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.
I looked at the FAQ in the AA forum (again) to find a pro-atheist perspective. The structure of the FAQ is question and answer, where the majority of the questions seem to come from a defensive position or are meant to sound argumentative. Here is an example.
I am sure "pro-theism" can write something similar for their side. This ability to write with bias is not a characteristic of theism or atheism. To me, atheism, or "without a god" can imply no belief in a god(s) but can also mean that one has chosen not to be with a god. When I think about it, ancient (Assyrian and Babylonian times) villages had their own village god, which would imply that all other villages were without that god. Then consider powerful states proclaiming that they are with god, e.g. God bless America. Wouldn't this imply that the other side is without god?
So what exactly is the big deal with the atheist who is without any god?
nipped for space ...
first let me say great stuff.
No "god bless America"' doesn't mean the other side is without god.
It means God I hope we are doing the right thing. to me anyway ... but I am atheist so that is what it is.
The enemy can be with god even though the person leading might not be.
besides, god bless America was just saying we are freedom of religion fighting freedom from religion Russia.
No "god bless America"' doesn't mean the other side is without god.
It means God I hope we are doing the right thing. to me anyway ... but I am atheist so that is what it is.
The enemy can be with god even though the person leading might not be.
besides, god bless America was just saying we are freedom of religion fighting freedom from religion Russia.
Thanks, Arach, for the compliment and the explanation.
I have seen those points being discussed: freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I have stayed out of it so far. English functional words, e.g. propositions, are my next project to undertake. I cannot discuss them in a critical manner at the moment.
I am only saying this to show how it fits the definition of atheism. ITS AN EXAMPLE.
I never say the word god or actually anything that you can't do yourself. Its totally in the confines of atheism definition.
The something more is a living system around us. (That we are killing BTW)I say there IS something more because when I compared the biosphere to stuff we know, it matches life more than non life. I compared it to a cell, a virus, and anything non living thing I know.
when we compare an unknown to an known, that is called a measurement. so when I measured it, thats what it showed me. Now take it to as many people as you want.
notice how that belief in something is totally in line with me being an atheist. and I defined the something and I gave the reasons for it.
as an atheist, I can challenge you to tell me were I am wrong. If all you can do is say "I don't believe you". well, in science, if you can't prove the guys wrong, when it is falsible, that claim stands.
thats just using commonsense, logic, and the scientific method.
Then, as atheist, we compare our claims and see who more reliable. We go down the list of life.
notice ... not one word about god because we are atheist. Everything I said fit the definition of atheism.
it was just an example to show how a belief is in line with atheism.
First off the biosphere is a scientifically described and accepted term. It exists and we can prove it. If it's more than we can see or detect, I don't know.
That is not how science works. A claim is not true in til it has been falsified. A claim must be tested and challenged before it can be accepted, otherwise it's just an hypothesis. If you make a claim and I ask for the evidence and you cannot provide said evidence does not make it true. If that was the case no scientist would ever supply his evidence to other workers.
But the claim of something more is not Science, I don't need to disprove it. I can say I don't believe you due to lack of evidence or tell you that you may be correct. In this case I would accept the wording there may be more but I would need evidence to support that is actually there. MysticPhD makes the same error in thinking that claims are true on the strength that the claim is made and everyone else has the duty to disprove it. In your something more case how could I possibly go about disproving something else nor knowing if it is a b physical force, anew particle or a life form. And something else is certainly not falsible nor is God is reality.
We can neither prove or disprove or even agree or disagree with no common sense of what each bother means. That is why we need mutually accepted definitions . We both agree I think that the ones in the A and A subforum are working ones. I'm certainly not interested in a definition of an atheist as a person who lacks a belief in a God and has three cats or that he Does not support cause 3209.
Atheism means I don't believe in a deity. Thats the definition.
it doesn't mean we can't believe in anything or that we have to be quite for team unity.
yes, I am going to say to as many people that will listen that even the most basic commonsense and reason proves that the claim that a deity sent his son to die and rise for our sins is clearly less reliable than others, in terms of reality. I will tell them that if I can get you to dump your commonsense and reason and believe a god literally sent his son to died and rise for our sins I can get you to do anything.
People can believe in god and not have to to believe that stuff. people can believe in something more and still be an atheist.
atheist can belief in stuff but they don't believe in a deity. by definition. so no deity sent his son.
The definition of atheism is nothing new and it was not invented on this forum. Whois asking you to believe "Some guy woke up and flew away"? Or, are you asking others not to believe in the story of 'Christ the Redeemer'?
First off the biosphere is a scientifically described and accepted term. It exists and we can prove it. If it's more than we can see or detect, I don't know.
Nipped for space ...
We can neither prove or disprove or even agree or disagree with no common sense of what each bother means. That is why we need mutually accepted definitions . We both agree I think that the ones in the A and A subforum are working ones. I'm certainly not interested in a definition of an atheist as a person who lacks a belief in a God and has three cats or that he Does not support cause 3209.
you have a few glaring errors. errors that make your line logic less reliable. we atheist always say to theist "appeal to authority". you just did it here in your first paragraph. You are appealing to authority and I am asking you to use what you know. And you know enough to make the call.
but anyway we are off topic.
the good thing is you only brought up god once ... so you are improving as an atheist in my book. when its none you get a badge.
you have a few glaring errors. errors that make your line logic less reliable. we atheist always say to theist "appeal to authority". you just did it here in your first paragraph. You are appealing to authority and I am asking you to use what you know. And you know enough to make the call.
but anyway we are off topic.
the good thing is you only brought up god once ... so you are improving as an atheist in my book. when its none you get a badge.
The definition of atheism is nothing new and it was not invented on this forum. Whois asking you to believe "Some guy woke up and flew away"? Or, are you asking others not to believe in the story of 'Christ the Redeemer'?
You kind of mixed it up here on me.
I actually think most atheist just describe how the universe may work and a deity type god never comes up. Its other people that call us atheist.
most have zero trouble believing in "something more". They are fine saying we are not quite sure what it means and we are still ok with it. They are what trans labels "irreligious" when in fact they are stone cold, definition based, atheist.
that being said. A god sending his son to die for our sins is no where near the best approximation of realty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You kind of mixed it up here on me.
I actually think most atheist just describe how the universe may work and a deity type god never comes up. Its other people that call us atheist.
In fact, I am not even sure why the word exist.
Who's asking you to believe "A god sending his son to die for our sins'?
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.
