You turn to the illusion of rationality to help you cope with the reality that everything you do is a futile attempt to matter. You are trying to make sense of chaos, which doesn't make sense if from chaos we came and to chaos we shall return.
in the history of the universe nobody has cared about "mattering" less than i do. but i appreciate your analysis, dr freud. contained chaos? yeah, dude doesnt make sense. he used to be liberatarian. now he is a blowharditarian. i have to be flippant with you because you are kinda boring. i am gonna give you a 1 month ignore and hope you think of something intersting in the meantime.
Then why do you bother being smart? Why do you have a love affair with science and a restraining order against religion? You basically ignore me anyway, don't imagine a formal ignore (again) will make much difference. opcorn: drama queen
In an extremely obscure reality, who is to say anything we know, anything we believe, anything at all is real. Man made it all up, man made the scientific laws, man made the principles of reality, and man is flawed.
Your ignorance of the origin of the word "atheist" is not my problem. And it is utterly beside the point! Whether atheos or atheism, they key word is God. Without (a) God (theos) belief (ism). As opposed to agnostic or agnosticism, whose key word is knowledge. Without (a) knowledge (gnosis) belief (ism).
No reason for you. Sure, it is the definition of agnosticism. Bullchit. You are ignoring clearly understood and documented definitions that have stood for millennia and trying to paraphrase them to suit your peculiar notions. Atheism IN NO WAY is defined as "no belief in anything crazy". It is defined as "no belief in God". Period.
is that your way of saying "you were right, clearly it means "without belief"? i see that it is. now pay attention next time and we wont have to go over this. but next time instead claiming it is beside the point, just admit i was right. red, pay attention. did you understand at all what i said earlier? do you agree that all the famous atheists now are , by your definition, not atheists at all? i know you like to ignore what i say and just quote a dictionary. so read again from post 13: every prominent atheist thinker, according to you, is agnostic. they all understand the simple logical concept that a negative can be impossible to prove. in the case of an invisible magic god, you cant prove he doesnt exist, he is so magic he avoids detection. and so betrand russell, christopher hitchens, daniel dennett, even richard dawkins, all defined by popular belief and themselves as atheists. but not according to red and his interpretation of some dictionary, they are agnostics. who exactly is it that needs to evolve? perhaps you need to write mr dawkins and tell him he is agnostic? and every reporter that calls him a "prominent atheist". all wrong. that guy cant prove god doesnt exist! for all he knows god is right this minute partying with the spaghetti monster and lucille ball in another galaxy. maybe you should remind him. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there" - prominent atheist richard dawkins, who is according to red, agnostic.
WOW! I'M SHOCKED! I never thought I'd be able to say....."I'm of the same opinion as Martin". Arguing the existence of God will always be nothing more than an argument. There is NO evidence, just as Martin says. ZERO. ZILTCH. NADA. NONE. I'll bet noone tries to give more than one definition to ZERO. What is proven concerning God and religion is that both are used as a tool for controlling people. "Imagine there's no heaven" You know the lyrics,,,,,,,no religion, nothing to kill or die for........... Do you realize how many people have been killed by people claiming God and religion allows their actions? And with ZERO proof. The proof claimed is "the bible says so", or "the koran says so" which a bunch of guys wrote, not God. People seriously need to take a good look around them, look at how much money they're donating to churchs and religious causes, and find a better place to put their money. Feed some kids, help some animals, build some houses, plant some crops. If you can't understand me because of your religious beliefs, just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do?", or "what would Muhammed do?", or "what would buddha do?".......etc. Wise up people.
That's NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL. ARE YOU SIMPLE-MINDED? It means without belief in God. I've noticed that those who declare themselves to be right, instead of proving it, are obviously full of bull. You are fooling no one. Already asked and answered. You titled this thread "Definitions" and you have not offered a single definition to support your case. Only vague philosophies of vague philosphers.
exactamundo. it doesnt mean a certainty that god doesnt exist. it simply means without belief in god. just what i have been saying here for years. again, i am glad you are finally seeing it my way. you are for once getting it right. earlier in the thread you went a little nutty. true enough. again, glad to see you are finally on my side. religion is without any proof or evidence at all. yes, the word is not fooling, but "educating". i am giddy that you are agreeing so much, nuance, amigo. nobel prize winning philosophers and prominent thinkers, they are explaining to you a a little thing called nuance. right on amigo.
