>
>NO, that is incorrect. I have studied Mythology and Theology
>in great depth and I assure you that ancient gods were not
>thought of as real. They were symbols. Why do you think there
>is a god for every aspect of nature or human experience? I can
>provide you with a full history on where religious symbolism
>came from if you are interested.
>

nah i'm good. like i said, it wasn't relevant anyway.


>
>Semantics. The basic diagram remains.
>
>"God" or spiritual being at the apex of the triangle, belief
>and non belief at the opposing ends of the base.
>

why does it have to be a triangle? how about simplifying this 'equation' even more by making it a straight line with two points marked "Belief" and "Non-Belief"? no need to overcomplicate this, chief.

to be fair though, i'm not really sure what you're getting at by bringing this up. all you're saying is that you can't have atheists without theists or atheism without theism. i guess on that i agree. but still, it's pretty fruitless arguing semantics like that.

>
>The idea of god is unique. You cannot compare the idea of god
>to the idea of a pink shiny elephant. The idea of god is not
>the same as the idea of a tooth fairy or unicorn either. The
>idea of god is universal as every culture on this planet has
>come up with an original interpretation of the same idea or
>concept. Ask yourself why every culture, race, or creed on
>this world has a god. It is an innate idea to question our
>origin and our creation. We are born with it. IF you contrast
>the idea of god to something like a tooth fairy, you will find
>1 instance of the tooth fairy in corporate American culture
>and thousands upon thousands of interpretations of god
>everywhere on the planet. If the idea of the tooth fairy was
>like the idea of god, every culture on the planet would have a
>tooth fairy as well, but guess what, they don't.

i know that every civilisation in the history of humankind has practised some sort of religious belief. there's no denying it at all. this would suggest that humans have an innate desire to believe in a creator or overseeing deity. but, it also suggests that we are a deeply curious and fearful species who may choose to make up answers to satisfy our anxieties about the universe.

i never said that humans have an innate desire to worship the tooth fairy, lol. i said some people believe weird shit, which can vary across culture or creed.

>
>Science is only one way of looking through the prism, and you
>should also keep in mind that scientific laws are constantly
>changing as our instruments of discovery improve. 10 years ago
>if you tried to suggest that the speed of light is not
>constant, you would have been laughed at and called insane, as
>it was a "LAW" determined through objective means, today, our
>instruments have discovered that the speed of light is NOT
>constant after-all. What was LAW, based on "objective" and
>verifiable systems has changed, and it will continue to change
>forever. Science does not mean the truth, science is simply a
>way of looking at the universe, but there are others. Locking
>yourself in a room called science and saying it is the only
>way to discover the universe objectively is illogical and
>incorrect because as I already stated, scientific laws change
>when the instruments do, so how can anything in science be
>objectively true when it keeps changing?
>

i'm actually interested to hear what other ways there are to look through the prism. care to list a few of your preferred methods? seeing as you don't like the outdated scientific method too much.

>
>That is not solely my opinion. There are teams of atheists who
>put as much fervor into their form of belief as Christians do.
>Have you ever met a douchebag atheist that shits on god and
>tells you for certain there is no god? I'm sure you have.
>Whats the difference between him and a Christian? Nothing
>because neither has enough proof to support their claims. They
>are the same. Looking at God from opposing ends of the same
>spectrum.
>

you get dickhead christians and dickhead atheists. i never said you didn't. again, we're in agreement.


>
>Not what anyone deems to be a god, but on the idea of GOD
>itself. THE VERY IDEA of god is ESSENTIAL to being an atheist.
>You simply cannot be an Atheist without raising the idea of
>god. You cannot be an Atheist without god, period. The idea of
>Atheism is built on the idea of god.
>

you can't have aTHEISM without THEISM. i get it.

>As for me, I am not agnostic, atheist, nothing. I am nothing,
>and I am everything. I have no labels and I will never be
>foolish enough to take one on.
>

keep that free spirit burning bright, tek