What is Atheism? By CrymsonLiynn

lokiikol
19 Aug 2013 14:58

Does being Buddhist make me an Athiest? Buddha was a human being not a god (he did happen to reach enlightenment, which really has nothing to do with what I'm asking). There are several gods involved, but I don't neccesarily commend them. They usually don't get involved when being taught this religion. There is no higher power, no heaven, no hell. He does not control our lives, he merely shows us how to control our own. So, what do you think?

lokiikol
19 Aug 2013 15:07
In reply to lokiikol

Oh, and there's Karma and Rebirth and such, but I won't go into details on that. Maybe I should create a Buddhism article, but it would be from a child's point of view. My religion has been put in bad light recently because some so-called “Buddhists” have been terrorizing people, so now people are judging the whole religion that way. That's not what Buddha taught!

PinoyBest13
03 Jun 2013 07:12

This is just my thoughts okay? Don't insult me for my thoughts.

My friend doesn't consider himself an Atheist. He's more or less an Ignostic. There's a belief he has where it's like: "I don't believe that there is/or isn't a god. If there is, so be it. DON'T push your religion in my face. As long as you keep your religion to yourself, I'll keep my ideas to myself. That way, we can all get along."

My thought is this. All the "Nice Atheists" I think are one of the neutral people to religion. I'm a believer, but I rarely even push the subject of religion between my friends who are Atheists.

Back to the point, I just think that the douchebag Atheists should show respect and just leave the religious people alone. Same with the religious people, leave the athiests alone. As long as we don't push our religions against one another, I think that we can all get along very easily.

That's just a thought that passed through my mind while readimg this.

lokiikol
19 Aug 2013 15:00
In reply to PinoyBest13

Douchebag Athiests? I think not.

Raisons du Coeur
03 Jun 2013 09:57
In reply to PinoyBest13

Right. Don't want those "douchebage atheists" to insult you just for believing what you do.

supertimod
02 Jun 2013 15:03

Our new Pope Francis, Catholic's religious leader, said that an athiest or different type of believer that is in good standing in his/her conscience could go to Heaven. But that probably doesn't matter in the slightest. Very good blog and very respectable blog.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 20:44
In reply to supertimod

He never said that. It was a media distortion. Here is his exact quote, which refers to how Jesus died for anyone in the world who trusts in His path of Salvation:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone! We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father. I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

His quote fits perfectly with the principle of salvation in the New Testament in that it is an open invitation to anyone who listens.

bradleybrown1198
08 Jun 2013 14:26
In reply to HullBreach

That's actually pretty amaing to me that an excerpt like that exists. From what I've read of the Old Testimate, it's pretty much "Kill the non-beleivers!" Not exactly like that, but theres some messed up parts in my opinion. The part I especially oppose is Luviticus 20:13, as an example.

bradleybrown1198
08 Jun 2013 14:36
In reply to bradleybrown1198

Actually I just read Luviticus chapter 20 and it's mostly just saying "kill non heterosexuals or anyones who commits incest or beastiality because that means they're wicked." That's the whole chapter in a nutshell.

LaZerWoLF
02 Jun 2013 05:41

Someone told me that Atheism was the hatred towards religion. Then they said that the belief in no God was 'areligious'. LOL. what an idiot... XD

DripDrop
02 Jun 2013 05:33

To contradict that last quote you included, from a Christian perspective, there is more proof of Christ's existence there is of Zeus'. There's the tomb, mountains, and various other things that suggest that he really was here. As for 'Zeus', there is not.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 12:09
In reply to DripDrop

There is more historical evidence as to the existence of Jesus than there is evidence of even e Julius Caesar, so I agree.

TheWildwoodDance
02 Jun 2013 02:15

Mm, I believe in science. Not scientology. Just science.

When I die I am going to rot and turn to dirt. Which eventually, my past nutrients will be absorbed by a plant then maybe an animal. So technically,I if you think about it. Eventually your molecules have been everywhere and seen everything. So I'd might as well treat my molecules with care. Because another creature will soon harbor them. And it'd be just men to make them sick or pollute them with whatever unhealthy stuff I exposed myself to...

And yet I smoked. :l

//bricked

Waffle King
02 Jun 2013 02:48
In reply to TheWildwoodDance

Just to clear something up, "scientology" is not even closely related to science. In any way, shape, or form.

TheWildwoodDance
02 Jun 2013 02:53
In reply to Waffle King

I know, I know. But I've told people I believe in science and they thought I meant scientology.

Sorry.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 12:11
In reply to TheWildwoodDance

What about Christian Science? If I understand that particular denomination correctly, they see God as the great architect, who designed the laws of nature.

TheWildwoodDance
02 Jun 2013 15:01
In reply to HullBreach

Sorry.

TheWildwoodDance
02 Jun 2013 02:15
In reply to TheWildwoodDance

*mean

TacoRocco
01 Jun 2013 19:52

Deja vu. Didn't you make a blog like this already?

TacoRocco
01 Jun 2013 19:54
In reply to TacoRocco

I know you definitely did, but I couldn't find it in your blogs. Hmmmm

Epifex
01 Jun 2013 15:57

Actually, atheism isn't the belief that there's no God, it's the lack of belief in God. Subtle but significant difference. The term "atheist" literally just means "not a theist." As such, anyone who isn't a theist, is automatically an atheist.

Also, the threat that one will go to Hell if you don't believe in God is about as valid to atheists as being told that you won't get any presents from Santa if you aren't good. They don't believe in it, so it really makes no difference.

Furthermore, you say that it's extremely disrespectful to tell people not to pray. That depends on the circumstances. If praying is all they really can do to help, I tend to just appreciate the kind gesture. However, if there is something more productive and useful that they could reasonably be doing to help, and they don't bother because they think that praying is enough, that's when it becomes destructive.

Once religion starts becoming bad for the non-religious, which it does surprisingly often, then I will more than happily tell them exactly what I think of them in no uncertain terms, because their beliefs are getting in the way of them being a decent human being.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 12:08
In reply to Epifex

You seem to be confusing atheism with agnosticism. With atheism, it is your religious belief that there is no higher being (or no higher brings) in the universe. Agnostics are truly the only non-religious people. There are several types of agnostics, including those who have not decided on a religious viewpoint and those who do not have religion as a priority in their paths in life.

I personally see atheism to take more faith than theism. Toss an atheist and someone of any religious belief into a room to debate their viewpoints, and I seriously doubt that either one can convert the other, if they are firmly entrenched in their own opposing faiths.

Black Sparrow
04 Jun 2013 01:21
In reply to HullBreach

Not to say that you're wrong Hull,But,I actually have seen an atheist and a christian be in the same room and both were convinced of their believe and the christian got the atheist to become a christian.Like i said before,Not tryin' to say you're wrong,Just saying that I've seen it happen before.

HullBreach
04 Jun 2013 01:36
In reply to Black Sparrow

The Christian had more faith. As a Christian, like conversion stories because I see the power of the Holy Spirit at work. There are so many times when I've felt the presence guiding me to do things I could never do on my own. That keeps my faith strong, and my deductive reasoning and studies of science and history just reinforce the faith.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 12:42
In reply to HullBreach

No, agnosticism is the belief that you can't really be certain of any religious belief, and yes, you do get several types of agnostics.

Atheism doesn't require faith, it is the default, and it is not a belief, it's the lack of belief. People are born atheists until converted to whichever religion is most prominent in their area.

While it is true that many atheists are also antitheists, they are not guaranteed to go hand in hand. Buddhists, for example, could be called atheists, since they don't believe in gods, but rather follow the philosophical teachings of a man they consider wise. Atheism is not a religious belief, it is a lack thereof.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 12:57
In reply to Epifex

At birth (and even before birth), since someone lacks the capacity to believe one way or another, that person is an agnostic. When that person gets older, there are three choices that can be made: belief in a higher being (theism), belief in no higher being (atheism), or that there are other concerns that are more prominent than religion (agnosticism). I believe you have your definitions confused, as atheism is very much a religion and does require faith to believe.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 13:05
In reply to HullBreach

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know based on evidence, but they still have to live their life either as if there are no gods or as if there are gods, so in that sense they still have to make a decision about it. Agnosticism isn't the lack of belief, it's simply the acceptance that you can't be 100% certain either way.

Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby, or being unemployed is an occupation.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 13:22
In reply to Epifex

Your definition is atheism falls under the umbrella of agnosticism, which is broad. The lack of a belief, one way or another, is agnosticism. (An agnostic may think "Religion, meh."

The religious belief that there absolutely cannot be a higher power is atheism. To declare with absolute certainty that nothing more powerful than the person making that declaration takes a great amount of faith, since it cannot be proven, just like it cannot be proven through deductive reasoning alone that an eternal being exists.

In the US, we see the atheists putting up roadside billboards saying things like "There is no god." To counter Christian billboards that show various Bible quotes (sometimes creatively, sometimes aggressively). Agnostics are not the ones who take such actions, because religion is not a driving force in their lives. I've known many agnostics who choose to focus on other facets of their lives. Eventually, some of them brought religion to the forefront of their lives and chose to either believe in a higher power or believe that there is no higher power. Both directions ultimately took faith, after their own initial journeys.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 13:35
In reply to HullBreach

Actually, it's your definition of agnosticism that is not correct.

Agnosticism is not the lack of any belief on the matter, it's simply the acceptance that, one way or another, the absolute truth of either claim cannot be verified. There is no such thing as just an 'agnostic'.
There are agnostic atheists, and agnostic theists. Regardless of how important you consider religion to be to your life, if you're an agnostic you ultimately still have to make some kind of decision as to how to live your life. If you choose to live your life without any religious aspects, then you're an agnostic atheist. If you choose to live your life believing in a god, then you're an agnostic theist.
Thinking "Religion, meh," is atheism, because they do not consider the evidence for theism compelling enough to actually act on it. Whether or not they're an agnostic atheist, it remains the same.

It's an extremely common misconception that agnosticism just means "No opinion either way," but really that's impossible, since either one is a theist (one who believes in god/s) or an atheist (one who does not believe in god/s), there is no logical alternative. They are necessary and mutually exclusive. To say that you can be neither is to totally break the laws of logic.

It is also slightly insulting to say that an atheist cannot consider religion to be an unimportant part of their lives without being an agnostic. The majority of atheists go through their lives not even thinking about their beliefs much, simply enjoying their time on Earth. Just because some atheists decide to put up billboards does not mean they are obsessed with atheism. It is probably more because they are frustrated with the constant oppression from Christianity and other religions, and they want to retaliate.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 13:46
In reply to Epifex

Whether or not we agree on definitions, it still comes down to a considerable amount of faith for someone to believe that there cannot be a higher power.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 13:58
In reply to HullBreach

No, the burden of proof is on religion. By its very definition, faith is the belief in something despite a lack of proof. Atheism is not the belief in something, it is the rejection of a belief in something. You don't need evidence to NOT believe in something, you need evidence to believe in something. To say otherwise would be to suggest that we should automatically believe everything everyone tells us until it's proven false, which is obviously flawed.
Atheism, being the state of not believing in a proposition, does not have the burden of proof at all, and does not require faith.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 15:55
In reply to Epifex

If you belief that the burden is only on the believer, then I challenge you to a debate in a chatroom.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 16:44
In reply to HullBreach

Fine, but I don't know how long it can last. I have stuff to do.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 17:22
In reply to Epifex

Go ahead and pick a day and time. Since there are 4 sides to every debate, we argue 2 sides each. You will argue that there is no burden of proof for atheists and that it is not possible for God to exist. I will argue that there is a burden of proof for atheists and that God does exist.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 17:43
In reply to HullBreach

But doesn't arguing that there is no burden of proof for atheism and then subsequently arguing that God cannot exist somewhat contradictory? After all, I'm trying to argue that I don't NEED to disprove God in order to be justified in not believing in him.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 19:56
In reply to Epifex

You would have to take both stances to prove your side. See where there is the problem? By having to prove that God does not exist, you are effectively proving that the belief that God does not exist requires a burden of proof, just as proving that God does exist requires a burden of proof for me side of the debate.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 20:29
In reply to HullBreach

But my whole point is that I DON'T need to prove God doesn't exist. As a general rule in any scenario, when proposing an idea you have to provide enough proof for it, the burden of proof doesn't lie on the person criticising the idea.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 20:38
In reply to Epifex

From the perspective of any Believer, the burden of proof lies with the Atheist; from the perspective of any Atheist, the burden of proof lies with the Believer. It's narrowminded for someone on either side of the debate (or any debate, for that matter) to think ones viewpoint is self evident to everyone. Otherwise, 100% of people will agree on the subject at hand.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 20:46
In reply to HullBreach

No, it isn't just about my perspective, it's about the perspective of the scientific community as a whole, theists and atheists alike. For any theory to be considered valid, the burden of proof lies on the one proposing it. You can't just take that attitude that every new hypothesis is true until disproven. Since atheism is not a positive theory, merely the rejection of a proposed theory (theism), the burden of proof doesn't lie on it.

It's like the famous 'space teapot' analogy.
You can't disprove for certain that there is a teapot orbiting the sun in such a way that we will never be able to see it, but that doesn't make it at all valid, because to make such a claim, I would have to provide proof or nobody would take me seriously.

The same applies to religion. The default position is that God does not exist. The one proposing the claim that God DOES exist must prove his claim for it to be taken seriously. This isn't just what I think, it's generally accepted.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 20:56
In reply to Epifex

That is where you are mistaken. I frequently argue that God exists through science from chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology, geology, quantum mechanics, temporal mechanics. I also argue through non-Biblical historical documents, philosophical arguments, and mathematical principles. Are you saying that none of those areas of study matter in a debate?

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 21:40
In reply to HullBreach

I'm saying that they're refutable. Not necessarily that they don't matter, but they aren't sufficient to prove it. In terms of proving the existence of a god, then papers, documents and books are useless however. They're just written by people, and people tell lies to get what they want. If you have to resort to documents to prove the existence of a gigantic, all powerful creator, then he's not revealing himself very well. I have also yet to hear a convincing, irrefutable argument for God that was not unfalsifiable.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 21:54
In reply to Epifex

I have yet to hear a plausible argument that God goes not exist (by anyone), but I've seen plenty of evidence to support my belief in God. I have also experienced first-hand enough to make me believe in what current science (but maybe not future science) would consider supernatural. Thus, we seem to be at a standstill with you unwilling to debate your viewpoint. I see that as the unwillingness to stand by ones beliefs, not a claim that ones beliefs are self-evident.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 22:00
In reply to HullBreach

I don't really care what you see it as, the fact of the matter is that I'm not just saying this because I'm unwilling to argue my beliefs, I'm saying that the burden of proof lies on religion to prove itself correct. All atheists have to do is show how a religious argument is flawed or could not work. My main reason for my atheistic beliefs is because of the complete LACK of compelling evidence I've seen for religion, not the abundance of positive evidence against it, and this is enough for me and all atheists, since the burden of proof lies on the one proposing an idea, not the one refuting it.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 22:08
In reply to Epifex

That sounds like faith to me.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 22:11
In reply to HullBreach

No, it's a scientific principle. I believe in that which can be tested, and I refute all that which can't be proven and appears to contradict that which has been shown to be true.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 22:18
In reply to Epifex

So, now you are saying that there is a burden of scientific proof for atheism? Remember that I said I can use science to prove the positive. You are saying that science proves the negative. Thus, we both require a burden of proof as a foundation.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 22:23
In reply to HullBreach

All scientific knowledge thus far has been proven to be correct and work consistently, in falsifiable, testable ways. Scientific theories do hold the burden of proof, yes. People propose hypotheses, then go about testing them to see if they're correct. If not, they revise what they know. The burden of proof applies to all positive beliefs, not the other way round. You can't just make a claim which can't be disproved and then say that it must, therefore, be true.

Religious beliefs are not exempt from this. They have exactly the same burden of proof as any scientific hypothesis.

SavantInamorata
02 Jun 2013 22:56
In reply to Epifex

All righty, after hearing about this discussion from HB, I thought I'd come take a looksie.

No matter what it is, it takes faith for just about any belief. The only thing I am sure of is: Cogito ergo sum, that is, "I think, therefore I am." Beyond knowing that I'm experiencing some sort of thought process, everything is faith.

Now, let's say we all believe in what our senses tell us, and this also leads us to science, that's still not provable. For all I know this is a dreamworld, like the Matrix, and my consciousness is somehow just being programmed to think this is real. The general acceptance that what our senses tell us is real is already faith.

So, if we go on to assume this is all real, according to our senses, we're basing the system of science on something that we can't prove to be real to begin with.

Then, the belief in anything besides "cogito ergo sum," is already faith based, but if we want to go ahead and have that faith, and use our logic and reason, which we don't always derive from our senses, but we use our senses to make sense of them (that's an awesome sentence), then here is some fun probability stuff.

Scroll like half way down the page to see the probabilities of things forming just the way did for life to be able to exist in our sensory driven world:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

I think there's definitely some burden to refute all those stats, so, go for it. Don't be an EpicFailifex (and I just thought that was a cute term, you may call me SavantinaMorFail, if you think I'm way wrong), and give me the story of, "I'm right, no need to defend my stance," if your stance is the default, and it's based on science, how do you make sense of all these probabilities? Anyway, you guys know I

you all. =)

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 23:08
In reply to SavantInamorata

Yeah, Solipsism's a pain, but I think we're kind of assuming the whole 'dream world' thing isn't true, or there'd be no point in discussing anything. Sure, technically it would mean atheism requires faith, but only so much as any other perfectly reasonably belief requires the faith that the universe does actually exist and it does actually follow the patterns it appears to follow.

Probabilities aren't really an issue here. People often misunderstand how the universe works. It's true that the chances of the universe turning out exactly the way it has are very, very small, but that point many forget is that they are no smaller than it turning out any other way.

When people say that it's incredibly unlikely that the solar system exists as it does purely by chance, firstly they leave out the fact that any one of the other ludicrously large number of ways the universe could have turned out, many of them would almost certainly have also included life. Fact is, the universe is so ludicrously large that, as a general rule, if something's physically possible, it's probably happened or happening somewhere. Arguments from probability don't really work when you consider that many of all the other possible universe layouts that could have occurred would also have contained life-supporting solar systems with life-supporting planets with intelligent life, or something just as exciting and strange.

I am not claiming that I don't need to defend my stance on the grounds that it's obviously correct. I could point out many examples of how deities are unlikely or logically contradictory. It's not that I can't defend my view, it's that the burden of proof does not lie on atheism as a whole, since it is merely the state of rejecting a proposed belief system, and it's exactly how one would act when proposing any other hypothesis. It isn't a religion, nor a belief based on faith, it's just scepticism.

HullBreach
02 Jun 2013 22:35
In reply to Epifex

The scientific method does not prove something is true. It seeks to eliminate what is false to narrow down what could be true, based on an hypothesis.

For instance, Isaac Newton determined that force is proportional to mass and acceleration, based on empirical evidence. Later, science advanced to the point that is was determined by Albert Einstein that Newton's Laws of Motion only applied at low speeds. Scientific knowledge was augmented to encompass high speeds and gravitational fields. More recently, theoretical physics contains proposals, based in hypotheses that augment Einstein's Relativity for more dimensions and potentially even higher speeds. So, what was once believed to be true, based on scientific observations became smaller and smaller subsets of "true", as new science negated old theories.

That was just one example, but in almost all cases, science only narrows down possible solutions through negation of the implausible answers. Following with Occam's Razor, of the remaining potential answers, the simplest is generally considered the correct one. In some cases, this is true, but future science may one day find an even simpler solution that was not evident in the past. Again, science negates the previously accepted solution.

Epifex
02 Jun 2013 23:12
In reply to HullBreach

However, just because the formula behind mass and force was later corrected doesn't mean that the original formula was false within its own context. Newtonian physics still work perfectly well within their setting.
Yes, science is constantly adapting and improving, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still empirically testable and falsifiable. If, all of a sudden, a phenomenon were to occur which totally breached the current scientific understanding, then people would quickly and excitedly attempt to work out whether it actually happened or it was just an error, and if it did happen, why and how it happened. The fact that this would cause them to change previous formulae in order to have a more correct grasp on the universe only goes to prove that science is a falsifiable and testable practice.

Atheism, however, is not science. It is just the default position from which all other religions are analysed objectively. Religions are just hypotheses, and as such they must be analysed in the same way as any other hypothesis. People don't just accept hypotheses as true until proven correct, they go about tests to figure out of it's a valid and falsifiable hypothesis. If there is no decent evidence to suggest the hypothesis is correct, or even partially correct but in need of some modification, then there is no reason to accept it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

HullBreach
03 Jun 2013 00:22
In reply to Epifex

There you go again with your belief that atheism is some kind of self-evident default. I belief that Christianity is the self-evident default and that atheism requires justification, so we stand at odds in our respective religions, again. I re-challenge you to the debate, if you believe you can prove that atheism truly is the default. Yet, by proving it is the default, you are inherently proving that it really is not the default. By claiming something is self-evident then saying it does not need to be argued as such, you have placed a burden of faith upon yourself.

Epifex
03 Jun 2013 01:18
In reply to HullBreach

People are born atheists. Nobody converts to Christianity or any other religion unless people tell them about it. The simple fact that many other cultures have different religions, or none at all, show that Christianity clearly isn't the default. If it was, then it would be far more common and people wouldn't need to send missionaries to spread the word. People are born atheist, because they have no reason to think otherwise, and remain so until they are brought up to believe whichever religion is prominent in their area.

HullBreach
03 Jun 2013 01:28
In reply to Epifex

No one is born atheist. To be an atheist, someone must understand the concept of theism. Everyone is born agnostic, until hearing about religions, which those religions include or do not include one or more deities.

Epifex
03 Jun 2013 01:37
In reply to HullBreach

I think the issue here is that you have the definitions of atheism and agnosticism mixed up. Atheism, in its broadest sense, is simply the lack of belief in a god. Since babies are not born believing in any gods, they are born atheists. By definition, anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, and as you said, babies are not born with any knowledge of gods, so they cannot be theists.

Babies cannot be born agnostics. Agnosticism is specifically the belief that it's impossible to know for certain which religion is true, or if none are at all. In order to be agnostic, one has to have an understanding of religions in order to believe that there is insufficient evidence on either side. It's a common misconception that agnosticism is just being 'without religion,' when in reality that's really atheism.

Understanding the concepts of theism is certainly not a prerequisite to being an atheist. All atheism is is the lack of a belief in god. As I have explained, an atheist is anyone who isn't a theist, whether or not they actually know it. Much in the same way that a human is a human long before they understand the concept of what a human is and what non-humans are.

HullBreach
03 Jun 2013 01:44
In reply to Epifex

A baby cannot know if or even what higher powers are, as they do no yet think in the abstract. Thus, they are agnostic.

Epifex
03 Jun 2013 01:46
In reply to HullBreach

Like I said, I think you have your definitions confused. Agnosticism is a specific belief about deities. You're saying that babies can't comprehend gods, and then saying that are born holding a specific belief about those gods. Agnosticism is not just the lack of any religion, contrary to popular belief.

Raisons du Coeur
03 Jun 2013 02:03
In reply to Epifex

Maybe it would help if you both decided on specific definitions of atheist and agnostic for the sake of moving along the argument. You're arguing what the words mean now instead of what your points initially were.

FancyPants
03 Jun 2013 00:48
In reply to HullBreach

This conversation is like, 10 times longer than the blog itself.

Raisons du Coeur
03 Jun 2013 01:16
In reply to FancyPants

And a tenth as interesting. They've been going in circles for a while now, both only just restating what they already said.

FancyPants
03 Jun 2013 01:37
In reply to Raisons du Coeur

I read it all. This is why I don't take part in religious arguments.

I, personally, think HullBreach is correct, but EpicArtifex is raising many fair points.

If God was real, this would be so much simpler. We'd just have to ask him.

FancyPants
03 Jun 2013 01:40
In reply to FancyPants

Not that I don't believe in God. I'm Christian. I'm just saying 'if' out of respect for the other religions.

bradleybrown1198
02 Jun 2013 06:37
In reply to Epifex

Um, no. Your gonna burn in Hell!1ONEONE!11! You have to pray and God will help you and give you free stuff. St00pid non beleiver, your gonna die off malnutrition or somthing.

bradleybrown1198
02 Jun 2013 06:39
In reply to bradleybrown1198

*of

Raisons du Coeur
01 Jun 2013 19:34
In reply to Epifex

Darn you, Arty! If I want to pray for food for my kids instead of just getting it myself, then that's my business!

Waffle King
01 Jun 2013 15:31

You raise valid points, but at the same time your bit about "respect all atheists, you can't change what they believe in" isn't quite so simple.

Just as every religion has its fanatical, jerkass believers, Atheism does too. It's one thing to respect someone that's also respectful to you, but it's a completely separate thing to respect someone when they disrespect whatever you believe in. I've seen atheists spout "God is not real, all religious people are blind dumbasses, science, darwin, big bang" just as often as I've seen Christians throw around "Praise the Lord, Jesus, repent or you'll burn, burn the witch, God, Bible, burn in hell for all eternity" you know.

Being respectful is nice. But trying to convince everyone isn't quite that easy. People are stubborn on both sides of the spectrum.

CrymsonLiynn
01 Jun 2013 15:44
In reply to Waffle King

I COMPLETELY agree with you. What I simply meant was "be respectful to the NICE ATHEISTS" lol like me. Not all of them because yes there are some fanatics.

What is Atheism?

Comments