Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think fear of the unknown might be a strong motivator for belief in the all-power supreme creator being of Animism?
I think it's a mistake to assume that all animists believe in an all-power supreme creator being. There are many types of animism all over the world in different cultures, and I don't think there are any hard and fast beliefs that all animists agree upon.
Anyway, animism may or may not include atheism, the definition of which is actually the topic of this thread.
It's not my favourite social institution, I won't deny. But there's a lot of things I like and quite a few things I don't like. In fact 'hate' might not be too strong a word. That doesn't mean that I want anything more than the freedom to do something, watch something or listen to something else.
What atheist -haters want to do to us...they know better than me. But that's irrelevant. What that does is detract from the actual issue - which, on logic and evidence, is true, not which is nicer. Rationalism is in fact the better basis for the definition of atheism than how the god -believers feel about us.
Atheism is NOT true on evidence and logic. It is your BELIEF, Arq, period It is impossible to have evidence that what DOES exist is "NOT God" and logic is entirely dependent upon the base premise.
Atheism is NOT true on evidence and logic. It is your BELIEF, Arq, period It is impossible to have evidence that what DOES exist is "NOT God" and logic is entirely dependent upon the base premise.
However if someone names their cat No God your entire argument becomes false and you'd need to admit that No God exists or that somehow you know that cat doesn't exist even if it eats and caps everyday.
And most atheists do not say No God exists if only you'd be open minded enough to read what they write rather than pretend you know what they think.
The only thing that doesn't het anywhere is holding people to a definition on atheism. No god dern it sounds like we are making an atheist definition as holy as the bible.
You are right about being able to talk about science in a general way ...
They most certainty made head way in demonstrating that some beliefs had some real evidence. Beliefs in a living system, cosmic, and the whole thing is alive and called god arew just some examples. I can include in the Hindu's "oneness" thing in there now.
They also made head way in showing that deny everything or obscure some evidence to facilate social change is not the most reliable tactic to use. Being open and honest is by far a more reliable tactic.
Where science doesn't work? "Didn't get anywhere..." for the anti-religious using anti-god as the weapon of choice. For some reason people think that offering more reliable alternates is bad. And questioning atheism is seen as divisive.
we actually have atheist that say the exact same things as atheist "Don't question our statement of belief about god, it doesn't get us anywhere." The only real question is "where is that ...exactly?"
AA...YOU are how Atheists *should* be defined...in my opinion.
The standard by which I assess Atheists.
"COMPORTS WITH OBSERVATIONS"!! That is the REAL DEAL!
Atheism is NOT true on evidence and logic. It is your BELIEF, Arq, period It is impossible to have evidence that what DOES exist is "NOT God" and logic is entirely dependent upon the base premise.
.
I don't think they will ever get hip to that Mystic. Most unfortunate.
One thing that I've found in forums (and other forms of social media) is that -- like all things -- they evolve. Sometimes in a way that I see as positive, other times in a way that I see as negative. There's a Buddhist forum I loved participating in for quite some time. I rarely visit it anymore. Perhaps I've changed, or perhaps it changed...or perhaps it didn't change. I love talking politics, but I learned fairly quickly that the "Politics & Other Controversies" sub-forum here was definitely not for me; I don't go there anymore.
There are a lot of religionists here who want this to be a praise forum. That's not what this is. There are such forums out there on the internet. Perhaps they should do some searching.
But I'll tell you the most valuable lesson I learned from the early years in school administration. I didn't learn very much from the colleagues and associates who believed the same thing I believed or who were "yes men". I learned the most from people who had different views that I did and who didn't hesitate to tell me when they disagreed with me. When my predecessor principal, whom I worked under for several years, left for a new school she said to me, "Victor, you're the one who often kept us out of trouble because you were willing to play devil's advocate. I didn't like hearing what you had to say, but more than once you saved us from going down a wrong path".
To christians and other religionists on this forum: I suggest you listen to the naysayers. Listen and think. If it's a critique about your belief-system that you don't like, it's still worthwhile seeing if there is something in what they're saying.
To atheists on this forum: I suggest you listen to the religionists. Listen and think. If it's a critique about your lack of a belief-system that you don't like, it's still worthwhile seeing if there is something in what they're saying.
When I became an atheist a few short years ago, I pretty much threw out christian thought. Being here has changed that a bit for me. No, I don't buy the christian version of things, but I have been reminded -- by some of the decent christian posters here -- that there are many fine christians, some fine christian churches/denominations, and that there is wisdom in the NT (even if it's inconsistent, from my point of view).
However if someone names their cat No God your entire argument becomes false and you'd need to admit that No God exists or that somehow you know that cat doesn't exist even if it eats and caps everyday.
And most atheists do not say No God exists if only you'd be open minded enough to read what they write rather than pretend you know what they think.
An irrelevant point. Most atheists, including you, do not seem to understand the concept of the IMPLICIT consequences of their BELIEFS. They seem entirely focused on their EXPLICIT claims to avoid any burden of proof.
An irrelevant point. Most atheists, including you, do not seem to understand the concept of the IMPLICIT consequences of their BELIEFS. They seem entirely focused on their EXPLICIT claims to avoid any burden of proof.
In order words all atheists are too stupid to know anything and that is the reason only you can know what we think or know.
And you think that your word games have shifted the burden of proof from your claims onto those who have not accepted your claims.
IF I state the explicit that I have not seen credible evidence or argument for a God that does not Implicit mean that I claim there is No God.
Your are entirely focused on using word games to make your agenda sound scientific, rational and logical. It is none if those
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
