Fact: Being correct.
Belief: The thought that you are correct and everyone else is wrong.
Change: The belief that your previous beliefs were wrong, and another's is correct.

Every last human has a belief. No one is without guilt in this category. The thing about belief, is its confrontational in its very nature. If you have a belief, you MUST believe you are correct and anyone and everyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, why else would you hold it as truth? Anyone who says, "Lets just agree to disagree." is merely saying "I'm right, and you're wrong, but I don't want to waste my time explaining why to you anymore."

No one is exempt from this unless they are ignorant, spineless, or perhaps mindless. Ignorance is not a bad thing, even though everyone thinks it is. Everyone on the planet is ignorant, for no one knows EVERYTHING. The spineless must be so wanting to please everyone that they have no opinion of their own and are merely a lesser mimic of another being who has an opinion. Another thing is, belief does not mean you are incorrect or actually correct, its indifferent for it is merely your concept of your state of being correct.

Every religion believes they are correct, and all other religions are incorrect. Atheism, is the belief that all religions are wrong. Agnosticism is the belief that someone got it right, they're just not sure who yet, and I'm not sure if that qualifies as a belief. Now, if when reading this, you have said, "No Trevor, we're all just worshiping the same god in our own way." to which I must ask you, "Then why are you not a Jewish-Christian-Muslim-Scientologist-Buddhist-Hindu-Taoist?" If you have picked a religion, you MUST think someone else has gone wrong somewhere along the line, else you would just follow everyone.

Its also not just religion, every last organization and group from PeTA to the Ministry of Silly Walks exists because they disagree with someone else and believe they have it right. To be human is to disagree with everything else around you and shape it to what you think is right, be it your room, your work, or your friends.

But is all of this done out of spite? hatred? anger? selfishness? or is it a form of love?

Did I confuse you with that last one? Hear me out, because I may have a valid argument that love is one of the foundations of war.

Why do groups separate themselves from another? Is it because they hate their opponents? Or is it because they love their friends and couldn't bear the thought of them being wrong? Remember, if they believe as you do, they're "correct" too. Why do you argue with someone else? Is it to make them see the error in their ways? Do you want them to be "correct" too? Why are wars started? To overthrow a dictator they believe to be wrong? Is it to protect their own citizens who they believe to be right? Is it to protect everyone else from their wrong? or is it to make the other nation's citizens right?

Now, I'll admit, greed is often a major factor in war, but the leaders have to make their citizens believe that the other nation is wrong.

Now, by merely stating this, I have created a win/win paradox. Why? If someone cannot argue against any point of something I say, I am "correct". If someone does argue against me, they are proving everything I have just stated here as "correct", and that they love me.

So, next time someone is informing you about something, its not because they think you're stupid, its because they love you.

If someone is arguing with you over something, its because they love you.

If no one is arguing against you, you can assume you are "right", but proceed with caution. After all, it doesn't have to be another human to prove you wrong, hammers do that to people's thumbs all the time. I'm also pretty sure that the hammer doesn't love your thumb either...

Post brain alignment thingy____________

Great... now the hammer just threw a monkey-wrench into my whole love argument... and I'm still certain that hammer doesn't love me.

And no, this wasn't gotten from an email, I seriously wrote this... lol. I don't mind if anyone wants to copy it or send it to anyone else, wouldn't mind some credit though.

OK... my brain cells are moving out of alignment... and I'm not entirely certain what I'm posting here... I just hope it makes sense to everyone else who reads it.

EDIT: wait... does this also mean that the hammer has a belief?

*Raises hand* Spineless. Does that mean that none of this applies to me?

Spineless does not mean without opinion.
Without opinion means spineless.

By without opinion, I mean on any subject, at all.

For brief insight into the universe see my sig. I swear to god this happened. And yes. I am now under the assumption I have lost my mind and am now drooling in a padded room.

circularly repetitive cycles are what keep the universe from collapsing on itself, I don't see why that's so mind-blowing.

I do have a few issues with the above. Only in definition alone, not theory cause I just woke up so i'm not even 100% sure what I just read.

1. You're mixing ignorance with being naive. Being Naive is NOT a bad thing because that is just plain not knowing with a willingness to learn. Ignorance is not knowing and REFUSING to learn. So yes, Ignorance is a bad thing.

2. Atheism... The way you put it sounds like they still believe that there is a god. Atheism is more the belief of there is no god(s).

3.Agnosticism - It's not necessarily that the person believes one RELIGION is correct but more of a they're unsure if a god does or does not exist. It's also a place for those like me who don't care enough to find out if there is or isn't one. (Uncaring and Unsure go here towards if there is a god.)

Just side note for the last two, when talking about religions like that you try to talk about the god(s) the person(people) you're talking about believe in rather than the religion... and I just lost my train of thought and reasoning there. So! Yea. Just points ^^

[edit] Oh! I remember! It's because someone Agnostic could easily decide to believe in a god that doesn't have a religion attached to it. Remember: There are a lot more gods than there are religions. Even if you ignore Norse and Roman mythology.

1. My bad, poor choice of words there.

2. Aye, but with a belief that no god exists, you must believe that all religions are wrong, correct?

3. By using the word religion, I was referring to the belief of any higher power or theory of creation, be it in an organized group or alone in a cave somewhere or what have you. The guy out in the woods who kills small woodland creatures and paints their blood on the walls to keep satan from escaping his house technically has a religion by this broad interpretation I have chosen to use.

Yay broad interperatations. Like my brother being human.

1. I figured as Much

2. Personally I believe religion is a decent idea, it's just being poorly executed. God or no god it's a nice community event, but like i said. Poorly executed.

3. Alright then!

4. Numbering things is fun

I would have to disagree on one particular point: You forgot Unitarianism Universalists. But that's a very small point.

In the whole of your argument, not only does it make sense and suddenly clear up why I think I love my mother even though I constantly made her cry day in and day out by correcting her mercilessly, reading your article of sorts also make me feel quite lovely.

I may well share this with people.

Not necessarily, neither Taoism or Buddhism have a "god," yet both are religions. I'm certain Verbose will be around to argue with me about that, because he loves me , but my statement remains valid. A person can be an atheist and still follow a monist (sp?) religion (a religion without a god) therefore, an atheist does not necessarily believe that all religions are a crock full o' shit.

This of course doesn't mean that religion isn't a crock full o' shit, I just like to argue.

Because apparently, I love you.

Bhuddism is a reverent religion upholding a single individual to near god-hood, this said individual who was Hindu. Hence, most genuine Buddhists tend to be Hindu, since that was Buddha's area of origin, and most of all Buddhism's beliefs and concepts are based strongly off of Hindu culture and religion. In a way, Buddhism has its gods, by benefit of its origin.

Tao...well, that was just a good idea that everybody thought should be a divine idea. It's like how Guan-Yu suddenly was raised to god-hood because, "why the hell not?".

But they don't have any omnipotent "gods" therefore my point stands. A person can be an atheist, and still practice a religion.

Wait, omnipotent was part of the equation? You mean Atheism is disbelief of omnipotency? And I'm not disagreeing with your point in any way; it's interesting how many people are Catholic but are actually "closet" Atheists.

I can guarantee you I'm no "closet" atheist. I'm loud and proud about it. It was a poor choice to include omnipotency in the equation, but it's included in your basic judaic god package.

Beliefs, beliefs; we all die the same, and neither God, science, or an army of pink fluffy bunnies will save us from that. Not even if it's an army of bunnygirls, either, for that matter.

...that'd drive you to an earlier death.

Death by pelvis-crushing.

Lol, I just took a spiritual discussion and turned it into furry-porn.

We, TLD. We did. *high fives!*

But it actually depends on your definition of bunnygirl. I was thinking no fur, and bunny-ear headbands, but apparently some of us are more...experimental than most.

Maybe so.

I could go through the original post and point all all of the things I'd argue with but I'll save myself some effort and simply express my point.

When you want to vague things up enough, you can justify any emotion as the real motivation. I used to argue that everything anybody ever did (including "selfless" acts) was selfish and the argument was a strong one. It's the strength of a minimalist argument and it's the weakness in minimalist thinking. You push things back too far and you cut too much out, leaving you with something that doesn't even really look like what you started with.


I don't know about Taoism but Buddhism isn't a religion. It's missing too many of the criteria that are essential to a religion (of which a deity is but one).

Taoism is a study of "the way", using much of logic and some mysticism.

I kind of find it odd for a belief to need to fit criteria in order for it to qualify as a fully fledged "religion".

Do you think it's strange that square objects need to meet a list of criteria to be a square?

Squares are easy. Four corners, each at a 90 degree angle. If either one of those criterion isn't met then the shape you're looking at isn't a square. It might be similar to a square. A shape with four corners and two angles at 91 degrees and two at 89 degrees looks a lot like a square.

Looks like isn't the same as is.

Buddhism (and probably Taoism but I sincerely don't know and can't be bothered checking) might look like a religion. Don't meet enough of the criteria to count.

Not at all, I just lump the concept "belief", "idea" and "faith" together judiciously. It's not that I think of religion as a cube that goes through the square slot, but that it's an object, devoid of meaning to me. I know it's a cube, I know what it does, but it's just one object out of the many with a pointless use and purpose.

I'm a believer of different words meaning different things.

Often similar but always distinct.

Oh, of course. But I don't care about the distinctiveness unless if it affects me in a direct manner.

And that's the point of view of the people who don't think they need to be able to read or count unless they need it for their job.

I approve of it as a general principle in society but personally, I don't think there's any reason to wallow in ignorance.

Not ignorance, but more of a detached observation. What exists, exists, and one is aware of it, but that awareness in no way generates feeling until that object becomes more active in its influence.

So belief in no god makes you an atheist, but i have no belief in a god, what does that make me?

You've used an abstract sentence and I'm not getting anything rational out of it. Parse it down for me.

Edit: What I'm getting is that first, the world exists. I'm with you here. Then, we are aware of the world. I'm willing to grant this too. Then you say that we don't have feelings about that unless the world makes us have feelings. This is where I'm failing to see sense. Feelings are an internal product of the mind, not an external product placed in the mind.

And besides, "that serves no practical purpose to me so I'm not going to learn it or even acknowledge it exists" isn't detached observation. It's a narrow minded ignorance that refuses to deal with anything that isn't directly forced in the tiny gap.


No, having no belief in a god makes you an atheist. Unless you want to be a pansy and claim that you don't know and can't know so you're not going to pick a side. Then you're agnostic.

Blah, I've no idea how quotes work in LFG's forums anymore. Anyway, on to explaining my abstract thoughts. (flattering, I'm as confusing as paint splatters)

First two steps, okay, concept is transferred. Last bit is more of my extremely liberal usage of words that are generalized and absurdly open for interpretation. Suffice it to say that I don't react (physically, emotionally; not intuitively, I'm not actively shutting it out) to things (read: religion, ideas, faith) unless if they are directly related to or actively affect what I consider "mine", or "me".

So, my simplified version would be that it's a state of observation and reaction.

Or something like that; you know, for someone who was griping about the failings of excessive language, I've been peppering my posts with a lot of copy. Huh.

Well, there's proof that extensive language is never wasted if ever I wanted it.