servoled: Thats a "no" then?

nice try.

CygnusDarius: The problem here, is that subby was looking for a flamewar.

I drunk what: oh hai guys, what r we talkin' about?

Done.

Religion????....I Don't Know...Do I??

Das Meister: Atheism would be equivalent to "absense of god(s)".

is that a fact or just what they believe?

as an Agravitist I am absent of gravity

but an Anti-gravitist is against the belief in gravity?

your definition seems a bit shaky...

did I just step into a DC comic battle?

Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

Antigravity.

What is it called when you claim not to know whether or not there is a god because you simply can't know, but believe in good and evil forces, supernatural or mystical otherwise?

/curious

Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

easy, piss on the floor, reorient your mind so that the ground is the ceiling, then proceed.

I AM GOD!


there. now the mystery is solved. see, that wasn't difficult.

run along now.

Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

You need a special attachment on your vacuum cleaner.

servoled: amanogowa: No. It does not.

Sure it does. One is a question of belief, the other is a question of knowledge. Belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

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

How many times do people need to tell you that the belief in no god is different than the belief that you cannot know if there is a god are not the same thing?

You don't need BOOKS!!


you need THE BOOK, and Brother Harry!!

Linux_Yes: then you have reached the next level, grasshopper

then what happens if I accidentally ate the grasshopper?

CygnusDarius:

I tell what I do believe. Those are some seriously fine jubblies.

Giggity

Linux_Yes: I AM GOD!


there. now the mystery is solved. see, that wasn't difficult.

run along now.

Umm... God of what, exactly?.

Also, do I have to sacrifice a virgin in Thy Holy (or unholy) name?.

wow... I came here because I'm unsure of my beliefs about the various deities and didn't want to possibly become close-minded, but now my mind has fark filth all over it...

/agnostic wiccan
//thank your fark, kids
///thanks fark...

jso2897: Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

You need a special attachment on your vacuum cleaner.

thank you and God bless you!!! [happily exits room to find a vacuum cleaner and shhitt his way to ceiling bliss]

Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

Hold a mirror toward the ceiling and peer down into it whilst shiating. It will apear as though you are shiatting on the ceiling and perceptiion is all that really matters anyways.

jso2897: Lord_Baull: vertiaset 2009-07-02 01:45:53 PM
Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Sorry, I don't need to believe in a supernatural force to blame for all life's ills. I also don't need a supernatural force to enjoy life.
And your painting of atheists as amoral is just....stupid.
Here's an example of some religious types that have less morals than your "tiny minority."

Ted Haggard
Gov. Sanford
Jimmy Swaggart
Hitler
Larry Craig
Fred Phelps
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

It's a common logical fallacy known as a "frozen abstraction". When you hear someone say "That person has no morals", what they really mean is "That person does not share MY morals".
The fallacy lies in holding only one member of a class of things to be solely representative of that entire class of things.
I, however, have found that it is pointless to argue with people who embrace that fallacy - since they have already essentially re-defined the abstraction in question (be it morality or anything else) to exclude all but a single member of that class of abstractions, they are incapable of perceiving any that do not meet their self-imposed definition.
The reasoning process is thus:"My system of moral belief is a top down set of mandates that proceed from a higher authority. Thus, morality IS a top down set of mandates from a higher authority. Therefore, anyone who does not embrace a top-down set of mandates from a higher authority has no morality".
It's airtight logic, and cannot be disproven or even effectively questioned, and there is little point in pursuing it.

I agree. And will add
But Faith is good to have.

And Religion is the control of Faith through mysticism and fable, by removing ones own personal responsibility for their own actions. And placing it on an imaginary deity.

CygnusDarius: Linux

no, but you should satisfy her EVERY earthly DESIRES of the Flesh.

if you don't, you will burn in Hell!!!!

This sums it up nicely

CuteAsFark: Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

Hold a mirror toward the ceiling and peer down into it whilst shiating. It will apear as though you are shiatting on the ceiling and perceptiion is all that really matters anyways.

I started to come back with something about "ceiling shiatter is watching you...." and then I thought about the photoshop I'd need to make to go with it, and changed my mind.

Ant: rastjr: Maybe. But maybe not. Which one works better for you and the world?

Being a good person, of course. But do you really need a deity to tell you what's good?


No one said that you did. I sure didn't.

I gave my feeling on a subject. I like discussing things like this. That is all. You can be or do anything within the law you wish.

CuteAsFark: Linux

yea that would work. but only if i didn't know i was using a mirror. the knowledge of the mirror will kill the thrill.

maddogdelta: So what? Humans have a hard time grasping quantum mechanics

Speak for yourself Nancy, I eat quantum mechanics for breakfast!

I drunk what: Linux

then the grasshopper's wisdom would become your own. you might find yourself with an incredible desire to hop around rather than walk. eat grasshopper at your own risk!

SobrietyFighter: go now or i shall taunt you for a second time.

NI

ekky ekky pickinjaboooeyaaa

CuteAsFark: What is it called when you claim not to know whether or not there is a god because you simply can't know, but believe in good and evil forces, supernatural or mystical otherwise?

/curious

The ever annoying "I'm spiritual, but not religious"

jso2897: Linux

well, its true that, even though we may dine with family and friends, we will always shhitt alone.

such is the saddness of Life.

Some one explain this religion stuff to me in video game consoles.

I know the PS3 is atheist because it is all science.

I know the xtians are against the Wii because it is too fun and suggestive. Therefore the Wii is probably Hindu or some other polytheistic religion.

Cublet: /agnostic wiccan

Dude, that's seriously messed up.

CuteAsFark: What is it called when you claim not to know whether or not there is a god because you simply can't know, but believe in good and evil forces, supernatural or mystical otherwise?

/curious

a squished grape

/you can't have your cake and eat it

if you're not sure there is a God, how are you sure there is Good/Evil?

thats ok, you can keep your religion.

no thanks, seriously.

I drunk what: if you're not sure there is a God, how are you sure there is Good/Evil?

this is only relevant if you ascribe different levels of human nature to a higher power.

CuteAsFark: Linux

it sorta sounds like you've tried that before.

lol



i couldn't help it.

t3knomanser: Mr.Z: My belief is... it is a chair. What exactly is a chair anyway? What makes it a 'chair'? Is it because I sit on it?

My argument would be: it exists as a chair because you perceive it as a chair. Your brain is evolved to organize the world in terms of objects. Objects exist, not in the world, but in your brain. The collection of matter you refer to as a chair isn't a chair, except insofar as you perceive it that way. It's just a blob of matter.

Objects exist in the world. . . if not, when you went to sit down on the chair, you would fall on your ass.

Linux_Yes: CuteAsFark: Linux

yea that would work. but only if i didn't know i was using a mirror. the knowledge of the mirror will kill the thrill.

You could always try this whilst upside down, fark gravity!

what chair?

DeanMoriarty: agnostic = unknowable.

Belief doesn't enter into it.

an agnostic doesn't hold a belief in the supernatural, either way. an agnostic simply thinks you can't know one way or the other other.

I am presently agnostic about whether there are two dinosaurs fighting on a planet 90 million miles from Saturn. That is not to say I have a belief one way or the other; I'm saying I can't know.

But you COULD...

You could be agnostic about whether or not the dinosaurs are there, but you could have faith that they are. Or are not. Either way.

t3knomanser: Remember: if you say there is a god, you are a theist. If you are not a theist, you must be an atheist. An agnostic is someone who can't pick a side with complete confidence, but unless you say, "There is a god," you are an atheist.

No. I don't remember that. I don't remember that at all. What I remember is that an agnostic is a person who does not believe that the existence or nonexistence of a god can be known. What I remember is that the agnostic position is not the "centrist", "libertarian", or "this bowl of porridge is JUST right" position between theism and atheism, but an entirely distinct position of its own. But hey, thanks for the reminder.

Actually, I don't give a shiat. I just really freaking hate that "Remember: (something)" construction, more so when the (something) is a matter of opinion presented as fact, and most of all when the (something) is an opinion about something which is not a matter of of opinion, but a matter of fact, which is presented as a fact which is also wrong. It's like a goddamn poke in the eye every time I see it. It goes right up there with "That is called (whatever)" and its even more annoying cousin, "That's a little thing I like to call (whatever)".

All I'd like to add is that the sort of people you hear using the term "militant atheist" seriously are the same sort of people who, a few decades ago, would have been ranting about "militant feminists" and "uppity negros". They enjoy a privileged place in society and anyone who threatens that privilege must be painted as a villian whether or not they fit the bill.

I drunk what: CuteAsFark: What is it called when you claim not to know whether or not there is a god because you simply can't know, but believe in good and evil forces, supernatural or mystical otherwise?

/curious

a squished grape

/you can't have your cake and eat it

if you're not sure there is a God, how are you sure there is Good/Evil?

Not sure of anything, I just believe it exists. And cakes tastes best when you eat it twice.

Linux_Yes: I AM GOD

correct (new window)

Accent:
I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

I have trouble with this idea too, but they keep doing it.

weapons of mass destruction ring a bell?

omris: Accent:
I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

I have trouble with this idea too, but they keep doing it.

it's called brain-washing.

Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

CuteAsFark: it's called brain-washing.

We should have a law against that. It's terrible.

omris: You could be agnostic about whether or not the dinosaurs are there, but you could have faith that they are. Or are not. Either way.

exactly. Which is why being agnostic or gnostic is not a subcategory of being atheist or theist.