quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: I've found that it's mostly the atheists who are willing to joke around about religion, morals (not that we're inherently immoral, it's just that we understand the larger picture, because we've actually had to put some thought to it), the (alleged) afterlife, adultery, cereationism/evolution, etc., while the devoutly religious get pretty up-tight about it all.
Puffy Treat, it's been found that, when asked, most people distrust opinion survey results.
--Steve
Some of us are not particularly "uptight" and I think most of us do and have put a great deal of thought into the larger picture.
And being "religious" does not make you exempt from having to create your own moral code.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh... so where does your complex creator come from? Arises by chance, does it?
Milk goes with everything, except orange juice.
I was stating a reason why I believe there is a God. I can not in perfect logic lay out a case for it. If someone could we wouldn't have the need for all these discussions.
I have stated many times I am a Christian, and I have reasons for those beliefs which I did not go into since that is a discussion for another thread, one that has been discussed many times on this site. But as a Christian I believe in and Alpha and Omega. So God wasn’t created, He always was, will be.
The main point of my post was while I may not agree with atheists on this issue I can still get along with them.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie: Uh. If a person doesn't understand why Pepsi is better than Coke, then what use is it to even try to talk to that person? Some things are just TRUE.
No, see, it's good to engage in dialogue with people who prefer Pepsi, people who use Macs, and even with White Sox fans. How else are they ever going to get better if we abandon them?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SC Carver, I think his point was that while you can't believe something so mind-boggling as our universe arising without the help of a creator, you have no problem believing in something so mind-boggling as an omnipotent, everlasting spirit in the sky.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: This makes me really sad. =(
I don't want to fight with those who believe. I wish I COULD believe. But I can't. I have to see some evidence before I believe. Heck, I'm even skeptical about the theory of relativity as I understand it. (I'm not sure I buy the whole time dialation thing...)
I have a firm moral base because I've thought it through. Just don't harm anyone else. It's pretty simple and pretty easy. There are some grey areas but they don't come up much and they're usually easy to figure out.
I think most people WANT to be good people. There's a warm glow that comes from being Good that you just don't get from being Evil.
I agree. But I think some people are damaged, either by their upbringing, or by their own choices, and don't feel that joy any more. So the pleasure of getting what they want is the best they can hope for.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.
That's very interesting coming from someone who, for example, does not believe that the Norse gods exist.
Aw, Kingie. You're such a card. (No offense to OSC, of course.)
Read it again. If you were actually paying attention, you would have written "That's very interesting coming from someone who, for example, believes that the Norse gods do not exist."
See the difference? No, I thought not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco: SC Carver, I think his point was that while you can't believe something so mind-boggling as our universe arising without the help of a creator, you have no problem believing in something so mind-boggling as an omnipotent, everlasting spirit in the sky.
Oh, I can believe it. I just choose to believe in something more.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's a big difference between not believing that X exists and believing that X does not exist.
Grammatically, yes. I don't think there is a philosophical difference. At most, it expresses a difference in the degree of nonbelief.
I wouldn't say that I believe there is no intelligent extraterrestrial life. I wouldn't even say that I'm convinced there is no intelligent extraterrestrial life. I would say that I am not convinced that there is intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Some people here consider themselves atheists because they are not convinced that God exists. And then there are people like you, O King, who are convinced that God does not exist. Who, I would say, probably believe devoutly that God does not exist. I lack respect for the latter. The former would be what I consider agnostic.
So I've learned something from this thread. That is, that someone who labels themselves atheist does not necessarily believe in the non-existence of God. Such a person may simply not have belief in God. I trust the latter. I distrust the former.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Read it again. If you were actually paying attention, you would have written "That's very interesting coming from someone who, for example, believes that the Norse gods do not exist."
*sigh*
Statement A: I do not believe that X exists. Statement B: I believe that X does not exist.
Some people think these statements mean the same thing, some people think they are not the same thing.
I can't speak for other people, but for me, they almost universally evaluate to the same result.
I do not believe that unicorns exist, implies that I believe that unicorns do not exist.
So, starLisa, if I were to say: starLisa believes that unicorns do not exist.
Would you say that is a false statement?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco: Just for the record (re: last page), sL, do you believe in the Norse gods?
Are you asking if I have a belief that the Norse gods exist or if I have a belief that the Norse gods don't exist? Since we've pretty much determined that English is flawed in this area, and phrasing it as you did is unclear.
Well, I try not to have beliefs at all, since I consider them to be a barrier to thought. But if you replace the word with "conviction"... I'm sufficiently convinced that the Norse gods don't exist that I'm willing to act on it. I'm also sufficiently convinced that God does exist, and that the Torah is true, and all the rest of the stuff that comes with Orthodox Judaism, that I'm willing to act on it.
I'm not 100% convinced in either case. Also, the two are clearly mutually opposed propositions, right? If God exists and the Torah is true, then the Norse gods cannot exist. If they do exist, then the Torah cannot be true, and God, if He exists, cannot be who or what He claims to be (or is claimed to be) in that context). But even though they cannot both be true, it's possible, in theory, that both propositions are false. So I'd say that I'm more convinced of the non-existence of the Norse gods than I am convinced of the existence of God and the truth of the Torah. Both are pretty high, though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My daughter is sure that milk even goes with orange juice. Which is really disgusting and makes my stomach hurt just thinking about it. But she likes them at the same time. Yuck.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco: SC Carver, I think his point was that while you can't believe something so mind-boggling as our universe arising without the help of a creator, you have no problem believing in something so mind-boggling as an omnipotent, everlasting spirit in the sky.
Oh, I can believe it. I just choose to believe in something more.
Yes I understand, and I realize that it is not logical.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify my points on reasons to distrust:
I'm not saying that any of these are necessarily good reasons, but they are the reasons some people may make judgements based upon.
While stereotypes are often not good, they do help us form a frame of reference in which to view the world. I personally don't have a reliable stereotype for atheists, and as such am going to be at least unconciously more nervous when engaging in a philosophical discussion with one until I get to know them.
Certainly every individual has to form their own moral code, but if that individual claims a certain established faith you can be reasonably sure that at least some basics are going to carry through, and you will have some background as to where they might be coming from when straying from that faith's strictures. Now you can argue that most basic moral pillars are universal (respect for life, respect for others etc...) but what if you are dealing with a strict nihilist, who may think nothing of destroying the property of others or even ending life.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I've learned something from this thread. That is, that someone who labels themselves atheist does not necessarily believe in the non-existence of God. Such a person may simply not have belief in God. I trust the latter. I distrust the former.
Why is that? Do you believe in the existence of god? Why is it such an untrustworthy position to be sure of what you believe?
I fall into a category with Xavier. I don't think we're born with belief, and since I've never been convinced that there is a god, I don't believe in one. I call myself an Atheist.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God exists and the Torah is true, then the Norse gods cannot exist. If they do exist, then the Torah cannot be true, and God, if He exists, cannot be who or what He claims to be (or is claimed to be) in that context). But even though they cannot both be true, it's possible, in theory, that both propositions are false.
They can certainly both be true. Could an omnipotent being not just be screwing around? Would the world implode if he were dishonest?
quote: So I'd say that I'm more convinced of the non-existence of the Norse gods than I am convinced of the existence of God and the truth of the Torah. Both are pretty high, though.
That's great that you point out that you're only, what, 99% convinced that you're right. You know what? That's just semantics. I don't think you'll find anyone who will say, flat-out, that there's a 100% chance of a god or gods existing or not existing. You're basing your trust on wording differences?
Would you trust KoM more if he admitted to being only 99.9% sure, for example?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I've learned something from this thread. That is, that someone who labels themselves atheist does not necessarily believe in the non-existence of God. Such a person may simply not have belief in God. I trust the latter. I distrust the former.
Why is that? Do you believe in the existence of god? Why is it such an untrustworthy position to be sure of what you believe?
You're overgeneralizing. In the first place, if I ever say I believe in God, it's because I'm using language loosely. I am not 100% convinced of God's existence. I doubt I ever will be in this lifetime.
But I have a lot more respect for people who claim a 100% belief that God does exist than I do for people who claim a 100% belief that God doesn't exist. At least there's evidence for the former.
quote:Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco: I fall into a category with Xavier. I don't think we're born with belief, and since I've never been convinced that there is a god, I don't believe in one. I call myself an Atheist.
As I said, now I get that there are people who call themselves atheists who do not have belief in God, rather than who have a belief in no-God. You're saying that you're in the first category. King of Men is, it would seem, in the second.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God exists and the Torah is true, then the Norse gods cannot exist. If they do exist, then the Torah cannot be true, and God, if He exists, cannot be who or what He claims to be (or is claimed to be) in that context). But even though they cannot both be true, it's possible, in theory, that both propositions are false.
They can certainly both be true. Could an omnipotent being not just be screwing around? Would the world implode if he were dishonest?
They cannot both be true. I'm obviously using the definition of God as understood by Orthodox Jews. What you're talking about is Coyote; not God.
quote:Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:
quote: So I'd say that I'm more convinced of the non-existence of the Norse gods than I am convinced of the existence of God and the truth of the Torah. Both are pretty high, though.
That's great that you point out that you're only, what, 99% convinced that you're right.
Not even, really. Mid to low 90s, probably. And it varies. Sometimes it probably dips into the 80s. Why do you care?
quote:Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco: You know what? That's just semantics. I don't think you'll find anyone who will say, flat-out, that there's a 100% chance of a god or gods existing or not existing. You're basing your trust on wording differences?
Words reflect concepts. Most of the time, I'm content to use them colloquially and loosely. But we're talking about trusting people or not trusting them. I think that in such a case it's worth being a little more careful when it comes to wording.
quote:Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco: Would you trust KoM more if he admitted to being only 99.9% sure, for example?
Maybe. I won't hold my breath, though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I have a lot more respect for people who claim a 100% belief that God does exist than I do for people who claim a 100% belief that God doesn't exist. At least there's evidence for the former.
The mere fact that I have *never* been struck by lightning, or even simply smitten, is at least as convincing as all the evidence for god. I mean, what have you got? A few people who got hit by frogs and a guy who talked to a bush.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some people here consider themselves atheists because they are not convinced that God exists. And then there are people like you, O King, who are convinced that God does not exist. Who, I would say, probably believe devoutly that God does not exist. I lack respect for the latter. The former would be what I consider agnostic.
So I've learned something from this thread. That is, that someone who labels themselves atheist does not necessarily believe in the non-existence of God. Such a person may simply not have belief in God. I trust the latter. I distrust the former.
So whether or not you trust/respect someone hinges on the extent of their belief/disbelief in God? What's up with that? IMO, there is so much more to a person than that.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I have a lot more respect for people who claim a 100% belief that God does exist than I do for people who claim a 100% belief that God doesn't exist. At least there's evidence for the former.
The mere fact that I have *never* been struck by lightning, or even simply smitten, is at least as convincing as all the evidence for god. I mean, what have you got? A few people who got hit by frogs and a guy who talked to a bush.
I hear the question. But since you aren't actually asking it as a question, but instead using it as a rhetorical club with which to smack me, I'm going to ignore it. Other than to say that it's amazingly ignorant.
[Edited to clarify that I wrote this in response to Mean Old Frisco, and not to kaioshin00.]
quote: My daughter is sure that milk even goes with orange juice. Which is really disgusting and makes my stomach hurt just thinking about it. But she likes them at the same time. Yuck.
At first that seemed gross to me, but I do love orange ice cream bars. I am talking about the vanilla bars with the orange outside. Yummie!
I know milk isn't vanilla, but there is a relation with ice cream. Maybe milk and orange juice isn't so bad.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's a big difference between not believing that X exists and believing that X does not exists.
I've never understood why people say that they are different. It has always seemed to me that not believing that something exists necessitates believing that it doesn't exist. The example of "not believing in unicorns" as an example of the difference also never made any sense to me. I can't come up with any way of understanding "I don't believe in unicorns" that does not imply "I believe that unicorns don't exist."
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a serious question, Lisa: what is it about the former that makes you distrust it? And when you say you distrust it, what do you mean? Do you mean that you distrust the statement or the people who make it? If the latter, what about them would you distrust? That is, when I say I distrust someone I generally mean that I don't trust them not to harm me in some way. Do you mean that as well, or do you mean something else?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "not trust", I mean "doubt their intellectual honesty". More or less.
And if you ask me, "Do you believe in unicorns?" and I say "no", am I saying that I believe unicorns don't exist, or only that I don't have a belief that they do?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I hear the question. But since you aren't actually asking it as a question, but instead using it as a rhetorical club with which to smack me, I'm going to ignore it. Other than to say that it's amazingly ignorant.
I mean not to smack you with a rherotical club. Thats what I thought when I read what you said. I guess I am ignorant.
And saxon phrased what I wanted to ask better.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't believe in unicorns could either mean I am not sure that unicorns exist, and I have to be sure in order to believe
or
I absolutely have evidence that the whole unicorn thing is a scam so I am sure they don't exist anad therefore do not believe in them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't believe in unicorns could either mean I am not sure that unicorns exist, and I have to be sure in order to believe.
- or -
I absolutely have evidence that the whole unicorn thing is a scam so I am sure they don't exist anad therefore do not believe in them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never understood why people say that they are different. It has always seemed to me that not believing that something exists necessitates believing that it doesn't exist. The example of "not believing in unicorns" as an example of the difference also never made any sense to me. I can't come up with any way of understanding "I don't believe in unicorns" that does not imply "I believe that unicorns don't exist."
I don't understand how it does that.
Let's use "intelligent life on other planets." If we track an object for several months approaching Earth and slowing down, watch it leave orbit and land on Earth, and then someone gets out of the object and says, "Take me to your leader," I would then likely believe that there was intelligent life that came from at least one place other than Earth.
However, barring that or similarly convincing proof, I don't believe intelligent life that came from at least one place other than Earth exists.
However, it's not true to say I believe that intelligent life that came from at least one place other than Earth does not exist. I don't believe that.
For any given proposition X, the following are possible:
1.) I believe X. 2.) I believe not X. 3.) I am unsure if X is true.
To me, "I do not believe X" puts X in category 2 or 3, whereas "I believe not X" puts X only in category 2.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I see the difference:
I don't believe in unicorns could either mean I am not sure that unicorns exist, and I have to be sure in order to believe.
- or -
I absolutely have evidence that the whole unicorn thing is a scam so I am sure they don't exist anad therefore do not believe in them.
But without probing, how can you tell which one represents someone's beliefs? Also, isn't there a third option? Your first one seems too much like leaning toward belief, if only the evidence were there, while your second one is so aggressively anti-belief. What about "I see no reason to believe in unicorns, and, while I have no hard evidence that they do not exist, I find the claim somewhat preposterous, and so I do not believe." Is such a stance intellectually dishonest?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I exagerrated the point to illustrate the difference between "I don't believe" and "I believe not."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that one is passive and one is active. In the second case one really believes that something doesn't exist. Nonexistance is an article of faith.
I see no reason to believe, so I do not.
- vs -
I have every reason to believe "not".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
This article doesn't say by what margins distrust of atheists is more common than distrust of other groups. By 80%? 0.0000001? Without that information, the article is useless as information; its only use is to have quotes in it from people saying this proves atheists are oppressed.
Thing is, there are different sects in atheism. Naturalism, existentialism, nihilism, and possibly others. I think these groups would get very different scores (if you could be sure the answerer understood the question).
[ March 25, 2006, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course if I'm presented with the question: "Which government would you be inherently less trusting of? Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Monarchy, Anarchy"
Of course I'm going to answer Anarchy, because for all the rest I at least have some concept of what they are and how they behave wheras an Anarchy composed of entirely good and rational people might actually be better than a very corrupt form of any of the others.
the same is true for that "gut reaction" first answer to: "of these groups, which are you least likely to trust"
"Statistics is the worst form of lying." ~Samuel Clemens
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kaioshin00: So whether or not you trust/respect someone hinges on the extent of their belief/disbelief in God? What's up with that? IMO, there is so much more to a person than that.
Like everything, it's a matter of context. I spoke too broadly.
PS, I was replying to Mean Old Frisco before; not to you. I've edited that post.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For any given proposition X, the following are possible:
1.) I believe X. 2.) I believe not X. 3.) I am unsure if X is true.
To me, "I do not believe X" puts X in category 2 or 3, whereas "I believe not X" puts X only in category 2.
When you say that the former statement "puts X in category 2 or 3," do you mean that the speaker means one or the other but that you are uncertain as to which, or do you mean that the speaker means both?
I suppose I have to concede that people could mean "I am unsure whether X is true" when they say "I don't believe X." It's not a very good wording, though. If a person is unsure whether X is true, it's not really accurate for him to say that he doesn't believe X because he's not actually sure whether he believes X or not. It would be more accurate for him to say "I don't know whether I believe X" or "I might [not] believe X." Although, it's certainly futile for me to insist that everyone be clear when they communicate.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, the argument over "not believe in X" vs. "believe in not X" is what led to the difference between the terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist."
The difference is important because people need accurate terms by which to self identify. That's a major reason why we can't get a good solid number on what percentage of people are atheists, because a lot of people won't call themselves atheists if they think it implies that they "know" that god doesn't exist. In my mind that's why it's very important to keep the axis of knowledge distinct from the axis of belief. They aren't the same thing.
As to the article that started the thread, I think that we are at or near some kind of milestone, much the same as Rosa Parks or Stonewall. At some point soon a seminal event will occur that will signal the "beginning" of a change in understanding and attitudes with respect to atheism. I thought it might be the Godless Americans March on Washington, but that went entirely unnoticed.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.
I, personally, have known many more religious people who enjoy picking fights with other religious people over religion.
One probable flaw in your observation is that you seem to take the set of "athiests you know" and extrapolate from that how "athiests are". The difficulty in this is that you probably don't know someone is an atheist until they speak up about it and speaking up about it is likely to get the person labled in your mind as "picking a fight". You have no way of knowing how many other dozens of quiet atheists you know who aren't interested in arguing religion.
I find it interesting that your post is very illustrative of the point of the originally posted article. If you replaced "atheist" with any other minority label, some of the bigotry in your statements would be more readily apparent.
Dont oversimplify what I was saying. I never pretended to know what all atheists think, merely that in my own experience (as in the places I have lived, and people I have met) it was the atheists making fun of the religious for the most part. But obviously now that I live in Utah (I have for 2.5 years now) you hear more opinions of the religious than the atheist here. Interestingly enough, people seem to be becoming more knowledgable about other religious ideas and I do not hear as much stupidity spouting from the mouths of the ignorant than I thought I would hear in Mormondom. Again I am perfectly aware that in some places the religious shun the non religious. I am just saying that I think the tide is/has turning/turned.
Karl Ed: Way to classify a broad group of people such as "gamers" and call them all 14 year olds. There isnt a single person under the age of 18 in the group I play with and the oldest is in his 30's.
What study are you using to show that Norway has lower levels of all of your mentioned evils? You know negative population growth probably contributes quite significantly to lower and lower murder rates, crimes, and just about any social ill. You can't rape anybody if you were never born. -------
I come across as alittle snippish in my original post. I would like to state that I personally do not think of atheists as any less than any other person. One of my best friends from high school was an atheist, and he is one of the most decent people I have ever met.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My best friend right now is an atheist. It is a barrier at times, but it's one I'm determined to overcome.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For any given proposition X, the following are possible:
1.) I believe X. 2.) I believe not X. 3.) I am unsure if X is true.
To me, "I do not believe X" puts X in category 2 or 3, whereas "I believe not X" puts X only in category 2.
It should be noted that (3) is not equivalent to "I believe neither X nor not X" - which is a fourth and different option.
It is possible to be in both (1) and (3), as well as in both (2) and (3). In fact, I suspect most religious people ARE in both (1) and (3). I do know that I believe God exists, but also that I cannot be sure that this is true. I suspect denying (3) would be fooling myself a bit. How could I possibly be sure God exists?
Having said that, I have no problem believing things I am not sure of. I think it is necessary.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What study are you using to show that Norway has lower levels of all of your mentioned evils? You know negative population growth probably contributes quite significantly to lower and lower murder rates, crimes, and just about any social ill. You can't rape anybody if you were never born.
Come now, that's rather silly. Murder rates are per capita; teen pregnancy rates are per teenaged woman; divorce rates are per marriage. The absolute number of people is completely irrelevant.
As for sources, this is a nice one. You have to scroll down a bit to get to the statistics I quoted above, so let me extract some nicely relevant ones :
Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:
United States 98.0 United Kingdom 46.6 Norway 40.2 Canada 38.6 Finland 32.1 Sweden 28.3 Denmark 27.9 Netherlands 12.1 Japan 10.5
Total teen abortions per 1,000 teenagers:
United States 44.4 Norway 21.1 Sweden 19.6 Denmark 18.2 Finland 17.9 United Kingdom 16.9 Canada 16.2 Japan 5.9 Netherlands 5.5
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a dumb survey. Seems like the article was written just to tick some people off, or something similar.
I'd say that religious values have nothing to do with how much I trust people - and I'm a self-professed Bible thumper. My parents are even more conservative than I am, and they'd agree with me.
Well, I guess I'd be less likely to trust a Darkfriend. Can't be holding with those chaos-bringers. Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheists are pretty much like religious people, in my experience, except they aren't religious. Lots of really smart cool people in history have been atheists. Same is true for religious.
Atheists have Richard P. Feynman (a personal hero), Percy Shelley, A.E.Housman, plus a whole lot more.
Religious have Albert Einstein (another personal hero), Isaac Newton, J.R.R. Tolkien, and of course many more.
Judging by which list I like and admire more, it would be pretty hard to pick. I do respect the beliefs of atheists and people of nearly all religions. Certainly morality is something that can exist outside of religion.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
