FREE BBS!!!

[Phatscotty]

Last I checked the most popular religions were very much anti-pride. So wouldn't a religious person(someone who follows a religion) strive to stray away from this tendency? A non-religious person doesn't have that added influence.

Supposing your original premise to be true,which is debatable,how many adherents of religion seriously try to follow the tenets of their religion?I see no evidence of the irreligious being more hubristic,mostly we don't think our species is a central part of a divine plan.Takes a lot of hubris,pride,fatuousness and self-importance to think that.

I would say that anyone who does not try to follow the tenets of their religion probably does not qualify as a religious person.

One thing I do notice is that Atheists have a tendency to be more fundamentalist about their beliefs than the most hardcore Bible thumpers, at least in my experience. I have been able to tell people I knew in the past to stfu about their religion, and most of the time they respected my request. Atheists on the other hand, seem unable to stop, especially when it comes to mocking religion.

So we are in agreement that a lot of people who call themselves religious are not really in any meaningfrul sense?Not sure how it is possible to be a fundamentalist atheist,to qualify you simply don't believe in the existence of god(s),there is no halfway stance possible and the label implies nothing else.It makes no sense to talk about an atheist position on any other topic than this one.Perhaps we can be bit strident in expressing this,fair enough,but you're not exactly a shrinking violet on many topics yourself..

Well, I assume there are some who do say that and don't practice it, and I would bet everything I have there is at least one person who does that, but there is really no way to know that for a fact...

I agree it makes little sense, but that doesn't really matter to everybody either. Especially in a discussion like this, there can be a lot of justification and rationalization, since the belief can be so strong that the other person makes no sense whatsoever, it becomes very easy to make no sense as well.

If someone doesn't want to talk to me or about what I want to talk about, that is totally fine and I think since participation is voluntary everyone can handle that, except for maybe a lunatic or two...

[Phatscotty]

So let me get this straight...
You are accusing me of not holding a concrete opinion but you haven't read the thread to find out if I have one? Laziness and ignorance as its utmost. Well done!

5 posts further down

Who says I have to hold a "concrete opinion" anyway?

The point is that you wouldn't know either way without reading the thread. The first quote doesn't show me claiming a concrete opinion. Therefore, you are erroneously trying to point out a contradiction that doesn't exist. Big Boo-Boo, Raul. Psychosis can stay since he at least knows the rules of the game but you're out of your league, Haggis. Adios.

Aww, he's trying to troll me. So cute.

My whole point was that there was no need for me to read anything further since you indicated you had no point in your reply to me.
Now you admit that I was correct, despite at first calling me names for asserting what ended up to be the truth.

But you keep trying to wiggle out of this. It is quite entertaining.

One thing I do notice is that Atheists have a tendency to be more fundamentalist about their beliefs than the most hardcore Bible thumpers, at least in my experience.

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Sounds interesting, but that statement about fundamentalism was for how some people cannot stfu, as opposed to murder and mayhem....

If you want to start a thread, I can think of a few Godless mass murderers, but it still won't be related to the point you responded to. Just trying to be clear

[Woodruff]

One thing I do notice is that Atheists have a tendency to be more fundamentalist about their beliefs than the most hardcore Bible thumpers, at least in my experience.

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Sounds interesting, but that statement about fundamentalism was for how some people cannot stfu, as opposed to murder and mayhem....

Do you even understand what the term "fundamentalism" means?

[Funkyterrance]

The point is that you wouldn't know either way without reading the thread. The first quote doesn't show me claiming a concrete opinion. Therefore, you are erroneously trying to point out a contradiction that doesn't exist. Big Boo-Boo, Raul. Psychosis can stay since he at least knows the rules of the game but you're out of your league, Haggis. Adios.

Aww, he's trying to troll me. So cute.

I'm not trying to troll you, I'm calling you out on an obvious error in your thought process and dismissing you as a contender. I used also used your avatar for color, was that wrong of me?
As far as wriggling, you're the one resorting to bad logic and false accusations.

[nietzsche]

[thegreekdog]

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Zero and zero.

[chang50]

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Zero and zero.

I agree,these are just superficial reasons,I think these crimes would happen regardless of our belief or not in the existence of god(s).So a reasonable theist can agree with a reasonable atheist.How would you answer the question of who has more hubris or pride,as has been posed earlier in this thread.I just cannot see how an atheist who admits to not knowing the answers to the ultimate questions can be accused of being more hubristic than someone who believes they do.

[rdsrds2120]

I was promised Free BBS in the topic title. Where is it? I want my free BBS, NOW!

BMO

[nietzsche]

What would you do with your own BBS rds??



??

[rdsrds2120]

What would you do with your own BBS rds??



??

Clearly a hoax. BBS has curly hair.

BMO

[Woodruff]

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Zero and zero.

I agree,these are just superficial reasons,I think these crimes would happen regardless of our belief or not in the existence of god(s).So a reasonable theist can agree with a reasonable atheist.How would you answer the question of who has more hubris or pride,as has been posed earlier in this thread.I just cannot see how an atheist who admits to not knowing the answers to the ultimate questions can be accused of being more hubristic than someone who believes they do.

I posit that an atheist and a theist are similarly hubristic, simply in a different manner. Now, an agnostic of either variety would not be.

[fadedpsychosis]

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Zero and zero.

I agree,these are just superficial reasons,I think these crimes would happen regardless of our belief or not in the existence of god(s).So a reasonable theist can agree with a reasonable atheist.How would you answer the question of who has more hubris or pride,as has been posed earlier in this thread.I just cannot see how an atheist who admits to not knowing the answers to the ultimate questions can be accused of being more hubristic than someone who believes they do.

I posit that an atheist and a theist are similarly hubristic, simply in a different manner. Now, an agnostic of either variety would not be.

agnostic of either variety? agnostic is neither.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic see definition 3... the latin root means 'without knowledge': basically they can't, won't, or decide not to decide between the two for whatever their personal reason

[BigBallinStalin]

Last I checked the most popular religions were very much anti-pride. So wouldn't a religious person(someone who follows a religion) strive to stray away from this tendency? A non-religious person doesn't have that added influence.

That's pretty funny. Someone who claims to know what God thinks on a particular subject isn't prideful.

Why is it impossible to get a theist to repond to this obvious point?Atheists may or may not be prideful,but nothing is more stupidly vain than imagining you could possibly know anything at all about the mind of a divine creator..

Seriously.

Not only do they know what god thinks, they know the whole universe was made for us.

Hundreds of millions of galaxies with hundreds of millions of stars. Mind boggling complexities, incredible expanses of space and time. Millions of years of evolution, the birth and death of >99% of all the species that ever existed. Death, struggle, and rebirth on an unimaginable scale.

ALL. FOR. US.

And atheists are called the arrogant ones ... yeah ...

What's the problem? You couldn't get a refund or something?

[BigBallinStalin]

I was promised Free BBS in the topic title. Where is it? I want my free BBS, NOW!

BMO

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

...

or can you?

[chang50]

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Zero and zero.

I agree,these are just superficial reasons,I think these crimes would happen regardless of our belief or not in the existence of god(s).So a reasonable theist can agree with a reasonable atheist.How would you answer the question of who has more hubris or pride,as has been posed earlier in this thread.I just cannot see how an atheist who admits to not knowing the answers to the ultimate questions can be accused of being more hubristic than someone who believes they do.

I posit that an atheist and a theist are similarly hubristic, simply in a different manner. Now, an agnostic of either variety would not be.

agnostic of either variety? agnostic is neither.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic see definition 3... the latin root means 'without knowledge': basically they can't, won't, or decide not to decide between the two for whatever their personal reason

Not so,unless you think knowledge and belief are the same,an agnostic atheist as I am,can claim not to know if gods exist, yet not believe they do.

[fadedpsychosis]

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Zero and zero.

I agree,these are just superficial reasons,I think these crimes would happen regardless of our belief or not in the existence of god(s).So a reasonable theist can agree with a reasonable atheist.How would you answer the question of who has more hubris or pride,as has been posed earlier in this thread.I just cannot see how an atheist who admits to not knowing the answers to the ultimate questions can be accused of being more hubristic than someone who believes they do.

I posit that an atheist and a theist are similarly hubristic, simply in a different manner. Now, an agnostic of either variety would not be.

agnostic of either variety? agnostic is neither.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic see definition 3... the latin root means 'without knowledge': basically they can't, won't, or decide not to decide between the two for whatever their personal reason

Not so,unless you think knowledge and belief are the same,an agnostic atheist as I am,can claim not to know if gods exist, yet not believe they do.

for some belief stems from knowledge, (ie. I know of gravity, therefore I believe I won't fly off the earth by jumping) but your point is taken

[john9blue]

knowledge is just belief with more evidence. "agnostic" vs. "gnostic" is a spectrum.

agnostic atheists are only agnostic because they have weak evidence for their belief that there is no god.

[fadedpsychosis]

knowledge is just belief with more evidence. "agnostic" vs. "gnostic" is a spectrum.

agnostic atheists are only agnostic because they have weak evidence for their belief that there is no god.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there... it is very possible to have knowledge without belief and vice versa, but it's not a sliding scale... you can have both or neither as well

[Woodruff]

I propose a game.
I post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their belief in God.
You post people who have killed/maimed/etc because of their lack of belief in God.

Wanna play?

Zero and zero.

I agree,these are just superficial reasons,I think these crimes would happen regardless of our belief or not in the existence of god(s).So a reasonable theist can agree with a reasonable atheist.How would you answer the question of who has more hubris or pride,as has been posed earlier in this thread.I just cannot see how an atheist who admits to not knowing the answers to the ultimate questions can be accused of being more hubristic than someone who believes they do.

I posit that an atheist and a theist are similarly hubristic, simply in a different manner. Now, an agnostic of either variety would not be.

agnostic of either variety? agnostic is neither.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic see definition 3... the latin root means 'without knowledge': basically they can't, won't, or decide not to decide between the two for whatever their personal reason

An agnostic theist is one who believes God exists but is aware that they can't KNOW that God exists. An agnostic atheist is one who, like me, believes there is no God but is aware there's no way for them to KNOW that God doesn't exist.

[Woodruff]

knowledge is just belief with more evidence. "agnostic" vs. "gnostic" is a spectrum.

agnostic atheists are only agnostic because they have weak evidence for their belief that there is no god.

I would alter that slightly to say that they RECOGNIZE there is weak evidence for their belief, in both cases. Because there is weak evidence regardless of whether they're willing to recognize it or not.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm not trying to troll you, I'm calling you out on an obvious error in your thought process and dismissing you as a contender. I used also used your avatar for color, was that wrong of me?
As far as wriggling, you're the one resorting to bad logic and false accusations.

Was my assertion about you correct? Yes/no?

[john9blue]

knowledge is just belief with more evidence. "agnostic" vs. "gnostic" is a spectrum.

agnostic atheists are only agnostic because they have weak evidence for their belief that there is no god.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there... it is very possible to have knowledge without belief and vice versa, but it's not a sliding scale... you can have both or neither as well

you cannot "know" anything. the whole world could be an illusion and we could be brains in jars.

when people say they "know" something it just means that they believe it very strongly, usually because they have a lot of evidence in favor of that belief.

that's why i keep asking atheists for evidence and they never give any

[Symmetry]

you cannot "know" anything. the whole world could be an illusion and we could be brains in jars.

when people say they "know" something it just means that they believe it very strongly, usually because they have a lot of evidence in favor of that belief.

that's why i keep asking atheists for evidence and they never give any

Isn't that simply an argument that you don't think evidence exists for anything? Asking atheists for it seems redundant if you don't think there's such a thing as evidence for anything.

Why ask?

wut?

i never said that empirical evidence doesn't exist, i just said that evidence doesn't conclusively 100% prove anything.

So, you're now rejecting the "brains in jars", and "the whole world could be an illusion" part that I was responding to?

If you're asking for 100% proof, then you're not asking for evidence. You're asking for the impossible.

[john9blue]

Isn't that simply an argument that you don't think evidence exists for anything? Asking atheists for it seems redundant if you don't think there's such a thing as evidence for anything.

Why ask?

wut?

i never said that empirical evidence doesn't exist, i just said that evidence doesn't conclusively 100% prove anything.

[Funkyterrance]

I think the fact that you can't prove a negative is pretty relevant from either side.