Evangelist Bill Graham hospitalized

[Ruby]

Atheism is a belief, however it is NOT a belief system. Atheism does NOT just reject the theist theory based on lack of evidence. It goes on to say that they are, in fact, wrong. As Matt pointed out, Agnostics are the ones who withhold belief.

So its a "belief" there arent any pink unicorns in outer space?

Atheism denys the existance of god for lack of evidence just like people reject the belief that pink unicorns exist due to lack of evidence.

I think the whole agnostic thing is just an appeasement factor.....its open to the possiblity? What does that mean really? It means when you can offer up evidence they will believe it, until then they will simply put in terms that make people who DO believe feel less challenged by their lack of belief.

 

[Larkinn]

So its a "belief" there arent any pink unicorns in outer space?

Yes, it is. Have any evidence that there aren't? No? Then its most definitely a belief.

Atheism denys the existance of god for lack of evidence just like people reject the belief that pink unicorns exist due to lack of evidence.

And both are beliefs.

I think the whole agnostic thing is just an appeasement factor.....its open to the possiblity? What does that mean really?

I am not interested in appeasing anyone over intellectual issues. What being open to the possibility means is that we acknowledge that it could, in fact, be true. I don't quite know how you feel comfortable making a decision about something when you have no evidence either way. The Pink unicorns question is decieving because of how our mind works. We already associate them with something untrue, because we know there are none on earth and so when we ask if there are any in space, we also think there are none. Here is a more subtle question to ponder: Are there aliens in space. We have no evidence either way, except probabilistically. So do you believe that there are definitely not any? If so, why not?

It means when you can offer up evidence they will believe it, until then they will simply put in terms that make people who DO believe feel less challenged by their lack of belief.

My style of argumentation isn't exactly designed to make people feel less challenged about me believing differently than they do. And, no, it does not mean that when you can offer up evidence I will believe in God. It means that when there is new evidence, I will reconsider my position. It is merely saying that without enough evidence I feel uncomfortable stating a conclusion. More simply it is me saying "I don't know". Which is always the position more likely to be true...but yet people are uncomfortable saying that for some reason.

 

[mattskramer]

How can atheism be a belief system when there is no system to believe in? The word itself is simply "without theism". Just a lack of belief.

Are you telling me that not believing in pink unicorns is a "belief system"?

To try and say that atheism is just as much of a belief system as religion is truly incorrect. There arent any set of beliefs to adhere to as religion presents, there is no central doctrine. Its just a lack of belief in theism.

The lack of belief simply stems from one thing....there is no compelling evidence to show it exists therefore I have no compelling reason to believe that it DOES in fact, exist. Just as people who dont believe in pink unicorns dont believe they exist because there is no compelling reason to believe that they do in fact, exist.

Atheism dosent claim to have ultimate answers or ultimate knowledge. Atheism dosent make claims, it is a term that means without theism.

Its odd how many logical fallacies pop up in religion. Prove there ISNT a god, being without a belief means its a belief system....I think its pretty reasonable to not accept a theory that has no evidence to support it. Atheism rejects the theist theory based on lack of evidence...nothing more, nothing less. Thats not a belief system.

I have places to go and things to do. I don’t have time today to explain logic, semantics and grammar. It might help if you understand that there is a difference between saying, “I believe that no God(s) exist” and saying “I do not believe that God(s) exist”.

 

[jillian]

You can claim there is no religion of disbelief, but the act of disbelieving itself is a belief, and what is a religion? A belief.

I don't think Falwell purposefully confused anything. He was quite up front that his political views were based on his Chrsitian beliefs. I also don't think he was anywhere near as important to Christians as the left wished to make him out to be. Y'all made him more important than he was.

I thought he was just another evangelist with a big mouth.

I think Falwell was a shrewd politician. And I don't care what he *said* his beliefs were based on. Saying something doesn't make it true. He may not have been important to "Christians", but he had huge poltical power and that's why he was important to those of us who believe in the separation of Church and State (not only the "left").

As for religion, it requires a belief in the supernatural. Not believing in supernatural forces cannot, by definition, be religion.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:religion&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

 

[Gunny]

I think Falwell was a shrewd politician. And I don't care what he *said* his beliefs were based on. Saying something doesn't make it true. He may not have been important to "Christians", but he had huge poltical power and that's why he was important to those of us who believe in the separation of Church and State (not only the "left").

As for religion, it requires a belief in the supernatural. Not believing in supernatural forces cannot, by definition, be religion.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:religion&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Believing something does not exist is in and of itself a belief.

I don't have a problem with the separation of church and state. I have a problem with extremists taking it to the extreme.

 

[jillian]

Believing something does not exist is in and of itself a belief.

I don't have a problem with the separation of church and state. I have a problem with extremists taking it to the extreme.

A lack of belief, or belief, but not a "relgion".

I think there comes a point of silliness... but I subscribe to the concept that they need to be separate for the benefit of both.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

That isn't worth the space you wasted posting it, and believing a religious group is controlling something is hardly antisemitic.

You're attempts are becoming less and less worthy ....

The sacred Kikes you fought for in Eye-rack quite correctly think Graham is nothing but a fascist in Fundie clothing

The Kikes believe it, I believe it, that settles it

Riley preached:

"Today in our land many of the biggest trusts, banks and manufacturing interests are controlled by Jews. Most of our department stores they own. The motion pictures, the most vicious of all immoral, educational and communistic influences, is their creation."

The above quote, from one of Riley's sermons, is indistinguishable from Hitler's propaganda. It is a clue that, if Riley was not outright pro-Nazi, he certainly harbored sympathy for fascism.

Riley was not the first clergyman to tout the Protocols. On February 12, 1919, the Reverend George Simons testified in front of the Senate's Overman Committee, shocking listeners with the tale of a secret worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Simons cited the Protocols as evidence. It is generally assumed that Simons obtained his copy of the Protocols from Dr. Harris Houghton of military intelligence. Houghton had obtained his copy from the Czarist immigrant Boris Brasol.

With his congregation of 3,500, Riley exerted tremendous influence in the upper Midwest. Jewish leaders regarded his church as the center of the area's anti-Semitism. However, Riley's influence extended far beyond his area and time. In 1902, Riley founded Northwestern Bible Training School, which in 1935 became the Northwestern Theological Seminary. He also assisted in the preparation of The Fundamentals, a statement of fundamentalist belief. Just before his death, Riley placed the leadership of Northwestern under the direction of Billy Graham.

On March 2, 2002, the ghost of fascism came home to roost on the head of Riley's chosen successor, Billy Graham. On that day, an additional 500 hours of Nixon tapes were released. In a 1972 conversation between Nixon and Graham, the preacher expressed his contempt for, as he saw it, Jewish domination of the media. Graham is heard on tape saying referring to a Jewish owned newspaper:

 

[Ruby]

Yes, it is. Have any evidence that there aren't? No? Then its most definitely a belief. And both are beliefs.

Thank you for answering that. Now I know we are just into semantics really. I just wanted to be clear that we then have a very infinite list of "beliefs" because there are soooo many things that dont exist and we dont have any evidence of existing and we must label them ALL as "beliefs".

I am not interested in appeasing anyone over intellectual issues. What being open to the possibility means is that we acknowledge that it could, in fact, be true. I don't quite know how you feel comfortable making a decision about something when you have no evidence either way. The Pink unicorns question is decieving because of how our mind works. We already associate them with something untrue, because we know there are none on earth and so when we ask if there are any in space, we also think there are none. Here is a more subtle question to ponder: Are there aliens in space. We have no evidence either way, except probabilistically. So do you believe that there are definitely not any? If so, why not?

The pink unicorn is no more decieving than a "god" concept. One we are raised to believe is fiction, the other we are raised to believe is true...there is evidence of neither. They are actually equal in possiblity, but more people feel they need to "consider" the possibility of god than would a pink unicorn and this is for one simple reason....so many believe there is a god.

I like your alien question!

I think thats more in the realm of possibilty for reasons of evidence. We have a planet and we know there are more, we have life on our planet so it means it is possible there is life on other planets...it all depends on the planets ability to sustain life.

We have NO evidence of a sentient being that creates species and planets, we do have evidence of life existing on a planet. There is SOME evidence to suggest its possiblity. I cant find any evidence to suggest a sentient religious god concept....we have none that we can point to and say exist, while we do and can point to life on a planet existing at least. The alien concept is just "life on another planet". If life can be on one, then life can be on more than one. If you can show me ONE existing God, we would have a valid comparison. I can show you ONE planet that has life.

My style of argumentation isn't exactly designed to make people feel less challenged about me believing differently than they do. And, no, it does not mean that when you can offer up evidence I will believe in God. It means that when there is new evidence, I will reconsider my position. It is merely saying that without enough evidence I feel uncomfortable stating a conclusion. More simply it is me saying "I don't know". Which is always the position more likely to be true...but yet people are uncomfortable saying that for some reason.

I dont mean you specifically, I meant why the phrase and the word exist at all. Its because we have the majority of humans on the planet have always believed in some sort of "god" concept....

We dont have words to describe the multitude of other possible things that we have no evidence for ...I am sure you have heard of the flying spaghetti monster example, yet we have no term for people who are open to the possiblity of its existence and its only because we dont have a majority of people who belief IN flying spaghetti monsters.

I am perfectly comfortable with "I dont know" in response to questions I dont know the answer to. But to be perfectly honest, I am comfortable with saying that flying spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, god, tooth fairy, grass goblins etc dont exist.

 

[Ruby]

I have places to go and things to do. I don’t have time today to explain logic, semantics and grammar. It might help if you understand that there is a difference between saying, “I believe that no God(s) exist” and saying “I do not believe that God(s) exist”.

You tried to say that atheism is a "belief system", not even a little bit true. There is nothing about semantics, logic or grammar issue there. Its just a flat out incorrect statement.

I understand what Larkins point is and I think that IS a semantics issue mostly but what you said is most definitely NOT a semantics issue.

Here is what you said

Again, atheism is just as much a belief system as is theism

 

[Gunny]

You tried to say that atheism is a "belief system", not even a little bit true. There is nothing about semantics, logic or grammar issue there. Its just a flat out incorrect statement.

I understand what Larkins point is and I think that IS a semantics issue mostly but what you said is most definitely NOT a semantics issue.

Here is what you said

You can try to paint it whatever color you want, but the fact is, you believe there is no God. THAT is a belief. Period.

 

[Ruby]

You can try to paint it whatever color you want, but the fact is, you believe there is no God. THAT is a belief. Period.

I think the semantics portion of this has been covered. You also have a "belief" that pink unicorns dont exist right? You have a "belief" there are no flying spaghetti monsters right? You have a belief that grass goblins dont exist too right?

Thats far different than trying to equate atheism as a BELIEF system and comparing it to a THEISM belief system, which for some reason, some people want to do.... no matter how incorrect that is.

 

[Gunny]

I think the semantics portion of this has been covered. You also have a "belief" that pink unicorns dont exist right? You have a "belief" there are no flying spaghetti monsters right? You have a belief that grass goblins dont exist too right?

Thats far different than trying to equate atheism as a BELIEF system and comparing it to a THEISM belief system, which for some reason, some people want to do.... no matter how incorrect that is.

I think your first paragraph is the "semantics portion," and smells just like it looks.

I did not make a claim that athiesm is a "belief System." However, it IS a belief, that DOES have its own little name; therefore, a belief just as much as believing there is a God.

"Some people" refuse to accept the obvious for what it is because it doesn't suit their agenda to do otherwise.

 

[Ruby]

I think your first paragraph is the "semantics portion," and smells just like it looks.

I did not make a claim that athiesm is a "belief System." However, it IS a belief, that DOES have its own little name; therefore, a belief just as much as believing there is a God.

"Some people" refuse to accept the obvious for what it is because it doesn't suit their agenda to do otherwise.

I think we covered the semmantics portion right? You are saying that you have a BELIEF that pink unicorns dont exist right? Same for pasta monsters, grass goblins etc.....Larkin came right out and answered and it helped us clear up and dispose of the semantics portion.

I think the agenda here was trying to shore up a point that its a "belief" based on the same principles as "belief in god" is, and thats not true. Lack of belief is based on a total lack of evidence whereas belief IN GOD is based on faith (no evidence). Those two things are quite different but I think some people want to blur that distinction for some reason...whats that agenda about?

 

[Gunny]

I think we covered the semmantics portion right? You are saying that you have a BELIEF that pink unicorns dont exist right? Same for pasta monsters, grass goblins etc.....Larkin came right out and answered and it helped us clear up and dispose of the semantics portion.

I think the agenda here was trying to shore up a point that its a "belief" based on the same principles as "belief in god" is, and thats not true. Lack of belief is based on a total lack of evidence whereas belief IN GOD is based on faith (no evidence). Those two things are quite different but I think some people want to blur that distinction for some reason...whats that agenda about?

I think you are assuming. I said it is a belief, period, and in that sense, it most certainly is a belief just as much as a belief in God.

The ones trying to blur it are those of you in denial simply because you are uncomfortable with the similarity to those you feel are "lesser folk what with their superstitious God and all." What you keep trying to deny is that at the core, is the word "belief' regardless what it is you believe in.

You "believe" there is a total lack of evidence; therefore, you believe there is no God.

 

[Ruby]

I think you are assuming. I said it is a belief, period, and in that sense, it most certainly is a belief just as much as a belief in God.

The ones trying to blur it are those of you in denial simply because you are uncomfortable with the similarity to those you feel are "lesser folk what with their superstitious God and all." What you keep trying to deny is that at the core, is the word "belief' regardless what it is you believe in.

You "believe" there is a total lack of evidence; therefore, you believe there is no God.

You try to stagnate in the semantics portion, I do wonder why.

Yes I certainly do distinguish between a belief based on evidence or a belief based on lack of evidence to be quite different than believing in somthing based on faith (no evidence). Trying to equate them seems more of the agenda thats going on here.

No evidence has been presented that leads to "god". All we have are gaps in our knowledge that we like to explain away with "god"...thats just filling in where we "dont know" and isnt evidence of a god.

Btw, I never called believers "lesser folk", thats your characterization.

 

[Gunny]

You try to stagnate in the semantics portion, I do wonder why.

Yes I certainly do distinguish between a belief based on evidence or a belief based on lack of evidence to be quite different than believing in somthing based on faith (no evidence). Trying to equate them seems more of the agenda thats going on here.

No evidence has been presented that leads to "god". All we have are gaps in our knowledge that we like to explain away with "god"...thats just filling in where we "dont know" and isnt evidence of a god.

Btw, I never called believers "lesser folk", thats your characterization.

Stagnate? Nah. Dismiss as a smokescreen? Definitely.

Continue to live in denial and believe only that which makes you comfortable. It suits you rather well.

 

[Ruby]

Stagnate? Nah. Dismiss as a smokescreen? Definitely.

Continue to live in denial and believe only that which makes you comfortable. It suits you rather well.

You arent making any sense at this point....denial of what exactly? What smokescreen and what would it be hiding?

 

[Larkinn]

Thank you for answering that. Now I know we are just into semantics really. I just wanted to be clear that we then have a very infinite list of "beliefs" because there are soooo many things that dont exist and we dont have any evidence of existing and we must label them ALL as "beliefs".

No, I don't think so. Most things we have very good evidence for...although we have far more beliefs than most people are comfortable with. However we know nothing about god, aliens, pink unicorns, at least in space.

The pink unicorn is no more decieving than a "god" concept. One we are raised to believe is fiction, the other we are raised to believe is true...there is evidence of neither. They are actually equal in possiblity, but more people feel they need to "consider" the possibility of god than would a pink unicorn and this is for one simple reason....so many believe there is a god.

Its also that people are raised to believe in God, and that believing in God, at least theoretically, serves some purpose. Whereas pink unicorns does little for one.

I think thats more in the realm of possibilty for reasons of evidence. We have a planet and we know there are more, we have life on our planet so it means it is possible there is life on other planets...it all depends on the planets ability to sustain life.

Again...its just probabalistically...we have NO evidence for aliens. As you said..."it is possible"...just as "it is possible" there is a god.

We have NO evidence of a sentient being that creates species and planets, we do have evidence of life existing on a planet.

We have no evidence of complex life existing on any planet but our own.

There is SOME evidence to suggest its possiblity. I cant find any evidence to suggest a sentient religious god concept....we have none that we can point to and say exist, while we do and can point to life on a planet existing at least. The alien concept is just "life on another planet". If life can be on one, then life can be on more than one. If you can show me ONE existing God, we would have a valid comparison. I can show you ONE planet that has life.

That something has happened once does not mean it will happen again. Something happening in the past is NOT evidence it will happen in the future.

I dont mean you specifically, I meant why the phrase and the word exist at all. Its because we have the majority of humans on the planet have always believed in some sort of "god" concept....

I disagree. Some of us actually withhold belief on some things. I withhold belief on many things, including some political issues. I like that there is a word for it...I don't like going past my evidence if it is possible for me not too.

We dont have words to describe the multitude of other possible things that we have no evidence for ...I am sure you have heard of the flying spaghetti monster example, yet we have no term for people who are open to the possiblity of its existence and its only because we dont have a majority of people who belief IN flying spaghetti monsters.

Thats because God is a controversial topic. The FSM is not. That does not mean agnostics are pandering to anyone.

I am perfectly comfortable with "I dont know" in response to questions I dont know the answer to. But to be perfectly honest, I am comfortable with saying that flying spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, god, tooth fairy, grass goblins etc dont exist.

And I am not. Well I'll say none of them exist on earth...but in space? Who the hell knows?

 

[Larkinn]

I think you are assuming. I said it is a belief, period, and in that sense, it most certainly is a belief just as much as a belief in God.

Not entirely. It makes more sense when, not seeing evidence of something, to assume it is NOT there as opposed to assuming it is. However it makes even more sense to assume nothing.

You "believe" there is a total lack of evidence; therefore, you believe there is no God.

There isn't any decent evidence. God may exist, but if so he has played a bit of a trick on us all compelling us to follow him while giving us intellects to realize how little evidence of god there is.

 

[Ruby]

No, I don't think so. Most things we have very good evidence for...although we have far more beliefs than most people are comfortable with. However we know nothing about god, aliens, pink unicorns, at least in space.

There are just an infinite amount of things that we can dream up in our imagination and that we have no evidence for.....according to your definition they are ALL beliefs. I dont believe flying spaghetti monster exists, I dont believe the grass goblin exists, I dont believe the tooth fairy exists etc. I am not at all talking about things WE HAVE evidence for, just things we have NO evidence for.

Its also that people are raised to believe in God, and that believing in God, at least theoretically, serves some purpose. Whereas pink unicorns does little for one.

Pink unicorns can also get a story and purpose built up around them as well. Lore is easy to create and pass on.

Again...its just probabalistically...we have NO evidence for aliens. As you said..."it is possible"...just as "it is possible" there is a god.

There would be MORE basis to believe in the POSSIBILTY of the existence of life on other planets because there is a planet with life on it already, showing that life on a planet can and does exist. It dosent mean there IS life on other planets but there is at least SOME shred of evidence to suggest it is possible.

We have NO evidence of a "god" concept existing at all, at any time...thats why the alien one is based on somthing more concrete than god or pink unicorns.

We have no evidence of complex life existing on any planet but our own.

And we have NO evidence of a sentient creator that creates planets and species at all. At least we can submit evidence of life on a planet, can we do the same for a "god"?

That something has happened once does not mean it will happen again. Something happening in the past is NOT evidence it will happen in the future.

True, but at least when you say its POSSIBLE you are basing that on evidence. The same cant be said on the existence of "god".

I disagree. Some of us actually withhold belief on some things. I withhold belief on many things, including some political issues. I like that there is a word for it...I don't like going past my evidence if it is possible for me not too.

How come there arent words for those who dont believe in the FSM then? Its because there arent a large amount of people WHO DO believe in it so therefore there is no word to label people who dont. Its a word that exists ONLY because of so many who believe...no other reason.

Thats because God is a controversial topic. The FSM is not. That does not mean agnostics are pandering to anyone.

It seems to me we are at semantics again. Thats what I said, the word agnostic exists because it deals with a non-belief of somthing so many DO believe in and get very emotional and defensive about...ie controversial. A term is then developed that isnt quite as strong as atheist, a "compromise" to appease the controversy.

And I am not. Well I'll say none of them exist on earth...but in space? Who the hell knows?

I have no idea whats out in space but when we speak of god, we are talking about somthing that sopposedly created this earth and EVERYTHING else too and even has many things he wants from us and is said to have communicated with us and wants to (hence all the religious books), he is all knowing and all powerful YET there is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence for this beings existence. Yes I feel quite comfortable saying that such a thing dosent exist.