CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What is your description of an atheist?
I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ and one who puts faith into "science" and "logic". An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts. Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it. Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians. They are best known for their repetitive religious cliche's. They love to tell Christians they are close minded and are pretty predictable in their arguments. I consider atheists to be elitists. What a shame.
To answer the question: an atheist is one who lacks belief in God. They can be divided into agnostic atheists and Gnostic atheists, more typically split as weak and strong.
To answer your description:
puts faith into "science" and "logic"
Atheists do not have faith. A lack of X does not make X true.
An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts
Sorry buddy, but Christmas is older than Christianity. It was originally a celebration of the Pagan God's Mithras and Sol (By the way, Mithras is almost identical to Jesus, really interesting, you should look it up). 'Twas the theists that hijacked Christmas.
Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it.
Again, I present to you Hitchen's challenge of naming one moral action I can't do as an atheist that a theist can.
Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians
Not all atheists, unless you have some kind of proof that suggests otherwise. And please, don't make out that the Christians are the prime targets. Any and all God's are rejected by "complete" atheists (by which I mean, everyone is an atheist, I just believe in one less God than you).
They are best known for their repetitive religious cliche's.
Example?
they love to tell Christians they are close minded and are pretty predictable in their arguments.
The vast majority I've encountered are. That's not true in all cases, Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga spring to mind.
Go Chuck, Go Chuck, Its your birthday lol. You did an awesome job responding, and I didnt want to put the effort in, so i am just supporting you here.
Yeah, Why do christians think that we have faith in science? I dont even really understand what faith is as a concept in a rational world, to me it seems like more of a rejection to reason rather than what many think of it as - belief for belief. Faith as I understand the definition is the belief in something without reason, one believes independent of facts or reasoned thought, faith is belief for belief's sake.
However, I cant think of an incident where people believe without good reasons to believe - and by 'good reasons' i mean experiences that support an idea (they are only perceived to be good). Religious people could easily have been born in a different part of the world into a different religious tradition - it would be crazy to think that someone would have become a christian in a Hindu country by Hindu parents - it just doesnt happen - Faith seems to be based on experience, but I dont really understand how this makes logical sense - a causal reason for a faith without reason? Seems like people are ignoring the origins of faith. The good reasons why people believe in religious conceptions has to do with the experiences that one has all through early life and are thus the reasons why they have "faith." To me, the word faith is a poor word to use - Confidence in experience is what seems to be in opperation here. Religious people have confidence in the experiences of their childhood (religious indoctrination) and Secular science and reason based people have confidence in the understanding that has been built and built from learning about science and history. Some people have more confidence in how their experience has been directly manipulated rather than in the unadultered experiences that invalidate the innitial experiences (we all used to believe in santa but dont now because we appeal to the latter invalidation of the concept - faith seems to eliminate the potency of the latter experiences that should in a reasonable world be invalidating). Childhood psychology has a lot to do with "faith." I also think that most religious people realize this and are, in some places, hardening their indoctrination processes. I dont think religious people should be able to get away with the word "faith" because it is essentially saying that their indocrinated experiences are more valid than the experiences that are not intentionally manipulated toward a circular reasoning pattern regarding reality. The difference between confidence in religious delusion and confidence in scientific process of discovery and understanding is that religious delusions are necessarily bound to circular reasoning and scientific process is diametrically opposed to circularity of thought. Perhaps my point is semantic but I really think the word faith is a nonsensical word that should be undermined as a valid activity to assent to. To be gnostic is to claim objective knowledge about something to which there is no objective measure. This is why i am angnostic atheist.
Chucky has lots to learn. Did you know it takes more faith to be an atheist that to be a Christian. Faith is complete confidence in something. I have utmost faith in Jesus Christ. First, positions like this tend to rely heavily on equivocations over the definition of "faith." There is a tremendous difference between the sort of "faith" which lies at the heart of Chrisitan theology and the "faith" we talk about when we expect our car brakes to work or the sun to rise in the morning. No such distinctions are admitted to in these arguments, though, which is not only a fallacy but is arguably dishonest because it's often hard to believe that the people making the argument sincerely don't know about the multiple definitions of this key term.
So if we say that I have "faith" that my brakes will work, we can't say that this is an evidence-free faith that is like "faith" in the existence of gods. There is not only a lot of reliable evidence to support such confidence, there is also simply the regularity of the world around us. This is why it's probably better to say that my belief is more a matter of confidence than faith, but isn't the same arguably true in my reliance on the idea that there exists an external world?
Events seem to happen in a way that is consistent with the existence of an independent, external world but not in a way that would be consistent with any plausible models that don't involve such a world. If you postulate a "brains in vats" scenario where everything is exactly as they would be in a real world, then you are postulating a scenario where there is no difference between it being true or false, where there is no set of evidence that isn't consistent with it being both true and false. In that case, it's not a model that is meaningful or explanatory. It's at best a thought experiment, not a serious attempt to explain our experiences.
So once again, there's no reason to talk about "faith" in the same way that it appears in religion; on the contrary, attempts to "prove" that we have "faith" in the world entail postulating scenarios which have as much explanatory power and meaning as so-called religious "explanations" for the world. If you have to make up non-explanatory speculations to "prove" that non-speculative, reliable explanations for the world are not superior to non-explanatory religious speculations, then you are definitely doing something wrong. Clearly a lot more than just the first semester of Philosophy 101 is required here.
-I have a BA in philosophy, you seem like you need some more philosophy education even from the simple fact that you feel it is correct to use the word faith with regard to all kinds of belief. Belief is not the equivalent of faith - faith is belief without sufficient reason.
-There is no way that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian - One could define "faith" as the complete confidence in something. However, "faith" is also confidence without emperically sufficient reasons for confidence since the word faith implies that evidence is not required. Science has the essential element - evidence, which is the sole inspiration for confidence in it's validity - this is why it is correct to say that even if all scientific knowledge were lost, in time the same exact knowledge would be rediscovered - Science unveils the objective characteristics of our universe using evidence. People believe in science do not have faith (non-evidence based confidence) because evidence is the fundamental motivator for their confidence.
I am not being dishonest (by not recognizing the multiple kinds of faith) in my original argument insofar as I am making the claim that faith is not an applicable term when evidence motivates one's confidence. Insofar as I qualify the need for evidence, and that faith is confidence without evidence, I am making the necessary distinction between what you call the "sorts" of "faith" or what I would call types of confidence.
The reason why it is wrong to use the word faith instead of confidence is that faith implies the lack of evidence (this is why it is incorrect to use faith in reference to belief in science). My point is that you should stop using the word faith since this is only one kind of belief, a belief that exists independent of evidence.
The regularity of the world is not something independent of evidence (as you implied). It, in and of itself, is an evidence based assertion about the world. The belief that there exists an external world is evidence based - it is not something you have faith in since its continuity (objective characteristics) and the fact that it is immediate independent of our will is sufficient evidence. I found it interesting that you are denying the brain in vat's scenario - I do, but you seem like you are more of a cartesian insofar as you seem to not recognize that there is a distinction between objectively based confidence and subjectively based confidence - faith.
--Part of me wondered if you were confused about which side of this issue I was on - since part of what you were saying is what I am saying - are you confused? The reason why i am confused about which side you are arguing for is that you seem to recognize that belief in science does not require faith but then seem to say that atheism takes faith even though atheism is generally based on the perspective of the universe that science (evidence based understanding) provides for.
Yeah, Why do christians think that we have faith in science?
Because they don't know how to use a dictionary.
I dont even really understand what faith is as a concept in a rational world, to me it seems like more of a rejection to reason rather than what many think of it as - belief for belief. Faith as I understand the definition is the belief in something without reason, one believes independent of facts or reasoned thought, faith is belief for belief's sake.
I absolutely agree. Faith is irrational behaviour.
However, I cant think of an incident where people believe without good reasons to believe - and by 'good reasons' i mean experiences that support an idea (they are only perceived to be good).
True, but then those beliefs are dependent upon the recipient and become worthless from an objective stance.
To be gnostic is to claim objective knowledge about something to which there is no objective measure. This is why i am angnostic atheist.
As am I. I detest and refute every notion of a God, but if I looked up tonight and saw written in the stars: "Rhys, you fucking tit, I was here all along!", I would change my mind. Even Richard Dawkins says that he isn't a gnostic atheist.
Chuck, it's become mundane to debate with you. The responses you give are getting weaker and showing your age the more you go on. Belief and faith is dependant upon the person, we have free will. Faith is a choice and we choose to believe in Jesus or not. You can continue in detesting God. It doesn't do anything but hurt you and make satan happy. You can keep waiting to see that, though nothing is impossible.
Yep I am a theist and I am supporting Chuck. I use science, the only faith in science is when it comes to theories. To me, faith needs science to make sense but science does not need faith to make sense. That is not a bad thing by the way. Wouldn't you agree?
I thought the context made the type of faith obvious.
Context is irrelevant; I understood that you meant it in a religious context, but without directly specifying that (nobody on here specified it, I believe), you are in the wrong.
Chuck, Atheist have tons of faith. How many atheist have seen first hand proof that anything science has boasted is true? Very, very few. The vast majority have only read what was printed, sounds a lot like what most theist do.
We don't have religious faith, is what I was getting at. Atheism is not a religion, so we don't have religious faith. I have faith in everything I do, but it's very different to your faith.
I have faith that 2+2=4, founded in the laws of logic and mathematics. If I had religious faith, it would be founded in nothing, and hold in the face of evidence.
I'm not disputing that 2+2=4, I am disputing what is 2.
Figures don't lie, but figurers do. Have three people read a tape measure and you will get three different readings. One may round to 1/4, another to 1/16, another to an 1/8.
Another example: Take 2 apples and add 2 more. Do you get 4 apples? 3 of the apples weigh 16 ounces and one weighs 50 ounces. We'll say that the average weight of a apple is 17 ounces. Do you still have 4 apples?
No it isn't, because it's improbable that the chair will break. If I use my eyes, I can see if the legs are supported, or if the back is solid, or whatever. If it looks safe, I have faith that it will not break when I sit on it.
Also, the number of chairs that don't break is probably greater than the number of chairs that do. So that's another piece of evidence that suggests that the chair won't break.
I'm not interested in proving whether or not my faith is wrong, just in highlighting the difference between regular faith and blind, religious faith.
You put FAITH into the belief of science, I put FAITH into the Christian beliefs. Some science is true some science is not and I don't believe all that science has to offer.
Atheists do not have faith. A lack of X does not make X true
Atheist do have faith, they have faith in science.
Sorry buddy, but Christmas is older than Christianity. It was originally a celebration of the Pagan God's Mithras and Sol (By the way, Mithras is almost identical to Jesus, really interesting, you should look it up). 'Twas the theists that hijacked Christmas.
Well guess what by calling it "Christmas" your celebrating the Christian version
Again, I present to you Hitchen's challenge of naming one moral action I can't do as an atheist that a theist can.
The type of morality I see atheists using is the type that believes that killing babies is normal and fine.
Not all atheists, unless you have some kind of proof that suggests otherwise. And please, don't make out that the Christians are the prime targets. Any and all God's are rejected by "complete" atheists (by which I mean, everyone is an atheist, I just believe in one less God than you).
As I see it atheist always attack Christians
Example?
You need proof you always need proof! How about this you accuse me of crapping in the toilet and leaving a turd in the toilet, wheres your proof I did it?
The vast majority I've encountered are. That's not true in all cases, Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga spring to mind.
You guys do because we disagree with your lies and sick ideals.
Via that method, science doesn't really even have faith in itself(since it is continually self correcting); so why any atheist would have faith in it as being some infallible thing is beyond me.
EXACTLY!!!! You explain that to me! How can they use science something that is always disproving and proving itself to try and prove the Bible isn't true when it hasn't been disproved since it's been written?!?
1st: Detailed facts and theories of science are mainly used as a way to have people not be convinced by the god of the gap's type of argument during theistic debates, where because of our ignorance there must be a god which is fallacious but for some reason it helps to provide alternatives to god anyways.
2nd. Science is general is used as such: God is beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove, this fact is often times used by atheists to establish that there is no evidence of god, and thus no reason to believe in him. This puts the burden of proof on the theist, but due to the inability to provide empirical proof; the theist is found lacking.
You put FAITH into the belief of science, I put FAITH into the Christian beliefs. Some science is true some science is not and I don't believe all that science has to offer.
It's fine that you don't believe everything science has to say. But I don't have faith in science. Faith is belief without evidence. Science is dependent on evidence.
Atheist do have faith, they have faith in science
See above.
Well guess what by calling it "Christmas" your celebrating the Christian version
Not really. For example, China is communist in name. It's not communist in practice. All the other things associated with Christmas are Pagan.
The type of morality I see atheists using is the type that believes that killing babies is normal and fine.
I'm going to try to remain calm about that outrageous claim you just made. Atheists absolutely do not think that killing babies is normal. We have moral values and duties like everyone else, please don't make such offensive claims in the future.
As I see it atheist always attack Christians
Firstly, atheists do not always attack anyone. Only the four horsemen are famous for it. Challenging your views with skepticism and rationality is not an attack. Secondly, atheists have no particular care as to which religion they challenge. I'm assuming you're living in the West, so you're obviously going to see more Christians being challenged. But there are actually plenty of debates with Jews and Muslims on religion, just YouTube it.
You need proof you always need proof! How about this you accuse me of crapping in the toilet and leaving a turd in the toilet, wheres your proof I did it?
Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is both misplaced and a red herring. I need proof because you, the claimant, carry the burden of proof. Look up the celestial teapot for further information.
You guys do because we disagree with your lies and sick ideals.
Which would be what?
Shows how self indulgent you are ;
Lol, it was a joke. As I said earlier, elitist, snob, bigot, all meaningless. It just detracts from the main point.
Yes, exactly. They have faith in science. And again yes, why don't they use the pagan name for Christmas then. And yes, many atheists are liberal as one can get. Why don't they accept it? Yes, they are always in attack mode. The turd part really got me laughing. What is the name of the turd? Oh, I guessed it - Atheism.
Oh, now you pulling out the good atheist/bad atheist card. How can anyone believe in anything with faith? In regards to Christmas, just admit you atheists are a self centered group and all about personal gain. The one moral action you can't do is believe in Jesus Christ with all your heart and be obedient to His word. Obedience to Jesus is the moral action you lack. It's nice that you admit that "some" atheists just flat out hate Christians. No, you don't believe in one less god than me because that is idolatry. I only believe in the one and only true God, you are just an idolater. As far as the cliche's, you atheists have the same attacks. Listen to ShockofGod on youtube. He was once an atheist and wised up. I could care less about Richard Swineburn and whomever else. They are doomed if they don't get their hearts right with Jesus. If that makes you feel like you are someone to refer to yourself as an "intellectual snob", you are quite pitiful.
Oh, now you pulling out the good atheist/bad atheist card. How can anyone believe in anything with faith? In regards to Christmas, just admit you atheists are a self centered group and all about personal gain. The one moral action you can't do is believe in Jesus Christ with all your heart and be obedient to His word. Obedience to Jesus is the moral action you lack. It's nice that you admit that "some" atheists just flat out hate Christians. No, you don't believe in one less god than me because that is idolatry. I only believe in the one and only true God, you are just an idolater. As far as the cliche's, you atheists have the same attacks. Listen to ShockofGod on youtube. He was once an atheist and wised up. I could care less about Richard Swineburn and whomever else. They are doomed if they don't get their hearts right with Jesus. If that makes you feel like you are someone to refer to yourself as an "intellectual snob", you are quite pitiful.
Oh, now you pulling out the good atheist/bad atheist card
I don't get it.
How can anyone believe in anything with faith?
Do you mean "without faith"? I assume so, seeing as believing with faith is exactly what you practice. To believe without faith is easy. I believe there is no God, but it is not faith based. If evidence came out that there was a God, I would believe he exists, although I still wouldn't worship him.
In regards to Christmas, just admit you atheists are a self centered group and all about personal gain.
Believe what you will, you've still ignored the issue that I raised regarding Mithras and Sol.
The one moral action you can't do is believe in Jesus Christ with all your heart and be obedient to His word. Obedience to Jesus is the moral action you lack.
That's not a moral action to me. By that reasoning, there are 4.7 billion people that fail to meet that requirement. In fact, I would say dogmatic obedience cannot be considered moral in the slightest.
It's nice that you admit that "some" atheists just flat out hate Christians.
Thank you, but it works for anything. It's just us atheists don't carry out crusades when we hate people. :)
No, you don't believe in one less god than me because that is idolatry.
It's actually kindergarten level mathematics. Let me present it in a deductive argument.
1. I believe in no God's.
2. You believe in one God.
3. Zero is one less than one.
Ergo
4. I believe in one less God than you.
only believe in the one and only true God, you are just an idolater.
And how do you know that your God is true? What if you die and Allah is waiting, or Zeus, or Wotan, or Jupiter, or any other God. By the way, I assume that you are referring to pejorative idolatry, seeing as by definition all theists are idolaters.
As far as the cliche's, you atheists have the same attacks
The reason they're the same is because they're all valid, we're not changing our arguments because you can't rebut them.
Listen to ShockofGod on youtube. He was once an atheist and wised up.
I already have, he's another example of "I am/ was atheist but...", who are essentially sheep in wolfs clothing. He says nothing I haven't heard and rebutted before.
I could care less about Richard Swineburn and whomever else. They are doomed if they don't get their hearts right with Jesus
I think you misunderstood me. Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga are theists, and incredibly intelligent ones at that.
If that makes you feel like you are someone to refer to yourself as an "intellectual snob", you are quite pitiful.
Lol, it was a joke. Elitist, snob, bigot, I've heard them all before. They are all just impotent ad hominems from those with nothing meaningful to say.
Do you mean "without faith"? I assume so, seeing as believing with faith is exactly what you practice. To believe without faith is easy. I believe there is no God, but it is not faith based. If evidence came out that there was a God, I would believe he exists, although I still wouldn't worship him.
Yes, God knows that. Instead of having a rebellion in Heaven, Jesus gives you a chance to live in a world full of sin, be able to recognize it, hate it and realize you are a sinner who also needs Him. That is your test on earth. To fail this test, bottom line - you will be cast into hell. You wouldn't worship Perfection after seeing all the death, etc. on this earth. You should want to worship a perfect God.
Believe what you will, you've still ignored the issue that I raised regarding Mithras and Sol.
I don't know who those characters you speak of are, but like I said - coming from an atheist, I don't care who they are.
That's not a moral action to me. By that reasoning, there are 4.7 billion people that fail to meet that requirement. In fact, I would say dogmatic obedience cannot be considered moral in the slightest.
You would have to be intelligent to look around and see the death, destruction and evil in this world and RECOGNIZE that you are contributing to it and you walk in the flesh and when you have a spirit in you, if you decide to walk in the spirit, you must connect your spirit to God's spirit (the Holy Spirit) which will dwell in you and guide you down the path you need to go.
Thank you, but it works for anything. It's just us atheists don't carry out crusades when we hate people. :)
Could you elaborate please?
As far as the god thing, you believe in science but has science made humans any better? I think it has made humans just more comfortable but no nicer or more likable. We still kill on the streets, in war - just like thousands of years ago, same evil - we are just more comfortable because of science. Science does not change the condition of the HEART.
And how do you know that your God is true? What if you die and Allah is waiting, or Zeus, or Wotan, or Jupiter, or any other God. By the way, I assume that you are referring to pejorative idolatry, seeing as by definition all theists are idolaters.
Only one God ever claimed to be the Son of God and prophesied to things that are coming true. Only one God said love your enemy instead of destroy your enemy and convert everyone. The true God gave you the free will to make your own decisions which you have the ability to do. The freedoms you enjoy right now if you are in the USA, your freedoms are because of Christians who implemented the Bible into the culture to give everyone the freedom to make the right decision.
The reason they're the same is because they're all valid, we're not changing our arguments because you can't rebut them
You would have to be intelligent to look around and see the death, destruction and evil in this world and RECOGNIZE that you are contributing to it and you walk in the flesh and when you have a spirit in you, if you decide to walk in the spirit, you must connect your spirit to God's spirit (the Holy Spirit) which will dwell in you and guide you down the path you need to go.
That's wonderful but it doesn't change that dogmatic obedience is not moral.
Could you elaborate please?
Ah, it was just a tasteless joke about the crusades. Replace it with whatever you want though: Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, etc.
As far as the god thing, you believe in science but has science made humans any better?
You wouldn't be replying to me without it.
I think it has made humans just more comfortable but no nicer or more likable. We still kill on the streets, in war - just like thousands of years ago, same evil - we are just more comfortable because of science. Science does not change the condition of the HEART.
That's an appeal to emotion. Regardless, I never claimed it did do those things.
Only one God ever claimed to be the Son of God and prophesied to things that are coming true.
Only one God said love your enemy instead of destroy your enemy and convert everyone.
Oh my. Have you read the Bible? He does quite a bit of destruction and conversion.
You are making an assumption, yet again.
I'm not actually. I'm quite well cited in atheistic arguments, and they are all valid. Just Wikipedia it, I'm not justifying every single argument against God here, I'll write a book instead.
The freedoms you enjoy right now if you are in the USA, your freedoms are because of Christians who implemented the Bible into the culture to give everyone the freedom to make the right decision.
The same Christians who think homosexuality is immoral, and that would rather have AIDS kill millions of people a year than wear condoms? Three of the ten commandments are implemented in US law today, and all of which were condemned long before Christianity, or even Judaism came about. Most of the Bible is entertaining ramblings.
I am far from old, but I guessed you must be a child who has a good vocabulary but lacks the intelligence to make the correct moral choices. It always bothers me when I see such intelligence go to waste. I speak the truth when I tell you that Hell is a very real place and many will go there. It is my duty to tell all about Christ because the end is near and there will be a day when there will be no second chances. I do not want to see any of God's creation go to hell but God is giving all of us the chance to accept Him and the blood on the cross. I don't have time to read the two links you have sent, but I will when I have the time. I disagree with you about obedience because you have no basis to even back that up and even if you did, I am speaking of obedience to my Father Jesus. As far as the crusades, I don't follow prosperity preachers and I see them as flukes. You should listen to Paul Washer. He is the type preacher I like. Your response to science making humans any better is lame. Let's leave it at that. So you are just like I said, a robotic atheist who will live with no real joy. You still have time to experience the joy of the Father by accepting Him as Lord and Savior. Yes, God will come back with wrath and God is a jealous God. I know this. You keep having Wikipedia as your Bible and you will give an account to Jesus for that one day. You will be begging Jesus to forgive you and to take you with Him when judgment comes if you don't convert.
"I am far from old, but I guessed you must be a child who has a good vocabulary but lacks the intelligence to make the correct moral choices."
before you can say that lacking belief in god is immoral, you must give us a convincing reason that it is. what is immoral about not being convinced of gods existence if we can't detect any signs of his existence?
"It always bothers me when I see such intelligence go to waste."
so if someone uses thier intelligence to save thier life, and they turned out to be atheists, was there intelligence a waste?
"I speak the truth when I tell you that Hell is a very real place and many will go there."
I speak the truth that the flying spaghetti monster will punish you if you don't believe in him. just because I said it was the truth doesn't make it true, and for your claim to be relevant, it first has to be true, which we have no reason to think it is.
"It is my duty to tell all about Christ because the end is near and there will be a day when there will be no second chances."
fine if you truly believe that, then i guess in your own mind you have to try and convert us, and tell us what to believe, or that we have to believe. but you claiming that it is simply your duty won't make it anymore justifiable to use, because for the claim to have any relevance it must first be true, which we have no reason to think.
"I do not want to see any of God's creation go to hell but God is giving all of us the chance to accept Him and the blood on the cross."
claim to me as much as you want that there is a land of infinite torture that lasts for infinite time all you want, no matter how much you claim will not make me more accepting on your need to tell me what i have to believe something.
"Your response to science making humans any better is lame."
well I can see you must be an intelligent person if you believe that lameness invalidates an argument.
"You will be begging Jesus to forgive you and to take you with Him when judgment comes if you don't convert."
honestly with my most rational, logical understand of everything i have come to experience, and everything about this god, i can't honestly see how a moral god could punish someone for simply not bieng convinced of something they'v never even seen. if god did exist and did do something like this then that means either two things
A.) considering how i can't make sense of the immorality of lacking belief and cannot even understand how lack of convincement can possibly be proved immoral, neither can i understand how anyone could make sense of that unless they weren't being real. then it must be beyond human knowledge on how lack of belief is immoral. if that is the case god is simply punishing us for not knowing something that is beyond human understanding, and therefore we as humans can justify the conclusion that god must be evil since he is punishing people because they aren't convinced of something they don't have a reason to be convinced of. however everyone will act as though it is justified because they are so dependent on clinging to thier god, and religion. and therefore god is evil for punishing people for not understanding something that is obviously beyond them.
B.)god is evil for punishing nonbelievers
those are the only conclusions to be made if that was the case.
I am not an atheist, but i believe in the right to let people make their own choices about religion. If God really wants to judge them for it, let him do it and stay out of it.
Of course their are atheists who are total pricks, but there are people like that in every social group. We shouldn't judge them as a whole for their innoprotirite brethren, just as they shouldn't judge us for ours.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I believe that your arguments are flawed.
That is a correct statement.
Jesus Christ the man is believed by most to have been a real historical personage; that is to say that even atheists believe in the historical Jesus, therefore your appraisal of the statement I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ is incorrect.
Science and logic are antithetical to faith.
I was hoping for more from you. The word faith has been usurped by the religious; it comes from the Latin fides which, as you should know, can mean trust. Every human activity - be it mental or physical - requires some level of faith. You have faith that 2 + 2 = 4; you've faith that your senses are not deceiving you; you've faith that argon truly does have an atomic weight of 39.948.
Furthermore, as the lesser-minded creator of this debate stated, an atheist is one who puts faith into "science" and "logic". This is wrong simply that one needn't be an atheist to place their "faith" in science or logic.
Hate is irrational. I do not hate religion. I loath and detest it.
Loathe, and to loathe indicates a stronger sensation of hatred than is to hate.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I believe that your arguments are flawed.
Then I shall endeavour, sir, to assuage your doubts, and to acquit myself of these charges.
Jesus Christ the man is believed by most to have been a real historical personage
What you say is correct.
therefore your appraisal of the statement I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ is incorrect.
Your statement cannot be true; for you have severely misapprehended the appraisal, and the assertion that was appraised. It is self-evident, so much so that to dally further on the subject would be a fruitless and grotesque waste of our time, that the belief refers specifically to the divinity of Jesus Christ, and not to his existence.
I submit, sir, that the belief in the general existence of Jesus Christ is impertinent to the state of being an atheist, as it implies only that one rejects Christian doctrine, and is therefore a rejection to which a person of any other faith may safely be admitted.
I was hoping for more from you.
I hope you do not think me too quick to take offence, when I say that I find this statement highly officious.
The word faith has been usurped by the religious; it comes from the Latin fides which, as you should know, can mean trust.
This, sir, is a consummately semantic argument, and as such is unworthy of admission into civilised and elevated discourse. When rejecting an argument, we should take care not to confuse the perfect definition of a term, with the context in which one's opponent has employed it.
The argument that I refuted had a very clear understanding of the word 'faith', viz., the conviction that something is true, without any real evidence to support the belief. This is the absolute, inarguable antithesis to any philosophy built upon foundations of evidence and trial; a group among which science has the singular privilege of being the utmost chief and paragon.
The context in which you or I might use faith is not at all relevant to this discussion, unless one wishes to correct the actual use of the word. Indeed, any correction of the word in this context would itself be erroneous; for the definition of faith that is herein made subject is perfectly acceptable to me, and indeed to the Reader's Digest Universal Dictionary, from which I now quote:
"Faith: 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
You have faith that 2 + 2 = 4
Let P(n) => 2n+2n = 4n
P(1) => 2+2 = 4
4 = (1+1+1+1)
2 = (1+1)
2+2 = (1+1) + (1+1)
2+2 = (1+1+1+1)
But 4 = (1+1+1+1)
Ergo 2+2 = 4
Assume P(k) is True.
P(k) => 2k+2k = 4K ......... 1
P(k+1) => 2(k+1) + 2(k+1) = 4(k+1)
=> (2k+2) + (2k+2) = (4k+4)
=> (4k+4) = (4k+4) TRUE .........2
By combining 1 & 2 we may conclude that P(n) is true for n E Z.
I did not go through the tedium of proving by induction the elementary truth that 2+2 = 4, for you to deny what has been logically proven, so if you wish to refute the proven mathematical convictions held by mathematicians, such as Leibniz and Newton, whose intelligence was so far beyond our own that we are to them as the radiance the moon is to that of the sun, you may do so in the knowledge that I will make no reply, so ignorant, arrogant and intolerably perverse as must be any such refutation.
you've faith that your senses are not deceiving you
Forasmuch as the human senses are the only means whereby we may ultimately perceive the universe, and insofar as any truths that are susceptible of that imperfect understanding are the only truths that can possibly be intelligible to us, I am of the opinion that any deception in those senses, if it be communal, cannot possibly be rectified; nor that any such deception can possibly manifest itself in a perceptible detraction from our limited and frail existence.
you've faith that argon truly does have an atomic weight of 39.948.
If the carbon-12 isotope is given an atomic weight (mass, really) of 12 in units that are defined by mankind, it is a measurable fact that the average Ar (not referring to Argon, but atomic weight) of all the isotopes of Argon, as they occur naturally, taking abundance into account, is 39.948.
This is wrong simply that one needn't be an atheist to place their "faith" in science or logic.
That is a correct statement, though it be stated by one who has previously said "They [atheists] mayn't have religious faith, but they do have faith that their logic and mathematics and science holds up."
Loathe, and to loathe indicates a stronger sensation of hatred than is to hate.
It is my opinion that to have an understanding of the causes that impel one to loath some thing, produces a far more concentrated and potent dislike than would be observed in some person whose hatred was not based upon rational arguments.
Ergo, you were wrong. Here is one charge of which you are not to be acquitted.
It is self-evident, so much so that to dally further on the subject would be a fruitless and grotesque waste of our time, that the belief refers specifically to the divinity of Jesus Christ, and not to his existence.
Whilst I agree with the spirit of your argument, I once again cannot agree with your conclusion. Without directly stating that one is referring to the divinity of Christ, Schrödinger's Cat comes into play: until we learn otherwise, we can assume that the author is discussing both Jesus the Divine and Jesus the Man. Failing to take this into consideration is an heinous oversight.
I submit, sir, that the belief in the general existence of Jesus Christ is impertinent to the state of being an atheist
Agreed.
I hope you do not think me too quick to take offence, when I say that I find this statement highly officious.
I should expect you to find my statement officious.
This, sir, is a consummately semantic argument, and as such is unworthy of admission into civilised and elevated discourse.
If you've ever discoursed with a follower of religion on the topic of religion, then you should understand that it is almost impossible to engage with them in any form of "civilised and elevated discourse".
When rejecting an argument, we should take care not to confuse the perfect definition of a term, with the context in which one's opponent has employed it.
Our opponent failed to specify in which context 'twas being used.
Let P(n) => 2n+2n = 4n
P(1) => 2+2 = 4
4 = (1+1+1+1)
2 = (1+1)
2+2 = (1+1) + (1+1)
2+2 = (1+1+1+1)
But 4 = (1+1+1+1)
Ergo 2+2 = 4
Assume P(k) is True.
P(k) => 2k+2k = 4K ......... 1
P(k+1) => 2(k+1) + 2(k+1) = 4(k+1)
=> (2k+2) + (2k+2) = (4k+4)
=> (4k+4) = (4k+4) TRUE .........2
By combining 1 & 2 we may conclude that P(n) is true for n E Z.
To this I redirect you to the Münchhausen Trilemma:
If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen Trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:
The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)
Ergo, you were wrong. Here is one charge of which you are not to be acquitted.
I suggest you re-examine the argument that I wrote, for you have neglected to respond to a very important part of it, which is to say, most of it.
Without directly stating that one is referring to the divinity of Christ, Schrödinger's Cat comes into play
Schrödinger's cat is pseudoscientific nonsense. Please do not pollute my optic nerve with the necessity of reading of it again.
If you cannot recognise what is patently the meaning of my opponent's argument, then I shall think you either an idiot, or a charlatan.
If you've ever discoursed with a follower of religion on the topic of religion, then you should understand that it is almost impossible to engage with them in any form of "civilised and elevated discourse".
You are just, sir, but I do not expect the same from you.
Our opponent failed to specify in which context 'twas being used.
Then I am guilty of a presumption. I presumed, in a debate concerning the definition of persons lacking religious faith, that the word faith likely denoted "religious faith". Take the matter up with the cretin who wrote it, not with me.
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts
This is the case. However, you fail to account for mathematics being a system created by man, according to certain rules that are defined, again, by man. Mathematics is our creation, and 2+2=4 because we say it does. You might posit that 2+2=5, but only if we changed the definition, over which we have absolute power, of 5.
The numbers 1 and 0, at least, cannot be refuted, as the represent existence, or non-existence, which are concepts beyond doubt. The rest of the set N simply represents quantity, and quantity is a sum of ones or zeroes. 4 is defined, in our system of mathematics, as 1+1+1+1. 2 is defined as 1+1. Therefore 2+2=4. It is not an observable truth, sir; 'tis an engineered truth.
If you cannot recognise what is patently the meaning of my opponent's argument, then I shall think you either an idiot, or a charlatan.
I am worse: I am a pedant.
Mathematics is our creation, and 2+2=4 because we say it does.
Grass is green because we say it is; still, what if grass does not exist?
Cogito Ergo Sum, my good man, cogito ergo sum. Nothing exists except through human consciousness. Everything must be thrown off of the table, for 2+2 need not equal 4; we can just as easily declare that 5=4 (or 5=5-1) and, voila, 2+2=4.
I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ and one who puts faith into "science" and "logic".
Faith means belief without evidence, or even despite evidence. Science and logic do not require faith because it is based on perception and evidence. This is a common but false equivalence.
An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts.
Some Christians celebrate Christmas just to get gifts. Due to the Christian stranglehold on society most are forced to celebrate Christmas to an extent at least even if they don't believe. I for one would rather not have to as would most atheists. As for getting gifts, that's just silly. Most adults play along to keep kids happy. Having a couple nieces I assure you I give exponentially more than I receive each Holiday.
Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it.
You have no evidence of this. I'm actually pretty moral despite my lack of belief, more so than some Christians I know. It seems to me a belief system rarely serves to increase morality, if anything it acts as a means of justifying immorality.
Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians.
This is nearly impossible. Being such a small minority, and nearly all having been born into a family that believed in some theist doctrine, innevitably an atheist will have friends, family and others they do not hate and who are Christian. I would argue the religion is a negative force, at least how it is used in society, so I do dislike the religion.
They are best known for their repetitive religious cliche's. They love to tell Christians they are close minded and are pretty predictable in their arguments.
No. But perhaps we are known for pointing out the lack of logic in the many religious cliche's Christians throw about. The second sentence has merit. I do enjoy telling Christians how predictable and close-minded they are. I don't see anything here to change my mind so far.
I consider atheists to be elitists. What a shame.
It's a shame you consider atheists elitists? Good to see you've done a little self-evaluation amidst your judgments at least.
It may also mean trust. However that does not make the definition of belief without evidence incorrect, nor that belief and faith are two different things.
As a fallibilist I argue that the reliance on perception requires faith in your senses.
Alright. It would explain other views as well I suppose.
Generalization.
What was I generalizing? You only quoted a portion of what I said. I find when people do this they are taking me out of context, but I have no way of knowing from what you've left me.
Strictly speaking, it does mean trust. The religious have usurped the concept, but the word itself maintains its etymology.
However that does not make the definition of belief without evidence incorrect, nor that belief and faith are two different things.
They are not not two different things; however, taken in various contexts, faith can connote something which differs from religious faith, and you failed to take that into account with your (and that of the author of every other argument I read) generalized use of the word "faith".
What was I generalizing? You only quoted a portion of what I said. I find when people do this they are taking me out of context, but I have no way of knowing from what you've left me.
Here's the statement in context, and I maintain my accusation of the presence of a fallacy.
Due to the Christian stranglehold on society most are forced to celebrate Christmas to an extent at least even if they don't believe. I for one would rather not have to as would most atheists
Really, that's how far you're going to stretch the definition to fit your argument?
Okay, the religious have truth in a creator... makes perfect sense that way.
Then faith is obviously a bs word which no one should use.
Either way though, the fact remains a lack of belief in something without evidence is a completely different thing than believing in something without evidence.
Play with definitions all you like. You won't escape that fact.
It would be a lot easier to read your arguments if you weren't so vague. Especially when you are being both ambiguous and failing to inform me which part of my argument you are disputing during any given line of your rebuttal. Thus, I shall have to worm my way through this, trying, possibly in vain, to piece together your rebut with my argument.
Really, that's how far you're going to stretch the definition to fit your argument?
I am not stretching the definition at all.
Okay, the religious have truth in a creator... makes perfect sense that way.
I did not once defend religion in my dispute. I do not know from where this line had its genesis, for I made no allusion to a "creator".
Then faith is obviously a bs word which no one should use.
If you look into the history of a word you could misinterpret nearly any word to be a "bs word". "Faith" has many meanings, something you failed to take into account in your argument.
Either way though, the fact remains a lack of belief in something without evidence is a completely different thing than believing in something without evidence.
I do not believe I said that it was. Once again, if you were more precise in your disputes I would be able to understand from where you are coming with these arguments. But, then again, I don't think you are really disputing my arguments, rather touting the same old rhetoric you always use in arguments on religion.
The point of this is not the history of the word, it is how it is meant today.
Faith today equates belief, but belief only given a lack of evidence or in spite of evidence.
Belief could be baseless, but unlike faith does not have to be without basis.
In the case of atheist vs. theist, the sourse of the beliefs are entirely different things.
For a theist, belief is not based on observation or any sort of evidence, and often remains despite these things. ie "faith"
For an atheist, disbelief is based on lack of evidence. It has a basis in otherwords, so it is belief, but not faith.
This is how the terms are defined today. It is the underlying meaning behind each which I am arguing, not a source definition of a word from eons past.
So call faith what you will and define it how you like, the fundamentals of the argument are correct. The belief mechanism behind atheism and theism are not the same.
Faith means belief without evidence, or even despite evidence. Science and logic do not require faith because it is based on perception and evidence. This is a common but false equivalence.
Perception and evidence must have an origin, right? To believe in anything you are having faith in what you believe to be true.
Some Christians celebrate Christmas just to get gifts. Due to the Christian stranglehold on society most are forced to celebrate Christmas to an extent at least even if they don't believe. I for one would rather not have to as would most atheists. As for getting gifts, that's just silly. Most adults play along to keep kids happy. Having a couple nieces I assure you I give exponentially more than I receive each Holiday.
Any true Christian celebrates Christmas in the spirit of giving. A true Christian is also thankful for any gift he/she may receive. Christmas, though not really the correct day for Jesus' birthday, is about Jesus birthday. We give and receive gifts in remembrance of Him. It's a shame any adult would play along and allow their child to thank Old Saint Nick also. I didn't say that there may not be atheists who are made of good stuff. As a Christian, it is my responsibility to spread the Word of Jesus as I want to be with all my sisters and brothers in Heaven, including YOU.
You have no evidence of this. I'm actually pretty moral despite my lack of belief, more so than some Christians I know. It seems to me a belief system rarely serves to increase morality, if anything it acts as a means of justifying immorality.
This is good that you are moral but how can you actually compare yourself to the "christian" you know when you may be dealing with a wolf in sheep's clothing. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing and if you were a Christian, you would know it is best to test each spirit to see if he/she/it is good.
This is nearly impossible. Being such a small minority, and nearly all having been born into a family that believed in some theist doctrine, innevitably an atheist will have friends, family and others they do not hate and who are Christian. I would argue the religion is a negative force, at least how it is used in society, so I do dislike the religion.
This is probably the most annoying statement you have made. Christianity is the minority as satan is the prince of the air. Being a true Christian isn't easy as we must endure spiritual warfare for the rest of our days because satan is having his reign right now on this earth. I do agree, religion is a negative force. I am not religious one bit. I am spiritual. Atheism has gained itself into being categorized as a religion now.
And in your last sentence, while I thought you were doing pretty good at being civil, you showed your hate. You did good up until the last two sections and then your hatred spewed out on how you really feel about Christians.
Perception and evidence must have an origin, right? To believe in anything you are having faith in what you believe to be true.
Belief only equates to faith when the belief is not based on something observed in some way. You are using belief as a synonym for faith, but it is not. They are words with a few shared characteristics, but still different.
Any true Christian celebrates Christmas in the spirit of giving. A true Christian is also thankful for any gift he/she may receive. Christmas, though not really the correct day for Jesus' birthday, is about Jesus birthday. We give and receive gifts in remembrance of Him. It's a shame any adult would play along and allow their child to thank Old Saint Nick also. I didn't say that there may not be atheists who are made of good stuff. As a Christian, it is my responsibility to spread the Word of Jesus as I want to be with all my sisters and brothers in Heaven, including YOU.
Giving a gift as some sign of one's fealty to a religion is no more or less chartable or enriching than giving one simply because you want to see someone happy.
In fact there is a very good argument to be made, that one giving a gift with no hope of eternal life or other reward is being a better person than the one who requires some incentive to do such.
As for eternity in heaven, fine. I'd choose not to participate if given the choice, nothingness sounding more attractive to me than what I've seen Christians represent on earth. I also would not be willing to enjoy any eternal life with the knowledge the god providing it were at the same time damning others to any type of hell based on a silly belief system. So I would pass even should the Christian doctrine inexplicably prove correct.
This is good that you are moral but how can you actually compare yourself to the "christian" you know when you may be dealing with a wolf in sheep's clothing. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing and if you were a Christian, you would know it is best to test each spirit to see if he/she/it is good.
lol, you have no way of deciphering if one is good or bad more or less so than an atheist. If anything it appears from my perspective that Christians are far more easily lead astray. Whoever yells "Jesus" loudest and prettiest leads the way, often to the destruction of self and others.
And when I speak of the harm Christianity has inflicted on earth, I'm not speaking of individual cases of Christians doing something wrong, I'm speaking of a tendency support social ideas that cause more harm than good, from denying AIDS riddled African countries condoms based on their idea of morality until only recently in the Catholic church, to the uncanny ability for Christians to dismiss every ill from children starving to mass slaughter based on "gods greater plan" or whatever.
Without religion, dismissing world evils is not so simple.
This is probably the most annoying statement you have made. Christianity is the minority as satan is the prince of the air. Being a true Christian isn't easy as we must endure spiritual warfare for the rest of our days because satan is having his reign right now on this earth. I do agree, religion is a negative force. I am not religious one bit. I am spiritual. Atheism has gained itself into being categorized as a religion now.
Yes, cults do tend to maintain an "us vs. them" mentality, much of their power comes from this. You see it in the manufactured "war against Christmas" to the twisted idea that two people getting married on the other side of the country, and who they will never meet, is somehow suppressing your own freedoms magically and in scores of other examples.
And with over 78% of the U.S. population, Christianity also represents well over 80% of all representation in this country.
Christianity is the most powerful entity in the U.S. despite the actual intent of separation of church and state, and it is also the most powerful entity in the world. By far.
Perhaps you've confused who truly represents satan? Of course it's all silliness, but should there be a "great satan" secretly in charge it would according to the numbers have to be Christians.
And in your last sentence, while I thought you were doing pretty good at being civil, you showed your hate. You did good up until the last two sections and then your hatred spewed out on how you really feel about Christians.
Yep, victim mentality. I clearly said I dislike the religion. I said nothing about individuals tricked by it.
An Atheist is someone who does not believe in God.
That is it. An Atheist could believe in Ghosts, but most of them don't because there is no evidence of Ghosts and Atheists tend to not believe in God because there is no evidence of God.
... you do realize a lack of evidence more logically would lead to disbelief than belief. You are not equating belief in something without evidence to disbelief in something without evidence I hope.
Your reference to lack of evidence leading to disbelief is only prevalent in those who put faith in the physical and tangible. Christians believe in the unseen and we walk by faith.
Also did you just pull the "cursing is disrespectful"?
That strips you down to nothing but the bare dignity humans should receive, respect beyond that you don't deserve.
How about you respect yourself as a women instead of expecting him to? Also, how about you respect his ability to be an adult and decide his own language, rather than have an elitist response about how such language is beneath you. (the best rational that explains the dislike of various "curse" words that I can think of.
If you want respect, you earn it; thus far your "arguments" have been quite sub-par, and respect here is earned by good debates and good arguments.
Atheists need to support their denying of God. Atheists believe in God more than they admit. They also must admit they have faith - even if it is in nothing.
If it is necessary for atheists to provide evidence, then it is even more important for the theists to bear the burden of proof and show beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. The burden of proof always lies with the claimant.
Atheists believe in God more than they admit.
This is ridiculous. This is equivalent to saying that Christians believe in Allah, Thor, Zeus, Vishnu, Kraken, etc. more than they admit.
They also must admit they have faith - even if it is in nothing.
That's a pretty basic description and fits well. It's quite a shame when you hit the nail right on the head that they may even still attempt to debate your point. I support you on this one.
Please feel free to get involved in this debate as I am new here and debating with a ton of different members. Funny thing is, they all sound so robotic and are quite unoriginal. Same statements, just different verbage.
God gives strength to endure. Those who live apart from him are weaker that those who live in Christ. No person is strong without Christ. Any person walking in the will of God has God-given strength.
I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ
And all other gods of humanity
one who puts faith into "science" and "logic".
Science and logic do not require faith (extreme forms of rationalism aside).
An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts.
an unfounded assertion.
Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it.
You have yet to present a case for god-given moral objectivism. And if atheists are so immoral, why are there 385 times more Christians than atheists in our prisons?
Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians.
Christian is not just something that one claims to be, I agree there are many self proclaimed Christians out there, that does not mean they are Christian. Christianity is a way of life not a set of beliefs.
I challenge that notion, a way of life requires beliefs or else it would be an undefined way of life. Further more a way of life can be derived from different belief sets and the same belief set can support different ways of life. If Christianity is merely a way of life, then I am rather christian since I follow the morality better than most that actually hold christian beliefs.
I wish more Christians would follow the actions of Jesus, rather than believe in letter written in the old testament. If more captured the spirit of Jesus the world would be a better place. Sadly most churches really twist the overall messages in the bible, and I don't really blame them. From a Literary perspective the bible is pretty terrible in my opinion.
In the end I see Christianity as a varied set of beliefs encompassing an expansion of Judaism, where Jesus is seen as the messiah. The emphasis of living like Jesus I see as more of a recent modern invention, one I hope continues. Although the whole "Christianity isn't a religion" thing annoys me to no end. I don't think Jesus provides a perfect example, but it is a mighty dam good one and if some level of separation from "religion" helps, I suppose I can be annoyed to a certain point.
I agree with you, I wish everyone was like Jesus myself included. But Jesus believed in the OT. Anyone who truly wishes to be like him ought to as well. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, in fact Jewish Christians were often called "Messianic Jews". Christianity is a religion, but when people say it isn't what I think they are trying to do is highlight the differences between it and other religions.
It was surprising to me that correlation I found from skimming the Jeffersonian bible and thus spoke Zarathustra. I would love to one day do a in-depth comparison of the two books. Well there are some blatantly obvious contradictions, sometimes I wonder how much of christian belief atheists counter actually have basis in the bible or much basis. When I find the time I want to study the Abrahamic religions more in depth, i'm sure many of their followers would be surprised at their own ignorance. Which is one reason why I strongly dislike organized religion, they don't do a good job of teaching the religion in most cases.
I think it has more to do with avoiding the negative connotations churches have built for themselves. Due to them, Religion has became known as oppressive, dogmatic, hateful, etc. So people are trying to distance themselves from that image. I would much prefer it if people just develop their own spirituality, however the "Christianity isn't a religion" people tend to hand down more than they should for a group supporting the development of spirituality and in many ways tend to operate the same as the churches. Although, thankfully not all of them do such. It is a good trend to see.
An athiest is someone that has managed to extricate themselves from at least one thought limiting narrow minded ideology within this neurotic culture. This is an ideology more perverse than most others in how it seeks conformity by regimentation of the mind, which in-turn produces comformity of opinion and behaviour, people who take the written word of the Bible or Koran literally are not holy, they are needy, insecure, and power hungry monters.
No, those who believe the Holy Bible are separate from those of you who are neurotic and we do not conform to this world. Rather we stand and let our light shine. Our only prayer is to bring others to know Christ. You atheists are full of hate and it's a sad thing. That is a result of allowing the enemy to control your mind.
Dey be makin' funno me widout dems propah knahledge. Be makin' a real big joke all de time. Talkin' crazy out deah ass mon. Be talkin' wid dem real trufs of de people, sistah. Talkin' aint no feah, baby, aint no feah.
I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ
Belief in Jesus Christ the man can be had by an atheist. I know many atheists, none who would deny that Jesus Christ was a living, breathing man some two thousand years ago.
and one who puts faith into "science" and "logic".
I would not call one who has faith in science and logic an atheist, for a Christian can also have faith in science and logic. I have only faith in logic, myself.
An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts.
Be honest here, that's also the main reason most Christians celebrate it, too.
Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it.
Morality is something which is had by everyone in some way or another. Perhaps they lead a life which you may view as being immoral, but, in their mind, their life is moral.
Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians.
Those are mostly antitheists like Dawkins; the atheists like Penn Jillette are a lot more logical.
They are best known for their repetitive religious cliche's.
With this I agree.
They love to tell Christians they are close minded and are pretty predictable in their arguments.
Many do.
I consider atheists to be elitists.
Most people, atheists and theists alike, are elitist.
An ignorant self centered group of people only wanting to force their misery and lack in faith on everyone else. You know what they say misery loves company.
lmao. I actually thought you were talking about Christians until I saw the other arguments. That would make more sense given their recruitment efforts and atheist's lack of this.
So have many atheists knocked on your door with Hawking in hand? Telling you you're doomed to eternal hellfire and whatnot?
Yeah, those Christians and their hellfire, quite the party.
Most atheists are rather happy people, it seems you are projecting your thoughts on what you think you would be like if you were an atheist. Which makes me wonder how you are as a theist?
Are you happy with the thought of hell fire at your back?
Do you become tired of blaming the out-group for all of societies problems? Does the Hypocrites and neediness in many churches bog you done? Are you tired of being continually degraded as unworthy? Does your own lack of self-worth make you crabby towards others? If so then I don't only not have snake oil, but this wondrous non-book proclaimed though out the ages to cure all! Yes ladies and gentlemen, it has all the questions one could dream to think and you don't even have to look in the back of the book! my my, come one and all for this glorious deal, it'll only cost you your chains!
Ok, now that I'm done mocking you with some of your own medicine, allow me to be a little serious.
Atheists are more common amongst the educated and high academic performers(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Demographics_of_atheism#Population_attributes_of_atheists_in_the_US) .
Many atheists volunteer and denote their time to various causes(google will give you a ton of hits on the topic).
Many enjoy their lives rather well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Personality_profiles). Despite attitudes such as yours which only serve to persecute and demean them via building up nothing but an imaginary straw-man to have as the bogyman.
If you are one of the happy atheists, I would hate to see the rest. And if there is happiness it is only worldly happiness which will soon pass. I am not a theist. I am a Christian who belongs to no religion. I blame satan for being such a vile creature and spreading sin and I pray for the lost ones such as you. I see no neediness in church. In fact, I see many non-believers with their hands out wanting the church to take care of them and we take care of even the non-believers anyways. The Holy Bible is amazing and so inspiring. I don't care how educated any atheist is. Perhaps it is the enemy who lurks in the public education system that first began the belief system of the atheist. It doesn't matter how much a Christian OR an atheist donates good works, good works will get no one anywhere - like to Heaven. We should love thy neighbor and do this out of the fruit of the Spirit though. Yes, probably many atheists do enjoy the worldliness and temporal things here on earth. It's only for a little while, it will all soon pass.
Happiness is derived from things generally independent of religion.
These independent things are often present in the lives of people in general.
Ergo most people, are rather happy people.
Atheism doesn't mean people don't have things which make them happy, and thus it doesn't mean they are unhappy. Since most people have such things, there is no reason to assume that the distribution of them among a smaller group whose conditions of membership doesn't touch those things is any different.
Further more, people often seek out religion as a means of escape. If you ask most people where they would be without their religion it isn't a positive place they imagine. However an atheist has no convincing reason to have religion, suggesting his life is better than those with religions. This is part of the reason why you'll find more atheism among the better educated, education typically grant higher standards of living.
Certainly they are materially satisfied. But are they truly happy, it seems to me people are only happy when they are according to Maslow, fully self actualized.
I see religion as stagnating people in the lower levels of the hierarchy.
I am an atheist, and well my life could be better i'm as self-actualize as i'm going to be for a few years to come. I find myself terribly depressed when I visit many churches, the people there and how they act are just...sad to me.
I couldn't agree more, most churches I visit depress me as well. The church I regularly go to however does not, in fact it makes me happy mostly because everyone else is happy.
No, I think it is possible to achieve a measure of happiness without religion. However, I was not happy before I found God, so there is something to do with it.
I hear ya, but I still think you would be happier if you were to really pursue God, Run the Race as the apostles did, Paul being a remarkable example, he found it within himself to rejoice even when he was in prison. A remarkable achievement I think.
I like several "religions" which are new age or which lack a personal anthropomorphic god.
Pantheism and discordianism are two that I like a lot(amongst others).
Sometimes i'll tell people that I do have a god, just that it isn't their god.
Which is somewhat sophistry, since i'm using equivocation. god can mean many things, but one meaning of that word I don't ever see myself endorsing is the one of popular Christianity. I generally agree with Nietzsche when it comes towards the nature of most Christians, even if I do recognize more good in it then he did. I don't have such a nature, and hope I never will. One fundamental problem I have with Christianity is the idea that I am flawed and need forgiveness, especially from some unobserved god. I have no guilt about who I am, even if I am not perfect. So any attempt at most christian rituals just feels so inauthentic for me. My integrity wouldn't allow me to become baptized , I would feel like a fake.
Concerning the education, although I agree those with higher education typically have a higher standard of living, before our current era wealth caused greater education not the other way around.
Maybe how most wealthy people in the past justified their wealth and authority though the opium of religion? And thus how better material wealth doesn't necessarily improve non-religiosity; I would agree there. It has more to do with how religiosity is tied in with the means of production. Which if you wish for me to show more of my communist roots that would be the direction to go. :)
It is sadly a very common thing to equate communism to either Leninism or welfare liberalism.
If you read Marx communism is actually a stateless society. Government is seen as the vehicular of class warfare, and without classes much of it, if any, wouldn't exist. Sadly communism has been overly politicized, It is kinda as if someone took newton's ideas of physics and tried to lead a revolution around it, and it didn't work out too well so everyone else equated newton's theories with the thing that didn't work.
Historical materialism and dialectics are pretty awesome, and are the base of much of communist thought.
Historical materialism is the recognition that there has always been a oppressor and and oppressed class, and that these classes changed as technology and the economy changed. The rise of liberalism(classical that is) is actually a perfect example.
dialectics is a way of thinking which avoids dogmatic beliefs, although more communists could use it. It recognizes that gradual quantitative changes become qualitative changes at some point, that change occurs in a spiral, and so forth.
That is more of a Leninist idea, Marx and many communists(and anarchists as well) have a very different idea on the matter. Throughout history you can see people rising up and over throwing outdated institutions. We believe that one day capitalism will become outdated, some believe it already is others want to do some type of "holding action". In truth it is becoming outdated, and we are nearer it's end then what many think. When that happens the condition for yet another revolution will be set, and as it has happened in the past it shall happen again. Except, there should be no reason to oppress a group of people this time, at least in the long run.
You know, why the hell do these socialist have something against voluntary exchange and voluntary contract anyways? Why the hell do they think its some kind of crime? I really just don't get it...
The atheists surely have the enemy working in their life and satan has them so confused. It is a shame that these atheists strive in doing satan's work for him.
Atheism is simply having the belief that there is no god.
I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ and one who puts faith into "science" and "logic".
They lack belief in all gods, not just yours.
And it's not faith that they put into Science and logic, it's thinking for there self that they have all this proof against religions and believing it.
An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts.
That's why almost everyone celebrates Christmas. The original reason for Christmas has been long lost in celebration. And it was not originally for Christians either.
Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it.
They have different morals than you. They still live by morals, they're just different than yours.
Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians.
No more than Christians are towards them. Though, on both sides, we're generalizing.
They are best known for their repetitive religious cliche's.
I think Atheist's are best known for their lack of belief in a god actually...
They love to tell Christians they are close minded and are pretty predictable in their arguments.
I think everyone who stands strong in their beliefs is pretty predictable in their arguments. At least someone who argues with Science alters when we discover new things.
You are a reasonable person and I agree with much that you say. No, Christmas was not for Christians, I already knew this. There is only true set of morals and that is those that are in the Bible. I guess the dislike could be mutual. The only difference is that Christians hate the sin, not the atheist. Atheists just flat out hate Christians, in general. There may be exceptions.
There is only true set of morals and that is those that are in the Bible.
How can that be true if there are other morals that people follow? Obviously there is not only one set. And much of what the bible has in the old testament is something nearly EVERYONE disagrees with. Murder, slavery, sexism, and rape are prime examples. That is all in the bible, but I think we can both agree that it is all morally wrong.
Atheists just flat out hate Christians, in general.
I actually find this very untrue. Atheists hate trying to explain something to someone and them not understanding it and telling them they're going to suffer for their individual thought.
I personally am not atheist, I'm agnostic. And even with my choice I am told I will "suffer in hell" and I'm also told I"m a bad person who makes more choices. These are all things I've heard from Christians. Not very loving, is it?
The Bible sets the ground of morality and has since the beginning of time. Anything you do that is moral is of the Bible and of Christ. All good things are of God. Much of what happened in the Old Testament was immoral and it sickened God. Christians get frustrated in trying to explain themselves to people such as you as well and Christians have a responsibility to bring others to Christ. You atheists have no eternal responsibility. It's much harder being a Christian than an atheist. It may not all be loving what you hear from a Christian, but I promise you it is very true.
I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. Though you've called me one three times and I told you I'm not each time. So I've come to the conclusion that you're too ignorant to read, and especially too ignorant to understand an argument from anyone.
The ONLY thing you spout as an argument is insults and bible nonsense that is a poor argument.
And you promise it's true? How can you promise something with no proof or anything?
Okay. Thanks for your time. No, I spout no insults. I speak the truth straight from the Word of God. I promise the Word of God is true without proof - if that is what you need to hear. The proof is in the Holy Bible.
Once again you chose to read only what you want to.
YOU think that's the truth. That's fine.
But really, isn't your goal to convert more people to Christianity? Because you're doing a REALLY poor job of convincing anyone that your gods way is the right way.
Yes, I want to convert more to Christ but there is no talking to an atheist about Christ for even a moment for the atheist to just attempt to have faith in Jesus who is unseen. There is no proper way to witness to an atheist.
Okay, well I know the truth does indeed hurt but I do hope you will consider crying out to Jesus the next time you are suffering in life. When no one else is there to pick you up, He will be there for you.
Actually there is, it is by example; which you have made a terrible one.
If you came here hoping to spread your religion, you have only made it all that much more unattractive, even repulsive; for atheists don't want to be like you. They don't want to be rude, inconsiderate, arrogant, insulting, illogical and well...a complete and utter troll. At least you have kept it rather condensed into one or two debates, which makes me wonder if you know how to be even an effective troll let alone an effective witness for Christ ( and yes, I have meet very good ones but they can't really overcome the Kantian notion that all we experience is experience of mere phenomena and thus any attempts to illuminate ultimate truth is futile. Despite this, they have, and hopefully will counter balance your effects, made Christianity have some shred of dignity.)
I agree, actions speak louder than words, if you truly want to convert someone treat them civilly. This is what the Bible teaches and it is a principle that I have been trying to incorporate, in fact in my opinion this can be clearly seen by my remarks on this site with started out with more than a hint of anger, and I hope have begun to be more and more kind and civil.
It is something we all can do, I've noticed I tend to lack patience with others. Which has started to annoy me.
How do you think more Christians could start approaching others more civilly. As an atheist I can tell you very many of them have an underlying coercive nature to nearly all of their communications with people that they realize are not Christians. Often times it is unintentional, but the insecurity and social conditioning too many have and suffered though is rather transparent in how they attempt to reaffirm their own self worth by implementing such conditioning on others and implant similar insecurities. Ultimately I view Christianity as dependent on a view of human nature I am strongly and fundamentally opposed to. My personality is incapable of accepting such a view of human nature. So despite how I enjoy and like much of the ethics and stories in the bible, I find the basic philosophy repulsive. Which is a facet of my atheism I don't discuss much, typically it focuses on the epistemological side of things rather than the meaning of humanity and individuals in the world. It is a bit refreshing.
"Explain what you are referring to the as the Hebrew bible?"
Well, Jewish people laregly reject the teaches of the New testament, they reject the very idea of there being a "new" testament, they beleive there is only one covenant between God and Isreal, and that it is eternal, therefore the same set of morals you speak of is not present in Judaism, and it definitely isn't present in Islam, so as I asked originally, how do you square the circle, so to speak?
This topic is not about Judaism nor Jews. But you are stereotyping Jews. There are many Jews who believe in the Holy Bible and whom are Christians. You are speaking of religions which I am not a part of nor would I ever be. Judaism is similar to Christianity, if you didn't know.
Please note that there are plenty of Jews who do believe in Jesus the Messiah. In saying "the Jews", we really need to define the fact that many Jews did believe in Jesus as the Christ, but by the second century (especially after 70AD) the Jesus community was largely distanced from the rest of Judaism; partially due to the spread of Christianity to Gentiles and partially due to the diaspora.
As far as accepting New Testament canon, remember that the oldest books of the New Testament were likely those written by Paul, and those were actually simple letters. The Synoptic Gospels came after these. Congregations gathered together what Christian writings they could for a couple of centuries. It wasn't until Marcion published his canon that orthodox Christians felt the need to put together any sort of biblical canon, so it wasn't until the second half of the second century A.D. that there were any known attempts at listing a Christian canon.
By this point, Judaism was over 100 years removed from Jesus, and the Jewish Christians were more separated from their own ethnic group. So, it can work out that some ethnic Jews wound up accepting the New Testament. But, by the time canon was firmly established, Christianity was a couple of hundred years old, and a completely different religion from Judaism. So, there was no need for rabbis to accept the New Testament.
That's a nice and well thought out argument, but your reply compltely ignores my main point of contention, you either forgot, or to have "conveniently" forgotten, let me refresh you're memory, you sought clarification on exactly what I meant, I elaborated, then you went on to further elaborate. I'm not really that interested in the discussing the nuances of the development of the bible, what I'm really getting at is how you can beleive the power of your holy book gives the supreme right to be the sole arbiter of morality.
I think you are pointing a finger at me stating I have "conveniently" forgotten that you, yourself, are guilty of. Exactly, I elaborated even more. Why does that bother you? The development of the Bible is a huge part of why Christians believe what we believe. How come you atheists don't have a book as wonderful as the Holy Bible? Because you are following a false religion. The reason the Word of God is the "sole arbiter" is because God is the Creator thus morality is what we are called to be as we walk in obedience to Jesus.
"I think you are pointing a finger at me stating I have "conveniently" forgotten that you, yourself, are guilty of."
I cannot decipher the meaning of this statement.
" Exactly, I elaborated even more."
Yes, but there was no need, you were the one who sought clarification, not me.
"Why does that bother you?"
Well, it doesn't exactly bother me, but normally when a person presents their views in a debating forum, they should be prepared to defend them, I asked you something quite specific and your response gave me the impression that you either didn't realise that, or else, you simply ignored it.
"The development of the Bible is a huge part of why Christians believe what we believe."
I fully acknowledge the validity of your point, but you claim moral supremacy. I'm asking how you align your ideology with conflicting ideologies that do likewise.
"How come you atheists don't have a book as wonderful as the Holy Bible?"
Firstly, I'm not really an athiest, at least not in the conventional sense, secondly, the Holy Bible is a truly wonderful book, but by what basis do you assert it's supremacy over competing holy books or scriptures, like the Koran, or the Hindu Vedas, or even the Tao Te Ching.
"Because you are following a false religion. The reason the Word of God is the "sole arbiter" is because God is the Creator thus morality is what we are called to be as we walk in obedience to Jesus."
I don't want to inadvertently insult you, so I won't reply to this.
If you cannot decipher that statement, I am sorry you can't. Let us move on to next statement. So I didn't need to elaborate more, well I did. Now let's move on again. I am prepared to debate my points but atheists are the only group of people who do not know how to debate. I find it rather amusing. You state I ignored something. Why is it that you atheists are always pointing the finger at someone else. When does accountability come into effect? Yes, Christ is the key to moral supremacy. Well, you support atheism and yes, the Holy Bible is a wonderful book. I don't even give the Koran, etc. any place in a competition against the Bible. The Bible is the one and only Word of God. I could care less if you insult me. I am a sinner saved by grace.
Please don't misunderstand me, I don't mind what you chose to include in your argument as long as you follow basic debating etiquette, I mean, how is a discussion to proceed if someone asks a question in search of greater elucidation, only for it to be ignored?
"I am prepared to debate my points but atheists are the only group of people who do not know how to debate. "
Well, I think that's more than a little unfair, I would say people don't know how to debate, but they cannot be classified exclusively as athiest.
"I find it rather amusing. You state I ignored something."
Fair enough.
"Why is it that you atheists are always pointing the finger at someone else."
I don't want to give off the impression that I'm pointing any fingers, that was definitely not my intention, and again, I'm not really an athiest, more of a spiritual athiest.
"When does accountability come into effect?"
Could you please tell me what you mean by this, I mean what exactly do I need to be accountable to? I assume you mean something I said in the debate, and not "God!!!"
"Yes, Christ is the key to moral supremacy."
Yes, I understand that is what you beleive, but I'm asking why you hold that opinion, you don't need to provide me with an objectively verifiable response, I'm not that rigid in my requirements. I merely want to understand your thought process, be it subjective or objective.
". I don't even give the Koran, etc. any place in a competition against the Bible."
Why though, I mean, can you provide a reason that doesn't simply boil down to: because I was raised a Christian, or because of the way it makes me feel. At this stage I'd even accept the latter.
"The Bible is the one and only Word of God."
Yes, that's the exact same response I'd expect from any other religious zealot.
" I could care less if you insult me."
At the risk of making things repetitive, I don't care if you care, I just don't like to be insulting.
"I am a sinner saved by grace."
Yes, there is definitely a lot of psychological security and order in strongly beleiving such things.
Garry. I follow debate etiquette as much as any other person. You probably don't realize it, but it's impossible to debate with an atheist. I do not ignore but I do find the atheists here doing that to me. You are right, there are others who don't know how to debate. I will agree with that. I don't see how you can call yourself a spiritual atheist and I really find that worthy of an explanation. When do atheists start being held accountable for their narrow mindedness that they love to so often blame others for. This is just one part of the accountability issue. Why do I hold my opinion? It's not an opinion, it's my belief and I believe in Jesus through my personal faith. I have no interest in any other "holy" book that is not inspired by my Jesus that is why I won't give any other book other than the Bible my time. I am not religious but spiritual. But you can call me whatever you wish, as it doesn't change anything about what I really am.
"I don't see how you can call yourself a spiritual atheist and I really find that worthy of an explanation"
What do you mean worthy of an explanation?
"When do atheists start being held accountable for their narrow mindedness that they love to so often blame others for. "
What do you mean "when do athiests start being held accountable." Would you prefer some theocracy in which all non-beleivers were judged before a council of religious elders, and subsequently stoned to death?
"This is just one part of the accountability issue."
What is? You haven't said anything except: athiests are narrow minded and need to be held accountable.
"Why do I hold my opinion? "
I now why you hold your opinions.
"It's not an opinion, it's my belief and I believe in Jesus through my personal faith."
Bingo.
"I have no interest in any other "holy" book that is not inspired by my Jesus"
That's because you falsely beleive your God to be the one true God.
Yes, they are so very lost and it breaks my heart but after awhile, I just hate the sin of atheism. I am always praying for God to give me the patience to witness to these type people. Jesus was persecuted just as all Christians will be before the end is here. I can't imagine the world being any more evil than it already is, but I know it will happen though Jesus will return before it gets to unbearable. I just want to hurry His coming and let everyone from every end of the earths hear his name. Once they have all heard His name and have either rejected it or received it, He will return.
"Yes, they are so very lost and it breaks my heart but after awhile, "
Everyone is lost, but some resist the temptation to subscribe to ideologies that claim make sense of chaos.
"before the end is here."
Ever heard of a self fulfilling prophecy?
"I can't imagine the world being any more evil than it already is,"
We need to be light upon ourselves in a world of darkening light, be the change the you want to see. Or to put in a way that may be more palatable, God helps those who help themselves.
"Once they have all heard His name and have either rejected it or received it, He will return"
Is this assertion based on official Christian doctrine?
Yes, you are right - we are all lost. But when a lost person gives his heart to Jesus, we are forgiven through grace. We are then called to put off the old self and walk in the new. When we stumble, we are to repent and turn away from that sin. I believe in the prophecy within the Bible. You should read Revelations some time. No man will ever fully understand it but you should just see how catastrophic the end is going to be. This world is full of evil and it is the duty of a Christian to pull others out of the darkness. I will never stop doing so and if I only get one soul saved, well, that is one less soul in hell. It is based on Christian doctrine. It surely is.
"But when a lost person gives his heart to Jesus, we are forgiven through grace."
There is no reason I should give my heart to anything outside myself, because there is nothing outside myself, Jesus was simply another human, but one who managed to convince many of the truth of our existence.
"We are then called to put off the old self and walk in the new. "
I can assure you that I have been many people in the course of short life, and I aim to keep my personality dynamic, in order to do so one cannot be too fond of any particular system of belief.
"When we stumble, we are to repent and turn away from that sin."
I don't need an ideology to tell me what is and isn't sin, I can choose a life of sin by my own volition, and if so I will bear the marks as they appear on my personality.
"I believe in the prophecy within the Bible."
The bible contains many deep truths hidden by obscure myth and folklore, however, when taken literally it can be dangerous, and when taken literally, it is completely absurd.
"This world is full of evil and it is the duty of a Christian to pull others out of the darkness."
I can pull myself out of darkness if I wish without having to subscribe to the Christian faith, nor do I need to be a Christian in order to save others, I don't even like the idea of saving others, it presupposes absolute knowledge (never a good thing).
As a matter of fact Faith without works is useless and works without faith is similarly useless, this is what the Bible teaches, your God helps those who help themselves is hardly a new concept to Christians. "Seek and you will find." Another example where the individual must do before anything happens.
A- prefix for non or without, basically negates whatever word its attached to.
theism- belief in god
Atheism- non-belief in god, or without belief in god
"I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ and one who puts faith into "science" and "logic"."
yes, but not just specifically jesus, then islamics would be considered atheists. also you cannot put faith in science and logic, science is a discipline on the collection of knowledge, you observe and conclude data depending on what you observe. logic is making sense of something, its completely objective and factual (you can use logic on subjective matters, but whatever logic you use is simply back up on facts that you are using to backup opinion, the opinion itself is not fully logical, but somewhat subjective.
"An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts."
to a lot of atheists christmas is either a holiday for the pure fun of it, or for generosity. originally christmas wasn't christmas, there was actually a lot of different types of "christmas's" that we eventually "christianized" it and the christmas version became vastly more popular. originally christmas had nothing to do with christianity therefore I believe that anyone should be able to celebrate christmas in the name of anything they want, I don't believe there is an official christmas.
"Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it."
well thats quite a statement, first of all the definition of an atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god, so if one lacks belief in god then they automatically lack morality, if you agree with that statement then i guess we have a REAL argument and not simply someone who is trying to poke at a minority they don't like anymore. the reason we talk about morality is because we have less reason to put little thought in it, since we can't simply say "if god approves then it must be good, if not then its not" we have to actualy give good well thought reason why something is "bad" or "good".
"Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians."
once again, the description of an atheist doesn't have anything to do with hate towards christians. these statements are (dare i say it) geometrically incorrect. (we learn about logical statements in geometry.) I know what you are talking about with these statements, but you would sound a bit more logicall if you called them correlations (which even then you are quite wrong.) an atheist doesn't automatically have to be scientific, its just the common philosophy behind atheism (which is also a correlation, in fact i would say its a big one) also goes hand in hand with science, and mathematics, therefore atheism goes hand in hand with science and mathematics by correlation. atheists aren't generally immoral, where are your statistics to back that up?
"They are best known for their repetitive religious cliche's."
like what exactly?
"They love to tell Christians they are close minded and are pretty predictable in their arguments."
well on the topic of religion, by correlation, theists in my opinion are, but only because of todays society. and every theist iv ever argued with has been predictable, not one has made a good argument towards me.
Based on the majority of the ones here, I'd say egotistical, narrow-minded, dim wits, whose sole purpose in life is destroy that which is beyond their comprehension. Evangelistic atheists, who would have thought.
Most inclusively, anybody who lack a belief in any deities. There are sub-groups of atheists, but the previous description is the only one that includes all atheists.
I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ
Or any other deity. But about Jesus specifically- an atheist would definitively only disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, not necessarily his existence as a historical figure. Technically, a spiritual atheist might even believe that Jesus had "powers", but not that he was any kind of divine being. This is extremely rare, but I have encountered at least one atheist who espouses this belief.
one who puts faith into "science" and "logic".
Frequently, but this is not a requirement of atheism. This is more descriptive of scientists and rationalist. Although most scientists and rationalists are atheist, not all are, and not all atheists are scientists or rationalist. The interest in these methodologies does appear to be higher among atheists than theists, however.
An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts.
I don't celebrate it at all.
Besides, in modern American society, Christmas has been elevated beyond being a purely religious holiday for many people. It is holiday closely linked to materialism and capitalism now, as well as traditionally being a general reason to celebrate and be with family memebers and friends. I would argue that many Christians don't celebrate Christmas as a purely religious holiday any more, and atheists who celebrate it could have any number of reasons.
Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it.
There are plenty of moral atheists out there. Besides, religion does not hold the monopoly on morality. Basic morality is biological in nature, and one's morality actually has less to do with their religion or even their upbringing than it does their genetics.
Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians.
Many Christians hate atheists, members of other religions, and homosexuals. Atheists, not having any system of beliefs to fuel hate, have a less of a reason to be hateful. And also, many atheists are attacking the religion, not the person.
And the remaining accusations could all be stated about Christians and how they treat non-Christians.
briefly i want to say that atheists can quickly change their position if the situation requires. For example they can be as Muslims in order to get charities during Ramadan month or accept other religions if there are some necessary things for them.
How are atheists more capable of doing that than any other individual?
A Christian can change their position and become a Muslim in order to "get charities during Ramadan month or accept other religions if there are some necessary things for them" as well.
I know plenty of "off-line atheists" and most of them seem more like apatheists, but they intentionally make their atheism known as though they are trying to use the issue to not conform.
An atheist is someone who lacks belief in an intelligent cause to our universe. Atheism is like darkness, belief is like light. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light.
that not what i meant, I meant that Atheism is a lack of belief like darkness is a lack of light or coldness is a lack of heat. Atheism is the lack religious belief.
An atheist is a person that lies to thyself, they claim there is no God. If they truly believed this, then why do they call to him? Nobody goes around saying unicorns don't exist. If they believed God didn't exist, God wouldn't be the center of their life.
You're probably never going to come in contact with someone who's going to try to convince you unicorns are real and you'll get in trouble if you don't believe in them. If unicorn believers were everywhere, and constantly trying to convince people that unicorns were real, then yes, plenty of people would go around saying they don't believe unicorns exist.
Past discussions have shown me that you tend to ignore questions unless they're specifically pointed out to you as real, so I'll preface this by saying these are real questions. For you to answer. With words.
~~REAL QUESTIONS COMING UP.~~
By your definition, atheists are not lacking a belief in god, but are just not happy with him, is this right? If so, does this mean you don't think there is anyone in existence who actually lacks a belief in god? If this is also true, then can you imagine a world in which people exist who genuinely lack a belief? How does this change your worldview? Does it make you uncomfortable/angry/apathetic/confused/etc. when you think of people genuinely deciding that they don't believe in gods? How do your opinions differ between atheists as you perceive them, and the people who really lack belief?
First off, I only ignore those questions in which I have already answered or questions in which the asker already has a predetermined answer. This is like asking a Christian if they believe in God.
Of course an atheist believes in God, they just choose not to follow him. There are people that lack a belief in God, they just aren't atheists. These people just go through life without ever mentioning God, not making him the center of their life.
My world view isn't changed because I already see it this way. It is only the atheist that is uncomfortable, angry, confused, etc.
Your last question I already answered in the above. The difference between some that lacks belief in God and an atheist, the one that lacks a belief in God doesn't acknowledge his existence all the time. Every time an atheist says God doesn't exist, it only reinforces the existence of God. Why else would God be so important?
First off, I only ignore those questions in which I have already answered or questions in which the asker already has a predetermined answer.
You've gone entire threads without giving a single straight answer. This doesn't have to be something we bicker about because I'm not going to go through histories and collect examples, but maybe just try not to do that.
Of course an atheist believes in God, they just choose not to follow him.
If someone believes in God but is upset with him, they are not an atheist. You love using the dictionary- why ignore it now? I think it would be very difficult to find a source that defines atheism not as a lack of belief, but as belief and anger.
These people just go through life without ever mentioning God, not making him the center of their life.
So you think atheists believe in God because they talk about religion frequently, right?
Can you not identify with an interest in discussing the implications of the existence of a god? Religion has such a long history, is central to so many peoples' lives, has complex literature, and makes some amazingly bold claims- imagine you thought it was complete fantasy, doesn't it still sound like an interesting topic? Some people spend their entire lives studying, discussing, and thinking about Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't automatically mean they all think those worlds are real in any place except their imaginations.
Every time an atheist says God doesn't exist, it only reinforces the existence of God.
How? Did you enforce the existence of unicorns earlier when you mentioned they weren't real?
Why else would God be so important?
Like I said, some people think it's just really interesting. Other people might be annoyed with organized religion for causing problems in their lives, especially people who live in highly religious areas where non-believers have a tough time. If I did, I imagine religion might be on my mind frequently, too.
If you don't know what a straight answer is, I guess that explains a lot about why you tend not to give them. If someone gives you a straight answer, you probably shouldn't be left with the exact same question you had before you asked them.
A dictionary defines the generalities of a term, not the specifics.
So according to you, the generality of the term atheist means they lack a belief in god, while the specifics of the term mean they do believe in god and just don't like him. A dictionary doesn't agree with you, so you invoke another type of definition, which is incompatible with the dictionary's definition.
Maybe take a minute to think about that.
Find me a Trekkie that doesn't think it is real.
Okay. Me. And also, every other Trekkie I've ever met. Actually, can you find me a Trekkie that does think it's real? I guarantee that's going to be a hell of a lot harder.
Of course I enforce the belief in unicorns when I mentioned them.
Remember when I said 'How?' See how you didn't answer that question, and instead just skipped to the next one? Remember how I said you ignore questions or don't give straight answers? This is that thing. So, I'll ask again.
How do you enforce something's existence by professing your lack of belief in it?
Note that I'm asking about this quote: "Every time an atheist says God doesn't exist, it only reinforces the existence of God," and not your quote concerning unicorns, because you phrased that one differently so it doesn't mean the same thing.
Why would you be ignored by something that you don't believe in? Unless God matters to you.
Are you having a different conversation in your head? What did I say to make you bring this up?
A atheist is a person who doesn't take the words of a 2000 year old book as true just because the people who wrote it down were smart enough to add that they were guided by the "Holy Spirit". An atheist is a person who remembers celebrating christmas not as a day worshipping Christ, but a day when family gathered together around a fireplace and learned giving was better than recieving. An atheist is a person who looks at many religions and see they all have three similar features: An invisible force you simply must believe in, the promise of a reward that isnt tangable because they promise it behind the veil of death, and that it regiments your beliefs stating if you dont, when you pass that veil of death you'll find evil and pain. So i apologize that I DONT want to follow the words of a book that tells me everyone is equal*, oh, except for: Black people, Arabic people, women, the poor, and those of other religions.
I consider Athiests hypocrites. Athiests do not have faith/believe in an all powerful being and use science to try and prove their point. My belief is that God exists and the universe is his proof. I may not have experienced God or Jesus or any of the stories in the bible but it's my faith. Athiests supposedly don't have faith/believe in anything however that statement and legal definition is hypocritical. There is no real proof of how the Earth/universe was formed, there are theories. Theories aren't proven yet Athiests believe in them and use them as proof that God doesn't exist however, Athiests don't believe/have faith in anything so their point is invalid and hypocritical.
An atheist is a person who does not have a belief in a god or gods. They are not a group unified by anything meaningful like a higher level of intellect, logic, belief in science, humanity or absence of supernaturalism. A true atheist can be seemingly religious and even tell you he is a believer.
I think an atheist is a person who lacks belief in Jesus Christ
Thanks for not saying "someone who asserts God/religion/Jesus is not real. However, a lot of us do believe Jesus existed, but don't believe he was the son of God, as we don't believe God exists. We don't assert he doesn't, we just don't believe what Christians/religious people say.
and one who puts faith into "science" and "logic".
Wow, second point and you've lost it already. Science is the act of performing testable studies on matter and whatever else. It's experimentation. What I think you're saying is stuff like origins of the universe, evolution, life span of Earth, etc? If so, we have evidence for evolution and have witnessed other Earth-like planets being formed, so not only is it not impossible for planets to naturally form, the chance that ours formed like any of the other billions is a lot greater than the invisible guy in the sky put it here. It's basically common sense now that Earth is a hell of a lot older than 11,000 years. We haven't come to a concrete conclusion on how the universe was created, but we have lots of hypothesis, and reasonable suspicion that there was an enormous explosion which is why the planets and galaxies are drifting apart. And seriously, faith in logic? What the shit kind of question is that? We blindly believe in logic? Give me a break.
An atheist also celebrates Christmas just so he can get gifts.
...And to spend time with family. Same with Easter. We get chocolate eggs and turkey and stuff.
Atheists also enjoy speaking about morality yet they do not live it.
It is possible to have your own moral standards. Just because you do what the invisible guy in the sky tells you to doesn't mean that's the only way to live.
Atheists tend to be full of hate especially towards Christians.
No. We tend to debate/argue with them because it's not only fun, but productive. Ever heard of the Christian dark ages? 1000 years of zero progress. The human race didn't advance at all because of Christianity. We could be exploring different galaxies by now, but hey, we aren't, and one of the reasons we aren't is probably because Christianity came in and said "nope, believe in the invisible guy in the sky instead of basic logic." There's a reason we took forced prayer out of schools. It accomplishes nothing.
They are best known for their repetitive religious cliche's.
They're pretty funny too. Those damn Atheists, celebrating Christmas to get gifts instead of bow down and worship the invisible guy in the sky. Ruining the world, I tell you!
They love to tell Christians they are close minded and are pretty predictable in their arguments.
Because they are, most of the time. I'll bet you my eternal torment in Hell that if I said you can't prove God exists, you would come right back with "you can't prove he doesn't." - It isn't up to me to disprove something somebody made up. You make a claim, you prove it. Simple as that.
I consider atheists to be elitists.
Thanks.
What a shame.
Oh yes, it's a shame that after 1000 years of zero progress and advancement of the human race, people stopped believing in Christianity and the human race actually started evolving and advancing. What a shame that we moved on from slaughtering people and burning them alive for not being Christian. I wish we lived back then, too.
I am an atheist, and not all atheists are assholes, actually most atheists don't give two shits about what you believe in. Please don't generalize, by saying that all of us are evil, christian hating bigots. I will respect your beliefs if you respect mine.
It is very simple. You, as a theist, make the claim that a god exists. I, as an atheist, examine that claim, balance it against my own knowledge and experiences, and ultimately reject that claim.
And that's it. It's that simple. You make the claim, I reject the claim.
Of course, it doesn't just apply to the claim of Jesus or the Christian god. It applies to Baal, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fill in the blank.
Other than that, we're pretty difficult to generalize. We cover nearly all demographics and political spectrums. Shit, I'm a veteran, atheist, gun toting, liberal, capitalist, humanist patriot who's happily married to a Catholic; from a distance I'm a walking contradiction in a lot of ways.
But, in terms of "faith in science", here's my rebuttal. I don't have faith in science. I have faith in evidence (which makes it not faith, but knowledge, as the definition of faith is "belief without evidence"). And from where I'm standing, there's not a shred of credible evidence that points to a creator or a deity, and certainly not one deity over the thousands that have been dreamed up throughout human history. We have so many gods and other superstitions, but we have one scientific method, and I follow the teachings of the scientific method because it works. If you want to cure diseases, you can either pray about it or put research into vaccines. If you want to fly you can either get on a magic carpet or get on an airplane. If you want to know the composition of stars you can either believe stories of gods tossing bears into the sky by their tails to create the big and little dipper or you can look at the findings of radio telescopes. Similarly, if you want to know the origin of our species you can either side with the consensus held by respected biologists, geologists, paleontologists, geneticists, archaeologists, etc, or you can believe a guy in a robe that gives the blanket, easy-to-digest explanation of "goddunit". I believe in science because it works, and while often inconvenient, it will always lead us closer to the truth than shit we just made up to feel better about ourselves.
An atheist has no belief in any gods. This takes zero faith, and faith is antithetical to atheism. Science is not required to not be convinced there's a god, and though most of us do believe in science, that's not faith - it's evidential.
Maybe you'll understand it if I put it this way - if I drop a ball, it falls. This is not faith, it's evidence of gravity.
There are atheists that deny gods. Gee, so does everybody else. Find me a christian that doesn't deny Thor. How about Athena? Is one mythology any more likely than any other?