Uh Oh! Offensive Religious Thread!

[The Maxx]

Do you subscribe to a religious doctrine? Are you a crazy Christian or a godless pig? Tell us and be sure to do so in style and in an offensive manner!

[uniquinous]

we alrady have one of these - it's the christianity thread :dry:

[The Maxx]

we alrady have one of these - it's the christianity thread :dry:

And it's a horrible thread. It should be deleted and anyone that posted on it should be banned from TAO.

[kegsworth]

A nice attempt at a joke, but it's really not going to get you anywhere.

*Votes*

[Alaric]

I for one totally love this thread! Fricken awesome! Humm, what to chose, what to chose?

Howza bout.... GODLESS PIG!
YAAAAYYYYYY! LETS ALL DO THE HAPPY DANCE!

[Megabyte]

Do you subscribe to a religious doctrine? Are you a crazy Christian or a godless pig? Tell us and be sure to do so in style and in an offensive manner!

Isn't it amazing how we can accurately stereotype you from this post alone?

[uniquinous]

wow i didn't realize i neg for 5 red boxes now.... scary

[Cuathon]

edited

[AlabamaBoy]

You left out alot of religeious sects.

Like Baptists.

[uniquinous]

and scientology!

[AlabamaBoy]

and Frisbitarians

[gryph89]

hail Zion!

[uniquinous]

SURRENDER TO NOOBOLOGY Or Be Perished In The Eternal Flames Of HAXATION!!!

[shatterstar]

heyyy!! what about us jedi-ninja-pirate-bender-worshippers? :huh: we deserve a vote too.. :dry:

edit: bah, i neg only a 190.

[The Maxx]

A nice attempt at a joke, but it's really not going to get you anywhere.

*Votes*

....

Where am I trying to get to?

I thought it would be a fun little thread- I never expected a thread like this would be used by all the uppity bloated @ssholes on this forum to release some of the misery in their lives via forum bashing.

Sheesh. Do you guys do anything but act like angry pretentious artards?

[kegsworth]

....

Where am I trying to get to?

I thought it would be a fun little thread- I never expected a thread like this would be used by all the uppity bloated @ssholes on this forum to release some of the misery in their lives via forum bashing.

Sheesh. Do you guys do anything but act like angry pretentious artards?

You're an ass. See why, below.

Do you subscribe to a religious doctrine? Are you a crazy Christian or a godless pig? Tell us and be sure to do so in style and in an offensive manner!

we alrady have one of these - it's the christianity thread :dry:

And it's a horrible thread. It should be deleted and anyone that posted on it should be banned from TAO.

I guess these had little to do with that comment I made. You made your point, and that's all I was pointing out.

Stupid.

[savanna]

Do you subscribe to a religious doctrine? Are you a crazy Christian or a godless pig? Tell us and be sure to do so in style and in an offensive manner!

so if i dont believe in god im a godless pig?
i hope your penis shrivels up and falls off you sorry excuse for a person.

[Entourage]

Do you subscribe to a religious doctrine? Are you a crazy Christian or a godless pig? Tell us and be sure to do so in style and in an offensive manner!

*cough* Train track fresh meat.

[-57-]

Actually, I am part of a super secret religion.

It's called Dasuperawesomelycoolandsexypeopleonlyreligion

Basically we just worship me

:cool:

[Worker]

Do you subscribe to a religious doctrine? how much does a religious doctrine cost?

[Punishment]

Actually, I am part of a super secret religion.

It's called Dasuperawesomelycoolandsexypeopleonlyreligion

Basically we just worship me

:cool:

Truth.

/worship -57-

[Megabyte]

....

Where am I trying to get to?

I thought it would be a fun little thread- I never expected a thread like this would be used by all the uppity bloated @ssholes on this forum to release some of the misery in their lives via forum bashing.

Sheesh. Do you guys do anything but act like angry pretentious artards?

You thought it'd be fun, but nobody else was into it.

Obviously if nobody was into your thread we must all be pretentious artards for not bowing to your superior ideology and means of humor, right? Or is there some other impression you wanted us to take from your response?


It doesn't really work as an argument when people pretty much unanimously (and independently) didn't care for the concept within the intent you wanted.

[The Ultimater]

Let's all wortship 57. and his loyal assistant Ulti :happy:
you get chincken wings every morning if you join :rolleyes:

[KickAssPlaya]

I want dounuts! :mad:

~KAP

[Shamus]

I'm not an artard. :(

[The Ultimater]

calm dow, calm down. ok we can arrange that. we could get doughnuts every third day, chicken wings will have to be on every saturday though. so if it's doughnut day than we will have chicken wings day. also you can bring your own drink. the meeting place will be on a plane, I will get tickets for everybody. :p

[R G]

SURRENDER TO NOOBOLOGY Or Be Perished In The Eternal Flames Of HAXATION!!!

And I guess you would be the God of Noobology....:rolleyes: :p

[Wizzy`]

And I guess you would be the God of Noobology....:rolleyes: :p

That'd be me..

[Esko]

Yes..i am Pagan...fear me Paganessness...FEAR!! ;)

[-57-]

calm dow, calm down. ok we can arrange that. we could get doughnuts every third day, chicken wings will have to be on every saturday though. so if it's doughnut day than we will have chicken wings day. also you can bring your own drink. the meeting place will be on a plane, I will get tickets for everybody. :p

I want dounuts! :mad:

~KAP

You know what I'm feeling here?!?!

Announcer:Welcome to this weeks edition of making a comprimise, with your host -57-!
Crowd: /goes wild!
-57-: Chicken Wing Flavored Donuts!!!
Crowd: /goes wilder
TV set: /commercial

;)

[The Maxx]

shamus: lol

Obviously if nobody was into your thread we must all be pretentious artards for not bowing to your superior ideology and means of humor, right?

I wasn't pissed because people weren't 'into it,' I was pissed because a few of the you guys were using this thread to just be jerks (excuse my abscence of profanity- kids are on these forums, after all :p ). You can brush it off with disinterest and walk away, but there's no reason to stick around and say "this is stupid."

how much does a religious doctrine cost?
I'm so tempted to make a joke here.

so if i dont believe in god im a godless pig?
i hope your penis shrivels up and falls off you sorry excuse for a person.
Uh... I was joking? Note the use of stereotypical insults against Atheists _and_ Christians.

You're an ass. See why, below.
I'm not an ass- I'm just slow. Cut me some slac.

I think you may have mixed something up, though-

I wasn't targetting the comment at you, I just posted under my response to what you were saying.

I can see how that was a bad move of mine :(

[Ächilles]

Wow, cool it. You guys are being ridiculous. The kid tried to start an interesting topic and all you can do is jump on the bandwagon and bash him. He didn't do anything wrong. Most of you have nothing good to post anywhere, at least this kid's trying. Give him a break. You can't reprimand his so called "useless posts" with more uselessness.

I practice Tibetan Buddhims, Maxx. I have been for a few months now. I was born into a traditional Roman Catholic family, but it didn't work for me.

[meat.eater]

Neat thread.


I'm so tempted to make a joke here.

The only one I can think of is for Jews: "Depends on how many coupons you have."

[mushroom_girl]

Wow, for once me and Dirka agree on something!

I'm Agnostic.

I'm not sure what's the truth and what's just propaganda. I do believe that all religions have good, quality points to them and lessons we can learn, however a lot of religions believe in making people believe through fear. I won't let fear rule me.

Until I can truely know all the facts about religions, I'd like to keep an open mind and question everything. :)

[iceman2001]

Wow, cool it. You guys are being ridiculous. The kid tried to start an interesting topic and all you can do is jump on the bandwagon and bash him. He didn't do anything wrong. Most of you have nothing good to post anywhere, at least this kid's trying. Give him a break. You can't reprimand his so called "useless posts" with more uselessness.


Amen. Why did everyone go crazy over this post? His comment about being a "crazy Christian" or a "godless pig" was clearly in jest, as he identified this as a thread to be as offensive as possible. And cmon, mega, artard? An artard?? Do me a favor. Get to the nearest bathroom at look at yourself in the mirror. Then very slowly and deliberately, say "Artard" until you figure out exactly why you need to go outside more often. And also watch the WoW southpark.

Edit: Previously religious christian, more specifically Methodist. Lost faith at age of 17 (now 21), and would consider himself atheist. Still definately searching though.

[dirka dirka]

Wow, for once me and Dirka agree on something!

I'm Agnostic.

I'm not sure what's the truth and what's just propaganda. I do believe that all religions have good, quality points to them and lessons we can learn, however a lot of religions believe in making people believe through fear. I won't let fear rule me.

Until I can truely know all the facts about religions, I'd like to keep an open mind and question everything. :)
It is truly the only "religious" faith I can find logic in, although it isn't truly religious, I don't know the term for it. The truth is that man will always play God and that man will always want power. Combine the two and you've got 99.9% of the religion in the world if not 100%. The fact is that to your face you're lied to more than you believe. How hard is it for someone to lie through words that were printed 2,000 years ago? They say not to trust everything you read online, well those books from 2,000 years ago are just in the same.

[danoodle]

It is truly the only "religious" faith I can find logic in, although it isn't truly religious, I don't know the term for it. The truth is that man will always play God and that man will always want power. Combine the two and you've got 99.9% of the religion in the world if not 100%. The fact is that to your face you're lied to more than you believe. How hard is it for someone to lie through words that were printed 2,000 years ago? They say not to trust everything you read online, well those books from 2,000 years ago are just in the same.

So do you believe that all the events in the lifetime of a man named "Jesus" were either fabricated or didn't happen? Just wondering...

[Northwind]

My thing about The Maxx is that he doesn't even get it when people joke about his jokes.

Worker's comment: a joke based on the description of "subscribing" to a religious doctrine.

Savanna's comment: a joke based on his comment to "post in an offensive manner."

C'Mon Maxx - if you're gonna come on here and make threads with jokes, you gotta be able to keep up.

And us crazy hippie UUs may creep you out (not half as bad as I creep out my neighbors), but putting them in a different category means you don't get it. UUs can be Christian, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, pagan, etc. Personally, I'm an agnostic UU and I teach Sunday School while one of the other teachers is an atheist. UU is about finding your own spiritual path and trying to be one of your better selves. Creepy, huh?

You're new to these forums, so I'll cut you some slack. If you're gonna stick around, however, you got to step up your game.

Welcome. :)

[dirka dirka]

So do you believe that all the events in the lifetime of a man named "Jesus" were either fabricated or didn't happen? Just wondering...

Look up the definition of agnostic. I just don't know. It might have happened. It also could've been an entire town tripping on acid that was teleported from the year 5,069 to them by a group of teens who were trying to quit. Then again, as has been pointed out now days, it could've been illusions. It also could've been aliens. Maybe its a huge conspiracy created by the church and this jesus was just another guy with no magic and no aliens and no acid.

[Match Strike]

Hm, I wonder which older forum member "The Maxx" is?

:rolleyes:

[Daemon Bloodmaw]

My Dad is convinced that the bible was the result of a couple of stoned ancient college kids trying to write their thesis paper for lit class. :p

So anyways, here's where I'm at.

Higher power? Sure, I'll buy that. No problems there.

Supernatural beings, angels, demons (in the sense of good & evil), ghosts (100% positive there, you could never sway me otherwise), karma, reincarnation: sure.

My family's approach is that each religion has the same basic ideas, be a good person, be forgiving, don't be a jealous prick, don't murder everybody in your path, etc. This way, we avoid extremism and life is good. I believe that religion itself is just a tool of man, used to explain things we don't yet understand & control people. All things in moderation.

I read a little into Buddhism but eh, I do enjoy my earthly possessions and desires. As far as tranquility goes and peace of mind, all for it. As far as giving up all of my desires... :dry:

[Realist]

My family's approach is that each religion has the same basic ideas, be a good person, be forgiving, don't be a jealous prick, don't murder everybody in your path, etc.

Pretty much no religion has those ideas. :) Sad!

[The Maxx]

Worker's comment: a joke based on the description of "subscribing" to a religious doctrine.
...
And us crazy hippie UUs may creep you out (not half as bad as I creep out my neighbors), but putting them in a different category means you don't get it.

I got Worker's comment- I don't know what I said to suggest otherwise P:

As for the UU thing- I wanted to put in the option for people to vote for more than one option just for that reason but I was afraid people would just vote for everything and I figured you guys would be ok with it since UU is a recognized religion. I'm not clueless about it- in fact, I used to regularly attend the UU church in my town (my girl friend is a UU and the church is on my old high school campus).

But thanks for cutting me slack anywho : )

Hm, I wonder which older forum member "The Maxx" is?
I think my old forum account was much too obscure for anyone to remember...
But it would be interesting if someone did. May I ask what forum member you're thinking of?

[abyaly]

In general, I have managed to avoid latching on to a religion. I'm equally comfortable arguing for or against a given religion. If I had to classify myself, though, I would say Agnostic. By far, that is the easiest stance to take since it has the smallest number of assumptions. On the other hand, agnosticism is probably the least fun :)

[Megabyte]

Wow, cool it. You guys are being ridiculous. The kid tried to start an interesting topic and all you can do is jump on the bandwagon and bash him. He didn't do anything wrong. Most of you have nothing good to post anywhere, at least this kid's trying. Give him a break. You can't reprimand his so called "useless posts" with more uselessness.


that hurts deep inside

[The Maxx]

In general, I have managed to avoid latching on to a religion.

Yeah right "member of the First Holy Church of Saint Cheat."

[Snork]

Yeah right "member of the First Holy Church of Saint Cheat."

That religion is greater than you could ever hope to imagine.

[DOCTOR DEVICE]

I'm Jewish, but I do not believe in the Bible.

You might be weirded out, but to me, Judaism is more of a community/culture than a faith. I like the ideas, the holidays, the moral values, but some of the stuff in the bible is flimsier than WaCk's self-coinfidence.

Notice, I didn't say I did not believe in God. On that issue, I'm an agnostic.

So, er.. I guess ima jewgnostic?

[Ächilles]

I'd like to keep an open mind and question everything. :)

Even the validity of how incredible that night in Tahiti was last June, babe?

[Blood And Gore]

Wierd. 0.o

[DOCTOR DEVICE]

Even the validity of how incredible that night in Tahiti was last June, babe?

http://images.worldofstock.com/slides/PMO1680.jpg

Did I mention that you being lesbian makes you so much hotter? ;)

[The Maxx]

You might be weirded out, but to me, Judaism is more of a community/culture than a faith.

I'd like to think the same of most organized religions. I think the community is a much more important aspect of any church/temple/etc. than the specific religious protocols.

[Forest_Archer]

Atheist. Represent!

[stryker]

The question on the poll is "What's your style?" The answer to that question isn't any of those for me. My style is lots of exaggerated hand gestures and a sub par sense of humor mixed with poser. Let's face it, i'm never gonna do an ollie on my $14.99 Toys 'R' Us board.

[abyaly]

Yeah right "member of the First Holy Church of Saint Cheat."
If you had actually quoted my signature, what would the quote have contained?

[mushroom_girl]

Even the validity of how incredible that night in Tahiti was last June, babe?
No need to question that. If lust is a sin, send us to hell! ;)

Just for the record, I find Atheists to be on the same page as religious people. So determined in the fact that they're right and there is no other answer....

[The Maxx]

No need to question that. If lust is a sin, send us to hell! ;)

Just for the record, I find Atheists to be on the same page as religious people. So determined in the fact that they're right and there is no other answer....

I think you can believe in something (or, if you're an atheist, nothing) yet not have complete faith in it. Although personally I'm not so sure how i could 'believe in nothing' with any amount of faith.

[dirka dirka]

I think you can believe in something (or, if you're an atheist, nothing) yet not have complete faith in it. Although personally I'm not so sure how i could 'believe in nothing' with any amount of faith.

Faith kills people. Ideas will set them free.

[smexy]

Im a Catholic but i don't go to church or anything :p

[Cuathon]

edited

[abyaly]

Just for the record, I find Atheists to be on the same page as religious people. So determined in the fact that they're right and there is no other answer....
Atheism takes the same degree of faith as believing in a religion. That's what makes it a religion.

[The Maxx]

Faith kills people. Ideas will set them free.

I can't seem to find it online, but I believe the quote is 'idealogy will kill a man- ideas set him free.'

Although it's sort of a silly quote since an idealogy is just a matrix of ideas :jester:

[dirka dirka]

im agnstic but i lean way towards atheism. thus i voted atheist on the poll.

You arn't agnostic if you lean toward one side. Agnostics accept that any fact presented to them might not be all that fact and in the end there is no way to lean toward one side.

Im a Catholic but i don't go to church or anything :p

You're a retard.

I can't seem to find it online, but I believe the quote is 'idealogy will kill a man- ideas set him free.'

Although it's sort of a silly quote since an idealogy is just a matrix of ideas :jester:

I didn't say idealogy, it isn't a quote, and therefore it isn't silly. If anything, that belief comes from Dogma, the movie, and the concept therein.

[Cuathon]

edited

[dirka dirka]

so what am i then?

abyaly, atheism does not require faith. atheism is a label not a belief system. it means you dont believe in a higher power. this requires no faith. it would require faith if there was ANY SOLID evidence of a higher power. and there isnt.

If you lean toward one side, you're that side. It does require faith to believe there is no higher power. There is no evidence of either side, that there is or that there is not.

[Cuathon]

edited

[abyaly]

it would require faith if there was ANY SOLID evidence [...]
Lack of evidence + belief = faith
If you are an Atheist, you have belief. There is no evidence. This means you have faith.
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>

[dirka dirka]

it doesnt really require faith. it requires logic. i believe in anything that can be proven to be true. anything where there is solid evidence.

Yet you claim you lean toward there being no God? There is no evidence for that. There is no proof. That is FAITH.

[Snork]

abyaly, atheism does not require faith. atheism is a label not a belief system. it means you dont believe in a higher power. this requires no faith. it would require faith if there was ANY SOLID evidence of a higher power. and there isnt.

Wrong.

[Sodamoeba]

Lol I'm an atheist and a libertarian. I think that's quite a resume at age 16. >< Heh I love this conversation. There's no proof that something doesn't exist? Think about that one...

[dirka dirka]

Lol I'm an atheist and a libertarian. I think that's quite a resume at age 16. >< Heh I love this conversation. There's no proof that something doesn't exist? Think about that one...

You're an atheist and a libertarian? There is a name for that. It's called Godless Freak. "America stands for Freedom. But if you think you’re free, try walking into a deli and urinating on the cheese." There is no such thing as complete freedom that doesn't violate others freedoms.

There is no proof that God doesn't exist and no proof that God does exist. That is why the Agnostic view is the only correct view. Accepting that you can not know is the only true thing to do.

[Cuathon]

edited

[dirka dirka]

it does not require faith. nothing is true until there is evidence. there is no real evidence for religion, until i see some i will not believe in it. now that might not be atheism. and i dont think its agnostic. but either way, labels only cause confusion for the most part. above is the basis of my philosophy.

You said that nothing is true until there is evidence. So tell me, there is no evidence that God does not exist. So since there is no evidence, that means that it is likely God exists? You need to realize that your argument applies both ways. In supports there being a God and there not being a God. It is faith. You don't have a philosophy, you are just confused.

[Cuathon]

edited

[Snork]

i am not confused. nothing exists until there is evidence. sorry that i confused you. i require proof that things are real, not the other way around. this may be a bad outlook, but i am not confused in any way.

Cuathon, you are wrong.

What you have is a belief system.
You labelled it wrong, which makes all your facts wrong.

Do a little research and then come back.

[dirka dirka]

i am not confused. nothing exists until there is evidence. sorry that i confused you. i require proof that things are real, not the other way around. this may be a bad outlook, but i am not confused in any way.

No, you're confused. Nothing exists until there is evidence, and likewise nothing doesn't exist until there is evidence that it doesn't. You can't prove either way. Something not existing is just as real as something existing.

[Cuathon]

edited

[Northwind]

I'm interested in the idea that our brains are apparently hard-wired to seek the answer to these questions. The earliest civilizations had there own concept of "God" or supernatural beings, etc.

It may just be the outgrowth of self-conciousness to ask "how did we get here?" and "what is the purpose of my existance" but it is interesting to me that ALL of us seem to struggle with this question.

[mushroom_girl]

As far as I care, my purpose here is to contribute something to the world, help those around me, and bring in new life. It's not like someone is up in heaven guiding my every action. That's just creepy.

I don't need to know every little detail of how we got to be where we are. It'd be nice to know, but I'm not going to stress myself out over it like some people seem to do. :)

[dirka dirka]

It may just be the outgrowth of self-conciousness to ask "how did we get here?" and "what is the purpose of my existance" but it is interesting to me that ALL of us seem to struggle with this question.

Maybe it's the struggle that motivates us? We can answer alot of things. We can cure alot of things. We are advancing in ways that would be crazy to think about 10 years ago. Yet.. we'll still never, within reason, find these answers.

As far as I care, my purpose here is to contribute something to the world, help those around me, and bring in new life. It's not like someone is up in heaven guiding my every action. That's just creepy.

Breeder!

[Jeffery]

Breeder!

O_o

You hitting on shroomy now?

[Cuathon]

edited

[dirka dirka]

O_o

You hitting on shroomy now?

Always.

higher life forms are intelligent and ingenius. we are very successful in terms of evolution. the problem is no being is perfect. now, we know that no animal can beat us. only a natural disaster or some other higher life can do that. but also, with our capability comes a problem, like computers overheating. humans cant live just to breed like animals. we need or at least think we need a reason. animals can deal with a universe that doesnt care, becuase they arent conscious enough to worry about it. but we are. we think we need a purpose, becuase that means that we wont fall to some natural disaster. it means we wont die by random chance, it brings security. this is especially true of an afterlife. we can go on becuase, we wont die, and if we survive here and believe in our respectives gods, we have a future. sadly, i believe that we dont. or at least, i think i do.

we are still controlled by baser instincts though. otherwise many people, would kill themselves. fear of pain and our drive to live can still protect us from terrible circumstances, the same way they protects animals.

That was the worst post and information I've read since... ever. I can't find a single part of that post that is correct.

[Cuathon]

edited

[Snork]

we are still controlled by baser instincts though. otherwise many people, would kill themselves.

You've never heard of suicide?

Your whole arguement sucks.
Try again.

[Cuathon]

edited

[dirka dirka]

thats nice. but if you cant find a single correct part, then you are wrong. perhaps it all isnt right. its just an opinion anyway.
i might be more offended if it was anyone but you attacking my, well im not sure its my real opinion, but i guess you could call it, the position i am taking right now.

If it is just opinion, don't state it as fact. "Higher life forms are intelligent and ingenius." That's possibly the worst argument I've ever heard. Yeast is a higher life form compared to an Amoeba. I havn't read any thesis articles written by Yeast lately, have you? "We are very successful in terms of evolution." Obviously you don't know biology very well. We need cars, many animals can run at speeds faster than cars. We have many useless evolutionary traits. Many animals are better off compared to us. "Now, we know that no animal can beat us." WRONG! Dead wrong. "Only a natural disaster or some other higher life can do that." So you're an intelligent design / the end is near type person. Cool. You do know that generally that type of person is accepted as crazy, right? "Humans cant live just to breed like animals. We need or at least think we need a reason." We can't live to breed? We sure can. We don't need to think we have a reason. We want to think we have a reason. "Animals can deal with a universe that doesn't care, becuase they aren't conscious enough to worry about it." That is so awesome that you can read animal's mind. Do me a favor though and watch the first 10 minutes of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It points out that you don't know what you assume you do. "It means we wont die by random chance." Really?! Even major religion points out we will die by random chance. Noah's Arc?

im sorry i forgot the more snork. i admit to not being perfect. and aside from saying i dont know what suicide is, you provided no information except saying my arguement sucked. pot calling the kettle black? dont become dirka, at least have one intelligent detail to bakc your opinion.
I think you're drunk. You can't type for shit. Your argument sucks. You're like a kid trying to make sense of a pet dying.

[Snork]

Your arguement sucks so bad.

Both Dirka and I are against you.
But despite how much we like to debate, you don't provide anything that's coherant enough to bother replying to.
That's really bad.
Put your words together better, then we'll prove to you how they're wrong.

[Cuathon]

edited

[dirka dirka]

1. you know what i meant by higher life. would you rather i said humans?
What sets humans aside? Don't speculate, give me facts. I don't want to hear anything like opposable thumbs either. Give me something cognitive that isn't speculative.

2. we dont need cars. although we need tools. we are successful becuase we can and did develope tools.
Our society is setup to depend upon things such as cars, trains, tools, computers, and other technology. Animals have a society that doesn't depend upon these type of things. Our society crashes without these things. Animals have it better off because they are not dependant. It's like drug abuse.

3. yes we do. no animal could compete with us and win directly. we would lose becuase we killed ourselves or some thing of that kind.
Really?! You're saying you can stand up to a lion? How about an elephant? You against it, nothing else.

4. i am not intelligent design. i meant, if there was an alien culture superior to us technologically.
You claim you arn't a supporter of intelligent design? As I said, technology isn't part of the issue. It is all cognitive.

5. Some people cant live without a "reason," some of those suicides snork mentioned are due to that.
How do you know that Animals don't feel and do the same? I am not claiming they do, but how do you know they don't? Some people can't live without religion. Some people can't live without their iPod or their computer. I'm sure there are many stupid reasons to kill yourself. What is your point?

6. blah, blah, blah. unless you claim that animals have religion or are smarted than we know, thats why i think (happy? i admit it isnt known for sure) they dont debate this.
You don't know they don't have religion. You don't know they don't debate this. So BLAH BLAH BLAH A DUR (if you do that again, you'll be ignored, asshole). Don't speculate on what you don't know.

7. again, i think i misspoke (typed.) you know about afterlifes right? perhaps i should have said, cease to exist rather than die. although in my beliefs they are the same thing.
That doesn't change anything. Religion, science, even crazy people accept that we can't control natural disasters. We are in line for fate.

snork, if you cant undertand what i said, how you can you be agaisnt it?
dirka got it right. he put up the things he disagreed with, you just said it sucked. even kyir ca do that. :)
sadly, dirka has reacted more intelligently in this instance than you have.
It is hard to respond to you when you type like shit and act drunk. This is what he is saying.

[Snork]

snork, if you cant undertand what i said, how you can you be agaisnt it?
dirka got it right. he put up the things he disagreed with, you just said it sucked. even kyir ca do that. :)
sadly, dirka has reacted more intelligently in this instance than you have.

I understand what you were trying to say.
But it was garbage, not worth replying to.
Your facts were wrong, and all presented badly anyway.

Why post to prove you wrong when you did it for me?

You negged me.
You're really crying over this, aren't you? :)

[Cuathon]

edited

[dirka dirka]

im typed out a response but it got deleted. sorry. i guess you win, cuase i already had to retype the response you just quoted and im not up to doing it again.

snork, you must think negs are a big deal. rep is so worthless and inflated, and i just didnt wanna waste a post on it you obviosuly didnt undertand what i meant anyway, as i ahd to clear it with dirka so much. you might still disgaree, but you didnt get it, becuase obviosuly i presented it wrong.

Your entire idea is wrong. It's a good thing that you didn't respond, because my next responce would've went something like this: You can barely type. You have almost no grasp on the english language. You have no grasp on logic. Obviously I'm not the only one with this opinion. It isn't that I even have to disagree. As snork said, your ideas are so arcane and plain stupid that it isn't worth it to respond.

[Snork]

im typed out a response but it got deleted. sorry. i guess you win, cuase i already had to retype the response you just quoted and im not up to doing it again.

snork, you must think negs are a big deal. rep is so worthless and inflated, and i just didnt wanna waste a post on it you obviosuly didnt undertand what i meant anyway, as i ahd to clear it with dirka so much. you might still disgaree, but you didnt get it, becuase obviosuly i presented it wrong.

When information is lost, nobody wins. :(

I don't care about rep.
I don't revenge rep. :)
And I try not to neg, I save my negs for people as rude as me.

Yes, you wouldn't want to waste a post.
That's good thinking.
Because nobody on here has ever made a useless post that just took up space. :D

[Snork]

Your entire idea is wrong. It's a good thing that you didn't respond, because my next responce would've went something like this: You can barely type. You have almost no grasp on the english language. You have no grasp on logic. Obviously I'm not the only one with this opinion. It isn't that I even have to disagree. As snork said, your ideas are so arcane and plain stupid that it isn't worth it to respond.

Come on Cuathon, when both Dirka and I don't feel like ripping your post apart, you know there can't be a lot there. :)

Do a bit of research on what you're talking about, including exactly what Atheists and Agnostics are.
Then come back.

[The Maxx]

I'm interested in the idea that our brains are apparently hard-wired to seek the answer to these questions. The earliest civilizations had there own concept of "God" or supernatural beings, etc.

It may just be the outgrowth of self-conciousness to ask "how did we get here?" and "what is the purpose of my existance" but it is interesting to me that ALL of us seem to struggle with this question.

I think it the interest stems from out capacity for logic. The concept that there's 'something else' seems like a logical conclusion. Our current understanding of reality is, after all, incomplete.


To Dirka Dirka and Snork:
Anymore of this narrated masturbation and I'm going to feel sick. I disagreed with a lot of what Cuathon said, but at least he had the guts to put his ideas out on the line and try to defend them without degenerating into a rude overblown pompous ass.

It's so easy to add one-line comments like 'you're wrong;' 'stupid;' and 'you're such a retard.' Put some effort into what you're doing if you're going to criticize. If not, take a backseat- we're not dying to hear your musings.

And if you're going to make the typical douchebag move of attacking someone for their 'grasp on the english language,' make sure you've spelled everything correctly, used proped sentence structure, and applied caps where necessary.

[Malefic]

Maxx, you are a fucking dumbass retard, and your stomach should be ripped out, and you should be hung by that tape worm that keeps giving you anal. Go to hell.

[Realist]

Come on Snork, don't join up with Dirka. Cuoth's last string of posts are actually fairly intelligent and correct and it is well known that Dirka intentionally makes stupid arguments for purposes of obnoxiousness; he's not nearly stupid enough to seriously make the ones he's making now.

On the term atheist: The "a" prefix means "without" in greek; atheism means without theism; an atheist is anyone who isn't a theist. Atheism is therefore not really an affirmative belief, definitely not a faith, absolutely not a religion. Anyone who does not believe in god is an atheist.

[dirka dirka]

To Dirka Dirka and Snork:
Anymore of this narrated masturbation and I'm going to feel sick. I disagreed with a lot of what Cuathon said, but at least he had the guts to put his ideas out on the line and try to defend them without degenerating into a rude overblown pompous ass.
I'm sorry, but what he did isn't what you claim. He put ideas he thought were accepted poorly into words, very poorly, and thought he would just be accepted.

It's so easy to add one-line comments like 'you're wrong;' 'stupid;' and 'you're such a retard.' Put some effort into what you're doing if you're going to criticize. If not, take a backseat- we're not dying to hear your musings.
What do you call what I did? Go back and read. I point by point, line by line, showed where he was wrong. In the end he simply claimed he "lost" the post and didn't want to type again. Who is the one putting no effort in? Not me. Actually read before you post. Who is we're?

And if you're going to make the typical douchebag move of attacking someone for their 'grasp on the english language,' make sure you've spelled everything correctly, used proped sentence structure, and applied caps where necessary.
Point out somewhere where I made some HUGE grammar error. I've grasped the english language to which is appropriate for these forums. I'm not saying you can't be relaxed. You just can't type like this: "yuo jus cant typep liek thIS?." You just started a sentence with the word "and." You've no room to talk.

Come on Snork, don't join up with Dirka. Cuoth's last string of posts are actually fairly intelligent and correct and it is well known that Dirka intentionally makes stupid arguments for purposes of obnoxiousness; he's not nearly stupid enough to seriously make the ones he's making now.

On the term atheist: The "a" prefix means "without" in greek; atheism means without theism; an atheist is anyone who isn't a theist. Atheism is therefore not really an affirmative belief, definitely not a faith, absolutely not a religion. Anyone who does not believe in god is an atheist.
Good thing we arn't talking about where a word comes from. We're talking about what it means. If you think what he posted was intelligent, you've just enforced you're stupidity that was clearly pointed out in the past weeks. I'm not making stupid arguments. I'm pointing out the stupidity of the arguments. You clearly only read over my posts briefly, as I clearly stated what was and was not my belief and what was and was not there to show stupidity.

[Snork]

Well Maxxie Boy, there's a problem with your theory.

His ideas were wrong and ridiculous, and as poorly presented as possible.
If he doesn't want to be critisized, he should put thought into his ideas.

He didn't degenerate into rudeness?
Are you ignorant, or just sleeping with him?

Speaking of being a pompous ass, let's look at every post you've ever made.
You seem to personify being an arrogant jackass.

I don't care what you're dying to hear, althought if you want to die, feel free.
Your post adds nothing, so you're not one to talk.
We didn't need to say more, we said exactly what the situation dictated.

Read a little more closely retard.
It's not just his grasp on the english language.
It was incoherant garbage.
But given the intelligence you have shown, it's no surprise you follow everything he said.

Respond if you want, but I don't care what you think.

[The Maxx]

On the term atheist: The "a" prefix means "without" in greek; atheism means without theism; an atheist is anyone who isn't a theist. Atheism is therefore not really an affirmative belief, definitely not a faith, absolutely not a religion. Anyone who does not believe in god is an atheist.

Though that's true, the term 'nontheist' is more often used to describe someone without such a belief. The term 'atheist,' as I've seen it used, is more often used to describe someone who deliberately rejects theism (and actively believes there is/are no god/gods).

[dirka dirka]

Though that's true, the term 'nontheist' is more often used to describe someone without such a belief. The term 'atheist,' as I've seen it used, is more often used to describe someone who deliberately rejects theism (and actively believes there is/are no god/gods).

Realist loves to argue semantics, regardless of if he is right or wrong. He is obviously wrong in that. Granted, even you who are on the same side as him agree that he is wrong, in that I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[Snork]

Come on Snork, don't join up with Dirka. Cuoth's last string of posts are actually fairly intelligent and correct and it is well known that Dirka intentionally makes stupid arguments for purposes of obnoxiousness; he's not nearly stupid enough to seriously make the ones he's making now.


They weren't intelligent and correct.
He mangled his arguement, and all his facts are wrong.

Well, Dirka seems much more cool lately. :)
Not sure why.

[The Maxx]

In the end he simply claimed he "lost" the post and didn't want to type again. Who is the one putting no effort in?
Considering the manner in which you spoke to him, I'm surprised he put in any effort at all to attempt a conversation.

Point out somewhere where I made some HUGE grammar error.
Actually, there's one in that line sentence. 'Grammatical' was the word you were going for. There's one in the next sentence, too.

I've grasped the English language

Of course, I'm not saying you shouldn't relax and just format as you wish. But then again, you did just attack someone for their grammar, and I'm not convinced what they wrote is so far detatched from 'coherent' (or, at least, the coherency of your own posts).
What I'm trying to say is: cut him a goddamned brake. There's no need to attack him on every subject possible.

And, by the way, you _can_ start a sentence with 'and' (or any other conjunction) : http://www.gpuss.co.uk/english_usage/start_sentence_conjunction.htm


Respond if you want, but I don't care what you think.
I know that. Someone as self-absorbed as you couldn't possibly give a damn. But I do enjoy the monologue.

[dirka dirka]

Considering the manner in which you spoke to him, I'm surprised he put in any effort at all to attempt a conversation.
Okay. I honestly don't care. Don't say I'm the one not putting effort in when I'm obviously not the one and he obviously is. Thanks.

Actually, there's one in that line sentence. 'Grammatical' was the word you were going for. There's one in the next sentence, too.
No. It certainly was not the word I was looking for. A grammatical error would indicate it is one thing. I am talking about huge grammar errors. If you look at his posts, you will find huge grammar errors. There is a difference.

Of course, I'm not saying you shouldn't relax and just format as you wish. But then again, you did just attack someone for their grammar, and I'm not convinced what they wrote is so far detatched from 'coherent' (or, at least, the coherency of your own posts).
What I'm trying to say is: cut him a goddamned brake. There's no need to attack him on every subject possible.
My computer told me to capitalize english. It isn't like I can't go through and fix everything. You can understand what I say and that is what matters. I can point out many instances which his grammar was so far off I could've make heads or tails.

And, by the way, you _can_ start a sentence with 'and' (or any other conjunction) : http://www.gpuss.co.uk/english_usage/start_sentence_conjunction.htm
Not in proper english. Your own link points this out. It is not proper to do so. I can start a sentence with "wkdjasjsm!!" You don't see me doing it.

[The Maxx]

No. It certainly was not the word I was looking for. A grammatical error would indicate it is one thing. I am talking about huge grammar errors. If you look at his posts, you will find huge grammar errors. There is a difference.
Grammar is a noun. You want an adjective before 'errors.'

My computer told me to capitalize english.
Actually, _I_ am telling you to capitalize 'english.' You didn't.

Not in proper english. Your own link points this out. It is not proper to do so.
Actually, the site I linked states, "Just try not to end a sentence with one ..."

[dirka dirka]

Grammar is a noun. You want an adjective before 'errors.'
I didn't want to describe the error, actually. I wanted to point out the type, using a name, a noun.

Actually, _I_ am telling you to capitalize 'english.' You didn't.
I still didn't. It isn't needed to understand what I am saying.

Actually, the site I linked states, "Just try not to end a sentence with one ..."

"You must not start a sentence with a conjunction" has been the mantra of many an exasperated English teacher, especially since the oiks started getting state education. Any pupil brave, daft or naive enough to raise a hand and ask "Why?" would probably have received some Kafkaesque explanation along the lines of "Because it is said."

Directly from the site, it is not proper. I'm not concerned with overthrowing laws.

[Realist]

They weren't intelligent and correct.
He mangled his arguement, and all his facts are wrong.

Your only "argument" against him seems to be that suicide shows that people are not controlled by their basic instincts. Which is far stupider than Cuoth's original point. Just because some people overcome their death-aversion instinct doesn't mean that our instincts as a whole don't still control us. Indeed, considering how many suicides are tried but fail, I think it's clear that death-aversion is a very strong human instinct and Cuoth's argument was pretty good. Maybe not great, but better than anything you've offered so far, which was just a string of substanceless attacks.

Dirka is a bad influence. Try to stay away from him if you can.

[dirka dirka]

Your only "argument" against him seems to be that suicide shows that people are not controlled by their basic instincts. Which is far stupider than Cuoth's original point. Just because some people overcome their death-aversion instinct doesn't mean that our instincts as a whole don't still control us. Indeed, considering how many suicides are tried but fail, I think it's clear that death-aversion is a very strong human instinct and Cuoth's argument was pretty good. Maybe not great, but better than anything you've offered so far, which was just a string of substanceless attacks.
That's his argument, Realist. He is the one saying that suicide shows humans arn't controlled by animal instincts. As I said, go back and read. I just pointed out that suicide is a human thing because humans have the means to do it. You don't know that animals don't have the same feelings that would lead to this.

Dirka is a bad influence. Try to stay away from him if you can.
Realist, you don't even know what is going on. You are confused. Seriously, you're just a dolt riding me every time you get a chance even if it isn't a true chance. You ignore any valid statement made by anyone if I happen to agree. Do me a favor and get over it. It's pathetic.

[The Maxx]

Dirka...

:Sigh:

Just forget it. I don't have the patience Cuathon does. You have to be able to recognize, and admit, when you're wrong. Otherwise you end up digging yourself into a deeper hole where you have to convince others that nouns can be used in ways they've never been used before.

[dirka dirka]

Dirka...

:Sigh:

Just forget it. I don't have the patience Cuathon does. You have to be able to recognize, and admit, when you're wrong. Otherwise you end up digging yourself into a deeper hole where you have to convince others that nouns can be used to describe other nouns.

I've yet to see where I was wrong. I'm not claiming that I speak perfect english. I admit to making grammar errors. My sentences and paragraphs have structure is what I am saying. This is my only complaint about his posts. He has no grasp on any structure.

[meat.eater]

Wow. Who cares?

[The Maxx]

I've yet to see where I was wrong.
I guess that's sort of my point.

[dirka dirka]

I guess that's sort of my point.

So, as you said earlier, have the guts to make your point and not post things like "you're wrong." I admit I don't speak perfect english, that isn't what I was telling him to do. So point out where I have made huge grammar errors. PLEASE!!

Sleep, I'll post tomorrow.

[Snork]

Your only "argument" against him seems to be that suicide shows that people are not controlled by their basic instincts. Which is far stupider than Cuoth's original point. Just because some people overcome their death-aversion instinct doesn't mean that our instincts as a whole don't still control us. Indeed, considering how many suicides are tried but fail, I think it's clear that death-aversion is a very strong human instinct and Cuoth's argument was pretty good. Maybe not great, but better than anything you've offered so far, which was just a string of substanceless attacks.

Dirka is a bad influence. Try to stay away from him if you can.

Actually, I said his points are wrong, his facts are wrong.
That was what it was based on.
I didn't actually reply to anything because it was garbage, other than his incorrect suicide support.
What was substanceless was your post, which offered nothing except what you accused me of doing.

The suicide thing was just me pointing out that his statement was false, which it was.
People kill themselves all the time.
Some people just aren't very good at it.
Your little semantics don't play a part.
They tried, they failed.
Somebody jumps off a building, falls, and doesn't die.
There's no instinct to stay alive, just luck.
Or they shoot themselves, same thing.

But that doesn't mesh with your semantics, so you'll choose to ignore it.

You are a bad influence.
You offer little intelligence, only semantics, as Uniq points out all the time.

[The Maxx]

What are the semantics?

[falco88887]

Everyone with a registered name in the forums is a complete retard. except for xyx, meat and some others that do NOT include anyone who reads this message.
It's difficult for me to put into words the degree to which retardation engulfs all of you. It's like i want to help, but I know there is no way i can. I highly advise that all of you stop conforming, be a rebel... and break the trend of people failing at suicide, and embrace death, because anything less is just procrastination.

[Cuathon]

edited

[dirka dirka]

eh, im too lazy to qote all that.
my idea was poorly presented. totally unorganized. that i agree with. no sturcture at all.
Thank you.

dirka i didnt post things to get accepted. if i were like that, i wouldnt be an internet geek and i would do all the stupid things that are popular nowadays to get accepted in real life. i wouldnt be here on these forums if i cared about
acceptance that much. i posted my opinion in a badly strutured way.
What does being accepted have to do with anything? I'll tell you. It doesn't at all. It has more to do with if I can read what you posted or not.

snork, i know what atheism and agnosticism are.
if you look in your friendly home dictionary, an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, a god or gods. i am, therefore, atheist. maybe you should look the word up sometime.
Which is a belief, right? Realist tried saying it wasn't, cause he is an idiot. Lets clear this up, you said this before but lets just clearly state it now. It is a belief, is it not?

i admit to spazzing about agnosticism. i am not agnostic. but there are 2 definitions of agnostic. yours, believing that the ultimate reality is unknowable and a braoder one, someone who ahsnt decided whether they do or dont believe in a higher power.
That is wrong. Someone who hasn't decided if they want to believe in a higher power is not an agnostic.

[Cuathon]

edited

[abyaly]

On the term atheist: The "a" prefix means "without" in greek; atheism means without theism; an atheist is anyone who isn't a theist. Atheism is therefore not really an affirmative belief, definitely not a faith, absolutely not a religion. Anyone who does not believe in god is an atheist.

atheist
One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
atheism
One entry found for atheism.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
(1)"Lack of belief in statement P" and (2)"belief in not-P" are similar, so this is an easy error to make. If P is the statement "there is a God" and a person has (1) but does not have (2), they are classified as an Agnostic. If a person has (2), they are classified as an Atheist. If you decide to argue about definitions, please include sources affirming yours.

[The Maxx]

Which is a belief, right? Realist tried saying it wasn't, cause he is an idiot. Lets clear this up, you said this before but lets just clearly state it now. It is a belief, is it not?

Although abyaly is correct, Realist pointed out that the term 'atheist' can used to describe someone who only fits category 1 in abyaly's post ("others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities:" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). Thus, Atheism can be a belief (by being an active denial of a belief) or it can simply be a lack of a belief (as in the case of a young child who has not yet been introduced to the concept of god).

That is wrong. Someone who hasn't decided if they want to believe in a higher power is not an agnostic.
"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge:" en.wikipedia.org/Agnosticism.

[mushroom_girl]

It's like i want to help, but I know there is no way i can. I highly advise that all of you stop conforming, be a rebel... and break the trend of people failing at suicide, and embrace death, because anything less is just procrastination.
There's nothing wrong with procrastination. Some people work well under the last-minute pressure. ;)

i admit to spazzing about agnosticism. i am not agnostic. but there are 2 definitions of agnostic. yours, believing that the ultimate reality is unknowable and a braoder one, someone who ahsnt decided whether they do or dont believe in a higher power.
Why can't both be true?

I say that the ultimate reality is too broad to completely understand, but that there is as equal a chance of there being a God than not.

Also, evolution can be traced back for ages. But what started that first living organism? Maybe there's a God who created the first steps of the universe and let it go on it's own from there?

That's just something that I recently thought about. I mean, they can both co-exist. They really can.

[Realist]

(1)"Lack of belief in statement P" and (2)"belief in not-P" are similar, so this is an easy error to make. If P is the statement "there is a God" and a person has (1) but does not have (2), they are classified as an Agnostic. If a person has (2), they are classified as an Atheist. If you decide to argue about definitions, please include sources affirming yours.

Maxx provided a pretty good source; if atheist organizations themselves use my definition that's pretty good supporting evidence. Of course, words have whatever meaning they are used as, but the simplest, most basic, fundamental meaning of atheist should be just "not theist."

The dictionary is very often a bad place to search for definitions, weirdly enough. Still, if you go to dictionary.com some of the defitions offered fit mine.

[abyaly]

Positive definition: atheism as the belief that no deities exist

There are three major traditions in defining atheism and its subdivisions. The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe that no god or gods exist (strong atheism) and those who are simply not theists (weak atheism). George H. Smith, Michael Martin, and Antony Flew fall into this tradition, though they do not use the same terminology. The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism. Ernest Nagel, Paul Edwards and Kai Nielsen are prominent members of this camp.

A third tradition, seldom used by atheists, understands atheism even more narrowly than that. Here, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the positive belief that there are no deities. Under this definition, all weak atheism, whether implicit or explicit, may be considered non-atheistic. However, this usage is not exclusive to theists; atheistic philosopher Theodore Drange uses this definition.[26]

The definition of atheism as a "belief" or "doctrine" reflects a view of atheism as a specific ideological stance, as opposed to the rejection or simple absence of a belief.[27]

In philosophical and atheist circles, however, this definition is often disputed and even rejected. The broader, negative has become increasingly popular in recent decades, with many specialized textbooks dealing with atheism favoring it.[28] One prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition of atheism, however, is Ernest Nagel, who considers atheism to be the rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labeled as explicit atheism, or anti-theism): "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist—for he is not denying any theistic claims."[29]

Some atheists argue for a positive definition of atheism on the grounds that defining atheism negatively, as "the negation of theistic belief", makes it "parasitic on religion" and not an ideology in its own right. While most atheists welcome having atheism cast as non-ideological, in order to avoid potentially framing their view as one requiring "faith", writers such as Julian Baggini prefers to analyze atheism as part of a general philosophical movement towards naturalism in order to emphasize the explanatory power of a non-supernatural worldview.[30] Baggini rejects the negative definition based on his view that it implies that atheism is dependent on theism for its existence: "atheism no more needs religion than atheists do".[31] Harbour,[32] Thrower,[33] and Nielsen, similarly, have used philosophical naturalism to make a positive argument for atheism. Michael Martin notes that the view that "naturalism is compatible with nonatheism is true only if 'god' is understood in a most peculiar and misleading way", but he also points out that "atheism does not entail naturalism".[34]

[edit] Negative definition: atheism as the absence of belief in deities

Further information: Nontheism, Implicit and explicit atheism, Weak and strong atheism

A chart showing the relationship between weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Strong atheism is always explicit, and implicit atheism is always weak.
A chart showing the relationship between weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Strong atheism is always explicit, and implicit atheism is always weak.

Among modern atheists, the view that atheism simply means "without theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency.[35] This very broad definition is often justified by reference to the etymology (cf. privative a),[11][36] as well as to the consistent usage of the word by atheists.[37] However, others have dismissed the former justification as an etymological fallacy and the latter on the grounds that majority usage outweighs minority usage.[38]

Although this definition of atheism is frequently disputed, it is not a recent invention; as far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God".[39] More recently, George H. Smith (1979) put forth a similar view:

"The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child without the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[40]

Smith coined the terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism to avoid confusing these two varieties of atheism. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while explicit atheism—the form commonly held to be the only true form of atheism—is an absence of theistic belief due to conscious rejection.

Many similar dichotomies have since sprung up to subcategorize the broader definition of atheism. Strong, or positive, atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. It is a form of explicit atheism. A strong atheist consciously rejects theism, and may even argue that certain deities logically cannot exist; strong atheists rarely claim to have certain knowledge of the nonexistence of deities or the supernatural, although gnostic atheists such as Paul Keller do exist. Gnostic atheism is the position that it is known by facts and reason alone that there is no god and no supernatural. Weak, or negative, atheism is either the absence of the belief that gods exist (in which case anyone who is not a theist is a weak atheist), or of both the belief that gods exist and the belief that they do not exist (in which case anyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist is a weak atheist).[13][41] While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have existed for some time. The terms negative atheism and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[42] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[43]

Contrary to the common view of theological agnosticism—the denial of knowledge or certainty of the existence of deities—as a "midway point" between theism and atheism, under this understanding of atheism, many agnostics may qualify as weak atheists (cf. agnostic atheism). However, others may be agnostic theists. Many agnostics and/or weak atheists are critical of strong atheism, seeing it as a position that is no more justified than theism, or as one that requires equal "faith".[44][45]The article contains good stuff. You should read it. It seems a bunch of debate between self-important people has turned Atheist into an ambiguous word. What a bummer. In my daily use I'm still sticking to my cited definition, though. The newer definition includes many agnostics as weak atheists, which is annoying.

[Realist]

The newer definition includes many agnostics as weak atheists, which is annoying.

How is it a "newer" definition when it only takes the literal meaning from Greek? The meaning probably predates English.

What annoys me is the specification of the entire concept of "agnostic" to the god question, where it is redundant. Because agnosticism, of course, means without knowledge, whether that knowledge relates to god or anything else.

[dirka dirka]

someone said i posted things to get accepted. im pretty sure it was you. i could be wrong

You're dead wrong.

its a belief, but some retard called it a faith
or religion. which it is not.
It is a faith and is by definition a religion.

i sorry?? Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition: broadly : one who is not commited to believing in either the existence of god or a god.
Don't misquote the dictionary. Quote the entire definition, which is: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." That means that if they havn't decided, this isn't them! This is only a person who has decided that they can't know if there is a God or not. Existence or nonexistence is unknowable. It isn't someone who hasn't decided yet.

Although abyaly is correct, Realist pointed out that the term 'atheist' can used to describe someone who only fits category 1 in abyaly's post ("others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities:" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). Thus, Atheism can be a belief (by being an active denial of a belief) or it can simply be a lack of a belief (as in the case of a young child who has not yet been introduced to the concept of god).
It can't mean a lack of the belief. It means, without looking at the origin of the word, a person who believes there is no God.

"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge:" en.wikipedia.org/Agnosticism.
Right, you proved me correct. It isn't someone who hasn't decided if they want to believe in God or not. It is someone who thinks that knowing if God exists or not is impossible.

The dictionary is very often a bad place to search for definitions, weirdly enough.
Especially when you want to twist and mangle semantics into your own views, right Real!

How is it a "newer" definition when it only takes the literal meaning from Greek? The meaning probably predates English.
We arn't Greek. We arn't using the literal Greek meaning. We are using the literal English meaning.

What annoys me is the specification of the entire concept of "agnostic" to the god question, where it is redundant. Because agnosticism, of course, means without knowledge, whether that knowledge relates to god or anything else.
That is only one definition, Realist. Again, you twist words and semantics to try and prove a point. Agnostic can strickly apply to the god question. It also can mean without knowledge. It isn't redundant when you have people claiming they have an answer when people believe that is simply impossible.

[abyaly]

How is it a "newer" definition when it only takes the literal meaning from Greek? The meaning probably predates English.

What annoys me is the specification of the entire concept of "agnostic" to the god question, where it is redundant. Because agnosticism, of course, means without knowledge, whether that knowledge relates to god or anything else.
I think the article pegs your usage at around 1772.

A word's meaning is defined by how it is used. It is not defined by one person disliking how other people are using it.

[dirka dirka]

I think the article pegs your usage at around 1772.

A word's meaning is defined by how it is used. It is not defined by one person disliking how other people are using it.

Thank you. Likewise it isn't defined by the way it was used in the past or in other cultures, although sometimes the definitions do match.

[The Maxx]

I can't understand why I'm still tempted to argue with dirka. It's like he has selective reading comprehension.

[dirka dirka]

I can't understand why I'm still tempted to argue with dirka. It's like he has selective reading comprehension.

I'm not the one who only quoted half of a definition, nor am I the one who is saying that being agnostic means a person has not decided. Agnostic DOES NOT MEAN THIS.

[Realist]

A word's meaning is defined by how it is used.
words have whatever meaning they are used as

Obviously we agree on this. And both meanings are used, so both meanings are "correct." And if I invented a new word right here on the spot to mean the same thing, that meaning would be "correct" for me. The real issue, then, is what is the best meaning right now from the standpoints of: simplicity, ease of use, general logic of the language, style, ease of understanding, precision, etc. And I think mine is, if for no other reason that the fact that it's nice to have a prefix have a fairly uniform meaning across the lanuage, and in general it pretty much does.

dirka, you have not the least sense of nuance. :)

[The Maxx]

American Heritage Dictionary
nu·ance (nōō'äns', nyōō'-, nōō-äns', nyōō-) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
2. Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.


Just thought I'd add to the growing list of definitions :D

[dirka dirka]

dirka, you have not the least sense of nuance. :)

There is nothing subtle about this, realist. This issue is very bold and very clearly so. You just like to think you've some deep meaning and are the end all of intellectuals. You're laughable. In attempt to prove to your simple mind that you're this intellectual scholar you disagree with logic in a fashion that only uses semantics so if you're called out on the actual issue you always have the option of just arguing that the person who has called you out is defining the word incorrectly. Realize that since the issue was here before you were even born, the meanings of the words were also. This means that saying things like the dictionary isn't a good place to find definitions shows your arrogance.

[The Maxx]

se·man·tics (sĭ-mān'tĭks) Pronunciation Key
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Linguistics The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.


Just throwing it out there.

[Serge]

I'm offended that Christianity gets four options on the poll but Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and many other very different religions get grouped together.

[dirka dirka]

Serge is very right about that.

I just love how Realist won't even defend his opinion. "I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending." Real, you've got more than one thing in common with Isaac Asimov. You're both great with fiction yet very dated in thought.

[The Maxx]

I'm offended that Christianity gets four options on the poll but Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and many other very different religions get grouped together.

I'm not suggesting that those religions aren't as 'important' or whatever- I selected polling options according to what I thought people might fall into. Note that the poll results are relatively even. I think I did a good job.

[Snork]

snork, i know what atheism and agnosticism are.
if you look in your friendly home dictionary, an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, a god or gods. i am, therefore, atheist. maybe you should look the word up sometime.


You didn't at the start.
And I know what they are.
That's how I know you were wrong.

To say it one extra time, atheism is certainly a belief system, because they believe there is no god as strongly as a Christian believes there is a God.

You were wrong and presented your arguement poorly.
Instead of wasting time arguing with me and Dirka, why not spend your time getting facts and presenting them well?
If you're trying to prove a point, prove it, don't waste time on dead horses.

I could type several more pages, but for some reason I agree with almost everything Dirka said.
So I'll just leave it at that.

[Snork]

I'm offended that Christianity gets four options on the poll but Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and many other very different religions get grouped together.

I agree with you Serge, and I'm totally against Maxxie Boy.

But to be fair, he did say right from the start it was meant to be offensive.
There was no attempt to hide it.

:D

BTW, I voted for Buddhism. Or I would have, if it had its own choice. So I voted for Eastern, with my real intend Buddhism.Hi.

[Realist]

I just love how Realist won't even defend his opinion. "I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending." Real, you've got more than one thing in common with Isaac Asimov. You're both great with fiction yet very dated in thought.

This is really hilarious, I laughed out loud at it for like 7-12 seconds straight. :)

[dirka dirka]

This is really hilarious, I laughed out loud at it for like 7-12 seconds straight. :)

The hilarious part is you're still missing the punch line. I'll post it again: "I just love how Realist won't even defend his opinion." You proved my point. Thanks. You used to have more balls, Realist.

[Realist]

My ideas are far too nuanced, complicated and interesting for you to ever understand, dirka. :)

[meat.eater]

There is an enourmous difference between people who dont care and athiests.

[dirka dirka]

My ideas are far too nuanced, complicated and interesting for you to ever understand, dirka. :)
Point and case proven, Realist. No need to prove me right over and over again. Once was enough. :bigsmile:

There is an enourmous difference between people who dont care and athiests.

I love the way you put it.

[meat.eater]

However, there is a large difference in how we argued it:


User Name.......Posts
dirka dirka........29
meat.eater.......3

Efficiency rating: 1:10

[Jeffery]

Meat, why do you have a shining penis in your banner?

[meat.eater]

Just for you, Jeff.

[dirka dirka]

However, there is a large difference in how we argued it:


User Name.......Posts
dirka dirka........29
meat.eater.......3

Efficiency rating: 1:10

Granted, I wasn't arguing about that the entire time. In fact, that was only a small portion and it wasn't atheist but agnostic that I was arguing the definition for. I do like the extremes to prove points though.

[Snork]

Meat, why do you have a shining penis in your banner?

Why not?
Seems like a good thing to have in a banner.

meat, his efficiency rating is higher, because I agreed with him and said he said everything I would say so I don't have to post.
Since I am using his arguements, that's two of us, and that doubles his efficiency.
So it's only 1:5

[meat.eater]

Yeah, but consider that I also said everything in 1 post. My other 2 posts didnt regard it at all.

So now you're 1:15.

[Snork]

Yeah, but consider that I also said everything in 1 post. My other 2 posts didnt regard it at all.

So now you're 1:15.

Well, if you're other two posts didn't regard it, that makes you LESS efficient with your posts.

So it's still 1:5, or maybe you get a penalty, and it's 1:4 now.

[meat.eater]

No.... what was the highest score you recieved in economics, Snork? ;)

If I am able to convey the same point in less time (posts), I am MORE efficient. And if before I was 1:5, If my efficiency increases by a factor of 3 (1/3 the posts), it becomes a 1:15 ratio.

[Realist]

Meat and Snork, don't you think your current conversation is somewhat ironic?

[meat.eater]

Absolutely not. Every post Snork and I make should be enshrined into the cliff's of heaven.

[abyaly]

The real issue, then, is what is the best meaning right now from the standpoints of: simplicity, ease of use, general logic of the language, style, ease of understanding, precision, etc. And I think mine is, if for no other reason that the fact that it's nice to have a prefix have a fairly uniform meaning across the lanuage, and in general it pretty much does.

dirka, you have not the least sense of nuance. :)
Suppose there was a word that has no logical origin and was used by all of the population that spoke a language. Then suppose there showed up 50 people with a new, logical, and simple definition that follows from it's roots. Whose is better?
This is what I mean when I say words are defined by use. Unless you want to count the number of people in the world who subscribe to each usage, this is a dead issue.

[dirka dirka]

So, meat.eater...

Thus far you've posted 4 times in attempt to prove your point of efficiency. I only posted one time before this. Want to know the difference between how I argued against your point and how you argued for your point? My efficiency is 4 times as great as yours. See how post count doesn't matter, even disregarding the fact that most of the posts weren't on the topic.

Efficiency Rating (Dirka vs. Meat): 1:4

[Snork]

No.... what was the highest score you recieved in economics, Snork? ;)

If I am able to convey the same point in less time (posts), I am MORE efficient. And if before I was 1:5, If my efficiency increases by a factor of 3 (1/3 the posts), it becomes a 1:15 ratio.

lol
I got a 96 in high school economics.
And very high in home economics too. That class was cool.
Did you take them in high school, or university?
What did you study in those classes?
We spent a lot of time studying the world markets, in particular, Asian countries and how they are contributing and growing in the world. How they fit in, what they are doing, how they will be very influential soon. And that was a long time ago, and it is indeed turning out the way it was predicted when I took it.
Post secondary, it was a lot more market conditions, and cause and effect relationships.

But you conveyed it in a post, then used several posts on the subject that served no purpose other than to keep your sacred and awesome presence in the thread.
They add to your total, which is 3 posts on the subject.
And since two of them didn't accomplish conveying a point towards the discussion, you also lose an efficancy point for those posts.

World politics are indeed complicated.
This right here is why the UN never gets anything done.

Realist, I'm not discussion my efficiancy, I'm discussing Dirka's.
I wonder if that makes it better or worse.

[Realist]

Suppose there was a word that has no logical origin and was used by all of the population that spoke a language. Then suppose there showed up 50 people with a new, logical, and simple definition that follows from it's roots. Whose is better?

Probably the latter. :) History, tradition, literary and cultural concerns also are relevent obviously. Of course, in the end it depends on what exactly you're trying to do and what your perspective is. You should use the language of your audience when you're talking to your audience; which means that "atheist" can be used as simply a generic insult when you're talking to certain religious groups (at least historically) and "atheist" should use my definition when you're talking to the mainstream atheist community today, since that seems to be the most popular definition among that group [and, trust me, a bunch of them will try to get you into endless arguments over what the word means if you use it in any way but the one I described it as.]

All else equal though, use the logical, simple, older definition.

[dirka dirka]

Probably the latter. :) History, tradition, literary and cultural concerns also are relevent obviously. Of course, in the end it depends on what exactly you're trying to do and what your perspective is. You should use the language of your audience when you're talking to your audience; which means that "atheist" can be used as simply a generic insult when you're talking to certain religious groups (at least historically) and "atheist" should use my definition when you're talking to the mainstream atheist community today, since that seems to be the most popular definition among that group [and, trust me, a bunch of them will try to get you into endless arguments over what the word means if you use it in any way but the one I described it as.]

All else equal though, use the logical, simple, older definition.

ROFL! Realist, by far your definitions are NOT the commonly used definitions of today.

[The Maxx]

ROFL! Realist, by far your definitions are NOT the commonly used definitions of today.

Supporting evidence?

[dirka dirka]

Supporting evidence?

Thank you for proving my point.

[The Maxx]

Thank you for proving my point.

Is that your sig yet?

[dirka dirka]

Is that your sig yet?

Try and make sense, please.

[abyaly]

All else equal though, use the logical, simple, older definition.
All else is never equal. The different definitions have differing popularity among different groups. This is why they are all listed. This is justified :p
You can't kill the definition you don't like with greek roots. Even if you wanted to show yours was first, directly interpreting the roots isn't enough. You have to show that if someone wanted to create the other definition out of greek roots, they would definitely have not created this word.

[Snork]

Meat and Snork, don't you think your current conversation is somewhat ironic?

We are sharing information and perspectives for the purpose of expanding our knowledge and opening our minds to new possibilities.

It has a defined direction which is subtle, but will make us better people over the course of the discussion.

This conversation will lead us to a greater understanding of efficiancy, and if that occurs, the exchange of ideas has itself been very efficient.

So it is not ironic.
And you stink.

[Ächilles]

Atheism is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination, but it can be classified as a belief.

For it to be a religion, there would have to be some sort of worship involved. Doesn't matter how, whether it be to a higher power(s), idols, etc... there has to be worship. That's why Buddhism is not classified as a religion, but a philosophy - there is no worship.

It is a belief though. You hold the belief that there is no higher power.

[russian]

Atheism is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination, but it can be classified as a belief.

For it to be a religion, there would have to be some sort of worship involved. Doesn't matter how, whether it be to a higher power(s), idols, etc... there has to be worship. That's why Buddhism is not classified as a religion, but a philosophy - there is no worship.

It is a belief though. You hold the belief that there is no higher power.

Buddhism is non-theistic, but it is a religion nonetheless.

[dirka dirka]

For it to be a religion, there would have to be some sort of worship involved.

That is dead wrong, Ach. Show me where in any reliable source that it says worship is definitely part of religion. I can't find it.

[Ächilles]

Buddhism is non-theistic, but it is a religion nonetheless.

Buddhism is NOT a religion. I am a Tibetan Buddhist. Buddhism is a way to better yourself, not worship any higher power. There is no worship, no rituals, etc...


Dirka, just throw it into perspective. The point of religion is to live your life a certain way, based off of the teachings of a higher power(s). There is nothing to Atheism. You don't practice Atheism. There is nothing to Atheism. In Christianity you strive for Christian goals, there are no goals in Atheism, nothing laid out for you. It's the belief that there is no higher power, and only that.

[dirka dirka]

Dirka, just throw it into perspective. The point of religion is to live your life a certain way, based off of the teachings of a higher power(s). There is nothing to Atheism. You don't practice Atheism. There is nothing to Atheism. In Christianity you strive for Christian goals, there are no goals in Atheism, nothing laid out for you. It's the belief that there is no higher power, and only that.

The point of religion is simply a set of beliefs concerning the purpose and cause of the universe which is usually held true by a large group of people. How isn't atheism exactly that? You have a very narrow definition of religion. It is a belief that the purpose and cause of the universe is not rooted in a higher power and it is held true by a large group of people. This is a religion. Show me a reliable source that says religion must be practiced, must dictate morals, must state goals, and any other thing you claim it must do.

[russian]

Buddhism is NOT a religion. I am a Tibetan Buddhist. Buddhism is a way to better yourself, not worship any higher power. There is no worship, no rituals, etc...


From wikipedia: The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

In summary, you are WRONG about what a religion is because a religion can be non-theistic and still be a religion. You have ignored the importance of cultural behaviors in a society as a major identifer of what constitutes a religion.

Further, of all the branches of Buddhism, Tibetan (which follows the Mahayana branch of Buddhism) is the most theistic and ritualistic (see Tantra). This is because in Mahayana the form of practice is almost as important as the substance. Whereas in Theravadan the form is important but not as important as recognizing the form as just that, form - and the real substance of the practice is only achieved whence this is realized. Your statement, "no worship, no rituals" is off base.

Your understanding is limited and based on self view.

[Snork]

I took Religious Studies 100 in university.

Buddhism is considered a religion.
Russian explained why, and I agree, based on what I learned when I was awake.

[meat.eater]

Buddhists are the only ones that dont think buddhism is a religion - which makes sense according to what they practice.

And because nobody ever claimed buddhists we're intelligent. zing

[VAMP7]

From wikipedia: The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

In summary, you are WRONG about what a religion is because a religion can be non-theistic and still be a religion. You have ignored the importance of cultural behaviors in a society as a major identifer of what constitutes a religion.

Further, of all the branches of Buddhism, Tibetan (which follows the Mahayana branch of Buddhism) is the most theistic and ritualistic (see Tantra). This is because in Mahayana the form of practice is almost as important as the substance. Whereas in Theravadan the form is important but not as important as recognizing the form as just that, form - and the real substance of the practice is only achieved whence this is realized. Your statement, "no worship, no rituals" is off base.

Your understanding is limited and based on self view.
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/TRUE/ethnicrelations.jpg

[Match Strike]

All else is never equal. The different definitions have differing popularity among different groups. This is why they are all listed. This is justified :p
You can't kill the definition you don't like with greek roots. Even if you wanted to show yours was first, directly interpreting the roots isn't enough. You have to show that if someone wanted to create the other definition out of greek roots, they would definitely have not created this word.
And of course, the Greek roots quite possibly are just as arbitrary. All language is is sounds/symbols that abstractly represent an idea. All language if you go back far enough HAS to be arbitrary, unless it's either a) sound that is made to sound like the sound it represents, like if your name for "cow" was "Moooooo;" or
b) a pictograph made to look like the object it represents.

So the only good words are the ones that use these. I'm fairly sure we don't have any of the latter in the English language, as we use an alphabetic system, and I'd venture a guess the former isn't too common either.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Heathen bastard seeks religious sheep to cudgel to death with useless, repetitive rhetoric and circular reasoning. Must enjoy torrential acts of God (like hurricanes) and have ingrained fear of gay people.

Oh, and no fat chicks.

:)

[Cuathon]

lol

[russian]

Buddhists are the only ones that dont think buddhism is a religion - which makes sense according to what they practice.

And because nobody ever claimed buddhists we're intelligent. zing


Wrong. A Buddhist would not deny Buddhism being a religion. Its a 2300 year old spiritual tradition with deep cultural roots in many countries = it is a religion. Rather a buddhist would submit that "being a buddhist" is not the most important aspect of their relgious practice.

[Northwind]

And of course, the Greek roots quite possible are just as arbitrary. All language is is sounds/symbols that abstractly represent an idea. All language if you go back far enough HAS to be arbitrary, unless it's either a) sound that is made to sound like the sound it represents, like if your name for "cow" was "Moooooo;" or
b) a pictograph made to look like the object it represents.

So the only good words are the ones that use these. I'm fairly sure we don't have any of the latter in the English language, as we use an alphabetic system, and I'd venture a guess the former isn't too common either.

http://www.lems.brown.edu/vision/people/leymarie/Images/Paintings/Magritte_pipe.jpg

[dirka dirka]

From wikipedia: The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

In summary, you are WRONG about what a religion is because a religion can be non-theistic and still be a religion. You have ignored the importance of cultural behaviors in a society as a major identifer of what constitutes a religion.

Further, of all the branches of Buddhism, Tibetan (which follows the Mahayana branch of Buddhism) is the most theistic and ritualistic (see Tantra). This is because in Mahayana the form of practice is almost as important as the substance. Whereas in Theravadan the form is important but not as important as recognizing the form as just that, form - and the real substance of the practice is only achieved whence this is realized. Your statement, "no worship, no rituals" is off base.

Your understanding is limited and based on self view.
+1

http://www.lems.brown.edu/vision/people/leymarie/Images/Paintings/Magritte_pipe.jpg
http://www.threadless.com/product/543/minizoom.jpg

[The Maxx]

Show me a reliable source that says religion must be practiced, must dictate morals, must state goals, and any other thing you claim it must do.
Granted I know nothing about Buddhism, but-

[en.wikipdia.org/religion:]"Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life."

If one uses that definition and if they don't adhere to any rituals, then they are, by their definition, not religious.

[dirka dirka]

Granted I know nothing about Buddhism, but-

[en.wikipdia.org/religion:]"