Kliffoth: I hear all about these 'militant atheists' trying to 'convert people'. I've never seen it, personally, though I'm sure there's some out there.

I got into a discussion over drinks with a christian and a mormon friend. I was the atheist-leaning-agnostic at the table and they both ganged up on me. Whenever I tried to make my case that "I don't know" and that no one really can they try to turn that around on me, saying that if I was lucky I would eventually be given a "sign".

Thing is, since I "don't know," the best I could do as a rebuttal was say that even though i doubted it, that it was a possibility.

/really annoyed me
//mormon made my head asplode when gay marriage came up and she started talking about protecting families and "marriage" from the potentially harmful life styles of homosexuals.

Vangor: No, he was arguing common usage by many for atheism includes active rejection of anything religious in nature beyond merely a deity. This is true.

I would say that you're confusing various things that most atheists also subscribe to, such as naturalism, with atheism itself.

Again, atheism in the strictest sense is nothing more than the non-belief in a god.

Anything beyond that goes into other beliefs. It's absolutely true though that most atheists have naturalistic world-views, which affect their views on supernatural claims. But not believing in, say, ghosts has nothing to do with atheism itself.

You can't say that just because most atheists disbelieve in supernatural claims, even though it's for reasons other than atheism (as in naturalism), we can attribute it to their atheism.

Appropriately enough, my "conversion" to atheism was for the same reason a lot of people turn to religion in the first place.

When I was lost, confused, and life seemed to have no purpose, I looked to church - through my extended family. Religion and "faith", however, were unable to provide any real answers.

So I turned to logic, science, philosophy and humanism. And no, these disciplines don't have the answers either, but at least they're trying.

If believers are pissed off at Atheists, they should tell them @
The Rational Skeptics Society forum^


If you're an Atheist, you should check out The Rational Skeptics Society forum^


/shameless plug
//other farkers are already over there

skinnyartist:
No, I'm trying to tell you that if you say "I do not believe in God," you are holding a different position than saying "I believe there is no God." ....Am I making myself clear?

Not really. How can one logically state "I do not believe in God" without implying anything about the belief in the existence of gods? At best it means "haven't thought about it/decided", which implies agnostic. Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source.

JQPublic: That's an apples to oranges comparison. I'd prefer to call all Christians 'wrong' and be done with it. Sounds like you want to nitpick over the finer details between atheist and agnostic, and then try to tell us atheists what we think.

A is defined as believing X
You call yourself A
Therefore you must believe X

A is defined as believing X
You do not believe X
Therefore you are not A

Its amazing how many people think that everyone is trying to argue in the first manner when all they are trying to do is stop people from using the words incorrectly.

skinnyartist: JQPublic: That's an apples to oranges comparison. I'd prefer to call all Christians 'wrong' and be done with it. Sounds like you want to nitpick over the finer details between atheist and agnostic, and then try to tell us atheists what we think.

No, I'm trying to tell you that if you say "I do not believe in God," you are holding a different position than saying "I believe there is no God."

Because they're different positions, and thus need different terms to define them.

Am I making myself clear?

Why does every newbie atheist come here and do this?

Vangor: What does second place get?

JQPublic: Why does every newbie atheist come here and do this?

I'm sorry you can't grasp simple philosophical concepts about what belief is, and that there is a huge difference in saying you believe something, or that you lack belief in something.

skinnyartist: I would say that you're confusing various things that most atheists also subscribe to, such as naturalism, with atheism itself.

You're not actually reading my posts, are you? Instead, you seem to be simply pent because I am attempting to correct something you said.

I am not confusing anything, since I previously noted, "Truly, the term means anywhere from simply a lack of belief in a deity, which I would prefer the term be used in such a way." This is more accurate and more useful, I believe. However, I said too, "but to others those religious trappings all stem from a belief in a deity initially; thus, to dismiss a deity should dismiss afterlife, a soul, magic, etc.." This is not a position I hold myself to, which is why I noted others and gave an explanation as to why others consider atheism to encompasses this.

skinnyartist: You can't say that just because most atheists disbelieve in supernatural claims, even though it's for reasons other than atheism (as in naturalism), we can attribute it to their atheism.

Not attempting to say such a thing at all, merely that others do. Hence, common, or more accurately one of the common usages of the term "atheist".

vertiaset: There are many Christian sites out there too which discuss how to deal with the militant atheist. One common thread you find is that the most militant atheists, the harshest, the most dogmatic are those people who once had faith and for some reason lost it.

Religious faith, is a blanket of comfort, of warmth. It provides in many believers a sense of purpose and peace. Now, having once had this protection and now lost it, the newly converted atheist feels a sense, not only of loss, but of resentment toward those who still possess it. This may explain the strident militancy of these people as they go out of there way to attack the faith of others.

The easiest targets are those believers who have never, themselves, questioned their faith or their church. These folks can be swayed by pointing out inconsistencies in scripture, the harshness of the Old Testament, the pronouncements of Paul on family, women and slavery and the mythical basis for the stories contained in Genesis i.e. the Garden and the Flood.

They may also point to the tragic periods of history where faith was used as a pretext for great evil.

Thinking Christians, know the cultural and historical context of these stories. They see them as allegory or as stories meant to illustrate a point about the human condition to a pre-literate people.

The idea of Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God, is a story of great love and sacrifice for ones fellow men. It illustrates a the new covenant with God wherein all men can be free, all men, of all creeds and races can be brothers.

Thoughtful people of all faiths know that societies are made of men and that men are fallible and subject to the influence of greed, lust and the desire for earthly glory.

A great many atheists, including Professor Dawkins themselves know the value of the teachings of Christ. Dawkins even refers to himself as a "cultural Christian". Who in the West is not? If you live in today's world and do not have as part of your cultural lexicon the Song of Solomon, the Beatitudes or Paul's Hymn to Love, then you are the poorer for it.

I've often wondered about that. i'm a non-believer who was raised as such, by 1950s bohemians - beatniks, if you will. I've never even seriously considered the possibility of any gods or other supernatural beings existing. And I've never felt the least hostility or contempt for any person of faith unless they have conducted themselves in a matter that warrants it.
I went to church with my Baptist grandmother, and sat politely and listened. When I went to catholic schools for a couple of years, I attended mass (though I did not, of course, take communion or anything like that).
To my mind, believers average out about the same as non-believers: Some's assholes, some's ain't. It's just people, and it's character and values that really count - not the superficial framework they hang upon.
What I have never understood is why anybody who is content and happy in what they believe would want to change anybody else's mind. What I believe is not going to magically become more satisfying or worthwhile to ME, just because I somehow convince YOU to agree. The sum total of my epistemological capital is not increased, and I am not made happier or wiser. What the hell's the point?
As long as you're willing to leave me the hell alone, you can believe whatever you want, and believe it with my full endorsement and approval. Conversely, if you agree, chapter and verse, with every single thing I think, and you're a dick - you're still a dick.
It can be fun to argue the finer points of these matters, at least with civil and intelligent folks - but I would never want to "convert" somebody else to think as I do.
One of me in this world is bad enough. :D

Ishidan: Ultimate test for the 'religiously tolerant' crowd:

what movie is that?

skinnyartist:
No, I'm trying to tell you that if you say "I do not believe in God," you are holding a different position than saying "I believe there is no God." ....Am I making myself clear?


Not really, because in your example sentence, you have "God" capitalized, which implies a specific god, being a proper noun and all.

If the person in your example is referring to a specific god, then both statements seem pretty equivalent.

I'm sorry you can't grasp simple grammatical concepts yada yada yada something sneering and pretentious.

am I doing it right?

skinnyartist: JQPublic: Why does every newbie atheist come here and do this?

I'm sorry you can't grasp simple philosophical concepts about what belief is, and that there is a huge difference in saying you believe something, or that you lack belief in something.

Allow me to throw gasoline on your bonfire, if I may. And if I could, let me do it with a bullshiat straw man argument, just to make it nice and toasty.

My 9 year old niece believes in faeries. As in, really and truly believes they exist. I do not believe in faeries. My brother does not believe in faeries. I, however, believe harder than my brother that faeries do not exist, as in I claim to know they do not. He, on the other hand, only passively disbelieves in their existence, without explicitly claiming knowledge of their non-existence. Explain the difference between my brother and I.

vertiaset
Thinking Christians, know the cultural and historical context of these stories. They see them as allegory or as stories meant to illustrate a point about the human condition to a pre-literate people.

The idea of Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God, is a story of great love and sacrifice for ones fellow men. It illustrates a the new covenant with God wherein all men can be free, all men, of all creeds and races can be brothers.


And it sure makes a great story.

Too bad the Old Testament kicks its scrawny ass. Lots more smiting, a lot less turning the other cheek.

Vangor: Not attempting to say such a thing at all, merely that others do. Hence, common, or more accurately one of the common usages of the term "atheist".

Fair enough.

But my issue is still with the usage of the word, not necessarily by you.

Anyone stating that the word atheist means anything other than the non-belief in a god is wrong on the matter when it comes to a discussion like this. We are no longer in the realm of every day vernacular, much like people incorrectly using the term theory when discussing scientific theories.

Regardless of what the general public might want to try to say theory means, within the scientific community, the word theory holds a vastly different meaning. And I'm sure that any scientist coming across a person on the street would be irked when that person tried to tell them their scientific theory was nothing more than a guess.

jso2897: vertiaset: There are many Christian sites out there too which discuss how to deal with the militant atheist. One common thread you find is that the most militant atheists, the harshest, the most dogmatic are those people who once had faith and for some reason lost it.

Religious faith, is a blanket of comfort, of warmth. It provides in many believers a sense of purpose and peace. Now, having once had this protection and now lost it, the newly converted atheist feels a sense, not only of loss, but of resentment toward those who still possess it. This may explain the strident militancy of these people as they go out of there way to attack the faith of others.

The easiest targets are those believers who have never, themselves, questioned their faith or their church. These folks can be swayed by pointing out inconsistencies in scripture, the harshness of the Old Testament, the pronouncements of Paul on family, women and slavery and the mythical basis for the stories contained in Genesis i.e. the Garden and the Flood.

They may also point to the tragic periods of history where faith was used as a pretext for great evil.

Thinking Christians, know the cultural and historical context of these stories. They see them as allegory or as stories meant to illustrate a point about the human condition to a pre-literate people.

The idea of Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God, is a story of great love and sacrifice for ones fellow men. It illustrates a the new covenant with God wherein all men can be free, all men, of all creeds and races can be brothers.

Thoughtful people of all faiths know that societies are made of men and that men are fallible and subject to the influence of greed, lust and the desire for earthly glory.

A great many atheists, including Professor Dawkins themselves know the value of the teachings of Christ. Dawkins even refers to himself as a "cultural Christian". Who in the West is not? If you live in today's world and do not have as part of your cultural lexicon the Song of Solomon, the Beatitudes or Paul's Hymn to Love, then you are the poorer for it.

I've often wondered about that. i'm a non-believer who was raised as such, by 1950s bohemians - beatniks, if you will. I've never even seriously considered the possibility of any gods or other supernatural beings existing. And I've never felt the least hostility or contempt for any person of faith unless they have conducted themselves in a matter that warrants it.
I went to church with my Baptist grandmother, and sat politely and listened. When I went to catholic schools for a couple of years, I attended mass (though I did not, of course, take communion or anything like that).
To my mind, believers average out about the same as non-believers: Some's assholes, some's ain't. It's just people, and it's character and values that really count - not the superficial framework they hang upon.
What I have never understood is why anybody who is content and happy in what they believe would want to change anybody else's mind. What I believe is not going to magically become more satisfying or worthwhile to ME, just because I somehow convince YOU to agree. The sum total of my epistemological capital is not increased, and I am not made happier or wiser. What the hell's the point?
As long as you're willing to leave me the hell alone, you can believe whatever you want, and believe it with my full endorsement and approval. Conversely, if you agree, chapter and verse, with every single thing I think, and you're a dick - you're still a dick.
It can be fun to argue the finer points of these matters, at least with civil and intelligent folks - but I would never want to "convert" somebody else to think as I do.
One of me in this world is bad enough. :D

I think it's because a good many people have it in their head that other people would be happier, or that the world would be better off if everyone thought like they did
/Not one of those myself

Eudeyrn: My 9 year old niece believes in faeries. As in, really and truly believes they exist. I do not believe in faeries. My brother does not believe in faeries. I, however, believe harder than my brother that faeries do not exist, as in I claim to know they do not. He, on the other hand, only passively disbelieves in their existence, without explicitly claiming knowledge of their non-existence. Explain the difference between my brother and I.

The difference is you claim. You make a positive assertion, and when in an argument, the burden of proof now rests on you to prove your claim.

Your brother, on the other hand, makes no claims either way. He simply doesn't accept the one claim. He doesn't have to say why he doesn't accept it; he has absolutely nothing to proof. To the contrary, the person trying to tell him faeries exist, your daughter, has the burden of proof.

That's why the positions are different.

skinnyartist: Your brother, on the other hand, makes no claims either way. He simply doesn't accept the one claim. He doesn't have to say why he doesn't accept it; he has absolutely nothing to prove. To the contrary, the person trying to tell him faeries exist, your daughter, has the burden of proof.

FTFM

If belief in nothing is a belief in and of itself, then it it actually a belief in something, that something being nothing. Hence something is nothing and the cycle of Budhism and Quantum Physics is complete. Tada!

For the atheists:
Some need a powerful sky daddy who tells them right from wrong, some take solace in an immeasurable deity who cannot be wrong or fall short by definition, some need an excuse to harness the amazing power of human will which their conscious mind has stinted and can only accept if attributable to an outside force on their lives, some are lonely and need an imaginary friend.

And you would want to take that away from them, some people need god, no matter if he really does or not.

For the Religious:
While I may not believe in your particular deity, I do respect the fact that you have a different set of life experience than I do and if your religion causes any of the following, I am cool with you and respect and even celebrate the fact that you are a good follower of a god who stands for these great principles

#1- You do not know everything, and cannot know everything, God- Maybe. But not you.

#2- Be nice to people. I do not care if Jesus, Moses, Allah, Zenon or Gilgamesh is who you worship, if they want you to be nice to others, encourage acts of charity, selflessness and human kindness, you should listen to them. Tip well, smile at people, offer a hand when needed, do not practice cruelty, steal or lie maliciously. Oh yeah, do not hate those who are different than you.

#3- Do not kill people, especially me

If your religion supports all of those three principles, then I cannot argue that you have not found the true faith and wish you well with it. Fark all the atheists trying to convert you. It seems to be working out for you and like I said, if your God wants you to follow the above listed principles, you are cool with me.

yelmrog: Not really, because in your example sentence, you have "God" capitalized, which implies a specific god, being a proper noun and all.

If the person in your example is referring to a specific god, then both statements seem pretty equivalent.

I'm sorry you can't grasp simple grammatical concepts yada yada yada something sneering and pretentious.

am I doing it right?

I stand corrected in accidentally capitalizing the G in god, which does in fact general refer to a specific god, when in fact I meant gods in general.

Force of habit, I'm using to arguing against Christians so the capital G is used more often.

madblader: Here is an awesome lecture by a Standford professor on the relationship between mental illness and religious belief.

Link (new window) (new window)

that is a fabulous lecture and totally worth the 90 minutes or so that it takes to listen to it!

skinnyartist: I stand corrected in accidentally capitalizing the G in god, which does in fact generally refer to a specific god, when in fact I meant gods in general.

FTFM. Plus it's almost 3am. So my typing is a little off at this point.

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

Sort of like how...... Christians love it when they can brainwash new initiates for their cause, and they call it "converting a nonbeliever"

Kind of like that?

skinnyartist: Your brother, on the other hand, makes no claims either way. He simply doesn't accept the one claim. He doesn't have to say why he doesn't accept it; he has absolutely nothing to proof.

Lol! 'Just because'? That's simply acting without reason, as you appear to be. No use wasting time with the unreasoning then...

skinnyartist: I'm using to arguing against Christians

I'm going to regret it later, but after attacking both my spelling and grammar... DONT THROW STONES IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE

/believe or don't believe just don't rain on someone else's parade,
this should be required reading

ttc2301: The Massengill is strong in this thread.

When I was a dog groomer we used Summer's Eve to remove the stench from dogs who got skunked. This must be what you are talking about.

GAT_00: I've always liked the idea of an immortal soul that gets reborn over and over again.

The idea of having an immortal soul gets really horrific about 10 minutes after the heat death of the universe.

skinnyartist: Eudeyrn: My 9 year old niece believes in faeries. As in, really and truly believes they exist. I do not believe in faeries. My brother does not believe in faeries. I, however, believe harder than my brother that faeries do not exist, as in I claim to know they do not. He, on the other hand, only passively disbelieves in their existence, without explicitly claiming knowledge of their non-existence. Explain the difference between my brother and I.

The difference is you claim. You make a positive assertion, and when in an argument, the burden of proof now rests on you to prove your claim.

Your brother, on the other hand, makes no claims either way. He simply doesn't accept the one claim. He doesn't have to say why he doesn't accept it; he has absolutely nothing to prove. To the contrary, the person trying to tell him faeries exist, your daughter, has the burden of proof.

That's why the positions are different.

OK, that's where I thought you were going. This is an argument about the definitions of knowledge and belief. I think the discussion is getting hung up on whether disbelief is a passive act or an active one. I inadvertently laid a trap in my scenario with the word "passively," although I hadn't meant to. In my opinion, it is impossible to passively disbelieve something. In order to believe or not believe - and I mean truly here, not just superficially - one must use their own experiences, judgment, and knowledge to reach a conclusion. The very act of pondering the question requires knowledge, in the sense that arriving at a conclusion requires input. As a child, my father says God exists. My decision to also believe this is based on my experience that what my father says is an honest man. I have used my knowledge about my father to arrive at a belief. Were I to decide the opposite, that God does not exist, perhaps I would use my knowledge about my father (i.e., he is a liar and a doo-doo head) to arrive at a different belief.

BUT WAIT, you say. I've only said that I have knowledge about the messenger, not the message. This is what I think is so critical about religion. The message is non-existent. The supernatural exists outside the realm of proof, outside of reality, outside of human interaction. The only players are the messengers, other human beings, documents, etc. To claim a knowledge of non-existence is as futile as claiming a knowledge of existence. Knowledge in this sense is fundamentally incompatible with the belief. I cannot use knowledge of something unknowable to form a belief.

Somewhere in that 3am rambling is the reason why I think an atheist is an atheist is an atheist, regardless of the suffixes you choose to append. Seriously, I'm pretty sure it's in there.

neenerist: Lol! 'Just because'? That's simply acting without reason, as you appear to be. No use wasting time with the unreasoning then...

How am I acting without reason, exactly?

I have also made a very clear argument as to why this is a different position than lacking belief. One side is making a claim, the other is not.

Let me try another analogy.

You have two people. One of them flips a coin and calls it in the air as heads. The other person doesn't say anything, they wait for the coin to fall.

The one who calls it is like the gnostic atheist, because they make the claim. The other person is the tradition atheist, otherwise known as an agnostic atheist. They don't make the call; they don't claim either way. They do not believe it's going to fall on heads or tails, but they aren't saying for sure which one it is or isn't going to fall on.

Eudeyrn: BUT WAIT, you say. I've only said that I have knowledge about the messenger, not the message. This is what I think is so critical about religion. The message is non-existent. The supernatural exists outside the realm of proof, outside of reality, outside of human interaction. The only players are the messengers, other human beings, documents, etc. To claim a knowledge of non-existence is as futile as claiming a knowledge of existence. Knowledge in this sense is fundamentally incompatible with the belief. I cannot use knowledge of something unknowable to form a belief.

Here's the trick though, not everyone is going to agree with you that god(s) are fundamentally unknowable... thats why its important to make the distinction.

Monty845: I'm going to regret it later, but after attacking both my spelling and grammar... DONT THROW STONES IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE

Yeah, typoes after I admitted that my typing is suffering because it's late is different than repeatedly misspelling several words because you actually don't know how to spell them.

skinnyartist: neenerist: Lol! 'Just because'? That's simply acting without reason, as you appear to be. No use wasting time with the unreasoning then...

How am I acting without reason, exactly?

I have also made a very clear argument as to why this is a different position than lacking belief. One side is making a claim, the other is not.

Let me try another analogy.

You have two people. One of them flips a coin and calls it in the air as heads. The other person doesn't say anything, they wait for the coin to fall.

The one who calls it is like the gnostic atheist, because they make the claim. The other person is the tradition atheist, otherwise known as an agnostic atheist. They don't make the call; they don't claim either way. They do not believe it's going to fall on heads or tails, but they aren't saying for sure which one it is or isn't going to fall on.

You've entirely lost me, then. God is heads, no God is tails. The religious man believes (and claims) the coin lands heads. The "gnostic atheist" believes (and claims) the coin will land tails. The "agnsotic atheist" believes (but does not claim) the coin will land tails.

Are you saying the only difference is that a "gnostic atheist" is willing to put his belief into words? Forgive my derision, but I hope that's just a crappy analogy, because otherwise your argument no longer makes sense to me.

/Monty845:

I'm going to regret it later, but after attacking both my spelling and grammar... DONT THROW STONES IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE HORSE

Sorry, pet peeve.

Eudeyrn: You've entirely lost me, then. God is heads, no God is tails. The religious man believes (and claims) the coin lands heads. The "gnostic atheist" believes (and claims) the coin will land tails. The "agnsotic atheist" believes (but does not claim) the coin will land tails.

Are you saying the only difference is that a "gnostic atheist" is willing to put his belief into words? Forgive my derision, but I hope that's just a crappy analogy, because otherwise your argument no longer makes sense to me.

A gnostic atheist is similar to a theist in that they are making a claim and the burden of proof shifts to whoever is making the claim.

This is why an agnostic atheist is totally different, because they do not make claims on the existence or non-existence of god. They simply do not believe either claims. They're neutral on the position.

The person calling heads is a gnostic atheist, claiming god does not exist. While the person who calls nothing is the agnostic atheist, because they aren't claiming what the coin will land on.

oh goody

my favorite kind of religion thread is where we debate semantic definitions that prove how we're more atheist than the other

I'm just going to put this here. Again


Gnostic Theist: Basically this means deeply devout, they KNOW there is a god, they are quite explicit about it

Agnostic Theist: This is what I see most Canadians as. They hold religious beliefs, and may even go to church, but they are not devout, and simply take the religion that was handed to them. They are a live and let live bunch, but, if pressed, would posit that a deity would be inherently unknowable.

Agnostic: Simply a person that lives by the thought that a god may or may not exist, that their existance would be intrinsically unknowable.

Agnostic Atheist: Again, posits that you can't be sure if there is a god or not, but tends to lean to the probably not side of things. They don't believe in a god, but they cannot be sure that one does not exist. They mesh with Weak Atheists

Weak Atheist: Seen as kinda of a default state, before religious indoctrination. Weak atheists can be described as: does not believe in a god because they have not been made aware of the existence of one; Agnostic Atheist; or pretty much any for of atheism that does not fall under Gnostic/Strong Atheism.

Gnostic/Strong Atheists: They posit that there is absolutely no god. They are explicit about this.

at80eighty: oh goody

my favorite kind of religion thread is where we debate semantic definitions that prove how we're more atheist than the other

Sounds like something a person who's not much of an atheist would say.

/just sayin'

What would you call the belief that there is a vast universe out there, full of creatures who either don't care or see us as a food source? Also the further belief that one particular group is actively trying to turn us into cattle?

/besides fruitbatarianism...

Now that stupid theme song is stuck in my head. Subby's a jerk.

the_sidewinder: I'm just going to put this here. Again

They just aren't getting it.

I'm sure they think that theory means a guess anyone can pull out of their arse, too.

skinnyartist: The difference is you claim. You make a positive assertion, and when in an argument, the burden of proof now rests on you to prove your claim.

What is odd is we consider claims of non-existence to be positive claims/assertions. Truthfully, I believe our practical language is the culprit, as all other claims seem to be positive claims/assertions.

Consider the phrase, "I believe a god exists." Now, consider the phrase, "I do not believe a god does not exist," or, "I do not disbelieve a god exists." All are positive claims, I would say. After all, if you disbelieve, you don't believe, and thus if you don't disbelieve you believe. Simply, no other position exists when belief is a portion of the claim.

Thus, the phrase, "I do not believe a god exists," should be comparable to, "I do not disbelieve a god does not exist." Of course, this is a sloppy way of saying, "I believe a god does not exist," which somehow becomes a positive claim.

The result would be, therefore, all are positive claims, which seems nonsensical since passive non-acceptance of a claim not-known would demand a burden of proof, or only ones claiming positive existence are a positive claim.

at80eighty: my favorite kind of religion thread is where we debate semantic definitions that prove how we're more atheist than the other

make it stop

kleppe: SpaceLord: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"


Matthew 28:19-20

Read those verses.

/agnostic

I've heard more atheists and agnostics on Fark quote scripture than any Christian evangelist. You cry when religion doesn't accept evolution and yet here when geom_00 tries to open up a bit, you're first in line to say "SORRY CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT!"

Tomorrow you will be posting in disbelief at your perceived intolerance of religion that you and your ilk are so motivated to keep in existence. Fark you.


Whoa, settle down there, Beavis. I'm just point out the biblical book and verse that espouses evangelism/missionary work. I'm not making a judgment on what he does with his faith.

Thanks for being so kind and understanding.

Does someone have a dull axe, maybe?

at80eighty: Ishidan: Ultimate test for the 'religiously tolerant' crowd:

what movie is that?

Apocalypto. Jesus-Freak Mel Gibson directs a movie depicting what Mayan human sacrifice looked like. That, of course, was the priest delivering the killing strike, from the victim's perspective. Such as here: Not safe for lunch

(the movie also included one poor sonofabiatch who couldn't seem to have kids, being mercilessly punked by not only his peers but his boss and his mother in law)

spamdog: at80eighty: my favorite kind of religion thread is where we debate semantic definitions that prove how we're more atheist than the other

make it stop

No one is keeping you here.

And on that note, I head off to bed

Pmoon: ttc2301: The Massengill is strong in this thread.

When I was a dog groomer we used Summer's Eve to remove the stench from dogs who got skunked. This must be what you are talking about.

Either that or he meant it's massively missing.
Of course, you'd need a fire truck hooked up to a rail tanker car to deliver sufficient amounts of Massengill for adequate de-sanding operations in this topic.

Eudeyrn: Sounds like something a person who's not much of an atheist would say.

/just sayin'

not really - once I stopped caring about religion a) I stopped getting severely butthurt over most of the ZOMG FUNDIEZZ bullcrap, and b) most certainly don't see the point in pissing contests among other non-believers - so just because I don't have a cross to bear against religion like some of you , kinda proves my point

going by the rest of the thread , seems I hit a raw nerve on a bunch of you - keep pissing against the wind, fellow friends

Newfieguy: I'd like to see them try to convert me.....

You seem very proud of how closed-minded you are.