Sir Anthony Hopkins: I couldn’t be an atheist

gmilam said:
According to those who do believe in that religion, yes.

It's the believer who defines the atheist.

IF (there is but one "God" and you do not believe in mine);
THEN you are an atheist;
ENDIF;
Click to expand...


If you don't believe in God in the religious context you're a blasphemer religion never mentions atheism.
 
ArmisExposcerePacem said:
Stalin yes.. Hitler? No...
Click to expand...

Actually, that's incorrect.

Both Stalin and Hitler employed religious techniques, developed by Christianity. Just because they demanded a divergence from Christianity doesn't mean they didn't use religion's younger handmaiden, patriotism, as a substitute. And they both walk and quack like a duck: songs, chants, services, pilgrimages, oaths, prayers. All used and all offered to and in the name of the state leaders.

How else to control the minds of people after theistic nonsense began to die? Simple, substitute god worship for state worship.

Remove religion and nationalism** from human history and you suddenly see a world without the vast majority of its suffering.

~String

________________________________________________
**Loving one's country and culture; loving where one lives is significantly different than patriotic or nationalistic dedication to a governing body.
 
spidergoat said:
But I don't think there can be any evidence of a god, because no one can define the term. It's impossible to be anything other than an atheist.
Click to expand...

I wish you'd joined in on the 'Honest Theist' thread, where JamesR took the part of a theist, and was supposed to be giving me his honest, personal definition. He ended up C&P'ing from the dictionary. After copping out a lot.
 
phlogistician,

Please don't tell lies in separate threads.

As I recall, you wimped out of the "Honest theist" thread. So either drop it and move on, or go back to that thread and we can continue there.
 
Big Chiller said:
Which is why it's a good idea to stick to the ontological argument and reduce speculations.
Click to expand...
Surely you jest...

Speculations are good. As long as you understand that until you have an idea that can actually be tested it is purely speculation.
 
James R said:
phlogistician,

Please don't tell lies in separate threads.

As I recall, you wimped out of the "Honest theist" thread. So either drop it and move on, or go back to that thread and we can continue there.
Click to expand...

I reported YOU for telling lies James. I'm done in that thread. I won't debate you any further because I won't sink to your level.
 
gmilam said:
Surely you jest...

Speculations are good. As long as you understand that until you have an idea that can actually be tested it is purely speculation.
Click to expand...


Speculations are only good when they lead to tests if speculations can't lead to testability they are not good.
 
Rhaedas said:
I think it was the "why are they protesting so much" that gets me. It's the whole "shut up atheists" all over again. If you're secure in your belief system, then you should be okay with others giving their viewpoint. Maybe an education into why they do protest would help...there's a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

Hopkins wasn't telling atheists to shut up. Nor was he advocating forcing them to shut up, or censoring them. He was merely expressing his view on atheists. Atheists have a right to "protest so much"; and Hopkins has a right to interpret that any way he wants. Then atheists have a right to say he's full of crap; then Hopkins has a right to say "no I'm not" -- and on and on.

I always find it interesting that atheists and Leftists (often categories that merge) interpret criticism as threats -- and when criticism is interpreted as a threat, then what is the logical response? Self-defense against "threats", which then leads to censorship?

The free speech reality is that people will disagree, and the disagreement may get heated; but that's life.
 
Actually atheism is the claim no gods exist at all...with no disclaimers or "if".
Click to expand...

That is certainly one of the definitions of atheism, but it's not the only one. By far the majority of people who self-identify as atheists merely reject theism without making the statement that no god or gods exist. It's a simple thing really, all you have to do is say "show me the evidence" and when none is forthcoming(it never is) you reject their unsubstantiated assertion. To date I've only ever met one atheist who's a seven on the Dawkin's Scale and I've only ever heard of one other(Christopher Hitchens). Even if a seven is the common definition, it's a definition that is grossly out of touch with reality.

@Hesperado --

I always find it interesting that atheists and Leftists (often categories that merge) interpret criticism as threats -- and when criticism is interpreted as a threat, then what is the logical response? Self-defense against "threats", which then leads to censorship?
Click to expand...

Then where is this censorship? I've certainly not seen it.

And there's a damn good reason why atheists often overreact to criticism, it's because for more than five thousand years the "criticism" that was directed at us either took the form of a violent death or accompanied one. This is the first century in human history where atheists have, by and large, been able to truly speak out without having to fear retribution and death. You(theists) have held the stage and the reigns of power for well over two thousand years, I think that it's our turn now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top