If they're truly and atheist, they believe in atheism. My opinion of it isn't a factor at all. It's not semantics. It's words, and their definitions, and how they apply to this conversation. Then they aren't true (or literal) atheists. Atheism isn't based on fact, other than the absence of fact. It is based on a belief. I encourage you to study up a bit on atheism and its roots, and not what people who call themselves atheists believe.
Yes, I need a LOT more. MEN, not God, wrote the Bible. Who decided which writings got to be in the Bible and which writings didn't? How do we know those guys were on the up and up? How come women didn't write any of it? As I said in the other thread, at least with the Latter Day Saints, the Golden Plates were placed by an angel. No angel brought the Bible to us.
not a big deal to me, but why are you so quick to assume you're right about this? because your arguments don't work if atheists don't think like you expect them to? anyway i predict every person in this forum who calls themselves an atheist that you ask will treat god in the generic sense as simply unproven, or at best improbable based on evidence, rather than actually impossible. even richard dawkins, sam harris, etc think god is a possibility, albeit remote.
Because there are literal definitions for atheism and its beliefs. If somebody wants to call himself an atheist, but doesn't follow that belief, then it isn't 'atheism's' fault, is it?
I've understood that a lack of belief is indifference...and that true atheists certainly aren't indifferent on the matter.
ok, but you're just arguing semantics which doesn't really matter. it doesn't change the fact that by your definitions almost everyone who doesn't believe in god is an agnostic and real atheists are extremely rare.
lack of belief is generally based on view of probability, not indifference. you don't/can't know it's an absolute truth that there aren't purple unicorns on pluto, but presumably you don't lack belief in them due to simple indifference. you (i would hope) lack belief because you don't think it's likely they exist.
Well, some people have called me ignorant, while still others have called me apathetic. I'm not certain about either. But, then again, I don't really care.
You have the testimony of the Bible and Book of Mormon and there are more records yet to come. You also have the testimony of millions around the world. I can't speak for all faiths but in my faith (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) we make gaining a personal testimony a priority. If you believe in Christ then you believe in the Holy Ghost and his ability to provide a witness as he did for the Apostles after Christ departed. The 12 Apostles are special witnesses of Christ, just like they were during his ministry.
I think he existed. I don't believe he was just concocted out of thin air, however I believe the man has been embellished over the last couple thousand years. Here's my thinking: I believe in a god, but I don't believe in the Christian version perse There have been countless examples in history of people in power using religion to control the masses (Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc). Why is Christianity any different? I believe Jesus existed, but I think he was a mere holy man that taught love and peace and all that shit. I think over time his legend was made into more than it was and eventually the Romans took hold of it. They knew how to take a religion into the big time and the rest is history. I just want to know how devout Christians can hold a book in such reverence that was written by the hand of man, and not only that but it has been in the hands of corrupt and evil men for thousands of years. Why would you trust a book that was in the hands of the Catholic church? The same church that has killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in the name of God? You don't think those people would use the power of Religion for evil? And why wouldn't they tamper with the book? I believe in god, but I don't need a building or a holy man to serve as a conduit, and I certainly don't need Jesus as a go-between. Why do Christians worship Jesus and not God directly? Why do Catholics essentially worship Mary? Why not the man directly? I get it, Jesus is God so it's the same thing, but it's not. Isn't it somewhere in the Bible that you aren't supposed to worship anyone but the man himself? I used to go to church but I saw so much hypocrisy that I stopped going and basically just have my own spiritual relationship with whatever is out there.
He has the answers, at least for him. Lots of judging going on by religion-bashers, which is a bit ironic.
PapaG will LOVE this atheist. nsfw. [video=youtube;y-RJeqyh-vI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RJeqyh-vI[/video]
I thought it was funny. I don't care what people believe in, one way or another. I did like him judging others for his beliefs, as it validates my own thoughts about the religion of atheism, and how it's judgemental in its own right.
I figure as long as you're not actively preaching, teaching, or calling for the oppression of other people who are partaking in consensual activities, you gotta believe what you believe in.
http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911 PapaG still doesn't know what an atheist is even though he is one. Atheist means godless or without god and atheism means not believing in any deity. It's pretty simple. Atheism doesn't get capitalized in the middle of a sentence like Christianity because it is not a religion. There are no rules other than the literal definition of the word. There aren't churches, or prophets or anything of the sort. It is a normal word that means one thing: "not believing in god"
