SL/Virtual Reality Morality/Ethics... any group working on these?

On the contrary; I find primitive superstitions almost as hilarious as people who think that SL relationships are real.

coming off as a stick in the mud though.


So w/e

Actually, atheists are hilarious too, in their way. Atheism is the belief that there is no god - and they can't prove it any more than their opposites in belief can prove there is a god. Both are proclaiming THEIR FAITH. If you're going to be rational about it, you have to be agnostic.

If you're going to be a believer, atheism is such a waste of time. You might as well at least believe in something that promises Eternal Bliss, or Reincarnation, or at least 72 virgins...

bla who'd want an eternal 72 virgins.

you'd think you'd want someone who knew what they were doing.

...or at least someone they could do something with...
(if the virgins must remain virginal for eternity)

The vast majority of atheists are also agnostics, and most agnostics are atheists. If you don't know whether or not a god or gods exists, you can't very well be a theist. If you're not a theist you're an atheist. The only reason the word agnostic exists is because the person who coined it (Thomas Henry Huxley) thought it sounded less strident than atheist. The belief that agnosticism somehow denotes a separate position from atheism is simply false. The only real difference between the majority of atheists and the majority of self-described agnostics is the word they choose to use. The position itself is exactly the same in all respects.

Atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I don't have anything against Atheists at all really.

I know my joke wasn't that good, but didnt really need pontificated against "because there is no god" or for whatever reason.

You would assume Atheists could let god JOKES go , I wasn't saying "read your bible like a good Christian.

But Whatever ..

ceased being a big deal after he brought it up.

I didn't think you did. It was just Har's post I felt the need to respond to. That misconception is just one of my pet peeves and I always feel compelled to respond to it, but not out of any offense.

Sorry, but this is sophistry - in this case, conflating two concepts and then speaking of them as if they were the same concept. There is quite a difference between asserting there is no god, and asserting one does not know whether there is a god or not. One claims certainty; the other denies it. It is true that both concepts are different from asserting there is a god. But no, that does not make them the same thing at all.

Now we're onto religion??????

Oh pleeeeeaaassse for the love of God or Goddess, or Buddha or Mohammad or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Higher power of your choice....can we please get a moderator to replace Strife SOON!!!!!!!

Atheism is not a faith or a belief. It is a denial of faith. Why should an atheist attempt to prove something doesn't exist when no one has proven it to exist in the first place?

You are quite correct. Where your mistake lays is in the belief that athiesm is by definition an assertion of knowledge that there is no god. It isn't. It is simply a lack of belief in a god, which doesn't preclude the possibility that evidence may at some point emerge to convince them otherwise. If, based on the fact that someone claims to be an atheist, you assume they're claiming to know there is no god, you would, in most cases be wrong. You're correct to point out that someone who did claim such knowledge would be equivelant to someone of religious faith, but that position isn't representative of all or even most atheists. Asserting knowledge of something you can't possibly know is irrational.

Simply not believing because you've never been convinced by evidence or experience to do so is not the same as proclaiming a faith. That's all you can infer from someone being an atheist. There certainly are the kind of atheists to which you refer, but if you think that's all atheists you're misusing the word. Agnosticsm and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and most who claim one or the other are both.

I think Har was as you said lumping those few Atheists who preach there can be no god to everyone who listens in with those who are Atheists but don't feel a need to tell everyone only they can be right.

Since human nature is pretty much a constant those Atheists who feel compelled to make the point "there is no god!" to everyone are exhibiting the same behavior trait as those Zealous Christians saying "You must repent!"

And the fact that they do means they seem dogmatic in their belief of nothing.

Your explanation of Atheism and Agnostics is really good, and I'm glad you explained.

Looking back, it was funny getting corrected for being irreverent by an Atheist tho. If anything it should have been the right wing Christians who told me I shouldn't make jokes including God.

It is not, BTW for those who missed it, possible for humans to actually change the fabric of the universe.

Well it seems this thread has done what all the best ones do, pay no attention at all to the OP's original question.

I do think we're all having an overdose of self-conscious erudition, (what do you know ..I can do it too)..

I think if you're going to take this pseudo academic stance the least you folk could do is attempt to apply some rigour to what you say.

As an example the above phrase is presented as fact. Even though when we analyse the terms and content it means nothing and is anything but.

The "fabric" of the "universe" is changed all the time by humans, ants, and very famously butterflies..

Examples abound, but hopefully you take my point. Aspirations to academia normally require accuracy in the use of language and terms if nothing else.

Sorry to sound like a bit of a tw*t, but sometimes I am one

Ms actually - well, when i'm not being androgynous...

You're welcome, although it's Ms actually... well, when I'm not being androgynous...