Yan

And now he does not even know what irony is! So far you are the only one flaming. Irony would be if I was flaming you and then you flamed me and then I complained, this is not the case, sad I need to explain you even that. Do I really need to start ignoring what you write, or are you ready to apologise yet? Takes a man to do that.Topic: why is this relevant, so far it has evolved to somebody shoud move it to a sub forum.

So where is it? And again, I mean everything I say, while you two do not even know what hypocrite means, apparently, so who is at fault really. Do I need to repeat myself? Topic: why is atheism relevant as a main forum topic? Moving it to some sub forum as suggested, seems to be a pretty good idea.

Kevin Beal where do I even start... ...serious, if all you are going to do on this thread is to try to call me names just because you bought yourself a "PK" tag, don't. Your comment "it is because it is"... *nods head in disbelief*Even your attempt to call me a hypocrite is incorrect, as I mean every word that I write! You can always leave the talk if you do not like it. I am not forcing you here. Anyone forcing you here?Because I love flaming so do not get me started, and you have so much material I can pick on.So be civil and keep to the topic, will you? Topic: why is this even relevant?

You are deriving once again from the topic trying to make it personal. Voting my reputation down for merely enquiring about why is atheism figures as a first topic, and now openly caling me names does not really make your case, just saying. But since you wish to make it about peer pressure, tell me, what superpowers does buying yourself a "philosopher king" tag gives you?Because it does not give you the right to try to insult me, just saying.

Riiiight...Then we shoud have a topic right above it entitled "Theism", you know, just because as well. Heck, I may even volunteer to write it. You know, just to keep them pesky theists out of your atheism. lel Odd, -2 for merely asking why is this relevant as first page.

You do realize that Stefan might not be right on what he is saying, right?to state that there is no God is your belief. not a fact. So you are telling me that because what someone says about something sounds good we shoud take it from face value? Specially if that person is basing himself on his own personal beliefs? (What he usually says, whenever talking about atheism)It took me 10 years of field research and studies in theology to conclude that there is. I have no shadow of doubt that there is, we can then debate which one, or how many, if any, or even if there is need to worship, if God really desires such (or if he, or they, even care) and several other philosophical questions.But that there is there is. Merely saying that there isnt and sistematically denying any evidence presented without coming with anything to counter it other than "some religious people used it for bad" when atheism is no better (seemingly much worse) is no evidence, holds no water, and is (time for a theist to tell you) simply not good enough. Again, you believe whatever you want, I think this is however completely irrelevant to even have a space and this space being above philosophy, so my guess is because Stefan is one and he wants to brush it on everyone's face, continuing the Dawkins cruzade to take people away from the connection with what is beyound our "modern" comprehension with sistematic denial and rant attacks. The usual bigotry and prejudice, probably unnoticed zeuzophobia or theophobia.Odd that there are phobias to something that allegedly would not exist.

If you are saying that those were definitions, they were wrong definitions. For me they look as ad hominem attacks so what I may be saying would be disregarded. And it definitely took us from the topic becoming about "me". I believe my points were clear: atheism is irrelevant for a first page topic, and nothing really to brag about, since atheists love to cry wolf at theists, yet fail to remember atheists slaughters.Again, you may believe in whatever makes you happy and even gives you some vain sense of superiority, we are all egocentric creatures after all, with our predilections and prejudices, and I will definitely not talk about my personal beliefs in here, not to annoy anyone or even "offend" someone.To try to call my remarks "divisive" and other empty shells of sophistry, is besides the point.Point is:How is atheism relevant as a first page topic, and above philosophy?

If you are an atheist and you do not know that, you are in deep waters my friend. It is a belief because you believe there is no God or Gods. And this is all there is to it. Also your comment "were all Godless in here is incorrect as I previously pointed out, you making an assumption that we are all Godless, wll, I am not. You also make the crazy assumption that on the internet there are only Godless people what is also incorrect. So you are either repeating it to try to annoy me, show you piss on what I say, or as an attempt of peer pressuring me with nonsense. Bad choices. Even if the web would be for godless people (which it is not) even if I would be in a minority of one that sentence would be incorrect so please stop that. Trying to paint it as more relevant than what it is, trying to add to it would lead you to disagree with other atheists who have replied to my post in here, that atheism has no other purpose than a form of denial. What annoys me personally (and now I speak personally if I may) is the level of militancy I see in atheism, when it just shoud be what it is: a (very) personal belief. I have seen attempts to paint it as something other than just a belief: "it is a non belief" some say and such attempts of cheap sophistry, but everything seems to be always a gordian knot with such atheists. What other suggestions do you have other than it being just a belief that there is only material conscience to be found? By classifying what I am saying instead of focusing on a proper reply to what I am saying, he is twisting my words. I am sure that if I did the same I would be called for it.

How odd. Because just trying to twist what I wrote will release you from considering your personal beliefs, right?

There are times to speak the truth, and there are times people shoud rejoice on the company of others. That person used a kind festivity to be like a jehova's witness. I would have taken the paper from her hands, ripped it in front of her and thrown some eggs at her porch, for the sake of community spirit, don't get me wrong.

Search strongly nationalistic countries, where socialism has already been but was shunned, or where it has not yet taken root. Only places I ever met realistic women.

I just do not understand why is it a psychiatrists problem where the father takes his son to eat - or not. A psychiatrist is at least outside the US (american laws about who can administer drugs are so fucked up nowadays I do not even want to go there) someone who can prescript drugs. Does this mean that MacDonalds is to be considered as a drug? I would have understood a psychologist, I do not know how is it a psychiatric matter.

Don't be. Atheism is just a belief. This is all it is. This is why going killing and hating others, or thinking you are "better" than others for merely embracing the sistematic denial of great part of the human experience for the sake of atheism is also wrong.

If we are to be fair here, if truth and fairness are truly the maxims of this place, why is it somehow relevant that atheism be a first page forum space? "yes we are all atheists in here"No "we" are not. And this is not really an argument for atheism, rather sounding as peer pressure, as yet another attempt of "us" against "them". If we are all to be held accountable as anarchists, how can someone blatantly slip this piece of propaganda for this belief (because atheism is a belief) above all others? I am not going to ask for a "It is so cool to be a theist" on the first page for fairness because this will just serve as divisionism, nor I would ever wish to see "yes we are all theists in here" (sounds ridiculous, does it not?) because I think personally (not on the "we" sense) that INDIVIDUALS in here shoud be focused on more relevant matters. And serious: from all possible beliefs, atheism is the most agressive and mass murdering from them all, how can someone who claim to be about "non agression" and yet, defend such a position?

Hi, I like the idea and I have some projects of my own that you could help up with, and I will pay for the expenses. Send me a pm so we can talk about it. Best regards.