"Secular consumerism/nationalism is worse than religion

[Eris]

What an obvious case of an apologist not wanting his precious sky-pixie to be identified with mass murderers.

Because He can't be, you retard. It's like saying that Atheism is to blame for all that shit that happened in Russia during the Cold War.

Neither condones the actions often taken (conveniently) in their name.

You're missing the point and throwing in a bad analogy for flavour.

In regards to atheism: Russia did that which it did in the name of communism (arguably a religion in itself), not atheism.

In regards to god: Did you miss the bits of the Bible where god ordered people to commit mass murder? That would be more than doing it in his name, but explicitly condoning and sanctioning it.

[Terralthra]

What an obvious case of an apologist not wanting his precious sky-pixie to be identified with mass murderers.

Because He can't be, you retard. It's like saying that Atheism is to blame for all that shit that happened in Russia during the Cold War.

Neither condones the actions often taken (conveniently) in their name.

I'm not sure if you're illiterate or just uninformed. Atheism is not an entity, and it can not condone or not condone an action 'taken in the name of atheism.' That assumes there actually have been genocides done in the name of atheism, which there haven't. God, on the other hand, has ordered, condoned, and in many cases, was entirely responsible for creating the circumstances which preceded mass murders, if you believe the Bible. Oh, and just to show he wasn't above dirty work, he performed a genocide himself.

Go away, read the Old Testament, and come back when you're finished.

[Kanastrous]

What an obvious case of an apologist not wanting his precious sky-pixie to be identified with mass murderers.

Because He can't be, you retard. It's like saying that Atheism is to blame for all that shit that happened in Russia during the Cold War.

Neither condones the actions often taken (conveniently) in their name.

Do you believe in any of the 'revealed' texts, containing instructions from God?

Just trying to nail down where you're coming from, on that.

[General Zod]

What an obvious case of an apologist not wanting his precious sky-pixie to be identified with mass murderers.

Because He can't be, you retard. It's like saying that Atheism is to blame for all that shit that happened in Russia during the Cold War.

Neither condones the actions often taken (conveniently) in their name.

I can find examples all night. Feel free to keep deluding yourself though.

32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

[K. A. Pital]

It's like saying that Atheism is to blame for all that shit that happened in Russia during the Cold War.

Why atheism and not communism? Or, why not fluffy kittens? [as a side note, most of the bad shit happened in Russia before the Cold War, and it had little to do with atheism, much more with Stalin's dictatorship]

Neither condones the actions often taken (conveniently) in their name.

Which actions were taken in the name of atheism of all thing, moron? You could make a more coherent case for terrorism in the name of environmentalism, for fuck's sake, than you could for anything "in the name of atheism".

[Ryan Thunder]

It's like saying that Atheism is to blame for all that shit that happened in Russia during the Cold War.

Why atheism and not communism? Or, why not fluffy kittens? [as a side note, most of the bad shit happened in Russia before the Cold War, and it had little to do with atheism, much more with Stalin's dictatorship]

Neither condones the actions often taken (conveniently) in their name.

Which actions were taken in the name of atheism of all thing, moron? You could make a more coherent case for terrorism in the name of environmentalism, for fuck's sake, than you could for anything "in the name of atheism".

Whatever, I could have picked a better example, but I'm sure you understand my point.

[TheKwas]

There's an entire page dedicated to showing how idiotic your 'point' is, and you actually have the balls to post again and ignore all of it?

[Ryan Thunder]

Ever read something called The New Testament?

[General Zod]

Ever read something called The New Testament?

Are you suggesting the old testament is no longer applicable?

[Androsphinx]

Ever read something called The New Testament?

You mean where Jesus says (Mat 11:20-4):

20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.

21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

22 But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.

23 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

And we know what happened to Sodom, don't we? Rather harsh just for not listening to JC, n'est pas?

[Androsphinx]

Are you suggesting the old testament is no longer applicable?

I believe that is a popular position in modern Christianity.

[TheKwas]

It's a completely irrelevant point at any rate. Christians believe the Old Testament happened and God did support genocide (well, they don't state it like that), that alone shows Ryan is a complete idiot. Perhaps some christians believe that 'God is nice now and Jesus loves us', but that God is still associated with genocide.

[Flagg]

Are you suggesting the old testament is no longer applicable?

I believe that is a popular position in modern Christianity.

How popular? Because you fucktards trot out the 10 Commandments every fucking chance you get.

[Androsphinx]

It's a completely irrelevant point at any rate. Christians believe the Old Testament happened and God did support genocide (well, they don't state it like that), that alone shows Ryan is a complete idiot. Perhaps some christians believe that 'God is nice now and Jesus loves us', but that God is still associated with genocide.

Just answering a question, not taking sides.

[Androsphinx]

Are you suggesting the old testament is no longer applicable?

I believe that is a popular position in modern Christianity.

How popular? Because you fucktards trot out the 10 Commandments every fucking chance you get.[/quote

Me? I think you're confusing me with someone else - perhaps someone who is actually Christian. Besides, Jesus mentions most of the 10 in (IIRC) the Sermon on the Mount, so even if the OT in general is out then those are in.

[Terralthra]

Ever read something called The New Testament?

Would that be the part of the NT where Jesus affirms that the laws of the OT are to be followed until the end of time? Or the part where he says he has come to turn son against father, mother against daughter? Perhaps the part where his disciples say that Man > Woman?

[K. A. Pital]

Whatever, I could have picked a better example, but I'm sure you understand my point.

You have no point. Atheism is merely absense of faith, not a positive belief. Idiot.

[Kanastrous]

Whatever, I could have picked a better example, but I'm sure you understand my point.

You have no point. Atheism is merely absense of faith, not a positive belief. Idiot.

Isn't atheism a conviction that there is no God?

In the same way that theism is the conviction that there is a God?

If the proving the existence of God and proving the non-existence of God are both impossible, aren't both positions statements of un-provable faith regarding the nature of the universe...?

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Isn't atheism a conviction that there is no God?

In the same way that theism is the conviction that there is a God?

If the proving the existence of God and proving the non-existence of God are both impossible, aren't both positions statements of un-provable faith regarding the nature of the universe...?

No, they're not, you enourmous, verbally flatulent, fucking moron.

Theism, in the dictionary, is described as "the belief in existence of god or gods".
Atheism, conversely, is defined as either "the belief that their is no god", or more commonly "disbelief in the existence of a Supreme being". You don't need conviction in a single fucking thing to be an athiest. All you need to do is disbelieve in the existence of god.

Proving that god doesn't exist isn't necessary, because there's no evidence that he does, and, as has been stated many fucking times before on this message board, you can't demand that someone prove a mother-fucking negative.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with a lack of faith.

Need it spelt out further? Did I go to far here?

[General Zod]

Isn't atheism a conviction that there is no God?

In the same way that theism is the conviction that there is a God?

If the proving the existence of God and proving the non-existence of God are both impossible, aren't both positions statements of un-provable faith regarding the nature of the universe...?

Everyone starts off as an atheist until they're inducted into whatever flavor of religious cult you prefer. Or are you going to argue that infants have any concept of religious conviction?

[Kanastrous]

Everyone starts off as an atheist until they're inducted into whatever flavor of religious cult you prefer. Or are you going to argue that infants have any concept of religious conviction?

Seems more reasonable to suppose that everyone starts off an agnostic, with no specific knowledge one way or the other, until they are inducted into whichever religious cult is preferred, or into the flat, definitive statement made by atheism.

[General Zod]

Seems more reasonable to suppose that everyone starts off an agnostic, with no specific knowledge one way or the other, until they are inducted into whichever religious cult is preferred, or into the flat, definitive statement made by atheism.

Don't be so fucking obtuse. Agnosticism means you have knowledge that the concept exists but you haven't made up your mind either way yet. Effectively you're a fence sitter. Atheism is just that, a lack of theism. Nobody starts off knowing about magic sky pixies or having an inclination to believe in them until someone else tells them of the concept.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Seems more reasonable to suppose that everyone starts off an agnostic, with no specific knowledge one way or the other, until they are inducted into whichever religious cult is preferred, or into the flat, definitive statement made by atheism.

... I repeat; You are a fucking moron. Read my post. Read it good and fucking hard. Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF. If they don't have some faith forced on their impressionable young mind, then they will be atheists, because they do not believe in a god, thus fitting the god-damn definition.

Any more incredibly fucking retarded statements from you, Kanastrous?

[Kanastrous]

Isn't atheism a conviction that there is no God?

In the same way that theism is the conviction that there is a God?

If the proving the existence of God and proving the non-existence of God are both impossible, aren't both positions statements of un-provable faith regarding the nature of the universe...?

No, they're not, you enourmous, verbally flatulent, fucking moron.

My, doesn't mis-spelling enormous make *you* look brilliant, by comparison...

Let's bold-face some of your own text:

Theism, in the dictionary, is described as "the belief in existence of god or gods".

Atheism, conversely, is defined as either "the belief that their is no god", or more commonly "disbelief in the existence of a Supreme being". You don't need conviction in a single fucking thing to be an athiest. All you need to do is disbelieve in the existence of god.

If you are defining both theism and atheism in terms of what you choose to believe, then you are describing the same kind of choice.

Proving that god doesn't exist isn't necessary, because there's no evidence that he does, and, as has been stated many fucking times before on this message board, you can't demand that someone prove a mother-fucking negative.

Which does not alter the fact that the existence and non-existence of God are equally provable - or un-provable - assumptions. So at the level of what we can actually prove, the theist and atheist appear to have entirely equal support behind them.

Sure, the specific tenets or particular definition of God that some religious type might be pushing, can be disproven, found fallacious, shown to be inconsistent, and all that.

But the simple, basic is-there-or-is-there-ain't question, before we start layering on any one religion's superstitious veneer, is still not something that appears to be definitely answerable, either way.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with a lack of faith.

Atheism is a belief (as you defined it, above) in something that you cannot objectively demonstrate.

Belief in something that cannot be demonstrated, sure looks like a form of faith, to me.

On the other hand, agnosticism, an admission that it's not a question amenable to answers, particularly the facile primitive crapola offered by religion, impresses me as a more realistic position.

Need it spelt out further? Did I go to far here?

You mean, did you go too far, here?

Nope.

[Kanastrous]

Seems more reasonable to suppose that everyone starts off an agnostic, with no specific knowledge one way or the other, until they are inducted into whichever religious cult is preferred, or into the flat, definitive statement made by atheism.

Don't be so fucking obtuse. Agnosticism means you have knowledge that the concept exists but you haven't made up your mind either way yet. Effectively you're a fence sitter. Atheism is just that, a lack of theism. Nobody starts off knowing about magic sky pixies or having an inclination to believe in them until someone else tells them of the concept.

Actually a-gnosis simply means 'lack of knowledge.' That is, lack of actual knowledge of the existence of God, one way or the other.

A-theism is literally 'no-God.' Which is a definitive statement that, given the usual degree of intellectual rigor people practice around here, seems like the kind of thing that one either backs up with evidence, or admits one is accepting on faith.