This is where some of todays politicians, wanna lead us (Christian conservatist) and others like them. And if someone doesn't thnk that i will personnally write atleast one book on this kind of subject.
BTW i think ALL religions are bad, except maybe True Budhism, and that science is the way (but it can't be rushed....
"Hey, my eyes aren't glistening with the ghosts of my past"- Harry potter
Every religion has a flaw.
1'vE bU|2n3d 2 MaNy bRidGe5 t0 pR3teNd 2 bE h0Ly
Buddhism: technically not a religion.
share[deleted]
Religious extremists are bad. Religion is not bad. Extreme athiesm can be bad too........
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women
[deleted]
Just like extreme religious nuts can be over critical against athiests, extreme athiests can do the same to other people's beliefs. Anything in extreme doses can be bad.
If you drink extreme amounts of alcohol, you will have liver problems.
If you drink extreme amounts of water, you will die.
If you do extreme stunts your chances of getting hurt are pretty high.
Need I go on? Moderation is the key. If you are going to believe in something, don't believe in it so much that you will fly air planes into buildings.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women
[deleted]
I can guarantee that there is probably some atheists out there who are bull dozing churches as we speek. There is probably some atheist serial killers who target others based on their beleifs. Although I cannot provide you with a solid sample, I speculate that somewhere out there.. there are individuals who consider themselves atheists and possess an extreme intolerance of oposing views. I will admit that there are definetly more religious fanatics out there, but I do not doubt the existence of extreme athiests.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women
[deleted]
Examples of bad atheism: a lot of people involved in the norwegian black metal scene.
Don't get me wrong, I like norwegian black metal, but some of them are tards.
"Examples of bad atheism: a lot of people involved in the norwegian black metal scene."
They're not atheists, they're pagans.
------------
23
Albert Fish is a giganto example.
My Voodoo Suzie sacrificed your Malibu Barbie.
dude think about it. atheists aren't COMPLETELY agnostic. We have so much faith in our belief that religions are wrong, we're willing to go to HELL if religion is right!
shareA good argument. I just wish there was a strong movement out there which aims to put the old beliefs behind us and instead put our faith into humanity as a whole. The world really needs a wake-up call.
share[deleted]
This guy, Mark Hoffman, wanted to "rewrite history" and make the founder of the mormon church look like a bad guy. He was an atheist and conned many people out of quite a lot of money by creating forged documents that were so good, organizations like the FBI and Library of Congress authenticated them. Now, I myself am an atheist but I believe that if people need or want to believe in god, then they can just go for it as long as they don't try and get me to be that way. Some people take their beliefs a bit too far and bad things happen.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/mormon_forgeries/index.html
TECHNICALLY, atheism is just as much of a religion as theism is. They both require faith to believe in their basic "tenets". That is, christians (for example) believe through faith in their God. Atheists believe through faith that there is no god. You cannot prove scientifically that God does or doesn't exist. It is a conclusion reached by faith. Nothing else.
And the previous poster is correct--extreme atheism is just as dangerous as extreme religiosity. It is the difference between the Islamic extremists we see today and the Nazis of the 1940's.
redshirt
lol. you is funny. extreme-atheism?
so, if you do not believe in something you have to believe that it's opposite has to be truth?
so that means by saying "i don't think so" you basically say "i am completely and 100% sure that the opposite of what you say has to be the truth"?
cute.
not caring does not require any faith in anything at all.
extreme-resignation will kill millions of people. ;)
Whaaaaat? What are you talking about? I was responding to Ultness' post on Mon Mar 5 2007 12:43:16. He/she's the one who stated "extreme-atheism".
I never said what you're implying--reread the post.
you wrote:
"And the previous poster is correct--extreme atheism is just as dangerous as extreme religiosity."
[deleted]
Its not silly at all. Science is defining the natural laws of our universe, how did the laws get there? Why is there an existance at all? Some people believe in the big bang theory, some people believe there is a super natural being behind it. It is not far-fetched to believe that these laws of science we know today, are just processes put into action by a greater being.
Science does not prove or disprove god, so there is still a bit of faith involved if you think some random clouds of gas mixed together and exploded causing creation.
The Theory of evolution is not true because it is a Theory. The theory changes about once every 5 years because they disproove some points that they made before.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women
well, there is a difference between logic and faith. science is logical, religion denies science and is based on faith. you choose.
share[deleted]
You should chill out a little bit bro...
Theory -
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
contemplation or speculation.
guess or conjecture.
The THEORY of evolution is not a fact you minion. There may be some facts within the theory... but the theory itself is not a fact. A fact is undisputed truth. A theory.... like the theory of evolution changes every single day because its not a solid LAW. Scientists find new stuff everyday that contradicts their old stuff. So before you go spewing garbage over the internet, maybe you should relax and stop barking at folks for not believing what you do.
You feel sorry for me... get a grip man, you are going overboard. Just like Quentin.....
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women
That's the "layman's" definition of what a theory is. In science, a theory has a much more strict definition.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
is much closer. Some intersting points to consider:
There is a *law* of gravity but scientific *laws* don't explain anything. They can only be used to predict outcomes. A *scientific law* is just tells you what you'll observe under certain conditions. It doesn't tell you *why*.
There are *theories* of gravity that do try to explain why gravity behaves the way it does. These theories involve space-time curvature, particles known as gravitons (which no one has ever detected) and much more exotic explanations like those in brane cosmology.
Science is wonderful because it adapts and always aims for the most consistent and simplest explanation possible. All theories are subject to revision and, once in a blue moon, total rewrite. But only if the evidence justifies it.
The point is, the Theory of Evolution is for all practical purposes a fact. The evidence is staggering to the point that to really shake it you'd need the equivalent of God (or aliens) coming down to Earth and creating a new species instantly for everyone to see.
There is no scientific Theory of God. Like I said, God doesn't explain anything. You introduce God, you have to explain God, which only complicates the whole matter further. It's not an explanation, it's a cop-out.
I agree w/you, altness. We know air is real, though we cannot physically see it, right? I think Big Bang makes less sense than God or some other great being(s) having a hand in things. I mean, come ON, just BANG, and the universe formed?? Goofy as all hell.
Don't worry - someday, the OP will fly a jet airplane into a building, screaming, "There is no God, and I'll be rewarded for my sacrifice!" But just before the explosion, he'll go, "Oh, SH!T, WHO is gonna reward me???" Couldn't help myself, sorry.
Peace y'all!
"Take it!! Take the leg!!" - Evolution
[deleted]
Perhaps you misunderstand the term 'extreme atheism'.
It mostly has to do with those who view anyone with religious leanings as flawed or insane worthy of eradication.
Extreme views are a danger, extreme measures always carry far to much risk to the general population. We live in a world with competing views, and competing faiths. We have real proof as to which is right, however in the words of a great fictional yet flawed character:
"If we don't all learn to live together, then we are going to die alone."
there is no such thing as extreme atheism. zero times x always equals zero. having no faith does not compete with any existing faith. how could it?
shareIslamic extremists and the Nazis are so incredibly different. Pick up a book.
share[deleted]
So did you ever figure out what atheism actually is, or are you still this laughably ignorant?
shareI disagree. Atheists don't use "faith" to believe there is no god. They use lack of concrete proof. You don't have faith that pigs can't fly. (Let's ignore anatomical arguments to the contrary for now.) You believe pigs can't fly because there is no evidence that the have or ever will fly.
shareIs it faith, or science that atheists use to support their conclusion that there is no such thing as a higher being? So far science has not shown us there is a creator. If it did, I am sure most (if not all) atheists would become staunch theists.
-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch
Is it faith, or science that atheists use to support their conclusion that there is no such thing as a higher being?
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."
Eric Hoffer
(1902 - 1983)
[deleted]
I agree with you.
The key to immortality is first living a life worth remembering - Bruce Lee
by - ultness on Mon Mar 5 2007 12:43:16Define "extreme atheism". As opposed to "normal atheism". Believing in less than zero Gods? share
Religious extremists are bad. Religion is not bad. Extreme athiesm can be bad too........
*claps* Well-reasoned.
It's always after I lose things that I realize how very significant the things I've lost are.
"Buddhism: technically not a religion." - wolfdancer648
Buddhism: technically a philosophy of life. Good call by someone actually knowing something; seems a rarity on here.
And evolution is likely (and necessary if there is no God)? Do you have any ideas how unlikely evolution is? Statistically it is so astronomically impossible as to be considered impossible. When you take into account all the different factors that go into making life on this planet possible (distance from sun, distance from moon, even the placement of the solar system in the galaxy, the perfect balance of gases in the atmosphere, water, perfect amount of gravity, presence of the ozone layer, etc, etc, etc), the odds of evolution not occuring are staggering. Not to mention the fact that no transitional fossils have ever been found that back up evolution (sure, some have been found that they claim to be transitional, but they have always been proven to be human or animal, not something in between).
Plus, animals that evolutionists have always believed to be closely related on the evolutionary tree have now been proven to not be related. According to Percival Dallas and Dean Kenyon (Of Pandas and People, 1989), "The revolution in molecular biology has given us new, mathematically quantifiable data on the similarities in living things. But the data have served to support a picture of the organic world consistent with the theory of intelligent design."
I enjoy science, but it does not point away from God. Instead it points to Him.
redshirt
Evolution obviously has some chance of occuring, since it did and does right here on this planet.
What "transitional fossils" are you talking about, anyway? There are *many* fossils that show how evolution proceeded. If you're talking about that stupid issue of the "missing link" then you obviously don't understand that there will *always* be a "missisng link" because there isn't a fossil of every damn hominid that ever lived. It's irrelevant; the evidence we have is already so overwhelming that evolution can be called a scientific fact.
Intelligent design is not science. Science cannot point to God. Science explores the natural laws of our universe. God, by definition, is a supernatural being.
Saying "God did it." isn't science.
And it doesn't even give any answers. If God did it, then where did God come from? I've never been able to get a good answer to that one.
Yes, the factors involved in life being possible on this planet are mind-blowingly improbable - but you forget just how many stars there are with at least the possibility of orbiting planets.. and that's just in our own galaxy! What about all of the other ones? When you take all of the universe into account, the possibility of the right conditions for life cropping up somewhere, somehow, seems a bit more likely.
Perhaps we're all alone in this vast universe, the only successful 'roll of the dice' in existence... but it doesn't mean our creation has to be attributed to some unknown, outside force. Accidents do happen.
It's not very nice to consider your existence an accident, but it doesn't negate your reason for existing (which is what seems to get a lot of religious people so steamed up..) - you create your own reason, you don't need to have it assigned to you by some supernatural force.
As for evolution.. of course it hasn't been definitively proven.. nothing in science is absolutely 100%-sure-with-no-doubt-what-so-ever.. but then neither is god. People might say they believe he/she/it exists, but that is an opinion. Science is full of opinions as well, but at least scientists actually try different ways of proving their opinion, instead of pointing a finger and saying 'Look, there it is in front of you. It exists, therefore God made it exist.'
No transitional fossils? Do you even know how fossils are made? The chances of an animal dying and being rapidly preserved well enough and safely enough to survive millions of years are next to nothing. Comparatively intelligent human predecessors were even less likely to have been preserved. We're lucky to have found as many as we have - the fact that few transitional fossils have been found proves nothing. To use a fairly standard Christian argument: "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
As for certain animals being proven not to relate to each other.. people aren't infallible, you know, and scientific methods aren't instantly perfect, they're improved upon all the time. The chances that certain discoveries may be proven wrong later is quite good, but at least scientists are willing to admit they are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence. (To clarify, overwhelming evidence involves collecting as much information as possible by as many methods as possible, correlating it with others conducting similar experiments and analyzing the results from different angles - NOT making up your mind first then finding 'proof' to fit the results.)
What I find a little saddening at times is that in the face of overwhelming evidence or even simple deductive reasoning, a lot of Christians will fall back on the old unanswerabe 'Well you can't disprove God!'.
How about when people wouldn't believe in germs because you couldn't disprove that it wasn't evil spirits haunting them or curses placed upon them? They couldn't SEE germs, so why should they believe in them? or how about when people wouldn't believe the world was round? Although technically proven and accepted long before flight & space travel, the undeniable proof came when we got up there and took a few pictures for everyone to see. Now nobody doubts it is round.
Maybe all it will take to prove the God question is to create the right methods for finding him/her/it - maybe a better microscope, a better telescope... maybe something we simply can't yet conceive of.. but just because we can't do it right now doesn't mean we never will find out..
Which begs the questions; how can we search for something that may not even be there? It's quite difficult to search for nothing.
easy one. keep the aproximate number of planets in the universe in mind and evolution is more than likely. it is even most likely that it happeneds and happened a thousand times within the universe.
shareTo say that you cannot disprove God is the same as saying you cannot disprove hoola hooping fifty foot chimpanzees. Sure, they might exist but should we put that in textbooks? Oh I can imagine that, five hundred pages of science and eight hundred trillion pages of things science hasn't yet *dis*-proven. There's simply no scientific reason to entertain the idea of God.
Atheism is not a religion, atheism is lack of faith. It means you don't think deities exist. Also, I have no case to my knowledge where someone killed in the name of atheism. However we have the Spanish explorers to America, the settlers who believed the native americans were satanic, Nazi belt buckles that read 'God with us,' atheism was once seen as a capital offense, we have Sunnis and Shiites, we have christians threatening doctors, hundreds of years of pagan wars across Europe fighting for individual gods, quite a few religious serial killers (so far I don't know of any non religious killings (in the name of atheism!),) the crusades, the inquisition, and many more.
Religion can start and fuel wars. I'm not saying wars won't break out once religion is gone, I'm simply saying that people won't be able to justify it with religion.
The'll just justify it with patriotism. :-(
shareChaos Theory pretty much scientifically proves the existence of God.
Just not in the fashion most organized religion would prefer.
Out of the chaos comes order - matter/energy, life, sentience, society, etc. It just takes time for all this organization to manifest itself, and the Theory of Evolution is a good example of how some of these phenomena occur.
But the scientific reasoning that humans have invented, or more properly stumbled upon, relies upon a system of mathematically predictable occurences that happen repeatedly, albeit improbably, against the thermodynamic principle of a universe in which entropy is always increasing. This bucking of a trend is the gist of the Theory of Constructive Interference, and lends mathematical proof towards the existence of a higher power (i.e. "God," but not to be confused with a 60-something, bearded, Caucasian male sitting in a throne).
Armed with this knowledge and wisdom, I propose a third alternative to Darwin's and the Christian Right's theories of life and sentience: The Theory of Unintelligent Design. It is obviousy not a logically-thinking "being," by our definition, that came up with the concepts of cetaceans, platypi, durian fruit, and naked apes as the dominant species.
What questions would hoola hooping fifty foot chimps answer? Would you say that the words "some type of unknown force that created the universe" and what you said are proportionately specific?
Being an atheist, I'm sure you hate annoying arguments/analogies as much as the next guy.
And no, I'm not any kind of Christian, and don't think about the God question very much. But when people try to make the other look stupid for (dis)believing it's annoying, especially when they use *beep* logic.
I believe the real sad truth of it is, is that the film implies that no one is an exception to harsh punishment. What crime did Rains commit? I kinda felt sorry for Haskell, as he was being controlled by Jax to get Wynn and Rains, I don't think he intended to kill them, I believe he was going to help them. He was no Quentin, even though he appeared to behave like one. But in the end he was under control.
shareAnd evolution is likely (and necessary if there is no God)? Do you have any ideas how unlikely evolution is? Statistically it is so astronomically impossible as to be considered impossible. When you take into account all the different factors that go into making life on this planet possible (distance from sun, distance from moon, even the placement of the solar system in the galaxy, the perfect balance of gases in the atmosphere, water, perfect amount of gravity, presence of the ozone layer, etc, etc, etc), the odds of evolution not occuring are staggering.
^^ From a page back
That is spoken like a true person who doesn't understand statistics and probability. The odds that I would have been born a white female in america on the date I was born to the parents I was born to, to be named what I was and have the number of siblings I do..with those and so many other variables, the odds were very very low. However, I WAS. This is because probability only predicts future outcomes, not past ones. And if something had been drastically wrong with this planet, such as it being too far away from the sun, then evolution COULDN'T have occurred and we wouldn't be having this board discussion. And there's usually something wrong with the floating chunks of matter in the universe, which is why we haven't discovered more life. We lucked out. Sorry to dredge up a somewhat old argument but people not understanding this point really bothers me.
I am a hardcore agnostic. I don't know whether or not there is or is not a god, and I'm not one to say there is or isn't. I have no proof of his/their existance, nor do I have any proof that there isn't a god. I think that people should take something and if they honestly believe in it, hey, whatever makes you happy (without harming other people!)
What if they come in through the back door or the bathroom window like that infamous Beatles song?
Soviets were all "officially" athiests btw; destroyed mosques and churches in Poland, Ukraine, Chechnya, Afghanistan and most of the Eastern Bloc in their time. Massacred or sent to Siberia lots of Orthodox & Catholic Priests in the 1920's or 1940's. Presumably to prove how backward the faithful were :0.
I'm not saying that hardcore athiests are worse than religious nuts, extremists of every creed are all as bad as each other, with no exceptions.
yep, but what you don't seem to get into your head is that there is nothing like extreme-atheism. also there is nothing like dangerous extreme-slackers, extreme-stoners, extreme-not-carers, extreme-ignoring ..etc. the term alone is idiotic.
soviets were atheists but there is no connection to what you ahve written. hitler was a vegetarian. following your logic extreme-vegetarians killed millions of people. that's stupid.
hitler was a vegetarian. following your logic extreme-vegetarians killed millions of people.
And evolution is likely (and necessary if there is no God)? Do you have any ideas how unlikely evolution is? Statistically it is so astronomically impossible as to be considered impossible. When you take into account all the different factors that go into making life on this planet possible (distance from sun, distance from moon, even the placement of the solar system in the galaxy, the perfect balance of gases in the atmosphere, water, perfect amount of gravity, presence of the ozone layer, etc, etc, etc), the odds of evolution not occuring are staggering.
^^ From a page back
That is spoken like a true person who doesn't understand statistics and probability. The odds that I would have been born a white female in america on the date I was born to the parents I was born to, to be named what I was and have the number of siblings I do..with those and so many other variables, the odds were very very low. However, I WAS. This is because probability only predicts future outcomes, not past ones. And if something had been drastically wrong with this planet, such as it being too far away from the sun, then evolution COULDN'T have occurred and we wouldn't be having this board discussion. And there's usually something wrong with the floating chunks of matter in the universe, which is why we haven't discovered more life. We lucked out. Sorry to dredge up a somewhat old argument but people not understanding this point really bothers me.
Examples of bad extreme atheism:
Adolph Hitler: Some people try to say he was a christian, but it seems quite clear he was only using christianity to sustain belief and power by a christian dominated society.
"We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany"
Wasn't Hitler basically using extreme Darwinism to justify killing the elderly? The weak? The Handicapped? etc
Joseph Stalin: Followed the belief that religion was the opiate of the people. Many religions were outlawed. This led to many thousands of nuns and priests being killed.
Someone earlier mentioned Norwegian Death Metal. This has been connected to certain musicians who have destroyed churches and killed priests. Obviously this is in protest of their history but it does not make it right.
Obviously these are ridiculously simplified example summaries but I hate it when people seem to think that no religeon would lead to peace. I'm not religious myself, but atheism is not the answer to all the conflicts of the world. As has been said earlier, its the extremes that are bad.
So anyway...how about that cube zero :-)
[deleted]
Westboro Baptist Church. Every side has extremist it's just the way it is. I'm an atheist but I'll admit I could be wrong. None of us really know the truth and we won't while we're alive at least. Most religions have good morals that everyone can agree on. Some people twist them around for personal agendas but that has to be overlooked. Hitler did believe in god but either way it should not matter since morally speaking he was very bad.
What I'm curious about is end scene where there are 2 girls 1 black 1 white and the guy beating his head on the wall. The first one had the guy beating his head on the wall also but the girl that stopped him was white and the guy was black also a white guy and another white girl. It's weird that they would not at least match the same cast of the scene. I mean I can understanding there are going to be new actors for the parts but why mix it up so much to not match it at all except putting the hand in front to stop him.
Oh well either way I still love all three movies and it's nice to see the back-story on him.
"Atheism is a religion in much the same way "off" is a TV channel."
Best thing I've read in a while!
I assumed it was yours until I did a google search, do you know what the original source is?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
This thread is so full of fail in its responses that it is hilarious. First of all, Atheism is the decision to not practice a religion, there are no beliefs or tenets and thus cannot be done to an 'extreme' level. There seems to be some belief, I can only guess most people here grew up in a religion and thus have warped pretenses about atheism, that 'extreme atheism' exists.
It is the choice to not practice or follow any established religion. You cannot be an 'extreme' non-follower. The language used implies atheism is anti-religion, which it is not. Atheists do not sit around plotting how to take down churches and temples. They just don't give a darn, they just don't want a part of it and have no trouble being left alone in their choice.
The better choice of words would not be 'extreme atheist' but rather 'anti-religious nut', which are two different things. It's one thing to choose to not believe in the tenets and dogma of Catholicism and another to picket in front of the church and stock up on fertilizer in order to blow up s local church.
And also for the record, the large amount of people one would call "anti-religious"...are more or less the extreme zealots of one of the established religions. People who don't care about religion don't plot to take them down. Those who do plot have an agenda, and it's not 'lots of atheism'.
Aristophanes once wrote, roughly translated...
There is militant atheism and Mr. Dawkins himself told he's supporters to be more militant atheist.
"Atheists do not sit around plotting how to take down churches and temples. They just don't give a darn, they just don't want a part of it and have no trouble being left alone in their choice. "
You clearly do not know much about this "new atheism" movement. They would bulldoze churches if they actually had some real power, but luckily they do not have.
"And also for the record, the large amount of people one would call "anti-religious"...are more or less the extreme zealots of one of the established religions. People who don't care about religion don't plot to take them down. Those who do plot have an agenda, and it's not 'lots of atheism'. "
History proves all these claims wrong.