Margot
Verified User
" Many come in my name but they aren't mine"
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I am not an atheist!"
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
It's easier to be in the Trump cult.
Organizing one's life to live by the example of Jesus, The Buddha, or the Haddiths of Mohammed is extremely challenging.
Worshiping a tangerine Messiah just takes less work and commitment.
Same thing. Worship is worship.
Margot
Verified User
The key at this late date is how can you get the
Passover Angel The Reaper to Passover you at the Harvest?
Christians don't get to decide what god is.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Much less stress to worship Trump. There's no expectations for behavior with Trump. You can cheat on your pregnant wife with a porn star. You can lie through your ass whenever you want to. You can force yourself on women and grab them by the pussy whenever you want to.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Atheism is based on reason. Theism is more like astrology. The difference between religion and astrology is that the majority of society recognizes astrology for how ridiculous it is, where as the majority of the religious do not. That's why there's no "atheism" equivalent for the astrology. Not believing in astrology is just accepted as rarional and society points and laugh at them.
Last edited:
Atheism is no more based on reason than it is based on orange juice.
A person who uses "atheist" (which is an essential of atheism) does so because he/she believes (or guesses) one of two things: That there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Neither of those blind guesses is a result of reason...although apparently people who use the word "atheist" as a self-descriptor (or part of a self-descriptor) want to think (and argue) that it is.
Both are more like blind guessing...or coin tossing.
Whatever.
In any case, theism and atheism share, as an essential, blind guesswork. For the theist, the guesses are that there is at least one god or that it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods...
...and for the atheists, the guesses are that there are no gods or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Both theism and atheism are belief systems. Theism acknowledges that...atheism pretends it is not.
ZenMode
Well-known member
An atheists' "guess" is based on available evidence. The only evidence for the Christian god is one book and that book was clearly written by man, not a god. In other words, the evidence for the Christian god, or the god of any religion, is the same as the evidence for Santa Claus.
No it isn't, but people who choose to use the descriptor "atheist" like to insist it is.
Sorta.
BUT...IF there is a god...then everything we see, hear or otherwise sense...IS evidence of that god. Just as IF there are no gods...then everything we see, hear or otherwise sense...IS evidence that there are no gods. The evidence is ambiguous.
The problem is we do not know if there is at least one god or if there are no gods. All people can do is blindly guess there is at least one god...or blindly guess there are no gods.
And the atheists not only guess there are no gods (or guess it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one)...they also pretend their guess is based on evidence and reason.
ZenMode
Well-known member
"The problem is we do not know if there is at least one god or if there are no gods."
Now we've gone full circle. No, we don't know but, as I mentioned, atheists look at available evidence...or, in this case, lack of evidence to decide what to believe.
Okay...so we do not know if there are any sentient being living on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that there are any sentient beings living on any of those planets...or that it is more likely that there are none?
Are you saying that the reasonable, scientific position to take is...since there is no evidence...THAT THERE ARE NO SENTIENT BEINGS ON THOSE PLANETS.
Or are you intelligent enough to understand that the reasonable and scientific position would be to stick with...WE DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY SENTIENT BEINGS LIVING ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS?
In any case, thank you for acknowledging that what atheists do is to BELIEVE...WHICH is identical to what theists do. They "believe"...and you atheists "believe."
One of you is correct.
I wonder which is.
The definition of atheist isn't someone who rejects the Christian god.
The definition of an atheist isn't someone who hates Christianity.
That's just the definition of somebody who really doesn't like Christianity.
Usually because they hated the Fundy church their parents dragged them to, or because they are annoyed with bible thumper politicians.
ZenMode
Well-known member
The question of sentient beings is related but different. If you are a Christian, you believe your religion is true, your God is the real god and all others are wrong. If you are a Muslim, you believe your religion is true, your God is real, etc. What I'm saying is the evidence for ANY gods of ANY religion is only a mad-written book. As an atheist, that is not sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of something and, as a Christian, you agree with me if it was a book written about the god of ANY other religion.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right, but all of the god believers here as far as I know, are Christian. Christians are atheist as it relates to the gods of all other religions, so there isn't really anything to discuss if we talk about Islam, for example.
Your dictionary is.....broken.
I was dragged to church, but it was a fairly typical Lutheran church.
Dragged or not, the lack of evidence for the gods of any religion remains the reason I'm an atheist.
You seem to define atheism as someone who is hostile to Christianity.
The other day, you were almost downright charitable to Buddhism.
The definition of a principled atheist is not some who is hostile to Christianity.
That's just someone who hates Christianity.
I can agree with just about everything you have said here, Zen.
But that does not negate my comment that atheism is the result of belief...just as theism is the result of belief.
Many atheists attempt to paint their atheism as being the result of LACK OF BELIEF. I say they are kidding themselves. The reason they use "atheist" as a self-descriptor (or part of a self-descriptor) is because they BELIEVE that there are no gods or because they BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Atheists are making the same blind guesses about the REALITY of existence as theists...except in the other direction.
It is possible to see that there is no unambiguous evidence that there is a GOD...and still not have to BELIEVE there are no gods. It is possible to see that there is no unambiguous evidence that there is a GOD...and still not have to BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Atheism just means that you don’t believe in any gods, not just the God of Christianity. That’s really all that means. Do I think people of all religions are foolish for structuring their lives around God? Yes, But I’m not hostile to Christians at all.
I doubt that very much. I suspect the reason you use "atheist" as a self-descriptor is because you believe there are no gods...or because you believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.