ssj12 said: The_vagabond7 said:   nope, niot banworth and completely a-ok On that first comment Yes there are comments that are meant in terms of hatred but I was meaning in a more general discussion sense. Like what we have hear. I feel that if someone doesnt believe in something they can discuss their opinions on that subject. It doesnt matter that they come out still hating something but to show that in a discuss they can sit down and talk about their opinions without being attacked for it or attacking others for their opinions. As long as someone is willing to sit down and discuss versus attack is perfectly fine and dandy.

What about when Mr. Bubbles tried to defend his postion that Barak Obama was the antichrist? Should we have treated him with more respect or was the jeering, laughing and attacking ok in that case? What if I don't like black people and can come up with reasons why? Should forum members only nicely try to persuade my racist ass back into reality or is that either an attack free zone, a closed topic in the making or an instant ban?

 

Onyxmeth said: ssj12 said: The_vagabond7 said:   nope, niot banworth and completely a-ok On that first comment Yes there are comments that are meant in terms of hatred but I was meaning in a more general discussion sense. Like what we have hear. I feel that if someone doesnt believe in something they can discuss their opinions on that subject. It doesnt matter that they come out still hating something but to show that in a discuss they can sit down and talk about their opinions without being attacked for it or attacking others for their opinions. As long as someone is willing to sit down and discuss versus attack is perfectly fine and dandy. What about when Mr. Bubbles tried to defend his postion that Barak Obama was the antichrist? Should we have treated him with more respect or was the jeering, laughing and attacking ok in that case? What if I don't like black people and can come up with reasons why? Should forum members only nicely try to persuade my racist ass back into reality or is that either an attack free zone, a closed topic in the making or an instant ban?

 

1 If he took an I believe he is ____ stance yes, but considering he probably did then no he was straight up attacking.

2 reasons can still be questioned and discussed

3 that all we really can do is discuss seriously but nicely

 

TBH, I don't believe in religion at all.

I believe that there might be some sort of all-powerful being that controls our existence, a "God" per se, and there is a Life After Death.

So, that would classify me as an agnostic?

dtewi said: TBH, I don't believe in religion at all. I believe that there might be some sort of all-powerful being that controls our existence, a "God" per se, and there is a Life After Death. So, that would classify me as an agnostic?

 

i assume that makes you agnostic yes, personally i dont belive in religion or god, however i would not dismiss the idea of a being (or beings) more powerfull than humanity.

ssj12 said: PS360ForTheWin said: query, what exactly constitutes an "attack"   Basically the entire concept of trolling. Just purposely provoking people.LIke for example, "that is complete BS, the Bible is completely right. All other religions are not real and people should rot for believing anything else.

 

Well to be fair... if you believe that people are going to have an eternity of suffering due to something... and all you didn't do all you did to stop it... I imagine you'd feel like a dick for eternity...

and if despite all you did nobody listened i imagine you'd be pretty irratable.

I think an agnostic is one who can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God, so they don't believe, one way or the other.
An athiest is one who believes there is no God.
That's the way I always understood it. Am I wrong? edit- Sorry...that was in response to dtewi's question and the last bit was, more or less, addressed to all....

"singing out my revolution song, like nothing eles matters"

Starmistkarmic said: I think an agnostic is one who can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God, so they don't believe, one way or the other. An athiest is one who believes there is no God. That's the way I always understood it. Am I wrong?

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

 

so yes your right

 

Yeah.

I think Athiests are too close-minded while religion is as well.

They shut out each other's beliefs and only believe their own.

I am open to both Athiesm and Religion, it's just that neither have proof.

So someone could talk about the evils of miscegenation, and say it's analogous to abortion, and the products of both are miscarriages and the spawn of satan (i.e., evil), and that would be perfectly fine? Perhaps it would be fine if the person were talking about it while referring to me, since I am the product of miscegenation. But wouldn't that be a little personal?

Also, about abortion; Many anit-choice people are prone to call abortion "murder". Since I've aided and abetted the commission of an abortion that would seemingly mean that I'm guilty of several crimes myself. Is it okay to call someone a criminal based on your moral position when in fact that person is not legally a criminal in our society today?