Atheism

[schtriga]

Amen.

Hala, paghimo na mo ug doctrine, rituals, bible and etc.

[dartzed]

OT: hahaha tionks

[geoseph]

If it’s all a religion, perhaps we can respect each other’s beliefs. We can learn from each other, thereby theoretically enriching our own religions. Some beliefs can be in opposition, and with these, we can, at least, agree to disagree. It might be worth taking the effort to discover where a counter-belief comes from, so it can be understood, and as a result become tolerant, instead of being blindly against it. Disagreement is sometimes only a mater of definition or understanding of the matter.
---

An anti-Christ may be taken to mean someone who denies Christ. Denial may be in thought (non-belief), feelings (repulsion), action (outright opposition), any combination or these, or all of these. It does not necessarily mean a devil worshipper, nor does it only refer to non-Christians. It may also include Christians as well.

The anti-Christs I find difficult to comprehend are probably not even aware they are one. They are Christian church leaders, so-called, who deny Christ by violating what they preach, or even take advantage of people, and as a result, they cause some Christians to turn away from the faith. They should resign their posts or be expelled, and if they have also violated the law, be handed over to the authorities, and answer to Caesar.
---

It does not follow that a person who does not hold the same beliefs one has is automatically bad. Similarly, a person who holds the same beliefs one has does not automatically mean that person is good. (This fallacy is a kind of ad hominem.) It only means you don’t entirely agree.

[simoncpu]

It does not follow that a person who does not hold the same beliefs one has is automatically bad. Similarly, a person who holds the same beliefs one has does not automatically mean that person is good. (This fallacy is a kind of ad hominem.) It only means you don’t entirely agree.

No, that is not an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is an argument that attacks the person instead of the issue being discussed. Example, instead of debating the exact definition of Atheism and anti-Christ, I could simply tell you:

"Panget ka ug nawng! Mas gwapo ko nimo! Bleh, bleh, bleh... :P"

Now, that's an ad hominem argument.

[ simon.cpu ]

[taryon78]

ha ha ha ha gusto mo ma poses
Atheists ka ? pariha rana ni ingon ka tambok ka..

[batosai]

ako dili atheism

[geoseph]

No, that is not an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is an argument that attacks the person instead of the issue being discussed. Example, instead of debating the exact definition of Atheism and anti-Christ, I could simply tell you:

"Panget ka ug nawng! Mas gwapo ko nimo! Bleh, bleh, bleh... :P"

Now, that's an ad hominem argument.

[ simon.cpu ]

I said it is a “kind of” or “belonging to the same group or family” of fallacies. If you want a term, some call it ‘genetic fallacy,’ or not considering a statement on the basis of the affiliation of the statement giver. All these fall under ‘lack of relevance’. If you want the Latin for this, it is ‘non sequitur’ (“it does not follow”).

[batosai]

paits

[simoncpu]

I said it is a “kind of” or “belonging to the same group or family” of fallacies. If you want a term, some call it ‘genetic fallacy,’ or not considering a statement on the basis of the affiliation of the statement giver. All these fall under ‘lack of relevance’. If you want the Latin for this, it is ‘non sequitur’ (“it does not follow”).

Yes, I also love using Latin as place-holder text for my layouts. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectutor adipcising elit.

Quisque comoedus est, Istorya.net te spectat. Rident SimonCPU verba Latina! Bleh. :P

[geoseph]

Yes, I also love using Latin as place-holder text for my layouts. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectutor adipcising elit.

Quisque comoedus est, Istorya.net te spectat. Rident SimonCPU verba Latina! Bleh. :P

It does make excellent place-holder in layouts, along with any other text, like Playboy articles, and so on.

It also has no bearing on correct reasoning, understanding others, bargaining for the price of dangit, and so on.