Of course I can't be 100% sure that this is the MySpace page of the Peter Bjerg who portrayed "Kim". However, the age (42) is about right, and he does look as though he could be the same person.
http://www.myspace.com/peterbjerg
Good to see that he entered "Atheist" in the "Religion" field!
haha well like I mentioned in another post, Denmark has one of the largest populations of Atheists in the world, and is the least religious country in the world only behind Sweden and Vietnam.
shareI think I already posted a bulletin in the past about his MySpace.
I guess I'm not the only one who found him on MySpace.
Of course, he's Atheist!
Most ppl like him (and me) don't like being told what to do and what not to do.
You know, I kinda dislike that representation of atheism and why someone follows it... I'm an atheist not because I don't like being told what to do and what not to do (I think that's more in laws than in religion, anyway), but simply because I don't believe a God exists.
sharepeople are atheists by default actually, so it's not really anything special. they only get religionified later in life
shareAgreed. I'm an Atheist because, after weighing all the data, I've come to feel that "There Is No God" is the simplest explanation that explains as many of the observations in the world as possible. I don't believe that because I hate rules. Some of the biggest anarchists and anti-government zealots I've met in my years, are also the first people to quote scripture.
As a side note, I've also observed that the worse someones life or upbringing was, usually the more they will also turn to religion or drugs for their life's explanations (or to a lesser extent in some people, philosophy).
In other words, if you're happy and having good sex all the time and feel you have a purpose and life is awesome, it seems like those people could usually care less about the bigger questions. It takes a constant vibe that "something is wrong with the world" for you to need deeper answers. Just my observation anyway.
You can't deny your mortality by indulging in constant hedonism.
shareI indulge in ethical hedonism because I accept my mortality and am determined to make the most of this life before it ends... not because I deny it. ;)
share
Not every atheist is a big douchey neener neener type rebel. Also atheists are no better than anyone else. Being an atheist doesn't make you smarter or cooler, it just means you don't believe in God. It's like the atheists are starting to form clubs now just to congratulate themselves on their disbelief. How pathetic.
I don't know where I stand on belief in God but eff if I am going to trade one organization for another. Have not been impressed with all the whiney, angry atheists out there.
I am in a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly falling snow.
What I find really interesting about your comments is that, given how completely benign my comments were and your visceral reaction towards them, you clearly sound like you're working through a lot of anger and confusion about your own beliefs, and seem to be projecting those fears onto others who you assume are either like yourself, or might possess qualities that you fear you could also possess.
Most people I've known in my life, are prisoners. They are either held captive by their religious beliefs, or by their fear of the repercussions of stepping out of line or going against the flow. This can apply to atheists just as much as theists. I would say the main difference though between *most* atheists and theists I've known in my life, is that atheists tend to be more willing to question ideas and traditions that seem to be fundamentally illogical. Where as theists believe that, "the path to heaven is a very narrow mind", hence don't think about what you've been taught too much, or you'll only cause problems.
Coming to self-evident conclusions on life, and deciding "not to let your life be ruled by fear", is only analogous to "being a big douchey neener neener type rebel" if you want out of your cell too, but don't have the courage to leave -- in other words, it's entirely in your head. No one is calling you names for barricading yourself in the cell that you're accustom to. It's human nature to want to be a "good boy", so if you're happy in there, then all the power to you. My view is simply that if you're unhappy in there, then why are you making yourself stay or trying to convince yourself that only douche bags leave? Although it's human nature to want to "be a good boy", it's also human nature to want to be free.
PS. If you'd like, I'd be happy to sponsor you at tonight's atheist club members meeting, if you'd like to join that is. You'll get a full year of not having to pay membership dues, and you can spend all night with us as we congratulate one another on how awesome we are, because of course we're so organized and have nothing better to do.
Many "atheists" are actually agnostics. And, strictly speaking there is a logical difference between:
"I don't believe that God exists" and "I believe that God does not exist."
The first statement may only mean that someone is not convinced, and is not assuming it.
The second is more committal.
It's almost like the strict semantic difference between "not very good" and "very not good".
However, in my experience, atheist are often not extremely clear in what they mean by "God", while those who use the phrase "not very good" actually do mean "very not good".
____________________
So den bro tryin ta grasp ur logic ere. If I woz ta say god iz a load ov bollox is dat like me sayin load ov bollox iz god me old china? becuz dat iz cockney talk en me iz not a cockney en me duz not liv en chinky town.
share...Your argument is just vague semantics. Let us assume a tripartite theory of truth - some classical definition of the platonic definition of truth, or better yet, true knowledge - and that an infidel which does not believe in God is just assuming the disbelief on the proposition that "God does exist", ergo, he believes that, au contraire, on the proposition that "God does not exist" is true and the opposite must be, thus, false. An affirming true statement, by this definition, is a true belief that is correctly justified, inasmuch, that is to say, according to the principles of reason, or more precisely, according to the dialectics of Pláton, which were precedent to peripathetic modal and syllogistic logic and the propositional logic of the Stoics... Do not get me wrong, I am not platonic, but surely just using that theory to have a reason in disagreeing with thee... Consider the principle of bivalence and, please, do not use childish appeal and that that "was just an opinion", for an opinion is no true knowledge, just a shot in the dark, or worse, a self-assuming knower of a truth unfalsifiable that must be said, but not refuted! That is just the cult of lies of contemporary idioticy...
share