| Users Online Now: 1,667 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 225,600 | |
| Pageviews Today: 388,327 | Threads Today: 161 | Posts Today: 2,651 |
| 03:22 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,667 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 225,600 | |
| Pageviews Today: 388,327 | Threads Today: 161 | Posts Today: 2,651 |
| 03:22 AM | ||
BREAKING: Why Atheism is a Religion | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527  United States07/07/2012 07:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1481248 United States07/07/2012 08:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Atheism is not naturalism, because it has not been proven the basis of the natural world. Naturalism is simply the study of nature on all fronts, including the mysteries. Atheism is really just a belief system, and was used as the basis for red socialism because it was well suited for that. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 18922283  Spain07/07/2012 08:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 18808660  Canada07/07/2012 08:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 19053759 United States07/07/2012 08:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 8597527 United States07/07/2012 09:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just explained specifically why this cookie-cutter atheism quote is completely flawed. A non-belief in God is an implied belief in a purely naturally formed universe, which is a Religion, or rigid belief system concerning the nature of all life. Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps, and instead collecting dog crap. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 18644011  Austria07/07/2012 09:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 7537548 Canada07/07/2012 09:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Who cares if it's a religion or not? As an atheist (agnostic, whatever, I don't even know or care what the label is), I don't take any offense to people calling my lack of acknowledgment of any "normal" belief system a religion. Sure, that's my religion. But I don't pray, I don't go to a specific place in regards to that aspect of my life, I don't seek out others of the same religion. That's just what I would put on a form if I was required to fill out "Religion:". |
Scoobius User ID: 19477604 United States07/10/2012 07:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 8597527 United States07/16/2012 09:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1149868  Germany07/16/2012 09:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Rabid_Wolf User ID: 19877871 United States07/16/2012 10:21 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Atheists like to hide behind a totally flawed Burden of Proof argument in order to avoid defending their position. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527 The atheist says "I don't have to prove myself, since you are the one making the claim about God." Numerous times I have heard the analogy of a courtroom brought up, where a person is Innocent until proven Guilty, hence innocence does not have to be defended, the party asserting guilt carries the burden of proof, which is a maxim of Law. In the Atheist's analogy, Atheism would represent Innocence, and God would represent Burden of Proving Guilt. So if nobody can prove God to the Atheist, than by their own logic, "Atheism" must be true. Now the Atheist is stuck holding the burden of proof by default. Guess what the atheism religion is? Naturalism. If no God, than only Nature. An atheist is a naturalist. Using the title "Atheist" is nothing but a proxy in order to avoid having to defend their Naturalist Religion. Atheist / Naturalist / Evolutionist / Big-Banger, etc. All the same. They will do whatever they can to try and weasel the glory away from God. Your logic is flawed. You are using a legal concept (burden of proof) to prove or disprove something that would be better argued by using scientific concepts. Also, you really suck at it. You are not doing people who believe in God any favors by posting this nonsense. Unless it is your intention to look the fool and discredit those who do believe in God. Please try a different approach. Last Edited by Rabid Wolf on 07/16/2012 10:26 AM |
| Free Planet User ID: 19468584  United Kingdom07/16/2012 10:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| AChristian User ID: 19612954 United States07/16/2012 10:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Takes more faith to believe everything formed from a random big bang, that was created by nothing, but the energy somehow existed eternally without something creating it? And that energy that exploded and expanded created suns and planets all throughout the universe, and the earth happened to be pelted by energy that somehow got super heated and the energy sprung into a single celled life form, that eventually adapted, because him and Darwin were "bros", it turned into a fish and decided, hey, I wanna live on land, so as it started going up the shore, it sprouted legs and lungs. That fish then cloned itself into a female fish, created a penis and mated with the female clone creating tons of walking fish with lungs that evolved into some mammal, which eventually turned into a monkey and then finally a human... Yes, that is so much more believable than the Bible and Christianity... Atheism requires more faith than it takes to live out a life as a scientologist or mormon... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 6550678 United States07/16/2012 10:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Atheists like to hide behind a totally flawed Burden of Proof argument in order to avoid defending their position. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527 The atheist says "I don't have to prove myself, since you are the one making the claim about God." Numerous times I have heard the analogy of a courtroom brought up, where a person is Innocent until proven Guilty, hence innocence does not have to be defended, the party asserting guilt carries the burden of proof, which is a maxim of Law. In the Atheist's analogy, Atheism would represent Innocence, and God would represent Burden of Proving Guilt. So if nobody can prove God to the Atheist, than by their own logic, "Atheism" must be true. Now the Atheist is stuck holding the burden of proof by default. Guess what the atheism religion is? Naturalism. If no God, than only Nature. An atheist is a naturalist. Using the title "Atheist" is nothing but a proxy in order to avoid having to defend their Naturalist Religion. Atheist / Naturalist / Evolutionist / Big-Banger, etc. All the same. They will do whatever they can to try and weasel the glory away from God. Your logic is flawed. You are using a legal concept (burden of proof) to prove or disprove something that would be better argued by using scientific concepts. Also, you really suck at it. You are not doing people who believe in God any favors by posting this nonsense. Unless it is your intention to look the fool and discredit those who do believe in God. Please try a different approach. By scientific standards? Are you talking the one taught in school or the ones currently employed in the scientific community? School = Lack of proof is not proof of the opposite but it's a great basis for a theory which is only a glorified opinion which still needs proof. Scientific Community = Pay the right people enough money and you can claim anything as fact regardless of proof. So, which scientific standard of proof or concept are you wanting to use? |
| Oyster User ID: 18401048 United States07/16/2012 10:51 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ^^^THIS^^^ but if it makes you christians feel better to label us as a religion then go right ahead. doesnt change the existence (or lack there of) of a diety. glpuser81@gmail.com GLP isnt just for those who want to know, it is for those who want to know who wants to know. |
| Rabid_Wolf User ID: 19877871 United States07/16/2012 11:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Atheists like to hide behind a totally flawed Burden of Proof argument in order to avoid defending their position. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527 The atheist says "I don't have to prove myself, since you are the one making the claim about God." Numerous times I have heard the analogy of a courtroom brought up, where a person is Innocent until proven Guilty, hence innocence does not have to be defended, the party asserting guilt carries the burden of proof, which is a maxim of Law. In the Atheist's analogy, Atheism would represent Innocence, and God would represent Burden of Proving Guilt. So if nobody can prove God to the Atheist, than by their own logic, "Atheism" must be true. Now the Atheist is stuck holding the burden of proof by default. Guess what the atheism religion is? Naturalism. If no God, than only Nature. An atheist is a naturalist. Using the title "Atheist" is nothing but a proxy in order to avoid having to defend their Naturalist Religion. Atheist / Naturalist / Evolutionist / Big-Banger, etc. All the same. They will do whatever they can to try and weasel the glory away from God. Your logic is flawed. You are using a legal concept (burden of proof) to prove or disprove something that would be better argued by using scientific concepts. Also, you really suck at it. You are not doing people who believe in God any favors by posting this nonsense. Unless it is your intention to look the fool and discredit those who do believe in God. Please try a different approach. By scientific standards? Are you talking the one taught in school or the ones currently employed in the scientific community? School = Lack of proof is not proof of the opposite but it's a great basis for a theory which is only a glorified opinion which still needs proof. Scientific Community = Pay the right people enough money and you can claim anything as fact regardless of proof. So, which scientific standard of proof or concept are you wanting to use? Concepts, not standards. Folks who believe in God are arguing for a belief, the other side argue in favor of one scientific theory or another. Both require a "faith" of sorts to pave over the parts we don't understand. As you mentioned, science is taught in schools. Flawed as that level of science may be, most people do at least have a general understanding of some scientific concepts and language. Unlike legal terminology, which isn't generally taught in schools. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 19881662 United States07/16/2012 11:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| omar User ID: 19645887 United Kingdom07/16/2012 11:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 19057281 United Kingdom07/16/2012 11:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 8597527 United States07/16/2012 11:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Yea there are are so many lectures and debates and books and rallies and videos about people 'not collecting stamps'. The truth is you have to accept or attack what you know to be true. You can't just ignore it. When someone brings up the issue of God, it awakens deep feelings in every so-called atheist, and they must desperately justify their non-belief over and over again, more to themselves than their opponent. |
| omar User ID: 19645887 United Kingdom07/16/2012 06:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
