Originally posted by: Codewiz
Not to mention no one knows for sure what Hitler was. One moment he was a christian, the next a deeply religious person but anti-christian, the next an "atheist".
I've highlighted the important ones. A religion does not require a god. If it did then Buddhism and other eastern religions could not exist. Now that we've established that religion doesn't require a belief in any god(s) there's little reason to continue. But I will, because it's fun to attack the sensitive egos of fools.re·li·gion
?noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
I don't know about anybody else, but Richard Dawkins' web page didn't impart any knowledge. Based on several of the definitions it sounds more to me like he's preaching, an important feature of evangelistic religions. I don't want to listen to him prattle on about why I should think and act a certain way any more than I do a TV pastor.teach
?verb (used with object)
1. to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in: She teaches mathematics.
2. to impart knowledge or skill to; give instruction to: He teaches a large class.
?verb (used without object)
3. to impart knowledge or skill; give instruction.
preach
?verb (used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.
?verb (used without object)
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Atheism is not a religion. This little tactic is used way too often by people who are against atheism. It shows a total lack of understanding about what atheism is. Atheism by definition is the skepticism of religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are almost universally based on the faith of something that is unproven, unprovable and unfalsifiable. Yet despite evidence the the contrary of the truthfulness of said faith, the religious will continue to hold onto that faith.
The vast majority of atheists, on the other hand, are people of science. That means we don't hold a faith in a preset array of beliefs, but are willing the change our beliefs when the evidence points in new directions. If I were to be presented with good evidence of the existence of God, I would be a believer.
How so do you say that atheism is not a religion? Is it because you somehow believe that there is a prominent difference between atheism and a theistic faith? Atheism is nothing more than a belief system [read: religion] which relies on the premise that there is no God. I don't see how that makes anyone who chooses atheism as their religion any different or more "free thinking" than their God-believing brethren.
So now the "people of science" attempt to use their science as a tool (rather weapon?) of veracity. But what little ground does the theory of evolution have to stand on anymore? What can be given as undeniable, conclusive evidence in its favor? Where are the innumerable trans-fossils which link us to our supposed ancestors, the very foundation of evolution? Why cannot evolution be witnessed or recreated in laboratory conditions? Moreover, how can it explain the emotional traits of mankind such as love, joy, sorrow, passion, et al?
When looking at the shallowness of the claims, I come to think that atheism is oft times nothing more than an excuse to deny God, rather than a logical faith based on empirical evidence as it claims to be. Duly note that I do not have a personal vendetta against atheists or those who do not believe exactly what I do, but according to my belief in the Bible there is only one true faith, that in Jesus Christ as Savior. Everything else, I'm sorry to say, is plain wrong and will not be rewarded.
No hard feelings meant!
Cheers!
If you preach at people telling them to also not believe in Santa Claus, then yes, you are religious about your non-belief in Santa Claus.Originally posted by: Kev
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
If not, should you consider yourself a member of the religion of not believing in santa claus?
Can you see the flaw in your argument?
Originally posted by: BoberFett
People like OrooOroo believe they're clever debaters, but in reality they haven't even shown up to the debate. He's still sitting at home popping zits in front of the mirror. Atheism can be a religion, and definitely is to some people in this thread.
I've highlighted the important ones. A religion does not require a god. If it did then Buddhism and other eastern religions could not exist. Now that we've established that religion doesn't require a belief in any god(s) there's little reason to continue. But I will, because it's fun to attack the sensitive egos of fools.re·li·gion
?noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
I don't know about anybody else, but Richard Dawkins' web page didn't impart any knowledge. Based on several of the definitions it sounds more to me like he's preaching, an important feature of evangelistic religions. I don't want to listen to him prattle on about why I should think and act a certain way any more than I do a TV pastor.teach
?verb (used with object)
1. to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in: She teaches mathematics.
2. to impart knowledge or skill to; give instruction to: He teaches a large class.
?verb (used without object)
3. to impart knowledge or skill; give instruction.
preach
?verb (used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.
?verb (used without object)
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.
Finally, this notion that somehow atheism is based on science is ludicrous. YOU may find atheism logical, but logic on its own is not science. Scientists use logic to formulate hypotheses, but where is your observable, empirical, measureable evidence to back your hypothesis that there is no god? Lack of evidence is not proof.
The zeal with which some people defend atheism despite it's lack of evidence combined with the fact that they preach their unprovable hypothesis to anyone who will listen has elevated atheism to a religion.
Originally posted by: johngute
too bad i already traded my soul for a dozen donuts
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If you preach at people telling them to also not believe in Santa Claus, then yes, you are religious about your non-belief in Santa Claus.Originally posted by: Kev
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
If not, should you consider yourself a member of the religion of not believing in santa claus?
Can you see the flaw in your argument?
Can you not see the flaw in YOUR argument?
Don't look at me, you're the one who made the hypothesis that "There is no god."Originally posted by: Kev
You can't prove a negative. How are you supposed to find evidence that something doesn't exist, if it doesn't exist?
Originally posted by: Kev
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If you preach at people telling them to also not believe in Santa Claus, then yes, you are religious about your non-belief in Santa Claus.Originally posted by: Kev
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
If not, should you consider yourself a member of the religion of not believing in santa claus?
Can you see the flaw in your argument?
Can you not see the flaw in YOUR argument?
So now preaching = religion?
Did you just pull that out of your ass or what?
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.
QFT. Everyone jumps all over religious extremists, but never all over atheist extremists.
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Are you denying that there are atheists who attempt to spread atheism as though it were a religion? What the hell do you think people like Richard Dawkins are? They're preachers for their religion of atheism.Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.
QFT. Everyone jumps all over religious extremists, but never all over atheist extremists.
Atheist "extremists?" WTF are you talking about. Your ignorance is astounding.
Atheism is not a religion. This little tactic is used way too often by people who are against atheism. It shows a total lack of understanding about what atheism is. Atheism by definition is the skepticism of religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are almost universally based on the faith of something that is unproven, unprovable and unfalsifiable. Yet despite evidence the the contrary of the truthfulness of said faith, the religious will continue to hold onto that faith.
The vast majority of atheists, on the other hand, are people of science. That means we don't hold a faith in a preset array of beliefs, but are willing the change our beliefs when the evidence points in new directions. If I were to be presented with good evidence of the existence of God, I would be a believer.
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.
The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.
Except, maybe Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong.
They didn't kill people in the name of atheism.
You fail to account for the atheists who wish for nothing less than the dismantling of all religions. So in fact, there are "extremist" atheists who want to "take that away from them." Do those "extremist" atheists make exceptions for people who "take the scripture more metaphorically?" I rarely see it. Yours is a reasonable approach to disseminating logic and reason, but don't think for a second that all atheists are level headed as you.Originally posted by: dogooder
Now that I've insulted you, let me state one thing before quietly returning to my lurking. Religion does mean so much to many people: It's their foundation, their support. It's where they get meaning and purpose. "Extremist" atheists don't want to take that away from them. What they do want to take away is nonsensical beliefs about the world which are not based on evidence. Of course one cannot prove their is no god, but it's not about proof, only about evidence.
And there is very little evidence of the Christian God, to take one example. For instance, does God answer prayers? Scientists have studied this and found no support for that claim. In some cases, God has a placebo effect (a negative one sometimes), but there is no difference in rates of recovery and so on between people who are prayed for but don't know it and those who aren't prayed for.
All "evangelical" atheists want is less value placed on faith and more value placed on evidence. Does this take away people's foundation? It can, if that foundation is too tied to scripture. And that's too bad--but reality isn't going to change because a person wishes it wasn't so. Everytime science shows some belief to be incorrect, religion takes a step back. There's no contradiction between science and religion as long as religion keeps retreating.
A reasonable response, which is what most Christians have done, is to take the scripture more metaphorically. Then the meaning can stay but the nonsense can go. This is great, and it's not a problem. However, the fact that so many people (atheists) can live decent and meaningful lives without a belief in God as a source for those things, should give a religious person some pause. Why believe in the supernatural if you don't need to?
Anyway, promoting reason is not at all extreme.
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Here is my contribution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJe3iMXUKN8
Originally posted by: BoberFett
You fail to account for the atheists who wish for nothing less than the dismantling of all religions. So in fact, there are "extremist" atheists who want to "take that away from them." Do those "extremist" atheists make exceptions for people who "take the scripture more metaphorically?" I rarely see it. Yours is a reasonable approach to disseminating logic and reason, but don't think for a second that all atheists are level headed as you.Originally posted by: dogooder
Now that I've insulted you, let me state one thing before quietly returning to my lurking. Religion does mean so much to many people: It's their foundation, their support. It's where they get meaning and purpose. "Extremist" atheists don't want to take that away from them. What they do want to take away is nonsensical beliefs about the world which are not based on evidence. Of course one cannot prove their is no god, but it's not about proof, only about evidence.
And there is very little evidence of the Christian God, to take one example. For instance, does God answer prayers? Scientists have studied this and found no support for that claim. In some cases, God has a placebo effect (a negative one sometimes), but there is no difference in rates of recovery and so on between people who are prayed for but don't know it and those who aren't prayed for.
All "evangelical" atheists want is less value placed on faith and more value placed on evidence. Does this take away people's foundation? It can, if that foundation is too tied to scripture. And that's too bad--but reality isn't going to change because a person wishes it wasn't so. Everytime science shows some belief to be incorrect, religion takes a step back. There's no contradiction between science and religion as long as religion keeps retreating.
A reasonable response, which is what most Christians have done, is to take the scripture more metaphorically. Then the meaning can stay but the nonsense can go. This is great, and it's not a problem. However, the fact that so many people (atheists) can live decent and meaningful lives without a belief in God as a source for those things, should give a religious person some pause. Why believe in the supernatural if you don't need to?
Anyway, promoting reason is not at all extreme.
I've found that most of the atheist evangelists I've run into are those who recently discovered it. They came across the FSM site and thought it was the funniest thing they had ever seen. It was something they could guffaw over and use to insult and belittle religious people. They're kind of like Born Again Christians, who are usually the most annoying kind, beating you over the head constantly with their religion.
Are you denying that there are atheists who attempt to spread atheism as though it were a religion? What the hell do you think people like Richard Dawkins are? They're preachers for their religion of atheism.
The zeal with which some people defend atheism despite it's lack of evidence combined with the fact that they preach their unprovable hypothesis to anyone who will listen has elevated atheism to a religion.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Don't look at me, you're the one who made the hypothesis that "There is no god."Originally posted by: Kev
You can't prove a negative. How are you supposed to find evidence that something doesn't exist, if it doesn't exist?
You fail at science.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Kev
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If you preach at people telling them to also not believe in Santa Claus, then yes, you are religious about your non-belief in Santa Claus.Originally posted by: Kev
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
If not, should you consider yourself a member of the religion of not believing in santa claus?
Can you see the flaw in your argument?
Can you not see the flaw in YOUR argument?
So now preaching = religion?
Did you just pull that out of your ass or what?
Read the definition I posted fool. You are a prime example of a religious atheist. You fear and attack anything which questions your fragile belief system.
Evolution is neither theistic or atheistic. It is scientific. One can be either a theist or an atheist and still acknowledge the scientific basis of evolution.Originally posted by: Trevelyan
But why does that even matter? Why does it matter what their personal choice of rhetoric was? The more important issue is their driving motivation -- what caused them to commit such atrocities. Hitler was strongly motivated by his beliefs in evolution, and its applications in eugenics and other "purification" techniques employed by the Nazis. But evolution is not a Christian ideology, it is atheistic.
Atheism cannot "motivate" people to do anything, because it contains no necessary positive nor proscriptive beliefs. Neither can evolution motivate certain behavior, because it does not say what ought to be, it rather describes what is.So if anything, the death tolls of the wars of the 20th century are more closely linked to atheistic evolutionary ideologies than anything else.
1.) Atheism is a belief system like baldness is a hair color.Originally posted by: kinev
Ummm, that's not right. "Atheism by definition is the skepticism of religious beliefs". That's agnosticism. You are missing a key distinction.
Atheists say there is no God.
a·the·ism Pronunciation (th-zm) n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Agnostics say there is no proof of God, so I don't know.
ag·nos·tic Pronunciation (g-nstk) n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Physician, heal thyself!Come on! If you're going to use "by definition" at least get it right.
You think that only because you are ignoring the real intricacies of atheism vis a vis theism.Atheism takes just as much faith (which they seem to look down upon) as Theism does.