Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
June 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm (This post was last modified: June 28, 2011 at 7:44 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 27, 2011 at 10:42 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:
I'm an atheist because I have come to the conclusion that all religions are man made. I'm not sure where you guys are getting this 'default position' stuff from.
Hey FNM,
You have to remember that you are a bit of an exception to the rule. You have actively arrived at a conclusion based on what you perceive as what the evidence supports. This is more of the traditional and classical definition of an atheist, one who affirms the non existence of God. I was referring to these new atheists who assert that atheism is more of just an absence of belief in God and it should be the default position that everyone takes, so the onus is really on anyone else asserting otherwise. I don't feel you fall into that category at all my friend.
(June 28, 2011 at 1:23 am)Anymouse Wrote:
Not so. Even a Wiccan can do that, and we are arguably not atheists (though I refuse to use the Theist signature picture here for obvious reasons).
The default position for a new infant is atheism; the baby has no beliefs at all about anything. It is inculcated in religion.
One might question why you feel that Christianity is the logical position over atheism and all other religions. If you'd been born in Israel, your parents would likely have raised you Jewish. In Syria, Islam. In Japan, Shinto. In Denmark or much of northern and western Europe outside Spain, atheist.
Atheists here have noted that the extraordinary claim by Christians is that there is a God (or maybe three) and the onus is on them to prove their position, for their is nothing to prove in non-belief.
They are wrong. Christians have two things to prove. The other one is why Christianity and it's God/s are the correct view and all other religions and their god/desses are not correct. More than "the Bible says to have no other gods before its god," because that statement on its face admits there are other gods. So, why is your god superior to my two, who do not have a holy book that makes no sense, flies in the face of everything anyone has learned about the natural world, and has never killed anyone in the name of its deities (to the best of my knowledge).
My wife is listening to clips from CBN right now, where they are quoting the Apostle Paul writing "Take these prophecies and make war with them."
A religion of such love. And who does your beloved Paul and Rev. Robertson think you should be making war on? Christians have used that statement to make war on everyone who gets in their way. This was after an article on CBN attesting to the claim that Interstate 35 is being heralded as some "holy highway" alluded to in Isaiah 35. I asked her to turn it off; I cannot stomach Robertson and his bully-boys that picketed my home in violation of the law.
One of my new neighbours literally choked me (with both hands) and knocked my wife off her cane, throwing her to the floor, for being heathens. (I was insulted, I am the heathen, she is an atheist.) She broke his choke hold by batting his arms with her cane. I guess he was making the war Paul speaks of, one Wiccan at a time.
James
I disagree James. I think the original definition of atheism as being a positive belief in the non-existence of God or gods is a better definition. I do not believe the dog turd lying on the sidewalk, the dead man in a casket, and my little finger are all atheists even though they too lack a belief in God or gods. Atheism is a position; therefore the onus is on both atheists and theists.
As to pointing to people claiming to be Christians doing bad things, surely you would agree that this in no way proves Christianity is false right?
(June 28, 2011 at 6:24 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Misusing Christianity isn't Christianity would you agree?
Yes, but defining what is misusing Christianity is opening a can of worms. Every Christian believes there to be scriptural basis for their interpretation.
fr0d0 Wrote:Would you include following the words of the commercially successful atheists like Dawkins? I suppose you do. Kudos
I guess that depends. I'm sure plenty people follow Dawkins because they agree with him and like that he speaks out publicly. Anyone who hangs on his every word and never questions what he has to say though, would definitely be included.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(June 28, 2011 at 6:24 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Misusing Christianity isn't Christianity would you agree?
Yes, but defining what is misusing Christianity is opening a can of worms. Every Christian believes there to be scriptural basis for their interpretation.
There are limits though. I can accept interpretation even though I know it to be wrong to the best of my understanding. We all learn, and the basic belief is what matters. If you're clearly doing the opposite of what Jesus taught then I can't ever see that could be described as following him. I fail at that all the time... that doesn't make me non Christian, just human. It doesn't make my non Christian acts Christ like either. Just sayin'
June 29, 2011 at 11:24 am (This post was last modified: June 29, 2011 at 11:47 am by The Grand Nudger.)
And what, exactly, did jesus teach? Wouldn't you have to definitively show a consistent message to conclude that there is some minimum bar of entry with regards to being a christian, or conducting your life in a christian manner. If you believe you have done this, there are, at present approx 30000-40000 denominations of christianity which are sorely in need of your insight.
Statler, since we have our split thread now I'm going to repeat a statement that was moved, for the benefit of lurkers here. YOU have defined atheism as a positive belief in the non-existence of gods because it is a convenient way for you to shift the burden of proof upon those who do not agree with you.
It is a word with greek roots where "a" means "without" or "not"; and where "theos" means god. There is in fact a greek word for belief, "pisteuo" and I would like to kindly point out that it does not appear anywhere within the confines of the word "atheist". It has already been defined, and is not open to a re-translation for the purposes of supporting your argument.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
It doesn't matter how many denominations there are that agree on the central concepts. Just like with translations of the bible, it has to be relevant to you in your place. If it isn't, you have to re-state it to apply to you. Ergo: the message is constant.
Radio Jerevan receives a question from a listener. "Is it true that cars are being given away in Red Square in Moscow."
That is correct, except for a few small errors.
First, it isn't Moscow, but Leningrad.
Second, it isn't Red Square, but the banks of the river Neva.
Third, it isn't cars but bicycles.
Fourth, they're not given away, but stolen."
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Statler, since we have our split thread now I'm going to repeat a statement that was moved, for the benefit of lurkers here. YOU have defined atheism as a positive belief in the non-existence of gods because it is a convenient way for you to shift the burden of proof upon those who do not agree with you.
It is a word with greek roots where "a" means "without" or "not"; and where "theos" means god. There is in fact a greek word for belief, "pisteuo" and I would like to kindly point out that it does not appear anywhere within the confines of the word "atheist". It has already been defined, and is not open to a re-translation for the purposes of supporting your argument.
I was not shifting the burden of proof, I was pointing out that it lies on both sides equally. I find it interesting that you do not even want that, I think it is probably because you know that atheism is completely indefensible when it is asked to do so.
Secondly, you act as if I am just making up a new definition of atheism. I am doing nothing of the sort; the traditional definition of the term coined in the late 16th century was an affirmation of the non-existence of God. This new "lack of belief" definition didn't come onto the scene until much later, probably once atheists realized that they cannot deal with the burden of proof.
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (one of the most widely used sources in philosophy) states....
‘Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’ [Emphasis added]
