Discussing Atheism and atheistic beliefs

[Ernst]

Just because we are willing to be rational and admit that to be a true atheist you have to KNOW that there is no god. How can we really claim such a thing? I don't think that really qualifies us all as agnostics, though.

I think a lot of religious folks, Christians at least, seem to have god confused with Santa Claus; this compassionate fellow with a white beard who watches over us deciding if we've been naughty or nice....




Do you believe in Santa, or do you hold proof that he doesn't exist?

[lovbyts]

Just because we are willing to be rational and admit that to be a true atheist you have to KNOW that there is no god. How can we really claim such a thing? I don't think that really qualifies us all as agnostics, though.

I think a lot of religious folks, Christians at least, seem to have god confused with Santa Claus; this compassionate fellow with a white beard who watches over us deciding if we've been naughty or nice....




Do you believe in Santa, or do you hold proof that he doesn't exist?

Do you know what I asked Santa for Christmas?

[Times Roman]

Just because we are willing to be rational and admit that to be a true atheist you have to KNOW that there is no god. How can we really claim such a thing? I don't think that really qualifies us all as agnostics, though.

I think a lot of religious folks, Christians at least, seem to have god confused with Santa Claus; this compassionate fellow with a white beard who watches over us deciding if we've been naughty or nice....


Do you believe in Santa, or do you hold proof that he doesn't exist?

clearly a rhetorical question, with tongue in cheek I hope.

Deal me in said that as an atheist, only believe in what they can prove. I was talking to that point, not to the point that being an atheist is an incorrect belief.

I have no problem with an atheist making a leap of faith and saying there is no god. But it does bother me due to hypocrisy when that same atheist then says that those that do believe in god are irrational and then start flaming their belief system.

Both atheists and true believers have taken an emotional position, and neither position can be proven; therefore both positions are irrational and defy the scientific method. And in many cases, both groups have drew a line in the sand and willing to defend it. Both, to a large extent, have closed their minds to the possibility that the other group could be right.

Here's my point.

It is OK to have a belief system.

It is NOT OK to say your belief system is right and the other guys belief system is wrong.

Again, neither side can be proven nor disproven.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

[Times Roman]

in other words, a belief system needs to be recognized as a choice, NOT a fact!

[lovbyts]

in other words, a belief system needs to be recognized as a choice, NOT a fact!

Yes and even science needs to be more open minded and understand that facts can change. None of it is a written in stone.

[Docd187123]

Yes and even science needs to be more open minded and understand that facts can change. None of it is a written in stone.

Facts don't change by definition, our interpretation or understanding of them can change though. I get what you're saying and I think it's us, humans, who jump the gun and try to state something as fact when simply there's just some evidence pointing in that direction.

[lovbyts]

Facts don't change by definition, our interpretation or understanding of them can change though. I get what you're saying and I think it's us, humans, who jump the gun and try to state something as fact when simply there's just some evidence pointing in that direction.

Yes that is what I was trying to say at the end of a long day and I was ready to go home. Thank you

[Docd187123]

Yes that is what I was trying to say at the end of a long day and I was ready to go home. Thank you

Merry Christmas from me...

[Deal Me In]

1) There is no rational way possible to disprove a metaphysical being. It's like trying to prove there are not ghosts or that there are not other people on other planets. In order to prove there are not other people on other planets, we would have to know where every planet is in the universe, and have first hand factual information that no people live there. It aint going to happen.

2) Because we cannot prove there is not a metaphysical being, then how is it possible for an atheist to factually say there is no metaphysical being? Statistically, the odds of there being a metaphysical being is not zero, therefore, it's possible. And because it is a statistical truth that there could be a metaphysical being, then for an atheist to attempt to factually say there is NOT a metaphysical being would make that statement illogical and therefore non factual. And since it is a non factual statement, it is also not rational. Because the atheist is passionate about their non factual position, then in my humble opinion, their position is no more superior to that of an emotional, non rational religious belief.

3) Critical thinking demands uncertainty, and therefore, from a rational approach, the only position that makes rational sense is that of the agnostic.

This is the flow of critical thinking. One step at a time. Thought out. Concise. Rational.

Yes, that what I said. Most atheists are actually agnostic. Few people know the difference so we simply refer to ourselves as atheists. It's not factually accurate but it's the group we have been placed in.

In the clip I provided, Dawkins states that he has 7 levels of belief. Number 1 is, "there is a god and nothing will convince me otherwise." Number 7 is, "there is no god and nothing can convince me otherwise." Every atheist I know is actually a 6. I have not seen any proof there is a god but there is a very small possibility that one exists.

[Deal Me In]

in other words, a belief system needs to be recognized as a choice, NOT a fact!

This is what drives people like me crazy. I will readily admit I choose to be atheist based on the information that we have at this moment in time.

However, most believers, (pick any form) will tell you they know the one true god and everyone else is full of shit. I have only met one or two true believers who will admit they CHOOSE to believe in whichever god they believe in. They KNOW they a right. This thinking leads to war, genocide, and terrorism. It's dangerous.

[marcus300]

Really interesting thread and views

[Times Roman]

Facts don't change by definition, our interpretation or understanding of them can change though. I get what you're saying and I think it's us, humans, who jump the gun and try to state something as fact when simply there's just some evidence pointing in that direction.

this.

all too often, people will see results provided by science, and make false assumptions. The scientific process is legit. It's how we interpret the results that is flawed.

I've spoken about this before, but I'm a little bothered by what we perceive as the expansion of the universe. Only when the value of C remains constant over billions of years does any of this make sense. But we really are not absolutely positive C has maintained the same value. Some are theorizing that the value of C may have decreased over time, and if this is true, the universe may not be expanding the way we think it is. And if so, then this Big Bang "theory" (not LAW) could quite easily be wrong. We can never really know if we have all the pieces of the puzzle, and because of this, our understanding of the universe will always flawed.

[thegodfather]

this.

all too often, people will see results provided by science, and make false assumptions. The scientific process is legit. It's how we interpret the results that is flawed.

I've spoken about this before, but I'm a little bothered by what we perceive as the expansion of the universe. Only when the value of C remains constant over billions of years does any of this make sense. But we really are not absolutely positive C has maintained the same value. Some are theorizing that the value of C may have decreased over time, and if this is true, the universe may not be expanding the way we think it is. And if so, then this Big Bang "theory" (not LAW) could quite easily be wrong. We can never really know if we have all the pieces of the puzzle, and because of this, our understanding of the universe will always flawed.

If atheists claim that you only believe in what you can prove, it really narrows the window of beliefs. For instance, if an atheist lived 1,000 years ago, and only decided to believe what they could prove, their belief system would be extremely limited to that periods understanding of the world, which as we know, they 'proved' some craaaaaazy shit. That's why to be a functioning agnostic, you are required to understand that there are factors in our world which you will never be able to prove in our lifetime, or many lifetimes, but which are empirically real and do exist, they are just beyond our present day understanding. That's why I choose the ideology of suspending all judgement, and simply being open to one of many possibilities. I believe in an intelligent designer of life, but that's the biggest leap of faith I take, given all of the information that I have at hand. I am equally open to the idea that space aliens created us (but someone had to create them, cyclical logic), or that we're living in the Matrix, or that we arose by chance out of billions of trials. What I find most fascinating is that in 1,000 years, everything that we did in our lives will mean nothing to the universe, we are an insignificant blip on the cosmic radar. It makes you wonder about all the self aggrandizement that people do. Those are my thoughts...

[Times Roman]

If atheists claim that you only believe in what you can prove, it really narrows the window of beliefs. For instance, if an atheist lived 1,000 years ago, and only decided to believe what they could prove, their belief system would be extremely limited to that periods understanding of the world, which as we know, they 'proved' some craaaaaazy shit. That's why to be a functioning agnostic, you are required to understand that there are factors in our world which you will never be able to prove in our lifetime, or many lifetimes, but which are empirically real and do exist, they are just beyond our present day understanding. That's why I choose the ideology of suspending all judgement, and simply being open to one of many possibilities. I believe in an intelligent designer of life, but that's the biggest leap of faith I take, given all of the information that I have at hand. I am equally open to the idea that space aliens created us (but someone had to create them, cyclical logic), or that we're living in the Matrix, or that we arose by chance out of billions of trials. What I find most fascinating is that in 1,000 years, everything that we did in our lives will mean nothing to the universe, we are an insignificant blip on the cosmic radar. It makes you wonder about all the self aggrandizement that people do. Those are my thoughts...

as long as individuals understand that their beliefs are choices instead of facts, then it really doesn't matter. But let's be real honest. There are some, more than a few, that really don't possess the cognitive powers necessary to really think this through, and instead, rely on others to tell them how to think. And once they have developed a belief system, to them, it becomes unshakeable. Never again do they really examine their position. They become the rock of Gibraltar, and because they have come to certain irrational conclusions, unaware that they are irrational, they embrace it and become defensive if others don't adopt a similar position.

One of the hardest things for people to do is to accept the fact that they are really not that important. Most people are very selfish, with themselves, their beliefs, their possessions...... And because they are selfish, their belief system is more important than anyone else's ("mine"). To continue this evolution, they feel they are right and you are wrong. And they are willing to defend this irrational belief system, even to the death sometimes. Wars are fought because people lack the mental capacity to think clearly and critically. One of the possible end results is having a cleric convince some dullard to strap an explosive devise on to his chest and go blow up a bus full of children.

[jay94]

as long as individuals understand that their beliefs are choices instead of facts, then it really doesn't matter. But let's be real honest. There are some, more than a few, that really don't possess the cognitive powers necessary to really think this through, and instead, rely on others to tell them how to think. And once they have developed a belief system, to them, it becomes unshakeable. Never again do they really examine their position. They become the rock of Gibraltar, and because they have come to certain irrational conclusions, unaware that they are irrational, they embrace it and become defensive if others don't adopt a similar position.

One of the hardest things for people to do is to accept the fact that they are really not that important. Most people are very selfish, with themselves, their beliefs, their possessions...... And because they are selfish, their belief system is more important than anyone else's ("mine"). To continue this evolution, they feel they are right and you are wrong. And they are willing to defend this irrational belief system, even to the death sometimes. Wars are fought because people lack the mental capacity to think clearly and critically. One of the possible end results is having a cleric convince some dullard to strap an explosive devise on to his chest and go blow up a bus full of children.

Individuals aren't important. The evolution of our species as a whole represents less than a second in the history of life. And yet, research suggests that a society functions best when its structures are adapted to the individual. How contradictory.

[Times Roman]

Individuals aren't important. The evolution of our species as a whole represents less than a second in the history of life. And yet, research suggests that a society functions best when its structures are adapted to the individual. How contradictory.

it doesn't work best, it works efficiently in an economic sense.

are you suggesting based on a community approach? community-ism? communism?

Communism is actually a very advanced form of society. What the soviets had was not true communism. More a form of control. And it lacked sufficient resources to make it work. And the Soviets lacked the imagination/vision to incentivize it sufficiently to make it work in the long term. They just flat out didn't have the tools, the education nor the philosophy, nor the structure to make it work. it was doomed to failure from the onset.

There will come a point in our evolution where it could work. At that point, we will have a fairly advanced technological base to support it. Fusion power maybe, or some type of advanced solar power. But the squabbles over fuel sources like we do today in the middle east will have to be resolved. All governments will have to be stable, no more squabbling over borders, food.... I'm thinking maybe in a few hundred years we might be ready?

[Metalject]

This is what drives people like me crazy. I will readily admit I choose to be atheist based on the information that we have at this moment in time.

However, most believers, (pick any form) will tell you they know the one true god and everyone else is full of shit. I have only met one or two true believers who will admit they CHOOSE to believe in whichever god they believe in. They KNOW they a right. This thinking leads to war, genocide, and terrorism. It's dangerous.

Any true believer has to have just that, true belief. If he doesn't have that then it's not true belief. If he says he could be wrong, God might not exist, then how would that be belief? Take for example christians, one of the key principles is that God is the one true God and that it is absolute. Take that away and the whole thing crumbles.

And it's important to note that by the term "true believer" I mean just that. In the U.S. many openly state they are christians, most do, but are they? For many atheist, they mock this (silently or openly depending on the individual) because the christian in question doesn't follow every last aspect of the bible. The oldest argument and points that are made are by what's said in the Old Testament. However, many atheist, and many Christians for that matter, either fail to or forget to recognize the separation of the Old and New Testament and the significance of that separation. Atheist tend to take pieces of the bible and use select statements in it to condemn christians. However, many christians are guilty of the same as it allows them to pick and choose. Both often forget that it's numerous parts that make the whole. But in terms of an atheist understanding the christian, this may be impossible since it's not as simple as two sides of a coin but two different coins in entirety.

I also think it's important that having a true belief does not always lead to what you described above, that's just picking out the extreme nut jobs, which also exist on the non-belief side of the fence. But I'm sure most atheist just like most christians do not meet this definition.

[Metalject]

it doesn't work best, it works efficiently in an economic sense.

are you suggesting based on a community approach? community-ism? communism?

Communism is actually a very advanced form of society. What the soviets had was not true communism. More a form of control. And it lacked sufficient resources to make it work. And the Soviets lacked the imagination/vision to incentivize it sufficiently to make it work in the long term. They just flat out didn't have the tools, the education nor the philosophy, nor the structure to make it work. it was doomed to failure from the onset.

There will come a point in our evolution where it could work. At that point, we will have a fairly advanced technological base to support it. Fusion power maybe, or some type of advanced solar power. But the squabbles over fuel sources like we do today in the middle east will have to be resolved. All governments will have to be stable, no more squabbling over borders, food.... I'm thinking maybe in a few hundred years we might be ready?

True communism, in my opinion, would only be viable if man's very nature changed. What's the old saying, most people are good at their core? I don't believe this, people choose to be good, they choose to go against their natural instincts and tendencies...jealousy, envy, selfishness, gluttony, etc. Technology will never change the nature of man. And even if it could begin to do away with some of those things, jealousy, envy, etc. there are always those left who do more, contribute more, produce more, etc. and it is man's very nature to desire to earn what he has earned, the struggle to achieve more for himself and his family will always be there.

[Ernst]

Here's my point.

It is OK to have a belief system.

It is NOT OK to say your belief system is right and the other guys belief system is wrong.

Again, neither side can be proven nor disproven.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

I completely disagree. Westboro Baptist Church is WRONG. All these whack job jihadis are WRONG. That's a question of human decency and fvck their beliefs! End of story.

[Times Roman]

True communism, in my opinion, would only be viable if man's very nature changed. What's the old saying, most people are good at their core? I don't believe this, people choose to be good, they choose to go against their natural instincts and tendencies...jealousy, envy, selfishness, gluttony, etc. Technology will never change the nature of man. And even if it could begin to do away with some of those things, jealousy, envy, etc. there are always those left who do more, contribute more, produce more, etc. and it is man's very nature to desire to earn what he has earned, the struggle to achieve more for himself and his family will always be there.

True communism would only really work if everyone's meta needs are satiated. meaning everyone has enough to eat, they feel safe, and they are free to chose and explore their procreation options. And because that latter statement would mean that even the weirdest ugliest nerds feel secure in this area, it may also mean we genetically screen our embryos and fixing genetic defects very early on, or preventing those that are severely "defective" from further development. This would be a minimum. On top of that, to a certain extent, our resources would have to be vast and freely available, which is why I was mentioning the fusion or advanced solar power as energy sources. The whole point of communism is that there would not be the schism we find between the haves and the have nots as we do today. in true communism, the concept of property rights and individual ownership has been superseded by the concept of community.

This is an extremely advanced concept. again, we won't be ready for it for hundreds of years. if ever.

And I suspect, at it's cornerstone, is the need for a form of government that does not elevate one above the others. I'm thinking the need for a super advanced AI may exist as well? Not sure on that one, as I haven't spent the time thinking it through...........

[Times Roman]

I completely disagree. Westboro Baptist Church is WRONG. All these whack job jihadis are WRONG. That's a question of human decency and fvck their beliefs! End of story.

you are confusing participants in a belief system with the belief system itself. If you dig, you would probably find at the apex of each of these organizations an individual or a small group of individuals silently pulling strings to manipulate others into performing for some hidden agenda they have.

It's interesting, but in Afghanistan, much of the Taliban fighting was for control of the poppy fields, which also meant controlling a very large revenue producing industry. The Taliban needed anarchy in order to do as they wish. They were really not, to a certain extent, proposing any certain form of government (I didn't say religion or religious practice), but instead, were simply against any form of government that would restrict their illegal activities. For many hundreds of years, Afghanistan was very tribal, and really didn't have much of any form of central government. So the tribal leaders were free to do as they please.

[thisAngelBites]

Many atheists feel strongly about their view, and I'd like to know why. Is it based on critical thinking and rationality, or is it emotionally based like the religious true believers have developed?

I have never met an atheist who is atheistic based on emotion (and I'm not really going to enter the discussion about whether people who don't believe in gods should call themselves atheists or agnostics, because I don't think that matters), but perhaps there are such people.

I think it has not been very carefully expressed here, but all the atheists I know have made that choice for rational reasons, based on what evidence seems to show. In addition, I think they would change their views should convincing evidence for the existence of gods be clearly shown.

For myself, I might wish to derive great comfort from the belief that there is some benevolent, patriarchal figure that loves me and is looking out for me, that is purposefully directing my life down an intentional road that I might not be able to foresee or understand. But if I stop and set aside my desire that this is true, I see no reason to believe.

I suspect that people plainly wish that such gods do exist, and that it underlies a lot of belief. And I think that quite a bit of religious doctrine is quite irrational in ways that seem to suspiciously belie the vagaries of human thought, even though it is attributed to omniscient, omnipotent supernaturals.

[Times Roman]

I know a few self proclaimed atheists that are more anit-religion than anything else. When I try to engage them in a meaningful debate, they really come up short. I think for the average person that is a self proclaimed atheist, it seems to me that the heavy lifting of critically thinking about their position is still yet to be made..........

when someone says they are an atheist, that's ok. But ultimately, my point, is let's not slam the true believer either, since both positions are belief systems as opposed to empirical facts.

[Bonaparte]

1) There is no rational way possible to disprove a metaphysical being. It's like trying to prove there are not ghosts or that there are not other people on other planets. In order to prove there are not other people on other planets, we would have to know where every planet is in the universe, and have first hand factual information that no people live there. It aint going to happen.

2) Because we cannot prove there is not a metaphysical being, then how is it possible for an atheist to factually say there is no metaphysical being? Statistically, the odds of there being a metaphysical being is not zero, therefore, it's possible. And because it is a statistical truth that there could be a metaphysical being, then for an atheist to attempt to factually say there is NOT a metaphysical being would make that statement illogical and therefore non factual. And since it is a non factual statement, it is also not rational. Because the atheist is passionate about their non factual position, then in my humble opinion, their position is no more superior to that of an emotional, non rational religious belief.

3) Critical thinking demands uncertainty, and therefore, from a rational approach, the only position that makes rational sense is that of the agnostic.

This is the flow of critical thinking. One step at a time. Thought out. Concise. Rational.

Denying the existence of a higher being is a matter of practicality. I don't know any atheists who claim to be 100% sure that there is no higher being, but we just refuse to waste our time worrying about it/praying to one, since it seems very unlikely and we see no reason why there would be one. Also, explaining to people what "agnostic" means is a pain in the ass, so I just started telling people I was atheist after a while.

[Metalject]

Denying the existence of a higher being is a matter of practicality. I don't know any atheists who claim to be 100% sure that there is no higher being, but we just refuse to waste our time worrying about it/praying to one, since it seems very unlikely and we see no reason why there would be one. Also, explaining to people what "agnostic" means is a pain in the ass, so I just started telling people I was atheist after a while.

We learn and we progress, and while our understanding is limited to what's in front of us, this does not make what seems unlikely, unlikely.

Think through the course of human history and how many things seemed highly unlikely? The idea that the world was round or that man would ever stand on the moon wasn't something anyone could understand let alone comprehend. The idea that you could take out someone's heart and replace it with another, complete lunacy. But all these things, we now look at them as simple, they're not even exciting to us. And in our own arrogance we often view those in the past as small minded. What about in 100 years or 500 years? As we learn and experience more and more will those people not view us as small minded? Think of how big of a deal cellphones have been, no one really thinks about it now since we're so used to them but in years to come we'll look as moronic as a caveman being excited about a wheel. The point - as humans, we have a very limited understanding.

[Times Roman]

Denying the existence of a higher being is a matter of practicality. I don't know any atheists who claim to be 100% sure that there is no higher being, but we just refuse to waste our time worrying about it/praying to one, since it seems very unlikely and we see no reason why there would be one. Also, explaining to people what "agnostic" means is a pain in the ass, so I just started telling people I was atheist after a while.

not disagreeing with you. and no problems with anyone making a leap of faith and saying no metaphysical being. but it's the leap of faith aspect that makes atheists and true believers "birds of a feather" and therefore one shouldn't be casting stones at the other due to their particular position. I've seen the rocks fly both ways, and it makes no sense to me.

It's like arguing over the best color. one side says red, the other side says blue, and each side adamantly says the other side is wrong? WTF?

[Juced_porkchop]

The "GOD" I believe in is a life energy in all of us and connected through out the universe, not some guy watching or judging or pulling strings. .. to some that might be called atheistic. But i consider myself very spiritual, but not religious as i see 90% of it bumbling fools trying to make sense of stuff they dont understand at a point in time. ( no offence)
I live being a good person and with integrity in tact , not out of fear of god, but because that should be whats in your heart. if you are good or worry about what you did due to "god" then in my opinion it just means your not truly a good person "god like person"
I feel like the rift of "i dont believe in god" is more due to what we have made out of that label "God" and why would many believe in something like that, man made, that seems like a joke.

again I mean no offense to anyone, this is just my view

[Juced_porkchop]

We learn and we progress, and while our understanding is limited to what's in front of us, this does not make what seems unlikely, unlikely.

Think through the course of human history and how many things seemed highly unlikely? The idea that the world was round or that man would ever stand on the moon wasn't something anyone could understand let alone comprehend. The idea that you could take out someone's heart and replace it with another, complete lunacy. But all these things, we now look at them as simple, they're not even exciting to us. And in our own arrogance we often view those in the past as small minded. What about in 100 years or 500 years? As we learn and experience more and more will those people not view us as small minded? Think of how big of a deal cellphones have been, no one really thinks about it now since we're so used to them but in years to come we'll look as moronic as a caveman being excited about a wheel. The point - as humans, we have a very limited understanding.

very well put! love the post!

[BG]

OK. Thanks for not answering.
Anyway, I find it slightly annoying and a little creepy. Photo shoot pics are one thing, regular pics of another man's wife, weird.

Lmao and having your friend start a thread for you so you could try to make yourself look like somebody was way beyond annoying and creepy to me but I kept quiet so why don't you shut up. Especially your vague and basic answers.

[Metalject]

Lmao and having your friend start a thread for you so you could try to make yourself look like somebody was way beyond annoying and creepy to me but I kept quiet so why don't you shut up. Especially your vague and basic answers.

Which thread are you referring to?

[BG]

Which thread are you referring to?

guess

[Docd187123]

Lmao and having your friend start a thread for you so you could try to make yourself look like somebody was way beyond annoying and creepy to me but I kept quiet so why don't you shut up. Especially your vague and basic answers.

And you know this how exactly?

[BG]

And you know this how exactly?

mind your business. Wasnt speaking to you.

[Metalject]

guess

Sorry man, I don't know what you're referring to. And I don't think I'm anyone. I'm just a very regular guy. And besides, if I thought I was someone important or special, wouldn't I post under a real name rather than some screen name?

[Deal Me In]

I know a few self proclaimed atheists that are more anit-religion than anything else. When I try to engage them in a meaningful debate, they really come up short. I think for the average person that is a self proclaimed atheist, it seems to me that the heavy lifting of critically thinking about their position is still yet to be made..........

when someone says they are an atheist, that's ok. But ultimately, my point, is let's not slam the true believer either, since both positions are belief systems as opposed to empirical facts.

TR, yes, there are militant atheists who go around looking for a fight. This is unfortunate, but the jesus freaks still ring my doorbell once a month so I figure we're even.

I'm speaking for me personally here but what I find most annoying are the people who claim one god and only one god. You seem to believe in the possibility of some sort of higher power. I find that to be a much more evolved position than that taken by people of a particular faith.

When you consider that throughout time there have been roughly 270 supreme beings described in literature, for a group of people to pick one and say all others are false idols is really silly to me. I think this is where you find most of the problems between the two groups.

Let's remember, only one group condemns you for not believing in their faith. Atheists may laugh at someone for believing but we don't tell people they are going to burn in hell for not believing in god.

[BG]

Sorry man, I don't know what you're referring to. And I don't think I'm anyone. I'm just a very regular guy. And besides, if I thought I was someone important or special, wouldn't I post under a real name rather than some screen name?

Then why would you take a shot at one of us staff if your "just a regular guy"?

[Docd187123]

mind your business. Wasnt speaking to you.

This is a public forum. If you wanted privacy you should've taken it to a PM (private message).

[Metalject]

Then why would you take a shot at one of us staff if your "just a regular guy"?

Staff? I didn't know there was a staff...and that's not a smart aleck, remark. Regardless...Austinite and I have always rubbed each other the wrong way. The guy was pretty brutal with me when I first created this user name. Fairly basic disagreements on gear related issues, nothing major. We just see things a little differently. But I always took his tone as purposefully attempting to belittle those that disagree with him, in this case "those" being me. And I'd say he took me as being arrogant or trying to stir the pot because my views on gear do not flow with some of the standard views here. Is he a smart guy that contributes a lot to the board? Yes on both counts. But no one likes being talked down to by someone who knows nothing about them. I have nothing against him personally, I don't know him anymore than anyone knows anyone that post under screen names.

As far as the my most recent comment that you took issue with, I admit it was a bit of a poke, originally just a little harmless fun. But his response annoyed me and so I commented a little harshly, perhaps a little more so than I should have.

[BG]

Well I find it hard to believe you did know there was staff, but Ill leave it at that. As staff and the amount of time we put in around here we deserve respect. If you have an issue at any time in the future there is the one on one section where you can speak to us directly about the problem. Please leave it out of the open forum.

[Times Roman]

The "GOD" I believe in is a life energy in all of us and connected through out the universe, not some guy watching or judging or pulling strings. .. to some that might be called atheistic. But i consider myself very spiritual, but not religious as i see 90% of it bumbling fools trying to make sense of stuff they dont understand at a point in time. ( no offence)
I live being a good person and with integrity in tact , not out of fear of god, but because that should be whats in your heart. if you are good or worry about what you did due to "god" then in my opinion it just means your not truly a good person "god like person"
I feel like the rift of "i dont believe in god" is more due to what we have made out of that label "God" and why would many believe in something like that, man made, that seems like a joke.

again I mean no offense to anyone, this is just my view

you know, I've heard some say that the universe itself is a consciousness and therefore is a "god" in a sense. Just like ants in an anthill behave in a hive mentality, and perform for the hive in ways that that particular ant truly doesn't understand, some think that we are like ants in an ant hive, fulfilling the needs of the universe/hive without truly understanding what it is we are doing. To continue with this line of reasoning, some feel that the process of enlightenment is also the process of understanding our role and how we affect the hive/universe. only then can we and do we realize how truly insignificant we are, just as anyone particular ant is insignificant to the whole hive.

We may not understand what the hive is doing, no more than our red blood cells carrying out their business truly understand their impact on us as a whole. Even though the red blood cell is alive, it knows not what it is really doing, nor the fact that it is part of a larger collective known as the human body.