Essentially, it is the belief that the existence of a deity is unknowable. Which is exactly where I stand. There are levels of agnosticism, some which lean more towards I belief in something, but I'm firmly in the middle on this.

I don't think many people are really concerned with having a collective voice or even having a label. But by definition, non-believers are atheists. I don't think it's a choice to have that term associated with you or not. It's a word with a definition and it describes non-believers and that's the end of it. The "idea of atheism" is not believing in a higher power, so how is that self-defeating?? I think you see atheists as scumbags or something and have a poor mindset regarding what atheism is. Atheist doesn't imply anti-religion or people who hate those who practice. I'd say that most atheists are probably people like me who just don't care about religion but you seem to be focusing on atheists who are anti-religion and live to bash others. Which ironically is kinda what you are doing.

Agnosticism is not a middle ground between Theism and Atheism. You can be Agnostic and Theistic at the same time. You can also be Agnostic and Atheistic at the same time. Agnosticism concerns knowledge while Theism concerns belief- they are not mutually exclusive.

For further information: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess I could consider myself Agnostic then. I believe there might be a higher power. Something out there greater than us but I don't like to follow the structure of any religion.

I wouldn't say it's what I'm doing, cos imo it's perfectly justifiable to "bash" the "bashers" - stance of defense, not aggression.

I don't think all atheists are scumbags, no. I just can't respect the idea, it seems infantile to me. "The grouped of non-group-eds"

For example - the bus ads in the UK. Some Christian group put out an ad saying smething like

"Have faith in God live a good life" etc. your general "We love Jesus" sort of thing

So what do the local "atheist non-theocratic committee of non-commited non-group" group do?

Put out an ad saying

"There is no God. Live your life"

If atheism is not a group, if atheism is not a religion, why would they feel they need to counter a message like that? The goal of atheism ultimatly as a group, which is what it is, is to eradicate all religion.

Maybe individual atheists have no problem with religion, but as a group, that is the main agenda. If they're trying to spread atheism with ads like that, that means they want as many atheists as possible - they want to expand and spread their message. Therefore, they want to eradicate religion, pretty simple man.

If you are how you say, then People like yourself aren't the ones I have a problem with, and I think by calling yourself atheist you're actually allying yourself with something more than just non-believing. So long as people are half-decent, I can respect it if they say "piss off I'm not joining your group I dont believe" - their choice.

I can't respect it if they say, "piss off I'm not joining your group, I'm gonna go join this other group for people who don't wanna be in your group " because they've made it competitive.

It's like making it the "cliques" of the world, thats stupid.

If you don't believe, fine. If you believe different to me, fine.

If you begrude me my belief, thats not fine.


Just as though, I said - don't have a problem with religion, have a problem with the people who corrupt it.

Well same principle; I have no problem with a lack of religion. I have a problem with people who corrupt the non-religious.

atheism is a cult imo.



What is needle exchange, something to do with drugs?

That would explain why they didnt like you helping, but tbh, you gotta look at the bigger picture here man.

If you didnt help them exchange needles, they would get ill, they would spread disease. So they've fallen in a bad way, they're doing drugs and bad ****. But it's up to them to pull themselves out of it, all you can do is guide the lost sheep through the canyon.

What you did was a service to God and Humanity, man. Herding the lost flock. One day, one of those people will get clean maybe, they'll live a decent life, have a family.

That's thanks to you sir. If no-one exchanged the needles, they'd get aids or some **** and be dead in a ditch.

As long as you're not the one actually giving them the drugs, then screw what your Church said, be proud of what you did dude I respect that.



(if on the other hand it wasnt drugs related and it was purely medical needles, then they're a bunch of crazy ****ing ****s what sort of Christians are they)

Haha yes that's exactly what it is. Because there's been a huge AIDS epidemic in DC since the 90s so it's an effort to keep that from spreading partially. Also, a huge part of the programs is to get addicts regularly coming to a clinic with posters and free information on how to get help, rehab, the dangers etc. The ones I know of at least even offer classes to help people stop, or to try to teach them at least of the dangers. And the biggest thing that they do is give people at the bottom of the bottom someone to talk to that genuinely wants to help them, rather than look at them like pieces of **** which sadly I think the vast majority of people do. It's amazing how much you can tell they just need to talk to somebody because, and I heard this so many times, what's the point in quitting when you have nothing or no one? This is a very very personal issue to me as well so I get angry when people go against these programs, and it's pretty much ended in the end of my involvement with organized religious groups. And don't take that wrong, I'm still Christian, I just see it as having my own way of practicing. Because isn't that what religion is pretty much all about? Making the world a better place for everyone? Unless I missed something in Sunday School...

Geddy, I have read that some Jewish people feel the kosher law to kill animals by slitting their throats was originally intended as a way to make slaughter more humane, in keeping with the feeling some view as a Jewish religious law that people should not cause unnecessary suffering to animals: Judaism 101: Treatment of Animals

A question I have that relates to your original post (in which you asked religious people, "What is your level of observance?") is how people decide the degree to which they are observing or following a religion, since following particular religious laws may not fully fulfill the intent of the laws. Which is more important when determining the degree to which you follow or observe a religious law: following the intent of the law, or following the law itself?

For example, if a Jewish person wants to follow kosher laws, should she be following the letter of the law or the intent? If she feels she should follow a law not to cause animals unecessary pain, then should she consider that slaughtering animals by slitting their throats causes them pain that can be reduced or eliminated by rendering the animals unconscious first (Discussion of research that shows that Kosher or Halal Slaughter without stunning causes pain)...even though rendering animals unconscious first violates the kosher law?

Whose level of observance of religious kosher law would be greater...the person who follows the kosher law and eats only animals killed in a kosher way, or a person who violates the kosher law by eating animals rendered unconscious first (so they experience less pain)...or the person who doesn't eat any animals at all (which would naturally be a kosher diet with respect to animals, since meat and dairy would never be mixed)?

Also, since people do not physiologically need to eat animals to remain healthy, a question I have about kosher laws is how people rationalize the slaughtering of animals if they also believe that a religious law prohibits causing unnecessary suffering to animals.

I like this video very much since it explains that atheists include people who lack belief in gods as well as people who believe no gods exist, which are different positions with respect to the question of whether there are dieties.

In a way, you're an atheist too. You deny the existence of all gods except yours.

Does Anubis exist?

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9749/anubisim.jpg

Can you prove Anubis doesn't exist? Why? Is it because a dog cannot be a god? Or maybe because God cannot be a dog? Why not? Or perhaps you elucidate Anubis' existence (or inexistence) according to his supranatural attributes and his role in the context of Ancient Egyptian religion? Or maybe you just assume the Abrahamic dogma that says "God created man in his own image".

We don't have churches. Also, it should be noted that "atheism" is just a blanket term for people who don't believe in gods, it's not any kind of unified set of beliefs.

Irony 101 in this thread.

Religion and all religious people need to be extinguished. It is the religious mentality that is holding humanity back. Religion is for people who don't know how to be good. WHen you prattle on that humans can't be good without religion I can tell you have the E.Q. of a rotting orange peel.

I guarantee my moral standards are far better than yours, for mine are real. Remember how you were banging on about war and killing? "The next world war". Remember that? There is no denying that you are a very low thinking ape. You don't know how to be good, and if you did not have your religion, you would be out murdering people and sodomising "westerners". We can't keep a Turk down, right? You have religion and nationalism.....very dangerous.

Oh yeah, you're the ultracrepidarian who says THC is similar to LSD.

"Acid comes from fungus I.E mushrooms. Mushrooms are psychoactive. Weed has psychoactive elements.

Thus, Weed is a mild form of Acid."

Remember that? This is your deductive reasoning. It seems readily apparent that you employ this same flapdoodle in
evaluating the world.

You talk about violence and hurt the same way a shaved, talking gorilla would. If aliens came to Earth and took you away with the rest of your gorilla harem, humanity would be better. People would better be able to be humane and helpful.

IF, one day you discovered your belief system was a lie, and that there is no god, beyond any reasonable doubt, you would no longer have any reason to be good. DOn't you see? Your religion is obscurantism. The idea that humanity NEEDS religion, is terrible. That is not the right message.

I suggest you read about 'mirror neurons', and discover why humans are good. Another thing, read about Professor Michael Persinger: God Helmet

And fukc atheism. HOw can people be defined by what they are not? The point is, 'atheists' know how to be good on their own. Humanity should be heading towards higher thinking. This scourge of nationalism is hindering our capacity to advance. Nationalism is acceptable racism. Try this: secular humanism.

So, crukster, why are you good? What do you hope to accomplish? What is the best way to educate children? What is the problem with the status quo? What needs to be changed in the message on TV and the like? How can we change it to encourage intellectualism and artistic endeavour?

As usual, wrong again. When viewing the concept of 'atheism' (what a vapid word. It is a cliche) as trying to eradicate religion, it seems deplorable. The goal of secular humanists is not to eradicate religion directly, but to encourage humanism and reason. If the world can all work toward a common goal to make humanity better, to make better people, with as few restrictions as possible, there will be no need for religion because people will learn that beneficence and altruism is innate in us.

Schranz, please make your points without resorting to personal attacks. If you can't manage that, then you will be removed from this website.

This goes for anyone else as well. It's understandable that religion can hit some nerves, but I'd like to think we are all capable of asserting our opinions without needing to insult someone directly. I think most of us are experienced enough to know that insults do nothing but make people even less receptive to our perspectives anyway. Apart from avoiding forum rule-breaking, there's actually a functional aspect to this. Debate wisely.

Darn, you beat me to it

Schranz Bass;

Hello and please to meet you, I know I don't know you from Adam but I think have to tell you something a whole orange doesn't have an intellect let alone part of it - an orange peel.
(btw is that Bass that rhymes with ace or Bass that that rhymes with ass?)

DO I have to draw pictures for you or something?

'Twas a metaphor....get it?

Read a book

I don't see how atheism is a cult any more than christianity or islam or any other religion. You seem to have a warped sense of what atheism is. I imagine you view atheism as some big club or something. "The group of the non-grouped"... Do you not understand that being an atheist just means that you don't believe in a God. If you have a disbelief of God, you are an atheist. It isn't a choice, that's just what you are by definition. It isn't some club that people subscribe to. Some people don't want to be called atheist for whatever reason but it doesn't change that they are.

Groups OF atheists exist. If a religious group wants to put out their message, why don't you think its okay for an atheist group to do the same? I think it's stupid for either group to advertise like the example you talked about, since all it does is turn the non-believers off even more, but why can one group promote their "message" and the other group can't? I feel like atheists like that are more concerned with showing people that they can be good people and live great lives without a religion. Which is entirely true and I don't really see a problem with it other than thinking religious advertising of any kind is stupid.

Your comment on competition is just stupid, what are they competing for? Competing to gain what? More members? There's no prize here. I'm not allying myself with anyone. I don't believe in God, that's all there is to say about it. I used to be more anti-religion, and now I'm more uncaring. Some people are helped by their beliefs and are raised a certain way. So although I think their beliefs might be stupid, I don't care enough to bash them or try to change their views. You just have this strange view of atheism and I don't get it.

WHat is this? The 13th century? Forget atheism. It is false reasoning.

Secular humanism is more appropriate.

Try it out

This.

Replace one label with another one. Man, you're so edgy. What exactly makes atheism false reasoning? An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. How many times am I gonna have to say that for you and crukster to understand? You can apply whatever label you want to people who don't believe in God, but there's already a perfectly suitable word for it and that word is "atheist."

all I have to say is that Abrahamic religions prevail because the Jehovah tribe killed more people and conquered more land that the other tribes

i take the Old Testament with a pinch of salt - i mostly believe the miracles of Jesus, though but then again, I'm a Gnostic Christian, and I believe in the Gnostic Gospels as well, stories of Jesus turning his playmates into donkeys and creating butterflies out of sand

and my former church did try to help junkies, not piss on them

Why? Is it easier for you to write in hanzi? If it is go ahead.

In a way the word "religion" is too.

Religion is a metaphor for being "bound" to something. The root "ligare" meaning bound can be found other words in ligature or ligament. Religion is what you bind yourself to - it could be anything from politics to philosophy to a deity. So if you are so adamant about extinguishing religious people you have to reconsider that because you are religiously anti-religious, you are bound to your vehement displeasure of religious people - you clearly display that in your posts. I think you owe crukster an apology.

You forgot the period at the end of the sentence. Who's book smart now?

A religious debate turned into a pissing match? Shocked.

... Really?

Because the belief in God is irrelevant. Society has to move out of the paradigm of supernatural belief;

ergo:

atheism is an erroneous concept.

I hope that wasn't too edgy.

Your arguing semantics doesn't disguise your imbecility.


By 'drawing pictures' I meant, do I have to simplify it enough for you to understand? and it seems that I do. But, judging from all the verbiage you've dumped here, you would still entirely miss the point.
I don't think you noticed, but the topic of religion here has not been a metaphor.
Please, spare me any more witlessisms.

What it lacked in edginess it made up for in stupidity. Belief in God is irrelevant? Religion is a gigantic part of pretty much every major culture on this planet so I fail to see how that is not somewhat relevant. "Forget atheism." What exactly is that supposed to mean? Forget the term used for people like myself who don't believe in God? You seem to be one of those people like crukster who thinks atheism is some crazy ideology or big club or something.

I think someone is going to get banned out of this... somehow. Or at least get a slap on the wrist.


It's a cult! They sacrifice sheep to their god that they don't believe in. :D

Quit with the name calling. I could insult you, too, and I assure you, I have a lot greater literary dexterity than you, but could you please raise the tone of your messages? I am not your enemy.

Sometimes I find it frustrating when talking about religion because I have to sift through all the 'stock phrases': reactionary phrases from a set stock of words and ideas which always miss the point. It seems that many folks react to any opposition to piety with aspersion and traditional thinking; they simply cannot grasp the notion of a way of life without religion.

Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is relevant. You are about to prove it. Watch, it will be enoyable. I think many other people will join in what is to come.

Dirty, the belief in God and religion is for what purpose? To derive morals and meaning in life, yeah?
From your standpoint, is humanity going in a healthful direction?
Do you think we have set society up in a way that is conducive to ecological, aesthetic, moral, and ideological impetus?

Let's start with the status quo:

Nearly every message and every intention in marketing, television, and popular music is to encourage people to be more egotistical; to "buy this car because it defines you. This is happiness, this is status. This is what 'beautiful' women look like. This is what makes you enviable", et cetera. Do you agree with that? Here's an example: a while ago I saw an advertisement on tv for the Pontiac Vibe car. In the commercial a person drove the Vibe beside a bus. Music was playing in the car and a man sitting in the bus was moving his head to the beat playing in the Vibe. Something else happened, but I don't remember. What is the message there? 'If you drive this car, people will think you are cool and will be more likely to stare at your car when you drive by.'

Surely you have seen such advertisements? I could list hundreds, quite literally, but I don't want to type so much. This is a topic that should be discussed orally.

Here's the current aesthetic standard:

Have you noticed that so many people refer to some women as 'beautiful'? Beautiful should not be a superfical description. It is much deeper than that. Beauty is kalon. The prevalent notion of beauty is superficial. This makes the standard of what is beautiful, much lower. A 'beautiful' woman is....very capable of sharing her DNA and producing a healthy, attractive baby who will most likely be able to carry on the 'seed'.

'Beautiful' is a word to describe something, or someone, that evokes love. It is the essence which is beautiful, not facial symmetry. This smattering of beauty is everywhere, yeah?

This is where society is. The aesthetic standard is much lower; people are very apt to see 'beauty' in simpler things. Surely you agree that this mentality is a product of impulsive, primitive, unintellectual propensity?

The current aesthetic paradigm is encouraging people to pursue a higher role in the status quo. It is distracting people from being individuals; from being morally and socially deep, and fervent. I think it also creates neurosis.

Religion and belief in God is not the cure to all that.

What do you think is better?

i don't even have the typing muscles to refute all of that

>rolls eyes up to heaven<

Point form, then

nah I agree to all you say

white flag

First you said you couldn't be bothered to refute it all, now you acquiesce.

I find it difficult to believe you now.

i just don't like responding to trollbait

Don't start with the whole "victim" card. I said your post had stupidity in it and if you can't handle that, I would suggest leaving the internet. Get off your high horse, your pretentious attitude towards religion nauseates me. Religion certainly is relevant in society, some form of it exists in every major culture on this planet. Religion is a huge influence on behavior and cultural norms so for you to say it isn't relevant just makes no sense. Maybe you don't want it to be, but it certainly is without a doubt. I'm an atheist but I realize how relevant religion is in every culture, it isn't that hard to realize. I don't live in a world of hypothetical nature where a non-religious Earth exists because that is never going to happen.

Now you are talking about things that basically boil down to marketing strategies with all the talk of advertisements and stuff. You don't define "beauty," it's subjective. Not everything has to be lumped into "beautiful" or "not beautiful," there can be levels of it surely. And I don't think religion is looked at by many people to be the "cure" for the lower standard of beauty we have...and I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing beauty in simple things either. My whole beef was that you said something along the lines of "forget atheism, that's so 13th century." But as long as there are still millions of religious folks, "atheist" is a perfectly suitable word to describe non-believers such as myself. I think you are more arguing for a religion-less society, which I would actually support, but again I don't live in a hypothetical fairyland of a world and I'm looking at this realistically.

I'd be prepared to argue that both are equally as important as each other. The practice of the specific law is bound up in its intent, and intent is shown through observance.

I know what you're getting at, but I'm not an expert in the minutae of kosher slaughter laws and practices. I'd have to research this one before venturing an opinion.

again, not something I can really venture an opinion on without further research.

I can answer the point about vegetarianism though. Typically Jewish practice, although it recognises the possiblity of living happily on a vegetarian diet, rejects many attempts to rationalize it based on the Bible, from Genesis and Isiah passages. From MyJewishLearning.com:
But to answer your example, many Jews will choose to eat only a vegetarian diet where normal kosher meats aren't available, and this is recognised as equally kosher as the person who does eat meat and keeps kosher with regards to this.

[/QUOTE]
Also, since people do not physiologically need to eat animals to remain healthy, a question I have about kosher laws is how people rationalize the slaughtering of animals if they also believe that a religious law prohibits causing unnecessary suffering to animals.
[/QUOTE]

You might want to read this: Vegetarianism and Kashrut - My Jewish Learning

It'll explain better than I can about vegetarianism and the eating of meat in Judaism in terms of its spiritual significance.

There is also a growing movement for 'ethical kashrut' which aims to promote the well-being of animals being killed according to kosher law.

Now when you say "gorillas" do you mean King Kong-ish type primates or non-conscript militant irregulars? Context clues leans towards the latter but I'm not sure. Anyway scientific study reveal that the King Kong-ish type primates are for the most part docile, and the fact that animals are instinctual they don't conjure up a past memory and feel proud about them (you are erroneously assuming animals process thoughts like humans) so taking all of that into consideration one can not properly come to the conclusion "gorillas are proud of killing and hurting."

They did a study and they found that most women do prefer facial symmetry, while men on the other hand don't seem to notice or mind much. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and yes sometimes facial symmetry does matter (whether instinctually or sub-conscientiously) to the beholder.

"Dexterity" implies skill in physical movement, if you were as smarts as you say you are, wouldn't you be able to choose a word more apt to describe your verbal ability than physical ability? That statement certainly does not live up it it's expectation. :rolleyes: imo I think he's more articulate than you by default.

Still I think the ideology you are enamored with is your religion, you have the same fervency in spouting your ideas and derisively knocking down your opponents metaphorically as a any fundamentalist would do.

In as far a religion means something one is "bound" and that in turn is a metaphor for a deeper meaning, I would say for example in the Judaic tradition when you take into consideration the story of the Akeidat Yitzchak yes it is, in the sense that you look below the surface of what is physically happening in the story and look deeper into the meaning of the story and what lessons are to be learned from it.

This is probably the last thing I'm gonna reply to you unless you can come up wth some better responses man.

Cos you're using Strawmans.

I never said this.

You're saying they can't be good with religion.

I'm saying it's important what people do, and anyone who understands that would understand the inherent goodness of the intention of religion. The idea of spreading Humanic beliefs.

You don't have to be religious to give a **** and do good things.

But you wouldnt be anti-religion if you did.

You would be anti-agenda, and anti- to the corruption of religion.

Not religion itself.


So real that you can write off an entire race of people. Not the governmental system, not the religion, not the education system, no. i'd have no problem with you saying that because those things are man-made and changeable, liable to corruption.

No, you insulted our BLOOD. Our "Blood" makes us stupid, according to you.


Proving me right. You're afraid of what people can do when they have something to believe in.

I'm proud of my homeland. I wanna see it do well. That doesnt mean I neccessarily wanna see others do badly. Only if they've got ill will i wish that.

The point is we should all be Nationalist of our Planet, ultimatly.


Again, this is your problem.

I'm talking about the Human experience of the drug.

You talk about the "scientific construction of its formula".

Which is all well and good but hardly transcends the Human experience. For all you know your formula is flawed.


Not really. I posit your own "morals" are based on Social norms.

I dont kill, I dont rape, i dont steal etc. Because I believe there is a wider framework to the Universe. I believe we all come from the same place, and Humanity is my Brothers and Sisters.

If you don't believe this, then your so-called "moral" structure has no grounds. You only don't do the things people say are bad, because many people agree that they're bad.

I don't do bad things because I believe them to flawed. That is my definition of evil - flaw.

If I killed indiscriminatly, I would be killing every chance of progression, every discovery every idea that person migth come up with. I dont kill indiscriminatly because I value life. Islam presents to me a system around the protection of that value, amongst others.

You've demonstrated your ignorance again by failing to read my previous post and "projecting" your own anger at religion onto it.

I don't follow religion out of fear. I don't follow it because I'm told to. I follow it because I believe it.


Furthermore it could never be proven that there is no God, saying this shows you have a flawed understanding of God. You think of God as Jesus Christ, the man in the sky lmao, which to be clear - I have no problem if someone wants to believe that. The problem is you believe it but you wont accept it. You're a closet Christian.

In my own belief - God is the Almight power of all creation, the highest form of existence whatever it may be, the Alpha the Omega, the All, the collective energy of all Creation e'erwhere.

If there is no God, then I am God.

Disprove that.

If there is no Highest Power in the universe, then i claim to be the highest power in the Universe.

Kneel before me.


You present numerous complex questions and expect me to write an answer here and now?

I will, if neccessary. I'l write 30 pages.

But that defeats the point.

I would have to think about these things.


It's moot to ask why I'm good- because I am not good. Why I try to be good, is for the betterment of Myself and of Humanity. I learn from my mistakes, I keep on rolling. I exist, Humanity exists, we are all alive. For as long as we are, our purpose is to maintain that and progress it. DO great things, attain knowledge, achieve great feats, cut the throats of great evils, build beautiful cities.



If you want to successfully argue against religion, you're going to have to accept the fact that there are many people who think about their religion. And have made a concious decision to pledge themselves to a progressive idea.

You have none. If you don't believe, thats up to you.

You have no right to tell others not to believe.

I have a right to tell them to believe. You have no right to tell them not to.

Because I offer a system they can choose to adopt. You offer no system; nothing. Go live in a hole somewhere if you want nothing.






Ignoring the fact these two statements contradict each other, in response to exhibit A;

so you think we magically know how to do whats right when we're born? We magically already know the best things to do? Sounds like a relgiious idea to me.


Why are there rapists then, why are these pedophiles?

I guess they#'re born like that, eh? How convenient. Means you dont have to take the time to educate them. means you wont be responsible if your education fails.

Thats all bull****. When we're born, we know nothing of the World. How could we - we've never been here before.

Fair enough we have instinct. Instinct is not enough. Did you know what a tree was when you were born? Could you wipe your own arse? Did you know how to fix an engine?

No. Ergo these things, amongst many others, including morals, must be learnt. Ergo a system must be in place to pass down what works. Thus, Religion.




It doesn't need a name. I don't believe in magic Unicorns. I am NOT, an Aunicornist. If someone calls me one I'd probably hit em. Unicornes play no part in my life. I want no recognition from the Unicorn world. i dont need to be a part of what they're doing, at all.

No, I dont believe they have a right to simply "spread a message" I believe they have a right to spread a message they believe in. Most christians believe that accepting Jesus Christ will make your life happier. Thats why they put the message out there, they wish, in their heart that everyone would be Christian, to share that joy they feel, to make the World a better place. I can tell them I don't need to be Christian to do that. I respect what they're doing and so long as it isnt forced, then it doesnt bother me. people make their own decisions.

atheists on the other hand such as that group, say they're putting the message out of there being no God, just because they have a right to. SO, what they dont believe what they#re even saying?

Or they do. And they want everyone to be atheist. Ergo they are a group; a cult, that worship the idea of NOTHING, and they want to eradicate every religion and have people worshipping nothing.

Imo "nothing" Is Satan because it represents the destruction of all things.

So point 1 - I have a problem that most atheists are not commited to what they're preaching.

Point 2 - I ddont like what it is they're actually preaching. Other than minor details which are irrelevant in the end I have no problem with Christianity but I have a problem with NOTHING.

To clarify I am not saying all religious people neccessarily want everyone to be religious, and I am not saying all non-religious people neccessarily want everyone to be non-religious, but I am saying that people who affiliate themselves with groups, and taking a proactive stance such as putting out advertisements, clearly have a message they're trying to spread.

There are hardliners on both sides, imo what's Universal and what matters is that people just live a half decent life.

This thread is proof that Schranz Bass is a imbecilic troll. He might be atheist, but he's so anti-religion it's almost taken the place of religion for him. At least Richard Dawkins can formulate a solid empirical case for their atheism, without resorting to pathetic appeals to personal experience, personal feeling and strawman arguments.

You seem like a decent person and all GeddyBass, but I have to say that calling him an "imbecilic troll" isn't helping the situation. I say let them fight it out, and if it gets too out of hand then... well there's always temp bans. :thumb: