Causes of Atheism

[Disir]

I must ask you to get your line of faux-discussion back on track. This thread is not a platform for people's ideology, but rather a discussion of what causes it. Feel free to talk about why you think there is no Jesus; however, a simple one sentence post declaring a particular belief you hold doesn't constitute actual discussion of said belief's causes.

It's a platform for your faux ideology.

What is my ideology?

What causes your faux ideology is you teaching them. Period.

Again, the same cause of belief in the Holocaust.

One is fiction and one is not. Christianity is a faux ideology and obviously your interpretation of the separation of church and state.

 

[GISMYS]

bEST YOU JUST FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE MAIN CAUSE for Atheism =foolish non-thinking and allowing satan to use and blind you. WHAT SHAME AND GUILT to know that ALMIGHTY GOD says you are a fool.=a child of satan======That man is a fool who says to himself, “There is no God!” Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, “There is no God.” And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???

 

[Machaut]

I suspect that perhaps unlike the Evangelical Christians, who pride themselves on being stupider than dirt, Catholics actually want their kids to be smart. For instance, we were taught about this thing called "Evolution". Now, of course, the problem I guess is that since I was taught about Adam and Eve in religion class and Darwin in Science class, at some point, I'd have to put them side by side and figure out which one was right. (Spoiler alert, the Darwinists had FOSSILS, so they win.)

I guess if I were as a dumb as a doorknob Evangelical, I'd have never heard of that and never asked the question.

Huh. That's pretty neat. It seems like them apparently not even trying to reconcile teaching two stories of creation that are, ostensibly, mutually exclusive, was a bit of an oversight.

If he cared about all humanity, then why was religion geographically limited? If Yahweh was the real "God" and Zeus and Odin and Krishna and Amaterasu were all fakes,

Why do you make this particular assumption?

I think this is the implied message of a religion whose first Commandment is "Thou shall have no other gods before me!"

Poor wording on my part, sorry. Rather: Why do you make the assumption that Zeus, Odin, Krishna, etc. are fakes, and why do you assume that they are not all one in the same, as well as assuming that Yahweh isn't merely another culture's name for the same entity?

Now, we can get into a deep philosophical discussion about whether the Bronze age Hebrews were really monotheists or polytheists, or whether all religions are true because they have a notion of God... but that's talking in circles, man.

Your capitalization of "God" in this context is intriguing. God with a capital G tends to refer to the supreme being of the Abrahamic faiths, but the all-lowercase word "god" does not. Was your capitalization an intentional distinction? You have described yourself as an atheist, yet you seem to also believe that any religion with a notion of g/God could be true. Why?

If we are talking about the Abrahamic God, he is only worshiped by half of humanity, and until 2000 years ago, his worship was pretty much limited to the Levant.

Do you believe that mankind has free will? Additionally, since you seem to be including Muslims in your count, what is your opinion of this verse of the Qur'an?

16:36 And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods. Then some of them (there were) whom Allah guided, and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for the deniers!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Belief in religion or atheism both are faith based dogmas.

Atheists will attempt to deny it but will argue a witless belief that they don't have to explain why the don't believe in God, which is an explanation of belief.

No way to escape it.

 

[Disir]

Belief in religion or atheism both are faith based dogmas.

Atheists will attempt to deny it but will argue a witless belief that they don't have to explain why the don't believe in God, which is an explanation of belief.

No way to escape it.

Pffftttt...........Jake, Jake, Jake............what are we going to do with you, man?
Evidence=none:

Atheism doesn't require faith.

 

[GISMYS]

Open your eyes and learn to think. Only a total fool can look at the universe and life and not know God is real. Look at the universe and life and you see complexity and design. Complexity and design cannot be the result of time and chance. DNA is another great proof of GOD, DNA is information and even science has no idea of how information might evolve, DNA is proof of GOD. GOD IS THE ONLY ANSWER= THE DESIGNER AND CREATOR.

 

[Machaut]

It's a platform for your faux ideology.

What is my ideology?

What causes your faux ideology is you teaching them. Period.

Again, the same cause of belief in the Holocaust.

One is fiction and one is not.

So because you personally believe in one and disbelieve in the other, that means every baby on the planet is born with exactly those same beliefs? What else, if anything, are babies born believing in?

Christianity is a faux ideology

I must apologize for having introduced you to a word that you seem to lack an understanding of. For convenience, here is a definition:

imitation, ersatz <faux marble>
Synonyms
artificial, bogus, dummy, ersatz, factitious, fake, false, imitation, imitative, man-made, mimic, mock, pretend, sham, simulated, substitute, synthetic

Antonyms
genuine, natural, real

Faux - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
And no, just because "fake" and "sham" are listed as synonyms, that doesn't mean that your impending jubilant post of "hurr, c im rite christ-insanity iz faux durrrr" is accurate. "Faux" refers to something that is, essentially, counterfeit; calling Christianity a faux ideology as a means of saying that it is incorrect or untrue is using the term "faux" wrongly. To give you a better understanding, one could say that the Jedi religion is a faux ideology based on the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

The Jedi census phenomenon is a grassroots movement that was initiated in 2001 for residents of a number of English-speaking countries, urging them to record their religion as "Jedi" or "Jedi Knight" (after the quasi-religious order of Jedi Knights in the fictional Star Wars universe) on the national census.

It is believed the majority of self-reported Jedi claimed the religion for their own amusement, to poke fun at the government,[1] or as a protest against the inclusion of the religion question on the census form.

You see, these people are essentially using the census process to artificially establish the Jedi religion as an actual statistically significant religious affiliation, though none of them actually believe in it themselves. Thus, in the context of the national census reporting that over 390,000 people in England and Wales are Jedi, it can be said that the Jedi religion is a faux ideology. Likewise, Pastafarianism is a faux ideology, as no one actually believes in that either.

I hope this has strengthened your understanding of the appropriate use of the word "faux".

and obviously your interpretation of the separation of church and state.

I'm not certain what you are saying here. You believe that, if asked about my opinion on the concept of separation of church and state, I would reply "Christianity"? Did you perhaps mean to separate this section into another sentence? You are being rather unclear.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'll tell you what my journey to Atheism was like.

I went to a Catholic School. Which means, after about fourth grade or so, they sicced the nuns on us. A bunch of angry old women who were using religion to beat down their lesbian feelings, and they inflicted them on kids.

Well, one day, one of these old hags was telling us all about Noah's Ark. And how God drowned everyone but Noah and his family because they were 'wicked'. When I asked why God drowned the babies, the old crone screeched. 'They were wiiiicked babies.. Wiiiiiicked!!!!!"

Anyway, a few years later my mom got cancer and despite everyone in the Parish praying for her to get better, she died. Another one of these nuns said at her funeral, "God had a good reason for this.' If I smashed her head into the wall, God would have had a good reason for that, too.

Long story, short, I really started to question the whole bullshit that these folks had been laying out to me for 12 years. Why would a eternal, omnipotent God care about any one person living or dying? If God created the universe and the universe is at least 14 billion years old, why would he care about one person on one planet in an nearly infinite universe?

If he cared about all humanity, then why was religion geographically limited? If Yahweh was the real "God" and Zeus and Odin and Krishna and Amaterasu were all fakes, then why was only one tribe aware of him until about 2000 years ago.

Nuns - some are/were so vicious and evil and hateful. Makes you wonder why they choose such an abnormal life.

What is it with catholics and that belief in sinful newborns? And then making excuses for god making dead, deformed, sick, miserable babies?

A god who, in a fit of temper, destroys the world but then supposedly answers individual prayers?

Such a nonsensical and convoluted morass of contradictions. No wonder there are cafeteteria christians.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

One of the leading, perhaps the number one, causes for atheism is the inability of the believers to practice what they preach.

Its hard to believe the preachers here actually believe in what they say they do. They seem to hate their god and want to push others away from christianity.

 

[Machaut]

Pffftttt...........Jake, Jake, Jake............what are we going to do with you, man?
Evidence=none:

Atheism doesn't require faith.

So you're saying that atheists do not have faith in their own ability to reason and discern truth? You believe that atheists do not have faith in their own senses, research, experiments, or conclusions? That is a very unscientific view for an atheist to have.

 

[GISMYS]

Pffftttt...........Jake, Jake, Jake............what are we going to do with you, man?
Evidence=none:

Atheism doesn't require faith.

So you're saying that atheists do not have faith in their own ability to reason and discern truth? You believe that atheists do not have faith in their own senses, research, experiments, or conclusions? That is a very unscientific view for an atheist to have.

ATHEIST ARE fools!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Belief in religion or atheism both are faith based dogmas.

Atheists will attempt to deny it but will argue a witless belief that they don't have to explain why the don't believe in God, which is an explanation of belief.

No way to escape it.

That's a riff on explaining a negative.

There's nothing to explain in atheism whereas, believing in a magical invisible creature in the sky who smotes or loves on a whim?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What is my ideology?


Again, the same cause of belief in the Holocaust.

One is fiction and one is not.

So because you personally believe in one and disbelieve in the other, that means every baby on the planet is born with exactly those same beliefs? What else, if anything, are babies born believing in?


I must apologize for having introduced you to a word that you seem to lack an understanding of. For convenience, here is a definition:

Faux - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
And no, just because "fake" and "sham" are listed as synonyms, that doesn't mean that your impending jubilant post of "hurr, c im rite christ-insanity iz faux durrrr" is accurate. "Faux" refers to something that is, essentially, counterfeit; calling Christianity a faux ideology as a means of saying that it is incorrect or untrue is using the term "faux" wrongly. To give you a better understanding, one could say that the Jedi religion is a faux ideology based on the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

The Jedi census phenomenon is a grassroots movement that was initiated in 2001 for residents of a number of English-speaking countries, urging them to record their religion as "Jedi" or "Jedi Knight" (after the quasi-religious order of Jedi Knights in the fictional Star Wars universe) on the national census.

It is believed the majority of self-reported Jedi claimed the religion for their own amusement, to poke fun at the government,[1] or as a protest against the inclusion of the religion question on the census form.

You see, these people are essentially using the census process to artificially establish the Jedi religion as an actual statistically significant religious affiliation, though none of them actually believe in it themselves. Thus, in the context of the national census reporting that over 390,000 people in England and Wales are Jedi, it can be said that the Jedi religion is a faux ideology. Likewise, Pastafarianism is a faux ideology, as no one actually believes in that either.

I hope this has strengthened your understanding of the appropriate use of the word "faux".

and obviously your interpretation of the separation of church and state.

I'm not certain what you are saying here. You believe that, if asked about my opinion on the concept of separation of church and state, I would reply "Christianity"? Did you perhaps mean to separate this section into another sentence? You are being rather unclear.

Oh for crying out loud.

 

[Disir]

What is my ideology?


Again, the same cause of belief in the Holocaust.

One is fiction and one is not.

So because you personally believe in one and disbelieve in the other, that means every baby on the planet is born with exactly those same beliefs? What else, if anything, are babies born believing in?


I must apologize for having introduced you to a word that you seem to lack an understanding of. For convenience, here is a definition:

Faux - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
And no, just because "fake" and "sham" are listed as synonyms, that doesn't mean that your impending jubilant post of "hurr, c im rite christ-insanity iz faux durrrr" is accurate. "Faux" refers to something that is, essentially, counterfeit; calling Christianity a faux ideology as a means of saying that it is incorrect or untrue is using the term "faux" wrongly. To give you a better understanding, one could say that the Jedi religion is a faux ideology based on the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

The Jedi census phenomenon is a grassroots movement that was initiated in 2001 for residents of a number of English-speaking countries, urging them to record their religion as "Jedi" or "Jedi Knight" (after the quasi-religious order of Jedi Knights in the fictional Star Wars universe) on the national census.

It is believed the majority of self-reported Jedi claimed the religion for their own amusement, to poke fun at the government,[1] or as a protest against the inclusion of the religion question on the census form.

You see, these people are essentially using the census process to artificially establish the Jedi religion as an actual statistically significant religious affiliation, though none of them actually believe in it themselves. Thus, in the context of the national census reporting that over 390,000 people in England and Wales are Jedi, it can be said that the Jedi religion is a faux ideology. Likewise, Pastafarianism is a faux ideology, as no one actually believes in that either.

I hope this has strengthened your understanding of the appropriate use of the word "faux".

and obviously your interpretation of the separation of church and state.

I'm not certain what you are saying here. You believe that, if asked about my opinion on the concept of separation of church and state, I would reply "Christianity"? Did you perhaps mean to separate this section into another sentence? You are being rather unclear.

It's a faux ideology based on a work of fiction. There is no historical jesus.

Note: [ame=http://youtu.be/Q5ncRVfJ2y8]Peter Pan- I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!! - YouTube[/ame]

It doesn't make them any more real. Faux ideology. No historical Jesus. Faux ideology.

You understand exactly what I am saying.

 

[GISMYS]

ALMIGHTY GOD has the first and last word===========That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???

 

[Disir]

Pffftttt...........Jake, Jake, Jake............what are we going to do with you, man?
Evidence=none:

Atheism doesn't require faith.

So you're saying that atheists do not have faith in their own ability to reason and discern truth? You believe that atheists do not have faith in their own senses, research, experiments, or conclusions? That is a very unscientific view for an atheist to have.

The word that you are searching for is not faith but reason.

 

[Machaut]

It's a faux ideology based on a work of fiction. There is no historical jesus.

Note: Peter Pan- I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!! - YouTube

It doesn't make them any more real. Faux ideology. No historical Jesus. Faux ideology.

You understand exactly what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you are trying to say, that you believe that assertions made in Christianity are untrue. However, when you call Christianity a faux ideology, you are actually saying that Christianity is like Pastafarianism or the Jedi religion, i.e. something that no one truly believes in. I thought my previous explanation was enough to properly distinguish "Christian beliefs are not correct" from "Christianity is not a real ideology," but apparently it was not.

Given that news articles are frequently posted here, you must be familiar with The Onion, correct? The Onion is a faux news source. It is not meant to be believed, nor does it try to represent the facts. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, BBC, etc. are all real (non-faux) news sources. Obviously, a liberal watching Fox News might object to the particular slant put on a news story by Fox, and perhaps may even object to the facts asserted in the story; however, this does not take away from the fact that Fox is an actual news source. Likewise, a conservative watching MSNBC might object to the liberal slant on the news, and may also object to the facts they assert; this also does not take away from the fact that MSNBC is an actual news source. No matter your political opinions, both Fox and MSNBC are actual news sources, while The Onion is not. The Onion is a faux news source.

Do you understand the proper use of the word "faux" now?

 

[natstew]

Churches turn themselves into "Houses, Of Hypocrisy", and that turns people who were raised by their Mothers to be honest Christians against all religion. Jesus called the Churches of his time, "Synagogues of Satan".


I am now a non church going Christian.

(from my own personal experience)

 

[Disir]

It's a faux ideology based on a work of fiction. There is no historical jesus.

Note: Peter Pan- I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!! - YouTube

It doesn't make them any more real. Faux ideology. No historical Jesus. Faux ideology.

You understand exactly what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you are trying to say, that you believe that assertions made in Christianity are untrue. However, when you call Christianity a faux ideology, you are actually saying that Christianity is like Pastafarianism or the Jedi religion, i.e. something that no one truly believes in. I thought my previous explanation was enough to properly distinguish "Christian beliefs are not correct" from "Christianity is not a real ideology," but apparently it was not.

Given that news articles are frequently posted here, you must be familiar with The Onion, correct? The Onion is a faux news source. It is not meant to be believed, nor does it try to represent the facts. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, BBC, etc. are all real (non-faux) news sources. Obviously, a liberal watching Fox News might object to the particular slant put on a news story by Fox, and perhaps may even object to the facts asserted in the story; however, this does not take away from the fact that Fox is an actual news source. Likewise, a conservative watching MSNBC might object to the liberal slant on the news, and may also object to the facts they assert; this also does not take away from the fact that MSNBC is an actual news source. No matter your political opinions, both Fox and MSNBC are actual news sources, while The Onion is not. The Onion is a faux news source.

Do you understand the proper use of the word "faux" now?

faux [foh] Show IPA
adjective
artificial or imitation; fake: a brooch with faux pearls.
Origin:
1670–80; < French; Old French fals < Latin falsus false

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.
Cite This Source | Link To faux
Etymonline
Word Origin & History

faux
from Fr. faux "false" (see false). Used with English words at least since 1676 (Etheredge). Used by itself, with French pronunciation, from 1980s to mean "fake."

Merely repeating that you believe in it does not make it any truer.

 

[Machaut]

Pffftttt...........Jake, Jake, Jake............what are we going to do with you, man?
Evidence=none:

Atheism doesn't require faith.

So you're saying that atheists do not have faith in their own ability to reason and discern truth? You believe that atheists do not have faith in their own senses, research, experiments, or conclusions? That is a very unscientific view for an atheist to have.

The word that you are searching for is not faith but reason.

Again, you are showcasing your lack of understanding in basic vocabulary.

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

strong belief or trust in someone or something

complete trust

something that is believed especially with strong conviction

His supporters have accepted his claims with blind faith.

Our faith in the government has been badly shaken by the recent scandals.

Lending him the money to start his own business was an act of faith.

It requires a giant leap of faith for us to believe that she is telling the truth.

Reason, on the other hand:
Reason - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a statement or fact that explains why something is the way it is, why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way

a fact, condition, or situation that makes it proper or appropriate to do something, feel something, etc.

the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way

I gave a reason for my absence.

Is there a reason for your strange behavior?

There is a reason why they don't want to come.

So, in the context of this thread, belief or trust can be substituted for faith, while rationale or explanation can be substituted for reason.

Going back to my post:

So you're saying that atheists do not have faith in their own ability to reason and discern truth? You believe that atheists do not have faith in their own senses, research, experiments, or conclusions? That is a very unscientific view for an atheist to have.

Now, if we were to substitute your preferred words:

So you're saying that atheists do not have rationale in their own ability to reason and discern truth? You believe that atheists do not explain their own senses, research, experiments, or conclusions? That is a very unscientific view for an atheist to have.

This makes absolutely no sense. However, substituting with my terms:

So you're saying that atheists do not believe in their own ability to reason and discern truth? You believe that atheists do not have trust in their own senses, research, experiments, or conclusions? That is a very unscientific view for an atheist to have.

This, as you can see, does make sense, and it still holds the same meaning as the original.

It would appear that we have learned two things about babies from you today: They are born believing in the Holocaust, and, if you are any indication, born without a basic vocabulary.