 AtlLiberal says: St. Augustine is a beautiful town. With its massive oak trees and Spanish moss it is a charming and quintessential southern town. Yet at least one of their residents seems to be lacking in even basic logic and appears to be intent on merely apeing the same old canards of the ultra Religious Right. Well, at least they're consistent. I won't go into detail about the numerous fallacies presented in this article but will only say that this is typical of the "arguments" used by a certain portion of the population. The only comment I'll make on this is to point out that calling atheism a religion is analogous to calling bald a hair color. I know it is the social thing we humans have that is the problem, but why do people assume that atheists must go to a building and do whatever as a group, probably while they are at church. Got to be confident in your decisions. Atheists are just another religion, only their god is NoGod. Agnosticism is the only rational option for people unable to make a personal connection with God. Atheists are just another religion, only their god is NoGodLOL! Today must be make up a definition day. If a religion is defined by who has the most evangelists out there trying to sell people to their own beliefs, then Atheism is the #1 religion in the world   OK. I'll bite. What do you think atheists beliefs are? Besides having no belief in a god or gods? A religion is a system of dogma, complete with rituals, a hieardchy, and structure. By your argument anyone that holds a particular view is part of a religion? If some one collects coins they belong to the Coin Religion? If they discuss coin collecting they are being evangelicals? As far as statistics go, you actually claim atheists trump all the preachers, ministers, imans, priests and missionaries in the world? Is what really bothers you that atheists speak up at all? Maybe they should know their place and not challange the status quo? Would that suit you? Atheists have made a leap of intuition; saying that they can prove a negative. That is entirely against scientific method. Thus, their claims qualify as dogma. Plus, added to that is the fact that they seem to have more evangelists, proselytizing their unscientific proof to everyone they meet. As a typical person, I get exposed to atheist evangelists much more than those of other religions, so yes, they do trump all the other evangelists out there. That pretty much makes them a religion, with their god being the concept that there is no God, despite the fact that science doesn't support such a claim. I have no problem with them wanting to spread their message, so long as they abandon the ri... Atheists have made a leap of intuition; saying that they can prove a negative.Nope. Wrong again. Atheism is having no belif in gods or a god because there is no evidence for the existance for them. Do you believe in the existence of invisible monsters hiding under your bed? By your logic you belong to the religion of a-monsterism. Why, because you hold no belief in the existance of this under your bed monster. Can you prove a negative? No you can't and it is not the atheists responsibility to prove that god or gods exist. They are not the ones making the claim. The ones making the claim (the theists) must offer evidence for the existance of these gods. A logical person assumes that if there is no evidence of a God, then it is unknowable whether there is a god or not. Agnosticism is the logical stance. Atheism is making a leap of logic. Can you look under your bed and see that there is no monster under the bed? Yes. But that fails to be proof that there is no monster in the closet. Mankind doesn't even know where to look to find evidence for or against God, so until we can, it is intellectually dishonest to say there is no God. As for proof that there is a God, it actually requires effort on the other person's part to see it, something that Atheists have shown wholesale that they are unwilling to do. On the average, they're afraid to find ... A logical person assumes that if there is no evidence of a God, then it is unknowable whether there is a god or not.LOL! No assumption need be made. Present evidence and I'll examine it. Atheism is making a leap of logic.No leap needed. Present evidence and I'll change my mind. What don't you get? Can you look under your bed and see that there is no monster under theYet that's not the monster we're talking about. Now your just being ridiculous. Mankind doesn't even know where to look to find evidence for or against That is so unscientific that Albert Einstein and Galileo are turning over in their graves. You're working with a pre-conceived notion. That is bad scientific method; the exact thing you are not supposed to do. You go toward an issue with a question; without any prejudice toward one side or the other. "Is there a God?" When you do that, you see that there is no evidence supporting His existence or His non-existence. Therefore, the result of that investigation is that it is unknowable. You're trying to prejudice the results, and that's intellectually dishonest. Funny you should accuse me of arrogance when you're the one who is full of it. I don't expect anyone to believe in God withou... I don't expect anyone to believe in God without getting their ownI would expect people to make up their own minds based on the evidence. Whether the believe or not is not my concern. My only concern is having theistic ideas forced on people. If they wish to view subjective feelings or internal "revelations" as "proof" than that's up to them. For me, I've been presented no evidence for the existence of gods or a god. And what proof have you been offered that there is no God; and remember that non-intervention is not proof He doesn't exist? I've never been shown evidence that there is a god. That's good enough for me. You are talking about the Judeo-Christian god? So, that means that you're satisfied with only hearing one side of the issue? I wish I could say that's not a common attitude these days, but too many people are contented making decisions based on only the information provided from one perspective on the situation. It's intellectually dishonest, but your beliefs are your beliefs. It's the responsibility of the individual making the claim to provide evidence. And what is your position? What is your point? What are you trying to prove. Are you Christian and just pissed off at anyone who questions your faith? Or do simply unable to accept that others don't share your viewpoint? It sounds like you're more concerned about winning than in communication. You've made references about making "personal connecitons with God". Are you a theist or just repeating what you've heard before? Or are you not sure what you believe? WikipediaWictionaryGoogle imagesGoogle defineThe Free DictionaryWordNetGoogleUrban DictionaryAnswers.comIMDB<>0wvidfoguam I just call hypocrisy where I see it. Any atheist who takes shots at Christians is nothing but a hypocrite, because they are doing the exact same thing. Keep that in mind. So, I see that in addition to being insulting you are also a coward. Too bad. I see that in addition to being a hypocrite, you are also utterly clueless. That was to be expected. Alert: new definition of hypocrisy - one who doesn't see things MY way. LOL! Go play elsewhere little gnat. Wow. That is a new high in arrogance. You are so good at jumping to assumptions, but you don't even realize when you're doing it. What a putz! I could care less how you see things, but the fact remains you are a hypocrite if you are an atheist who mocks Christians for their leap of Faith. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. See ya... |
View the Top Clips from April 11, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||
