Do we really need millions of mosques, synagogues, churches, temples and cathedrals? Do we really need to debate whether schools should teach evolution or creationism? Do we really need to struggle to try and ensure that abortion isn't outlawed? Do we really need to fight for marriage equality? Given that society's resources are scarce/limited... couldn't all that time, money, effort and energy be used in more valuable/productive ways?
If you're an atheist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for theists to vote/shop for themselves?
If you're a theist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for atheists to vote/shop for themselves?
If you're an adult...isn't it a given that the outcome is largely beneficial because it's illegal for people who believe in Santa Claus to vote? Doesn't it follow then that we would benefit even more if we made it illegal for minors to shop for themselves? Couldn't all the money wasted on ice cream, candy and toys be better spent on more valuable things?
I regret giving up my banhammer.
Xero must be your IQ because it fits well.
Did this really need to be its own topic? Why not put it as a reply in your other topic?
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Did this really need to be its own topic? Why not put it as a reply in your other topic?
Because I want you to explain to me why you, an atheist, firmly support theists shopping/voting even though the outcome is, from your perspective, detrimental.
You've demonstrated a good deal of stupid. You should be rendered incapable of voting and shopping.
Next question! :)
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"I regret giving up my banhammer.
There's always the ignore button.
I'm pretty sure you've already argued that everyone should be allowed to vote and shop, Zero.
I hope you're saving up for college. The scholarship doesn't look to be in the cards.
WTF! :roll: Solitary
Maybe if we don't allow theists to shop, they'll starve to death.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Do we really need millions of mosques, synagogues, churches, temples and cathedrals? Do we really need to debate whether schools should teach evolution or creationism? Do we really need to struggle to try and ensure that abortion isn't outlawed? Do we really need to fight for marriage equality? Given that society's resources are scarce/limited... couldn't all that time, money, effort and energy be used in more valuable/productive ways?
If you're an atheist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for theists to vote/shop for themselves?
If you're a theist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for atheists to vote/shop for themselves?
If you're an adult...isn't it a given that the outcome is largely beneficial because it's illegal for people who believe in Santa Claus to vote? Doesn't it follow then that we would benefit even more if we made it illegal for minors to shop for themselves? Couldn't all the money wasted on ice cream, candy and toys be better spent on more valuable things?
I have no idea why you would advocate denial of a civil right or rights for anyone. I AM for taxing churches as they ARE a going concern. I also would apply the laws that are enforced on political action groups as all churches are political action groups! The tax disclosure alone would shut down most churches!
My reaction to this thread:
(//http://i.imgur.com/Mxkev.gif)
Quote from: "Xerographica"Do we really need millions of mosques, synagogues, churches, temples and cathedrals? Do we really need to debate whether schools should teach evolution or creationism? Do we really need to struggle to try and ensure that abortion isn't outlawed? Do we really need to fight for marriage equality? Given that society's resources are scarce/limited... couldn't all that time, money, effort and energy be used in more valuable/productive ways?
If you're an atheist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for theists to vote/shop for themselves?
If you're a theist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for atheists to vote/shop for themselves?
If you're an adult...isn't it a given that the outcome is largely beneficial because it's illegal for people who believe in Santa Claus to vote? Doesn't it follow then that we would benefit even more if we made it illegal for minors to shop for themselves? Couldn't all the money wasted on ice cream, candy and toys be better spent on more valuable things?
This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death). I'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death).
[spoil:3lerrgec](//http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxi4g9JgxW1r5gvg1o1_400.gif)[/spoil:3lerrgec]
QuoteI'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.
[spoil:3lerrgec](//http://25.media.tumblr.com/ee84ed19d5f1b1cbdecd05fde38f99aa/tumblr_mgztqjkqsm1qh2o7zo1_r1_500.gif)[/spoil:3lerrgec]
Quote from: "gomtuu77"This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death). I'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.
1. What on earth is 'outworking [sic] of atheism'? Is this going to be a 'but hitler was an atheist!!!!!!!!!11!1!1111!1!1!1!1!10!!!' retort?
2. If you LUARKED MOAR you'd see nobody takes Xero seriously, not even himself.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "gomtuu77"This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death). I'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.
1. What on earth is 'outworking [sic] of atheism'? Is this going to be a 'but hitler was an atheist!!!!!!!!!11!1!1111!1!1!1!1!10!!!' retort?
2. If you LUARKED MOAR you'd see nobody takes Xero seriously, not even himself.
No, atheism is a materialist philosophy. As such, it cannot support genuine objective morality. In that sense, there is no real or genuine constraint on behavior. Tyranny tends to be the natural outworking of atheism as a result. It doesn't always happen immediately, but it does happen eventually. Essentially it is a rationalization used to free human nature to act more fully and freely upon humanity.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "gomtuu77"This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death). I'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.
1. What on earth is 'outworking [sic] of atheism'? Is this going to be a 'but hitler was an atheist!!!!!!!!!11!1!1111!1!1!1!1!10!!!' retort?
2. If you LUARKED MOAR you'd see nobody takes Xero seriously, not even himself.
No, atheism is a materialist philosophy. As such, it cannot support genuine objective morality. In that sense, there is no real or genuine constraint on behavior. Tyranny tends to be the natural outworking of atheism as a result. It doesn't always happen immediately, but it does happen eventually. Essentially it is a rationalization used to free human nature to act more fully and freely upon humanity.
Verbose irrlevencies galore.
Atheism is not a philosophy, its a stance on a claim, a default stance in fact.
Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods.
So, to conclude, you're talking out of your rear end.
QuoteVerbose irrlevencies galore.
Atheism is not a philosophy, its a stance on a claim, a default stance in fact.
Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods.
So, to conclude, you're talking out of your rear end.
Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God. It is not a lack of belief, as a mere lack of something wouldn't constitute a stance. The recent cowardice of the atheist position, defining itself into a kind of agnosticism, rather than an affirmative statement is kind of off-putting. I understand why it's done, but it really shouldn't be. Atheism is typically supported by way of a materialist/naturalistic view of the world. That is what I indicated earlier, and I stand by the statement. However, you are correct, in that I should have been more precise by saying that it is ungirded by such a philosophy rather than identifying it with the philosophy itself.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"QuoteVerbose irrlevencies galore.
Atheism is not a philosophy, its a stance on a claim, a default stance in fact.
Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods.
So, to conclude, you're talking out of your rear end.
Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God. It is not a lack of belief, as a mere lack of something wouldn't constitute a stance. The recent cowardice of the atheist position, defining itself into a kind of agnosticism, rather than an affirmative statement is kind of off-putting. I understand why it's done, but it really shouldn't be. Atheism is typically supported by way of a materialist/naturalistic view of the world. That is what I indicated earlier, and I stand by the statement. However, you are correct, in that I should have been more precise by saying that it is ungirded by such a philosophy rather than identifying it with the philosophy itself.
So much wrong, in so short a paragraph.
I actively disbelieve in the abrahamic version of god because its self-defeating (the bible for example is just full of contradictions, as are the multitude of beliefs that people have about the Christian version of god). Although I admit there is a minute possibility of its existence, hence agnostic atheism.
I have no knowledge of every god ever envisioned or indeed that will be envisioned, so how is it possible to actively disbelieve in them all? After all, one of them could be right.
Lack of belief is what I was born with, and its how I've remained all my life. Using your stance, I'd have to be born with an active belief in all deities and strike them off the list as I grew up. Couldn't care less if it's 'off-putting' to you, it is what it is. Deal with it, or don't, doesn't affect my lack of belief in all deities one bit ;)
In a word, nonsense.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God.
(//http://i.imgur.com/d7etO.gif)
*goes from a huge negative to a huge negative in scientific notation*
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God.
[ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/d7etO.gif) ]
*goes from a huge negative to a huge negative in scientific notation*
I get the feeling this guy is just here to take us for a ride.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I get the feeling this guy is just here to take us for a ride.
Was there ever any doubt?
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I get the feeling this guy is just here to take us for a ride.
Was there ever any doubt?
True. Did you read the origin of morality thread?
Barrel of laughs, this one.
Yes, you could say atheism "naturally" progresses into immorality (or rather, subjective morality) and violence. The same would have to be said of theism then; the morality of the theist is subjective to the culture and beliefs of the individual theist rather than an objective morality that is found in the religion. This is made obvious by the fact that no two theists have the exact same code of moral conduct just as no atheists have the exact same code of moral conduct.
Therefor I see little reason to believe that theism or the lack of belief, atheism, has anything to do with the "natural" progression into subjective morality but rather all morality is subjective by nature. Even the most devout make their own choices on morality or follow what is accepted amongst their culture.
And no, atheism has not turned into agnosticism; atheism is either the denial OR the lack of belief in a deity.
QuoteSo much wrong, in so short a paragraph.
I actively disbelieve in the abrahamic version of god because its self-defeating (the bible for example is just full of contradictions, as are the multitude of beliefs that people have about the Christian version of god). Although I admit there is a minute possibility of its existence, hence agnostic atheism.
I have no knowledge of every god ever envisioned or indeed that will be envisioned, so how is it possible to actively disbelieve in them all? After all, one of them could be right.
Lack of belief is what I was born with, and its how I've remained all my life. Using your stance, I'd have to be born with an active belief in all deities and strike them off the list as I grew up. Couldn't care less if it's 'off-putting' to you, it is what it is. Deal with it, or don't, doesn't affect my lack of belief in all deities one bit ;)
In a word, nonsense.
So then you agree that the Christian God could exist? Since you simply lack that particular belief, it's still possible that He exists? You just lack the belief that He exists for your various reasons. Is that right?
Quote from: "gomtuu77"QuoteSo much wrong, in so short a paragraph.
I actively disbelieve in the abrahamic version of god because its self-defeating (the bible for example is just full of contradictions, as are the multitude of beliefs that people have about the Christian version of god). Although I admit there is a minute possibility of its existence, hence agnostic atheism.
I have no knowledge of every god ever envisioned or indeed that will be envisioned, so how is it possible to actively disbelieve in them all? After all, one of them could be right.
Lack of belief is what I was born with, and its how I've remained all my life. Using your stance, I'd have to be born with an active belief in all deities and strike them off the list as I grew up. Couldn't care less if it's 'off-putting' to you, it is what it is. Deal with it, or don't, doesn't affect my lack of belief in all deities one bit ;)
In a word, nonsense.
So then you agree that the Christian God could exist? Since you simply lack that particular belief, it's still possible that He exists? You just lack the belief that He exists for your various reasons. Is that right?
it's right there in black and white (or blue).
I disbelieve in the Christian version of god (the many millions of them) because of the contradictions inherent with belief (as contained within the bible and official/personal dogmas). But yes, 'it' (undefined, unevidenced) could exist, but the lack of any sort of coherent evidence is enough for me to not believe in it (and when I say it, I refer to all the billions of versions of it as every believer has their own interpretation of what their god looks like/does/'is').
I was born without any belief in a deity and have remained so my entire life.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Yes, you could say atheism "naturally" progresses into immorality (or rather, subjective morality) and violence. The same would have to be said of theism then; the morality of the theist is subjective to the culture and beliefs of the individual theist rather than an objective morality that is found in the religion. This is made obvious by the fact that no two theists have the exact same code of moral conduct just as no atheists have the exact same code of moral conduct.
Therefor I see little reason to believe that theism or the lack of belief, atheism, has anything to do with the "natural" progression into subjective morality but rather all morality is subjective by nature. Even the most devout make their own choices on morality or follow what is accepted amongst their culture.
And no, atheism has not turned into agnosticism; atheism is either the denial OR the lack of belief in a deity.
I agree in part. However, one's understanding of how to apply the moral law and the objective existence of the moral law are two different things. And regardless of the particular cultural socializations that bring in various levels of cultural subjectivity regarding morality, it is still possible to establish the existence of real standards supported by the moral law and the corresponding suppositions or expositions of the religion itself. As such, it is also possible to establish that departures from those standards are contraventions of what the religious text itself and founder of the religion taught. No such contravention can genuinely exist, in the objective sense, with regard to atheism supported by materialism because objective morality doesn't exist at all within a materialist framework.
QuoteQuoteTherefor I see little reason to believe that theism or the lack of belief, atheism, has anything to do with the "natural" progression into subjective morality but rather all morality is subjective by nature. Even the most devout make their own choices on morality or follow what is accepted amongst their culture.
And no, atheism has not turned into agnosticism; atheism is either the denial OR the lack of belief in a deity.
This has to with the existence of moral facts, which are different than ordinary facts. A regular fact might be that my dog, Soldier, eats grass when he goes outside. In order for that to be a fact, what has to be the case? It has to have happened or been instantiated in reality at some point. Moral facts are different because they can tell you the truth about something that has never happened or been instantiated in reality. For example, if I said that it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun, I would be correct, and I would be correct about that whether it had ever happened before or not. This is not the case within Atheism, which depends on materialism or naturalism for the development of morality, assuming the atheist isn't comfortable with morality essentially being identical with preference or taste. Materialism cannot produce this because for morality to develop within a materialist framework, the actions has to have occurred in reality, probably many times, for a significant and tough or solid moral guideline to prevail. Does that make sense?
QuoteQuoteit's right there in black and white (or blue).
I disbelieve in the Christian version of god (the many millions of them) because of the contradictions inherent with belief (as contained within the bible and official/personal dogmas). But yes, 'it' (undefined, unevidenced) could exist, but the lack of any sort of coherent evidence is enough for me to not believe in it (and when I say it, I refer to all the billions of versions of it as every believer has their own interpretation of what their god looks like/does/'is').
I was born without any belief in a deity and have remained so my entire life.
I see we've made the subtle shift from mere lack of belief to active disbelief. Interesting. You disbelieve in the Christian God or do not believe the Christian God exists. Hmmmmm...I think that's essentially what I said earlier. It's not merely a lack of belief, but it's an active affirmation of the Christian God's non-existence, at least from your perspective and on the basis of your information or lack of same.
QuoteHowever, one's understanding of how to apply the moral law and the objective existence of the moral law are two different things.
Perhaps, but if no one knows the objective moral law and the means of determining it are beyond the realm of science then it is practically useless. This is what religion proposes; an unconfirmable deity that exists beyond the realm of human understanding made objective rules that he, and only he, is going to be able to understand or ever know... what good is it then?
And if this is the case, then could one not also say that god is following his own subjective morality as well, and the only reason we should believe it to be objective is because he is more powerful than us? Objective morality therefor is nothing more than "might makes right.".
Quote... it is still possible to establish the existence of real standards supported by the moral law and the corresponding suppositions or expositions of the religion itself.
Do tell how this is done. Religion is full of contradictory moral statements; do not kill one another, kill the Canaanites; do not be an adulterer, rape the unmarried women of a conquered nation; love one another as you love yourself, believe they should spend eternity in unimaginable agony for disagreeing with you.
One must cherry-pick if one is to find any sort of morality from any religious text; Jesus said he did not come to replace the old law, Mohammad said both really good and really terrible things... the closest religion to being "moral" by today's standards would be the likes of Jainism and Buddhism and even they get things wrong.
So again, even if there is an objective morality to be found in religion, it is meaningless because we do not know which bits are and which bits aren't. And the bits we do find moral oddly enough coincide with what we find to be moral as a society.
QuoteFor example, if I said that it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun, I would be correct, and I would be correct about that whether it had ever happened before or not.
Why are you correct, though? I completely agree it is terrible thanks to my code of ethics, but there is no objective truth telling me this is wrong. The baby will live, the baby will die; the torturer will live, the torturer will die. The Earth will keep on spinning until it doesn't, the sun will keep on burning until it stops and the universe will exist until it doesn't. There is no cosmic punishment for breaking the objective rules, there is no punishment at all outside of society agreeing that the torturer broke the commonly accepted code of conduct. What is the point then of an objective morality if it is neither knowable nor enforced?
Quote from: "gomtuu77"QuoteQuoteit's right there in black and white (or blue).
I disbelieve in the Christian version of god (the many millions of them) because of the contradictions inherent with belief (as contained within the bible and official/personal dogmas). But yes, 'it' (undefined, unevidenced) could exist, but the lack of any sort of coherent evidence is enough for me to not believe in it (and when I say it, I refer to all the billions of versions of it as every believer has their own interpretation of what their god looks like/does/'is').
I was born without any belief in a deity and have remained so my entire life.
I see we've made the subtle shift from mere lack of belief to active disbelief. Interesting. You disbelieve in the Christian God or do not believe the Christian God exists. Hmmmmm...I think that's essentially what I said earlier. It's not merely a lack of belief, but it's an active affirmation of the Christian God's non-existence, at least from your perspective and on the basis of your information or lack of same.
There's nothing subtle about it, and its not Christian god centric. Nobody here cares about the Christian god in whatever form people believe it takes because its just as unevidenced as every other deity ever proposed.
I beseech you to read what people are writing to you. Having a lack of belief in deities (the default position from birth) is my position on every deity proposed. I can easily reject the claims of theists (including but not exclusively Christians) about their version of whatever god they worship because they are always self-defeating or contradictory, and always backed up by precisely zero evidence.
So yes, active disbelief on claims that are found wanting (still open to the possibility of being proven wrong) lack of belief of the concept of a god because I have no concept of one, mainly due to not knowing every god that can and/or will be proposed and/or evidenced. This has been pointed out previously to you but you ignored it for some reason, probably owing to your lack of intellectual integrity that you've displayed on other threads.
It's simple. Atheism, if anything, is pragmatism. The exact antithesis of theism.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "gomtuu77"This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death). I'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.
1. What on earth is 'outworking [sic] of atheism'? Is this going to be a 'but hitler was an atheist!!!!!!!!!11!1!1111!1!1!1!1!10!!!' retort?
2. If you LUARKED MOAR you'd see nobody takes Xero seriously, not even himself.
No, atheism is a materialist philosophy.
No, it's merely a lack of belief in deities. Different atheists have many different and varied philosophies of life and everything else.
QuoteAs such, it cannot support genuine objective morality. In that sense, there is no real or genuine constraint on behavior.
You think that because many atheists consider morality subjective they can't have genuine ideals or ethics by which to guide their lives? What do you consider "genuine", anyway? I live by a real and genuine code of ethics. I have something called integrity and I follow my own morality out of a desire to be a good person because I've found it is a better way to live. I don't need an absolute system or a holy book to create my own rules for myself and follow them, and that doesn't make them any less genuine.
QuoteTyranny tends to be the natural outworking of atheism as a result.
I don't understand this sentence.
QuoteIt doesn't always happen immediately, but it does happen eventually. Essentially it is a rationalization used to free human nature to act more fully and freely upon humanity.
I don't quite get this, either. Freeing humanity to act freely creates....tyranny?
Maybe you should clear up what you're trying to say.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"So then you agree that the Christian God could exist? Since you simply lack that particular belief, it's still possible that He exists? You just lack the belief that He exists for your various reasons. Is that right?
See that? That's why I don't like agnostic atheism. Because every time you say that you don't believe in any gods but haven't completely ruled them out, every idiot god-peddler in 100 leagues interprets as an admission that their God might exist as if the possibility weren't remote bordering on nonexistent and that you're indicating that you're open to conversion sans evidence.
That and no one's similarly agnostic about fairies or ghosts or gremlins or unicorns. Those things simply don't exist. Period. There's no hedging. There's no debate. Why one fantasy gets treated any differently than the next seems strange and strikes me as motivated in humoring the majority and skirting the incessant "How do you know there isn't a God?" questions. (It's also a little bit odd that the people who ask those sorts of epistemological questions rarely ask them of their own pastors and fellow believers. Almost as if they don't care about the question itself except as a gotcha for ideological opponents)
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God.
What's a god?
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Atheism is an affirmation
Wrong, it's lack of belief in gods.
Quoteof the non-existence of God.
Wrong. It addresses all gods, not just your particular one.
QuoteIt is not a lack of belief
That's ALL it is.
Quoteas a mere lack of something wouldn't constitute a stance.
Which is why atheism isn't a stance.
QuoteThe recent cowardice of the atheist position, defining itself into a kind of agnosticism
Agnosticism deals with making statements, not with belief.
Quoterather than an affirmative statement is kind of off-putting.
Boo hoo. Do you really think we care whether you're put off by our lack of belief?
We define what we are. You get to accept that definition or you get to look like a fool who wants so desperately to 'win' that he has to redefine words.
QuoteI understand why it's done
Then why this post, that declares that you don't?
QuoteAtheism is typically supported by way of a materialist/naturalistic view of the world.
Atheism is solely "supported" by "I don't believe in any gods". It's the theistic stance that requires support, not the refusal to accept it. All seemingly nonsensical stances that are presented without evidence are rejected - by default. Religion is just one such.
QuoteSo then you agree that the Christian God could exist?
Some god, depending on your definition of the word, might exist. But a god that's defined as to be self-contradictory, or impossible? No, such a god can't exist. (And the Christian god is both.)
QuoteSince you simply lack that particular belief, it's still possible that He exists? You just lack the belief that He exists for your various reasons. Is that right?
No, for only 2 reasons, basically. 1) There's never been any objective evidence that any god has ever objectively existed and 2) there's no need for any god for any reason.
But if some god did exist it would be a pretty trivial one. (For example, it's not possible for an entity that exists to create all that exists, if that's one of the properties of your god. Either the god can't exist or it couldn't have created everything that does. Or you're into special pleading, which is merely a convoluted way of tipping your king over.)
Quote from: "gomtuu77"it is still possible to establish the existence of real standards supported by the moral law
That's where you're wrong. Even assuming that morality comes from your god, it comes either from:
God himself, arbitrarily deciding what's moral and what's not moral - rendering it subjective, not objective
or
Someplace outside of God, making it not come from him. (He'd be only the messenger.)
But this discussion is like your claiming that lightning is God throwing his wrath at us, when we actually know what lightning is and what causes it. We know what morality is and we know what causes it. And morality doesn't need gods any more than lightning does. God-given objective morality is just one more gap that your god-of-the-gaps no longer lives in. (It seems that the only places he lives, and the only thing rational Christians can call on him for, any more are things we don't have answers to. And we're getting more and more answers every day - making his hiding place smaller all the time.)
Quoteassuming the atheist isn't comfortable with morality essentially being identical with preference or taste.
It's not preference or taste, it's what works. A society in which theft is permissible is a society that won't last very long, since there's no reason to do much. So only societies in which theft is at least frowned upon succeed.
Study evolution. Morality flourishes for the same reason that there aren't many hairless Polar bears - what works, works and what doesn't work ceases.
QuoteMaterialism cannot produce this because for morality to develop within a materialist framework, the actions has to have occurred in reality, probably many times, for a significant and tough or solid moral guideline to prevail. Does that make sense?
Aside from the first sentence, yes. Morality DOES develop over time. You keep saying "this thing that happened can't possibly happen." You can say it until the end of time, but it won't suddenly start appearing to be less foolish. Behe was shown to be a fool a long time ago, but you're doing the same thing. Sometimes a piece of wood is just a piece of wood.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"I see we've made the subtle shift from mere lack of belief to active disbelief. Interesting. You disbelieve in the Christian God or do not believe the Christian God exists. Hmmmmm...I think that's essentially what I said earlier. It's not merely a lack of belief, but it's an active affirmation of the Christian God's non-existence, at least from your perspective and on the basis of your information or lack of same.
I'm an atheist. The fact that I find coffee ice cream disgusting doesn't mean that atheism is disliking coffee ice cream. And if I actively believed that god can't exist, that would have as little to do with atheism as ice cream does.
Or can't you see the difference between "X is defined as Y" and "most people who are X are also Z"?
Quote from: "gomtuu77"This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death). I'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.
Atheism is on the rise, now more than ever. It is in no danger of dying. Atheism is actually a contrast to tyranny, not a cause of it.
The questions posed in the topic post have not been seriously considered and are rejected by the vast majority of atheists, including ones in this thread.
You are wrong on both counts. Stay in school, kiddo.