Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Fri 03-29-2024 6:29AM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 04-30-2007 7:27PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed 10-26-2005 2:35PM
Posts: 856
Location: VermontRepublic.org

Source: TJ South
Twilyte wrote:
karl wrote:
God created physics and energy.

Cthulhu created god


Nietche Killed god

_________________
VermontRepublic.org
Help Vermont Become Free!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 04-30-2007 10:10PM 
Offline
Drowning
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-15-2004 9:36PM
Posts: 4957
Location: ~~~~\o/~~~~~

Source: EE Building
and god killed niethce

in all honesty though, great have fun, but the whole ideal of atheism is saying in no way is there a god, when you put an absolute no on anything there isnt much to talk about. If there was as kjk said an open religious type of organization it may be interesting. That would leave a question open and give a purpose.

_________________
Rolla survivor

Join us in IRC, irc.seek42.net


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 04-30-2007 11:49PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM
Posts: 711
Location: the darkest pits of hell

Source: TJ North
Under the 'atheist' header I tend to include any sort of non-traditional viewpoint that doesn't involve a personal god. Yes, it's technically incorrect, but so be it.

I am not an absolutist but I call myself atheist. I admit that I can be wrong, but to my best judgment I don't feel that there is a god of any kind. Does that make me an agnostic? Nobody is 100% sure there is no god, so are we all agnostics?

Would a better title for the group be "Religious Philosophy that focuses on non-traditional views" club? Most people lump what I just described into atheism/agnosticism anyway, might as well call it as such.

_________________
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 12:26AM 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08-15-2006 8:01PM
Posts: 187

Source: Kelly Hall
calculusninja wrote:

Guys, atheism isn't a religion. Don't treat it as such. So maybe the Baptist club is trying to convert people for Christ. It's laughable that anyone would suggest that a non-believer would lift a finger to try to de-convert someone.



What criteria does atheism not meet to qualify as a religion? The fact that they believe there is no God? To have a belief about a God, whether he exists or not, and have a name for such a belief that entails many other aspects of peoples opinions and so forth, sure seems like a religion to me.

calculusninja wrote:
I am not an absolutist but I call myself atheist. I admit that I can be wrong, but to my best judgment I don't feel that there is a god of any kind. Does that make me an agnostic? Nobody is 100% sure there is no god, so are we all agnostics?


There are some people, they call themselves atheists that believe for certain that there is no God or any sort of spiritual existence. That's what the whole religion of atheism stems from. You should really not post falsities, no-matter who's side you are on.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 7:41AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM
Posts: 711
Location: the darkest pits of hell

Source: TJ North
Nosir wrote:
What criteria does atheism not meet to qualify as a religion? The fact that they believe there is no God? To have a belief about a God, whether he exists or not, and have a name for such a belief that entails many other aspects of peoples opinions and so forth, sure seems like a religion to me.


Well, there's one way to find out:

Religion.

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Silly dictionaries. Four seems possible, but zeal? I'm defending what I think in a calm matter, not going after it with zeal.

For us, the most logical conclusion is that there is no magic man that lives in the sky. There's no reason to believe in a god without proof, or for that matter, why even consider the possibility when such little evidence (compared to how substantial the claim) is provided? I suppose you can't rule it out entirely.

For believers, this 'god' fellow is a real and present thing, and who are we to doubt it? For those who aren't (couldn't think of a nicer synonym for delusional), a substantial claim (i.e. there exists an infinite being that created the universe) requires substantial evidence.

It is not the job of the atheist to prove that everything that doesn't exist doesn't exist. Flying goats most likely do not exist. So what happens when someone says they do because they read it in a book and their friends believe it? Do you have to prove them wrong? Why are you making these crazy assumptions about flying goats not existing?

This topic is interesting to me. I know it's a fruitless discussion, but hey.

_________________
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 8:27AM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon 08-16-2004 3:52PM
Posts: 289

Source: Off Campus
I like you could look at atheism in both ways, as a religion and not as a religion. No, they don't meet on a certain day of the week and say "Brothers and sisters, there is no God... and uh... well that's it for today's service, have a good week", but then again, you could look at it as the non-belief of a supernatural being. Either way I think an atheist group is kinda silly, just doesn't quite make sense to me. *shrug*

_________________
peace
-gw


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 12:48PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 12-10-2002 9:03AM
Posts: 459
Location: In my own little world.

Source: Fidelity
The Religion Against Religion

Dictionary.com defines an atheist as, “a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.” To me this means someone who is against religion. Dictionary.com states that religion is “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” Therefore, the two should be as opposite as the North and South Pole. They are not however.
Recently a contingent of students has decided to start an atheist organization in response to all of the Christian organizations that are here on campus. They have talked of getting funding from this organization from a much bigger atheist organization and distributing pamphlets and brochures regarding their disbeliefs. They are forming a religion against religion. They are trying to spread the “anti-word” by the same methods that Christians use to spread the good news. They are becoming part of a collective movement.
They have recently started posting on the internet about their non-beliefs and rebellious rituals. Without fail, an over-zealous Christian answers with media slinging of their own. Thus, the battle of good and evil begins. Convergence theory is very evident in this situation. I am convinced that neither side is even sure of the values that they are representing. The Atheists are committing to the religion against religion, and the Christians are yelling hateful insults at the atheists. It is seems that both groups are operating on the same set of beliefs.
Freud said that people in crowds act differently then they would on an individual basis because, “the minds of the group would merge together to form a way of thinking which meant that each other's enthusiasm would be doubled and you would be less aware of what the true nature of your doings and more aware of the crowd behavior and be swept up in the moment..” (wikipedia.com, 2007)
This is exactly the case. Followers of both sides get swept up in the moment, and lose some of the rational capacity they would exhibit as individuals. One atheist and one Christian may be able to sit down and discuss their views in a rational manner, while two groups of people opposing each other will never come to a rational conclusion. For this fact, we can thank convergence theory.

Convergence Theory. (April 29, 2007). Crowd Psychology Retrieved April 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology

I know there are grammatical errors but the point still gets across i believe. I wrote this short analysis of what i have observed for a psych class.

_________________
If you were a medic we would all be dead by now.
-------------------------------
A spoon is a spoon and a fork is a fork, unless its a spork that just messes things up, but a knife ahh the powers of a knife.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 1:30PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM
Posts: 711
Location: the darkest pits of hell

Source: TJ North
SilverRaven83 wrote:
The Religion Against Religion

Recently a contingent of students has decided to start an atheist organization in response to all of the Christian organizations that are here on campus. They have talked of getting funding from this organization from a much bigger atheist organization and distributing pamphlets and brochures regarding their disbeliefs. They are forming a religion against religion. They are trying to spread the “anti-word” by the same methods that Christians use to spread the good news. They are becoming part of a collective movement.


I really hope this isn't meant to describe what is going on within this thread, because for the bolded reasons it does not apply (as in, the bolded items are points of bias or over-dramatization). It's dramatic nonsense implying that atheists are trying to start some collective uprising to sow the seeds of doubt and get folks to not believe the "good news". For a psych analysis this is fairly biased.

A quick read of any of my previous posts will clarify what I mean.

SilverRaven83 wrote:
One atheist and one Christian may be able to sit down and discuss their views in a rational manner, while two groups of people opposing each other will never come to a rational conclusion.


Really. Who would have ever guessed. It's called agreeing to disagree. Two of my best friends are christian, and we talk openly about why we think the way we do. Nobody said there were negotiations to be made. There is no conclusion to draw.

So anyway, I'm getting the general consensus as being that an freethinker/atheist/whatever group is a bad idea. We aren't quite mature enough to listen to others with an open mind and try to demystify and gain a little representation for more secular points of view. Everyone thinks it will turn into some religious war... okay then.

_________________
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 1:49PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed 10-26-2005 2:35PM
Posts: 856
Location: VermontRepublic.org

Source: TJ South
Why would atheists try to convert others to atheism? Christians hand out pamphlets and bibles and newletters because that is part of their religion, and I respect that. I, nor any other atheist i know, is in any way prejudiced or angry toward those who believe in god. If anyone feels "threatened" by an athiest group handing out pamphlets or newsletters, then maybe you should reconsider your values and your idea of tolerance.

_________________
VermontRepublic.org
Help Vermont Become Free!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 2:29PM 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08-15-2006 8:01PM
Posts: 187

Source: Kelly Hall
calculusninja wrote:
SilverRaven83 wrote:
The Religion Against Religion

Recently a contingent of students has decided to start an atheist organization in response to all of the Christian organizations that are here on campus. They have talked of getting funding from this organization from a much bigger atheist organization and distributing pamphlets and brochures regarding their disbeliefs. They are forming a religion against religion. They are trying to spread the “anti-word” by the same methods that Christians use to spread the good news. They are becoming part of a collective movement.


I really hope this isn't meant to describe what is going on within this thread, because for the bolded reasons it does not apply (as in, the bolded items are points of bias or over-dramatization). It's dramatic nonsense implying that atheists are trying to start some collective uprising to sow the seeds of doubt and get folks to not believe the "good news". For a psych analysis this is fairly biased.

A quick read of any of my previous posts will clarify what I mean.

SilverRaven83 wrote:
One atheist and one Christian may be able to sit down and discuss their views in a rational manner, while two groups of people opposing each other will never come to a rational conclusion.


Really. Who would have ever guessed. It's called agreeing to disagree. Two of my best friends are christian, and we talk openly about why we think the way we do. Nobody said there were negotiations to be made. There is no conclusion to draw.

So anyway, I'm getting the general consensus as being that an freethinker/atheist/whatever group is a bad idea. We aren't quite mature enough to listen to others with an open mind and try to demystify and gain a little representation for more secular points of view. Everyone thinks it will turn into some religious war... okay then.


Everything in bold in his quote is reasonable except for 'good news'. If the information is incorrect, say so, but i do not believe it is false. They are in fact distributing pamphlets, and they are becoming part of a collective movement, no? Saying those are over-dramatized seems like you are just trying to avoid the question by trying to cite a bias that is lacking except in 'good news' like i said.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 3:16PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri 02-03-2006 12:00PM
Posts: 477

Source: Norwood Hall
SilverRaven83 wrote:
Thus, the battle of good and evil begins.


Which is which here?

/rhetorical question

_________________
Visit my handmade jewelry blog!

http://designsbykathryn.blogspot.com/

Feel free to leave me a comment or send me a message!


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 4:12PM 
Offline
Admiral Fgt of the SS Queer
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-15-2004 10:37AM
Posts: 2408

Source: Kelly Hall
One guy tried to hand me a bible once.

That's the day I killed a man...

_________________
"Jesus is never mad at us if we live with him in our hearts!"
"I hate to break it to you, but he is--he most definitely is."
The word "bi-partisan" usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 4:40PM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: Fidelity
calculusninja wrote:
SilverRaven83 wrote:
The Religion Against Religion

Recently a contingent of students has decided to start an atheist organization in response to all of the Christian organizations that are here on campus. They have talked of getting funding from this organization from a much bigger atheist organization and distributing pamphlets and brochures regarding their disbeliefs. They are forming a religion against religion. They are trying to spread the “anti-word” by the same methods that Christians use to spread the good news. They are becoming part of a collective movement.


I really hope this isn't meant to describe what is going on within this thread, because for the bolded reasons it does not apply (as in, the bolded items are points of bias or over-dramatization). It's dramatic nonsense implying that atheists are trying to start some collective uprising to sow the seeds of doubt and get folks to not believe the "good news". For a psych analysis this is fairly biased.

A quick read of any of my previous posts will clarify what I mean.


You don't represent the entire "atheists" population here at UMR. Some of the "atheists" here do absolutely LOATH any form of Christianity. From listening to some of the more outspoken "atheists" here, I would have much difficulty believing they are anymore of a free thinker than any Religious person, and definately don't think they are as free of thinker as those who are okay not being labled with some retarded classification...

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 6:43PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM
Posts: 711
Location: the darkest pits of hell

Source: TJ North
I thought the article was written in criticism of the idea that "atheists" (a term that does little to specify any certain group of people) are forming a club. The boldface items are outright lies (intended to dramatize the situation) in that case. To what else would this refer? Who is distributing pamphlets? Where?

Atheism is such a gray area of variations of personal belief that it is impossible to "represent the entire population" of them. I represent atheists that would want to be represented in such a manner, and I know -someone- out there (as in, the multiple people who have PMed me) appreciates me sticking up for them.

That is why I was going to propose that any supposed club would be titled "UMR Freethinkers" or something of the sort. A freethinker could take many different forms and his difficult to define (American Heritage does so as "One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation").

This is what I like. A group dedicated to rational inquiry and speculation. That would be good.

_________________
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 05-01-2007 8:21PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 12-10-2002 9:03AM
Posts: 459
Location: In my own little world.

Source: Fidelity
calculusninja wrote:
I thought the article was written in criticism of the idea that "atheists" (a term that does little to specify any certain group of people) are forming a club.


Which makes my point even stronger. Form your club. I don't care one way or the other. I will ignore your organization just as I have always ignored the Cristian organization and any other organization I am not interested in. The point of the article is to point out that both sides are going about things the exact same way. They use the exact same means to reach a not so different different end. (That end is not the idealized end of promoting your beliefs but the realistic end of denouncing the beliefs of the other.) The point of the paper is to show that people get so blinded by the argument of "is there a god?" that they don't even know what they stand for anymore. Much as you are so defensive of your group that you did not correctly read into the paper.

calculusninja wrote:
The boldface items are outright lies (intended to dramatize the situation) in that case. To what else would this refer? Who is distributing pamphlets? Where?


They are not. After reviewing the thread, I admittedly wrote this paper kind of off the cuff, I see that the word pamplets should have been changed to signs. LostBoyz mentioned pamphlets and you corrected him by telling him that they were signs. For some reason pamphlets stuck in my mind and signs did not. A mistake yes, but hardly an outright lie. All things considered the point still stands. Christians and atheist use signs as a means of "informing" just as they use pamphlets.

calculusninja wrote:
This is what I like. A group dedicated to rational inquiry and speculation. That would be good.


I agree with that thinking completely. Inguiry is what leads to new discoveries. Attempting to prove the other side wrong does not.

_________________
If you were a medic we would all be dead by now.
-------------------------------
A spoon is a spoon and a fork is a fork, unless its a spork that just messes things up, but a knife ahh the powers of a knife.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group