Timewaster's Guide Archive

Jade: an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power but does not care, basically. All religions, as i have said, are the same at their core. That may be an "oversimplification" but what is wrong with that? All major religions have a desire and a mandate to spread their religion far and wide and, with Mormonism being the lone exception among the worlds major religious sects, are the only ones who have not gone to war to force others to comply with their belief. Also, I never mentioned anything about clans or families or tribes. I said sects/septs: which are various diversions of the main religion. Christianity is the religion, Catholicism is a sept, Mormonism would be a sect. then you have Islam, with 2 or three main septs such as Shiite and Sunni, plus dozens, hundreds, thousands of sects.

You are right though Jade: Atheism IS a belief. And with any belief, you feel you position is the superior one. If you are a Catholic, you feel that every other version of religion is incorrect. The Seventh's even go as far to say that their version is not only the correct one, but all others are doomed, regardless of whether they are Christian or not. To me, belief in a higher power is completely illogical and puzzling. Oh, I understand the fundementals of belief, and the psychological aspect and all that, but can never understand how someone could REALLY beleive. Maybe I am a Vulcan..  who knows? There are those who would push others to believe as they do among the athiest circuit (or push to disbelieve?) but they are not in the majority. Many of us fall under libertarian value systems: Live and let live. But as with any group of people, organized or not, there will be some who will use their belief/politics/power or whatnot to supress others or make fun of others or treat others in a hateful or violent manner. But that has more to do with that persons core values and makeup than it does with whatever belief, religious or political or whatever, that they follow.

the biggest difference between the "religion" of atheism from other religions is two-fold: the majority of us do not feel the need to "spread the word" or "encourage" others to feel the same way. and we are not organized.

One last fact:
Roughly 18% of the citizens of the United State of America identify themselves as atheist. If we ever did organize (which we never really could) we would be a significant power in this country, since atheism is now the 2nd largest "religion" in the country.

Fun fact:
7% of people in the United Kingdom identify themselves as Jedi.

now I am confused.

Nowhere in any of my posts did I say I was a member of a religion, only that I do not dislike you, nor am I against you or your religion, simply because you believe different than I do. Being an athiest does not make a person an "anti-theist". the "a" meaning "lack of" and the "anti" meaning "against".

Maybe I missed something though. But I am rather desensitized to these things, being an athiest seems to bring out some real hate in people. For some reason, that hate translates into people saying that athiests hate religious people, which couldn't be further from the truth.

As an athiest, I do not believe in the existence of a "god" if you will. I do not "deny" the existence, since the extent of denial belies the existence.

I, as a person of morals, believe that it is each persons right to choose to believe in God, or god, or Mother Earth, or Moon Pies, whatever does it for you, it is your right as a free person. Being an athiest does not make me "against" anyone else, no more than someone being a Christian makes them against Islam, or someone who is Mormon being against Catholics.  The act of being "against" someone of another faith is an act of arrogance and superiority, which breeds contempt, which breeds violence. And again, the belief of the person matters not, it happens to all, regardless of faith.

Being of a specific set of religious beliefs only implies that you believe that you are correct and all others are wrong. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or athiest does not matter. I believe I am right and you are all wrong, and thats that. You are free to believe that I am wrong, as I am sure ALL of you do. How can you not? That is part of the belief. But you have absolutely NO RIGHT to attempt to define my belief, as I have no right to define yours. And really, that is the crux of this entire post. One person who does not believe in Mormonism trying to define it.

And this I ask:

Why do you have to be against someone for their belief or lack thereof? Why does it alsways have to be "If you are not with me, you are against me"? I am not agaisnt anyoen simply because  of their beliefs. That is a personal thing for them. It harms me not that they might be Christian, or Wiccan, or whatever they might be. It would seem to me that those who constantly have to batter others based of their looks, their faith, or their orientation, are really not quite comfortable with themselves and seek to put down others in an attempt to lift themselves up.

And I feel sorry for anyone who feels that need. I am confortable with me. Why can't you be comfortable with you?

I am with the person that said to take marriage away from the government. Marriage, in and of itself, is a religious ritual, nothing more. The fact that government controls who can get married is a conflict of religious liberties. All person who want to legally bond should be in a civil union, marriage, if a person desires, should be relegated to religious ceremony and the marriages themselves should have no legal binding.

currently, civil unions, in the states which grant them, do NOT confer the same rights and priviledges as marriage, which is discrimination, no matter how you slice it.

Polygamy can be a bit convoluted. However, marital/civil union polygamy can work if there are proper guidelines. If a man wishes to marry two women, he should be able to as long as both women agree to it. However, the catch is, they also become married to each other, and if the man dies, they would still remain married to each other. this would do 2 things. It would cure issues with multiple birthings and custodial battles. Often in 3-way (or more) reltionships, one of the women chooses to stay home with teh children, regardless of who birthed them. The otehrs may work. But each, regardless of staying home or not, is a mother to all teh children and should be legally treated as such. The children should not be divvied up by genetics.

Ok, i ranted a bit, but i think yo9u get my point.

Shaggy:

I'm sorry you're getting upset.  I meant my statements to simply be light-hearted fun.  A minor distraction, not hijacking the thread.

Honestly happy, the younger generation has a tendency to get worked up at the drop of a hat. I have a very difficult time with my boys. And their friends are all the same way. It seems they LOOK for an excuse to get worked up/take offense. Not saying we didnt look for things in our day, but not like this generation does. Just the other day, one of my son's friends was over. All I said was "How are you doing?" and he came off with a nasty glare and sneered "What do you mean by that?"

sar⋅casm   /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ [sahr-kaz-uhm]

–noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony

That is the most widely used definition. His remark was sarcastic to a point, but more irony.

As far as I know, there is no time limit for sarcasm, not length limit.

See Scrubs: Dr. Cox often uses sarcasm, and it is never "short" or "quick to the point"

also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

That Wiki is a pretty spot on explanation of sarcasm.

What I could not find though, on google or Yahoo or a Wiki, was "12 year old lecturing on proper speech or wit" apparently, it has never been successfully done before.

Harriets line edits are up to 90%! Looks like the first half will be ready for editting soon, and off to the publisher probably, with a mid-summer to early fall release! I cant wait! and then part 2 shouoldnt be far behind