I officially give up on Christianity

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 6:41 am

Meaning, fanatical Atheists aren't any better than fanatical Christians/Muslims/Jews...

the guardian · Post by **the guardian** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 6:44 am

Fanatical ANYTHING isn't a good thing, genius.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 6:45 am

I think that was Kashluk's point, Guardian.

the guardian · Post by **the guardian** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 6:52 am

Well, except for fanatical jews, but yeah, I suppose he did. My bad.

Sol Invictus · Post by **Sol Invictus** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 9:15 am

Fanatical Jews rock.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 9:28 am

But they occasionally also roll like anybody else.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 6:04 pm

Internet religious debates suck. I'll point out that the main intent of religion is a wise lifestyle choice, not a set of beliefs that need to be blindly followed, which is what most of you seem to be forgetting. As the guardian said, fanatical ANYTHINGs suck, and strong advocates for athieism are just as clueless and misguided as people who are strong advocates for religion.

So our buddy Kashluk is right on this one.

the guardian · Post by **the guardian** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 6:49 pm

Erm, halfway true. I mean, I'd love to be the shaman of a blind set of followers, and if you want a fast anthology - the pope, super rabbie, whatever, the key here is controlling the dumb mass, and it only suck if you're not the one doing it. A tad hypocritical, but you know how it is.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 7:31 pm

What's a fanatical atheist? For instance, I'm a steadfast atheist and will readily explain why, but I don't think I'm a fanatic.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:23 pm

Never seen a fanatical atheist? It's one of those "HOLY CRAP YOUR GOD SUCKS YO U R OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone 'CUZ UR A BELEIVER GEY" - types. Lots of 'em around these days. "I won't believe it, because I can't see it!" Well news flash, motherfuckers, you can't see atoms either, so they don't exist?

Nothing aimet at you, Schubert, just general frustration towards those fanatics.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:27 pm

I changed my mind, I am a fanatical atheist. But those people you're referring to aren't fanatics... they're idiots.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:29 pm

Well, fanatism is a relative term. Some may consider one's goals obsessive while others view them light-hearted...

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:02 pm

ive been indoctrinated by western society so that everytime i think of the word fanatical in relation to a person, i get this image of a man with a turban running into a building and blowing up.

i dont see a reason to religion unless they can show me it exists.

i dont see people being magnificently cured of cancer or anything but if you split an atom lots of fun shit happens.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:11 pm

Nobody could "prove" religion to me because I know why it was created. It's purpose was twofold: First of all, as you all know, it was an effective way to control the masses based on a system of punishment/reward, for instance heaven/hell. Secondly, it promoted values that generally are conducive to an effective society, such as the ten commandments.

That's it. Nothing more to it than that. I hope I converted at least a few of you.

Nuclear Gandhi · Post by **Nuclear Gandhi** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:11 am

Kashluk wrote:Never seen a fanatical atheist? It's one of those "HOLY CRAP YOUR GOD SUCKS YO U R OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone 'CUZ UR A BELEIVER GEY" - types. Lots of 'em around these days. "I won't believe it, because I can't see it!" Well news flash, motherfuckers, you can't see atoms either, so they don't exist?

Nothing aimet at you, Schubert, just general frustration towards those fanatics.

I recognize the possibility for a god to exist, but I believe I have more evidence to the contrary, so I believe that more readily.

Same with atoms and such. I'm not 100% on it, but I'm pretty sure atoms do exist.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:30 am

but then again, does it matter if either don't exist? To quote a famous bullshitologist "it's just a word" - guy with bad hair-cut, matrix 3.

Neon Dingo · Post by **Neon Dingo** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:33 am

Psssh, there's really not a possibility for God to exist. We're just highly evolved monkeys that outgrew our genes so we had to create something to justify our all too simple, depressing existence.

Agnosticism has no feet to stand on.

Saying "God maybe exists, but I'm not sure." is just like saying that maybe there's an invisible unicorn made out of jellybeans floating above the universe controlling everything.

It's useless. You can make up deity after deity and the Agnostics will still sit there saying "Maybe they exist? I don't know. I'm indifferent about everything. I also snort cocaine through my eyes."

nihilism 4 eva!

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:03 am

Since science and logical explanations can not yet explain everything there is still place for doubt about the existence of gods, so agnostic thinking is still reasonable. For example the cause of the origin of the universe is still unknown and can not be explained scientifically. A god is as good as any racional explanation. OTOH whe all know the answer to the meaning of life, right?

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:18 am

Agnosticism is propably the BEST option there is.

Some centuries ago people believed the Earth was flat. That was the *scientific* point of view. Now (most) people think it's round. See how even such obvious things can change from one extreme to another?

Who knows, maybe we're just a bubble in a giant turtle's sperm? You can't say that *THIS CAN'T EXIST FOR 100%* because there aren't many things that are so. Only basic logics and things that can be rationally imagined are "100%". Things of empiristic nature, ie. science & experience, are processed through a filter, our senses, and then chopped into pieces by our brains. They can be easily flawed.

Only things like a > b, b > c ... a > c can be proven completely correct... or at least in our universe/dimension. Who knows, maybe b is the largest in some parallel existence?

Simply stating that "God does not exist, ditto" is ignorant from any scientist. Like Nuke-Gandhi said, most of the evidence can be promoting that point of view and that his personal opinion is leaned towards it, but he CAN NOT be totally sure of it. The same thing with the birth of the universe and it's current structure. Most of the current evidence shows it's unlimited & still expanding, but when new evidence comes along... who knows?

Maybe we're simply daydreaming and when we "go to sleep" we become awake, meaning that the "dream world" is the real world and these things we think we're doing awake are simply a product of our imagination. We can't know.

--------

But sure, if rational thinking brings correct answers, then with doubting everything we'll end up with the sceptical paradox. The thing is, we must doubt everything, because when true knowledge hits our face, there is no way of denying it.

That's my ideology. Things you think are rock-solid and good basis for you life can crumble from the lightest shake.

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:19 am

they need to combine all religions and call it Globalism... oh wait... nvm.