Heyo
Veteran Member
You are right on that one. Which doesn't disqualify the rest of the post.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism doesn't exist?:)
- Thread starter Rabbi Daniel
- Start date
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Really? Like every bit of research on human morality shows 'Our moral principles are more flexible and self-serving than we would like to admit."
Personally I think moralising from a non-moral testing environment is a pathetic undertaking
Or someone believes they are going to Heaven ...
Nationalism is about a country, not about god or no god
Nothing releate to anything you wrote? Proving to you that an anti-theist Christian is possible does relate to what you wrote. Or are denying that you never said that an anti-theist Christian is impossible? Are you lying?
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Not about God is what atheistic means
'They had Ph.D. degrees from some German school, all based on some atheistic, humanistic philosophy.'
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I wrote: it is not possible for a Christian to be anti-theist. I posted the DEFINITION of anti-theist:
adjective
adjective: anti-theist
- opposed to belief in the existence of a god or gods.
I wrote: it is only possible for a Christian (or any member of any other belief system) to be 'every OTHER theist."
There are lots of those.
But they are not 'anti-theist.' They cannot be, because that would mean they are AGAINST THEMSELVES.
THEIST:
- a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe
So anti-theists are people who are against ALL theists and theism, not simply everybody's theism but theirs.
So...anti-theists are ANTI ALL theists and theism in general.
Not all atheists are anti-theist, but NO theist can be.
ALL anti-theists are atheist, because one cannot be theist and anti-theist at the same time. Once one is a theist, one can be anti-pretty much every other theist, and there are some who are really nasty about it, but they are anti-Catholic or anti-Semitic or anti Jehovah's Witness or anti Muslim or anti Mormon or anti Protestant or whatever, but anti-theist in general?
No.
Now what the heck is so difficult about this concept? You know, using a word properly and understanding what it actually means?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If a human owned no topic to discuss first, then there is no atheist argument.
For we are all just humans and we are all just living on a stone O planet, inside of what we teach is an atmospheric body of cold gases that keeps us safe from heated radiation in space.
How life was taught as a human that it was safe by those conditions existing for human life supported existing.
A human first owns their self....and claims self is rationally natural, and spiritual means I live in natural balances, with Nature that supports my every need.
Then there is science.
Science was first applied to being the atheist theme.....not a relative argument about conditions that allows balances and equality......the states of natural history.
If anyone used a rational argument.
God O the planet history was said to be relative, so spiritual, natural humanity named it relative. And use the word relative to mean, is related to self existence, as a history...without it being the relative.
For information used as words give identity to what is being expressed by that natural self.
And you cannot be both a self and the relative at the same time.....for you are thinking….which is what a human then also says is relative to the conditions of my own self advice.
O the entity discussion relative to life existing was always just about a planet and humans said, I will call that planet entity, relative to being my entity history, from a God O body, the stone to my own self as a thinking ideal.
To teach, so never change God.
Which is not rationally an argument....it is just a human discussion.
For we are all just humans and we are all just living on a stone O planet, inside of what we teach is an atmospheric body of cold gases that keeps us safe from heated radiation in space.
How life was taught as a human that it was safe by those conditions existing for human life supported existing.
A human first owns their self....and claims self is rationally natural, and spiritual means I live in natural balances, with Nature that supports my every need.
Then there is science.
Science was first applied to being the atheist theme.....not a relative argument about conditions that allows balances and equality......the states of natural history.
If anyone used a rational argument.
God O the planet history was said to be relative, so spiritual, natural humanity named it relative. And use the word relative to mean, is related to self existence, as a history...without it being the relative.
For information used as words give identity to what is being expressed by that natural self.
And you cannot be both a self and the relative at the same time.....for you are thinking….which is what a human then also says is relative to the conditions of my own self advice.
O the entity discussion relative to life existing was always just about a planet and humans said, I will call that planet entity, relative to being my entity history, from a God O body, the stone to my own self as a thinking ideal.
To teach, so never change God.
Which is not rationally an argument....it is just a human discussion.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
? There are theists who are against any form of organised religion
No, you've actually been quite disrespectful throughout this thread.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Where? And why disrespectful
And nationalism is country based, no god involved
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
And the current English National anthem is called 'God save Queen'
Total straw man designed to indoctrinate pride in empire and royalty, the country did not write it
Oh. And the king or queen are not the country
Last edited:
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware a country could write anything, but do go on.
Precisely.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Free gifts = salvation, spirit, spiritual gifts
your religion teaches that eternal punishment awaits for those that believe the wrong thing
No, it teaches eternal punishment for one's personal sins, and that only morally perfect people can (logically) live in a utopia without ruining it.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Your statement was "God's people tried to kill your children". Are you confused?
You called a philosophical argument that you didn't understand stupid. Later, you said you thought you were respectful.
Irrelevant. It did prevent him from saying that he was 100% certain of anything but the existence of his own consciousness.
Is this what you meant by being respectful? Why would an atheist's essence lead to being bad more so than a theist? Simply by having no god belief? Belief in a god often leads to immorality - lying and bigotry come to mind right away.
You reveal a sense of moral superiority when you confide such sentiments. Sorry, but I just don't see.
Perhaps this is part of the reason so many atheists are anti-theist as well. What do we need with all of these religions teaching people to believe that we are immoral in the eyes of a god - vile, none good, the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, people you are warned not to be yoked to, and fit to be tortured forever.
But you do anyway.
I didn't. But you failed to respond to the substance of the post. You accept no responsibility for the enmity you engender, instead blaming it on hatred for a kind, loving person simply because of his belief in a god. So, I've repeated the point for emphasis, a point you call combative.
I'm reading your words. You're an angry person calling the objects of his enmity friends.
I don't believe you, and you degrade the word using it in this context. But that's what your religion teaches you - to call hatred love. I've already shown you how hateful your scriptures are regarding unbelievers, and you seem to have learned from them.
No, they just contradict you, and you can't tell the difference.
Irrelevant to her comment contradicting the idea that Christianity is pro-life. Atheists make no such claim.
Also, atheism is irrelevant to brutal, authoritarian regimes. These killers are no more lethal for being atheists, and would do nothing differently if they were theists.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Still wondering why you'd put country after Nation-alism, just to clarify do you mean the people of a country (the Nation)