pokejustice seems to continue to ignore a simple fact: The bible was written by men, men who interpreted what was heppening around them, in my opinioin horribly, as much as I dismiss the bible I actually find some sense in it, as PartyPokemon stated, nearly all the viewpoints in there conflict with jesus' which are in my opinion the only ones that make any sense, you are basing your beliefs on a book made of interpretations, you say you are a good christian and a virtuous one, but all you have done so far is preach the ideology of hate an intolerance, would jesus like that? do you really think a perfect god would desire to spread such an ideology? recognize the faults in your set of beliefs, open your mind, and stop bashing our heads with it only to act like a victim when we retaliate.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Does the world need more Atheist?
- Thread starter crobatman
- Start date
PartyPokemon
L or Kira?
^ I agree, man. If people looked only at the New Testament and the words of Jesus, there would be no homophobia, etc. Christians and Atheists might even get along.
Ah, yeah. I recall you mentioning you were muslim a while ago. See, look. I'm not muslim, but I do heavily agree with this point of view. In the end, no human has a right to say who goes to heaven or hell. In the end these things are God's decision. You can't tell an atheist that they're going to burn in hell just like you can't tell a Christian or Muslim that they are guaranteed an eternity in heaven.
Off topic: I have a few Muslim friends and from what I understand you people have great teachings and viewpoints. Teachings and viewpoints that could help anyone Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, anyone in their lives. Hey Benedict, come over here!
Ah, yeah. I recall you mentioning you were muslim a while ago. See, look. I'm not muslim, but I do heavily agree with this point of view. In the end, no human has a right to say who goes to heaven or hell. In the end these things are God's decision. You can't tell an atheist that they're going to burn in hell just like you can't tell a Christian or Muslim that they are guaranteed an eternity in heaven.
Off topic: I have a few Muslim friends and from what I understand you people have great teachings and viewpoints. Teachings and viewpoints that could help anyone Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, anyone in their lives. Hey Benedict, come over here!
Last edited:
Pokemonwarrior
I Am Your Nightmare
I don't see any evidence of His existence around. The bible is a bunch of stories wrote by people and not god himself and stories can be overly imaginative depending on what the person writing wants people to think. And letting someone die isn't evidence of anyones existence its cruel to let some one die if you can stop it.
It could show he isn't real more than is real if he truly loved his son why let him die thats weird. And to let him die for other peoples problems and sins thats even weirder. But if your all powerful you can do other things to help people with their sins other than letting somebody die for them. Why let your son die to let others feel better about them self? If he's willing to let his son die and you say he loves him why should we think he loves us if hes willing to let someone kill his kid or even why would we want him to love us if his love means hes willing to let people kill us. Your to PROTECT those you love not let others hurt them.
It was humans that took actions to kill Jesus nobody let them do it. And back then if someone was trying to over turn the normal way of life that was set by law and preaching about something that could hurt the hold the rulers had over their people they will kill that person no matter if they were Jesus or not just to try to keep things in check. No god, nobody, nothing made them kill Jesus but Jesus himself by making a big uproar over something and making the rulers feel threatened by him and threatening how things worked in their kingdom.
Last edited:
Dr. Ste
Pokemon Breeder
We believe that Jesus is God, therefore his sayings are the sayings of God. On the other hand, He did not leave anything written. Also, if Jesus evaded the Cross, what is the meaning of Christianity? It wouldn't exist. That is exactly the meaning, God became human, suffered, was humiliated, died, was Resurrected. Similarly, a human can become God. We are neither mercenaries of God, nor His servants (to answer what you told me the other time). We are (I hate to speak like that, but that's what we are taught really) His sons.
You're also forgetting what power Jesus had at the time. He had many followers. In fact, he could actually become a King (which has his accussation).
Yes, no man has the ability to decide or affect the decision of a man's destination. There are indeed many common teachings among the two religions (but many totally opposite too). But we don't believe that every man is totally clueless on if his deeds are favourable or not.
To get back on topic, the OP has some flaws (no intention to offend, crobatman). Do not take the whole hospitals and orphanages (and all contributions) thing to always be 100% honest. In the past, the Church in fact exploited these to propagate the original religion and fight the Reformation. It helped many people, still.
Also, provided no-one has heard the original broadcast, we did not give the chance to the man who made the claim ("what the world needs is more atheists") to justify.
My answer: if we agree that:
-Not all atheists are scum
-Not all atheists are helpful
-Not all religious people are scum
-Not all religious people are helpful
it concludes that the world's "needs" on humans cannot be pinpointed to atheism, or theism. Personally, I agree with the above statements.
A quote, in context, from Christ Himself: Mark 28-29:
Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Let's look at that word:
blasphemy
blas·phemy (blas′fə mē)
noun pl. -·mies
profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine
Atheists hate the God of Christianity and call Him a hypocrite, evil, wicked, and despise the notion of Him, and always claim that He doesn't exst, which is contrary to the divine Writ of God, which is blasphemy, and unforgivable. All who blaspheme are headed for eternal damnation.
Tyrant Tar
Well-Known Member
actually, God did change His mind while the Bible was being written (by man). the Bible is a collection of stories from various people who heard His different teachings and that is why the Bible contradicts itself in many places.
That's sadly true. Half say that they just question the existence of a God and the other half says that they don't believe in God or the religion he/they started.
Also PokeJustice, as a couple others have said before, it is not up to any human, whether he/she wrote it in the Bible or not, to decide who does and doesn't go into Hell. To commit such an act is Pride, one of the Seven Deadly Sins. In fact Pride is considered the worst of the seven. And it is mainly used in Catholic teachings today, but it stemmed from early teachings of Christianity.
I also feel like even though this topic is about Atheists, debaters are only focusing on the Christian God. There are several other Gods out there, so why is it we are only talking about the Christian God? Is he the best or something? Yeah, i know Christianity is the most widely accepted religion, but that doesn't mean that we should just focus on the Christian God. Its like back in the slave days when whites were still the majority and so rights were only about them.
Last edited:
Pokemonwarrior
I Am Your Nightmare
I Agree, thats what this thread will do as long as this thread is here people will find ways to counter both side's arguments and it will go on forever as it has in life outside the Internet for all these thousands of years.
All I'm going to say to you all that believe is you COULD be in for a let down if you find that he may not be real after all. And if he is then it will be no gain nor loss to me since I haven't put faith into him in the first place. And if he isn't real you that believe will lose a lot if you find there is nothing and nobody after death. We will only know when we die. If he is real and I am to be damned for not following him then I am glad to be damned for what I believed for all these many years. And I shall not change my mind nor believe in him till then.
Last edited:
Dr. Ste
Pokemon Breeder
Hm, artfully bypassing the fact that the Father and the Son forgive all blasphemy? Literally, atheists reject the Father, the Creator. The Holy Spirit, the breath of Life, the Fire Tongues of knowledge
The Bible is not literal.
So you claim blasphemy to the Holy Spirit to be rejection? Something like crying out "Holy Spirit Sucks!" What about those that have not ever heard of it? Did God not create them? No, someone already mentioned the Holy Spirit blasphemy, and explained it.
Lucarioman101 said:
That's right. You blaspheme the Holy Spirit when you are not sorry for your sins when presented to them, when you support your deeds to be right, when they are wrong. To not repent. God doesn't force you to join Him.
Try using your dictionary on Matthew, ιβ', 33. It's right after the mention of the Holy Spirit blasphemy, but in Matthew's book. Looks like Jesus was an expert in ecobiology and genetics.
Pokemonwarrior said:
If there is no God, what meaning do human feelings have after all? We can all cry or feel proud, how does it affect the universal randomness? Also, what if something happens before you (we) die? We, at least we Orthodox, believe that communication with God can happen in this life (maybe I can do ti right now). Also, I don't get it, you mean you will reject God even after He reveals His existence (provided he exists, hypothetically) to you? Either before or after death. Or you will believe in Him if you see Him?
Last edited:
Tim the turtle
Happy Mudkip
Speaking from a personal view, I am atheist, but my favourite thing in the world is to see people being happy, when you're surrounded by your friends and everyone's joking and having a good time (alcohol helps a lot with this
), it means a lot to me. I think that meaning and feeling are interpreted, whether for ill or for good by those around you. Yes, God could give meaning to your feelings, but I do not worship God and my feelings have just as much meaning because of the people around me. Although contrary to what I may have just said, the problem with this statement is that is assumes that we do have to effect the universal randomness. It is easily possible that in the end, and in the grand scheme of the universe, our thoughts and feelings simply do not matter! I know it might sound rather nihilist and angsty but it is a possibility that you cannot just ignore.
Last edited:
Blasphemy is a sin, sin is only forgiven by God, atheists do not ask Him for forgiveness because they do not acknowledge His existence, they therefore go to Hell. Same for any sin, we are all sinners, after all.
1 John 1:4-10
And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Two things are necessary for a person to be forgiven, now, after Christ's sacrifice:
Confession and repentance:
Atheists lack both, for they do not believe in God or Christ, much less pray for their acceptance by them and for their own forgiveness, they therefore cannot go to Heaven.
Last edited:
Pokemonwarrior
I Am Your Nightmare
I reject him till he is proven to be real and only then will I say I was wrong about him not being real but even then I will not follow him nor love him since he too has done bad things to people and has stopped no suffering. We are not his toys for him to begin us and end us as he pleases. How is his love showing us kindness when he dose nothing to help stop pain. And if someone calls him into question for something he damns them how is that not cruel. God is cruel just people don't want to say so for the fact they fear his damning them. And as far as communication with God it seems to be a one sided conversation.
Last edited:
Although other things in the article irked me, this one did me over more than the others. I am writing in respect to the USA where I live
He seems to be crying over the fact that atheists are teaching atheist views, but I'm not quite sure what that means-does it mean that atheist teachers talk for whole periods about being an atheist and how religions are false?
Or does it mean the atheist teachers simply teach only things that have a proven basis? Such as contraception as a viable alternative to abstinence?
If the answer is the first, then the teacher should probably get to teaching the material, unless of course its a religious philosophy class, were he/she should try to cover more things than simply atheism.
If the answer is the second, then there is no problem, because teaching about contraceptives is something where the individual can decide whether that is something they want to follow, whether that be in relation to the person's religion or just out of moral feeling. But doing something like, teaching less about contraception or saying "it's bad because god frowns down on it" breaks the idea in the USA (which fails horribly due to blind public bias, anyway.) that the state and church should be separated, in addition to freedom of religion. Teaching simply about contraceptives and their pros and cons doesn't offer any opinion, but teaching about them while saying they are bad stinks of opinionated education. This is the best example I could come up with btw.
Dr. Ste
Pokemon Breeder
My post on another thread:
Yes, there is pain in the world. Are you one of those who truly feel the pain? People have the ultimate present from God, that is free will, together with science. They had the power to shape the Earth to a small heaven, and build a community to make it reality. Instead, they are draining out whatever Earth gave them, for life to exist. Their society embraces a handful of them, sending the rest to a scale from a difficult life to a real hell. Their new environment pushes health to its limits. Now they are crying under God's arm, blaming Him for not stopping them or intruding them. What should God do? Some of His children LIKE the way things came to be.
The Jews of the time of Jesus were waiting for a great Messiah, one that would smash the Roman Empire and set them free. Jesus's peaceful manners dissappointed them and so called Him a traitor.
We Christians, or not Christians, should try to reverse the situtation. There is the Revelation, our hope, but it is vague. I agree that prayer is equal to apathy, when action is lacking. You are waiting for a great miracle by God to give instant salvation, and denounce Him for not giving one. Aren't you a little unfair? What have you done?
As I said, we are neither servants, nor mercenaries. We do not fear his damning us (at least ideally).
Anyway, isn't it the agnostic type to doubt God's existence due to lack of evidence? While atheist reject Him completely, accepting evidence that He doesn't exist?
@Tim, I agree with you, even though I am not an atheist. It is because the views you posted stay on this world, on Earth, the one we are all part of. You didn't touch "divine" issues. You give a lot of importance to humans. Ans, for the last one, this is a world of prababilities...
EDIT: @TSL (you're quite a veteran here, eh?) I think he means that, since atheists teach mostly at state universities, they are free to teach their beliefs, while christians, who teach at public, are controlled and driven on what they teach.
Last edited:
Dragonfree
Just me
That article is downright painfully wrong - primarily in that throughout the entire thing, it makes unfair comparisons that expect atheism to be an organization or a faith. Atheism is simply a lack of having faith - you cannot really expect atheism itself to do much of anything for a person. Doing something for the person is not what atheism is for.
Atheism doesn't "inspire" people? Well, thank you, Captain Obvious! Atheism doesn't in itself inspire anything and it's not meant to. That does not mean that atheists, the people who happen to lack religious faith, cannot be inspired by various things. I am an atheist and aspiring fiction writer; I have been variously inspired by mythology (including Christian and Hindu; you do not need to personally believe in it for it to inspire you), other fiction, philosophy, current events and scientific discoveries. Thinking about the magnificence of the complexity in living creatures, brought about perfectly automatically by evolution, gives me that grandiose feeling of being small in the context of something greater which many people associate with religion. I am fascinated by the potential for new discoveries about the universe that modern science is already flying towards. There is plenty of inspiration, both of the kind that gets you to create and the kind that simply makes you feel awe and wonder, to be found outside of personal religious beliefs. In fact, I would have a difficult time feeling the amount of awe and reverence that I feel at the universe if I actually thought that there was some boring supernatural entity pulling strings behind the scenes.
Atheist organizations don't do good for the world by hosting charities or building hospitals? Well, that would be thanks to the lack of atheist organizations! Religion as we know it is organized by its very nature; there are already religious institutions that are perfectly equipped to pull together and do something for society. Atheism is not organized in its nature, being merely a lack of something, and therefore there is no institution that can pull together to get atheists as a whole to donate to charity.
Does this mean that people need to be religious to do good for the world? Absolutely not! I am an atheist and I have both been a volunteer collecting donations for the Red Cross and donated to various charities myself (including Christian-run charities). And the Red Cross itself is humanitarian, not religious, in nature; the idea is to help people because they are people, not because of religion. Since atheism is a lack of religious faith, any organization that does not specifically identify itself with any religion should rightfully be considered "atheistic".
Atheism doesn't give people comfort? Surprise, surprise. Anybody expecting to find comfort specifically in their lack of religious faith is an idiot. But there are all sorts of things to find comfort in - the love and support of your friends and family, your own inner strength, meditation; you can easily seek comfort outside of religion.
Now you might say, "Well, isn't it even better to be able to find inspiration, comfort and so on in religion as well as all these other things?" And well, there we come to the greatest fallacy of all. Atheists aren't atheists because they think being an atheist is more convenient. If it were simply a choice of convenience, everybody would be religious! But religion is a bit more than just inspiration and charity and comfort. Primarily, religion is about upholding certain beliefs as the truth. An atheist is somebody who is not ready to uphold these beliefs as the truth. It is not a matter of deciding that you'd rather be a Christian because then you can get comfort and inspiration; if you do not actually believe the teachings of Christianity, you cannot derive comfort from simply pretending you believe them because it's more convenient.
Good things aren't done in the name of atheism? Well, atheism is a pretty poor thing to do anything in the name of, being, as I keep repeating, lack of something. But there have been absolutely marvelously good things done not in the name of any religion - in the name of human rights, or in the name of love, or in the name of science, for instance - that should be considered atheistic, simply because of their lack of religious affiliation.
Does the world need more atheists, then? Well. What the atheist this pastor heard meant was probably to point out a few other things in which atheism and religion differ, which he probably considered more important than people having an extra source of comfort or inspiration:
- Religion promotes ignorance. Religion frequently teaches ideas that were just as reasonable as whatever else at the time that their scriptures were written, but are today severely outdated as science has discovered more. Religion frequently holds back scientific progress simply because people refuse to let go of whatever is written in their old books. Meanwhile, there is no reason for an atheist to refuse to accept scientific discoveries, as they have no sacred beliefs that science is contradicting.
- Religion represses critical thinking. Generally, religion is based around the concept of faith: people are meant to uncritically assume the existence of a higher being because this old book says so. For an atheist, there is no reason not to want to take things with a grain of salt until there is sufficient evidence to believe them.
- Religion promotes intolerance. Many or most religions condemn unbelievers in this particular religion as heretics and expect their followers to either attempt to convert them, which is merely annoying, or even resort to violence against them, which is a rather more serious matter. There are no atheist "teachings" expecting atheists to go around converting or attacking those of religious faith. While atheists often do try to convert the religious, they generally at least try to do so on a reasonable basis rather than with scare tactics (there is no "become an atheist or you will go to hell!"), and I at least have never heard of atheists physically attacking people for being religious - no wonder, because as I said, there are no "atheist teachings" telling people to do any such thing. In fact I think all atheists I know are secular humanists who routinely oppose all violence and discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender, etc.
Naturally, this is not to say that there aren't plenty of religious people who are not ignorant or intolerant and are perfectly capable of thinking critically. A random religious person is simply dramatically more likely to be all of those things than a random atheist, and that is what the atheist meant by saying the world needs more atheists. If all religious people in the world were this not ignorant, not intolerant, critically-thinking kind, there wouldn't be much of a reason to think the world needs more atheists, but as it stands, it can be argued to be a reasonable wish. Personally, I'd be more inclined to just say the world needs less ignorance, more tolerance and more critical thinking.
Some more specific parts of that article I would like to comment on:
Also:
But if you are welcome to think that I should rather be calling myself agnostic than atheist. The words used really don't matter as long as I have made it clear precisely what I believe.
Atheism doesn't "inspire" people? Well, thank you, Captain Obvious! Atheism doesn't in itself inspire anything and it's not meant to. That does not mean that atheists, the people who happen to lack religious faith, cannot be inspired by various things. I am an atheist and aspiring fiction writer; I have been variously inspired by mythology (including Christian and Hindu; you do not need to personally believe in it for it to inspire you), other fiction, philosophy, current events and scientific discoveries. Thinking about the magnificence of the complexity in living creatures, brought about perfectly automatically by evolution, gives me that grandiose feeling of being small in the context of something greater which many people associate with religion. I am fascinated by the potential for new discoveries about the universe that modern science is already flying towards. There is plenty of inspiration, both of the kind that gets you to create and the kind that simply makes you feel awe and wonder, to be found outside of personal religious beliefs. In fact, I would have a difficult time feeling the amount of awe and reverence that I feel at the universe if I actually thought that there was some boring supernatural entity pulling strings behind the scenes.
Atheist organizations don't do good for the world by hosting charities or building hospitals? Well, that would be thanks to the lack of atheist organizations! Religion as we know it is organized by its very nature; there are already religious institutions that are perfectly equipped to pull together and do something for society. Atheism is not organized in its nature, being merely a lack of something, and therefore there is no institution that can pull together to get atheists as a whole to donate to charity.
Does this mean that people need to be religious to do good for the world? Absolutely not! I am an atheist and I have both been a volunteer collecting donations for the Red Cross and donated to various charities myself (including Christian-run charities). And the Red Cross itself is humanitarian, not religious, in nature; the idea is to help people because they are people, not because of religion. Since atheism is a lack of religious faith, any organization that does not specifically identify itself with any religion should rightfully be considered "atheistic".
Atheism doesn't give people comfort? Surprise, surprise. Anybody expecting to find comfort specifically in their lack of religious faith is an idiot. But there are all sorts of things to find comfort in - the love and support of your friends and family, your own inner strength, meditation; you can easily seek comfort outside of religion.
Now you might say, "Well, isn't it even better to be able to find inspiration, comfort and so on in religion as well as all these other things?" And well, there we come to the greatest fallacy of all. Atheists aren't atheists because they think being an atheist is more convenient. If it were simply a choice of convenience, everybody would be religious! But religion is a bit more than just inspiration and charity and comfort. Primarily, religion is about upholding certain beliefs as the truth. An atheist is somebody who is not ready to uphold these beliefs as the truth. It is not a matter of deciding that you'd rather be a Christian because then you can get comfort and inspiration; if you do not actually believe the teachings of Christianity, you cannot derive comfort from simply pretending you believe them because it's more convenient.
Good things aren't done in the name of atheism? Well, atheism is a pretty poor thing to do anything in the name of, being, as I keep repeating, lack of something. But there have been absolutely marvelously good things done not in the name of any religion - in the name of human rights, or in the name of love, or in the name of science, for instance - that should be considered atheistic, simply because of their lack of religious affiliation.
Does the world need more atheists, then? Well. What the atheist this pastor heard meant was probably to point out a few other things in which atheism and religion differ, which he probably considered more important than people having an extra source of comfort or inspiration:
- Religion promotes ignorance. Religion frequently teaches ideas that were just as reasonable as whatever else at the time that their scriptures were written, but are today severely outdated as science has discovered more. Religion frequently holds back scientific progress simply because people refuse to let go of whatever is written in their old books. Meanwhile, there is no reason for an atheist to refuse to accept scientific discoveries, as they have no sacred beliefs that science is contradicting.
- Religion represses critical thinking. Generally, religion is based around the concept of faith: people are meant to uncritically assume the existence of a higher being because this old book says so. For an atheist, there is no reason not to want to take things with a grain of salt until there is sufficient evidence to believe them.
- Religion promotes intolerance. Many or most religions condemn unbelievers in this particular religion as heretics and expect their followers to either attempt to convert them, which is merely annoying, or even resort to violence against them, which is a rather more serious matter. There are no atheist "teachings" expecting atheists to go around converting or attacking those of religious faith. While atheists often do try to convert the religious, they generally at least try to do so on a reasonable basis rather than with scare tactics (there is no "become an atheist or you will go to hell!"), and I at least have never heard of atheists physically attacking people for being religious - no wonder, because as I said, there are no "atheist teachings" telling people to do any such thing. In fact I think all atheists I know are secular humanists who routinely oppose all violence and discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender, etc.
Naturally, this is not to say that there aren't plenty of religious people who are not ignorant or intolerant and are perfectly capable of thinking critically. A random religious person is simply dramatically more likely to be all of those things than a random atheist, and that is what the atheist meant by saying the world needs more atheists. If all religious people in the world were this not ignorant, not intolerant, critically-thinking kind, there wouldn't be much of a reason to think the world needs more atheists, but as it stands, it can be argued to be a reasonable wish. Personally, I'd be more inclined to just say the world needs less ignorance, more tolerance and more critical thinking.
Some more specific parts of that article I would like to comment on:
This argument is extremely silly: in the time that most of the oldest universities were founded, there practically were no atheists! This is both because this was for instance a time before Darwin, when a critical thinker could easily conclude that the complexity of life simply had to be brought about by an almighty creator, and because the culture was a lot less tolerant in that time, making it considerably more dangerous to publically profess atheism than it is today. If there are few atheist organizations today, there were absolutely none at that time, least of all ones capable of founding something like a university. And it is only natural that the oldest universities have garnered the most respect over the centuries.
That would be because their convictions are frequently simply wrong in the light of the science they're supposed to be teaching. They're welcome to hold them personally, of course, but you cannot teach them as science. Atheists do not pass pseudoscience off as science, simply because atheism doesn't need any pseudoscience to support their personal convictions. If they are actually trying to convince students there is no god (as opposed to, say, teaching them evolution, which is not at all the same thing) in a science class, they should be fired for not teaching their subject, but I really have never heard of that happening. Except in that one Chick tract.
Also mostly composed in a time when there pretty much were no atheists; you honestly cannot expect to find classical composers who were atheists, irrelevant of how inspired the religious are compared to atheists. The same applies to all the visual art he speaks of (and don't forget all the art that has no connections with religion at all, which should rightfully be considered atheistic!).
No, no, no, no, no! How in the world can Americans continually uphold this idea that their country was founded on Christianity when some of its primary principles are freedom of religion and separation of church and state? Arguments have been made that the founding fathers were largely deistic, agnostic or atheists, but their personal beliefs don't even matter; what matters is that the United States was plainly formed on a secular ground, as a place where no religion would be imposed on anyone.
Also:
Agnosticism is believing that whether or not God exists is something unknowable or otherwise taking a completely neutral stance on the issue. Atheists who actively believe in the nonexistence of God are very rare and honestly rather paradoxical. Most atheists merely treat the existence of God the same way they treat the proposed existence of any other absurd but undisprovable concept, like invisible unicorns: assume nonexistence until there is reason to suppose otherwise.
But if you are welcome to think that I should rather be calling myself agnostic than atheist. The words used really don't matter as long as I have made it clear precisely what I believe.
Mr. Mudkip
Banned
He really didn't.
Easy to just make typical, usually baseless atheist claims in a long message, but they usually just don't hold weight. Religion is a natural result of legitimate critical thinking, for example, while atheism is far-fetched when one looks at the evidence for the supernatural.
belief is indeed the result of critical thinking, it's a shame that you don't do much on the thinking part, can you use arguments that aren't just copying and pasting bible quotes and biased articles? can you do some critical thinking yourself?
Atheism is also the result of critical thinking, atheists have thought about the existence of god, and have rejected it, just as some accept it in different ways, I agree, there is evidence of the supernatural, but there is no evidence to support your hateful clamins about "damnation in hell" for non believers, I am a firm believer of science, and also interested in the supernatural, but you don't see me blindly quoting an unreliable, often misinterpreted, tired source to excuse poor arguments which on top of it all, contradict themselves, you don't see me preaching an ideology of hate and causing an uproar in an otherwise more civilised debate. If you cannot, will not try to listen to others' points of view, and counter others' arguments with some actual arguments, insead of pasting things then you, my friend, are a very very poor representative of your religion
PartyPokemon
L or Kira?
You're smart. Pointing out flaws is always good in a debate. But... religion seems to have had just the opposite effect for me. The following is Me personally:
Ignorance: I don't take all of the Bible literally. I know that I can be Christian and still believe in Evolution. After all, I worship God, not the way we came into being.
Critical Thinking: Really? See, maybe everyone else follows blindly, but I don't. I do think things like "what if there is no God after all?". I am able to doubt anything and I do. But in the end, this is what I believe. It's something that I think is true, and IS true in my own heart.
Intolerance: I have found that the words of Jesus inspired me to be more tolerant of EVERYONE no matter their religion, race, or anything else. It all comes down to how you interpret your religion.
Now, many people are not the same as I am *coughPokeJusticecough*. But we should be tolerant of them as well. Just like how they should be tolerant of everyone.
Oh, and, PokeJustice... I still disagree with you. An atheist CAN get to heaven. It is God's choice, after all, not yours.