I am pretty sure their arguments are flawed travis.

look at the definition

atheism, = non theism = not a beliefe in god

it does NOT require the beliefe that there is not a god, only the lack of a beliefe in god

what you are arguing for is antitheism, which is different that athesim. it is perfectly possible to be both agnostic and atheist at the same time. the reason many people believe you can't is that people, especially theists have tried to make a distintion, as to weaken the non theist side.


"I have no need for that hypothisis"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism.
Atheism -> belief there is no god.
Antitheism -> belief there is no god while trying to convince everyone else that there is no god.

though, in some extremely broad sense, atheism could be defined as lack of belief in a God rather than belief there is no god. Typically the second definition is that which is used in my experience.

i like that Obama said God several times to end his short speech announcing Osama's death. also, it's rather annoying when people (ahem, cough, Mr. K, cough) criticize the U.S. and hope that we become a more "peaceful" nation. uhh, newsflash guys, it's not our fault that we are the only nation capable of defending the world at large against terrorist threats such as al-Qaeda. i'm sure you guys will be hoping the U.S. stays "peaceful" next time Europe is invaded a la Hitler style, huh?

chloe, there is a difference between,

belief there is no god


not having a belief in god


the last one is all that is required to be an atheist.

harry, most of the us wars are about controlling the world, not defending against terrorsim.

most of the despots being supported by us are among the roughest that the world have ever seen. heck, you supported mobarak, ask marsyas if egyptians have a problem with that.


it is fun how amercans always claim they saved europe from hitler, when the british and russians would have won on their own. the russians had practically won the war (resourcewise) before usa did anything.

actually, greeks played a MAJOR role against Hitler as well. but anyways, you are right about who we support. which makes me nervous about Obama attacking Gaddhafi's (spelling?) personal home and providing rebel forces that he knows nothing about with support. who knows who we are putting into power now. i mean shit, at one point we even supported Saddam and Osama.

Mr. K,

Do some research on the equipment, including food, weapons, aircraft, fuel, and most importantly, trucks, jeeps and actual locomotives that were given to the Soviet Army.

While it cannot be denied that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting (the Western Front was largely a sideshow compared to the fighting and dying that was happening in the Soviet Theater) without the logistic ability given to them by the US that may not have been possible. It was a close thing, and there is ample evidence and documentation that Lend Lease may have legitimately made the difference between winning and losing in 1942-1942.

CD, athiest.

We supported al-qaeda like Reagan supported crack. Indirectly and through the CIA.


Reagan also supported al-Qaeda.

"thrax you're not an atheist either
but i don't particularly see why it's my responsibility to tell you how and why I'm right and you're wrong...I'm content with just telling you you're wrong
I Will tell you this
if you study some of the prominent works and modern theories centered around examining creationism, atheism, theism, etc. from a scientific perspective, then you'll see where I'm coming from...and you'll see how many philosophers and theorists offer that true atheism does not exist.
if that doesnt make sense to you...oh well!. TBH I don't expect for you to be able to come to ANY logical conclusions, considering that you're claiming atheism. That by itself lets me know you're a few symptoms short of the loony bin...bc you can't be an atheist"


TJ, your level of pretentiousness is approaching Veta with this post. I commend you on your efforts to be a forum bully.

You telling me I'm not an atheist is like me telling you your not black. There may be ample proof that we've all seen and read about, but the fact remains that you are black, however unbelievable that may be to all of us.

atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings

I don't need to create the feeling of a supreme being that created all things. I have no idea how existence began and neither science, nor religion (especially not religion), has any viable empiricle evidence to suggest their story is right. Now, arguing the semantics of how existence began to a theist is silly and counterproductive. I could cite the Big Bang Theory, and then you'd counter with "what caused the Big Bang Theory?". The problem with religion is they think the search for truth is over and the answers are already written. There is nowhere else to go with the argument and that's not good enough for me.

I'm not weak-minded to where I REQUIRE an answer to "why are we here" or "how did existence begin". I don't need an affirmation of an afterlife or a supreme being in order to live my life to the fullest and be a good man/husband/father/friend. Religion has been and always will be the cancer of this planet until we progress enough as a society to destroy it and search for real answers.

I gave up a belief in God about the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. They're all imaginary creatures invented by humans.

When will you lay down your childhood insecurities and search for the truth?