Originally posted by Shakyamunisonlil bitchiness and Lord Urizen are saying Atheists are just as religious as Theists are. And that Atheism is a religion or something. Then me and Bardock said some Atheists don't know of God or Atheism, and Urizen said they aren't atheists, they're neutral or something.
Something that is the same cannot be the opposite. So, who ever made that claim was was talking out of their ***.
Originally posted by lord xyz
lil bitchiness and Lord Urizen are saying Atheists are just as religious as Theists are. And that Atheism is a religion or something. Then me and Bardock said some Atheists don't know of God or Atheism, and Urizen said they aren't atheists, they're neutral or something.
Just "term confusion" is all that is going on. Look at the definition of each word, and go from there.
Originally posted by lord xyz
lil bitchiness and Lord Urizen are saying Atheists are just as religious as Theists are. And that Atheism is a religion or something. Then me and Bardock said some Atheists don't know of God or Atheism, and Urizen said they aren't atheists, they're neutral or something.
1) I never said Atheists are religious. I said Atheism is simply a disbeleif in God...nothing more, nothing less
2) LIL B argued that some Atheists can take their atheism to the extreme, which puts them on the same footing with a religious zealot. True, but not my argument.
3) I said that people who do not know about God cannot relate to the concept, therefore they cannot be Theists OR Atheists. Those terms are only applicable to those who relate to the concept of God.
Originally posted by lord xyz
No, Atheists and Theists are not polar opposites.
I didn't say they were polar opposites. I was explaining how something can be the same and opposite at the same time.
Big and Small are not polar opposites either. They are relative terms, but still opposite. Yet they are the same idea: size.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonDefinition of Atheist: One who doesn't believe in God/gods.
Just "term confusion" is all that is going on. Look at the definition of each word, and go from there.
A theist accepts the God theory, an atheist hasn't accepted it, so has either rejected it, or was never introduced to it.
Rational atheists know what a proper stance is.
Can you ever prove ANYTHING. NO.
Can we accept truth based on "logic." YES
What is the probability that a god exists. 0*
What is the probability that that god, if he exists, is one that happens to have a religion properly attributed to him on this earth? 0**
*absurdly small number
**I'm not even sure if there is a number close enough to zero to describe probability.
People have no problem accepting Newton's unfounded model of gravity. Yet they magically start ranting about "truth" when someone denies god.
Get over it, atheism is an acceptable position, one that gives proportional weights to credible arguments and looks at the question of gods existence holistically, instead of a yes-no question is a stupid and disproportional reduction.
Note: Websters definitions are laymans terms and are NOT credible in intellectual conversation. Nothing about religion is simple, just saying "look at the defintion" is a gross oversimplification, one beyond repair.
Originally posted by Alliance👆
Rational atheists know what a proper stance is.Can you ever prove ANYTHING. NO.
Can we accept truth based on "logic." YES
What is the probability that a god exists. 0*
What is the probability that that god, if he exists, is one that happens to have a religion properly attributed to him on this earth? 0**
*absurdly small number
**I'm not even sure if there is a number close enough to zero to describe probability.People have no problem accepting Newton's unfounded model of gravity. Yet they magically start ranting about "truth" when someone denies god.
Get over it, atheism is an acceptable position, one that gives proportional weights to credible arguments and looks at the question of gods existence holistically, instead of a yes-no question is a stupid and disproportional reduction.
Note: Websters definitnos are laymans terms and are NOT credible in intellectual conversation. Nothing about religion is simple, just saying "look at the defintion" is a gross oversimplification, one beyond repair.
It's like people who think oranges are big tangerines and people who think oranges are small tangerines are the same because one's saying yes, one's saying no.
Originally posted by Alliance
Rational atheists know what a proper stance is.Can you ever prove ANYTHING. NO.
Can we accept truth based on "logic." YES
What is the probability that a god exists. 0*
What is the probability that that god, if he exists, is one that happens to have a religion properly attributed to him on this earth? 0**
*absurdly small number
**I'm not even sure if there is a number close enough to zero to describe probability.People have no problem accepting Newton's unfounded model of gravity. Yet they magically start ranting about "truth" when someone denies god.
Get over it, atheism is an acceptable position, one that gives proportional weights to credible arguments and looks at the question of gods existence holistically, instead of a yes-no question is a stupid and disproportional reduction.
Note: Websters definitions are laymans terms and are NOT credible in intellectual conversation. Nothing about religion is simple, just saying "look at the defintion" is a gross oversimplification, one beyond repair.
And who exactly said it is not an acceptable position? But it is exactly the same position some (or pretty much all on this board) atheists take as those who are religious.
You, and few others prove that more than anyone.
''Anyone who does not believe what I believe is STUPID and ILLOGICAL'' is the argument ALL of you have regarding God. In that retrospects, you are the same. - that was the initial idea of the thread.
What people made it later on, which some of us got involved into, wiht the explanations and different interpretations regarding atheism and agnosticism.
You (as in atheists collectively) are no more convincing to me regarding God, than a religious people are.
It is egocentrical and small minded to claim that just because we have no knowledge of something by now, it simply must not exist.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And who exactly said it is not an acceptable position? But it is exactly the same position some (or pretty much all on this board) atheists take as those who are religious.You, and few others prove that more than anyone.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
"Anyone who does not believe what I believe is STUPID and ILLOGICAL'' is the argument ALL of you have regarding God. In that retrospects, you are the same. - that was the initial idea of the thread.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You (as in atheists collectively) are no more convincing to me regarding God, than a religious people are.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is egocentrical and small minded to claim that just because we have no knowledge of something by now, it simply must not exist.
Let me spell it out again for you.
1. Can you ever prove ANYTHING. NO. Our knowledge base will never be large enough to do so.
2. Can we accept truth based on "logic." YES. We do it all the time, its a central tenant of modern life. We don't know what causes gravity, we see its constant effects, but we don't know if it exists everywhere in the universe. Yet, you accept that fine. Why? Because its stupid, when you have overwhelming evidence to give that evidence equal balance with a "maybe its not" response in the form of a "yes - no" question.
Agnostics frequently fall into they hypocritical pit because they simplify the question of the existence of God to a yes-no question. Its far more complex than that.
EVIDENCE carries weight. SPECULATION does not. I'd like to continue but if I do I will be late to class, I'll continue this later.
Originally posted by Alliance
Honestly, you visit the forums frequently. I've rationalized my opinions and gave an abridged version of my argument above. Thats not without basis and is more than I've seen most people muster.That is not my opinion at all. I certainly believe it is acceptable to believe in god, but NOT contrary to fact. Any sort of fundamentalist or literalistic will run against fact eventually, and THAT is when they loose their argument.
Then I really think you should try listening to my arguments.
Really. Do you EVER read what I have to say? Or do you just simply repost in a continuous attempt to demonize me? I CLEARLY addressed that point in the post you quoted. If you disagree with my assessment, then argue against that instead of simply re-rambling off your failed argument like I didn't respond to it.
Let me spell it out again for you.
1. Can you ever prove ANYTHING. NO. Our knowledge base will never be large enough to do so.
2. Can we accept truth based on "logic." YES. We do it all the time, its a central tenant of modern life. We don't know what causes gravity, we see its constant effects, but we don't know if it exists everywhere in the universe. Yet, you accept that fine. Why? Because its stupid, when you have overwhelming evidence to give that evidence equal balance with a "maybe its not" response in the form of a "yes - no" question.
Agnostics frequently fall into they hypocritical pit because they simplify the question of the existence of God to a yes-no question. Its far more complex than that.
EVIDENCE carries weight. SPECULATION does not. I'd like to continue but if I do I will be late to class, I'll continue this later.
Umm...I think that Lil B was mainly referring to the dogmatic way you(and others like you) generally express their opinions. You tend to express them in an "I'm already right!!" fashion - the same way, of course that many who follow *spiritual* religions do(and the same way that she is now expressing hers, which additionally...is the same way I am now expressing mine...hmmm..I guess that then means that any expression of opinion, when followed with zeal and concienteous devotion, at some point can be termed as a religion. Something thou, myself and others need to ponder about).
EDIT: For the sake of clarification.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And who exactly said it is not an acceptable position? But it is exactly the same position some (or pretty much all on this board) atheists take as those who are religious.You, and few others prove that more than anyone.
''Anyone who does not believe what I believe is STUPID and ILLOGICAL'' is the argument ALL of you have regarding God. In that retrospects, you are the same. - that was the initial idea of the thread.
What people made it later on, which some of us got involved into, wiht the explanations and different interpretations regarding atheism and agnosticism.
You (as in atheists collectively) are no more convincing to me regarding God, than a religious people are.
It is egocentrical and small minded to claim that just because we have no knowledge of something by now, it simply must not exist.
Which atheists obviously don't. Those that do are idiots though, I agree.
Originally posted by Alliance
Honestly, you visit the forums frequently. I've rationalized my opinions and gave an abridged version of my argument above. Thats not without basis and is more than I've seen most people muster.That is not my opinion at all. I certainly believe it is acceptable to believe in god, but NOT contrary to fact. Any sort of fundamentalist or literalistic will run against fact eventually, and THAT is when they loose their argument.
Then I really think you should try listening to my arguments.
Really. Do you EVER read what I have to say? Or do you just simply repost in a continuous attempt to demonize me? I CLEARLY addressed that point in the post you quoted. If you disagree with my assessment, then argue against that instead of simply re-rambling off your failed argument like I didn't respond to it.
Let me spell it out again for you.
1. Can you ever prove ANYTHING. NO. Our knowledge base will never be large enough to do so.
2. Can we accept truth based on "logic." YES. We do it all the time, its a central tenant of modern life. We don't know what causes gravity, we see its constant effects, but we don't know if it exists everywhere in the universe. Yet, you accept that fine. Why? Because its stupid, when you have overwhelming evidence to give that evidence equal balance with a "maybe its not" response in the form of a "yes - no" question.
Agnostics frequently fall into they hypocritical pit because they simplify the question of the existence of God to a yes-no question. Its far more complex than that.
EVIDENCE carries weight. SPECULATION does not. I'd like to continue but if I do I will be late to class, I'll continue this later.
Who talks about proof of God, apart from you? Nobody. Perhaps beore you try spelling things out to me, you might want to have some reading comprehantion in regards what I am trying to say.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Umm...I think that Lil B was mainly referring to the dogmatic way you(and others like you) generally express their opinions. You tend to express them in an "I'm already right!!" fashion - the same way, of course that many who follow *spiritual* religions do(and the same way that she is now expressing hers, which additionally...is the same way I am now expressing mine...hmmm..I guess that then means that any expression of opinion, when followed with zeal and concienteous devotion, at some point can be termed as a religion. Something thou, myself and others need to ponder about).EDIT: For the sake of clarification.
Yes. Thank you.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Which atheists obviously don't. Those that do are idiots though, I agree.
Not all atheists, but perentage of them do.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Some atheists are very extreme in their views.
Yeah.
Ironically it is those people who get at religious people non-stop about their fundamentalism, becoming the same thing they critisise.
Im sure you can see what I mean by reading through this forum, or even looking at the thread themes.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah.
Ironically it is those people who get at religious people non-stop about their fundamentalism, becoming the same thing they critisise.Im sure you can see what I mean by reading through this forum, or even looking at the thread themes.
Though to be fair there are also reasonable people on both sides. They are probably just not as loud mouthed as us extremists.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessIt is not the same position, one's saying something exists, one's saying it isn't. Trying to prove something and not believing is different.
And who exactly said it is not an acceptable position? But it is exactly the same position some (or pretty much all on this board) atheists take as those who are religious.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessHow so?
You, and few others prove that more than anyone.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessAnyone who thinks oranges are not what I think they are are illogical and stupid.
''Anyone who does not believe what I believe is STUPID and ILLOGICAL'' is the argument ALL of you have regarding God. In that retrospects, you are the same. - that was the initial idea of the thread.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessWell, there are different kinds.
What people made it later on, which some of us got involved into, wiht the explanations and different interpretations regarding atheism and agnosticism.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessMaybe because you don't listen or understand what an Atheist is. To me, your view of an atheist, doesn't even exist.
You (as in atheists collectively) are no more convincing to me regarding God, than a religious people are.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessDo we say that though? I don't think we do.
It is egocentrical and small minded to claim that just because we have no knowledge of something by now, it simply must not exist.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Umm...I think that Lil B was mainly referring to the dogmatic way you(and others like you) generally express their opinions. You tend to express them in an "I'm already right!!" fashion - the same way, of course that many who follow *spiritual* religions do(and the same way that she is now expressing hers, which additionally...is the same way I am now expressing mine...hmmm..I guess that then means that any expression of opinion, when followed with zeal and concienteous devotion, at some point can be termed as a religion. Something thou, myself and others need to ponder about).
There is nothing dogmatic about it. I express the abridged versions of my opinion to people I've already discussed issues with, otherwise I state it as a possibility and then try to rip your position apart.
Of course I think I'm right. I also think a RANGE of possibilities exist. I'VE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT. How more clear do I need to be? Do I need to write an effing page every time I post a comment?
Atheism is not a religion. Read the threads on that. Its been debated over and over again, I haven't seen any good points. If you still have questions on it, bring it up in an appropriate thread, and I'll show you that its not.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah.
Ironically it is those people who get at religious people non-stop about their fundamentalism, becoming the same thing they critisise.Im sure you can see what I mean by reading through this forum, or even looking at the thread themes.
Wait. You lump all atheists together and just say they're stupid. Then you try to pass me off as a hypocrite saying that I lump people together? I don't think so.
Bardock is right. Every line of thought has its extremists. I'm not an extremist in this instance and I've REPEATEDLY demonstrated that. Once again, you simply spew baseless accusations. If you want to attack me, then do so with words and concepts like an intelligent person instead of saying "you're stupid" and "you're an extremist."
People think in different ways. Get over it. If they can reliably back up their opinion, its fine.