h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't feel *unnecessary* discrimination helps. The correction of your statement's necessary because "discrimination" simply means seeing the difference between two or more things, and without that we couldn't learn. Now, I feel that religion should still be subject to satire and debate, just not mockery and rudeness.
Atheism is simply believing that there is no God. I am a type of agnostic that discriminates against *all* faith, but simply "agnostic" will do.

so what is the difference?imho you either believe in god or not?would some1 who had never felt love not believe in love?what is it you dont like about faith?

and i think you should never be afraid to question your faith.otherwise we would be sheep!

"so what is the difference?imho you either believe in god or not?would some1 who had never felt love not believe in love?what is it you dont like about faith?"

There is a difference between atheism and agnostisism, though I can see how it might not be evident to a theist.

Atheists think that no gods exist, and that the universe can be entirly explained by natural causes. Atheists think that there is not a god.

Agnostics, on the other hand, thoml that either it is impossible for anyone to ever know whether a god exists, or it impossible for them to know whether a god exists with their current knowledge. Agnostics think that they don't or can't know if a god exists.

In other words, an atheists thinks that Jehovah doesn't exist; agnostics think that they don't know if Jehovah exists. An atheist would think that the Bible is a collection of myths and legends; an agnostic would think it might be, but that it might also be literally true.



That said, I think that Mal is using the wrong definition of atheism and thus has a rather simple and incomplete view of it. There certainly are religious atheists who believe that no gods exist. However, there are also atheists (myself included) who accept the agnostic idea that they can't really know whether a god exists. We simply feel that the best way to deal with most subjects is to assume that Occams Razor applies unless the evidence dictates to us that it doesn't. In other words, be don't believe there isn't a god, we just feel it is useful to postulate that no gods eist (or at least matter) unless there is evidence of them. This view is often called "soft" atheism, as opposed to the "hard" atheism that Mal rightly characterizes as a religion.


Frankly, there is a lot of pointless arguement about terminoloy among atheists/agnostics/freethinkers. Richard Dawkins tried to remedy this by inventing the term "Bright", but, frankly, although I have registered as one, I think that his choice of the term "bright" was unwise for obvious reasons and has only caused more trouble than it prevented.



Mal, I think that if you'll consider this point, you'll see that atheism is not necesarrily a religion, merely one form of it is. There are atheists who have faith in the lack of gods--they are religious. There are also atheists who don't know if their are gods but think that, for practicle purposes, it is more useful to assume there aren't until we have evidence of them. We are not religious nor have the faith that you complain about.

imho i have also met christians who are agnostic then!

"i have also met christians who are agnostic then!"

I don't see why that would be impossible, but I don't think I've met any. Though perhaps I have and haven't realized it.


BTW, minniemouse, what does "imho" mean?

imho = in my humble opinion

hopefully it wouldn't be called athiesm! i try to have no prejudices against anyone regardless of their beliefs. i believe that it is irrelevent. you can debate the existance or non-existance of any entity till kingdom comes (figuratively speaking ) or we could all just leave it be and appreciate and enjoy what we've got.

on a side note, if anyones wondering why i've suddenly got talkitive after so many months its cos i'm very bored in work. (but don't tell anyone!)

sorry. ignore that! wrong conversation. again. i'm too tired for this.

lol

"I would like to say that I came here for HONEST INQUIRY, it's not "ATTACK JUSTIN TIME.""

That was directed at Justin, as in "I would like to say [to Justin] "
I would like to give the guy every chance for a rebuttal of your remarks, but if what you're saying is the truth, you're right, he's a nutcase.
Nerd42

He isn't a nutcase, he's just... individual. Although I'm not sure why he bothers to preach to us, considering that the core of his belief system is that no matter how good or Christian you are, nothing can help you be saved apart from God's will.

Exactly the point I was about to bring up, that I'm not shure you're telling the whole truth because if that were the case there's no point in evangalism.
Nerd42

wonder if Justin would allow himself to be interviewed over at 42FM?
Nerd42

I for one would welcome the chance to hear such a remarkable individual in RL...
A rumour goeth around that he can be found preaching on a beach somewhere in England; possibly Weston-Super-Mare...

I'm not sure whether to say "justin, are you reading this?" or "is justin reading this?" but I want to ask if he's interested in being interviewed at 42FM and possibly taking some calls.
Nerd42

Nerd42,

By pure 'chance' I happened to notice your post. I don't look at this page much, and I have not been subscribed to this conversation.

What is 42FM? How do you mean 'take calls'?

Justin

oh great. forgot about justin being on pre-mod. this might not work.
what did he do anyway?
Nerd42

It's not a question of what he did but what he was perceived to have done. Perhaps you can confirm this, Justin, but I suspect that some people disagreed strongly enough with your ideology and wording to report you.

Well, no, actually. It is the same old thing. This is run by the BBC, and as with Mr Kilroy-Silk, it is not done to tell the truth. There is this 'PC' (perverse claptrap) agenda where it is not allowed for folks to speak the truth if anyone of antichrist/pagan/amoral persuasion is upset. Sadly The Truth stings, and hence one is not allowed to speak it.