Atheists stage festival for anti-religion films

[Deicide]

you show your ignorance as evolution is observable, molecular genetics is observable, speciation is observable etc..

Ray comfort is an idiot and i wont even read anything he has to say. He proposed the shape of a banana indicated it was made for us, not knowing that non cultivated bananas do not share this modern shape.

hitler was religious, stop fooling yourself.

atheism cannot be used as a manifesto per se, because it is a lack of belief. Keep trying.

 

This is why I made that youtube asking if it is worth it even debating people like that.

[Deicide]

NECROSIS ANSWER THE QUESTION...how is atheist pushing their beliefs on ppl any different then religious ppl pushing their beliefs on ppl?

I don't think organisations like that are necessary but I don't live in the US and even when I did it was never in the 'Bible Belt'. People from those areas might feel differently. In the UK and Europe god is essentially dead to use the Nietzschean term, so very few people feel the need to organise anything like that. Most people I know are non-practising atheists so it isn't an issue and would never organise themselves in this manner.

[tonymctones]

I don't consider myself an atheist but what belief do you think atheist are trying to push on you?

LOL i didnt say me to my knowledge...

They want to keep religion out of the public eye but are perfectly ok with pushing their agenda based on their beliefs of no religion on others...whether you realize it or not straw your beliefs are biased by not believing in religion just as others are biased by believing in religion...ask yourself these questions, what are your core universal morals?, why do you believe these things to universal? now what makes your core set of universal morals any more valid then another persons?

[tonymctones]

I don't think organisations like that are necessary but I don't live in the US and even when I did it was never in the 'Bible Belt'. People from those areas might feel differently. In the UK and Europe god is essentially dead to use the Nietzschean term, so very few people feel the need to organise anything like that. Most people I know are non-practising atheists so it isn't an issue and would never organise themselves in this manner.

im not referring to a specific organization here more so a line of thinking...

realize that your beliefs are biased by your belief that there is not god, so therefore you do push your agenda on others and by doing so your belief...get it, its subtle but there

liberals and others i hesitate to say atheist in general but secular types always say keep your personal life private...but you see by eliminating religion from the public life you give into atheist and their agenda...get it?

[Deicide]

im not referring to a specific organization here more so a line of thinking...

realize that your beliefs are biased by your belief that there is not god, so therefore you do push your agenda on others and by doing so your belief...get it, its subtle but there

liberals and others i hesitate to say atheist in general but secular types always say keep your personal life private...but you see by eliminating religion from the public life you give into atheist and their agenda...get it?

I ask this question often. I think it hard not to feel some sense of opposition to religion or perceive it as a malignancy if you are a thinking atheist but I also recognise the fact that religion shall be with for a long, long time. On some issues, there cannot be much debate though, i.e. I.D. as a credible 'scientific idea'. I think the solution is simple, there should be a sort of self-selected area of residency, which btw already exists, for example the North East of the US has far fewer problems with this than your home state of Texas. Alternatively it might be a good idea for secular people to simply leave the US and seek greener pastures where they can spend their time productively.

[Necrosis]

im not referring to a specific organization here more so a line of thinking...

realize that your beliefs are biased by your belief that there is not god, so therefore you do push your agenda on others and by doing so your belief...get it, its subtle but there

liberals and others i hesitate to say atheist in general but secular types always say keep your personal life private...but you see by eliminating religion from the public life you give into atheist and their agenda...get it?

i am fine with religious people keeping it to themselves, since they cannot then it must be opposed.

[Necrosis]

This is why I made that youtube asking if it is worth it even debating people like that.

anyone who quotes ray comfort in an intellectual debate is obviously not well informed on the topic at hand. I like how he keeps saying goo when abiogenesis has repeatable evidence of nucleic acid synthesis and repliction. Self replicating or auto catalytic rna peptides into dna etc.....

theres so much evidence out there, but this clown chooses to go the religious route and cherry pick, cloud and mock the situation. I dont know why people want to be willingly ignorant.

you are right, there is no point on this board, in real life people should be corrected when mistating facts.

[Deicide]

anyone who quotes ray comfort in an intellectual debate is obviously not well informed on the topic at hand. I like how he keeps saying goo when abiogenesis has repeatable evidence of nucleic acid synthesis and repliction. Self replicating or auto catalytic rna peptides into dna etc.....

theres so much evidence out there, but this clown chooses to go the religious route and cherry pick, cloud and mock the situation. I dont know why people want to be willingly ignorant.

you are right, there is no point on this board, in real life people should be corrected when mistating facts.

No point in real life either mate...

[Colossus_500]

Exactly.  And Nazi Germany and anti-Semitism actually existed.  Pretty dumb question, as usual. 

The whole idea of organizing, protesting, meeting, and constantly whining about something you don't believe exists is just dumb. 

Sure does sound like proselytizing to me. 

[Necrosis]

Sure does sound like proselytizing to me. 

its not the belief that is the inherent problem, its those who believe it and what they are doing.

[MCWAY]

you show your ignorance as evolution is observable, molecular genetics is observable, speciation is observable etc..

Ray comfort is an idiot and i wont even read anything he has to say. He proposed the shape of a banana indicated it was made for us, not knowing that non cultivated bananas do not share this modern shape.

Molecular genetics and speciation are observable; "evolution", however, is not. Again, show me two rocks smashing together by happenstance and creating some weird form of life, followed by that form of live morphing into some other form of life by itself, randomly, with no sentient guidance. And, as Comfort mentioned, show that for every male "evolving" in such fashion, there is a female "evolving" along with it (with all the reproductive systems in place, along with sexual desire to continue the species).

Once again, rather than address the subject at hand, you feebly attempt to take personal attacks, a classic sign of weakness of argument.

hitler was religious, stop fooling yourself.

atheism cannot be used as a manifesto per se, because it is a lack of belief. Keep trying.

Wrong again! History has documented as such and we have living witnesses from the Holocaust to prove it. But just to recap (from a thread from several months ago):

We can see the difference by looking at attitudes towards Jews in medieval Europe. In 15th-century Spain, a Jew could escape Christian persecution simply by converting to Christianity. Ferdinand and Isabella did not object to having ethnic Jews in Spain; they objected to the practice of Judaism in what they wanted to be a completely Catholic country.

Hitler’s objection to Jews, on the other hand, was not religious. A Jew could not escape Auschwitz by pleading, “I no longer practice Judaism”, “I am an atheist”, or “I have converted to Christianity”. This mattered nothing to Hitler because he believed the Jews were inferior racial stock. His anti-Semitism was secular. - Dinesh D'Souza,
"What's So Great About Christianity?"



And, as I've said beforehand, atheism (IN PRACTICE) is anything but a mere lack of belief.

[Necrosis]

Molecular genetics and speciation are observable; "evolution", however, is not. Again, show me two rocks smashing together by happenstance and creating some weird form of life, followed by that form of live morphing into some other form of life by itself, randomly, with no sentient guidance. And, as Comfort mentioned, show that for every male "evolving" in such fashion, there is a female "evolving" along with it (with all the reproductive systems in place, along with sexual desire to continue the species).

Once again, rather than address the subject at hand, you feebly attempt to take personal attacks, a classic sign of weakness of argument.

Wrong again! History has documented as such and we have living witnesses from the Holocaust to prove it. But just to recap (from a thread from several months ago):

We can see the difference by looking at attitudes towards Jews in medieval Europe. In 15th-century Spain, a Jew could escape Christian persecution simply by converting to Christianity. Ferdinand and Isabella did not object to having ethnic Jews in Spain; they objected to the practice of Judaism in what they wanted to be a completely Catholic country.

Hitler’s objection to Jews, on the other hand, was not religious. A Jew could not escape Auschwitz by pleading, “I no longer practice Judaism”, “I am an atheist”, or “I have converted to Christianity”. This mattered nothing to Hitler because he believed the Jews were inferior racial stock. His anti-Semitism was secular. - Dinesh D'Souza,
"What's So Great About Christianity?"



And, as I've said beforehand, atheism (IN PRACTICE) is anything but a mere lack of belief.

ya because what you just described is a succinct and cogent rehash of evolutionary theory. the fact that you still hold to ray comforts argument shows how ignorant you are.

self replicating autocatalytic rna peptides dont exist i geuss, they need a female.WELL IF RAY COMFORTS SAYS THEY DO THEN THEY MUST, he after is an expert... with the crocoduck and banana.

im not debating evolution with you, you say speciation is observable, and genetics but evolution is not? i geuss we have to see every step in order for it to be true.

[tonymctones]

i am fine with religious people keeping it to themselves, since they cannot then it must be opposed.

WOW BRAINCHILD YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT!!!!!...whats the difference youre trying to push youre atheist views on others, whats the difference? try to actually answer the question this time.....

[MCWAY]

ya because what you just described is a succinct and cogent rehash of evolutionary theory. the fact that you still hold to ray comforts argument shows how ignorant you are.

self replicating autocatalytic rna peptides dont exist i geuss, they need a female.WELL IF RAY COMFORTS SAYS THEY DO THEN THEY MUST, he after is an expert... with the crocoduck and banana.

Comfort put forth the simplest of question, which apparently you can't answer. Hence, we see your usual rash of childish insults and pointless blubbering.

im not debating evolution with you, you say speciation is observable, and genetics but evolution is not? i geuss we have to see every step in order for it to be true.

Neither molecular genetics nor speciation indicate or dictate the absence of a sentient being as responsible for life on this planet (another point you continue to cowardly duck).

And as Tony as repeatedly pointed out, you have provided absolutely NO difference between your trying to push your godless views onto others and your complaints about Christians proselytizing to others.

If religious people have to keep their faith to themselves, then you, Deicide, and all the other godless crew should keep your respective traps shut about your beliefs. Or did you not consider that many people don't want to hear spout endlessly about your man-worshipping?

 

[Necrosis]

Comfort put forth the simplest of question, which apparently you can't answer. Hence, we see your usual rash of childish insults and pointless blubbering.

i already answered ray comforts question, evolution happens at the genetic level, the first cells etc were asexual, auto-catalytic organisms most likely. What ray is sugesting is that one set of genes gets passed on and all of a sudden an individual evolves into something else, this is a basic misunderstanding of evolution. The population will begin to adapt and procreate sharing genetic material which through mutations(frame shift, point mutations etc etc..) will adopt new traits. Every study on speciation shows a population change as organisms cannot exist and spread genes on there own, the question is inherently retarded. However, some species or organisms have you like paticular viruses have something called a bacteriophage which lacks self machinery but jacks bacterias transcription/translation process to reproduce. There are tons of examples of not needing a female, on top of that we observe slow gradual changes in populations like the friut fly for example. Ray comfort is stupid, enough said.

Neither molecular genetics nor speciation indicate or dictate the absence of a sentient being as responsible for life on this planet (another point you continue to cowardly duck).

And as Tony as repeatedly pointed out, you have provided absolutely NO difference between your trying to push your godless views onto others and your complaints about Christians proselytizing to others.

If religious people have to keep their faith to themselves, then you, Deicide, and all the other godless crew should keep your respective traps shut about your beliefs. Or did you not consider that many people don't want to hear spout endlessly about your man-worshipping?

 

how am i ducking a negative? it doesnt disprove the flying sphagetti monster made life, or that this is a dream either. Untestable hypotheses cannot be falsified. The fact that they can't isn't a testament to there validity.

What you and tony don't seem to get is that you have a belief system with particular ideologies that have reprocussions for others. Atheism is merely a lack of belief, it doesn't profess to know how life started, how one should live his life, a persons worth, what will happen when we die etc etc.... if you can't see the difference and how your belief system is potentially dangerous, then i don't knwo what to say.

[MCWAY]

i already answered ray comforts question, evolution happens at the genetic level, the first cells etc were asexual, auto-catalytic organisms most likely. What ray is sugesting is that one set of genes gets passed on and all of a sudden an individual evolves into something else, this is a basic misunderstanding of evolution. The population will begin to adapt and procreate sharing genetic material which through mutations(frame shift, point mutations etc etc..) will adopt new traits. Every study on speciation shows a population change as organisms cannot exist and spread genes on there own, the question is inherently retarded. However, some species or organisms have you like paticular viruses have something called a bacteriophage which lacks self machinery but jacks bacterias transcription/translation process to reproduce. There are tons of examples of not needing a female, on top of that we observe slow gradual changes in populations like the friut fly for example. Ray comfort is stupid, enough said.

You've never observed the so-called "first cells" (nor has anyone else). So, your claims of those alleged "first cells" being asexual are weak, to say the least.

how am i ducking a negative? it doesnt disprove the flying sphagetti monster made life, or that this is a dream either. Untestable hypotheses cannot be falsified. The fact that they can't isn't a testament to there validity.

Then, kiss evolution goodbye. At the end of the day, the question is asked "HOW DID LIFE BEGIN?" Either there's a Supreme Being that is responsible for life on Earth or there is not. The heart of atheism is that there is NOT such a being. Therefore, if you hold that to be true, you must also be able to explain how life began WITHOUT such a being.

Otherwise, you have the "untestable hypothesis", making evolution as worthless as you claim Creation to be.

What you and tony don't seem to get is that you have a belief system with particular ideologies that have reprocussions for others. Atheism is merely a lack of belief, it doesn't profess to know how life started, how one should live his life, a persons worth, what will happen when we die etc etc.... if you can't see the difference and how your belief system is potentially dangerous, then i don't knwo what to say.

We know that, genius. YOU don't seem to get the fact that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM (with its particular ideologies) has reprocussions on others. In fact, I've discussed some of those cold, hard, and often BLOODY reprocussions earlier, to which you feverishly attempt to deny any association (as atheists past and present have feebly attempted to do).

One more time, because comprehension tends to be a problem with you (at times): Atheism, in practice, is FAR BEYOND the mere lack of belief in a supernatural belief. Atheists do profess to know how life started; they make statements on how one should live one's live; they do make statements on a person's worth (i.e. see D'Souza's statements regarding Hitler), etc.

That's the point that I've made and that Tony has made as well. And, that's the point that you keep ducking.

[Necrosis]

You've never observed the so-called "first cells" (nor has anyone else). So, your claims of those alleged "first cells" being asexual are weak, to say the least.

so you have to witness something in order for it to have occured? this is essentially what you are suggesting. asexual cells still exist, we can observe them.i geuss physics should come to a stop since it relies on math, especially particle colliders, meanwhile a shit ton of technology is based on the findings

homicide detectives should be informed that unless they have observed the crime then they cannot prove it or make logical assumptions. Nice argument from ignorance, you are a walking fallacy.

Then, kiss evolution goodbye. At the end of the day, the question is asked "HOW DID LIFE BEGIN?" Either there's a Supreme Being that is responsible for life on Earth or there is not. The heart of atheism is that there is NOT such a being. Therefore, if you hold that to be true, you must also be able to explain how life began WITHOUT such a being.

Otherwise, you have the "untestable hypothesis", making evolution as worthless as you claim Creation to be.

evolution can be falsified easily, a being living outside of time and space who created everything cannot be. If we found bunny rabbit fossils in the cambrien layer that would falsify evolution, i can think of a thousand ways to falsify the theory in all fields. evolution is not something that cannot be tested, we can observe it. I wont say it again, you have been corrected if you do not want to take the time to learn about reality then fine, but stop repeating lies.

You've never observed the so-called "first cells" (nor has anyone else). So, your claims of those alleged "first cells" being asexual are weak, to say the least.


Then, kiss evolution goodbye. At the end of the day, the question is asked "HOW DID LIFE BEGIN?" Either there's a Supreme Being that is responsible for life on Earth or there is not. The heart of atheism is that there is NOT such a being. Therefore, if you hold that to be true, you must also be able to explain how life began WITHOUT such a being.

Otherwise, you have the "untestable hypothesis", making evolution as worthless as you claim Creation to be.

We know that, genius. YOU don't seem to get the fact that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM (with its particular ideologies) has reprocussions on others. In fact, I've discussed some of those cold, hard, and often BLOODY reprocussions earlier, to which you feverishly attempt to deny any association (as atheists past and present have feebly attempted to do).

One more time, because comprehension tends to be a problem with you (at times): Atheism, in practice, is FAR BEYOND the mere lack of belief in a supernatural belief. Atheists do profess to know how life started; they make statements on how one should live one's live; they do make statements on a person's worth (i.e. see D'Souza's statements regarding Hitler), etc.

That's the point that I've made and that Tony has made as well. And, that's the point that you keep ducking.

You've never observed the so-called "first cells" (nor has anyone else). So, your claims of those alleged "first cells" being asexual are weak, to say the least.


Then, kiss evolution goodbye. At the end of the day, the question is asked "HOW DID LIFE BEGIN?" Either there's a Supreme Being that is responsible for life on Earth or there is not. The heart of atheism is that there is NOT such a being. Therefore, if you hold that to be true, you must also be able to explain how life began WITHOUT such a being.

Otherwise, you have the "untestable hypothesis", making evolution as worthless as you claim Creation to be.

We know that, genius. YOU don't seem to get the fact that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM (with its particular ideologies) has reprocussions on others. In fact, I've discussed some of those cold, hard, and often BLOODY reprocussions earlier, to which you feverishly attempt to deny any association (as atheists past and present have feebly attempted to do).

One more time, because comprehension tends to be a problem with you (at times): Atheism, in practice, is FAR BEYOND the mere lack of belief in a supernatural belief. Atheists do profess to know how life started; they make statements on how one should live one's live; they do make statements on a person's worth (i.e. see D'Souza's statements regarding Hitler), etc.

That's the point that I've made and that Tony has made as well. And, that's the point that you keep ducking.

We know that, genius. YOU don't seem to get the fact that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM (with its particular ideologies) has reprocussions on others. In fact, I've discussed some of those cold, hard, and often BLOODY reprocussions earlier, to which you feverishly attempt to deny any association (as atheists past and present have feebly attempted to do).

One more time, because comprehension tends to be a problem with you (at times): Atheism, in practice, is FAR BEYOND the mere lack of belief in a supernatural belief. Atheists do profess to know how life started; they make statements on how one should live one's live; they do make statements on a person's worth (i.e. see D'Souza's statements regarding Hitler), etc.

That's the point that I've made and that Tony has made as well. And, that's the point that you keep ducking.

oh really, tell me the tenats of atheism? what they say about how one should live their life, and others worth. You make assumptions that if there is no god this and that must be true. We don't profess to know how life started, we say we are not certain, we will wait till the evidence comes forth, we have some solid theories with alot of testing as of now.

you see there is no book on atheism, no guidelines etc... atheism is simply a lack of belief, i don't believe there exists a god, im not 100% certain but the evidence would indicate that there is no god. I could be wrong.

can you admit that you could be wrong and god could not exist?

[MCWAY]

so you have to witness something in order for it to have occured? this is essentially what you are suggesting. asexual cells still exist, we can observe them.i geuss physics should come to a stop since it relies on math, especially particle colliders, meanwhile a shit ton of technology is based on the findings

homicide detectives should be informed that unless they have observed the crime then they cannot prove it or make logical assumptions. Nice argument from ignorance, you are a walking fallacy.

You should be informed to eat a nutritious breakfast, before making such stupid statements. If I believe I had to actually witness something for it to have occured, I wouldn't be a Christian and I certainly wouldn't believe in Creation.

evolution can be falsified easily, a being living outside of time and space who created everything cannot be. If we found bunny rabbit fossils in the cambrien layer that would falsify evolution, i can think of a thousand ways to falsify the theory in all fields. evolution is not something that cannot be tested, we can observe it. I wont say it again, you have been corrected if you do not want to take the time to learn about reality then fine, but stop repeating lies.

I've learned about reality, which makes refuting your statements rather simple to do. If we found bunny rabit fossils in the Cambrian layer that falsify evolution.....SO WHAT!!! All that means is that, once again, the events didn't go down as evolutionists claim.

oh really, tell me the tenats of atheism? what they say about how one should live their life, and others worth. You make assumptions that if there is no god this and that must be true. We don't profess to know how life started, we say we are not certain, we will wait till the evidence comes forth, we have some solid theories with alot of testing as of now.

you see there is no book on atheism, no guidelines etc... atheism is simply a lack of belief, i don't believe there exists a god, im not 100% certain but the evidence would indicate that there is no god. I could be wrong.

can you admit that you could be wrong and god could not exist?

Tenets? No problem! In fact, some are listed on another thread. But, I'll bring up a couple right here:

1) Heaven is here on Earth

Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."[/b] - American Atheists.

This group was founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who loved her fellow man so much that she dismissed her son, William Murray, when he became a Christian (and later a minister), calling such a "postnatal abortion".

" I believe we make our own heaven right here, or hell, and I said, I'm going to come back in an afterlife as a leaf on a tree."
Beverly Crowell, congregant, Palo Alto Humanist Community.

BTW, how does someone who doesn't believe in God somehow think she's coming back in an "afterlife" as a leaf (or anything else)?

2) Man is his own salvation.

(From the aforementioned American Atheist blurb): "An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment"

"We respect science and learning, knowing that only human thought, effort and courage will bring individual freedom and cultural progress." -  San Francisco Atheists.

Those sound like "guidelines" to me. As for a "book", these atheists groups tend to go ga-ga over "The Origin of Species". In fact, it appears the man-worshippers have their own "messiah": Charles Darwin. If I remember correctly, a number of atheists got all warm and fuzzy about Darwin's 200th birthday.

[Necrosis]

You should be informed to eat a nutritious breakfast, before making such stupid statements. If I believe I had to actually witness something for it to have occured, I wouldn't be a Christian and I certainly wouldn't believe in Creation.

I've learned about reality, which makes refuting your statements rather simple to do. If we found bunny rabit fossils in the Cambrian layer that falsify evolution.....SO WHAT!!! All that means is that, once again, the events didn't go down as evolutionists claim.



Tenets? No problem! In fact, some are listed on another thread. But, I'll bring up a couple right here:

1) Heaven is here on Earth

Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."[/b] - American Atheists.

This group was founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who loved her fellow man so much that she dismissed her son, William Murray, when he became a Christian (and later a minister), calling such a "postnatal abortion".

" I believe we make our own heaven right here, or hell, and I said, I'm going to come back in an afterlife as a leaf on a tree."
Beverly Crowell, congregant, Palo Alto Humanist Community.

BTW, how does someone who doesn't believe in God somehow think she's coming back in an "afterlife" as a leaf (or anything else)?

2) Man is his own salvation.

(From the aforementioned American Atheist blurb): "An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment"

"We respect science and learning, knowing that only human thought, effort and courage will bring individual freedom and cultural progress." -  San Francisco Atheists.

Those sound like "guidelines" to me. As for a "book", these atheists groups tend to go ga-ga over "The Origin of Species". In fact, it appears the man-worshippers have their own "messiah": Charles Darwin. If I remember correctly, a number of atheists got all warm and fuzzy about Darwin's 200th birthday.

"You've never observed the so-called "first cells" (nor has anyone else). So, your claims of those alleged "first cells" being asexual are weak, to say the least."

here you are saying that i never witnesed the first cells, so because i haven't observed them my claim is weak. This contradicts your above statement, you can't even write two replies without a blatant contradiction.

i don't care what atheists say about atheism, it is a lack of belief, just because some idiot thinks that she is coming back as a leaf doesn't mean atheism is about that etc.. there is no central doctrine of atheism like there is christianity, hence it is unregulated, has no tenats, no guidelines etc..


 
Atheism Portal · v • d • e 
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the assertion that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

"The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), which was derogatively applied to anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist.[4] Up to 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers; and up to 48% in Russia.[5] The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges between 6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden).[5]"


from wiki, people who are buddists also are regarded as atheists in some forms, but are spiritual. It can take many meanings because it is not regulated and has no central doctrine. When you say someone is a christian you know what they are, but when you say they are theistic it takes many forms, get it? . It is simply lack of belief in god, people can do what they want with it and make there own ideas etc.. once they make any assumptions about the afterlife etc.. they are entering the unknown and untestable.


"Those sound like "guidelines" to me. As for a "book", these atheists groups tend to go ga-ga over "The Origin of Species". In fact, it appears the man-worshippers have their own "messiah": Charles Darwin. If I remember correctly, a number of atheists got all warm and fuzzy about Darwin's 200th birthday."

again another fallacy, a strawman argument. Is darwins book a central doctrine to the practice of something called atheism? NO. many christians beleive in evoloution, so are they practicing both?

the fact that some atheists celebrate christmas doesn't make it a ubiquitous practice associated with atheism. So atheists may love darwin, some may not, i don't know. It doesn't matter the validity of his theory,gravity etc has nothing to do with the lack of evidence for a god.

you are cherry picking, attacking straw men etc.. all over the place. Arguing from ignorance and so on. I bet some atheists beleive in a holographic universe, thus all atheists do. This is the argument you are making.

[MCWAY]

"You've never observed the so-called "first cells" (nor has anyone else). So, your claims of those alleged "first cells" being asexual are weak, to say the least."

here you are saying that i never witnesed the first cells, so because i haven't observed them my claim is weak. This contradicts your above statement, you can't even write two replies without a blatant contradiction.

i don't care what atheists say about atheism, it is a lack of belief, just because some idiot thinks that she is coming back as a leaf doesn't mean atheism is about that etc.. there is no central doctrine of atheism like there is christianity, hence it is unregulated, has no tenats, no guidelines etc..

WHAT!!! Do you know how silly this blurb of yours is? Are you going to send the American Atheists the memo that they're not really atheists?

There is a central doctrine to atheism, as has been listed by THOSE WHO ADHERE TO IT.

No guidelines? As I did with Straw Man, I must ask whether or not you are indulging in certain narcotics. The most basic guidelines of being an atheist are:

 - BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD
 - Only man's logic and reason can create "heaven on earth".
 - the natural/material is all that there is.

Go to virtually any site or group of people who called themselves atheists and you'll find those three "tenets", "guidelines", or whatever you want to call them present (usually spelled out in greater detail).

 
Atheism Portal · v • d • e 
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the assertion that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

"The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), which was derogatively applied to anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist.[4] Up to 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers; and up to 48% in Russia.[5] The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges between 6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden).[5]"


from wiki, people who are buddists also are regarded as atheists in some forms, but are spiritual. It can take many meanings because it is not regulated and has no central doctrine. When you say someone is a christian you know what they are, but when you say they are theistic it takes many forms, get it? . It is simply lack of belief in god, people can do what they want with it and make there own ideas etc.. once they make any assumptions about the afterlife etc.. they are entering the unknown and untestable.

Once again, you display your inability to know about what you speak. Buddhists can be atheists but are SPIRITUAL?

Spiritual, O Necrosis, means that you believe there is something BEYOND THIS LIFE, beyond the natural. Buddhists believe in an afterlife; heck, some believe in reincarnation (Ms. Crowell believes someone is going to turn her into a leaf in her "next life").

again another fallacy, a strawman argument. Is darwins book a central doctrine to the practice of something called atheism? NO. many christians beleive in evoloution, so are they practicing both?

I beg to differ. Darwin's book is the cornerstone to the theory of evolution. In fact, the flavor-of-the-month atheist, Richard Dawkins, credits Dawkins and the theory of evolution for making it possible for atheists to be intellectually fulfulled (I guess the only thing left from Dawkins is to throw his hands up and say Praise Chuck!!!").

the fact that some atheists celebrate christmas doesn't make it a ubiquitous practice associated with atheism. So atheists may love darwin, some may not, i don't know. It doesn't matter the validity of his theory,gravity etc has nothing to do with the lack of evidence for a god.

you are cherry picking, attacking straw men etc.. all over the place. Arguing from ignorance and so on. I bet some atheists beleive in a holographic universe, thus all atheists do. This is the argument you are making.

Wrong again, genius!!! The argument I am making is that the aforementioned guidelines/tenets (that you claim atheism doesn't possess) can be CONSISENTLY found in people of "lack-of-faith", across the board.

[Necrosis]

WHAT!!! Do you know how silly this blurb of yours is? Are you going to send the American Atheists the memo that they're not really atheists?

There is a central doctrine to atheism, as has been listed by THOSE WHO ADHERE TO IT.

No guidelines? As I did with Straw Man, I must ask whether or not you are indulging in certain narcotics. The most basic guidelines of being an atheist are:

 - BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD
 - Only man's logic and reason can create "heaven on earth".
 - the natural/material is all that there is.

Go to virtually any site or group of people who called themselves atheists and you'll find those three "tenets", "guidelines", or whatever you want to call them present (usually spelled out in greater detail).

Once again, you display your inability to know about what you speak. Buddhists can be atheists but are SPIRITUAL?

Spiritual, O Necrosis, means that you believe there is something BEYOND THIS LIFE, beyond the natural. Buddhists believe in an afterlife; heck, some believe in reincarnation (Ms. Crowell believes someone is going to turn her into a leaf in her "next life").




I beg to differ. Darwin's book is the cornerstone to the theory of evolution. In fact, the flavor-of-the-month atheist, Richard Dawkins, credits Dawkins and the theory of evolution for making it possible for atheists to be intellectually fulfulled (I guess the only thing left from Dawkins is to throw his hands up and say Praise Chuck!!!").


Wrong again, genius!!! The argument I am making is that the aforementioned guidelines/tenets (that you claim atheism doesn't possess) can be CONSISENTLY found in people of "lack-of-faith", across the board.

atheism is simply a lack of belief and the root of the word indicates this, it does not have to meet the requirements of materialism and the reason buddists can be considered atheists is that they do not believe in a god. Go to wiki, read my friend.

"I beg to differ. Darwin's book is the cornerstone to the theory of evolution. In fact, the flavor-of-the-month atheist, Richard Dawkins, credits Dawkins and the theory of evolution for making it possible for atheists to be intellectually fulfulled (I guess the only thing left from Dawkins is to throw his hands up and say Praise Chuck!!!"[/"

so what, thats his opinion, many christians beleive in evolution, so your argument is non sequitor.

[MCWAY]

atheism is simply a lack of belief and the root of the word indicates this, it does not have to meet the requirements of materialism and the reason buddists can be considered atheists is that they do not believe in a god. Go to wiki, read my friend.

You go read the view and creeds of American Atheists (among others). The issue isn't what the root of the word is but whether those who practice such go BEYOND that "root", to which the answer is "Yes".

Buddhists believe in a god (I'll take a wild guess and say that god is BUDDHA). Those claiming to be Buddhists and atheists simultaneously STILL BELIEVE in an afterlife. In the case of that one lady from the article I mentioned, she believes that SOMEONE will make her a leaf in her next life. That, no matter how you spin, is belief in a supernatural power (man sure can't change you into a leaf). A simple disassociation with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob DOES NOT EQUATE to being an atheist.

Atheism requires the belief that there is NO GOD, not that there is or may be one (but it ain't the one in that pesky old Bible). In fact, there isn't even a requirement, in the purest sense, that the god be a supernatural entity.

"I beg to differ. Darwin's book is the cornerstone to the theory of evolution. In fact, the flavor-of-the-month atheist, Richard Dawkins, credits Dawkins and the theory of evolution for making it possible for atheists to be intellectually fulfulled (I guess the only thing left from Dawkins is to throw his hands up and say Praise Chuck!!!"[/"

so what, thats his opinion, many christians beleive in evolution, so your argument is non sequitor.

That's also the "opinion" of millions of atheists, some of whom has said as much their respective groups.

No matter how you try to deny it, atheism as practiced today GOES BEYOND SIMPLE LACK of belief. That comes from the mouths of atheists themselves, past and present.

[Necrosis]

You go read the view and creeds of American Atheists (among others). The issue isn't what the root of the word is but whether those who practice such go BEYOND that "root", to which the answer is "Yes".

Buddhists believe in a god (I'll take a wild guess and say that god is BUDDHA). Those claiming to be Buddhists and atheists simultaneously STILL BELIEVE in an afterlife. In the case of that one lady from the article I mentioned, she believes that SOMEONE will make her a leaf in her next life. That, no matter how you spin, is belief in a supernatural power (man sure can't change you into a leaf). A simple disassociation with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob DOES NOT EQUATE to being an atheist.

Atheism requires the belief that there is NO GOD, not that there is or may be one (but it ain't the one in that pesky old Bible). In fact, there isn't even a requirement, in the purest sense, that the god be a supernatural entity.

buddha is not a god.The belief in the supernatural is not apart of atheism, atheism is the opposite of theism. You are making wild attachments to the word that are not true.

it is as much a belief as being an aunicornist is, there is no evidence for unicorns, so i am an aunicornist. Sure i could get together with others who also don't belief in unicorns etc.. this is what the nature of atheism is.
\

" A simple disassociation with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob DOES NOT EQUATE to being an atheist."

were did i state this? i have been saying god, an all powerful, supernatural creator of all that exists. It could be many gods, i suppose you are atheistic towards zeus are you not? No no, the meaning of the word and what it entails is all that matters in this discussion. Some people may claim that the christian god hates blacks, but you can go to the bible to verify this. What people do in the name of christianity might not be chrisitian but that persons personal beliefs. We have a defined criteria for what a christian is expected to do, what they believe, even the characteristics of their god. So what matters is what the word christian means not what people tend to do with it. This is subjective, we want objective criterion. Thus, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or supernatural power.  it is not founded on any documents or books, has no hieracrchy etc like christianity, no guidelines for how to live life.

look at it this way if i was to do what you are doing and posted a link to a christian group, say fred phelps, and said this is what christianity is and what it says. You could simply verify this by refering to the bible, the basis of the religion. Now you link me to a site with some atheistic group claiming particularly attributes of atheism, i cannot verify or affirm this. Why? because there is no book, no guideline nothing. The word simply means the lack of belief in a god, nothing more, what people choose to attach to it is not my problem.


from the dictionary.
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


you stating that atheism prescribes ways to view man, to live etc is like me saying theism states how we should do those things, clearly irrational.

"no matter how you try to deny it, atheism as practiced today GOES BEYOND SIMPLE LACK of belief. That comes from the mouths of atheists themselves, past and present."

religion is a huge problem in the world, causing wars, death, ignorance,close-mindedness and lack of rationality. Low IQ is negatively correlated with religous belief, a telling tale. It promotes irrationality and discrimination, poor morals and seperation. I believe we who do not believe in a god should be more vocal and stand against religion. That however does not change what atheism is. The active movement is a different phenomenon imo.


Answer this question, since you avoided it, i have answered all of yours. Do you accept the possibility that there may be no god?

[MCWAY]

buddha is not a god.The belief in the supernatural is not apart of atheism, atheism is the opposite of theism. You are making wild attachments to the word that are not true.

it is as much a belief as being an aunicornist is, there is no evidence for unicorns, so i am an aunicornist. Sure i could get together with others who also don't belief in unicorns etc.. this is what the nature of atheism is.

\

Wrong again!! The aforementioned lady from the Palo Alto humanist center (and she is hardly the only one) believes that she will be re-incarnated into something else in her next life. That requires a supernatural force and Buddhists believe in re-incarnation. Yet, you claim Buddhists can be classified as atheists.

There is no wild attachments involved, only severe denial on your part.

" A simple disassociation with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob DOES NOT EQUATE to being an atheist."

were did i state this? i have been saying god, an all powerful, supernatural creator of all that exists. It could be many gods, i suppose you are atheistic towards zeus are you not? No no, the meaning of the word and what it entails is all that matters in this discussion. Some people may claim that the christian god hates blacks, but you can go to the bible to verify this. What people do in the name of christianity might not be chrisitian but that persons personal beliefs. We have a defined criteria for what a christian is expected to do, what they believe, even the characteristics of their god. So what matters is what the word christian means not what people tend to do with it. This is subjective, we want objective criterion. Thus, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or supernatural power.  it is not founded on any documents or books, has no hieracrchy etc like christianity, no guidelines for how to live life.

I never credit that aforementioned quote to you; so untie your knickers, please. Furthermore, the remainder of this passage of yours makes little sense. "Atheistic towards Zeus"? Congratulations, you've just added another hole to your foot.

To be atheistic, I must believe that there are NO GODS. Your claim makes about as much sense as stating that someone isn't a father/mother simply because he/she has just ONE child. Belief in just ONE deity is all it takes to disqualify you from being an atheist.

Once again (as is often the case with folks like you), it's the simple things that zip clean over your head. As has been shown throughout history and stated IN BLACK AND WHITE BY ATHEISTS THEMSELVES, atheism is far, FAR more than just a simple lack of belief in a deity. Why that simple fact fails to register in your skull is beyond me.

Why don't you go and inform all these folk from groups like American Atheists (or like the one that blubbering and filing a lawsuit about "In God We Trust" on a certain gov't building) that they aren't really atheists, because their views go beyond mere disbelief.

look at it this way if i was to do what you are doing and posted a link to a christian group, say fred phelps, and said this is what christianity is and what it says. You could simply verify this by refering to the bible, the basis of the religion. Now you link me to a site with some atheistic group claiming particularly attributes of atheism, i cannot verify or affirm this. Why? because there is no book, no guideline nothing. The word simply means the lack of belief in a god, nothing more, what people choose to attach to it is not my problem.

The problem with that wacky analogy is that 1) the Phelps group is (for the most part) an isolated case, long refuted and often dismissed by legitimate Christian entities; and 2) the aforementioned attributes regarding atheism (there is no god; we create our own heaven; man is his own salvation, etc) are consistent ACROSS THE BOARD.

I dare you to find an atheistic group where such is NOT the case. Let's see some examples of atheists who are mere non-believers and do not adhere to aforementioned "dogma".

from the dictionary.
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


you stating that atheism prescribes ways to view man, to live etc is like me saying theism states how we should do those things, clearly irrational.

"no matter how you try to deny it, atheism as practiced today GOES BEYOND SIMPLE LACK of belief. That comes from the mouths of atheists themselves, past and present."

religion is a huge problem in the world, causing wars, death, ignorance,close-mindedness and lack of rationality. Low IQ is negatively correlated with religous belief, a telling tale. It promotes irrationality and discrimination, poor morals and seperation. I believe we who do not believe in a god should be more vocal and stand against religion. That however does not change what atheism is. The active movement is a different phenomenon imo.

And, for every death, done through or for religious purpose, there are 5 to 10 that were done for NON-RELIGIOUS purposes. The Crusades would have to be ongoing TO THIS DAY (along with the Islamic Jihads) to even scratch the surface of the number of bodies that ATHEISTIC folks like Stalin have racked up.

There was virtually no Christianity, Islam, or Judaism in Stalin's Russia. What was his excuse? Or that of Hitler?

That is simple fact, no matter how much you or any other atheist try to deny it.

Answer this question, since you avoided it, i have answered all of yours. Do you accept the possibility that there may be no god?

What on Earth would give you that impression? But, since you don't take hints very well.....NO!