The Religion Discussion

[Habit7]

If the secular humanist believes that human life is buffeted by its start as a result of blind circumstance and irrelevance and its end in insignificance and annihilation, why question human significance in any theistic form?

Nothing in atheism leads anyone to anything deeper than happenstance existence. What is stopping you guys from going the full way to nihilism and checking out early.

It seems atheism only exists to advocate against theism. When theism is expunged, all life becomes redundant as exemplified in state institutionalized atheistic countries.

[Slartibartfast]

So all killing and disease done by God is justified because 1 man ate an apple 6000 years ago? How does inherites sin work exactly?

I'm not getting back into an argument about "state institutionalised atheism" with someone that thinks confucionism and nazism is the same because they neither have Gods. Look at tue crap going on in theiddle east because of state institutionalised theism and tell me that is mich better.

When theism is expunged, atheism becomes redundant. Life is just allowed to continue with greater clarity (less focus on keeping back science and less killing of "infidels" as well as one less thing to discriminate against.)

Side question - I know you answered this already but I having a problem finding it in the thread. Can you link to where to talked about where Adam and Eve's daughter in laws came from. I don't want to take away from the other matter at hand

[Habit7]

I put forward the reason why how Christianity accounts for suffering. If you disagree no problem, but it still doesn't disprove God.

You need to put forward how as an atheist you deal with suffering and what is stopping you from ending your insignificant life and entering into annihilation, otherwise you are just critiquing something you have no answer for.

I never brought up Confucianism, you did. Nazism is not atheistic so I wonder if you understood what you thought you already answered.

The 20th century was the bloodiest ever and that was more because of atheism than theism. Within the majority world of theism, the minority do evil and are confronted by other theists.

But as an atheist, where does humanity gets any worth not to be killed, inflicted with disease or even receive human rights?

[meccalli]

Do we condemn all Muslims because of a few terrorists? Do we condemn all Jews because of the so called attacks of Israel on Palestine? In all sects there are the extremists. Atheism is no different.

Well, I didn't throw up the militant atheism video. Of all the atheists on this board, you by your mature attitude and outstanding posts are a shining example of a 'Good' atheist. But you probably already knew that.

But as an atheist, where does humanity gets any worth not to be killed, inflicted with disease or even receive human rights?

To me it is detriment to the future of society to continue prolonging these archaic views of an imaginary creature.

But of course its a benefit to keep its moral code. We just need to throw out its originator and say it developed naturally because fallen man is such a peace loving and upright being.

There is, however, Hobbes states, a summum malum, or greatest evil. This is the fear of violent death. A political community can be oriented around this fear.

Since there is no summum bonum, the natural state of man is not to be found in a political community that pursues the greatest good. But to be outside of a political community is to be in an anarchic condition. Given human nature, the variability of human desires, and need for scarce resources to fulfill those desires, the state of nature, as Hobbes calls this anarchic condition, must be a war of all against all. Even when two men are not fighting, there is no guarantee that the other will not try to kill him for his property or just out of an aggrieved sense of honour, and so they must constantly be on guard against one another. It is even reasonable to preemptively attack one's neighbour.

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hobbes seems spot on..no matter how much we put on a face for the sake of society, our cirucmstances entail and demand that eventually, our current state is destined to fight or die, there's no utopia coming, It's not happening without a summum bonum, God.

[bluefete]

Richard Dawkins is the God of the Atheists!

[Slartibartfast]

I put forward the reason why how Christianity accounts for suffering. If you disagree no problem, but it still doesn't disprove God.You have yet to show how this makes sense.

You need to put forward how as an atheist you deal with suffering and what is stopping you from ending your insignificant life and entering into annihilation, otherwise you are just critiquing something you have no answer for.Nothing is stopping me. At this point in life I am happy to be alive. If something happens to me and I end up being in a vegetative state I will want whoever is taking care of me to pull the plug to end my suffering and reduce their financial burden.

I never brought up Confucianism, you did. Nazism is not atheistic so I wonder if you understood what you thought you already answered. But Nazism is a form of institutionalized atheism according to you. I brought up confucianism because it does not have a belief in God so it is also atheistic. You also said all forms of atheism are the same. So you are saying Conficius was a Nazi. I am showing you how absurd your argument was and why I refused to respond to it.

The 20th century was the bloodiest ever and that was more because of atheism than theism. Within the majority world of theism, the minority do evil and are confronted by other theists.Just because the people causing the war did not have a belief in God did not mean that non-belief was the cause of it. That is an example of a correlation without causation. Look at the middle east now, it is clear that bloodshed still happens when God is present. (Also, remember Nazism, even though it may be atheistic, is not the same as atheism.

But as an atheist, where does humanity gets any worth not to be killed, inflicted with disease or even receive human rights?All that was explained already

[Habit7]

It might not make sense for you, but it does for innumerable Christians before. If you want to get a deeper understanding I would be happy to suggest something for you to read, my succinct posts are apparently not enough for you.

So if tomorrow you are terribly unhappy but not in a vegetative state, is willing death a relief?

I never said Nazism was atheist. Confucianism is agnostic. I never said all forms of atheism are the same. You are conflating arguements, sounding out of your depth and blatantly misrepresenting what I am saying.

You are saying that atheistic ideology didn't play a role in the bloodshed caused by its provocateurs, however with theists their ideology is always responsible. : roll:
Consider that in the majority world of theists, their ideology directly played a role in the great occurrences of good: schools, hospitals, charities, family support. However in the minority world of atheism resulted in Marxism, eugenics, war.
So is it that we should reject theism because in the subset of a subset of theistic governments promote terrorism, but we should embrace atheism because atheistic states like USSR, North Korea, Burma, Cuba and all other temporal atheistic states are colossal gems peace, human rights and clear thinking?

But as an atheist, where does humanity gets any worth not to be killed, inflicted with disease or even receive human rights?All that was explained already

Please remind me where?

I hope it is not the subjective drivel you posted early. Because if human worth lies in how I feel, then it only take a rainy day for human worth to plummet a nuclear bomb to the head can solve anyone's problem.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

You are saying that atheistic ideology didn't play a role in the bloodshed caused by its provocateurs, however with theists their ideology is always responsible. : roll:

what is atheistic ideology? That is an oxymoron.

that's like saying it is an ideology to NOT believe in a purple three eyed, four toed monster on Mars.

In which case you might as well blame lack of believe in Zeus for the wars you are purportedly blaming on atheism.

[meccalli]

Dawkins and Hitchens take several positions when asked questions regarding their disbelief depending on the nature of the question posed. I think that's fair to regard their various positions as ideologies that are directly related to the disbelief in examination. Considering, people take their stances as a form of 'gospel' without coming to those conclusions by themselves. Seems like ideologies to me.

[Habit7]

In which case you might as well blame lack of believe in Zeus for the wars you are purportedly blaming on atheism.

-ism

-ism is a suffix in many English words, originally derived from Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismos), reaching English through Latin, via French.[1]

Ism is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort, sometimes with a derogatory sense.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

Laws of language is added to list of things you guys lack faith in now?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

In which case you might as well blame lack of believe in Zeus for the wars you are purportedly blaming on atheism.

-ism

-ism is a suffix in many English words, originally derived from Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismos), reaching English through Latin, via French.[1]

Ism is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort, sometimes with a derogatory sense.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

Laws of language is added to list of things you guys lack faith in now?

yeah just ignore the "a" in front of "atheism" right?

The "a" prefix signifies "not" or "without"

THEISM is the word with an "ism" on it. Atheism is effectively "not theism" or without theism".

lol @ faith in laws of language

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Dawkins and Hitchens take several positions when asked questions regarding their disbelief depending on the nature of the question posed. I think that's fair to regard their various positions as ideologies that are directly related to the disbelief in examination. Considering, people take their stances as a form of 'gospel' without coming to those conclusions by themselves. Seems like ideologies to me.

Those are personal points of view from those persons. There is no doctrine or codex for atheism that atheists follow.

anyone can talk about their personal lack of belief in unicorns, why they personally find that unicorns do not exist and why they choose to feel that way. It is not going to mean everyone else has the same reasons for not believing in unicorns. Some reasons may be similar, some may be based on facts such as no one has ever seen a unicorn - but it is hardly an ideology.

"saying atheism is a religion or ideology is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

[nareshseep]

An assumption you are making is that there is an innocent child, man or woman anywhere. They might be innocent on a lateral level to us being that they did us no wrong, but on a vertical level to God, that child is a constituent of this fallen Earth. An Earth that has been fallen from the action of its federal head Adam by whose actions allowed for every facet of the world to be corrupted by sin, of which God promises to judge and recreate once again never to be corrupted. That is not to say that a child may have willingly and intentionally sinned thus committing an act worthy of being born with AIDS, but the child like all of us from the point of conception and life, entered into a corrupt world and is destined to die. So whether they die from suffering as an embryo, a child, middle aged adult or a senior we are all destined for death. AIDS might be the means for one, a quiet aneurysm for another, I really can't explain in every case the means why, but we all die because of our inherent sin. I don't see how this disproves God. The suffering part. The suffering part makes all the difference. So you believe a life that consists of nothing more than slow, painful death of a child brought on by infectious diseases due to the effects of AIDS is exactly the same as a life of a man that is allowed to grow up, take drugs, higher hundreds of prostitutes (basically Charlie Sheen) and die a quick painless death due to a drug overdose? Also, are you then saying that it is morally acceptable to punish one man for another's wrongdoing? That's like me telling your child that once he reaches 18 he has to spend five years in jail because you were caught sniffing coke 30 years ago. If God is supposed to be morally superior, shouldn't his morals be at least equal to ours?

Again you keep using terms like "morally sufficient reasons" without stating your objective standard as an atheist you are accusing God of violating. In the Christian moral standards that God proclaims He sets Himself to, this action is very consistent and whether you or I like it or not, He is sovereign and we are subjects. Life is circumstantial bro. Note that I quoted "morally sufficient reasons" from that guy's mouth. Those are his words not mine. I am saying I don't know what those reasons are, just like the kid that asked what those reasons are. But answer given was basically "Yes, there are reasons".

If you break it down and think about it, God kills every person that has ever lived... But though shalt not kill. God impregnated Mary... But though shalt not commit adultery. However, the reason for this is because of the circumstance. God can do these thing because he created everything.

There is no sidestep The boy asked what were the reasons for innocents suffering... Dude replied God has morally sufficient reasons but doesn't state what they are. (unlike the questions you refuse to answer a couple pages back viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=18330#p8199097 ). Sorry, I'll take a look back and answer. The question of suffering is solved in Jesus who suffered, died and rose again as a propitiation for those who would repent and put their trust in Him. Wait, I thought the suffering was to atone for our sins, not to justify him torturing innocent children in the future. Please elaborate. God promises eternal life for rebels like us, you reject that. So don't say there is no answer for suffering because God provides the answer and even if there weren't, that still doesn't disprove God.

And you are right that guy does sound too harsh. He might really sound convincing too aside from the fact that it was six mins of him building up straw men and knocking it over. You can attest of all the straw men he put forward I never made any of those claims against you. So it is more or less irrelevant to me.Just providing some perspective for you guys. That is what an intolerant atheist looks like and the thinking behind being one. It's the same thing as intolerant theists (like fundamentalists etc.) Don't worry, even I was kind of put off by the overly smug look on his face.

I don’t believe your new scenario of a child compared to a profligate man is the same. Both are fallen creatures of fallen world and will die, however the man’s willful determinate sin will cause him to be judged by a holy eternal God and he will be punished eternally. The child if she hasn’t reached to a maturity level of conscientious, willful, determinate sin, she will be afforded the mercy of Christ and receive eternal life. You wrongfully assume that her having AIDS as a punishment, even from another’s wrongdoing. But is not a punishment, it is God’s sovereign providence to bring about His will. He made you and I to be born in T&T while someone else in Venezuela or Haiti. There are obvious benefits to being born in T&T than other places, along with some drawbacks. So some children are born healthy, some have a congenital heart problem, some with AIDS, you might think the healthier child is better off but he will have a lifetime to accumulate sin, be guilty before God and hopeful find refuge in Christ before he faces the death we all must face. A terminally ill child stand the chance of being snatched from this world before his fleshly corruption is manifested in his soul’s corruption as evidenced in willful disobedience to his Creator.

Acts 17: 26-31 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

God kills every person that ever lives because He holy (separate) and perfect, and we are infected with an epidemic disease called sin. God is morally just in eradicating sin and those who bear it as is a farmer who kills his entire herd at the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, as judge who sentences a criminal to death for committing vile and heinous crimes, as you are when have typed out a sentence and choose to delete it because it was your creation. God doesn’t subject Himself to our or anyone else’s moral standards, He is the moral standard, so when we unjustly take the life of someone else we violate His moral standard because He doesn’t do that, that is why He commands thou shall not murder. God impregnated Mary supernaturally, not with sex; hence Jesus was born of a virgin. Adultery is violation a covenant between a man and a woman, God doesn’t break covenants, that is why adultery is wrong. God doesn't violate His moral standard because His moral standard doesn’t dwell outside Him as it does with you and me, God’s moral standard is who He is.

God doesn’t torture an innocent anyone. There was one innocent person that walked this earth and He only died by bearing the sins of those who would believe in Him under the wrath of the Father. We all inherit our corruption from Adam who federally represented all of us in the Garden. We didn’t inherit his sin in our account but we inherited the result of his actions in the same way we all inherit result of our parents’ actions whether we like it or not. Likewise Jesus, a second Adam, resorted what Adam lost which was communion with God and sinless righteousness. One can inherit Jesus’ work through repentance and faith.

The torment God truly gives is not by any means on this world. In fact, all the apostles died as martyrs, except for John, he survived a vat of boiling oil and had his eyes dug out, this was before he wrote the book of Revelation. Despite what many prosperity preachers claim, being a Christian promises that you will be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12). So living a hard life isnt just about who sinned that caused it. The torment God truly gives are for those who reject God’s law whether written in the Bible or on their conscience, and willfully rebel against their Creator. That torment is place of eternal conscious torture for both His fallen angels and for sinful man. But God offers mercy though His Son, so repent and believe.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Jesus of Nazareth (circa 30 AD)

You are a Christian and that makes you a theist. A person who does not believe that there is a God is an atheist. A person who does not believe in 99% of all Gods is an atheist with respect those religions. Unless your believe in the Muslim faith Hindu faith Buddhist faith and the 99% of the rest You are a partial atheist.

Theists believe in 100% of all Gods.
Partial theists/atheists believe in less than 100% of Gods
Atheists do not believe in 100% of all Gods.

[MG Man]

I met him in a back alley............I stabbed him and he died.........

[meccalli]

Those are personal points of view from those persons. There is no doctrine or codex for atheism that atheists follow.

anyone can talk about their personal lack of belief in unicorns, why they personally find that unicorns do not exist and why they choose to feel that way. It is not going to mean everyone else has the same reasons for not believing in unicorns. Some reasons may be similar, some may be based on facts such as no one has ever seen a unicorn - but it is hardly an ideology.

"saying atheism is a religion or ideology is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

Most atheists point theists to The God Delusion as much as we point people to the Bible, whether the definition suits the practising individuals or not is to be seen in their actions. They're putting that book of personal points of view of Dawkins as the face of Atheism to the rest of us. So what's next, more semantics? or are Dawkins' congregation the localised heathen of the atheistic community?

[Slartibartfast]

It might not make sense for you, but it does for innumerable Christians before. It makes sense because innumerable Christians are bothered by those things like truth and reason. The bible is all the truth and reason they need. This is not proof for anything If you want to get a deeper understanding I would be happy to suggest something for you to read, my succinct posts are apparently not enough for you.

So if tomorrow you are terribly unhappy but not in a vegetative state, is willing death a relief? Yeah, why not? But personally I will also consider those that I leave behind... especially my mom. It would put her through more suffering that I can imagine so I won't do that. What about taking the suicide of Robin Williams as an example? Was he wrong? Is he going to hell? Why?

I never said Nazism was atheist. Confucianism is agnostic. I never said all forms of atheism are the same. You are conflating arguements, sounding out of your depth and blatantly misrepresenting what I am saying.

You are saying that atheistic ideology didn't play a role in the bloodshed caused by its provocateurs, however with theists their ideology is always responsible. : roll: Only when people kill in the name of God. In your examples nobody killed in the name of not God. But I stated that a lot of the time it is dependent on the person leading at the time.... sooooo maybe someone else said that but it wasn't me.
Consider that in the majority world of theists, their ideology directly played a role in the great occurrences of good: schools, hospitals, charities, family support. However in the minority world of atheism resulted in Marxism, eugenics, war.
So is it that we should reject theism because in the subset of a subset of theistic governments promote terrorism, but we should embrace atheism because atheistic states like USSR, North Korea, Burma, Cuba and all other temporal atheistic states are colossal gems peace, human rights and clear thinking?

But as an atheist, where does humanity gets any worth not to be killed, inflicted with disease or even receive human rights?All that was explained already

Please remind me where?

I hope it is not the subjective drivel you posted early. Yes it was. For which you are still unable to adequately respond.Because if human worth lies in how I feel, then it only take a rainy day for human worth to plummet a nuclear bomb to the head can solve anyone's problem....huh? You mean empathy (understanding how others feel) and reason (non-emotional)? Cuz that is what I was talking about. Morality can't be based on emotion.

I know you will want to mention suicide, so here goes. My argument on the morality of suicide is a question of if it is morally right to stop someone from committing suicide. I see a lot less morality attached to the act of suicide itself because if the suicide is being committed for emotional reasons then the chances are that the emotions outweigh the person thoughts of morality (ie. empathy and reason). If the suicide is being done (in the person's view) to lessen their burden on others (i.e. suffering of others) then I see nothing morally wrong with that. So the argument is what right do I have to force this person not to commit the act (of course as much comfort and persuasion as possible would be used)

[Slartibartfast]

Those are personal points of view from those persons. There is no doctrine or codex for atheism that atheists follow.

anyone can talk about their personal lack of belief in unicorns, why they personally find that unicorns do not exist and why they choose to feel that way. It is not going to mean everyone else has the same reasons for not believing in unicorns. Some reasons may be similar, some may be based on facts such as no one has ever seen a unicorn - but it is hardly an ideology.

"saying atheism is a religion or ideology is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

Most atheists point theists to The God Delusion as much as we point people to the Bible, whether the definition suits the practising individuals or not is to be seen in their actions. They're putting that book of personal points of view of Dawkins as the face of Atheism to the rest of us. So what's next, more semantics? or are Dawkins' congregation the localised heathen of the atheistic community?

Ah yes, because if a book raises good questions about your faith then we should not use it? Unless it is something that must be scientifically proven, the origin of simple questions and statements like this does not matter once the point is valid. Here, let me help you out

"saying atheism is a religion or ideology is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." - Eric Williams

[Habit7]

In which case you might as well blame lack of believe in Zeus for the wars you are purportedly blaming on atheism.

-ism

-ism is a suffix in many English words, originally derived from Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismos), reaching English through Latin, via French.[1]

Ism is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort, sometimes with a derogatory sense.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

Laws of language is added to list of things you guys lack faith in now?

yeah just ignore the "a" in front of "atheism" right?

The "a" prefix signifies "not" or "without"

THEISM is the word with an "ism" on it. Atheism is effectively "not theism" or without theism".

lol @ faith in laws of language

The "a" is not in front of theism, it is in front of the Greek word "theos" (God). What you want atheism to be is "a" "gnosis" (knowledge). But we have wrangled about this before and for someone without a doctrine or ideology...you are very adamant about what atheism is...doctrinally. Since atheists have redefined atheism to mean lack of belief, what to the rest of us English speakers should now call people who say "there is no God?"

If you lack belief in God then why ask for evidence? For you to even begin to acknowledge any evidence, it would have to match and be consistent with some inherent belief of God in yourself for you to affirm the evidence is true. Your lack of encountering any convincing evidence would only mean that of all that has been presented to you, it hasn't qualified to actualize your God, the one you claim you lack belief in.

Since atheism has no ideology, are you saying your atheism don't affect any facet of your life? We see theism reflected in every society of human existence, even in Neanderthals. Are you saying that your atheism doesn't offer you any differing existence?

[Slartibartfast]

Hold on a sec... What's the difference between
Lack of belief in a God
and belief that there is no God

"I don't believe there is a God"
"I believe there is not God"

[Habit7]

You are a Christian and that makes you a theist. A person who does not believe that there is a God is an atheist. A person who does not believe in 99% of all Gods is an atheist with respect those religions. Unless your believe in the Muslim faith Hindu faith Buddhist faith and the 99% of the rest You are a partial atheist.

Theists believe in 100% of all Gods.
Partial theists/atheists believe in less than 100% of Gods
Atheists do not believe in 100% of all Gods.

Welcome to 1st and 2nd century Roman Empire. Christians were called atheists and persecuted because they denied the existence of the Roman and Greek pantheon of gods. I have no problem being called a partial atheist.

[Habit7]

"saying atheism is a religion or ideology is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

Where this analogy falls terrible short is the fact than non-philatelists don't organise conferences, write books and come on Internet forums to discuss their hobby of not collecting stamps.

[Slartibartfast]

If philatelists starting killing, discriminating and holding back progress in the name of philately the aphilatelists would.

Conversely if all theists stopped doing those things mentioned above then atheists would stop organising conferences. As for coming out on forums and books
http://bit.ly/1qCFfZm
http://bit.ly/1qCFjbL

[Habit7]

Dude you clearly showing that you are out of your depth. Up until the last page you thought Nazism and Confucianism were atheistic. Now you are trying to characterize theism in general as "killing discriminating and holding back progress."

This is further evidenced by you posting links that clearly shows that you didn't understand what I just said.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

In which case you might as well blame lack of believe in Zeus for the wars you are purportedly blaming on atheism.

-ism

-ism is a suffix in many English words, originally derived from Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismos), reaching English through Latin, via French.[1]

Ism is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort, sometimes with a derogatory sense.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

Laws of language is added to list of things you guys lack faith in now?

yeah just ignore the "a" in front of "atheism" right?

The "a" prefix signifies "not" or "without"

THEISM is the word with an "ism" on it. Atheism is effectively "not theism" or without theism".

lol @ faith in laws of language

The "a" is not in front of theism, it is in front of the Greek word "theos" (God). What you want atheism to be is "a" "gnosis" (knowledge). But we have wrangled about this before and for someone without a doctrine or ideology...you are very adamant about what atheism is...doctrinally. Since atheists have redefined atheism to mean lack of belief, what to the rest of us English speakers should now call people who say "there is no God?"

If you lack belief in God then why ask for evidence? For you to even begin to acknowledge any evidence, it would have to match and be consistent with some inherent belief of God in yourself for you to affirm the evidence is true. Your lack of encountering any convincing evidence would only mean that of all that has been presented to you, it hasn't qualified to actualize your God, the one you claim you lack belief in.

Since atheism has no ideology, are you saying your atheism don't affect any facet of your life? We see theism reflected in every society of human existence, even in Neanderthals. Are you saying that your atheism doesn't offer you any differing existence?

I am not trying to show what atheism is. I am only arguing for the sake of showing what atheism is NOT in light of some of the claims being made here.

If someone claims that unicorns exist, shouldn't we ask for evidence?

Has Lord Shiva affected any facet of your life?

"saying atheism is a religion or ideology is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

Where this analogy falls terrible short is the fact than non-philatelists don't organise conferences, write books and come on Internet forums to discuss their hobby of not collecting stamps.

except that is not what atheism is, but rather what some atheists do.
And considering that most of those conferences probably deal more with discussing modern theist beliefs, mostly because it is tough to talk about nothing.

[Slartibartfast]

Just provided quotes so you can see the inconsistency of your arguments.

Me telling you all atheistic beliefs aren't the same and you saying that they are

So please stop calling all atheists the same when I do not call all theists the same. This is a big misconception you have.

Just quoted this because you ignored this completely when making your reply... multiple times.

I ignored this because it is ridiculous. You can define what atheism is but I shouldn't refer to the people you just defined? Then what the point of this discussion?

Me showing you how that is absurd (as both Nazism and Confucianism do not include a belief in God and are by definition atheistic)

The 20th century was the bloodiest ever and that was more because of atheism than theism. Within the majority world of theism, the minority do evil and are confronted by other theists.Just because the people causing the war did not have a belief in God did not mean that non-belief was the cause of it. That is an example of a correlation without causation. Look at the middle east now, it is clear that bloodshed still happens when God is present. (Also, remember Nazism, even though it may be atheistic, is not the same as atheism.

You not catching that the illustration was used to show the absurdity of something you said so you are now saying how absurd it is.

Dude you clearly showing that you are out of your depth. Up until the last page you thought Nazism and Confucianism were atheistic. Now you are trying to characterize theism in general as "killing discriminating and holding back progress."

Basically, this is you saying that what you said before is total crap. Which means you are out of your own depth according to you.

This is why I can't argue with you. You argue for the opposite things when it is convenient for you. This is a classic example of what theists do to remain relevant. The only way they can always be right is by contradicting themselves.

[Habit7]

What do we call people who say "no God exists?"

If someone says unicorns exists then their evidence should square with my preconception of a unicorn. What good is showing evidence to someone who claims to have no preconception unicorns?

Lord Shiva hasn't affected me because I was told that he doesn't mind if I worship the God of the Bible. Now that I answered your question and deflected your tu quoque please answer mine. Does your atheism affect any facet of your life?

If that is not what atheism is, it is what they do, if a group of people do the same thing and are caught up with the same interests...don't they share an ideology? Or is this also a result of time+matter+chance?

[Slartibartfast]

Sorry you can ignore that post above for more concise post.

So please stop calling all atheists the same when I do not call all theists the same. This is a big misconception you have.

Just quoted this because you ignored this completely when making your reply... multiple times.

I ignored this because it is ridiculous. You can define what atheism is but I shouldn't refer to the people you just defined? Then what the point of this discussion?

I never said all forms of atheism are the same. You are conflating arguements, sounding out of your depth and blatantly misrepresenting what I am saying.

[Habit7]

You forgot this too

Clearly that's you just trolling.

Atheism - a non-belief in God, doesn't have any specific beliefs in anything

Atheism (atheistic) Ideologies - Ideologies with many beliefs but do not include a belief in a God

Now feel free to answer everything else from your newly enlightened position.

[megadoc1]

Now a science thread would be a lot more fun.

yeah right I have seen cheds that started on a scientific matter but quickly deteriorated into an anti bible /religious ched

[ruffneck_12]

If a child happens to grow up in the wild with no contact with other humans, just animals/nature

What religion would he be?
Would he be Athiest, agnostic, or thiest?