Political Crossfire Forums

[Shady]

Eynon81 wrote: Shady wrote: Eynon81 wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: John wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: The only bad pride is unfounded pride.


True.

We owe so much of everything to God...that it's ALL unfounded.

It's unfounded to take credit for a talent that God gave you.


I take no credit for my boundless intelligence. I just got lucky.

nothing is boundless, and always remember no matter how good you are, there is always some-one better :wink:

Sorry man. Shady is on top of the food chain.

you know, I've met so many people from the greater DC area that seem to think that :think: must be the excess ego wafting down from capital hill.....

Nah they get their ego from us. If you survive D.C. you are akin to a demi-god.

[Goddy]

I cringe at the thought of an atheist manifesto simply because it implies a doctrine of belief. Being an atheist myself, I enjoy the fact that, unlike the religous, noone can define my beliefs for me. I am free to search, analyze and come to my own personal conclusions.

We must be careful that atheism does not become a belief of the masses or atheists are doomed to repeat the vicious cycle of fanatisism which has plagued the religous communtiy. Just look at the horrors of Stalin to show this danger.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Goddy wrote: I cringe at the thought of an atheist manifesto simply because it implies a doctrine of belief. Being an atheist myself, I enjoy the fact that, unlike the religous, noone can define my beliefs for me. I am free to search, analyze and come to my own personal conclusions.



That's exactly what the manifesto says.

[eynon]

Goddy wrote: I cringe at the thought of an atheist manifesto simply because it implies a doctrine of belief. Being an atheist myself, I enjoy the fact that, unlike the religous, noone can define my beliefs for me. I am free to search, analyze and come to my own personal conclusions.

We must be careful that atheism does not become a belief of the masses or atheists are doomed to repeat the vicious cycle of fanatisism which has plagued the religous communtiy. Just look at the horrors of Stalin to show this danger.

good point, remember you don't need to believe in god, to have one:

[Goddy]

Quote: That's exactly what the manifesto says.

It also says this

Quote: The entirety of atheism is contained in this response

Perhaps this is true, but this person presumes to speak for all of us. This, to the religious will appear to be a system of belief and they will see us as a unified group following a set of principles and will falsely equate us to a religious group. In talking to Christians, I find the most common misconception to be that we all believe the same thing, when in fact, the only thing common to all of us is that we don't believe. Yes, the manifesto says this too, but it also says a lot of other things that I personally want no part of. I don't necessarily believe that the prayer of the people of Katrina was pointless. If it gave a few hope, and convinced them to hang on a little longer, than I see some good in it.

The beauty of atheism is that no two atheists are alike. One may support the death penaly, while another opposes it. One may support polygamy while another doesn't, and so on. This is the most common misconception of the religous and the biggest reason they don't understand us. Which is exactly why a manifesto, regardless of what it says is damaging.

[EconomicHitman]

I refuse to believe the unbeleivable.
The bible was written hundreds of years ago when man thought that the sun came from appalo's chariot. When man thought that god created storms when he was angry.

All of these theries have been proven time and time again to be false. To be factually incorrect. As have many of the bibles stories have been. Why would god have created adam and Eve. When science and people that study these thungs as a living have proven that we have a common ancestor to apes?

No one was alive during "biblical" times so no one will truly know. Scientists however have studied it and compared it to the things we know today. They have proven the bible wrong. But because some pope told you that he's write and fact is wrong than you believe him and not scientisits.

This is called Blind Faith. To believe someone even though you have no proof that he's correct. To follow a book written when common modern knowledge was unkown to the author. Yet you blindley believe it anyway becuase some one said it was true. Simply look at the works of Francis Bacon. Doubt all until fact tells you that it is true.

[Æ]

Pike wrote: Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The atheist is simply a person who has perceived the lies of religion and refused to make them his own.
Religion is a belief system or a set of beliefs (in fact, the two are equivalent). A set is a set whether it is an empty set or not. Therefore, atheism is a religion.

Quote: It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day.
A belief is a belief because it cannot be proven one way or the other; that's why it is a belief. Thusly, the burden of proof can be equally distributed between the atheist and the theist.

Quote: We live in a world of unimaginable surprises--from the fusion energy that lights the sun to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of this lights dancing for eons upon the Earth--and yet Paradise conforms to our most superficial concerns with all the fidelity of a Caribbean cruise. This is wondrously strange. If one didn't know better, one would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image.
Religion and science are both manifestations of the same curiousity to understand higher order. Though the methods may vary, the goal is to arrive at a dual conclusion. Thus, religion does not by necessity work against science or vice versa, although this is sometimes justifiably perceived to be the case.

Quote: Consider the destruction that Hurricane Katrina leveled on New Orleans. More than a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and nearly a million were displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely he heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: These poor people died talking to an imaginary friend.
These are attacks against God. Why attack what you don't believe in?

Quote: Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm of biblical proportions would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina's path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn't have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. Nevertheless, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that 80% of Katrina's survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.

Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs.
It seems that you reject the notion of the God portrayed in the bible or any God who owes you nothing. Do you specifically reject the notion of the class of higher being(s) or just the one described in the bible?

[Eternal]

aLienaTeD wrote: Religion is a belief system or a set of beliefs (in fact, the two are equivalent). A set is a set whether it is an empty set or not. Therefore, atheism is a religion.

Atheism and theism are nothing more than categories. If you believe in god/s you're categorised as a theist. If you don't then you're categorised as an atheist. What defines a religious belief is not belief itself, but the nature of said belief. Therefore neither theism or atheism are religions.


Cheers, Eternal

[Æ]

Eternal wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Religion is a belief system or a set of beliefs (in fact, the two are equivalent). A set is a set whether it is an empty set or not. Therefore, atheism is a religion.

Atheism and theism are nothing more than categories. If you believe in god/s you're categorised as a theist. If you don't then you're categorised as an atheist. What defines a religious belief is not belief itself, but the nature of said belief. Therefore neither theism or atheism are religions.


Cheers, Eternal
Everyone has a belief set. A religion is a set of beliefs (eq.).

Theist: Believes in the existence of one or more gods
Atheist: Believes in the existence of zero gods

[THEXRATED]

Also,

Belief in god(s) does not have to be a religion.

[thefranzkafkafront]

God damn it... atheism is not a relgion, its a f***ing school of theologiacal thougt in which all the theories contained have an absense of a god, thus A-theism.

[frunabulax]

aLienaTeD wrote: A belief is a belief because it cannot be proven one way or the other; that's why it is a belief. Thusly, the burden of proof can be equally distributed between the atheist and the theist.

Not exactly. If you know something that means it must be true, you can't know something that is in fact false. OTOH, you can believe something that is not true, but you can't believe something contrary to what you know. IOW, some beliefs can be proven.

[Æ]

frunabulax wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: A belief is a belief because it cannot be proven one way or the other; that's why it is a belief. Thusly, the burden of proof can be equally distributed between the atheist and the theist.

Not exactly. If you know something that means it must be true, you can't know something that is in fact false. OTOH, you can believe something that is not true, but you can't believe something contrary to what you know. IOW, some beliefs can be proven.
If it has been proven, it's no longer a belief. A belief is something that cannot/hasn't yet been proven one way or the other.

[Æ]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: God damn it... atheism is not a relgion, its a f***ing school of theologiacal thougt in which all the theories contained have an absense of a god, thus A-theism.
Nontheistic it is. Nonetheless, belief systems (sets of beliefs) and religions are equivalent. Anyone who believes something despite the fact that it cannot be proven or that it has yet to be proven has a belief system.

[frunabulax]

aLienaTeD wrote: frunabulax wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: A belief is a belief because it cannot be proven one way or the other; that's why it is a belief. Thusly, the burden of proof can be equally distributed between the atheist and the theist.

Not exactly. If you know something that means it must be true, you can't know something that is in fact false. OTOH, you can believe something that is not true, but you can't believe something contrary to what you know. IOW, some beliefs can be proven.
If it has been proven, it's no longer a belief. A belief is something that cannot/hasn't yet been proven one way or the other.

Belief is simply having an opinion about something. It can be true, false, or unknown. If i believe it is sunny outside, and I step outside and it is in fact sunny, do I no longer believe it is sunny. Of course not.

Now you might be talking strictly about religious beliefs. In which case I would agree that probably can't be proven one way or the other. However, I would argue that all religions have been disproved, it is simply the generic non-denominational deity that remains a possibility.

[Eternal]

aLienaTeD wrote: Everyone has a belief set. A religion is a set of beliefs (eq.).

Theist: Believes in the existence of one or more gods
Atheist: Believes in the existence of zero gods

Religion is more than a set of beliefs and simply using argument by analogy does not make it so. Beliefs that are religious in nature tend to require the believer to do something regarding those beliefs i.e. prayer, ritualised meetings, reverence to particular people and/or deities. It is the nature and requirements of ones beliefs that denote whether they are religious, not the belief itself.


Cheers, Eternal

[sLiPpY]

Eternal wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Everyone has a belief set. A religion is a set of beliefs (eq.).

Theist: Believes in the existence of one or more gods
Atheist: Believes in the existence of zero gods

Religion is more than a set of beliefs and simply using argument by analogy does not make it so. Beliefs that are religious in nature tend to require the believer to do something regarding those beliefs i.e. prayer, ritualised meetings, reverence to particular people and/or deities. It is the nature and requirements of ones beliefs that denote whether they are religious, not the belief itself.


Cheers, Eternal

Well, Eternal...I believe in the five senses, go with my gut instinct...

I have seen neither god, gods, or no gods...

What would that be? :-D

[Æ]

sLiPpY wrote: Eternal wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Everyone has a belief set. A religion is a set of beliefs (eq.).

Theist: Believes in the existence of one or more gods
Atheist: Believes in the existence of zero gods

Religion is more than a set of beliefs and simply using argument by analogy does not make it so. Beliefs that are religious in nature tend to require the believer to do something regarding those beliefs i.e. prayer, ritualised meetings, reverence to particular people and/or deities. It is the nature and requirements of ones beliefs that denote whether they are religious, not the belief itself.


Cheers, Eternal

Well, Eternal...I believe in the five senses, go with my gut instinct...

I have seen neither god, gods, or no gods...

What would that be? :-D
Do you see higher order?

[Eternal]

sLiPpY wrote: Well, Eternal...I believe in the five senses, go with my gut instinct...

I have seen neither god, gods, or no gods...

What would that be? :-D

I would say you're an empiricist, however that would change depending on how you treat your senses. Do you worship your eyesight? Have regular meetings with others where you collectively give thanks to your sense of touch? Do you believe that the information provided by sense of smell is to be accepted without question?


Cheers, Eternal

[John Wilkes Booth]

Of course atheism is a religion. That's why atheist organizations are tax-exempt.


... what? Didn't know that?