Christians vs Atheists

[jinchilla]

"I think the concern of religion in schools is that a publicly funded institution could be . . ."

Ok, my concern.

The influence a religious activity might have on a child is so absolutely insignificant.

So why do you argue in favor of allowing them?

 

[lixluke]

Is that a real question?
That's why. It's insignificant, and therefore, pointless to suppress.
A person might argue in favor of them because it's ridiculous to get upset over something so insignificant, and suppress it. That person is me.
But people get upset about a teacher talking about religion as if they were talking about porn. Those are the atheists, or even more abundantly, dumb jews acting like atheists.

Why would I want to suppress something that is so insignificant that it causes no harm whatsoever?

 

[jinchilla]

The harm is that it wastes tax payers' education funds as it wastes time. Name any other pointless, time-consuming activity and I would say it shouldn't be allowed during class time.

 

[jinchilla]

Dumb Jews? Qualify...

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

What is so terribly and disquietingly laughable about “Christians vs. Atheists”….

Firstly let it be known, whoever has said, says, or thinks Atheism is a “religion” is wholly miseducated.

Secondly let it be known, whoever has said, says, or thinks Atheism is “a lack of belief” is equally miseducated- you speak of agnosticism.

Now.

Religion, (at the very least, Christianity) is nothing more than Man gratifying himself with delusions of grandeur. It is man, in his gratuitous audacity professing that he, an evolved species of sheep, truly, a mindless, ignorant, self-destructive rabble of automatons, was created in Divinity’s image. He then, after taking the first leap of uncorroborated godliness, proclaims that divinity would reek so malodorously of emotion: i.e. “love”, “spite”, “jealousy” etc…. Religion further more drives we “selfish, unworthy, sinful,” souls to “sacrifice ourselves and our own desires for the benefit of our fellow man’s” to attain God’s interminable “love”, no…. “God loves all his children, it is done out of the love for God”. (Such love, and ‘selflessness’ that the pious so unerringly display, is in hypocrisy, for it is only done to ensure the greater pleasure of being ‘with God’, unmistakably, the lust, yes lust, for the eternal pleasure and euphoria promised if one lives well in the “eyes of God”.... Oh, how I despise such opiate addicts…)

Yes religion, being the most acrid in flavor of ideas ever proposed to my tastebuds….

Next.

Atheism, Ha! yes atheism, with the impeccable and nearly indiscernible guise of intellect, indifference, comprehension, independence, superiority; I must bow with humility (not something I have in abundance) to its verisimilitude toward such ideals. It’s advocates, so sure of themselves, so disdainful, so convinced that the idea of divinity being blemished by man’s ills, contradicted by war and hate, refuted with impalpability, that his “lack of belief”, or with a greater coherence, his disbelief, is then justified and logical. His faith in ‘faithlessness’ is insurmountable.

Yes atheism, a fallacy of comprehension- such a cacophonous tune….

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

And, is it just my waning eyesight, or did someone say "idioticy"......

 

[lixluke]

"Firstly let it be known, whoever has said, says, or thinks Atheism is a ?religion? is wholly miseducated."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMG.
Not this again.
The premise has already been debated.
Try refuting the points against it instead of restating the premise.
Thanks.


"Secondly let it be known, whoever has said, says, or thinks Atheism is ?a lack of belief? is equally miseducated- you speak of agnosticism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um who's dictionary are you using, CHRIS? Mine doesn't agree with you.

Atheism:
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

agnosticism:
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

Religion, (at the very least, Christianity) is nothing more than Man gratifying himself with delusions of grandeur. It is man, in his gratuitous audacity professing that he, an evolved species of sheep, truly, a mindless, ignorant, self-destructive rabble of automatons, was created in Divinity?s image. He then, after taking the first leap of uncorroborated godliness, proclaims that divinity would reek so malodorously of emotion: i.e. ?love?, ?spite?, ?jealousy? etc?. Religion further more drives we ?selfish, unworthy, sinful,? souls to ?sacrifice ourselves and our own desires for the benefit of our fellow man?s? to attain God?s interminable ?love?, no?. ?God loves all his children, it is done out of the love for God?. (Such love, and ?selflessness? that the pious so unerringly display, is in hypocrisy, for it is only done to ensure the greater pleasure of being ?with God?, unmistakably, the lust, yes lust, for the eternal pleasure and euphoria promised if one lives well in the ?eyes of God?.... Oh, how I despise such opiate addicts?)

Yes religion, being the most acrid in flavor of ideas ever proposed to my tastebuds?.

Typical atheist gar.


"Yes atheism, a fallacy of comprehension- such a cacophonous tune?."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange.
From the jist of your take on christianity, you're a big fat atheist.
From the jist of your take on atheism, you're a big fat christian.
I'd put you under atheist though. Only a real atheist would come up with such vex on christianity.

And, is it just my waning eyesight, or did someone say "idioticy"......

Where?
If that was me, it might have been a typo.

 

[lixluke]

"The harm is that it wastes tax payers' education funds as it wastes time."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proper education weather it includes religion or not wastes nothing of the sort.
Say you are a teacher. Because of these retarded laws, you can get fired for what you say.
Even if you are not cursing or including sex and violence.


Dumb Jews? Qualify...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually, it's them not the atheists that impose athesit religion.

 

[jinchilla]

Don't bother, cool.

 

[Repo Man]

Chriscunningham, you should take a look at this thread, Definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Brought to you by dictionary.com

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


ag·nos·ti·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm)
n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist


By a matter of simple discernment one can see that the "lack of belief" is when you do not assert either argument to be true, whereas taking one side is a BELIEF yes BELIEF of that premise.

Your dictionary was right on, but your reasoning was defective. To say one "disbelieves" is much different than to say "one lacks belief".

Moreover, I can be theistic while detesting religion's basis and its adherents, for religion cannot be independent of divinity, but divinity has no need for religion.

And repo, I've seen this thread before. The problem is, nevertheless, that any assertion that God does not exist is a firm belief that a God does not exist. Such things as "weak athiests" simply do not exist. There are three sides to this story... have faith that there is no God, have faith that there is a "god" of some sort, or be completely unsure about either being true, and asserting neither as such. That's it.

 

[lixluke]

That's fine.


There is supposedly a difference between the sayings:

1- I believe there is no God.
2- I do not believe there is a God.

According to saying #2, supposedy I do not believe in God. Then, because you choose saying #2, it is concluded that you do not abide by saying #1 either.

In other words, if you believe saying #2:
1. you do not believe there is a God
2. you do not believe there is no God?"

How is that:
Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.
?

1) Is that an accurate interpretation of what you are saying?
2) Please elaborate on why it is so.

 

[Lemming3k]

I find what cool skills trying to say confusing so im gonna see if i got it right, saying 2: i do not believe there is a god, is a definate statement that denies existence of god, it is therefore the same as saying statement 1: i believe there is no god. right?
To be agnostic the phrase would be: I am unsure about the existence of a god, as they do not believe a definate either way and are open to both existence and non-existence of a god, if a lack of belief in god is agnosticism then the lack of belief that there isnt a god is also agnosticism, right?.(or have i just confused things more?)

 

[lixluke]

Yes you have.
An atheist will say that he disbelieves in God.
Therefore, he would say #2: I do not believe there is a God.

Therefore, they are saying:
1. I do not believe there is a God
2. I do not believe there is no God

I'm trying to figure out if this is correct about how atheists wish to be thougght of.
I'm not even bringing agnostocs into the picture.
Then I would like to know how this is not the same as saying there is no God.

I have an atheist friend that keeps telling me the same thing you atheists tell me.
"I don't belive in God. But that doesn't mean I believe there is no God."
How do?

 

[Raithere]

I'm trying to figure out if this is correct about how atheists wish to be thougght of.
I'm not even bringing agnostocs into the picture.
Then I would like to know how this is not the same as saying there is no God.

I have an atheist friend that keeps telling me the same thing you atheists tell me.
"I don't belive in God. But that doesn't mean I believe there is no God."
How do?

You have to bring agnosticism into the picture here. Agnosticism is an epistemological stance. You can have agnostic theists who believe in god but are not certain god exists, agnostic atheists who don't believe in god but are not certain god cannot exist, and plain old agnostics who withhold commitment to a belief either way.

Most commonly atheists are agnostic, generally called the weak atheistic position, which means they do not believe god exists but admit that that cannot know for sure. Others hold the strong position which is the belief that god does not / cannot exist.

As is typical, the argument depends largely upon what definition of god you're working with.

~Raithere

 

[Q25]

I have an atheist friend that keeps telling me the same thing you atheists tell me.
"I don't belive in God. But that doesn't mean I believe there is no God."
How do?

its like this;
there may be god,I just dont believe in it.

theres about 3000 religions worldwide and all have some kind of god they worship,so which one is right?

if you say theres only one god/creator or such,it could very well be,now if you could provide us with some evidence for its existense it would be great.

and no bible aint proof!

if you insist on believing in xian allmighty god,omni potent,omni present all good etc then its definition will make him/it imposible to exist
read here www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/

 

[Twist]

I have an atheist friend that keeps telling me the same thing you atheists tell me. "I don't belive in God. But that doesn't mean I believe there is no God." How do?

Your friend is correct. An absence of belief is simply not the same as a belief of absence. Atheism is literally non-theism. Theism being a belief in the existence of God(s). An atheist lacks this belief.
"I do not believe in God" can equally be phrased "I have no belief in God". Clearly an absence of belief rather than a belief of the negative.

Your mistake cool skill comes, I believe(hehe), in the presumption that everyone must have a 'belief' regarding God. You seem to reject non-belief as an option. I do not believe God does not exist as a matter of personal faith, I simply do not believe there is a God.

More interesting is why you would wish to define atheism as a religion. From the rest of this thread it appears that you wish religion to recieve equal time in school. You think atheism is taught in school? Unfortuantely atheism is not and cannot be taught in school; as it is simply an absence of belief, there is no need to teach it.

Regarding religion in school, there is a time and place, and that is in Religious Education classes, or non-educational settings in non-secular schools (assemblies for example). Religion should never be taught in science lessons, or Home Economics lessons for that matter. Further, the issue of a chlid's religious beliefs or lack of is not a matter for educators, but parents, and ultimately individuals. Parents may decide to send children to religious schools, thats fine and dandy. Parents could equally decide to send children to secular schools where they will receive religious education, but not engage in religious practice. You do see the difference between religious education and religious practice?

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Cool or anyone else this may pertain to, as I have said time and time again, one's assertions are what defines his "belief" or "disbelief". Any and every belief has its uncertainties as every and any assertion. The very sense of truth itself is based on assumption and faith. So at the end of the day, whatever one 'believes' what he can be categorized. If I belive there is no "God" then I am atheist, if I belive there is a "god" than I am theist, if I am not sure than I am agnostic. If I assert any of those arguments than I am one who can be categorized in the corresponding belief. End of story....

That is in essence is my greatest fuel for detestation of atheism, its advocates prevaricate, prevaricate by creating a muddled amalgam of nuance i.e. "weak atheists" but in the end they simply want to elude from the fact, truly by deluding themeselves into believing they don't have as much faith as theists. They don't want to admit it because that is their very premise for not believing in a "god". The idea that it requires too much faith to commit one's time to. Alas (for them), in the end, it requires no less faith than theism itself.

 

[Lemming3k]

I have an atheist friend that keeps telling me the same thing you atheists tell me.
"I don't belive in God. But that doesn't mean I believe there is no God."
How do?

That one confuses me, as an atheist i dont believe in god, and i feel thats the same as saying i believe there is no god, im afraid you'll have to ask him what he means, it sounds as though he's more of an agnostic than an atheist.

Therefore, they are saying:
1. I do not believe there is a God
2. I do not believe there is no God

I know you didnt want to bring agnostics into it but those two sentences imply agnosticism to me not atheism, atheist dont believe in god, if you also dont believe there is no god then you are saying you dont believe either, like agnostics say. An atheist wouldnt say 'I do not believe there is no god' as they believe there is no god, i really hope im making sense with this.

Twists post was pretty good, you have to realise the difference between being educated about religion, and being taught to practise it, i dont think anyone is against being educated about relgion in schools its when it becomes practised by teachers in schools, i was brought up praying in assemblies until i became an atheist(then i stopped joining in) and then i wondered why they had the right to choose we should pray when we dont all share the same view.

 

[Twist]

...They don't want to admit it because that is their very premise for not believing in a "god". The idea that it requires too much faith to commit one's time to. Alas (for them), in the end, it requires no less faith than theism itself.

I don't know any atheists who are such because theism requires too much faith to commit one's time to. I suspect the majority just find that theism either offers little, or involves too much intellectual compromise. Theism strikes me as simply redundant.

If you are, for example, a Christian, then do you believe the Chthonic god Pwyll does not exist, or do you simply not believe Pwyll exists? And if you claim that you "believe the Chthonic god Pwyll does not exist" then you are member of the "No Pwyll" religion? What if you have never heard of Pwyll? Does the fact that an individual has just heard of Pwyll suddenly indoctrinate him into the "No Pwyll" religion?

I do agree with your assertion that truth (and ultimately knowledge) is belief due to the impossibility to prove anything (other than that one exists), but this is a different use of the word belief than when in reference to a religion or faith.