The couple at the door
-
ahz wrote:
the a- could also mean against or "anti"
Not according to my dictionary. Also the word antitheist means: A disbeliever in the existence of God While I am sure there are some athiests who are against the belief in the existance of God I would say most just don't believe in a God and that's it. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Not according to my dictionary.
I didn't say it was in a dictionary. I'm just making an observation: I said "could" mean "anti".
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I am sure there are some athiests who are against the belief
so, in essence, we're in agreement.
-
I was actually thinking Mormons. Whoever wrote this should consider that brevity is the soul of wit. The same thing could have been stated in 3 sentences.
espeir wrote:
Whoever wrote this should consider that brevity is the soul of wit
Oh, I don't know.... I've watch Billy Conolly DVDs where the joke is 90 minutes long and I'm almost hoarse with laughter at the end. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Not according to my dictionary.
I didn't say it was in a dictionary. I'm just making an observation: I said "could" mean "anti".
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I am sure there are some athiests who are against the belief
so, in essence, we're in agreement.
ahz wrote:
so, in essence, we're in agreement.
No. You said: so an atheist is also someone who is against the belief in the existence of a god or gods To be essentially in agreement the above sentence would have to be changed to: so an atheist could also someone who is against the belief in the existence of a god or gods An athiest is someone who does not believe in a god or gods - not necessarily against that belief. For example, I am an atheist. I accept that there are people who happen to believe in a God or Gods. I am not against their beliefs, I just don't share them. You may think I am being pedantic, but I think that the distinction is important because one reflects what an athiest actually is, and the other reflects additional beliefs. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
-
ahz wrote:
so, in essence, we're in agreement.
No. You said: so an atheist is also someone who is against the belief in the existence of a god or gods To be essentially in agreement the above sentence would have to be changed to: so an atheist could also someone who is against the belief in the existence of a god or gods An athiest is someone who does not believe in a god or gods - not necessarily against that belief. For example, I am an atheist. I accept that there are people who happen to believe in a God or Gods. I am not against their beliefs, I just don't share them. You may think I am being pedantic, but I think that the distinction is important because one reflects what an athiest actually is, and the other reflects additional beliefs. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You may think I am being pedantic
I don't know, maybe you are. i can see though that you're trying to be exact, and I agree that is important. the definition of an athiest is what it is, as the definition of a christian, muslim, jews, etc are what they are. you also know that there are many religionists who don't live up to, and worse, act contrary to the stated teachings of their respective religions. those actions then get associated with the religion. unfair, but that's the way it is. the same happens with atheists. you say that you (and presumably other atheists) accept that other people believe in God or Gods and you (and the others) are not against their beliefs. but that is not what I and others (and perhaps you) have observed from many atheists. you also said you were sure there are some atheists that are against the belief in God. I agree with that statement. Which is why I said, in essence, we agree.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You may think I am being pedantic
I don't know, maybe you are. i can see though that you're trying to be exact, and I agree that is important. the definition of an athiest is what it is, as the definition of a christian, muslim, jews, etc are what they are. you also know that there are many religionists who don't live up to, and worse, act contrary to the stated teachings of their respective religions. those actions then get associated with the religion. unfair, but that's the way it is. the same happens with atheists. you say that you (and presumably other atheists) accept that other people believe in God or Gods and you (and the others) are not against their beliefs. but that is not what I and others (and perhaps you) have observed from many atheists. you also said you were sure there are some atheists that are against the belief in God. I agree with that statement. Which is why I said, in essence, we agree.
-
thealj wrote:
I don't understand the ending??
The local Jehova's Witnesses should take a leaf out of that book. I wish they'd give up on me. Of all the tactics I've tried over the years the one of telling them I'm an athiest and no I really wouldn't like to take a copy of the Watchtower (heck, I've even had Dutch JWs trying to get me to read it and my level of Dutch is to read a menu and buy a train ticket). Now I get a visit about once a month. - Religion has been the cause of most of the major wars in history. - But that is organised religion, apparently, and they don't believe in organised religion, yet they've organised themselves into a pair to go around the doors. They've organised themselves into a publishers by their magazine. - So where did the beautiful flowers in my garden come from? - My dad planted them for me. - Where did the bulbs come from? - The garden centre. [long story short] - They are a product of evolution - So God didn't create them? - No [Eventually - a brainwave] - Since you don't believe in receiving blood products I don't exist, for without the generous donation of blood from others I would not be here to have this discussion with you. They give up at this point, only to return to have the same meaningless conversation a month later. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
I've found an effective way to deal with these kinds of people. When I recognize what they are, they get one polite "I'm not interested, thank you". If they try to persist, I slam the door in their faces. I did leave one standing on my front step one time while I answered the phone and then came back and lectured them on being rude and inconsiderate of others beliefs. :laugh: At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
In essence, you are the butt of the above joke. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
thanks for proving my point
-
espeir wrote:
. I do get annoyed by militant atheists like yourself who are constantly tring to shove your belief system down other peoples' throats while saying that having a belief system is asinine.
At least the atheist has balls to say that it is his beliefs, and not some commandment from some backward text.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
At least the atheist has balls to say that it is his beliefs
A Christian can also have the sack to say that. Just thought I'd spice things up a bit. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
espeir wrote:
I don't think he picked a religion.
Not directly, but implicitly he did - and some of the Christians got pissed. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!It's the Mormons that do that over here, not the Christians btw. Jeremy Falcon
-
Yes. You saw right through me. I'm advocating Christian genocide -- all religions, actually -- to further my goal of creating a new, pure, LEFTIST, Marxist, socialist, communist, atheist, evolutionist, scientist, secular humanist authoritarian utopia. Of course, that would include killing everyone who belongs to my religion, including myself, but you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, right? I'm thinking about calling it Stanistan, just to piss Stan off. Besides, Espeiria sounds too much like a flower, or maybe a tropical disease.
:laugh: That was a better joke than the original post. Jeremy Falcon
-
Yes. You saw right through me. I'm advocating Christian genocide -- all religions, actually -- to further my goal of creating a new, pure, LEFTIST, Marxist, socialist, communist, atheist, evolutionist, scientist, secular humanist authoritarian utopia. Of course, that would include killing everyone who belongs to my religion, including myself, but you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, right? I'm thinking about calling it Stanistan, just to piss Stan off. Besides, Espeiria sounds too much like a flower, or maybe a tropical disease.
Hilarious! :laugh: Too bad it's too big for a sig. :( Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
It's funny how certain religions gets more exposure than others. Especially so when there must be almost as many hindus as there are muslims for instance. Are there half a billion hindus, would you say? The only fanaticism coming from hinduism that I know of, is the mistreatment of women in some instances where marriages have gone awry. Well, the pre-arranged weddings is a bit hard to understand from my point of view, but I suppose that could just as well be attributed to a totally different culture, instead of being attributed to fanaticism.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Well, the pre-arranged weddings is a bit hard to understand from my point of view, but I suppose that could just as well be attributed to a totally different culture, instead of being attributed to fanaticism.
I don't see what fanaticism has to do with arranged marriages. :~ Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Well, the pre-arranged weddings is a bit hard to understand from my point of view, but I suppose that could just as well be attributed to a totally different culture, instead of being attributed to fanaticism.
I don't see what fanaticism has to do with arranged marriages. :~ Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
The enforcement of pre-arranged marriages may seem fanatic for the outsider. I'm sure the penalties for not marrying are quite strict! By the way, is the pre-arranged marriage concept tied into Hinduism, or is it just a product of culture? I'm really not sure. :~
-
espeir wrote:
militant atheists like yourself who are constantly tring to shove your belief system down other peoples' throats
I think you mean "disbelief system" ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
Who cares about the finer points of semantics, when you've got God on your side? :rolleyes:
-
The enforcement of pre-arranged marriages may seem fanatic for the outsider. I'm sure the penalties for not marrying are quite strict! By the way, is the pre-arranged marriage concept tied into Hinduism, or is it just a product of culture? I'm really not sure. :~
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
The enforcement of pre-arranged marriages may seem fanatic for the outsider.
In that case, you're not talking about arranged marriages; you're talking about forced marriages. I agree, it happens here. :|
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
By the way, is the pre-arranged marriage concept tied into Hinduism
I don't know if arranged marriages are tied to Hinduism, although love marriages are certainly not antithetic to Hinduism. Our epics have a lot of love marriages (and even eloping episodes :) ) too, though. Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
Yes. You saw right through me. I'm advocating Christian genocide -- all religions, actually -- to further my goal of creating a new, pure, LEFTIST, Marxist, socialist, communist, atheist, evolutionist, scientist, secular humanist authoritarian utopia. Of course, that would include killing everyone who belongs to my religion, including myself, but you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, right? I'm thinking about calling it Stanistan, just to piss Stan off. Besides, Espeiria sounds too much like a flower, or maybe a tropical disease.
Vinnie for pres! :-D
-
Strictly speaking an athiest doesn't necessarily place their faith in science. They just don't place their faith in theistic dogma. a-: Without; not -theist: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods := one who does not believe in the existance of a god or gods ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Strictly speaking an athiest doesn't necessarily place their faith in science.
My statement made no such assumption. However, in practice it is commonplace.
-
espeir wrote:
militant atheists like yourself who are constantly tring to shove your belief system down other peoples' throats
I think you mean "disbelief system" ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
No...I was clear in my meaning.
-
I think it is evident that muslim and christian fanatics think the same. Say anything against their precious beliefs, and you're the vilest creature on earth. Luckily, countries in which christianity has rooted itself, secular governments have been established, thus preventing theocratic law enforcement. Living in fear can't be good.
Kind of like when I mention...ahem...evolution?
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Strictly speaking an athiest doesn't necessarily place their faith in science.
My statement made no such assumption. However, in practice it is commonplace.
espeir wrote:
My statement made no such assumption
espeir wrote:
Let's leave not leave out atheists who place their faith in science while being ignorant of its details.
There is quite a strong implication here that atheists place their faith in science. If that was not the intent of your statement then I would suggest form of wording: Let's leave not leave out the type of atheists that place their faith in science while being ignorant of its details. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?