What is wrong Western Religion?

Specifically talking about religion with roots in Judaism, Egypt, Greece, Babylon and all those big ancient societies that make up the roots of Western Culture, as well as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all modern derivitives.

First of all I'd like tot state that just because one may revoke their religion and join a different following or none at all, their upbringing and culture are still completely tied to their society's belief system and though traditions can change you can't really start new, only build on what's already in place. People that are completely removed from their original culture begin again on the bottom floor of the new culture, as the criminals and homeless. Along with their culture, they lose ethics and pride. My source? Immigrants, aboriginals in australia, slave societies, etc...

So here are some generalized differences between Western and Eastern Philosophy:

- WS claims God is a separate entity that created life, ES claims God is just the conscious accumulation of all life

- WS claims God is loving though life sucks and he keeps making terrible things happen, not to mention according to different spiritual leaders he is utterly prejudice, ES claims we put ourselves through suffering through our own actions because we create the universe as we exist in it and everything done to the outside is done to the inside.

Okay I'm going to jump to my point. God did not make everything, the Father that Christ referred to is known in code as "saklas" by some ancient gnostic texts and you should look him up. Most creations have some sort of King appointed, like a leader in charge of keeping order. Of course this King is just another little drop of awareness in a vast pool that, with Western Religion, I suppose you would have to call the Holy Ghost.

So this rule Saklas has had over the world has been... pretty crappy. At some point we get the snake, which symbolizes dishonesty between people, I believe. People began to deceive each other and without being able to just be completely honest with each other we lost our ability at telepathy. Jesus Christ comes along and does nothing more but bare himself earnestly like all human beings used to be able to do. For being honest, we was tortured and killed, serving as an example of what happens when people try to return to the ancient times of harmony and love.

This harmony and love IS the garden of Eden. I don't know exactly how to put this, but honesty does not mean telling everybody your judgments, it means allowing the world to exist earnestly and unconditionally. It means facing what is naturally there, to stop lying to yourself. Don't be afraid of your thoughts even if they create doubt in your mind, because trying to convince yourself the world is what you think it is will not make you any happier. What is worrying but an attempt for someone to convince themselves their future is going to turn out alright?

Until we just learn to drop this necessity to be right we won't be able to switch from a competitive mode to a cooperative mode. It's this competitive mode that creates a nebulus of ideas, creation and beauty but there comes a period when it's time to switch over and instead of fighting for our own ideas like our lives depended on it, harmonize ourselves with society and love each other. You could say not everyone deserves love, a very LeVayist attitude, but I believe everybody does. The thing is, real unconditional love implies absolutely nothing, that's what makes it unconditional. It implies no matter what we have to do to each other whether we have to kill or punish each other to do what we determine is best, we still treat people like ourselves.

The greatest thing is, now with all this technology we can sync up on a Global Level, and we can do everything from harnessing huge amounts of energy to exploring space and getting in space battles with aliens and all that cool shit. People have to let go of themselves though. Every human being has necessities, but why do almost any that have the opportunity to just save up fortunes that could feed the whole world several times over and then they waste it on bullshit.

So in conclusion, right now most of us have wetsern roots that are on this forum, but are apart of the counter-culture: we are atheists, agnostics, or have chosen to look at Eastern or other ancient philosophies.

Here's my question, why does it have to be one or the other? What is with everybody antagonizing each other when we have so many hundreds of pairs of eyes and interested minds we could be using to learn more about our natural world? It seems like so many people listen to others just long enough to figure out what category to put them in, and then respond in talking points from their pastor or whatever source they trust. Even those that refer to their own opinions barely every try to build each other's ideas, just tear them down. Critiquing in good and all but nobody is going to drop all their old opinions and start new so maybe instead of just making people feel upset or ashamed with our criticisms, we could help construct their ideas by adding our own experiences and evidence. Just because you reject the image of divine consciousness delivered to you in your upbringing does not mean you can stop looking once you create logical concept of the universe without it because like it or not you still apply the same cultural teachings that contain a divine consciousness, subliminally.

That why I use terms like atheist clergy, to denote the similarities atheists have to Christians. Even if they've altered the beliefs, they were still raised by a Christian society and will neve be nothing more than a sect of Christianity. It's evolution, if a creature from the weasel family evolves to become a skunk, it does not mean he's no longer a weasel, he just found a new, better way to be a weasel.

Just some of my crazy thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

That why I use terms like atheist clergy, to denote the similarities atheists have to Christians. Even if they've altered the beliefs, they were still raised by a Christian society and will neve be nothing more than a sect of Christianity. It's evolution, if a creature from the weasel family evolves to become a skunk, it does not mean he's no longer a weasel, he just found a new, better way to be a weasel.

---

No. A skunk is not a weasel. Society isn't Christian, it's secular and driven by secular morals. You're a collectivist, go to China.

The rest of your thread was actually a pretty good read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

That why I use terms like atheist clergy, to denote the similarities atheists have to Christians. Even if they've altered the beliefs, they were still raised by a Christian society and will neve be nothing more than a sect of Christianity. It's evolution, if a creature from the weasel family evolves to become a skunk, it does not mean he's no longer a weasel, he just found a new, better way to be a weasel.

---

Bravo! Nothing changes except that "Converted" Atheists trade the "I believe" for "I don't believe" rhetoric while their behavior, MO, mentality, morality and everything else that comes with it remains status quo. I find them to be just another off-shoot of Christianity. If you want to see proof of this, wander thru any Atheist blog and you'll quickly see what I mean. You can only see true Atheism in someone who has been raised from birth in a totally secular environment, anything else is pure pseudo-atheism and hypocrisy.

I don't understand how this is collectivism. This is individuality to its finest because people allow others to be individuals as well. Even if they show slower progress in their intellectual development, I think it's better to build on their foundation with new information and points of view instead of just looking at their argument for holes. I think the latter is actually self-justification, like an attempt to prove one's one ideas to themselves and testing them against other people. I don't see why people are so attached to their ideas like that.

First of all accept that as crazy as some ideas are, what's true in our minds might as well be true because at the end of the day as much controlled, objective and natural evidence as we may acquire, we can't get out of this subjective viewpoint. That's why we have Science, because we can't excape our own perspectives and how is society ever going to progress if it's just one perspective vs another? We needed a system that doesn't allow subjective influence so that no one can say, "That's just your opinion." I'll admit to falling back to that claim very often on this forum because I believe it's true, opinions and science are two different things, science doesn't have an opinion, only results. Eastern and Western religion and Philosophy do not oppose Science, science emerged from these philosophies. It's the traditionalists, those clinging to things they thought were true and don't want to accept may not be, that oppose Science.

People jump to conclusions by studying evidence but scientific evidence does not represent knowledge, just information. When you make the jump from having information and knowing something, it's like if that thing is then later proven false you lose something.

It's like now if God is proven to exist, you're wrong and all those fucking retards that believe the most ridiculous shit get to yell at your face as well as promote they're incredibly prejudice ideas, assuming they're now justified because all those damned atheists were wrong.

So I guess I believe you're right, a skunk is not a weasel, it only came from a muselid(?) and then became a skunk. However, perhaps if it understood where it came from better, it would understand where it is now.

Religion is not the only part of Western Society, but it is certainly not secular in its roots. I would like you to define secular anyway, if you don't mind, because I kind of see it as having an unbiased position on esoteric matters. The thing is, all early societies that we originally came from were not secular. When democracy arrived, we separated Church and Government as a change to our original system, but we did not remove religion. They could now only influence the people that chose to be influenced, that's all. People were allowed to freely live the lifestyles they chose.

And then what happened? They started hating on each other for picking different lifestyles, and if someone with the antique belief system wandered in, they would all join together and hate on that person. I understand that back when religion and government were tied, people of different beliefs had it pretty bad. You could even say Christianity deserves to be bashed a little bit, what with the Crusades, Inquisition, Mary Queen of Scots, Conquistadors, The Witch Trials, Manifest Destiny, The KKK, etc. It's bad... it's really bad. The thing is, we're really only holding a grudge against an idea, and like V said, ideas are bulletproof. No matter how much we hate on Christians, Christianity will still be bullet proof and all we succeed in doing is making the Christian feel down, or pissed off, and mostly likely more attached to their beliefs. With attachment to beliefs comes value, and the more value, the more it hurts if we accept these beliefs are wrong. I say fuck beliefs, even ones based on pure scientific evidence because the wonder of science is new things can be discovered at any time. It is not locked into true and false.

The trick to my life, I guess, is that I don't think my imagination is any less real than the world, it's simply more real on a personal level and less on a collective level.

Sorry but being black in white society doesn't make you white.

Yeah, exactly, and you were raised white then decided one day you were black. No, you still have the foundation of a Christian belief system, you've simply editted a few parts to make the concept more logical.

So, in being a Western atheist, how am I like a Christian?

You are not a Christian, but you are in a Derivitive of Christianity like Mormons or Jahova's Witnesses. They decided that the bible wasn't completely correct either, and came up with their own dogmas. Granted, these don't have logical backgrounds but I'm not talking about how you came to change your beliefs, simply where they came from and how there are still so many things similar to them. You didn't start fresh on esoteric ideals the moment you decided God wasn't a logical concept, you have the entire christian foundation with one single alteration. You can consider it as big as you want, it's obviously a big enough difference that you bash people that think differently from you like some sort of atheist crusador or inquisitor (I'm sorry I love doing this). The thing is, of course the difference between a God and No God seems big, but only because you don't even think about how similar your beliefs are to a Christians as opposed to say, someone with Eastern beliefs. Their entire outlook on life is different, yours is the same, you just decided to call your beliefs facts instead of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You are not a Christian, but you are in a Derivitive of Christianity like Mormons or Jahova's Witnesses. They decided that the bible wasn't completely correct either, and came up with their own dogmas. Granted, these don't have logical backgrounds but I'm not talking about how you came to change your beliefs, simply where they came from and how there are still so many things similar to them. You didn't start fresh on esoteric ideals the moment you decided God wasn't a logical concept, you have the entire christian foundation with one single alteration. You can consider it as big as you want, it's obviously a big enough difference that you bash people that think differently from you like some sort of atheist crusador or inquisitor (I'm sorry I love doing this). The thing is, of course the difference between a God and No God seems big, but only because you don't even think about how similar your beliefs are to a Christians as opposed to say, someone with Eastern beliefs. Their entire outlook on life is different, yours is the same, you just decided to call your beliefs facts instead of faith.

---

Are you going to answer my question?

Modern 'religion'...who has the best imaginary friend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You are not a Christian,

---

Ahem.

Don't O'Reilly me.

EDIT: My post DIRECTLY answers your question. You are like a christian because you have the same general world view, but instead of faith, your call your beliefs facts. It still held inside this true/false mindset, as if you have the real facts and people that dont think like you have the fake facts. That's how you are similar to a Christian. If you want more I need to compare and contrast christians/atheists with other religions that didn;t evolve out of the ancient middle eastern Mysteries

So anybody who has any belief is a Christian. Makes perfect sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Ahem.

Don't O'Reilly me.

EDIT: My post DIRECTLY answers your question. You are like a christian because you have the same general world view, but instead of faith, your call your beliefs facts. It still held inside this true/false mindset, as if you have the real facts and people that dont think like you have the fake facts. That's how you are similar to a Christian. If you want more I need to compare and contrast christians/atheists with other religions that didn;t evolve out of the ancient middle eastern Mysteries

---

Don't liberal O'Reilly guest me.

I knew you are saying I and Christians have the same general view. I was asking how our general views are the same. Now you say it is that we believe in truth and falsehood. Is that it? People who believe in truth and falsehood are automatically a great deal like Christians?

Do you believe that what you posted is true? Do you have the facts or the fake facts?

You are highlighting my point in your inability to see outside your own perception. There are a billion different ways to see the world.

Let's take a look

Christians and Atheists both believe in time.

Christians and Atheists both believe there are a set of rules the universe is run by.

Christians and Atheists both believe dreams, astrology, paganism, symbolic rituals and anything outside of a commonly accepted norm of reality are BS.

Christians and Atheists both believe inanimate objects do not contain consciousness because God is outside of matter as a creator of matter according to christianity.

Christians and Atheists both congregate in elitist groups and put down people with differnet opinions by using circular arguments.

Both Christians and Atheists relax on Sundays.

Christians and Atheists believe there is a standard version of reality unaffected by perception.

And anyway, I can't even go further because I'm a Westerner, too, and there are a billion habits I have and ideas I subconsciously believe that create my universe the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You are highlighting my point in your inability to see outside your own perception. There are a billion different ways to see the world.

Let's take a look

Christians and Atheists both believe in time.

Christians and Atheists both believe there are a set of rules the universe is run by.

Christians and Atheists both believe dreams, astrology, paganism, symbolic rituals and anything outside of a commonly accepted norm of reality are BS.

Christians and Atheists both believe inanimate objects do not contain consciousness because God is outside of matter as a creator of matter according to christianity.

Christians and Atheists both congregate in elitist groups and put down people with differnet opinions by using circular arguments.

Both Christians and Atheists relax on Sundays.

Christians and Atheists believe there is a standard version of reality unaffected by perception.

And anyway, I can't even go further because I'm a Westerner, too, and there are a billion habits I have and ideas I subconsciously believe that create my universe the way it is.

---

You don't know what atheism means, please educate yourself. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Modern 'religion'...who has the best imaginary friend?

---

I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You are highlighting my point in your inability to see outside your own perception. There are a billion different ways to see the world.

Let's take a look

Christians and Atheists both believe in time.

Christians and Atheists both believe there are a set of rules the universe is run by.

Christians and Atheists both believe dreams, astrology, paganism, symbolic rituals and anything outside of a commonly accepted norm of reality are BS.

Christians and Atheists both believe inanimate objects do not contain consciousness because God is outside of matter as a creator of matter according to christianity.

Christians and Atheists both congregate in elitist groups and put down people with differnet opinions by using circular arguments.

Both Christians and Atheists relax on Sundays.

Christians and Atheists believe there is a standard version of reality unaffected by perception.

And anyway, I can't even go further because I'm a Westerner, too, and there are a billion habits I have and ideas I subconsciously believe that create my universe the way it is.

---

Are those the facts or the fake facts? Please answer me this time.

Those are some parallel beliefs and habits, but atheists generally don't use circular arguments. (Could you give me an example of a common circular argument atheists use?) Also, EVERY religious school of thought hangs out in groups and says why they disagree with the other ones. But those are just a few similarities. A lot of them are just cultural norms that come with living in a Christian society, such as relaxing on Sunday. We do that because it is one of the two days we don't have to go to work. Also, most of the world does not think inanimate objects have consciousness. The ones who believe they do are the odd balls. The same goes for people who believe in astrology and so forth. I wouldn't say left wingers and right wingers are practically the same because they both drive cars and believe Dumbo doesn't live on top of the Empire State Building. Those are some pretty trivial similarities you listed. What atheists and Christians believe about the origin, purpose, rules, and future of the universe and the life it contains are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

(Could you give me an example of a common circular argument atheists use?)

---

God doesn't exist because I can't find any evidence, and I can't find any evidence for god because [he] doesn't exist.


I think the point he was trying to make originally and admittedly is now doing a piss poor job of explaining, was that atheism spawned from christianity. I won't support the claim 100% because I'm sure there are atheists who grew up as buddhists as well, but I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to take a survey and show that the majority of atheists (especially in this country) either grew up in christian households or were raised by atheist parents who grew up in christian households. Whether your beliefs are based on what you were taught or based on a rejection of what you were taught, they are still guided by how you grew up and so atheism, by his argument, developed largely from christianity.

I'm sure you can see it in your own beliefs. Most of what I've seen you put up here to refute the existence of god applies mostly only to the monotheistic judeo-christian opinion of what god is. Whether you want to admit it or not, your world view is built on the christian world view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are those the facts or the fake facts? Please answer me this time.

Those are some parallel beliefs and habits, but atheists generally don't use circular arguments. (Could you give me an example of a common circular argument atheists use?) Also, EVERY religious school of thought hangs out in groups and says why they disagree with the other ones. But those are just a few similarities. A lot of them are just cultural norms that come with living in a Christian society, such as relaxing on Sunday. We do that because it is one of the two days we don't have to go to work. Also, most of the world does not think inanimate objects have consciousness. The ones who believe they do are the odd balls. The same goes for people who believe in astrology and so forth. I wouldn't say left wingers and right wingers are practically the same because they both drive cars and believe Dumbo doesn't live on top of the Empire State Building. Those are some pretty trivial similarities you listed. What atheists and Christians believe about the origin, purpose, rules, and future of the universe and the life it contains are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.

---

You don't know what most of the world thinks, you only know what you believe out of your western, christian heritage. If you think you don't use circular arguments, then what's this about saying people that believe the inanimate contains consciousness are oddballs? That sounds like a circular argument to me.

The point is you can't even examine for yourself the similarities between Chrstianity and Atheism because you don't understand how the rest of the world outside of Western Society thinks. You have exemplified your ignorance to perspectives outside of the Western Norm through this post. I would say MOST of the non western world believes all objects contain consciousness. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, the Hopi Indians, the Incans, Aztec, Mayans, Celtics, Gauls, etc...

Furthermore, the ancient greeks also held the idea that all objects contain a spiritual essence. It doesn't mean your watch has an opinion on your wrist, it means we live in a conscious, living universe.

So this is my entire argument, right here. In Western Society, Consciousness was removed frm the universe as a force that created it, and hence the universe became dead in their minds, empowered by a force that didn't live inside it. With this belief as a foundation, it's only natural some members would come to the conclusion that belief in the universe doesn't even necessarily require consciousness at all.

And that belief in external vs internal consciousness is only the tip of the iceberg. I use the example of relaxing on Sundays because we inherit the Christian culture and even if not all people relax on Sundays in general we still have a Christian culture and deal with those values as the norm.

Being athesit, there is no reason to think that a rock holds any kind of consciousness, or anything.

Because they don't display those characteristics.

There are no characteristics of consciousness, consciousness exists purely so that things with characteristics can be experienced. Consciousness is nothing more than a recepticle of experience, it needs to have no reaction, no opinion, nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

God doesn't exist because I can't find any evidence, and I can't find any evidence for god because [he] doesn't exist.

---

The first part of that sentence is only part of the argument, and the second part of the sentence is not a conclusion we use based on the first part. You are using two different point atheists make and presenting them together as if they are the premise and conclusion of our argument. This is the real one:

I believe God does not exist because the idea is extremely far fetched and is not backed by evidence. I do not view the idea of consciousness without a brain, the ability to consciously create a universe, and human like invisible ghosts as anything realistic. So I have no reason to believe the idea PLUS see it as so improbable that I conclude it is not real.

Now, why would such an outrageously improbable being not have evidence backing its existence? Because it is not real.

What is your argument for the nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Does it have something to do with improbability on top of lack of evidence? Do you think the lack of evidence results from the extremely improbable being's nonexistence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think the point he was trying to make originally and admittedly is now doing a piss poor job of explaining, was that atheism spawned from christianity. I won't support the claim 100% because I'm sure there are atheists who grew up as buddhists as well, but I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to take a survey and show that the majority of atheists (especially in this country) either grew up in christian households or were raised by atheist parents who grew up in christian households. Whether your beliefs are based on what you were taught or based on a rejection of what you were taught, they are still guided by how you grew up and so atheism, by his argument, developed largely from christianity.

I'm sure you can see it in your own beliefs. Most of what I've seen you put up here to refute the existence of god applies mostly only to the monotheistic judeo-christian opinion of what god is. Whether you want to admit it or not, your world view is built on the christian world view.

---

I talk specifically about the Christian God here because that is the one the theists here generally believe in. Why would I want to discuss Thor with people here when nobody believes in him? I have debated several Muslims here. I would rather debate the existence of Allah than the Christian God, but there are not too many people around here who would get into that. It is Westerners who use this site, almost exclusively, so the Christian God it is. But I do have a particular interest in Christianity since it is my former religion and it is the one that dominates my culture. That does not mean I don't want to debate other religions. I would love to debate somebody on the existence of the Greek gods or some tribal religions. What members here would do that with me?

I am of course influenced by Western culture, but that does not mean atheism and Christianity are alike theologically. They are not. What you are saying is like saying that Europeans who believed the world was round developed from and were guided by Europeans who believed the world was flat. Of course they were, but their beliefs on specifically the shape of the world were completely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm sure you can see it in your own beliefs. Most of what I've seen you put up here to refute the existence of god applies mostly only to the monotheistic judeo-christian opinion of what god is. Whether you want to admit it or not, your world view is built on the christian world view.

---

this is my personal experience as well. there are many atheists I know in my life, and when they talk about the God they don't believe in they always refer to God as if God is some imaginary bearded man in the sky

when I start to bring up God in a broader sense, a God present in all life forms, God being consciousness - the conversation changes. Actually it stops. All the anti-God arguments they have, is really built on a tiny world view that is no longer accurate compared to worldwide spirituality today

the reality is, there are many atheists willing to believe in the latter God. though they have so much difficulty with just the word God, because they can't get over the image of God being a bearded man in the sky, that they will use any other word but the word God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The point is you can't even examine for yourself the similarities between Chrstianity and Atheism because you don't understand how the rest of the world outside of Western Society thinks.

---

I minored in philosophy and have a great deal of interest in Eastern philosophy, so don't even try that shit. Even if 99% of the world believes inanimate objects have consciousness, it is a result of their wild idea religions. It is not the case that I believe objects do not have consciousness because of my history as a Christian. I do not believe objects have consciousness because of scientific common sense. People who think they do are odd balls because they deviate from scientific common sense. I never once was told in Sunday school or church that objects do not have consciousness. It is not a Christian teaching. However, I did actually have the belief for a while that the entire universe is one conscious being. I don't believe it now because I decided when I was 21 that it does not make enough sense. I still question the idea, but my lack of belief in it is not the result of my Christian upbringing. It is the result of my scientific skepticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

this is my personal experience as well. there are many atheists I know in my life, and when they talk about the God they don't believe in they always refer to The Magic Pumpkin as if The Magic Pumpkin is some imaginary vegetable in the sky

when I start to bring up The Magic Pumpkin in a broader sense, a The Magic Pumpkin present in all life forms, The Magic Pumpkin being consciousness - the conversation changes. Actually it stops. All the anti-The Magic Pumpkin arguments they have, is really built on a tiny world view that is no longer accurate compared to worldwide spirituality today

the reality is, there are many atheists willing to believe in the latter The Magic Pumpkin. though they have so much difficulty with just the phrase The Magic Pumpkin, because they can't get over the image of The Magic Pumpkin being a vagetable in the sky, that they will use any other phrase but the phrase The Magic Pumpkin

---

Fixed.

Seriously, you have no proof, nor even a sound grounding for the term.

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? :?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

Truth.

---

Errr no:
http://i38.tinypic.com/10zs0b5.jpg

I don't think I've seen atheists do shit like the example above. Fail there...

You're right, but I think atheists use examples like that to justify being condescending. In fact, everytime I attack an atheist (not on their belief but on their behavior because I have nothing against their beliefs) they always cite examples like that. Christians enable the atheists to be douche bags, and the atheists then enable Christians to further act like douchebags.

I guess I'm trying to say atheists typically seem less interested in figuring out what's right and more interested in telling theists that they're wrong.

You're not going to change someone's ideas by treating them like shit, even if they treated you like shit. In my opinion, if someone is treating people like shit, then someone with a different perspective has a responsibilty to show them grace and understanding (two characteristics I have forgotten in my arguments here, I'll admit) because they have no defense against understanding. They've trained their whole lives in how to piss you off if you're outspoken about an opposing belief, but they have no idea how to act when you say, "Okay, that's a good idea, but what about this?" and perhaps bring up some of the same questions that caused you to evolve the beliefs you have in a non threatening way.

And that is a strategy I offer to theists, atheists and autopoets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You're right, but I think atheists use examples like that to justify being condescending. In fact, everytime I attack an atheist (not on their belief but on their behavior because I have nothing against their beliefs) they always cite examples like that. Christians enable the atheists to be douche bags, and the atheists then enable Christians to further act like douchebags.

I guess I'm trying to say atheists typically seem less interested in figuring out what's right and more interested in telling theists that they're wrong.

You're not going to change someone's ideas by treating them like shit, even if they treated you like shit. In my opinion, if someone is treating people like shit, then someone with a different perspective has a responsibilty to show them grace and understanding (two characteristics I have forgotten in my arguments here, I'll admit) because they have no defense against understanding. They've trained their whole lives in how to piss you off if you're outspoken about an opposing belief, but they have no idea how to act when you say, "Okay, that's a good idea, but what about this?" and perhaps bring up some of the same questions that caused you to evolve the beliefs you have in a non threatening way.

And that is a strategy I offer to theists, atheists and autopoets

---

Not being condescending, I'm just pointing out how on the whole, I don't see atheists going out and spreading hateful views. Of course, if you look hard enough, you'll probably be able to find a hateful individual who happens to be an atheist, but it takes religion to make decent people do bad things.

I'm less interested in finding out what's right? You have things crooked right there. If anything, I am more interested in finding out what's right, however, in order to do so, I have to be very sceptical of everything. I wish to know and believe in as many true things as possible and get rid of as many false beliefs as possible. Because of this criteria, I have to apply scepticism in such a way that if a claim or belief cannot be shown not to be false (not falsifiable), then most likely it is bullshit.

You want to pose interesting questions? Then be sure to have something to substantiate the idea. I can disregard things quite easily if one has no evidence to back it up. I can't simply accept a new idea if it is nothing but meaningless speculation. As a sceptic, that just does not fly with me.

Also, if you wish to accuse people of being condescending, just drop this whole topic of trying to apply a blanket term for Christians/Atheists/whatever. Really, it's not doing you any favours. :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Errr no:
http://i38.tinypic.com/10zs0b5.jpg

I don't think I've seen atheists do shit like the example above. Fail there...

---

Lol. Touche. At that point though, I don't think they're even Christians anymore... just insane douche-bags. :shock:

[edit] Loltastic protest ownage. Some Athiests are hella funny... not gonna lie. :D :D

http://www.jesuswouldbeashamedofyou....#37;5B1%5D.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Not being condescending, I'm just pointing out how on the whole, I don't see atheists going out and spreading hateful views. Of course, if you look hard enough, you'll probably be able to find a hateful individual who happens to be an atheist, but it takes religion to make decent people do bad things.

---

In my experience it's 50/50. It's not that they just happen to be atheist, they hold their beliefs over theistic people. It's snobbish.

Quote:

---

I'm less interested in finding out what's right? You have things crooked right there. If anything, I am more interested in finding out what's right, however, in order to do so, I have to be very sceptical of everything. I wish to know and believe in as many true things as possible and get rid of as many false beliefs as possible. Because of this criteria, I have to apply scepticism in such a way that if a claim or belief cannot be shown not to be false (not falsifiable), then most likely it is bullshit.

---

Good for you, you are in a minority.

Quote:

---

You want to pose interesting questions? Then be sure to have something to substantiate the idea. I can disregard things quite easily if one has no evidence to back it up. I can't simply accept a new idea if it is nothing but meaningless speculation. As a sceptic, that just does not fly with me.

---

Why do you have to accept an idea in order to humor it? Why are things forced to either be true or false? Plus you alreadu subconsciously hold lot's of ideas that can't substantiated such as the idea that there is no God and yet we live in an alopathic universe...

Quote:

---

Also, if you wish to accuse people of being condescending, just drop this whole topic of trying to apply a blanket term for Christians/Atheists/whatever. Really, it's not doing you any favours. :?

---

I am not, I am merely claiming that atheists behave exactly like Christians and are capable of just as much horrendous prejudice. The world would not be a better place without religion, it would be the same place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

In my experience it's 50/50. It's not that they just happen to be atheist, they hold their beliefs over theistic people. It's snobbish.

---

As this is anecdotal evidence, can you provide any citation to back that up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Good for you, you are in a minority.

---

Should it matter whether I am in a minority or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Why do you have to accept an idea in order to humor it? Why are things forced to either be true or false? Plus you alreadu subconsciously hold lot's of ideas that can't substantiated such as the idea that there is no God and yet we live in an alopathic universe...

---

I don't make claims against the existence of deities, I simply hold no reason to believe. If someone wants to convince me to believe, they need to provide the evidence to show that their deity/deities are not fantasies and are real. This can be applied to any new idea I come across. It's called scepticism.

Also, allopathic universe? Citation please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I am not, I am merely claiming that atheists behave exactly like Christians and are capable of just as much horrendous prejudice. The world would not be a better place without religion, it would be the same place.

---

There are assholes everywhere, but refer to them under terminology that is relevant, and not redefine terms to suit your narrow viewpoint on the issue.

"Oh, they are acting all high and mighty, like christians... therefore, they are christians/etc".

If that is not condescending, then I don't know what is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

As this is anecdotal evidence, can you provide any citation to back that up?

---

Not when I don't give a shit. Most of what I know is based on personal anecdotes.

Quote:

---

I don't make claims against the existence of deities, I simply hold no reason to believe. If someone wants to convince me to believe, they need to provide the evidence to show that their deity/deities are not fantasies and are real. This can be applied to any new idea I come across. It's called scepticism.

---

You are redefining the word sceptic. Not only that, but not one is trying to convince you of one god damned thing, you are attacking our opinions and we are defending them.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in black holes? They have about as much evidence for them as God does.

Do you believe the sun consumes itself over a finite period of time, expands and then explodes? That theory has as much evidence as God does.

why is it every time some one on this forum says "in my PERSONAL experience" some one else thinks evidence needs to be presented. seriously people. :banana:can we read a little slower?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

why is it every time some one on this forum says "in my PERSONAL experience" some one else thinks evidence needs to be presented. seriously people. :banana:can we read a little slower?

---

Personal experience doesn't make something true, right or justified.

Apart from that, you're the only one who ever said "in my personal experience" so what's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Not when I don't give a shit. Most of what I know is based on personal anecdotes.

---

So, most of what you know could potentially be wrong? Don't you find that a bit worrying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You are redefining the word sceptic. Not only that, but not one is trying to convince you of one god damned thing, you are attacking our opinions and we are defending them.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in black holes? They have about as much evidence for them as God does.

Do you believe the sun consumes itself over a finite period of time, expands and then explodes? That theory has as much evidence as God does.

---

skep·tic also scep·tic (skhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifphttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifk)n.1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy a. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
b. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? b.c.).


[Latin Scepticus, disciple of Pyrrho of Elis, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine; see spek- in Indo-European roots.]

Referenced from thefreedictionary.com. Now how am I redefining the word sceptic?

Black holes (or gravitional wells of massive proportions) have been observed, though the exact nature and whether they are black holes in the sense that they are singularities remains to be seen. However, the phenomenon exist and have been observed by astronomers, so a fail there for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Holes

Novae and Supernovae have been observed as well, and considering the amount of energy the Sun loses per day, means that it is fusing hydrogen at the core at a certain rate. This rate gives us an estimate on how long the Sun has before it runs of out hydrogen, and begins the process of swelling up before a nova collapse. Again, observed by astronomers. Another fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

So... where's the observational evidence for God? You made a claim that certain phenomena had as much evidence for as God, so now it's your turn to meet that burden of proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serkat

Personal experience doesn't make something true, right or justified.

Apart from that, you're the only one who ever said "in my personal experience" so what's your point?

---

what do you have to think in duelistic terms? that something has to be right or wrong or nothing at all?

the personal experience is valid

if a christian says "every atheist I've ever met is an arse". no evidence is needed to be backed up. the christian isn't saying every atheist is an arse, only that in his PERSONAL experience every atheist he has MET is one

it would be no different if an atheist says "every christian I've met is self rightous" the atheist doesn't need evidence to back up his claim. that is his personal experience with christian. just that, nothing more. neither are making a claim that requires evidence without a doubt.

I was referring to omnius deus

"In my experience it's 50/50."

omnius deus was not making a statement that is either true or false. this was simply a statement of omnius personal experience. stop thinking in shades of black and white. the personal experience is very much valid when you are discussing your experience with other human beings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

what do you have to think in duelistic terms? that something has to be right or wrong or nothing at all?

the personal experience is valid

if a christian says "every atheist I've ever met is an arse". no evidence is needed to be backed up. the christian isn't saying every atheist is an arse, only that in his PERSONAL experience every atheist he has MET is one

it would be no different if an atheist says "every christian I've met is self rightous" the atheist doesn't need evidence to back up his claim. that is his personal experience with christian. just that, nothing more. neither are making a claim that requires evidence without a doubt.

I was referring to omnius deus

"In my experience it's 50/50."

omnius deus was not making a statement that is either true or false. this was simply a statement of omnius personal experience. stop thinking in shades of black and white. the personal experience is very much valid when you are discussing your experience with other human beings

---

Personal experience, as you've unwittingly highlighted, is not reliable, and thus shouldn't be used to validate an opinion, because it may be completely subjective. What is it to say that though Person X met a whole load of decent People Y, but still found them to be unlikeable for whatever reason? People Y could have been perfectly reasonable people, but Person X didn't like them anyway for whatever reason.

Personal Experience is not valid as a means to validate one's opinion, as it is rarely reliable means of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Personal experience, as you've unwittingly highlighted, is not reliable, and thus shouldn't be used to validate an opinion, because it may be completely subjective. What is it to say that though Person X met a whole load of decent People Y, but still found them to be unlikeable for whatever reason? People Y could have been perfectly reasonable people, but Person X didn't like them anyway for whatever reason.

Personal Experience is not valid as a means to validate one's opinion, as it is rarely reliable means of evidence.

---

I understand what you are saying, but you still have this need and obsession with evidence that doesn't work in a situation like this

lets say evidence says: 99% of the people in the world LOVE hotdogs. and this is a fact.

does this evidence mean I should follow the same opinion and LOVE hotdogs? in the end, evidence means SQUAT when concerning someones opinion. whether or not I like a hotdog, will be based on my PERSONAL experience of eating one. I ate one, didn't like it. the 99% fact? too bad.

if an atheist thinks all christians are arses, what will change his opinion, except meeting a christian who isn't?

it isn't maybe completely subjective, IT IS COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. and if you don't agree with someones subjective opinion, the best you can do is offer YOUR personal experience of why their personal experience is a closed minded picture

no one however needs to provide evidence of their opinion, however small-minded or big it is. its an OPINION. and understanding that opinions are formed by personal experiences, we can better understand the person and why they feel a certain way about something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I understand what you are saying, but you still have this need and obsession with evidence that doesn't work in a situation like this

lets say evidence says: 99% of the people in the world LOVE hotdogs. and this is a fact.

does this evidence mean I should follow the same opinion and LOVE hotdogs? in the end, evidence means SQUAT when concerning someones opinion. whether or not I like a hotdog, will be based on my PERSONAL experience of eating one. I ate one, didn't like it. the 99% fact? too bad.

if an atheist thinks all christians are arses, what will change his opinion, except meeting a christian who isn't?

it isn't maybe completely subjective, IT IS COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. and if you don't agree with someones subjective opinion, the best you can do is offer YOUR personal experience of why their personal experience is a closed minded picture

no one however needs to provide evidence of their opinion, however small-minded or big it is. its an OPINION. and understanding that opinions are formed by personal experiences, we can better understand the person and why they feel a certain way about something.

---

I get you, but like I was saying, it is not reliable. That is what I'm highlighting, because personal anecdotes, even from similar events, can vary wildly.

You are right though in saying when someone provides personal anecdotes, you can say "Wait a minute, I didn't see things that way" and provide your own. However, it'll still be anecdotal and the person can reject your personal anecdote for the same reason as you rejecting his. The only way to get around this is to provide something more solid and reliable than merely anecdotes.

Hopefully, this has cleared up what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So, most of what you know could potentially be wrong? Don't you find that a bit worrying?




skep·tic also scep·tic (skhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifphttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifk)n.1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy a. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
b. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? b.c.).


[Latin Scepticus, disciple of Pyrrho of Elis, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine; see spek- in Indo-European roots.]

Referenced from thefreedictionary.com. Now how am I redefining the word sceptic?

Black holes (or gravitional wells of massive proportions) have been observed, though the exact nature and whether they are black holes in the sense that they are singularities remains to be seen. However, the phenomenon exist and have been observed by astronomers, so a fail there for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Holes

Novae and Supernovae have been observed as well, and considering the amount of energy the Sun loses per day, means that it is fusing hydrogen at the core at a certain rate. This rate gives us an estimate on how long the Sun has before it runs of out hydrogen, and begins the process of swelling up before a nova collapse. Again, observed by astronomers. Another fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

So... where's the observational evidence for God? You made a claim that certain phenomena had as much evidence for as God, so now it's your turn to meet that burden of proof.

---

No, quesars have been observed. Cosmologists invented black holes to explain them, and they can't think of any other explanation. However, they don't have a single bit of evidence to prove that black holes cause quesars. It's just an idea, completely untested with no evidence. There is a phenomena that they explain using black holes.

A nuclear fusion sun model has not been observed. It is an explanation that there is a lot of evidence going against, actually. In fact, a nuclear fusion sun is technically impossible given certain observations about the sun, of course cosmologists just assume these little problems like solar flares will work themselves out. They think they will "eventually" find an explanation as to why the sun surface is 6,000 degrees but a few miles outside the sun and it jumps to 2,000,000 degrees. This does not compute in a nuclear fusion model, but they don't care.

We have observed the universe working like a code. I won't say it's perfect to sustain life, but the slightest changes in the mathematical laws the run the universe, and it could not possibly sustain life. God is an explanation for what we have observed. Not THE explanation, just one, and there's a lot about the God theory that does not compute. It's the same way with nuclear fusion, we observe a sun giving us energy and created an explanation, who cares if it's not possible? That'll just work itself out.

And I DO NOT find it worrying that most of what I know could be wrong because I don't KNOW it. I use intelligent guesses to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given moment, but I'm not going to stubbornly cling to ideas if presented with a situation that requires a bit more creativity. I go with the flow, and I've learned a lot of useful info to help me get through the flow, but it's just info.

I don't think you'll ever understand me until you get out of this right/wrong dichotomoty. Something does have to either be true or false, it can exist as an idea and be changed with more information arrives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

No, quesars have been observed. Cosmologists invented black holes to explain them, and they can't think of any other explanation. However, they don't have a single bit of evidence to prove that black holes cause quesars. It's just an idea, completely untested with no evidence. There is a phenomena that they explain using black holes.

---

Quasars are just one of the phenomena that are caused by black holes. And I would love to see some citation about this. First of all, a certain number of phenomena were observed that could not be identified through already existing explanations, and thus the hypothesis of black holes was put forward. We have come a long way since the first idea, and generally, we have observed a variety of phenomena that fit the predictions laid out by the hypothesis. Sure, there may be openly discussed problems being tackled by the Scientific community, I don't deny that, but so far, we are seeing some strange gravitational anomalies that have an astoundingly strong gravity well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

A nuclear fusion sun model has not been observed. It is an explanation that there is a lot of evidence going against, actually. In fact, a nuclear fusion sun is technically impossible given certain observations about the sun, of course cosmologists just assume these little problems like solar flares will work themselves out. They think they will "eventually" find an explanation as to why the sun surface is 6,000 degrees but a few miles outside the sun and it jumps to 2,000,000 degrees. This does not compute in a nuclear fusion model, but they don't care.

---

Citation is needed for this paragraph desperately. We may not know exactly the mechanism for what causes the solar corona to be so hot, however, this does not disprove the nuclear fusion model. First of all, what other source of energy can meet the requirements for what the sun emitting? It sure as hell isn't matter/anti-matter annihilation.

As for the Solar Corona phenomena, it is an unknown, but it's not like Scientists are ignoring that. Nasa plans to send a mission that way in order to investigate the phenomena in depth. If anything, by studying the Solar Corona, we would get a better picture of what is happening inside the sun, and thus can come to a more accurate conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

We have observed the universe working like a code. I won't say it's perfect to sustain life, but the slightest changes in the mathematical laws the run the universe, and it could not possibly sustain life. God is an explanation for what we have observed. Not THE explanation, just one, and there's a lot about the God theory that does not compute. It's the same way with nuclear fusion, we observe a sun giving us energy and created an explanation, who cares if it's not possible? That'll just work itself out.

---

Technically, the universe could do just fine with the nuclear weak force, and still form a similar environment that is conducive for life. Of course, there are differences, but nonetheless, it is not an impossibility.

Science works by observing and coming to conclusions based on what it finds. Just because it comes up with an explanation doesn't mean it stops there. Science is constantly refining all these theories, building it up with evidence, or if the evidence shows otherwise, modifying the relevant theories or proposing new hypothesises according to what the evidence dictates.

A fair bit more reliable than the God hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And I DO NOT find it worrying that most of what I know could be wrong because I don't KNOW it. I use intelligent guesses to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given moment, but I'm not going to stubbornly cling to ideas if presented with a situation that requires a bit more creativity. I go with the flow, and I've learned a lot of useful info to help me get through the flow, but it's just info.

---

But you can know, you can discern what information you receive to be true or false. Knowing things does not hamper your ability to be creative, if anything, the fact you are afraid to really know things can be detrimental to that creativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I don't think you'll ever understand me until you get out of this right/wrong dichotomoty. Something does have to either be true or false, it can exist as an idea and be changed with more information arrives.

---

Science works similarly to that though, however, let me explain it to you:

A problem arises.
Scientist studies problem.
Comes up with hypothesis on what is causing problem.
Makes predictions on the nature of the problem and how to test for them.
Tests problem.
Sees if predictions are correct or not.
If false, start over again with new hypothesis. If correct, assemble the results and publish.

Even when the results are published, further research is done to firstly check whether the methodology is correct, and then to improve upon the hypothesis by collecting more data. Science deals with the categorisation and explanation of phenomena, so if a phenomena exists that can be observed, it will pursue to understand it. From this understanding, Science then tries to see what we can do to profit from that knowledge.

It is an ongoing process, never stopping just because a nice answer comes along.

Video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Video

---

Ummm, mind giving me reading material by which I can at least check the sources? Also, you shouldn't put so much trust on one video.

Trust?

Lol. No wonder you keep making this argument. I am free associating here, not trying to invent a universal law of physics. I don't need to verify my results, I don't need to trust the information in my sources. It's all make believe as far as I'm concerned, just some interesting ideas.

You're going to break your back trying to verify everything that hard, declaring it false until somebody writes it down in a scholarly magazine. Things don't have to be true and false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Trust?

Lol. No wonder you keep making this argument. I am free associating here, not trying to invent a universal law of physics. I don't need to verify my results, I don't need to trust the information in my sources. It's all make believe as far as I'm concerned, just some interesting ideas.

You're going to break your back trying to verify everything that hard, declaring it false until somebody writes it down in a scholarly magazine. Things don't have to be true and false.

---

Ideas that are interesting aren't necessarily true. However, you were making some specific claims earlier, and now you go "Oh, but I'm only using this as a sort of free association. I don't have to verify anything". Umm, wrong. If you don't want to look potentially ignorant, then it becomes important to verify the information you are using to construct your argument.

Also, so what if I go about making sure I verify everything I say in a debate. If anything, it means I can articulate my argument more effectively, and actually have weight with anything I say. To go around and making claims to which you don't verify their validity and then claim afterwards that it's not your problem will just paint you as a potential troll or simply someone who is full of shit.

This whole "I use information when I need to" mentality is a bit of a contradiction. I mean, without knowledge, how do you handle the information that you comes across, how do you communicate it, etc. This disregard for knowledge just blinds you to the fact that you are already 'burdened' with knowledge.