your message tends to be better when presented as one of tolerance rather than intolerance.

one asking for acceptance rather than the shunning of another.

you dont need a god to do something good with your life that dosnt disapear when you die, and you dont need to give up god to enjoy your life.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Apr 7 2014 02:07pm

i like this bolded words very much, it is closer of my way of thinking that my title thread

i tend to use citations to express my toughts because i am not good in english language

we dont need believe in god to be good, but the religion route can be very good as well

This thread...

So much dumb, from both sides.

I was just being silly. I'm not going to seriously respond to the OP.

If I was going to address the OP, I would ask the OP if things that we believe are wrong now, like slavery, were wrong when most of society thought it was perfectly moral. Or child labor. Or Jim Crow. Etc. Etc.

If we are going to say that culture determines morality (cultural relativism), then slavery was okay, child labor was okay, and Jim Crow was okay, until it became unpopular with a majority of the population.

I would then comment that I go the opposite way with it, and think that morality is mostly personal and natural in individuals and that society is what largely compromises that morality. People don't typically go around systematically killing each other unless there is some sort of state involved in a war. Most people as individuals wouldn't think it is okay to kidnap another person, lock them in a cage for several years before executing them on a predetermined date so that they can sit in a cage and just count down the days in what amounts to psychological, emotional, and spiritual torture....rare is the individual so depraved that he or she would do that, yet our society is doing it and large scale diffusion of responsibility makes individuals feel disconnected to it.

Those are things I would say if this thread warranted a serious response.

You're dumb, please stop.

logic much? stating that you do not need religion to enjoy life is quite different from what you 'deducted'

typical reply when no argumentation

atheists are 25% of population and they have the right to talk whatever you like it or not

this forum is about religion and politic discussion, just ignore if you dont wanna discuss

I was siding with you. The sarcasm was mutual.

haters get confused lol

what about trying to make serious argumentation instead of showing that you are incapable of doing it by posting sarcasms

atheists are 25% of population, they can be good persons, what do you have to say about it ?


















you would not post here if you really think that, at least you starting something even if keeping being contemptuous

Through the philosophy of word choice, it's clear there's a subtext to that statement: God probably doesn't exist, so stop worrying and enjoy life.

The statement can be dissected and analyzed.
God probably doesn't exist, [now that this is known] stop worrying [insinuating a stop to religion or a life based around God's existence] and enjoy life [as if it was not possible--prior to this knowledge--due to the worry of God's existence].

So yes, it is logical to assume that is what he meant based on tonality of expression, even though it was not explicitly stated--a fault on the writer's part, mind you.