Belief in God didn't compel people to kill people either. Individuals made choices to do those things - some in the name of God, some in the name of atheism. I guess you can just decide that the actual definition is not your definition, but I don't see the relevance to me. I use the term as it is most commonly used and how it is defined in the dictionary. If you want to use it differently, that's your choice. But going back to the original article, he's not talking about people that just have no belief. He's talking specifically about evangelical atheists: the people that fit the dictionary definition of atheism and actively argue God does not exist. The people fitting under your definition seem irrelevant to his rant. This is a whole different discussion, but I would argue that there is little positive evidence for either position. Maybe there is slightly more for one than the other, but in the grand scheme of things, the differential is so minute in terms of the total universe of potential knowledge that it's basically irrelevant. To put it in more concrete terms, imagine there are a total of 1,000,000 pieces of evidence. You might have 7 supporting God and 14 supporting no God. That leaves you with twice as much supporting No God, which seems like a strong case. But given the 999,979 pieces we don't know, it's basically nothing. And that goes to the heart of it - the reality is that we simply don't know, and the evidence either way is not remotely substantial enough to make a positive claim either way because there is so much knowledge that we don't have. So atheists that attempt to discredit believers based on those little snippets of information are just as arrogant and ridiculous as vice-versa. Faith is what it is: faith. A believe in something without necessarily having evidence. It does lots of good things, and lots of bad things, both on an individual and global scale. The idea that it's just a big lie that only stupid people believe and just causes problems is simplistic, arrogant, and unfounded throughout history.
For someone who acts like they don't really care/have a belief you really just keep going on and on as if you are more right than anyone else. Follow the thread titles advice, and just shut up, please. Thank you.
As to the post you linked, yeah, I thought bringing up beliefs in a thread of mourning was wildly inappropriate.
lolwut...the title of the thread was "pray for john". Nevermind that nothing crass or improper was said. Whatever.
The etymology of the word makes it more like "godless" or, in the Greek context, "against the gods". Like anything else, there are many interpretations of what it means but I think it is wrong to post one definition from the internet and say that is what it is.
You're a particularly crappy addition to this BBS. Follow the FAQ and just stop posting please. Thank you.
I've never understood the argument that you can't "disprove" the existence of a god. Of course you can't. People who champion this argument: I believe that there's an invisible pirate ship floating around my head right now. Disprove it. That's why on my path from Christian to Atheist, I only stopped at agnosticism for about two weeks, because it makes no sense.
It's based upon the notion that there are things beyond human understanding. The concept of the flying spaghetti monster is similar to the anthropomorphism of some bearded man in the sky. A God(s) could very well be something unimagined. Maybe it's splitting hairs, since an uninvolved god is like having no god at all, but even if that were the case, doesn't mean people won't start worshipping it as well.
I read the thread title... Then I automatically thought of DonnyMost, then I read a few pages and see he's right here in the middle of it stinking it up. This guy is so predictable.
You can call it a religion, an apple, an ideology, or nothing at all. At the end of the day, it requires a set of beliefs. More importantly, a mad man or group or government can act on that set of beliefs. If a group of atheists were persistently persecuted for their atheism by a religious group, and they did not have the means to resolve the problem peacefully, then some of them would resort to violence in the name of protecting their right to not believe anything at all. Look no further than Chinese, North Korean and Polish history for examples of state atheism which, very much like state religion, proceeded to infiltrate all religious institutions transforming them into tools of government. Through those institutions, they granted nominal freedom of religion while clearly persecuting those who wanted to practice their religion outside the prescribed boundaries of state-sponsored religious institutions. Those persecuted people were labelled terrorists against the state. It just goes to show that it doesn't matter how you label a certain set of beliefs, the only thing stopping fascism is protection of your right to believe what you believe, and protection from other people's beliefs. Group beliefs or non-beliefs will impose themselves on one another in the presence of power and the absence of protection. We have seen this done via religion, atheism, culturalism, tribalism, racism, capitalism, socialism, democracy, authoritarianism, etc. Some of these things are inherently good, some of them bad, but all can be used as tools of fascism.
bottom line is politically a government should not pass laws based upon a single religious perspective. People should retain the freedom to do whatever they hell they want to do as long as they are not hurting their neighbors. Possessing the right to tend their personal gardens as they see fit and letting others tend theirs as they wish. Worship a rock, I don't care. But don't use your beliefs as reasoning for infringing on my rights or limiting my freedoms.
The key is tolerance and mutual respect. I might not share the beliefs or non-beliefs of others but I will tolerate others beliefs as long as they show the same to me.
In fact, you shold tolerate it even if they don't show the same to you. Say person X is a Christian and you are a Muslim. If what we're discussing is tolerance of beliefs rather than tolerance of individuals, then even if that person does not tolerate your beliefs/you, it doesn't mean you should not tolerate their beliefs - it just means you may choose to not tolerate that specific person.
This. I've rehashed this many, many times to every Christian I have ever met: To assert that something undeniably exists, there must be empirical evidence to justify it beforehand. It is not the atheist's job to disprove "god" its your job to prove it. Therefore the existence of God is just a hypothesis which puts it on equal terms with the flying spaghetti monster as another EQUIVALENT hypothesis. Nowhere in the scientific method does it state that you just make something up and prove it way later down the road. Sure, you can hypothesize that there could be a deity or supreme being, but you can't go out there trying to tell other people its fact. Also, atheists have been the subject of harsh discrimination for centuries. Beatings, torture, exile, execution, you name it the religious community did it. In modern days, nearly every atheist had to fight off the shoving of religion down their throats from friends and family members so I hope you understand why we're upset. I also hate atheists that go out and zealously attempt to "de-religionize" people but you'll see that most atheists aren't that way.
