The Energon Pub

Autobot032 wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

General perceptions of Christanity; why of course there are. Most nonchristians know very little about the differing versions of christanity; Tammuz I assure you is not one such neither am I, and I assure you the thing that strikes me the most when I read post like Autobot's about how not all Christians whant to get out there and tell us how wrong we are for not being Christian is the thing that almost all Christians have in common even if they are unwilling to accept it.

*BUZZ* Incorrect.

You don't get it, I DON'T want to tell you you're wrong, and have no intentions of it. As I said, it's not between you and I, it's between you and your maker, therefore...it doesn't matter to me what you do or who/what you believe in. That's your right, that's your opinion, that's your whatever. There's no want to tell you you're wrong, right, whatever. I just want to live in peace and ask that I be treated fairly.

Which you have not done, you put words in my mouth, and said that I want to tell you that you're wrong. Guess what? No. I don't. It doesn't even enter my mind because it's none of my business. I don't know what your beliefs are and they're none of my business, therefore....I do not want to, don't care to, have no plans to, have no right to, and absolutely will not tell you you're wrong or whatever.

It's not my place to judge, and quite honestly, I don't care what your belief system is. Does it work for you? Good, fine. Excellent, I wish you well.

You owe me an apology.

I owe you nothing. You have just done the very thing you accused Tammuz, and now myself of doing. Do you want to know what I said? What I ment? Go read my post again and this time keep in mind that my only mention of you is in direct opposition to what you just accused me of doing.

Autobot032 wrote:You owe me an apology.

Dude, you're in the wrong place for that.

No apologies in the Philosopher's Forum. Just heavy, cut-throat, philosophical fighting.

Jar Axel wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

General perceptions of Christanity; why of course there are. Most nonchristians know very little about the differing versions of christanity; Tammuz I assure you is not one such neither am I, and I assure you the thing that strikes me the most when I read post like Autobot's about how not all Christians whant to get out there and tell us how wrong we are for not being Christian is the thing that almost all Christians have in common even if they are unwilling to accept it.

*BUZZ* Incorrect.

You don't get it, I DON'T want to tell you you're wrong, and have no intentions of it. As I said, it's not between you and I, it's between you and your maker, therefore...it doesn't matter to me what you do or who/what you believe in. That's your right, that's your opinion, that's your whatever. There's no want to tell you you're wrong, right, whatever. I just want to live in peace and ask that I be treated fairly.

Which you have not done, you put words in my mouth, and said that I want to tell you that you're wrong. Guess what? No. I don't. It doesn't even enter my mind because it's none of my business. I don't know what your beliefs are and they're none of my business, therefore....I do not want to, don't care to, have no plans to, have no right to, and absolutely will not tell you you're wrong or whatever.

It's not my place to judge, and quite honestly, I don't care what your belief system is. Does it work for you? Good, fine. Excellent, I wish you well.

You owe me an apology.

I owe you nothing. You have just done the very thing you accused Tammuz, and now myself of doing. Do you want to know what I said? What I ment? Go read my post again and this time keep in mind that my only mention of you is in direct opposition to what you just accused me of doing.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

You know what? This isn't worth it. I'm not going to say something I regret and get warned or banned or something, it's just not worth it.

*I* agree to disagree and I call it quits with you, on my end. Do what you want, I will have no part of it.

Operation Ravage wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

well it's not so much varying degrees, but totally different viewpoints

beleiving that their is no god, and not beleiving in god are very different, as different as beleiving in god and not beleiving in god. it's the difference between yes, no, and not sure. or male, female, aesexual.

hard atheism requires faith, weak atheism does not. which type of christianity does not require faith?

Edit:
hard atheism; negative beleif
weak atheism; no beleif
theism; positive belief

I'm arguing against theism in general.

And the same is true for Christianity. A Pentecostal will have drastically differing viewpoints than say, a Lutheran or a Catholic.

You have yet to prove that Atheism is a superior belief system. You have offered definitions, but no proof.

I'm not going to touch the "but it's a faith-based system, and you can't prove it!" cop-out.

Prove to me that atheism is superior using historical precedent and logic instead of general hand-waves and buzzwords.

I'm not trying to show Atheism is a superior beleif system, becuase hard atheism IS NOT a superior beielf system(both hard atheism and theism assert a conclusion without evidence), and weak atheism is not a belief system to start with.

why weak atheism (the position that there is no beleif in god, irrelevant of the status of gods actual existence) is superior becuase it makes no unfounded claims. being as a species we seem to not be able to accurately define god we cannot accurately measure his existence, thus we can not be sure of it's existence.

for example do any of you beleive in Helacyton gartleri? for most of you i assume the answer is no, becuase you do not what Helacyton gartleri is. your answer is probably not "no, because you've tested the entirity of existence for Helacyton gartleri and found it lacking.

in order to accurately answer the question we need to establish what Helacyton gartleri is, we need to define it.

once we have deifined the entity, we need to desighn a test for it.

once we have test we can use it to establish the status of it's existence, and thus have logical reason to beleive one state of it's existence.

however as we have no definition of god, we have no test, so we have no logical evidence of god existence or inexsitence which means we cannot assert a definite position regarding the existance of god. logically the only remaining position is one of not asserting.

I don't know what god is, thus i can't know whether it exists as i can't test for it.

Autobot032 wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

General perceptions of Christanity; why of course there are. Most nonchristians know very little about the differing versions of christanity; Tammuz I assure you is not one such neither am I, and I assure you the thing that strikes me the most when I read post like Autobot's about how not all Christians whant to get out there and tell us how wrong we are for not being Christian is the thing that almost all Christians have in common even if they are unwilling to accept it.

*BUZZ* Incorrect.

You don't get it, I DON'T want to tell you you're wrong, and have no intentions of it. As I said, it's not between you and I, it's between you and your maker, therefore...it doesn't matter to me what you do or who/what you believe in. That's your right, that's your opinion, that's your whatever. There's no want to tell you you're wrong, right, whatever. I just want to live in peace and ask that I be treated fairly.

Which you have not done, you put words in my mouth, and said that I want to tell you that you're wrong. Guess what? No. I don't. It doesn't even enter my mind because it's none of my business. I don't know what your beliefs are and they're none of my business, therefore....I do not want to, don't care to, have no plans to, have no right to, and absolutely will not tell you you're wrong or whatever.

It's not my place to judge, and quite honestly, I don't care what your belief system is. Does it work for you? Good, fine. Excellent, I wish you well.

You owe me an apology.

I owe you nothing. You have just done the very thing you accused Tammuz, and now myself of doing. Do you want to know what I said? What I ment? Go read my post again and this time keep in mind that my only mention of you is in direct opposition to what you just accused me of doing.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

You know what? This isn't worth it. I'm not going to say something I regret and get warned or banned or something, it's just not worth it.

*I* agree to disagree and I call it quits with you, on my end. Do what you want, I will have no part of it.

What have I accused you of saying? What words did I say you said that you did not say? Are your eyes closed so that you may not see? Are your ears covered so that you may not here?

You accuse me off putting words in your mouth and offer no proof. If you want to be taken seriously then you must show that you are worthy of being taken seriously. To constantly throuw out accusations without backing them up is a sin according to your own belifes are you sure you want to do that?

I'd hate to quote Douglas Adams at a time like this, but it's relevant.

(I can only remember the basics)

God appeared in front of a bunch of people. He said that without faith, He cannot exist. Someone pointed out that they KNOW He exists, and knowledge is the opposite of Faith. To which God then ceased to exist.

Saying you "Know" God is real is putting another nail in His coffin. If you know, then you don't believe. (belief, faith, same difference) If you don't believe, then God cannot exist.

Man, I think up some weird stuff when I need sleep.

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

well it's not so much varying degrees, but totally different viewpoints

beleiving that their is no god, and not beleiving in god are very different, as different as beleiving in god and not beleiving in god. it's the difference between yes, no, and not sure. or male, female, aesexual.

hard atheism requires faith, weak atheism does not. which type of christianity does not require faith?

Edit:
hard atheism; negative beleif
weak atheism; no beleif
theism; positive belief

I'm arguing against theism in general.

And the same is true for Christianity. A Pentecostal will have drastically differing viewpoints than say, a Lutheran or a Catholic.

You have yet to prove that Atheism is a superior belief system. You have offered definitions, but no proof.

I'm not going to touch the "but it's a faith-based system, and you can't prove it!" cop-out.

Prove to me that atheism is superior using historical precedent and logic instead of general hand-waves and buzzwords.

I'm not trying to show Atheism is a superior beleif system, becuase hard atheism IS NOT a superior beielf system(both hard atheism and theism assert a conclusion without evidence), and weak atheism is not a belief system to start with.

why weak atheism (the position that there is no beleif in god, irrelevant of the status of gods actual existence) is superior becuase it makes no unfounded claims. being as a species we seem to not be able to accurately define god we cannot accurately measure his existence, thus we can not be sure of it's existence.

for example do any of you beleive in Helacyton gartleri? for most of you i assume the answer is no, becuase you do not what Helacyton gartleri is. your answer is probably not "no, because you've tested the entirity of existence for Helacyton gartleri and found it lacking.

in order to accurately answer the question we need to establish what Helacyton gartleri is, we need to define it.

once we have deifined the entity, we need to desighn a test for it.

once we have test we can use it to establish the status of god existence, and thus have logical reason to beleive one state of gods existence.

however as we have no definition of god, we have no test sowe have no logical evidence of god existence or inexsitence which means beleif in either position is illogical and the only logical conclusion to draw is that we do no know.

asserting an unknowably position is illogical.

It is logical to assume that there might not be a god because we lack the definition; but it is also completely logical to assume that there is. Your litmus test does not determine godhood either way.

Try again.

OR are you suffering from the same "not listing" affliction that Autobot32 seems to be suffering from? Tammuz just said that that is not what he is trying to do.

Define "not listening." Because there's an awful lot of defining going around these parts.

And Tammuz wrote:I'm not trying to show Atheism is a superior beleif system, becuase hard atheism IS NOT a superior beielf system(both hard atheism and theism assert a conclusion without evidence), and weak atheism is not a belief system to start with.

Does it realy need further defining?

Operation Ravage wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

well it's not so much varying degrees, but totally different viewpoints

beleiving that their is no god, and not beleiving in god are very different, as different as beleiving in god and not beleiving in god. it's the difference between yes, no, and not sure. or male, female, aesexual.

hard atheism requires faith, weak atheism does not. which type of christianity does not require faith?

Edit:
hard atheism; negative beleif
weak atheism; no beleif
theism; positive belief

I'm arguing against theism in general.

And the same is true for Christianity. A Pentecostal will have drastically differing viewpoints than say, a Lutheran or a Catholic.

You have yet to prove that Atheism is a superior belief system. You have offered definitions, but no proof.

I'm not going to touch the "but it's a faith-based system, and you can't prove it!" cop-out.

Prove to me that atheism is superior using historical precedent and logic instead of general hand-waves and buzzwords.

I'm not trying to show Atheism is a superior beleif system, becuase hard atheism IS NOT a superior beielf system(both hard atheism and theism assert a conclusion without evidence), and weak atheism is not a belief system to start with.

why weak atheism (the position that there is no beleif in god, irrelevant of the status of gods actual existence) is superior becuase it makes no unfounded claims. being as a species we seem to not be able to accurately define god we cannot accurately measure his existence, thus we can not be sure of it's existence.

for example do any of you beleive in Helacyton gartleri? for most of you i assume the answer is no, becuase you do not what Helacyton gartleri is. your answer is probably not "no, because you've tested the entirity of existence for Helacyton gartleri and found it lacking.

in order to accurately answer the question we need to establish what Helacyton gartleri is, we need to define it.

once we have deifined the entity, we need to desighn a test for it.

once we have test we can use it to establish the status of god existence, and thus have logical reason to beleive one state of gods existence.

however as we have no definition of god, we have no test sowe have no logical evidence of god existence or inexsitence which means beleif in either position is illogical and the only logical conclusion to draw is that we do no know.

asserting an unknowably position is illogical.

It is logical to assume that there might not be a god because we lack the definition; but it is also completely logical to assume that there is. Your litmus test does not determine godhood either way.

exactly. it doesn't determine either way. that's the whole point. that's why beleif in god existance or in existance is illogical. the only logical position is to not beleive either position or beleive in both positions(which is self contradictory)

maybe i'm not getting this across, can you understand the difference between beleiving in god, not beleiving in god, and beleiving in no god?

Yeah. Tell me why any form of atheism is superior. You're giving me definitions. Now give me facts. Give me allegations. Give me scenarios. Give me something besides "OMG Christianity bad atheism logical, except not THAT kind of atheism."

so you can't see the difference between negative beleif and zero beleif?

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

well it's not so much varying degrees, but totally different viewpoints

beleiving that their is no god, and not beleiving in god are very different, as different as beleiving in god and not beleiving in god. it's the difference between yes, no, and not sure. or male, female, aesexual.

hard atheism requires faith, weak atheism does not. which type of christianity does not require faith?

Edit:
hard atheism; negative beleif
weak atheism; no beleif
theism; positive belief

I'm arguing against theism in general.

And the same is true for Christianity. A Pentecostal will have drastically differing viewpoints than say, a Lutheran or a Catholic.

You have yet to prove that Atheism is a superior belief system. You have offered definitions, but no proof.

I'm not going to touch the "but it's a faith-based system, and you can't prove it!" cop-out.

Prove to me that atheism is superior using historical precedent and logic instead of general hand-waves and buzzwords.

I'm not trying to show Atheism is a superior beleif system, becuase hard atheism IS NOT a superior beielf system(both hard atheism and theism assert a conclusion without evidence), and weak atheism is not a belief system to start with.

why weak atheism (the position that there is no beleif in god, irrelevant of the status of gods actual existence) is superior becuase it makes no unfounded claims. being as a species we seem to not be able to accurately define god we cannot accurately measure his existence, thus we can not be sure of it's existence.

for example do any of you beleive in Helacyton gartleri? for most of you i assume the answer is no, becuase you do not what Helacyton gartleri is. your answer is probably not "no, because you've tested the entirity of existence for Helacyton gartleri and found it lacking.

in order to accurately answer the question we need to establish what Helacyton gartleri is, we need to define it.

once we have deifined the entity, we need to desighn a test for it.

once we have test we can use it to establish the status of god existence, and thus have logical reason to beleive one state of gods existence.

however as we have no definition of god, we have no test sowe have no logical evidence of god existence or inexsitence which means beleif in either position is illogical and the only logical conclusion to draw is that we do no know.

asserting an unknowably position is illogical.

It is logical to assume that there might not be a god because we lack the definition; but it is also completely logical to assume that there is. Your litmus test does not determine godhood either way.

exactly. it doesn't determine either way. that's the whole point. that's why beleif in god existance or in existance is illogical. the only logical position is to not beleive either position or beleive in both positions(which is self contradictory)

maybe i'm not getting this across, can you understand the difference between beleiving in god, not beleiving in god, and beleiving in no god?

But if, by your own admission, a belief in a god is logical, then is it not logical to also believe in the existence of Hell? Keep in mind that all creatures, both human and animal, are instinctively drawn to self-preservation. Does not the threat of Hell, either real or imagined, necessitate belief, if not simply out of fear?

something being self contradictory is illogical, something cannot be two mutually exclusive states simeltaneously.


I do not admit beleif in god is logical at all, i admit it's AS logical as beleiveing god does not exist (ie both positions are totally illogical)

So you do believe in God or a godhead or not? It's all or nothing here, Tammuz. And given your numerous jokes about Christian belief systems throughout your motto and signature, I really have a hard time believing that that's truly what you believe. Your condemnation of the Christian belief system wouldn't be present if you believed if it was just as valid as atheism.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Quit giving me feel-good answers.

OR for use to say weather or not we belive in hell we must have a definition of what hell is, and understanding so to speak. You would also do well to note that just because someone belives in hell does not mean the belive in your hell

Define "hell." There's only three belief systems that subscribe to a belief in hell and it's pretty universal across all three.

Try again.

Operation Ravage wrote:Define "hell." There's only three belief systems that subscribe to a belief in hell

Wrong. Wiccans and Druidists belive in Hell just not as Christanity would describe it. One of the words for Hell is taken from the Grecko-roman form "Hades". Hindus and Buddists belive in "personal Hells". Asgardians also belive in a place that is a hell.

This is a list without end; for almost anyreligion you can name there is a concept of "Hell" even if it goes by a different name.

And those aren't main belief systems. I'm talking about the universal religions here, not offshoot or necromancer religions. I'm more concerned with the 1.3 billion Christians who believe in Hell instead the couple-thousand people who think Thor might smite them.

or where the word actually comes from Hel, the norse hell.

i have no beleifs concerning god what so ever except the beleif we don't know jack regarding it, at all, and that it's quite possibly beyond our comprehension.

I'll condemn hard atheism just as much as theism, except thair are no hard atheists to discuss it with here.

and my motto makes no reference what so ever to christianity.

and is pride a sin?

Operation Ravage wrote:And those aren't main belief systems. I'm talking about the universal religions here, not people who talk to rocks.

WTF? That has to be the most ignorent unsubstantiated post in this thread so far. The only religion that I can think of that might even begine to be descibed by "people who talk to rocks" are whats considered animists (those who belive that everything has a spirit) Also there is no such thing as a universal religion, if you ment mainstream well, all those I listed have at the least a significant following even in this day and age.

Edit: Your altered statement continues to make absolutely no scence what so ever. You want people to belive in "your" Hell yet refuse to accept that others belive in another form of hell just because they are not Christian? Or are you trying to say that what they belive in is not Hell because it is not what you define as hell? I have already stated that in order for someone to "belive" in "Hell" they must first have a definition/expanation for what "Hell" is.

Tammuz wrote:or where the word actually comes from Hel, the norse hell.

i have no beleifs concerning god what so ever except the beleif we don't know jack regarding it, at all, and that it's quite possibly beyond our comprehension.

I'll condemn hard atheism just as much as theism, except thair are no hard atheists to discuss it with here.

and my motto makes no reference what so ever to christianity.

and is pride a sin?

Except for the fact that you claim to be God in your motto. I would mark that down as a form of dangerous pride.

And if we don't know anything about God (which is true,) then why are you so concerned about it? If you're not going to subscribe to a belief set, at least let others practice theirs in peace. Why all the pomp and circumstance of you're fundamentally undecided, or a nihilist?

Operation Ravage wrote:

Tammuz wrote:or where the word actually comes from Hel, the norse hell.

i have no beleifs concerning god what so ever except the beleif we don't know jack regarding it, at all, and that it's quite possibly beyond our comprehension.

I'll condemn hard atheism just as much as theism, except thair are no hard atheists to discuss it with here.

and my motto makes no reference what so ever to christianity.

and is pride a sin?

Except for the fact that you claim to be God in your motto. I would mark that down as a form of dangerous pride.

And if we don't know anything about God (which is true,) then why are you so concerned about it? If you're not going to subscribe to a belief set, at least let others practice theirs in peace. Why all the pomp and circumstance of you're fundamentally undecided, or a nihilist?

Perhaps it is because we are not givin the peace that is constantly asked of us. Or perhaps it is because I can barely walk down the street without having to listen to one pompas buffon or another preach about how I'm going to "His" version of "Hell" unless I subscribe to "His" version of "Christanity".

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:And those aren't main belief systems. I'm talking about the universal religions here, not people who talk to rocks.

WTF? That has to be the most ignorent unsubstantiated post in this thread so far. The only religion that I can think of that might even begine to be descibed by "people who talk to rocks" are whats considered animists (those who belive that everything has a spirit) Also there is no such thing as a universal religion, if you ment mainstream well, all those I listed have at the least a significant following even in this day and age.

WRONG-O! I misspoke earlier and edited my post, but the point remains the same. Offshoot religions lack legitimacy, like or or not, from a popular standpoint. As a result, I did not take them into account in my previous argument. I'm more inclined to donate my research and time to a religious movement that has historical precedent and legitimacy over a neo-animalistic or pagan movement. There's a reason the Greeks and Nordic religions died, and that's because they became alien to their own worshipers.