OSDev.org

Android Mouse wrote:

There is no proof that bollywogglydoodardbilybob exists either but i don't see you complaining that no one has proof that he doesn't before that decide not to beleive in him.

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing out the fact that both ends of the spectrum believe or disbelieve in relgion without any proof. Yet many atheists try and critize the religious for having beliefs without proof even though they do exactly the same.

Fundamentally, atheists and religious are a lot more similar than both seem to want to admit.

Well then you can have that opinion without complaint as long as you would not class those like myself as atheist. I personally have no opinion anyway because it seems backward to label myself over fiction and therefore there is no reason to proof it is or isn't true.

Brynet-Inc wrote:It's considerably annoying and frankly I'm getting tired of so many people blatantly trying to pass off fiction as fact..

You still didn't get it. If people want to believe in what you call fiction, it's their business. If people want to talk about their beliefs, it's their business, and quite OK to have on a "General Ramblings" subforum.

It's only when people start putting each other down or calling them names that a moderator has to step in.

Seriously.. Moderators.. close the topic already... 6 pages of senseless fighting/trolling is a bit extensive.

No, because I don't share your view that the discussion is pointless. The majority of posts here is enlightening.

I personally have no opinion anyway because it seems backward to label myself over fiction...

That is the definition of (strong) Atheism - the positive belief that there is no deity. And as you keep attacking people who believe different than you, I'd even call you a fundamental atheist. Luckily that's one step away from a religious fundamentalist, because atheists don't go fighting a holy war en masse...

Combuster wrote:

Solar wrote:DAMN, listen to yourself talking. Take your kind of reasoning ("Jews are raised to think differently"), and come to a conclusion that is not favouring the Jewish. Oh, jolly, look at all those cries of "antisemitic!"...

Were I? I was actually concluding that jews were more successful due to being raised differently...

Saying that people are so-and-so because of their religion is a very, very thin line, no matter if that so-and-so is positive or negative, and should be avoided in a casual discussion like this.

It's a step away from a "free for all" discussion about "I (don't) believe in X" and towards a p***ing contest of "my religion / non-belief is better than yours".

Solar wrote:

I personally have no opinion anyway because it seems backward to label myself over fiction...

That is the definition of (strong) Atheism - the positive belief that there is no deity. And as you keep attacking people who believe different than you, I'd even call you a fundamental atheist. Luckily that's one step away from a religious fundamentalist, because atheists don't go fighting a holy war en masse...

Very Similar i am sure, the fundemental difference being (strong) atheists feel (strongly) about the issue. I feel just as much about this issue as i do that the Grinch is going to come steal all the presents on christmas day. And accordingly, as you do not give me a name for that (lack of) belief, i see no need to label me because of your beliefs in this situation. I have no wish to change your beliefs or force my own upon you, i simply do not wished to be counted among any of you in anyway.

Tyler wrote:Very Similar i am sure, the fundemental difference being (strong) atheists feel (strongly) about the issue. I feel just as much about this issue as i do that the Grinch is going to come steal all the presents on christmas day.

Sorry, Tyler, but you cannot change the meanings of well-defined words to suit you. If you don't believe in deities, that makes you an atheist. If you actively believe no deities exist, that makes you a strong atheist.

I have no wish to change your beliefs or force my own upon you, i simply do not wished to be counted among any of you in anyway.

If you consider being called an atheist makes you "being counted among any of you", I cannot really help it. I can just try to point out where people cross the line between presenting their point of view and hurting other people's feelings.

You don't want to be called an atheist, but you continue to argue an atheist point very strongly, so I guess you're stuck with the label you don't like. Nobody attacks you for it or thinks badly about you for being an atheist.

The problem is - or hopefully, was - that you didn't respect theist people, or at least refrain from expressing your disrespect. Live and let live.

Solar wrote:Saying that people are so-and-so because of their religion is a very, very thin line, no matter if that so-and-so is positive or negative, and should be avoided in a casual discussion like this.

I'm aware its a delicate subject, but my point was, there are truths behind this kind of reasoning. Truths that apply to smaller or larger portions of members of that religion.
I nevertheless posted that we should be careful when dealing with stereotypes as they have the tendency to cross the line.

Solar wrote:... towards a p***ing contest of "my religion / non-belief is better than yours"

IMHO each religion has its inherent advantages and disadvantages. You could compare it to a windows/linux holy war: All religions maintain themselves, but different religions result in different qualities being common.

And now I'll try to take your advice and keep out of it before ending on the border between america and mexico with angry people on both sides of that White Line...

Combuster wrote:...before ending on the border between america and mexico with angry people on both sides of that White Line...

Good one!

Solar wrote:Sorry, Tyler, but you cannot change the meanings of well-defined words to suit you. If you don't believe in deities, that makes you an atheist. If you actively believe no deities exist, that makes you a strong atheist.

Fine you win... as always At least i see you point... you have a slight fault in your argument in that many none athesits believe in no deities. Buddhists for example maintain the spirtual aspects of religion without believing in any such entity.

And for reference, though i would love for everyone to belief the same way as me, i would never wish them all changed, or attempt to change them. I have total respect for religious people and wish sometimes i did have the same solice they have when people die etc.

At the beginning - sorry for refreshing the thread, but it looks interesting .
I classified myself as an atheist, because I don't believe in god's existance. I know as an 'exact atheist' I would be active in prooving, that god doesn't exist, etc., but it's a commonly used phrase for someone, who doesn't believe god.
Why don't I believe? Because I think today's religions are the 'next edition' of mythology. Mythology was something used to explain things that people didn't understand. Now, It's exactly the same! People don't understand some things (f.e. 'How did it start' or 'What would happen when I die') so they explain them by talking about god. The list of these things is very much smaller, but it's still FULL of questions... I simply wait for scientists to explore more and explain us, what IS the true.. Of course someone could disagree .
PS. My English is rather poor, so sorry for mistakes . Correct me .

Brendan wrote: Consider something like gravity - it can't be seen or touched, but it's easy to prove it exists simply by dropping something.

That only proves that things fall to the ground when you drop them. Gravity is the current explanation for that, but in another thousand years people might look back and wonder how people living in the early twenty first century could ever have been so superstitious as to believe in gravity. After all, everybody knows that things fall to the ground because....... and then they will come out with whatever explanation is current in the early thirty first century. Even our perception of the world around us might only bear a semi-detached relationship to what really is "out there".

I vote Christian by the way.

mathematician wrote:

Brendan wrote: Consider something like gravity - it can't be seen or touched, but it's easy to prove it exists simply by dropping something.

That only proves that things fall to the ground when you drop them. Gravity is the current explanation for that, but in another thousand years people might look back and wonder how people living in the early twenty first century could ever have been so superstitious as to believe in gravity. After all, everybody knows that things fall to the ground because....... and then they will come out with whatever explanation is current in the early thirty first century. Even our perception of the world around us might only bear a semi-detached relationship to what really is "out there".

I vote Christian by the way.

Yeah Gravity is a word that means things fall towards objects at an acceleration relative to their mass. Obviously the cause changes all the time. It used to be because of an attraction, then we believed it was a fold in space around the object and now we believe it is a fold caused by one dimensional Gravity Strings. Gravity still exists though, quite obviously. I punched God the other day and my fist went right through him though, strange, almost like God is a fictional being... no... it couldn't be. There is no way a being made up by men to control other men is not real, by definition the fact that raving lunatics made him up must make him real.

Tyler wrote:I punched God the other day and my fist went right through him though, strange, almost like God is a fictional being... no... it couldn't be. There is no way a being made up by men to control other men is not real, by definition the fact that raving lunatics made him up must make him real.

Beyond being an atheist's rant does that actually mean anything?

I refuse to enswer this poll alone bacause it seems to be asumed that you believe in something.
Yes, in my oppinion Atheist is allso believing. Believing in the fact that no higher powers or gods could exist. Atheists are generally convinsed of this, even though they have no proof, that is faith.
So in the poll, the term: "Nothing specific" or simular, should appear.

Allso: "How do you prove that god does not exist?" should be: "How do you prove that god excist?", agreed, the answer to the last question could in some cases be argued to be the first, but generelly you prove something before you prove it against.

And finaly the answer:
I dont believe i believe anything, but im not an atheist as i will never be 100% convinsed of anything, and that include the statement: "god does not exist", i do however believe, that if i were to believe in something religious, it would be Budhism.

Cheers

Tyler wrote:I punched God the other day and my fist went right through him though, strange, almost like God is a fictional being... no... it couldn't be. There is no way a being made up by men to control other men is not real, by definition the fact that raving lunatics made him up must make him real.

You punched God, did you? That's awesome. Just awesome. I'm sorry. You're very focused on not believing anything, aren't you? 'Tis a pity. You might want to try to be a little more open.

PS: It's not nice to call the founders of Christianity, Judaism, etc. "raving lunatics". That's generally frowned upon. In fact, I think somewhere in the Old Testament some kids were mocking Isaiah, so God sent she-bears to eat them.....Yeah...

Alboin wrote:some kids were mocking Isaiah, so God sent she-bears to eat them.....Yeah...

He watches out for his friends that guy. If Tyler doesn't reply, I guess we'll know what happened