Christ/Anti-Christ

Dictionary.com's actual definition of atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

An Atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. I searched Atheist, but it does not really matter, as both Atheist and Atheism on dictionary.com fit in those who deny or disbelieve in god(s).

Yes, but it was the difference between denying and disbelieving that I was pointing out. Strong atheism, "There are no god(s).", and weak atheism (nontheism), "I don't believe in gods, but I don't deny they could exist."

There was no conflict between strong and weak atheism in our discussion to start with.

Only in the sense that I assumed you were a strong atheist, and therefore believe there are no gods, when in fact you are (I again assume) a weak atheist who does not believe in gods but does not deny the possibility of their existence.

As for strong vs weak, I would be weak. As for Gnostic vs. Agnostic, I am both. For gods who have been given properties which can be shown to be logically inconsistent, I am a Gnostic Atheist. To the concept of a god, I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm
I am agnostic since there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that completely contradicts what I was told growing up in church, lots of which I can observe with my own eyes.

Curious as to what individual things those would be? I'm always fascinated by your thoughts on this stuff.


To answer my poll...no. Don't think hes here yet. Though if Obama gets the middle east to all love each other, gather round the fire and sing kumbaya - Id get slightly worried.

Would that be Scientific Agnostic Atheism? To specifically not disbelieve in the god(s) which could possibly exist where they don't conflict with known scientific facts or attempt to manifest logical inconsistencies?

Or perhaps Logical Agnostic Atheism fits better. I know several people who would probably fall into this definition if they thought about it as much.

Originally posted by Dragon Fly

TConwell, we already talked about Pascal's Wager. Your assuming that you are believing in the correct God, and that the criteria to get into heaven is believing in God. If there is indeed a heaven, the "true" way of getting into it may very well be to not believe in God. So if an Atheist is indeed wrong, he risks no more than you do.

I don't know you my friend, so please don't presume to know me on my behalf or tell me that something was already talked about so we should not discuss it anymore. Your ability to communicate effectively about nothing is evidence by the following:

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

God damn ya'll have managed to ramble on about absolutely nothing for a long time. Can't we just coexist?

Although you did not have to blaspheme <grin>, it was nicely stated Matt.

I would like to ask though ... What was this thread about? Yeah, that's what I thought too.

[coolbeans326]

anti-christ is a not a person. Its just anything against Christ's or God's will. Osoma could be the anti-christ. Maybe its Obama. Who knows.


but least we forget one thing:

nut sack

[gouldy]

Humans are thick, end of.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by Real
Curious as to what individual things those would be? I'm always fascinated by your thoughts on this stuff.

My dad's side of the family (Lutheran) is very religious. They dislike him because he married a Catholic. This probably explains why whenever we'd go to "visit grandma" on Christmas Eve my mother was never present.

A relative of my dad who I had never met before had a child, and that child died of pneumonia at a faith healing institution. This is up for debate, but I'm pretty sure someplace like oh I don't know gee maybe a HOSPITAL would have been a better place for her.

This causes me to declare shenanigans.

And then there are things like this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all?Paul

Originally posted by coolbeans326

anti-christ is a not a person. Its just anything against Christ's or God's will. Osoma could be the anti-christ. Maybe its Obama. Who knows.

Actually beans, it is a person and it is well documented that it will be a person; of whom is inhabited by Satan to bring about the final battle of Armageddon. True, his premise and reason for being is to be totally against God, but if that were all it takes as credentials we now have a whole world full of people who are anti-God (shoot, even knuckleheads on this site would qualify), and yet the arrive of the Messiah and final battle has not happened yet.

People who have different beliefs than yours are in no way "knuckleheads"... Sometimes its really hard to believe what you hear or read or see on TV. Some of us need proof... Proof of which there is currently none... at all. My parents are both heavily christian, and every day i have to listen to them try and pound there religion and beliefs up my ass with an iron fist... People who have no respect for others beliefs shouldn't be respected or trusted. (Tcon, none of that applied to you, so no offense)

No worries buddy ... no worries at all. However let me clarify cause I realize it could have been taken wrong: The direct reference to "knuckleheads" had nothing to do with a person's religious beliefs, but with the intellectual level and ability to communicate. Take Bowserjoe for example ... get it?

[Oscar]

I want a cheeseburger right about now.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Make that a bacon cheeseburger.

Mmmmmmmmmm .... bacon and cheese.

[Oscar]

hmmm bacon porn

[jayman]

i think oscar is the antichrist.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Yes the antichrist has back problems.

[Oscar]

Damn right I'm the anti christ. Now everyone on this website send me $2 and I will not end the world tonight.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Send me 2 dollars antichrist bitch