definitions are subjective and ever changing. A hundred years ago no one would have ever thought that marriage would be used to describe a relationship between two men. But the meaning has changed. I think the meaning of religion has to change to accomodate the possible rise in atheism.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Let's consistantly use the same verbiage used as with religious people, you're a fundamentalist atheist. Either that or the descriptive word for some religious people would be Active Muslim, Active Catholic.
I carefully selected Active for it's definition
Active
characterized by action rather than by contemplation or speculation
I've seen the same type of atheist referred to as Radical
Radical
marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional
Atheism is only one simple point, there is no deity, there isn't room for radicalism, but certainly there are a number of activists, hence Active Atheism.
Fundamentalist
a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Again, atheism is only one principle, you either are or aren't atheist, there is neither strict or lenient adherence to the one principle that God does not exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
definitions are subjective and ever changing. A hundred years ago no one would have ever thought that marriage would be used to describe a relationship between two men. But the meaning has changed. I think the meaning of religion has to change to accomodate the possible rise in atheism.
Many more examples would be, queer, gay, fag, homo, dike, pussy, etc.. etc..
But you couldn't call an apple an orange at this point and expect anyone to understand you.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Again, atheism is only one principle, you either are or aren't atheist, there is strict or lenient adherence to the one principle that God does not exist.
How can that be a principal when an atheist can also hold out that God may exist?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
No, I'm far from contemplating the existence of god.
The links were good reading. Thanks.
contemplating the non-existence or defending the non-existence does make the subject matter God. you are here talking about God. how can you deny that? if God truely doesn't exist to you; then you are talking about nothing?
God exists to those who accept them.
(the best part of this board is being able to debate different issues yet still remain friends. i respect your views and your right to them. one day God may exist for you. we can't predict the future. i'll still defend your right to believe what ever you want to believe. my opinion is different; but in the realm of things; my opinion is only valid to me.)
definitions are subjective and ever changing. A hundred years ago no one would have ever thought that marriage would be used to describe a relationship between two men. But the meaning has changed. I think the meaning of religion has to change to accomodate the possible rise in atheism.
I think we may need an entirely new word or phrase. For most people, the word "religion" conjures up an image of a holy book or a church or temple of some kind, or a congregation of like-minded people. That's the most common usage of the word, and atheism features none of these things. I prefer new words over tacking additional definitions on to old words ... it saves having to continuously tell people, "Well, that's not what I mean when I say religion."
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
How can that be a principal when an atheist can also hold out that God may exist?
The idea that God may exist is agnosticism.
What I suggest is a divide between philosophical thoughts and operational attitude. For example, I know philosophically that the concept of God is a possibility amongst an endless array of possibilities. That makes me philosophically agnostic. But in my day-to-day life, God does not exist and therefor I am atheist. The possibility is out there, but operationally I am atheist. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't recite the Canadian National Anthem or the Charter of Human Rights and I think the word God should be removed from all of that political stuff and I hope one day our species will grow out of these delusions of supernaturality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
contemplating the non-existence or defending the non-existence does make the subject matter God. you are here talking about God. how can you deny that? if God truely doesn't exist to you; then you are talking about nothing?
God exists to those who accept them.
(the best part of this board is being able to debate different issues yet still remain friends. i respect your views and your right to them. one day God may exist for you. we can't predict the future. i'll still defend your right to believe what ever you want to believe. my opinion is different; but in the realm of things; my opinion is only valid to me.)
You're sort of using the argument I used with ahnimus a week or so ago. I still say God is a mathematical certainty, but any honest interpretation of that relies entirely on the language.
contemplating the non-existence or defending the non-existence does make the subject matter God. you are here talking about God. how can you deny that? if God truely doesn't exist to you; then you are talking about nothing?
There was a thread about superheroes a couple of weeks ago, and I'm pretty sure that none of those who participated in it REALLY believe that Superman exists. Where did you get this idea that you have to believe in something before you can talk about it?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Then why did your opening salvo include "many atheists do not deny the possibility of the existence of a God"? Is this person an atheist or an agnostic?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
i think you're a nutter but i still like you. and if you needed help i'd lend a hand if i could. i hope you don't take this personal.
I thought a nutter was some kind of new fangled treat.
I don't really ever need help. I mean, I come from a family that views things differently I guess. I clean out my dad's eave's trough because he can't, not because he needs help. It's just the thing to do, it's my chore. He can shovel his snow, but I'm younger and haven't suffered a heart attack, so I do it. We are like one big collective doing what we all do best for the bennefit of each other. So it's difficult for me to quanlify it as helping each other, as much it's just doing what's required for the prosperity of our collective.
The same reason I stayed late after work last night when the dude didn't show up for his shift. I didn't stay to help him out. I was concerned for the overall prosperity of the company and the millions tied up in contracts that require someone to be here 24/7. Again, for the collective, which ultimately ends in my bennefit as well.
Same reason I can be seen/heard undermining religion and the illusion of free-will. :P
But anyway, if you want to send me a bit of cash that's cool too.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What I suggest is a divide between philosophical thoughts and operational attitude. For example, I know philosophically that the concept of God is a possibility amongst an endless array of possibilities. That makes me philosophically agnostic. But in my day-to-day life, God does not exist and therefor I am atheist. The possibility is out there, but operationally I am atheist. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't recite the Canadian National Anthem or the Charter of Human Rights and I think the word God should be removed from all of that political stuff and I hope one day our species will grow out of these delusions of supernaturality.
you're a great preacher. you've got a label for everyone and defend your beliefs while consistantly discounting others.
Then why did your opening salvo include "many atheists do not deny the possibility of the existence of a God"? Is this person an atheist or an agnostic?
I don't deny the possibility of the teacup orbitting the sun, or the flying spaghetti monster. But I don't believe either of them exist.
For example, a theist could say "It is possible God does not exist, but I believe he does." as opposed to an atheist "It is possible God does exist, but I believe he does not."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Where was attitude during the debate over gay marriage?
I go to the courthouse and have a ceremony and I'm married, the ladies across the street do the same thing and they're something else? Why? It seems terribly impractical ... all the laws and codes and regulations that would need to be rewritten with the new word, all for people who aren't doing anything new at all.
Language is for communication. If I say that the ladies across the street are married, everyone knows exactly what that means, so I don't see why a new word would be called for.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
It's crazy to me that religion is so important that you can't just not be anything. If you don't want to be anything then you are athiest or agnostic. It's kind of messed up. It's like if you said yeah, I dont really get into football much and the football guys said well then you must like the Texas Atheist...and you're like no man I dont want to like any team and everyones like too bad you must be a fan of the atheist.
I go to the courthouse and have a ceremony and I'm married, the ladies across the street do the same thing and they're something else? Why? It seems terribly impractical ... all the laws and codes and regulations that would need to be rewritten with the new word, all for people who aren't doing anything new at all.
Language is for communication. If I say that the ladies across the street are married, everyone knows exactly what that means, so I don't see why a new word would be called for.
Whereas if I said "That gentlemen is a tad queer, don't you say?" I may or may not mean homosexual.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If you do that then it gives some creedance to what the anti-atheists are trying to convince people of. Besides I guarantee there is already a "Church of Atheism" much as there is a "Church of the Universe" for people that like to smoke pot.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, gay has 2 dictionary definitions and one slang definition.
Happy
Homosexual
Undesirable (slang)
"Soccer is happy" makes no sense to me
"Soccer is homosexual" again makes no sense becuase it has no gender
"Soccer is undersirable" does make sense, and I think many people would get your message, but it may be just as easy to say "Soccer is undesirable" and avoid offending anyone. I'm not a language nazi, so you do whatever you want.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You're sort of using the argument I used with ahnimus a week or so ago. I still say God is a mathematical certainty, but any honest interpretation of that relies entirely on the language.
great minds think alike, eh? we're debating a subject no one can prove right or wrong. i believe God exists because i experienced life after death; therefore i conclude God must exist. i believe i felt him. his presence.
everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. that's cool. it's what seperates humans from the other animals. i like it that way. i'd hate it if everyone was the same.
i find it humorous to debate God with an athiest. i didn't open the superhero thread because they don't exist. but then that's my train of thought and i'm a flawed human.
I don't deny the possibility of the teacup orbitting the sun, or the flying spaghetti monster. But I don't believe either of them exist.
For example, a theist could say "It is possible God does not exist, but I believe he does." as opposed to an atheist "It is possible God does exist, but I believe he does not."
i'd never say God may not exist and i studied theology in a catholic college prep.
great minds think alike, eh? we're debating a subject no one can prove right or wrong. i believe God exists because i experienced life after death; therefore i conclude God must exist. i believe i felt him. his presence.
everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. that's cool. it's what seperates humans from the other animals. i like it that way. i'd hate it if everyone was the same.
i find it humorous to debate God with an athiest. i didn't open the superhero thread because they don't exist. but then that's my train of thought and i'm a flawed human.
If you remove blood from the brain the individual experiences a psychotic episode. This is why I don't believe that your experience of life after death, was in-fact what you experienced at all.
There are many things that separate humans from other animals, but never-the-less we are also animals and share many commonalities with them. For example, our genome is mostly identical to the fruitfly's genome.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i'd never say God may not exist and i studied theology in a catholic college prep.
Are you saying that catholicism doesn't consider the philosophical conclusion that the existence or non-existence of a God is beyond our capable knowledge?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
anarchy does not exist in the political realm. look to history to see what happens under marshall law or an anarchist rule. what happens? people form groups of others who believe the same as them. (just like the world forms different groups making different religions.) if anarchy does exist; then my life is anarchy. i answer to no man; i do what i want when i want; and my laws are my own. many conform to current law but they are my laws. for example; pot is legal in my world; but murder isn't. i don't assemble nor do i preach anarchy. i live my life and don't bother anyone that doesn't bother me.
however; an athiet preaches. not true athiest. but there are no true athiests. if God doesn't exist to them; a cross on a public building means nothing to them. the 10 commandments in from of a state capital may as well be scribble. it should mean nothing to them. if they are insulted by a cross then they are insulted by every cross. you can't have it both ways.
most importantly; an athiest would never even open a religious thread. an athiest who posts on a religious thread is preaching their beliefs. and doesn't that sound like religion?
you say athiest don't gather; then why did they gather to respond to this thread?
athiesm is only a persons confusion to existence. it is their attempt to find the answers to why we're here. they don't believe in God; they believe in something else.
it doesn't seem that you read my post very clearly...
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
You're sort of using the argument I used with ahnimus a week or so ago. I still say God is a mathematical certainty, but any honest interpretation of that relies entirely on the language.
Explain how God is a mathematical certainty?
I believe this debate goes as follows...
"God is a mathematical certainty, the universe is so complex. Something must have created it."
"That isn't necissarily true, we cannot scientifically prove that a God is a requirment, and presupposing a God raises questions like 'Why is that true?', 'What is God?', 'Where did God come from?', if mathematically something must exist prior to the existence we know, then something must also exist prior to the existence of God. The 'first cause' theory supposed that some thing acted as the initial cause to which all other causes follow, but our causal nature of reasoning leads us to the conclusion that something must have caused the Big Bang, to suppose that is God, only raises the question of 'What caused God?', if we then abandon the train of thought and suggest that nothing caused God, then why can it not be that nothing caused the Big Bang or the Universe?"
"Science is biased, philosophy is bias, the human brain can't comprehend, God does exist because we can't understand it."
"If science is useless then the argument of complexity and/or first cause is nullified."
Round and round we go.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"God is a mathematical certainty, the universe is so complex. Something must have created it."
"That isn't necissarily true, we cannot scientifically prove that a God is a requirment, and presupposing a God raises questions like 'Why is that true?', 'What is God?', 'Where did God come from?', if mathematically something must exist prior to the existence we know, then something must also exist prior to the existence of God. The 'first cause' theory supposed that some thing acted as the initial cause to which all other causes follow, but our causal nature of reasoning leads us to the conclusion that something must have caused the Big Bang, to suppose that is God, only raises the question of 'What caused God?', if we then abandon the train of thought and suggest that nothing caused God, then why can it not be that nothing caused the Big Bang or the Universe?"
"Science is biased, philosophy is bias, the human brain can't comprehend, God does exist because we can't understand it."
"If science is useless then the argument of complexity and/or first cause is nullified."
Round and round we go.
hehehhe hahahhahaha hohohohohohho...
nope, nothing like that at all.
why are you asking me, anyway? you're the smart one.
"God is a mathematical certainty, the universe is so complex. Something must have created it."
"That isn't necissarily true, we cannot scientifically prove that a God is a requirment, and presupposing a God raises questions like 'Why is that true?', 'What is God?', 'Where did God come from?', if mathematically something must exist prior to the existence we know, then something must also exist prior to the existence of God. The 'first cause' theory supposed that some thing acted as the initial cause to which all other causes follow, but our causal nature of reasoning leads us to the conclusion that something must have caused the Big Bang, to suppose that is God, only raises the question of 'What caused God?', if we then abandon the train of thought and suggest that nothing caused God, then why can it not be that nothing caused the Big Bang or the Universe?"
"Science is biased, philosophy is bias, the human brain can't comprehend, God does exist because we can't understand it."
"If science is useless then the argument of complexity and/or first cause is nullified."
Round and round we go.
alternative reply:
grasshoppah, you come velly fah, and then you fuck it up.
why are you asking me, anyway? you're the smart one.
Because you said it and I don't understand what you mean.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I carefully selected Active for it's definition
Active
characterized by action rather than by contemplation or speculation
I've seen the same type of atheist referred to as Radical
Radical
marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional
Atheism is only one simple point, there is no deity, there isn't room for radicalism, but certainly there are a number of activists, hence Active Atheism.
Fundamentalist
a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Again, atheism is only one principle, you either are or aren't atheist, there is neither strict or lenient adherence to the one principle that God does not exist.
Many more examples would be, queer, gay, fag, homo, dike, pussy, etc.. etc..
But you couldn't call an apple an orange at this point and expect anyone to understand you.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
contemplating the non-existence or defending the non-existence does make the subject matter God. you are here talking about God. how can you deny that? if God truely doesn't exist to you; then you are talking about nothing?
God exists to those who accept them.
(the best part of this board is being able to debate different issues yet still remain friends. i respect your views and your right to them. one day God may exist for you. we can't predict the future. i'll still defend your right to believe what ever you want to believe. my opinion is different; but in the realm of things; my opinion is only valid to me.)
The idea that God may exist is agnosticism.
What I suggest is a divide between philosophical thoughts and operational attitude. For example, I know philosophically that the concept of God is a possibility amongst an endless array of possibilities. That makes me philosophically agnostic. But in my day-to-day life, God does not exist and therefor I am atheist. The possibility is out there, but operationally I am atheist. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't recite the Canadian National Anthem or the Charter of Human Rights and I think the word God should be removed from all of that political stuff and I hope one day our species will grow out of these delusions of supernaturality.
i think you're a nutter but i still like you. and if you needed help i'd lend a hand if i could. i hope you don't take this personal.
You're sort of using the argument I used with ahnimus a week or so ago. I still say God is a mathematical certainty, but any honest interpretation of that relies entirely on the language.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I thought a nutter was some kind of new fangled treat.
I don't really ever need help. I mean, I come from a family that views things differently I guess. I clean out my dad's eave's trough because he can't, not because he needs help. It's just the thing to do, it's my chore. He can shovel his snow, but I'm younger and haven't suffered a heart attack, so I do it. We are like one big collective doing what we all do best for the bennefit of each other. So it's difficult for me to quanlify it as helping each other, as much it's just doing what's required for the prosperity of our collective.
The same reason I stayed late after work last night when the dude didn't show up for his shift. I didn't stay to help him out. I was concerned for the overall prosperity of the company and the millions tied up in contracts that require someone to be here 24/7. Again, for the collective, which ultimately ends in my bennefit as well.
Same reason I can be seen/heard undermining religion and the illusion of free-will. :P
But anyway, if you want to send me a bit of cash that's cool too.
you're a great preacher. you've got a label for everyone and defend your beliefs while consistantly discounting others.
I don't deny the possibility of the teacup orbitting the sun, or the flying spaghetti monster. But I don't believe either of them exist.
For example, a theist could say "It is possible God does not exist, but I believe he does." as opposed to an atheist "It is possible God does exist, but I believe he does not."
Language is for communication. If I say that the ladies across the street are married, everyone knows exactly what that means, so I don't see why a new word would be called for.
I'm going to start a atheism church.
Whereas if I said "That gentlemen is a tad queer, don't you say?" I may or may not mean homosexual.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
If you do that then it gives some creedance to what the anti-atheists are trying to convince people of. Besides I guarantee there is already a "Church of Atheism" much as there is a "Church of the Universe" for people that like to smoke pot.
Well, gay has 2 dictionary definitions and one slang definition.
Happy
Homosexual
Undesirable (slang)
"Soccer is happy" makes no sense to me
"Soccer is homosexual" again makes no sense becuase it has no gender
"Soccer is undersirable" does make sense, and I think many people would get your message, but it may be just as easy to say "Soccer is undesirable" and avoid offending anyone. I'm not a language nazi, so you do whatever you want.
great minds think alike, eh? we're debating a subject no one can prove right or wrong. i believe God exists because i experienced life after death; therefore i conclude God must exist. i believe i felt him. his presence.
everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. that's cool. it's what seperates humans from the other animals. i like it that way. i'd hate it if everyone was the same.
i find it humorous to debate God with an athiest. i didn't open the superhero thread because they don't exist. but then that's my train of thought and i'm a flawed human.
i'd never say God may not exist and i studied theology in a catholic college prep.
If you remove blood from the brain the individual experiences a psychotic episode. This is why I don't believe that your experience of life after death, was in-fact what you experienced at all.
There are many things that separate humans from other animals, but never-the-less we are also animals and share many commonalities with them. For example, our genome is mostly identical to the fruitfly's genome.
Are you saying that catholicism doesn't consider the philosophical conclusion that the existence or non-existence of a God is beyond our capable knowledge?
it doesn't seem that you read my post very clearly...
Explain how God is a mathematical certainty?
I believe this debate goes as follows...
"God is a mathematical certainty, the universe is so complex. Something must have created it."
"That isn't necissarily true, we cannot scientifically prove that a God is a requirment, and presupposing a God raises questions like 'Why is that true?', 'What is God?', 'Where did God come from?', if mathematically something must exist prior to the existence we know, then something must also exist prior to the existence of God. The 'first cause' theory supposed that some thing acted as the initial cause to which all other causes follow, but our causal nature of reasoning leads us to the conclusion that something must have caused the Big Bang, to suppose that is God, only raises the question of 'What caused God?', if we then abandon the train of thought and suggest that nothing caused God, then why can it not be that nothing caused the Big Bang or the Universe?"
"Science is biased, philosophy is bias, the human brain can't comprehend, God does exist because we can't understand it."
"If science is useless then the argument of complexity and/or first cause is nullified."
Round and round we go.
hehehhe hahahhahaha hohohohohohho...
nope, nothing like that at all.
why are you asking me, anyway? you're the smart one.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
alternative reply:
grasshoppah, you come velly fah, and then you fuck it up.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Because you said it and I don't understand what you mean.