the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

What kind of flame warrior are you? posted 23 Aug 2005, 23:08 by Tol h'Eddes, Auditor

A friend sent me this site and it's quite funny. [url=http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm:1nfr22wh]Flame Warriors[/url:1nfr22wh] Though I haven't seen any flame wars in this forum yet (has there ever been one here?), I thought that I should share it with you. So, what kind of flame warrior are you? ;) Happy browsing ! view post


posted 24 Aug 2005, 16:08 by Scilvenas, Auditor

Too funny. Going to steal that and post it elsewhere if you don't mind. Personally, I fancy myself a philosopher or a kung fu master, but I imagine most people do. I can easily see myself falling into other categories, as well. Profundus Maximus, especially. Let's see... atheist, blowhard, centurion, ideologue, lamer, and maybe others. view post


posted 24 Aug 2005, 21:08 by Lucimay, Subdidact

toxic granny maybe...dunno but this was very instructional as well as funny!!! view post


posted 24 Aug 2005, 22:08 by AjDeath, Didact

I would like to point out that atheism is not a "fervently held belief". Anyone that says that must be a Christian/Muslim/Fanatic. view post


posted 30 Aug 2005, 16:08 by Regulus, Commoner

I would have to say Kung Fu Master also because I dont get into arguments except on a rare occasion and when I do they end very quickly. Its a funny/ educational site, I think I'll definitely be passing it along to friends view post


posted 01 Sep 2005, 03:09 by Da-krul, Auditor

had a good chuckle from a few of those, nice find :) view post


posted 09 Sep 2005, 14:09 by Randal, Auditor

Atheism is not a belief... but for some people it does become an article of faith. And it's fair to say the type here described does "hold fervent beliefs about religion." Such as "All religion is evil" and "religion ought to be banned." view post


posted 09 Sep 2005, 17:09 by Scilvenas, Auditor

Seems more like simple observations to me. ;) view post


posted 09 Sep 2005, 21:09 by Nauticus, Auditor

I'd have to say either Philosopher, or a Royal :p view post


posted 09 Sep 2005, 22:09 by AjDeath, Didact

[quote="Sylvanus":t8347vi5]Seems more like simple observations to me. ;)[/quote:t8347vi5]Exactly. Atheism isn't even in the same realm of faith or belief as religion. Usually religious people compare Atheism/Agnosticism to their belief to sort of give their views based on surperstition and dogma some sort of credibility. Also, not harping on anyone, that just sort of bothered me. view post


posted 10 Sep 2005, 13:09 by Deerow, Auditor

I always considered atheism to be a belief...a belief in nothing beyond ones self, but a belief nonetheless. I'm not saying that it is self-centered or anything, just that is what the belief is. Much like a religious belief is a belief of something beyond ones self and agnosticism is belief in the potential of something beyond ones self. I don't think any is more valued than the other...but each one stems from a [i:25j96k5e]belief[/i:25j96k5e] of something. view post


posted 10 Sep 2005, 15:09 by AjDeath, Didact

[quote="Deerow":2nmhbq14]I always considered atheism to be a belief...a belief in nothing beyond ones self, but a belief nonetheless. I'm not saying that it is self-centered or anything, just that is what the belief is. Much like a religious belief is a belief of something beyond ones self and agnosticism is belief in the potential of something beyond ones self. I don't think any is more valued than the other...but each one stems from a [i:2nmhbq14]belief[/i:2nmhbq14] of something.[/quote:2nmhbq14]Yes, but there are degrees to this thing. Believing in HEll/Heaven/BoogeyMan/Fable that is clearly based on and stolen from much earlier "religions" yet kids are indoctrinated to keep it going, and coming to the conclusion that these people are sick in the head because of their parents... Well, a little off track there. Let's just say that making them comparable on works for the religious side and that Atheists don't demand that everyone must think like them or be damned, either in this life or the "next life." I will take rationalism thank you. Also, I am an agnostic and that doesn't mean there is a potential at all. It means Humans can not know either way, so it is not worth even thinking or dealing with it. view post


posted 10 Sep 2005, 20:09 by Deerow, Auditor

Fair enough. view post


posted 11 Sep 2005, 20:09 by Randal, Auditor

Quibbling about the semantics aside, the observation from the website is astute. (although not new) Some atheists are as fanatical about propagating their worldview as any fervent believer. view post


posted 12 Sep 2005, 02:09 by AjDeath, Didact

[quote="Randal":7rj5mn1e]Quibbling about the semantics aside, the observation from the website is astute. (although not new) Some atheists are as fanatical about propagating their worldview as any fervent believer.[/quote:7rj5mn1e]Has there been an athiest inquisition I have missed? view post


posted 12 Sep 2005, 10:09 by Randal, Auditor

We're not talking world politics here, c'mon. :roll: We're talking about people having flamewars on [i:ea5l6u0d]internet messageboards.[/i:ea5l6u0d] Do you claim only believers flame? In the grander scheme of things, you're right. Atheists as a group generally have not tried to violently convert others to their worldview. Several reasons for this spring to mind. Firstly, there's less of them. Secondly, they haven't been around for nearly as long a time as the religious peeps. (at least not in sufficient numbers) And thirdly, they just don't care enough. Which I suppose is your point, and which I'll be happy to grant. Most atheists, myself included, deem it ultimately unimportant what others believe, because it's just all fairy tales anyway. Hence even the most fanatical do not go around condemning and killing people for having different beliefs. And even if they do, this is not motivated by atheism, but by some other ideal they uphold. (communism comes to mind. RAF, anyone?) All of which doesn't change my position a bit in the smaller scheme of things. The description on the flamewarriors website was correct and not prejudiced, for or against atheists. view post


posted 13 Sep 2005, 00:09 by AjDeath, Didact

[quote="Randal":t9pz8jno] All of which doesn't change my position a bit in the smaller scheme of things. The description on the flamewarriors website was correct and not prejudiced, for or against atheists.[/quote:t9pz8jno]Oh, yes of course. I just wanted some conversation. view post


posted 13 Sep 2005, 12:09 by Echoex, Auditor

If my memory serves me, the true definition of an atheist is someone who does not feel compelled to believe in a higher power, and not necessarily someone who believes that a higher power does not exist. Do you see the distinction? Zealous atheists -- therefore -- can not be atheists by definition. By feeling compelled to spread their doctrines, these zealots defy the first commandment of atheism: Ecclesiastical apathy. .Ex. view post


posted 13 Sep 2005, 14:09 by Randal, Auditor

Apathy isn't a requirement. In fact, I believe several definitions of atheism are used. There's strong atheism (the existence of god is logically impossible) and weak atheism (I don't believe in a god.) You could of course claim only the second of these is "proper" atheism and the first in actuality is a religious belief. I'd disagree, providing the "strong" atheism isn't posed as a general philosophy but rather turned against one or more specific examples of religions. ("The existence of the christian god as defined by denomination X is logically impossible") Even if I accept your definition, it's perfectly possible to have fanatical atheists. I only need claim they're not fanatical about their atheism, they're fanatically opposed to others' religion. They don't feel compelled to spread their doctrines. They feel compelled to denounce what they see as false doctrines. Semantics, true. But I like semantics. view post


posted 14 Sep 2005, 12:09 by Echoex, Auditor

Semantics indeed. One's point of view will be characterized by the definition one chooses (or feels compelled) to subscribe to. .Ex. view post


posted 15 Sep 2005, 00:09 by AjDeath, Didact

See, now I am interested! view post


posted 15 Sep 2005, 01:09 by AjDeath, Didact

[quote="Randal":3nd5jo7n]We're not talking world politics here, c'mon. :roll:[/i] [/quote:3nd5jo7n]No, we are talking about the inquisition. Have you, being an Atheist, ever held auto de fe in the town square because someone wouldn't renounce Christ? I mean c'mon. Now I am talking about the definition. Comparing Atheists to relgions is just a way to smear something Xtians do not like. It is now embedded in our public discourse. In fact, it mostly has always been embedded in our public discourse. I find it very annoying and will not give credence to it. I mean there is irony and then there is irony. view post


posted 18 Dec 2005, 04:12 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Guys im not trying to be the Flame Warrior Diplomat but I think discussing atheism should be saved for another post entirely and this post should be save for the discussion of Flame Warriors. view post


posted 21 Dec 2005, 00:12 by Scilvenas, Auditor

Thanks for stepping in there. The tension that's been building over the last three months was almost too much to bear. ;) view post


posted 21 Dec 2005, 01:12 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

oops wasnt paying attention to the post date :oops: view post


posted 21 Dec 2005, 01:12 by Scilvenas, Auditor

It's all good, man. Just joshin' ya. I'm just glad to see someone posting. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.