(September 30, 2011 at 7:44 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: I believe the dictionary indicated this is an archaic meaning of the word "atheism". However, it is also true to say that those who reject the existence of Ultimate Reality and therefore also objective morality can have NOTHING good about them. Even when they appear to do good, it is never by their design - since they reject the existence of objective goodness, and therefore can neither understand nor do it.
And yet here I am just as moral as the next guy. Why is that? My dad is an atheist, he's never done wrong, he even gave blood. Obviously someone has got it wrong. We are not evil, or wicked, and you have no right to go around accusing people of being evil for simply lacking certain beliefs. Shame on you. Would you like it if I accused you of molesting children? For simply believing in something I don't?
Out of the two of us, only you are guilty of accusing people of being evil and wicked. I've accused no one of anything. So who do you think is in the wrong here?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
