Originally posted by debbiejooh How dare you say you are god, just like all the other Atheists. And you wonder why people in Africa die so much. mhm
No, but we all are anyway.Oh, btw Atheists shouldnt have kids.... 😉
Originally posted by Lord UrizenNo. You're only saying that so you can say sex without looking like a perverted mongrel. You failed though.
I agree.
Atheism cannot be applied to someone who has nothing to do with the concept of God. The same way Asexuality cannot be applied to a person who has no sex.
Asexuality says you can't have sex, not you don't have sex. People who haven't heard of God can't not believe or believe in God, they can, but most likely won't. Those who don't know of God don't believe in God. Think of it like this, those who haven't heard of God will have a different view of how the world came to be. Therefore they are definately not Theist, nor Agnostic, they are Atheist. They are Atheist because they don't believe in God IE a creator of the world, they believe the world came to be by something else. Making them Atheist.
To have an absolute infinitive, you would need someone who: A doesn't know about God, B doesn't have explanations for the things God has been claimed to do.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI didn't realise.
Okay....
Mom: Honey
Son: Yes, mom
Mom: God is not real
Son: Ok mom 🙂
Mom: Want dinner?
Son: OH BOY ! 😱
😆 I know ur pissed, im just teasing you 😛
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI really doubt that.
I dunno. Why is there more than one definition for Asexuality? Not all definitions can apply to all scenarios. That is the basically my point.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenAnd yet, you still wonder why.
[b]Sex ? OH YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS droolio [/B]
Originally posted by lord xyz
Asexuality says you can't have sex, not you don't have sex.
Asexuality has definitions that support both. Asexuality has been included as the "4th" sexual orientation other than Homosexual, Heterosexual, and Bisexual. They label people who are not sexually attracted to EITHER gender, or any thing, as "asexual" even though there is no solid evidense that people like that exist.
One definition of Asexuality cannot fit all people or scenarios, the same way ONE definition of Atheism cannot fit all people either.
Originally posted by lord xyz
People who haven't heard of God can't not believe or believe in God, they can, but most likely won't.
You cannot beleive or disbeleive in something you never heard of. Okay, it seems we agree on something....
Originally posted by lord xyz
Those who don't know of God don't believe in God.
Those who don't have sex, lack sexuality....... 😬
That must mean they're Asexual 😄
Originally posted by lord xyz
Think of it like this, those who haven't heard of God will have a different view of how the world came to be.
Yes
Theism, however, also includes a creation myth, not just a diety. However, you can have a personal philosophy about life and this world, without beleiving in any God, so point taken.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Therefore they are definately not Theist, nor Agnostic, they are Atheist.
They are D. None of the Above
Originally posted by lord xyz
They are Atheist because they don't believe in God IE a creator of the world, they believe the world came to be by something else. Making them Atheist.
Untrue. Athiests in general lack a solid beleif in afterlife, and lack a mythology of any supernatural sort (at most personal philosophy plays a role in thier own beleif system, but Atheism does not define that beleif system)
Many Buddhists do not identify themselves as Athiest, even though they don't necessarily beleive in God. However, they still beleive in the power of Humanity and Nature beyond what we are able to see.
That second argument, however, is only based on the willful labelling of Buddhism as a religion. Many Buddhists do not consider Buddhism a religion, while others do, so that gets confusing lol.
i know a couple of atheists, and they will not try and force their beliefs o you, as KK stated. they are good people, just with a different belief than i have. just cuz someone doesnt go by your rules, you cant bash them. i happen to know a couple of skinheads years ago, and despite their hatred of all non white people, they were good guys. anytime i needed help of any kind, they were the first to volunteer. they never tried to convert me either. i went to some parties with them, and they never, not ever, came down on me cuz i hung out with blacks and hispanics. they even knew i had a gay buddy and it didnt faze them.
Originally posted by Rogue JediWhat would they have done if you were a gay black person though?
i know a couple of atheists, and they will not try and force their beliefs o you, as KK stated. they are good people, just with a different belief than i have. just cuz someone doesnt go by your rules, you cant bash them. i happen to know a couple of skinheads years ago, and despite their hatred of all non white people, they were good guys. anytime i needed help of any kind, they were the first to volunteer. they never tried to convert me either. i went to some parties with them, and they never, not ever, came down on me cuz i hung out with blacks and hispanics. they even knew i had a gay buddy and it didnt faze them.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i know a couple of atheists, and they will not try and force their beliefs o you, as KK stated. they are good people, just with a different belief than i have. just cuz someone doesnt go by your rules, you cant bash them. i happen to know a couple of skinheads years ago, and despite their hatred of all non white people, they were good guys. anytime i needed help of any kind, they were the first to volunteer. they never tried to convert me either. i went to some parties with them, and they never, not ever, came down on me cuz i hung out with blacks and hispanics. they even knew i had a gay buddy and it didnt faze them.
Holy Mary mother of WTF.
So they were good guys that beat up blacks in their free time. Kinda like Hitler was a nice chap to hang out with?
Originally posted by Lord UrizenErmm...your point is what, you make shit up and then throw up on your own argument?
Asexuality has definitions that support both. Asexuality has been included as the "4th" sexual orientation other than Homosexual, Heterosexual, and Bisexual. They label people who are not sexually attracted to EITHER gender, or any thing, as "asexual" even though there is no solid evidense that people like that exist.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenOkay, now I'm sure EVERYONE ELSE who has seen our little conflict is sure that YOU were the one labeling Atheism to one definition, and I was labeling it to many different definitions.
One definition of Asexuality cannot fit all people or scenarios, the same way ONE definition of Atheism cannot fit all people either.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI fail to see how we are agreeing on something.
You cannot beleive or disbeleive in something you never heard of. Okay, it seems we agree on something....
Originally posted by Lord UrizenReally, you think so?
Those who don't have sex, lack sexuality....... 😬
Originally posted by Lord UrizenYeah, and people who don't eat are physically incapable of eating....where do you get this stuff?
That must mean they're Asexual 😄
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI'm glad you're finally thinking.
Yes
Theism, however, also includes a creation myth, not just a diety. However, you can have a personal philosophy about life and this world, without beleiving in any God, so point taken.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenYou comepletely ignored my point didn't you?
They are D. None of the Above
Originally posted by Lord UrizenSo you're saying they're not Atheist because they don't believe in an afterlife? Looks like we're going in circles. Just like the whole "Why is the Bible true?" "God wrote it." "Prove God exists." "The Bible says so." And you say you aren't a christian.
Untrue. Athiests in general lack a solid beleif in afterlife, and lack a mythology of any supernatural sort (at most personal philosophy plays a role in thier own beleif system, but Atheism does not define that beleif system)
Originally posted by Lord UrizenOkay, before you label all Buddhists the same aswell, I think you better do some research, Shakya believes in God, did you know? And Shakya's a Buddhist, looks like you're wrong there.
Many Buddhists do not identify themselves as Athiest, even though they don't necessarily beleive in God.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenSo do you.
However, they still beleive in the power of Humanity and Nature beyond what we are able to see.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenBuddhism is a religion, but not the same as Judaism/Islam/Christianity/Sihkism. It's based on philosophy (beliefs) and addresses them to subjects. It might not be as organised or retarded as the others but it's still a religion.
That second argument, however, is only based on the willful labelling of Buddhism as a religion. Many Buddhists do not consider Buddhism a religion, while others do, so that gets confusing lol.
Oops, I think I might've took it a little too far.