Quake3World

mjrpes wrote:

Canis wrote:

feedback wrote: Because they're boring and uncomfortable @_@

Uncomfortable? Why would they be uncomfortable?

Spending an hour doing something you dislike and are very bored with makes you uncomfortable.

Goddamnit I'm trying to just keep him going on the "why" thing...

Law wrote:I ask this question because I've always considered myself Atheist. But then I envisioned the scenario which I initially posted and I can't come to a decision as to whether I would take part in the ritual or not, and wondered how other supposed Atheists felt. I keep thinking "yeah but... what if?". I guess I'm somewhere between an Atheist and an Agnostic.

Lol coward.

Lol tough guy.

Whatever.

If this dilemma even bothers you a tiny bit, you're not an atheist, or even an agnostic - you're a confused christian.

Ha, there i go calling it a dilemma when it's clearly not one.

Ryoki wrote:Whatever.

If this dilemma even bothers you a tiny bit, you're not an atheist, or even an agnostic - you're a confused christian.

rofl

I sense you disagree, but can think of no argument.

There's no point argueing something as ridiculously far fetched as your comment.

when you die, you're dead.
thats it, this is not some sort of trial.
yes i would do it, without a seconds hesitation.

edit:"sort" damn typos

Ryoki wrote:Whatever.

If this dilemma even bothers you a tiny bit, you're not an atheist, or even an agnostic - you're a confused christian.

Perhaps a confused agnostic theist who's swayed by Pascal's wager.

It's often the case that people operate on beliefs different than those they claim to identify with.

busetibi wrote:when you die, you're dead.
thats it, this is not some of trial.
yes i would do it, without a seconds hesitation.

How do you know though?

Law wrote:There's no point argueing something as ridiculously far fetched as your comment.

Do they teach you that at lawschool, to reject arguments as far fetched or silly when it's difficult to come up with a counterargument?

Hey here's a tip, maybe you could fit the 'think of the children' argument in there somehow, perhaps that'll win the day.

I know you're trying very hard to troll, so i'll grace you with an answer:

So what you're saying is that you have a person who:

-has never been to church in his life
-has never said a prayer in his life
-does not believe in God
-has never practiced any type of religion in any way, shape or form

Yet this person doesn't even need to go to the extent of refusing to take part in a satanic ritual, he merely has to be bothered by it (according to you), to therefore be a Christian. I'd argue that it would take slightly more for said person to qualify for Christianity.

im agnostic

Yes, that's right. Imo it's as simple as that: believe in Satan = believe in god = makes you a christian.

There's no distinction between 'feeling bothered' and believing - if you feel bothered by satanic rituals, you obviously aren't an atheist in the first place.

You need to understand that things are not so definate. If you were to put it on a scale then 99% of me believes there is no God, 1% of me wonders "what if?". This small wonder is enough to stop me from taking part in a Satanic ritual, but is far from what makes a person a Christian.

So then - you're not really an atheist.

Perhaps not, an idea I've already entertained in this thread. Perhaps a "weak Atheist" as Canis described via wikipedia. Perhaps somewhere between an Atheist and an Agnostic, or perhaps even an Agnostic. A Christian? Far, far from it.

I don't agree with the introduction of a grey area between agnosticism and atheism.

The two terms are absolute. If i look at what Canis wrote about strong and weak atheism, i recognise both opinions as my own. If i look at the strong and weak agostics, i recognise both opinions as the ones one of my friends has when we discuss stuff like this.

Your hypothesis should be aimed at agnostics, not atheists.

The issue of where my hypothesis should be aimed is irrelevant, your theory is that all it requires to qualify as a Christian is to be bothered by the thought of taking place in a Satanic ritual.

It's very much relevant.

And yes, because being bothered implies belief - a belief in a christian religious structure. And belief is what makes one religious, my friend.

How is whether my question should be asked of Atheists or Agnostics relevant to your belief that one is a Christian if bothered by the thought of Satanic ritual?

And do you understand that bother, or wondering "what if?" are different in meaning to absolute belief?

Because putting even a minute amount of faith into a believe system makes you a believer. I already explained this.

An atheist would never be bothered by your hypothesis.

EDIT: keyboard batteries failing... :\

Oh I get it, you're either Atheist or Christian. Damn, all these years I've been a Christian and I didn't even know it.