NationStates Jolt Archive

Religion...
You say one bad thing about and it's followers start shoving it down your throat. My word on this? I say get the hell over yourselves. Your no better than me just because I'm an Athiest and damn proud of it! Now i'm not saying everyone does this but most people I know do. So I give this question...To worship or not to worship?
I mean i've seen Christans call Muslims evil because of the suicide bombings.*Cuaghs* Crusades! Then thre's all this about, "You don't believe Christ was your savior so your going to hell!" Hindus, Buddhists, and Spiritulasts(according to there beliefs) don't go to hell.
Also, it may seem that am going out to get christianity but, since most of you that are reading this are christen, i'm going to post mainly on that.
One more thing. Recently, one of my ex-friends( I didn't beleive in god so I couldn't hang out with him anymore as he put it) retaliated to the question: "What about the Ancient Egyptions?" He said they where just pictures on a wall! Isn't God just writting in a book? What do you think?

Peace, comrade! We need not a conflict here! This is a land where atheists and theists can live in harmony (for the most part).

Worship is weakness.

Say what? OK, I may be a comrade but you did'nt read everything up above did you? Comment on plz. Am i alone on that or not?

Religion...
You say one bad thing about and it's followers start shoving it down your throat. My word on this? I say get the hell over yourselves. Your no better than me just because I'm an Athiest and damn proud of it! Now i'm not saying everyone does this but most people I know do. So I give this question...To worship or not to worship?
I mean i've seen Christans call Muslims evil because of the suicide bombings.*Cuaghs* Crusades! Then thre's all this about, "You don't believe Christ was your savior so your going to hell!" Hindus, Buddhists, and Spiritulasts(according to there beliefs) don't go to hell.
Also, it may seem that am going out to get christianity but, since most of you that are reading this are christen, i'm going to post mainly on that.
One more thing. Recently, one of my ex-friends( I didn't beleive in god so I couldn't hang out with him anymore as he put it) retaliated to the question: "What about the Ancient Egyptions?" He said they just pictures on a wall! Isn't God just writting in a book?
If you're an atheist, they're no worse than you, either. How do you know? Where is your objective, empirical, data?

Sorry I forgot that tidbit. But I think I'd be better than a devout christen in a political office.

If you're an atheist, they're no worse than you, either. How do you know? Where is your objective, empirical, data?

Eh, this is time for that quote....what is it..."I just believe in one less god than you" or something?

I'd do what will needed of me. Not what a god needs of me.

Eh, this is time for that quote....what is it..."I just believe in one less god than you" or something?
He wants facts... although he probaly has non that ANY god exisists.

Eh, this is time for that quote....what is it..."I just believe in one less god than you" or something?
Doesn't apply to agnostic, does it?

Worship is weakness.

or is it strength...

He wants facts... although he probaly has non that ANY god exisists.

Well, I'll tell him why I don't believe in any when 'e tells why he doesn't believe in the others....or Santa.

I'd do what will needed of me. Not what a god needs of me.
So, who is this "will" person?

A true believer lives his/her life in such a way that they need not say and no one need ask.

Doesn't apply to agnostic, does it?
I'm sorry whats Agnostic real quick. I'm only on the major things here. You know with the some what 1 billion followers.

Doesn't apply to agnostic, does it?

Eh, if you're agnostic, stand off to the side like your title would suggest. Yes, you can never really know, we've been over that, I'm agnostic about gravity, I can't prove it'll keep working tomorrow, I can't really know.

So, who is this "will" person?
I forgot the "be" in there. I was typing to fast:D :p

He wants facts... although he probaly has non that ANY god exisists.
Exactly my point . . . it is as silly to say "there is no god" as it is to say "there is a god"

[QUOTE=Himleret] I'm an Athiest and damn proud of it!QUOTE]

Why?

Your proud that you dont beleive in a higher being?

Whats to be proud of?

I'm sorry whats Agnostic real quick. I'm only on the major things here. You know with the some what 1 billion followers.

Without knowledge. You can't know one way or the other on god's existence.

or is it strength...

....nah.

Exactly my point . . . it is as silly to say "there is no god" as it is to say "there is a god"

Sure, as silly as saying, "there's no Santa" or "there is a Santa"

Eh, this is time for that quote....what is it..."I just believe in one less god than you" or something?We are both atheists; I simply believe in one god less than you. Once you recognise your reasons for dismissing all the other possible gods, you will understand my reasons for dismissing yours. Or words to the same effect.

I remember it from way back in Fass' signature :p

I'm sorry whats Agnostic real quick. I'm only on the major things here. You know with the some what 1 billion followers.
Agnostic is for people secure enough to admit "I don't know." From an empirical veiwpoint, the only rational stance.

[QUOTE=Himleret] I'm an Athiest and damn proud of it!QUOTE]

Why?

Your proud that you dont beleive in a higher being?

Whats to be proud of?
Well for one...
It goes against what most people would like of me. And every other Athiest in the world. Were different and proud of it.

or is it strength...

....Naaaahh....definetly weakness.

Say what? OK, I may be a comrade but you did'nt read everything up above did you? Comment on plz. Am i alone on that or not?

I did read actually, I'm just asking you to simmer down a wee bit.

Personally, I am a religious guy (more spiritual than anything else), and a raised Catholic. I can admit to you that religion can be blamed for many of the wrongs in society today and that of the past. But I, for one, am convinced that religion CAN be a force for good. If it is any indication, it helped me cope with pain and fear when I was ill and having surgery.

I know the Crusades were a horrible sin on the part of the Church, and if it is any concilation, I do not look upon Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Pagans, Agnostics, Scientologists, Atheists or anyone with distain. Nay, I admire them for their convictions.

A last point: an Atheist who shoves his convictions, his admonishions, and his beliefs down the throat of those who he believes are the propogandists, aren't doing very well in proving their point.

(Looks at sig)

Crap...

(Smashes brick over head)

Agnostic is for people secure enough to admit "I don't know." From an empirical veiwpoint, the only rational stance.

If so, that'd be the only rational standpoint on everything but math, of course.

I forgot the "be" in there. I was typing to fast:D :p
TY, you had me confused.

We are both atheists; I simply believe in one god less than you. Once you recognise your reasons for dismissing all the other possible gods, you will understand my reasons for dismissing yours. Or words to the same effect.

I remember it from way back in Fass' signature :p

Yes, thank you.

I did read actually, I'm just asking you to simmer down a wee bit.

Personally, I am a religious guy (more spiritual than anything else), and a raised Catholic. I can admit to you that religion can be blamed for many of the wrongs in society today and that of the past. But I, for one, am convinced that religion CAN be a force for good. If it is any indication, it helped me cope with pain and fear when I was ill and having surgery.

I know the Crusades were a horrible sin on the part of the Church, and if it is any concilation, I do not look upon Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Pagans, Agnostics, Scientologists, Atheists or anyone with distain. Nay, I admire them for their convictions.

A last point: an Atheist who shoves his convictions, his admonishions, and his beliefs down the throat of those who he believes are the propogandists, aren't doing very well in proving their point.

(Looks at sig)

Crap...

(Smashes brick over head)
Sorry if it seemed that way but it wasnt my intent.

If so, that'd be the only rational standpoint on everything but math, of course.
True, only because we invented math ;)

Let's stay on topic plz...

Let's stay on topic plz...

Friend. I think we can forgive you for being new here. Believe me, we NEVER stay on topic. :p

True, only because we invented math ;)

So obviously, as it's the logical standpoint, You never decide on anything...ever...

[QUOTE=The Atlantian islands]
Well for one...
It goes against what most people would like of me. And every other Athiest in the world. Were different and proud of it.

Your being proud of the absensce of a belief.

Essentially, your being proud for not thinking anything.

That just seems sort of stupid to me.

It would seem to me, that a REAL atheist wouldnt even think of the subject, let alone be proud of it, because for him theres really nothing to think about.

Think about that...

Let's stay on topic plz...

HAHAHAHAHA! HAHA! HA! What is this for you, page 3? It's over.

I ask for just one thing from all religios people: Proof. And it's ignorant of the fact that people say that i can't proove that god doesn't exist that they can't proove he does.

[QUOTE=Himleret]

Your being proud of the absensce of a belief.

Essentially, your being proud for not thinking anything.

That just seems sort of stupid to me.

It would seem to me, that a REAL atheist wouldnt even think of the subject, let alone be proud of it, because for him theres really nothing to think about.

Think about that...

Well, possibly, but then again, I'm proud of not doing something illegal. Or...not being caught anyways. :p

[QUOTE=Himleret]

Your being proud of the absensce of a belief.

Essentially, your being proud for not thinking anything.

That just seems sort of stupid to me.

It would seem to me, that a REAL atheist wouldnt even think of the subject, let alone be proud of it, because for him theres really nothing to think about.

Think about that...
Of coarse im thinking. I'm just not thinking what your thinking.

I ask for just one thing from all religios people: Proof. And it's ignorant of the fact that people say that i can't proove that god doesn't exist that they can't proove he does.

Proof? Ha! Try asking for evidence, know what you'll get? "Personal evidence that doesn't really work for anyone else"

Thats true as far as it goes. ;)

Worship is weakness.

So true.

Well, if you want to yell at me and not do it while other people are looking, Telegram me. Also be on the look out for the next chapter of The Himleret Chronicles! Till then im gone... spring cleaning's a pain in the crack...

[QUOTE=The Atlantian islands]

Well, possibly, but then again, I'm proud of not doing something illegal. Or...not being caught anyways. :p

Eh...but this is different...its a state of mind, not an action...its just different.

I ask for just one thing from all religios people: Proof. And it's ignorant of the fact that people say that i can't proove that god doesn't exist that they can't proove he does.

For those who do believe, it is not a matter of proof, but a matter of faith.

[QUOTE=The Atlantian islands]
Of coarse im thinking. I'm just not thinking what your thinking.

That wasnt a very good answer.

Still feel free to banter on amongst your selves:p

I mean i've seen Christans call Muslims evil because of the suicide bombings.*Cuaghs* Crusades! Then thre's all this about, "You don't believe Christ was your savior so your going to hell!"

Well someone has been learning the politicly corect version of history. The crusades were in response to a muslim invasion. It did get out of hand but it was sent to aid the Byzantines. The muslims invaded Spain and France but do you here about that? Nooo it was the barbaric Christians who started it. The peaceful muslims were just siting there. Which of course is bull shit.
And what gives you athiests the right to shove your nonreligion down my throat? Someone says their religious and you think their insane.
Anyway I don't care about your beliefs but those who are trying to convert you think that they're saving you from an eternity of hell, so it's not very nice of them to let you stay on the path your on is it? Of course they're probably wrong and should shut up once they're done but they might also be stupid.

And what gives you athiests the right to shove your nonreligion down my throat? Someone says their religious and you think their insane.
Anyway I don't care about your beliefs but those who are trying to convert you think that they're saving you from an eternity of hell, so it's not very nice of them to let you stay on the path your on is it? Of course they're probably wrong and should shut up once they're done but they might also be stupid.

I don't recall calling for laws enforcing reverence for Marx and Nietzsche or doing anything else that would qualify as shoving beliefs down anyone's throat. I may proselytize, but it's only fair considering that Christians do the same.

I don't recall calling for laws enforcing reverence for Marx and Nietzsche or doing anything else that would qualify as shoving beliefs down anyone's throat. I may proselytize, but it's only fair considering that Christians do the same.
Those laws haven't been pased. The other laws are hundreds of years old. (at least in the western world) And as for the IDists in Kansas, well, they're just stupid.
Yes, but that makes both of you hypocrits! Of course we're all hypocrits in some way I'm probably being one right now but I don't know how. Funny little world isn't it?

or is it strength...
Depends on if you need it to be strong or not. Worship doesn't make me stronger. It makes me depressed and parinoid. Therefor (for me a least) it is a weakness.

Ok, well, I think this is the same question that has been raised many a time about the evangelical natures of religion. Is it wrong that religious figures seem to "Shove their religion down peoples throats" as has been said? Well, let me try my hand here at the arguments presented so far:
Worship is a weakness as it takes away responsibility
Worship is strength as it cannot be proven
Furthermore, the burden of proof is being shifted around faster than the speed of light. Should religious people have to prove God, or should Atheists have to disprove God? Well, it seems that each side takes the beneficial stance of "I don't have to prove anything, but you do!" This idea results in turmoil and for all intensive purposes nothing is solved.
So, should religion be shoved down people's throats? Absolutely not in my opinion, everyone has a right to their beliefs. KEY POINT, PLEASE READ: Is Atheism a religion as well? Unquestionably. Therefore, reiterating a previous person's point, should Atheism or Christianity enforce their religion upon others? Absolutely not.
Politically, what does religion have to do with things? Well, religion politically is a set of moral beliefs and standpoints. If you are Pro-Choice, you believe in the woman's right to choose. Whether this is justified in your mind religiously or philosophically is irrelevant, you still have the belief that the woman should choose. You cannot objectively prove it, if you could this debate would have been over long ago. The religious right is justified to make decisions based on their beliefs, as we all do. Their justification for their beliefs, though perhaps different from my own, is still as valid as my subjective justification. Therefore, religious folks have every right in the world to politically propose their ideals so long as those ideals remain political.
So a summary for those of you who are lost:
- The idea of worship being weak to me is absurd, though I question why you chose the term worship, as it would seem off hand that it is more difficult to have faith in a deity than have faith in your eyes. This point was not written about above, but if you would like my justification telegraph me.
- Both sides have the burden of proof in a religious discussion
- Neither side should force their beliefs on anyone, Atheist, Christian, or Other
- Religious people have every right to propel their agendas forward politically, as their subjective justification is every bit as valid as anyone elses.

If anyone wishes to dispute any of these ideas in depth, my telegraph is checked regularly, and I have been looking for someone worth discussing with. I hope this cleared up a few things for you all.
- Veritas

Sorry I forgot that tidbit. But I think I'd be better than a devout christen in a political office.
not unless you learn to spell.

KEY POINT, PLEASE READ: Is Atheism a religion as well? Unquestionably.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color"

Whether this is justified in your mind religiously or philosophically is irrelevant, you still have the belief that the woman should choose. You cannot objectively prove it, if you could this debate would have been over long ago.

We sorta can, but it doesn't make the other side listen


If anyone wishes to dispute any of these ideas in depth, my telegraph is checked regularly, and I have been looking for someone worth discussing with. I hope this cleared up a few things for you all.
- Veritas

Feh...if'n he wanted to talk to us with telegram, maybe should have contacted us like that.

To respond to Dinaverg.
To begin with, Atheism is a religion insofar as it is a faith in humanity's perceptions. Interestingly enough, human senses are distinctly falliable. However, the faith one has in senses in my opinion differs in no way from the faith one has in a figure outside of senses, both have the possibility of falliability, and neither can objectively be proven true. If you disagree that Atheism is a religion, then perhaps you could give me an alternative definition of religion to work from.

Second, if you have objective proof defining what a human is, what a fetus is, and at what point a fetus becomes human, then I beg you on my knees to show me this proof, as no human yet seems to know of it. Please, before you claim to have proof and state the other side will not listen, make sure you actually have objective proof and not just proof from your viewpoint.

Finally, you can refer to me in second person, I am right here after all. Furthermore, if my invitation for a telegram disturbs you, so be it. Frankly you need not worry of a telegraph from me, you are not worthy of it. Call me pompous, philosophically and theologically I tend to be so, but you so far have not proven yourself at all except to insult my openness to have a pleasant discussion, both taking away from the discussion currently at hand and tainting any discussion the two of us may have in the future. This last comment of yours, to be blunt, bothered me.

With that rant finished, I ask once more, do any dispute my claims from my previous post?
- Veritas

To respond to Dinaverg.
To begin with, Atheism is a religion insofar as it is a faith in humanity's perceptions. Interestingly enough, human senses are distinctly falliable. However, the faith one has in senses in my opinion differs in no way from the faith one has in a figure outside of senses, both have the possibility of falliability, and neither can objectively be proven true. If you disagree that Atheism is a religion, then perhaps you could give me an alternative definition of religion to work from.

Why must it be anything to do with humanities perceptions? It's a lack of belief in god(s), for whatever reason. 3 year old who can't understand God? Atheist. Castaway on an island who's never heard of God? Atheist. Anyone who doesn't believe because they have no good reason to? Atheist. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief against.

Second, if you have objective proof defining what a human is, what a fetus is, and at what point a fetus becomes human, then I beg you on my knees to show me this proof, as no human yet seems to know of it. Please, before you claim to have proof and state the other side will not listen, make sure you actually have objective proof and not just proof from your viewpoint.

Ow, I'd rather dig up an old abortion thread, but short version.

1. We define the fetus as living the same way we define a human at any other stage of development as living. Functioning brain, or neural net, so it can respond to stimuli as a whole and meet all requirements for being living. I believe it's around week 28 or so...

2. Even then, no living human person has the right to another's body. Involuntary slavery, as soon as the mother doesn't want it.

Finally, you can refer to me in second person, I am right here after all. Furthermore, if my invitation for a telegram disturbs you, so be it. Frankly you need not worry of a telegraph from me, you are not worthy of it. Call me pompous, philosophically and theologically I tend to be so, but you so far have not proven yourself at all except to insult my openness to have a pleasant discussion, both taking away from the discussion currently at hand and tainting any discussion the two of us may have in the future. This last comment of yours, to be blunt, bothered me.

Uh-huh...If you let these things bother you so much, I recommend a bit of personal disconnection...

With that rant finished, I ask once more, do any dispute my claims from my previous post?
- Veritas

k.

Greetings once more.
I am glad you have defended yourself. Now then, onto my points.
We seem to have a distinct disagreement on the definition of Atheist. Unless these premises can be brought together, we will not progress any further on this point. As such, it appears that we have no conclusion to be had on the first point.
As to the second point, so you define a fetus in respect to later human conditions. So under this method of determining life, would you say the fetus is currently dead, or would you say it is comatose? I am simply confused as to what condition you claim it to be in. Furthermore, may I ask your sources for when this idea of life is considered to be present?
While I understand your second abortion point, the pro-life idea holds that if a Pro-Lifer believes that it is a child within the womb, then an abortion simply put it murder. If someone was killing their 9-month old in front of you, would you actively attempt to stop them, even if they thought it was no child? In the same way the logic can be applied to the child within the womb.
In response to your final comments, *chuckle*.
Thanks for presenting good points, perhaps our discussion will have merit after all.
- Veritas

Greetings once more.
I am glad you have defended yourself. Now then, onto my points.
We seem to have a distinct disagreement on the definition of Atheist. Unless these premises can be brought together, we will not progress any further on this point. As such, it appears that we have no conclusion to be had on the first point.

Eh, m'kay, just look at the word though. A- Theos, Without god.

As to the second point, so you define a fetus in respect to later human conditions. So under this method of determining life, would you say the fetus is currently dead, or would you say it is comatose? I am simply confused as to what condition you claim it to be in. Furthermore, may I ask your sources for when this idea of life is considered to be present?

I suppose you could consider it dead....it's more of pre-life really. Well, the biological standards something must meet to be considered living, and the common-sense arguement of defining the line between living and not living in the womb the same as we do out of it. And with the whole, involuntary slavery thing, doesn't really matter if personhood begins at conception anyways.

While I understand your second abortion point, the pro-life idea holds that if a Pro-Lifer believes that it is a child within the womb, then an abortion simply put it murder. If someone was killing their 9-month old in front of you, would you actively attempt to stop them, even if they thought it was no child? In the same way the logic can be applied to the child within the womb.
In response to your final comments, *chuckle*.
Thanks for presenting good points, perhaps our discussion will have merit after all.
- Veritas

Well, a nine month old, for one, meet all requirements for life as an organism, and also isn't using the persons body involuntarily (as they are in the womb when the mother doesn't want it) so yes, I'd try to stop them, because they'd be wrong in thinking it isn't a child. They might be supporting the child, yes, but after the child is born it isn't so much using the person. Even if it were a child in the womb, or when it is, no person, or non-person, has the right to another person's body

Worship or not you all end up on the wrong end of the pitchfork. Me, I have a job waiting.

I'm an atheist and I have the utmost respect for Christians and their beliefs.

And they should show me the same respect for my non-beliefs. Faith is a personal thing -- not something to harass others with. And Jesus did not want his followers to hate and exclude people who do not share their beliefs.

Well someone has been learning the politicly corect version of history. The crusades were in response to a muslim invasion. It did get out of hand but it was sent to aid the Byzantines. The muslims invaded Spain and France but do you here about that? Nooo it was the barbaric Christians who started it. The peaceful muslims were just siting there. Which of course is bull shit.
And what gives you athiests the right to shove your nonreligion down my throat? Someone says their religious and you think their insane.
Anyway I don't care about your beliefs but those who are trying to convert you think that they're saving you from an eternity of hell, so it's not very nice of them to let you stay on the path your on is it? Of course they're probably wrong and should shut up once they're done but they might also be stupid.

The Crusades aside, Christians have committed their fair share of atrocities in history. Most of the people who were killing the Native Americans and enslaving the Africans were Christian. Neither of which the church spoke out against. Then there's the Spanish Inquisition, also condoned by the church.
Then when Christianity became the official religion of Rome they were awfully 'proactive' in spreading the gospel. Then, King Henry VIII created his own version of the religion to divorce his wife and killed anybody who stayed Catholic. Then Mary I came into power and killed anybody who WASN'T catholic.

What do the actions of Christians hundreds of years ago have to do with Christians alive today? Nothing! What do the actions of Muslims hundreds of years ago and Muslim extremists today have to do with the moderate and non-violent ones? You guessed it. Nothing!

When are people going to realize individuals are not responsible for the actions of people who happen to share the same beliefs as them?

I wish to voice my agreement with the idea presented by HeyRelax. Well put.
- Veritas