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.
Failing to prove the existence of your deity when the need arises fits the definition of faithless. Secondly believers never set the standard for what is defined as evidence and proof for non-believers.
Failing to prove the existence of your deity when the need arises fits the definition of faithless. Secondly believers never set the standard for what is defined as evidence and proof for non-believers.
Some fail in being committed in honesty to following definitions and reasonable use of terms and words. Belief in something or belief that something does not exist when evidence cannot prove or disprove said "something" meets the definition of being faithful.
I can certainly pity the word play of an atheist whose logic has fallen apart.
I think that nit-picking over definitions of, or "levels" of disbelief in alleged supernatural agents tends to shift the ultimate burden of proof from religionists who, ultimately, are incapable of offering even the most basic of proofs for their various gods.
All of atheism (disbelief / questioning of the veracity of gods), tends to be a critique of theistic assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and absent evidence to support the belief system, nothing more.
Why not examine the basic premise of many religions. They put into place systems and beliefs structures to either explain things that occur naturally but are not understood or they are designed to scare you into believing the way you do (e.g. the threat of eternal damnation and burning in hellfire for not believing) and the promise of rewards after you die if you do believe. I am assuming this empirically because countless culture after culture has done this same thing. Would anyone say the gods of Greece and Rome and Babylon and the Norsemen are all real or were they made up to explain things that couldnt readily be explained? Assuming you admit these other cultures did do precisely that, why does the god of the desert not adhere to the admission that men create gods for any number of reasons? Why does a triune god(s) exist and theirs do not?
The trouble was thathe was talking in philosophy but they were listening in gibberish.
― Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
Sounds like excuses kids use to avoid homework.
"I already know everything."
"This stuff is stupid."
"I'll never use this stuff anyway."
Oh wait..yeah..they were and are..
And oh yeah..when compared to you? I'm a fucking genius.
See, here's sallow, arguably one of the dirt-dumbest posters here, certainly not well educated...maintaining that he has the magical intelligence that is granted to all atheists, no matter how humble their scholarly background or low their native intelligence.
Go figure.
Why is it always Atheists versus Christians? Why are they seldom against Muslims, or hindus or Jews?
Muslims in particular are the most mysogenistic and homophobic of all religions. They have a doctrine of world domination and are completely intolerant of not only other religions, but of atheists as well. Their extremists murder people whereas Christian extremists seldom do.
As to the OP -
Jews, Muslims and Hindus aren't trying to legally enforce their religions on me. I can't say the same about Christians.
Agnostics are humble enough to recognize that they do NOT know.
So what does that make those who are religious?
I think that nit-picking over definitions of, or "levels" of disbelief in alleged supernatural agents tends to shift the ultimate burden of proof from religionists who, ultimately, are incapable of offering even the most basic of proofs for their various gods.
Christians are the biggest on imposing their beliefs on others. Jews? Not so much. It's an "exclusive" club with them.
Same basically with Muslims.
I read what you posted. It was silly tripe.Actually, no. It's silly tripe because it's drenched in falsehoods, errors, cliches and assumptions that only an angry creationist would buy into.
How would you know?
You didn't read it.
I read what you posted. It was silly tripe.How would you know?
You didn't read it.
Stay stuck on ignorant. It has served you so well.
(My bold)
Glanced through, noticed it was from Fox. Noticed that he's the Public Relations boffin @ Liberty U. - J. Falwell's critter. I don't think much of his reasoning. Everyone has a core set of beliefs, I suppose - but that doesn't make it their religion.
Then I dismissed it. (& yah, the imprimatur from Fox is a disincentive. Fox readily admits that they're an entertainment outlet. In fact, they seem inordinately proud of the fact. That crosses them off my A list for sources ... )
You didn't read it neither.
It was about a debate that happened when former Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams took on the best known name in contemporary atheism, Richard Dawkins.
They were debating whether religion has a role in the 21st century.
Dawkins said it didnt.
Williams said it did.
In the end, Williams was handed a decidedly strong victory with more than two times as many votes from the audience as the infamous atheist, Dawkins. It was a triumphant day for the faithful and a shameful one for the irreligious.
Dawkins defeated in Cambridge Union religion debate
And that is a surprise? Dawkins is a religious idiot. As I explained earlier, he makes the affirmation that god cannot exist, period. THAT makes his ideas a matter of faith. That also does not mean that all atheists are anti-thists like Dawkins. He is a self-proclaimed atheist yet he is not lacking a belief in god he has a belief that god is impossible.
I have yet to see one of the people here that are demanding that atheists are something they are not actually addresses this. Kosher just declared herself victorious while ramming words down my throat that I never said and looking like an elitist ass while doing so and the rest have simply ignored it. A lack of belief does not make one religious even if there are claimed atheists that actually are religious zealots in their hatred of other religions. Dawkins is hardly representative of atheists.
I think that nit-picking over definitions of, or "levels" of disbelief in alleged supernatural agents tends to shift the ultimate burden of proof from religionists who, ultimately, are incapable of offering even the most basic of proofs for their various gods.
It is not the nitpicking of ‘levels’ that is frustrating. It is the DEMAND that I am religious by those that are religious in a futile attempt to declare that my worldview and ‘unbelief’ is somehow the same as their belief. They place themselves in a superior platform by painting atheists with a ‘that’s faith too’ brush so they can declare that their views are superior. It is asinine. Look at koshers posts in this very thread where she acts so damn smug while declaring that all atheists here (even those of us that have stated otherwise) think they are superior to them. Who, I ask, believes they are superior when they demand they know what you believe better than you. It halts any type of rational discussion because they devolve all things into a matter of faith that cannot be challenged.
It continues to get worse because once they label atheism as a ‘faith’ they start putting things into the dogma category that is not dogma. It dominates scientific discussions here when you try and address things like evolution. Again, it makes rational discussion impossible when one side decides that all things are a matter of faith and there is no basis for fact or science.
Just wait: the insults and attacks are coming against that last statement to just to illustrate that point.
As to the OP -
Jews, Muslims and Hindus aren't trying to legally enforce their religions on me. I can't say the same about Christians.
Yeah, those Christians and their Sharia...
You leftists sure are smart....
