[ArkhamCifre]

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.
The term "nature" may refer to living plants and animals, geological processes, weather, and physics, such as matter and energy.
So basicaly nature refers to everything. Anything that can be experienced in any shape for form. Not talking about treehugging "Mother Nature" here, not nature in the sense of "the nature of something. Clear? Good?
Now deity, divinity if it can be experienced in anyway must be part of this nature, correct? ( BTW- I usualy refer to myself as a Naturalist not an atheist...but that causes a whole other bunch of problems) So a deity if it exists must be part of nature..EVEN if it created the world we percieve it is still a part of nature.
This was the logic you ignored. If a deity is part of nature then what makes it better than me? Why should I worship it? Because it's smarter? Stronger? Lives longer? IBe cause it tells me to or I will suffer its wrath? The question for this atheist is again NOT wether or not some being or beigns of this type exist..the question is why should I worship them as deities? What In my view they would simply be just another life form sharing this universe (hell multi-verse? ) with me. Maybe I can learn from them, maybe being a good old Terran I can wage war against them. But why should one life form be able to demand worship from another life form?
Do I make myself clear now? It seems we are debating to diffferent things. I feel you say I don't believe in the possibiliy of the existence of beings of great power, knowledge, whatever. I don't know one way or the other. What I do know is that if they exist they must a) be natural. b) not in any way be deserving of worship as a deity.

"It's a sort of haphazard leaning. What is not certain is the connection between the belief and objective reality."
This refered to a belief one does not feel certain of. Bad choice of words on my part. I was using belief in the sense of a deeply held belief, a "belief system". It was also a joke. Maybe it went unnoticed because it was a subtle jab at the fact that everything anyone thinks/believes is a shot in the dark. We all have beliefs about something or other...the question is just how those would match up to "reality" if somehow we could ever have a God's eye view as it were.
You don't seem to have a tlerance for shade and subtlety.

"In every way, Atheism is equally as retarded as Christianity by the same standards it's being judged by most." by Fenawin
Ok, I'm just a village idiot..bu what exactly does this mean? "by the same standards it's being judged by most"?
"Hurrrr, I'm so smart I know what happens after I die because I've been to the future where I've died. I was also there when existence was...created? Existed? Ummm? Deeeerrrrrp I'm a fucking genius and anyone with a religion or a view differing mine is less intelligent than I."
Atheism as I have pointed out again and again has nothing whatsoever to do with a belief in afterlife. You do not need deities to have an afterlife. You do not need a god to have ghosts. Now, there may be atheists who do not believe in an afterlife. But that is not what defines them AS atheist. This attempt at humor? an attack? is not based on what it MEANS TO BE ATHIEST it is an attack on assholes who go around telling everyone they know it all. This is where I say the vagueness came in. It lost focus on the making fun of belief systems which I thouroughly enjoy...ALL belief systems including my own. It attacks a group "atheist" not on what makes them atheist but the actions of people who call themselves atheist...is that clear enough?
For instance, I could make fun of Islam all day. I could say how silly it is that they believe Muhammad stepped on a rock in Jerusalem and went up to Allah. But saying that Islam is all effed up because the guy that owns the quikie mart on the corner is a prick and he's Moslem is a reflection on that one man, not on Islam.
Now your original post however was a direct saire of what it MEANS TO BE CHRISTIAN.
A cosmic zombie Jew= a risen Christ no?
His own Father= The whole mess of the Trinity.
Symbolicaly eat his flesh=Eucharist ( and actualy for most Xtian sects this is NOT symbolic but literal. The Communion actualy transmutes the bread and wine into the blood and flesh of Christ..that's so cool. Im hungry.)
Telepathicaly tell him...= pray for forgiveness etc.
Rib-woman conviced by a snake...= Adam and Eve in the Biblical story of Eden.
So yes, everything here corresponds to the doctrines of Christianity. Are there Christians who do not believe this or that part..of course. But everything here is CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. This is a focused ( not vague? remeber that?) satire.

"This is the kind of ignorant spouting that I take issue with. You're speaking with certainty as if people WILL be atheist by default if they have some view or another."

Well yes. They will be athiest by default if they have some view or another. If they do not believe in the existsence of Gods then they ARE atheist. Or as I prefer to think if they do not believe that the mere existence of a power greater than themselves entitles that power to be revered and submitted to then I would say they fall under the definition of atheist. Which is much broader than the 2 u lifted from Dictionary.com.

"The default position is actually ignorance. The embracing of that ignorance embodies agnosticism. We are smart enough to know that there is no knowing, that knowing is beyond us, and move on. It's so frustrating to watch gullible people get trapped by liars like you."

It may interest you or maybe not that I was a practicing Buddhist. That statement is very Buddha like..not the crap that the Tibetans practice or even Zen from Japan but Theravada which is a sort of fundementalist Buddhism that rejects all teachings not directly from the Buddha. Kind of like if a Xtian sect only took the direct quotes of Jesus and noone of the commentary, life stories etc. The Buddha did not care wether or not Brahama or gods existed because they were so far beyond comprehension they did not matter. You are slightly correct. I am agnostic in the sense you refer to. I don't know if there are gods or not. And dont realy care because these "gods" if they exist in no way are commanding of my worship ,sumittal or whatever. That is athieistic. Read more definitions. To the point again...the mere existence of a power greater than I does not equte that these powers are deities in the sense of a being to be worshiped.

And all this because you Sir cannot stand people who are not agnostic because somehow that threatens you. I had a complaint about Fenawins post because I felt it was not realy a good attack/paradoy what have you because it didnt realy use the SINGLE belief that makes an atheist an atheist but an attack on atheism by proxy using assholes who claim to know it all.

I have never once said that anyone who is not an atheist is wrong. I have never said I am right in my atheism yet you act as I am on a mission to convert you. The closest I came was saying to Hey think for yourself..just WTF is a deity? Now if that thought leads you to conclude as I have then that's cool. If not well then that's cool. I didn't say think about it and agree with me or die. Just to think about it.

And you are playing games by saying all Agnosticism means is without knowledge. While that may be the literal meaning of the word it is used all most invariably in religio-metaphysical context. O and maybe you should look at Agnostic Atheism it does exist. Because these terms do have shades of meaning allowing them to be combined into a coherent system.
As to the reference to Dawkins or a pastor. Instead we should listen to you is the implication.

You seem to feel that anyone who says anything you do not like is spouting off like they know everything. What I know it what I think. If i say what I think it doesn't mean I "know I'm right" it means that either I'm sharing in the hope of learning. Putting my opinon out because I feel like it or doing what people do, which is talk.

ME:"I find if so funny that people cannot accept that some else thinks"
YOU:"Take your own advice"
And you proceed to tell me how I'm wrong. Which is great that's debate. Of course you have to call names and the like because that's what people do when they feel threatned because others won't think just like them. You are the religous intolerant here. You keep telling people what to beleive and yelling about how others (me) are trying to tell you what to believe.
I'd like to sit around making fun of beliefs..being able to laugh at ourselves and others is what makes life great for me. Or, I'd like to debate just why a certain belief is better. But I will never tell you that what you believe is wrong, it's just not what I believe. Of course I'll think you're an idiot but my thoughts are mine. You and Xenu stay out of my head. But all that comes crashing down when people like yourself cannot get past screaming that people are know it alls just because they say something.