Author Topic: Atheism and the USA, followup (Read 9803 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #405 on:** May 24, 2006, 09:03:47 PM »

Somebody had to come up with "neo-con" without anybody ever hearing it before... unless it was divinely created.

Nash · « **Reply #406 on:** May 24, 2006, 09:08:27 PM »

(do you really want to derail this?)

"Neocon" was coined and embraced by - you guessed it - neocons.

Neodemocrats is just absurd and out of left field.... and has nothing to do with any wing of the democratic party.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #407 on:** May 24, 2006, 09:18:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
(do you really want to derail this?)

I was responding to something posted before.

Sorry, I didn't realise it was the second post in a branch line that was the switch.

lukster · « **Reply #408 on:** May 25, 2006, 08:45:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The absence of belief is much different from the belief in absence.

That sums up what I've been trying to get across Holden, well said.

Saburo, if you use the phrase "random event" to describe the creation of the Universe you are essentially saying that it is an effect without cause. While I won't deny that this is a possibility, it is counter intuitive to our current understanding of the nature of the Universe.

I do recognize that some say humans see order and meaning where none actually exists because they need order in their lives. Supposing this is true, where does this need come from? Don't stop with one person's insecurity, or one person's need to control others, where do these needs come from? How and why did they develop from the primordial ooze?

To really understand your beliefs requires that you have a view (subject to change perhaps) of the very nature of all that exists (space/time). A philosophy that considers the nature of existence without including how it came be is incomplete imo.

Simaril · « **Reply #409 on:** May 25, 2006, 09:09:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Again my point, when push comes to shove the bible on this particular subject should not be taken literally right?

....snip....

I think we have a failure to communicate....

Re-read the post. I talked about literal meanings of the original text; no waffling involved.

There is a difference between nuance and rationalization; if a high schooler who gets newtonian physics gets corrected by someone who understands modern particle physics, the prof's "Well, not exactly...." isnt wiggling out of an answer, he's dealing with the topic at a level deeper than superficial appearance mught think was necessary.

lazs2 · « **Reply #410 on:** May 25, 2006, 09:20:28 AM »

this just gets sillier and sillier...

Now we find that allmost every defenition save one.... says that an athiest is someone who denies that the existence of god is possible.... these are from the sources the so called athiests are pointing us to.

Now... the tap dancers have pointed us to another form of athiesm.... a kinder, gentler form called (LOL) "agnostic athiesm" If that is true then you athiests here need to call yourself "agnostic athiests" right? Not really worthy of being real honest to god athiests huh?

And there is the rub... so long as it is cool and hip you can be an "athiest" but when someone points out that it is not only not very hip but kind of a dumb faith based cult.... you revert to a watered down version of athiesm that is distinguishable from agnostism only by the watered down athiests themselves.... everyone else has long since left the room (save the really cruel ones).

subaru... It was chair or some other that said something about my supposed religion and "leader". I was not speaking to you... the posts just came in pretty fast so.... no... my face is not red.

Sooo... are you big brave hip cult athiests or just some watered down "agnostic athiest" tap dancing around your agenda?

Why not be proud of athiesm if it is truly your belief (note that all defenitions of athiesm use the words "believe, belief or faith" in them) ?

Embrace your cult.... If you are shaky and have no faith.... don't say you are an athiest... it is insulting to the true believers of athiesm.... say that you are an agnostic or.... if the shock value is not good enough for you go to the less honest but more accurate "agnostic athiest".

Course... how cool does that sound? how rebelious and hip is "agnostic athiest"?? Sounds whimpy don't it? Certainly wouldn't want that.

lazs

Arlo · « **Reply #411 on:** May 25, 2006, 04:35:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Since you've stated "threads" and I am apart of some, care to point out where I, an Atheist, say anyone of religion is bad?
Or that all Atheists are good?

As a matter of fact, isn't your generalizing here the same thing you accuse Chairboy of?

That's a stretch to feel included, dontcha think? I said the threads Chairboy starts. And he's started quite a few. I really didn't notice how many you hopped on to help with. As such ... that's not generalization. As much as you desire to be a target.

Arlo · « **Reply #412 on:** May 25, 2006, 04:39:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Agnostics don't have an apinion either way for they can't be sure to their satisfaction. They usually admit that if there is a God, there doesn't appear to be proof. If there were the proof they agreed on, that would make them a religious believer.
They can't say there isn't a God for they don't buy all the scientific "facts" as conclusive and they leave open the possibility of there being a God. If they truly didn't believe in a God existing, that would make them an Atheist.

Agnostics are the fence sitters of the maybe, maybe not. They don't truly "non-believe", that title goes to the Atheists.

I won't speak for others but myself. I refuse to believe something just because someone says so, especially if it defies logic (in my mind, of course).
If someone says God exists, I want proof.
Keep in mind (this bears repeating), I am in no way questioning anyone's faith in their religious beliefs. I find that religion is very important for those that believe to get through some very tough times. I have seen first hand how religion helps those that want and need it.

Don't confuse faith with religion.

You realize that apparently you don't require proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore you have faith he doesn't. I support your right. Carry on.

Arlo · « **Reply #413 on:** May 25, 2006, 04:54:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Lazs,

1) How has any Atheist here tried "to force their belief on you" or anyone else here?

How had a Christian done likewise? Relax.

midnight Target · « **Reply #414 on:** May 25, 2006, 05:27:11 PM »

God hates long threads.

Chairboy · « **Reply #415 on:** May 25, 2006, 05:36:44 PM »

Once again, just shouting out to anyone who might listen (though I have no real expectations based on what's happened so far).

I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, I'm saying that I lack a belief that god exists. To believe something is a positive event, you have to actively believe it does or does not exist. I simply lack the belief.

1. I lack a belief that god exists.

2. I actively believe that the easter bunny does NOT exist.

Can you understand the difference?

Flatbar · « **Reply #416 on:** May 25, 2006, 05:40:24 PM »

A true athiest doesn't give a scat what others think about their choice. But we are amused at how non athiests tend to pigeonhole the lot of us.

It seems that making up stories and myopic observations then putting them to text, true or not, is an accepted MO.

So be it.

lukster · « **Reply #417 on:** May 25, 2006, 05:43:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Once again, just shouting out to anyone who might listen (though I have no real expectations based on what's happened so far).

I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, I'm saying that I lack a belief that god exists. To believe something is a positive event, you have to actively believe it does or does not exist. I simply lack the belief.

1. I lack a belief that god exists.

2. I actively believe that the easter bunny does NOT exist.

Can you understand the difference?

Sure, you're not an Atheist, you're Agnostic.

lukster · « **Reply #418 on:** May 25, 2006, 05:45:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flatbar
A true athiest doesn't give a scat what others think about their choice. But we are amused at how non athiests tend to pigeonhole the lot of us.

It seems that making up stories and myopic observations then putting them to text, true or not, is an accepted MO.

So be it.

If only that were true. Then the Atheists wouldn't be on a firey crusade to eliminate every trace of religion from public life.

Vulcan · « **Reply #419 on:** May 25, 2006, 06:37:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
How had a Christian done likewise? Relax.

They do it all the time, they want me to recognise the existance of their god in our national anthem, they want me to swear by their god in court, and they regularly accuse me of being a bad person with the only validation of this being that I do not believe in their god.