Atheists and christmas

[sez]

The question of whether Atheists celebrate Christmas is a question that I am often asked by people. The question that I am about to answer I am sure will be controversial and I doubt it will make me Mr Popular. Though, I do think that the majority of SearchWarp, from what I have seen, are a very clever bunch and able to listen to other peoples views.Thus, I have confidence that what I have to say will be considered and I will not get the usual: "la, la, la I'm not listening and you're going to hell, muhaha!" Firstly, I should set out what Atheism actually is. In its most basic form atheism is living ones life with out any form of God or supernatural being.Most Atheists look at evidence to make their minds up.For example, the evidence for evolution is huge and the evidence for Intelligent Design is miniscule. Thus Atheists believe in evolution over God. Simple. As. That.

However, should roles be reversed and Intelligent Design had a mountain of evidence (though I am inclined to my own scepticisms of this happening) then I would not be an Atheist and nor would the majority of the science world.Now, what I really want to make clear here is that just because you don't believe in a creator or biblical miracles and so on; it does not mean you reject the entirety of religion. For example,I don't go out and murder people because the Ten Commandments say I should not. Thus, Atheists follow some teachings of the bible. The difference is that Atheists don't follow it because it is in the bible: they realise that killing others is not a moral activity and that if everyone constantly went about killing everyone it would not be good for our survival. In the context of Christmas, Atheists have seen that it has many great aspects: family, love and friendship which, I cannot see anyone in their right mind having an objection to.The only difference is that we do what some people will condemn; and don't bother with the religious side. The most famous Atheist Richard Dawkins celebrates Christmas and even goes out and sings Christmas carols! Mr Dawkins is a fan of much religious music and has no objection to singing a good song: he simply does not believe the "deeper meaning" behind the song. I personally love the music of Ricky Skaggs and I think he is one of the greatest musicians alive.But he is a deeply religious man and reflects that in all of his music.

Here is a link to one of my all time favourite songs:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekdb2iqPRW8 . Who could not like that song? Have you ever herd the term Atheists for Jesus? This sounds like total oxymoron, but if you think about it there is much truth in the statement. Jesus or the scholar that created him (I can't say for certain which), had a lot of good things to say and much of what he taught makes sense.

So, although Atheists reject dogma on every level they would be stupid to ignore every good piece of advice (and I use advice for a reason) in the Bible. The great thing about Atheism, and the reading of the Bible from an Atheist perspective, is that you can pick and choose what you follow and what you don't. For example, I don't much like some of the violence in the Old Testament - see Exodus 34 : 13-17. Thus, I plan to celebrate Christmas this year like all other years: I will have Christmas dinner, send and receive presents, put up a Christmas tree and happily take the day off. Because I follow the evidence and don't believe in God does not mean I don't like having a fun day. Why would I? And what is the problem with that?

Finally, Merry Christmas each and everyone who celebrates Christmas for whatever reason.

[Slickerey]

They should only celebrate Christmas for presents. That's what I would do if I was an Atheist.

BOT (Back On Topic),

I do have a couple of friends that are Atheists. Some only celebrate Christmas to give/receive presents to/from family members and friends. Others don't celebrate because it has to do with the birth of Jesus Christ and that Santa isn't real... yadda yadda yadda.

[Rogi]

Im in the same boat. Atheist aswell. I dont believe in any higher being deciding over my future, i make my own. I believe the world wasnt created in 7 days, it took billions upon billions of years of evolution to get where i am now. But to think about how everything was before time and space existed does boggle the mind. There was nothing? :ermm: Just emptiness?

Eitherway, i do enjoy the biblical story's alot, even when i was a child was always fascinated by them, but i never really believed them.

Anyway i will be celebrating xmas (see what i did there?) with friends and family. Bye

[devilsadvocate]

The great thing about Atheism, and the reading of the Bible from an Atheist perspective, is that you can pick and choose what you follow and what you don't.

That is not a habit limited to Atheism

[j2k4]

You Atheists are practicing your own official religion, now?

Well, then.

You do know you can do that without a god, don't you?

I must say, it's a novel way to pursue socio-cultural alienation.

[Snee]

Generally people who copy-paste give the source.

Other than that...:no:

"Believe in evolution" - moron.

[Rart]

Generally people who copy-paste give the source.

Other than that...:no:

"Believe in evolution" - moron.

http://searchwarp.com/swa557144-Why-Do-Atheists-Celebrate-Christmas.htm

[bigboab]

I celebrate Christmas because I believe in Santa Clause.:) What! He doesn't exist? Prove it.:whistling

@ sez. Here is a better song for you;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80

[devilsadvocate]

I really don't care if Atheists celebrate Christmas or not.

I think when people get offended by someone saying "happy holidays" is as trivial as someone getting offended by someone saying "merry Christmas.

I did see a news report this week that added a new twist to those that complain that people are trying to remove Christ from Christmas.

This guy literally tried to make a point that Christmas IS about Christ and not commercialism. Seems one is not being PC to point it out.

j-oTorzvbw0

I admiit I wouldn't like one of my neighbors doing this, but I have to confess I chuckled inside.

[Sanka113]

Mr. Garrison says Christmas is for everyone, and I believe he's right. While Christmas was originally for Christians, it's commercialization has made it something for everyone, regardless of faith. If you're thinking is to the right on both the religious or non religious spectrum, then Christmas is JUST for Christians. I honestly just think The US is just to lazy to call it something else. Maybe they should pull a Futurama and call it Xmas.

[lamuller]

Funny to see the holy rollers insulting the one's that do not believe in god, I wish they could demostrate that god exists, but they can't.

[Barbarossa]

Christianity hijacked the midwinter festival in the first place. Amongst others. That's the most effective way of "converting" a population to a new religion. Originally, most of the "Christian" festivals we celebrate today were Pagan traditions.

They're in no position to complain now that it has been hijacked in turn by Consumerism/Capitalism.

People should celebrate what they want, when they want. That's called freedom.

[Totti]

Christianity hijacked the midwinter festival in the first place. Amongst others. That's the most effective way of "converting" a population to a new religion. Originally, most of the "Christian" festivals we celebrate today were Pagan traditions.

They're in no position to complain now that it has been hijacked in turn by Consumerism/Capitalism.

People should celebrate what they want, when they want. That's called freedom.

Who told you that Robert Langdon ;) ? hehe
Christianity "Borrowed" allot of it's beliefs and traditions from other religions uhmm Judaism uhmm Islam is the same...

[Barbarossa]

Who told you that Robert Langdon ;) ? hehe

Why not, the man's a genius :P

[Totti]

Yes he is I love Dan Brown

[ugk4life]

You Atheists are practicing your own official religion, now?

Well, then.

You do know you can do that without a god, don't you?

I must say, it's a novel way to pursue socio-cultural alienation.

Do you even know what the definition of religion is? Probably not seeing how you say atheists practice religion..

[bigboab]

You Atheists are practicing your own official religion, now?

Well, then.

You do know you can do that without a god, don't you?

I must say, it's a novel way to pursue socio-cultural alienation.

Do you even know what the definition of religion is? Probably not seeing how you say atheists practice religion..

There is more than one definition to religion. You are just picking the definition that suits you, to the detriment of all the other definitions.

p.s. Look up the definition in a good dictionary, not the internet.:)

[j2k4]

You Atheists are practicing your own official religion, now?

Well, then.

You do know you can do that without a god, don't you?

I must say, it's a novel way to pursue socio-cultural alienation.

Do you even know what the definition of religion is? Probably not seeing how you say atheists practice religion..

When atheism becomes an institutionalized belief system (that is what is described here, after all) it begins to mirror traditional religion, and that's a fact.

If you would like to try to reason your way out of that particular box, feel free.

[ugk4life]

Do you even know what the definition of religion is? Probably not seeing how you say atheists practice religion..

There is more than one definition to religion. You are just picking the definition that suits you, to the detriment of all the other definitions.

p.s. Look up the definition in a good dictionary, not the internet.:)


LOL, love how you didn't provide any source for these "other" definitions of religion. Atheist don't believe in God and religion involves worship of God(s). Atheist trust science. Science is NOT a belief system. It is observable fact.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

It doesn't get any better then merriam-webster. Or is there a better dictionary...lol. I can go all day, keep it comin'...BTW, I'm not atheist!

[ugk4life]

Do you even know what the definition of religion is? Probably not seeing how you say atheists practice religion..

When atheism becomes an institutionalized belief system (that is what is described here, after all) it begins to mirror traditional religion, and that's a fact.

If you would like to try to reason your way out of that particular box, feel free.

Institutionalized belief system and that's a fact? Please show me how/where atheism mirrors traditional religion.

[j2k4]

When atheism becomes an institutionalized belief system (that is what is described here, after all) it begins to mirror traditional religion, and that's a fact.

If you would like to try to reason your way out of that particular box, feel free.

Institutionalized belief system and that's a fact? Please show me how/where atheism mirrors traditional religion.

You are advocating atheism and it's propagation for your purposes just as traditional religion advocates for it's own, while declaiming your rejection of a "God" or "Gods".

If you believe in ath - excuse me, Atheism so fervently, you will soon be organizing, meeting and tithing, all in the name of the "cause" - just like, well, you know the rest.

[ugk4life]

Institutionalized belief system and that's a fact? Please show me how/where atheism mirrors traditional religion.

You are advocating atheism and it's propagation for your purposes just as traditional religion advocates for it's own, while declaiming your rejection of a "God" or "Gods".

If you believe in ath - excuse me, Atheism so fervently, you will soon be organizing, meeting and tithing, all in the name of the "cause" - just like, well, you know the rest.

1st, of all I am not advocating anything (if I am please show me where). If you read my other post you would have known that I am not even atheist. Anyhow I think you misunderstand atheism. How can you believe in atheism? Atheism is just a term used to describe people who do not believe in god (etymology a=no/not ; theism = god). So basically you are saying atheist believe in not believing in god(s), thus making them a religion. Nope, doesn't work that way. If it did, I guess I can make up the "religion" of twirling my finger in the air... That's it, just twirl your finger, that's my religion.

Sorry buddy, religion involves god(s) and/or spirituality

Monotheistic religious folks are r the real atheists, they don't believe in polytheistic (see roman, egyptian) gods!!! I kid, I kid

[j2k4]

Okay, have it your way; after all, they are the ones who chose the term, and so have the problem.

My point was that they obviously desire to have others share their point-of-view, and so will have to band together (as current religions do) and, um, preach the gospel (sorry) of Atheism for this to occur.

Is a tract still a tract if it is published in the name/cause of Atheism?

[ugk4life]

Okay, have it your way; after all, they are the ones who chose the term, and so have the problem.

My point was that they obviously desire to have others share their point-of-view, and so will have to band together (as current religions do) and, um, preach the gospel (sorry) of Atheism for this to occur.

Is a tract still a tract if it is published in the name/cause of Atheism?


I think what atheist have an issue with is that we trust science in EVERY part of life. From medical science to science in technology. From you trusting the medicine your doctor gives you to you trusting that when you hit "submit" on your screen it makes it all the way to my screen. Yet when it comes to science trying to explain life, "God did it" and that's the final answer, don't ask any other questions, read the bible!

[devilsadvocate]

Where is it written that Atheists have to have faith in science? Where is it written that one has to have religion to believe in God?

One could argue that one is having the God of oneself or oneself as god, but it isn't what I would describe as religion.

edit. to be fair an Atheist wouldn't consider himself as god

[j2k4]

Okay, have it your way; after all, they are the ones who chose the term, and so have the problem.

My point was that they obviously desire to have others share their point-of-view, and so will have to band together (as current religions do) and, um, preach the gospel (sorry) of Atheism for this to occur.

Is a tract still a tract if it is published in the name/cause of Atheism?


I think what atheist have an issue with is that we trust science in EVERY part of life. From medical science to science in technology. From you trusting the medicine your doctor gives you to you trusting that when you hit "submit" on your screen it makes it all the way to my screen. Yet when it comes to science trying to explain life, "God did it" and that's the final answer, don't ask any other questions, read the bible!

Are you trying to say that, to the extent we generally regard science as trustworthy, we dare not sully it by trying to square it with the existence of a deity?

Doesn't sound too...inquiring to me, but to each his/her own.

Back to my point:

It looks/sounds to me as if Atheism seeks to organize itself, and to do so on a scale that would require all of the ingredients of religion (funding, fervor and expansionism) except God or What-Have-You.

I mean, they've got a Manifesto, and....no, wait - I'm describing Communism...

[ugk4life]

I think what atheist have an issue with is that we trust science in EVERY part of life. From medical science to science in technology. From you trusting the medicine your doctor gives you to you trusting that when you hit "submit" on your screen it makes it all the way to my screen. Yet when it comes to science trying to explain life, "God did it" and that's the final answer, don't ask any other questions, read the bible!

Are you trying to say that, to the extent we generally regard science as trustworthy, we dare not sully it by trying to square it with the existence of a deity?

Doesn't sound too...inquiring to me, but to each his/her own.

Back to my point:

It looks/sounds to me as if Atheism seeks to organize itself, and to do so on a scale that would require all of the ingredients of religion (funding, fervor and expansionism) except God or What-Have-You.

I mean, they've got a Manifesto, and....no, wait - I'm describing Communism...

Saying "ingredients of religion, except or w/o God(s)" is like saying hamburger helper w/o the hamburger (which would be something else entirely, macaroni and cheese)... Atheism is just simply people who do not believe in a diety. Just b/c atheist seek out like-minded individuals does not make them religious. That's just human nature. I seek out other Dallas Cowboys fans, we collect money at our forum for get-togethers, and I try to "convert" my non-Cowboy friends to become Cowboy fans (haven't "converted one yet...lol), does that make the Cowboys a religion? The funding and expansionism you speak of is more to promote science b/c atheism is science/fact based NOT faith based. Atheist are what they are what they are, a group of people who don't believe in god(s). Regardless of what name "they gave themselves", one would have been given to them anyway and we would still be having this discussion.

[ugk4life]

Where is it written that Atheists have to have faith in science? Where is it written that one has to have religion to believe in God?

One could argue that one is having the God of oneself or oneself as god, but it isn't what I would describe as religion.

edit. to be fair an Atheist wouldn't consider himself as god

1st of all, "faith in science" is an oxymoron. Simply ask any atheist why don't they believe in god. Basically, there answer will be that there is no proof. The "proof" they speak of is fact based, observable, scientific proof.

And I don't care what dictionary you use as a source, web-based or not, somewhere in the definition of religion you will find "belief in God(s)" or "spirtuality"

[bigboab]

There is more than one definition to religion. You are just picking the definition that suits you, to the detriment of all the other definitions.

p.s. Look up the definition in a good dictionary, not the internet.:)


LOL, love how you didn't provide any source for these "other" definitions of religion. Atheist don't believe in God and religion involves worship of God(s). Atheist trust science. Science is NOT a belief system. It is observable fact.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

It doesn't get any better then merriam-webster. Or is there a better dictionary...lol. I can go all day, keep it comin'...BTW, I'm not atheist!

I got my definition from Websters Third. Where there are 7 definitions of religion.

Lets ignore that and go your way. Looking at your source(I said no internet) I picked out definition number four(Only four!);

4 :a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

No mention of a deity in that definition. Religion does not have the monopoly on the word faith.

[j2k4]

Thank you, Bob.

There you have it, Cowboy fan(s).

[ugk4life]

LOL, love how you didn't provide any source for these "other" definitions of religion. Atheist don't believe in God and religion involves worship of God(s). Atheist trust science. Science is NOT a belief system. It is observable fact.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

It doesn't get any better then merriam-webster. Or is there a better dictionary...lol. I can go all day, keep it comin'...BTW, I'm not atheist!

I got my definition from Websters Third. Where there are 7 definitions of religion.

Lets ignore that and go your way. Looking at your source(I said no internet) I picked out definition number four(Only four!);

4 :a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

No mention of a deity in that definition. Religion does not have the monopoly on the word faith.


So please explain how atheism is a cause..principle... system or belief or faith! BTW, merriam-webster and websters 3rd are the same folks(internet or not).

[ugk4life]

Thank you, Bob.

There you have it, Cowboy fan(s).


He didn't say anything of value. He just highlighted one word in the 4th description of a definition. Atheism is not a cause, in the sense of religion. Thats like saying being taught math in school is a cause in religion. Doesn't make any sense.

[devilsadvocate]

1st of all, "faith in science" is an oxymoron.
faith (fhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifth)n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.





Simply ask any atheist why don't they believe in god. Basically, there answer will be that there is no proof. The "proof" they speak of is fact based, observable, scientific proof.

And I don't care what dictionary you use as a source, web-based or not, somewhere in the definition of religion you will find "belief in God(s)" or "spirtuality"

I like the saying "we're all Atheists, some just believe in one less God"

Atheists, just like those of faith can be shown all the scientific evidence under the sun and may still not believe what is in front of their eyes if it doesn't suit their viewpoint.

Atheists can believe things that have no scientific basis at all.

I probably erred by using the word faith, it was in response to your post where you said "Atheist trust science". Apparently with your dictionary having faith in and trusting in mean different things. I amend that question to - where is it written that Atheists have trust in science?

While I agrees it's more likely that they would be more trusting in certain scientific theory that contradicts religious theory, what I'm questioning is your assertion that Atheists trust science. One could be an Atheist and think scientific theory is a pile of crap.

I view religion as being worship. A theist can believe that there is a creator, but it's not a deity that requires worship.

For someone that claims to not be an Atheist you sure seem certain what they do or do not believe.

[ugk4life]

faith (fhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifth)n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.





Simply ask any atheist why don't they believe in god. Basically, there answer will be that there is no proof. The "proof" they speak of is fact based, observable, scientific proof.

And I don't care what dictionary you use as a source, web-based or not, somewhere in the definition of religion you will find "belief in God(s)" or "spirtuality"

I like the saying "we're all Atheists, some just believe in one less God"

Atheists, just like those of faith can be shown all the scientific evidence under the sun and may still not believe what is in front of their eyes if it doesn't suit their viewpoint.

Atheists can believe things that have no scientific basis at all.

I probably erred by using the word faith, it was in response to your post where you said "Atheist trust science". Apparently with your dictionary having faith in and trusting in mean different things. I amend that question to - where is it written that Atheists have trust in science?

While I agrees it's more likely that they would be more trusting in certain scientific theory that contradicts religious theory, what I'm questioning is your assertion that Atheists trust science. One could be an Atheist and think scientific theory is a pile of crap.

I view religion as being worship. A theist can believe that there is a creator, but it's not a deity that requires worship.

For someone that claims to not be an Atheist you sure seem certain what they do or do not believe.

We are talking about religion and faith and as you so pointed out "the dictionary has several different definitions". Atheism is NOT religious in any way.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

So if you mean atheism has faith "in the truth" (from your chosen definition), sure I'll agree with you.

You can disagree if you like, but atheist need "proof". Factual, observable proof.

" For someone that claims to not be an Atheist you sure seem certain what they do or do not believe."

I know a lot about the washington redskins too, but that doesn't mean I like them... So whats your point?

[bigboab]

faith (fhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifth)n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.






I like the saying "we're all Atheists, some just believe in one less God"

Atheists, just like those of faith can be shown all the scientific evidence under the sun and may still not believe what is in front of their eyes if it doesn't suit their viewpoint.

Atheists can believe things that have no scientific basis at all.

I probably erred by using the word faith, it was in response to your post where you said "Atheist trust science". Apparently with your dictionary having faith in and trusting in mean different things. I amend that question to - where is it written that Atheists have trust in science?

While I agrees it's more likely that they would be more trusting in certain scientific theory that contradicts religious theory, what I'm questioning is your assertion that Atheists trust science. One could be an Atheist and think scientific theory is a pile of crap.

I view religion as being worship. A theist can believe that there is a creator, but it's not a deity that requires worship.

For someone that claims to not be an Atheist you sure seem certain what they do or do not believe.

We are talking about religion and faith and as you so pointed out "the dictionary has several different definitions". Atheism is NOT religious in any way.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

So if you mean atheism has faith "in the truth" (from your chosen definition), sure I'll agree with you.

You can disagree if you like, but atheist need "proof". Factual, observable proof.

" For someone that claims to not be an Atheist you sure seem certain what they do or do not believe."

I know a lot about the washington redskins too, but that doesn't mean I like them... So whats your point?

For Chris.. sake. You are still picking out the parts that suit you. There is nobody arguing about your interpretation of religion. We are just saying that there are others.:)

Please excuse any typing errors. It is old age(The keyboard I mean) My birthday is due in about 10 weeks.:whistling

[ugk4life]

You just picked the parts that suited your argument also. LOL, yeah this has kinda gotten outta hand. The argument that I was originally responding to was that atheism is a religion and all I was trying to say is that I don't understand how he came to that conclusion. We'll just have to agree to disagree...

[devilsadvocate]

You are, or at least appear to be, missing my point.

You say Atheist don't believe because they have no proof, however an Atheist can believe in men from mars without proof.



I know a lot about the washington redskins too, but that doesn't mean I like them... So whats your point?

Hardly a comparison.

You are making statements about what Atheists believe or don't believe and why. Apart from the denial of the existence of God there is no qualifying value or reasoning required to be classified as an Atheist. So any statement you make other than they don't believe in any god is pure guesswork and generalization.

[ugk4life]

You say Atheist don't believe because they have no proof, however an Atheist can believe in men from mars without proof.



Proof please. Talk about guesswork and speculation

[bigboab]

You say Atheist don't believe because they have no proof, however an Atheist can believe in men from mars without proof.



Proof please. Talk about guesswork and speculation

What about the Moonies. They have a God.

There are hundreds of different religions in this world. Each one thinks that they are the right one. They can't all be correct, then again it is possible that they could all be wrong.

Every person should be left to their own beliefs. If you don't agree with this and interfere with others beliefs then you must be willing to take the flak that will ensue.

[ugk4life]

We are talking about religion and faith and as you so pointed out "the dictionary has several different definitions". Atheism is NOT religious in any way.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

So if you mean atheism has faith "in the truth" (from your chosen definition), sure I'll agree with you.

You can disagree if you like, but atheist need "proof". Factual, observable proof.

" For someone that claims to not be an Atheist you sure seem certain what they do or do not believe."

I know a lot about the washington redskins too, but that doesn't mean I like them... So whats your point?

For Chris.. sake. You are still picking out the parts that suit you. There is nobody arguing about your interpretation of religion. We are just saying that there are others.:)

Please excuse any typing errors. It is old age(The keyboard I mean) My birthday is due in about 10 weeks.:whistling





Proof please. Talk about guesswork and speculation

What about the Moonies. They have a God.

There are hundreds of different religions in this world. Each one thinks that they are the right one. They can't all be correct, then again it is possible that they could all be wrong.

Every person should be left to their own beliefs. If you don't agree with this and interfere with others beliefs then you must be willing to take the flak that will ensue.

Don't know about the moonies but if they have a god they are not atheist (if that is what u r saying). I don't care what you believe. You are entitled to live your life the way u want. You can believe cows lay eggs if you want. That doesn't make it true. You can believe atheism is a religion if that makes u feel better, but that doesn't make it true.

[bigboab]

For Chris.. sake. You are still picking out the parts that suit you. There is nobody arguing about your interpretation of religion. We are just saying that there are others.:)

Please excuse any typing errors. It is old age(The keyboard I mean) My birthday is due in about 10 weeks.:whistling





Proof please. Talk about guesswork and speculation

What about the Moonies. They have a God.

There are hundreds of different religions in this world. Each one thinks that they are the right one. They can't all be correct, then again it is possible that they could all be wrong.

Every person should be left to their own beliefs. If you don't agree with this and interfere with others beliefs then you must be willing to take the flak that will ensue.

Don't know about the moonies but if they have a god they are not atheist (if that is what u r saying). I don't care what you believe. You are entitled to live your life the way u want. You can believe cows lay eggs if you want. That doesn't make it true. You can believe atheism is a religion if that makes u feel better, but that doesn't make it true.

Theirs is a self ordained God Sun Myung Moon (http://filesharingtalk.com/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon).
Moonie (plural Moonies) is a term which refers to members of the Unification Church (http://filesharingtalk.com/wiki/Unification_Church); it is derived from the name of church founder. for some reason or other it is defined as a cult. I thought all religions were cults. I know we wear cults(Sorry Kev:))

[ugk4life]

Yeah, wouldn't all religions be classified as cults? I've never understood the derogatory use of the term cult.

[bigboab]

cult (k¾lt) n. 1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion. 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. --attributive. Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films. [Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.
American Heritage Dictionary

Depends who wrote the dictionary.:whistling A lot of religions burnt any book(or person) that did not agree with their particular doctrine. I suppose this was one way to say 'our word is the truth'.

[devilsadvocate]

You say Atheist don't believe because they have no proof, however an Atheist can believe in men from mars without proof.



Proof please. Talk about guesswork and speculation

Again you appear to have missed the point.

An Atheist cannot believe in God and still be an Atheist, I'll take a leap and assume we both agree on that.

You said Atheist don't believe in God because there is no proof of his existence. You said that they trust in science and God has not been proven scientifically (words to that effect).

The point is about the scientific part of your statement being the essential reasoning. An Atheist can ("can" doesn't mean "does") believe in men from Mars despite there being no scientific evidence or proof and still be an Atheist. Ergo belief, trust or faith in scientific theory is irrelevant to being an Atheist.

[ugk4life]

Proof please. Talk about guesswork and speculation

Again you appear to have missed the point.

An Atheist cannot believe in God and still be an Atheist, I'll take a leap and assume we both agree on that.

You said Atheist don't believe in God because there is no proof of his existence. You said that they trust in science and God has not been proven scientifically (words to that effect).

The point is about the scientific part of your statement being the essential reasoning. An Atheist can ("can" doesn't mean "does") believe in men from Mars despite there being no scientific evidence or proof and still be an Atheist. Ergo belief, trust or faith in scientific theory is irrelevant to being an Atheist.

Again, proof, or at least a better explanation. You made something up off the top of your head! We can deal in hypothetical all day, the point is atheist don't believe in god b/c there is no proof.

[j2k4]

So then:

What sort of "proof" is required in order to refer to, well, any endeavor (not involving a deity) as one a person might be said to pursue with a "religious fervor"?

Or have you single-handedly stricken that from the previously available list of adjectival stuffs.

[Snee]

Again you appear to have missed the point.

An Atheist cannot believe in God and still be an Atheist, I'll take a leap and assume we both agree on that.

You said Atheist don't believe in God because there is no proof of his existence. You said that they trust in science and God has not been proven scientifically (words to that effect).

The point is about the scientific part of your statement being the essential reasoning. An Atheist can ("can" doesn't mean "does") believe in men from Mars despite there being no scientific evidence or proof and still be an Atheist. Ergo belief, trust or faith in scientific theory is irrelevant to being an Atheist.

Again, proof, or at least a better explanation. You made something up off the top of your head! We can deal in hypothetical all day, the point is atheist don't believe in god b/c there is no proof.

A proper atheist believes there is no God. And that's pretty much the definition of what some people call a strong atheist.

An agnostic thinks we can't be sure whether there's a God or not, since there's no proof either way.

Sometimes agnostics are described as weak atheists, but that's pretty much misleading and a bit insulting to agnostics, since people who label themselves atheists tend to be a pack of morons who sit around in discussion groups on the internet discussing counter-arguments to people arguing there's a God and whatnot, and they hardly bring very good arguments for anything related to theism, either. Agnostics, on the other hand, tend to have at least tried to think things through, and they don't generally go around going 'hurf blurf, I'm an agnostic' or try and turn discussions about religion into arguments about whether there's a God.

In short, there's very little difference between internets-atheists and internets-preachers, and neither group seems to have thought things through.

Here, go read wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)

Incidentally, that article says that some Buddhists are sometimes referred to as atheists. This would be because they have a religion that excludes the existance of a God.

EDit:

In some respects that moron who wrote the OP's article is a poster-child for the kind of atheism I don't like. He both claims that the majority of the science world is atheist ('nor wound [sic] the majority of the science world') and manages to imply that to follow a religion, everyone has to follow it exactly the same.

And to top it off, I'm getting the impression he's gone onto a site where he expects that the people reading it don't subscribe to his particular brand of nonsense, so he's probably trying to preach a bit.

[ugk4life]

Again, proof, or at least a better explanation. You made something up off the top of your head! We can deal in hypothetical all day, the point is atheist don't believe in god b/c there is no proof.

A proper atheist believes there is no God. And that's pretty much the definition of what some people call a strong atheist.

An agnostic thinks we can't be sure whether there's a God or not, since there's no proof either way.

Sometimes agnostics are described as weak atheists, but that's pretty much misleading and a bit insulting to agnostics, since people who label themselves atheists tend to be a pack of morons who sit around in discussion groups on the internet discussing counter-arguments to people arguing there's a God and whatnot, and they hardly bring very good arguments for anything related to theism, either. Agnostics, on the other hand, tend to have at least tried to think things through, and they don't generally go around going 'hurf blurf, I'm an agnostic' or try and turn discussions about religion into arguments about whether there's a God.

In short, there's very little difference between internets-atheists and internets-preachers, and neither group seems to have thought things through.

Here, go read wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)

Incidentally, that article says that some Buddhists are sometimes referred to as atheists. This would be because they have a religion that excludes the existance of a God.

EDit:

In some respects that moron who wrote the OP's article is a poster-child for the kind of atheism I don't like. He both claims that the majority of the science world is atheist ('nor wound [sic] the majority of the science world') and manages to imply that to follow a religion, everyone has to follow it exactly the same.

And to top it off, I'm getting the impression he's gone onto a site where he expects that the people reading it don't subscribe to his particular brand of nonsense, so he's probably trying to preach a bit.


Huh?

[Snee]

tl;dr version:

Your definition of what an atheist is is lacking and a bit off, what you're describing wrt not believing because there's no proof sounds more like agnosticism*. Your idea of what a religion is isn't entirely on target either.

And on a personal note, I consider most people who fancy themselves Atheists, especially on the internet, to be morons.

You really shouldn't ask for an explanation if you aren't able to read all the big words.

EDit:

Going 'there is no God', as a 'strong' (:dabs:) atheist would is as much an expression of a belief system as saying the opposite. And it really takes just one person to start a religion, while there's lots of them with the same beliefs, discussing those same beliefs on the internet, getting organised (and borrowing the same traditions, now), in this case.

*Some people, mainly in the atheist department, would say that you can be both religious and agnostic, or atheist and agnostic, but I disagree, as I consider agnosticism the absence of belief, in this instance, whereas the other two aren't.

[devilsadvocate]

Snee

I find your argument interesting, however in my personal view religion would require worship of some manner. Lacking an object of worship, be it a spiritual deity or an actual object like the sun or nature, in my mind Atheist gathering to discuss their non belief would be more akin to a book club or a political party.

Do you only consider most Atheist that discuss their views online morons or do you extend the label to people that believe in a God that push their beliefs?

I find that most people that try to debate the merits of a belief system other than their own tend to make bad arguments because they don't understand the other side or just lack enough knowledge to not make false assumptions.
A Christian explaining his beliefs makes a coherent argument. A Christian trying to explain why Islam, Buddhism or Atheism is incorrect usually makes a fool of himself. Part of it being because he usually couldn't do so without referring to his own religion as the proof. The same would apply to an Atheist.

[ugk4life]

tl;dr version:

Your definition of what an atheist is is lacking and a bit off, what you're describing wrt not believing because there's no proof sounds more like agnosticism*. Your idea of what a religion is isn't entirely on target either.

And on a personal note, I consider most people who fancy themselves Atheists, especially on the internet, to be morons.

You really shouldn't ask for an explanation if you aren't able to read all the big words.

EDit:

Going 'there is no God', as a 'strong' (:dabs:) atheist would is as much an expression of a belief system as saying the opposite. And it really takes just one person to start a religion, while there's lots of them with the same beliefs, discussing those same beliefs on the internet, getting organised (and borrowing the same traditions, now), in this case.

*Some people, mainly in the atheist department, would say that you can be both religious and agnostic, or atheist and agnostic, but I disagree, as I consider agnosticism the absence of belief, in this instance, whereas the other two aren't.

good thing i'm not atheist, i guess. and no need for simplification. just sounded like u were talking out of your ass. in any case, i did not define religion, i let websters do it for me. nice try professor snee, p.h.d.

[ugk4life]

A Christian explaining his beliefs makes a coherent argument. A Christian trying to explain why Islam, Buddhism or Atheism is incorrect usually makes a fool of himself. Part of it being because he usually couldn't do so without referring to his own religion as the proof. The same would apply to an Atheist.

how would that apply to an atheiest? he has no religion?

[bigboab]

A Christian explaining his beliefs makes a coherent argument. A Christian trying to explain why Islam, Buddhism or Atheism is incorrect usually makes a fool of himself. Part of it being because he usually couldn't do so without referring to his own religion as the proof. The same would apply to an Atheist.

how would that apply to an atheiest? he has no religion?

Religion does not just pertain to deities.:) I thought that we covered all this earlier.

[Snee]

Snee

I find your argument interesting, however in my personal view religion would require worship of some manner. Lacking an object of worship, be it a spiritual deity or an actual object like the sun or nature, in my mind Atheist gathering to discuss their non belief would be more akin to a book club or a political party.

First of all, I don't really consider there to be a difference between the statements 'I don't believe in God' and 'I believe there isn't a God', so I'd not call atheism in and of itself non-belief.

I consider the concept of a God or other item of religious significance a point of reference towards which people aim certain beliefs, if that makes sense.

As for worship, that's a trickier one. Does overly trusting what current science has uncovered count as worship?

I'll concede that atheists I've run into haven't always seemed to have replaced a deity with science, but there's always a certain measure of faith in a kind of pseudo-logic, ie: 'There is no God because no one has proven it. And if it isn't proven, it isn't real, and besides, the burden of proof is on you, since you made the positive statement. And there's no empirical data to suggest there's a God' and so forth, totally diregarding things like the fact that some people have been claiming they've talked to God (second hand empirical data, albeit unreliable, and nothing I personally put much stock in), or that cultures everywhere have come up with the concept, seemingly independently, at times (might be a Jungian archetype, I suppose), or that calculating the probability of the existance an extremely non-specific beard in the sky is a whole other matter than, say, calculating the probability of there being a santa (for whom we have a highly specific description, and even a location to start looking).

Reasoning like that, and rejecting or ignoring anything not fitting into one's worldview is a downright fundamentalist religious trait.


Do you only consider most Atheist that discuss their views online morons or do you extend the label to people that believe in a God that push their beliefs?

Basically it's to do with a certain mode of reasoning as well as taking offense over that others believe in something they don't think exists. I've got the same quarrel with either side on that account, really, the caring so much about what the other side thinks that it becomes an insult that the belief even exists. People not being logical and/or starting arguments over something that really doesn't matter since they can't possibly know whether it's there, while it being so inconsequential rubs me the wrong way.

Yon evangelical internet-atheists tend to deliver some right humdingers by way of leaps of logic, though, especially with regards to 'the burden of proof', which has gotten really popular as of late, despite claiming to be the more enlightened and scientifically minded.



I find that most people that try to debate the merits of a belief system other than their own tend to make bad arguments because they don't understand the other side or just lack enough knowledge to not make false assumptions.
A Christian explaining his beliefs makes a coherent argument. A Christian trying to explain why Islam, Buddhism or Atheism is incorrect usually makes a fool of himself. Part of it being because he usually couldn't do so without referring to his own religion as the proof. The same would apply to an Atheist.

True, and I won't argue the point, other than to say a lot of the self-proclaimed atheist people I've had the displeasure of running into seem to have a focus on a specific religion, making certain claims about what religion is that are very much tied to christianity, in particular.

[Snee]

tl;dr version:

Your definition of what an atheist is is lacking and a bit off, what you're describing wrt not believing because there's no proof sounds more like agnosticism*. Your idea of what a religion is isn't entirely on target either.

And on a personal note, I consider most people who fancy themselves Atheists, especially on the internet, to be morons.

You really shouldn't ask for an explanation if you aren't able to read all the big words.

EDit:

Going 'there is no God', as a 'strong' (:dabs:) atheist would is as much an expression of a belief system as saying the opposite. And it really takes just one person to start a religion, while there's lots of them with the same beliefs, discussing those same beliefs on the internet, getting organised (and borrowing the same traditions, now), in this case.

*Some people, mainly in the atheist department, would say that you can be both religious and agnostic, or atheist and agnostic, but I disagree, as I consider agnosticism the absence of belief, in this instance, whereas the other two aren't.

good thing i'm not atheist, i guess. and no need for simplification. just sounded like u were talking out of your ass. in any case, i did not define religion, i let websters do it for me. nice try professor snee, p.h.d.

Either Webster's definition is incomplete, or you didn't read all of it, then, captain tard.

[bigboab]

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971:
Religion: 1. the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers,

2. the state of a religious,

3a. one of the systems of religious faith and worship, 3b. the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context,

4. the profession or practice of religious beliefs,

5. archaic, scrupulous conformity,

6a. a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one’s own, humanity’s, or all nature’s destiny,

7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance,
7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing.

[Snee]

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971:
Religion: 1. the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers,

2. the state of a religious,

3a. one of the systems of religious faith and worship, 3b. the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context,

4. the profession or practice of religious beliefs,

5. archaic, scrupulous conformity,

6a. a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one’s own, humanity’s, or all nature’s destiny,

7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance,
7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing.

I'm going with 'didn't read all of it', then.

[ugk4life]

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971:
Religion: 1. the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers,

2. the state of a religious,

3a. one of the systems of religious faith and worship, 3b. the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context,

4. the profession or practice of religious beliefs,

5. archaic, scrupulous conformity,

6a. a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one’s own, humanity’s, or all nature’s destiny,

7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance,
7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing.

I'm going with 'didn't read all of it', then.

yeah, u sure didn't read all of it b/c atheism does fit anything u highlighted, especially if u read the rest of the description. if atheism is a religion i guess football in texas is religion too. nice try dr. snee, maybe next time!

[devilsadvocate]

As for worship, that's a trickier one. Does overly trusting what current science has uncovered count as worship?



I guess in certain cases the argument could be made for that one. On the other hand a true follower of science would be one that constantly challenges set theory. Scientists get their rocks of discovering new reality. Could you imagine the hard on a scientist would get if he could prove the existence of God. Scientists challenge evolution. The difference is that they do so in a scientific manner, which would preclude religious theory based on "what is written". This is where so many people find offense.



My personal experience of the drive to class Atheism as religion more often than not seems to be a desire to offend Atheists. I admit I don't know that many but my experience of Atheists is that they just go through their day not believing and not trying to convince others to join them. I've only found out that these people have no religion when they have made a simple response to someone evangelizing them. Once the non belief was out then the ensuing "conversation" was led by the believers unwillingness to just accept a "leave me alone". I probably know a lot of non believers, I just don't know they are. Not once in my life has an Atheist come up to me to tell me there is no God.

The Internet may be a different matter. It's a place where for the most part one can safely speak with anonymity so not risk of real life harassment. Virtual harassment may occur, but you can end that by not visiting that site. The online debates I have wandered into haven't really been about is there or isn't there a God. They have been about someone being pissed off because a certain group of theocratic zealots are trying to force their religious dogma onto them. Examples would be bible classes or mandatory prayer in schools. Teaching creationism in science classes or wanting laws denying Homosexuals (insert anything here) because the bible says homosexuality is a sin. The list goes on. Now the examples I gave were Christian V Atheist based. This is because in my part of the world that's the experience. I'm pretty sure if I lived in a hardcore Islamic country there would be even less tolerance.

[Snee]

I'm going with 'didn't read all of it', then.

yeah, u sure didn't read all of it b/c atheism does fit anything u highlighted, especially if u read the rest of the description. if atheism is a religion i guess football in texas is religion too. nice try dr. snee, maybe next time!
Yeah, 'cept I didn't highlight that.

And for fuck's sake, those a's, b's, and c's, and so forth are alternative definitions. It's kind of how a dictionary works.

[Snee]

The Internet may be a different matter.

Yep.

Thing is that I'd wager I live in a country far more secular than yours (I'm assuming you're an anglo of some sort), and the regular response if you'd ask people I spend time with here whether they believe in God would be either a vague 'well, I believe there's something...' or 'meh'. None of them have labeled themselves an atheist, either. Well, there was this one guy. He was really into Chomsky or something. We may have atheists here, but no one not religious cares much about the supernatural, other than it being a neat story.

The ones who've labeled themselves thus I've run into on the internet I can remember (chalice being the exception) have almost all said things I've found less than agreeable in threads about religion, ranging from jumping in and blaming Religion (christianity really, no one ever remembers that some religions have had virtually no ill effects on society) for everything people have done in its name, to just being very very smug about 'knowing better'.

Ran into a guy the other week who turned a discussion of spirituality into 'religion has never done anything good for us'*. And then went off about the burden of proof and all that.

When people start attaching that kind of label to themselves, I consider it a warning sign, nowadays.

EDit: For the record, I'm not belonging to any religion (except possibly my own, depending on my mood, and how drunk I am).

*Nearly forgot about his mate Mr if-you-don't-follow-everything-in-the-bible-you're-not-a-christian.

[ugk4life]

yeah, u sure didn't read all of it b/c atheism does fit anything u highlighted, especially if u read the rest of the description. if atheism is a religion i guess football in texas is religion too. nice try dr. snee, maybe next time!
Yeah, 'cept I didn't highlight that.

And for fuck's sake, those a's, b's, and c's, and so forth are alternative definitions. It's kind of how a dictionary works.

u might as well have highlighted it, u agreed with the guy. i guess by your lazy use and misunderstanding of the term religion, the democratic and republican parties are religions, also. wow, i guess i can make a religion out of any group of people now!

[Snee]

Yeah, 'cept I didn't highlight that.

And for fuck's sake, those a's, b's, and c's, and so forth are alternative definitions. It's kind of how a dictionary works.

u might as well have highlighted it, u agreed with the guy. i guess by your lazy use and misunderstanding of the term religion, the democratic and republican parties are religions, also. wow, i guess i can make a religion out of any group of people now!
Yeah, fuck those lazy types writing the dictionaries. Lucky you know better. We can't trick you, eh, champ.

[ugk4life]

u might as well have highlighted it, u agreed with the guy. i guess by your lazy use and misunderstanding of the term religion, the democratic and republican parties are religions, also. wow, i guess i can make a religion out of any group of people now!
Yeah, fuck those lazy types writing the dictionaries. Lucky you know better. We can't trick you, eh, champ.

can't read either can u? guess that's the root of the problem here. didn't say say i had a problem with the dictionary, just the "lazy use and misunderstanding" of it by folks who r trying to prove a point. btw, my religion is the Nazarene of Dallas Cowboys.

[devilsadvocate]

The Internet may be a different matter.

Yep.

Thing is that I'd wager I live in a country far more secular than yours (I'm assuming you're an anglo of some sort), and the regular response if you'd ask people I spend time with here whether they believe in God would be either a vague 'well, I believe there's something...' or 'meh'. None of them have labeled themselves an atheist, either. Well, there was this one guy. He was really into Chomsky or something. We may have atheists here, but no one not religious cares much about the supernatural, other than it being a neat story.

The ones who've labeled themselves thus I've run into on the internet I can remember (chalice being the exception) have almost all said things I've found less than agreeable in threads about religion, ranging from jumping in and blaming Religion (christianity really, no one ever remembers that some religions have had virtually no ill effects on society) for everything people have done in its name, to just being very very smug about 'knowing better'.

Ran into a guy the other week who turned a discussion of spirituality into 'religion has never done andthing good for us'*. And then went off about the burden of proof and all that.

When people start attaching that kind of label to themselves, I consider it a warning sign, nowadays.

EDit: For the record, I'm not belonging to any religion (except possibly my own, depending on my mood, and how drunk I am).

*Nearly forgot about his mate Mr if-you-don't-follow-everything-in-the-bible-you're-not-a-christian.
There' be alota long words in there missy and I'm naught but a humble Texan :yup:

My observation of the "debates" ongoing are that while both sides, and I say sides to only include the zealots, are offended by the spiritual or lack of belief of the other side, the actual fight is political and not about faith.


*Nearly forgot about his mate Mr if-you-don't-follow-everything-in-the-bible-you're-not-a-christian. Can't say I know anyone that follows EVERYTHING in the bible Nobody wants to stone women to death for not being virgins on their wedding night (as far as I know :unsure:), but I know plenty of the kind you are probably talking about "not the Christianity I know from MY bible" and to be honest I find their thinking offensive. They really came out of the woodwork during and since the presidential election.

[Snee]

Yeah, fuck those lazy types writing the dictionaries. Lucky you know better. We can't trick you, eh, champ.

can't read either can u? guess that's the root of the problem here. didn't say say i had a problem with the dictionary, just the "lazy use and misunderstanding" of it by folks who r trying to prove a point. btw, my religion is the Nazarene of Dallas Cowboys.

You're arguing with the dictionary definition you yourself cited. There's really nothing else to say here.

:glag:

[Snee]

There' be alota long words in there missy and I'm naught but a humble Texan

:eyebrows:



*Nearly forgot about his mate Mr if-you-don't-follow-everything-in-the-bible-you're-not-a-christian. Can't say I know anyone that follows EVERYTHING in the bible Nobody wants to stone women to death for not being virgins on their wedding night (as far as I know :unsure:), but I know plenty of the kind you are probably talking about "not the Christianity I know from MY bible" and to be honest I find their thinking offensive. They really came out of the woodwork during and since the presidential election.

I agree it's bad when christians do it, but this guy was a self-proclaimed atheist, putting someone else down for downloading stuff (ie 'stealing' :rolleyes:) whilst mentioning they were christian.

[ugk4life]

i wonder what grade i'd get if i put a couple of these :p and few :o in my eng. lit. paper. Aw shucks, who am i kiddin', i'm just lil ol' texan.

again, no issue w/ the dictionary, just the folks who misuse it to prove a point. ok, let me break it down in ruska or rusky or what ever language:

atheism /= a cause... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a principle... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a system of tenets... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a quality,custom or thing, blah, blah... just folks who don't believe in god

u lose again.

[devilsadvocate]

I agree it's bad when christians do it, but this guy was a self-proclaimed atheist, putting someone else down for downloading stuff (ie 'stealing' :rolleyes:) whilst mentioning they were christian.
Ah I misunderstood, you were talking about a non believer making the statement. Go ahead, make a dismissive remark about me being Texan, if it helps you feel superior :P
Not being privy to the incident I can't really comment other than to say while the statement was IMO incorrect as you don't have to be without sin, you simply need to accept Jesus as your savior to be a Christian, I'm sure someone will argue that point but it's my raising, I don't see pointing out the breaking of the commandments as controversial if the discussion was was about religious.

I can see how the "get out clauses" and the "God does not have to prove himself" would be infuriating to anyone opposing the solidity of faith.

[Snee]

i wonder what grade i'd get if i put a couple of these :p and few :o in my eng. lit. paper. Aw shucks, who am i kiddin', i'm just lil ol' texan.

again, no issue w/ the dictionary, just the folks who misuse it to prove a point. ok, let me break it down in ruska or rusky or what ever language:

atheism /= a cause... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a principle... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a system of tenets... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a quality,custom or thing, blah, blah... just folks who don't believe in god

u lose again.

Yes, I lose at the whole quote-a-dictionary-and-then-arguing-with-the-definition-from-it-and-then-claiming-everyone-else-is-wrong-and-not-the-dictionary-containing-the-definition-I'm-arguing-about contest. It might be because I'm not mad as a box of frogs. Woe is I.

[Snee]

I agree it's bad when christians do it, but this guy was a self-proclaimed atheist, putting someone else down for downloading stuff (ie 'stealing' :rolleyes:) whilst mentioning they were christian.
Ah I misunderstood, you were talking about a non believer making the statement. Go ahead, make a dismissing remark about me being Texan, if it helps you feel superior :P

I've never needed an excuse before :snooty: :I'dusethatwinkingsmileyherebutitlookslikeastrokevictim:




Not being privy to the incident I can't really comment other than to say while the statement was IMO incorrect as you don't have to be without sin, you simply need to accept Jesus as your savior to be a Christian, I'm sure someone will argue that point but it's my raising, I don't see pointing out the breaking of the commandments as controversial if the discussion was was about religious.
I believe his exact meaning was something along the line of 'everyone has to follow a religion exactly the same or else they're not following the same religion'. It's not that important, though.



I can see how the "get out clauses" and the "God does not have to prove himself" would be infuriating to anyone opposing the solidity of faith.
I think it's funny, myself. Bit like God not having to prove he/she/it is there, and either way that'd mean people didn't have to believe, and you have to have faith to be let into heaven.

I can imagine how it might have sort of shut down any pesky church-goers who might have raised the issue, back in the day.

'You don't like it? FINE. Burn in hell.'

[ugk4life]

i wonder what grade i'd get if i put a couple of these :p and few :o in my eng. lit. paper. Aw shucks, who am i kiddin', i'm just lil ol' texan.

again, no issue w/ the dictionary, just the folks who misuse it to prove a point. ok, let me break it down in ruska or rusky or what ever language:

atheism /= a cause... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a principle... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a system of tenets... just folks who don't believe in god
atheism /= a quality,custom or thing, blah, blah... just folks who don't believe in god

u lose again.

Yes, I lose at the whole quote-a-dictionary-and-then-arguing-with-the-definition-from-it-and-then-claiming-everyone-else-is-wrong-and-not-the-dictionary-containing-the-definition-I'm-arguing-about contest. It might be because I'm not mad as a box of frogs. Woe is I.


yes we all understand you know how to use a hyphen. too bad u fail at rebutting anything i just laid out for ya. atheism-does-not-fit-any-of-the-criteria-in-the-definition. see what i did there? :01::naughty::shutup::whistling:rolleyes::ermm::dry:;):cool:

"ribit-ribit, hop-hop"

[bigboab]

I'm going with 'didn't read all of it', then.

yeah, u sure didn't read all of it b/c atheism does fit anything u highlighted, especially if u read the rest of the description. if atheism is a religion i guess football in texas is religion too. nice try dr. snee, maybe next time!


I heard a fellow in Nashville state, 'You can always tell a Texan - NOTHING'. I now see what he meant.:whistling

[devilsadvocate]

Oats is oats, the only difference is which end of the horse you look at them from

[ugk4life]

I heard a fellow in Nashville state, 'You can always tell a Texan - NOTHING'. I now see what he meant.:whistling

a southerner making fun of another southerner. that's funny! oh yeah, what happened to our discussion about atheism being religion? i guess this has turned into a high-jacked insults thread. too bad u aren't adding anything to the thread except spam.

[bigboab]

I heard a fellow in Nashville state, 'You can always tell a Texan - NOTHING'. I now see what he meant.:whistling

a southerner making fun of another southerner. that's funny! oh yeah, what happened to our discussion about atheism being religion? i guess this has turned into a high-jacked insults thread. too bad u aren't adding anything to the thread except spam.

I thought we agreed to disagree.:whistling Real, not internet, dictionaries excepted.

[ugk4life]

a southerner making fun of another southerner. that's funny! oh yeah, what happened to our discussion about atheism being religion? i guess this has turned into a high-jacked insults thread. too bad u aren't adding anything to the thread except spam.

I thought we agreed to disagree.:whistling Real, not internet, dictionaries excepted.

when did merriam-webster's become a "fake" dictionary..lol. an didn't u quote from that "fake" dictionary. to tell u the truth, the hard-back dictionary probably not as up-to-date. oh well, says the guy that's using the internet to post on a forum!

[bigboab]

I thought we agreed to disagree.:whistling Real, not internet, dictionaries excepted.

when did merriam-webster's become a "fake" dictionary..lol. an didn't u quote from that "fake" dictionary. to tell u the truth, the hard-back dictionary probably not as up-to-date. oh well, says the guy that's using the internet to post on a forum!

A lot of dictionaries on the internet are not exact copies of the original. Even allowing for them being correct, they can be altered by the poster. I DID NOT quote from a 'fake' dictionary. I quoted from my own copy of Websters Third. Sorry about the qaulity of the pic, just took it to show that I have them. The white books are Websters Third. Yes, I agree that dictionaries can be updated. Updating does not exclude the original definition, it only adds recent usage of the words in a different context, as in Gay having a completely different meaning from the original definition. Just an example.:whistling

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/websters-britannica.jpg

[j2k4]

After all that, I find myself wondering - in this age of flexo-bendy, free-floating word definitions - why anyone professing a concurrent stance of non-atheism while would go to such great lengths to deny others the opportunity to bend the word 'religion' just a wee bit in aid of free expression.

Baffling.

[devilsadvocate]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/websters-britannica.jpg

Such a shame that with that wonderful looking set of encyclopedia you failed to read up on load bearing limits for book shelves :P

[ugk4life]

After all that, I find myself wondering - in this age of flexo-bendy, free-floating word definitions - why anyone professing a concurrent stance of non-atheism while would go to such great lengths to deny others the opportunity to bend the word 'religion' just a wee bit in aid of free expression.

Baffling.

whats so baffling? why does it matter what i "profess"?

1. i love a good discussion (as i see many others in this forum do)
2. if i see someone spreading lies (well, maybe a "mistruth"), i'm gonna call them out on it.


And to the other guy, your dictionary had pretty much the same definition as the online version. the items u highlighted had nothing to do with atheism.

[ugk4life]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/websters-britannica.jpg

Such a shame that with that wonderful looking set of encyclopedia you failed to read up on load bearing limits for book shelves :P

ah so you like encyclopedia brittanica? well this is what your sacred books online version has to say about religion

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/497082/religion

human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Religion is commonly regarded as consisting of a person’s relation to God or to gods or spirits. Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are generally also constituent elements of the religious life as practiced by believers and worshipers and as commanded by religious sages and scriptures.

[bigboab]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/websters-britannica.jpg

Such a shame that with that wonderful looking set of encyclopedia you failed to read up on load bearing limits for book shelves :P

They are weighty tomes.:whistling

[j2k4]

After all that, I find myself wondering - in this age of flexo-bendy, free-floating word definitions - why anyone professing a concurrent stance of non-atheism while would go to such great lengths to deny others the opportunity to bend the word 'religion' just a wee bit in aid of free expression.

Baffling.

whats so baffling? why does it matter what i "profess"?

1. i love a good discussion (as i see many others in this forum do)
2. if i see someone spreading lies (well, maybe a "mistruth"), i'm gonna call them out on it.


And to the other guy, your dictionary had pretty much the same definition as the online version. the items u highlighted had nothing to do with atheism.

If you "love a good discussion", why do you have a problem with my view of a newly-burgeoning Atheism?

The reason for my bafflement should be apparent to most who are reading this thread.

Please also point out any lies you feel I may be spreading.

[ugk4life]

whats so baffling? why does it matter what i "profess"?

1. i love a good discussion (as i see many others in this forum do)
2. if i see someone spreading lies (well, maybe a "mistruth"), i'm gonna call them out on it.


And to the other guy, your dictionary had pretty much the same definition as the online version. the items u highlighted had nothing to do with atheism.

If you "love a good discussion", why do you have a problem with my view of a newly-burgeoning Atheism?

The reason for my bafflement should be apparent to most who are reading this thread.

Please also point out any lies you feel I may be spreading.

no problem with your "opinion" and voicing how u feel but if ur "opinion" is a lie, like i said, i'm going to call u on it. atheism is not a religion. it just describes a person that doesn't believe in god. the definition u posted does not help ur argument, it actually weakens it.

[j2k4]

I didn't post any definitions; I only referred to the new body of atheist activities as religion-like, which in no way fits the definition of a lie, unless you've written a new dictionary.

I guess I just called you on your lie.

Btw, congratulations on your Cowboys' sterling effort against the Vikings.

[Snee]

Yes, I lose at the whole quote-a-dictionary-and-then-arguing-with-the-definition-from-it-and-then-claiming-everyone-else-is-wrong-and-not-the-dictionary-containing-the-definition-I'm-arguing-about contest. It might be because I'm not mad as a box of frogs. Woe is I.


yes we all understand you know how to use a hyphen. too bad u fail at rebutting anything i just laid out for ya. atheism-does-not-fit-any-of-the-criteria-in-the-definition. see what i did there? :01::naughty::shutup::whistling:rolleyes::ermm::dry:;):cool:

"ribit-ribit, hop-hop"
You complete retard.

How clear do I have to make it?

You refered to a dictionary, one which had several alternative definitions of the word religion.

One of these definitions fit Bigboab's idea of what a religion can be, and mine, somewhat. And, most certainly fits explicit atheism. (I don't even know if I agree with it myself, as I think it's too loose, but it's your dictionary, not mine, so I don't really care.) Which, one assumes, is why you don't agree with it.


7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance,
7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing.

There's nothing in there that disagrees with what we've been saying. Put more plainly it's a set of beliefs, principles or values upheld with religious fervour or devotion. Which in no way has to involve a deity, but can involve beliefs such as 'God doesn't exist'.

You then decided you don't agree with that definition, or the application of that definition to atheism (yes, or the application of that definition to atheism, even though we've pretty much been through all of that before it was quoted, which was why it was quoted), which is just as dumb.

But oh no, there's nothing wrong with the dictionary, there's something wrong with everyone who agrees with the dictionary or everyone who notes that the definition of religion in there can fit atheism.

So you argue with the dictionary, and we're supposed to either defend the definition inside of it or explain all the big words to you, even though it's you who held it up as containing the truth.

And lastly you come up with a set of definitions for atheism on your own, and that we're supposed to care about?

And this is after dismissing everything that doesn't fit in with your view on what a religion is, beforehand, in this thread. As well as totally ignoring the fact that atheism, at least among people who'll call themselves atheist, contains a component of belief, as has been pointed out a few times, just as it's been pointed out that religion doesn't have to involve God (cf some branches of buddhism fex, wh). Or that what you've been describing as atheism (note what you say about proof) fits agnosticism better. Which, according to some can be a mode of thinking sometimes used by 'weak atheists' but isn't atheism in and of itself (atheism is about belief, or lack thereof according to some of them, whereas agnosticism is saying 'we can't know whether there's a God'. Some atheists are agnostic atheists, according to themselves. Others aren't - so-called 'strong' atheists), as I've stated. A bit like you're picking out the definitions you like out of the alternative definitions in the dictionaries. I don't even think you've looked that deeply into what atheism is defined as, or thought much about what the sentence 'they don't believe in God' implies.

So, to sum things up, you're a complete idiot and you seemingly don't know how a dictionary works, either you don't know how alternative definitions work, or you don't know what the words mean.

There's a point, when someone just won't get it, which is when there's also no point in trying to argue with them as if they were a rational human being, you've gone past that mark and appear to be going off into orbit.

EDit:


religion involves worship of God(s)

That was you, saying something stupid, btw.

And here's a dictionary definition of the word 'shoe' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shoe). Do you think a shoe has to be all those things at once, at all? or will you be needing dictionary definitions for all the words inside of the definitions, just so we can agree on that it fits my sneakers?

I could also link to definitions of the words zealous and so forth since you may be having trouble with those, but I don't think you'll get it even if I dissect everything a couple of more rounds. There's no helping you.

Come to think of it, there's also several definitions to the word 'atheist', wherein the degree in which you have to have considered the idea of a deity varies between definitions. Do we have to do a bullet point list for that?

[devilsadvocate]

As I've stated before I personally wouldn't use religion in defining Atheism, even if there were a group of them gathering.
This has nothing to do with how the dictionary defines the word and everything with how I would personally apply it.
There are times when I would apply it - "he pushed his views that there is no God with a religious fervor" for example, I just wouldn't call it religion.

Snoopdog can use the "n" word as a term of endearment, but it's a derogatory term if a white person used it no matter if that was the intent or not. I don't know if Eminem has a free pass on that one.

Bigboab raised the how "gay" has changed general meaning or at least been hijacked. One could correctly apply it to a very happy, content conservative Christian and call him an extremely gay fellow. That person would probably take offense or at least be uncomfortable with the description.

Although the word itself could correctly be applied in some cases to Atheistic behavior, religion as a defining word when it comes to Atheism seems more a derogatory term. In my experience it is usually being used deliberately to offend.


Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the definition of the word, Websters dictionary or urban dictionary.

[j2k4]

As I've stated before I personally wouldn't use religion in defining Atheism, even if there were a group of them gathering.

So if this group was to congregate, and one person was designated to address the group extolling the virtues of Atheism, lead them in singing encomiums to Atheism while denigrating "evil, bloody, religion", you wouldn't feel this activity could be described as........yes, I see your difficulty now.


Bigboab raised the how "gay" has changed general meaning or at least been hijacked. One could correctly apply it to a very happy, content conservative Christian and call him an extremely gay fellow. That person would probably take offense or at least be uncomfortable with the description.

Or you might refer to him as a Log Cabin Republican...


Although the word itself could correctly be applied in some cases to Atheistic behavior, religion as a defining word when it comes to Atheism seems more a derogatory term. In my experience it is usually being used deliberately to offend.

Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the definition of the word, Websters dictionary or urban dictionary.

So you aren't derogating a religious person when you refer to him as "religious", but you cannot abide using the term to describe an Atheist, because it is so derogatory.

Just to be clear, you understand.

[devilsadvocate]

So if this group was to congregate, and one person was designated to address the group extolling the virtues of Atheism, lead them in singing encomiums to Atheism while denigrating "evil, bloody, religion", you wouldn't feel this activity could be described as........yes, I see your difficulty now.
Is that what Atheist do?

Bigboab raised the how "gay" has changed general meaning or at least been hijacked. One could correctly apply it to a very happy, content conservative Christian and call him an extremely gay fellow. That person would probably take offense or at least be uncomfortable with the description.

Or you might refer to him as a Log Cabin Republican...
That would be a completely different meaning
I made no hint as to party or sexuality in fact I was clear that I was using the happy definition of "gay" and not the homosexual meaning.

Ted Haggard and certain notable Republicans aside, Conservative Christians tend to be heterosexual and desire no doubt about it. I could have used Conservative Muslims as my example, but hey where's the fun in that?


Although the word itself could correctly be applied in some cases to Atheistic behavior, religion as a defining word when it comes to Atheism seems more a derogatory term. In my experience it is usually being used deliberately to offend.

Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the definition of the word, Websters dictionary or urban dictionary.

So you aren't derogating a religious person when you refer to him as "religious", but you cannot abide using the term to describe an Atheist.

Just to be clear, you understand.

No I'm not, I consider following my faith to be religion. An atheist declares no religion and I'm fine with them doing so. I actually spoke to one of my Atheist acquaintances today and asked what he would put down on a questionnaire that asked what religion he belongs to, his answer was "none". Not Atheist, not Agnostic...simply none


It's not that I cannot abide when people use religion as a descriptive word for Atheists, what I'm pointing out is my experience of why people do it. Much like the insistence of calling it the Democrat party when it's the Democratic party.

So tell me, if they claim no religion why do you feel compelled to insist on on calling it that?

I do note that in an earlier post I said I like the saying "we are all Atheist, just some believe in one less God", so as an Atheist yourself how do you feel about the description of Atheist?

Just so you understand, I don't agree with the statement, I just like it. Given the context it was made I think it's clever.


@Snee

While talking to my friend I asked about all the various categories you posted, or something along those lines and asked where he fit into it. His response was basically "WTF are you talking about? I just don't believe in God"
When I explained why I was asking, basically the things posted on this thread, he just rolled his eyes, grinned and shook his head.


BTW. the guy doesn't have a computer, so you'd probably like him :P

[thewizeard]

From a Buddhist standpoint, we enjoy celebrating Buddhamas! However, after years on Dawin's boat, I have come to a conclusion, that he is/was wrong! I also believe I can show you some evidence in the form of screen-shots too, if you're interested and when I have a little more time to upload them to my server!

[j2k4]

So if this group was to congregate, and one person was designated to address the group extolling the virtues of Atheism, lead them in singing encomiums to Atheism while denigrating "evil, bloody, religion", you wouldn't feel this activity could be described as........yes, I see your difficulty now.
Is that what Atheist do?


Or you might refer to him as a Log Cabin Republican...
That would be a completely different meaning
I made no hint as to party or sexuality in fact I was clear that I was using the happy definition of "gay" and not the homosexual meaning.

Ted Haggard and certain notable Republicans aside, Conservative Christians tend to be heterosexual and desire no doubt about it. I could have used Conservative Muslims as my example, but hey where's the fun in that?


Although the word itself could correctly be applied in some cases to Atheistic behavior, religion as a defining word when it comes to Atheism seems more a derogatory term. In my experience it is usually being used deliberately to offend.

Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the definition of the word, Websters dictionary or urban dictionary.

So you aren't derogating a religious person when you refer to him as "religious", but you cannot abide using the term to describe an Atheist.

Just to be clear, you understand.

No I'm not, I consider following my faith to be religion. An atheist declares no religion and I'm fine with them doing so. I actually spoke to one of my Atheist acquaintances today and asked what he would put down on a questionnaire that asked what religion he belongs to, his answer was "none". Not Atheist, not Agnostic...simply none


It's not that I cannot abide when people use religion as a descriptive word for Atheists, what I'm pointing out is my experience of why people do it. Much like the insistence of calling it the Democrat party when it's the Democratic party.

So tell me, if they claim no religion why do you feel compelled to insist on on calling it that?

I do note that in an earlier post I said I like the saying "we are all Atheist, just some believe in one less God", so as an Atheist yourself how do you feel about the description of Atheist?

Just so you understand, I don't agree with the statement, I just like it. Given the context it was made I think it's clever.

Well, as the guy who sent this thread off-track, I will reiterate my observation that this fellow and his acolytes appear to be, by virtue of his/their essentially "formalizing by charter", pursuing a path that could easily be described as resembling that of a religion (absent a deity, of course).

We've now managed to fill several pages with utter crap arguing the point, and this fellow ugk4life has tied himself in knots trying to defend what he seems to think is a legitimate point-of-view.

That alone has made the whole thing worthwhile.

By the way, the statement you quote as "clever" is just silly, and utilizing it just because you "like it" causes it's flawed premise to accrue to you and whatever else you say.

I don't think you really want that, do you?

[ugk4life]

"has tied himself in knots trying to defend what he seems to think is a legitimate point-of-view"

man u r hilarious. u haven't proven anything other then u have an opinion. until u explain how atheism and religion correlate via your highlighted responses from a previous post it looks like u r the who is tied in a knot!

[j2k4]

"has tied himself in knots trying to defend what he seems to think is a legitimate point-of-view"

man u r hilarious. u haven't proven anything other then u have an opinion. until u explain how atheism and religion correlate via your highlighted responses from a previous post it looks like u r the who is tied in a knot!

man u r fucked ^.

You undid yourself, noting in that last paragraph that I "have an opinion".

Unless you can quote me saying this...movement, or whatever you want to call it, is a religion, scarcely anything you've posted (and certainly none of your references to my own posting) in this entire thread can be supported or rationalized, and that is a fact, not just my opinion.

If you can find anyone who agrees with you, I'd love to hear from him/her/it.

[ugk4life]

u can have an "opinion" that the sky is orange... just make u look like a dumb ass, kinda the way u believe atheism is a religion.

[j2k4]

u can have an "opinion" that the sky is orange... just make u look like a dumb ass, kinda the way u believe atheism is a religion.

Oh, h4r5hed by a noob; my reputation is in shambles.

How will I ever live this down. :dabs:

[ugk4life]

what? your internet reputation? lol

[j2k4]

I was assaying the irony of your commentary, not that you would notice.

Let's just say I shot one under your bow.

[RPerry]

It might be me, but I always believed that religion was in basic terms: The outward appearance or acts that someone does to show others they have particular beliefs.

This doesn't even mean the person practicing any certain religion has to believe in it.

[j2k4]

It might be me, but I always believed that religion was in basic terms: The outward appearance or acts that someone does to show others they have particular beliefs.

This doesn't even mean the person practicing any certain religion has to believe in it.

Simple enough, but probably not simple enough for some people.

Certain observations just aren't allowed, you see - especially when you are afflicted by one of these...oh, let's call them Crusaders for Idiocy.

[RPerry]

It might be me, but I always believed that religion was in basic terms: The outward appearance or acts that someone does to show others they have particular beliefs.

This doesn't even mean the person practicing any certain religion has to believe in it.

Simple enough, but probably not simple enough for some people.

Certain observations just aren't allowed, you see - especially when you are afflicted by one of these...oh, let's call them Crusaders for Idiocy.

LOL
Sometimes I swear thats one of the biggest religions of them all.

[j2k4]

Simple enough, but probably not simple enough for some people.

Certain observations just aren't allowed, you see - especially when you are afflicted by one of these...oh, let's call them Crusaders for Idiocy.

LOL
Sometimes I swear thats one of the biggest religions of them all.

I can't wait to see what he has to say about that...

[sez]

I just watched this history channel documentary on ancient aliens.Religion aside,I don't think the idea of an intelligent designer is as wild when you got big shot academics telling you aliens built the pyramids.

[j2k4]

You ought to watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, then.

Might make you ask a few more questions of the academics...Dawson comes to mind.

[ugk4life]

I was assaying the irony of your commentary, not that you would notice.

Let's just say I shot one under your bow.


suuuuure! says the guy with 14K posts...

[MagicNakor]

I just watched this history channel documentary on ancient aliens.Religion aside,I don't think the idea of an intelligent designer is as wild when you got big shot academics telling you aliens built the pyramids.

This documentary wouldn't happen to be one of von Däniken's would it?

:shuriken:

[clocker]

You ought to watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, then.


Or you could just take an icepick and pith yourself.
That would be equally as educational and you'd save about an hour of time.

[valkyre]

must go fap , LATERSSSSS

[j2k4]

...if i see someone spreading lies (well, maybe a "mistruth"), i'm gonna call them out on it...

Still waiting on the "lies (well, maybe a "mistruth")" part.

[ugk4life]

...if i see someone spreading lies (well, maybe a "mistruth"), i'm gonna call them out on it...

Still waiting on the "lies (well, maybe a "mistruth")" part.

already pointed them out, go back and read!

[j2k4]

Still waiting on the "lies (well, maybe a "mistruth")" part.

already pointed them out, go back and read!

Humor me and do it again.

[ugk4life]

humor yourself and read!

[j2k4]

I have read, but your complete and utter lack of clarity has thwarted my efforts.

I suspect you may be lying.

[ugk4life]

"thwarted my efforts"? who in the fuck are you, cobra commander? anyhow, sure i'm lying *rolls eyes*... hows about u actually read what people write instead of yapping, attempting to sound intelligent (beyond a file-sharing forums needs), trying to prove an "opinion"!

[j2k4]

You really haven't got a clue, do you.

Ah, well.

[RPerry]

LOL
Sometimes I swear thats one of the biggest religions of them all.

I can't wait to see what he has to say about that...

See Kev,

I couldn't catch a fish in a fish farm :dry:

[j2k4]

I can't wait to see what he has to say about that...

See Kev,

I couldn't catch a fish in a fish farm :dry:

Just so.

Some fish insist that you 'buy the farm' first.

[j2k4]

Uh-oh.

Those organized Atheists are agitating anew...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584165,00.html

[bigboab]

Uh-oh.

Those organized Atheists are agitating anew...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584165,00.html

Protesting is like a religion to them. Oops!:whistling

There has been a lot of adverse publicity about Mother Teresa since sainthood was muted. There was rumours that she actually turned homeless away and that cruelty was rife in some of the orphanages. It does not matter how good you are. Someone will always try and bring you down.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019

[j2k4]

I'm sure none of the litany of Saints could withstand today's Christianity-averse media.

Btw-

I hear McDonalds is giving out a free Nobel Peace prize with the purchase of a Big Mac.

[unknown1_]

So, although Atheists reject dogma on every level they would be stupid to ignore every good piece of advice (and I use advice for a reason) in the Bible. The great thing about Atheism, and the reading of the Bible from an Atheist perspective, is that you can pick and choose what you follow and what you don't. For example, I don't much like some of the violence in the Old Testament - see Exodus 34 : 13-17. Thus, I plan to celebrate Christmas this year like all other years: I will have Christmas dinner, send and receive presents, put up a Christmas tree and happily take the day off. Because I follow the evidence and don't believe in God does not mean I don't like having a fun day. Why would I? And what is the problem with that?
Yes. I also believe religion has good points. I don't think it is supposed to be taken literally. If so, then I feel people are missing the point. The morals, the stories, the values that it emphasize pertaining to your life are the important things, I guess.

[j2k4]

So, although Atheists reject dogma on every level they would be stupid to ignore every good piece of advice (and I use advice for a reason) in the Bible. The great thing about Atheism, and the reading of the Bible from an Atheist perspective, is that you can pick and choose what you follow and what you don't. For example, I don't much like some of the violence in the Old Testament - see Exodus 34 : 13-17. Thus, I plan to celebrate Christmas this year like all other years: I will have Christmas dinner, send and receive presents, put up a Christmas tree and happily take the day off. Because I follow the evidence and don't believe in God does not mean I don't like having a fun day. Why would I? And what is the problem with that?
Yes. I also believe religion has good points. I don't think it is supposed to be taken literally. If so, then I feel people are missing the point. The morals, the stories, the values that it emphasize pertaining to your life are the important things, I guess.

And a good guess it is.

Concur.

[digimon]

i personally don't think atheists know about the meaning of christmas

[iLOVENZB]

i personally don't think atheists know about the meaning of christmas

Does anyone? The only reason I know about the 'true meaning of christmas', was from watching The Grinch every Christmas :lol:

[bigboab]

I'm sure none of the litany of Saints could withstand today's Christianity-averse media.

Btw-

I hear McDonalds is giving out a free Nobel Peace prize with the purchase of a Big Mac.

Why do I have to purchase something to get a Peace Prize. People have been known to get them without doing anything.:whistling

[j2k4]

Times are changing, Bob.

Call it Anti-Socialism.

[clocker]

Or not.

[j2k4]

Or not.

Or not.

I mean, yes - that.

BTW-

I have begun to collect Nobels.

I have slews of the Stockholm version; the McDonald's type is not a difficult get, but harder than the first.

The Jack-in-the-Box version is sorta tough to find, and I'm still looking for one from Dairy Queen.

[clocker]

Ah, conservative humor.

What have the Norwegians done to irritate you lately?

[j2k4]

Ah, conservative humor.

What have the Norwegians done to irritate you lately?

Nothing, nothing at all.

I'm just a prick that way.

[clocker]

So we're bored.
What, no Know Nothing Tea Party event to attend today?

[j2k4]

So we're bored.
What, no Know Nothing Tea Party event to attend today?

Oh, we're smarter and richer than the hoi-polloi, or haven't you heard.

NYT and CBS say so, and I'm not gonna argue.

[clocker]

NYT and CBS did not say "smarter", they said "higher level of education".
Bush was granted a college degree, so you may assign whatever value to the "higher level" you want.

The articles also mention the age/ethnicity breakdown of the TPs and it confounds me how a mostly white, mostly old group of supposedly well-educated people have been duped into agitating against their own best interests.
Because of the high median age of the group, it's safe to say that many are already- and many more soon to be- enjoying the benefits of the "socialistic programs", i.e., Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, that they so adamantly oppose.

Where was the Tea Party when Bush shifted the tax burden from the top earning group down to the middle class ( the final gasp of Reagan's inane and deeply flawed "trickle down economics" policy)?
Why is the Tea Party all upset now when the tax rate on the middle class is the lowest in 50 years?

Given the disconnect between what the Tea Party says and the reality of conditions, it's logical to assume that the main plank in the Tea Party platform is "Bitch About Everything And See What Sticks To the Wall".

[j2k4]

NYT and CBS did not say "smarter", they said "higher level of education".
Bush was granted a college degree, so you may assign whatever value to the "higher level" you want.

The articles also mention the age/ethnicity breakdown of the TPs and it confounds me how a mostly white, mostly old group of supposedly well-educated people have been duped into agitating against their own best interests.
Because of the high median age of the group, it's safe to say that many are already- and many more soon to be- enjoying the benefits of the "socialistic programs", i.e., Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, that they so adamantly oppose.

Where was the Tea Party when Bush shifted the tax burden from the top earning group down to the middle class ( the final gasp of Reagan's inane and deeply flawed "trickle down economics" policy)?
Why is the Tea Party all upset now when the tax rate on the middle class is the lowest in 50 years?

Given the disconnect between what the Tea Party says and the reality of conditions, it's logical to assume that the main plank in the Tea Party platform is "Bitch About Everything And See What Sticks To the Wall".

I see you are inclined to comprehensive mis-interpretation.

It is a common condition for which there is no cure, save for the passage of time.

The month of November will bring enlightenment - be patient, now.

[clocker]

I see you are inclined to comprehensive self-delusion.
There is a cure but withdrawal from Fox would probably be traumatic for you.
Thanksgiving is in November, you can have turkey.

[j2k4]

I see you are inclined to comprehensive self-delusion.
There is a cure but withdrawal from Fox would probably be traumatic for you.
Thanksgiving is in November, you can have turkey.


Mmmmmm, turkey...