Questions directed to atheists and agnostics only

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hemoo
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 264
  • Views Views 32K
It is impossible for atheism to be dogmatic, for there is no dogma. There is no code. No system. No rituals. No directives.
Click to expand...
in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?
 
NoName55 said:
in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?
Click to expand...

And you don't think exactly the same thing isn't true the other way around?

BTW.. it's hardly "butting in" when the thread is titled "Questions directed to atheists and agnostics only" !
 
NoName55 said:
in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?
Click to expand...
In that case why are they not letting us agnostics and atheists be?

Trumble, you are faster than a speeding bullet.
 
There seems to be an unwritten dogma among some athiests that it is their responsibility to spread knowledge by discrediting theistic beliefs. Some are very Evangelical in their zeal to educate us poor uneducated theists; who corrupt society by placing a God(swt) above solid, verifiable evidence.

It has become their unwritten scripture that theism leads to the pit of ignorance.


I know I just fell off of the turnip truck, but that sounds an awful lot like evangelism.



to be honest I have not seen many of our agnostic or athiestic members act like that. But, there are enough that do to be noticable.
 
Last edited:
NoName55 said:
in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?
Click to expand...

You too appear to have difficulty grasping what atheists are. Read my post above again please.

Atheism is NOTHING but a lack of belief in gods.

It is not atheists who crusade against religion. It is anti-religionists. To call thm atheists is like calling them human. Of course, they ARE human that that doesn't define or even hint at the personality you are getting at.

Again, ATHEISM IS NOTHING BUT THE LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS. Period. End of sentence.

You grouping them together in your mind is no different than grouping together Ghandi, Osama Bin Laden, Mother Theresa, a modern hippie, and an acient Incan throwing somebody into a volcano.
 
Last edited:
NoName55 said:
in that case why are they not letting theists be?
why don't they let us get on with our "supersticious" practices instead of butting in to almost every convesation trying their ****dest to discredit theist beliefs and attempting to dissuade, ceaslessly?
Click to expand...

some do some dont, but there is no dogma.
As I have stated before you can still be religous and be an atheists.
As I also pointed out all atheism is is pretty much the non belief in a god or gods.

Now I do know that many atheists get tired of ignorance done in the name or different religons. I personally hate it when people ignore science no matter what. But thats just me not atheists.

As for trying to debunk beliefs. Mosts atheists to my knowledge may say to somneone "if you believe A and B contradicts A do you have a problem with that."
 
NoName55, I knew about Sikhs' stand on meat. Unfortunately, some of them refer to gurbani trying to justify eating meat and yet they don't understand that if a guru killed an animal, if it did happen, he is capable of actually blessing the animal and maybe help the animals get out of the cycle of re-incarnation. It wouldn't be the same if I killed an animal. If I killed an animal, I could only cause the pain to the animal and yet can not help it with salvation.

Some of the shabads were written not to encourage eating meat but to prove some kind of hypocrisy, for example the one by Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
 
Last edited:
Pygoscelis said:
Again, ATHEISM IS NOTHING BUT THE LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS. Period. End of sentence.
Click to expand...

I think it's more of lack of belief in God represented by religions. Although not an atheist as God represented by Sikhi makes perect sense to me, I personally think God was ridiculed by most followers of the religions.
 
cali dude said:
NoName55, I knew about Sikhs' stand on meat. Unfortunately, some of them refer to gurbani trying to justify eating meat and yet they don't understand that if a guru killed an animal, if it did happen, he is capable of actually blessing the animal and maybe help the animals get out of the cycle of re-incarnation. It wouldn't be the same if I killed an animal. If I killed an animal, I could only cause the pain to the animal and yet can not help it with salvation.

Some of the shabads were written not to encourage eating meat but to prove some kind of hypocrisy, for example the one by Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
Click to expand...
are you saying that you are better qualified than Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar ?

how come he made it to [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Parbandhak Committee while you are here?

wa-salaam

P.S. Those Brothers have dedicated their lives to study of Sikhi literature and texts unlike those who go pinch ideas from hindu sites who only pick selective shabbads to confuse issues also whose aim it is to turn every man woman child into worshippig their gazzilion gods
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
IbnAbdulHakim said:
wilberhum werent you an aethiest formerly or am i getting it mixed up?
Click to expand...
Never ever been or claimed to be an Atheist. You are getting it mixed up.

Maybe cause I stand up for atheists. You know the old "Atheists don't have morals" crap.
I also think atheists make more sense than the vast majority of theists. :thumbs_up

But then I stand up for gays and I'm not one. I always stand up for women and I'm male. :skeleton:
But that's just me.
 
NoName55 said:
are you saying that you are better qualified than Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar ?

how come he made it to [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Parbandhak Committee while you are here?

wa-salaam

P.S. Those Brothers have dedicated their lives to study of Sikhi literature and texts unlike those who go pinch ideas from hindu sites who only pick selective shabbads to confuse issues also whose aim it is to turn every man woman child into worshippig their gazzilion gods
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Well this is a Sikh issue and should only be discussed at a Sikh site. It doesn't take Ph.D. to understand gurbani, nor does it take any leadership. What it takes is spiritual wisdom. Ph.D. or being leader doesn't make one a spiritually wise person.
 
cali dude said:
Well this is a Sikh issue and should only be discussed at a Sikh site.
Click to expand...
I could have sworn I did not bring it into discussion on a non-Sikh site
It doesn't take Ph.D. to understand gurbani, nor does it take any leadership. What it takes is spiritual wisdom. Ph.D. or being leader doesn't make one a spiritually wise person.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that you are better than they are. all I can say to that is "Wow" amazing. that would also make you better than the brothers who select them as leaders. shocked, to say the least!

I need time to recover :(
 
NoName55 said:
So you are saying that you are better than they are. all I can say to that is "Wow" amazing. that would also make you better than the brothers who select them as leaders. shocked, to say the least!

I need time to recover :(
Click to expand...

No I am not saying I am better but morally it does make more sense not to eat meat.
 
NoName55 said:
is it because animals feel pain or because meateater is taking their life?
Click to expand...

I assume they are going by their own morals. I find it perfectly moral to eat meat. I think there are good health reasons not to eat meat but as long as you eat healthy thos reasons are pretty poor.
 
ranma1/2 said:
I assume they are going by their own morals. I find it perfectly moral to eat meat. I think there are good health reasons not to eat meat but as long as you eat healthy thos reasons are pretty poor.
Click to expand...
whose morals?
who is "they"?

I suggest you start reading from page 14 post 200 and follow it thru to this page before coming up with these pearls of wisdom. Thank you wa-salaam
 
Last edited:
Pygoscelis said:
Vegetarianism is cruel. At least animals have a chance to get away.

:D
Click to expand...
ah shucks I was saving that as a surprise ending, spoil sport

:)

I was going to add:
how many people can be fed with a single cow (1 life lost)?
how many lives would be lost during one single veggie meal?
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top