Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

No you label me as a "Religious person". I don't really think so; but I just take it for what it's worth. Now if you act religious and put down religious people; then that is completely contradictory. Very hypocritical.

 

No worries buddy. Just making sure we understand each other.

 

Care to compare military budgets of the US to any other country in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget#Military_budgets_.282003.29

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

 

yeah make a thread where it actually is on topic; and I will be more than happy to. That holds no place in this thread, and will only confuse the readers what this threads all about.

P.S. you quoted me wrong; in the bold print.

 

True, but I don't "act religious". Not even sure what you mean by that.

If you meant I am sure I am correct that there is no god, then I guess you're right, but that's certainly not the usual definition of religious.

 

Just addressing your strawman bringing into this thread killings by "communist" countries.

 

The bold was my reply.

 

Okay, you don't like me using "Faith" because it's association with "creationists"; but I also explained "Faith" is the same as "True Belief without evidence to back that belief". Since you have no evidence that there is "no God"; yet you said "I know there is NO GOD"; that is an act of "Faith" or "True Belief without evidence to back that belief".

And let's take a look at "Religion" in the Webster's Dictionary.

For 1. Even if you don't believe in "God"; you would still believe the act of the universe is "super human". Basically; you have faith that the universe was created by chance; being that the universe is "super human"

For 2. Atheism, according to you is a belief, and more than just you think this way. Therefor "Atheism" is a religion.

For 5. I explained how your "Faith" is described without "Proof". You have no proof God does not exist; therefor, your belief that God does not exist; is "Faith.

 

Maris.... You are a realtor; so I think you can answer this question.

Let's say you have two houses that are built by the same contractor: using all the same supplies, upgrades, and brand appliances; but they are in two entirely different locations.

Why are those two houses different prices? What would warrant one to be more expensive than the other?

 

I'm still not sure how it's "hypocritical", exactly, but as long as everyone stops yelling "STRAW MAN!!" whenever they disagree with something, I'll be satisfied.

 

Okay, I will stop using "straw man" just for you Trip. Since I respect ya buddy!

P.S. It is hypocritical to use "Religious leaders abusing power" to knock down "Creation"; while not accepting "Communist leaders abusing their power" for that very same knock on "Atheism"

 

Your use of "superhuman" in #1 is tenuous at best. Atheists, as a rule, don't worship the universe as a higher power.

By your application of #2, just about any belief is a religion... I happen to like toast. I believe that it is good, and so do many others. Does this mean that I am somehow a part of a religion of "Toastians"?

We have been over #5 so many times that it hurts. I cannot bear to explain why you are off-base here again, I'm sorry.

 

Why did you change your mind? Did you change it because you thought the Bible was inconsistent with those claims, but now you think it isn't (in other words, what's changed is your interpretation of the Bible), or did it change because you now believe that the Bible is wrong (what's changed in your mind is the status of the Bible)?

 

I'm just trying to elevate our discussion, yo! We've got no chance of communicating effectively if our words mean different things to each other.

 

It changed because I accept logical reasoning. And even though I don't think the proof in "over-whelming"; I have logically thought out what many of you presented to me.

Does it change my opinion on the "Bible"? Not really; since I always picture the Bible as God trying to explain things to a 2 year old. There must be a manner in which we understand. And back then, things were even harder to explain.

 

Trip, before you post this, read who I am replying to. I am going on this "definition" based on his testimony of his views of atheism and "Faith" that God does not exist. To MARIS; this makes a lot of sense. To you and I, well we can snicker at the argument.

 

Yep; I get that and respect it. Which is why I won't make "Straw man" arguments anymore.

 

One's in Malibu and one's in Detroit.

 

And why would the different locations warrant the enormous increase in price?

 

That wouldn't be sufficient. Logic, by itself, does not settle any matter of fact. Using logic you can work from established facts to things that must follow from them, but no claim such as the age of the universe can be settled by logic. So perhaps you should change your mind back again.

I don't understand: do you think that the Bible is infallible? Do you think that when the Bible says that (e.g.) bats are birds (Leviticus 11:19) , that:
(a) they are, in fact birds and anyone who says otherwise is wrong (fundamentalism)
(b) they aren't birds, and the Bible is just wrong.
(c) They aren't birds, but the Bible is never wrong, so we must be mis-reading the Bible if we think it says that.