In God We Trust... or, do we?

[Stigmata]

That's a belief.

No, it's not. It's the lack of a belief in a higher power. This is a distinction that, honestly, some people are simply not going to be able to make. You might be one of those people.

FYI, I'm not calling you stupid or anything.

Books are written, and can be written by anyone. I can write a book that says that we came from monkeys, sure, but does that make it true? I can write a book saying that all other books are false, or maybe write a fiction that I take to seriously and turn it into a religon, but that doesn't make it true, does it? Again: Nothing can be proven without seeing it with your own eyes. But then, no one else will believe it unless the same happens. It's just a bit farfetched that all of this happened as a coincidence. THe Big Bang? What happened before then? What CAUSED it? The universe goes on for infinity, yet at the same time infinity is unattainable. The answer is right there, but just out of reach.

So how does this make Atheism an incorrect belief? Atheism lays no claims of truth regarding the creation of the Universe, or how humanity began, or anything of that sort.

More to the point, how does it justify religion in any way?

 

[Seagull]

Following theotherguy's definition, I am:

Agnostic atheist (weak atheist): One who lacks belief in a god on the grounds of there being no available evidence. "I don't believe in god because there is no evidence"

 

[Druckles]

Atheism is a way of life. A belief that you don't believe in a God. It's a commitment in a sense, and just because it doesn't appear to be the same as other religions, it's just a different form.

What you're getting at is agnosticism. Not having a belief.

 

[The Brick]

.....lol

agnosticism is when you don't know if you have a religious belief or not. atheism is when you're sure you do not.

 

[Stigmata]

What you're getting at is agnosticism. Not having a belief.

a?the?ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

I really, honestly cannot comprehend how you're missing this point.

 

[Druckles]

agnosticism is when you don't know if you have a religious belief or not. atheism is when you're sure you do not.

Just proved my point. "Sure you do not".

Oo... sounds like a religion to me.

 

[Asknoone]

Atheism.

 

[MJ12]

I hate how people smush in personally validated spiritual beliefs and openness in with religion. Theres a difference.

People don't realize that simply because someone is open to the idea of some spiritual existance, god, or afterlife, does not automatically put them in a religion.

At my oh so "catholic" high school I often get questions like this-

ignorant catholic girl- are you an athiest?
me- no
ignorant catholic girl- are you catholic?
me- no
ignorant catholic girl- what are you jewish or something?!
me-.... no
ignorant catholic girl- what are you then????
me- I don't throw myself into a catagory because theres so many things we do not know. So I do not commit whole heartedly into one idea.
ignorant catholic girl- do you believe in an afterlife or god?
me- maybe, that's not important right now is it?
ignorant catholic girl- then you're catholic!
me- *angry* noooo
ignorant catholic girl- did your parents baptise you?
me- ...yes
ignorant catholic girl- then you are catholic!
me- *super pissed* I don't believe in the practices so it doesn't make me catholic
ignorant catholic girl- you're weird!

 

[Acepilotf14]

I agree catholic girls are retarded.

 

[PvtRyan]

I think that this thread is unneccesary.
These threads always come to the conclusion that atheism is better, and that religon is unneccesary and stupid. This is not the case. If there was no religon, then what would we do with our lives? Nothing. We would strive for nothing, because we would know that after this life comes nothing. Mu. So, what's the point? With religon we know that after this life comes a newer, better life that this life pays for.

The contrary is true. What do you have to live for, when you believe this life isn't the only one? Not only that, the life hereafter is infinitely longer and infinitely better than this one. As a religious person, your only wish should be to die as soon as possible.

To a truly religious person, this life should be just a stepping stone to a next, much better life. Someone who does not swallow that bullshit however, has reason to make something of this life: it's all he has. It's death that makes life valuable, and a religious person does not know what death means. Something is only worth anything when it can be lost.

On that subject, an atheist is the only one with reason to protect others, lives are actually lost when someone dies and that makes the life of others all the more valuable. Why exactly, would a religious person bother to save a dying person? He should CELEBRATE! For he is going to a better place. If I were religious, I would be happy if someone died, it would be a good thing. I would be happy like I would be happy for someone who moved out of their closet-sized apartment into a luxurious mansion. It makes no sense to cry as a religious person.

You say that without religion, without the belief in an afterlife, people would do nothing with their lives, insinuating that the only reason to do anything in this life is to secure a spot in heaven for yourself.

Why I do stuff, why I haven't killed myself yet? Because I think this life is fun and I want to make the best of it, how much more 'meaning' do you need? But apparently your motives in life are to kiss God's ass to get a front row seat in heaven. How noble. This life is all I have and that makes it all the more valuable.

Religon is neccessary, true or not, and if we do not have it, many things would go uknown. We would all fear death.

That's a good thing.

Do we really need another one of these threads to cement the fact that Atheism is the dominant belief in this forum? Even atheism is a religon. It guides your actions, and what you do.
[See: Assassin's Creed; Sibrand]

Atheism guides my actions like my hobby of NOT collecting stamps guides my actions. Or how my absence of belief in gnomes affect my actions. Religion is a non-issue in my life.

Also, nothing is proven. Evolution cannot be proven. Nothing can be proven. Nothing.

Math is proof. Everything else is evidence. And that gives enough certainty to make rational decisions by.

 

[Muffin Man]

Agnostic in theory, atheist in practice.

 

[Dog--]

I think that this thread is unneccesary.
These threads always come to the conclusion that atheism is better, and that religon is unneccesary and stupid. This is not the case. If there was no religon, then what would we do with our lives? Nothing. We would strive for nothing, because we would know that after this life comes nothing. Mu. So, what's the point? With religon we know that after this life comes a newer, better life that this life pays for.

You do know Atheists exist (alot of them), and they strive for a better life.. It's not like all Atheists go around killing people, robbing, etc.

Back in the day (like start of the calender), people weren't like that, and needed something exactly like you're describing. Not so many stupid people now-a-days...

Even atheism is a religon. It guides your actions, and what you do.
[See: Assassin's Creed; Sibrand]

For some people, yes, it effects their lives big-time, but most people are in the "I couldn't care either way, just don't force it on me" mind-set.

Also, nothing is proven. Evolution cannot be proven. Nothing can be proven. Nothing.

wow




Off-topic: You got dissected a few times in this thread.. heh.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Isn't that just Deism?

Could be -- or maybe not:

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Which is pretty much just me in a nutshell.

 

[kupocake]

Atheist, insofar as it's a 'belief'. It's a 'belief' that requires absolutely zero commitment, foreknowledge or thought to be believed in, apparently.

And 'believing' that life is a finite, momentary thing makes you find it to be a greater gift than if you're sure that you just have to pass the final examination to be rewarded with something even better. I find it nauseating to find select Christians and other religious types exposing their own selfish basis for any friendly facade they undertake. "I do this for you, so that god thinks i'm a good person". I'm sure he'd prefer you to have less selfish reasons.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I'm sure he'd prefer you to have less selfish reasons.

Exactly.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Exactly x2

What a thread full of silliness!

I'm leaving 'atheist' as it is for the following reasons: 1, atheism is an umbrella category incorporating agnosticism (since all the term atheism should really imply is lack of concrete belief in a god, a lack agnosticism shares) 2, I'm lazy, 3, I can't work out how to add more poll options.

If you really want to specify that you're agnostic then I suggest you tell it in the thread, while voting 'atheist'.


One point: there are some very weird definitions of a 'religion' in these posts. Some people seem to think that atheism, or any moral or philosphical code, constitutes a religion. This is not the case.

A definition of religion?!?

I would venture the following definition. A religion is a structure based on faith and belief, things which usually manifest according to the sociological categories ofNinian Smart's seven dimensions:

I. The Practical / Ritual Dimension. Practises and repetitions such as praying, marching, special holidays, pilgrimages: repeated sets of actions that are performed according to some arbitrary rationale. Things done.

II. The Experiential / Emotional Dimension. Extra-normal expderiences such as visions, revelations, enlightenment, and general religious ecstasy -- The acute and earth-shaking, as well as the gentler, more mundane religious feelings.

III. The Narrative / Mythic Dimension. The "story" of a religion; includes written as well as oral tales, formal as well as informal teachings, alternative histories, predictions, origin tales, etc.

IV. The Doctrinal / Philosophical Dimension. This is the official, formal teachings which underpin the narrative/mythic parts of a religion, though it's important to note that the Doctrine doesn't necessarily predate the narrative. In Christianity, for instance, it was the existence of a cult following the life of Jesus, and their stories and rituals, which led to the formation of the Christian doctrine. Note that very few doctrines are actually static over time, though their authors usually like them to appear so.

V. The Ethical / Legal Dimension. The laws, formal and moral, that come out of any system. Runs the gamut from the extensive and complex set of enforceable Mosaic laws to the variable, unwritten set of Christian taboos.

VI. The Social / Institutional Dimension. This and the following dimension are the only ones that require a physical form, as opposed to the others which can be purely abstract. The Social Dimension consists of the formal organization, such as the Church / mosque / umma / Sangha; as well as other institutions which may come about as a result of the religion; for instance the Salvation Army and Hamas. This is the dimension of "how the religion works in people's lives".

VII. The Material Dimension. This dimension contains all the physical creations of a religion, including buildings and architecture, ikons, art, instruments of ritual, etc. It also includes natural features of the Earth which may be important to the system, for instance sacred mountains, holy ground, Jerusalem, etc. The objects of the material dimension may be stunning, elegant works of Art, or they may be very simple and plain (as with Mennonites); but the point is, they're present.

All of these phenomena, to be religious, should be rooted in FAITH.

Faith is, simply, belief without evidence.

This stands in opposition to the scientific methodology, whereby all beliefs should be logically extrapolated from available evidence. Furthermore, while nothing can be proved (because there could always be new or more evidence), things can be assumed if there is enough reason to do so; thus a scientific 'theory' really refers to a set of beliefs that, so far, can be validated and that, so far, have not been directly disproved. The so-far is important because any belief derived via the scientific method can only ever be a provisional assumption, one that is held only as long as it can support itself and is not contradicted, one that is by its nature temporary. And one can only act on what one has evidence for. Thus, the absence of evidence must be taken provisionally as evidence of absence. If there's no evidence that gravity ever reverses, then one should (for now) believe that gravity never reverses. Alternatively, one could jump off a cliff; good luck with that.

So the scientific method allows for a fluid system of belief where not only do we attempt to justify beliefs, but there is always room for new ideas and new beliefs, providing they can show themselves to be superior. The scientific method enshrines debate, so change is in its nature.

Faith, by contrast, will never allow for new evidence or new conclusions. It is characterised by the hollow relationship of God to his texts, whereby we know that God created the Bible, because the Bible says so, and we know we can believe the Bible, because God created it; simply put, the circular logic of 'it is because it is' or, even more succinctly, 'because'. And since it is based on nothing, it cannot be undermined.

Science holds that something has to be disproveable to be proveable. For Karl Popper, that belief which did not specify the criteria for its own destruction was not a scientific theory at all. For Wittgenstein, that which cannot be answered ceases to become a question. So science allows itself to change and adapt because it has to admit its own fallibility; the whole system could be disproved by its own criteria. Faith could never. Faith brooks no challenge and is unanswerable, ineffable, and eternal - thus apocalyptic.


Religion is based on faith. The observance of rituals, the consecration of ground, the formation of ethic code - these are based on the belief in a God or Gods.

That belief is one which cannot be justified. There is no evidence for the existence of any God, and, furthermore, the existence of God as a theory (as with much religious thought) has much logical evidence against it (see here). Therefore, if one accepts a scientific mindset, one must first conclude that there is no reason to believe that God exists; one must then proceed to the provisional judgement that God does not exist and act accordingly.

Faith cannot survive such a process, because the process is antithetical to faith's nature. If atheism was a religion, manifesting along Smart's seven dimensions, it would have to proceed from faith. It doesn't.

PS: You don't need the scientific method to disbelieve in God, but it helps!

 

[lame-o]

I would really like to respect Atheists but it's really a lot like feminism... Always a bunch of people who really BADLY represent the idea. If you are an Atheist because you think religions and what they teach are absurd, you sir, are a dipshit.

 

[French Ninja]

I worship the Van Gods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdRH7tn2Y0Q

But in all seriousness, I don't know. Right now I think I'm too young to worry about such things.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I would really like to respect Atheists but it's really a lot like feminism... Always a bunch of people who really BADLY represent the idea. If you are an Atheist because you think religions and what they teach are absurd, you sir, are a dipshit.

How so?

Seems to me a sensible process:
- o look religion is silly
- religion is silly because it believes in things without evidence ho hum.
- I guess there's no evidence for God? shit, I'm an atheist, whoops
- aw man

EDIT: Also cause yeah, there are so many people who really badly represent the idea that women should be equal with men!

Legions of them!

 

[theotherguy]

Atheism is a way of life. A belief that you don't believe in a God. It's a commitment in a sense, and just because it doesn't appear to be the same as other religions, it's just a different form.

What you're getting at is agnosticism. Not having a belief.

Nope thats wrong.

Agnosticism is lacking knowledge of god or gods, atheism is lacking belief in god or gods.

If you are an agnostic and do not believe in god, you are an atheist. If you are an agnostic and do believe in god, you are a theist.

gnosticism/agnosticsm and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive.

 

[firenbrimstone]

I would really like to respect Atheists but it's really a lot like feminism... Always a bunch of people who really BADLY represent the idea. If you are an Atheist because you think religions and what they teach are absurd, you sir, are a dipshit.

While it's not the sole reason I have no belief in religions or gods, I'm apparently a dipshit...

Explain your logic a bit more clearly. Maybe use small words though, as I may not be evolved enough to decipher it on my own.

 

[lame-o]

How so?

Seems to me a sensible process:
- o look religion is silly
- religion is silly because it believes in things without evidence ho hum.
- I guess there's no evidence for God? shit, I'm an atheist, whoops
- aw man

EDIT: Also cause yeah, there are so many people who really badly represent the idea that women should be equal with men!

Legions of them!

True dat. How about women who wanted to be priests (it's like saying men should be allowed to be nuns, although technically yeah I guess they should, it just wouldn't work the way it should and well, sadly, it wouldn't be traditional) and started throwing shit at the pope because he said no? How about women who say they want equal rights in that they should be allowed to kill their own children (as long as they aren't awake, ie. in the womb)? How about that chick who offered sexual favors to any guy who would finish her report on "The Progress of Feminism"? How about the women who like to appeal to men's sexuality on TV by being whores, and then walk around saying "HOW DARE YOU THINK OF ME AS A SEXUAL OBJECT!"???? Whatever, I'm sure you'll say something much more convincing than what I have to say.

Also, would you not believe in icecream because what everyone had to say about icecream seems absurd to you (like it tastes like shit mixed with piss)? So why should you do that with the existance of god? If you are an Atheist I think you should really have had some kind of experience in your life that truly convinced you.

 

[Sedako]

Books are written, and can be written by anyone. I can write a book that says that we came from monkeys, sure, but does that make it true? I can write a book saying that all other books are false, or maybe write a fiction that I take to seriously and turn it into a religon, but that doesn't make it true, does it? Again: Nothing can be proven without seeing it with your own eyes. But then, no one else will believe it unless the same happens. It's just a bit farfetched that all of this happened as a coincidence. THe Big Bang? What happened before then? What CAUSED it? The universe goes on for infinity, yet at the same time infinity is unattainable. The answer is right there, but just out of reach.

There is far more evidence that exists to support the theory of evolution than there is to support any given religion. Books written about evolution present well documented facts and ideas. There is also a lot less evidence to disprove evolution over religion.

Have you ever seen a god? No, you haven't. You can, however, observe the many similarities between us and other primates. These similarities can also be observed in hominid fossils that have been discovered, which are often a closer match to humans than they are to chimps.

Fossils, genetic code, different but similar species... These are all things we can see, and all of them support evolution. With religion, all we have to go by is mostly contained in books. Many of these books contain nothing that has even been observed in modern times. Sure, people can claim that god has spoken to them, but compare that claim to something as tangible as the fossil record and it doesn't seem too believable anymore.

I know I may sound like an asshole for saying this, but any books about religion are best filed under "fiction".

 

[Dog--]

I would really like to respect Atheists but it's really a lot like feminism... Always a bunch of people who really BADLY represent the idea. If you are an Atheist because you think religions and what they teach are absurd, you sir, are a dipshit.

It's not what they teach that's absurd, but how they teach it. "If you don't do what the religion says you'll burn forever!"

Not all religions do that, though, I'm pretty sure (not 100% on this, it's a guess), that Buddhism requires you to be as good as you think you should be. (again, I could be wrong)

I don't even know why anyone cares, though. As long as you're not directly effected by someone else's beliefs, let them think whatever they want. I, for example, let people believe what they want, but if they try to force their religion on me, then I'll start bitching at them, telling them to piss off, etc.

 

[lame-o]

It's not what they teach that's absurd, but how they teach it. "If you don't do what the religion says you'll burn forever!"

Not all religions do that, though, I'm pretty sure (not 100% on this, it's a guess), that Buddhism requires you to be as good as you think you should be. (again, I could be wrong)

I don't even know why anyone cares, though. As long as you're not directly effected by someone else's beliefs, let them think whatever they want. I, for example, let people believe what they want, but if they try to force their religion on me, then I'll start bitching at them, telling them to piss off, etc.

Dude, Atheism shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with religions. You're talking about celestial beings here, not some man-made opinions on them (most likely, but maybe they're right? )

 

[Sulkdodds]

Also, would you not believe in icecream because what everyone had to say about icecream seems absurd to you (like it tastes like shit mixed with piss)? So why should you do that with the existance of god? If you are an Atheist I think you should really have had some kind of experience in your life that truly convinced you.

haha wut

I'm disputing the existence of God because I don't see enough evidence for it.

I provisionally accept the existence of ice cream because I see plenty of falsifiable evidence.

Whereas the direct equivalent of your example is 'I don't believe in God because people tell me he tastes like shit'. That doesn't make sense and it's also not what I'm saying.

I am not criticising the rituals and teachings of religion per se. I am criticising the various theories put forward by religion that claim the existence of God. I believe their theories don't make any sense, so I do not accept them; I thus proceed from the base of my observable reality, which holds no evidence for God's existence.

Simplified:
- Religions claim God exists (Theory A).
- I feel there is not enough evidence for God existing.
- Therefore I do not believe God exists; Theory A is not true.

In addition:
- Religions base all their actions on the trueness of Theory A.
- I do not acccept Theory A as true.
- I therefore feel free to criticise any and all actions based on Theory A.

The experience that truly convinced me there was no reason to believe in God is commonly called 'life'.

Is this hard to understand?

True dat. How about women who wanted to be priests (it's like saying men should be allowed to be nuns, although technically yeah I guess they should, it just wouldn't work the way it should and well, sadly, it wouldn't be traditional) and started throwing shit at the pope because he said no? How about women who say they want equal rights in that they should be allowed to kill their own children (as long as they aren't awake, ie. in the womb)? How about that chick who offered sexual favors to any guy who would finish her report on "The Progress of Feminism"? How about the women who like to appeal to men's sexuality on TV by being whores, and then walk around saying "HOW DARE YOU THINK OF ME AS A SEXUAL OBJECT!"???? Whatever, I'm sure you'll say something much more convincing than what I have to say.

I could argue many of these examples (especially the way that in the last you use the familiar patriarchal conceit if blaming the tempter for your own temptation) but I don't need to. You haven't demonstrated that these constitute at all a sizeable number of 'feminists', so ner. A bunch of people? Whatever.

 

[Muffin Man]

True dat. How about women who wanted to be priests (it's like saying men should be allowed to be nuns, although technically yeah I guess they should, it just wouldn't work the way it should and well, sadly, it wouldn't be traditional) and started throwing shit at the pope because he said no?

Well that's just silly! Women were created to serve men, it says so in the Bible. They're lucky we even let them attend church!

How about women who say they want equal rights in that they should be allowed to kill their own children (as long as they aren't awake, ie. in the womb)?

Wait... Men can kill their kids, but women can't?

How about that chick who offered sexual favors to any guy who would finish her report on "The Progress of Feminism"?

Was it a feminist who was writing the report, or was it some kind of assignment?

How about the women who like to appeal to men's sexuality on TV by being whores, and then walk around saying "HOW DARE YOU THINK OF ME AS A SEXUAL OBJECT!"????

When's the last time you saw a feminist on TV trying to sexually appealing to men? :|

Also, would you not believe in icecream because what everyone had to say about icecream seems absurd to you (like it tastes like shit mixed with piss)? So why should you do that with the existance of god? If you are an Atheist I think you should really have had some kind of experience in your life that truly convinced you.

This doesn't even make sense.

 

[lame-o]

You're lacking evidence of there being a lack of evidence on Theory A. So I could argue that you're wrong in EXACTLY the same way you say Theory A is wrong.

About the things you said about my feminism rant...
I could argue that you're a ****ing Mormon, but it doesn't mean I'm right. In fact, lawyers do that shit all the time. Also, it's kind of hard to give statistics on the amount of bad feminists, I'd like you to directly show me a sizeable number of good ones.


I also like what you expressed about my saying "A bunch of people" a bunch of people != all people, so I don't see you're problem here. It's a basic rule used in essay writing, don't make absolutes because your reader may disagree then not want to listen to what you're saying. I didn't pose any absolutes so I'm completely confused as to what your problem is with that.

 

[Muffin Man]

You're lacking evidence of there being a lack of evidence on Theory A. So I could argue that you're wrong in EXACTLY the same way you say Theory A is wrong.

You see a lack of proof for the non-existence of God?

 

[lame-o]

Yeah. What's so hard to understand about that? I don't see anything telling me that god DOESN'T exist. Also, keep in mind we thought the Earth was flat for hundreds of years before you give me Darwin quotes.

EDIT: Feminists speak on behalf of all women you noob.

EDIT: Also, yeah the icecream bit was a bad example, but it's the most simple thing I could think of, and it DOES show MOST of what my point is.

 

[Muffin Man]

You see _ ____ __ proof for the ____existence of God?

Removed the double-negative.

 

[firenbrimstone]

Yeah. What's so hard to understand about that? I don't see anything telling me that god DOESN'T exist. Also, keep in mind we thought the Earth was flat for hundreds of years before you give me Darwin quotes.

EDIT: Feminists speak on behalf of all women you noob.

Because the day wanes here, I can't be bothered to respond to all of your flagrant misrepresentations in your previous posts... however...

"We" didn't think the Earth was flat, it was proven to be round long before "We" were born. Your love of using ambiguous pronouns to try to avoid lumping everyone into categories--so we can't accuse you of that... FAILS.

Resorting to name-calling in your defensive stance is really not going to sway public opinion.

By the way, feminists don't categorically speak for all women. Some of us don't approve of their methodologies and ideals, therefore we can't be spoken for, when we speak for ourselves.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You're lacking evidence of there being a lack of evidence on Theory A. So I could argue that you're wrong in EXACTLY the same way you say Theory A is wrong.

This is a more fundamental problem and if it's really your root disagreement you should have said it initially instead of posting stuff about ice cream that didn't make any sense.

If you're saying that you 'don't see anything showing that god DOESN'T exist', I would counter that you don't need to.

If there's no evidence for a theory, it's unsafe to assume the theory is true. The absence of evidence must be, for now at least, taken as evidence of absence. Either that or you just don't make a judgement: you do not believe in the theory, just as an atheist only needs to not believe in God.

I don't have any evidence that my friend is not a dog. But there is no evidence that he is a dog. This lack of evidence in his doggyness itself becomes evidence of lack: if he were a dog there'd be signs, eg woofing.


Now, if you claim that there's no evidence for the existence of the world...well, we get back to Karl Popper. We might all be brains in a jar. God might exist and we'd never know. My friend might be a dog, because I might be completely mad or in The Matrix. But none of these can really be disproved, nor any evidence brought against them, and until they can, I'm not going to bother treating them as possibilities. We could all be in a gigantic computer simulation, but if there was no way to know whether this was true or not, would it not become irrelevant to us?

About the things you said about my feminism rant...
I could argue that you're a ****ing Mormon, but it doesn't mean I'm right. In fact, lawyers do that shit all the time. Also, it's kind of hard to give statistics on the amount of bad feminists, I'd like you to directly show me a sizeable number of good ones.

I'm not sure why you've inverted the burden of proof because I'm not making any claims regarding feminists, whereas you are.

Fair point regarding "a bunch". I suppose it's very vague, so it can't really be contested that much.

I'm just not, myself, aware of anybody constantly tarnishing the reputation of feminism. I guess this bit isn't very important anyway, so maybe I should abandon it.

 

[evil^milk]

I'd like to go a bit Off-topic here and say that you can't trust human beings. Never. Ever.

All people have weak spots and it's a matter of time till the enemy finds them out. They will use the weak spots to get them to confess, or say your whereabouts, or tell them the embarassing moment when you came in Sex Ed class.

Nevar trust people, people!

:shifty eyes:

 

[evil^milk]

By the way, is Pantheism believing in Pan, as in Fauno, from Pan's Labyrinth? If so, I'm totally converting to that religion.

:afro:

 

[lame-o]

firenbrimstone:

I mean "we" as human-kind.

So whom do feminists speak for? Who are these "women" they keep talking about? They say feminists should be equal to men? not all women?

Muffin Man:

I don't see evidence for either the existence of god, or for the non-existence of god.

And pro-choice is STRICTLY about female rights.

 

[Muffin Man]

Muffin Man:

I don't see evidence for either the existence of god, or for the non-existence of god.

And pro-choice is STRICTLY about female rights.

So who are they trying to have equal rights with?

 

[lame-o]

Well, feminism isn't all about equality. It's about demanding rights. In fact, some of them even say that women are better than men. And by the way, I don't think either are better than the other, males are the ying to the female yang.

 

[firenbrimstone]

firenbrimstone:

I mean "we" as human-kind.

So whom do feminists speak for? Who are these "women" they keep talking about? They say feminists should be equal to men, not all women?

Muffin Man:

I don't see evidence for either the existence of god, or for the non-existence of god.

And pro-choice is STRICTLY about female rights.

*sigh*

Here, young padawan, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Just like the original topic we were discussing, there are variants to the level of the feminist movement. Not all feminists say the same thing, therefore, categorizing them all into one box is inaccurate on your part. It can't be used to win.

If you don't see evidence for or against the existence of God... what do you see? Maybe if you clarified your personal belief, I'd actually understand what you're trying to say.

 

[lame-o]

My personal belief is: I don't know. So I'm trying to show what's wrong with both sides.