Who's A Non-Believer?
Options
alissowack
Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
This thread title is intentionally to invite views, but it is not to call out non-believers. It is just to say how when it comes to religion, it has become about who's side that we are on...like political sides. It's about what the opposing sides are suppose to be doing or supporting. There is the impression that "believers" are suppose to be people who does things "by the book" and practice good morals. And likewise the "non-believer" is suppose to be looking for shortcuts; finding every opportunity to break the rules. In defense of the "non-believer", it is not like that. And sure, this is nothing new but it seems more likely that the believers are the ones looking for reasons to break the rules more than the non-believers. The non-believers seem to be more "holier" than the believers. Is it right to make religion about who's side that we are on?
Comments
-
Non-believer or what? Belief still exists in some capacity even if its disbelief of this or that.
-
alissowack wrote: »This thread title is intentionally to invite views, but it is not to call out non-believers. It is just to say how when it comes to religion, it has become about who's side that we are on...like political sides. It's about what the opposing sides are suppose to be doing or supporting. There is the impression that "believers" are suppose to be people who does things "by the book" and practice good morals. And likewise the "non-believer" is suppose to be looking for shortcuts; finding every opportunity to break the rules. In defense of the "non-believer", it is not like that. And sure, this is nothing new but it seems more likely that the believers are the ones looking for reasons to break the rules more than the non-believers. The non-believers seem to be more "holier" than the believers. Is it right to make religion about who's side that we are on?
bold - religion makes metaphysical claims about the universe that have nothing to do with ethics. ? isn't wrong because a ? exists and disapproves of it, it's wrong because it's harmful and no one person's suffering is more or less important than anyone else's
italicized - they're no more or less 'holy' than believers, in my opinion
underlined - a positive belief in certain basic, ethical principles is more important to me than a lack of a belief in a ? . As long as there is a separation of church and state and people divorce moral principles from religious beliefs, I see nothing wrong with religion if it makes people happier. I think a naturalistic world view is more exciting and interesting, though.Non-believer or what? Belief still exists in some capacity even if its disbelief of this or that.
I assumed religion. -
im a nonbeliever.......and its really not that crucial with me
if you a believer by all means go ahead, i have no problem with wat you do
but im not fallin for it -
as long as you hold views/ideas/concepts/opinions on religion, or whatever, you are a believer of it, you just hold different beliefs, its still within the same concept. Still within the same content of consciousness.
-
Hyde Parke wrote: »as long as you hold views/ideas/concepts/opinions on religion, or whatever, you are a believer of it, you just hold different beliefs, its still within the same concept. Still within the same content of consciousness.
you tryin too hard -
you tryin too hard
lol. these type of corny ass replies are common when people dont know how else to respond. dont get more obvious than this.lol -
alissowack wrote: »but it seems more likely that the believers are the ones looking for reasons to break the rules more than the non-believers. The non-believers seem to be more "holier" than the believers. Is it right to make religion about who's side that we are on?
Atheists are the new meek of the world! -
i believe in some sort of supreme being (s)
BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE -
Word, I've always believed that math teachers too often neglect to define a function at its boundary; which can falsely lead students to think that the function doesn't exist at the boundaries.
Non-believers usually say something to the effect of "Oh, we're not considering how the function behaves at its boundary, it's not necessary.".
I'm also a believer that South Korea is the best country at producing innovative, excellent DAP's; while a nonbeliever will just assume they all come from China. -
I believe in an Infinite Creator, an awareness that is beyond human concept, but not in the '? " of the Bible or of the Bible itself. The stories of the bible would indicate a struggle of alien type beings that were manupulating humans to war for their own personal gains.
-
i dont believe in man. I know people aint got no special powers or talk to ? and he talked back. people can just trick you and get your money to get rich. its called power. oldest trick in the book.
-
alissowack wrote: »This thread title is intentionally to invite views,
Stopped reading after this, im a non believer. -
Not much point in belief. You either know or you don't know. The space between knowing and not knowing is where people get lazy or fearful of uncertainty and take up "beliefs".
-
Hyde Parke wrote: »lol. these type of corny ass replies are common when people dont know how else to respond. dont get more obvious than this.lol
no your post was an idiotic non-point. you a smart dumb ? thinkin you was sayin something profound
you basically said a lack of belief in religion is a belief in religion. -
Not much point in belief. You either know or you don't know. The space between knowing and not knowing is where people get lazy or fearful of uncertainty and take up "beliefs".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this -
no your post was an idiotic non-point. you a smart dumb ? thinkin you was sayin something profound
you basically said a lack of belief in religion is a belief in religion.
lol, what i said is its all within the same concept, just fragments of the same content of consciousness. You obviously cant comprehend that . the ? in you wouldnt allow you to respond to the OP, you, like most ? do, just commented on something that you really shouldnt have. Typical hoe ass ? , thats always watchn what another ? doing, instead of taking care of his own.
Lol at you quoting Judah, instead of having an opinion of your own. You cant even think for yourself, so you make weak attempts to attack those that do. you dont want it here son, not
with me anyway. -
I don't believe that Jesus is the savior and messiah
-
Hyde Parke wrote: »lol, what i said is its all within the same concept, just fragments of the same content of consciousness. You obviously cant comprehend that . the ? in you wouldnt allow you to respond to the OP, you, like most ? do, just commented on something that you really shouldnt have. Typical hoe ass ? , thats always watchn what another ? doing, instead of taking care of his own.
Lol at you quoting Judah, instead of having an opinion of your own. You cant even think for yourself, so you make weak attempts to attack those that do. you dont want it here son, not
with me anyway.
lmao... want what? this what i mean by tryin too hard.
look how worked up you got over them 4 words. ? rang true and now you lookin like an overly defensive ? .
talkin about fragments of conciousness... ? didnt have nothin to do with the OP, which was about how "non-believers/non-religious folk" actually seem to be better people than "believers/religious folk".
your smart-? went way off on a "what is belief?" tangent that didnt even relate to the OP.
THX THO -
lmao... want what? this what i mean by tryin too hard.
look how worked up you got over them 4 words. ? rang true and now you lookin like an overly defensive ? .
talkin about fragments of conciousness... ? didnt have nothin to do with the OP, which was about how "non-believers/non-religious folk" actually seem to be better people than "believers/religious folk".
your smart-? went way off on a "what is belief?" tangent that didnt even relate to the OP.
THX THO
Son, my reply had everything to do with the original post. My point, explaining in laymans terms is, a belief is a belief, no matter what fragment of the whole you participate in, its still nothing more than a belief, an idea, a concept. The concept in this particular topic is religions, and belief thereof or disbelief. Matters not if you are a christian, or an atheist, the two are still concepts, non tangible and exist merely only in consciousness based on the ideal they hold.
Now if you care to debate that, then lets go. If not, carry on minding other ? business what you seem to be good at,
worked up, nah, lol. just call it how i see it. you a hoe, thats all there is to it. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »Son, my reply had everything to do with the original post. My point, explaining in laymans terms is, a belief is a belief, no matter what fragment of the whole you participate in, its still nothing more than a belief, an idea, a concept. The concept in this particular topic is religions, and belief thereof or disbelief. Matters not if you are a christian, or an atheist, the two are still concepts, non tangible and exist merely only in consciousness based on the ideal they hold.
Now if you care to debate that, then lets go. If not, carry on minding other ? business what you seem to be good at,
worked up, nah, lol. just call it how i see it. you a hoe, thats all there is to it.
seein as this is a forum for open discussion, minding others business is what we're all good at. and you did get hurt feelings from those 4 words, thats why you resort to name calling. you dont know anything about me and because i am the furthest thing from a "hoe", it's not you calling it how you see it, it's your defense mechanism for your wounded pride from seeing that nobody felt your wack ass post
now about thisa belief is a belief, no matter what fragment of the whole you participate in, its still nothing more than a belief, an idea, a concept. The concept in this particular topic is religions, and belief thereof or disbelief. Matters not if you are a christian, or an atheist, the two are still concepts, non tangible and exist merely only in consciousness based on the ideal they hold.
whatever... a religious non-believer is just a believer of another concept
i understand that point, but thats about your definition of "belief" in and of itself... and not about the T/S original point that nonbelievers/atheists/"alternative believers" or whatever you wanna call them, seem to be better/more moral people people than believers/christians/"traditional believers". -
in "laymans terms" for you, the original post was... why do the atheistic people seem more moral than religious people?
-
seein as this is a forum for open discussion, minding others business is what we're all good at. and you did get hurt feelings from those 4 words, thats why you resort to name calling. you dont know anything about me and because i am the furthest thing from a "hoe", it's not you calling it how you see it, it's your defense mechanism for your wounded pride from seeing that nobody felt your wack ass post
now about this
whatever... a religious non-believer is just a believer of another concept
i understand that point, but thats about your definition of "belief" in and of itself... and not about the T/S original point that nonbelievers/atheists/"alternative believers" or whatever you wanna call them, seem to be better/more moral people people than believers/christians/"traditional believers".
it is an open forum, however, when you click on a thread and reply only to a poster who has read the topic and replied to the topic, without you yourself actually replying to the thread, it exhibits hoe qualities, no you might not be an actual hoe persay, however you exhibit what we call "hoe tendencies" do you do this type of thing with ? on the streets? you know ? having convo, and you just step in a say some random ? ? i doubt it. call it defense mechanism, call it whatever you want, aint nothing , but you say anything to me, here, in the streets, its poppin.
i understood the topic completely, still does not change that it all falls under the umbrella of belief/concepts/ideals. We can discuss the minor nuances/differences and factors of it all day, the point i think i made here is that the two are not as different
from each other, as people tend to think they are. frankly, i said what i said in the OP is because im itired of these threads.
How many different ways can we spin the same topic? Thats the premise behind my response. Not tryin to be a smart/dumb ? , as you perceived it. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »it is an open forum, however, when you click on a thread and reply only to a poster who has read the topic and replied to the topic, without you yourself actually replying to the thread, it exhibits hoe qualities, no you might not be an actual hoe persay, however you exhibit what we call "hoe tendencies" do you do this type of thing with ? on the streets? you know ? having convo, and you just step in a say some random ? ? i doubt it. call it defense mechanism, call it whatever you want, aint nothing , but you say anything to me, here, in the streets, its poppin.
i understood the topic completely, still does not change that it all falls under the umbrella of belief/concepts/ideals. We can discuss the minor nuances/differences and factors of it all day, the point i think i made here is that the two are not as different
from each other, as people tend to think they are. frankly, i said what i said in the OP is because im itired of these threads.
How many different ways can we spin the same topic? Thats the premise behind my response. Not tryin to be a smart/dumb ? , as you perceived it.
still tryin too hard.
this aint the streets. its a forum. therefore, yes i can and will pop in and say random ? when i feel like it. you want a private conversation then pm that ? .
i could call you ? /hoe or whatever... but for what? im not gon see you, you aint gon see me, its pointless and makes you look emotional.
check my location. aint ? you could tell me about the "street". i also know street rules dont apply on the internet. you would never call me a hoe/? or none of that to my face on the street, but its irrelevant here who or what i am or who or what you think you are. so you can stop all that now.
as for your point you went wrong on your first post, because from that i can tell you prolly didnt even read the OP, just the thread title. which is why your first post was... "Non-believer or(<im assuming you meant "of" here) what? Belief still exists in some capacity even if its disbelief of this or that.
then you went off on this...as long as you hold views/ideas/concepts/opinions on religion, or whatever, you are a believer of it, you just hold different beliefs, its still within the same concept. Still within the same content of consciousness.
had you read and comprehended the OP, you would see these points are ultimately irrelevant to what he was trying to conveyWho's A Non-Believer?
This thread title is intentionally to invite views, but it is not to call out non-believers. It is just to say how when it comes to religion, it has become about who's side that we are on...like political sides. It's about what the opposing sides are suppose to be doing or supporting. There is the impression that "believers"(see: religious people) are suppose to be people who does things "by the book" and practice good morals. And likewise the "non-believer"(see: atheists) is suppose to be looking for shortcuts; finding every opportunity to break the rules. In defense of the "non-believer" (atheist), it is not like that. And sure, this is nothing new but it seems more likely that the believers(religious) are the ones looking for reasons to break the rules more than the non-believers(atheists). The non-believers(atheists) seem to be more "holier" than the believers(religious). Is it right to make religion about who's side that we are on?
how you define belief is irrelevant -
still tryin too hard.
this aint the streets. its a forum. therefore, yes i can and will pop in and say random ? when i feel like it. i could call you ? /hoe or whatever... but for what? im not gon see you, you aint gon see me, its pointless and makes you look emotional.
check my location. aint ? you could tell me about the "street". i also know street rules dont apply on the internet. you would never call me a hoe/? or none of that to my face on the street, but its irrelevant here who or what i am or who or what you think you are. so you can stop all that now.
as for your point you went wrong on your first post, because from that i can tell you prolly didnt even read the OP, just the thread title. which is why your first post was... "Non-believer or(<im assuming you meant "of" here) what? Belief still exists in some capacity even if its disbelief of this or that.
then you went off on this...
had you read and comprehended the OP, you would see these points are ultimately irrelevant to what he was trying to convey
how you define belief is irrelevant
im aware we are not in the streets. thats real evident by the way you poppin off on this and that, i dont give two ? about your location dude, where im from there is no police, your body woud lie stankin in the streets for days until it rotted, lol. im aware of all of this, im just pointing out to you, the way i conduct myself on or offline is the same. i abide by the code, i wouldnt step into another ? face on the street and pop off at the mouth, thats not me, and i wouldnt do it here either. you just outed yourself as a fraud dude but it is what it is.
you dont need to bold the op ? , you would have been better off replying to it in the beginning instead of hoeing up and grabbing on another ? nuts. concerning yourself with things that dont need your concerning.
LOL at how belief is defined as is irrelevant, really? makes sense seeing as though thats how 99.9 percent of disagreements come from misunderstanding or non-comprehending
of beliefs.
what i said you cant grasp, you dont comprehend, you still at 1 and im on 100. Yet you cosign Judah, who really didnt make that much of a different statement . His reply was either you know or you dont know, you attached yourself to some ? you didnt even really understand. agreeing with it, and he didnt even address morality and all of the other nonsense. its a different level here, you dont understand that, you just came in here on some other ? , and got called on it. im done replying to you. -
My first thought was that everyone is a non believer, depending on whose eyes you look through. Religious people from all faiths call the next guy who doesn't follow their faith a non-believer.. so in some ways the whole world are non-believers. religion is just a headache no matter how we debate I say.
