NationStates Jolt Archive

Not believing the OT is a point in his favor, he just has no idea what a strawman argument is.

I think that not knowing the OT is not a point in his favor. For someone who so vehemently points out the flaws of others´s set of beliefs, not knowing his material is a flaw. A straw man argument is the least of his problems with this thread.

I think that not knowing the OT is not a point in his favor. For someone who so vehemently points out the flaws of others´s set of beliefs, not knowing his material is a flaw. A straw man argument is the least of his problems with this thread.

To be fair, he appears to be at least aware of the OT. I mean, he brought up the lamb bit.

Not believing the OT is a point in his favor, he just has no idea what a strawman argument is.

Ok, so I read the first page and the last page, and I can tell you how the conversation has progressed.

Catholics and Christians are better than the rest of you dirty pigs. But all religion sucks.

Other guy: No it doesn't, I like Jesus.

Some other guy/gal: No, atheism is the true way man.

Uber Christian: We are the best. The rest of you are heathonistic bastards!!!! Damn you dirty Apes!!!!!!!!!!

Scientology supporter: I reject the idea that we are a cult. Meet my dear friends Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

Random punk: You scientologists suck!!!

Me: Meh, I might have to agree there.

Ignorant ass: Islam is a religion of hate!

Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist/Pagan, etc: You all suck, especially the mormoms.

Random Mormon guy, "hey, we weren't even involved in the original post. Why are you picking on us? Check out my magic underwear

Jewish Guy adjacent to the Mormon, "Yeah, he's right. Well, except for the part about Jesus being the son of God...No disrespect."

Young Boy: I might just be a young boy, but I have the solution and way to the light.

All Christians: See, it said a child will lead them!!!! We were right all along!!!

Other religions: What story and what book is this again?

Angry Atheist: Shut up kid, you are not the Messiah! How could this stupid Kid on NSG be the Messiah.

Racist: Let's just blame black people.

Everyone else: Sure, why not. It's a tried and true measure.

Me: Holy shit dude, that's totally racist!

Ok, now I am posting as me now: If you took offense to anything written here I'd like to say that I'm sorry. I'd like to say it, but I just won't. You see, if you can't take a joke (I mocked Catholics and I am one) then you need a nap. How did I do on pegging the thread? Applaud if you just liked my scene. :)

To be fair, he appears to be at least aware of the OT. I mean, he brought up the lamb bit.

Who isn´t aware of the lamb bit? Even a 4th. grader, who´s aware of the Bible knows the story of Abraham and his son. But do remember Cuxil chooses what to coveniently believe in. These are his exact words:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13725538&postcount=219

-

Let's rephrase. One should, perhaps, differentiate between believe and know.

Let's rephrase. One should, perhaps, differentiate between believe and know.

Yes, indeed, that distinction should be made.

Yes, indeed, that distinction should be made.Yes, and: know > believe.

There are no mistakes in chaos....

embrace chaos its the only true answer!!!!

Yes, and: know > believe.

Thanks for the correction Dyakovo.

I think neither are greater than each other.

I´m sorry, but to Know doesn´t equal to Believe. Knowing something doesn´t automatically make you a believer.

That was the greater than symbol Nanatsu.

That wasn't so much my point, but a truth that was demonstrated once again.

My point was religion or non religion is always defended from the position of the person's beliefs, and no matter what is said, if someone disagrees, they will say so, even though there are plenty of things to support and denounce either statements.

Atheists will not be converted, Christians will not be converted.

So, for an atheist to say they follow logic, and that's why their an atheist, I believe is a lie. It's also assuming logic always leads to atheism, which I think is silly. Atheists are atheists because they want to be, not because they arrived at that conclusion logically.

If this is finally your point after so many pages of scrapping, then your example once again contradicts you.

I understand your point to be, 'everyone's belief is their belief and it is pointless to debate belief'. However, you then go on to say that an athiest belief is a lie, while disregarding that athiests reach their conclusion though the logic they see. Logic then becomes subjective, an inturpretation of facts, which leads to a belief.

If it is pointless to argue a person's beliefs, is it not also pointless to argue the pathway they took to reach those beliefs?

... And I think I just confused myself with my own reply.

Thanks for the correction Dyakovo.I am not Dyakovo.

I think neither are greater than each other.You think wrong.

Why you include atheist among belief systems?... Atheism is actually the lack of a belief system... I mean, sorry for the cliche, but being bald is not a hair color.

{snip}

You left out Satanism. For the insult of your oversight, I curse you with terminal stupidity.

What? Oh. Too late.

I am not Dyakovo.

I was thanking Dyakovo for pointing something out to me. I´m very aware you´re not him.

You think wrong.

That´s your thought then.

I still think knowing isn´t greater than believing, not vice versa. Why, because knowing, for example, doesn´t entail believing. Someone can, for example, know something like the sky is full of stars, but it´s not necessary that that person believes these stars to be just gas and dust.

I know there´s something, a creative force, out there. Do I believe it to be a God? No, not at all.

I am not Dyakovo.

She was referring to this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13726050&postcount=260)

Yes, and: know > believe.
'Greater than' in what way?

Part of knowing something is to believe it. It's weird to say that we know a fact without also saying that we believe it to be true. So I don't see how one could rank the two with any real meaning.

Why you include atheist among belief systems?... Atheism is actually the lack of a belief system... I mean, sorry for the cliche, but being bald is not a hair color.
Shhh! he might hear yoiu.
You left out Satanism. For the insult of your oversight, I curse you with terminal stupidity.

What? Oh. Too late.
:D

Why, because knowing, for example, doesn´t entail believing. Someone can, for example, know something but it´s not necessary that that person believes in that knowledge.
That seems a little off.

How could I, for example, know that I am currently in Glasgow without also believing I am currently in Glasgow?

I know there´s something, a creative force, out there. Do I believe it to be a God? No, not at all.
That's slightly different: you know there's "something, a creative force, out there", so surely you must also believe there's "something, a creative force"? You may not believe it to be a god, but you believe it to be something.

Now, folks might jump on your back by saying that you don't actually know that there's "something, a creative force" in the universe, claiming you merely believe it.

I was thanking Dyakovo for pointing something out to me. I´m very aware you´re not him.



That´s your thought then. I still think knowing isn´t greater than believing, not vice versa. Why, because knowing, for example, doesn´t entail believing. Someone can, for example, know something but it´s not necessary that that person believes in that knowledge.

I know there´s something, a creative force, out there. Do I believe it to be a God? No, not at all.

Indeed I knew there was more to my fascination that we share in common. I go to Church every Sunday though. Why? I've been doing it all my life, no real need to break tradition. It doesn't mean I believe everything they say every week. I just think it's healthy to reflect on life and think about your future. Church gives me an hour or so to just break myself down in contemplative thought. My belief in a "God" stems from my belief in physics. No spontaneous generation for me.

Part of knowing something is to believe it.Not at all. Knowing and believing are disjoint concepts.

That seems a little off.

How could I, for example, know that I am currently in Glasgow without also believing I am currently in Glasgow?


That's slightly different: you know there's "something, a creative force, out there", so surely you must also believe there's "something, a creative force"? You may not believe it to be a god, but you believe it to be something.

Now, folks might jump on your back by saying that you don't actually know that there's "something, a creative force" in the universe, claiming you merely believe it.

Chumb, I´m just using it in the context of the OP. If I take a little heat for it, it wouldn´t be the first time.

I still think believing and knowing do not equal or are greater than each other. I was conversing with someone from here and he said something even better that this Know/Believe thing. Doing, doing is greater than knowing and believing. Doing entails more courage than the former two. I think Galloism´s quite right in saying that.

Not at all. Knowing and believing are disjoint concepts.
In that case, I'll pose the same question to you as I did to Nanatsu:

How could I know that I am currently in Glasgow without also believing I am currently in Glasgow?

In that case, I'll pose the same question to you as I did to Nanatsu:

How could I know that I am currently in Glasgow without also believing I am currently in Glasgow?

I remember some amazing genius explaining the difference very well once. I think it was me.
For all intents in purposes, to say, "I believe..." is just a shorter way of saying, "I know, but recognize that you or someone else knows something which contradicts what I know..." Or it can just mean, "I'm pretty sure..." It depends on the context.

With your example, I don't think you would ever say in conversation, "I believe I am in Glasgow" unless there was doubt. However, the actual believing and knowing of the fact are the same.

I've learned from my first involvement in a discussion remarkably similar to this very one, is that topics like this degenerate first into "you're full of shit and stupid for believing what you do, and you can't prove it's the best way" no matter which side you pick, then it ends with "okay. I'll believe what I want, you believe what you want."

Then a parting "Christianity is stupid."

Flamebaiting and trolling are the only things these topics accomplish.

Christians, like myself, should realize that NSG is largely non-religious. You will not accomplish anything by posting something even resembling pretentiousness and superiority about Christianity. And all you will accomplish by posting things like "Christianity is shit and so is anyone who believes that rubbish" is about 10 posts that say "Good show. We already know this." or something like it, and another ten saying "XXXX is shit and Christianity is the only way to go. The next 20 pages will be filled with vitriol and spite with random smatterings of web pages supposedly and possibly denoting fact.

I'll be ignoring conversations such as these in the future.

I remember some amazing genius explaining the difference very well once. I think it was me.
:p

For all intents in purposes, to say, "I believe..." is just a shorter way of saying, "I know, but recognize that you or someone else knows something which contradicts what I know..." Or it can just mean, "I'm pretty sure..." It depends on the context.
Surely it means what it says: 'I hold the belief that X', with the implicit premise that we recognise our belief about X could be wrong.

:p


Surely it means what it says: 'I hold the belief that X', with the implicit premise that we recognise our beliefs can be wrong.
Yes, sometimes. To say "I know" means that what follows in an undebatable statement. It's not necessarily one you believe is in doubt, but one you recognize as possible to debate. I can't really argue with you when you say you're in Glasgow.

To say "I know" means that what follows in an undebatable statement.
So would you say we can only know things that are true; that we couldn't meaningfully say we knew something that we later found out to be false?

I can't really argue with you when you say you're in Glasgow.

I can :D
I'm looking and I don't see him anywhere in Glasgow.

*Generic "You're all wrong and I blame your simian ancestors for your lack of reasoning skills" style flame. Assume at least 3 paragraphs.*

I can :D
I'm looking and I don't see him anywhere in Glasgow.
Well, it's not as if I'm going to let you find me that easily.

Well, it's not as if I'm going to let you find me that easily.

Chumbly, teh Dyakovo is unto you. :eek:

There seems to be alot of spammers looking to mindlessly get their post counts up, instead of actual posters.

I am also waiting for someone to rebut what was said, or the point behind it.

Well, you know, I would, but I'm too busy being weak and what with having no personality, it makes it very difficult to get out of bed in the morning let alone string a sentence together. :rolleyes:
But you made one tiny mistake in your comment about pagan people - yes, I agree that we may appear to be silly to some people, but you need to go back and edit your sentence about us fearing being similar to other people. You need to change it so that it says that we fear being similar to people like you.
But hey, what do I know, eh? I've been too engrossed in "ad-potting" (good word - I shall use it often in future) this outlandish silliness for the past 30 odd years.

So would you say we can only know things that are true; that we couldn't meaningfully say we knew something that we later found out to be false?

"Undebatable" is not the same as wrong. When you say you know you are in Glasgow, there is no way in the world I could debate you. I could contradict you, if you were actually in New York I could point that fact out. But I couldn't debate it the same way I could debate that welfare is a good thing, or the Trinity exists, or Led Zeppelin is the greatest rock band of all time. I may think those things are true just as strongly as I think you are in Glasgow, but they are still debatable.

Well, it's not as if I'm going to let you find me that easily.
Well, hiding isn't going to that hard, I'm using google earth. :p
Chumbly, teh Dyakovo is unto you. :eek:

;)

Dyakovo: Spanish speaker, forum poster, and bounty hunter.

*nods vigorously* He´s a triple threat.:)

Chumbly, teh Dyakovo is unto you. :eek:

Dyakovo: Spanish speaker, forum poster, and bounty hunter.

Dyakovo: Spanish speaker, forum poster, and bounty hunter.*nods vigorously* He´s a triple threat.:)

Excepto no digo el español, a excepción de la frase: Mis pantalones locos son muy fuertes. El resto es hecho con un traductor.

Excepto no digo el español, a excepción de la frase: Mis pantalones locos son muy fuertes. El resto es hecho con un traductor.

See how he taunts us with his fake humility?!:eek:

Chumbly, ruuuuuunnnnnnnn!!!!

Excepto no digo el español, a excepción de la frase: Mis pantalones locos son muy fuertes. El resto es hecho con un traductor.

It's been a while, but what I read was this:
Except I don't speak Spanish, except for the sentence: my crazy pants are very strong. The rest is true with a translator.
Be honest: is it me or you? :)

It's been a while, but what I read was this:

Be honest: is it me or you? :)

Correction!

Dyakovo said: Except I don´t speak Spanish, with the exception of the phrase ¨My crazy pants are very strong¨. The rest is done with a translator.

Correction!

Dyakovo said: Except I don´t speak Spanish, with the exception of the phrase ¨My crazy pants are very strong¨. The rest is done with a translator.

My mistake. But it was the "crazy pants" part I was most confused about, and I now see that is Dyakovo's fault.

It's been a while, but what I read was this:

Be honest: is it me or you? :)
This \/
Correction!

Dyakovo said: Except I don´t speak Spanish, with the exception of the phrase ¨My crazy pants are very strong¨. The rest is done with a translator.

My mistake. But it was the "crazy pants" part I was most confused about, and I now see that is Dyakovo's fault.

I never said it was a useful phrase...

My mistake. But it was the "crazy pants" part I was most confused about, and I now see that is Dyakovo's fault.

It is Dyakovo´s fault indeed. Flogg him!

It is Dyakovo´s fault indeed. Flogg him!

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/19667.gifNo, you do it... http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/EMOPOyes008HL3.gif

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/19667.gifNo, you do it... http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/EMOPOyes008HL3.gif

We have sidetracked this thread enough! I do like that sleazo smiley though. Back into the discussion!!

We have sidetracked this thread enough! I do like that sleazo smiley though. Back into the discussion!!

Lo recuperaré en la pista ofreciendo a cada uno unos sueños buenas noches y dulces.

I'd say he's doing a great job at exemplifying precisely the kind of narrow-minded and dull thinking that he pretends to insult with his OP. :)

Exactly. Hence the humor. :)

I think everyone reasons where they want to go, and when they get there, they tend to stick to their guns.

The main reason for conversion isn't because they are proved or disproved, it's because they become unhappy. Unhappy in belief or disbelief. So they look for another answer, and when they find something that makes sense and makes them happy, they stick to it.

In the end, personal beliefs matter, but they sort of don't matter too. Unless someone's conduct radically changes, the little bits of personal beliefs are trivial (from a human point of view, as far as afterlife's concerned to some it's a big difference).

Most intelligent thing you've said yet. I approve.

???
Is controversial always offensive?
Are the topics about abortion, gay marriages or stem cell research not allowed here?
If someone said abortion is murder and evil, and someone who has had an abortion got offended, would that be allowed?

I'll lay out a really simple comparison for you.

"Atheists don't have the intelligence to read the Bible." - Trolling (Excessively Controversial)

"I think that many atheists do not fully research the meanings and implications of Biblical texts." - Not Trolling (Mildly Controversial)

If you can see the key differences between those two statements, you can avoid being banned easily enough.

"Undebatable" is not the same as wrong. When you say you know you are in Glasgow, there is no way in the world I could debate you. I could contradict you, if you were actually in New York I could point that fact out. But I couldn't debate it the same way I could debate that welfare is a good thing, or the Trinity exists, or Led Zeppelin is the greatest rock band of all time.
A very interesting take on a very tricky problem.

Well, hiding is going to that hard, I'm using google earth. :p
I really shouldn't have painted that giant 'X' on the roof of my flat...

A very interesting take on a very tricky problem.
It reminds me of what our world history teacher told us how to write thesis statements when we were learning that. Any paper of any merit, he said, should make an argument. "The Romans built roads and had a large empire" would not make a good thesis because it simply stated a fact. "The roads of the Romans allowed them to conquer and administer a large empire" would be an okay thesis because of its arguability. I think it's the same with knowledge and beliefs. Both can be based on empirical evidence, but there is a subtle difference.


I really shouldn't have painted that giant 'X' on the roof of my flat...

It will all pay off when the Angel of Death comes and spares those homes with the sign of the Lord painted on them.

I think it will too. I don't mind though; people may not like it, but it's not inflammatory or false.

That's the beauty of interpretation i guess.

I really shouldn't have painted that giant 'X' on the roof of my flat...

http://seconddrafts.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/xfiles2poster1.jpg

A very interesting take on a very tricky problem.


I really shouldn't have painted that giant 'X' on the roof of my flat...

Wow, I shouldn't post when I'm on large doses of painkillers

The hiding is going to be hard was supposed to read: is not.

Someone should summerise all the arguements thus far.

Firstly, atheism is a belief system; it is the belief there is no God or Gods. A-theism. Being bald is not a haircolour, but it is a hairstyle.

Secondly, just because I say I'm a Catholic does not mean I have to believe every part of Catholic dogma. The constant and erroneous assumption that Catholics are not allowed to excercise personal discretion regarding their beliefs, and therefore saying "Cuxil believes this...", when I do not, is a Strawman arguement.

Saying "You say morals come from God, when God is clearly immoral because of this..., therefore, you are wrong" is by definition a strawman. It did not target my belief and perspective of God, yet it used the "evidence" put forth to discredit it nonetheless.
That is strawman.

The proof for my religion:


My "hooey magick" rituals have a 100% success rate. My will is enacted to the letter provided it is reasonable and doesn't meld living beings' willpower.

Say what ever you want but the lack of belief is not a belief.

Thats plain silly.

Someone should summerise all the arguements thus far.

Firstly, atheism is a belief system; it is the belief there is no God or Gods. A-theism. Being bald is not a haircolour, but it is a hairstyle.

Secondly, just because I say I'm a Catholic does not mean I have to believe every part of Catholic dogma. The constant and erroneous assumption that Catholics are not allowed to excercise personal discretion regarding their beliefs, and therefore saying "Cuxil believes this...", when I do not, is a Strawman arguement.

Saying "You say morals come from God, when God is clearly immoral because of this..., therefore, you are wrong" is by definition a strawman. It did not target my belief and perspective of God, yet it used the "evidence" put forth to discredit it nonetheless.
That is strawman.

Whine, whine, whine...

Morals come from god... wich ever god you believe. Thats why morals are so phooney...

What this worlds needs is ethical people, not moral people.

Whine, whine, whine...

I know it hurts to be wrong, but you'll get over it.

Atheism is not the absence of a belief system, it is the belief there is no God. Of course it is a belief system, there's just not much to it.

Say what ever you want but the lack of belief is not a belief.

Thats plain silly.

Yes, it is quite silly to claim that a lack of belief is a belief.

On the other hand, it's not terribly difficult to understand why atheists can still be considered believers. After all, many of them lack belief in a deity precisely because their paradigm contains beliefs about reality and/or knowledge that would contradict belief in a deity, or at least make it highly problematic. And a portion of atheists hold the explicit belief that there is no deity, and these folks are certainly not lacking in belief regarding the question of God.

I know it hurts to be wrong, but you'll get over it.

Atheism is not the absence of a belief system, it is the belief there is no God. Of course it is a belief system, there's just not much to it.

Ok... then we can divide atheist in two:

Strong Atheist who believe there is no gods... this is a belief.

Soft Atheist who do not believe in gods... this is not a belief

Atheism is not the lack of belief. They believe there is no God.

It's like saying Theism is the lack of belief that there's nothing, ergo, theism is not a belief system.

Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, not the absence of belief that there is a God/ are gods.

Ok... then we can divide atheist in two:

Strong Atheist who believe there is no gods... this is a belief.

Soft Atheist who do not believe in gods... this is not a belief

"Strong Atheist" = Anti-theist
"Soft Atheist" = Atheist

You forgot: Bob Dobs, The great Noodly Appendage, Psychic youth, The Devil and Oprah Winfry.

Yes, it is quite silly to claim that a lack of belief is a belief.

On the other hand, it's not terribly difficult to understand why atheists can still be considered believers. After all, many of them lack belief in a deity precisely because their paradigm contains beliefs about reality and/or knowledge that would contradict belief in a deity, or at least make it highly problematic. And a portion of atheists hold the explicit belief that there is no deity, and these folks are certainly not lacking in belief regarding the question of God.

I think it has already been discussed the differences between knowledge and belief.

Then, to be very precise we will have to introduce two concepts. Reasonable belief and faith, thats the state of believen with out any reason. Most of the time faith and belief are used as the same thing, and when you use the word believers its usually used on to refer to those who have faith. Atheist arent believers (in the sense described before) because we lack faith in gods.

Better explained?

Atheism is not the lack of belief. They believe there is no God.

It's like saying Theism is the lack of belief that there's nothing, ergo, theism is not a belief system.

Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, not the absence of belief that there is a God/ are gods.

You don't exactly debate do you - more just spout opinions as fact.

I know it hurts to be wrong, but Cuxil'll get over it.

Fixed

Atheism is not the absence of a belief system, it is the belief there is no God. Of course it is a belief system, there's just not much to it.

Your problem is that you put little stock in what others believe and you take away importance from a belief system like atheism.

Cuxil: ... there's just not much to it...

Is there much about Christianity but a repetition of other beliefs systems? Christ crucified, the tree god (Cristos). The birth of Jesus on December 25th., same day as the day of the Sol Invictus of the Romans, the Great Flood story repeated over and over again in Summerian and even Mayan and Incan myhtology, the celibate nuns so much like the Roman Vestal virgins... should I keep going?

Christianity is nothing but a system which has borrowed over and over again from already established belief systems. So, there's not much to it either.

Well Strong/Weak atheism just means there's no belief in a God. If you ask an atheist, "Do you have a belief system", they're bound to reply yes. Belief system would encompass not just their opinions on Deities, but also ethics, moral guidelines, etc.
Atheist are not REALLY spiritually barren, they actually tend to have heaps of conviction. Most people who don't believe in God but don't care tend not to call themselves Atheists, just agnostic or non-religious.

Atheism is not the lack of belief. They believe there is no God.

It's like saying Theism is the lack of belief that there's nothing, ergo, theism is not a belief system.

Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, not the absence of belief that there is a God/ are gods.

You are not going to tell US who we are.... :P LOSER!

Atheism is not the lack of belief. They believe there is no God.

It's like saying Theism is the lack of belief that there's nothing, ergo, theism is not a belief system.

Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, not the absence of belief that there is a God/ are gods.

Ah, I see how it is, we can't make assumptions about your beliefs based on your saying that you're Catholic, but you can make assumptions/declarations about our belief or lack their of.

I am an atheist, I do not believe in god, this however does not mean that I believe that there is no god. I do not know one way or the other, if he does exist he'll just have to try and get by without my faith.

Agnostics are just weak atheist.... wimpy atheist... :p:D

Is there much about Christianity but a repetition of other beliefs systems? Christ crucified, the tree god (Cristos). The birth of Jesus on December 25th., same day as the day of the Sol Invictus of the Romans, the Great Flood story repeated over and over again in Summerian and even Mayan and Incan myhtology, the celibate nuns so much like the Roman Vestal virgins... should I keep going?

Christianity is nothing but a system which has borrowed over and over again from already established belief systems. So, there's not much to it either.


There isn't as much in Atheism as Christianity. Christianity has more things to believe, more problems ot overcome, more reading and justifications.
Atheism is straightforward and simple.

So unless you're saying that atheism is as complex a belief system as Christianity...?
I didn't say atheism was any elss valid, just easier to understand.

There isn't as much in Atheism as Christianity. Christianity has more things to believe, more problems ot overcome, more reading and justifications.
Atheism is straightforward and simple.

So unless you're saying that atheism is as complex a belief system as Christianity...?
I didn't say atheism was any elss valid, just easier to understand.

You are totally right in this. Atheismt is straightforward and EXTREAMLY simple... VERY VERY easy to understand

thats why I thank god for making me atheist.:p

Ah, I see how it is, we can't make assumptions about your beliefs based on your saying that you're Catholic, but you can make assumptions/declarations about our belief or lack their of.

I am an atheist, I do not believe in god, this however does not mean that I believe that there is no god. I do not know one way or the other, if he does exist he'll just have to try and get by without my faith.

Atheism means "No God". There's a bit of a difference between reading into old dogmas and how someone views literature to the most straightforward meaning of "A-Theism".

Well Strong/Weak atheism just means there's no belief in a God. If you ask an atheist, "Do you have a belief system", they're bound to reply yes. Belief system would encompass not just their opinions on Deities, but also ethics, moral guidelines, etc.
Atheist are not REALLY spiritually barren, they actually tend to have heaps of conviction. Most people who don't believe in God but don't care tend not to call themselves Atheists, just agnostic or non-religious.

That's rather bizarre, useless and inaccurate.

First, let's take your point of saying what others must believe based on what the call themselves.

And assuming what they're 'bound to respond'

Moreover, getting a bit broad with your use of 'belief' I believe I exist, is that enough to make a religion? I don't believe anyone is claiming a need to be spiritually barren.

And there's a bit of trouble with the use of agnostic in that manner, assuming what you say is actually true.

Atheism means "No God".

That would be more like...atheos? Probably an accent in there somewhere.

It could also be 'without'

Atheism means "No God". There's a bit of a difference between reading into old dogmas and how someone views literature to the most straightforward meaning of "A-Theism".

Atheism was a word invented by theist... not surprising they made a mistake.

There isn't anything about atheism except for a lack of belief in gods. It's not a belief system. Even if a person believes there aren't any gods, it's still only a single belief. There isn't any unifying code of conduct or rule book for atheists, just that one belief (or lack there-of). Hardly a religion or a system of any sort.

There isn't as much in Atheism as Christianity. Christianity has more things to believe, more problems ot overcome, more reading and justifications.

No argument here.

Bats are birds indeed...
:D

Agnostics are just weak atheist.... wimpy atheist... :p:D

Not necessarily. Agnostic is..what's the word, epistomological? Hah. Basically, it's a statement about knowledge, not belief.

There isn't as much in Atheism as Christianity. Christianity has more things to believe, more problems ot overcome, more reading and justifications.
Atheism is straightforward and simple.

There you go again, resting importance. That's what needs to be modified.

So unless you're saying that atheism is as complex a belief system as Christianity...?
I didn't say atheism was any elss valid, just easier to understand.

It's not about complexity. You are reading in my words what you feel like understanding. Is your complete disregard for what others believe.

Re-read your statements. You did considered atheism less valid. And it isn't easier to understand.

Atheism is not the lack of belief. They believe there is no God.

It's like saying Theism is the lack of belief that there's nothing, ergo, theism is not a belief system.

Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, not the absence of belief that there is a God/ are gods.Ah, I see how it is, we can't make assumptions about your beliefs based on your saying that you're Catholic, but you can make assumptions/declarations about our belief or lack their of.

I am an atheist, I do not believe in god, this however does not mean that I believe that there is no god. I do not know one way or the other, if he does exist he'll just have to try and get by without my faith.Atheism means "No God". There's a bit of a difference between reading into old dogmas and how someone views literature to the most straightforward meaning of "A-Theism".



So that would be a yes?

I believe Atheism is a belief system, and a religion.
If you don't, good on you, but we'll just have to disagree.

I believe Atheism is a belief system, and a religion.
If you don't, good on you, but we'll just have to disagree.

I never understood why some people find it so much fun to disagree with reality. But as long as they're happy, I suppose it's okay.

Not necessarily. Agnostic is..what's the word, epistomological? Hah. Basically, it's a statement about knowledge, not belief.

Yes yes.... when you ask an atheist... "do you believe in god?" they will answer just "NO"...

when you ask an agnostic "do you believe in god?" they will answer "I do not know if god exists".. that is not answering the question, but answering a different question. "Do you think its possible to know if god exists?" Which most atheist (not all) will answer "NO".

If you dont know, then you dont believe. And if you dont believe you are an atheist.

Agnostic are politically correct atheist, how avoid the question to avoid injuring religious people sensibility... thats why I call them wimpy atheist. :p

I believe Atheism is a belief system, and a religion.
If you don't, good on you, but we'll just have to disagree.

Good on you to finally give importance to where importance is due.

I believe Atheism is a belief system, and a religion.
If you don't, good on you, but we'll just have to disagree.

Your belief atheism is a belief is ridiculous...just like your religion is.

You don't exactly debate do you - more just spout opinions as fact.

Which is why he'll fit in perfectly here.

There you go again, resting importance. That's what needs to be modified.



It's not about complexity. You are reading in my words what you feel like understanding. Is your complete disregard for what others believe.

Re-read your statements. You did considered atheism less valid. And it isn't easier to understand.

Actually I agree with Cux about that, it certainly holds true for agnostic atheism.

Agnostic atheism, also referred to as atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical doctrine that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheism makes the assertion that there is no way to adequately or definitively know that a God exists, and, due to this lack of certainty or knowability, is therefore not something that should be believed or accepted.
Not to hard to understand that.

Which is why he'll fit in perfectly here.

:rolleyes:

Yes yes.... when you ask an atheist... "do you believe in god?" they will answer just "NO"...

Not quite, I can only tell you the answer won't be 'yes'

[/quote]when you ask an agnostic "do you believe in god?" they will answer "I do not know if god exists".. that is not answering the question, but answering a different question. "Do you think its possible to know if god exists?" Which most atheist (not all) will answer "NO".[/quote]

That's....kinda. Yeah. Agnostics would say it's impossible to know one way or the other.

If you dont know, then you dont believe. And if you dont believe you are an atheist.

Not necessarily. One could easily believe something without thinking it can be proven.

Agnostic are politically correct atheist, how avoid the question to avoid injuring religious people sensibility... thats why I call them wimpy atheist. :p

You'll find a number of Agnostic Atheists here. And a few agnostic Theists.

That's....kinda. Yeah. Agnostics would say it's impossible to know one way or the other.



Not necessarily. One could easily believe something without thinking it can be proven.



You'll find a number of Agnostic Atheists here. And a few agnostic Theists.

Mmm.. interesting. You may be right. But I still have to find a theist that calls himself agnostic. can you introduce me one?

So,... you're getting uppy because I consider Atheism to be inferior to Theism? Of course I do, that's why I'm a theist. Duh.

Atheists have a strong bias for atheism, and theists have a strong bias for theis. Is that really so shocking?

Mmm.. interesting. You may be right. But I still have to find a theist that calls himself agnostic. can you introduce me one?

According to Galloism, I'm an agnostic theist. Nice meeting you.:p

Mmm.. interesting. You may be right. But I still have to find a theist that calls himself agnostic. can you introduce me one?

There is at least one, I don't remember who though...
I just remember it coming up in a previous religious thread.

According to Galloism, I'm an agnostic theist. Nice meeting you.:p

:eek:

:confused:

:mp5:


*kills Nanatsu no Tsuki *

EXTERMINATE ALL AGNOSTIC THEIST!!!!

So,... you're getting uppy because I consider Atheism to be inferior to Theism? Of course I do, that's why I'm a theist. Duh.

Atheists have a strong bias for atheism, and theists have a strong bias for theis. Is that really so shocking?

Once again with your inaccurate blanket statements.

I do not think atheism is better than theism, at least not without adding the addendum of 'for me' onto the statement.
Not everyone feels the need to present themselves as superior to others.

No argument here.

Bats are birds indeed...
:D

Haven't you ever heard of the rare and reclusive bat-bird?

And Robins hang out with bats, don'tcha know...

Until the Joker blows them up, that is.

You ignored or missed this earlier, so I'll repost it:

Atheism is not the lack of belief. They believe there is no God.

It's like saying Theism is the lack of belief that there's nothing, ergo, theism is not a belief system.

Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, not the absence of belief that there is a God/ are gods.Ah, I see how it is, we can't make assumptions about your beliefs based on your saying that you're Catholic, but you can make assumptions/declarations about our belief or lack their of.

I am an atheist, I do not believe in god, this however does not mean that I believe that there is no god. I do not know one way or the other, if he does exist he'll just have to try and get by without my faith.Atheism means "No God". There's a bit of a difference between reading into old dogmas and how someone views literature to the most straightforward meaning of "A-Theism".



So that would be a yes?

Haven't you ever heard of the rare and reclusive bat-bird?

And Robins hang out with bats, don'tcha know...

Until the Joker blows them up, that is.

:D

Once again with your inaccurate blanket statements.

I do not think atheism is better than theism, at least not without adding the addendum of 'for me' onto the statement.
Not everyone feels the need to present themselves as superior to others.


Sorry to disappoint you, but I was not addressing you. It was not a blanket statement.

What do you mean "That would be a yes?" What question was in your posts? I ignored it, because it doesn't mean anything. Try reading what I wrote this time.

=A Utopian Soviet Union;13724888]Judaism was the first true monothestic religion, Jesus himself was a Jew, the Jews have got it right and the Christians got it wrong.



This particular line caught my eye and even though i regard the bible as a book that ought to be listed under fiction..I decided to "check it out"
There are several sites that you can read that make claim that this statement is true/false. As with any religious statement both sides of the argument sprout gobbledygook and ignorantly disreguard the counterpoint.

This line..and the OP can be treated with the same disdain.


There is another wierd branch of religion that didn't get a mention:
The Mighty Overpowering Cult of Global Warming"
its taking over everyones lives, there are megabuck to be made if you can become a proficient espousee, just like religion it relies on some mistruths/misquotes/myths and darned lies.

There is another wierd branch of religion that didn't get a mention:
The Mighty Overpowering Cult of Global Warming"
its taking over everyones lives, there are megabuck to be made if you can become a proficient espousee, just like religion it relies on some mistruths/misquotes/myths and darned lies.

Must....resist....the ....bait.....god...give..me...strenght!....

Sorry to disappoint you, but I was not addressing you. It was not a blanket statement.So,... you're getting uppy because I consider Atheism to be inferior to Theism? Of course I do, that's why I'm a theist. Duh.

Atheists have a strong bias for atheism, and theists have a strong bias for theirs. Is that really so shocking?
So that is not a blanket statement? You are saying that all atheist have a strong bias for atheism. Is it inaccurate? Yes, it is, as I showed in my response. As far as it not being addressed to me, so what? You don't get to pick and choose who responds to your posts.


Ah, I see how it is, we can't make assumptions about your beliefs based on your saying that you're Catholic, but you can make assumptions/declarations about our belief or lack their of.
Points /\
What do you mean "That would be a yes?" What question was in your posts? I ignored it, because it doesn't mean anything. Try reading what I wrote this time.
Allow me to rephrase...

So that would be a "Yes, that's how it works, I (Cuxil) am allowed to make any assumptions I want about your beliefs or lack thereof, but you are not allowed to make any about mine."

Agnostic are politically correct atheist, how avoid the question to avoid injuring religious people sensibility... thats why I call them wimpy atheist. :p
Wow, that's gotta be the first time anybody accused me of "avoiding the question" or trying to avoid hurting religious peoples' feelings.

I'm agnostic, and I can count on one hand the number of religious folks on this board who haven't accused me of hurting their feelings at least 50 times. :D

Wow, that's gotta be the first time anybody accused me of "avoiding the question" or trying to avoid hurting religious peoples' feelings.

I'm agnostic, and I can count on one hand the number of religious on this board who haven't accused me of hurting their feelings at least 50 times. :D

Then people in this board get offended too easily....

:mp5:

*Kills Bottle*

YES....I AM ON A CRUSADE TO RID THE WORLD OF QUESTION EVADING AGNOSTIC SODOMITES!!!!

Correction!

Dyakovo said: Except I don´t speak Spanish, with the exception of the phrase ¨My crazy pants are very strong¨. The rest is done with a translator.

The first thing I learned how to say in Spanish was "Su madre duermes con my perro" (account for incorrect smeppling) Translation: Your mother sleeps with my dog.

Then people in this board get offended too easily....

Well, to be fair, I'm blunt and impatient and I use curse words frequently. I also treat religion more harshly than most religious believers are accustomed to (that is, I apply the same critical thinking to religion and superstition that I apply to every other area of my life).

Also, keep in mind:

I'm an agnostic atheist. There are agnostic theists (I believe Demi is one, for instance). Agnosticism is simply the admission that you cannot know whether or not there is a God/god/gods. Plenty of people are aware that they cannot know, yet they choose to believe. That's called "faith."

The first thing I learned how to say in Spanish was "Su madre duermes con my perro" (account for incorrect smeppling) Translation: Your mother sleeps with my dog.

Actually you have to say... "su madre duerme con mi perro"

Well, to be fair, I'm blunt and impatient and I use curse words frequently. I also treat religion more harshly than most religious believers are accustomed to (that is, I apply the same critical thinking to religion and superstition that I apply to every other area of my life).

Also, keep in mind:

I'm an agnostic atheist. There are agnostic theists (I believe Demi is one, for instance). Agnosticism is simply the admission that you cannot know whether or not there is a God/god/gods. Plenty of people are aware that they cannot know, yet they choose to believe. That's called "faith."

and how do you call those who .... do not know if they can know if god exists?

The first thing I learned how to say in Spanish was "Su madre duermes con my perro" (account for incorrect smeppling) Translation: Your mother sleeps with my dog.

Smeppling is a great word, I shall be using it from now on at every opportunity.

YES....I AM ON A CRUSADE TO RID THE WORLD OF QUESTION EVADING AGNOSTIC SODOMITES!!!!
You should have it easy, then. Since the mythological city of Sodom was nuked by God himself according to the Bible, I doubt if there are any agnostic inhabitants of that city left.

and how do you call those who .... do not know if they can know if god exists?

Ohh I think I know this one, is it Derrik?

Well, to be fair, I'm blunt and impatient and I use curse words frequently. I also treat religion more harshly than most religious believers are accustomed to (that is, I apply the same critical thinking to religion and superstition that I apply to every other area of my life).

Also, keep in mind:

I'm an agnostic atheist. There are agnostic theists (I believe Demi is one, for instance). Agnosticism is simply the admission that you cannot know whether or not there is a God/god/gods. Plenty of people are aware that they cannot know, yet they choose to believe. That's called "faith."

Bingo (as is usual for a Bottle post, IMO).

I am aware that I cannot know for certain in my thinking, rational mind. In my thinking, emotional mind, upon which I place equal value to the former, I have no explanation for the way I feel when affected by music, natural beauty or aesthetic experiences of any kind. This leads me to believe in the Soul -- something intangibly present that informs us of the presence of Beauty, in all of its many forms.

I also believe that thoughts held in mind produce after their kind and that what we visit upon others comes back to us. Karma is neither good nor bad, it just is.

The combination in my mind is currently going by the unwieldy title of "Deistic (or Divine) Taoism". I say "deistic" because I can extract no other explanation for my reaction to aesthetic stimuli but something supernatural which cannot be objectively quantified or tested. I have had some tell me that "falling back" to even a rudimentary Divinity to help me explain my reaction to such things is childish, but I don't really care. I don't really pray to this feeling, but I am thankful for it. That's because I am indeed grateful, but I don't believe I can ask things of it. I think it's rude or presumptuous. Instead, I merely express my desire for things to go the way I wish them to go -- I "put it out there", so to speak. If that's praying, then fine, I pray. I draw the line at attending services in gilded buildings where some folks go to compare clothing a couple of times a week, and I do my best to reserve judgement on others.

That's about as concise a summary as I can create at this moment. I hope it helps someone understand a so-called "alternative" point of view. It has evolved over time from 100% militant atheism through agnosticism to its current state. Feel free to dissect it at will.

Feel free to dissect it at will.

Have you ever found yourself able to...control your appreciation of things, aesthetically? That is, in a sort of 'open yourself to the world around you' sort of thing, can you consciously affect how much you appreciate something?

Then explain why 90% of Royal Society scientists are Atheists? If it is stupidity why were Alan Turing, Carl Sagan, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein Atheists?

Albert Einstein: ""I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." A personal God by definition is an omnipotent creator who concerns himself with human affairs, which is what most people mean by "God". This statement would therefore suggest he is atheist.


_________________________________________________________________



It is bad to argue from authority but it illustrates my point that to claim Atheism as stupid is ignorant. Atheism is a LACK of belief, and so would require a LACK of evidence of God. Which is what it seems we have.

[QUOTE=Intangelon;13727974]Bingo (as is usual for a Bottle post, IMO).

I am aware that I cannot know for certain in my thinking, rational mind. In my thinking, emotional mind, upon which I place equal value to the former, I have no explanation for the way I feel when affected by music, natural beauty or aesthetic experiences of any kind. This leads me to believe in the Soul -- something intangibly present that informs us of the presence of Beauty, in all of its many forms.
QUOTE]


Just because you cannot imagine why does not mean it is impossible. Emotion and perception can all be explained neurologically. The fact you consider it to be the act of some "soul" shows you are placing value on humanity and its uniqueness. Rats have beens shown to posses an instinctive morality. You allow your emotions to sway your judgement.

QUOTE=Intangelon

I am aware that I cannot know for certain in my thinking, rational mind. In my thinking, emotional mind, upon which I place equal value to the former, I have no explanation for the way I feel when affected by music, natural beauty or aesthetic experiences of any kind. This leads me to believe in the Soul -- something intangibly present that informs us of the presence of Beauty, in all of its many forms.

---------------------------------

Just because you cannot imagine why does not mean it is impossible. Emotion and perception can all be explained neurologically. The fact you consider it to be the act of some "soul" shows you are placing value on humanity and its uniqueness. Rats have beens shown to posses an instinctive morality. You allow your emotions to sway your judgement. EMOTION IS NOT MAGIC!

Albert Einstein: ""I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." A personal God by definition is an omnipotent creator who concerns himself with human affairs, which is what most people mean by "God". This statement would therefore suggest he is atheist.

Actually, from what I understand, Einstein was more of a pantheist. And also, not believing in a personal God doesn't mean that you also don't believe in an impersonal God.

Albert Einstein: ""I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." A personal God by definition is an omnipotent creator who concerns himself with human affairs, which is what most people mean by "God". This statement would therefore suggest he is atheist.


You realise Albert Einstein was a deist right?

You realise Albert Einstein was a deist right?

I'm pretty sure he was a pantheist, seeing "God" as the laws and mechanisms by which the universe works.

I'm pretty sure he was a pantheist, seeing "God" as the laws and mechanisms by which the universe works.

I think he believed in an intelligence behind it.

I think he believed in an intelligence behind it.

I don't think he did.

"I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Sounds to me rather pantheistic.

I don't think he did.

"I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Sounds to me rather pantheistic.

Not to me, you can be a deist without believing in a personal God. Also, the idea that God reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world can be interpreted in many different ways, from that it reveals Gods work implying a God to it shows the universe IS god and some wishy washy ideas in between.

Not to me, you can be a deist without believing in a personal God. Also, the idea that God reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world can be interpreted in many different ways, from that it reveals Gods work implying a God to it shows the universe IS god and some wishy washy ideas in between.

He specifically cited Spinoza's God, which is naturalistic pantheism.

Edit: Oh, and you can't be a deist if you believe in a personal God.

:eek:

:confused:

:mp5:


*kills Nanatsu no Tsuki *

EXTERMINATE ALL AGNOSTIC THEIST!!!!

*is killed by Santiago*

Gilipoyas!!

You just killed the last specimen of an endangered species. Sadly, now, because of people like you, we're extint.:eek:

Well, the first post was a lovely essay Cuxil.

But I have to give: 'Why I'm not afraid of showing myself as an idiot' only a B-

For proof you didn't put a lot of effort into it (barely any research at all, not even research from Wikipedia or Google pages...let alone actual books).

Trying to pretend that you were intelligent by the whole 'I didn't have a point or did I' argument. Which kinda proves that you had no idea what the hell you were talking about.

Complaining of the thread being spammed. Sweetheart, the original post was elongated spam, expect spam threads to be spammed.

Low blows to other belief systems and then ignoring decent rebuttal while complaining you wanted rebuttal. I'm aware that you're someone who lives constantly with contradiction-in-terms of basically everything, but you're bringing it to a whole new level.

Plus, decent rebuttal shouldn't really be wasted on this half-hearted thread. Although I commend the ones that did, since they made brilliant points (Plus Bottle was just down right funny).

As for this as a satire, well, then it only gets a D+. The original post was stuck to without the hint of sarcasm. Which makes poor satire.

As for the spelling difficulties, if you don't have a dictionary or spell checker they are free to download.

In addition, I don't care what any school board might say, Handwriting counts.

He specifically cited Spinoza's God, which is naturalistic pantheism.


Oh yeah, good point I guess.


Edit: Oh, and you can't be a deist if you believe in a personal God.

So why even use that quote at all?

Oh yeah, good point I guess.



So why even use that quote at all?

Because two quotes are better than one, and mostly for the latter part of the quote. My mistake, I should have trimmed it some more.

Bingo (as is usual for a Bottle post, IMO).

I am aware that I cannot know for certain in my thinking, rational mind. In my thinking, emotional mind, upon which I place equal value to the former, I have no explanation for the way I feel when affected by music, natural beauty or aesthetic experiences of any kind. This leads me to believe in the Soul -- something intangibly present that informs us of the presence of Beauty, in all of its many forms.

Interesting. It is such questions which led me to be a neuroscientist!


I also believe that thoughts held in mind produce after their kind and that what we visit upon others comes back to us. Karma is neither good nor bad, it just is.

I'm very fond of the concept of karma, particularly since it has several forms of validity in the real world.


The combination in my mind is currently going by the unwieldy title of "Deistic (or Divine) Taoism". I say "deistic" because I can extract no other explanation for my reaction to aesthetic stimuli but something supernatural which cannot be objectively quantified or tested.

Out of curiosity: how have you tried to "extract" an explanation?


I have had some tell me that "falling back" to even a rudimentary Divinity to help me explain my reaction to such things is childish, but I don't really care. I don't really pray to this feeling, but I am thankful for it. That's because I am indeed grateful, but I don't believe I can ask things of it. I think it's rude or presumptuous. Instead, I merely express my desire for things to go the way I wish them to go -- I "put it out there", so to speak. If that's praying, then fine, I pray. I draw the line at attending services in gilded buildings where some folks go to compare clothing a couple of times a week, and I do my best to reserve judgement on others.

I toss my own requests out to the universe sometimes, too, though I don't particularly expect it to accomplish anything. I just figure the universe is already full of such glorious noise that my own voice can't possibly make anything worse. Might as well chime in.

KILL ALL THE KARMA SEEKING NEUROSCIENTIST SODOMITES!!!!

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

What form of validity has karma in the real world?

can you explain that? cuz it really sounds just silly? karma, i mean.

What is it with you and the inhabitants of Sodom? Just stop it, already!

sodom just evokes a picture of evil. A city so bad that God basically fire bombed it from heaven.

What is it with you and the inhabitants of Sodom? Just stop it, already!

So there is actually a place called Sodom?!?! :eek:



KILL ALL SODOM-BORN SODOM- RESIDENT SODOMITES!!!!

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

sodom just evokes a picture of evil. A city so bad that God basically fire bombed it from heaven.
We can learn something from that story... when urban renewal becomes necessary in your city, don't call God. He'll just screw it up hardcore!

It all comes from a board I posted... very much like this one. Were I tried to explain that atheism wasnt a religion and that atheist could actually be much more ethical people that religious dudes...very much like a thread on this board.

The only answer I got was ...

"oh my god..how can you say that!!! *insults and more insults* KILL ALL GODLESS ATHEIST SODOMITES!!"


I just loved it

What form of validity has karma in the real world?

can you explain that? cuz it really sounds just silly? karma, i mean.
I'd say it's pretty obvious that the way you treat others will often come right back atcha. I mean, punch a dude in the face, you're going to get something quite different from him than if you bought him a drink instead, eh? No supernatural force required to make this work, it's just the nature of the universe.

Or, if you want me to get even more nerdy, we could talk about things like the placebo effect. What people think can physically alter their reality.

New-Age types often talk about "putting out positive energy," and they can get awfully spacey about it, but there's a grain of truth under all the crap. If, for instance, a subject is asked to smile for a full minute and then perform a series of mood-related tasks, it turns out that they're more likely to be in a positive frame of mind...no matter what else has happened to them recently! If you have somebody make a mad face for an equal length of time, they'll be biased toward perceiving and experiencing anger. The "energy" in this case is really a sort of feed-back loop in our nervous system...you can self-stimulate (heh heh) and make positive create positive, or negative create negative.

I'd say it's pretty obvious that the way you treat others will often come right back atcha. I mean, punch a dude in the face, you're going to get something quite different from him than if you bought him a drink instead, eh? No supernatural force required to make this work, it's just the nature of the universe.


YEs this is common sense. But I dont think there is a mystical supernatural force, like karma behind this.


Or, if you want me to get even more nerdy, we could talk about things like the placebo effect. What people think can physically alter their reality.


What people think can alter them. Then, they in turn can alter reality.


New-Age types often talk about "putting out positive energy," and they can get awfully spacey about it, but there's a grain of truth under all the crap. If, for instance, a subject is asked to smile for a full minute and then perform a series of mood-related tasks, it turns out that they're more likely to be in a positive frame of mind...no matter what else has happened to them recently! If you have somebody make a mad face for an equal length of time, they'll be biased toward perceiving and experiencing anger. The "energy" in this case is really a sort of feed-back loop in our nervous system...you can self-stimulate (heh heh) and make positive create positive, or negative create negative.


KILL ALL POSITIVE-ENERGY-LOVING NEW AGERS SODOMITES!!!!

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Yes... positive actitude can help you relate with other people better. People like to be treated nicely...most of them do. No need for a mystical force.

YEs this is common sense. But I dont think there is a mystical supernatural force, like karma behind this.

Karma is simply a concept, basically a sort of action-reaction idea, and does not necessarily require any supernatural force to be involved.


What people think can alter them. Then, they in turn can alter reality.
That too.


Yes... positive actitude can help you relate with other people better. People like to be treated nicely...most of them do. No need for a mystical force.
That's true, but that's not really what I was talking about.

And don't kill the New Agers. They're an important part of the food chain, for without them the planet would be over-run with unharvested patchouli.

I think it has already been discussed the differences between knowledge and belief.

Then, to be very precise we will have to introduce two concepts. Reasonable belief and faith, thats the state of believen with out any reason. Most of the time faith and belief are used as the same thing, and when you use the word believers its usually used on to refer to those who have faith. Atheist arent believers (in the sense described before) because we lack faith in gods.

Better explained?

To be blunt, your explanation is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

For one, plenty of people have belief in a deity for a reason. Whether it is due to personal experience, philosophizing (like Kant), family ties, or a trust in other people who seem to know what they're talking about, most people have some reason for believing. Whether or not those reasons constitute justification in an epistemological sense is yet another question. And a more difficult one, because it's hard to tell if we can ever have epistemic justification. (Solve the Gettier and Grue problems, and you'll be famous forever.)

So if you wish to define faith as belief without a reason, you'll find that almost no one who believes in a deity has faith, because almost everyone has a reason.

For two, let's say that we move the goalposts and define faith as a belief without logical validity and cogency. You run into several problems. First, I have to wonder if you haven't just put yourself into a trap. After all, what's the logically valid and cogent argument for logic? If you make one, then you violate the rules of logic by making a circular argument in that you assume logic to prove it. If you don't make one, then you are essentially admitting to having a belief in logic that has no logical justification, which would be faith under the given definition.

So maybe that's not the way to go. Another option is to try making a distinction between empirically justified claims and claims that have no empirical justification. That gets pretty tricky too. After all, it's rather inane to ask for empirical justification of a being that is posited to be both largely non-material and powerful and intelligent enough to elude attempts to empirically justify its existence.

So what meaningful distinction would you like to make between faith and other forms of belief that avoids these major problems?

If you don't make one, then you are essentially admitting to having a belief in logic that has no logical justification, which would be faith under the given definition.

But this is quite clearly not even remotely the same kind of "faith." Undoubtedly we cannot manage a rigorous justification for human knowledge... but this is somewhat beside the point. We can manage reasonable justifications: we can come up with standards of evidence and logical proof that make sense.

Religious faith, on the other hand, throws out all of this. Logic? Evidence? Generally it has nothing whatsoever to do with either... and attempts to show otherwise only reaffirm the point.

There may be other good reasons for religious faith... but only ones that have nothing to do with truth justification.

To be blunt, your explanation is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

For one, plenty of people have belief in a deity for a reason. Whether it is due to personal experience, philosophizing (like Kant), family ties, or a trust in other people who seem to know what they're talking about, most people have some reason for believing. Whether or not those reasons constitute justification in an epistemological sense is yet another question. And a more difficult one, because it's hard to tell if we can ever have epistemic justification. (Solve the Gettier and Grue problems, and you'll be famous forever.)

So if you wish to define faith as belief without a reason, you'll find that almost no one who believes in a deity has faith, because almost everyone has a reason.

For two, let's say that we move the goalposts and define faith as a belief without logical validity and cogency. You run into several problems. First, I have to wonder if you haven't just put yourself into a trap. After all, what's the logically valid and cogent argument for logic? If you make one, then you violate the rules of logic by making a circular argument in that you assume logic to prove it. If you don't make one, then you are essentially admitting to having a belief in logic that has no logical justification, which would be faith under the given definition.

So maybe that's not the way to go. Another option is to try making a distinction between empirically justified claims and claims that have no empirical justification. That gets pretty tricky too. After all, it's rather inane to ask for empirical justification of a being that is posited to be both largely non-material and powerful and intelligent enough to elude attempts to empirically justify its existence.

So what meaningful distinction would you like to make between faith and other forms of belief that avoids these major problems?

tl;dr

This is all the explenation needed....

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Image:Methods.gif

For two, let's say that we move the goalposts and define faith as a belief without logical validity and cogency. You run into several problems. First, I have to wonder if you haven't just put yourself into a trap. After all, what's the logically valid and cogent argument for logic? If you make one, then you violate the rules of logic by making a circular argument in that you assume logic to prove it. If you don't make one, then you are essentially admitting to having a belief in logic that has no logical justification, which would be faith under the given definition.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like all beliefs and belief systems are illogical, to a degree. I'm starting to wonder if it isn't logic that's flawed.

Well, one means of separating pure faith from reasoned belief is the ability to predict. If one can make an accurate prediction then one might say there's reason behind that belief.

It may be merely coincidence, but over time, consistent ability to form predictions and act accordingly should lend credence to what we might term a belief but is in fact real.

One could argue that God is unknowable and therefore unpredictable but then it's still unreasoned belief.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like all beliefs and belief systems are illogical, to a degree. I'm starting to wonder if it isn't logic that's flawed.

Not logic itself, but the dogma that it must justify everything.

But this is quite clearly not even remotely the same kind of "faith." Undoubtedly we cannot manage a rigorous justification for human knowledge... but this is somewhat beside the point. We can manage reasonable justifications: we can come up with standards of evidence and logical proof that make sense.

Religious faith, on the other hand, throws out all of this. Logic? Evidence? Generally it has nothing whatsoever to do with either... and attempts to show otherwise only reaffirm the point.

There may be other good reasons for religious faith... but only ones that have nothing to do with truth justification.

Hehehe. Sure, religious faith doesn't require the same standards of evidence that scientific testing does. But all anyone's insistence on that fact accomplishes is pointing out that they are different systems with different standards, based on different assumptions about reality. How very impressive that we can establish the patently obvious.

What are the implications of the fact that we can arrive at beliefs by different means? Without solving the Problem of the Criterion, we have no way of judging which belief is more accurate and should be held to, nor do we have any way of testing which method of arriving at beliefs leads to more accurate beliefs. Sure, we can begin with beliefs about what beliefs are accurate, or we can begin with beliefs about which methods of arriving at beliefs lead to accurate beliefs. But ultimately, we're still just believing those initial propositions without any justification for it.

Sure, religious faith doesn't require the same standards of evidence that scientific testing does. But all anyone's insistence on that fact accomplishes is pointing out that they are different systems with different standards, based on different assumptions about reality.

Not at all. We can judge the standards: we can come to realize that one set is reasonable, and the other is not. (As the vast majority of religious people would admit in every case but their own.)

You're insisting that any such judgment must be logically rigorous, but I see no reason to make any such assumption. "Logic" cannot capture itself--indeed, we have no reason to believe it should--and it cannot capture any justification for belief that does not reach necessity.

But ultimately, we're still just believing those initial propositions without any justification for it.

Meanwhile, the world marches on, and science and logic continue to actually accomplish things while blind faith hits dead end after dead end. There comes a point where philosophy defeats itself, when the ivory towers need to be knocked down.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like all beliefs and belief systems are illogical, to a degree. I'm starting to wonder if it isn't logic that's flawed.

Logic does have serious problems, at least as it is commonly practiced. Some of the problems are systemic, but others are often due to poor application on the part of the person using logic.

Not at all. We can judge the standards: we can come to realize that one set is reasonable, and the other is not. (As the vast majority of religious people would admit in every case but their own.)

You're insisting that any such judgment must be logically rigorous, but I see no reason to make any such assumption. "Logic" cannot capture itself--indeed, we have no reason to believe it should--and it cannot capture any justification for belief that does not reach necessity.

I'd actually rather that any such judgment not be logically rigorous. The issue is that other people desire it, not that I do. After all, I have no problem with making an assumption (ie. logic is an effective means of arriving at accurate beliefs) and sticking to it without independent verification of its accuracy.

But I do so like to prod those who insist on such things by using that insistence against them. :)

Meanwhile, the world marches on, and science and logic continue to actually accomplish things while blind faith hits dead end after dead end. There comes a point where philosophy defeats itself, when the ivory towers need to be knocked down.

I've heard this fairy-tale time and time again. Faith has proven to be incredibly practical in providing people with motivation for living, motivation to care for others, motivation to kill, and motivation to coerce others. Science has proven to be incredibly useful in providing people with the tools to heal, the tools to solve problems more quickly, the tools to kill more effectively, and the tools to coerce others. Logic has proven to be great at helping people think critically, order their conceptual matrices satisfactorily, rationalize hurtful behavior effectively, and allow us to self-righteously justify coercion.

The basic truth is that whether a person uses faith, science, logic, or some combination thereof, the results depend most of all (though not entirely) on the will of the one who uses them. If the person's will is to kill, they can use faith to motivate the killing, science to find more effective ways of killing, and logic to rationalize the killing. If the person's will is more positive, then faith, science, and logic can all be employed to help achieve positive results.

Meanwhile, the world marches on, and science and logic continue to actually accomplish things while blind faith hits dead end after dead end. There comes a point where philosophy defeats itself, when the ivory towers need to be knocked down.
'Knocked down' by science and logic, or...?

Science can't help us understand everything. 'Blind faith' can't help us understand much in my opinion, but it's not a contest between faith and science.

I'd actually rather that any such judgment not be logically rigorous. The issue is that other people desire it, not that I do. After all, I have no problem with making an assumption (ie. logic is an effective means of arriving at accurate beliefs) and sticking to it without independent verification of its accuracy.

But this dichotomy is precisely the problem: all or nothing. You say you can deal with nothing. But neither is the case.

Faith has proven to be incredibly practical in providing people with motivation for living, motivation to care for others, motivation to kill, and motivation to coerce others.

Maybe. So? Motivation isn't the issue. I've already said that there are potential good reasons for faith that have nothing to do with truth justification. I've made much, in recent arguments (elsewhere) about religion, of Kant's idea that rational moral duties can productively be thought of as stemming from a divine will. But this is beside the point.

Science has proven to be incredibly useful in providing people with the tools to heal, the tools to solve problems more quickly, the tools to kill more effectively, and the tools to coerce others.

Yes, that's right... science by its very methodology does not deal with certain (moral) truths. What of it? Does it actually reveal things about the way the world works, things we can productively use? Yes.

and allow us to self-righteously justify coercion.

You forget that it's only logic that allows us to talk substantively about "justification" in the first place. Without it, of course we don't justify anything... and we feel no need to.

Poor justifications, by the very nature of "justification", are always misuses of logic. If a rational moral argument actually logically follows, then it does justify its conclusion... and regardless of whether or not we like it, we should deal with it.

The basic truth is that whether a person uses faith, science, logic, or some combination thereof, the results depend most of all (though not entirely) on the will of the one who uses them.

Yes, if you assume the will is determined prior to using any of those tools... but then, of course the differences among the tools are irrelevant, because they're really just epiphenomena.

But if we actually are sincerely asking the question "What should I do?", the results are quite different. Should I advocate the persecution of gays? Well, I know what the Bible says. And I know what reason says.

(True, not everyone believes in the Bible, or in the particular interpretation of it of which I speak... but without reason such differences are purely incidental.)

'Knocked down' by science and logic, or...?

Ideally, by the realization of how self-negating and unproductive the whole line of thought is.

The idea is to develop and to extend human understanding, to get a clearer picture of reality... and if the only place it takes us is to the negation of human understanding itself, then its critics are right and philosophy is worthless and futile, a fallacy of people who think too much.

(Not that it actually is... and certainly it needn't be.)

...and if the only place it takes us is to the negation of human understanding itself...
Pardon?

Not that it actually is... and certainly it needn't be.
Quite.

There is another wierd branch of religion that didn't get a mention:
The Mighty Overpowering Cult of Global Warming"
its taking over everyones lives, there are megabuck to be made if you can become a proficient espousee, just like religion it relies on some mistruths/misquotes/myths and darned lies.
Wha-HAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHA*snort*HAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHO!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

when you ask an agnostic "do you believe in god?" they will answer "I do not know if god exists".. that is not answering the question, but answering a different question. "Do you think its possible to know if god exists?" Which most atheist (not all) will answer "NO"

That's....kinda. Yeah. Agnostics would say it's impossible to know one way or the other.



Not necessarily. One could easily believe something without thinking it can be proven.



You'll find a number of Agnostic Atheists here. And a few agnostic Theists.HEY!
*tackles*

*kills Nanatsu no Tsuki *
:eek:
*absconds with corpse*
*puts on glove*

Yes, and: know > believe.

know > have a good idea > believe

:eek:
*absconds with corpse*
*puts on glove*


*from Hell:*

:eek:!!

I iz being rapedz!

HEY!
*tackles*

Straughn! :D

*from Hell:*

:eek:!!

I iz being rapedz!

*Appears out of nowhere with his 4 armed and masked henchmen and KILLZ Straughn with his uzzis*

:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5:

The more I think about it, the more it seems like all beliefs and belief systems are illogical, to a degree. I'm starting to wonder if it isn't logic that's flawed.

Logic reasoning is flawed and it has been proved thru logical reasoning. Still its much better than faith.

First I would like to say that you have entirely to:rolleyes:o:rolleyes:o:rolleyes:o:rolleyes:o:o:rolleyes:o:rolleyes:o:rolleyes:o:rolleyes:o:rolleye s::rolleyes:o
much time on our hands if you felt the need too complain to other people about there religion on a game where you can exercise religion freedom

It's amazing how little self awareness people have. Cruxil your post was great.

Actually you have to say... "su madre duerme con mi perro"

Mi gato tomar tu pero con nuestros polideportivo, y voy a beber mi libro con una toalla. Llueve.

Sorry for bad Spanish / mal espanol.

My cat has your dog (dog=food with "tomar") with our leisure centre, and I am going to drink my book with a towel. It's raining

Mi gato hace tu pero con nuestros polideportivo, y voy a beber mi libro con una toalla.

My cat makes your dog with our multi-sport, and I'm going to drink my book with a towel?!?!?!?!?!:confused:

Mi gato tomar tu pero con nuestros polideportivo, y voy a beber mi libro con una toalla. Llueve.

Sorry for bad Spanish / mal espanol.

My cat has your dog (dog=food with "tomar") with our leisure centre, and I am going to drink my book with a towel. It's raining

*grabs her face and gauges her eyes out*

THIS SPANISH BURNS!! IT BURNS!!! IT'S HORRIBLE!!!!!

:p

Corrections:

I guess that what you want to say is: Mi gato tiene a tu perro en nuestro polideportivo, y yo me voy a llevar un libro con toalla porque está lloviendo.

Is that it?

Yikes!
*Attempts to flip through Spanish dictionary*
*realizes that the only pages left within the dictionary involve Ordering drinks and hooking up with women*
DMN!@#^%!

You'll find a number of Agnostic Atheists here.
*waves hand*

I'm one of 'em. It's a rather bold position, I think, to hold that you know there is no god or gods. I certainly wouldn't defend that position in a philosophical debate.

Mi gato tomar tu pero con nuestros polideportivo, y voy a beber mi libro con una toalla. Llueve.

Sorry for bad Spanish / mal espanol.

My cat has your dog (dog=food with "tomar") with our leisure centre, and I am going to drink my book with a towel. It's raining

*Santiago I-> Appears out of nowhere with his masked thugs and shoots Chikeslovynia death*

:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5:


*And while he is at it, shoots Chumblywumbly too*

My cat makes your dog with our multi-sport, and I'm going to drink my book with a towel?!?!?!?!?!:confused:

lawl!

lawl!

:p

But this dichotomy is precisely the problem: all or nothing. You say you can deal with nothing. But neither is the case.

All or nothing has naught to do with it. We have two choices. Believe that a method containing sets of propositions will lead us to more true propositions, or believe that a set of propositions will lead us to a method of determining whether propositions are true or not. Of course, when it comes down to it, there really ain't much difference between the two. So maybe there is no dichotomy. You can either believe or believe. One choice, and two ways of making it.

Maybe. So? Motivation isn't the issue. I've already said that there are potential good reasons for faith that have nothing to do with truth justification. I've made much, in recent arguments (elsewhere) about religion, of Kant's idea that rational moral duties can productively be thought of as stemming from a divine will. But this is beside the point.

Yes, that's right... science by its very methodology does not deal with certain (moral) truths. What of it? Does it actually reveal things about the way the world works, things we can productively use? Yes.

I find it very interesting that you will admit to the usefulness of faith, but you so quickly trivialize it and point to science. Why is science so much more useful? Motivation from faith is of great use in engendering productivity.

You forget that it's only logic that allows us to talk substantively about "justification" in the first place. Without it, of course we don't justify anything... and we feel no need to.

Mate, you may not realize this, but I don't feel the need for rational justification or rationalization, whichever you prefer to call it. This is just intellectual wankery, and I don't pretend otherwise.

Poor justifications, by the very nature of "justification", are always misuses of logic. If a rational moral argument actually logically follows, then it does justify its conclusion... and regardless of whether or not we like it, we should deal with it.

Yes, if you assume the will is determined prior to using any of those tools... but then, of course the differences among the tools are irrelevant, because they're really just epiphenomena.

But if we actually are sincerely asking the question "What should I do?", the results are quite different. Should I advocate the persecution of gays? Well, I know what the Bible says. And I know what reason says.

Reason doesn't say anything. It is a set of mental habits, some of which are codified and given social importance.

(True, not everyone believes in the Bible, or in the particular interpretation of it of which I speak... but without reason such differences are purely incidental.)

With reason, the differences are merely coincidental.

(Troll walks in)

Oh, hello.

(Grabs his keys)

Forgot these.

(Leaves)


What, you expected me to start a flame war?




















No, still nothing.

Believe that a method containing sets of propositions will lead us to more true propositions, or believe that a set of propositions will lead us to a method of determining whether propositions are true or not.

No, that is your decision, not mine. I see no reason to be so abstract about "propositions", to put the propositions of logic on the same level as the propositions of faith.

Indeed, at the heart of portraying the decision this way is a dogmatic adherence to logic in the first place: that between any two propositions our only means of drawing a distinction is logic.

But in the end the way human beings actually justify knowledge, the ways that come across to us as perfectly legitimate and seem, as best we can tell, to actually work, are not even close to logically rigorous in any respect. This requirement is, for lack of a better term, purely philosophical... and therefore, insofar as philosophy is supposed to actually clarify our understanding of the world rather than serve as an amusing mind-game for our entertainment, it gets us nowhere.

I find it very interesting that you will admit to the usefulness of faith, but you so quickly trivialize it and point to science.

Who's trivializing anything? Different roles, different uses. Scientific thinking, ethically, can be problematic because it tends towards objectifying means-end reasoning. Faith, ethically, can be useful because the concept of divine perfection and supremacy is not so distant from the supremacy of morality, and it's rather more intuitive than highly abstract ethical arguments. (This can easily turn into a pitfall when our material/cultural representations of right do not coincide with the ideal... but that's a reason for redemption, not necessarily rejection.)

But science is certainly better at learning how, say, a car works.

Mate, you may not realize this, but I don't feel the need for rational justification or rationalization, whichever you prefer to call it.

Yes, that's why I was talking about justification as such. Any justification at all rests on non-contradiction.

This is just intellectual wankery, and I don't pretend otherwise.

If you think that, then you shouldn't bother arguing with anyone. Even if they accept your point, they can proceed to do exactly what they were doing before. That's almost the pinnacle point of the uselessness of this kind of reasoning: sure, we can hypothesize about logic being arbitrary, but what difference would it make to our methods if it were so? None at all, because, everything being arbitrary, nothing could be wrong.

Your whole point was the ethical failures of reason: we can use it to construct a justification for anything. But clearly it's much more difficult to construct a rational justification for a course of action than it is if pure faith rules. To reject rational distinctions as just as arbitrary as anything else is in effect to say "anything goes."

well athiests are mostly right about the limitations of knowledge being the limitations of knowledge. i think the point they miss, i mean those who call themselves athiests, not just nonchristians or nonfallowers of some other name brand of organized belief, (which, if they believe in something big, friendly and close enough for government work, are agnostics, not athiests) is that existence is not limited to what is presumed to be known about it.

=^^=
.../\...

Firstly, let me beging by saying I am a Catholic.
Big deal.
My beliefs about the universe are right, and all the evidence points my way of belief.
"Eppur si muove". 'nuff said.


ATHEISM.
Atheist has a lot going for it; Atheists don't have moral guidance(except "humanism", right? hahaha!) so get to act pretty hedonistically.
False. As proven by countless atheists who gave their lives for their ideals. Proving that morality and idealism DO NOT need ANY kind of religion.


At the very basic level, you can't go wrong with atheism because it's nothing more than a dismissal of everything else. It's easy to back up with "facts" that merely disprove myths and atheists love to bag out religion, because religion has so many pitfalls that it's a no brainer.


So, by your own words, even an idiot can see that atheism is better than religion because it's a no brainer. Which places you on an intellectual level lower than that of an idiot. Recreating, for our own sport, a weaker sort of the liar's paradox. So your previous sentences can be rejected as meaningless: because if they're true, they came from a sub-idiot. Else, they're false.


But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak. You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out.
Prove that (you never met many atheists, did you?). Also prove that a home-made-up rule cannot be as compelling as a rule you think it came from a divinity, or from his HolineSS Ratzi.


They have conviction about lacking conviction. You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.

You suppose. But you don't know because you didn't experience being an atheist, which you claim is a belief. And, of course, you cannot experience believes you don't have. If you claim the contrary, you're saying that I know everything about being a catholic. Which I would never dare to say, of course, but there you are.

and atheist education consists of TV and internet ads. It's religion for the ignorant and lazy man.
Better: the ignorant and the lazy man MIGHT take atheism as a religion: but, since we're living in a world where the vast majority is religious, the ignorant will simply follow the advice of the majority (religion), and the lazy will of course to the most comfortable thing, that is, conform to majority (religion). So, there are better arguments for religion being the ignorants' and lazy peoples' choice.

Also: by your sentence, you claim that your education consisted only of Bible, TV and internet ads. Let someone who studied 4 modern languages, 2 ancient languages, graduated from high school with what was considered the best history essay, and is going for a physics master, that, were what you claimed the reality, I don't think much of your education. I really hope that you were taught something else.

You've just won an "ignore".

....Wow. I have got to learn not to just skip to the end of threads anymore. They usually aren't related to the beginning.

Firstly, let me beging by saying I am a Catholic. My beliefs about the universe are right, and all the evidence points my way of belief.

Your beliefs, however, are total lies and based on fallacies and erroneous positions and serve only to demonstrate your overwhelming ignorance. Unless you agree with me, in which case you probably don't understand what it is we believe as well as me.

Or is it?

I bet you've heard this sort of arguement before, be you Christian or Atheist. To any other religions, you don't count because this is the internet and no one follows anything else. Still, you've no doubt heard this arguement before.
One a similar note, anyone with a belief system uses the same arguement.
Let's thinks of some examples..
*notes length of thread*
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/P3Shinobi/1192392913251.jpg
Good work!

CHRISTIANITY

Despite being a Catholic myself, the sheer overwhelming absurdity of Christianity leaves a lot to be desired. It's no particularly straightforward, and there are alot of competing ideas. Transubstantiation, trinity, triclavianism, duality, etc. The biggest problem with Christianity today is ignorance; Christians are too ignorant.

This is not to say that Christianity is a religion of ignorance, au contrare, it is a religion of knowledge. Put simply, there is too much to know. Christianity is so jammed packed with 2000 years of philosophy, debate, conjecture, history amd tragedy. If anyone wants to be a real Christian, they have to LEARN. You start with the Bible, and then books about the Bible, outlining what you need to know. However, most people get put off and stop there because the bible is so silly, or just accept the whole thing as fact.
Few people manage to slip through and find out what it's all about.

In the meantime, you get a whole lot of silly christians going around confusing the atheists, leading to a big mix up.

Incorrect.

To be a real christian all you have to do is believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that he died for your sins, and that he was God in the flesh. Repent and then be baptised and start living a life in rejection of sin.

It's really that easy.

....Wow. I have got to learn not to just skip to the end of threads anymore. They usually aren't related to the beginning.
Awww, that's one of my favorite parts of the forum! Long threads are like games of Telephone.

OP: "Your belief system is wrong and mine is right and I'm a Catholic troll!"

By the end of the thread: "OP says core belief systems about bongs are tight because of flying Catholic trolls purple monkey dishwasher!"

Long threads are like games of Telephone.
Is that like Chinese Whispers?