Astronomy Common Knowledge Quiz.......
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
How To Choose Your Religion.
91 Answers
Found a handy flow chart to help you review and determine your most appropriate religion..
Enjoy! :)
https:/
Enjoy! :)
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@ argorstran ahh bless! You have fundamentally misunderstood something - again. Of course I am entitled to judge and pass judgement on whether something is considered funny or not - we all are, we all have that right.
I originally offered the link in a light -hearted fashion, and used the term enemy in a similar vein. It was you that offered the stereotypical view of the faithful surrounding all atheists. I pointed out that you cannot do that, because not all atheists might feel that way.
Personally, I think religion is more a hinderance than a help to the development of humanity - a stagnant pool of redundant thinking, which provides excuses for fanatics and fundamentalist to create mayhem and do murder in the name of religion. Those fundamentalists that proclaim that the bible is inerrant, or that "evolutionism" is teh evul are annoying, and are labouring under a delusion.
i have no problems with those individuals who have a personal faith, and wish to attend church for prayers and sing-song etc. It is when such faith compels them to judge others over their sexuality or religion that I would have issues with those particular people. When they start lecturing others about their morality, for instance, or avoiding them because they have another religion, or none. When they demand special exemptions from the law to accomodate their faiths, or when they wish to impose laws upon society to protect their worldview.
So yes, I would be more of an anti-theist than simply an atheist, but that does not necessarily hold true for all atheists.
I originally offered the link in a light -hearted fashion, and used the term enemy in a similar vein. It was you that offered the stereotypical view of the faithful surrounding all atheists. I pointed out that you cannot do that, because not all atheists might feel that way.
Personally, I think religion is more a hinderance than a help to the development of humanity - a stagnant pool of redundant thinking, which provides excuses for fanatics and fundamentalist to create mayhem and do murder in the name of religion. Those fundamentalists that proclaim that the bible is inerrant, or that "evolutionism" is teh evul are annoying, and are labouring under a delusion.
i have no problems with those individuals who have a personal faith, and wish to attend church for prayers and sing-song etc. It is when such faith compels them to judge others over their sexuality or religion that I would have issues with those particular people. When they start lecturing others about their morality, for instance, or avoiding them because they have another religion, or none. When they demand special exemptions from the law to accomodate their faiths, or when they wish to impose laws upon society to protect their worldview.
So yes, I would be more of an anti-theist than simply an atheist, but that does not necessarily hold true for all atheists.
-- answer removed --
birdie; keyplus can defend himself, but why do you have to resort to such ad hominem swipes and rude attacks? These aggressive posts of yours I notice are always late at night, are they alcohol-fuelled?
Of course atheism is a belief system, why otherwise do you call yourself one? See my previous post 17:55 Thurs.
Of course atheism is a belief system, why otherwise do you call yourself one? See my previous post 17:55 Thurs.
@Khandro You wish atheism could be considered a belief system, because such a view would then relegate it to the category of "just another belief".
The reality is and always has been very very simple. Atheism is a term that defines a lack of belief in god or gods. It is very simple. There may very well be some atheists who are pugnacious and militant in their rebuttal of religion or some of the other arrant hand-waving nonsense that is presented as evidence or true but that is it.
Interesting how you attempt to reduce birdies arguments by smear and innuendo though - for most of us, the fact that birdie posts "late at night" our time would indicate that he lives in another time zone, and his tone equal parts frustration and exasperation and the tunnel vision of the faithful - only you, it seems wish to taint the posts with the idea that his reason impaired through alcohol.
There are many highly articulate people posting here and elsewhere in the AB, that feel strongly about a particular subject, and whose exasperation shines through - nothing wrong with that at all. Only the snide and condescending would resort to the smear of innuendo though...
The reality is and always has been very very simple. Atheism is a term that defines a lack of belief in god or gods. It is very simple. There may very well be some atheists who are pugnacious and militant in their rebuttal of religion or some of the other arrant hand-waving nonsense that is presented as evidence or true but that is it.
Interesting how you attempt to reduce birdies arguments by smear and innuendo though - for most of us, the fact that birdie posts "late at night" our time would indicate that he lives in another time zone, and his tone equal parts frustration and exasperation and the tunnel vision of the faithful - only you, it seems wish to taint the posts with the idea that his reason impaired through alcohol.
There are many highly articulate people posting here and elsewhere in the AB, that feel strongly about a particular subject, and whose exasperation shines through - nothing wrong with that at all. Only the snide and condescending would resort to the smear of innuendo though...
LG; Why then do you wish to give yourself and your grouping a name? You are not a religious virgin, you know the basics of the world religions, you have put them in the balance, and decided that you do not believe in any of them. Don't be so coy, you are an atheist and atheism is your is your belief.
Whether a person is drunk. sober or lives in Timbuktu, insulting personal character attacks do not help their argument, and no one has to be here.
Whether a person is drunk. sober or lives in Timbuktu, insulting personal character attacks do not help their argument, and no one has to be here.
@Khandro Imputing that Birdie is drunk when posting *is* a personal insult! You will.no doubt, suggest that you were "only asking the question£ - but thats sophistry. Your intentions will be clear enough.
I have insulted other posters here, mostly through exasperation, and I am now trying to stop doing it, since it is unproductive. For you to chastise Birdie with snide commentary imputing drunkenness is equally a personal insult - something you are only too familiar with - seems more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it, to my mind.
Labels are used as a convenient shorthand when summarising someones worldview. Attaching a label does not confer status though, and can often be misapplied. or used perjoratively.
I have insulted other posters here, mostly through exasperation, and I am now trying to stop doing it, since it is unproductive. For you to chastise Birdie with snide commentary imputing drunkenness is equally a personal insult - something you are only too familiar with - seems more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it, to my mind.
Labels are used as a convenient shorthand when summarising someones worldview. Attaching a label does not confer status though, and can often be misapplied. or used perjoratively.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
@Khandro - I thought you would use the oh so innocent " I was only asking... " gambit to defend your imputation of Birdie's comments as "alcohol -fuelled rants".
And I answered your question. Labels are a conversational shorthand,which are sometimes useful, but which occasionally can prove unhelpful,especially if the labelling is done by a vested interest which aims to change the content of the informational package conveyed by a label.
And I answered your question. Labels are a conversational shorthand,which are sometimes useful, but which occasionally can prove unhelpful,especially if the labelling is done by a vested interest which aims to change the content of the informational package conveyed by a label.
