Your character constitution determines how religion is assimilated.
Offline Since ya'll are such literal thinkers....
Dictionary.com
—ag·nos·tic : noun
1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
—ag·nos·tic : adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
—Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
==================================================================
"Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong" by Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from UCal Berkley ; Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Yale)
You showed me yours. I showed mine. Blah, Blah, Blah.
==================================================================
Your front page questions anchor on zero personal context from the religious perspective allowing you to approach all religious beliefs the same. A person's character constitution determines their social perceptions creating their personal context especially with religious beliefs.
Should a person dare write an essay "Atrocities of Atheist and Judaeo-Christian Dictators"?
I believe a judaeo-christian scholar would not have reservations answering your questions; however, I believe you must show the initiative, perseverance, and patience to formally confront the scholars if you honestly desire answers.
Thus, I personally view ya'll as loons.
- Login to post comments
SkyBeeX:
An athiest / agnostic can provide an infinite number of links to websites that say God is an illusion and a stupid superstitious belief.
A "believer" can do the same thing.
We can both refer to books written by intelligent people on both sides of the issue.
An athiest can "highlight" the number of people killed in the name of God over the last couple of thousand years.
And a 'believer" has to look no further than the 20th century to Stalin, Hitler and Mao - athiests all - who racked up a body count in the tens of millions.
The FACT is that at the end of the day, all of us ONLY have opinions and points of view and our beliefs.
And that's it.
Yes - you're going to get some athiests at the extreme end of the spectrum who are "looney". But I've met and spoken to some fundamentalist types that have opinions / beliefs that are "crazier" than ANYTHING I've ever heard from an athiest.
I'm a Catholic but frankly, I believe that these bible thumping, fire-and-damnation types are downright scary.
If you know how anal we might be you might have made sure you were using the right dictionary, but most of us don't care what bible you want to use so who am I to bitch.
Yeah, not me. If something exists I would think it would be knowable. I would admit knowledge is limited to experience, but that is the approch to science so you probably don't want to claim thats all it takes.
Depends on which area. I'd be shocked if someone claimed they had physical proof for non-existance, but this is a vage way to define the word and does not apply to the idea of god alone.
Nope, not me. If I was "asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge" I wouldn't even bother looking at any amount of knowledge. Now it kind of depends on what they mean by uncertainty but that idea really defeats any purpose to school or learning...
ok.
Yes and no. I need to hear the god idea before I can even think about denying its existence, otherwise I simplely lack the belief.
well if agnostic mean, "refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine" then no I am not agnostic.
I'm not completely sure what your point is or what you are asking for, but if you want some atheist books look around the page there are a few links.
Wait, now it is a bad think to treat things equally? What do these people want from us!?!?!
You might want to explain this idea of "character constitution." I did a little google searching and all I got was role playing games. I don't think that is what you mean, so you might want to explain.
It might be simpler to just talk about dictators, but I guess if they only want to talk about atheist and judaeo-christian ones sure.
Um I'm not sure what scholars your talking about, but this seems to be saying the scholars will be playing hard to get or something. I'm not sure why I would need things like "perseverance" and "patience" if they "would not have reservations answering questions." We have a list of questions for theists maybe they could check those out.
You really don't offer a reason to think we are "loons," but that really doesn't have much to do with the other points. I say that because you give some definitions, a book, something about personal context, ask a question, then say something about asking scholars things.
If those things are suppose to show we are "loons" you might want to play connect the dots...
Nice use of a dictionary. Dictionary.com is not a respected dictionary, but the use of it seems to have been well executed. For future reference, the OED is always your best bet. Now to nitpick. I don't want to turn the conversation into a battle of grammar and spelling skills but, having been raised in Texas, this one instance is a pet peeve of mine. The contraction is y'all not ya'll. The apostrophe replaces the removed letter or letters.
An atheist is a person without a belief in a god or gods. An agnostic, in the religious sense, is a person without knowledge of a god or gods. Those are the definitions nearly all atheists use. If you wish to use a different definition you may but it makes it hard for two people to carry on a conversation when they are using the same word but each party ascribes to it a different meanings. For your purposes here, if you wish to be able to engage in meaningful discourse, atheist as a person without a belief is the definition you need to use.
Wow, a person holding a doctorate in biology who still clings to religious belief. Too bad his name isn't Steve.
Being as that I haven't read the book, let me ask, does he have a problem with evolution or just with the way it is taught to our children? If it is the former, he should work up a title that paints a clearer picture of the book's content, and, win immortality (not in the literal sense, we all know that's impossible) when he comes up with the empirical proof of whatever his astounding new testable, repeatable and verifiable hypothesis is.
All theistic religious beliefs are the same in that they aren't supported by the slightest amount of evidence and are, therefor, irrational. Until that changes, to distinguish between them does nothing but to give one undeserved special status.
Point?
If they wish. If researched properly and written well it could make for an interesting and informative read. I know of no atheist who would be bothered by this in the least, though, judging by past experience, I am certain many Christians would be offended.
Scholars are welcome. There are scholars here. If they can answer the questions, let's have them get to it. Enough with the keeping the world in disagreement. Out with it already, you scholars you. Let's have all the answers to the age old questions resolved.
As for your calling people loons, being as that you are only one of six billion people on the planet, your opinion of anyone, as loon or otherwise, is inconsequential to the point of being non-existent in the view of anyone aside from yourself and those within your social network (assuming there are such people). You seem to suffer from the Judeo-Christian delusion of elevated self-importance. There is medication for that. Its called rational thought.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
So what are you saying, I can't an atheist AND an agnostic?
Point of order: Hitler was xian. And the killings, etc commited by Stalin/Mao were not "BECAUSE OF" their nonbelief in gods. If someone is going to kill, they would do it regardles of whether or not they posses a theistic belief.
Symok:
Two quotes attributed to Hitler.
I thought Hitler was a catholic, who didn't care too awful much for christians.
Dictionary.com is not a respected source according to whom? I use Dictionary.com because this source utilizes the same definitions as my Merriam-Webster hard back book and access is available without a premium to an extent.
I suppose ya'll aren't as literal as I thought since ya'll would rather claim the right to define your self with any word thus making the literal definitions of words irrelevant.
Nice ad hominem attacks against the book and dictionary source i've mentioned. This tells me even more about your character constitution.
You seem to suffer from the Judeo-Christian delusion of elevated self-importance.
Please explicitly state where my belief is of Judeo-Christian from my statements. Or, is the best you can do is to say "well well well, you stated your Judeo-Christian beliefs implicitly" according to how you read my statements? We see what we want to see; thus, I believe you are reading exactly what you want to read according to your character constitution.
If someone is going to kill, they would do it regardles of whether or not they posses a theistic belief.
Yet, theists enjoy applying the converse to a killer who claims a religious belief. If someone wants to kill, then they will kill; I agree.
I believe people enjoy finding validation for their actions where they can get it no matter how skewed they read their source.
Two quotes attributed to Hitler. Funny sounding Chrisitian
These quotes merely portrayed Hitlers disdain for Christians and others instead of how his beliefs were founded in any god. Since ya'll have chosen to focus on Hitler, check out : "Hitler's Table Talk" by Adolf Hitler, Norman Cameron, R.H. Stevens. Thus, Hitler states "Christianity is an invention of sick brains".
Hitler grew up in the Catholic traddition much like how many atheists proclaim they once grew up according to a particular religious belief. Atheists who continue to pronounce their religious backgrounds as some type of validation for their beliefs as an Atheist. I believe Stalin and Mao were motivated to kill no differently than Hitler's motivation "because they knew better".
There are scholars here.
I ponder the truth in this. Please, direct me to the publicly recognized theoligical scholars who have attempted to answer your questions. If there are none, then apparently the questioners are lacking the initiative to achieve their goal.
You seem to suffer from the Judeo-Christian delusion of elevated self-importance.
A person's "delusion of elevated self-importance" can be motivated by any rationalisation. Why did you implicate the delusion as Judeo-Christian?
============================================
A character constitution is the way in which someone's individual nature is composed according to their principles and traits. Your principles and traits dictate how to reason. Thus, your character constitution determines how religion is assimilated. In the context of religion, this is exactly how killers find validation from the violent statements within religion, how Athiests find validation in the contradictions of religion, and how a person with a religious belief finds validation within the Judeo-Christian "ten commandments".
To be more precise, I personally view athiests as loons when they claim a person with a religious belief has a mental disease.
For the fella from Texas, as I am from Texas as well, "Ya'll" is a recognized variation of "Y'all". The word actually originated from the fusing of "ya" and "all". "Ya'll" correct pronunciation is "ya all". "Ya'll" is actually more prevalent among common folk since the correct pronunciation of "y'all" as "you all" is more cumbersome. However, "y'all" is the accepted spelling.
Wait, now it is a bad think to treat things equally? What do these people want from us!?!?!
I believe making all religions equal makes all religions irrelevant because each person's character constitution is not equal.. I believe everyone's character constituion is unique. Thus, I believe humans are not as simple and predictable as intellectuals want us to believe we are simple and predictable. We are only simple and predictable to the mere extent of survival.
Being as that I haven't read the book, let me ask, does he have a problem with evolution or just with the way it is taught to our children?
In the book mentioned, Mr. Wells actually uses peer-reviewed scientifics studies and theories to explain how science is continuing to prove evolution as a myth according to how evolution is taught today.
So what are you saying, I can't an atheist AND an agnostic?
Very strange how you depicted I stated how an atheist and agnostic are not the same. Atheists and agnostics are the same in the literal sense.
An atheist is a person without a belief in a god or gods. An agnostic, in the religious sense, is a person without knowledge of a god or gods.
When an agnostic obtains the knowledge of a god or gods, then does the agnostic become an atheist who chooses to not adhere to a belief in a god or gods? Now, I am able to understand the answer this question.
Thus, I believe a person's character constitution determines how religion is assimilated and motivates the belief to obtain.
In the context of the overlying goals, the attacks toward theism from atheism and the converse are similar.
I view all religions as Self Help methodologies to relieve stress, motivate works, and inspire the imaginations with the allowances, or potential, of the supernatural. The methodology's neutrality allows either good or evil according to a person's character constitution.
I acknowledge my support for religious belief.
You may well find definitions that correspond to your Merriam-Webster. After all, it is one of the sources of definitions they use. The problem with dictionary.com arises from the fact that it also provides definitions from other sources, some not as reputable. This means when one cites a definition from dictionary.com it may or may not be from a reputable source. I, however, did not mean to offend your dictionary sensibilities. I was merely pointing out that it is not a source I would cite as authoritative. I use it often as well, being as that its free. I just don't cite it.
The thing is, the definitions most people here use for atheist and agnostic are accepted definitions. It is therefor important to consider the fact that, when defining a term that applies to a persons philosophy, or that is used by the person as a label by which they mean to let others know something about their worldview, preferences, beliefs, etc., it is the accepted definition said person sees as fitting that is important, not the definition you choose to brand them with.
I fail to see the point.
A rational person bases their conclusions on the evidence available. Based on the fact that you came to predominately atheist site to label people with your definitions and call them loons while referencing the term Judeo-Christian, I came to the conclusion you were Judeo-Christian. If you are not, I apologize.
The delusion of self importance is still fitting, however, being as that you thought your label of 'loon' to be something of such importance that a comment needed to be left expressing it.
What is meant by publicly recognized in this usage? What requirements does one have to meet before you consider them a theological scholar? Why do you think the goal of the questionersis to have the questions answered by theological scholars?
The Judeo-Christian religion is based in the importance of the individual self. "God loves me." "God created the universe for me." "God has a plan for me." "God will take me to paradise." "God will burn you, but not me."
There are other justifications for this line of thought, but being as that I had come to the conclusion (warranted or not) that you were Judeo-Christian, that was the particular variety of delusional self importance I thought you to be displaying.
Y'all is correct. Ya'll, recognized variation or not, is incorrect. A recognized variation means it is an incorrect form that is recognized due to widespread use in ignorance of the fact that it is incorrect. As I said, its just a pet peeve.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Technically, any form of "Y'all" is incorrect/slang.
Aahhh. A rational person bases their conclusions on the evidence available yet you have assumed I am of the Judeo-Christian faith and assumed I am talking from a level of self importance according to zero conclusive evidence beyond your perception of the Judeo-Christian faith.
"Based on the fact that you came to predominately atheist site..."
I thought an atheism is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings regardless of the religious belief. I am writing in this thread in the context of an atheism not portraying favoritism according to which deity or divine being to deny. Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian belief is not the only religious belief with one god.
"The thing is, the definitions most people here use for atheist and agnostic are accepted definitions."
I am not disputing the fact how ya'll use accepted definitions within your social groups. The reason why I oppose to individuals choosing "accepted definitions" is that every discussion is required to have a disclaimer.
"...to label people with your definitions and call them loons while referencing the term Judeo-Christian, I came to the conclusion you were Judeo-Christian. If you are not, I apologize."
If I changed the reference to Hinduism, would you then come to the conclusion I am of a Hinduism denomination?
To place a post into context from an author, all posts must be considered to place each post into context. As I mentioned in a prior post, I stated "To be more precise, I personally view athiests as loons when they claim a person with a religious belief has a mental disease". I assume posters are allowed to learn from mistakes. Are posters allowed to clarify in your forums?
"The delusion of self importance is still fitting, however, being as that you thought your label of 'loon' to be something of such importance that a comment needed to be left expressing it."
Honestly, I believe many, more folk believe a person is a 'loon', or choose any synonym ya desire, when an athiest proclaims a person with a religious belief is a person with a "mental disease" or alike without any substantiation by the American Psychological Association. In this context, yes, I do not mind claiming myself as arrogant.
"What is meant by publicly recognized in this usage? "
I am actually referring to an individual who believes a doctorate is definately worth their weight in gold and much more in addition to, or, public recognition for great works. This is how I meant to be publicly recognized. However, I would understand if you accept another definition.
What requirements does one have to meet before you consider them a theological scholar?
I believe the requirements of a theological scholar, or theologian, as an individual who has gained profound knowledge, beyond aptitude, from many decades of study including much experience with what they study. However, I would understand if you accept another definition.
Why do you think the goal of the questionersis to have the questions answered by theological scholars?
Welp, I am assuming ya'll are serious about "fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism". Thus, a huge impact to further the cause is to actually have an exchange with the theological scholars. Or, is this just a catchy slogan?
The Judeo-Christian religion is based in the importance of the individual self. "God loves me." "God created the universe for me." "God has a plan for me." "God will take me to paradise." "God will burn you, but not me."
Actually, in contrast to what i've said, I can most definately agree with this statement.
Are you suggesting atheists find their belief to be not important?
I hope everyone discovers they are important.
As I mentioned earlier, I view all religions as self help methodologies to help improve your self. A person can improve their personal principles by helping others.
Y'all is correct. Ya'll, recognized variation or not, is incorrect. A recognized variation means it is an incorrect form that is recognized due to widespread use in ignorance of the fact that it is incorrect. As I said, its just a pet peeve.
I never stated "y'all" is not correct. At the very least, "ya'll" and "y'all" are spelled differently denoting the different definitions very much unlike how folk are choosing to define them self differently with the same word. I enjoy my slang usage. Am I told to not use slang in this thread?
Nice ad hominem attacks against the book and dictionary source i've mentioned. This tells me even more about your character constitution.
As I mentiond earlier, an individual's character constitution determines how they reason. From observing how individual's reason, the individual's character constitution is further understood.
With your reason, you thought I am a Judeo-Christian and "self important" without conclusive evidence. Thus, this tells me either you are being defensive, arrogant to know my motives from only how you read my statements, or you believe any individual with an opposing thought must be a "self important", Judeo-Christian follower.
Actually, it's only fundamentalists and children who are literal thinkers...
Let me again repeat what everyone who cites the dictionary misses.
Dictionaries exist to provide definitions of words that people use. I hope this hits you as a non-controversial claim. This means that they must include any definition that is commonly used.
Dictionaries do NOT exist to provide a rigorous philosophical defense of the term.
So all you are doing by citing a dictionary is providing us with a set of definitions that people use. You are not necessarily providing us with a philosophical justification as to its proper usage.
However, it turns out that in this case, definition 1 is the the actual meaning of the word as intended by it's creator, Huxley. It is an epistemological term.
A-theism is simply not holding to theism. A- theism. Just like A-gnostic, one who does not hold to gnosticism. It's really that simple, and anyone who puts more effort into the word A-theism than that is just looking to start a fight.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I agree with how atheists and agnostic are synonyms to an extent, but I do not agree with how a word should be redefined entirely according to context. I inserted the definitions in the original post to probe the type of reaction I would receive. I believe a word's definition indicate proper usage.
Actually, it's only fundamentalists and children who are literal thinkers...
My issue regarding athiests is that I believe athiests assimilate religious beliefs too literal. Do atheists approach religious beliefs metaphorically? If atheists would view a religious belief metaphorically, then I believe an atheist would understand why an individual would assimilate a religious belief literally.
I’m not sure why you are tap dancing around the idea with how predictable a person might be, but it sounds like you want to say all ideas are not equal because people look at them differently. The thing is if you give up approaching all the ideas in the same manner you level yourself open to preconceived notions of it. Although I still find it odd that you want to put religious ideas in a special category, grouping them, then say they aren’t equal. Really though I don’t separate idea in the way you seem to. All ideas should be able to be analyzed and if you are inconsistent in the way you do it you aren’t getting very accurate views of them. The bigger thing though how almost everyone else who wants to say we shouldn’t mess with religion wants to say all of them are equal, equally untouchable.
Oh I see everything that feels good is good enough to leave alone. Kind of like safety blanks for adults, right? Is this sort of like an “why would you ever make a baby cry?” type of argument for when you don’t let is suck on its mothers nipples anymore?
I was having a convo with another person and I called religion a superstition of some sort. After awhile I used the word delusion to describe the idea of superstitions. The other guy suggest superstitions are ok if they don’t hurt anyone so I asked him about freeing all the Napoleons. From that it lead to me having to define what kind of mental disease all the Napoleons had and making a distinction between that and a custom.
If you knew a person who thought a man was going to fly out of the sky after all the good people flew up into it and then everyone left was going to start killing each other, what would you call them?
I’m from Texas as well, but I still learned the word y’all however written isn’t really a word. Maybe they put it in while I wasn’t looking or something, but it probably shouldn’t be used if you want to make a formal argument. Really as soon as you use it others get a new picture of you. I suppose this is really just me letting you know everyone listening will hear everything you say and everything you say effects the impression you leave on us.
The problem with saying beliefs are all metaphoric is that all the ideas of become meaningless and hold no weight. If all the ideas metaphoric the person is just picking and choosing what ideas are cool and which aren’t. Really I don’t see why you are pissed about an atheist who reads the books and doesn’t try to change the ideas written in black and white.
I've approached religion philosophically, metaphorically, scientifically, and literally. It has completely failed in every respect.
Exactly what religion are you a part of, if any?
As to your "loon" comment in your first post, I have to say you're looking at the wrong end of the spectrum here. Whether you like it or not.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Although I still find it odd that you want to put religious ideas in a special category, grouping them, then say they aren’t equal."
Everything can be categorized regardless of an entity's uniqueness. Categorisation does not negate the unique aspects within the categories. A category is simply a collection of entities sharing common attributes.
"All ideas should be able to be analyzed and if you are inconsistent in the way you do it you aren’t getting very accurate views of them."
I agree. A standardized performance test can be applied to many unique automobiles that are classified within a single category; this concept can be applied for religious beliefs within the special category.
"The bigger thing though how almost everyone else who wants to say we shouldn’t mess with religion wants to say all of them are equal, equally untouchable."
The untouchable factor makes sense to an extent. How much would you like to mess with a religion belief?
"Kind of like safety blanks for adults, right? Is this sort of like an “why would you ever make a baby cry?” type of argument for when you don’t let is suck on its mothers nipples anymore?"
Seriously, I believe your questions quoted above do extend to the seriousness of a child.
"Oh I see everything that feels good is good enough to leave alone."
Essentionally, yes. GO ahead and tamper with the same religious belief that gave an addict the motivation to beomce sober. Go ahead and tamper with the same religious beliefs that give military men and women comfort. Go ahead and tamper with the same religious beliefs that gives a potential suicide victim motivation to live. Go ahead and tamper with the same religious beliefs that have inspired the architects, artists, and Civil Rights leaders throughout history.
Should all religious beliefs be extinguished due to the potential for harm? What harm would you create by extinguishing religious beliefs?
"If you knew a person who thought a man was going to fly out of the sky after all the good people flew up into it and then everyone left was going to start killing each other, what would you call them?"
I would submit the same conclusion if I were told the same leading question.
Voiderest, you are a bright example of how an atheist assimilate religious beliefs too literal.
"Really as soon as you use it others get a new picture of you. I suppose this is really just me letting you know everyone listening will hear everything you say and everything you say effects the impression you leave on us."
You have just proven how "rational" you are. A good thing you do not work in the texas agriculture industry.
"...it probably shouldn’t be used if you want to make a formal argument."
I suppose a fella must write, or speak, in complete sentences, proper sentence structure, and with proper punctuation as well because your post has failed miserably. Sheesh. However, I have no where stated that my sentence structure and such is superb.
"The problem with saying beliefs are all metaphoric is that all the ideas of become meaningless and hold no weight."
The meaning of metaphors are found within the reader.
"Really I don’t see why you are pissed about an atheist who reads the books and doesn’t try to change the ideas written in black and white."
Another rational thinker. I would truely enjoy to read how you formulated this "rational" thought.
"I've approached religion philosophically, metaphorically, scientifically, and literally. It has completely failed in every respect."
I never suggested a person's character constitution would choose a religious belief.
Exactly what religion are you a part of, if any?
I do not formally label myself to any particular religious belief. However, I truely enjoy judaism and judeo-christian beliefs with traditional atmospheres such as catholicism, methodism, and the Church of Christ denomination. If I were exposed to religious beliefs outside of the monotheistic religions, then I figure I would enjoy these as well. I do what I am able to support religious beliefs.
As to your "loon" comment in your first post, I have to say you're looking at the wrong end of the spectrum here. Whether you like it or not.
Another "rational" thinker...
I never came here with the motivation to convince anyone. I came here to express my support for religious beliefs. "Blind" of course as the reading eyes glazed over to read the context of religious belief that I have established for such "rational" thinkers.
I agree to disagree.
Take Care and Godspeed
As a side note, this website should have chosen a better public speaking liaison for the Laura Ingraham talk radio show. However, Ms. Ingraham's poor performance did make the exchange quite fair. Your liaison is lucky he was not on the Michael Medved talk radio show.
And what would be the common attribute of religion?
You see I don't put religious claims into any other special category. Maybe you should explain why they should be.
The same amount as anything claiming to be true.
Hey I'm just telling you what I hear you use pleas of emoton to argue for a hands off policy when it comes to a belief.
Do you mean like AA which tells the addict the only way they can become sober is by giving up what is left of their self modavation to a "higher power" that will save them? Sounds like preying on the weak to me...
Well I know there are atheist in the military so it doesn't seem a comfort of a god is needed to fight for your country.
I've personally talked to a women who almost commited suicide so she could be with that god and then felt pain when she was rejected from it.
Oh so now we need a god to do anything great?
By suggesting we can't question something you create far more harm then any religion could.
I suppose the kind of harm that is caused by people not assuming things and not finding something true just because it makes them feel good.
Well then maybe you could give me a question about religion that shows how rational it is.
SkyBeeX, you are a bright example of how a person can forget what religion is doing to the human race.
Thank you, but for some reason I think you are being sarcastic here. If that is the case I was pointing out how the way you talk can throw people off of your arguments. Also I don't plan on doing anything close to farming so you don't need to worry about how well I might communicate within the industry.
I suppose I could take more english classes in school, but I thought using the word "y'all" is kind of like using the word "alot" or "funner." If you like though you can correct me. Also I think the idea of "y'all", "ya'll", or "you all" is kind of geranlizing of an entire group and would probably hurt your argument because that means all a person has to do is show you an example of someone not being that thing.
While "and such" is kind of a catch all here I was talking about using words that show streotypes not sentence structure.
So why do they need a book?
Yes I find nothing wrong with taking a look at a book and thinking what it says is, well, what it says. I think you are pissed about it, or don't like it, because you said, "athiests assimilate religious beliefs too literal." Wait do you mean this metaphorically?
I never suggested otherwise, and didn't mean to imply as much. I was merely clarifying my position.
Thanks.
Merely pointing out the hypocracy in your comment, which you just solidified. Starting off by insulting people isn't likely to get you anywhere.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.