(December 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The argument (raised by theists) is that to believe there is no god requires as much (if not more) faith than it requires believing there is one. Sometimes the argument appears to be based around the claim that I (the atheist) must believe in something and (in my case) it is claimed that I positively disbelieve in a god or gods and that must be a position of faith.
Oh! You sinner!!
To me the religious aspect of it doesn't depend upon faith. It does have something to do with belief, but not entirely. It is more about the position taken due to a pardigm. Being an Atheist, to a militant atheist like yourself, is completely different than non-militant atheism in this respect.
It effects nearly every aspect of your life. You think and act like a religious person - only without a god.
(December 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: If the theist view is correct and atheism was, indeed, a faith then atheists must also be hypocrites for attacking the views of other religions when theirs is a position of faith as well.
Well, hypocracy is comes from a Greek form of theatre where everything was magnified. Big costumes, big sounds, big everything. That sums up militant Atheism to me. Most atheist would think it a waste of time argueing fairy tales with believers. Not the militatant. It is an emotional, social and political reaction. Like Xianity.
(December 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The purpose of this article is to define the various terms involved in the issue i.e. theist, agnostic, atheist, fideist and to defend the position of atheism as a non-faith based stance.
Yeah. Clever. It took you longer than I thought it would. Doesn't matter what you call it, I don't even think you are aware of the way you act even when you see others of the same religion. Just like . . . Xians . . . yeah.
(December 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Atheism (most critically as far as this article is concerned) is defined as a "belief that there is no god" (Collins), "a doctrine that denies the existence of deity" (Encarta) and "a disbelief in the existence of deity" (Miriam-Webster, 1546)
Which, as I have pointed out to you a few times, is bullshit for two reasons. 1. You can't define god(s) or deity. and 2. A god can be anything. Science for example, is the god of the militant Atheists.
400!
(December 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Atheism is therefore, by definition, the absence of theism and any individual who cannot say "I believe in a deity or god or religion" is an atheist, the term atheist can therefore be seen to completely encompass (include) the term agnosticism (Barnett).
It would have been far more interesting if you had actually thought that the word god was important enough to define as far as terms go. Of course you didn't because it is more about an emotional reaction to political and social repression by Xianity but, hey!
400!
Thats just me.
(December 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Most monotheistic religions will claim that their god is all-seeing, all-knowing & all-powerful and yet, when asked if we have free will answer yes, but if that god is all-seeing and all-knowing etc. then it must be able to see the future and therefore we cannot have free will because whatever will happen is preordained and so we have a contradiction. Monotheistic gods & their scriptures tend to be brimming with such contradictory characteristics and because of this a relatively rational atheist who lacks belief may safely say that he does not accept the existence of (does not believe in current descriptions of) a given god without forcing his or her worldview to become a belief, the rejection is made on purely rational grounds. If one were to say to someone who claimed to be able to fly and following repeated (rejected as one might expect) demands for a demonstration that he did not believe that he was able to fly then that statement would be the product of reason and not of faith. It is the same when an intelligent and rational atheist does the same WRT god.
Well, that, surprisingly would make some sense if it were not for the aforementioned inability of the militant Atheist to define the simple word god, come to a rational understanding of his real emotional response to political and social repression and mobilize or organize accordingly as well as recognize that the Bible, as far as monotheistic scriptures go, doesn't support the religious idea of God being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Not to mention, that to most atheist with only the exception of militant Atheists, would anything other than a simple statement of a lack of beleif in god.
(December 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Religion tends to be characterised by a number of features or necessities, which are summarised as follows:
I will add my response to each of these in bold and brackets. I have removed the ones that were not true of all religion. You had included them because they were fundi Xian and you have an emotional attachment to those who apperently are politically and socially superior to you. That scares the hell out of me, but there aren't many of you militant Atheists out there.
<B>The Characteristics Of Religion</B>
Format: Characteristics [Required to be an atheist]
* A belief in a non-demonstrable deity or deities [Yes. Evolution.]
* The necessity of prayer/worship/ceremony [Yes. Bill Maher]
* Places of worship [Yes. The Internet, Star Trek conventions]
* Holy books & scriptures [Yes. The Gospel according to Richard Dawkins]
* Religious authorities (priests, rabbi etc.) [Yes. Darwin. Dawkins.]
* Supernatural beliefs (e.g. angels, demons) [Yes. Aliens.]
* Acceptance of the miraculous [Yes. Evolution.]
* Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc.) [Yes. Sin.]
* Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Belief in spite of the evidence (anti-science) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Supernatural origins (of life, the universe) [Yes. Aliens.]
* The need to convert (doorstep preachers etc.) [Yes. Every election.]
* Comfort factor (that others go to better place) [Yes. Of course! Don't be stupid!]
You conclude by not making a point but only having claimed to have made a point so I skipped that bit since you don't know what the fuck you are talking about anyway.
