And now it's religion discussion camouflaged as religion discussion discussion discussion!knorke wrote:lol religion discussion camouflaged as religion discussion discussion
you will obey your god Nemppu
Moderator: Moderators
And now it's religion discussion camouflaged as religion discussion discussion discussion!knorke wrote:lol religion discussion camouflaged as religion discussion discussion
The standard theist patterns of self-delusion and the resultant hindrance to an individual's cognition and critical thinking are the only reason why the concept of "faith in atheism" makes any sense to you.SinbadEV wrote:Please provide me the word for someone who believes, based on the lack of scientific evidence proving the existence of God, that there is no God so I can start use it in place of "Faith in Atheism".
Yeah, your probably right.Peet wrote:The OP request should become forum policy.
Loophole?Sleksa wrote:While were at it lets also ban all topics and discussions relating to history, philosophy and news! From now on all topics must be either about
a) lolcats
b) FBF
anything else should warrant a [swift] banhammer to the face to preserve the good and friendly atmosphere!
And it probably is but I prefer the orthodox dictionary logical definition where possible as its clearer and not pseudofuzzy in interpretation. Granted sometimes in my posts I may not care and take an extra step to clarify how I use the word, and sometimes I forget entirely, but those cases are usually not in these kinds of threads, and especially not concerning these topics.SinbadEV wrote:I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. Perhaps it's just a vocabulary issue.
Its not that you need a word for this concept, but rather that this concept is flawed. Atheists do not have a faith in a lack of God, that would result in a logical paradox, as they are by definition without faith.SinbadEV wrote:Please provide me the word for someone who believes, based on the lack of scientific evidence proving the existence of God, that there is no God so I can start use it in place of "Faith in Atheism".
Again, how can someone who by definition is faithless, have faith? You misunderstand what you seek to identify. Probably Athiests who seek to disperse the memetic perversion that is religion ( which indeed it is, regardless of its validity or not, I would be happy to say that christianity is a memetic perversion with the virgin mary and Holy fathers infront of me, and I would probably applaud them for it and at the same time ask why they inflict it on us).SinbadEV wrote:Please provide me with a word for the need of some people who believe that God does not exist to aggressively attack the intelligence and morality of those who do, to use in place of "Atheist Rage".
SinbadEV wrote:Now, I agree with a number of the other things you said but what we are getting at here is that you don't believe the straw men I'm setting up are actually real people that exist... which I am 90% is not the case. There are idiots on both side of the discussion and it is, apparently, my goal in life to prove to strangers on the Internet that I am not one of them.
Its not the person who is wrong who is the fool, being wrong is just being wrong, you get on with it and waste no further time on the subject. It is the one who denies he is wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence and persists who is the fool.I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionately keen on a particular theory for, oh, a number of years, and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hypothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said, "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I have been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal, of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory, and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced. (Part 1, 00:13:32)
umm just pointing it out befor smoth is ragingsmoth wrote:"none of it matters because that was not the topic of the thread and you guys happily derailed it. ANY TIME I try to get something productive going someone has to derail the effort. where are the moderators? nowhere? I reported posts and made requests for a split.
was origonally in GENERAL DISCUSSION, note bit about it being moved.AF wrote:going off topic in the off topic forum.....
No, not the people who caused the raging, but the people who never posted in 2 months should be banned as scapegoats, so you people can feel there is a moderator actually moderating these forums with justice in their hands. (not joking... it actually happened here once.)Hobo Joe wrote:Topics shouldn't be banned, people who disrupt topics should be.
RIP TribulexTradeMark wrote:No, not the people who caused the raging, but the people who never posted in 2 months should be banned as scapegoats, so you people can feel there is a moderator actually moderating these forums with justice in their hands. (not joking... it actually happened here once.)Hobo Joe wrote:Topics shouldn't be banned, people who disrupt topics should be.
That cannot be cured.Hobo Joe wrote:Spring is a religion
No, but "mods" / "games" and "(no) TAIP" are and those are much more annoying than religion because they spill into all threads.Hobo Joe wrote:Spring is a religion