Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have a hard time with Hitler getting away with murder too. And that's why we must stop Hitler types before they murder millions. And all those innocent people in prison, who are praying to no one.....we must get them out!
Blurred meanings? That I rely on established, well respected dictionaries instead of the idiotic Dawkins' scale to define Atheist as one that believes God does not exist is not blurring. That I believe that to believe either way takes faith is not blurring. That I believe that faith regarding a deity (whether it exists or not) could be classified as a religious belief is not blurring. That I believe any person belonging to any religion does not have to be considered religious is not blurring. That I believe that any person acting on the doctrine of his/her religion is being religious is not blurring. That I believe Atheists have their own set of "church elders" in Dawkins, Hitchens and others is not blurring. That I believe the Atheists leaders are proselytizing is not blurring. That I believe there are Atheist churches available for you to join is not blurring. That I believe the courts have defined Atheism as a religion is not blurring.You have misstated my claims. Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist. That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist. That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not. That is why I haven't made the claim.Hey, I didn't start this thread. I do not care who does or does not believe in God. I am a live-and-let-live person. Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do. I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware. When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on. The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions. But you do make a good point. I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that some people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...
I leave the sophistry to your idol, Richard. Even his own brethren have accused him of simplistic, less-than-sophomoric argument.
I agree with you. That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma. I can't even say I "believe" in Karma. At least not 100%.
Lets put it this way though. If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future. And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person. But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth. I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.
Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad. Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat. Know what I mean?
I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.
What a surprise, first you say you believe in karma, and then, after people point out how stupid it is to believe in karma, you say you don't.
Yet you wonder why no one takes anything you say seriously.
It explains exactly why you are wrong. 10 minutes.
It is a video, it only explains how idiots watch videos. If the argument was actually any good you would have it in writing for the intelligent people.
I have a hard time with Hitler getting away with murder too. And that's why we must stop Hitler types before they murder millions. And all those innocent people in prison, who are praying to no one.....we must get them out!
Only the ones that aren't praying?
Hate to burst your bubble, but every innocent innocent prison in prison is praying to someone.
At least I'm open minded about it and I don't believe in it 100% like for example you guys believe that whore Mary was a virgin when she got knocked up.
Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration - Health questions - NHS ChoicesIt’s possible for you to get pregnant without having sexual intercourse (penetration) if, for example:
- sperm get into your vagina – for example, if you or your partner have semen or pre-ejaculate on your fingers and touch your vagina
- your partner ejaculates near your vagina
- your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina
Pregnancy can happen when sperm (from cum or pre-cum) gets in the vagina or on the vulva. This usually happens when two people have vaginal (penis-in-vagina) sex.
If sperm comes in contact with the vagina or vulva during body rubbing/dry humping without clothes, there’s a small chance of pregnancy (even if you don't actually have his penis in your vagina).
It takes about 10 minutes to fully explain all the reasons why you are fos. Watch it or just admit you are engaging in willful ignorance.
Isn't that what use your bibles for?heavy, blunt objects are better suited to dealing with you than points.......Not to mention, you're pointless.not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery. You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
It's comical that you would attempt to dismiss your obsessive hate for non-believers with such sidestepping and obfuscation. For someone who claims to be ambivalent towards atheists, you've made it your mission in life to vilify those who reject your gods.You have misstated my claims. Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist. That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist. That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not. That is why I haven't made the claim.Hey, I didn't start this thread. I do not care who does or does not believe in God. I am a live-and-let-live person. Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do. I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware. When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on. The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions. But you do make a good point. I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention. There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope"). Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world. The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities. They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do. I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard. This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere, arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion. I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion. I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion. I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that some people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
Does it take more stupidity to believe that than most other religious or spiritual beliefs?
That was what is known in the academic world as a stupid question.
FYI, karma is not a religion.
Now, to address your lack of a point, can you point out any other religions or set of spiritual beliefs have a set of rules that are not actually spelled out? Given the fact that karma appears to be totally arbitrary, are you willing to put it on the same level as Jainism?
Does it take more stupidity to believe that than most other religious or spiritual beliefs?
That was what is known in the academic world as a stupid question.
FYI, karma is not a religion.
Now, to address your lack of a point, can you point out any other religions or set of spiritual beliefs have a set of rules that are not actually spelled out? Given the fact that karma appears to be totally arbitrary, are you willing to put it on the same level as Jainism?
I didn't claim karma is a religion.
I also didn't make a point, I asked a question. I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.
I agree with you. That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma. I can't even say I "believe" in Karma. At least not 100%.
Lets put it this way though. If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future. And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person. But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth. I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.
Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad. Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat. Know what I mean?
I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.
What a surprise, first you say you believe in karma, and then, after people point out how stupid it is to believe in karma, you say you don't.
Yet you wonder why no one takes anything you say seriously.
At least I'm open minded about it and I don't believe in it 100% like for example you guys believe that whore Mary was a virgin when she got knocked up.
There you go telling me what I believe again.
By the way, just so you know how stupid it is for you to insist that only someone who has sexual intercourse in order to get pregnant, I present to you the evidence that you are wrong.
Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration - Health questions - NHS ChoicesIt’s possible for you to get pregnant without having sexual intercourse (penetration) if, for example:
- sperm get into your vagina – for example, if you or your partner have semen or pre-ejaculate on your fingers and touch your vagina
- your partner ejaculates near your vagina
- your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina
Pregnancy can happen when sperm (from cum or pre-cum) gets in the vagina or on the vulva. This usually happens when two people have vaginal (penis-in-vagina) sex.
If sperm comes in contact with the vagina or vulva during body rubbing/dry humping without clothes, there’s a small chance of pregnancy (even if you don't actually have his penis in your vagina).
How Pregnancy Happens Planned Parenthood
In other words, if I do actually believe that Mary was a virgin, which you have no evidence of, at least I would have science on my side admitting that it can happen.
It takes about 10 minutes to fully explain all the reasons why you are fos. Watch it or just admit you are engaging in willful ignorance.
I told you before, videos are for idiots. I much prefer to get my information from reading, which is why I currently have a personal library that has more books than you have read in your entire life.
not at all.....I use arguments that you can't respond to......you know the ones I mean.....the ones that make you go back to pretending I'm a young earther......Isn't that what use your bibles for?heavy, blunt objects are better suited to dealing with you than points.......Not to mention, you're pointless.not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery. You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
if you want to convince someone you'll have take the time to do better than Hollie.....she sucks at it.....It takes about 10 minutes to fully explain all the reasons why you are fos. Watch it or just admit you are engaging in willful ignorance.
I told you before, videos are for idiots. I much prefer to get my information from reading, which is why I currently have a personal library that has more books than you have read in your entire life.
Well I've seen a million post from people like Hollie trying to explain to you the things they say in that video so I thought rather than hearing a little bit about why you are wrong and then you reply with some bullshit and then we explain another reason and another reason and so on as to all the reasons why you are wrong, and you keep coming back with more and more bullshit. So I thought a nice well done 10 minute video on why you are wrong might help. We're certainly getting no where. So listen to it and it'll explain in great detail why you are wrong.
Are any of them criticizing his work or his stance on Atheism? As for Anthony Flew he became a deist in 2004. In fact he wrote a book called "There Is A God: How the world's most Notorious Atheist changed his Mind" in 2007. His criticism of Dawkins is from 2010.Changing midstream are you?Adam Lee - Atheist - Very dishonest in his approach and a hack. I personally doubt he is an atheist. Doesn't actually criticize Dawkins arguments, just calls him sexist.
Michael Ruse - Atheist - Criticizes Dawkins approach and style in his arguments.
Justin Michael - Atheist - but doesn't criticize Dawkin's position or work, just feels he is arrogant with a vitriolic attitude.
Anthony Flew - Deist
Alister McGrath - Angilcan
None of these criticisms are about Dawkins postion. Many atheists criticized Christopher Hitchens because of his position on the Iraq war but they were not critical of his atheist position. Sam Harris had many critics on his Israel stance by atheists, but not his atheist position. Atheist will not always agree with what another atheist is saying but you will be hard pressed to find criticism of their arguments and stance on atheism by atheists. Michael Ruse is the only one I feel that did this but he was really nitpicking and says Dawkins is being simplistic about his arguments.
"I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins..."
I gave you some and you dismiss them summarily. What a dunce you are. A sheep of the Chief Dunce, Dawkins!
..and, BTW Flew was a fine Atheist for most of his 87 year life.
You, like your idol, suffer from delusions of adequacy. Dream on, sucker!
..keep on kissing your Pope's ass!
Good for you! That's commendable.Blurred meanings? That I rely on established, well respected dictionaries instead of the idiotic Dawkins' scale to define Atheist as one that believes God does not exist is not blurring. That I believe that to believe either way takes faith is not blurring. That I believe that faith regarding a deity (whether it exists or not) could be classified as a religious belief is not blurring. That I believe any person belonging to any religion does not have to be considered religious is not blurring. That I believe that any person acting on the doctrine of his/her religion is being religious is not blurring. That I believe Atheists have their own set of "church elders" in Dawkins, Hitchens and others is not blurring. That I believe the Atheists leaders are proselytizing is not blurring. That I believe there are Atheist churches available for you to join is not blurring. That I believe the courts have defined Atheism as a religion is not blurring.You have misstated my claims. Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist. That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist. That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not. That is why I haven't made the claim.Hey, I didn't start this thread. I do not care who does or does not believe in God. I am a live-and-let-live person. Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do. I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware. When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on. The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions. But you do make a good point. I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that some people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...
I leave the sophistry to your idol, Richard. Even his own brethren have accused him of simplistic, less-than-sophomoric argument.
I don't have any use for Dawkins or Hitchens. And I've given you know reason to insinuate I do. This is really all you're here for, isn't it?
No I am not neutral on the subject of fairies. I don't believe they exist. As for the probability of fairies existing being equal to the probability that they do not exist I quite sure any sane person would disagree witrh this. Also no belief does not mean you think the probability of something existing is equal to the probability of it not existing. If I were to state I have no beliefs in preminissions it means I do not belive in preminissions. It is really that simple. As for having facts or evidence to support it you can't have evidence to support a negative. Facts would be there has been no DNA samples of a fairy found, no photographic or video evidence found, and no actual fairy ever presented, dead or alive. These are some of the facts to support my position. Does this mean this is suffiecient evidence to rule out any evidence of fairies? Of course not as the onus of eviedence is on the ones who claim they are real. Anyone cam make a claim about anything but if you can't provide evidence to back your claim then why should others believe you?My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
eg. You believe such & such does not exist.
A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief. What else could it be?
Are you neutral on this subject? Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not? Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it. If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?
Actually your website was a Catholic website.First of all the quote I put up was a criticism of John Moore's criticism of Dawkins. I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins as Moore is an Anglican.
And I posted a detailed criticism of Dawkin' reliance on logical fallacies in his work from an atheist website, what's your point?
I didn't claim karma is a religion.
I also didn't make a point, I asked a question. I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.
