rosborne979 wrote:
I like it. Let's practice apatheism.
We could call ourselves Apatosauruses.
They've got something there. If you're apathetic to the whole idea, why bother partaking in stress-inducing arguments?
Don't know, don't care . . . it's like don't ask, don't tell, only better ! ! !
Wolf-
I hadn't noticed any stress. I find it relaxing. It is posible to argue apathetically. We do it in the pub most nights. None of us care whether England win the World Cup or not but we argue all night about it. It offers an opportunity to show off our knowledge of the beautiful game and the circus that surrounds it.
Interesting site timber. Here's one of their meditations.
Quote:Meditation 495
Can Fundamentalism Truly Be Religion?
To open a discussion on this article, please use the contact page to provide your comments.
Occasionally I get questions on whether agnosticism can truly be considered a religion. I have argued that it can, if we consider religion in a broad sense. However in a narrow theological sense an argument can be made that atheism and agnosticism cannot be religions because they do not deal with the transcendent: atheism denies the transcendent, agnosticism questions it.
But if religion is considered to deal with the transcendent; those things outside the material world, those things outside physical experience, those things outside verifiable knowledge, those things taken on faith; then what do we make of fundamentalism?
The common characteristic of fundamentalism, regardless of which religion its followers claim to follow, is absolute certainty. Fundamentalists have no doubts. They take all those things which rational religion considers to be a matter of faith, and they regard them as a matter of fact.
Fundamentalists do not have faith. They have what they consider knowledge.
Fundamentalists know with certainty that their God exists.
Fundamentalists know with certainty that their scripture is the infallible word of their God.
Fundamentalists know with certainty that their interpretation of their scripture is the only correct interpretation.
Fundamentalists know with certainty what lies beyond the material world.
Fundamentalists know with certainty what happens after death.
Fundamentalists know with certainty what their version of God wants them to do.
Fundamentalist know with certainty that fundamentalists with different certain knowledge are absolutely wrong.
Fundamentalists know with certainty that those of differing beliefs will be punished in an afterlife; they know with certainty that only those who completely share their own beliefs will be rewarded.
As the transcendent deals with those things that cannot be known, fundamentalism denies the transcendent. In that sense, fundamentalism lies outside the realm of religion.
I think this topic has no more distance to go , can someone close it
These things just sort of float off into a more or less stable orbit, neither far enough out to escape, nor close enough in to fall into the gravity well. People will, with decreasing frequency, drop by to comment, perhaps on topic, perhaps not. Then, six months, a year, two years down the road, a new member will show up, and, ignorant of the time and date stamps, respond as though the thread were currently active. That might or might not start the thread up again--but by and large, old threads never die, they just drift along.
This thread title has a hook that may not allow it to die easily.
Yeh, ten years from now... merry go round the roses...
Guys, go to this address, watch and laugh hard.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878
tell me what you think of this.
The existence of credulity neither affirms nor denies the truth.
Though it is good for a chuckle.
Bloody hell, did you see the bit about the bannana? how god designed it, so it would fit perfectly in the mouth!!!
Well at least its only the atheists who are F***ed, us agnostics are ok, hahaha, lol
Yes, but chimps know how to peel a banana the correct way and we had to learn from them. There is a relationship there although some are closer to baboons.
You have to peel a bannana ????
One of the segments that really intrigued me was the interviews with the atheists. Where they actually atheists? They were either atheists who didn't know why they were atheists and could not defend their stance, or they were Christian actors who guised themselves under atheist pretenses to make a point and fool the audience.
PS: MmmmÂ…that's where Kirk Cameron was hiding after "Growing Pains." I guess that he couldn't get any other gig after the cancellation of his sitcom, and decided to take whatever opportunity that related to television. At least he's not starving to death.
JS wrote-
Quote:Where they actually atheists? They were either atheists who didn't know why they were atheists and could not defend their stance, or they were Christian actors who guised themselves under atheist pretenses to make a point and fool the audience.
I have been suspecting something along those lines for as long as I can remember.
Only a Christian believes in monogamy and not eating any captured enemy surely?
How could an atheist believe in monogamy. It is a principle which runs counter to any Darwinian principles as well.
Boy JS are these atheists mixed up or what?
Do you think they are Yossarian types?
What the _?
Atheists are just like anybody else.
