to all the athiests here--and woooo, there must be many considering a recent poll where you EVEn outnumbered the catholics..hehe--i am wanting find out what kind of athiest ARe you?

some have said that athiesm can embrace eg., Buddhism. other seem to stick with science and its method. but i am wanting to find out what makes you tock

The tap dancing kind :D
A chocolate flavoured atheist?
Soon you'll have the clowns in here talking about "strong" and "weak" atheism and all sorts of other descriptions. Why do we need to load the word full of tripe? Either you believe god exists or you don't.

kazakhan: The tap dancing kind :D
A chocolate flavoured atheist? Soon you'll have the clowns in here talking about "strong" and "weak" atheism and all sorts of other descriptions. Why do we need to load the word full of tripe? Either you believe god exists or you don't.
*************
M*W: You have identified Jenyar who is a religious tap dancer. He dances around his religion, and he dances around his faith. He is a tapdancer for Jesus, but he never proves anything! He's a tap dancer for Jesus, and Jesus laughs. Yeah, Jesus laughs!!!

I'm the non-religious type.

I am the athiest of them all; I am athier than you.

Or was this thread about something else?


Edit:

The tap dancing kind :D
A chocolate flavoured atheist?
Soon you'll have the clowns in here talking about "strong" and "weak" atheism and all sorts of other descriptions. Why do we need to load the word full of tripe? Either you believe god exists or you don't.

Uh, since when is distinguishing between 'strong' and 'weak' atheism tripe? If you think it's stupid, then you aren't fit to discuss it. The fact is, the two descriptions have very different meanings and are used to convey different reasons for lack of belief. For example, strong atheists by definition claim that God does not or cannot exist, which means that they think the mere idea of God is logically inconsistent. Weak atheists believe what they do most likely due to lack of evidence. If you can't see the difference, too bad.

The tap dancing kind :D
A chocolate flavoured atheist?
Soon you'll have the clowns in here talking about "strong" and "weak" atheism and all sorts of other descriptions. Why do we need to load the word full of tripe? Either you believe god exists or you don't.

You fucker, I was going to use the cocolate flavored atheist line.

Uh, since when is distinguishing between 'strong' and 'weak' atheism tripe? If you think it's stupid, then you aren't fit to discuss it. The fact is, the two descriptions have very different meanings and are used to convey different reasons for lack of belief. For example, strong atheists by definition claim that God does not or cannot exist, which means that they think the mere idea of God is logically inconsistent. Weak atheists believe what they do most likely due to lack of evidence. If you can't see the difference, too bad
Clown number one weighs in...
If you want to continue to load the word with fluff, then you are not fit to discuss it either, grow up! We could go on like this forever, which is exactly my point in my 1st post.
You fucker, I was going to use the cocolate flavored atheist line.
The early bird.... :D

"Why do we need to load the word full of tripe? Either you believe god exists or you don't."
I don’t completely dismiss the idea that maybe there is a higher being, but I am confident that no religion on earth has it right, and I will surely not worship it if there is one.

"Why do we need to load the word full of tripe? Either you believe god exists or you don't."
I don’t completely dismiss the idea that maybe there is a higher being, but I am confident that no religion on earth has it right, and I will surely not worship it if there is one.

Wouldn't that mean you don't believe? That you think it's possible doesn't constitute belief.
__________________________________________________ _____

I'm a level 35 chaotic-good agnostic psuedo-taoist (atheist).

I suppose a simpler description is: Jackass.

The kind that thinks humans like to make things up in order to feel important. And also the sort who thinks Christians are a bunch of dopes. At least Satanists aren't boring.

Clown number one weighs in...
If you want to continue to load the word with fluff, then you are not fit to discuss it either, grow up! We could go on like this forever, which is exactly my point in my 1st post.

How am I loading the word with fluff? I'm not so sure you even know what 'fluff' means. And yes, I am fit to discuss it because I understand the distinction between the two and why they're philosophically distinct. I have a feeling that either you do not understand the distinction, or you think adjectives are unnecessary and worthless. Either way, you're making a fool out of yourself.

Also, why would this 'go on forever'? I simply pointed out your error; there's really not much to go on about at all.

I'm not so sure you even know what 'fluff' means.
I don't care what you may or may not be sure of.
And yes, I am fit to discuss it because I understand the distinction between the two and why they're philosophically distinct.
It's people that invent the term then make the distinction, it's all a matter of perception of course.
...or you think adjectives are unnecessary and worthless.
In terms of atheism, BINGO! It took you a while.
Either way, you're making a fool out of yourself.
How so, could be your the fool.
Also, why would this 'go on forever'? I simply pointed out your error; there's really not much to go on about at all.
This can go on forever, I've now replied to your post as you will to this and so on...
As for being in error, is everything you percieve the truth? Are you infalliable? Why are you so certain that your not in error? Pointing to some literature on the subject does not validate it.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist&x=0&y=0)
Regardless of how strongly or weakly someone feels about it, in the end either they believe, they don't or they're unsure and if you're unsure about it then you're hardly an atheist.

I'm technically a Pantheist. Here (http://www.pantheism.net)'s their website. Tell me what ya think of it.

EDIT: I shouldn't sound so unsure . . . I am a Pantheist.

In terms of atheism, BINGO! It took you a while.

That's your opinion. The distinction is necessary if you're having an intelligent conversation about atheism, which this thread is supposed to be about.

How so, could be your the fool.

You're ignorantly claiming that a philosophical distinction is stupid, when in fact, this is a forum for the discussion of religion and philosophy. Any philosopher knows that clear definitions of terms is essential to a coherent philosophical conversation.

Also, I'm not one to point out basic spelling mistakes but saying "your the fool" is quite ironic.

As for being in error, is everything you percieve the truth? Are you infalliable? Why are you so certain that your not in error? Pointing to some literature on the subject does not validate it.

Don't be ridiculous and don't try to turn that on me. I pointed out that you made a mistake in your outright dismissal of an adjective. Instead of pretending I claimed infallibility like a child, you could instead be mature and justify your original position.

Regardless of how strongly or weakly someone feels about it, in the end either they believe, they don't or they're unsure and if you're unsure about it then you're hardly an atheist.

First of all, the definition you quoted is simply wrong. This has been discussed multiple times on the forums before--perhaps if you actually knew about the distinction between strong and weak atheism (or, positive/negative), you'd realize that this dictionary definition only describes strong atheism. In reality, most atheists are of the weak variety.

Also, if you're unsure, you're probably still an atheist. But hey, I suppose I can't expect you to actually educate yourself about the subject at hand before posting. And I can tell you really don't have a clue based on your above usage of "strong" and "weak"--it's not about how "strongly or weakly" you feel about it.

a atheist/humanist it's that simple.

That's your opinion. The distinction is necessary if you're having an intelligent conversation about atheism, which this thread is supposed to be about.
Indeed it is and I'm entitled to it. You expect an intelligent conversation with a thread title like that? No don't answer, it's a strongly rhetorical question.

You're ignorantly claiming that a philosophical distinction is stupid, when in fact, this is a forum for the discussion of religion and philosophy. Any philosopher knows that clear definitions of terms is essential to a coherent philosophical conversation.
More fluff, ignorantly claiming? You're just trying to enforce your point by adding ignorantly and it doesn't garner you any respect and it does not help you make your point, probably you like the smug feeling. Obviously I have an issue with the "definitions of terms", precisely the point of my first post in this thread.

Also, I'm not one to point out basic spelling mistakes but saying "your the fool" is quite ironic.
Wow. But you are one. Just a single spelling mistake on the forum of dyslexics and you take issue with it. Get a life.

Don't be ridiculous and don't try to turn that on me. I pointed out that you made a mistake in your outright dismissal of an adjective. Instead of pretending I claimed infallibility like a child, you could instead be mature and justify your original position.
Don't try, after it's already been done? I can dismiss it, like with your use of the word ignorantly, it does not add to the argument. As I mentioned above it's all a matter of perception. I've already stated the reasons for my view.

First of all, the definition you quoted is simply wrong.
Here we go again :rolleyes:
Simply wrong? What about strenuously wrong? Vehemently wrong? Ignorantly wrong? Abundantly wrong? Strongly wrong? Weakly wrong? Intricately wrong? And my favourite, wrongly wrong?

This has been discussed multiple times on the forums before--perhaps if you actually knew about the distinction between strong and weak atheism (or, positive/negative), you'd realize that this dictionary definition only describes strong atheism. In reality, most atheists are of the weak variety.
The subject has been "done to the death" around here. I know all about the distinction between "strong" and "weak", what it makes me realise is it's pointless, which is my opinion and perception and I can state it all I want regardless of your position on the issue.

Also, if you're unsure, you're probably still an atheist. But hey, I suppose I can't expect you to actually educate yourself about the subject at hand before posting. And I can tell you really don't have a clue based on your above usage of "strong" and "weak"--it's not about how "strongly or weakly" you feel about it.
Also, if you're unsure you're probably not an atheist! But hey, I suppose I can't expect you to actually read and comprehend someone elses point of view. And I can tell that you really don't have a clue, it is how "strongly" or "weakly" you feel about it. Otherwise a "strong" atheist doesn't actually feel "strongly" about it and could therefore easily become a "weak" theist(?) (Yes, I did follow your wording somewhat just to annoy you:) )
So confident of your point you couldn't fathom how this could go on and on and on. I hope I can keep you posting here every day until Xmas :D

No, you're making it too easy. Since your entire post has no relevant content, I'll just assume you've realized your error and have too much of an ego to admit it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Above can be found chocolate flavored argumentative atheists.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Above can be found chocolate flavored argumentative atheists.

How dare you apply the adjective argumentative to atheist that's nonsense. :)

what audible said... or better yet, make that a atheist/secular humanist. That fits me pretty well.

My name says it all!.

I'm just godless. Born godless, tought religious rhetoric as a child, fought to find truth within religion, found no truth in religion. Finally I found wisdom in godlessness, will soon begin my church of godlessism, were all godlessist can meet other godlessists people.

LOL :)

Godless.

the type that does it to be cool!

Wesmorris wrote:

I'm a level 35 chaotic-good agnostic psuedo-taoist (atheist).

I suppose a simpler description is: Jackass.


Love it! Absolutely fucking hilarious! Thanks Wes!

thanks wes

*kowtow*

Humbly bows down before greatness..

Hmm.. A great jackass.

*shrug*

Beats feeding worms I suppose. :)

Mmmmm... Worms....

I'm technically a Pantheist. Here (http://www.pantheism.net)'s their website. Tell me what ya think of it.

EDIT: I shouldn't sound so unsure . . . I am a Pantheist.

hmmmmmmmm. strange. i have looked at this before of course. My thoughts. a bit of the introduction page rang out to me where it says that it doesn't agree with 'grovelling' prayer or magic to influence reality.....well i know what is mean by the kind of breast beating piousness of chruchy prayer, but saything that flies in the face of all indigenous traditions. for example a quoe from 'Sitting Bull' is meantion yet with the previous attitude your belief would deny his tradition....

don't get me wrong. i am all for your love of Nature, but i sense you are missing a vital dimension, and i blame your twinship with materialistic science. the latter having no openess at all for the spiritual---for ghosties, and fearies, and
Natures spirits.
you see, i also think you are missing the sacrament which is central for earth religious peoples of our very ancient past. where subjective is openly accepted, and brings one into deeper relationship with the Earth.
you seem reluctant to be open for the weird....?