[Fineus]

Can you people resolve this decently, or is this going to go downhill from here?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Can you people resolve this decently, or is this going to go downhill from here?

go downhill?

[Kazan]

kal you did notice that i chose not to respond to her post

[Ransom]

Originally posted by Kazan
there is "Belief" without evidence: ie faith (see: religion)
there is "Belief" WITH evidence: ie science (see: using your ****ing brain)

[/b]
That's a nice inflammatory comment there.

im so tired of you abusing the definitions of words to try and miscategorize atheists and agnostics[/B]

As an agnostic, I believe it is impossible to know whether God/s exist. I'm not really feeling miscategorised.

And as far as atheism goes, disbelief is really still a form of belief.

[Kazan]

ransom: wrong

agnostic: we cannot know
atheist: (aka weak atheist) there is no evidence for one so i don't believe in one
counter-theist: (aka strong atheist) there isn't one


me: there is no evidence for one so i don't believe in one, and since there is no evidence for one it is irrational to believe in one

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan

me: there is no evidence for one so i don't believe in one, and since there is no evidence for one it is irrational to believe in one

I even agree with you on this.

I simply disagree with your catagorization. You twist my words and you leave out facts. That's not really a way to convince me that you are right.

Most of what you say comes down to 'I'm right and you are wrong.' You base your assumptions on half-truths, opinions and, very ironically, you own beliefs.

That you choose not to respond to me is fine, it's your choice. But you proven nothing.

[KappaWing]

atheist = counter theist.

That's the exact same thing.

[Kazan]

KappaWing: no it's not

[karajorma]

Originally posted by KappaWing
atheist = counter theist.

That's the exact same thing.

Nope. A counter-theist believes that there is no god.

An atheist simply doesn't believe.

Atheist != Counter theist.

Tiara is mixing the two up.

[Ransom]

Originally posted by Kazan
ransom: wrong

agnostic: we cannot know
atheist: (aka weak atheist) there is no evidence for one so i don't believe in one
counter-theist: (aka strong atheist) there isn't one

Okay, fair enough. But I'm not sure how your point about agnostics disproves what I said about them.

[LeGuille]

The english language sucks... we need to be like the Chinese and have 50,000 different characters...one specific one for every signle word... single meanings is so much better. *rolleyes*

We are arguing over definition and categorizing. The post was about government funding religious orginizations when it is supposed to be a privately funded organization. i.e. - by the church/denomination it belongs to.

[KappaWing]

Right. Back On Topic.

I think it's rediculous that taxpayers must pay to benifit a religion that they may not even be a part of. If a religious orginization needs money, they should ask it from their 'loyal' supporters. If their orginization goes kaputt, it's because their supporters weren't loyal enough to keep them going.

[Kazan]

for once kappa and i completely agree

[WeatherOp]

Ok?  does anyone mind telling me if this is a politic thread or a religous one?


And in the politic part, I don't belive it is fair to show more favor to the religous orginizations, same with the Evolutionist orginizations. But, I do think they should have the right to say who can join and set religous bondries as long as it isn't goverment supported.

[Kazan]

"Evolutionist" is not a word


and the concept you're trying to put forward in it's usage is apsurd

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan
"Evolutionist" is not a word

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Evolutionist

[Kazan]

the crap they put in the dictionary these days

[Bobboau]

point is there is no organiseation devoted to the promotion of it that would get put under the same catagory as the religous organiseations we are discussing.

when the government is giveing you funding they have the right to dictate to you what you do and how you act.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok?  does anyone mind telling me if this is a politic thread or a religous one?


And in the politic part, I don't belive it is fair to show more favor to the religous orginizations, same with the Evolutionist orginizations.The goverment shouldn't show favor"  But, I do think "they" The leader of organizations NOT supported by the goverment " should have the right to say who can join and set religous bondries as long as it isn't goverment supported.

Is that clearer?

[LeGuille]

Evolutionism is a beleif system, a theorized beleif system with credible dating, I suppose. But -- is this more or less the religious standard then Creationism? Creationism bascially says that the world was made mature, and that there is a higher power.

Evolutionism then would be a religion of sorts, wouldn't it?