Top 10 TV Shows

[Tiberius]

Which, as I have pointed out to you a few times, is bullshit for two reasons. 1. You can't define god(s) or deity. and 2. A god can be anything. Science for example, is the god of the militant Atheists.

Yes you can define gods or a deity. A god / deity is an intelligent force that created the universe. It is some kind of mind, or thinking being behind the entire thing. A God cannot simply be "anything", it has to have some kind of intelligent quality to it.

Science is a process of gaining knowledge. We do not worship it, nor do we hold it as intelligent. Science without man is worthless because it only works with man. A God, by definition can work alone (and apparently did according to your religious view of creation). We do not "believe" in science either. We look at the results of experiments and accept them as evidence, of which we can build theories based on that evidence. There is no doctrine because science only tells you what is reality, it doesn't tell you what to do about it.

* A belief in a non-demonstrable deity or deities [Yes. Evolution.]
* The necessity of prayer/worship/ceremony [Yes. Bill Maher]
* Places of worship [Yes. The Internet, Star Trek conventions]
* Holy books & scriptures [Yes. The Gospel according to Richard Dawkins]
* Religious authorities (priests, rabbi etc.) [Yes. Darwin. Dawkins.]
* Supernatural beliefs (e.g. angels, demons) [Yes. Aliens.]
* Acceptance of the miraculous [Yes. Evolution.]
* Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc.) [Yes. Sin.]
* Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Belief in spite of the evidence (anti-science) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Supernatural origins (of life, the universe) [Yes. Aliens.]
* The need to convert (doorstep preachers etc.) [Yes. Every election.]
* Comfort factor (that others go to better place) [Yes. Of course! Don't be stupid!]

Evolution isn't a deity, it's a natural process that has no goal or intelligence.
Bill Maher is not an atheist, nor do we worship him.
#3 is just plain silly but I guess you tried your best...
I don't believe everything Richard Dawkins says, and he has changed his opinion on many things he has previously said. He doesn't tell people how to act either.
Darwin and Dawkins are wrong on many things, and they are certainly not authorities I would look to.
Aliens are natural...mainly because we exist and are aliens of the planet Earth. Statistics says that life probably does exist somewhere else in the universe (given the conditions we reckon life arises from).
You know nothing of the process of Evolution.
Prove sin exists first.
You know nothing of the process of Evolution.
You know nothing of the process of Evolution.
Abiogenesis is a science.
Since when did atheists ever get to hold public office in America?
...errr

[Edwardo Piet]

Well when I say "atheism is absence of belief in God" I am talking about a supernatural God. If you count anything as God - if you count science as God (which of course is not supernatural), then what on earth is dogmatic about believing in science as 'God' if by God you simply mean something totally supernatural. You mean the scientific method. And why on earth call that God? Science isn't chosen to be believed. Its simply the fact that it gets results and has compelling evidence to back it up that makes someone believe in it. The thing is the theist can be less likely to be convinced by some things such as evolution because they feel it contradicts their beliefs. But atheism on the other hand is not a belief system, its not a religion. Its simply one absence of belief. Thats not a belief system.
At least if we're talking about a supernatural God here; then atheism doesn't believe in God, is not a religion and is not a belief system.

[Kyuuketsuki]

<B>The Characteristics Of Religion</B>

Format: Characteristics [Required to be an atheist]

* A belief in a non-demonstrable deity or deities [Yes. Evolution.]
* The necessity of prayer/worship/ceremony [Yes. Bill Maher]
* Places of worship [Yes. The Internet, Star Trek conventions]
* Holy books & scriptures [Yes. The Gospel according to Richard Dawkins]
* Religious authorities (priests, rabbi etc.) [Yes. Darwin. Dawkins.]
* Supernatural beliefs (e.g. angels, demons) [Yes. Aliens.]
* Acceptance of the miraculous [Yes. Evolution.]
* Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc.) [Yes. Sin.]
* Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Belief in spite of the evidence (anti-science) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Supernatural origins (of life, the universe) [Yes. Aliens.]
* The need to convert (doorstep preachers etc.) [Yes. Every election.]
* Comfort factor (that others go to better place) [Yes. Of course! Don't be stupid!]

I'm sorry sorry Daystar but, having read your response to my peice on why atheism isn't a religion and (at this point) entirely willing to incur moderator wrath, YOU (and I'll say this slowly) ... ARE ... A ... COMPLETE ... FUCKING ... WANKER!!!!!!!!!

I'm done and if that happens to be permanent I will at least have done one good thing ... I've told you in no uncertain terms what I think you are (and I've few doubts that others, whilst they may say nothing, likely think much the same)!

Mods: Sorry but I think it had to be said, so I await your decision on my behaviour.

Kyu

[Daystar]

I won't snitch on you, Kyu. I don't take it personally. I understand. From one sinner to another I ... I forgive you!

[Kyuuketsuki]

I won't snitch on you, Kyu. I don't take it personally. I understand. From one sinner to another I ... I forgive you!

Sin is an inherently religious concept, even casual uses of the word are based on religion ... I am an atheist, I do not accept any essential religious claims as valid therefore, pending reasonable supporting evidence for said claims, I am unable to sin.

Kyu

[Raymond]

<B>The Characteristics Of Religion</B>

Format: Characteristics [Required to be an atheist]

* A belief in a non-demonstrable deity or deities [Yes. Evolution.]
* The necessity of prayer/worship/ceremony [Yes. Bill Maher]
* Places of worship [Yes. The Internet, Star Trek conventions]
* Holy books & scriptures [Yes. The Gospel according to Richard Dawkins]
* Religious authorities (priests, rabbi etc.) [Yes. Darwin. Dawkins.]
* Supernatural beliefs (e.g. angels, demons) [Yes. Aliens.]
* Acceptance of the miraculous [Yes. Evolution.]
* Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc.) [Yes. Sin.]
* Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Belief in spite of the evidence (anti-science) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Supernatural origins (of life, the universe) [Yes. Aliens.]
* The need to convert (doorstep preachers etc.) [Yes. Every election.]
* Comfort factor (that others go to better place) [Yes. Of course! Don't be stupid!]

I'm sorry sorry Daystar but, having read your response to my peice on why atheism isn't a religion and (at this point) entirely willing to incur moderator wrath, YOU (and I'll say this slowly) ... ARE ... A ... COMPLETE ... FUCKING ... WANKER!!!!!!!!!

I'm done and if that happens to be permanent I will at least have done one good thing ... I've told you in no uncertain terms what I think you are (and I've few doubts that others, whilst they may say nothing, likely think much the same)!

Mods: Sorry but I think it had to be said, so I await your decision on my behaviour.

Kyu

if the other guy was banned for lashing out and insulting i would hate to see what he said compared to this.

[Darwinian]

Aha, but Kyu had mitigating circumstances. His rational mind was pushed to the point of such frustration that had he not let of steam like this he would have simply exploded.

[Tiberius]

As I stated in my response to the news thread about Daystar's ban, if a person wishes to use ad-hominem attacks in their discussions they are welcome to, but they must accept the consequences of doing so. Foremost, that using an ad-hominem attack is a sign of weakness in a debate, and lets the "victim" respond with criticism reflecting that. Ad-hominems are pretty much part of human nature though, and if we banned people simply for using them, we simply wouldn't have any members left in the forums.

Daystar was banned for multiple reasons, some relating to ad-hominems, some relating to other points he refused to back down on, and thereby halting the progress of a debate. Simply put, when you are proved wrong, admit you are wrong and let the conversation continue.

[Kyuuketsuki]

if the other guy was banned for lashing out and insulting i would hate to see what he said compared to this.

The truth is I should've been banned but it is also true to say that most of us get seriously hacked off with the kind of "debate" tactics Daystar used ... it doesn't make what I did or said more acceptable but it is probably understandable to most here.

In my defence I was entirely prepared to accept whatever I got ... in addition to which (as Darwinian quite rightly points out) I would have exploded which would have been awfully messy and some poor sap would have to clear it up

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes but am I right in thinking Kyu that perhaps you really swore because you knew that we are less strict here than say on RDF? And we understood why you were annoyed. On RDF would you have sworn if Daystar had been on their saying the same things instead? If basically it was the same situation but on RDF? On RDF would you have sworn like that?