Generalzing here but I find it stupid how tons of atheists would look into one particular religion (most commonly Christianity) and try to demote that, and call it their backbone of ideology, for atheism.

To be atheist, you do not believe in all/any religion. You do not believe in all/any god. You are one without any religion.

By pseudo-disproving Christianity, all you're doing is disproving Christianity, not proving Atheism.

Every time I see a noob atheist walk in to Totse, I see things like "Christianity is wrong, cause like I'm a stupid teenager and stuff, and the bible has contradictions and shit maaaan, therefore I know the universe front and back. I rest my case."

I agree.I see this way too much.

you truly are a rare atheist.

True to an extent, but most people who believe in God are christian/jewish/ one of the major religions, most of which have their inherent contradictions and cruelties. Disproving God is impossible. Disproving those religions is relatively easy, and equally interesting/important. Once you've disproved those religions then a lot of the structure around which God is based falls down.

"Once you've disproved those religions then a lot of the structure around which God is based falls down. "

i don't adhere to any religious tenents, hasn't shaken my belief in god one bit.

god can exist without religion, religion cannot exist without god.



[This message has been edited by IzzyReele (edited 06-04-2003).]

buddhism is the only religion that really makes a lot of sense and at the same time dosent make a bunch of promises. its more like a philosophy from what i have read about it, which isnt too much at the moment, but i knew as a litle kid jesus and that was crap

organisied religion is in my expierence crap but jesus was just a human being with some good ideas on how to treat other human beings.

quote:Originally posted by Iscariot2:



By pseudo-disproving Christianity, all you're doing is disproving Christianity, not proving Atheism.



I've seen some ex-muslims do that too. They thouroughly debunk the Qur'an, then use that as a basis in which to profess atheism.

I'm only using it as an example Dark_Magneto.

I thought the mistake most atheists make was preaching "free thinking" while trying to "convert" theists thus negating "free thinking".

Thats if you define"free thinking" as thinking for yourself.



This is similar to what you said Iscariot2.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-07-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Iscariot2:

To be atheist, you do not believe in all/any religion. You do not believe in all/any god. You are one without any religion.

actually, i think you're mistaken, there. you too, izzyreele. :o

atheism is when a person does not believe in god. however, there are some religions which are based on morals, and allow the individual to choose whether or not they believe in god. if i remember correctly, buddhism is one of them. as i recall, not all buddhists believe in god; not all buddhists dis-believe in god. even so, buddhism is deemed a ''religion.''

I think the largest mistake made by atheists is calling themselves atheists. Most the atheist I've meet have said to me "When you show me proof of the exsitance of a God, I'll believe in him." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make them agnostic? I personally prefer to be called agnostic than atheist because I do not deny the possiblity of a god.

tashganos:

that just means they're open minded atheists. currently, they dis-believe in god, but they recognize that their beliefs are subject to change, if proven wrong. some may truely be agnostic, yes, but not necessarily all.

yup, agnosticism is the belief that we can't ever know the truth for sure, or that we just don't know.

There's a sort of reverse logic people use against atheists. People say that you can never know that there is a god, so it's impossible to be atheist. By the same logic, surely you shouldn't be a theist? Anyway, if there is no evidence for gods existence then YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE IN HIM. It's simple.

Well, I'd say if religion were as Karl Marx said (or was it Groucho?) "the opium of people", organized religions would be hard drugs, and atheism would be weed.

I mean, even though most definitely people professing atheism are a bit twisted in their logics as well, at least it never turned into a religious war or religious persecutions, exclusions, integrism and all the crap we witness happening in religious countries...

quote:Originally posted by Inebriateddonkey:

There's a sort of reverse logic people use against atheists. People say that you can never know that there is a god, so it's impossible to be atheist. By the same logic, surely you shouldn't be a theist? Anyway, if there is no evidence for gods existence then YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE IN HIM. It's simple.

first, i think you meant ''...can never know that there isN'T a god, so it's impossible to be atheist.'' either that or you meant it's impossible to be theist?

secondly, aren't you also using reverse logic towards theists, by saying that since you don't know, you shouldn't believe in god?

finally, if you only believed in things you had hard evidence for, you couldn't possibly believe in every historical event. i mean, just because events are written in history books, doesn't mean they actually happened. correct?

you can believe or dis-believe as you see fit, i honestly don't care. i just think that your reasoning is invalid. it'd be better to admit you have absolutely no reason to believe or dis-believe, than to come up with a reason, just to say you have a reason.

edit = oh. em. gee. i made a typographical error! i'll be damned!

[This message has been edited by humble (edited 06-12-2003).]