing from the book in a historical context. The things scholars tell people today to be "god's will" and the "way of Jesus", is completely different than the stuff Christians believed a thousand years ago. And I just don't get how people can consider this collection of writings including actual thoughts of an existing deity, when it allows so much room for personal misinterpretations depending on the context you're living in.

In short...why would the all powerfull Yahweh choose a way to reveal himself that allows so many f*ck ups (even unintended...so no free will defense here) by unknowing humans?


Anyway, since you're Catholic...merry christmas :cheers:

[Dresta]

The Bible is not a book, it's a library. There are different kind of books within the Bible. There are poetic books, historical books, moral code books, allegorical books. You can't read poetry literally. Both radical atheists and fundamentalist christians read the whole Bible the same way, literally, without any sophistication.



Yes, I would be islamic (btw, i have great respect for islam).
But your question is irrelevant, cause it's the typical genetic fallacy. You can not assume a belief is right or wrong just because of its origin. If I was born in some canibalist tribe, I would think there was nothing morally wrong in eating human being's flesh... Does that discredit my belief that eating human flesh wrong? Of course not. I know there are some good argued reasons not to be a christian, but that is no one of them.
Errr, well done. Firstly, don't use terms like 'radical atheists' because they are as hollow as a jug, very rarely used by atheists, and instead exist as a pejorative term for religious people to use when condemning atheists, or when attempting to make them look as illogical and fanatical as they are themselves. You are right in a way about the bible, but you seem to forget that Christians themselves are incapable of agreeing as to what should and should not be taken literally. The Incarnation, the trinity and the resurrection, are all completely illogical propositions; yet the vast majority of Christians take them literally, and the different sects of Christians have been shedding each others blood since the 2nd century trying to resolve their differing interpretations of these phenomenon. Why is believing in Adam & Eve 'fundamentalist' while believing in the divinity of Christ, or the existence of the trinity is not? It's just religion a la carte for some people.

And lol @ you quoting Augustine as if his opinion is worth listening to: the man was a fanatic who embraced the dogma of original sin, and was thus happy with all un-baptised human beings being condemned to eternal hellfire, because we are all evil and deserving of suffering by default (this was what he believed and preached).

Bertrand Russell on Augustine:

[Dresta]

Why? Because I believe it to be true. Simply as that. So what? Why believe anything at all? Most of our beliefs (moral, politic, whatever) are product of where we were born as well...


Well, I'm catholic. I don't go to mass that frequently, but I still believe (yes, I have studied the subject a lot - God's existence and Jesus as a historic person - and have not lost my faith at all).
Well, I was not. I was taught to respect muslims, jews and so on.
No, intelligent people have reasons for believing what they do. Only dogmatists accept things as true without reason and then get all offended when someone questions or makes fun of them. It is also thoughtless to blindly respect the beliefs of others when they defy logic, or are invented without evidence.

'To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it

[lakers_forever]

Errr, well done. Firstly, don't use terms like 'radical atheists' because they are as hollow as a jug, very rarely used by atheists, and instead exist as a pejorative term for religious people to use when condemning atheists, or when attempting to make them look as illogical and fanatical as they are themselves. You are right in a way about the bible, but you seem to forget that Christians themselves are incapable of agreeing as to what should and should not be taken literally. The Incarnation, the trinity and the resurrection, are all completely illogical propositions; yet the vast majority of Christians take them literally, and the different sects of Christians have been shedding each others blood since the 2nd century trying to resolve their differing interpretations of these phenomenon. Why is believing in Adam & Eve 'fundamentalist' while believing in the divinity of Christ, or the existence of the trinity is not? It's just religion a la carte for some people.

And lol @ you quoting Augustine as if his opinion is worth listening to: the man was a fanatic who embraced the dogma of original sin, and was thus happy with all un-baptised human beings being condemned to eternal hellfire, because we are all evil and deserving of suffering by default (this was what he believed and preached).

Bertrand Russell on Augustine: ‘The conviction of sin, however, so dominated him that he really believed new-born children to be limbs of Satan. A great deal of what is most ferocious in the medieval Church is traceable to his gloomy sense of universal guilt.’

His principles directly led to the physical and emotional suffering of millions (or perhaps billions, even). He was a huge asshole.

Maybe the catholic church didn't openly condemn Darwin, but look at the list of brilliant works they did condemn and prohibit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Pr ohibitorum


Radical atheists are people like Dawkins, you know, someone who urges atheists to ridicule and mock religious people and their beliefs.

The video I posted explain this "a la carte" thing. It's not just cherry picking, it's tradition and writing based one hundreds years of study. It might not mean anything to you, but it means for us catholics. And pretty much all christians believe in the core of Christianity, what C.S Lewis called "Mere Christianity".

About Augustine, nothing but an ad hominen attack. It's stupid and anacronic to dismiss a great philosopher who influenced western philosophy just because he has what you judge some "stupid" beliefs or wrote some "stupid" things. Even if he did, it does not erase the good point he made and it does illustrate that christians were not always literalists.

And it is specially hypocritical coming for a guy with Karl Marx as his avatar. Should I dismiss everything Marxs said because he was a racist* (like lots of thinkers from his era) and because he inspired mass murderes like Mao and Stalin? Is Marx's opinion not worth listening because of that? No, his opinion is worth lisneting to, he was a great thinker who inspired a lot of people, just like Augostine. I'm sure even open minded non-marxists agree with some things Marx wrote (like some precise critiques of capitalism) just as open minded non christians might agree with some things Augustine wrote.

Not maybe, The Church did not. Yes, sadly the Church banned those books. Not excuse there. Just like there are no excuses for marxist regimes for banning books contrary to their ideology.




* Marxs: The Jewish (n word) Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess). Just imagine! This fellow, knowing about the American affair, etc., and hence about the state of crisis I’m in, had the insolence to ask me whether I would be willing to hand over one of my daughters to la Hatzfeldt as a ‘companion’, and whether he himself should secure Gerstenberg’s (!) patronage for me! The fellow has wasted my time and, what is more, the dolt opined that, since I was not engaged upon any ‘business’ just now, but merely upon a ‘theoretical work’, I might just as well kill time with him! In order to keep up certain dehors vis-

[lakers_forever]

[QUOTE=Dresta]No, intelligent people have reasons for believing what they do. Only dogmatists accept things as true without reason and then get all offended when someone questions or makes fun of them. It is also thoughtless to blindly respect the beliefs of others when they defy logic, or are invented without evidence.

'To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it

[lakers_forever]

Anyway, since you're Catholic...merry christmas :cheers:

That's a good post, dr. hee. I understand your problems with christianity, believe me. I've read some of Ratzinger's works. I think he is a brillant man.

Well, what can I say? I'm convinced by it. I have read a lot about it in both sides (atheism and theism) and about religion per se, and my beliefs have not changed.

I know there are different interpretations among Christians. But I repeat that the core is the same. We (christians) all pretty much believe in what C.S Lewis calls "Mere Christianity".

But that does not means I don't have my moments of doubts. Like Raztinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict VXI) himself said (I think you have read this book), we all have the "perhaps it's true" moment.

“No one can lay God and his Kingdom on the table before another man; even the believer cannot do it for himself. But however strongly unbelief may feel justified thereby, it cannot forget the eerie feeling induced by the words “Yet perhaps it is true.” That perhaps” is the unavoidable temptation it cannot elude, the temptation in which it, too, in the very act of rejection, has to experience the unrejectability of belief. In other words, both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief, if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other, through doubt and in the form of doubt. It is the basic pattern of man’s destiny only to be allowed to find the finality of his existence in this unceasing rivalry between doubt and belief, temptation and certainty. Perhaps in precisely this way doubt, which saves both sides from being shut up in their own worlds, could become the avenue of communication. It prevents both from enjoying complete self-satisfaction; it opens up the believer to the doubter and the doubter to the believer; for one, it is his share in the fate of the unbeliever; for the other, the form in which belief remains nevertheless a challenge to him.” Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, 46-47.



PS: Merry Christmas, Xmas, Happy Holidays. Anyway you want to call it, my friend. :D :cheers:

[Dresta]

Radical atheists are people like Dawkins, you know, someone who urges atheists to ridicule and mock religious people and their beliefs.

The video I posted explain this "a la carte" thing. It's not just cherry picking, it's tradition and writing based one hundreds years of study. It might not mean anything to you, but it means for us catholics. And pretty much all christians believe in the core of Christianity, what C.S Lewis called "Mere Christianity".

About Augustine, nothing but an ad hominen attack. It's stupid and anacronic to dismiss a great philosopher who influenced western philosophy just because he has what you judge some "stupid" beliefs or wrote some "stupid" things. Even if he did, it does not erase the good point he made and it does illustrate that christians were not always literalists.

And it is specially hypocritical coming for a guy with Karl Marx as his avatar. Should I dismiss everything Marxs said because he was a racist* (like lots of thinkers from his era) and because he inspired mass murderes like Mao and Stalin? Is Marx's opinion not worth listening because of that? No, his opinion is worth lisneting to, he was a great thinker who inspired a lot of people, just like Augostine. I'm sure even open minded non-marxists agree with some things Marx wrote (like some precise critiques of capitalism) just as open minded non christians might agree with some things Augustine wrote.

Not maybe, The Church did not. Yes, sadly the Church banned those books. Not excuse there. Just like there are no excuses for marxist regimes for banning books contrary to their ideology.

If you are going to discuss something with me, then please don't lie and distort what i have said. There was nothing ad hominem in what i said about Augustine (go look it up because you either don't know what the term means or you are a lying piece of shit). Those beliefs i briefly mentioned are central tenets of Augustine's moral code and theological system; if you choose to ignore them, then you might as well ignore him altogether. It's not like everyone believed that kind of barbaric nonsense at the time, only Christians did, and this was largely due to the work of people like Augustine. He not only held these abhorrent beliefs, he also propagated them.

The man was not a great philosopher, and simply prospered because he was the best the Church had to offer, and non-church led philosophy dwindled during that period of turmoil and persecution. His philosophy did not survive because of its merit; it survived because it was proliferated and protected by the church. There were many thinkers far ahead of him 500+ years before. His work has value only historically in showing how far philosophy sunk after the birth of Christianity and the decline of the Greeks.

What does having Karl Marx in my avatar have to do with hypocrisy? Marx is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and you know nothing of what i think of him. I also see no evidence there that Marx is a racist: using the 'n-word' in the 19th century does not make someone a racist (it doesn't even do that now), and even if he were racist, that has nothing to do with his work (and really is 'anachronic').

Bring up C.S Lewis all you like, but he openly purported the divinity of jesus. In my view that is just as absurd as believing that Adam and Eve dwelt in the Garden of Eden alongside dinosaurs (and is still picking and choosing). I have no respect for someone who holds such a position, and will not hesitate in telling them so, regardless of any feelings that may be hurt. And honestly, if you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, then you are hardly a Christian at all.



And who said I have no reasons to believe? There are several philosofical arguments for the existence of God. And I do believe there are good reasons to believe christianity is true.

For many christians, atheism defy logic. Where do we go from there? Everyone disrespecting everyone? Again, RADICAL atheists and religious fundamentalists are preety similar here. Both just can't tolerate other beliefs different than their own.
:roll:

Except atheism is NOT a positive assertion. The term atheism means exactly 'without God' - it designates an absence of belief alone, and nothing more. It is not a creed of any kind, and so no person is going to find it disrespectful if you make fun of it (at least very few are). It is only the religious that take these things so personally, probably because they are already insecure about their ridiculous and childish beliefs.

There are reasonable philosophical arguments for the existence of God, or a first mover or creator etc. But there are not any remotely valid philosophical arguments for a God who sends a piece of himself to earth as a son, to be born in some illiterate part of the desert, and to save mankind by expiring on a cross. NONE AT ALL.

[Derka]

Jesus' message was alright (be excellent to each other), but all the supernatural stuff I couldn't care less about. Walking on water, raising the dead and then coming back to life himself...k, whatever :rolleyes:

That being said, its still Merry Christmas that comes from my lips.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Let's be real. We say Happy Holidays to piss off Christian conservatives, FOX News, and Sarah Palin.

[Dresta]

Jesus' message was alright (be excellent to each other), but all the supernatural stuff I couldn't care less about. Walking on water, raising the dead and then coming back to life himself...k, whatever :rolleyes:

That being said, its still Merry Christmas that comes from my lips.
This predated Jesus. And a lot of his message was impracticable and immoral:

- Love your enemies (no, i hate my enemies, otherwise they wouldn't be enemies)
- Turn the other cheek (ok if you want to die)
- Take no thought for the morrow (ok to starve)
- Revelling in poverty as if suffering performs a most valuable function.
- Endorsement of slavery
- That those who don't follow him will go to hell.

An evil doctrine imo.

[Swaggin916]

^^^ Honestly everything would be ok if it wasn't for that last part. That going to hell thing was probably the key to get people to stick with it at one point (as well as social pressures), but it's total undoing in this day and age.

[KobesFinger]

Let's be real, Christmas is August 23rd

http://api.ning.com/files/v1Jrntoe2WXUiKnKfyMpJWWbrPRfNG2EtKd9G2evUbASRV7ohV bWHS1RcWOxqfdGPdNEKYRNIWL7QmbRUMh2mH8MaKzEnVgY/KobeJesus.jpg

[lakers_forever]

The minute you start calling people names is the moment you lost reason, oh reasonable superior atheist man.

You claim not to respect people that believe in Jesus divinity. I'm not a bigot, therefore I respect atheists, while not agreeing of course with atheism. You can keep being an intolerant bigot. I chose not to be one and not to reply anymore to someone who does not even respect me or any other christian (a lot of people in this site and in the world you don't respect), not because of their character, but simply because of our beliefs. Yep, that seems very reasonable...

PS: you are cleary the honest one. We can't tell the man (Marx) who said this was a racist (interbred - such respect for the fellow black man there ) :

It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a "n word"). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also "n word"-like.

[Rasheed1]

Real or not, Happy Birthday Jesus


:roll:

[Josh]

This predated Jesus. And a lot of his message was impracticable and immoral:

- Love your enemies (no, i hate my enemies, otherwise they wouldn't be enemies)
- Turn the other cheek (ok if you want to die)
- Take no thought for the morrow (ok to starve)
- Revelling in poverty as if suffering performs a most valuable function.
- Endorsement of slavery
- That those who don't follow him will go to hell.

An evil doctrine imo.

Love your enemies and turn the other cheek, an evil doctrine? "otherwise they wouldn't be my enemies" and "OK if you want to die" is taking things out of context and making yourself seem shallow-minded and lacking basic intelligence - which I thought was the exact opposite of what being an atheist is all about.

:oldlol:

I thought you guys were all about demonstrating your intellect prowess!

*flexes muscles*

Atheists are prideful (as are Christians and any other human being who's living and breathing) except atheists take being prideful to a whole different plateau. If an atheist is told they're lacking intelligence, damn do they fly off the handle. Don't you ever, EVER tell an atheist they don't know shit. Never seen so many pale faces turn red in a quickness.

:lol

Here's the truth. As an atheist, you honestly don't know shit. I (whom isn't an atheist) don't know shit. The next man who is neither atheist or not doesn't know shit. As long as we can all accept that fact we'd be fine. Unfortunately, more than all other religious men, the atheist thinks he knows more than most, and to think or tell them otherwise is blasphemy in their mind. Sometimes the truth is just difficult to deal with.

Mr. Atheist - you aren't anything special. Your mind is no more better equipped to understand or comprehend the real truth than a religious man, so please stop thinking you are special. Please stop thinking you know more than the average religious man, because realistically, you don't. We don't either. For the most part however we don't walk a-round thinking in our heads "ha ha I know more than you do ... har har I know more than you do"

Just stop... you don't know shit. Saying what Christ attempted to implement is "evil" ... yeah, you can be damn sure you don't know shit.

[GOBB]

Let's be more real, even though nobody gives a shit about Christ, it's still called christmas. So merry christmas you little bitch.

:roll:

:applause:

Well played sir.

[dr.hee]

Atheists are prideful (as are Christians and any other human being who's living and breathing) except atheists take being prideful to a whole different plateau. If an atheist is told they're lacking intelligence, damn do they fly off the handle. Don't you ever, EVER tell an atheist they don't know shit. Never seen so many pale faces turn red in a quickness.

:lol

Here's the truth. As an atheist, you honestly don't know shit. I (whom isn't an atheist) doesn't know shit. The next man who is neither atheist or not doesn't know shit. As long as we can all accept that fact we'd be fine. Unfortunately, more than all other religious men, the atheist thinks he knows more than most, and to think or tell them otherwise is blasphemy in their mind. Sometimes the truth is just difficult to deal with.

Mr. Atheist - you aren't anything special. Your mind is no more better equipped to understand or comprehend the real truth than a religious man, so please stop thinking you are special. Please stop thinking you know more than the average religious man, because realistically, you don't. We don't either. For the most part however we don't walk a-round thinking in our heads "ha ha I know more than you do ... har har I know more than you do"

Just stop... you don't know shit. Saying what Christ attempted to implement is "evil" ... yeah, you can be damn sure you don't know shit.

As an atheist, I don't approve of your generalizing statements about a group of people you've defined through their lack of belief in the existence of a deity. In theory, all of your statements should apply to me, but somehow they don't. Which means you have no idea what you're talking about. Putting non religious people into one big category might be easy and convenient, allowing you to save the small amount of cognitive resources you might have at your disposal, but it's not how you should look at the world around you.

While I don't necessarily agree with the way Dresta is voicing his opinion, your post is still embarrassing. Just a big load of crap. Horrible. Seriously, are you drunk and/or high? There's a kind of religiosity I can respect, but it's not the primitive nonsensical rambling you're presenting here.

What the f*ck is "the atheist"? Some stereotype? What next? Some generalized statements about skin color? Race? Dude you're embarrassing.

[Josh]

As an atheist, I don't approve of your generalizing statements about a group of people you've defined through their lack of belief in the existence of a deity. In theory, all of your statements should apply to me, but somehow they don't. Which means you have no idea what you're talking about. Putting non religious people into one big category might be easy and convenient, allowing you to save the small amount of cognitive resources you might have at your disposal, but it's not how you should look at the world around you.

While I don't necessarily agree with the way Dresta is voicing his opinion, your post is still embarrassing. Just a big load of crap. Horrible. Seriously, are you drunk and/or high? There's a kind of religiosity I can respect, but it's not the primitive nonsensical rambling you're presenting here.

What the f*ck is "the atheist"? Some stereotype?

I said none of us know a damn thing - and honestly - we don't. The end. That's an idea you're going to have to warm up to. Deal with it.

[dr.hee]

I said none of us know a damn thing - and honestly - we don't. The end.

Here's what you said...


atheists take being prideful to a whole different plateau

I'm an atheist...so according to you, I take being prideful to a whole different plateau. Cool. That's like me saying "being Christian takes being mentally ill to a whole different plateau". Would be total nonsense, just like your statement.


more than all other religious men, the atheist thinks he knows more than most

More than all other religious men, I (an atheist) think I know more than most? More than people so convinced of their religious doctrine they're willing to die for it? More than fundamentalist believers witholding medical care from their dying children because god will save them anyway?

...and I know you'll probably not be able to comprehend this, but the paragraph above is only directed towards your hyperbolic statement about a group of people I'm a part of, nothing else. I didn't even say such actions are objectively wrong. It's just meant to show how useless your comments are. There are plenty of people who are far beyond the "we don't know shit" stage. Jehova's witnesses aren't warning people that the apocalypse is near? Jewish people aren't convinced that Yahweh wants them to circumcize their little boys? Christians aren't convinced that there's objective truth in their holy book?

Are you kidding me? There are literally millions of people in the United States that think they specifically know how the f*cking universe was created by their god. They're convinced to know his exact thoughts, personality and plans for the future down to the individual level. And by talking to him, they can influence the laws of the universe. Been raised Christian myself, so I kinda know what I'm talking about. And looking at all the religious dogmatism...you're telling me "the atheist" pretends to know know more than all the religious people? Are you high?


For the most part however we don't walk a-round thinking in our heads "ha ha I know more than you do ... har har I know more than you do"

I like the "we" part. Shows real modesty to feel qualified to speak for other people.

So as I said...completely useless post. Try again.

[Josh]

I said none of us know a damn thing. Still, none of us know a damn thing, so by me acknowledging I myself don't know a damn thing (as well as you, you sir don't know shit) be content in knowing I don't know a damn thing. Move on, get over it. Find something else to do. No need to be so offended (didn't I say atheists get wayyyyyy upset at times like this? yep I called it). You can't just be content in knowing you don't know shit. You have to argue as an attempt to prove to yourself you know something. This is the atheist's calling card.

:sleeping

[dr.hee]

This is the atheist's calling card.

And another generalization. Is that how you look at the world surrounding you? By putting labels on a few million people? Pathetic. I know many religious people, half of my family are Christian. And I can have decent conversations with them, even though we fundamentally disagree about the issue. You on the other hand are just embarrassing yourself. Seriously, are you drunk? Or maybe the topic is simply over your head. So maybe you could educate yourself a bit?

[ZenMaster]

Love your enemies and turn the other cheek, an evil doctrine? "otherwise they wouldn't be my enemies" and "OK if you want to die" is taking things out of context and making yourself seem shallow-minded and lacking basic intelligence - which I thought was the exact opposite of what being an atheist is all about.

:oldlol:

I thought you guys were all about demonstrating your intellect prowess!

*flexes muscles*

Atheists are prideful (as are Christians and any other human being who's living and breathing) except atheists take being prideful to a whole different plateau. If an atheist is told they're lacking intelligence, damn do they fly off the handle. Don't you ever, EVER tell an atheist they don't know shit. Never seen so many pale faces turn red in a quickness.

:lol

Here's the truth. As an atheist, you honestly don't know shit. I (whom isn't an atheist) don't know shit. The next man who is neither atheist or not doesn't know shit. As long as we can all accept that fact we'd be fine. Unfortunately, more than all other religious men, the atheist thinks he knows more than most, and to think or tell them otherwise is blasphemy in their mind. Sometimes the truth is just difficult to deal with.

Mr. Atheist - you aren't anything special. Your mind is no more better equipped to understand or comprehend the real truth than a religious man, so please stop thinking you are special. Please stop thinking you know more than the average religious man, because realistically, you don't. We don't either. For the most part however we don't walk a-round thinking in our heads "ha ha I know more than you do ... har har I know more than you do"

Just stop... you don't know shit. Saying what Christ attempted to implement is "evil" ... yeah, you can be damn sure you don't know shit.


Question: If you don't know shit(like you say yourself), why is it that you choose to believe the stories of jesus and god?

[Josh]

And another generalization. Is that how you look at the world surrounding you? By putting labels on a few million people? Pathetic. I know many religious people, half of my family are Christian. And I can have decent conversations with them, even though we fundamentally disagree about the issue. You on the other hand are just embarrassing yourself. Seriously, are you drunk? Or maybe the topic is simply over your head. So maybe you could educate yourself a bit?

You sound pretty mad. I called it. It never fails.

:roll:

[Budadiiii]

lol @ Josh ripping my tactics off. This guy ****in' serious?

Can't beat em, join em. :roll:

Monkey see Monkey do. :roll:

[Josh]

Question: If you don't know shit(like you say yourself), why is it that you choose to believe the stories of jesus and god?

I believe them to be true. I don't know if they are. It's my faith. I'm assuming you're atheist, so your faith would be you believe in nothing. You believe nothing came from something. Damn, that takes a lot of faith.

:lol

You're a very faithful person! God would be proud if you switched sides and demonstrated that level of faith towards Him - but no - you'd rather believe we somehow created ourselves, without purpose, without meaning. That's faith.

[dr.hee]

I'm assuming you're atheist, so your faith would be you believe in nothing. You believe nothing came from something.

Wrong. Atheism just means the rejection of any positive statement about the existence of a personal deity. I could believe in plenty other things, with the one exception being deities.

Also, being atheistic (I prefer non-theistic though because it's less ambiguous) doesn't necessarily imply a specific belief about the origin of the universe and stuff like that. Once again, regarding this topic I could believe whatever the hell I want, as long as it doesn't include any kind of deity.

[ace23]

Not sure why you're wasting your time arguing with LOJ. :lol

[ZenMaster]

I believe them to be true. I don't know if they are. It's my faith. I'm assuming you're atheist, so your faith would be you believe in nothing. You believe nothing came from something. Damn, that takes a lot of faith.

:lol

You're a very faithful person! God would be proud if you switched sides and demonstrated that level of faith towards Him - but no - you'd rather believe we somehow created ourselves, without purpose, without meaning. That's faith.

Yeah but I'm asking you WHY you believe them to be true and WHY it is your faith?

Yes I'm an athiest, but it's a non-issue because I come from a country where christianity hardly means anything at all. The only religion that matters here is muslim because muslim immigrants push through rules that matter to them because of their religion.
A lot of people here don't like that because generally they don't think laws that are in place to make a society work should stem from religion.

As a person from this country where christianity hardly matters, and having lived a year in the US where I attended church every week, it's very interesting watching from the outside how chuch and faith rule so much of your country. Not too far ago you even had a president who openly talked about going on crusades.
Also as a person from my country the answer to why you belive in your faith seems very easy, and it's because you where "told to" as a very young child and growing up.
Same idea why people sometimes go to McDonalds growing up even though you could get way better food for the same money(in my country that is), it's because most people here have had good experiences going to McDonalds as a kids going with grandparents and parents. That's just how the brain works.

Looking back on my year in school in the US going to church weekly wasn't a bad experience. I think it's a wonderful idea to meet with other people in your community weekly, it builds relationships.

[Dresta]

Moron. Atheism doesn't assume anything. It is simply saying there is no reason to assume there's a God, and there being a complete lack of evidence of a God who intervenes.

[Budadiiii]

Moron.


/Thread

[DonDadda59]

I believe them to be true. I don't know if they are. It's my faith. I'm assuming you're atheist, so your faith would be you believe in nothing. You believe nothing came from something. Damn, that takes a lot of faith.

:lol

You're a very faithful person! God would be proud if you switched sides and demonstrated that level of faith towards Him - but no - you'd rather believe we somehow created ourselves, without purpose, without meaning. That's faith.

Nothing but straight booty chatter here :facepalm

[Dresta]

Atheism makes a direct assumption and that is the complete rejection of a supreme being or beings.
No it isn't.

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

Learn something.

[dr.hee]

Atheism makes a direct assumption and that is the complete rejection of a supreme being or beings.

Did you write "rejection of a supreme being" on purpose as opposed to "rejection of the existence of a supreme being"? Huge difference that sometimes gets lost in discussions about the topic.

[K]

I'm officially still Catholic in Germany. Never practiced it. It's a massive stain on the record of my existence.

[dr.hee]

Clinging to semantics?

It's actually a good idea to allow more variety than theism <-> atheism...simply because there's more than that. This often gets lost in western societies, where people tend to simplify the matter to "Monotheism of their choice" <-> "Atheism (everything else as a singular belief system)". It's not simply semantics...

[Dresta]

Clinging to semantics?
Semantics? You got the definition completely wrong.

Are you retarded or something?

Thinking you can go around asserting untruths, and then calling the proof of their falsehood 'semantics' :lol

[Dresta]

In this case, how can it not be? How can someone flaunt the idea that they're atheist but when told you don't believe in a god and think it cannot and does not exist for you to say "nah, just don't believe in it, not that it cannot exist" Seems like a major cop out.
That's only because you're a major moron.

[Budadiiii]

It's like looking into a mirror. No wonder people don't like me. You're beyond obnoxious.
Dude... exactly.

:applause:

[Dresta]

I like how full of yourself you are.
I like how wrong you are. Your fantasies are amusing to me.

[JimmyConway]

Oh stfu you fairy fck

[Dresta]

Says the guy who literally argued that Marx wasn't racist. :roll:
Why're you so obsessed with Marx? I haven't brought him up once.

[Dresta]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wp-content-uploads-2008-11-neo.jpg
Go make a Marx thread if you wanna talk about Marx. What was being discussed in this thread has nothing to do with Marx. You literally cannot make a single relevant point.

[Dresta]

You just continue to prove my point again and again :lol

[Josh]

QUOTE=Dresta]You just continue to prove my point again and again :lol[/QUOTE]

When presented with something that makes you feel uncomfortable debating as an atheist, you resort to name calling. I've seen you call someone a "moron" I don't know how many times.

In a sense we're all morons. You yourself however would never admit to such. You're an atheist, and you know everything. Let's be realistic here - on average - atheist more often take pride in intellect and think they know more than those who are not atheist. Obviously not in all cases, just talking on average here, and if you reject or deny the notion you're in denial.

I'm making the claim that in the grand scheme of things we know nothing. We know nothing individually and we know nothing collectively as a whole. As human beings however, we're extravagantly prideful and refuse to admit this. We feel it devalues us.

A believer however can find some level of comfort in the realization that we know nothing. That we have difficulty understanding and comprehending all that is around us (the Earth, universe, everything in existence). We're nothing more than ants in the jungle and know nothing outside of our immediate surroundings, and we're OK with that. We can find comfort in knowing we're not that important. Having a Creator that does it comfort enough.

Atheists, as much as they love to believe they know something, are nothing more than all religious whackos walking this planet. Atheists are just like us, ants in the jungle who will never comprehend what's going on outside our immediate surroundings. We just think we do and call other people morons when we're basically the same level of intelligence compared to those of supernatural intelligence.

It's amazingly comical (not to mention hypocritical) watching people hop up on their (supposed) intellectual high horse galloping around in circles laughing and making fun of the meek "moron this" and "moron that" ... child please. Your brain isn't anything supernatural. You're the same as everyone else. An insignificant nobody that don't know shit. To keep it simple, a moron.

:lol (why do atheists get so pissed when you challenge their mental capacity?)

[niko]

Not sure why you're wasting your time arguing with LOJ. :lol
Why does he keep switching accounts? It's asinine.

[Deuce Bigalow]

merry christmas you little bitch.

Lets be real, most of us couldn't care less about Wilt Chamberlain
OP destroyed

[Josh]

Why does he keep switching accounts? It's asinine.

I would prefer the Legend of Josh one, but it's banned.

[dr.hee]

In this case, how can it not be? How can someone flaunt the idea that they're atheist but when told you don't believe in a god and think it cannot and does not exist for you to say "nah, just don't believe in it, not that it cannot exist" Seems like a major cop out.

That's exactly the point. Rejecting all positive statements about the existence of a deity doesn't necessarily mean you have go all the way into the other direction.

There's also a difference between thinking a god "can not exist" and thinking it "does not exist". It's just not that simple, and I don't see the copping out there at all.

I really like this visual representation of beliefs. In short, I'd guess most non believers are in the red part. At least I am if I'm trying to look at the issue objectively. I'm more inclined towards the contratheistic end, but that's more emotionally based and thus not really relevant. The red zone is something I feel comfortable to explain rationally.

http://zackfordblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/contratheism-scale2.jpg

Note how you can apply the same scale to every random positive statement of your choice, for example...is there a giant invisible Kobeface orbiting the moon?
...do you believe it is possible? You highly doubt there's a Kobeface orbiting the moon? You highly believe it isn't? You know it isn't?
That's where I feel positive statements based on mainstream monotheism get a free pass most people wouldn't give other claims about reality.



So I absolutely disagree about the copout thing. I've been raised religious and are still interested in the whole thing...and these distinctions aren't just wordplay but something that's actually relevant for my thoughts about the issue. Same goes for other people, too. You shouldn't oversimplify the matter too much.

[Dresta]

What is your point? You have none. You're just some dude who made the most asinine statement in this entire thread. Keep replying, though. Dodge so hard, people mistake you for a car. :sleeping
My point?

That you evidently know nothing about atheism; that you got your definition of it wrong, but instead of admitting that you were wrong, and realigning your views, you simply changed the subject to things like Karl Marx that are of no relevance.

You said the difference between assertion of knowledge and a claim to ignorance was a matter of semantics. You might as well say the difference between an atheist and theist is one of semantics as well. Keep moving those goalpost, keep proving your lack of intelligence and understanding :applause: .


QUOTE=Dresta]You just continue to prove my point again and again :lol

When presented with something that makes you feel uncomfortable debating as an atheist, you resort to name calling. I've seen you call someone a "moron" I don't know how many times.

In a sense we're all morons. You yourself however would never admit to such. You're an atheist, and you know everything. Let's be realistic here - on average - atheist more often take pride in intellect and think they know more than those who are not atheist. Obviously not in all cases, just talking on average here, and if you reject or deny the notion you're in denial.

I'm making the claim that in the grand scheme of things we know nothing. We know nothing individually and we know nothing collectively as a whole. As human beings however, we're extravagantly prideful and refuse to admit this. We feel it devalues us.

A believer however can find some level of comfort in the realization that we know nothing. That we have difficulty understanding and comprehending all that is around us (the Earth, universe, everything in existence). We're nothing more than ants in the jungle and know nothing outside of our immediate surroundings, and we're OK with that. We can find comfort in knowing we're not that important. Having a Creator that does it comfort enough.

Atheists, as much as they love to believe they know something, are nothing more than all religious whackos walking this planet. Atheists are just like us, ants in the jungle who will never comprehend what's going on outside our immediate surroundings. We just think we do and call other people morons when we're basically the same level of intelligence compared to those of supernatural intelligence.

It's amazingly comical (not to mention hypocritical) watching people hop up on their (supposed) intellectual high horse galloping around in circles laughing and making fun of the meek "moron this" and "moron that" ... child please. Your brain isn't anything supernatural. You're the same as everyone else. An insignificant nobody that don't know shit. To keep it simple, a moron.

:lol (why do atheists get so pissed when you challenge their mental capacity?)[/QUOTE]A moron = a stupid person i.e. someone that is stupid for a human being. It is a means of distinguishing between people of our species, so no, we are not all morons, but thanks for admitting that you are one yourself.

And it's got nothing to do with being uncomfortable (why would i be uncomfortable?). I haven't called anyone a moron for simply believing in God, i called you one because you don't have the slightest clue what you're babbling about. You reject atheism without even understanding what it is, and denigrate it with false arguments.

Thank you for telling me how insignificant i am. Being an atheist i already knew it, but thanks all the same. Though i think you'll find that it's generally theists who are clinging desperately to a string of significance. And you continue to show how stupid you are by claiming that it is the atheist that claims to know everything, and the theist that claims ignorance; nothing could be further from the truth than that.

I take comfort in knowing i know far more than imbeciles such as yourself. Intellect is still the most advanced thing we have, and what distinguishes us from other animals, so people should take pride in it.

[-p.tiddy-]

http://zackfordblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/contratheism-scale2.jpg

This scale is really bad IMO, the biggest range of beliefs ifs found in agnosticism where there are agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, etc. Most so called atheists are actually agnostic atheists.

Furthermore, how can you be without belief and fall under " I dont BELIEVE there is a God"? And I've never even heard of conrtathiesim, that's a new one to me. But the differences between that an atheism are not much imo.

Imo the scale is more like:

Theist: I believe in a higher power
Agnostic Thiest: Not sure but I think there is a God
Agnostic: I have no idea, it's impossible to know
Agnostic atheist: Not sure but I doubt there is a higher power
Athiest: three is no God, it goes black when you die, the universe just appeared out of no where, etc

[dr.hee]

Theist: I believe in a higher power
Agnostic Thiest: Not sure but I think there is a God
Agnostic: I have no idea, it's impossible to know
Agnostic atheist: Not sure but I doubt there is a higher power
Athiest: three is no God, it goes black when you die, the universe just appeared out of no where, etc

I don't think your scale is accurate...

1) It's wrong to assume atheism = not believing in a "higher power". It just means not to believe in deities. That's a difference. I can be an atheist and still believe in "something higher"...as long as it's not a personal supernatural agent, it doesn't contradict atheistic positions.

2) I also don't think it's good to equal atheism with statements about what happens after we die and the origin of the universe. You can't derive a person's opinions about these topics from the question whether they affiliate with a theist belief or not. That's way too simple. I can believe in a deity and still assume the universe appeared out of nowhere and deny the existence of an afterlife. Just like I can be atheistic but think there's an afterlife...

In my opinion, you're just simplifying matters way too much.

[Dresta]

Once again: atheism is not an assertion, it defines an absence of God. If i don't believe in an afterlife or a tangible God, that does not mean i declare it is impossible for God to exist, or that i know he does not exist.

Agnosticism is an empty term used by atheists who are unwilling to acknowledge what they believe to other people. In reality, all people are agnostic, because nobody knows. Agnosticism is not on the same spectrum as theism, deism and atheism; it relates to knowledge, not belief.

[-p.tiddy-]

No, some people could certainly "know"... you are just assuming no one knows, if there is infarct a higher power then it is possible that some humans have come into contact. Ever heard of an NDE or the Astral Plane, etc?

atheism rejects the idea of a higher power

If you are still open to the possibility of a higher power existing? You're an agnostic... just say you're an agnostic... Or an agnostic atheist if you lean toward nothing existing but us.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[-p.tiddy-]

http://freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/final6.jpg

Much better graph ^^^

[ace23]

What is the difference between generally believing there is no God and not believing there is a god?

[Fawker]

Devout Christian/Catholic regions outside of the US do not celebrate the holidays like these twisted white folks. It is really about worship and not:

Christmas- shopping, giving/receiving gifts, christmas lights.
Easter- painting eggs, bunny, chocolates.

What ****ing type of religious celebration are these?!

[Inactive]

atheism rejects the idea of a higher power No it doesn't. It's just the lack of belief in a personal God. To explicitly assert that there is no God would be anti-theism, i.e the opposite of theism, rather than the absence of theism.

If you are still open to the possibility of a higher power existing? You're an agnostic... just say you're an agnostic...Agnostic = not knowing. Agnosticism, in the religious context generally means the belief that we don't have access to knowledge of the non-material. It has nothing to do with what you believe, or what you're open to believing about anything else.


Or an agnostic atheist if you lean toward nothing existing but us.
If you're an agnostic atheist, then you don't believe that anyone can know if there is a God, and you don't believe in God.
If you're an agnostic theist, then you don't believe anyone can know if there is a God, but you have faith anyway.

Virtually every atheist is an agnostic atheist. The reason atheists don't like to call themselves "agnostic atheists" is because there are an infinite number of things which everyone must be agnostic about. For example: Is there a baby superman named Kal-El living on a planet called Krypton? You can't know that there isn't, but would you feel the need to emphasize your ignorance, or would you just say "I don't believe in Superman, that's just a story that humans invented. I'm an asupermanist."?

I think it's much more useful to distinguish between agnostic, and gnostic theists. The agnostic theists who just take comfort in their faith are much less dangerous than those who believe that they have special knowledge of God's will.

[Dresta]

No, some people could certainly "know"... you are just assuming no one knows, if there is infarct a higher power then it is possible that some humans have come into contact. Ever heard of an NDE or the Astral Plane, etc?

atheism rejects the idea of a higher power

If you are still open to the possibility of a higher power existing? You're an agnostic... just say you're an agnostic... Or an agnostic atheist if you lean toward nothing existing but us.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Nope, you're wrong, and i've already explained why.

And someone thinking they know because they had a hallucination does not mean they do: they just think they know, no more than that. There are plenty of biological explanations for their delusions. Nobody really knows.

[ace23]

What is the difference between generally believing there is no God and not believing there is a god?
Someone answer this.

[dr.hee]

What is the difference between generally believing there is no God and not believing there is a god?

Not believing there is a god -> rejection of positive statements about the existence of a god, absence of belief in god ( this doesn't necessarily imply a definitive statement into the other direction...it's a common misconception I've heard from a number of theists related to their percieved "you have to be for/against god" dichotomy).

Generally believing there is no god -> belief that there is no god, a more general statement not based on rejecting a positive claim but rather a belief on it's own.

So in short...believing there is no god is kind of a more definite position where you're not simply disagreeing with a positive statement about god's existence, but make your own assertion instead.

At least that's my way to define it. Don't know, any other ideas?

[-p.tiddy-]

No it doesn't. It's just the lack of belief in a personal God. To explicitly assert that there is no God would be anti-theism, i.e the opposite of theism, rather than the absence of theism.
Agnostic = not knowing. Agnosticism, in the religious context generally means the belief that we don't have access to knowledge of the non-material. It has nothing to do with what you believe, or what you're open to believing about anything else.

If you're an agnostic atheist, then you don't believe that anyone can know if there is a God, and you don't believe in God.
If you're an agnostic theist, then you don't believe anyone can know if there is a God, but you have faith anyway.

Virtually every atheist is an agnostic atheist. The reason atheists don't like to call themselves "agnostic atheists" is because there are an infinite number of things which everyone must be agnostic about. For example: Is there a baby superman named Kal-El living on a planet called Krypton? You can't know that there isn't, but would you feel the need to emphasize your ignorance, or would you just say "I don't believe in Superman, that's just a story that humans invented. I'm an asupermanist."?

I think it's much more useful to distinguish between agnostic, and gnostic theists. The agnostic theists who just take comfort in their faith are much less dangerous than those who believe that they have special knowledge of God's will.


Yes it is...the def of atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

And aliens from Krypton have nothing to do with a higher power, this rebate is exclusive to the existence of another dimension. It also has nothing to do with religion or "faith" of any kind. There are plenty of theists that are not religious.

[-p.tiddy-]

Nope, you're wrong, and i've already explained why.

And someone thinking they know because they had a hallucination does not mean they do: they just think they know, no more than that. There are plenty of biological explanations for their delusions. Nobody really knows.
Obviously it is your strong assumption that nobody really knows, you are clearly agnostic and not atheist.

[Inactive]

Yes it is...the def of atheism:
That is exactly what I said.

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7]"

Most inclusively, meaning the most general definition, which encompasses the most usage of the word.

And aliens from Krypton have nothing to do with a higher power, this rebate is exclusive to the existence of another dimension. It also has nothing to do with religion or "faith" of any kind. There are plenty of theists that are not religious.The analogy has nothing to do with specific claims. The point is that there are an infinite number of propositions which one could generate, which would be impossible to falsify. But we don't say we're agnostic about them, and act like it's reasonable to believe in them; we just ignore them. There is no reason, aside from social pressure, for spiritual claims to be treated any differently.

[Josh]

Nope, you're wrong, and i've already explained why.

And someone thinking they know because they had a hallucination does not mean they do: they just think they know, no more than that. There are plenty of biological explanations for their delusions. Nobody really knows.

This is exactly right, 100%. I wish more atheists (as well as those who are religious, I'm not bias when it comes to this) would adopt this simple FACT. You don't know shit. I don't know shit. There's no reason for you, me or anyone else (such as that dr- hee poster or whatever dude's name is) to get offended when I tell them this. It's the simple truth.

There's just something about an atheist that can't let go when you tell them they don't know anything - even when you specify that you yourself don't know anything as well. They can't let it go. When you suggest to them they're in the dark and don't know anything it's a paramount insult in their eyes. They feel they're light years ahead in the mental department, especially in terms of understanding the universe. They find themselves telling others they're morons and "why don't you educate yourself" - they tend (more like pretend) to get off "knowing" (which is false, thinking is much closer to the truth) they're superior intellectually, so when you challenge such, sparks fly, feelings get hurt and typically what was a harmless discussion turns into a foreshadow of what seems to be an oncoming World War III.

They're insanely quick to tell you how the universe came to be, but haven't the slightest clue as to why the universe exists in the first place. When all signs point to God, a creator, intelligent design, etc they want to pretend it's a foreign concept; like it's an idea that can't be supported in terms of logic. To the contrary, nothing could be more logical.

If science can't explain something - such as why the universe ____ etc - (and believe me, there's no single more important and profound question than this one right here) then the logical explanation and answer must be a supernatural one, meaning something supernatural is needed to come to a "why" conclusion, something beyond us, something beyond our level of knowledge and understanding. We're incapable of knowing why the universe _____ etc and incapable of knowing mankind's purpose in life on our own without help. This is where God comes into play.

Science tells us the how. God tells us the why. But hell, what do I know, right? This is nothing but straight booty chatter.

:oldlol:

... and it terms of the how and why behind it all ... IMO, the why is much more intriguing and significant. Wouldn't you agree?

That's OK though, because unlike many of you, I'm perfectly comfortable with knowing I know nothing. I'm perfectly OK with knowing I personally don't have all the answers. I'm OK with this because God does. I don't put all my trust and faith marbles in the basket Father Science is holding, and instead I put them in the one God is.

[Inactive]

They're insanely quick to tell you how the universe came to be, but haven't the slightest clue as to why the universe exists in the first place. When all signs point to God, a creator, intelligent design, etc they want to pretend it's a foreign concept; like it's an idea that can't be supported in terms of logic. To the contrary, nothing could be more logical.What are these signs that point to God, and what would a universe without signs pointing to God look like?


If science can't explain something - such as why the universe ____ etc - (and believe me, there's no single more important and profound question than this one right here) then the logical explanation and answer must be a supernatural one, meaning something supernatural is needed to come to a "why" conclusion, something beyond us, something beyond our level of knowledge and understanding. We're incapable of knowing why the universe _____ etc and incapable of knowing mankind's purpose in life on our own without help. This is where God comes into play.I don't see how speculating about gods can answer any "why" questions.

You either end up with turtles all the way down ("Why did god set it up that way? Because God created him to set up that way. Why did God create him that way?" etc. ad infinitum.), or you end up saying "God's will is eternal, and fundamental, there is no "why", he just is what he is.". If you go with the latter, then there's no reason why you couldn't just say the universe is fundamental, it is what it is, and skip that unnecessary speculation about gods.

[Dresta]

Obviously it is your strong assumption that nobody really knows, you are clearly agnostic and not atheist.
No i'm not: I'm an atheist, you just seem incapable of understanding what the word actually means. I clearly do not believe in God, and see no reason to do so. I am without belief.

The etymology of the word can perhaps clear things up for you:

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French ath

[Josh]

You either end up with turtles

http://www.davidwarnerfilm.co.uk/turtles3.JPG

"God didn't make those got damn turtles, I did ... I am a scientist and if you don't believe what I tell you then you're a moron, right Dresta?"



You either end up with turtles all the way down

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/square_small/11111/111117333/3056060-teenage+mutant+ninja+turtles+under+the+manhole.jpg

*Michelangelo*

"you mean like all the way down here, with us, bub? Shit, Mario did it. He ain't scu-r-r'd of them mean old atheists"

https://drawception.com/pub/panels/2012/5-6/SwE5jSqmsZ-6.png

[ace23]

Not believing there is a god -> rejection of positive statements about the existence of a god, absence of belief in god ( this doesn't necessarily imply a definitive statement into the other direction...it's a common misconception I've heard from a number of theists related to their percieved "you have to be for/against god" dichotomy).

Generally believing there is no god -> belief that there is no god, a more general statement not based on rejecting a positive claim but rather a belief on it's own.

So in short...believing there is no god is kind of a more definite position where you're not simply disagreeing with a positive statement about god's existence, but make your own assertion instead.

At least that's my way to define it. Don't know, any other ideas?
I see what you're saying, but the two terms are pretty much interchangeable. If you believe one, you believe the other. Just a pointless distinction imo

[-p.tiddy-]

[QUOTE=Dresta]No i'm not: I'm an atheist, you just seem incapable of understanding what the word actually means. I clearly do not believe in God, and see no reason to do so. I am without belief.

The etymology of the word can perhaps clear things up for you:

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French ath

[-p.tiddy-]

What are these signs that point to God, and what would a universe without signs pointing to God look like?

IMO it seems like a huge coincidence that we have things like gravity and time and light which is all essential to our existence.To me that hints at design, this seems like a huge 3D playground to me.

A universe without signs of God? Time doesn't exist perhaps, no light, no gravity, impossible for anything to really "happen", etc

[Inactive]

IMO it seems like a huge coincidence that we have things like gravity and time and light which is all essential to our existence.To me that hints at design, this seems like a huge 3D playground to me.Any universe in which there are beings will have laws which are essential to the existence of those beings.

This is like saying "What a coincidence that I was born on a planet with an abundance of oxygen, which is essential to my existence, even though I can imagine so many planets which don't have oxygen! I must've been put here on purpose!". Obviously, things which require oxygen never develop on planets without oxygen, so they aren't around to reflect on how unfortunate it is that God didn't place them on a more suitable planet.


A universe without signs of God? Time doesn't exist perhaps, no light, no gravity, impossible for anything to really "happen", etcWhy would a God invent time, light, gravity, or causality?

[DonDadda59]

.They're insanely quick to tell you how the universe came to be, but haven't the slightest clue as to why the universe exists in the first place.

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/sites/default/files/images/11w/2013/11/MatrixOracle.jpg

"Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is... What if there is no 'why'?"

[dr.hee]

I don't get why some humans have this idea of "Look at me, I exist. This can't be a coincidence. The whole f*cking universe must've been created to have me in mind. Me, just for me. I have to be the point of everything. There is light. And I wanna see stuff. Coincidence? Don't think so. There has to be an all powerful being behind it, that cares about...me!!!"...

Just don't get it...some arguments are understandable from my point of view...but most of it seems like jacking off to some grandiose anthropocentric superiority complex. I mean I'd like if there was an all powerful loving being behind everything, and maybe there is...but somehow I don't see what's so great about this universe and the primates that percieve themselves as the greatest thing in the history of everything...except for the supernatural being that created a whole universe for them.

[Josh]

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/sites/default/files/images/11w/2013/11/MatrixOracle.jpg

"Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is... What if there is no 'why'?"

http://mamasoncall.com/mama/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/headache.png

Oh no! My mind, you're raping it!

[DonDadda59]

I don't get why some humans have this idea of "Look at me, I exist. This can't be a coincidence. The whole f*cking universe must've been created to have me in mind. Me, just for me. I have to be the point of everything. There is light. And I wanna see stuff. Coincidence? Don't think so. There has to be an all powerful being behind it, that cares about...me!!!"...

Just don't get it...some arguments are understandable from my point of view...but most of it seems like jacking off to some grandiose anthropocentric superiority complex. I mean I'd like if there was an all powerful loving being behind everything, and maybe there is...but somehow I don't see what's so great about this universe and the primate species that percieves itself as the greatest thing in the history of everything.

That's the basis of most religions from what I've seen- human narcissism.

If the bearded space wizard who molded the Universe because he was bored one week really exists, he probably forgot that Earth even exists billions of years ago (or 6,000 depending on who you ask :oldlol: ). There are innumerable planets, galaxies, systems, etc but there's a bunch of apes who are convinced that their existence is the very center of it all- that none of it can exist without them as it had for billions of years (or 6,000 depending on who you ask :oldlol: ) before homo sapiens even existed. So they have to live forever in some shape or form and the all powerful wizard who is in charge of making sure Saturn's ring stays in place cares that they win a grammy or whether or not they partake in swine.

The truth is that Earth is not even a single grain of sand on the vast, endless beach that is the Universe. The geocentric and anthropocentric religions that were started thousands of years ago by ignorant goat herders naturally cannot grasp this concept. Man is the center of the Universe, Man is made in God's image, God has nothing better to do than listen to man's whining and occasionally judge him for rubbing one out, not like there's anything more interesting going on in the other end of the Universe.

It's all just human ego projected outward. Nothing more.


http://mamasoncall.com/mama/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/headache.png

Oh no! My mind, you're raping it!

That... and the cocaine of course.

[dr.hee]

That's the basis of most religions from what I've seen- human narcissism.

If the bearded space wizard who molded the Universe because he was bored one week really exists, he probably forgot that Earth even exists billions of years ago (or 6,000 depending on who you ask :oldlol: ). There are innumerable planets, galaxies, systems, etc but there's a bunch of apes who are convinced that their existence is the very center of it all- that none of it can exist without them as it had for billions of years (or 6,000 depending on who you ask :oldlol: ) before homo sapiens even existed. So they have to live forever in some shape or form and the all powerful wizard who is in charge of making sure Saturn's ring stays in place cares that they win a grammy or whether or not they partake in swine.

The truth is that Earth is not even a single grain of sand on the vast, endless beach that is the Universe. The geocentric and anthropocentric religions that were started thousands of years ago by ignorant goat herders naturally cannot grasp this concept. Man is the center of the Universe, Man is made in God's image, God has nothing better to do than listen to man's whining and occasionally judge him for rubbing one out, not like there's anything more interesting going on in the other end of the Universe.

It's all just human ego projected outward. Nothing more.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KAtLyU7wgck/TSbC5P8uAxI/AAAAAAAAAlQ/HVG3qAzu8qs/s1600/oreilly%2Bmoon.jpg

[Josh]

That... and the cocaine of course.

No. I stopped using a few months ago.

[Josh]

It's all just human ego projected outward. Nothing more.

Atheism is just as much human ego as you call it. Just as religion puts man at the center of the universe, atheists do the same. Some atheist (and from my experience most) are the most self-righteous, narcissistic douchebags on the planet. They're no different than the religious nut who thinks they're going to heaven while 98% of those around them aren't.

Your average run-of-the-mill atheist is human ego projected outward. Nothing more.

[ROCSteady]

Wouldn't be a ISH God thread without a don dadda diatribe denouncing believers as arrogant or traditional tunnel visioners. Thank you for the constant, givin this board and the world meaning. You are the ISH Kin of gravity to our electronic environment

The lack of multiple web links as your proof, however, give this particular response a lack of fervor. U burnt out?

[DonDadda59]

No. I stopped using a few months ago.

Hallelujah, another space wizard miracle!


Atheism is just as much human ego as you call it. Just as religion puts man at the center of the universe, atheists do the same. Some atheist (and from my experience most) are the most self-righteous, narcissistic douchebags on the planet. They're no different than the religious nut who thinks they're going to heaven while 98% of those around them aren't.

Your average run-of-the-mill atheist is human ego projected outward. Nothing more.

Bullshit. I am well aware of just how insignificant my/our time on Earth really is. Religious folk of your ilk are convinced that you have to live forever otherwise the Universe will implode into itself and that this all powerful, all knowing being cares about what you do on a daily basis and is just a mirror image wish machine. I mean, is it only humans who go to Heaven? What makes man so unique and special amongst God's many creatures? Is Michael Jackson on a cloud right now teaching a T-Rex how to moonwalk?

My world view is a rejection of the misguided self-importance of the dominant World religions (Abrahamic). I know that the Universe doesn't care whether or not I exist and that it will continue as is long after I'm gone, as it did for billions of years before me. There is no 'why', just somewhat controlled chaos. You could be in a movie theater tomorrow and some lunatic will barge in with an AR-15 and ice you. Where's the reason or 'why' in that? All part of the grand scheme right?

So no, it's not the same.


Wouldn't be a ISH God thread without a don dadda diatribe denouncing believers as arrogant or traditional tunnel visioners. Thank you for the constant, givin this board and the world meaning. You are the ISH Kin of gravity to our electronic environment

The lack of multiple web links as your proof, however, give this particular response a lack of fervor. U burnt out?

You got anything to add to the discussion besides uninspired sarcasm, brah? :lol

[Josh]

Hallelujah, another space wizard miracle!



Bullshit. I am well aware of just how insignificant my/our time on Earth really is. Religious folk of your ilk are convinced that you have to live forever otherwise the Universe will implode into itself and that this all powerful, all knowing being cares about what you do on a daily basis and is just a mirror image wish machine. I mean, is it only humans who go to Heaven? What makes man so unique and special amongst God's many creatures? Is Michael Jackson on a cloud right now teaching a T-Rex how to moonwalk?

My world view is a rejection of the misguided self-importance of the dominant World religions (Abrahamic). I know that the Universe doesn't care whether or not I exist and that it will continue as is long after I'm gone, as it did for billions of years before me. There is no 'why', just somewhat controlled chaos. You could be in a movie theater tomorrow and some lunatic will barge in with an AR-15 and ice you. Where's the reason or 'why' in that? All part of the grand scheme right?

So no, it's not the same.



You got anything to add to the discussion besides uninspired sarcasm, brah? :lol

You and your ego along prove my point. You can "bullshit" it all you want. It is what it is. You think you're mentally special, and yes I'd agree, but not in the way you're personally thinking.

[DonDadda59]

You and your ego along prove my point. You can "bullshit" it all you want. It is what it is. You think you're mentally special, and yes I'd agree, but not in the way you're personally thinking.

Wait.. wait... wait...

Hold up...

You tryna say I'm retarded? Wow, you really got me there. Look at you... Clever as f*ck, all sober for a couple of months and shit. Well argued rebuttal to my argument.

Go to sleep :oldlol:

[ROCSteady]

You got anything to add to the discussion besides uninspired sarcasm, brah? :lol

Lol not at the moment as I am on my phone. Hardly ideal for lengthy adult debates in which grammar, spelling and correct form can take validity from one's opinions. Tis the message board way.

I'm just glad you didn't let us down brufa

[DonDadda59]

I'm just glad you didn't let us down brufa

Always happy to drop knowledge on the youth :cheers:

http://www.caregiving.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/yogi_bear.gif

[-p.tiddy-]

Any universe in which there are beings will have laws which are essential to the existence of those beings.

This is like saying "What a coincidence that I was born on a planet with an abundance of oxygen, which is essential to my existence, even though I can imagine so many planets which don't have oxygen! I must've been put here on purpose!". Obviously, things which require oxygen never develop on planets without oxygen, so they aren't around to reflect on how unfortunate it is that God didn't place them on a more suitable planet.
The only way it wouldn't be a massive coincidence is if there are billions of different universes and the majority of them are completely unfunctional in terms of being suitable for life. But if this the the only universe or even just one of a few dozen? Huge coincidence that it just happens to have the proper laws for everything to work out IMO.


Why would a God invent time, light, gravity, or causality?
So that life can exist obviously...



I am a video game Dev, and I make 3D worlds for a living... to me this universe seems blatantly designed for us to "play" in so to speak. The "code" works out perfectly... All the things we need (time, light, gravity, etc) are here.

[-p.tiddy-]

I don't get why some humans have this idea of "Look at me, I exist. This can't be a coincidence. The whole f*cking universe must've been created to have me in mind. Me, just for me. I have to be the point of everything. There is light. And I wanna see stuff. Coincidence? Don't think so. There has to be an all powerful being behind it, that cares about...me!!!"...

Just don't get it...some arguments are understandable from my point of view...but most of it seems like jacking off to some grandiose anthropocentric superiority complex. I mean I'd like if there was an all powerful loving being behind everything, and maybe there is...but somehow I don't see what's so great about this universe and the primates that percieve themselves as the greatest thing in the history of everything...except for the supernatural being that created a whole universe for them.
To me it is far more logical than to think all of this just suddenly decided to appear from nothing.

Why does everything have to be "great"?

If we created a fake virtual reality here on Earth where "self aware robots" all lived then to them WE would be "God" and the place we come from would be FAR from perfect. We are flawed.

Why can't our creators also be flawed? Why must God be viewed as some perfect all knowing flawless thing? Perhaps the after life is every bit as messy as this world is.

[ace23]

To me it is far more logical than to think all of this just suddenly decided to appear from nothing.

Why does everything have to be "great"?

If we created a fake virtual reality here on Earth where "self aware robots" all lived then to them WE would be "God" and the place we come from would be FAR from perfect. We are flawed.

Why can't our creators also be flawed? Why must God be viewed as some perfect all knowing flawless thing? Perhaps the after life is every bit as messy as this world is.
This post has nothing to with what dr. hee said.

[Inactive]

The only way it wouldn't be a massive coincidence is if there are billions of different universes and the majority of them are completely unfunctional in terms of being suitable for life. But if this the the only universe or even just one of a few dozen? Huge coincidence that it just happens to have the proper laws for everything to work out IMO.It's not a massive coincidence, no matter how many universes there are. We have one example to look at, and these are it's properties. If it had different properties, we wouldn't exist, but other things would. Those things would be perfectly adapted to the peculiarities of the universe from which they arose.

So that life can exist obviously... 1. Why would God want life to exist? 2. Why would those particular conditions have to be met in order for God to create life? If God can exist without time, or causality, and he is omnipotent, surely he can create life which will exist under any set of parameters?


I am a video game Dev, and I make 3D worlds for a living... to me this universe seems blatantly designed for us to "play" in so to speak. The "code" works out perfectly... All the things we need (time, light, gravity, etc) are here.When you design a video game world, you're designing an imitation of the world humans experience. If you were a bat, light wouldn't be a major consideration in your game. If you were an aquatic creature, gravity wouldn't be such a major consideration. If you were an 8 dimensional space squid, made up of a discontinuous physical structure, whose parts communicated at a distance via information transfer across 7th dimension, or some other bit of gibberish, you'd design a completely different game world.

[Dresta]

God is not part of the life of an agnostic either genius... You don't know you say? You're an agnostic. An atheist rejects the idea that a higher power exists, again just read the definition. And yes you ARE assuming no human has been in contact with a higher power, that is all you can do with that.

This has everything to do with what we BELIEVE and nothing to do with what is fact.

You believe it is impossible for any human to meet God making you an agnostic, and Joe Schmoe believes he saw God when he flat lined in ER so he is gnostic. Which ever one is correct is irrelevant when defining what we belief.

Understand now?
No, because you aren't making any sense. I provided you with the definition, as well as the etymology behind it, and you think you disprove that by what, quoting something random from the internet?

Everybody is agnostic. What is so hard for you to get about that? Agnosticism has to do with KNOWLEDGE, atheism and theism has to do with BELIEF; they are completely different concepts. 'i know' is not the same as 'i believe' and not knowing does not prevent belief. It is called faith for a reason.

Reading your post it is obvious that you have either not comprehended or not read anything i have written in this thread. Go back and try again.

[-p.tiddy-]

No...not "everybody is agnostic"...:facepalm

Its about what you BELIEVE...not what is FACT

if Joe Schmoe BELIEVES he has personally met God then he is GNOSTIC because he believes he KNOWS God exists... the opposite of AGNOSTIC

if you BELIEVE no one know then you are Agnostic, but not everyone BELIEVES the same as you... Some people out there BELIEVE you can know.

[-p.tiddy-]

http://actok.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png


Look at this chart Dresta, until it sinks in for you

[Dresta]

You really have gone full ****ing retard now. You can't even stick to your own arguments: you earlier claimed i was an agnostic, yet that stupid chart you are endorsing says quite clearly the view i have been expressing is atheist.

agnostic = without knowledge. Stop with you pathetic mutilating of definitions and childish charts, it's embarrassing. Someone can claim to be a gnostic, yet they have no proof either way - so i can far more easily claim that they're full of shit. Knowledge requires evidence and nobody has any actual evidence; what is so hard for you to understand about this? Are you really that dim?

[ace23]

You really have gone full ****ing retard now. You can't even stick to your own arguments: you earlier claimed i was an agnostic, yet that stupid chart you are endorsing says quite clearly the view i have been expressing is atheist.

agnostic = without knowledge. Stop with you pathetic mutilating of definitions and childish charts, it's embarrassing. Someone can claim to be a gnostic, yet they have no proof either way - so i can far more easily claim that they're full of shit. Knowledge requires evidence and nobody has any actual evidence; what is so hard for you to understand about this? Are you really that dim?
Agnosticism has to do with a lack of belief of knowledge, not actual knowledge. Of course, in reality, no one knows for sure, but people who believe they do reserve the right to not identify as agnostic.


agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

[Dresta]

Agnosticism has to do with a lack of belief of knowledge, not actual knowledge. Of course, in reality, no one knows for sure, but people who believe they do reserve the right to not identify as agnostic.
What a word has become to mean because of its misuse does not necessarily make it valid. Everyone has the right to identify as gnostic if they want, but they are simply deluded, and are in reality agnostic.

Thomas Huxley first used the word and defined it saying: “It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

My dictionary says: 'a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God'

But that definition carries an inherent contradiction: if someone does not have faith, then they clearly do not believe, and God is not a part of their lives. There simply isn't any middle ground on this issue. You can't kind of believe: you either have faith or you do not.

'do you believe in God'

'i don't know'

:facepalm

[-p.tiddy-]

You really have gone full ****ing retard now. You can't even stick to your own arguments: you earlier claimed i was an agnostic, yet that stupid chart you are endorsing says quite clearly the view i have been expressing is atheist.

agnostic = without knowledge. Stop with you pathetic mutilating of definitions and childish charts, it's embarrassing. Someone can claim to be a gnostic, yet they have no proof either way - so i can far more easily claim that they're full of shit. Knowledge requires evidence and nobody has any actual evidence; what is so hard for you to understand about this? Are you really that dim?
You believe that "no one can know for sure"

That makes you AGNOSTIC

and not everyone believes the same as you do... Some people believe that you CAN know for sure... That makes them GNOSTIC... the opposite of agnostic

This isn't that hard.

[ace23]

What a word has become to mean because of its misuse does not necessarily make it valid. Everyone has the right to identify as gnostic if they want, but they are simply deluded, and are in reality agnostic.
Lol

[tpols]

No...not "everybody is agnostic"...:facepalm

Its about what you BELIEVE...not what is FACT

if Joe Schmoe BELIEVES he has personally met God then he is GNOSTIC because he believes he KNOWS God exists... the opposite of AGNOSTIC

if you BELIEVE no one know then you are Agnostic, but not everyone BELIEVES the same as you... Some people out there BELIEVE you can know.
Without proof he doesn't know shit lol.. In that case you can literally 'know' anything if you claim to have seen it in a hallucination/dream/etc

[Dresta]

You believe that "no one can know for sure"

That makes you AGNOSTIC

and not everyone believes the same as you do... Some people believe that you CAN know for sure... That makes them GNOSTIC... the opposite of agnostic

This isn't that hard.
Those people are deluded and suffering from a certifiable mental illness. They belong in the category if 'irrational crazy people' and they should really get some help/treatment. And no, i don't believe that no one can know, i know it; the work of David Hume has shown this pretty clearly, so i suggest you read it.

You told me i wasn't an atheist earlier because i was an agnostic so you clearly don't have a ****ing clue what you are talking about. You actually think atheism is a positive assertion and yet you have posted charts saying that it isn't to support your point on another question. You are a walking contradiction with no consistency or understanding, so just shut up.

[-p.tiddy-]

I said if anything you are an agnostic atheist... From the start I said the majority of those who claim to be atheist are actually that

Go back and read if you want...


It's nothing to cry about either, what's wrong with being agnostic? Nothing

[-p.tiddy-]

And whether or not those people are "deluded"or not means nothing in this debate... AGAIN, these are just words to define what people BELIEVE and not what is fact. They may think you are deluded or close minded for thinking no one can know... It doesn't matter.

[Dresta]

I said if anything you are an agnostic atheist... From the start I said the majority of those who claim to be atheist are actually that

Go back and read if you want...


It's nothing to cry about either, what's wrong with being agnostic? Nothing
You said:


Obviously it is your strong assumption that nobody really knows, you are clearly agnostic and not atheist.


Placing agnostic before atheist is a meaningless qualifier. And the word itself is fluffy and pointless: it is the banal affirmation of a undeniable truth. Atheism does not require an extra appendage, because finding no reason to believe in the supernatural is the only thing that is required.