Atheist or Religious?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm Atheist and anyone who isn't is by definition mentally ret*d.

So what you're essentially saying is this: "if you don't agree with me and my beliefs, you're a stupid stupidhead"?

Not really the best way to argue your case, methinks.

How come? I am ret*d. You have something against ret*d people?

Wow, you're really doing a good job of representing Atheism. I've never been more proud to be a Christian after reading that.

I think it's more like, if you have the conviction that an old man in the sky has power over everything and that you can talk to him by certain weird rituals, if it weren't so common and accepted as normal it would be considered pretty schizo or something… try looking at it from the outside… i think you'll find that it's not unreasonable… and there's nothing wrong with being mentally ret*d. ret*d people arren't stupid… there's just something wrong with them that they can't help.

I'm not saying i agree with joeman21, i'm just saying i can understand his point of view.

Last edited by Laser on 27 Apr 2007, 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FYI A true atheist is someone who has personally researched the idea of religion and God thuroughly and scientifically and afterwards has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as God. To simply decide God is non-existent without any solid reasoning behind it is stupid. (WARNING: doing research into religion could be dangerous, when CS Lewis tried to disprove christianity he ended up converting to it.)

If you call yourself atheist and have done your own research, then fine. Otherwise, it's like conducting a scientific study without reasearch, just a hypothesis and a conclusion. Ok, I'm finished ranting now. Don't mean this to be offensive I'm just trying to make a point.

I pretend to be an athiest and maybe I am because I refuse to do most Christiany things such as go to church (just try and get me there without kicking and screaming.) I don't think it's true that you have to worship in "fellowship". I'm also told that I need to be more fimine. And if it is true I guess I'm destined for Hell. Techinaly I am an athiest. I have a hard time believing in fairy tales and also find it hard to believe that life just spontaniosly generated from nothing one day. But then where did God come from he had to come from somewhere. Agonistic is what is called when you are 100% sure.

No one claims life spontaneously generated from nothing in one day. The truth is the scientists don't know how life started. That doesn't mean it couldn't have started without a god, there are several credible hypothesis about it, it just mean they haven't figured it out yet. One way it could have happened is with silicon crystals that can form spontaneously in water and then evolved into more and more advanced shapes through contaminations in the crystals and eventually the silicone was replaced with carbon and life as we know it started. However, they don't know for sure. And not knowing how something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I can understand his point of view, just not his way of expressing it. Political debate has never been solved by either party calling their opponent mentally ret*d, after all.

And if Einstein, one of the cleverest men on the planet and clearly not ret*d in any way, had no problem reconciling his faith with his science, then I don't see what the problem is, frankly.

Sorry it's plain to see he said he's proud and so what if he thinks that's special? Its not as if ragtime just posted in in isolation. Btw the guy himself though that was a bit off. So maybe we both got the wrong then?? mean you think the last post was sarcastic or back talk. Especially since he used the same language I’m humble of it. I wouldn't bother if he just said he was humble. 'Of it' is ungrammatical and not a coincidence. I don't think any of those post were even remotely debate. Except our last two posts. I do however think they are relevant to the debate.

He is right to be proud. Atheist is almost like a dirty word. For historical reasons religion is enshrined in the constitutions and laws and there hasn't been as chance for review. There is still unreasonable bias in what is supposed to be secular society. This is the sort of stuff I'm talking about

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/busin ... f8&ei=5088



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 4526.shtml

Isn't "In God we Trust" on ever $1 bill? Apparently it was only placed on there in the 50s

http://ffrf.org/timely/igwt/

You're accusing someone of being grammatically incorrect? With all due respect, that's rather hypocritical - you broke about every grammar rule in your last post. As it is, I'm having trouble understanding your post because of the broken sentences and misspelled words. It's difficult to respond to what you said when I don't know what you mean by "Its not as if ragtime just posted in in isolation." since I can make neither head nor tail of it.

I did not say that he didn't have the right to be proud. In fact, I stated in my last post that I did not care who was proud, who was humble, or who was somewhere in the middle.

I am not debating you about religion. I don't have the time or the patience to type out dozens of posts, quoting articles and facts, and defending whatever you post back, especially since nothing is going to change.

I responded to your post orginially because I thought the rolling eyes was rude and uncalled for. I gave a possible explanation that was non-insulting. In return, you started talking about priests and power issues, which was not connected to what I had said. The only reason I responded to that post at all was because you mentioned that "people have every right to debate this" and I thought it was possible that you thought was debate.

Your arguments have nothing to do with being humble or proud or even why you responded the way you did. They have to do with your thoughts and ideas. Quite frankly, you may think as you wish; it's none of my concern.

Last edited by RainSong on 27 Apr 2007, 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm an apathiest, I dont care!

Good answer

I'm neither Atheist nor Religious. If I had to put myself in a category it would be an Agnostic Theist.

Sure I'm grammatically incorrect but that's not coincidence. I don't do it on purpose. It is not to form a pun.
I think you did join the debate. I don't think was rude any more that what he said was rude (which not what I'm arguing about). What he wrote, to spell it out, insinuated that Laser was being immodest. I do think is pretty appropriate in that situation. I wouldn’t write any more.