What is wrong Western Religion?

I am part of the Atheist Club, and I can tell you that we welcome all who would join us! That includes:

1. People who used to believe in Jesus, even if they really still DO believe in Jesus and are completely Christian... as long as they are ok with pretending to be Athiest.

2. Ex-Muslims, who, even though they are really still "Muslim Offshoots," make excellent part-time Atheists.

3. People who were born Atheist, became "Born Again Christian," then later became "Shoved Back In The Womb Non-Christian." It's true that they can never TRULY disbelieve in God the way we "pure-breads" do, but we appreciate the effort!

Of course we only use these categories so that outsiders who have no idea what Atheism is will also feel welcomed. Once you're in, we don't actually give a rat's ass what you used to believe. We're just thankful you have finally seen the light.

Now please stop trying to tell me what Atheism is, calling it a "religion," or implying that Atheists that were not brought up with Atheism are somehow still a member of their family's religion. We are Atheist for a reason... we don't want to be included in YOUR dogma.

You think jsut because you call yourself an atheist you know what it means. i used to call myself an atheist, then I realized it was just another counter-christianity like LeVayism and did absolutely nothing for the progress of mankind in practice. You can claim it is defined by whatever parameters you set, but in practice, it acts more like a hate group.

Not really.

And stop trying to label everyone. Fuck. It's annoyiung as shit, and is the least productive thing ever.

I am not a theist. Period.

Therefore I am a non theist, or Atheist.

Fuck.

By definition, but not in practice. You can define yourself however you want, but your actions are how the world defines you. Therefore, by your definition, you're an atheist, but by my definition based on every post you've ever made on this forum, you're a hateful bigot. Yes, that might be a tad judgmental, and I'm sorry for judging you unfairly, perhaps maybe if you added some real thought into the threads you participated in instead of just flaming people with that condescending attitude I would change my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

By definition, but not in practice. You can define yourself however you want, but your actions are how the world defines you. Therefore, by your definition, you're an atheist, but by my definition based on every post you've ever made on this forum, you're a hateful bigot. Yes, that might be a tad judgmental, and I'm sorry for judging you unfairly, perhaps maybe if you added some real thought into the threads you participated in instead of just flaming people with that condescending attitude I would change my opinion.

---

And by your posts, you are blind to reality. In other words, you can talk... :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

By definition, but not in practice. You can define yourself however you want, but your actions are how the world defines you. Therefore, by your definition, you're an atheist, but by my definition based on every post you've ever made on this forum, you're a hateful bigot. Yes, that might be a tad judgmental, and I'm sorry for judging you unfairly, perhaps maybe if you added some real thought into the threads you participated in instead of just flaming people with that condescending attitude I would change my opinion.

---

RIGHT ON!!!!!

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This a·the·ist Audio Help (ā'thē-ĭst) Pronunciation Key
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That is the definition. Christians do not fit the definition.

Oh, but both atheists and Christians think circles are round and that water is wet. Woo, you got us there.

Christians don't fit their own definition, either. Christianity by definition is someone who was saved by Jesus. That means someone who listens to Jesus' advice on happiness: charity and unconditional love. How many Christians truly practice unconditional love? Unfortunately most appear only to love other enough to make sure their reading the bible and going to church, which is hardly real unconditional love.

There is a definition of the word atheist, and there is the practice most atheists generally have. This practice is copied by their heritage, it just comes out in different ways because they have altered their culture's stereotypical set of rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And by your posts, you are blind to reality. In other words, you can talk...

---

I simply haven't received any proof such a thing as reality exists. Therefore according to your logic, it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Christians don't fit their own definition, either. Christianity by definition is someone who was saved by Jesus. That means someone who listens to Jesus' advice on happiness: charity and unconditional love. How many Christians truly practice unconditional love? Unfortunately most appear only to love other enough to make sure their reading the bible and going to church, which is hardly real unconditional love.

There is a definition of the word atheist, and there is the practice most atheists generally have. This practice is copied by their heritage, it just comes out in different ways because they have altered their culture's stereotypical set of rules.

I simply haven't received any proof such a thing as reality exists. Therefore according to your logic, it doesn't.

---

Omnious... 1) Stop trying to redefine labels. And 2) Learn 2 read. Way to miss the point. :roll:

I think it's very obvious which one of us has missed the point.

I don't redefine labels, I call people as I see them. Condescending bigots like seisomosaur that call themselves atheists are a dime a dozen, that's why I made this thread, because changing your beliefs does not change who you are. You have to change your behavior. If you're going to believe in something new it doesn't make you a better person if you still behave the same way everyone does that still holds the old thoughtform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I think it's very obvious which one of us has missed the point.

I don't redefine labels, I call people as I see them. Condescending bigots like seisomosaur that call themselves atheists are a dime a dozen, that's why I made this thread, because changing your beliefs does not change who you are. You have to change your behavior. If you're going to believe in something new it doesn't make you a better person if you still behave the same way everyone does that still holds the old thoughtform.

---

Seismosaur is condescending? What the fuck are you smoking? Blunt, yes, but condescending? I'd give that award to you, hence what I said about being able to talk.

Also, why does someone have to change their behaviour when they change a belief? If one simply assumes a different position on a certain thing, why go for the change of personality? Well, you don't have to. A person can still be nice or an asshole despite being Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/Atheist/etc.

Very true, that's my point. Words you describe yourself with do not define you to the world, your actions do. How many times must I say this? I am not claiming you have to change your behavior, and I'm not claiming to be an atheist you must have this behavior, just that as long as you choose not to change this behavior you will continue to appear just like a Christian to me. It's not your beliefs that make you a good person, it's what you do. Everyone has some rough edges, it's realizing these rough edges with an open mind that allows you to modify them and make yourself happier.

And I am not alone in believing that atheists generally come off as more self-righteous than most other religious people.

EDIT: Anyway I'm going to bed, nice talking to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Very true, that's my point. Words you describe yourself with do not define you to the world, your actions do. How many times must I say this? I am not claiming you have to change your behavior, and I'm not claiming to be an atheist you must have this behavior, just that as long as you choose not to change this behavior you will continue to appear just like a Christian to me. It's not your beliefs that make you a good person, it's what you do. Everyone has some rough edges, it's realizing these rough edges with an open mind that allows you to modify them and make yourself happier.

And I am not alone in believing that atheists generally come off as more self-righteous than most other religious people.

EDIT: Anyway I'm going to bed, nice talking to you

---

In other words, you are still redefining things to your liking. You might as well keep to distinctions such as assholes and douchebags, because mixing up terminology like Christians/Atheists/whatever is only going to make you look like a fundie (and they love to redefine words).

And perhaps people are defined by their rough edges. If everyone was perfect, then it be such a boring place. Also, it doesn't take modifying your personality to be happy. Seriously, there are ways to be happy without brainwashing yourself.

Maybe this example will help you understand better:

Stalin called himself a Socialist

I call Stalin a fascist

He says, "You idiot, I'm a socialist."

I say, "But you behave like a fascist"

he says, "Jesus Christ on a cracker stop trying to redefine words, I'm a socialist, duh. It means I believes in social welfare. That's not fascism"

I say, "I don't care if you BELIEVE in social welfare, you still lock up and kill the undesirables and dictate people's personal lives. You BEHAVE like a fascist."

He says, "There you go again redefining words. How many times must I say this, I'm a SOCIALIST! Learn to read: SOCIALIST! Holy shit man, are you retarded or what?"

And the funny thing is, most people think of communists as fascists. They mix the terminology, becase in a real communist society the government has absolutely no economic control, the workers do. They're right in thinking of communists like fascists though because throghout history commnists have BEHAVED like fascists. I don't give a fuck what Mao believes in, he still tortured dissidents and killing undesirables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Maybe this example will help you understand better:

Stalin called himself a Socialist

I call Stalin a fascist

He says, "You idiot, I'm a socialist."

I say, "But you behave like a fascist"

he says, "Jesus Christ on a cracker stop trying to redefine words, I'm a socialist, duh. It means I believes in social welfare. That's not fascism"

I say, "I don't care if you BELIEVE in social welfare, you still lock up and kill the undesirables and dictate people's personal lives. You BEHAVE like a fascist."

He says, "There you go again redefining words. How many times must I say this, I'm a SOCIALIST! Learn to read: SOCIALIST! Holy shit man, are you retarded or what?"

And the funny thing is, most people think of communists as fascists. They mix the terminology, becase in a real communist society the government has absolutely no economic control, the workers do. They're right in thinking of communists like fascists though because throghout history commnists have BEHAVED like fascists. I don't give a fuck what Mao believes in, he still tortured dissidents and killing undesirables.

---

But how does that apply to the average Joe? For Stalin, there's already a good word for him: Dictator. No need for redefining other words, there is already a good enough one around.

So if someone is acting all high and mighty and generally being a douche, then call him a douche and not Christian, because the belief does not always entail behaviour. You can call bullshit on someone for being an asshole, but then instead of labelling him an asshole, you go for some other word like Atheist/Muslim/Christian/etc? Makes no sense to me.

All in all, pick up a dictionary. It's more useful than you think.

I have to admire your spunk Omnius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

But how does that apply to the average Joe? For Stalin, there's already a good word for him: Dictator. No need for redefining other words, there is already a good enough one around.

So if someone is acting all high and mighty and generally being a douche, then call him a douche and not Christian, because the belief does not always entail behaviour. You can call bullshit on someone for being an asshole, but then instead of labelling him an asshole, you go for some other word like Atheist/Muslim/Christian/etc? Makes no sense to me.

All in all, pick up a dictionary. It's more useful than you think.

---

Yeah I'm not talking about douche or not douche, there are plenty of atheists in the world that are not douches. There are also communists that do not behave like fascists. However, the majority DO.

So you can group communists and fascists together under the umbrella term dictator because communist and fascist dictators behave the same way, why can't I group atheists, christians and muslims under an umbrella term as well since they all behave the same way?

Generalizations exists for a reason, the fact is if you meet a communist there are assumptions about that communist because of the label they carry. Even if the terminology of a communist is merely one who believes in the economic philosophy of worker empowerment and social philosophy of freedom, the way they behave is by backing some fascist dictator's control over a state.

I'm not defining the word atheist, I am merely stating that many atheists have general styles of behavior that makes them very similar to Christians.

And the fact is, no atheist is going to call himself a douche, and no commnist and fascist leader is going to call himself a dictator. They call themselves atheists, fascists and communists. Luckily for us, history has taught us when someone is leading a communist revolution they plan to behave like a dictator.

And experience has taught me if someone calls themselves an atheist it means they plan to behave like a douche.

EDIT: Thanks dreamer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Yeah I'm not talking about douche or not duoche, there are plenty of atheists in the world that are not duoches. There are also communists that do not behave like fascists. However, the majority DO.

So you can group communists and fascists together under the umbrella term dictator because communist and fascist dictators behave the same way, why can't I group atheists, christians and muslims under an umbrella term as well since they all behave the same way?

Generalizations exists for a reason, the fact is if you meet a communist there are assumptions about that communist because of the label they carry. Even if the terminology of a communist is merely one who believes in the economic philosophy of worker empowerment and social philosophy of freedom, the way they behave is by backing some fascist dictator's control over a state.

I'm not defining the word atheist, I am merely stating that many atheists have general styles of behavior that makes them very similar to Christians.

And the fact is, no atheist is going to call himself a douche, and no commnist and fascist leader is going to call himself a dictator. They call themselves atheists, fascists and communists. Luckily for us, history has taght us when someone is leading a communist revolution they plan to behave like a dictator.

And experience has taught me if someone calls themselve's and atheist it means they plan to behave like a douche.

EDIT: Thanks dreamer

---

And yet you want to use the term Christian as a blanket term to anyone who acts like a Christian in your perception? Isn't that redefining words right there?

There are terms already existing in the english language that can describe such behaviours, so why redefine things in the way you are proposing? Unless you are trying to mask a lacking vocabulary, then really, what's the point?

Person who insists on strict obedience to authority, also a Person who behaves in a tyrannical way - Authoritarian

A State with only one political party which exerts total control over everything and silences any opposition - Totalitarian

etc...

For example, Communist states can be totalitarian states, and same goes for fascist states. There are words which exist that describe one of the examples you gave. As for your original argument, I will go with UM on this one. How do you define these similarities? What makes them so similar so to allow for such blanket terms? In what way should we take this seriously and not simply see this as another attempt to paint with a broader brush?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You think jsut because you call yourself an atheist you know what it means. i used to call myself an atheist, then I realized it was just another counter-christianity like LeVayism and did absolutely nothing for the progress of mankind in practice.

---

I'm happy you realized you were not really an Atheist. However, you still have to figure out that you are projecting your experience onto everyone else's, and assuming we are like you. Thank Potato, we are not.

Quote:

---

You can claim it is defined by whatever parameters you set, but in practice, it acts more like a hate group.

---

Two things I have noticed about the people I know:

1. The least hateful people I know are Atheists.
2. The most hateful people I know are Christians.

Take that how you want.

youre such a child seismosaur, grow up

Where was Seismosaur in this conversation?

P.S I agree with you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Maybe this example will help you understand better:

Stalin called himself a Socialist

I call Stalin a fascist

He says, "You idiot, I'm a socialist."

I say, "But you behave like a fascist"

he says, "Jesus Christ on a cracker stop trying to redefine words, I'm a socialist, duh. It means I believes in social welfare. That's not fascism"

I say, "I don't care if you BELIEVE in social welfare, you still lock up and kill the undesirables and dictate people's personal lives. You BEHAVE like a fascist."

He says, "There you go again redefining words. How many times must I say this, I'm a SOCIALIST! Learn to read: SOCIALIST! Holy shit man, are you retarded or what?"

And the funny thing is, most people think of communists as fascists. They mix the terminology, becase in a real communist society the government has absolutely no economic control, the workers do. They're right in thinking of communists like fascists though because throghout history commnists have BEHAVED like fascists. I don't give a fuck what Mao believes in, he still tortured dissidents and killing undesirables.

---

Your analogy fails.

Being facist doe snot conflict with being solialist, and really has nothing to do with.

Read a political science book.

I think this argument was finished when I said

Quote:

---

And the fact is, no atheist is going to call himself a douche, and no commnist and fascist leader is going to call himself a dictator. They call themselves atheists, fascists and communists. Luckily for us, history has taught us when someone is leading a communist revolution they plan to behave like a dictator.

And experience has taught me if someone calls themselves an atheist it means they plan to behave like a douche.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You think jsut because you call yourself an atheist you know what it means. i used to call myself an atheist, then I realized it was just another counter-christianity like LeVayism and did absolutely nothing for the progress of mankind in practice. You can claim it is defined by whatever parameters you set, but in practice, it acts more like a hate group.

---

Truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Your analogy fails.

Being facist doe snot conflict with being solialist, and really has nothing to do with.

---

Dude... are you fucking kidding? The definition of socialism DIRECTLY defies the definition of fascism. One is complete rule by the people, the other is complete rule by the state. However, in practice communist leaders end up becoming fascist-like because the power corrupts.

The analogy is meant to elucidate the difference between definition and reality and it works perfectly.

(Also, would a "solialist" be one who believes the sun should control government? :?)