Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

LMAO, I don't believe in God! There is no evidence to support the belief in one. Thus I am an Atheist.

So you have a lot in common to a rock. Both lack belief in God.

 

[JD50]

So you have a lot in common to a rock. Both lack belief in God.

You're missing a keyword in that definition.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+atheist

 

[Retro Rob]

Those who are blinded by faith will be able to see reality again. Their brains will no longer be shut down by faith, and able to make new links so that they can come to logical conclusions.

Atheism is a FAITH, though....a certainty about the falsness of religion equal to the certainty of the unknown practiced by religion.

In other words, you have just as much faith in saying how wrong I am, as I have faith in how right I am about the existence of God.

LOL...we all have faith, and all need to be cured!

 

[buckshot24]

Saying that you simply have a lack of belief implies a neutrality on God's existence. I've not met many atheists who are neutral on that subject. You don't have a belief in unicorns why aren't you a aunicornian?

 

[buckshot24]

Make your point plainly.

 

[JD50]

Saying that you simply have a lack of belief implies a neutrality on God's existence. I've not met many atheists who are neutral on that subject. You don't have a belief in unicorns why aren't you a aunicornian?

You're a smart guy, think about it for just a second and I'm sure you'll figure that one out. Or you can read back over these threads and see where that's been explained to Rob about 5 or 6 times.

 

[thraashman]

Atheism is a FAITH, though....a certainty about the falsness of religion equal to the certainty of the unknown practiced by religion.

In other words, you have just as much faith in saying how wrong I am, as I have faith in how right I am about the existence of God.

LOL...we all have faith, and all need to be cured!

It really isn't a faith. Yes, some certainly do treat it like a faith. But in the end atheism simply says "I will not choose to believe in something for which I see no reason to believe in it." I do however believe there are those who call themselves "atheists" who are actually "antitheists". Those are the ones who are mad at you for having a belief in a god. I'm only mad at you if you use those beliefs to justify irrational or evil actions.

Saying that you simply have a lack of belief implies a neutrality on God's existence. I've not met many atheists who are neutral on that subject. You don't have a belief in unicorns why aren't you a aunicornian?

Right, you just call people who don't believe in unicorns "adults".

 

[Paul98]

Atheism is a FAITH, though....a certainty about the falsness of religion equal to the certainty of the unknown practiced by religion.

In other words, you have just as much faith in saying how wrong I am, as I have faith in how right I am about the existence of God.

LOL...we all have faith, and all need to be cured!

No they are not the same, and that you think they are is evidence of exactly what I was talking about.

 

[buckshot24]

You're a smart guy, think about it for just a second and I'm sure you'll figure that one out. Or you can read back over these threads and see where that's been explained to Rob about 5 or 6 times.

No, make your point.

 

[buckshot24]

Right, you just call people who don't believe in unicorns "adults".

So you're admitting atheism isn't quite as neutral as the definition implies?

 

[JD50]

Make your point plainly.

A rock is not a person, neither is an aardvark.

 

[Juddog]

Right, you just call people who don't believe in unicorns "adults".

^^ Exactly. Same goes for not believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

[JD50]

No, make your point.

If there was a large portion of society claiming that Unicorns exist, and that we must abide by the laws that are defined in a book written by a Unicorn, you would certainly find people that would fight against it.

 

[Retro Rob]

It really isn't a faith. Yes, some certainly do treat it like a faith. But in the end atheism simply says "I will not choose to believe in something for which I see no reason to believe in it." I do however believe there are those who call themselves "atheists" who are actually "antitheists". Those are the ones who are mad at you for having a belief in a god. I'm only mad at you if you use those beliefs to justify irrational or evil actions.

I understand, but religious beliefs are called "faith based" in this context because we are "certain" about something for which there is no evidence.

On the other hand, atheists, and I will grant you some of them, claim religion is "certainly" false, though they can't know if religion is "certainly" false.

Both positions seem to require some sort of certainty....not mere "lack of belief".

 

[JD50]

It really isn't a faith. Yes, some certainly do treat it like a faith. But in the end atheism simply says "I will not choose to believe in something for which I see no reason to believe in it." I do however believe there are those who call themselves "atheists" who are actually "antitheists". Those are the ones who are mad at you for having a belief in a god. I'm only mad at you if you use those beliefs to justify irrational or evil actions.



Right, you just call people who don't believe in unicorns "adults".

:thumbsup:

 

[buckshot24]

A rock is not a person, neither is an aardvark.

Was that so hard?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+atheism

The funny thing is you've just confirmed my point. The term atheism is too broadly defined as "lack of belief in god". Rocks, termites, and rabbits all lack belief in God.

 

[buckshot24]

If there was a large portion of society claiming that Unicorns exist, and that we must abide by the laws that are defined in a book written by a Unicorn, you would certainly find people that would fight against it.

So you're admitting atheism is NOT a neutral term as far as the existence of God is concerned.

 

[JD50]

Was that so hard?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+atheism

The funny thing is you've just confirmed my point. The term atheism is too broadly defined as "lack of belief in god". Rocks, termites, and rabbits all lack belief in God.

Are you being serious right now? You said "rocks, babies, cats, plants and aardvarks are effectively atheist."

How are they atheist when the definition of an atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."?

Regardless, I find it hard to believe that someone would actually need that kind of clarification in either definition. If you truly do require this much hand holding then there's really no point in continuing this, maybe you should spend your time trying to convert rocks and plants to Christianity.

 

[JD50]

So you're admitting atheism is NOT a neutral term as far as the existence of God is concerned.

No, atheism is a neutral term. You didn't say atheism, you say aunicornian. Every aunicornian that I've ever met is rabidly anti unicorn. I passed 2 rocks and a plant on my way in to work this morning holding a protest against unicorns.

 

[JD50]

Do you have a point with this btw? This is similar to you not understanding that a hypothesis used within the scientific method is not the same thing as a fairy tale.

If you've given up on having an actual discussion in favor of playing strange semantics games, then I really don't see the point in continuing.

 

[Juddog]

I understand, but religious beliefs are called "faith based" in this context because we are "certain" about something for which there is no evidence.

On the other hand, atheists, and I will grant you some of them, claim religion is "certainly" false, though they can't know if religion is "certainly" false.

Both positions seem to require some sort of certainty....not mere "lack of belief".

The reason that atheism is booming in terms of ever increasing numbers is that we have access to the internet and can see that there are literally over a thousand different religions out there, each of which claims its story is true, and the rest are false.

When you are raised on one religious system (theism), and everybody you know is part of that religious system, then you take it for granted that it is the true religion; the modern age has shown us that there are a ton of different religions out there, all of which claim to be the "true" religion, and none of which seem to be able to produce any tangible evidence of why their version of the magical sky fairy is "more true" versus someone else's sky fairy (or if it's polytheistic, sky fairies).

If people were more rational as a whole, then labeling people as atheism wouldn't be necessary; unfortunately there are people which try to enact laws based upon their religion, or push their beliefs into the public school system, thus the label of atheism was needed. As mentioned above, if 90% of the population really believed that unicorns existed, you'd bet your ass that there would be a label for people that didn't believe in unicorns and that there would be arguments online very similar to what's happening in this thread.

The problem for most theists is that they cannot step outside of their belief system, and the very thought of someone else who grew up that chose to not believe in things unless there is evidence of that thing, seems impossible to their mind, because their belief is rooted so firmly into their personality. For an atheist it's very easy to say "show it to me or I'm not going to believe in it", when it comes to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc..

What it boils down to:
Belief in magic sky fairy: monotheist
Belief in multiple sky fairies: polytheist
Belief that it's impossible for a sky fairy to exist: antitheist
Non-belief in a sky fairy: atheist

Almost nobody goes around claiming themselves to be an antitheist, since that position would require proof of a negative; thus most people that choose to not believe in sky fairies, with no real actual evidence of existing, are atheists. If this magical sky fairy was so powerful, then it would be readily apparent through evidence. Instead it's turned out quite the opposite - as time passes on, the lack of evidence becomes more and more apparent, as well as the lack of evidence that what was written in the Bible never happened, for example the flood, or the guy living in a whale's stomach for 3 days, or people living hundreds of years long, etc..

 

[buckshot24]

Are you being serious right now? You said "rocks, babies, cats, plants and aardvarks are effectively atheist."

How are they atheist when the definition of an atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."?

Rocks lack a belief in God so they fit the definition of atheism. But let's forget rocks for now. Are baby atheists? They are people and they lack belief in God.

No, atheism is a neutral term. You didn't say atheism, you say aunicornian. Every aunicornian that I've ever met is rabidly anti unicorn. I passed 2 rocks and a plant on my way in to work this morning holding a protest against unicorns.

Just a glib way of saying atheism isn't as neutral as the definition makes it out to be.

 

[buckshot24]

The reason that atheism is booming in terms of ever increasing numbers is that we have access to the internet and can see that there are literally over a thousand different religions out there, each of which claims its story is true, and the rest are false.

When you are raised on one religious system (theism), and everybody you know is part of that religious system, then you take it for granted that it is the true religion; the modern age has shown us that there are a ton of different religions out there, all of which claim to be the "true" religion, and none of which seem to be able to produce any tangible evidence of why their version of the magical sky fairy is "more true" versus someone else's sky fairy (or if it's polytheistic, sky fairies).

If people were more rational as a whole, then labeling people as atheism wouldn't be necessary; unfortunately there are people which try to enact laws based upon their religion, or push their beliefs into the public school system, thus the label of atheism was needed. As mentioned above, if 90% of the population really believed that unicorns existed, you'd bet your ass that there would be a label for people that didn't believe in unicorns and that there would be arguments online very similar to what's happening in this thread.

The problem for most theists is that they cannot step outside of their belief system, and the very thought of someone else who grew up that chose to not believe in things unless there is evidence of that thing, seems impossible to their mind, because their belief is rooted so firmly into their personality. For an atheist it's very easy to say "show it to me or I'm not going to believe in it", when it comes to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc..

What it boils down to:
Belief in magic sky fairy: monotheist
Belief in multiple sky fairies: polytheist
Belief that it's impossible for a sky fairy to exist: antitheist
Non-belief in a sky fairy: atheist

Almost nobody goes around claiming themselves to be an antitheist, since that position would require proof of a negative; thus most people that choose to not believe in sky fairies, with no real actual evidence of existing, are atheists. If this magical sky fairy was so powerful, then it would be readily apparent through evidence. Instead it's turned out quite the opposite - as time passes on, the lack of evidence becomes more and more apparent, as well as the lack of evidence that what was written in the Bible never happened, for example the flood, or the guy living in a whale's stomach for 3 days, or people living hundreds of years long, etc..

Anybody who claims to be an atheist and call God a magic sky fairy is showing us how non-neutral the belief system actually is. This post illustrates that point nicely.

 

[buckshot24]

Do you have a point with this btw? This is similar to you not understanding that a hypothesis used within the scientific method is not the same thing as a fairy tale.

I didn't realize a hypothesis was being presented. Paul listed what he called EVIDENCE. Paul then listed a bunch of fairy tales about how it would have happened if what he was supposedly supplying evidence for was true. You don't see a problem with that? You also didn't refute any of my points where I directly addressed each point he made.

The point is that practical atheism is NOT neutral on the existence of God. A definition doesn't mean it accurately describes most atheist's position about God.

 

[Retro Rob]

The reason that atheism is booming in terms of ever increasing numbers is that we have access to the internet and can see that there are literally over a thousand different religions out there, each of which claims its story is true, and the rest are false.

When you are raised on one religious system (theism), and everybody you know is part of that religious system, then you take it for granted that it is the true religion; the modern age has shown us that there are a ton of different religions out there, all of which claim to be the "true" religion, and none of which seem to be able to produce any tangible evidence of why their version of the magical sky fairy is "more true" versus someone else's sky fairy (or if it's polytheistic, sky fairies).

If people were more rational as a whole, then labeling people as atheism wouldn't be necessary; unfortunately there are people which try to enact laws based upon their religion, or push their beliefs into the public school system, thus the label of atheism was needed. As mentioned above, if 90% of the population really believed that unicorns existed, you'd bet your ass that there would be a label for people that didn't believe in unicorns and that there would be arguments online very similar to what's happening in this thread.

The problem for most theists is that they cannot step outside of their belief system, and the very thought of someone else who grew up that chose to not believe in things unless there is evidence of that thing, seems impossible to their mind, because their belief is rooted so firmly into their personality. For an atheist it's very easy to say "show it to me or I'm not going to believe in it", when it comes to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc..

What it boils down to:
Belief in magic sky fairy: monotheist
Belief in multiple sky fairies: polytheist
Belief that it's impossible for a sky fairy to exist: antitheist
Non-belief in a sky fairy: atheist

Almost nobody goes around claiming themselves to be an antitheist, since that position would require proof of a negative; thus most people that choose to not believe in sky fairies, with no real actual evidence of existing, are atheists. If this magical sky fairy was so powerful, then it would be readily apparent through evidence. Instead it's turned out quite the opposite - as time passes on, the lack of evidence becomes more and more apparent, as well as the lack of evidence that what was written in the Bible never happened, for example the flood, or the guy living in a whale's stomach for 3 days, or people living hundreds of years long, etc..

Once you say "sky fairy", you are no longer "not collecting stamps", and have a belief because you're claiming, again, to know something you possible cannot know....especally if you claim to accept scientific evidence.

Actually, the problem lies with Atheism in your inablilty to accept the fact that you could be wrong, and perhaps you are....who knows?