Are you religious?

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

it's not language skills. without trying to seem like a dick, i'm actually pretty damned good with the english language and have a pretty respectable vocabulary. but i'm not trying to be a literary genius on an internet forum, and i do feel i express myself pretty well- it just doesn't always gel with the majority of others.

if anything it's often my more direct and literal statements that are misinterpreted the most. maybe i've just given up trying.

No, you simply wrote some extremely moronic statements and don't want to admit it.

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Religious. Russian Orthodox, but I seldom visit the church.

 

[brblx]

No, you simply wrote some extremely moronic statements and don't want to admit it.

actually i think cropping all of your posts would be the biggest purge of retardation possible for this thread.

you're the one who wants to argue semantics over what you don't believe in. all i ever wanted was to acknowledge that atheism and agnosticism, were not, in fact, synonyms.

 

[Perknose]

Well its as good as im going to get, anything other than a national poll woulnt be a good sampling of americas diverse population. I can at least gather an idea of what anan members belive

You clearly don't have a good grasp of the science of statistical sampling. May Zeus have mercy on your soul (or as the unbelievers call it, your pituitary gland.)

 

[IronWing]

Just follow the god with the biggest organ.

 

[brblx]

and also, apparently you want me to individually and articulately respond to every individual that challenges me, even if they disagree with each other and/or make no sense. i have no interest in this.

i say this:

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Before you make statements it's a good idea if you actually have any idea of what you're talking about. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s); nothing else. You're not rejecting anything, just lacking belief in it.

good think i didn't read the second paragraph, i might've had to forcibly castrate you to ensure you don't reproduce.

let's quote wikipedia, since if i tried to get any more intellectual your brain might explode.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

atheism- no god. you can say that you're atheist but believe in an afterlife or something, but we already have a word for that, i think it's 'dumbass.'

agnostic- not claiming to have answers to questions that cannot and will not ever be answered. scientists postulate on things that they do not know because they're performing SCIENCE. they must attempt to prove their guesses. they don't just guess about something, then write a book and declare it truth.

summary: you say i don't know the definition of multiple words.

i refute by telling you that most all reference material on the internet disagrees with you. maybe take a minute and check that out. atheism is a relatively firm belief that there is no god ('god' being used as a simplified term for all deities, just in case your panties get wadded up over that, too).

agnosticism implies willful admittance of the unknown, and acceptance that it is nearly if not entirely impossible to know these things.

i also attempt to point out the silliness of the mixing of terms. there are tons of people that reject christianity but are still afraid of 'hell' or 'damnation,' so they just pray on their own and call it spirituality.

it is you that truly introduces the 'straw man' argument, by stating that rejecting an ideal is not the same as not believing in it. continuing the play by play, this makes me picture you in mittens and a helmet.

then this guy-

The article you quoted had this in it. I am putting it in bold it for your reference. It makes me very confused as to your position, as it would seem you quoted a source that has as one possible definition the exact thing you seemingly were attempting to refute with the quote.

second attempt to accuse me of the 'straw man' bullshit by posting it yourself. basically, you're saying that i'm wrong because atheists simply LACK THE BELIEF in god.

and jesus buttfucking christ, what's another way to put that? 'lack...belief?' how about DON'T. BELIEVE.

i apologize for not performing a literary crique on a gerneric wikipedia article before submitting it for your approval.

past this guy i pretty much just gave up in the face of a wall of sheer stupidity. kudos to those of you that have shown intelligence (even if you flamed me just a little). but i am done, i do not arguing with walls.

 

[DCal430]

For those of you who answered yes, have you been brainwashed your whole life? Or did this brainwashing happen later in life?

 

[DrPizza]

My Theory:

I don't believe in "god". But if he does exist, I would hate to believe that he would punish me just because of that.

Wherever that fits into your pole.

If there's a God, and he gave you reasoning ability, then he might be mad if you didn't use that reasoning ability to reject his existence. Perhaps he punishes those who don't use their God given gift of reasoning, and rewards those who are skeptical.

And, that tends to make more sense than blindly believing without questioning. If *I* were God, I wouldn't reward idiots who thought that dinosaurs roamed the Earth 6000 years ago. I mean, I left so much evidence to the contrary that even the backwards Catholics (1993 before Galileo was pardoned for believing the sun was at the center of the solar system) finally declared that there's so much evidence for things like evolution that it's beyond just a hypothesis.

P.S. Galileo gets to go to the front of the buffet line.

reread your posts, it makes no sense.

also, i'm sorry i'm not one of the ATOT millionaires, or else i would purchase you all a dictionary.

rejecting something and not believing in it are the same fucking thing. your brains are apparently not capable of understanding words that can have complex meanings.

it's not 'HI I'M JESUS I'M HERE TO SAVE YOU' and someone screaming 'i reject this!'

it's rejecting retarded ideals that have no evidence to support them- and from that you can come to one of two conclusions- essentially, 'i wager that there is no god,' or, 'i see no reason to believe in god but also see no reason to bet on it.'

There *is* a difference between rejecting something and not believing in something. Rejecting does not allow the possibility to exist. Not believing allows for the possibility to exist, given any evidence. i.e. "don't believe everything you read." - many people are skeptical and require evidence in things they believe. (Or require that such evidence exists - i.e. I've never directly seen the evidence of a top quark, but believe those who work in particle physics and have found evidence in reproducible experiments that I can read about.

I'm sorry someone saw science as a strawman for this argument on the difference between not believing and rejecting - there are a large number of scientists who never believed that the Higgs boson exists. They haven't rejected it - they will rely on evidence to reject its existence.

 

[Jeff7]

If there's a God, and he gave you reasoning ability, then he might be mad if you didn't use that reasoning ability to reject his existence. Perhaps he punishes those who don't use their God given gift of reasoning, and rewards those who are skeptical.

And, that tends to make more sense than blindly believing without questioning. If *I* were God, I wouldn't reward idiots who thought that dinosaurs roamed the Earth 6000 years ago. I mean, I left so much evidence to the contrary that even the backwards Catholics (1993 before Galileo was pardoned for believing the sun was at the center of the solar system) finally declared that there's so much evidence for things like evolution that it's beyond just a hypothesis.

P.S. Galileo gets to go to the front of the buffet line.

God the Designer.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Religion is man-made. This fact alone is enough to invalidate it's claims.

For those of you who answered yes, have you been brainwashed your whole life? Or did this brainwashing happen later in life?

Was wondering the same thing...

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

actually i think cropping all of your posts would be the biggest purge of retardation possible for this thread.

you're the one who wants to argue semantics over what you don't believe in. all i ever wanted was to acknowledge that atheism and agnosticism, were not, in fact, synonyms.

No one here said they were. Not that it matters, anyway, because your concept of what both are is completely erroneous and I already corrected you on it, and afterwards you quote mined an article, and when you got called out on it you followed by making excuses of how you were misunderstood. I've made clear and concise arguments based on facts. All you've offered is your misinformed opinion of how things are and excuses for when you were proven wrong.

You got thoroughly owned and yet you come again to say more retarded shit. Are there really this many morons on OT?

 

[Perknose]

Religion is man-made. This fact alone is enough to invalidate it's claims.

Wow, that's a truly stupid statement. Everything you have ever thought, done or made was "man made", Ace. All the world's great music, art and architecture was man made. This forum and the internet that brings it to you and the smartphone you're viewing it on were all man made.

YOU were man made by your parents.

In light of your statement, you may as well go "invalidate" yourself off a cliff.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

and also, apparently you want me to individually and articulately respond to every individual that challenges me, even if they disagree with each other and/or make no sense. i have no interest in this.

i say this:

summary: you say i don't know the definition of multiple words.

i refute by telling you that most all reference material on the internet disagrees with you. maybe take a minute and check that out. atheism is a relatively firm belief that there is no god ('god' being used as a simplified term for all deities, just in case your panties get wadded up over that, too).

agnosticism implies willful admittance of the unknown, and acceptance that it is nearly if not entirely impossible to know these things.

i also attempt to point out the silliness of the mixing of terms. there are tons of people that reject christianity but are still afraid of 'hell' or 'damnation,' so they just pray on their own and call it spirituality.

it is you that truly introduces the 'straw man' argument, by stating that rejecting an ideal is not the same as not believing in it. continuing the play by play, this makes me picture you in mittens and a helmet.

then this guy-



second attempt to accuse me of the 'straw man' bullshit by posting it yourself. basically, you're saying that i'm wrong because atheists simply LACK THE BELIEF in god.

and jesus buttfucking christ, what's another way to put that? 'lack...belief?' how about DON'T. BELIEVE.

i apologize for not performing a literary crique on a gerneric wikipedia article before submitting it for your approval.

past this guy i pretty much just gave up in the face of a wall of sheer stupidity. kudos to those of you that have shown intelligence (even if you flamed me just a little). but i am done, i do not arguing with walls.

Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. None.

Anyone with half a brain will see through your bullshit. Even the article you quote mined gives the right definition for atheism, which is, for the umpteenth time, a lack of belief in god or gods. If you can't understand something so simple, there's something wrong with you.

And lacking belief in something does not equal rejecting it.

 

[IronWing]

Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. None.

Anyone with half a brain will see through your bullshit. Even the article you quote mined gives the right definition for atheism, which is, for the umpteenth time, a lack of belief in god or gods. If you can't understand something so simple, there's something wrong with you.

And lacking belief in something does not equal rejecting it.

Claiming atheism must be a positive statement of belief is a political strategy not a philosophical or theological argument.

 

[brblx]

Wow, that's a truly stupid statement. Everything you have ever thought, done or made was "man made", Ace. All the world's great music, art and architecture was man made. This forum and the internet that brings it to you and the smartphone you're viewing it on were all man made.

YOU were man made by your parents.

In light of your statement, you may as well go "invalidate" yourself off a cliff.

i don't think you understood his intention. he's simply saying that all religions rely on stories/writings alleged to be from god, but aside from some kind of possession or godly dictation, a man wrote them. and all these writings are often from periods that do not match up with what they claim to be. all religious texts were at one time written by a man with the intent of influencing others among mankind.

it basically goes with my statement of 'no one can prove anything.' but people are free to draw whatever conclusions they want- unfortunately, they will always lead to conflict.

 

[busydude]

In light of your statement, you may as well go "invalidate" yourself off a cliff.

You mad old man?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

i don't think you understood his intention. he's simply saying that all religions rely on stories/writings alleged to be from god, but aside from some kind of possession or godly dictation, all these writings are from periods that do not match up with what they claim to be. all religious texts were at one time written by a man with the intent of influences others among mankind.

it basically goes with my statement of 'no one can prove anything.' but people are free to draw whatever conclusions they want- unfortunately, they will always lead to conflict.

The funny thing is, your statement proves nothing. For the millionth time,

the burden of proof lies on who is making the claims, not the ones rejecting it based on absence of evidence.

Looks like your brain is too small to digest this quote.

There's no evidence that unicorns don't exist, either. As a matter of fact, using your "it can't be disproved" argument, I can make up anything I want simply because you can't prove otherwise. Hereby, I declare that I have an invisible elf in my closet that has magical powers and he will only communicate with me. You can't disprove it; I win.

In reality, though, that's not how it works. You need evidence to prove claims. If you don't have it, your statement is false. I can't say with 100% certainty that god(s) don't exist, either, but since there's no evidence to suggest otherwise and the fact we have science and philosophy for our answers, I'm an agnostic atheist.

And even if a god did exist, we haven't even gotten into answering which type of god and what religion he represents, if any.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

i don't think you understood his intention. he's simply saying that all religions rely on stories/writings alleged to be from god, but aside from some kind of possession or godly dictation, a man wrote them. and all these writings are often from periods that do not match up with what they claim to be. all religious texts were at one time written by a man with the intent of influencing others among mankind.

it basically goes with my statement of 'no one can prove anything.' but people are free to draw whatever conclusions they want- unfortunately, they will always lead to conflict.

Right. My comment was not a blanket statement about all things mad-made. Just religion and it's connotations - if that's the right word.

Refer to: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/is-religion-man-made/

 

[darkswordsman17]

Here we go....this forum needs a separate religious posting area just like L&R and P&N.

Here's some cheese to go with that...

 

[brblx]

The funny thing is, your statement proves nothing. For the millionth time,

Looks like your brain is too small to digest this quote.

There's no evidence that unicorns don't exist, either. As a matter of fact, using your "it can't be disproved" argument, I can make up anything I want simply because you can't prove otherwise. Hereby, I declare that I have an invisible elf in my closet that has magical powers and he will only communicate with me. You can't disprove it; I win.

In reality, though, that's not how it works. You need evidence to prove claims. If you don't have it, your statement is false. I can't say with 100% certainty that god(s) don't exist, either, but since there's no evidence to suggest otherwise and the fact we have science and philosophy for our answers, I'm an agnostic atheist.

And even if a god did exist, we haven't even gotten into answering which type of god and what religion he represents, if any.

lol. oh martha mother of friggin' random deity, why did i show this post?

you. are. arguing. for. no. reason. period. (dot)

okay- you say unicorns exist.

i say they don't.

you say prove it.

with research, i'm sure one could probably trace the origin of unicorns in either picture or story to some period in time. i won't claim to know when and don't care; but you can write a dissertation on unicorn history if you want. i know i can't recall any claimed 'unicorn sightings' with even a tiny fraction of the supposed evidence and following publicity generated by even the shittiest of bigfoot claims. and the better ones have at least temporarily carried a shred of doubt among many who studied them...but almost all have been proven to be entirely false.

i would postulate that both bigfoot and unicorns are imaginery. i would berate you the most for believing in the latter, as with that comparison you might as well use santa claus.

and where again did i say that no proof of something was proof of the opposite?

right now you can't prove that i'm not shitting ice cream. come have a taste.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

lol. oh martha mother of friggin' random deity, why did i show this post?

you. are. arguing. for. no. reason. period. (dot)

okay- you say unicorns exist.

i say they don't.

you say prove it.

with research, i'm sure one could probably trace the origin of unicorns in either picture or story to some period in time. i won't claim to know when and don't care; but you can write a dissertation on unicorn history if you want. i know i can't recall any claimed 'unicorn sightings' with even a tiny fraction of the supposed evidence and following publicity generated by even the shittiest of bigfoot claims. and the better ones have at least temporarily carried a shred of doubt among many who studied them...but almost all have been proven to be entirely false.

i would postulate that both bigfoot and unicorns are imaginery. i would berate you the most for believing in the latter, as with that comparison you might as well use santa claus.

and where again did i say that no proof of something was proof of the opposite?

right now you can't prove that i'm not shitting ice cream. come have a taste.

^
Missing the point completely, yet again. You've been trolling all along in this thread and I'm not gonna feed you any longer.

In any case, we don't need any more evidence that you're a fucking moron. That couldn't be clearer.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I beleave in Christ because faith in Christ helped me get through some very hard times and helped my parents overcome their addiction to crack.

Not much to say past that: if you desire to live your life allowing love to flow through you and allowing love to change you to be more loving then we're the same faith even if your religion is pastafarian and mine is baptist.

 

[brblx]

I beleave in Christ because faith in Christ helped me get through some very hard times and helped my parents overcome their addiction to crack.

Not much to say past that: if you desire to live your life allowing love to flow through you and allowing love to change you to be more loving then we're the same faith even if your religion is pastafarian and mine is baptist.

both i and my delicious flying egg and flour based deity endorse your post.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

I beleave in Christ because faith in Christ helped me get through some very hard times and helped my parents overcome their addiction to crack.

Using religion as a self-delusional crutch. A person can't face life's hardships or their own shortcomings so they turn to the Good Book or faith for all the answers. Course this usually isn't a bad thing; better than masking your troubles with prescription drugs or other mind-altering substances.

 

[jmarti445]

I am not religious yet I believe in a supreme deity. I guess I could say this about what I believe. I don't believe in Religion....I believe in the truth and feel that the universe is the supreme deity.

Ask yourself the question what is life? And I'm not talking about human or animal life. Could the planet itself be a living thing in and of itself(the planet eventually dies when the core is uses up its radioactivity)? Could the sun and stars in the sky(stars burn out and die in many different ways)? Is it possible that humans are like mites on the back of a animal? Just something to think about..