Rexbeccarox
People think that just because the majority supports something everyone else is gonna avoid touching the subject? Seriously what did you expect?
Ohh but it doesn’t end there. Because I seen it every time. Is almost like a pattern. Someone leaves a comment showing his inconformity and you guys can ignore it but instead you reply. And one would assume that because by replying you are willing to discuss that topic but actually is the other way around. You think that with your reply the person is gonna abandon the topic why?(you kinda reply to shut up the other) Why did you think that he/she is stop? What did you expect what’s gonna happen when you replied to him? And the the discussion begins, until one say: why are you ruining my thread. Ruining it? Why did you replied me and therefor started this conversation with me in the first place? Whys did you thought no one was gonna object? And how is this ruining it? What are you a five year old that wants everyone smile and be happy just because you are? So what if someone disagrees. We are all grown ups here.
Last week I was watching this homophobic video and some guy replied that he joined a group that beats up gays. And first he was surprised when me and a bunch of other people start insulting him. And in the end he deleted his comment because the disagreement was too much. He actually thought that people were gonna agree with him and that he can handle the response he created on people, why? I still don’t know.
General Forum Rules
This is a discussion forum.
This means that members should interact with each other in a proper discussion, and not purposely / repeatedly evade rebuttals made to them. Whilst members are not forced or required to answer every post addressed to them, ignoring them all and continuing to post similar content will fall in line with our "No Spam" rule. This includes posting links / copy-pasted content / scripture verses repeatedly, without adding your own comments or being relevant to the thread.
This is our primary rule and all other rules fall in line with this concept.
I like to make funny title. I like to make interesting thread names. It gets more views. That's the reason and no offense but I don't think that is a secret to anyone.
I also made threads titled:
The title of the thread doesn’t have to describe the content as long as is aboard the topic that’s all it requires.
PhiloTech
'Mister Agenda
You seem to think that one needs a reason to disbelief. People don’t need a reason to disbelief in order to be an atheists. Disbelieving is the reason. Let’s be realistic. No one is born a Christian nor a Jew nor a Muslim. Theists are indoctrinated from a young age. And that is of course if the are willing to. You can go to a child that doesn’t know anything about evolution nor basic science and explain Christianism to him and still he doesn’t need to know all this stuff in order to disbelief what you are saying to him. He can simply reject what you are saying even before realizing the plot holes and flaws in Christianism. What would you say was his reason? Common sense? An objective mind? A rebel attitude? Because many theists have all that and that doesn’t stop them from being indoctrinated. He can simply say: Sir I have a hard time believing what you are saying. And he doesn’t need to now basic science or knowledge in order to say that to you. So that’s why I say that one does not need a reason to disbelief more than the simple act of doing it. Atheists have existed long before we knew about evolution, or the big bang. Long before our science had structure or before we knew how this world worked atheists were already disbelieving and rejecting the idea of a god(or gods). Atheism didn’t were born neither with Darwin nor Nietzsche. And what? Don’t you think that in our ancient times when atheists say I don’t believe in your God people didn’t asked them. And where do you think we came from? Or how do you explain this? What did you think they answered? What did you think they said to theists? Oh wait a couple of years in order to this person invents this theory that explain this?
They said I don’t know. And I can’t even begin to explain it. However that doesn’t change the fact that I don’t believe in your God. Because I simply can’t accept what your religion is telling to me. Yeah sure in our days the most common is that one is indoctrinated by the religion that is preached to us form our youth and we spend years trying to open our eyes(sort of speak) gathering knowledge and data in order to form an opinion to actually start disbelieving. But that’s ain’t actually a rule is it. Were is it written that one needs to have all the answers in order to disbelief the answers that are being thought by your religion? Were does it says that one need to be dissatisfied with our religion in order to start looking knowledge outside of it? Or that every atheists needs to know about evolution in order to disbelief the Adam and Eve story? Or that every child that is taught certain religion will have 100 % change of being indoctrinated?
I'm tired I'm going to sleep.
![[Image: b210e58c.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.cute-factor.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fonion%2Fb210e58c.gif)
(September 1, 2014 at 6:28 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: I wasn't my thread. It was a thread welcoming me to the staff. You were being inappropriate and disruptive by calling me out in a thread that was supposed to be somewhat of a celebration.Yeah that’s something I’ve been wanting to ask you(not you particularly but in general). What’s with this so called happy threads? I mean every time someone creates a threads about a topic that he/she loves why that person expects that no one is gonna object the topic and that everyone is gonna get happy about that? I mean we live in a world were people disagree about everything and yet everyone surprises when someone appears and hey hey hey wait you ain’t happy about this news that makes me happy?
People think that just because the majority supports something everyone else is gonna avoid touching the subject? Seriously what did you expect?
Ohh but it doesn’t end there. Because I seen it every time. Is almost like a pattern. Someone leaves a comment showing his inconformity and you guys can ignore it but instead you reply. And one would assume that because by replying you are willing to discuss that topic but actually is the other way around. You think that with your reply the person is gonna abandon the topic why?(you kinda reply to shut up the other) Why did you think that he/she is stop? What did you expect what’s gonna happen when you replied to him? And the the discussion begins, until one say: why are you ruining my thread. Ruining it? Why did you replied me and therefor started this conversation with me in the first place? Whys did you thought no one was gonna object? And how is this ruining it? What are you a five year old that wants everyone smile and be happy just because you are? So what if someone disagrees. We are all grown ups here.
Last week I was watching this homophobic video and some guy replied that he joined a group that beats up gays. And first he was surprised when me and a bunch of other people start insulting him. And in the end he deleted his comment because the disagreement was too much. He actually thought that people were gonna agree with him and that he can handle the response he created on people, why? I still don’t know.
(September 1, 2014 at 6:28 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Believe me, Zid the feeling is mutual.Yeah…that doesn’t answer the question of why you returned to a thread that you claimed didn’t cared.
(September 1, 2014 at 6:28 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: I have literally NO idea what you're talking about. A rule about replying to my threads? That didn't happen. Ever.
General Forum Rules
This is a discussion forum.
This means that members should interact with each other in a proper discussion, and not purposely / repeatedly evade rebuttals made to them. Whilst members are not forced or required to answer every post addressed to them, ignoring them all and continuing to post similar content will fall in line with our "No Spam" rule. This includes posting links / copy-pasted content / scripture verses repeatedly, without adding your own comments or being relevant to the thread.
This is our primary rule and all other rules fall in line with this concept.
(September 1, 2014 at 6:28 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: The Ark Park thing? Well, you're link didn't work because it was a shitty link with incomplete information from a shitty website.That’s no excuse. If I’m gonna post a link to an article to either back up my statements or share a topic and that link can’t be posted correctly that right there is a problem. Besides who decides what websites are good and what aren’t or that this link should be discarded or not?
(September 1, 2014 at 6:28 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: My question was:I just did.
Quote:Zid, did you ever think that, by continuing to post in a thread you titled "Atheism is a religion," bumping it to the top of the feed every time, you're perpetuating the very myth you're trying to dispel?
Forum practices or no, you are the one who titled the thread and you are the one who is enraged by the concept of atheism being a religion. Can you just answer the question without going off on non-sequiturs and straw men?
I like to make funny title. I like to make interesting thread names. It gets more views. That's the reason and no offense but I don't think that is a secret to anyone.
I also made threads titled:
- Conservative atheists are better than you.
- Gay in not only a choice, but a mind control influence in children.
- Stop Masturbation Now! And Help Preventing Self Rape.
- Atheist are doomed.
The title of the thread doesn’t have to describe the content as long as is aboard the topic that’s all it requires.
PhiloTech
(September 1, 2014 at 12:20 pm)PhiloTech Wrote:He was talking about Mesopotamia? Well thanks Philo for clarifying that because believe me I didn’t get that at all. And if you haven’t told me it was Mesopotamian I wouldn’t notice.(September 1, 2014 at 6:09 am)mytmztroll Wrote: atheism is a religion created by 'the powers that be' to dumb down the sheep.
Why is it that every 'secret society' requires you to believe in a god in order to join? Because it is the TRUTH
BULLSHIT ALERT!
I have no idea what is with you Mesopotamian freak but serious, it bothers me
'Mister Agenda
(September 2, 2014 at 9:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The disbelief is the result of the process you describe, not the reason.
You seem to think that one needs a reason to disbelief. People don’t need a reason to disbelief in order to be an atheists. Disbelieving is the reason. Let’s be realistic. No one is born a Christian nor a Jew nor a Muslim. Theists are indoctrinated from a young age. And that is of course if the are willing to. You can go to a child that doesn’t know anything about evolution nor basic science and explain Christianism to him and still he doesn’t need to know all this stuff in order to disbelief what you are saying to him. He can simply reject what you are saying even before realizing the plot holes and flaws in Christianism. What would you say was his reason? Common sense? An objective mind? A rebel attitude? Because many theists have all that and that doesn’t stop them from being indoctrinated. He can simply say: Sir I have a hard time believing what you are saying. And he doesn’t need to now basic science or knowledge in order to say that to you. So that’s why I say that one does not need a reason to disbelief more than the simple act of doing it. Atheists have existed long before we knew about evolution, or the big bang. Long before our science had structure or before we knew how this world worked atheists were already disbelieving and rejecting the idea of a god(or gods). Atheism didn’t were born neither with Darwin nor Nietzsche. And what? Don’t you think that in our ancient times when atheists say I don’t believe in your God people didn’t asked them. And where do you think we came from? Or how do you explain this? What did you think they answered? What did you think they said to theists? Oh wait a couple of years in order to this person invents this theory that explain this?
They said I don’t know. And I can’t even begin to explain it. However that doesn’t change the fact that I don’t believe in your God. Because I simply can’t accept what your religion is telling to me. Yeah sure in our days the most common is that one is indoctrinated by the religion that is preached to us form our youth and we spend years trying to open our eyes(sort of speak) gathering knowledge and data in order to form an opinion to actually start disbelieving. But that’s ain’t actually a rule is it. Were is it written that one needs to have all the answers in order to disbelief the answers that are being thought by your religion? Were does it says that one need to be dissatisfied with our religion in order to start looking knowledge outside of it? Or that every atheists needs to know about evolution in order to disbelief the Adam and Eve story? Or that every child that is taught certain religion will have 100 % change of being indoctrinated?
(September 2, 2014 at 9:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: No, I'm not. And that's not a principle, it's a condition of being, like albinism.one can’t choose a condition of being however one can choose a theological system. One can’t choose to be an albinism however you can always choose to be an atheists so I don’t think that metaphor is very useful.
(September 2, 2014 at 9:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I am in the state of not believing any deities of real, which means I'm an atheist. I don't hold it as a principle that there's no God...that would be religiously dogmatic, wouldn't it?And living by the principle of disbelieving in any deities of real can’t be considering dogmatic as well? Because I hold many principles. About equality, esthetic and education. Just like many other people. We live by the principle that we set for ourselves. Principles that we claim are undeniable. Does that makes us all dogmatic and therefor religious? Or can you and I agree that just because you live your life (or a certain group of people in this case atheists)by following certain principles that doesn’t automatically turn it into a dogma?
(September 2, 2014 at 9:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You don't know any more about why Tom became a tire salesman after that 'explanation' than you knew before it. It being logically sound doesn't make it an actual answer to the question being asked. In effect, 'I started selling tires...' is a non sequitur.It doesn’t answer the question of why did he choose that profession. However it does answer the question of how he did that. And just as Tom became a salesman after selling tires and atheist became one after disbelieve in God. The why is another story. The how is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be asked in the first place don’t you think?
I'm tired I'm going to sleep.
