Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

Yes, I believe it is wrong to end a human life at all times. Please proceed. It's not like I have not already thought this through.

Right, then. So, it is your position that war is wrong under any, and all circumstances? Really? Killing Osama Bin Laden was wrong? Really?

Yep. Killing is wrong but we will still do it. No need to justify that it was right. It is possible for honest men to do dishonest things and still be honest men. It is possible for moral men to do immoral things and still be moral men. It is only through rationalization that moral men become immoral. If you killed someone who was raping your wife you would feel two things; you would feel relief for helping your wife and you would feel remorse for killing a man. If you didn't, you should question what kind of man you are. It is rationalization which leads men to continue to do evil. If we stop the rationalizing then our behaviors change and we would all be moral and have no need for killing.

So the moral thing for America, and the American president to do in 1941 would have been to do nothing, and allow Hitler to take over Europe, and continue his genocide of Jews? Really? That would have been moral?

The moral thing would have been to not rationalize that it was a moral thing. Why? Because it gets easier and easier the more one does so. Admit that what you are doing is not moral and that you knowingly choose to do it anyway is the better of the two options. That is the highest standard.

So, stopping a man committing genocide was an immoral thing? Like I said...exposed as a moron. Such absolutism is moronic.

You didn't understand anything I wrote, did you? First of all, you have no basis for moral or immoral. What you are calling moral is really a preference because you have no concept of absolute good. I do. As such, I don't rationalize doing wrong as doing right. I adhere to a higher standard than you do. The act of not rationalizing keeps me attached to the absolute moral. Your worldview will and has justified a great many atrocities.

 

[ding]

I haven't identified myself as agnostic you have, because you want to justify your hatred of atheists.

I never said I hated atheists. You're a liar. And if you'll recall I started out saying atheists were liars. You said you recognize the possibility of a god, that makes you an agnostic. That's English. Learn it.

You're attitude towards atheists is clear in your misrepresentation of who atheists are, and your assumption that you know how "all athiests" think. Just because you want to dishonestly pretend like you have no animosity, it doesn't mean that the animosity isn't obvious.

Like to suggest we're all socialists or commies. Tell that to Ayn rand

Ayn Rand was a conservative. You're not.

Sooo...you're okay with atheists...just so long as they are conservatives?

No. I'm ok with atheists either way. I couldn't care less because I know there is a law of compensation at work which will eventually correct all errors. It is only a matter of time. I have no preference for an outcome because I have peace. I accept things the way they are. You don't and I doubt you ever will until right before you die. Each of us are on our own journey. We collide with each other, yet our accountabilities stay with us. Nothing you do can harm me. Only I can harm myself. I have a soul and I have my faith. What do you have?

 

[ding]

That doesn't sound like proof. Do you have any proof?

.

That doesn't sound like proof. Do you have any proof?

maybe an image will help you


View attachment 104783


Isaac Newton had the same problem, with people like you bing.

without garavity, the above example the trajectory traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its origin and reload itself in the guns breach. the same for the celestrial bodies from the moment of Singularity.

.

Ummmm... that isn't proof, dumbass, that is theory. Do you have any fucking proof? The only proof we have is for the beginning. Do you need for me to show it to you so that you can understand the difference between proof and theory?

A scientific theory is as close to a fact as you are going to get to a fact. God isn't even a common theory because there's zero evidence. God is a hypothesis at best

God is supernatural. Science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. Your religion of atheism is based as much on faith as mine is, I just have a good reason for my faith, whereas you don't.

And therein lies your problem. Your mythical God exists in the same realm as ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick. Do you accept the existance of all of those, as well?

Why should I? I believe in angels and demons and that demons were angels. I believe I don't want to meet either of them in this world. I believe in guardian angels. I believe that the Holy Spirit whispers in a very soft voice and can soften the hearts of others and carries one bad ass monster of a stick. I believe in intercessory prayers. I believe that the power of confession, forgiveness, thankfulness and dying to self is more powerful than anything you will ever possess and leads to happiness and success.

 

[ding]

I know, he seems to be set in the position that unless God reveals himself on CNN or can be examined under a microscope in a laboratory he must not exist..

Pretty stupid for someone who likes to think that he is smarter than everyone else.

I know. How stupid to expect evidence to accept the existence of a thing. Now, excuse me while I ride off on my pink unicorn, to go have lunch with queen of the fairies, and the Bandersnatch, with Harry, Hermoine, and Ron.

If you want evidence of God you have to become a creature capable of perceiving God. The way is clear. Follow the instruction given in the law knowing that the words are figurative, the subjects hidden. Its easy. You probably are already doing much of it naturally. Do this, don't do that. Don't bow down and worship the work of human hands. Do not speak falsely in the name of God. Do not mislead others through religious deception. Do not eat the vile and contaminating teaching of unclean creatures that do not ruminate, think deeply. Do not mix dairy with meat meaning do not mix what is taught to sustain children with what is taught to adults who have teeth., etc., How hard is that?

Cleanse your thoughts. Purify your consciousness, what the ancients called the soul, and be refined, then diligently stand guard over the purity of your own mind for the rest of your days. Would you have a problem with that?

Do it and God will make himself known to you and you will have far more evidence than you can handle... If you apply an additional effort, you might even see the kingdom of God in power and find out what eternal life is before you die... .

You have something better to do?

Than waste my time searching for a god that no one can find scientific evidence of? Yeah I have plenty of better things to do

But we do have evidence. What He created can be used as evidence. You keep confusing proof for evidence. Clearly. if at a later date you meet God, He will point to what He created as evidence for His existence, right? Your problem is that you don't accept this evidence as proof, but you keep illogically believing that there can be no evidence. If you start with the belief that everything is connected to reach a goal or serve a purpose, then you must evaluate everything as evidence before a finding of fact (i.e. proof) can be made. You are intellectually dead because you make no effort to do so. You just dismiss it all.

The natural world is only evidence of a god if you assume a god created it

I assume no such thing

Then you are unlikely to find God in this world.

 

[ding]

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

That's not what I asked. I asked you if you understood the evidence behind the belief that the universe had a beginning. Yes, the big bang is widely accepted as the beginning. What evidence supports this? Are you even aware of this evidence?

I answered that.

The BB is only a theory. It is a theory that fits with our observation of the universe. It has not been conclusively proven

But a theory is all it is

God is a theory as well

No. You didn't answer it. You have no idea of what evidence exists for the big bang theory. If you did, you would have explained it to me, but you can't because you don't have a clue as to what that evidence is.

 

[ding]

Our best understanding of the data tells us that it did have a beginning. We live in a universe which has never had an uncaused event. Therefore, there was a cause for the beginning. We know that the universe is a self referential system and in many ways behaves like a brain. We know that the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that that potential existed when space and time cane into existence. We know that everything that has happened since space and time came into existence was required for beings that know and create to arise. We know from our own experiences that when we create something that it can be used as evidence to learn things about us. For the life of me I have no idea of what evidence you have that something came from nothing without a cause or what you could possibly attribute that cause to. Do you?

Our best understanding may not be that good you know.

It is arrogance to think we are even capable of understanding everything in the universe. We do not fully understand the human brain either.


Just like it is arrogance to believe we are created in the image of some god

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

We can never know what was before the big bang. What we do know is either time and space are infinite. Either thats true or there is no infinite God either.

Our universe is but one little universe. Our sun is but one little star. Our planet is just one little planet.

There was a time not too long ago we didn't know we were just one planet surrounding one sun. We thought we were special and that there must be a purpose. There is. Live well and prosper

we don't even know for sure there was a big bang

Do you know what evidence exists that proves that the universe is not infinite?

 

[ding]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

That's why I'm an agnostic atheist

No. You are not.

 

[Czernobog]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

No one has ever suggest that God can't exist. Only that the default presumption is that God doesn't exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.

And are we talking Abraham God or generic God? I'm pretty atheistic when it comes to the God who visited. Generic God I'm more agnostic atheist

I understand. However, were you presented with objective evidence that the "God who visited" existed, would you change your position? That is my point, atheists do not argue that God can't exist; only that God doesn't exist, until object evidence proves otherwise.

So where exactly do you believe you can find this object evidence you aren't seeking?

Not my job. You want to prove that God exists, you find the objective evidence, and present it.

 

[Czernobog]

Than waste my time searching for a god that no one can find scientific evidence of? Yeah I have plenty of better things to do

But we do have evidence. What He created can be used as evidence. You keep confusing proof for evidence. Clearly. if at a later date you meet God, He will point to what He created as evidence for His existence, right? Your problem is that you don't accept this evidence as proof, but you keep illogically believing that there can be no evidence. If you start with the belief that everything is connected to reach a goal or serve a purpose, then you must evaluate everything as evidence before a finding of fact (i.e. proof) can be made. You are intellectually dead because you make no effort to do so. You just dismiss it all.

Because it's not evidence. It's all dismissible.

If I was a judge and you a DA ID ask you for more evidence.

You say, "he did it your honor here's the gun that was used", but was that my gun? My fingerprints on it? Do I know the victim? My DNA? Any witnesses? Did ii confess? Catch me on camera? No!

But you say to the judge, " yea but look your honor here is the gun!"

You did not follow the logic of the condition. If you had you would have recognized the condition which was established. Then it would have made more sense to you and you wouldn't have wasted your time writing a response that made no sense.

That's just it. The condidtion you set is to first accept that God created the universe. Then, the universe can be used as "evidence" for the existance of God. Your "condition" is called a circular arguement.

No. I am working backwards to show you that IF God exists, then what He has created WILL be the evidence you are not seeking. So IF you later discover that you were wrong, you would have had no excuse for YOUR error because what He has made is plain for all to see. If you were seeking it, you would test it to see if it made sense that He created it, but you aren't. Given that God is supernatural, you will never find proof of His existence in the natural world, you will only find indirect evidence of His existence by what He has created. So, you are pursuing an intellectual dead end waiting for direct evidence of a supernatural being in a natural realm that you know will never be found. And since that is your plan and since you know that plan will never work, you are taking it on faith that He does not exist. You are hiding behind a belief in science that you know will never be able to disprove your confirmation bias.

If God existed, then what he created would certainly be further evidence of his existence. However, before you can use the universe as evidence of God's existencve based on the assumption that God created the universe, you must first prove that:

a) God exists, and

b) that it was, in fact, God that created the universe.

Since you have done neither, the universe as your "evidence" of the existence of God is useless.

 

[Czernobog]

Right, then. So, it is your position that war is wrong under any, and all circumstances? Really? Killing Osama Bin Laden was wrong? Really?

Yep. Killing is wrong but we will still do it. No need to justify that it was right. It is possible for honest men to do dishonest things and still be honest men. It is possible for moral men to do immoral things and still be moral men. It is only through rationalization that moral men become immoral. If you killed someone who was raping your wife you would feel two things; you would feel relief for helping your wife and you would feel remorse for killing a man. If you didn't, you should question what kind of man you are. It is rationalization which leads men to continue to do evil. If we stop the rationalizing then our behaviors change and we would all be moral and have no need for killing.

So the moral thing for America, and the American president to do in 1941 would have been to do nothing, and allow Hitler to take over Europe, and continue his genocide of Jews? Really? That would have been moral?

The moral thing would have been to not rationalize that it was a moral thing. Why? Because it gets easier and easier the more one does so. Admit that what you are doing is not moral and that you knowingly choose to do it anyway is the better of the two options. That is the highest standard.

So, stopping a man committing genocide was an immoral thing? Like I said...exposed as a moron. Such absolutism is moronic.

You didn't understand anything I wrote, did you? First of all, you have no basis for moral or immoral. What you are calling moral is really a preference because you have no concept of absolute good. I do. As such, I don't rationalize doing wrong as doing right. I adhere to a higher standard than you do. The act of not rationalizing keeps me attached to the absolute moral. Your worldview will and has justified a great many atrocities.

That is a lie. It is your absolutism that justifies calling stopping Hitler wrong. In a world of your design, no one would have done anything to stop Hitler, and an entire race of people would have met with genocide. How would you justify sitting back and allowing that? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And yet that is precisely what you would have had all good men do in response to Hitler's atrocities - nothing.

 

[Czernobog]

.
maybe an image will help you


View attachment 104783


Isaac Newton had the same problem, with people like you bing.

without garavity, the above example the trajectory traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its origin and reload itself in the guns breach. the same for the celestrial bodies from the moment of Singularity.

.

Ummmm... that isn't proof, dumbass, that is theory. Do you have any fucking proof? The only proof we have is for the beginning. Do you need for me to show it to you so that you can understand the difference between proof and theory?

A scientific theory is as close to a fact as you are going to get to a fact. God isn't even a common theory because there's zero evidence. God is a hypothesis at best

God is supernatural. Science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. Your religion of atheism is based as much on faith as mine is, I just have a good reason for my faith, whereas you don't.

And therein lies your problem. Your mythical God exists in the same realm as ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick. Do you accept the existance of all of those, as well?

Why should I? I believe in angels and demons and that demons were angels. I believe I don't want to meet either of them in this world. I believe in guardian angels. I believe that the Holy Spirit whispers in a very soft voice and can soften the hearts of others and carries one bad ass monster of a stick. I believe in intercessory prayers. I believe that the power of confession, forgiveness, thankfulness and dying to self is more powerful than anything you will ever possess and leads to happiness and success.

You didn't answer my question.Do you believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick? Yes, or no.

 

[Tuatara]

That is a deep question with significant implications.

Pop culture atheists apparently believe that systems of morality evolve independently without historic or cultural influence.

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers. None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

CA: Modern societies are increasingly detached from basic realities of life and death and the instinct for survival. Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought have evidently led to the kind of enlightenment that provides justification allowing us the ability to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, overfishing and pollution of the oceans, etc.

Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought ...


that does not exist -

what has that to do with your OP's video in praise of christianity, their 4th century book and concludes atheism represents only 16% of the worlds population as being a vacuous influence ... just maybe the reformations never went far enough is why the OP is left seemingly Spiritually dead and the real reason for atheism existence.

.

Where in the OP was there a praise of Christianity or anything else? Do all you pop culture atheists have this problem with constant uncontrollable knee jerk?

.

Where in the OP was there a praise of Christianity or anything else? Do all you pop culture atheists have this problem with constant uncontrollable knee jerk?

the OP video "Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence"

why is it there, what is your point ...

 

[ding]

Pop culture atheists apparently believe that systems of morality evolve independently without historic or cultural influence.

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers. None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

That would be beyond God's control, lol. Don't blame Him for diversity of thought. We do have free will after all. The interesting thing though is the thing that you point to as a reason to not believe in God is in reality a reason to believe in God which is man's persistent belief in believing in God. Don't kid yourself either, you are not making a new argument here. For as long as there have been men who believe in a higher power there have been people like you making arguments to not believe in a higher power. So one must wonder why has man persisted in this wholly irrational belief, right? The answer is simple, natural selection. It is hard wired into us. Maybe your wires got crossed or your genes have not kicked in yet. There's really no telling.

 

[ding]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

No one has ever suggest that God can't exist. Only that the default presumption is that God doesn't exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.

And are we talking Abraham God or generic God? I'm pretty atheistic when it comes to the God who visited. Generic God I'm more agnostic atheist

I understand. However, were you presented with objective evidence that the "God who visited" existed, would you change your position? That is my point, atheists do not argue that God can't exist; only that God doesn't exist, until object evidence proves otherwise.

So where exactly do you believe you can find this object evidence you aren't seeking?

Not my job. You want to prove that God exists, you find the objective evidence, and present it.

I don't really care enough to make it my job to convince you. Sorry. I have proven to myself that God exists. You don't accept it. I'm cool with that. I don't need to validate my beliefs through your non-belief. That's what you are doing here, brother.

 

[ding]

But we do have evidence. What He created can be used as evidence. You keep confusing proof for evidence. Clearly. if at a later date you meet God, He will point to what He created as evidence for His existence, right? Your problem is that you don't accept this evidence as proof, but you keep illogically believing that there can be no evidence. If you start with the belief that everything is connected to reach a goal or serve a purpose, then you must evaluate everything as evidence before a finding of fact (i.e. proof) can be made. You are intellectually dead because you make no effort to do so. You just dismiss it all.

Because it's not evidence. It's all dismissible.

If I was a judge and you a DA ID ask you for more evidence.

You say, "he did it your honor here's the gun that was used", but was that my gun? My fingerprints on it? Do I know the victim? My DNA? Any witnesses? Did ii confess? Catch me on camera? No!

But you say to the judge, " yea but look your honor here is the gun!"

You did not follow the logic of the condition. If you had you would have recognized the condition which was established. Then it would have made more sense to you and you wouldn't have wasted your time writing a response that made no sense.

That's just it. The condidtion you set is to first accept that God created the universe. Then, the universe can be used as "evidence" for the existance of God. Your "condition" is called a circular arguement.

No. I am working backwards to show you that IF God exists, then what He has created WILL be the evidence you are not seeking. So IF you later discover that you were wrong, you would have had no excuse for YOUR error because what He has made is plain for all to see. If you were seeking it, you would test it to see if it made sense that He created it, but you aren't. Given that God is supernatural, you will never find proof of His existence in the natural world, you will only find indirect evidence of His existence by what He has created. So, you are pursuing an intellectual dead end waiting for direct evidence of a supernatural being in a natural realm that you know will never be found. And since that is your plan and since you know that plan will never work, you are taking it on faith that He does not exist. You are hiding behind a belief in science that you know will never be able to disprove your confirmation bias.

If God existed, then what he created would certainly be further evidence of his existence. However, before you can use the universe as evidence of God's existencve based on the assumption that God created the universe, you must first prove that:

a) God exists, and

b) that it was, in fact, God that created the universe.

Since you have done neither, the universe as your "evidence" of the existence of God is useless.

Nope. That's not how it works. First comes observations, then comes the hypothesis and then comes the test. You have it exactly backwards.

 

[ding]

Ummmm... that isn't proof, dumbass, that is theory. Do you have any fucking proof? The only proof we have is for the beginning. Do you need for me to show it to you so that you can understand the difference between proof and theory?

A scientific theory is as close to a fact as you are going to get to a fact. God isn't even a common theory because there's zero evidence. God is a hypothesis at best

God is supernatural. Science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. Your religion of atheism is based as much on faith as mine is, I just have a good reason for my faith, whereas you don't.

And therein lies your problem. Your mythical God exists in the same realm as ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick. Do you accept the existance of all of those, as well?

Why should I? I believe in angels and demons and that demons were angels. I believe I don't want to meet either of them in this world. I believe in guardian angels. I believe that the Holy Spirit whispers in a very soft voice and can soften the hearts of others and carries one bad ass monster of a stick. I believe in intercessory prayers. I believe that the power of confession, forgiveness, thankfulness and dying to self is more powerful than anything you will ever possess and leads to happiness and success.

You didn't answer my question.Do you believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick? Yes, or no.

I did answer your question. My answer was.... Why should I? Was that beyond your intellect to grasp that I don't believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick? I then went on to tell you what beliefs I had in the supernatural world, right?

 

[Tuatara]

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers. None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

That would be beyond God's control, lol. Don't blame Him for diversity of thought.

I don't believe in him but the diversity is because the bible is so vague, unclear and contradictory. Since Christians attribute the teachings of the bible to God then yes God would be responsible for any ambiguity found within it.

We do have free will after all.

Even when it comes to God's law?

The interesting thing though is the thing that you point to as a reason to not believe in God is in reality a reason to believe in God which is man's persistent belief in believing in God.

This makes no sense. I will allow you to explain yourself on this.

Don't kid yourself either, you are not making a new argument here. For as long as there have been men who believe in a higher power there have been people like you making arguments to not believe in a higher power.

I didn't claim it was new. Nice deflection. There have also been people like yourself rejecting one man's hugher power for your own higher power.

So one must wonder why has man persisted in this wholly irrational belief, right?

The belief in a higher power or a god. That is easy. Fear, Child indoctrination and manipulation, lack of responsibility, tradition, comfort and assurance on death and the afterlife... many many more reasons.

The answer is simple, natural selection. It is hard wired into us.

No, the fear of death is the main reason. Nothing else.

Maybe your wires got crossed or your genes have not kicked in yet. There's really no telling.

keep telling yourself that

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Pop culture atheists apparently believe that systems of morality evolve independently without historic or cultural influence.

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers. None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

A scientific theory is as close to a fact as you are going to get to a fact. God isn't even a common theory because there's zero evidence. God is a hypothesis at best

God is supernatural. Science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. Your religion of atheism is based as much on faith as mine is, I just have a good reason for my faith, whereas you don't.

And therein lies your problem. Your mythical God exists in the same realm as ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick. Do you accept the existance of all of those, as well?

Why should I? I believe in angels and demons and that demons were angels. I believe I don't want to meet either of them in this world. I believe in guardian angels. I believe that the Holy Spirit whispers in a very soft voice and can soften the hearts of others and carries one bad ass monster of a stick. I believe in intercessory prayers. I believe that the power of confession, forgiveness, thankfulness and dying to self is more powerful than anything you will ever possess and leads to happiness and success.

You didn't answer my question.Do you believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick? Yes, or no.

I did answer your question. My answer was.... Why should I? Was that beyond your intellect to grasp that I don't believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick? I then went on to tell you what beliefs I had in the supernatural world, right?

The density of pop culture atheists skulls is only matched by the shallow, obtuse, dishonesty of their responses.