How Did The Concept (or idea) of Atheism Change Your Life?

[kebotDiNaMute]

gi-lecture-an ko nimo ug being a scientist? kahibalo diay ka unsay scientist.. diba religionist man ka? akoang logic naman nuon sayop.. intawn pud nimo oi..



lage kebz.. bisag unsa-on na nimo ug bale2x imong logic, murag naa jud problema imong reading comprehension..



huh? atheistic satanists? that's an oxy*****.. asa gud tawn na sa source.. imong source gigamit is Laveyan satanism, which isn't based on religion anymore.. taka lng jud ka kebz oi.. satanists come from the root word satan.. because they believe in satan in the bible.. if they change the meaning of satanists, then that's not anymore believing in satan in the bible, and that's not the true satanism but fake satanism.. sus, trying hard man kaau ka kebz..

gi-lecture-an ko nimo ug being a scientist?
--- omg, im not lecturing you oi... just because u believe you can become one... mao ni imong message... i tell you NO IT DOESN't WORK THAT WAY. Bantug diay mo 2o mi naay panuway, mga panuway napod mi... lols! what a brain.

lage kebz.. bisag unsa-on na nimo ug bale2x imong logic, murag naa jud problema imong reading comprehension..
--- no more argument? hehehe ka alegre

atheistic satanists? that's an oxy*****..
--- lols tell it to mr. laVey, why do you complain he incorporate athiest and satanist? how come you took thier liberty to do so... to tell you blue... oxy*****? lols, you are loosing it blue. Maybe its a bad publicity to athiesm... lets fry it.

[kebotDiNaMute]

is this your version of using "fair" and "balanced" sources james. trying to drag deists in the mix, ey?


that alone refutes the whole package you just posted, james.
atheism is not a religion. it would be like calling theism a religion.
set of beliefs EXPECTED to accept without ANY doubts??<----errr, thats what separates atheists with them faithfuls in the first place. the only thing you expect from an atheist is the absence of belief in god/s.
Dogma: a belief held without evidence.
see, people lambaste atheism with being too "materialistic", evidence based or bust, etc...then now, you want to tag dogmas in that mix.
the bible huggers systematically believes, without question(points to the fellow who just said DOUBT is sin), what their particular religion tells them to believe. Atheist will believe what ever can be proven with demonstrable evidence.

this is what happens when you pull something from a biased source.


the first of the statements above are merely scientific INQUIRIES. attaching dogma to those violates the whole scientific process. besides, the beauty of scientific method is that it requires no belief. and hey, those things get challenged on a day to day basis within the scientific field themselves. after all, science does not offer ABSOLUTE truths but rather provisional ones. they dont just sit around and ponder "god did it" end of story, believe or else.

the beauty of scientific method is that it requires no belief.
--- it is supposed to be, outside on that should be consider dogma...
--- Evolution is a belief your grampa is chimpz... gud luck. Scientist said nothing is proven, its just a pieces of the puzzle found. It raised more questions than answers... REQUIRES NO BELIEF BA? pft!

[kebotDiNaMute]

i think of it as a belief.. it cant be a religion coz theres no organized system in it..an organized system would contradict the concept of athiesm where each person is intitled to his/her own understanding and iterpretation of the universe without bias from any religion or teachings..

nobody teaches you to become an athiest, and you dont need to be baptized as an athiest to be one, its your decision to be an athiest..

in essence athiesm is another form of faith like christianity and islam but in form it lacks certain requirement, like a centralized belief system and it has no scriptures (except there is no "god" part but even such statement has many forms)..

athiesm should be honored as a faith.. athiests should not be prosecuted.. the word here is respect for each others interpretation of life and existance..

my bad, xenxa sa ako pag compose sa ako post hehehe.. basta mao ni ako idea bout that..

system in it..an organized system would contradict the concept of athiesm
--- List of secularist organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--- you can be wrong...check the list

in essence athiesm is another form of faith like christianity
--- I strongly agree. It stand the same ground looking at opposite direction. Atheism uses science in a pedestal of truth to justify their belief. But Faith is injected when it comes to ORIGIN.

athiesm should be honored as a faith.. athiests should not be prosecuted..
--- nobody has to be persecuted... it happens that athiests are doing the opposite way... amf! and you know thier names...

[Gotterdammerung.2]

Wrong tanan... hagbong... buyong... lols...

theistic satanism oppose christianism. <- tungaw ngwa ngaw

Christianity and humanism stands on the same stairs. Both believes in human justice <--- tanan man cguro mo 2o ani... athiest dili diay... batoytoya jud aning mga athiest og concept.. pft.

Christianity and fascism stands on the same stairs. Both seeks to solve existing economic, political, <--- idiotas, christianism is dogma not political nor economic salvation army... lols, hay naku

communism suppress religion, therefore they cannot go in harmony...

gott, did you realize u got everything wrong... amf...

thank you for proving my point. imo bitaw ng logic ako ra gisonod, hahahahahaha!!!


tsk tsk...naglisod naman pod ka og eskapo, bisag unsaon niumo oig ikyas dakpan gihapon ka.

[AmorsoloX]

athiesm should be honored as a faith.. athiests should not be prosecuted..
--- nobody has to be persecuted... it happens that athiests are doing the opposite way... amf! and you know thier names...

i know people who prosecute them... klaro man...

[jamesmusslewhite]

is this your version of using "fair" and "balanced" sources james. trying to drag deists in the mix, ey?
They are welcome to participate in this discussion as well. This forum is for everyone. I must be allow to make simple statements and personal observations as any member. How men who claim to be educated respectful adults only choose to bicker and banter is beyond me. Many member act as if they will not be happy until the Mods just totally banned all such subject matter. Then there will not be any real information exchanged. This is not productive to any member, rather it only boast the fragile egos of the few. This desire to censor anything one does not wish to face, hear, or deal with. I hope it is your motive or desire to only to try to incite or censor the TS? I am not one for arguing over if it is an acceptable usage the word dogma. Based solely on your on personal belief. I am willing to comply with you and refrain from the usual tic-tack petty exchanges. No arguments from me over petty semantics. I will always try to be fair and balanced even with those who not have the concept of what it truly means. After all for most it is far easier to just argue than debate. Any fool can argue, one must be taught how to properly debate. Censorship is not free speech. The concept of free speech seems to be a foreign concept on this forum.

that alone refutes the whole package you just posted, james.
atheism is not a religion. it would be like calling theism a religion.
set of beliefs EXPECTED to accept without ANY doubts??<----errr, thats what separates atheists with them faithfuls in the first place. the only thing you expect from an atheist is the absence of belief in god/s.
Dogma: a belief held without evidence.
see, people lambaste atheism with being too "materialistic", evidence based or bust, etc...then now, you want to tag dogmas in that mix.
the bible huggers systematically believes, without question(points to the fellow who just said DOUBT is sin), what their particular religion tells them to believe. Atheist will believe what ever can be proven with demonstrable evidence.
This is why I tried to start this thread, so members could discuss these very differences, if members will just present this knowledge is posted instead of mixed in exchanges with other members arguements. Then other members could read and understand. It is up to the members to be able to rise above the conjecture, attitudes, and bias statements; and write down their thoughts and share their beliefs, and members be respectful with everyone right to free speech and personal opinions, than other members who really want to know what you have to say can hear your words and learn.

this is what happens when you pull something from a biased source.
Yes I know Dictionaries or so bias, that is why they should never be consulted.

the first of the statements above are merely scientific INQUIRIES. attaching dogma to those violates the whole scientific process. besides, the beauty of scientific method is that it requires no belief. and hey, those things get challenged on a day to day basis within the scientific field themselves. after all, science does not offer ABSOLUTE truths but rather provisional ones. they dont just sit around and ponder "god did it" end of story, believe or else.
Yes many of the Atheist beliefs rest on scientific evidence that is still in debate and can not truly be proven at the present time. Yet Atheist will tell you not to challenge the science, that it is hard fact, when much is still only conjecture. On many issues the jury is still out. Science is merely a tool trying to be used by both sides of this debate. Atheism and all the religions of the world. I challenge everything, view everything, test everything, and make my decision based on all that I have seen, read, and experienced. I see the connection in things you reject, and reject things that you believe. That is my personal choice.

There is a large group that just disbelieve, and they need no science; in fact they do not even know the sciences. They do not know the different Theologies or even what their very definition mean. They just disbelieve to disbelieve. By definition that is dogmatic. You may not be dogmatic, but you are not every Atheist, nor is every Atheist you.

Why the word Dogma upsets you is beyond me, maybe because it makes you sound religious in your mind. I consulted 6 different Dictionaries including my Unabridged, and by definition it can be said to be true statement. Thank you for expressing your outrage over this word usage. If my using this term "Atheist Dogma" offends your sensibilities to the point of wanting to argue over semantics of a word usage, then I will be glad to not use the term on this thread. Even though it has common usage on the internet. I am trying to be fair and balanced. It was not meant to offend only as to describe the fanaticism of belief many Atheist. I did not mean the term to be derrogative or insulting unlike when the term Bible Huggers is used by most Atheist. But that term does not offend me, so feel free to us it, besides I always keep the text close to me in my home. Are there any more words or terms of my native language that I should not use as to not provoke outrage from adult Atheist. I do not want to devote time in counter productive debates over simple word usages. To know knowing such words will save me a lot of wasted time and upset members. Then they can send their efforts putting productive information on this thread. I am trying to maintain the established parameters, this is meant to be an educational thread.

[kebotDiNaMute]

i know people who prosecute them... klaro man...

mao na gitawag brad, "keep the dog busy so it will not bark on you!".

issues:

Problem is not Dog.
problem is not you.
Problem is noise. To eliminate that noise keep them distracted...

[devils_advocate]

Then the question would be who let the dogs out?

[jamesmusslewhite]

Then the question would be who let the dogs out?

I guess inadvertently it was me, sorry, I thought I had a good latch on the gate.

[josephdc]

there's nothing to reconcile.. there's no conflict.. theism here is belief in "God".. not any supernatural divine entity.. but just simply belief in "God".. the word "God" itself.. the problem is, I cannot define "God" for you.. I have my own definition, which is really undefined, but I still believe it.. yet I maintain my rationalist/naturalist/realist mindset.. there is nothing supernatural except "God", which is undefined..

if a close analogy would suffice, its like pan-theism of buddhist, but not really pantheism because its still being defined.. in pantheism, the universe is God, but for me, yes, its partly true, but God exists even if there was no universe.. its like God is the creator without having to create..

Do you mean that "God" for you is only a concept and is not actually real?