Now that's a religion I can get behind. Or in front of, I mean, I'm flexible.

I will go anywhere you want brother!

I think that you kinda loosely defined it in your OP. I do not mean it in a strict sense. More so just that they feel that man and his accomplishments are the most powerful thing that exists. I am also not saying that every atheist really fits into this description of mine. Many are just atheist by default. But others take it much more seriously to the point that I would consider it a religion.

I never said that you were. Just that your description of your new religion sounded like atheism to me.

You say that atheism is not structured, but I would say that it is about as structured as much of the new agey type religions. Would you disagree?

Jibninjas, the reasoning and logic used by professor Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" far surpasses any attempt at rationale I have seen from you in this forum so far. I really think you could learn a lot from a thorough reading of his work but only if you approach it with an open mind rather than your default stance of stubborn and arrogant ignorance (this is an honest personal opinion on your approach to religious debates I have seen you participate in so far).

I would also suggest "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" as they can help you grasp the beauty and complexity of the evidence based theories that strive towards truth and understanding. I hope one day you can move on from your dark, simplistic and primitive view of the world if not for your own sake then for that of your children/future generations in general. I think the above suggestions may prove a step in the right direction and I sincerely hope you find them as invigorating and fruitful as I did when first coming across them (The Selfish Gene especially).

Jib, I'm not the OP.

I was referring to your original post. I had a feeling that would cause confusion

I am sure that you would like to believe what you have written here. You views on people like Richard Dawkins are exactly what I would expect from someone like you. And if you feel that I am stubborn and arrogant, that is fine. You could not be further from the truth, but I am not that concerned.

Your characterization here of the atheistic world view and the theistic world view tells me about everything that I need to know about someone like yourself.

fwiw, I do plan on reading those books and I am sure that I will post here when I do. But until then I will continue on with my impressions of Dawkins which I feel are pretty accurate.

If someone hasn't read the bible, yet they feel like their impressions on it/religion/god are pretty accurate, what would you say to that?

Sounds pretty stupid imo.

Except I have seen plenty of videos of Dawkins and read other articles by him. So I am not basing my impression on nothing like you are saying.

So I do not see what your issue is here.

I was commenting on you and your views specifically, I did not comment on theism in general. There is no single atheistic world view and I certainly didn't characterise one. I also did not make any specific comment on Professor Richard Dawkins as a person but rather commented on his work which is, as you must know by now, world renowned within the scientific community. I have also read/studied his work which has helped me form my opinions. You should maybe give that approach a shot.

I believe you seek to turn this forum into an "us and them" back and forth between believers and non-believers leaving it devoid of any meaningful debate.

You should win some sort of irony award for the most revealing and truly baffling attempt at addressing my comments on your stubborn and arrogant approach to discussions within these forums, and I quote:

"And if you feel that I am stubborn and arrogant, that is fine. You could not be further from the truth, but I am not that concerned."

and

"Your characterization here of the atheistic world view and the theistic world view tells me about everything that I need to know about someone like yourself."

The only charaterisation that has taken place in this thread is demonstrated above as you attempt to marginalise me as some kind of "dawkins bum boy". You claim to know everything you need to know about me. This is an arrogant and rude way to treat anybody and is a standard line to take if your an ignoramus who charges head first into threads with no intention of meaningful or respectful debate.

I must state that my opinions on you are restricted to the realms of this forum and are not a personal attack on your character as such or you as a human being. I do not know everything I need to about you but rather have felt the need to address your approach to posting in this forum as well as your views expressed within these confines.

Again, in my original comment I expressed what I have heard. I have listened to enough of him to form an opinion about his logic. I am not quite sure if your last line was taking a shot at me, but for now I will assume not.

I am sorry that you feel that way. That is not my intention at all. I relate much better with most atheists then I do most christians. In my world there is no "us and them". There are only individuals.

I believe that you are reading way to into these comments. There are many people on this site that do not like me because I do not agree with them. They feel that all logic that is not in agreement with theirs is flawed. I am used to that by now. If I let it bother me I would not be able to post here. You have not pointed out any flaws in my logic but resorted mostly to ad hominems, so to me you come off as the above mentioned people. That is why I said what I said.

I think that you need to reread your own posts and think about if you really feel that the language used what not characterizing. If you like I will re-post them in the morning and highlight what I feel is fairly obvious characterization.

I feel that you are looking at a very limited amount of my posts if that is the impression that you get. But with that said, you come off in the very limited posts that I have read pretty much what you are accusing me of except from an atheistic standpoint.

Does anyone know how to fix a single-pipe steam radiator? Mine is rattling like crazy and water is leaking out the nozzle.

I fully accept that I can come across as arrogant at times and I know this often hurts my chances of getting my point across. I am trying to rectify this. I will also make more specific points concerning your arguments, it is possible that what i see as blatant logical inconsistencies are not so apparent to yourself and it is also true that I am basing my general observations on a small sample of your posts. I stand by what I have said but will attempt to present my points in a more constructive manner.

try here :

http://www.naturalhandyman.com/qa/qasteamheat.html

And you got all of this out of "someone who lacks theism"? Amazing.

So according to the logic you're using, newborn babies (if thrown into a religion-less wild for 20 years) will come back to civilization bearing Dawkins-esque bibles, worshiping man, and wanting to market their philosophy on sides of buses, etc. That makes complete sense.

Atheism has no dogma and it has no holy book. What some atheists might do or don't do does not reflect on my worldview, and if there is a connection it is not through "atheism" but some belief that is not mentioned. It's a word that means "you are not a theist".

Shoehorning atheism like some people seem to enjoy doing is like giving logical proof for why "not green" = "blue". It's not a "theist" thing either...I have seen plenty of atheists on this board making claims that atheism means you don't dislike this, or that you support on yourself on empiricism or w/e.

All that is BS. Atheism means you don't believe in god. It doesn't reflect on your morals, what you believe in, how you solve problems or your view on science. There might be some correlations but that's it.

OH and Tame,

As I said in follow up posts, I am not making a blanket statement towards atheists. Some I feel are atheists honestly by default. But there are many people out there that treat atheism like a religion. Whether or not they would agree they still have all the same characteristics of a theist, minus the deity.

Are you honestly telling me that you have never seen or known an atheist that falls into this category? I could think of a couple on this site alone.

Then specify and write "some atheists" and unnecessary confusion will be avoided. Heck - some atheists are sociopathic murderers; I don't see what that has to do with me.

I did specify this is post #27. Sorry for the confusion, but now you know a little how I feel when I am lumped in with mainstream Christianity. It really aggravates me, so I will try and do a better job of making sure that I do not do the same thing to other people.

FYP

Jib, see the difference? You're a rebel (or exception) to the doctrines of mainstream or traditional Christianity while atheists are not a rebel to any doctrines.

To illustrate:

1) Name some legitimate attributes of Christianity. (it can easily be done)
2) Name some legitimate attributes of not having a religion. (it cannot be done)

The word atheism is supposed to mean "without theism", but has been butchered by theists to make it more like the belief systems that they adhere to. So if you want to keep the definition of atheism as "no belief in God(s)" then what word would you use to describe a non-theist (someone who is without theism or religion and isn't necessarily a deist)?

I wouldn't lump you in with mainstream Christianity. I think you are more of a fundamentalist as shown by your literal interpretations of the Bible including your belief that the end of time will play out like revelations. That is what i took from your statement in the relevant thread anyways :

"I do believe in the end time will play out like Revelation."

Views expressed such as this in my eyes place you among the more zealous and indeed extreme members of the Christian faith.

Your further generalisations concerning atheists within this thread are simply fueled by ignorance. Suggesting that the God Delusion represents some sort of "atheist bible" is simply ridiculous, especially given that you have not even read it! Have you ever heard an atheist quote and attempt to interpret experts from the book in order to get closer to Dawkins? Suggestions such as this are simply ludicrous.

Let me spell out one of the main differences between an atheists outlook and a Christian's. One of the two viewpoints requires FAITH in order to hold up. This is as a result of their being no evidence supporting the viewpoint and indeed as a result of many of its core beliefs being illogical and indeed completely unfounded. Can you guess which viewpoint I'm referring to?

Yes point taken. I'm sure I've done my share of lumping.

Trust me, it's not worth your time with jib.

Ok, so this has nothing to do with religion but sinse I spend most of my time on SMP/RGT I wanted to post this here.

I started a poker video website. The point of the website is to let poker players post their own poker videos and get them on a site in a streaming format for others to watch and comment on without having to make everyone download from places like megaupload.

There really is not much up there right now, but I just started it. There is a video on how to make poker videos with free software and end up with a high quality low file size video. I taught myself how to make websites and everything that you see cost me nothing, so it is not the greatest site in the world, but I think that it is nice.

So here is a link to the site,

www.jibpoker.tk

Let me know what you guys think, and please tell everyone!

-JibNinjas

That post is more appropriate here.