Universalism is having a hard time and it always has. Anyone who has applied it has applied it almost as a weak party or hypocrite. I say weak party because only the weak appeal to ideologies which are doomed and as hopeful, angry, supplicants.

Atheism is a fact of life and it's absent of so much... in fact that's exactly what it is.

Without a direct philosophy to fill the void it becomes itself. It's just a 0 and nothing more.

Religion is useful but it's a stepping stone. Anyone attempting to go from 1 to 3 without 2 is attempting the impossible.

You must use religion in a good way to turn those who believe back in the proper direction of humanity and have them jump that barrier in their thinking. Some are beyond help and that'll always be the case.

Variety is the spice of life regardless. Give me the various ways of doing things, please, please, please, please.

There's nothing more deleterious to HUMANITY, progress, or life than boredom.

ant wrote:

DB Roy wrote:(smfh) Why do you guys insist on taking the bait? Why??

It's not "bait"

Ive been at it here longer than you and I know tbe core here much better.
They often lose themselves in a belief system they deny exists - atheism.

Because you bait them--a constant barrage of "Scientists are a religious order" "Evolution is a belief system" "Global warming is a dogma" "Atheism is religion"--you post about nothing else. You post about nothing else. You post about nothing else.

Somebody might be totally lost in their insane dogma but it's not them. That's why I don't answer your bullshit. You're crazy. It's a waste of time arguing with someone who is not in their right mind. When the others do, you go and accuse them of getting lost in a belief system. The only belief system they appear to be hopelessly lost in is that you are worth arguing with.

It shouldn't be looked on as an insane dogma. No religion should. It's just an obstacle.

People are biological creatures, imperfect, and different.

People build their lives on what they've grown up with, built a concept of the world and view it through a lens, a lens that should be seen as their foundation. They've built a life in this.

You seek to tear that shack down and build something... different. How good are you with change? How good are you with life changing change? How good do you think others are.

Find things you enjoy in them and amplify that in them. Find the good and seek to show similarities in your way of thinking or how you'd like to be more like them in a certain aspect.

Truth - show truths they adhere to but don't follow. Ask and keep asking about holes in arguments. Rest outside their holes and talk to them. Show them you're happy.

Don't neglect short term girls for longer term, hotter girls. You know?

ant wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Atheism most certainly is a religion. Here are some of its commandments

1. Thou shalt not believe any claim that lacks evidence.
2. Thou shalt apply logic to test the rationality of all belief.
3. Thou shalt query the value and sense of beliefs and rituals which lack clear rationality and purpose.
4. Thou shalt support the scientific world view and method, recognising the material existence of the universe as described by modern empirical observation.
5. Thou shalt consider consequences of actions as a primary factor in their moral justification.
6. Thou shalt understand that all supernatural mythology is primarily a projection of human imagination, not a magical revelation from divine beings
7. Thou shalt place the highest value on evolutionary scientific discussion of how to achieve abundant sustained human flourishing on planet earth.

You forgot one:
Thou shalt remember all scientific evidedence is provisional and as such should be ready to throw out all "factual evidence" out the window and in so doing changing your ideological worldview that was based on evidence beforehand.

Thanks, zealot.

You are such a moron Ant. Leaving aside the spelling and grammar errors, the insane incoherence of your comment reminds me why I keep a disengagement policy with you. Flann's mention of my post in another thread made me suspect you would have replied.

Your theory here of "evidedence" implicitly postulates the stupid idea that science might go backwards to accept the obsolete theory of the supernatural. This is despite the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever for anything supernatural, and the abundant evidence to explain psychological belief in the supernatural as imaginary fantasy.

Absent catastrophe, evolution goes forward not backward. Adaptation in a stable system is cumulative not destructive. A return to belief in the false supernatural myth that an entity God could exist would be a reverse step.

Keep pushing shit uphill Ant, the tide of history is against you. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34686993?SThisFB says "Forty percent of people in England do not believe Jesus was a real person, a Church of England survey suggests."