Thanks for completely side stepping the first point I made, and then continuing to completely misunderstand what I was saying.
First of all, I like how you said that agnosticism isn't the middle ground between religion and atheism, but then called "moronic fence sitters" Agnostics, so...which is it? Are they on the fence (middle ground) or aren't they?
If you'd read the rest of the post, you'd have seen that I said they "built their fence out of straws". By that I mean that they reduced the other two positions into straw men so that they could find a middle ground that didn't even exist.
What does CHRISTIANITY (IE: the belief in Christ, popular mostly in America, NOT ****ING ISLAM AND OTHER VIOLENT BELIEFS.) Do that wrongly? And don't use maniac extremists to justify your crusade against Christianity(LOL IRONY) And no, the large number of extremists doesn't regard anything to the belief other than ITS ****ING POPULAR DURR.
I'll assume that you meant "What does Christianity do that is wrong". (You said "What does Christianity do that wrongly".)
I don't use extremists as a straw man for the rest of Christians. I point out that these people only exist because the belief exist. It's possible to get from "You're a sinner who doesn't love my god" to "I'm gonna kill you". It's a rather easy rationalization to make without drawing on external sources. I don't dislike religion because it has its extremists, but because extremism is embeded within the ideology that one group has precedent over another because the creator of the universe says so.
Oh, and the fact that I care about what is true and would like for others to do the same plays a big part in my creation of threads.
And thats not even my main point. My first point was that there is NOTHING(read ABSOLUTLEY ZERO) wrong with believing in a christian afterlife.
If people aren't comfortable with the theory that nothing happens after we die, then leave them be. IF they aren't bothering you with there beliefs(which they aren't) Then leave them alone. But you don't leave them alone, you think they are stupid, you criticize their beliefs openly, for what reason? Because your mommy forced you to go to church for a few sundays? AWWWW SWO SWAD WITTLE ASH HAD TO BE BWORED FOR A FEW HOURS.
Erm... No, my criticism is because I enjoy the subject, it isn't "revenge" for losing a few hours every Sunday. (How would that even work? My mom doesn't read stickpage, and neither does my old pastor, or anyone in my family for that matter)
And AGAIN, I fail to see how making threads on stickpage is anything like what you seem to make me out as doing. No matter how many threads I make, calling me intolerant is ridiculous. Do me a favor and find a single post advocating violence or discrimination against theists. That would be an example of intolerance. I don't see how disagreeing vehemently and toleration are mutually exclusive.
And secondly no, agnostics can be anyone who doesn't decide to choose any side in these stupid fights and ridiculous beliefs and disbelief's.
Have you still not checked your definitions? Let me help you with that.
Theism is the "belief in the existence of a god or gods". If you are without theism, you are an atheist. This includes EVERYONE who does not fall under the category of theism (Though which spectrum deism falls under is debatable.) Take note of the word "belief" there, and remember the meaning of that word.
Agnosticism is "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge." As applied to religion, it means that whether or not God exists is unknowable. It's a position on KNOWLEDGE, NOT BELIEF. That means it's not mutually exclusive to either theism or atheism. In fact, all agnostics still fall under those two categories. I am myself an agnostic, in that I think that it is unknowable whether god exists or not. But I'm also an atheist, meaning that while I don't claim to know that god doesn't exist, I still don't believe that he does. Furthermore, I'm a "strong atheist", meaning that I don't just have the absence of a belief in a god, but also the positive belief that the gods so far proposed to me do not exist. Between my position and theism is weak atheism. Theists also may fall under "agnosticism", if they share the belief that god is unknowable.
You think they are the arrogant ones when 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of atheists are ****ing annoying condescending arrogant dickheads like you are. They idolize dawkins like he is a god (SEE: YOU, YOU ****ING ASS)
Because owning two of his books, mentioning him occasionally on this board, and attending one lecture is idolization, is it? I wonder, if I were attend a lecture being given by Stephen Hawking, would it be IDOLIZATION LIKE HE WAS A GOD? I already mention him occasionally on its board, and I actually own 3 of his books. And I also find it ridiculously entertaining that you would choose Dawkins as the one I'm "idolizing like a god", because anyone can see that I post (and talk) more about Carl Sagan. But no, Carl Sagan didn't publicize his atheism to the same degree as Dawkins, he was more of an astronomer, so you won't use him, because it doesn't support your argument.
When he isn't anything but a prick with a good vocabulary and no humility. And they just as likely to be ignorant of when they are wrong as religious zealots are.
Actually, Dawkins is well-known for his books on biology, which were each widely influential in the field. He's published 10 books between 1976 and now, and only one was about the subject of religion, and that was #9. To put that into perspective a bit more, almost all of his books have been bestsellers. I say this not to say "Look how great he is", but to point out that he's a biologist first and an atheist later. Hell, when he gave a lecture here in Oklahoma, he wasn't talking about religion, he was talking about the idea of purpose and directed will in evolution. He only brought religion up in his introduction, and that was still a brief mention, and only because his introduction was a response to a state representative trying to prevent Dawkins from giving the lecture because of his atheism.
I don't remember comparing your posts to the holocaust, which is weird because that's something I would remember.
You said I was intolerant. The only things you know about me are what I post on the internet. The holocaust is an extreme example of intolerance. Ergo, you compared my posts to the Holocaust. Not necessarily in degree but in ethics.
No I said you were disrespectful, and you are.
No, you said I was intolerant. There's a difference.
I remember you telling a story about how kids were picking on you because of your atheism, boy it sure seems unlikely those kids were telepathic, and had to read your mind to find out. Or maybe you felt like you needed to tell someone your beliefs, or maybe tell them how wrong theirs were. But I bet if you had done it respectfully, that shit wouldn't have happened.
I remember the incident you are describing, and no, the reason they knew is because they heard me talking to my friend Tyler about something related to the subject and asked me if I was an atheist. BTW, Tyler's an atheist.
Lastly, I very seriously doubt you don't treat your friends differently based on their beliefs. In fact I find that impossible. With how against you are of any possible type of Christianity you are, I doubt you treat them better in real life. Either that or you are lying to them or to us.
Jeremy, don't begin to pretend that you can assume anything about my personal life from forum posts on a stick figure website. You take my posts about how religious people are incorrect and stretch them to being complete hatred towards religious belief. Then you remove the context (Debate section and occasionally a response to a comment in other sections) and conclude that I must act that way to everyone I meet. I'm not even sure how it is possible to justify such an assumption.