Bible for NDS v1.2
- Thread starter biblefornds
- Start date
- Views 6,148
- Replies 40
- Likes 1
To be fair, Atheistic is correct in that context. "Atheist" is a noun, "Atheistic" is the adjective, making it's usage correct.
And actually, I did read a while ago about some book (I think they called it "The Good Book") that was the "Atheist Bible", it was basically a collection of "wisdom" (note the inverted commas there) and quotes from various people over time, basically aiming to in a sense "recreate" the Bible, but without God. And this from the people who claim to have no religion. But in my experience, atheists are deeply religious - their religion is "anti-religion". They are so enthusiastically opposed to "religion", that it actually becomes a religion for them. Therefore, I strongly believe that Atheism is a religion.
You're thinking more of Agnosticism, which is the people who don't actually believe in anything/don't care.
However, the other guy also said something about not being religious (or as he said, not being "religions") - if he classifies himself as an Atheist, as he seems to, he is wrong on that point. And he also seems unable to type too well, justifying your "troll" comment.
Atheistic is not used correctly here. it's like saying we need a "Christianic" bible.
Also, there is nob ook for atheists - don't know where you've read that or why a site would report on one. Atheism is the belief of nothing above or nothing superior/more to life. Atheism is also NOT the belief of being "anti-religion" - it is simply not caring about religion and being completely empty in that regard.
Agnostic is not the disbelief of anything or not caring - that is atheism. Agnosticism is the belief that there is something higher up, but you have no idea what it is and don't care to go any further than that. That's why agnostics tend to become atheists further down the road.
"Christian" is both a noun and an adjective. With Atheist, there are separate noun and adjective forms ("Atheist" and "Atheistic", respectively). This is why "Atheistic" is correct but "Christianic" would be incorrect. (Don't believe me? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheistic)
Here's the book I was talking about: http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0747599602 Subtitled a "secular bible", it is essentially how I described it above.
And I know exactly what atheism is. I stand by everything I said. In practice, people who call themselves "atheists" are religious in the sense that they obsess over not being religious. People who truly aren't religious almost never call themselves atheists, because atheism is basically are religion.
Here's the book I was talking about: http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0747599602 Subtitled a "secular bible", it is essentially how I described it above.
And I know exactly what atheism is. I stand by everything I said. In practice, people who call themselves "atheists" are religious in the sense that they obsess over not being religious. People who truly aren't religious almost never call themselves atheists, because atheism is basically are religion.
Atheism, by definition, is the lack of religion. So no, people who call themselves atheists are not a part of a religion. Also, that book is just a book.
I know its "just a book". I never said any different. But you said "there is no atheism bible" - maybe not "officially" but then it's not an "official" religion.
And I don't care what atheism is "by definition" - in reality, atheists are religious. People who aren't, don't call themselves "atheists" (generally because of the terrible opinion most people have of atheists due to the morons who think it is necessary to preach atheism - i.e. the ones who make atheism a religion i.e. the people i have been talking about the whole time.) Maybe some people do, but I am yet to meet someone who calls him or herself an atheist and doesn't try to preach atheism. I'm really get bored of explaining this over again, I don't really care any more.
And I don't care what atheism is "by definition" - in reality, atheists are religious. People who aren't, don't call themselves "atheists" (generally because of the terrible opinion most people have of atheists due to the morons who think it is necessary to preach atheism - i.e. the ones who make atheism a religion i.e. the people i have been talking about the whole time.) Maybe some people do, but I am yet to meet someone who calls him or herself an atheist and doesn't try to preach atheism. I'm really get bored of explaining this over again, I don't really care any more.
Way to generalize. It's like me saying all christians are fanatical wackjobs that protest funerals. Have you thought maybe there are people who are athiest around you don't feel like telling the world? Your definition of atheism as a religion is backwards as well. Religion most often involves spirituality and/or large scale congregation. Atheism typically has none of that.
Take a read of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
For me atheism is about a strong belief in science to explain natural occurences. Science has evidence. Religion has fictious books that are full of racism, violence, sexism, and contradiction. My personal set of morals and beliefs does not allow for me to believe such ideas masqueraded as "faith".
Faith = believe stuff without evidence because I said so.
This is the internet. Any thread that contains even the most tenuous allusion to religion turns into a theological 'discussion'.Why did a DS Homebrew thread turn into a theological discussion?
@kthnxshwn
SifJar is absolutely correct in defining atheist/agnostic types. You trying to rationalize it is fine but by majority standards for those definitions you Sir are incorrect. I notice you like to argue/debate which is fine but sometimes you can't debate yourself out of being wrong. It shows class to back off and stand corrected. If that feeling absolutely kills you, make sure to not enter a debate unless you have a strong background and defense. Good luck.
SifJar is absolutely correct in defining atheist/agnostic types. You trying to rationalize it is fine but by majority standards for those definitions you Sir are incorrect. I notice you like to argue/debate which is fine but sometimes you can't debate yourself out of being wrong. It shows class to back off and stand corrected. If that feeling absolutely kills you, make sure to not enter a debate unless you have a strong background and defense. Good luck.
Which in turn (at least in all the threads I've ever seen) will turn from a discussion to an argument, to an escalation of said argument to the point where the thread gets closed.This is the internet. Any thread that contains even the most tenuous allusion to religion turns into a theological 'discussion'.Why did a DS Homebrew thread turn into a theological discussion?
Absolutely correct. I'd like to avoid that so back on topic please everyone. Keep the comments about the homebrew software and not religion in general.Which in turn (at least in all the threads I've ever seen) will turn from a discussion to an argument, to an escalation of said argument to the point where the thread gets closed.This is the internet. Any thread that contains even the most tenuous allusion to religion turns into a theological 'discussion'.Why did a DS Homebrew thread turn into a theological discussion?
Similar threads
-
- Portal
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
K3Nv2:
I really don't want to buy this fap tab https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/tabl...enovo-tab-series/tab-p11-pro-gen-2/zab50101us -
I @ I-need-help-with-wup-wiiu:what are the best video patches for wii games being injected with uwuvci aio (for the best quality)
-
-
-
-
@
BakerMan:
leo @'d me in a thread about his last dream, stating he was passionately making out with a guy he used to know and then woke up while reaching for his crotch, and said that i would "know who 'tf' it is"+1
and of course i know, it's luke -
