Originally Posted by crukster

There's no need to apologise for saying that and I agree anyway man. They should admit that that's what they're doing, and not fly about with this false pretense saying that they're not a group or a theology. Because they're definitly a group and they are a theology imo.

atheism is just half-assedness. There's a lot of different answers to the big questions of life out there. All I'm saying is don't develop your own based off some bad experience with religious people in the past or anger at your parents or something.

If you called a Buddhist an atheist because they don't believe in the traditional Abrahamic God, I don't think they'd be too happy. That's not what defines their belief; what defines their belief is the path they follow.

All I'm getting is, people should stop focusing on what they dont believe and focus on what they do believe. If they believe the answer is nothing, then that's their answer. That's not anti- or a- anything, it's just nothing. I don't think the answer is ever nothing though. So why develop your grounds for questioning life on the antithesis of something existing?

If you dont believe, you dont believe. I'm not a doctor. Thats doesnt make me adoctor or amedical. I'm just simply unqualified to be a doctor.

the idea of atheism represents the aknowledgement of emptiness.

Which is something different to not believing. If you dont believe, fine, as I've said 100 times already. But you cant form a frickin philosophy around not believing in something; you form it around believing in something ELSE, or you dont form anything, its as simple as that.