- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
you nailed the biggest part of the problem, morality. for years now the leftists have been hammering the idea there is no moral law, it is only a matter of course that after having had this message drummed into them people start behaving as if there were none.
i give this country 60 years tops before it dies the death of imbecility.
OK, OK, so not believing in God is unpatriotic, we got your point a long time ago. All non-believers should be excomm.. er, deported, er... put in Guantanamo.
edmundoab
Diamond Member
once again rjain makes his obligatory appearance from the far side of left field with a comment having absolutely nothing to do with anything that is actually being discussed..
Well, if we don't agree with our nation's motto, then how can we be patriotic? I don't trust in god, so I guess I'm un-american. Feel free to call me "pinko", I guess.
Edit: Oh wait, you already did.
Edit: Oh wait, you already did.
Wow... for a topic that I would think would be aimed at a crowd of higher intelligence (or atleast a topic that would require such to discuss), there's a lot of bullsh|t in here. Sometimes I wonder why people even get involved in conversations. Oh well. Good times.
/sits back and watches again.
/sits back and watches again.
Being an American is not some amorphous concept that includes everything. People have started to lose sight of what the real principles are. Freedom of speech was directed at the message not how it was delivered. The state can say you can't have sex with a dog in public to protest the war, you are allowed however to change the manner in which you express your dissent. Patriotism is favoring one's nation above others, loving one's nation, and putting the good of one's nation over other considerations, including humanity in general. Patriotism isn't good or bad by itself, depends on what kind of state you live in. Example being there were plenty of extremely patriotic Nazi's, but do you want to be a staunch supporter of that democracy? If you think America has fallen into some bad times then you are unpatriotic and you should be proud of that. If you ask a child to name the great American patriots you will not hear mention of a single war dissenter. Paul riding his horse to warn of the British or the Minutemen should come to mind. Patriotism in its most accurate form relates to love of country and almost always fighting for one's country on the battlefield. Most of the founding fathers and early US patriots were involved with the war effort. American's don't hold the belief that one should dissent with ones government to the point of refusing to participate and boycot it. In a system where there are elections it is extremely self rightous to refuse to accept the will of the people to govern themselves and remove yourself from the process such as refusing a draft or trying to undermine a war. If you believed in America before the election and cast a vote, your vote no matter what candidate you chose bound you to whatever candidate ended up winning the election. Its not fair to cast a vote only with the intention to honor the election if you get what you want. You sign the social contract, just like when you live in the US you sign the social contract to fight in the military. If you don't believe in fighting simply leave well before there is a war. Plato had it right, he could leave Athens before his contractual obligation to stand trial and be sentenced was called, but he had no right to enjoy Athens up until the point Athens asked him to pay back to the city and respect it's laws. I believe in the case of Vietnam it doesnt matter if the war was right or wrong, as an American you agree to do what the reprenstatives tell you to do, in exchange you get all sorts of liberties and access to the world's greatest economy etc. Sometimes you have to die or be inconvienced by your contract with your society, you can't live here rent free. You don't call yourself an American as long as it suits you, fairweather friends should refuse the gifts of liberty because they refuse to help uphold the system when it is their turn to palce their lives on the altar of freedom, even for a war that may be unjust. It is your job to help create and maintain a US government that you would have no trouble following, if you haven't done this then it is your fault and you must still follow the government. Only if the government blatantly violates its contract with you do you have the obligation to have revolution or civil war. If the religous can't help reshape the law in this country then they can leave or try harder. If 51% of the people want no religion, and you agreed to a true democracy then suck it up. The constitution allows the Supreme Court to intepret it, if they do a poor job they still are acting within the law. There will be no civil war, there is the American dream. Nobody eats the rich because we all can dream we will be rich one day. Thats why even the poor don't like a lot of taxes on the rich, they see it as them someday. The American Dream still exists so Americans who are unhappy with the current Republic don't start a civil war because they think that they can still achieve the dream. Its a work in progress, and when everyone decides it is over and the work has come to an end you will see your civil war, or maybe there will be no war, the factions will just peacefully divide up the land.
When you say that atheists have faith in their non-faith you are distorting the atheist argument. You are implying that faith in non-faith is the main reason for atheism. ATHEISM IS NOT ANTI-GOD. ATHEISM IS NO GOD. Those are completely different arguments. Why would atheists put religious faith in the non-existence of religious deities? That does not make any sense.
I was being honest when I wrote the line "I do not have proof that your god does not exist". But neither do I have proof that there isn't an invisible blue smurf god. The absence of proof for something does not equal the proof for something. Nor does that mean that I have faith there is no invisible blue smurf god. Nor do I have any proof that there are no flying pink elephants. I am utterly convinced there are no flying pink elephants. I do not have proof expect the fact that there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that there are real flying pink elephants. Do I have faith there are no real pink flying elephants. No. The question of faith in that case is completely irrelevant.
Atheists basically view the question of the existence of any gods as the question of flying pink elephants. The empirical evidence says there are no god, gods, deities, metaphysical beings nor pink flying elephants . Ergo, they do not exist. Does the atheist put faith in the fact that there is no evidence. No. Faith in non-faith is a paradox uninteresting to atheists. Atheists reject faith in the religious sense but that doesn't mean they can have faith in their wives for example.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: "dis-b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Faith in the non-faith of the non-existence of any gods is not atheism. Why? Simply because that implies a religious use of the word faith. Disbelief is not faith in non-faith. Disbelief is the mental rejection of something as untrue. Atheists reject the claim of deities as untrue since it is not matched by empirical evidence. The empirical evidence regarding the lack of deities has convinced atheists that there are no gods. It is not a matter of faith, but a matter of total lack of evidence.
The empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the case for no god. At the same time it does not support the case for anti-god. Atheism is not a religious doctrine of anti-deism but the non-religious doctrine that there are no deities.
GrGr - I had a hard time reading your argument, but it sounds to me like you are an Agnostic, or one who does not know if there is a god or not. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. That is a logical fallacy. Atheists ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that there is no god. Agnostics simply don't know and admit it.
Lack of proof is not proof of lack, I agree. But at some point you have to draw a line I guess. That there is an evident lack of evidence that there are flying pink elephants does not mean that there really are flying pink elephants (while the possibility remains that there actually are FPE's the probability is infinitesimal, don't you think?). Even though some people swear they have seen FPE's.
The atheist see it from the point of view that the burden of proof is on those claiming that there is a god. And the reason they have become atheists is that there are and have never been any proof presented that god exists and that the religious belief systems are hoplessly outdated in comparison with the scientific approach.
Personally I am neither atheist nor agnostic. I tend to believe more in a general creator somewhere in the background type of thing mostly becuase it would be boring if there was no metaphysical dimension to the universe
. So I guess I am a theist at least and I do hope that some kind of gnosis is possible I've just been trying to convince Shad0whawk that the atheists are totally convinced = certain rather than absolutely believe that there is no god since Shad0whawk equates belief with faith and religious systems. Atheists have reasoned their way to their viewpoint of disbelief and left faith behind, while believers has chosen to have faith in their conviction.
Originally posted by: GrGr
Lack of proof is not proof of lack, I agree. But at some point you have to draw a line I guess. That there is an evident lack of evidence that there are flying pink elephants does not mean that there really are flying pink elephants (while the possibility remains that there actually are FPE's the probability is infinitesimal, don't you think?). Even though some people swear they have seen FPE's.
The atheist see it from the point of view that the burden of proof is on those claiming that there is a god. And the reason they have become atheists is that there are and have never been any proof presented that god exists and that the religious belief systems are hoplessly outdated in comparison with the scientific approach.
Personally I am neither atheist nor agnostic. I tend to believe more in a general creator somewhere in the background type of thing mostly becuase it would be boring if there was no metaphysical dimension to the universe
I've just been trying to convince Shad0whawk that the atheists are totally convinced = certain rather than absolutely believe that there is no god since Shad0whawk equates belief with faith and religious systems. Atheists have reasoned their way to their viewpoint of disbelief and left faith behind, while believers has chosen to have faith in their conviction.
okay, this is getting boring and repetitive. your argument still has the same glaring holes in it it always has that you refuse to acknowledge.
1. you cannot demonstrate that there is ANY difference in the "faith" an atheist has is somehow different than the "faith" theists have eytomologically, all you have is your opinion. the belief in something you cannot prove with evidence is faith..period, nowhere does the dictionary distinguish that theists and atheists have different versions of "faith" the description of atheists "belief of non belief" would fall under the faith heading according to the dictionary AND your' and miquel's own words here:
quote1
miquel)"atheists are totally convinced = certain rather than absolutely believe that there is no god
quote2: (the dictionary illustrating the minor difference between the synonyms faith and belief)
" BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof
3. negatives CAN be proved! as i explained earlier, i could make the definitive claim that there is no blue pen in my room, since all definitive claims presenting themselves as FACT have the burden of proof whether negative or positive what is needed to prove my claim is simply to search my room, if after a thorough and complete search no pen is found i can safely say "there is no blue pen in my room" i can also make the negative claim "2+2 does not equal 5" simple math will illustrate the idea valid or not. in both cases each can be verified...in the matter of God it is no different.
4. evidence is only as good as it's interpretation, and as history has shown evidence can and often is suppessed in myriads of applications. when an atheist says "there is no evidence of God" his evidence in only the study of a very...VERY infintesmal part of the universe(and still only his interpretation of any evidence presented). it would be akin to me saying "i have found no evidence of a blue pen in the first few centimetres of my room, therefore no blue pen must exist." which most would agree would not be very objective considering the scale of the area searched vs. the area to be searched!
goodnight! i have to work tomorrow BTW welcome to the discussion miquel!
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
So the civil war would be to force or set up a Protestian Christian theocratic goverment? In the past haven't these type of goverments been shown to be repressive? Is that whay the Christians really want?
no, the last thing i want is a theocracy! in the long run that could be as bad as an atheistic run government!
instead the government should that take no view and allow all to flourish and express themselves, especially within the government as that would be a demonstration by the govt of fairness to all views and the only true guarantee to the people no one view would ever have governmental favoritism toward it at the expense of others.
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
okay, this is getting boring and repetitive. your argument still has the same glaring holes in it it always has that you refuse to acknowledge.
1. you cannot demonstrate that there is ANY difference in the "faith" an atheist has is somehow different than the "faith" theists have eytomologically, all you have is your opinion. the belief in something you cannot prove with evidence is faith..period, nowhere does the dictionary distinguish that theists and atheists have different versions of "faith" the description of atheists "belief of non belief" would fall under the faith heading according to the dictionary AND your' and miquel's own words here:
quote1
"atheists are totally convinced = certain rather than absolutely believe that there is no god
quote2: (the dictionary illustrating the minor difference between the synonyms faith and belief)
" BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof
3. negatives CAN be proved! as i explained earlier, i could make the definitive claim that there is no blue pen in my room, since all definitive claims presenting themselves as FACT have the burden of proof whether negative or positive what is needed to prove my claim is simply to search my room, if after a thorough and complete search no pen is found i can safely say "there is no blue pen in my room" i can also make the negative claim "2+2 does not equal 5" simple math will illustrate the idea valid or not. in both cases each can be verified...in the matter of God it is no different.
4. evidence is only as good as it's interpretation, and as history has shown evidence can and often is suppessed in myriads of applications. when an atheist says "there is no evidence of God" his evidence in only the study of a very...VERY infintesmal part of the universe(and still only his interpretation of any evidence presented). it would be akin to me saying "i have found no evidence of a blue pen in the first few centimetres of my room, therefore no blue pen must exist." which most would agree would not be very objective considering the scale of the area searched vs. the area to be searched!
goodnight! i have to work tomorrow BTW welcome to the discussion miquel!
I found this excellent page explaining these matters better than I can do:
"
It seems odd for a follower of a faith to try to attack atheism by saying it is also a faith. I think the reasoning is that if atheism is a faith or religion, then atheists have no cause to criticise other faiths or religions. One flaw in this argument is that if atheism were indeed a religion, then theists would have no reason to criticise atheism being taught in schools as part of religious education, or even the setting up of atheist-run schools alongside Baptist, Catholic and Muslim schools.
Somehow, I think voices may be raised in protest should that happen. =)
Alternatively, the idea is that atheists are hypocrites for attacking the faithful when atheism itself is a result of faith.
However, the big problem is this :
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION OR A FAITH!
Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.
As mentioned in the Introduction page, there is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief. I don't know any atheists who "believe" God (take your pick, there are plenty) does not exist. All the atheists I know simply do not believe God does exist.
There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence. In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes. In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory. If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith - this is reason.
If someone asked you about unicorns, would you say "I believe there are no unicorns", or would it be more honest to say "I do not believe in unicorns"? These are two different answers. Nobody disbelieves in unicorns purely as a matter of personal faith.
Again, apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions. Example : if you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh does not exist? Or do you not believe in Ganesh?
If you believe that unicorns do not exist, then may I say that you a member of the "No unicorns" religion? Is it a matter of faith that unicorns do not exist? Can I come along to your non-unicorn church with you tomorrow?
If you are a Christian, do you believe Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith!
Do you see where this is going? ( Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, but it's excellent for getting a point across.
) If me not believing in your God is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is an equal faith. How many Christians do you know who would say they do not believe in other Gods as a matter of faith?
If my atheism with respect to your deity is a religion, then your atheism with respect to other deities is also a religion.
How does atheism differ from religion and faith? Let me count the ways...
--------------------------------------------------------------- Religion Atheism
Belief in God(s)------------------------------------------------- v x
Prayer------------------------------------------------------------ v x
Churches / temples-------------------------------------------- v x
Holy Book / Scripture-------------------------------------------v x
Priests / religious leaders -------------------------------------v x
Belief in supernatural (including angels / devils)----------v x
Miracles------------------------------------------------------------v x
Afterlife------------------------------------------------------------v x
Holy wars---------------------------------------------------------v x
Heaven / Hell-----------------------------------------------------v x
Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc. etc.)-----v x
Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue)------------------v x
Belief despite conflicting evidence---------------------------v x
Supernatural origins of universe and / or humans.........v x
Murderous fundamentalist extremists............................v x
Annoying street / doorstep preachers ..........................v x
The soul.........................................................................v x
Regular ceremonies / acts of worship............................v x
Sin..................................................................................v x
Blasphemy......................................................................v x
We are God's chosen people.........................................v x
Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so. "
Just a few comments. Here's another quote from a convinced atheist, Douglas Adams: "God used to be the best explanation we?d got, and we?ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don?t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is."
Regarding 3+4. Are you really suggesting that your god is hiding in a corner of the universe? What happened to the intangible, invisible, allembracing, allseeing god?
If you pose an answer to the question to religion, a possible answer is the non-answer. Atheism is defined under religion, if there was no religion there would be no atheism because the question could no be posed. In defining a matrix you learn about vector space. The null set is a vector space. Thus the null religion or anti-reilgion is still a form of religion. What was his comment "No Comment." As long as a single person believes in something other than atheism that single person has made atheism a religion. Just like if you believe in the common good, one person can say "I don't" and they have single handedly destroyed the common good.
for the most part i agree. religion is an expression on the nature and existance of God, atheism is as well. they are both views/beliefs/opinions on the same subject. plus the post with the chart is inaccurate, atheism does not equate with being areligious. one of the major religions of the world, buddhsim, is atheistic in nature. i would not call atheism in general a religion though, but it is a religous viewpoint.
or...
coke is cola, 7-up is the un-cola, but both are something you drink.
So, I hope I got this right....If there was nobody that believed in a deity. There could no disbelief.
So, the Atheist must then deny the existence of some theistic thought that has been presented to them, or there would be no Atheist? I god was either proven or disproven, then atheists would cease to exist?
Agnostics are puzzling me as well. Agnostics are those that either do not care about a certain belief, or have no thoughts on the matter?
I'm not being sarcastic (for once). I've never given any thought to Atheists or Agnostics, and I am always curious about new ideas and the opportunity to learn something. This thread became less and less rabid, so I thought I'd throw this in.
So, the Atheist must then deny the existence of some theistic thought that has been presented to them, or there would be no Atheist? I god was either proven or disproven, then atheists would cease to exist?
Agnostics are puzzling me as well. Agnostics are those that either do not care about a certain belief, or have no thoughts on the matter?
I'm not being sarcastic (for once). I've never given any thought to Atheists or Agnostics, and I am always curious about new ideas and the opportunity to learn something. This thread became less and less rabid, so I thought I'd throw this in.
an agnostic basically says man cannot truly know if there is a God or not. or if there is a God he would be so transcendent man could not understand\comprehend God.
I haven't updated this in a while. I'm adding the Goose Creek High School Drug Raid to this because they are the younger generation so greatly impacted by this Marshall Law Nanny State Raid, illegal search and seizure and just downright humiliating experience that will be with these individuals forever.
14 Police Officers with Guns pointed at them and Drug Dog barking and sniffing them. Many were handcuffed.
By the way no drugs were found in the raid.
There is strong evidence supporting it was Racially biased as well.
Here is a Video where the white students said they were locked out while the black students were locked inside and handcuffed in the wing of the school where they normally hang out:
Alabama based Internet News Pot-TV interviews Goose Creek Drug Raid students
I'm looking for a major Media link to the actual school raid Video but every one of thiem requires spending money.
OK finally found a local TV station hosting a free link to the Video:
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
[L=http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1515796">WISTV.com: 12-7-03 Goose Creek parents question drug raid at high school</a>]http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1515796[/L][/L]
The ACLU filed suit today.
Edit: Just noticed I posted this in Divides Poll thread, I don't even see the other thread must've dropped to archives.
14 Police Officers with Guns pointed at them and Drug Dog barking and sniffing them. Many were handcuffed.
By the way no drugs were found in the raid.
There is strong evidence supporting it was Racially biased as well.
Here is a Video where the white students said they were locked out while the black students were locked inside and handcuffed in the wing of the school where they normally hang out:
Alabama based Internet News Pot-TV interviews Goose Creek Drug Raid students
I'm looking for a major Media link to the actual school raid Video but every one of thiem requires spending money.
OK finally found a local TV station hosting a free link to the Video:
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
[L=http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1515796">WISTV.com: 12-7-03 Goose Creek parents question drug raid at high school</a>]http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1515796[/L][/L]
The ACLU filed suit today.
Edit: Just noticed I posted this in Divides Poll thread, I don't even see the other thread must've dropped to archives.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter