Dubstepforum.com

I'd just like to register my appreciation for scspkr99 and Muncey's posting over the last couple of pages.

Jizz wrote: that is a relevant point actually

its such a tough one though, because I for one would hate to start an argument with someone purely because they believe in God. but its hard to distinctly distinguish between religion and God when the two are associated so heavily with each other, so yes i suppose all arguments inevitably have to touch upon God's existence at some point

I think your position here is commendable, I have some concerns with atheists when they make stronger claims because I think those claims are at least as unjustified as the claims theists make that they oppose. There is often an inconsistency in the standards they use for knowledge and the standards they wish to hold theists to. I don't think the existence of God is particularly interesting but unfortunately when theists refer to scripture as morally authoritative you have to attack their beliefs and we all know what type of shit storm that can result in.

And cheers magma.

What? You don't think that respect is more valuable than revenge?
You petty bitch.

I love it when u talk nasty. Pull my hair! Harder! HARDER YOU FUCKIN' LITTLE RICKY!

PS: frame one doesn't have a of respect going on either.

_ronzlo_ wrote:I love it when u talk nasty. Pull my hair! Harder! HARDER YOU FUCKIN' LITTLE RICKY!

PS: frame one doesn't have a of respect going on either.

And that justifies the lack in the second innit. And you thick fucks talk like you're not about all the same bullshit as other religious people lol

just read the first chapter of Christopher Hitchens' God is not great: how religion poisons everything
well written and justifies his non-belief by giving examples of religious intolerance and aggression
but not really relevant
humans are intolerant, humans are aggressive
we should all try to be less so, whatever our belief/non-belief system,
when appropriate

because sometimes other's beliefs are intolerably stupid or destructive
including so-called Christians, Muslims, Communists or Capitalists
& even pious Atheists.
And don't give me that shit that atheists don't start or promote wars
because that would effectively claim that they can't be greedy, power-seeking or jealous.

I reckon if you hunger for a spiritual path or explanation
exert a bit of effort to know yourself thru the process of some kind of meditation,
attempt to throw out the baggage of your conditioning
then go looking for a set of ideas that is rational, makes you happy & doesn't depend on some cultishcunt telling you what to do or think
including this suggestion.

However once you've experienced all that,
surrender yourself to the void
(which is everything beyond your ken)
realize that *god* is everything and nothing
including you, I and us
and start preparing for death
while appreciating this opportunity to live & love..

Voila!
a reasonable life without the need for religion nor atheism..

rickyarbino wrote:

_ronzlo_ wrote:I love it when u talk nasty. Pull my hair! Harder! HARDER YOU FUCKIN' LITTLE RICKY!

PS: frame one doesn't have a of respect going on either.

And that justifies the lack in the second innit. And you thick fucks talk like you're not about all the same bullshit as other religious people lol

Very Christian attitude of you there. Your righteous indignation smells like a pile of horseshit. Bon Appetit.

if the mind is the hammer to hit the nail that is existence into the wall of humanity.
we cant have a wall of bent nails, thered be nothing of any substance of which to hang from it.
and if cold, hard, dead space and reality is all we have as the opposite to theism then morale ambiguity with no repercussions kinda leaves us in a philosophical quandry.
I like the idea of faith as much as I see the logic behind atheism.
existentialism to me kinda lies between this,
a, not one higher power to hang your noose off
but, not not having a (......) to answer for if you have been mr shit in the eyes of you, and those around you.
given that our societies moral values are based off theism its hard to know that the judgement of what makes me a shithead is just the remnants of its doctrine.
but, a dog I'm sure has never read the bible and knows its in the doghouse when it shits on the floor.
now, what to do with the psychpaths who arent subject to these morale values. as, at the moment making them control our economies and viewing them cultural icons isn't quite working.

I mean no hate, but I'm curious as to why you type out your ideas in a way that's actually pretty painful to read.

While it does have its certain 'charm', it kinda makes it impossible to understand anything you are trying to convey; at least to my pleb mind.

theism - anti-theism
..... atheism

sexual - not sexual
....asexual

people forget all the terms and end up going somewhere inbetween imo

What kind of idiot (rickyarbino) would argue that atheism is a religion. I don't even give it a name. In exactly the same way that I don't give a name to not believing that herds of unicorns escape from people's assholes when they go to sleep every night.

In the scope of this thread, theism's belief system is based 100% on 'faith', as there is not one single particle of evidence. Atheism's "belief system" is the scientific method, ie believing in things only when there is evidence and experimental verification, is that a religion?

There is not one single reason to believe in God. What exactly is 'God'. How is it anything other than the psychological construct of recently evolved hairless monkeys as a way to combat the fear of death and the apparent meaninglessness of our existence?

nah that's what i was on about aswell and he's right

anti theism is the one that questions theisms, whereas atheism is a BELIEF system itself

There is not one single reason to believe in God. What exactly is 'God'. How is it anything other than the psychological construct of recently evolved hairless monkeys as a way to combat the fear of death and the apparent meaninglessness of our existence?

You're not looking at in communal, societal or collective terms
(or a better term ) .

I'd agree with what you're saying here, but if instead of using yourself in the example and ask 'why do I need guy to believe in something as abstract as that', then you might get an idea of why it has come to this. It's a control measure.

Some (possibly) physically weak but smart guy, convinced some big lump of a brute, that if he tried to beat physically weak guy, that there'd be some bigger guy above judging and helping out weak guy.... then all of a sudden weak guy or weak guys religion becomes pretty cool as a concept, doesn't it? Like some kind of super kungfu where you beat up people inside their own skull with thoughts

cyclopian wrote:I mean no hate, but I'm curious as to why you type out your ideas in a way that's actually pretty painful to read.

While it does have its certain 'charm', it kinda makes it impossible to understand anything you are trying to convey; at least to my pleb mind.

once ive had some proper sleep i'll try and type it up in a more monoptical friendly manner.

all love no hate

Ricky_Spanish wrote:What kind of idiot (rickyspanish) would argue that atheism is not a religion. It is a system of a belief and it even has a name. In exactly the same way that a system of belief in which one assumes that herds of unicorns escape from people's assholes when they go to sleep every night might be called madness. All people who believe such a delusion ought to be equally as deluded as one another and ought to be thought of as a religion of idiots, right?

In the scope of this thread, theism's belief system is based 100% on 'faith'. Atheism's "belief system" is not the scientific method, atheists=/=scientists, and even the atheists who do cling to science are really just holding faith in the scientific method to bring about truths about the origin of space, time, and it's/their contents.

There is not one single reason not to believe in God. What exactly isn't 'God'? A lot of abrahamic believers argue that god is omnipotent and omnipresent, so what actually is or isn't he, except everything? How is atheism anything other than the psychological construct of recently evolved hairless monkeys as a way to combat the fear of death and the apparent meaninglessness of our existence?

Yeah, innit.

Ricky_Spanish wrote:What kind of idiot (rickyarbino) would argue that atheism is a religion. I don't even give it a name. In exactly the same way that I don't give a name to not believing that herds of unicorns escape from people's assholes when they go to sleep every night.

In the scope of this thread, theism's belief system is based 100% on 'faith', as there is not one single particle of evidence. Atheism's "belief system" is the scientific method, ie believing in things only when there is evidence and experimental verification, is that a religion?

There is not one single reason to believe in God. What exactly is 'God'. How is it anything other than the psychological construct of recently evolved hairless monkeys as a way to combat the fear of death and the apparent meaninglessness of our existence?

I agree that it's a mistake to consider Atheism a religion, it's a pretty clear one it's then a mistake to consider that Atheism's belief system is the scientific method, the two highlighted sections of your post are contradictory, you can't claim on the one hand that atheism is just a lack of belief while claiming the scientific method for it.

If God created everything (humans, animals, trees, planets etc.), why he made humans to be able to not to believe in him. Why he gave us ability to do things which are wrong according to the bible. Why he made the world that has so many fucked up things, when he could turn things around any time?

Conclusion A: There's no God.

Conclusion B: There's God, and he acts like a kid with mental disorder who plays with his hamsters and flushes them down a toilet when he gets tired of 'em.

thats kind of retarded tbh ^
these are the two conclusions youve come too. not anyone else.

DJoe wrote:thats kind of retarded tbh ^
these are the two conclusions youve come too. not anyone else.

Any other ideas?