No. But you seem to be.
The people of over 4200 gods (not including the millions of personal gods) are responsible for the vast majority of killings. All you need do is learn some history.
-
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
No. But you seem to be.
The people of over 4200 gods (not including the millions of personal gods) are responsible for the vast majority of killings. All you need do is learn some history.
Why is it so difficult?
Nationalism : advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
What has atheism (disbileaf in god or gods to do with a country)
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Read the definition.
there's nothing about 'religion' in there. A theist believes in a god or gods. Just like an atheist has a lack of belief in a god or gods. This is one of those "true dichotomies.' You can't be in both camps at the same time.
"Agnosticism' is a form of theism.
"Ignosticism" is a form of atheism.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Christine, I'm sorry...but while it may be true that believers may be responsible for the vast majority of killings, most of 'em were not done to advance the cause of the religion. Really. They were done for the 'cause' of politics; land grabs, territory conquering, defense against territory conquering...power...
Shoot, the CRUSADES, at base, were not done "in order to please God,' but so that the medieval kings could get rid of bothersome nobles and find them land so that they wouldn't overthrow the King at home. At least, most of 'em weren't. They used religion as an excuse. In fact, most people who went to war did so for political reasons unrelated to God...but they decided that they needed God with them, so....
That's what they claimed.
Now, you HAVE to agree with this. If you don't, then you have a problem. You see, There haven't been any nations which have existed in the history of mankind that was as purely murderous as those nations which were anti-theist, said so, and punished their citizens for practicing their religion. China under Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Albania, the 'young Turks..." These people ended up killing more people during their 'leadership' than all the religious wars in the history of mankind, and THEY did it in a little over fifty years.
Now I get a lot of blow back...'they didn't do it in the name of atheism!" Well, yeah, they did it for the purpose of eliminating theism, they did it, for all intents and purpuses, in the name of anti-theism, which is a subset of atheism.
Which is pretty much the same as "doing it" "in the name of God" when one REALLY means doing it 'in the name of our specific version of God, which is a subset of theism." You know, like when the Catholics went after the Protestants and vice versa.
I really don't buy the 'if we could get rid of religion everything would be flowers and candy' thing. I believe that the twentieth century proved that atheists in power are even more murderous than theists in power, if it proved nothing else.
I have my own opinion about why that is, but (shrug) that's a topic for another thread.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Right, so as I said: you mean the religious doctrine.
I don't call that a gift. I call that psychological poison.
So how, according to your religious doctrine, does one get into heaven?
Keep it short and to the point.
What is the very first pre-requisite?
Or put another way: can a non-believer get to your paradise?
Regardless of how that person lived his life. It's the only thing you know: it's a non-believer.
Based on that, can the unbeliever get to your paradise? Yes or no?
And would an unbeliever want to?
Rabbi Daniel
Member
There is a difference between challenging ideas and challenging people.
If I say this idea is ridiculous, it's different from you are ridiculous to share this idea.
Look around in the media if there is such a difference. You might consider it political correctness, but still, it might be more respectful.
And also , how atheists speak against God and the Bible? Have you seen the tough language and how they try to ridicule the Bible?
And when a believer says that their idea/argument is stupid , ridiculous , all of a sudden, they get offended.
I don't think I disrespected anyone here, but some replies on me were quite disrespectful ,especially some coming from somebody who doesnt seem to like me much. I dont know, maybe he or she doesn't like my picture.
BTW, I dont see much picture, why not putting picture, even if someone wants to put a picture when he is younger ( 30, 40 years ago... ) Just kidding.
Anyway, I have a friendly approach. And most of the replies from you were respectful, and I thank you for that.
If I say this idea is ridiculous, it's different from you are ridiculous to share this idea.
Look around in the media if there is such a difference. You might consider it political correctness, but still, it might be more respectful.
And also , how atheists speak against God and the Bible? Have you seen the tough language and how they try to ridicule the Bible?
And when a believer says that their idea/argument is stupid , ridiculous , all of a sudden, they get offended.
I don't think I disrespected anyone here, but some replies on me were quite disrespectful ,especially some coming from somebody who doesnt seem to like me much. I dont know, maybe he or she doesn't like my picture.
BTW, I dont see much picture, why not putting picture, even if someone wants to put a picture when he is younger ( 30, 40 years ago...
) Just kidding. Anyway, I have a friendly approach. And most of the replies from you were respectful, and I thank you for that.
syo
Well-Known Member
Wait a few years and the atheists will take over.
There is a difference between challenging ideas and challenging people.
If I say this idea is ridiculous, it's different from you are ridiculous to share this idea.
Look around in the media if there is such a difference. You might consider it political correctness, but still, it might be more respectful.
And also , how atheists speak against God and the Bible? Have you seen the tough language and how they try to ridicule the Bible?
And when a believer says that their idea/argument is stupid , ridiculous , all of a sudden, they get offended.
I don't think I disrespected anyone here, but some replies on me were quite disrespectful ,especially some coming from somebody who doesnt seem to like me much. I dont know, maybe he or she doesn't like my picture.
BTW, I dont see much picture, why not putting picture, even if someone wants to put a picture when he is younger ( 30, 40 years ago...
Anyway, I have a friendly approach. And most of the replies from you were respectful, and I thank you for that.
I see much projection here! Consider, atheism has been the target of abuse from various religions and religious for thousands of years, only with the advent of the internet has the playing field been levelled.
If you actually read the bible rather than cherry pick as many christians do, conveniently ignoring the "bad" bits or if they happen to stumble over them, reinterpreting them to suite their sensibilities you will see that it deserves much criticism that it cannot stand up to.
And speaking against god? What is to speak against? To deny an entity who has no valid evidence to support it, on the contrary, there is much to show at least certain aspects of various gods cannot exist.
I agree your approach is friendly, but can i offer a little personal advice, just be as friendly to non believers as you are to believers. And do not ignore their wisdom, it is just as valid as any believer.
I see. So if I say that your religion is ridiculous, it's different from saying that you are ridiculous for promoting it. Or if I say that your ideas are stupid, it's the ideas themselves that are stupid, not their source.
So you can call an argument stupid, and it's different from calling its holder stupid, but the unbeliever can't call your beliefs ridiculous without offending you. Sorry, rabbi, but this isn't synagogue.
This venue is part of the marketplace of ideas, where all ideas are subject to critical analysis - a value from academia, and a method essential to scholarship. Believers that find that offensive have to deal with that themselves. They can choose to not participate, to recognize that others may reject their beliefs and not be offended by that, or be participate and be offended.
Religions don't share this value. There is no critical analysis in religion. Ideas are to believed by faith and not challenged. But here, we challenge them:
- "Religion calls what is rational, irrational. Calls what is reasonable, stupidity. Calls what is invisible and undetectable, absolutely obvious. Calls what is contradictory, consistent. Calls what is unjust, perfect justice. Defines modern evidence as "opinion. Calls what gives people dignity, shameful. Calls ignorance, knowledge. Calls what is true a lie and what is a lie true." - anon
- "It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics." – Robert Heinlein
Here are some other opinions I agree with:
- "No idea should be above ridicule. Ridicule is a very important tool. And why should religion not be subject to ridicule? If politics, if science, if sex, if everything is subject to ridicule, as a way of illuminating reality, why shouldn't religion?" - Prof. Lawrence Krauss, who has since become a target of ridicule himself.
- "Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." - anon
- "I give your religion as much respect as your religion gives me. There's nothing complicated about it, and I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge, and to condemn me as an inadequate human being, which your religion does with self righteous gusto. When it comes to insults your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut so would I. But given that it doesn't, and given the enormous harm that your religion has done in this world. I'd say that not only do I have a right, but a duty to insult it, as does every rationale thinking person on this planet." – Pat Condell
- “The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” - Brian Cox
- "Religions' entire authority and real-world power are undergirded by their abilities to command reverence and deference and create the illusion that they are sacred, sacrosanct, and immune from fundamental criticism or ridicule." - Dan Fincke
- “This is why American Atheists openly criticizes religion, as opposed to accommodating it. We see the harm religion does to the human mind, and we recognize that feigning respect for religion merely legitimizes and strengthens it in the eyes and minds of believers. After all, if ‘even the atheists respect their religion,’ then it must be respectable. By criticizing religion openly, fervently, and honestly, we chip away at the pedestal on which religion sits.” – David Silverman
That didn't stop you from using the word, did it? What's an unbeliever to think your purpose was given that you understand that your word choice might offend.
I think you were disrespectful to all atheists, but then you come by it honestly: "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1
We're all corrupt and vile, and not one of us does good. What do you recommend my reaction to that to be? Respect?
How was your comment about all atheists actually being closet theists any different? Are we all liars or just too stupid to know what we really think? Were you trying to rid the world of atheism with the wave of a hand?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that you were wrong? Being wrong and learning why you were wrong is not a bad thing.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
I know! If you point out someone's error you're helping them not look so bad in the future
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
When I err, I not only admit it, I do so publicly and I don't attack the guy teaching me and go off in a huff.
However, I'm not wrong. An anti-theist is against all theists and theism. In fact the definition of 'atheism' and of 'anti-theism' is, save for one EXTREMELY important couple of words, the same.
From Merriam-Webster, definitions of:
Definition of atheism
1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
In the Collins English Dictionary (and the Oxford English Dictionary and in all the philosophical sites I've gone to)
an·tithe·ism
/ˌan(t)ēˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: anti-theism
- opposition to belief in the existence of a god or gods.
So...not all atheists are anti-theists, but I have NEVER CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE.
However, in order to be an anti-theist, one must FIRST be an atheist. Or, Not all atheists are anti-theists, but all anti-theists are atheists.
Why? Because a theist can only be anti-every theistic beliefs but theirs. He can be anti-Catholic, anti-Semite, anti-Baptist, anti-Hindu, anti-Muslim, anti-pretty much everything, as long as he believes and worships a deity (in other words, is a theist himself) he cannot be anti-THEISM. He can only be anti-every theism but his. I've met quite a few of those.
So. I'm not only right, I just proved it. Are you going to admit your own error now?
I can't be bothered reading through all the hundreds of posts, so I'm probably repeating many.
Atheism doesn't exist. Flat out, there is no such thing as atheism.
Atheists exists, but that's completely different.
Theism is the belief in some religious ideology. Doesn't necessarily even include a God image, although usually it does. But theism is an ideology.
Atheism is the lack of such an ideology. So, obviously, atheism doesn't exist. It is the lack of theism.
Theism is a thing, a belief in something theistic. Atheism is the lack of such a belief.
Atheism doesn't exist. Never did. Cannot possibly.
Tom
Atheism doesn't exist. Flat out, there is no such thing as atheism.
Atheists exists, but that's completely different.
Theism is the belief in some religious ideology. Doesn't necessarily even include a God image, although usually it does. But theism is an ideology.
Atheism is the lack of such an ideology. So, obviously, atheism doesn't exist. It is the lack of theism.
Theism is a thing, a belief in something theistic. Atheism is the lack of such a belief.
Atheism doesn't exist. Never did. Cannot possibly.
Tom
Repeating the same thing is not going to make you correct when I already showed why it's possible. So try again.
lukethethird
unknown member
True.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I proved my point.
It's not possible, BY DEFINITION. You have certainly not shown how it is possible for a theist to be both theist AND anti-theist at the same time. As I said, it's only possible for him/her to be anti-every theist but him/her.
So never bother to read what I posted, showing why it's possible. Or is it that you're afraid that you might be shown to be one? By DEFINITION, you are wrong. A god? All god's? Your god?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
No, you haven't done so. I could have missed it. Would you mind referring to that post, or repeating your proof?
Be DEFINITION, and anti-theist is opposed to ALL gods and the belief in ALL gods, If he happens to believe in any form of deity, he can't be an anti-theist. By definition. (and I posted the definitions) He can only be anti-every other theist.
Or,to say this again: not all atheists are anti-theists, but all anti-theists are atheists.
If there happens to exist a theist who is opposed to every single possible iteration of a god or gods, including the one he believes to exist,I've certainly never met, heard of, or encountered him/her in any way, through publications or debate forums.
Yes I have.
I don't know why atheist is relevant when this is about an anti-theist Christian.
So argument from ignorance.