She has a cold, doesn’t she? Super powers and colds always lead to wacky side effects! Like transformations getting sick, or sneezing laser blasts, or creating tiny adorable snow gremlins!…If you don’t get the last one, I pity you.
And Jesus was most likely born in Spring in a cave, not in Bethlehem. We are aware…
Fun fact: Atheist is originally term to describe someone who is excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the Pope. So if you call yourself one you are not only wrong, but using a religious term. ;)
Also there are many atheists who practice atheism as a religion.
Such as? Atheism is only a single position in regards to a single claim. How do you turn that into a religion?
Religions have unsupported faith-claims; ritual; an appeal to unverifiable, revealed knowledge …
Unless you’re speaking about atheistic Buddhists, this doesn’t make any sense. In the case of those people, Buddhism is the religion, not atheism.
I’d love to know where you’re going with this one. You’re aware that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is parody, right? Likewise, the Satanic Temple is a political tool used to fight First-Amendment violations.
For the birth of Jesus, there are many convincing and perfectly reasonable dates.
Considering the absolute lack of evidence for his existence, I’d say that any date you would like to throw out there is just as reasonable as any other. Stories told by devotees of a religion, decades after the supposed fact, are not sources of reliable information.
You can be as religious about the nonexistence of gods as you can be religious about it’s/their existence, preaching it like a priest. Obviously you have to ignore the “needs a god” part of “religion”, just like you do it for the Buddhists.
Others claim to be atheists (or Christs or …), but they are disciples of Mammon.
I can’t disprove the existence of gods, so I try to live life that a good god should approve, which incidentally does not differ from a life you should live for moral and practical reasons.
1. Belief in Supernatural Beings
2. Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times
3. Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times
4. Moral Code With Supernatural Origins
5. Characteristically Religious Feelings
6. Prayer and Other Forms of Communication
7. A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View
8. A Social Group Bound Together by the Above
I excluded Buddhists because … news flash, Buddhism is a religion, and it fits most of the characteristics above, in most forms practiced … probably even #1, even if those beings aren’t considered gods.
Disciple of Mammon? Seriously? You’re now saying that the pursuit of money and the establishment of a better, more-secure lifestyle is a religion?
Please tell me you’re trolling.
I can’t disprove the existence of gods …
Yet it sounds like you don’t hold a positive belief in a deity. That makes you an atheist, whether or not you embrace the label.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. Full stop. That is distinct from a positive belief that there are no gods.
The first is the rejection of claim A, as insufficiently supported by logic and evidence. The second is the embrace of the negative claim, that A is false, which requires logic and evidence, since it’s its own positive claim.
Why do you feel the need to appeal to the approval of a good god? It’s sufficient to appeal to our evolved sense of empathy and fairness as a social species, then use reason and evidence to establish a society and a mode of behavior that is true to those instincts, for ourselves and those around us.
You have to double-think if you say that a deity is required to be religious while also allowing Buddhism to be a religion. If you worship the nonexistence of a god, if you worship money like it’s your god, if you get triggered by questioning your believes, you are religious for all practical purposes. (Also you defend the moral system you assign with your religion).
Being agnostic differs from being an atheist as I understand it. I don’t claim that there must be no god.
I don’t need the approval of a god, because if my life hasn’t, I’d need to change my life … or my god.
As to which god I (don’t) believe in, read Stranger In a Strange Land. Grok it. Then grok it again. Then think: Who makes the world you live in?
You have to double-think if you say that a deity is required to be religious while also allowing Buddhism to be a religion.
Please, point out one … just one time that I said that a deity is required for something to be a religion. Throw me a quote of something I said, because I just re-scanned my posts, and I’m not seeing it.
It isn’t in that list of 8 characteristics, either, for good reason.
If you worship the nonexistence of a god, if you worship money like it’s your god, if you get triggered by questioning your believes, you are religious for all practical purposes.
Worship … the nonexistence of a god? What the hell are you talking about?
And you didn’t trigger me at all. You think far too highly of yourself. I’m not even addressing your questioning of my beliefs, as much as I’m correcting your incorrect understanding of what atheism is. Religious apologists do this sort of shit all the time, lying about what atheism is and what atheists believe, in an attempt to prop up their own untenable positions.
When you say things that demonstrate that you don’t even understand the core concepts under discussion, then yes, I’m going to say something.
(Also you defend the moral system you assign with your religion)
Atheism is not a religion, and what I described is not the moral system of atheism. There is no moral system for atheism, and you don’t have to subscribe to any particular moral system, in order to be an atheist. All you have to do is not believe in a god.
What I described is a way that you can construct a moral system that isn’t handed down from on high, within a religious context … a non-divinely-commanded moral system, if you will. You have to look to some other source for a system of morality, though, since … as I said, atheism contains nothing of the sort, within itself.
Being agnostic differs from being an atheist as I understand it. I don’t claim that there must be no god.
Then you understand the terms incorrectly. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. The vast majority of agnostics are atheistic.
Atheism and agnosticism are two completely different concepts, addressing two different questions. Theism/atheism involves the question of whether or not you believe in a god. It’s a true dichotomy, and there is no middle ground. You have to be either a theist or an atheist. If you actively hold a belief in a god, then you’re a theist. If you don’t actively hold a belief in a god, then you’re an atheist.
Agnosticism is a philosophical position that stresses the unknow-ability of theological questions, specifically those that are intentionally made to be unfalsifiable. Many atheists also adopt that position. An atheist absolutely does not have to claim that there must be no god.
If you want to talk about the Christian god specifically, then yes, I actively believe that that god does not exist. Do I know whether or not a deistic god exists, though? I have no idea, but I have no reason to think that any such thing exists. Do I know whether or not a trickster-god exists and is just fucking with humanity for his own amusement and is deliberately preventing us from detecting him? I have no idea, but I have no reason to think any such thing exists.
There’s a basic difference in philosophical statements here, which I don’t think you’re understanding. Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
1. I do not believe that any gods exist.
2. I believe that no gods exist.
There’s a very, very important difference between those two statements. One is the rejection of a positive claim, and the other is the assertion of a negative claim. Let me know if you don’t get this part, and we can go over it in more detail.
I don’t need the approval of a god, because if my life hasn’t, I’d need to change my life … or my god.
Is there a god that you believe in, though? If you do, then you’re a theist. If you don’t, then you’re an atheist.
As to which god I (don’t) believe in, read Stranger In a Strange Land. Grok it. Then grok it again. Then think: Who makes the world you live in?
Okay, so you’re a stoner.
I’ve read Stranger in a Strange Land, thank you. There are some vaguely interesting concepts in it, but there’s nothing in it to take at all seriously. It was just a thought experiment done by Robert A. Heinlein, and I don’t think he took it particularly seriously, either.
It was fiction. Interesting, trippy fiction, but still just fiction. Do you think that Job: A Comedy of Justice is real in some way, too?
Your closing question is a bad question that makes unnecessary, unsupported assertions. You ask who makes the world I live in. Why does it have to be a who? Why should I think that there is a who? What reason do you have to think that there’s a who?
A better question would be, “What process created the world that I live in?” Or “How did the world that I live in form?”
You have to demonstrate that there is a who, before you start asking questions about him/her/it.
Throw me a quote of something I said, because I just re-scanned
my posts, and I’m not seeing it.
Here:
I excluded Buddhists because … news flash, Buddhism is a
religion, and it fits most of the characteristics above, in most forms
practiced … probably even #1, even if those beings aren’t considered
gods.
(also everything around that statement.)
It isn’t in that list of 8 characteristics, either, for good reason.
Except at position 1.
Worship … the nonexistence of a god? What the hell are you talking about?
Look at wor religious freaks get agitated when their believes are
questioned. If you are agitated in the same way when anybody suggests the
existence of a god, you are an atheist freak non-god-worshiper.
And you didn’t trigger me at all. You think far too highly of yourself.
I’m not even addressing your questioning of my beliefs, as much as I’m
correcting your incorrect understanding of what atheism is.
You should correct the Wiktionary and Wikipedia, too.
You can include the slight lack of full believe in somebody’s god to count
as atheism, too, but when I say you can (not must) “practice atheism as a
religion”, I’m _obviously_ not talkin about that end of the definition.
There are a lot of non-practicing Christs, too.
Religious
apologists do this sort of shit all the time, lying about what atheism is
and what atheists believe, in an attempt to prop up their own untenable
positions.
Since the dictionaries say I’m right, you’re doing exactly the thing you
claim Religious apologists do.
(Also you defend the moral system you assign with your religion)
Atheism is not a religion, and what I described is not the moral system of
atheism. There is no moral system for atheism, and you don’t have to
subscribe to any particular moral system, in order to be an atheist. All you
have to do is not believe in a god.
Various sects do have different moral codes, so why shouldn’t atheists do the same?
You told me to arrive at my moral code by empathy, fairness, reason and
evidence. That’s just the same things Jesus asks for in the bible, but you
don’t seem to like that way to arrive at (I presume) the same conclusions.
What I described is a way that you can construct a moral system that isn’t
handed down from on high, within a religious context … a
non-divinely-commanded moral system, if you will. You have to look to some
other source for a system of morality, though, since … as I said, atheism
contains nothing of the sort, within itself.
That’s your preaching.
If you want to talk about the Christian god specifically, then yes, I
actively believe that that god does not exist. Do I know whether or not a
deistic god exists, though? I have no idea, but I have no reason to think
that any such thing exists. Do I know whether or not a trickster-god exists
and is just fucking with humanity for his own amusement and is deliberately
preventing us from detecting him? I have no idea, but I have no reason to
think any such thing exists.
I believe in science, and while it can prove that there is no Nessie in Loch
Ness, it can’t prove the existence of Loch Ness.
There’s a basic difference in philosophical statements here, which I don’t
think you’re understanding. Do you understand the difference between these
two statements?
1. I do not believe that any gods exist.
2. I believe that no gods exist.
The first is the narrow definition of atheism, the second os the broad one.
The existence of a broader definition doesn’t prevent “atheism” from
including the narrow definition.
I’ve read Stranger in a Strange Land, thank you. There are some
vaguely interesting concepts in it, but there’s nothing in it to take at all
seriously. It was just a thought experiment done by Robert A. Heinlein, and
I don’t think he took it particularly seriously, either.
Your closing question is a bad question that makes unnecessary, unsupported
assertions. You ask who makes the world I live in. Why does it have to be a
who? Why should I think that there is a who? What reason do you have to
think that there’s a who?
There is the mantra “Thou art God”, derived from trying to believe that all
the religions are true. Obviously you can’t just gain divine powers by
groking, but you’re the one _who_ is responsible to do the things you expect
your god to do, to yourself and to others.
A better question would be, “What process created the world that I live in?” Or “How did the world that I live in form?”
Believe that the mountain god will punish you when he’s angry, believe that
there is a thunderstorm, both ways you get a flood endangering your tribe. Believe that God or Father Christmas tells you to be nice, believe what Immanuel Kant tells you, same difference.
Understanding which meteoroid did exactly what doesn’t help you to act morally nor does it help you to understand your role in this world.
You have a serious problem understanding what words mean. Correcting someone’s grossly inaccurate, slanderous statements … is … not … preaching.
Here:
…
(also everything around that statement.)
*sigh* You moron. I said to quote something I had said that implies that something needs to have a god-belief to count as a religion. You just pointed out the exact opposite. What’s wrong with you?
I caught this bit at the end, before reading through your entire post. I don’t think I have to read anything in between, because it’s unlikely to be any more rational:
Believe that the mountain god will punish you when he’s angry, believe that
there is a thunderstorm, both ways you get a flood endangering your tribe. Believe that God or Father Christmas tells you to be nice, believe what Immanuel Kant tells you, same difference.
Okay, you just admitted that you think false beliefs are just as good as true beliefs. So, when the tribe starts sacrificing people to appease their mountain god, you think that’s just as good as taking constructive steps towards mitigating the damage of the flood.
You are an utterly irrational human-being. I’m done talking to you.
Heh heh heh heh heh. Okay, I just scanned the rest of your post, very briefly. I just can’t let this one go:
Statements of atheism:
1. I do not believe that any gods exist.
2. I believe that no gods exist.
The first is the narrow definition of atheism, the second os the broad one. The existence of a broader definition doesn’t prevent “atheism” from including the narrow definition.
First off, you flat-out have that backward. Statement #1 is the broad category, and statement #2 is the narrow category.
You don’t understand what having broad and narrow categories nested within each other means, do you? Taking everyone that fits within a broad category and trying to force them into the narrower nested category is one of the most dishonest things you can possibly do, when addressing a group of people.
I’m going to be extremely charitable and assume that English isn’t your first language. If it is your first language, then … well, that’s just sad.
You can be as religious about the nonexistence of gods as you can be religious about it’s/their existence, preaching it like a priest.
Oh, and no, skeptical atheists can’t preach like a priest. Priests are pushing something that relies upon emotional appeals and childhood indoctrination, which is unfalsifiable and relies upon unjustified claims of authority and divine revelation … most of that divinely revealed truth being directly contradicted by at least half of the other divinely revealed truth. Skeptics are pushing a method of evaluating claims that is more rational and is evidence-based, which rejects dogma and is more likely to lead to accurate beliefs about the nature of reality.
One of those things is religious. One is not. Which do you think is which?
Claims of Authority, etc, pp., switch the hat and the other guy is the one doing that. Omit digging deep, close your eyes if you spot the surface, so you can keep believing that he’s completely without reason and inteligence.
Everyone who start starts from believing is doing the same. Only if you stop believing, you can start to learn. That’s where science starts.
Truth? You’ll only find one: “Je pense, donc je suis”
You’re going to have to try that post again. That was completely incoherent.
It looks like you’re throwing out half a dozen catch-phrases without references. Your first paragraph is disjointed the the point of imparsibility, and the second paragraph doesn’t help.
“Everyone who start starts from believing is doing the same?” That sentence means nothing.
Then you should try to be the best cultist that you can be. You always want to live a life that will make you a tastier appetizer. Try to bathe in a good marinade.
Vote Cthulhu! Why settle for the lesser of two evils?
Atheism is not a belief system. It’s the rejection of a single claim: that a god exists. You can’t get a system of any sort, from that one position. You can’t even necessarily get a belief from that, since it’s just the rejection of a claim, in it’s most basic, default form.
Skepticism includes a good deal more, but skepticism isn’t a belief system, either. It’s a method of evaluating claims. That’s a very important distinction.
AKA, something pulled out of one’s ass. Source, please.
Considering that early Christians called pagans atheists for not believing in the Christian deity, and other religious groups called Christians atheists for not believing in their gods; you’re on pretty shaky ground here. The fact that the word (of Greek Origin) predates Christianity, used by the ancient Greeks in reference to disbelief in their gods, I suspect that your etymology is a little off.
Which is generally a flavor of atheist, yeah. There are explicit atheists and default atheists at different ends of a spectrum, in terms of the degree of the strength of their expressed position. Apatheists are through default atheism and off the end of the scale.
I’m fine with that stance on the issue, though. If you don’t care enough about the issue to even bother giving it serious consideration … well, a society of those people, who just get on with their lives, would be a much better society than the one we have.
Have to spread it out a bit, huh? Is it sort of like divorced parents, only in reverse? Each parent gets the kid for different weekends, and the Abrahamic religions each get Yahweh for one day of the week?
Although, the Seventh-day Adventists are not abiding by the god-custody agreement.
Massed Sunday prayer: actually a satanic plot to DDOS god with requests so that nothing good ever gets done.
The only defense is for religion to be entirely decentralized and socially distanced.
I’d be more worried about the Christians in the US actually getting what they want. So many crazy fundies here.
I’d be fine with the mega-church-going, gay-hating, racist Christians killing themselves off by refusing to socially-distance and wear masks, while they congregate in masses of thousands. The problem is that the COVID-19 wouldn’t stay with them. They’d spread it to other people in the community who aren’t as evil as them.
She has a cold, doesn’t she? Super powers and colds always lead to wacky side effects! Like transformations getting sick, or sneezing laser blasts, or creating tiny adorable snow gremlins!…If you don’t get the last one, I pity you.
Yes, I got the snow gremlins reference :-) My concern is that all these decorations might be coated in mucus!
No, not coated in mucus. Made Of Mucus.
They’re Biodegradable!
Plastic is biodegradable, too. You’re just impatient.
The sentence about being environmentally friendly didn’t post? Damn.
Oh well.
At least mucus doesn’t have toxic by-products. Depending on the health of the sneezer, obviously.
Bio-hazardous, yeah. Probably not actually toxic in most cases, though.
Funny, I thought that Gremlins were made of Kaka…
Depends on species.
I want to see what happens when Bad Good Girl sneezes.
Hopefully during a bar fight.
She summons Krampus and he starts swatting and kidnapping people.
Fun Facts the Christmas holiday is more of a Pagan holiday than christian know as Yule
Plenty of traditional pagan festivals got Christian makeovers. People were a lot more willing to try a new god than they were to give up a good party.
And Jesus was most likely born in Spring in a cave, not in Bethlehem. We are aware…
Fun fact: Atheist is originally term to describe someone who is excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the Pope. So if you call yourself one you are not only wrong, but using a religious term. ;)
Also there are many atheists who practice atheism as a religion.
For the birth of Jesus, there are many convincing and perfectly reasonable dates.
Such as? Atheism is only a single position in regards to a single claim. How do you turn that into a religion?
Religions have unsupported faith-claims; ritual; an appeal to unverifiable, revealed knowledge …
Unless you’re speaking about atheistic Buddhists, this doesn’t make any sense. In the case of those people, Buddhism is the religion, not atheism.
I’d love to know where you’re going with this one. You’re aware that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is parody, right? Likewise, the Satanic Temple is a political tool used to fight First-Amendment violations.
Considering the absolute lack of evidence for his existence, I’d say that any date you would like to throw out there is just as reasonable as any other. Stories told by devotees of a religion, decades after the supposed fact, are not sources of reliable information.
You can be as religious about the nonexistence of gods as you can be religious about it’s/their existence, preaching it like a priest. Obviously you have to ignore the “needs a god” part of “religion”, just like you do it for the Buddhists.
Others claim to be atheists (or Christs or …), but they are disciples of Mammon.
I can’t disprove the existence of gods, so I try to live life that a good god should approve, which incidentally does not differ from a life you should live for moral and practical reasons.
What is your definition of “religious”? Because I don’t think it’s a very good one. Any strongly held belief ≠ religion.
Here’s a pretty good summation of religious characteristics, from http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/p/WhatReligion.htm. It’s worth going to the site for an elaboration of each point, if you have any interest in clarifying your thoughts on the subject.
1. Belief in Supernatural Beings
2. Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times
3. Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times
4. Moral Code With Supernatural Origins
5. Characteristically Religious Feelings
6. Prayer and Other Forms of Communication
7. A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View
8. A Social Group Bound Together by the Above
I excluded Buddhists because … news flash, Buddhism is a religion, and it fits most of the characteristics above, in most forms practiced … probably even #1, even if those beings aren’t considered gods.
Disciple of Mammon? Seriously? You’re now saying that the pursuit of money and the establishment of a better, more-secure lifestyle is a religion?
Please tell me you’re trolling.
Yet it sounds like you don’t hold a positive belief in a deity. That makes you an atheist, whether or not you embrace the label.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. Full stop. That is distinct from a positive belief that there are no gods.
The first is the rejection of claim A, as insufficiently supported by logic and evidence. The second is the embrace of the negative claim, that A is false, which requires logic and evidence, since it’s its own positive claim.
Why do you feel the need to appeal to the approval of a good god? It’s sufficient to appeal to our evolved sense of empathy and fairness as a social species, then use reason and evidence to establish a society and a mode of behavior that is true to those instincts, for ourselves and those around us.
There, I triggered it.
You have to double-think if you say that a deity is required to be religious while also allowing Buddhism to be a religion. If you worship the nonexistence of a god, if you worship money like it’s your god, if you get triggered by questioning your believes, you are religious for all practical purposes. (Also you defend the moral system you assign with your religion).
Being agnostic differs from being an atheist as I understand it. I don’t claim that there must be no god.
I don’t need the approval of a god, because if my life hasn’t, I’d need to change my life … or my god.
As to which god I (don’t) believe in, read Stranger In a Strange Land. Grok it. Then grok it again. Then think: Who makes the world you live in?
Dude, you haven’t triggered a freaking thing.
Please, point out one … just one time that I said that a deity is required for something to be a religion. Throw me a quote of something I said, because I just re-scanned my posts, and I’m not seeing it.
It isn’t in that list of 8 characteristics, either, for good reason.
Worship … the nonexistence of a god? What the hell are you talking about?
And you didn’t trigger me at all. You think far too highly of yourself. I’m not even addressing your questioning of my beliefs, as much as I’m correcting your incorrect understanding of what atheism is. Religious apologists do this sort of shit all the time, lying about what atheism is and what atheists believe, in an attempt to prop up their own untenable positions.
When you say things that demonstrate that you don’t even understand the core concepts under discussion, then yes, I’m going to say something.
Atheism is not a religion, and what I described is not the moral system of atheism. There is no moral system for atheism, and you don’t have to subscribe to any particular moral system, in order to be an atheist. All you have to do is not believe in a god.
What I described is a way that you can construct a moral system that isn’t handed down from on high, within a religious context … a non-divinely-commanded moral system, if you will. You have to look to some other source for a system of morality, though, since … as I said, atheism contains nothing of the sort, within itself.
Then you understand the terms incorrectly. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. The vast majority of agnostics are atheistic.
Atheism and agnosticism are two completely different concepts, addressing two different questions. Theism/atheism involves the question of whether or not you believe in a god. It’s a true dichotomy, and there is no middle ground. You have to be either a theist or an atheist. If you actively hold a belief in a god, then you’re a theist. If you don’t actively hold a belief in a god, then you’re an atheist.
Agnosticism is a philosophical position that stresses the unknow-ability of theological questions, specifically those that are intentionally made to be unfalsifiable. Many atheists also adopt that position. An atheist absolutely does not have to claim that there must be no god.
If you want to talk about the Christian god specifically, then yes, I actively believe that that god does not exist. Do I know whether or not a deistic god exists, though? I have no idea, but I have no reason to think that any such thing exists. Do I know whether or not a trickster-god exists and is just fucking with humanity for his own amusement and is deliberately preventing us from detecting him? I have no idea, but I have no reason to think any such thing exists.
There’s a basic difference in philosophical statements here, which I don’t think you’re understanding. Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
1. I do not believe that any gods exist.
2. I believe that no gods exist.
There’s a very, very important difference between those two statements. One is the rejection of a positive claim, and the other is the assertion of a negative claim. Let me know if you don’t get this part, and we can go over it in more detail.
Is there a god that you believe in, though? If you do, then you’re a theist. If you don’t, then you’re an atheist.
Okay, so you’re a stoner.
I’ve read Stranger in a Strange Land, thank you. There are some vaguely interesting concepts in it, but there’s nothing in it to take at all seriously. It was just a thought experiment done by Robert A. Heinlein, and I don’t think he took it particularly seriously, either.
It was fiction. Interesting, trippy fiction, but still just fiction. Do you think that Job: A Comedy of Justice is real in some way, too?
Your closing question is a bad question that makes unnecessary, unsupported assertions. You ask who makes the world I live in. Why does it have to be a who? Why should I think that there is a who? What reason do you have to think that there’s a who?
A better question would be, “What process created the world that I live in?” Or “How did the world that I live in form?”
You have to demonstrate that there is a who, before you start asking questions about him/her/it.
(I hope I didn’t mess up the quoting)
You are preaching atheism.
Here:
(also everything around that statement.)
Except at position 1.
Look at wor religious freaks get agitated when their believes are
questioned. If you are agitated in the same way when anybody suggests the
existence of a god, you are an atheist freak non-god-worshiper.
You should correct the Wiktionary and Wikipedia, too.
You can include the slight lack of full believe in somebody’s god to count
as atheism, too, but when I say you can (not must) “practice atheism as a
religion”, I’m _obviously_ not talkin about that end of the definition.
There are a lot of non-practicing Christs, too.
Since the dictionaries say I’m right, you’re doing exactly the thing you
claim Religious apologists do.
Various sects do have different moral codes, so why shouldn’t atheists do the same?
You told me to arrive at my moral code by empathy, fairness, reason and
evidence. That’s just the same things Jesus asks for in the bible, but you
don’t seem to like that way to arrive at (I presume) the same conclusions.
That’s your preaching.
I believe in science, and while it can prove that there is no Nessie in Loch
Ness, it can’t prove the existence of Loch Ness.
The first is the narrow definition of atheism, the second os the broad one.
The existence of a broader definition doesn’t prevent “atheism” from
including the narrow definition.
There is the mantra “Thou art God”, derived from trying to believe that all
the religions are true. Obviously you can’t just gain divine powers by
groking, but you’re the one _who_ is responsible to do the things you expect
your god to do, to yourself and to others.
Believe that the mountain god will punish you when he’s angry, believe that
there is a thunderstorm, both ways you get a flood endangering your tribe. Believe that God or Father Christmas tells you to be nice, believe what Immanuel Kant tells you, same difference.
Understanding which meteoroid did exactly what doesn’t help you to act morally nor does it help you to understand your role in this world.
You have a serious problem understanding what words mean. Correcting someone’s grossly inaccurate, slanderous statements … is … not … preaching.
*sigh* You moron. I said to quote something I had said that implies that something needs to have a god-belief to count as a religion. You just pointed out the exact opposite. What’s wrong with you?
I caught this bit at the end, before reading through your entire post. I don’t think I have to read anything in between, because it’s unlikely to be any more rational:
Okay, you just admitted that you think false beliefs are just as good as true beliefs. So, when the tribe starts sacrificing people to appease their mountain god, you think that’s just as good as taking constructive steps towards mitigating the damage of the flood.
You are an utterly irrational human-being. I’m done talking to you.
Heh heh heh heh heh. Okay, I just scanned the rest of your post, very briefly. I just can’t let this one go:
First off, you flat-out have that backward. Statement #1 is the broad category, and statement #2 is the narrow category.
You don’t understand what having broad and narrow categories nested within each other means, do you? Taking everyone that fits within a broad category and trying to force them into the narrower nested category is one of the most dishonest things you can possibly do, when addressing a group of people.
I’m going to be extremely charitable and assume that English isn’t your first language. If it is your first language, then … well, that’s just sad.
Is anyone else getting anything out of this, by the way? I’m not sure that 7eggert is getting even the basics.
Meh, the format of the blog chewed up that link a bit. Here it is clean:
http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/p/WhatReligion.htm
Oh, and no, skeptical atheists can’t preach like a priest. Priests are pushing something that relies upon emotional appeals and childhood indoctrination, which is unfalsifiable and relies upon unjustified claims of authority and divine revelation … most of that divinely revealed truth being directly contradicted by at least half of the other divinely revealed truth. Skeptics are pushing a method of evaluating claims that is more rational and is evidence-based, which rejects dogma and is more likely to lead to accurate beliefs about the nature of reality.
One of those things is religious. One is not. Which do you think is which?
Claims of Authority, etc, pp., switch the hat and the other guy is the one doing that. Omit digging deep, close your eyes if you spot the surface, so you can keep believing that he’s completely without reason and inteligence.
Everyone who start starts from believing is doing the same. Only if you stop believing, you can start to learn. That’s where science starts.
Truth? You’ll only find one: “Je pense, donc je suis”
You’re going to have to try that post again. That was completely incoherent.
It looks like you’re throwing out half a dozen catch-phrases without references. Your first paragraph is disjointed the the point of imparsibility, and the second paragraph doesn’t help.
“Everyone who start starts from believing is doing the same?” That sentence means nothing.
What if that god is Chtulhu?
Then you tangle with the FBI Serial Killer task force, rival cultists, and adventurers.
Then you should try to be the best cultist that you can be. You always want to live a life that will make you a tastier appetizer. Try to bathe in a good marinade.
Vote Cthulhu! Why settle for the lesser of two evils?
While you all live in darkness, I cast a spell of mustard for the grue.-)
I use the ketchup counterspell! Bwahaha!
I think you might be confusing ‘being religious’ with ‘being fanatical’.
Religion is a belief system. Atheism is a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. Any belief system can have its fanatics.
And I explained it without being a dick or calling anyone else a dick. Go me.
Atheism is not a belief system. It’s the rejection of a single claim: that a god exists. You can’t get a system of any sort, from that one position. You can’t even necessarily get a belief from that, since it’s just the rejection of a claim, in it’s most basic, default form.
Skepticism includes a good deal more, but skepticism isn’t a belief system, either. It’s a method of evaluating claims. That’s a very important distinction.
AKA, something pulled out of one’s ass. Source, please.
Considering that early Christians called pagans atheists for not believing in the Christian deity, and other religious groups called Christians atheists for not believing in their gods; you’re on pretty shaky ground here. The fact that the word (of Greek Origin) predates Christianity, used by the ancient Greeks in reference to disbelief in their gods, I suspect that your etymology is a little off.
Apathist: I don’t give a F#$%!
Which is generally a flavor of atheist, yeah. There are explicit atheists and default atheists at different ends of a spectrum, in terms of the degree of the strength of their expressed position. Apatheists are through default atheism and off the end of the scale.
I’m fine with that stance on the issue, though. If you don’t care enough about the issue to even bother giving it serious consideration … well, a society of those people, who just get on with their lives, would be a much better society than the one we have.
god loves Atheist’s. they don’t bother him with prayers
And it’s most heavy on Sunday … his day off. Why would a god want a personal relationship with someone who never lets him relax on the weekends?
That’s why the Jews use the Saturday and the Muslim honor HIM on Friday. :-)
Have to spread it out a bit, huh? Is it sort of like divorced parents, only in reverse? Each parent gets the kid for different weekends, and the Abrahamic religions each get Yahweh for one day of the week?
Although, the Seventh-day Adventists are not abiding by the god-custody agreement.
Massed Sunday prayer: actually a satanic plot to DDOS god with requests so that nothing good ever gets done.
The only defense is for religion to be entirely decentralized and socially distanced.
I’d be more worried about the Christians in the US actually getting what they want. So many crazy fundies here.
I’d be fine with the mega-church-going, gay-hating, racist Christians killing themselves off by refusing to socially-distance and wear masks, while they congregate in masses of thousands. The problem is that the COVID-19 wouldn’t stay with them. They’d spread it to other people in the community who aren’t as evil as them.
Oh, it’s an evil disease trying to keep the goodness inside.
I’m surprised that LP and Eva didn’t get covered in tinsel. That stuff sprays everywhere.
Not to mention that it gets stuck in the most uncomfortable and improbable places…
When illness gives you tinsel, you go manufacture thermite.
just like straw, just ask anyone who’s made love in a haystack
Uhhhhhh, don’t ask, don’t tell?
Don’t ask don’t jingle.
*don’t Google.
Also: Colt Seavers
GG is so sweet that those without strong immune systems risk diabetes by being near her.
Or gnome disease, which suppresses goodness.
With a big sneeze, 2016 is declared to be gone. Happy New Year, let’s start early.
GG sneezes, and the Christmas spirit is free!
But if BG sneezes, we have a halloween spirit? o.O
I don’t want to wait a whole year to get the anwser!!
why wait for Christmas or Halloween for spirits, just go to the pub/bar, they have lots of spirits there
Merry Christmas to all you guys, gals and possibly ant alternative dimensional doppledangers reading this comic.
In all seriousness have a good break!
Did she just cause it to snow? They may have more problems than that if she can control weather….
It might be a counter to Eva’s one superpower.
All non food powers?
No, just the snow. It might help with the fires, if GG can produce it in sufficient quantities.
But what if BGG can cause it to acid rain?
No problem, as long as no one projects any kind of powerful-base, caustic attack.
I’m curious: what did the BLIND MAN observe that he now claims to be worried about? That she sneezed?
Sneeze yourself a Merry little Christmas….