Atheist Are So God Forsaken Smug im totally serious

[BooZker 0]

2. You are assuming that everyone has to have their mind made up on the subject, which they don't.

I never once said they have to make up there mind. I said being agnostic is like saying i have no clue what so ever what i believe in, which is fine, but you have to have NO CLUE WHAT SO EVER. Not even the slightest bit. If you do not ever do anything towards a religion why are you NOT Atheist.
Yeah, this is my question to people who say they are agnostic because this will get the point i'm trying to get across.

If you do not pray, go to church, read the bible, dance to the rain god, or whatever how are you NOT an Atheist? If you do not do anything pro religion how are you not? If you say i believe in a God, but just dont do any of those things then your NOT an agnostic either. Yes, you can say, well i'm waiting for a God to come down, but aren't we all? Let's say the most religious Christian person in the world, how about the Pope for my example, sees TomaBom (my made up example god haha) come down and everything freezes and something amazing happen that I can not explain in words, and says, "I am the true God. Christ is a false God. I can prove I am God." And he does things impossible and proves it. Would the Pope actually say nope, i'm christian. haha hell no he wouldnt.

The fact your saying your "waiting" is so stupid. When a God comes down and shows himself to us we will ALL believe in him. Atheist and Theists alike. I have no doubt about that at all.

Here is how you can see if your an Atheist or Theist.

Atheist - If you do NOTHING pro religion or if you do not believe in a religion/god

Theist - If you believe in a spirit/god or anything greater then human, a God.

Saying your waiting for proof before making a choice is fine, but at the moment which one of those two above are you? "Oh i dunno" you can only get away with for so long. Everyone has an opinion. Maybe not a strong one, but they do.

To make sure everyone understands, being an agnostic means your in the middle line of I dont know. You have NO opinion at all. Right in the dead center. I highly doubt this is possible.

A lot of Atheists, on the other hand, stubbornly refuse to accept proofs, often attempting to disprove them in far-fetched ways.

I have actually never seen ANY proof, PROOF, at all. I have read the Bible ( i was in a catholic school for many years) and have talked about this matter for years. Show me proof that would hold up in a court of law. Not I believe, but some proof. They have a belief. They call it a belief for a reason.

You could say that an agnostic's god is "malleable" in that the agnostic can accept valid proofs and dis-proofs as they come by.

Right there. You are a Theist, or at least your example is. Once someone has a God they are not an agnostic. Agnostic, once again, means no opinion at all until solid proof comes along. Which can be great, if it were even possible, but opinions are like buttholes, every one has one, and they all stink

I'm not replying to the rest because what i just said would be repeated. If you believe AT ALL in a God or higher being, your a Theist, if you do not think there is anything like that, or dont until you have proof, then your an Atheist. You can change the definition of an agnostic if you would like, but it means being in the middle without an opinion until proven.

[Johnny 1]

You're quick to use the phrases "God forsaken" and "God darn" and "for the love of God". I think that falls under the "taking His name in vain" category.Also, throwing insults and such isn't really going to convince them to change their ways.I think it's a personal issue. Some people are more likely to preach than others...not a general persona [Christian or Aetheist]...Personally, I go to church every Sunday...I don't necessarily always believe what my church believes, but I consider myself a Christian. I personally would never preach [formally or otherwise] my beliefs [or any, for that matter] to anyone else, because they're mine and they're unique to me. Other people might feel the need to make others believe what they do. It's up to the person, I s'pose.But if anyone's in the Orange County area [specifically near Costa Mesa [by Huntington Beach]] around Easter Sunday, feel free to come to the Pacific Ampitheatre at the OC Fairgrounds...it's not going to be some huge Christian preach-off, but it's a nice event that anyone can enjoy. Food, music [not just Christian], games, that kinda thing. I'll be there, so who knows, you might bump into me. <3

[glenstein 0]

I never once said they have to make up there mind.

if you do not think there is anything like that, or dont until you have proof, then your an Atheist. You can change the definition of an agnostic if you would like, but it means being in the middle without an opinion until proven.

Unfortunately you absolutely, totally, completely are saying people have to make up their mind. You are saying that people who consider religion have no right to treat it as an open ended question, and if they have any atheist inkling (which every agnostic does) then they HAVE to commit full force to atheism.

 

You are being way way way too strict with these terms. One might have religious and then atheistic thoughts together. What then? What if a person thinks the harmony of the universe absolutely unquestionably points to some higher author of reality, but still insists they need proof to subscribe to it and that for them, these views are irreconcilable after much consideration? What if they have heard a thousand arguments both for and against a god but find them equally persuasive? Honestly, don't you think people like that exist? You can be exposed to worlds of information and have tons of opinions on different religious subjects and still remain uncommitted.

 

 

To put it simply, I just think you aren't defining the terms correctly, but rather being very strict with them, and shoving people into categories before those people are actually in them. example...

 

I said being agnostic is like saying i have no clue what so ever what i believe in, which is fine, but you have to have NO CLUE WHAT SO EVER. Not even the slightest bit.

That's not what an agnostic is.

 

Atheist - If you do NOTHING pro religion or if you do not believe in a religion/god/

Have you heard of the Stoics? They practiced all kinds of religious custom and some of them were even priests, but none of them actually believed a god was legitimately provable. They followed religious customs because they were the folkways of the time and they preached that they might as well, because, doubting everything, they believed one path was just as good as any other path. So clearly there can be people who doubt theism but participate in religion and you should be a bit more careful with your definitions.

[truefusion 3]

Let's say the most religious Christian person in the world, how about the Pope for my example, sees TomaBom (my made up example god haha) come down and everything freezes and something amazing happen that I can not explain in words, and says, "I am the true God. Christ is a false God. I can prove I am God." And he does things impossible and proves it. Would the Pope actually say nope, i'm christian. haha hell no he wouldnt.

If there has been many warnings about such a being (which there has been, but here's one 2 Thessalonians 2:4) and one claiming to be as devoted as they are, wouldn't they deny this being? Also, having high priority among the people doesn't insomuch make you a very devoted person.

Atheist - If you do NOTHING pro religion or if you do not believe in a religion/god

You're forgetting about Buddhists. Buddhists, if i'm not mistaken, don't believe in any Deity but are quite religious.

[biscuitrat 0]

So we're fighting opinion wars now? Sigh.

 

The thing that annoys me in every single instance, whether it's related to atheism or any organized religion, is evangelism. No single person is right. Faith is individual interpretation of a body of work. There is no correct answer. But representatives of both factions -- religion and atheism -- are absolutely convinced that they're the only ones who know the truth.

 

My personal view is that religion is not truth; religion is faith, and faith is something that cannot be proven by logic or by tests. It's simply there, conveniently out of science's range. I'm not very religious at all, in fact. I love the sense of science (from scio, scire = I know (Latin)). People argue science, but not as vehemently as personal belief.

 

Of course, maybe atheists and religious-types both adopt these fighting stances as a defense? Just leave it as a matter of choice. If someone wants to be religious or atheist or agnostic, that's their personal decision. You have every right to defend yourself, but don't turn to hypocrisy. We're all the friends we have.

[truefusion 3]

. . . faith is something that cannot be proven by logic or by tests.

Many have come to the faith because it does make sense to them (and still continues to), and 'cause they put Scripture to the test. If it were not so, they would have never believed in the first place. And Science has helped others increase and strengthen their faith.

[glenstein 0]

So we're fighting opinion wars now? Sigh.

 

The thing that annoys me in every single instance, whether it's related to atheism or any organized religion, is evangelism. No single person is right. Faith is individual interpretation of a body of work. There is no correct answer. But representatives of both factions -- religion and atheism -- are absolutely convinced that they're the only ones who know the truth.

 

My personal view is that religion is not truth; religion is faith, and faith is something that cannot be proven by logic or by tests. It's simply there, conveniently out of science's range. I'm not very religious at all, in fact. I love the sense of science (from scio, scire = I know (Latin)). People argue science, but not as vehemently as personal belief.

 

Of course, maybe atheists and religious-types both adopt these fighting stances as a defense? Just leave it as a matter of choice. If someone wants to be religious or atheist or agnostic, that's their personal decision. You have every right to defend yourself, but don't turn to hypocrisy. We're all the friends we have.

Sorry, but this doesn't work. One of the worst things you can do is cop out, pretend you are taking the "high road" by saying everything is just personal decision and we should leave it alone. That's saying that we are so helplessly powerlessly incapable of discerning the truth that it's not worth bothering with.

 

Relegating the entire question to "all is equal, nothing matters because it depends on what you personally believe" is one of the weakest most unsatisfying and easiest answers possible because it gets you out of the burden of thinking critically about the subject. Also, it's not true. Facts about reality exist independent of our opinions on them. They are definitely not decided by whatever happens to be your personal belief. There most certainly IS a correct answer, even if we can never get to it, and the last thing anyone should do is sigh and groan at people trying to think about it.

 

Also, I'm not sure where this atheist vs. religious person battle is coming from. I'm an atheist and it looks like I disagree with another atheist, so I'm not really trying to defend religion, just trying to tell this other guy that he is being way too strict with his terms.

Edited March 25, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[salamangkero 0]

Relegating the entire question to "all is equal, nothing matters because it depends on what you personally believe" is one of the weakest most unsatisfying and easiest answers possible because it gets you out of the burden of thinking critically about the subject. Also, it's not true. Facts about reality exist independent of our opinions on them.

There was a quote from a book, The Burning Man, that goes,

Seek tranquility rather than the truth. The truth you know now will be proven wrong later on and you'll never really know the truth in your lifetime. Instead, look for the truth you are comfortable with.

Now, I know that, taken to the extreme, this is dangerous, we'd have people playing blind to the harsh realities of society. People will be apathetic to poverty, hunger and war, simply claiming that they don't exist. However, I do believe that with moderation, this could lead to inner peace.

 

See, the reason "Let it be" is "one of the weakest most unsatisfying and easiest answer possible" is that some humans have a greater drive to know the truth, a more ardent desire for determinism and a dire thirst for absolute knowledge. Others, on the other hand, like me, are quite content to know that some things are beyond our knowledge. For example, we don't need to know whether a God exists or not to operate our toasters. We can live through a day or a week without knowledge whether God's sex is male or female.

 

True, whether we like it or not, facts are hardly changeable. A vase is a vase is a vase. If it's there, it will be there, no matter what we believe in. However, God, or any omnipotent being for that matter, is hardly a fact; it is a belief. I, for one, do not have to prove my beliefs, least of all, to you people whom I hardly know. Why? Because it is, within my life, so far, inherently impossible to prove. Therefore, I can safely say that, "Let it be," is a very satisfying answer.

 

You guys also do not need to prove your beliefs, much less preach about or force them to other people. If you don't believe there are agnostics, then don't. If you don't believe in things depending on individual beliefs, then don't. If you believe your God will make it rain tomorrow, then do bring an umbrella. Just don't force me to bring one as well.

 

No, I'm not preaching too. Just sharing my opinions.

 

Alright, I'm just racking up credits, haha

[BooZker 0]

Unfortunately you absolutely, totally, completely are saying people have to make up their mind. You are saying that people who consider religion have no right to treat it as an open ended question, and if they have any atheist inkling (which every agnostic does) then they HAVE to commit full force to atheism.

No im not saying they have to commit anything. THEY ALREADY ARE. That is my whole point. They do not need to do anything else. They ARE an Atheist if the fall under the category i did in my last post. Like i have said a so many times in this topic, Atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. So, if your an "Agnostic" and don't believe in a God until proven YOU ARE A ATHEIST. I dont know how else to explain it. Dont believe = Atheist. Not only in religion.

What if a person thinks the harmony of the universe absolutely unquestionably points to some higher author of reality, but still insists they need proof to subscribe to it and that for them, these views are irreconcilable after much consideration?

So did Einstein and many other geniuses, but they ALL considered themselves Atheist because they were. They did not believe in a God at that time. They needed proof. Just like posts in these forums, i am an Atheist until i fully believe and understand them. Unless they have proof i'm an atheist towards the topics. I might think or want to think they are true, but without proof i either believe or dont believe it.

That's not what an agnostic is.

What is it then? Even the definition is that. It doesn't say that exactly, but in other words it is that.
Here is the dictionary version:

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

I am also an agnostic. But i am an Atheist. You can not only be an Agnostic. That is what i have been trying to say. You are either an Theist Agnostic or an Atheist Agnostic. Yes you can also be an Atheist and a Theist, but you can not be in the dead center.

You're forgetting about Buddhists. Buddhists, if i'm not mistaken, don't believe in any Deity but are quite religious.

Even you said though. They are quite religious. They go and pray (Sorry if that's not what you call it ) and so fourth.

Have you heard of the Stoics? They practiced all kinds of religious custom and some of them were even priests, but none of them actually believed a god was legitimately provable. They followed religious customs because they were the folkways of the time and they preached that they might as well, because, doubting everything, they believed one path was just as good as any other path. So clearly there can be people who doubt theism but participate in religion and you should be a bit more careful with your definitions.

They are 100% Theist. Most religious people will say they have no solid proof to prove anyone there is a God. They have faith. What you said is nothing new and would fall under the Theist Agnostic category. They are not agnostic though because they believed in a God. I have read a lot about this. I am not making this stuff up. People have changed this names meaning for years and years. This is what it was meant to be because you cant be in the middle.

If there has been many warnings about such a being (which there has been, but here's one 2 Thessalonians 2:4) and one claiming to be as devoted as they are, wouldn't they deny this being? Also, having high priority among the people doesn't insomuch make you a very devoted person.

I would love to hear about someone who turned down something like that. They would just be stupid. Sorry, but they would be. I mean TomaBom comes down and you say well if your god fly me to pluto and make it so i dont die and get there in an instant and he does that, you wouldnt believe him? Amazing if you wouldnt. I'm very atheist, but i know for sure i would.

If someone wants to be religious or atheist or agnostic, that's their personal decision.

Your right. It just makes me mad when they say they are something which can not be. Yes i can say im a Theist, but i dont believe in any god what so ever, dont go to church or anything. I can SAY i am, but that is neither the definition of it or what i do.

All i have been saying is Agnostic has to be connected to another. Without another backing up word your in the dead center. If you want to call yourself something and not know the true definition go ahead be my guest. It makes no sense, but you can.

Why am i backing up the dictionary and a nobel prize winner and i still get put down? Guess its not what is right its what people want.

[truefusion 3]

I would love to hear about someone who turned down something like that. They would just be stupid. Sorry, but they would be. I mean TomaBom comes down and you say well if your god fly me to pluto and make it so i dont die and get there in an instant and he does that, you wouldnt believe him? Amazing if you wouldnt. I'm very atheist, but i know for sure i would.

Indeed you would believe him/it, but i wouldn't. It is a known Biblical fact that if God were to physically and literally enter this universe, all this would be destroyed just by His presence (Deuteronomy 5:24; Exodus 33:20). This is one of the reasons why God does not physically and literally show Himself. We have not yet been made fit enough to be able to enter His presence and endure. There has been some that have been made fit (e.g. Moses, Elijah, Jesus), if i'm not mistaken, but not us.

[glenstein 0]

There was a quote from a book, The Burning Man, that goes,

Now, I know that, taken to the extreme, this is dangerous, we'd have people playing blind to the harsh realities of society. People will be apathetic to poverty, hunger and war, simply claiming that they don't exist. However, I do believe that with moderation, this could lead to inner peace.

No, not just taken at an extreme, but taken in any sense, it is a totally destructive piece of advice that reaches way too far. Saying that on certain levels literally nothing can be known, besides being logically broken (how is it true if it applies to itself?), would simply apply to whatever subject happened to be difficult, without discrimination and without reason.

 

You would have to say it to the early Greek scientists: they were always coming up with new ideas and they were always getting proven wrong

 

But in the same breath you would be condemning the very imaginative effort needed to comprehend and think about the universe, which inspired every next effort and made every next victory possible. You would see that people were always getting proven wrong, and would throw up your hands saying science was "unknowable". God forbid anyone in authority held to such a doctrine, because they would have believed it was useless and destroyed all progress thinking it was useless, even though we now have many well fleshed out sciences today.

 

The only meaningful effect of the doctrine, used against science, would have been to shatter any possible progress. Just the same, if there is truth to be discovered in high minded questions of philosophy and religion, there is nothing "live and let live" can do but inspire indifference and destroy any possible progress that could have been made. It has a certain pop-wisdom to it, but it is very limited in use, and utterly trumped in significance by other considerations, like real truth.

 

Maybe it is comforting to absolve yourself of any responsibility to think critically (perhaps that is what is meant by "inner peace"), but there is no wisdom in it. Saying "The truth you know now will be proven wrong later" throws the baby out with the bathwater (which is a logical fallacy) and itself requires some logical burden for legitimacy. 2+2=4 will never stop being true. Even truths that need to change, like Newtonian Physics, are critically, incredibly important to that which they apply to, and there is no reason to reject what is presently established as truth if the only reason for doing so is that it will be rejected in favor of an as-yet undiscovered (thus non-existent, thus non true) fact of reality. Even when one truth is proven wrong, its being proven wrong itself is an advancement in understanding.

 

It's all just a disgusting, hopeless, dead end that throws any thoughts about anything out the window, and not just on practical matters like using a toaster, but on matters difficult to prove but nonetheless important to think about. Do you think you passionately love someone? No, do not subscribe with such confidence to that view! You will be proven wrong later. Do you think you will help a quadriplegic achieve meaning in their life by helping them with their everyday activities, telling them your stories and looking after them? Even if it seems true now, surely that will be proven wrong as well so there is no point! Taking the "doubt everything" doctrine to anything of a meaningful level of application is just poisonous and ruinous to thought.

 

You don't have to take it to an extreme when it already fundamentally IS an extreme. Wouldn't it be important to you to know whether the five decades of your life you committed to preisthood were wasted? Every one of these things has very very very important rights and wrongs that encase them, our life is engulfed in rights and wrongs at every turn. Fundamentally, understanding this is SO much more important than the legitimate wisdom at the other end of the spectrum- knowing the peace of voluntary restraint. And the one leads to way more progress than the other. If you say "restraint" is in itself depth and personal exploration, then you again validate the need for specific definite truth.

 

See, the reason "Let it be" is "one of the weakest most unsatisfying and easiest answer possible" is that some humans have a greater drive to know the truth, a more ardent desire for determinism and a dire thirst for absolute knowledge. Others, on the other hand, like me, are quite content to know that some things are beyond our knowledge.

No, no, no, no. no. no. no. ........... no. This division is phony. Those groups aren't mutually exclusive, they are the same, unless one goes to artificial extremes that don't meaningfully represent actual people. They don't contradict and therefore the construction of this gulf is not a meaningful or applicable criticism. There is no good reason, ever, for curbing your interest in reasoning. If it's because a pursuit in reasoning is hopeless, it would be because it is known to hopeless, again, because of reasons. Everything ends in reasons.

 

Lastly, to come full circle and apply this to the conversation: We are talking about how to define an agnostic. For all the things that are beyond knowledge, this subject clearly isn't. Every element of it is tangible and it is easy to talk about without leaning too much on the actual "is god real" debate. At the worst, we could at least positively know which opinions are wrong.

 

They are 100% Theist. Most religious people will say they have no solid proof to prove anyone there is a God. They have faith. What you said is nothing new and would fall under the Theist Agnostic category. They are not agnostic though because they believed in a God. I have read a lot about this. I am not making this stuff up. People have changed this names meaning for years and years. This is what it was meant to be because you cant be in the middle.

Sorry, sorry, sorry. I profusely apologize on this. I meant the Sceptics. I am reading "History of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell and the Stoics come right after the Sceptics, and I left my book at work and made a guess. I meant the Sceptics, sorry for that little bit of incorrect corruption.

 

But now that I have my book, a quote from Sextus Empiricus, the only Sceptic whose works survive:

We sceptics follow in practice the way of the world, but without holding any opinions about it. We speak of the Gods as existing and offer worship to the Gods and say that they exercise providence, but in saying this we express no belief, and avoid the rashness of the dogmatisers.

Then your definition of an atheist:

Atheist -If you do NOTHING pro religion or if you do not believe in a religion/god

Clearly these two stand in contradiction.

 

Before you call them Atheist, know that, still, you are being way too blunt with the terms, and you never responded to the flesh and blood of my post (that there are subletites in belief escaping the atheist/theist classification). A person can be deeply informed on this question but still not commit to atheism or to any form of religion.

 

No im not saying they have to commit anything. THEY ALREADY ARE. That is my whole point. They do not need to do anything else. They ARE an Atheist if the fall under the category i did in my last post. Like i have said a so many times in this topic, Atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. So, if your an "Agnostic" and don't believe in a God until proven YOU ARE A ATHEIST. I dont know how else to explain it. Dont believe = Atheist. Not only in religion.

See the part in capitals that I put in bold? That is where you proactively force a title on people who haven't declared that to be their title. That, your own personal declaration that they have to be an atheist, is where you are saying that a set of circumstances compels a person to be a part of a certain group. Or that they have to be "committed" to a certain group or that they "already are" in a certain, group, whatever you want to call it.

 

With your rigidity, you would be forced to call millions of people a theist for one belief or action, and an atheist for another. If you are calling them both at the same time, and you would have to, your definition is broken. Unless you want to say that this crowd of agnostics is each made up of a hundred little inner atheists and inner theists depending on what question they are answering. Which is equally un-useful.

 

Being an atheist is a full-scale declaration, an all encompassing systemization of questions and also a declaration of confidence in this belief. If you believe you can't see any proof that there is a god, sorry, that alone is not enough. It takes more to be an atheist and if you don't think so, you are fundamentally misunderstanding these terms. It would be like cutting up people's economic beliefs and saying that they are communist or all out laissez-faire capitalist, but NEVER anything in between. Given the diversity of particular stances on economics, such a classification system is ridiculous.

Edited March 26, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[Tetraca 0]

Quite frankly Christians have been smugger than Atheists for hundreds of years before Atheists have picked up steam. Be glad that you aren't being executed because you're Christian like other religions have at the wrath of the crusades and inquisitions.

[BooZker 0]

Indeed you would believe him/it, but i wouldn't. It is a known Biblical fact that if God were to physically and literally enter this universe, all this would be destroyed just by His presence (Deuteronomy 5:24; Exodus 33:20). This is one of the reasons why God does not physically and literally show Himself. We have not yet been made fit enough to be able to enter His presence and endure. There has been some that have been made fit (e.g. Moses, Elijah, Jesus), if i'm not mistaken, but not us.

What I just said was if TomaBom came down. Not the Christian God. You do know, based on science, you have a less then 1% chance of being in the "right" religion when you die. Due to all the amounts of religions. Plus there is no way to prove it for two reasons.
1. God hasn't been proven.
2. If it were true, we would be dead if we ever found out

Anyways the point im making is IF TomaBom was "the" God and he did that you would honestly say no to him? What would you think he is then? A super powerful human?

We sceptics follow in practice the way of the world, but without holding any opinions about it. We speak of the Gods as existing and offer worship to the Gods and say that they exercise providence, but in saying this we express no belief, and avoid the rashness of the dogmatisers.

I offer to worship any God also if i have proof. I guess you can call me a sceptic also. Plus i am pretty confused with them also. They aren't even agnostic, are they (from your definition)? Seems to me more like something a lawyer would say haha.

"I wont say she didnt do it, but if she did she should go to jail, but since she didnt do it she should be freed."

From your definition it seems more like if you believe there CAN or CAN'T be a higher being then your agnostic, but above seems like non sense. Maybe i am reading it wrong?

glenstein, lets agree to disagree. We are both Atheists, right? I just can't explain as well as Richard Dawkins.

Here is a quote i like from him

It's said that the only rational stance is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural creator. I find that a weak position. It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it. There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist.

This is a better one. What I am saying is yes you can say your are agnostic, but it makes no sense because everyone is one. I guess my You can't be one quote is not correct. I more technically meant if you say you are, so is everyone. Here:

Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

Edited March 26, 2007 by BooZker (see edit history)

[Tsunami 0]

this hurts... it hurts alot... im atheist... i don't complain about christians preaching... i just wish they would respect atheism the way we (or at least I DO) respect Christianity... sure i don't believe in your religion and hell i may think its wrong... but its your religion... your allowed to believe what you want to believe... i respect the fact that you have a religion where you feel the need to spread your beliefs... all i ask is that you respect the fact that i don't want to believe what you believe... thats all...(ps... this is going in my irks my nerves topic)

[the_aggie10 0]

I don't care! I could not care less about your opinion, and you shouldn't care about mine.
So for the love of god please just shut up atheists.

This is where you went wrong. Ok Mr. Christian, how about YOU shut up and go print a post of this and give it to your pastor. I'm sure he will tell you what is wrong with this, if you're still to ignorant to know. People like you (two-faced/arrogant) are the worst there are. You're over here saying you're this good christian when you're telling atheists to shut up?! Are you RETARDED? I believe christians are supposed to help atheists out? But nice try. No, no it wasn't at ALL. Idiot.