Offended by a Signature.

[[SomeGuy]]

"Take atheism, for example. Not a religion? Their pseudo-dogmatic will to convert others to their system of beliefs is eerily reminiscent of the very behavior they criticize in the religious." Just because some of us want people to get rid of their belief in God does not mean atheism is a religion. It's a lack of belief.

[SomeDreamer]

eh... can't really be offended by it. Just shows that someones needs to study up a bit Okay a lot... but who cares? Not like it's going to destroy the correct definitions^^

[Bonsay]

I don't criticize their will to convert otheres, which is the only thing that signature is about. I do however, have a problem with the way you convert somebody, what you convert them in and with what intentions. Basically, the pseudo-intelligent author of that signature is just an idiot, obviously. No point to debate it really, unless he's here... in which case, we can tell him how pseudo he is.

[[SomeGuy]]

Lol, yeah. It just kinda bothered me

[grasshoppa]

"Take atheism, for example. Not a religion? Their pseudo-dogmatic will to convert others to their system of beliefs is eerily reminiscent of the very behavior they criticize in the religious." Just because some of us want people to get rid of their belief in God does not mean atheism is a religion. It's a lack of belief. It's a good quote, no need to be offended. Also:

[Scatterbrain]

It's a good quote, no need to be offended. Not even close, it's an idiot quote. People are defined by what they accept and not the oposite. Someone who practices swimming is called a swimmer, but someone who doesn't practice swimming isn't called a "non-swimmer", that'd be silly. If I criticize and point out fallacies in someone's beliefs, I'm not converting the person to anything. At most you can call it a "de-conversion".

[Catbus]

It's a good quote, no need to be offended. It's an incredible generalization.

[Kromoh]

Not even close, it's an idiot quote. People are defined by what they accept and not the oposite. Someone who practices swimming is called a swimmer, but someone who doesn't practice swimming isn't called a "non-swimmer", that'd be silly. If I criticize and point out fallacies in someone's beliefs, I'm not converting the person to anything. At most you can call it a "de-conversion". I would have posted about the topic, but Scatterbrain did the dirty job for me. QFT.

[Photolysis]

People are defined by what they accept and not the oposite. Someone who practices swimming is called a swimmer, but someone who doesn't practice swimming isn't called a "non-swimmer", that'd be silly. The problem is, swimming or not swimming doesn't have the same place in society that religious beliefs currently have. Unfortunately some people believe that a lack of religious belief is sufficiently important to merit its own label. We don't usually define people by what they don't do or believe, unless that lack is particularly significant. If almost everyone smoked for example (and smoking played such a vital role in peoples' lives), being a non-smoker would be significant. Still, I personally think the label is stupid because I actually disagree with defining people based on what they don't believe.

[grasshoppa]

Not even close, it's an idiot quote. See: Militant Atheists.

[Scatterbrain]

See: Militant Atheists. See: Militant WoW players... Oh wait, that doesn't exist either.

[SomeDreamer]

See: Militant WoW players... Oh wait, that doesn't exist either. Actually Militant atheism is an expression used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antithe...litant_atheism Although for your quote I'm gonna go ahead and say militan atheismn might be taken it to the extremes... especialle because it is an idiotic quote The only thing I noticed was how grasshoppa lightly skipped ahead of the explanations as to why the quote doesn't really add up

[Scatterbrain]

The so called "Militant Atheists" are a small fraction of the overall "group" (they "don't exist"). Irregardless, my previous post is valid for them as well. And not only that, most Atheists, 'militant' or otherwise, know that's easier to convince a rock it exists than to convince a religious guy that his belief is dumb: Atheists mostly don't even expect or care for the religious people to drop their blindness. We don't usually define people by what they don't do or believe, unless that lack is particularly significant. If almost everyone smoked for example (and smoking played such a vital role in peoples' lives), being a non-smoker would be significant. What annoys me is that that practically just happens with religion, there are plenty of instances where people aren't labelled according to their non-acceptance of something. With religion it's like people assume everyone is born with it.

[Photolysis]

What annoys me is that that practically just happens with religion, there are plenty of instances where people aren't labelled according to their non-acceptance of something. With religion it's like people assume everyone is born with it. There's also holocaust denial I suppose. But yeah, I hate how being religious is basically the default position at the moment.

[DeathCell]

It's a good quote, no need to be offended. Also: Nothing wrong with it for sure.. While not a religion in the same sense, some follow the same kind of attitude towards their lack of religion that others do for their religion. The problem people have with the quote is their inability to look deeper and get offended that they would be compared to someone of a religious background.. The point is you are all so certain, and some people want to shove their faith or lack of in others faces.

[Keeper]

Whose signature was it, by the way?

[SomeDreamer]

The so called "Militant Atheists" are a small fraction of the overall "group" (they "don't exist"). Irregardless, my previous post is valid for them as well. Yeah, I was just talking about the expression

[grasshoppa]

See: Militant WoW players... Oh wait, that doesn't exist either. You're saying militant atheists don't exist? There are plenty of self proclaimed militant atheists on this website alone. Also, I can imagine there are some Militant WoWers...World of Warcraft is a pretty hard core game. The only thing I noticed was how grasshoppa lightly skipped ahead of the explanations as to why the quote doesn't really add up. Hmm, ok. It's an incredible generalization. This I agree with. People are defined by what they accept and not the oposite. Someone who practices swimming is called a swimmer, but someone who doesn't practice swimming isn't called a "non-swimmer", that'd be silly. Refuted by Photolysis If I criticize and point out fallacies in someone's beliefs, I'm not converting the person to anything. At most you can call it a "de-conversion". Semantic bullshit. Happy?

[Scatterbrain]

You're saying militant atheists don't exist? There are plenty of self proclaimed militant atheists on this website alone. Also, I can imagine there are some Militant WoWers...World of Warcraft is a pretty hard core game. The so called "Militant Atheists" are a small fraction of the overall "group" (they "don't exist"). Irregardless, my previous post is valid for them as well. And not only that, most Atheists, 'militant' or otherwise, know that's easier to convince a rock it exists than to convince a religious guy that his belief is dumb: Atheists mostly don't even expect or care for the religious people to drop their blindness. Refuted by Photolysis What annoys me is that that practically just happens with religion, there are plenty of instances where people aren't labelled according to their non-acceptance of something. With religion it's like people assume everyone is born with it. Plus, Photolysis agreed it's stupid to label people by what they don't accept. Semantic bullshit. Happy? No. 1. Believing in X is stupid, believe in Y instead! 2. Believing in X is stupid. Do you see the difference?

[grasshoppa]

You missed a part in #2... Believing in X is stupid, so don't believe in Y, or Z, or H, or M.

[Scatterbrain]

You missed a part in #2... Believing in X is stupid, so don't believe in Y, or Z, or H, or M. I don't recall ever seeing anyone using that.

[Jeff777]

"Take atheism, for example. Not a religion? Their pseudo-dogmatic will to convert others to their system of beliefs is eerily reminiscent of the very behavior they criticize in the religious." Just because some of us want people to get rid of their belief in God does not mean atheism is a religion. It's a lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God without any evidence to prove that there isn't (like religious individuals cannot prove that there is). Therefore it's a religion. Food for thought: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

[The Cusp]

Anyone who's offended by my signature is just afraid of my nipples. And rightfully so!

[AURON]

there's an option to turn off the viewing signatures in the User CP. I had mine turned off for some time now. Freedom of expression is a gift and curse.

[Scatterbrain]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God without any evidence to prove that there isn't (like religious individuals cannot prove that there is). Therefore it's a religion. No... God is a subjective term with a wide variety of possible meanings. You can't possibly classify Atheism as "the belief that there is no god" because there is an infinite number of gods and some are completely different from others. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in any god, it doesn't say anything about what the person believes in.