Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Myself, FFRF, and Atheist International beg to differ.I feel atheism implies an affirmative stance on the question of God's existence.
But adding that caveat makes zero sense (to me anyway). Atheists simply lack religious belief (short of affirmative scientific evidence being provided). All atheists lack "conviction" (strong belief) regarding religion already by definition.It is not necessary for an atheist to claim that no gods exist, nevertheless, some do. People often call this position hard atheism. Hard atheism is atheism with the additional conviction that there are no gods anywhere either inside, or outside, of the universe.
The impression I get from atheists that I know personally and here online is that they take a more negative, active, aggressive, "strong" stance on the question of whether a deity or the paranormal/"supernatural" exists (I believe the paranormal or "supernatural" is real, but it's simply part of the natural world). Agnostics like myself, don't take a stance either way on the existence of God or an afterlife. We simply don't know hence we don't hold one or the other position. We just don't know.Myself, FFRF, and Atheist International beg to differ.
But adding that caveat makes zero sense (to me anyway). Atheists simply lack religious belief (short of affirmative scientific evidence being provided). All atheists lack "conviction" (strong belief) regarding religion already by definition.
All atheists lack "conviction" (strong belief) regarding religion already by definition.
God created existence.
It almost sounds as if you are trying to make my arguments.But wherein are functioning "the laws of physcis"? Why exists such a bullshit? Who made it? Why? ...
Like I said, makes zero sense to me, but thanks for embellishing anyway. "We just don't know" yet. We discover new things every day. Those who say "can't know" or "will never" seem aggressively defeatist and intentionally depressing to me. Also, words have meaning. I regularly provide definitions from authoritative sources. Your average Joe Schmoe does not.(I believe the paranormal or "supernatural" is real, but it's simply part of the natural world). Agnostics like myself, don't take a stance either way on the existence of God or an afterlife. We simply don't know hence we don't hold one or the other position. We just don't know.
Pretend I'm from Missouri then and show me, Joe..that would be defined differently than atheism
Comfort isn't needed. Religious beliefs could be called chocolate chip cookies, but that doesn't make them so, any more than calling religious beliefs "fantasies" and "mythology" makes them so. In fact, it comes across as ignorance, and ignorance seldom convinces anyone.I will use the word fantasies and mythology because that's what your beliefs are and I'm not here to comfort you. Religion, especially the Abrahamic religions are like highly destructive, lethal mental, and emotional viruses that lead to a myriad of perpetual catastrophes, weighing down and undermining humanity's evolution.
It focuses too much time and energy on an afterlife that may not exist, giving people a false sense of security. Perhaps if they had focused more on this life, the only life they have now and may ever have, they would've cooperating with others actually attained the objectives of religion. They would've by now in the 21st century, transformed this world into a paradise planet where people are youthful and healthy indefinitely, without disease or old age.Comfort isn't needed. Religious beliefs could be called chocolate chip cookies, but that doesn't make them so, any more than calling religious beliefs "fantasies" and "mythology" makes them so. In fact, it comes across as ignorance, and ignorance seldom convinces anyone.
Now, once we are past that first sentence, which isn't even needed, there is something worth discussing. Naming something specific that makes religion highly destructive might make a good start.
that would be defined differently than atheism
Pretend I'm from Missouri then and show me, Joe..
I regularly provide definitions from authoritative sources.
They were atheists. Their mystic experiments followed only the idea to create an own new pagan religion for idiots.
You just contradicted yourself.
You claim they were atheists, then in the same breath admit they were trying to restore the ancient European pagan Germanic religion.
One's position on the existence of a deity was no one's business and had no bearing on their membership status in the National Socialist Party. That wasn't the case in the Soviet Union. The German Nazis were non-Marxist socialists whereas the Soviets were Marxist-Leninists and hence atheistic, if not hostile, towards organized religion. You couldn't be religious and a member of the Soviet Community Party. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Yes and no. Many Reds converted to Nazis and later many Nazis converted to Reds.
In your fantasy world perhaps, "many communists" became Nazis and Nazis Marxist-Leninists. You're quite confused and misinformed.
Not really. Germany has currently very big problems with new Nazis who had been educated under the "anti-fascist protective wall" in the former GDR. Russia integrated a short time ago masses of Russian Nazi mercenaries into the Red army.
That's more silliness from your keyboard. The fact that there are a few white supremacist groups in Germany and Russia who idolize Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich, doesn't imply that the Soviets didn't destroy the Nazi State and win the war. Your opinion that a rag-tag gang of skin-head white supremacists equates to Hitler's Third Reich is ridiculous and not worth anyone's time and effort to debate.
The Soviet leader Mao....
Mao wasn't a Soviet
and had some very serious disagreements with Soviet Russia and the way they implemented socialism.
....who deflowered a girl every day....
Get your mind out of the gutter. What evidence do you have that Mao was raping anyone?
...murdered up to 100 million Chinese.
There isn't a shred of evidence that Mao murdered 100 million Chinese, much less innocent Chinese. In war people die, even millions, but there's no evidence that Mao systematically set out to murder people. You're just spewing cheap, Western anti-Communist propaganda.
....The mass murderer Stalin murdered up to 20 million Russians.
More BS..
And it existed much more red monsters in all qualities of a montrous behavior.
You're suffering from a strong, hypocritical delusion being that your beloved capitalism is the one that has through imperialism murdered more people than any other ideology. The capitalist pursuit of profits has led empires to commit the most heinous crimes against humanity, so stop pretending that you have the moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked finger at anyone.
You're unable to discuss theology or religion in this religious thread so all you have left is to resort to cheap political rhetoric against socialists. Your religious beliefs are apparently indefensible.
Did I say anything about capitalism or socialism?
Duh, yes you did.
You mentioned the German National Socialists and the Soviet Union (ak.a. USSR - Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics). You're the one spewing the silly Cold War propaganda and BS on this thread, because you're unwilling and unable to defend your silly religious mythology.
As far as capitalism, I mentioned it to remind you that you're morally bankrupt when it comes to body-count arguments. Your sacred capitalism has murdered hundreds of millions of people in pursuit of profits and natural resources, hence you have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point fingers. Give it a break.
Nosense. You do not believe in god you believe in atheism.
.You're telling me what I believe with respect to the existence of God? I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.
. I don't make an affirmative statement against the possible existence of God, nor do I affirm God's existence. I simply don't know hence I'm an agnostic. Look up the definition of agnostic vs atheist online, they're not the same. Atheism is an active, affirmative stance against the existence of God, and again, I don't take such a "strong" or perhaps I should say, "pretentious" position about whether God exists or not.
Then you do not understand - and you also do not really try to understand - what you try to speak about. God created existence.
Maybe, maybe not,
we simply don't know yet. Moreover, as far as the existence of your biblical, Christian deity, there is zero evidence for that. You, nor any other Christian have ever presented any conclusive evidence that your religious version of a deity exists.
What a nonsense.
Are you asserting that It's nonsense to suggest that in a universe with trillions of galaxies and countless stars and planets, there might be intelligent beings who are millions of times more advanced than we are scientifically and otherwise?
No, you're the one who is making nonsensical claims and objections, not me. Practically all scientists agree with me,
that the likelihood of there being intelligent life on other planets is extremely high.
Some scientists even suggest that there can be life in other dimensions as well.
What's to say that these lifeforms can't travel here or interact with us from wherever they are?
It's people like yourself who are nonsensical and ridiculous, denying the obvious.
You're forced to pretend that the UAPs and the idea of ETs are absurd because they completely dismantle your ancient Christian mythology. If advanced ETs exist that undermines your silly, immoral (anti-human) religious beliefs.
But wherein are functioning "the laws of physcis"? Why exists such a bullshit? Who made it? Why? ...
That's English? Re-ask the question in English.
no commentIt almost sounds as if you are trying to make my arguments.
I could easily refute and embarrass you as I always do when I decide to respond to your incoherent trash, but I have better things to do with my time and energy.No. I contradict your view to this world because I know more about this world - that'a all. And now you show only to me that you are not only unreal but also a very bad philosopher.
The Nazis had been pragmatists. They used everything they had been able to use.
You compare the devil Hitler with the devil Stalin and not devilish with heavenly.
Then you never read what said German socialists who really fought Hitler.
Indeed you seem to have not any light idea what you try to speak about.
?
The mass murderer Mao had not to rape anyone. Others brainwashed his victims.
No. In case of Mao the real number is perhaps lower but I am not sure whether in case of Stalin the number is perhaps higher.
No, I did not.
Says an "agnostics" who not knows whether someone could be right who believes in god? Why are you a liar, atheist?
Seems to me you have a problem with capitalism. But what have I to do with your problem? Whether someone is a capitalist or someone is a socialist who believes in god is for me personally unimportant.
In general is it impossible to compare the forms "believe in god" and "believe in atheism" with the philosophical position "agnosticism". An agnostics is as well able to believe in god as he is able to believe in atheism. But agnosticism is on it's own a philosophical concept and not a form of belief. For example is it impossible to think god exists and not exists the same time although god could exist and not exist the same time.
Definetelly you do not know what you try to speak about when you use the word "god".
So what? What do you try to say? That god not exists or that god not notexists?
Maybe it's nonsense - maybe not. I personally love science fiction - but I know very well the difference between fiction and reality. We are on our own one of the eldest galaxies of the universe and if an self-organisation of matter really should automatically lead to life then our galaxy should be full of life. I see nowhere life. And when I take a look at home to the only place I know where multi-celullar life exists since less then a half billion years then I do not think this mass of self organized dust plays a big role compared with matter which is not self organized in living structures.
What shows a firm belief of some people who I would call believers in science - whatever this is in this context.
Why?
Which other "dimensions" - what for heavens sake could this really be? The only other dimension which really exists are "die Bretter, die die Welt bedeuten" = "the boards which mean the world".
I'm denying nothing. I have no problems with ETs. I only do not share your belief, that's all. I believe in reality.
Indeed I said only something what's totally different. Even when ET's should exist since billions of years in this universe here - they will for sure not be gods.
No. I fear the most people would also not understand what I ask here when I would ask in German. You seem to be one of them - even if you would be a native German speaker.
Sehn wir doch das Große aller Zeiten
Auf den Brettern, die die Welt bedeuten,
Sinnvoll still an uns vorübergehn.
Alles wiederholt sich nur im Leben,
Ewig jung ist nur die Phantasie;
Was sich nie und nirgends hat begeben,
Das allein veraltet nie!
Friedrich Schiller (1803)
The fear of death is the single biggest hook for religions.It focuses too much time and energy on an afterlife that may not exist, giving people a false sense of security. Perhaps if they had focused more on this life, the only life they have now and may ever have, they would've cooperating with others actually attained the objectives of religion. They would've by now in the 21st century, transformed this world into a paradise planet where people are youthful and healthy indefinitely, without disease or old age.
Everything that they desired and hoped religion would reward them with, could be a reality in this life thanks to science and technology, but unfortunately, in general, they remain clueless and hostile towards science.
The urgency to create that world isn't present because people are focused on what amounts to a fantasy, of living forever in another dimension. They think their deity is coming for them in the clouds, to whisp them away in a "rapture", to a better world, somewhere else. The truth is that this is the only life and world we have, so let's create that paradise here, and not foolishly assume that it will be handed to us in an afterlife, that may not even exist.
If humanity is going to be religious, it needs a more practical, scientific religion free of superstition. and ideas that undermine human evolution and flourishing.
The fear of death is the single biggest hook for religions.
It doesn't really matter to people how the universe got here and saying a god did it is enough for most believers.
It's the afterlife and the promise of eternal life in bliss that really plays on the fear of death that most people have.
IMO death will be exactly like the state of not being born. When you were born you woke up never having been asleep at death you will go to sleep never to wake up.
I am speaking of my observations. That is all.That is flatly false. You are trying to speak for believers as someone who isn't a believer, do you not see how utterly arrogant that is?
I know a lot of Christians and I've heard tons and tons of testimonies (I used to have a website devoted to Christian testimonies) and I have never once encountered a Christian who came to faith out of fear of the afterlife. That is just a load of caca.
For me, I had no fear of death when I was a nonbeliever, because.... well, I was a nonbeliever! And then once I became a believer, I didn't have any fear of what happens after death because when you're saved, you know you're going to be with God in heaven when you die. What do I have to fear? Nothing. (Psalm 27:1)
So no fear of death before becoming a believer, and no fear of death after.
Speak for yourself and yourself only.
Practically all scientists agree with me, that the likelihood of there being intelligent life on other planets is extremely high.
Everything you just said applies to people who attack other religions, not people who defend theirs.No you aren't
if you were you wouldn't be so defensive about your religion.
And you're always worried about winning the religion competition.
You need external validation and it's a little sad
Everything you just said applies to people who attack other religions, not people who defend theirs.
Keep telling yourself that.Criticizing an organization is not "attacking " religion. Your religion is not the Catholic Church but you have attached all kinds of emotion to that institution and it clouds your thinking.
and it's the people who have to tell everyone they are happy that are really trying to convince themselves that they are happy.
Keep telling everyone you're "happy" when it's only you that needs convincing of itKeep telling yourself that.
If that makes you feel better, go ahead and believe that.Keep telling everyone you're "happy" when it's only you that needs convincing of it
