[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null CC Atheists - what do you think of them? - Conquer Club
I'll just leave it in the hands of the people who come in here and read the Chatter Box Forum. Do the atheists here on conquer club make really good rationale arguments or are they just roaming around seeking childish arguments. My opinion is that they act like raving madmen and just ridicule anyone who believes in God. Maybe it makes them feel good about themselves. Maybe I'm wrong and there's no place for people to be talking about religion - Christian or otherwise. What do you think?
I'll run the poll for 90 days.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
Probably no better or worse than most "groups" on CC. Though i dont think we technically constitute one, as for most of us i dont think we view atheism as one of the most defining qualities. Having said all that...im pretty awesome, some of them are less so awesome.
I talked with a buddy of mine the other day and he was telling me that in order for someone to truly be an atheist they would have to have unlimited knowledge so they could absolutely rule out the possibility of God's existence. The best we can do is obtain the status of agnostic. So I wonder if atheists even exist! It's funny when you think about it. I've never run across a rude person who claims to be an atheist but that's probably because I usually hang out in General Discussion.
protectedbygold wrote:I talked with a buddy of mine the other day and he was telling me that in order for someone to truly be an atheist they would have to have unlimited knowledge so they could absolutely rule out the possibility of God's existence. The best we can do is obtain the status of agnostic. So I wonder if atheists even exist! It's funny when you think about it. I've never run across a rude person who claims to be an atheist but that's probably because I usually hang out in General Discussion.
I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
got tonkaed wrote:I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
protectedbygold wrote:I talked with a buddy of mine the other day and he was telling me that in order for someone to truly be an atheist they would have to have unlimited knowledge so they could absolutely rule out the possibility of God's existence. The best we can do is obtain the status of agnostic. So I wonder if atheists even exist! It's funny when you think about it. I've never run across a rude person who claims to be an atheist but that's probably because I usually hang out in General Discussion.
I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
Logic doesn't matter -- Douglas Adams is instant win.
So, that's a yes to your question, protected -- yes, he does.
got tonkaed wrote:I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
Does Douglas Adams have unlimited knowledge?
I guess i just reject the assertion that you need to have unlimited knowledge to believe in anything in particular.
InkL0sed wrote:Logic doesn't matter -- Douglas Adams is instant win.
So, that's a yes to your question, protected -- yes, he does.
Haha, ok then
Guess I'll go with the arrogance option
I went with the first four options -- because most people are some combination of all of them.
I guess I mostly see the best in people...
Most people are leaps and bounds away from brilliant. This naturally doesn't apply to me, and as I'm an athiest I figure brilliant is one of many terms you could apply.
Frigidus wrote:
Most people are leaps and bounds away from brilliant. This naturally doesn't apply to me, and as I'm an athiest I figure brilliant is one of many terms you could apply.
But everybody has the occasional stroke of brilliance -- well, most people do.
got tonkaed wrote:I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
Does Douglas Adams have unlimited knowledge?
Does the guy who said you need unlimited knowledge to be an atheist?
BTW, Douglas Adams either knows he was wrong or knows nothing at all now - being dead.
Oh, and he went to school with my brother (irrelevant trivia department)
I've only met two in my wanderings outside of Cyberspace (at least two who spoke about it).
Hmmm. They were both arrogant, charming, witty, prone to depression, brilliant (in different ways), artistic (in different ways), prone to bumming money and not repaying, stubborn, comical, bellicose (okay not bellicose, but I like the word; so I threw it in there), unconventional (but oddly enough one liked conventions), slackers, cliquish (my your still reading have you nothing better to do?).............
In short they were basically like me. Where were we going?
CrazyAnglican wrote:I've only met two in my wanderings outside of Cyberspace (at least two who spoke about it).
Hmmm. They were both arrogant, charming, witty, prone to depression, brilliant (in different ways), artistic (in different ways), prone to bumming money and not repaying, stubborn, comical, bellicose (okay not bellicose, but I like the word; so I threw it in there), unconventional (but oddly enough one liked conventions), slackers, cliquish (my your still reading have you nothing better to do?).............
In short they were basically like me. Where were we going?
CrazyAnglican wrote:I've only met two in my wanderings outside of Cyberspace (at least two who spoke about it).
Hmmm. They were both arrogant, charming, witty, prone to depression, brilliant (in different ways), artistic (in different ways), prone to bumming money and not repaying, stubborn, comical, bellicose (okay not bellicose, but I like the word; so I threw it in there), unconventional (but oddly enough one liked conventions), slackers, cliquish (my your still reading have you nothing better to do?).............
In short they were basically like me. Where were we going?
to find your marbles?
i too enjoy the word bellicose.
Bellicose is fun because I know its etymology and it has a nice rolling sensation of the tongue... kinda like a nice juicy lollipop that's just the right hardness, or alternatively like a good old-fashioned toothpick, which is ironic because toothpicks are rather phallic objects and war has always been fought with phallic objects, from swords to guns to tongues to pens to run-on sentences to Internet fori to absurdly stickler use of words originating from Latin such as "forum" and "bellicose."
*takes a deep breath*
I can't remember if I took my pills this morning...
A really good friend of mine is an atheist, but that is about the only thing we (politely) disagree on. Other then that, we share a lot of the same interests (he even got me started in my karate class).
got tonkaed wrote:I guess i just reject the assertion that you need to have unlimited knowledge to believe in anything in particular.
Of course not, you misunderstood the point he was making. You can believe in anything you want. Nobody can stop you. What he was saying is you can't absolutely rule out the existence of anything unless you have unlimited knowledge of the universe, or some shit like that man - it was awhile ago when he was talking to me about it.
[but, really, they kick ass]
Uh, fast posted on that one.
