Salvelinus mercurious teenyweenious.You're up in the Chicago area, right? Not sure what type of trout you have over there, but I am game!
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Salvelinus mercurious teenyweenious.You're up in the Chicago area, right? Not sure what type of trout you have over there, but I am game!
Quite right. But with atheism comes hidden assumptions and unspoken beliefs that require faith. Sorry, but there's no way of getting around it or the fact that an atheist can be a dogmatic as any fundamentalist.doppelgänger;943312 said:If "Faith" can mean whatever I want it to, then I can define it to include peanut butter and the Inside-The-Egg Egg Scrambler, right?
An atheist can be the King of Siam, but that doesn't mean atheism is Siamese royalty.Quite right. But with atheism comes hidden assumptions and unspoken beliefs that require faith. Sorry, but there's no way of getting around it or the fact that an atheist can be a dogmatic as any fundamentalist.
Quite right. But with atheism comes hidden assumptions and unspoken beliefs that require faith. Sorry, but there's no way of getting around it or the fact that an atheist can be a dogmatic as any fundamentalist.
An atheist can be the King of Siam, but that doesn't mean atheism is Siamese royalty.
You know what? I have come to see the light on one point of Catholic dogma. I now believe in invincible ignorance. However, that's not faith, either. I have actual evidence of it.Quite true. Whether you say an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God or someone who believes God doesn't exist the end result is the same and there is neither evidence nor proof to back up the idea that God doesn't exist. Therefore regardless of how you word it it is still a belief, for it is an idea that is accepted as true even though it is not immediately provable. Whether you say "God doesn't exist." or "I don't believe in God." you can't prove God's nonexistence and thus both those statements are based on belief not fact. Because of this Atheism can be called a faith because regardless of how you word it the definition of Atheism is belief based and belief requires faith.
You know what? I have come to see the light on one point of Catholic dogma. I now believe in invincible ignorance. However, that's not faith, either. I have actual evidence of it.
Thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace.
"invincible ignorance?" Well I could say the same about you. If you can't stand to have your ideas put to scrutiny then you shouldn't be in the debate forum. You gave your argument all I did was a rebuttle. That is not a sign of ignorance it is a sign of debate. And experience has tought me that people only resort to insults when they feel they've lost an argument. If you wish to debate fine but if your going to insult someone for simply stating their viewpoint and backing it up then you should leave or don't be surprised if you find yourself reported. If you see flaws in my argument then point them out and use them to strengthen your own argument. Plan old insulting is considered flaming and is against the rules of the forum. So be civil or leave.
To be human is to know things. If you're not conscious, then it's all for naught. To be human is to know the world as we know it; to hold the world apart from us superior to us is to say that "to be us" is inferior. Lots of people do this. Lots.
To be human is to have faith that the world as we know it is the world as it is. That says a lot. It says something about reality. It says something about us. It says something about the split. And probably most importantly, it says something about how we exist in this reality.
"Invincible ignorance" is not a personal remark. It's the name of a logical fallacy.
Honestly, would you not expect to read technical terms from logic in a debate forum?
I find this to a most inaccurate description of what it means to be human. However, such a concept is perhaps just one of mere opinion.
Incorrect. By that logic, I should be an atheist.If someone is not a theist, by default they are an atheist.
LOLPanentheists are simply symantically challenged.
Most atheists say that there is a difference between not believing in god and believing that there is no god. But what is the difference?
Animals most likely do not believe in god. They do not have faith that god does not exist, they simply have no beliefs. In this sense one could make the argument that all inanimate objects are athiests.
If someone is not a theist, by default they are an atheist.
there's no way of getting around it or the fact that an atheist can be a dogmatic as any fundamentalist.
faith-belief that is NOT based on PROOF.
many religious people claim that the phrase "there is a god." is fact while many Atheists claim that the phrase "there is NO god" is fact. The truth is however that neither phrase is fact or even fact based but they are both FAITH based. While there is no evidence to back up the claim that there is a God there is also no evidence to back up the claim that there is NO God. Your thoughts? Keep in mind I am not simply refering to the abrahamic god in this argument but however anyone would define God/ Goddess/ supreme being or force, whatever you call it/them and however you may define it/them.
(if there is already a thread on this let me know and provide a link and I'll simply join in the discussion in that thread. Otherwise have at it.)
You're right it is opinion:yes:. But so is most everything else. So what is YOUR opinion on what it means to be human?
Can you PROVE an animal has no beliefs? If not then that statement itself is faith based. Also animals do not fall under the category of "inanimate objects". in fact they are the exact opposite.