Has internet played a vital role in your belief/disblief in "? "
Options
Comments
-
these atheist ? constantly talking about this or that is fantasy, ? , make believe etc.
well, name names, bro
I know that I do that, and I don't care if people use harsh language with me. My only concern is that their arguments make sense.
but not all the atheist posters are big meanies who hurt your feewings -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »tv is censored by business, not government
PBS is the most open channel on American tv
It's censored by government. They only allow certain businesses to have licenses to use some frequencies.
The root cause is that the government nationalized the airwaves in 1927. There will be no freedom of speech in something that the government owns outright. Until we denationalize the airwaves and get private property back, the voices over the air will remain very mild when it comes to government opposition. Silencing opposing views is one reason why the radio act was pushed so strongly.
PBS is actually one of the worse when it comes to viewpoints on the government, the establishment, etc. I'm ashamed tax dollars go towards it. NPR is another one. -
okay so apparently you are a crazy person
-
Ioniz3dSPIRITZ wrote: »The more time I spend on the internet the more my belief in ? slowly fades away. I'm actually slowly but surely coming to the realization that ? may not exist after all. And it's mainly because of the intelligent and logical arguements put out there by atheist. I don't like this because I want to believe. I want to believe that there is something or someone up there watching us. I want to know that there will be ultimate repercussions based on how we live our lives here on earth. I want to still believe.
I don't necessarily want to be inclined to practice a certain religion but rather have a stronger spiritual connection. My spirituality is at an all time low. I find myself becoming a bit nihilistic and hopeless.
Alot of people has had doubts about their religion or the exsistance of ? altogether. But it wasn't until the rise of the internet have we seen people come out and actually express their disbelief. Before people just kept any doubts they had to themselves, now with people coming in hordes proclaiming that they don't believe anymore and actually having valid reasons as to why. There is now this sense of comfort in saying you don't beleive because through the internet you find that you're not alone. -
FuriousOne wrote: »You a bit too disrespectful in getting your point across. My basis is based on the history of the creation of those text. Other then that, we still searching. Also, a creative intelligence does not preclude that i should worship it nor does it indicate that i came from it. There is more evidence that intelligence wasn't needed. We are still looking but what is your point again? Also, nobody professes to no the absolute fact other then theist. Notice i didn't mention religion but theism. It doesn't matter how it was created or what word it came from you ? nerd. It's still used in the same context to show one that believes in a ? .
how you gonna ? on my link and post a link (from the same site) that has nothing to do with what i mentioned nor debunk that a atheist doesn't believe or subscribe to the religious theory of ? . Nor do they subscribe to blind faith. You didn't prove ? just now with your atheist is a religion ? . Did you even read that article idiot? It doesn't even say anything. They're trying to say that the definition of religion is different from book to book yet i looked and it all says, to believe in or worship a deity and build a system of practices around such. One can say that humanist worship man but that has nothing to do with an atheist.
Again what is the basis for your idea an atheist is religious especially when you can't point out an organized religion based on the non belief of a deity.
Arguments based on evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evidential.html
Arguments based on Logic
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html
Etymology of atheist
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist
Etymology of theist
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theist
? i supplied 3 different DICTIONARY ENTRIES of what the word/concept "religion" is, so i think that link >>> your link full of conjecture. u claim im disrespectful but you and other ? like u disrespect yourself. all the logical and evidential arguments u posted prove nothing except a point we can agree on- religion aint ? . just like i said before, it is only focused on debunking a christian concept of ? . either that or arguments are built on false premises like "? cannot exist because there are competing religions that cannot all be simultaneously true". who the ? made it law that religions = ? ?
who demands worship? men in the name of their gods or the gods themselves? what does worship mean? who the ? made it law that if ,for instance, the Big Bang theory was true that its impossible for a Creator to have initiated it? why cant some form of evolution and some form of ? be true simultaneously. atheists pride themselves on "thinking out of the box" but in reality you weaklings just climb out of one box and jump into another.
atheism is a religion. its just not organized religion in the classic sense. sheeit, organized religions contain the most atheists cause its about what u do not what u say. can i point out an atheist church building somewhere? of course not. but i sure can point to the godless institutions that run this world. the white men u copped ur philosophy from been running ? for a long time and it aint worked out too well for the general population, now has it? religion aint worked too well either. its Hegelian dialectic in motion. u see the thesis is bunk so u ride for the antithesis... ask urself about the synthesis.
now back to the definitions of religion.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971:
7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance, 7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing.
The Oxford English Dictionary, 1971:
Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.
The World Book Dictionary, 1976:
4. anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.
i would venture to say that the church of the modern atheist is western liberal democracy.
your gods are the minds who designed and refined it. -
Not playing basketball is a sport now, then.
-
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »well, name names, bro
I know that I do that, and I don't care if people use harsh language with me. My only concern is that their arguments make sense.
but not all the atheist posters are big meanies who hurt your feewings
why should i name names? folks who do what i was talking about know who they are. we've had this conversation before.
and why my feelings gotta be hurt..LOL? i think you know my steez a lil better than that by now. i dont care what people believe or disbelieve personally. when ? gotta make little slick ass inferences that put my ? down to justify their ? then i gotta speak on it after a while. no emotion to it...its just my nature whether on the net or in person. -
If you let someone shake your faith then.......
-
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »Not playing basketball is a sport now, then.
apples and oranges and u know it. thats why u making jokes instead of directly addressing the dictionary entries. very clever... -
apples and oranges and u know it. thats why u making jokes instead of directly addressing the dictionary entries. very clever...
there are lots of different dictionary entries because they catalog the many different ways people use language over time
atheism does not fit any of the actual meanings of the word "religion" though
it doesnt have anything remotely resembling a system of beliefs, let alone supernatural beliefs -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »there are lots of different dictionary entries because they catalog the many different ways people use language over time
atheism does not fit any of the actual meanings of the word "religion" though
it doesnt have anything remotely resembling a system of beliefs, let alone supernatural beliefs
quit strawmanning. i know and u know that none of those entries i posted relate to supernatural beliefs. your system of beliefs is your system of non-beliefs and most atheists say the same ? and give the same reasons for why they non-believe. most of you guys also have the same heroes : Dawkins, Darwin, Maher etc. ive learned to jump around to different forums and do more reading than posting and ive seen what i just explained plain as day. same ? , different toilet. -
your system of beliefs is your system of non-beliefs
your collection of novelty dinner plates is your non-collection of novelty dinner plates, i guess
atheism doesnt fit any of those dictionary definitions (from the 1970's lol) that you posted anyway
atheism is a position on one particular premise. it is not a system of anything, although an atheist could certainly have a system of beliefs into which atheism would play
on the same token, theism itself is not a religion, just a major factor in most of them
this is kid stuff, stop being a ? -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »your collection of novelty dinner plates is your non-collection of novelty dinner plates, i guess
atheism doesnt fit any of those dictionary definitions (from the 1970's lol) that you posted anyway
atheism is a position on one particular premise. it is not a system of anything, although an atheist could certainly have a system of beliefs into which atheism would play
on the same token, theism itself is not a religion, just a major factor in most of them
this is kid stuff, stop being a ?
no one shows off or talks about the perceived virtues of their non-collection of novelty dinner plates. one who possesses said non-collection of novelty dinner plates usually does not go out of their way to talk ? to or about those who have novelty dinner plates.
so atheism is not a system of thought? foh..any ? "ism" is a system of thought....so if recognizing the obvious makes me a ? then i guess i'll be ghostriding the shortbus. -
? i supplied 3 different DICTIONARY ENTRIES of what the word/concept "religion" is, so i think that link >>> your link full of conjecture. u claim im disrespectful but you and other ? like u disrespect yourself. all the logical and evidential arguments u posted prove nothing except a point we can agree on- religion aint ? . just like i said before, it is only focused on debunking a christian concept of ? . either that or arguments are built on false premises like "? cannot exist because there are competing religions that cannot all be simultaneously true". who the ? made it law that religions = ? ?
who demands worship? men in the name of their gods or the gods themselves? what does worship mean? who the ? made it law that if ,for instance, the Big Bang theory was true that its impossible for a Creator to have initiated it? why cant some form of evolution and some form of ? be true simultaneously. atheists pride themselves on "thinking out of the box" but in reality you weaklings just climb out of one box and jump into another.
atheism is a religion. its just not organized religion in the classic sense. sheeit, organized religions contain the most atheists cause its about what u do not what u say. can i point out an atheist church building somewhere? of course not. but i sure can point to the godless institutions that run this world. the white men u copped ur philosophy from been running ? for a long time and it aint worked out too well for the general population, now has it? religion aint worked too well either. its Hegelian dialectic in motion. u see the thesis is bunk so u ride for the antithesis... ask urself about the synthesis.
now back to the definitions of religion.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971:
7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance, 7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing.
The Oxford English Dictionary, 1971:
Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.
The World Book Dictionary, 1976:
4. anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.
i would venture to say that the church of the modern atheist is western liberal democracy.
your gods are the minds who designed and refined it.
That's all well and good but you're adding your own bias towards a definition. Being an atheist is just that. Being in love with money is just that. Stop confusing the two. Religion came from the same people who required devotion. They named themselves Gods. Go figure. The evidence that i gave was only evidence towards a definition. Your also being selective with your the definitions that you gave as they can apply to anything. There is no position other then to debunk the nonsense that's been spread for centuries. Different atheist do it in different ways. If they are proven wrong, then that's the end of that. Atheist came about specifically to debunk ? , so what are you expecting from such a definition. Beyond that anything goes long as you can prove it. You can't just tell me anything (not even those institutions that you claim i follow). You looking too deep into it. Someones political philosophy has nothing to do with it. You acting like someones observation that religion is ? justifies your views that atheism is a religion. It's a statement of position as opposed to another position.
Nobody is walking around creating new positions claiming them to be atheist principles. An atheist can be religious in their obsession with something the same as anyone. That doesn't prove that atheism in itself is religious, only that people are. Atheist ride with science because the ? works. No matter the outcome good or bad, the ? works. Without evidence, your entire point is invalid. You can't tell me it's true because i can't prove it even though too many tools are coming about to do just that. All that other ? is just your own issues with various systems. Humanity is not infallible brother. If you look in these post, you would see tayht no one atheist agrees on everything nor do we all get along on some kumbaya ? . One thing they do have in common is the mountains of evidence that disproves theist beliefs. -
? ?so atheism is not a system of thought? foh..any ? "ism" is a system of thought.'
Seriously, you're taking one cog from a machine and saying that it is a machine itself.
Even if atheism somehow did fit the definition of religion, this wouldn't make it anywhere near as ridiculous as the nonsense you people believe in. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »? ?
Seriously, you're taking one cog from a machine and saying that it is a machine itself.
Even if atheism somehow did fit the definition of religion, this wouldn't make it anywhere near as ridiculous as the nonsense you people believe in.
lol...even if...then...insult
who the ? is u people?
what do i believe in?
according to you, my hypothetical beliefs are nonsense. does this make your antithetical non-belief sensible by default? is this a value of supreme importance to you?
come on man... -
Nope the internet plays no part in my belief in ? or religion period.
-
what do i believe in?
you're a member of an abrahamic offshoot cult, we've discussed it at length
the opposite of nonsense is sense, so....according to you, my hypothetical beliefs are nonsense. does this make your antithetical non-belief sensible by default? -
FuriousOne wrote: »That's all well and good but you're adding your own bias towards a definition. Being an atheist is just that. Being in love with money is just that. Stop confusing the two. Religion came from the same people who required devotion. They named themselves Gods. Go figure. The evidence that i gave was only evidence towards a definition. Your also being selective with your the definitions that you gave as they can apply to anything. There is no position other then to debunk the nonsense that's been spread for centuries. Different atheist do it in different ways. If they are proven wrong, then that's the end of that. Atheist came about specifically to debunk ? , so what are you expecting from such a definition. Beyond that anything goes long as you can prove it. You can't just tell me anything (not even those institutions that you claim i follow). You looking too deep into it. Someones political philosophy has nothing to do with it. You acting like someones observation that religion is ? justifies your views that atheism is a religion. It's a statement of position as opposed to another position.
Nobody is walking around creating new positions claiming them to be atheist principles. An atheist can be religious in their obsession with something the same as anyone. That doesn't prove that atheism in itself is religious, only that people are. Atheist ride with science because the ? works. No matter the outcome good or bad, the ? works. Without evidence, your entire point is invalid. You can't tell me it's true because i can't prove it even though too many tools are coming about to do just that. All that other ? is just your own issues with various systems. Humanity is not infallible brother. If you look in these post, you would see tayht no one atheist agrees on everything nor do we all get along on some kumbaya ? . One thing they do have in common is the mountains of evidence that disproves theist beliefs.
wheres the bias? the definition is what it is..
attacking religion with me is pointless. im not religious. `
these mountains of evidence you speak of that atheists hold in common. they are a collection of principles. thank u for making my point for me in other words. -
evidence is not a principle
for a kufi wearer, you sure are dumb -
wheres the bias? the definition is what it is..
attacking religion with me is pointless. im not religious. `
these mountains of evidence you speak of that atheists hold in common. they are a collection of principles. thank u for making my point for me in other words.
The bias is you attempting to apply that narrow ass definition to atheism because of your overall views of society. They don't hold the actual evidence in common ? , they hold the fact that they actually have evidence in common. Just because it's reproducible and proven doesn't make it religious. People are going to agree on the same shot of it's proven and can be tested and proven again by others that have no particular goal in mind. How the hell is science a collection of principles? It's evidence that dismisses theories that hold no weight. You overlooked that fact that i was talking about atheism meaning one particular thing. You adding your own bias into the ? an attempt to change the definition to prove your aimless argument.
It's theories that are actually proven and dismissed all the time as opposed the theist opinions that people don't want to let go of. It's just science. I swore we had this conversation in the past. I'm not arguing religion brother. You are. You in here on this post boasting about your empty opinions of religion and atheist being religious. You stay making ? up. You may not be religious but your damn sure a theist which atheist are the opposite of. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »evidence is not a principle
for a kufi wearer, you sure are dumb
Definitions of principle on the Web:
* a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct; "their principles of composition characterized all their works"
Definitions of evidence on the Web:
* attest: provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever attested to his illness"; "The buildings in Rome manifest a high level of architectural sophistication"; "This decision demonstrates his sense of fairness"
I said: these mountains of evidence you speak of that atheists hold in common. they are a collection of principles. thank u for making my point for me in other words.
the so-called mountains of evidence (proof) that your lot speaks of are generalizations of what you perceive to be true. but these basic set of principles is myopic. you people define ? and what you generalize it is or isnt and then you use that as "evidence" that it does not exist.
for a troll with hilarious avis you sure are dumb. -
FuriousOne wrote: »The bias is you attempting to apply that narrow ass definition to atheism because of your overall views of society. They don't hold the actual evidence in common ? , they hold the fact that they actually have evidence in common. Just because it's reproducible and proven doesn't make it religious. People are going to agree on the same shot of it's proven and can be tested and proven again by others that have no particular goal in mind. How the hell is science a collection of principles? It's evidence that dismisses theories that hold no weight. You overlooked that fact that i was talking about atheism meaning one particular thing. You adding your own bias into the ? an attempt to change the definition to prove your aimless argument.
It's theories that are actually proven and dismissed all the time as opposed the theist opinions that people don't want to let go of. It's just science. I swore we had this conversation in the past. I'm not arguing religion brother. You are. You in here on this post boasting about your empty opinions of religion and atheist being religious. You stay making ? up. You may not be religious but your damn sure a theist which atheist are the opposite of.
what "theist" opinions has science dismissed? the only thing you can cite is some ? christian misunderstandings and mistranslations of hebraic texts. coulda swore i read something from ya boy hawkings sticking his foot in his crooked mouth in relation to a "Creative Intelligence making something out of nothing". in Hebrew this the esoteric meaning of the "name" of the Creator- yued, hay, waw, hey (YHWH- literally a compund word meaning " is was and will be" as a verb not a proper noun). more on this from a renown scientist by the name of dan winters. you should look him up. -
Ioniz3dSPIRITZ wrote: »is your belief in ? or spirituality so strong that it can't be influenced by ? on or off the net?
YesIoniz3dSPIRITZ wrote: »if so how did you come to that point?
First: Jesus made me believe via direct contact. Nov 1973
Second: I constantly see two major visible verifiable prophecy fulfilments that confirm truth of bible/NT/Jesus.
fulfillment 1] Israel fulfills OT scripture regarding dispersal and regathering of the Jews/Israel.
fulfillment 2] Vatican fulfills the Revelation chapters 17 & 18 prophetic description of the Great ? Mother.
Furthermore: Bible/Revelation also provides two major fulfilments WE can expect to see with our own eyes.
1] Russian led invasion of Israel. Invaders will be annihilated. Ezekiel 38-39 and Zechariah 12-14
2] World amazing public reappearance of the supreme "beast" of the Revelation [see chapter 13-20]. -
Definitions of principle on the Web:
* a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct; "their principles of composition characterized all their works"
Definitions of evidence on the Web:
* attest: provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever attested to his illness"; "The buildings in Rome manifest a high level of architectural sophistication"; "This decision demonstrates his sense of fairness"
I said: these mountains of evidence you speak of that atheists hold in common. they are a collection of principles. thank u for making my point for me in other words.
the so-called mountains of evidence (proof) that your lot speaks of are generalizations of what you perceive to be true. but these basic set of principles is myopic. you people define ? and what you generalize it is or isnt and then you use that as "evidence" that it does not exist.
So i suppose you have a higher perception then us all even though you never seem to offer any evidence. The burden of proof is on you. The evidence presented is normally outside of the bible and deals with scientific and historical examples that are physical an testable. What do you have? The thing is, the theist assert themselves and end up be dismissed because they never offer any evidence outside of their human scribed books of observation.In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.
One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.
When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Evidence_in_science
Where is your evidence for the claims that you make?
