What the hell is going on here!!!

[Mugwump]

Including many scientists who really contribute to the world of knowledge and objective thinking.

I know. Scientists are human too, and thus just as prone to making mistakes as the rest of mankind.

You will hold beliefs even if you do not want.

At least I try not to, and when I identify a belief in my thought processes, I get rid of it, like for instance the following point:

Curious. That contradicts you. Atheists know that god does not exist. IF you "know" or "do nt know" talking about god, you would be agnostic.

You're right. A definition mishap on my part. My bad. The fact is that real atheism is yet another system of belief. I used to be an atheist, now I'm agnostic.

to use some extreme examples is a fallacy

I beg to differ. If you go by a logic, you have to abide by it all the way to its natural conclusion.

[Focalor]

I'll admit that there is no evidence proving the non-existence of god. That doesn't mean I'm content with being "agnostic." Things that are not... can't be tested with the scientific method to prove or disprove them. That doesn't mean I'm willing to state, "I won't completely rule out the possibility of the existence of 5-headed Whomper-Doodles.", any more than I'm willing to say there's even a remote possibility that a god exists. These modern-day atheist-agnostics who claim this bullshit about "I won't rule out the possibility of it.", are just pretentious and annoying. I say GROW SOME BALLS AND OWN YOUR THOUGHTS. And when I talk about the nonexistence of god, I'm not just talking about Christianity. Here's where Christians tend to get unnecessarily over-offended by my declaration that there is no god: There's more gods than just YOUR God. The Muslims have a god, the Hindus have a god, the myriads of pagans and "heathens" had shitloads of gods, and there's no way that ANY of them exist in my opinion. I don't single out Christianity. It's one single galaxy of beliefs bouncing around somewhere in a vast universe of them.

But at the same time, I'm not truly willing to group myself among "athiests" either. Many atheists see that it's their duty to help people shake free of the "God delusion", as Richard Dawkins would say. To each his own, but that's not a goal that I have. Much like theists claim that they can simply look around at "creation" and know that there is a "creator", I think people have the same ability to look around at everything and see that exactly what they see is all there is to see. It's not my job to help anyone not believe in Santa Claus or Freddy Krueger. I don't want to spread the gospel of atheism to the poor subjugated theist. The rest of you people are big boys and girls now, you can figure it out just like I did. If not, oh well. Because we all have a right to be as stupid or as crazy or as nice or as depressed as we want to be. I said it before in this thread I think: I'm a huge fucking fan of liberty. We should all have the liberty to be as rotten and shitty or as upstanding and honorable as we damn well please... until in doing so, we infringe upon the liberties of another. Your religion or lack thereof does not infringe upon my liberties, therefore you are welcome to have all of it that you want with no interference from me. If or when it does infringe upon my turf... know that I don't call 911, wink wink.

The term atheist means "unbeliever". As I see it, there was never anything real to believe or disbelieve in the first place. If theism is one side of the coin and atheism is the polar opposite side of the coin... I see no reason to have a fucking coin to begin with, much less claim a side of it. If atheism is a belief, I disbelieve in atheism. I don't believe. I see and know.

[numbersix]

Not amish but quakers

I might make a "quake-ized" version of this.

[Mugwump]

Things that are not...

That's just the thing: we don't know whether god is or is not. To put yourself on either end of the balance is choosing to believe in one option.

These modern-day atheist-agnostics who claim this bullshit about "I won't rule out the possibility of it.", are just pretentious and annoying.

I can't side with you here. Claiming that one option is true IS pretentious. Admitting that you don't know is the one humble path. And this is me owning my thoughts. Let me illustrate this by telling you a story I just stumbled upon:

A disciple asks Buddha: "Guruji, there are many people who constantly argue about various beliefs. Some say the world is infinite or the soul is eternal, others say it doesn't exist and so on. I am very confused by these."
Buddha replies: "Once a king assembled several blind men in a room and told them, 'Here is an elephant'. He then gave them a model of different parts of an elephant like his head, tusk, tail, ear and foot. After a couple of minutes, he asks them, 'What sort of thing is an elephant?' Those who were given the tail said that it's like a brush, those given the head said it's like a pot and so on. And then they began quarreling, 'It's like that', 'No, like that' and so on."
Buddha, smiling, explains to his disciple: "Similar is the case with people. They only see a particular side of a thing and assume that it represents it entirely. In their ego and lack of knowledge and acceptance, they cling to their points of view, while the truth remains woefully ignored."

There's more gods than just YOUR God. The Muslims have a god, the Hindus have a god

The muslim god is supposed to be the same god as christians and jews. Basically, christianity is judaism v2.0 and islam is v3.0. As for hindus, they have many gods. 33, according to Wikipedia.

But at the same time, I'm not truly willing to group myself among "athiests" either.

And yet your first post here began with "I am the atheist!" Self-contradictory much?

[Mugwump]

I might make a "quake-ized" version of this.

Please do.

[nahuel]

@Focalor
Science can not handle the existence of God. These are issues that are not of scientific interest. Exceeding scientific analysis.
Indeed I hold that freedom to believe or not to believe is the main thing. When you try to back up their beliefs under philosophical presuppositions "I am in favor of critical thinking, then I can deny that God exists" or under religious prejudice "My God exists, others do not" to believe that both elements incur in the same: pure subjectivity is the value of judgment.
Those who proclaim the supreme value of rationality under their ways of thinking are forgetting half of their motivations as a human. All of us we deal with irrational terms, it is our nature, it is part of our limitations (we have a tonsil there in the brain that says "look how good are the tits of the woman").
Many neurologists explain God, or irrational beliefs as a part of his brain. If you want you can take a look at this.
International Relations: Diego Golombek The Neurons of God.

As you can easily check at any of these book Dawkins and their militant atheism is part of their stimates.
But these books are far from proving that God does not exist. Only explain brain functions. (Neurosciences are still very speculative, after all) A theist would say something like "if that function exists in us the humans, is proof that God created there".
Beyond this, no one has the right to try to change the way of thinking of someone else if that "theism" he believes makes him happy, give support to your life, gives reasons and do not harm anyone.


Many people may say "religious kill people, look Muslim terrorists, cross, inquisition, etc ..."
The killings and the political use of religion, are part of politics. They NOT have to do with the existence or nonexistence of God.
Look at Mao's China, the people there were atheistic, the popular Chinese party was atheist. (Interesting are also the massacres in china with the buddhist transition under the empress WU).What you have to do the killing with Christian teachings, Buddhist or whatever? probably none. Certainly there are exceptions, there are religions that incite violence, but honestly I do not know about it.
But behind the killings there are political interests EVER.
well I think this is too much, adding to my very bad English (damn I took a long time in this forum and is still terrible).

Goodbye.

[nahuel]

The muslim god is supposed to be the same god as christians and jews. Basically, christianity is judaism v2.0 and islam is v3.0. As for hindus, they have many gods. 33, according to Wikipedia.

Hinduism is very complicated to call it "religion". Even the term is British, to simplify the bureaucratic issues in the conquest.

There are too many divisions and different cults.
Hinduism form the main part of my studies. There is talk of 33 billion Gods. But what for the British was polytheism is actually pantheism or a strange case of monotheism (each god is actually a manifestation of the supreme god).
For vishnu adorers that supreme god is Vishnu (or Krishna if you know the hare krishna, which are a part of the vishnuistas). For Shiva adorers that is supreme Shiva. For Shakti adorers Kali is ,sometimes, the supreme reality and god. So would those supreme god in the case of different religious philosophies.

In turn there are many interpretations of that god:
dualism
monism
adualism (advaita)
etc...

It's really complicated.

[R00k]

your dad fucked your mom and there you are.

ignore your idea of 'i am here, so there for i am'.

try to grow a plant/garden, and see how much life u create.


people should start living and stop watching netflix

[numbersix]

Please do.

revision 1

With a RL and crate of rockets, that smug expression is justified.

[Mugwump]

revision 1

With a RL and crate of rockets, that smug expression is justified.

Ha ha, cool! The Quake font could use a higher definition, though.

[Focalor]

And yet your first post here began with "I am the atheist!" Self-contradictory much?

If it makes you feel better to see it that way, have at it. But sometimes one must make outrageous or exaggerated claims in order to properly engage an audience and give them a frame of reference before you smack them with the dirty diaper of smartassedness. In other words... I used it because there isn't another word for what I am, and it helped set up my next facetious comment about burning in hell. Hell: another term that gets thrown around in a passive aggressive fashion by religionites, and I enjoy discussing it irreverently. You're having a conversation with someone, disagreement occurs, and out comes the "burning in Hell" comments that can truthfully be translated to mean, "I can't kill you for challenging my ideas and bruising my ego, but I can find pleasure in knowing you'll suffer for it one day." Or if it's not Hell, it's, "I'll pray for you.", and there's SO MANY things buried in that 4 word statement that I'm surprised it doesn't explode like a baby's head being mashed in a chain vice. It's "You're gonna burn in hell.", and, "I think I am superior but not willing to explicitly state it." all rolled into one passive aggressive burrito. But since the idea of Hell and souls and the magical ability to somehow imprison these oh so invisible non-physical soul entities in a single location which seeming exerts physical force to inflict physical pain and injury on a non-physical entity... (bullshit)... Since these ideas are preposterous, and they are not MY ideas, and I want nothing to do with them, then as I always say to these people... "It's YOUR hell, YOU burn in it."

[Focalor]

try to grow a plant/garden, and see how much life u create.

I have a hotdog tree in my backyard.

[numbersix]

What more do you want?

[Mugwump]

It doesn't make me feel better, I just noticed an apparent contradiction in your otherwise very well thought out statements.

Or if it's not Hell, it's, "I'll pray for you.", and there's SO MANY things buried in that 4 word statement that I'm surprised it doesn't explode like a baby's head being mashed in a chain vice. It's "You're gonna burn in hell.", and, "I think I am superior but not willing to explicitly state it." all rolled into one passive aggressive burrito.

Once again spot-on. There's so much arrogance in the mindset of this type of believers, it's suffocating. The worse part of it is they don't even realize how far it sets them from the teachings of their idol.

[Dutch]

@focalor

i've cooled off a bit and went and re-read this thread. I want to apologize. I made some assumptions and reached conclusions about you I shouldn't have, because I don't even know you. Thing is, faith has become a big part of my life, resulting in a lot of positive changes. Long story short, you were openly refuting something I hold dear (which is your right) and I lost my temper. We're still polar opposites, but however, along with being a christian, I'm also an american. I would fight and die to defend the freedom to have our beliefs and to express our views if I had to, however different they may be.

@bfg666

I have a lot of respect for agnostics. They willingly admit that they can't prove or disprove anything, which is totally true. A lot of people have a hard time admitting that I think. I cannot physically prove God exists. Some like myself choose to take it on faith. Some choose to admit it may or may not be true. Some choose to refute it completely. None of them absolutely knows for sure, since no one actually was around at the beginning of time. If you wanted to apply belief to rationale alone, agnostics would make the most sense.

@nahuel

I enjoyed everything you had to say, and the way you said it.

Alright, I'm outta this thread for good now. Trying my damndest to just talk Quake on a Quake forum. Just wanted to post this now that I'm a little more level-headed.