As mentioned in original post, the information of discussion comes from: "Richard Dawkins, originating from his 1976 book The Selfish Gene.[12] Dawkins's own position is somewhat ambiguous. He welcomed N. K. Humphrey's suggestion that "memes should be considered as living structures, not just metaphorically. Wikipedia"

Here is one starter point for reference.

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

From link in previous reply
Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[5]

Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution.[6] Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[7]

You are a God. You have proof of your existence.

@Word Gibberish, just grow up already.

@nogod4me I just posted this. I don't get it why people ignore historical fact that people have call ourselves gods for 1000s of years, why ignore historical fact?

"Why must people, or with what logic is there to ignore historical fact because it does not fit into ..."

@Word I already knew that silly fact, the Jesus character in the New Testament even mentions that nonsense (John 10:34). It is irrelevant, who cares, especially about what believers call themselves and believe. Many are insane and will deny reality right to its face. Just because they believe something doesn't make it true.

I think you need to stop believing the Bible and grow up.
Trying to distract with nonsense is childish.

@nogod4me no distraction, not specifically quoting the bible but am aware it is one source that labels us as gods prior to the invention of human.

@Word Like I said, Who Cares!

@nogod4me if you don't care, don't discuss the topic.

@Word I'm talking about what believers believe, it is just words without proof, who cares. Those who care, most likely WANT to believe.

You have gone from Agnostics being the vaccine for "at least 2 different strains of the mind virus." To telling me that I am God and I have proof of my existence. That is a distraction.

Either worship me or you're gonna be tortured forever and ever in hell. It's your choice. Just remember that i love you but i won't hesitate to torture and kill you for the rest of eternity unless you do exactly as i say

@abyers1970 sounds like trump speech

Waste of time

Ism - a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

AtheISM is an ISM.

See sarcasm worship given to the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God.

@Word So is agnosticism, what’s your point?

@Word All that it takes for ione to be an atheist is rejecction of any belief in any gods. If you define atheis atheism as belief in an organized dieological system sorroyundin the rejection of a belief in any gods, then I have nothing to do with atheist and do not want to have anything to do with. As you define the terms then they can be mutually exclusive. Your argument does not hold water.

@wordywalt you do not believe that people for 1000s of years have labeled themselves as gods? You do not believe historical facts?

@Word You bneed to read the works of Feuerbach more closely. What he said is that human beings cannot stand the feeling of being ignorant and powerless. Therefore, they have taken the best attributes of the human being th attributed thyem to an idealized image which they have called gods, and to whom they have attributed unlimited knowledge and powerl They they began, with the "help" pf priests, to worship that nonexistent being in order to gain its favor and to gain access to its knowledge and power. That is NOT labelling themnselves aqs gods.

@wordywalt Feuerbach may be speaking of a cultural specific style God that I am not familiar with.

In the beginning was "what people said" (logos - thought/word/speach),

"what people said" (logos - thought/word/speach) was with God and was God. John 1:1

...."what people said" (logos - thought/word/speach) became a person. John 1:14

@Word I do not refer to the bible for anything. It is a central piece in a false ideology.

@wordywalt your definition for God is: anything that has never existed, does not exist and never will exist. Correct?

@Word I do not define the concept of god. Being a false term, it is not worth the effort.

@wordywalt how is it false? You define god as a false term how do you define it false?

@Word I do not waste my time with your trivial games. I left any thoughts about the nature of relibion behind arouind 50 years ago. You remind me of Hesse's "glass Bead games."

@wordywalt I am not here forcing you to have discussion for what ever you want to call it. I am not here talking about your definition of religion and I am not doing it as if playing any games.

If you do not want to discuss, please feel free to not question or comment on the topic with any expectations of a response. This will leave you out of the discussion that way you do not have to bother with it.

Maybe it's why I understand 2 strains. I've already done been looking.

@Word According to your logic, there would be three strains, Theism, Agnostic, and Atheist.

@xenoview could be

Exactly, for some it is an art form