 |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET
Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard warBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong." The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati. The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas. During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth." “The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website. "We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said. "From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' " Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards. "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' " Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true." "I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said. Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God. Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack." Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign. IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year. "They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it. Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success. "We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said. The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community. In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems." The museum responded with its own video. For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism. In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007. soundoff (8,748 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next »
« Previous entrySenate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
“The bible has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies. Mark Twain
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool._Mark Twain
"It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
Mark Twain
"Mommy and Daddy, I can't get into college because I'm FAILING high school biology. The teacher says that evolution is THE FOUNDATION of modern biology, and is indisputable. The other students laugh at me, and call me, "that stupid creationist kid." Mommy and Daddy, why did you EFF UP my intellect,my education, and my future by shoving all that religion down my throat since before I could even talk. THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Mark Twain
"It is very difficult to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into." Rich Rodriguez
"Who are the bigger fool's, those who are born stupid or those who choose stupidity?" John Kelly
Some just think they are "educated" when they are actually indoctrinated.George Washington
The Taliban is enemy of our nation abroad, the Talibangelicals are the enemies of our nation here at home.
The thought of all religions as imaginary I'd say is fairly valid. What concerns me is how do you plan to stop people from making stuff up?
I don't think anyone wants to stop people from making stuff up, but to stop that kind of non-sense from getting made into public policy.
IMO, you outlaw indoctrination. It is essentially lying to children at young impressionable ages and damages their psychological development. Kids should have a choice, not be forced by their parents. People find it difficult to break a connection with something they are emotionally connected too, so they just do the same to their children, and as a result you have an army of people that blindly believe in something ridiculous.
Creationism are the father of atheists!!!
1) Creationist are very stupid people which are not capable to understand that the bible text is widely symbolic and once this is established, the narrative is surprisingly accurate for the time it was issued (as long as Adam and Eve are not involved!! )
And by argue their faith in GOD by touting their literal belief in said narrative, they are supplying the munition for the disbelief of the atheits!!
2) And of course, atheist are even more stupid because they are not able to recognize that creationist are the low intelligence fringe of their religions and because by invoking their hype of science, they become the anti-science adorers of the concept that SOMETHING (the World) was created from NOTHING!!
tom, You clearly do not understand what an atheist is, nor do you seem to understand the singularity and the Big Bang. But you somehow think that a god can come from nothing.
Well, you are sub-lining what I wrote. Obviously I do not understand the Big Bang (whatever exploded, material, gravity or a sector of Space or a "God Particle filled ) as precisely if this material or space existed, it was already created, must probably originated from another Universe we can only assume existed. But again whatever "banged", was already created. Nothing can not created Anything , unless it is supernatural, and as the "anything" here our organized and inexorable rules obeying Universe, the only response is GOD or whatever you chose call it.
Ad of course, humans cannot define Gods nature, other than acknowledge that He exists and even if evangelists do not like it, He has no interest whatsoever you and I chose to belief, humans as any other must obey his rules. Human are free to try to try to define what they thing these not physical rules are, and this is called religion
And science is obviously important, as it allow try to assess the physical rules
I am curious what YOU understand is the big bang
best regards
TOM
tom wittmann,
"inexorable rules obeying Universe"
Actually, the Bible claims that all these rules are optional and at the whim of whatever God feels like at the time.
The problem is more that just a lunatic fringe of christianity, Pols have reported over 50% of American said they believe the bible is literally true.
Yes, Mungo, and the worse part is that nearly none of these has read and understood what is written there.
And as I wrote in my previous post, by acting as they do they provide arguments to the equally ignorant atheists, many of which are really not stupid, but think that it is intellectually 'IN" to believe in the golden calf of pseudoscience!!
Of course, there are a few which were punished terribly in their life and try to compensate by atheist bitterness, a typical
example being the genial scientist STEVEN HAWKING, who issued the plainly imbecilic statement that the Universe was created by GRAVITY, forgetting to tell who created the gravity!!
tom wittman,
So gravity was created, but God wasn't.
Sure.
To OBSERVER
Exactly!!! GOD must exist as somebody must have created anything material as GRAVITY and the laws of the UNIVERSE, But this does not apply to GOD himself, as He is not material and always existed. This being obvious, cannot be be explained due to the material limitations of the human mind.and never will.
Again: GOD MUST exist because HE cannot NOT EXIST, this being a metaphysical concept comprehensible by the human mind!!
The universe being an amazing place to us is not proof of the existence of a god.
Your assumption that all atheists are bitter is rather self serving.
If god is real and just, only atheists will go to heaven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85sIJcC8zbs
The main difference between conventional religions such as Christianity and unconventional religion such as Atheism is that, with the former, the price of afterlife insurance is 10% of your worldly income. With the latter, there is no afterlife.
The seemingly endless battle between the believers in the Bible God and the disbelievers in the Bible God is moot. The fact is: There is a very distinct possibility that both sides of the Bible God coin are equally wrong yet neither side has the courage to admit it.
I don't know if I'd call atheism a religion but yes they are both are focused on the same one point. It's a big wide world full of possibilities.
That's where you are both wrong. For one thing, calling atheism a religion is simply absurd. Is it a religion not to believe unicorns exist? And atheists don't focus on the Bible god at all, except when conversing with those who believe in that god; if they're conversing with someone of a different religion then it makes sense to focus on those beliefs instead.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."...Stephen F Roberts
But...
I think it takes a certain amount of presumption to declare that you know for sure the exact nature of the word "exists"
Nonsense.
I concur Chikkipop. Nonsense. Words have individual meaning. Words put together at random quickly become nonsense.
Atheism is not a religion – it means without god.
There is no chance that the god of the bible exists.
If something has no clear definition how do you know what you are looking for or where to look?
If you believe total, partially or not waht the Bible or the Koran tells, has little to do with the eistence of GOD or whatever designation you prefer, The Bible is a historic book created by humans, , which for centuries was transmitted orally and therefor, full of errors and parables
As II wrote in a previous blog, GOD exists because is an inevitable consequence by looking on the issue with a rational approach. And the deification of a human work as the bible is certainly not the way to acknowledge His existence
How can you say that is rational? There isn't any objective evidence whatsoever. It's not rational or logical. Non existence of anything is the logical default until evidence is found to suggest it does indeed exist. The only form in which god definitely exists is in the mind and collective consciousness of humans. He exists as a thought, but beyond that it's just a guess.
Because of the Prime Directive, aliens in Star Trek can't prove the existence of Captain Kirk, but we know he exists in the fictional universe of Star Trek.
I propose that we start a "Hate Chess" club, in which members would assemble each week to discuss how they hated the game of Chess and refused to play it, and would harangue chess players at length on how their lives were wasted in fruitless pursuits.
And that, my friend, is exactly why atheism is not a belief system. There is no doctrine, it's simply lack of a particular belief. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not going to go to a meeting over not believing or describe my belief system as Aunicornism. There are a infinite number of possible things that don't exist. I'm not going to describe my belief system based on what I don't believe. It's really about what I DO believe. Many folks miscategorize atheism because of this and the 1% of atheists out there that actually campaign against religion. I believe indoctrinate is psychologically damaging, so I bring it up whenever I can. It's a terrible practice, and the children should not be subjected to it until they are old enough to make their own decisions. Believing something just cuz your parent said so I not smart. God is pretty much the adult version of Santa Clause. Yeah, it sounds nice, but is there any evidence? Nope.
HOWEVER, with the unicorn thing, if it was widely believed that unicorns existed despite the lack of evidence, and the believers tortured and executed folks for not believing, than as an Aunicornist, I would speak out against the believers, not because they don't have the right to believe it, or they are wrong. It would be because of their history of oppression, violence and murder. Most mainstream religions are guilty of similar practices, so when atheists speak out against them, that is the reasoning. It's not because the "fear god" or "hate religion". They see the violent history and strangle hold that religion has had on society for as long as it has existed and don't feel that it should control and dominate society as it does and that children should not be psychologically damaged via indoctrination.
Barcs – Nicely said.
If these chess players were trying to pass laws requiring everyone to walk according to specific, arcane rules, and forced people to take a job based on the kind of hat they were born with, you but your sweet patootie I'd be the first to form an opposition group. I wouldn't "hate" them just as I don't "hate" religious people. I just wish they'd restrict application of their supersitions to their club members, rather than the rest of us. Get it?
You'll note atheists don't gather to discuss religion each week. Nor each month. Nor each year.
Seems you have a problem with your basic premise. And people who like to debate, choosing to debate on articles is not the same thing.
Modern Religion was created by wealthy men who promote it for their own security; for the cowardly whelps have not the courage otherwise to defend the great evil that they do; but damn ye altogether: damn them for a pack of crafty rascals, and you, who serve them, for a parcel of hen-hearted numbskulls
Yes, those homeless shelters and soup kitchens are full of evil deeds. How dare they feed and shelter homeless people.
So now you are saying that atheists never participate in charity events or soup kitchens? That's complete nonsense irrelevant to theism vs atheism.
No. What I'm saying is that religious people do some good things, but they never get any credit from the atheists.
What gives you that idea? I see it all the time on the news and other media. They constantly praise Christians for doing charity work and act like atheists are incapable. In reality it's the other way around. Atheists don't brag about their good deeds, and they go mostly unnoticed. If an atheist group volunteered in a soup kitchen, it wouldn't make the news. That's the sad reality of it. A good deed is a good deed. It matters not, what religion or world view the people come from. Some have compassion and empathy, some do not. These people exist on both sides of the coin as well.
Well said barcs!
They say Hitler was very kind to his dogs. Shall we forgive his mass murder and genocide as well?
I would plead for forgiveness of any creature if the alternative is eternal torture in a burning hell.
What crime is worthy of infinite torture...infinite, unending agonizing torture?
Hitler was a Christian, and is possibly spared this fate.
I am an atheist and am not spared.
If fear of eternal torment is the only reason you except god then do you really deserve heaven?
Fear of infinite torture seems to be an effective marketing tool used by the religious to sell belief in the Jesus brand mungo
Religion is regarded by naive people as true, by wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
What defines Atheism?
Sounds like you don't know. There is no capital A in atheist as it's not a proper noun. It's simply lack of belief in a creator. It's not its own belief system.
Atheism, not atheist. Are you sure atheism isn't a belief?
There is no difference. Atheism and atheist are both derivations of the same word and neither is a proper noun. It is not a belief system, it is simply lacking or rejecting a belief in a god. Does not believing in pink unicorns make somebody an Aunicornist and create a doctrine and system to follow? Nope. It's just one thing that's not part of their belief system. Atheists can follow many different belief systems including Buddhism, Taoism and many others. Ask an atheist what he DOES believe rather than what he doesn't and you might actually have a real conversation, instead of trying to classify them by unfair standards that paint them as anti Christians or infidels.
Merriam Webster Dictionary:Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\Function: nounEtymology: Middle Frenchathéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos godDate: 15461 archaic : ungodliness,wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Doctrine?
Kev, It literally means without god. I don't consider it a belief, I consider it the rejection of a belief.
So is then atheism just merely a lack of belief in something or is it a belief in the doctrine of disbelief of the existence of a god or gods? Is then atheism just a school of thought? Is atheism an opinion? Is atheism a fact? Even Barcs stated that atheism involves beliefs such as the belief in ceasing to exist when one dies. Do does belief actually play a role in atheism?
Oops, I meant to say "So, does belief play a role in atheism?"
Atheism has no doctrine. If you believe it does, please provide some quotes and scriptures for us. Buddhism is an atheistic belief system, they have doctrine but it's not the doctrine of atheism, it's the doctrine of Buddhism. Again, it's more beneficial to ask somebody what they DO believe, not what they DON'T. Man, I explained it in detail and the comment never showed up for some reason.. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I consider myself a guru when comes to evolution vs religion or atheism vs theism. Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying that theism is a belief system. Neither of them are, they are adjectives that describe the TYPE of belief system it is. There's no doctrine of theism, but there are many theistic doctrines out there. This is why I say it's better to ask what somebody DOES believe, rather than what they don't. I hope this comment shows up.
noun1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Dictionary.con
English definition of “atheism”
atheism
/ˈeɪ·θiˌɪz·əm/ n [U]› the belief that God does not exist(Definition of atheism n from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)Focus on the pronunciation of atheism
Keep digging Kev. And what will you have attained in the end but further lack of understanding of the humans that are trying to share with you. Will you attain a reason to divide, and hate, and segregate and point fingers and be righteous and self promoting?
Will you go on to argue the meaning of "theory" with scientists?
Apply all the labels you want...you've already made up your mind, closed it to possibilities and are trapped forever by your own limited imagination and unwillingness to be teachable.
Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: doc·trine Pronunciation: \ˈdäk-trən\Function: nounEtymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latindoctrina, from doctorDate: 14th century1 archaic : teaching, instruction2 a : something that is taught b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies
How is there no doctrine in atheism?
Apparently, atheists don't believe Webster exists either.
DUMBAtheiStS
"Apparently, atheists don't believe Webster exists either."
Apparently, they don't believe in unicorns, talking non-humans, and dragons either. They don't believe what the Bible claims.
Kev – I assume you don't believe in leprechauns–what doctrine is involved with that?
Atheists BELIEVES that God never exixts.
Atheists BELIEVE that Jesus never exixts.
Atheists BELIEVE that there's no afterlife.
Atheists BELIEVE Bible is a book of fairytales.
Atheists BELIEVE that (late) infatuation to an Urang-ontan at first sight in a zoo is anarguable fact.
Atheists BELIEVE that universe was created out of massive fart.
Atheists BELIEVE that Flying Spaghetti Monster is a powerful god when topped with chilli hot sauce and mozirilla cheese.
Thus, atheists are Bob Marlenians.
Thus,
Observer
"Apparently, they don't believe in unicorns, talking non-humans, and dragons either. They don't believe what the Bible claims."
Yes, and they don't believe 'Meriam Webster' don't exists either, apparently.
*do* not the (2nd) "don't"
George, what does it matter what I believe? I believe what I believe just like atheists believe what atheists believe. It's all belief.
Steve Lynch,
"Keep digging Kev. And what will you have attained in the end but further lack of understanding of the humans that are trying to share with you. Will you attain a reason to divide, and hate, and segregate and point fingers and be righteous and self promoting?"
Yes, how dare I question the validity of the beliefs, viewpoints, opinions, or whatever it is that certain atheists have shared with me on this belief blog. I was sooo out of line, and to top all of that me pointing fingers and segregating at whomever it is I'm pointing fingers at, and yes all of it was just to be self promoting at whatever it is I'm self promoting myself to be, which is one who sees theists and atheists believing in whatever it is each believes in.
Will you go on to argue the meaning of "theory" with scientists?
Apply all the labels you want...you've already made up your mind, closed it to possibilities and are trapped forever by your own limited imagination and unwillingness to be teachable
Kev, are you going to source the doctrine or not? You can't claim something has a doctrine without quoting it. Atheism isn't taught to people. Kids are not indoctrinated into that idea. I already explained it in detail but you simply ignored it and started quoting definitions. I'm not here to play semantics. I already explained it. Atheism isn't its own thing. It's merely one aspect of a belief system (really a non aspect). Buddhism has doctrine and it is atheistic since no god is mentioned. Atheism itself is not a doctrine, but there are many doctrines out there where its incorporated. That's why the definitions mention doctrine.
Being taught doctrine can merely be the passing on the idea that there is no deity. There doesn't have to be any full set of principles or creeds in order to be considered doctrine. Doctrine is simply defined as just something that is taught. You don't have to be indoctrinated as a kid in order to be taught doctrine. You can be taught doctrine at any age. And since spreading the idea or concept that there is no deity is being learned, even on this blog, atheism is definitely doctrine.
I believe that I don't believe?........ ignorant word twisters at it again......
Atheism = lack of belief in god. Try and wrap your tiny mind around that.
fantastic,
If you actually care to read a the previous posts right above yours, you should see that the issue about atheism = lack of belief has already been addressed. This includes dictionary definitions for atheism, since so many atheists claim to embrace academia.
doc·trine
ˈdäktrin/
noun
noun: doctrine; plural noun: doctrines
1.
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
"the doctrine of predestination"
Atheism is not a belief or set of beliefs. It is not taught by any group. It is one single idea, independent of what people actually DO believe. According to your logic, any idea taught to people is doctrine. In that case the theory of gravity is doctrine as well as all proven science.
barcs,
My my Mr. Half Truth. Let's see the whole def
Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: doc·trine Pronunciation: \ˈdäk-trən\Function: nounEtymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latindoctrina, from doctorDate: 14th century1 archaic : teaching, instruction2 a : something that is taught b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies
noun1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Dictionary.conEnglish definition of “atheism” atheism /ˈeɪ·θiˌɪz·əm/ n [U]› the belief that God does not exist(Definition of atheism n from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)Focus on the pronunciation of atheism
No matter how much you try to play word games it's not going to help your case. Atheism is not a principle. It's one non belief, that's it. There is no system involved. There is nothing to teach beyond, "I don't believe in god". Now you think that qualifies as doctrine, then I don't know what to say. It's simply not true. Those definitions say OR. It's not always a doctrine, but some doctrines include atheism. I explained it already. By your logic, the theory of gravity qualifies as doctrine along with everything to ever exist that is taught. You are confusing things and using the word to mean something different.
@barcs
Thats why these conversations are pointless in the end. They're used to playing word games. Its from centuries of trying to figure out what so-and-so REALLY meant. And of course nobody wants to admit out loud or to themselves that something they devoted their entire lives to is a sham, and thats how they think they can get away with pretending to be all pious at points and not taking any accountability when their claims are backed into a corner, drop off the face of the earth never to respond, and then start all back up again with you later as if they didn't prove themselves to be a waste of time earlier.
Barcs,
So, apparently providing official academic definitions to you are “word games”. These full, unaltered definitions, which happen to be complete definitions by the way, to you are “word games”. That is unless you edit down those definitions to meet your own narrow minded and biased criteria, and you're claiming that I'm playing “word games”. You place emphasis on the word OR as if using the word OR meant somehow you can be then be selective and accept only only the parts of the definition that you like and you're claiming that I'm playing word games?
Just to let you know the use of the word OR actually means that there is more than one instance in which the use of that word (doctrine) can be applied to, and if you find that application to be ridiculous to your own POV, your POV doesn't get to make the final definition. You don't validly get to pick and choose. When you pick and choose only the parts of the definition to fit your own criteria, that is playing word games.
Then when it comes to the word “atheism”, not only did I site one source but three different sources. Each of those sources uses either the term “doctrine” or “belief” or both in providing a definition for the word “atheism”. Yet despite citing three different sources in defining a word and verifying that definition to make it clear what that definition is, you're claiming that I'm playing “word games”.
Then of course there is “somethingstellar's” comment referring to that's what the religious do; play “word games”, after all isn't that what the atheists on this blog always complain about from the religious? You don't ever get to read comments from the atheists on this blog about the religious being ignorant, or being sheeple, or being bigots, or being narrow minded, or believing in fairy tales. It's all about the “word games”.
@Kev
" You don’t ever get to read comments from the atheists on this blog about the religious being ignorant, or being sheeple, or being bigots, or being narrow minded, or believing in fairy tales. It’s all about the “word games”."
I do get to read them, and I agree with them. Do you know why? Because YOU haven't dealt with Christians trying to encroach upon your rights. I mean, get this, I'm CANADIAN, and when gay marriage was on the verge of being legalized, AMERICAN ministers were writing to the Queen trying to affect OUR laws based on your stupid doctrine. They were writing the Queen asking her to refuse to allow the passage of the bill, and it DIDN'T EVEN EFFECT THEM. And that's not even including the absurd stupidity behind assuming the Queen even has power in our country because she doesn't even have power in her own, head of the Church of England or not. So, forgive me, for criticizing fundie BS.
Hey, Kev, you sure are getting worked up about this, but you do have a point as to the different definitions floating around out there.
Here's my quick take on this:
1. Atheism at it's most basic is the lack of one specific aspect regarding someone's personal mix of ideologies – they lack any aspect of theism in their ideologies. They might believe in magic, as the word does not address beliefs in the supernatural, but only theism, which is concerning gods specifically.
So you might notice that pointing to a lack, a particular lack of a particular type of belief does not equate to a belief in and of itself, but rather delineates an area where that belief is not supported.
2. There are no rules to atheism other than the definition, i.e. a lack of a theistic belief within one's mix of ideologies.
While this is often 'twisted' to re-state that definition as being "a belief in no gods', if you examine the English usage you'll see this is often misleading and the words should state, instead, "no belief in gods', yet there is the problem of why a person does not believe in any gods, and there you find a personal, individualized set of reasons why that person declares a lack of belief in gods. They may believe that rainbows block gods from existing or believe that there are no reasons to believe in any gods without proof, or they can have a rational belief based on evidence as to why they hold to this lack of belief in any gods.
But the lack itself is not a belief, but a lack of one particular type.
Yes, their reasons might include religious reasons, scientific reasons, simple ignorance of any gods, or even brainwashing to remove any theistic aspects to their worldview. But those reasons are separate from the end product, which is a lack of any theistic aspect to their worldview.
3. There are many types of "belief" – with or without proof, evidence, realism, rationalism, logic, with reasons and without, etc. They are not all the same and they are NOT equivalent simply because you use the word "beliefs".
False equivalency arguments are not going to help you here. The passion may be equal, the certainty may be similar, the insults and hypocrisy can reach equal heights on every side, but simple opposition does not equate to an equal position.
A lack of a belief is not the same as having a belief, and a lack of belief based on facts and logic is not of the same credibility or reliability as a belief based on hearsay and gossip written by proven frauds.
You appear to think that if you can turn "atheism" into a religion, that it somehow becomes equally subjective and delusional as theistic religions always are or can somehow be beaten if only you could bring atheism down to your religious level of credibilty and mindless dogma. You are wasting your time there.
4. You are mistaking atheism for all the arguments that atheists make in this blog. This is by far the biggest and most prevalent error among religious posters here.
If atheists, instead of milling around under the wrong banner of atheism, which has no slogan, no rules, no dogma, no way to inform any potential atheist on how to become one, and is only a very loose term as regards each person, were instead to rally under actual ideologies like secularism, humanism, etc., then you would see your error displayed much more clearly.
When I argue, I am using my own personal conclusions, ideologies, ideas, and all that crap. I cannot go to another atheist and ask what comes next, how I should speak, what I should speak about, or why I should speak at all, as I am likely to get a random response based not on atheism, which has no actual ideological underpinnings, but on the personal ideologies of the person I am asking. Do you get it yet?
You, on the other hand, share an ideology with others, a religious ideology as well as a theistic one, and you have a large number of common beliefs and rules about that belief and so one.
Atheists, on the other hand, only share one thing – the lack of a theistic ideology – everything else is up for grabs.
So we argue for ourselves, using our personal ideologies and not any common ones unless it is something like secular humanism, which is an ideology and one that can be used without any theistic elements, yet can also be used by religious people such as yourself. A Christian can be a secularist, seeking to remove politics from Christianity, and a humanist, seeking to help all of humanity, or they can be an anti-theist atheist who follows secularism to drive religion out of politics, and who follows humanism to help all of humanity throw off the yoke of religion.
What you see is a lot of secularism, humanism, etc. all done on an individual basis for many different reasons, yet you call these things the "doctrine" of atheism. Atheism isn't what you're seeing, it's the other ideologies. See?
But these days the other fancy labels get ignored and everybody just gets lumped together as atheists.
Nobody wants to get into deep philosophical definitions about ideologies they never read up about, so they stumble along, calling themselves atheists as if that were some sort of belief system despite there being no beliefs of that sort but a lack of one and no system of belief large or small that is a common basis for their lack of belief.
Consider a primitive guy or gal living incognito in some jungle somewhere –
Let's say they have never spoken to anyone, never been indoctrinated, never learned about any religions of any sort including any theistic religions, and never wondered about the wind in the trees, etc.
That person is an atheist.... yet you would insist they have a belief, a religion of anti-religion, that they follow a doctrine of some sort, follow atheism rules and atheism dogma, read atheistic texts, and worship Darwin, Dawkins, Hitchens simply because they wrote some books.
Do you see your error yet?
Look, a BABY is BORN an ATHEIST.
Now tell me that baby is already following rules and doctrine. Do you realize how insane you sound?.
Now let's go back to the dictionaries you were using. It is clear that those definitions are not all that accurate and may have been maliciously re-written or composed by a religious person such as you who was making the same mistake you are.
Because that is the bottom line here – those definitions are not accurate, are misleading and biased, and do not even use proper English. I would add that I thought I noticed a recent revision to at least one of these definitions within the past year, as I would often go and cut and paste those definitions and got used to finding the same ones – until there was a change in one or two – where they twisted and added words to make it sound as though atheism was some sort of religion.
Perhaps I am wrong about that. Yet these definitions are not correct. A doctrine is not just something that is taught, without any details or qualification, but a system of facts, knowledge, or beliefs, including specific texts and quotes that is taught or held as a basis for something, not necessarily a religion.
Okay, I need a break. Your main error is in thinking atheism is some sort of system when it isn't, and mistaking the ideologies people DO have for the imaginary doctrine of atheism, when atheism is only a description of the lack of theistic aspects in their worldview. The arguments against religion cannot be used against atheism no matter how hard you try to make it appear that way. Stop wasting your time and read up on secularism and humanism. You can be a Christian and use these other ideologies to shape your expressions of your religion. Yet I will also use them to fight against religion.
The common ground we would have is in secular humanism, but you'd have to be willing to keep it out of politics, and stop acting like your religion is above our secular laws. Otherwise you are out to harm others and humanism is not your path.
Crom,
The problem is that it's not just my usage of the word "belief" it's also three different sources using the word "belief", and it is quite likely that there are more, so how is your efforts getting those sources to correct their definitions? Of course after all if something is lacking belief how could that be belief? I mean after all there is all that complete and conclusive evidence that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that is no being who is basically omnipotent who purposefully does not want to be made known, but would rather have us develop our own faith in said being. Although, come to think of it there really hasn't been any such evidence presented.
The only actual facts established is that there is just a lack of fact. A lack of fact in proving the existence of a god and a lack of fact proving that there is no omnipotent being who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop faith in said omnipotent being, but since there are those who say well since there is no proof that such a being exists then I will conclude that no such being exists even though there is no proof established to verify that claim either. For me that seems to be a conclusion based on belief. Go figure.
somethingstellar,
I am sure appreciative of you without a second thought to have included me, with you assuming to know my full beliefs to automatically place me in the same group of Christians who appealed to the Queen. After all, we all think alike don't we?
Kev, you just made the claim that there are no facts. You said, "The only actual facts established is that there is just a lack of fact."
I'm guessing you are just trolling me now, as such a hypocritical (in view of your other assertions) and clearly illogical statement is just nonsense.
Don't worry, I'm trying to tie it all together with the rest of your post...and so far all I'm seeing is something like "There is no proof for anything and therefore anything you come up with is a belief because there is no proof." or something along those lines.
You are making a claim that there is no proof either way, a claim I usually see from agnostic atheists who think ignorance is a basis for anything being possible despite plenty of proof that such is not the actual case.
One small note: you are using the word "belief" as if it always meant the same as the word "faith", when they have different definitions. A "faith" is a type of belief, but not every belief is a "faith" or even a "religion".
So how do you characterize a newborn baby? There has been no indoctrination, no inculcation of morals, rules, or habits, and the baby has no concept of a "god" and no proof of one (of course), so are you still saying that a baby is a "believer" simply because it lacks a belief or even a concept of one? You can't get much more of a blank slate than a baby.
On the other hand, I have seen people who deny that there is any proof without any sign of having looked for any in the first place – those people believe without proof that their views on proof are correct and violently deny any possibility that there could ever be proof or the question examined scientifically. Their religion is ignorance and they wallow in it much like you do.
If you love the idea of not knowing for sure, then the religion of ignorance is right up your alley, and you can call yourself an agnostic and refuse to face any facts whatsoever, as this would destroy your "faith" in your own ignorance and ruin the comfort zone of non-thinking, non-curious, deniers of everything under the sun.
There is proof of what I understand.
I do not have a 'faith' in facts or logic.
Facts have proof, logic proves itself to be a rational tool for analysis.
You deny any possibility that any facts exist that could support an atheist position, as well as deliberately avoiding facts in favor of your religion which states that no facts should be used for anything or else it cannot be labeled "faith".
There's another word for faith – a state of mind or conclusion that specifically avoids the use of anything real to reach that conclusion or state of mind – willful ignorance, gullibility, whatever you want to call it, it remains intellectually dishonest on the face of it.
Refusing to use facts or logic or epistemology to reach whatever conclusion you want is imbecilic and circular fraud.
You may not have noticed, but I don't get along with agnostic atheists or any agnostics for that matter. They insist I have no proof and could never have proof either way, like you do and even go so far as to characterize my position as being irrational to the point of unfounded belief or "faith" / religion, yet I am the one who insists on facts and logic while they are the ones who insist on denying the possibility of any facts or logic being useful because THEY do not know enough science they project this ignorance onto me and can't even describe what they think I don't know because they, being more ignorant, don't even have a place to start their arguments, and so they use ad hominem attacks instead of a real argument.
You haven't done much of that yet, so thank you for that, at least.
Your logical fallacy is in claiming you know what you also claim to be ignorant of. You say you know the extent of everyone's ignorance, yet you rely upon ignorance for your whole religion, rely upon it to claim that others don't know stuff you can't even describe, and you rely upon ignorance as if it were proof, as if you had already ruled things out when you've done everything you could to avoid that very thing – ruling things out.
A being who does not interact with this universe or us is not a "god" but just some creature. You claim omnipotence for a being? You'd better produce some proof or logical arguments as to how this omnipotence works, why you rely upon it as some sort of "fact" when it is illogical and paradoxical as well as being a baseless assertion or speculation.
A creature who does not interact with this continuum is not a "god" in any definition of the word, but just a neighbor of some sort. You can't claim omnipotence without any reason to do so.
Yes, there is no proof of your "god" or "gods" and you LIKE IT THAT WAY, and you have a real bias against anything that might prove the issue one way or the other. You cling to ignorance because you use ignorance as a justification for anything you want within your religion. It is a way of abdication from the argument, the issue, and in doing so you effectively show unyielding bias against any facts or logic and thus you lack any credibility where knowledge is concerned and have abdicated any responsibility towards being involved in a rational argument. You refuse the rational. You refuse to let any facts touch upon your religion because you think a baseless belief is a "holy" and magic thing for you.
If we lack omniscience, at least we do not lack all of science or logic and can try to reason things out, ruling things in or out as the case may be, unless religion is involved. Religion is nothing but an ideology that worships lies, fraud, ignorance and deliberately refuses all examination or analysis as this would show it for the fraud it really is.
You have not ruled anything in or out. You are refusing to deal with any facts or logic. Brainwashed people are not the ones I go to for a rational discussion. People who run away from the hard questions are not always religious, there are some atheists on here who always run away just like religious trolls. Do you want proof or would you rather not know for sure?
...
That's a question that used to be posed to people on here: If there was a box with absolute concrete proof one way or the other, would you open the box?
Answer that first. If you won't open the box, you prefer your ignorant comfort zone. If you would open the box, then you are not a total loss where reasonableness is concerned.
Crom,
Kev, you just made the claim that there are no facts. You said, "The only actual facts established is that there is just a lack of fact."
I'm guessing you are just trolling me now, as such a hypocritical (in view of your other assertions) and clearly illogical statement is just nonsense.
Yes, it is clearly hypocritical to my earlier statements that it is a clearly established fact that there is a god and that I don’t really believe because after all I know it is established fact. Oh wait…I didn’t say that. I actually said I believe in what I believe just like I also said that atheists believe in what atheists believe and that it was all belief. So then, according to you the idea of belief is in total contradiction with the idea that there is no established fact? And here I am thinking that if it was an established fact that there is a god, then I wouldn’t need to believe. Silly me.
You are making a claim that there is no proof either way, a claim I usually see from agnostic atheists who think ignorance is a basis for anything being possible despite plenty of proof that such is not the actual case.
Yes, do enlighten me. I’m surprised that despite all that you have said that you are absolutely certain that is not the actual case that you have not already presented the irrefutable proof?
One small note: you are using the word "belief" as if it always meant the same as the word "faith", when they have different definitions. A "faith" is a type of belief, but not every belief is a "faith" or even a "religion".
Did it ever occur to you when reading through my previous posts why I did not use the term “faith” or “religion” in defining atheism? It was because I never claimed that atheism was a religion or a faith. My claim was that atheism a belief, and to reinforce that claim I presented three different dictionary sources defining the term “atheism”. You’re the one who threw in the argument about atheism being a religion or a faith, and since you’re insinuating that I was using the word belief as being the same thing as faith or a religion then prove it.
So how do you characterize a newborn baby? There has been no indoctrination, no inculcation of morals, rules, or habits, and the baby has no concept of a "god" and no proof of one (of course), so are you still saying that a baby is a "believer" simply because it lacks a belief or even a concept of one? You can't get much more of a blank slate than a baby.
What are talking about? What I characterize a newborn baby to be is a blank slate who will receive and learn whatever ideas or conclusions that baby will have in due time, living and adjusting to life in a world without the established facts and those conclusions, what ever they may be, would be based on belief. Lack of established fact doesn’t in of itself automatically put anyone into any camp. It’s what you learn and the decisions you make in this world of uncertainty is where your beliefs will develop.
A being who does not interact with this universe or us is not a "god" but just some creature.
I never said that God doesn’t interact. I said I believe in a God who doesn’t want to be made known. Apparently you have a very limited idea of what the word “omnipotent” means.
You claim omnipotence for a being? You'd better produce some proof or logical arguments as to how this omnipotence works, why you rely upon it as some sort of "fact" when it is illogical and paradoxical as well as being a baseless assertion or speculation.
A creature who does not interact with this continuum is not a "god" in any definition of the word, but just a neighbor of some sort. You can't claim omnipotence without any reason to do so.
I never claimed that it was a fact. I claimed that I believed. Also, once again you seem to have a very limited idea as to what omnipotence is. You might think that it is illogical to believe in a god due to a lack of conclusive evidence when I could also easily claim that it is also illogical to conclude that there is no god for the very same reason. That perhaps it may be logical to be open to the possibility that the great complexities of life, of nature, of the universe could possibly be because it was designed, and just because you may not understand it all doesn’t mean that there is no plan or purpose behind it all. This would include both the good and bad out there.
Yes, there is no proof of your "god" or "gods" and you LIKE IT THAT WAY,
What makes you think that? I believe that there is a reason for not having the proof available. I never said I liked it or enjoyed it. Have you ever heard of the term “trial of faith”. Having faith isn’t an easy out. There is allot out there that actually tries a person’s faith, and if that is not the case then why are there so many atheists out there in the first place if there wasn’t something out there that caused one to question their faith. I do believe that God does give those trials of faith on purpose. That somehow these trials of faith are supposed to be for our benefit like the notion that what doesn’t kill you can make you stronger.
You cling to ignorance because you use ignorance as a justification for anything you want within your religion.
If that were true, there would have be no trials of faith, and in my experience, I’ve had allot of trials already testing my faith, and it is quite likely that there will be more.
It is a way of abdication from the argument, the issue, and in doing so you effectively show unyielding bias against any facts or logic and thus you lack any credibility where knowledge is concerned and have abdicated any responsibility towards being involved in a rational argument.
Just what facts, logic, or knowledge are you referring to because so far you haven’t presented anything. All you’ve done is make accusations without having anything to back those accusations up with. Once you present something then we’ll see.
If we lack omniscience, at least we do not lack all of science or logic and can try to reason things out, ruling things in or out as the case may be, unless religion is involved. Religion is nothing but an ideology that worships lies, fraud, ignorance and deliberately refuses all examination or analysis as this would show it for the fraud it really is.
Well, that goes back to my request that so far you haven’t delivered, which is to provide proof that there is no omnipotent being who does not to be made known but would rather have us develop faith in said being.
Now if you conclude that due to the lack of evidence proving that there is a god that you believe then that there is no god then fine. It’s not like I can prove those beliefs to be incorrect. However, when you claim that it is absolute knowledge that there is no god, that is where I say prove it.
You didn't say whether you would open the box or not. Well???
Yes, I've been asking you the whole time to present the box.
*facepalm*
You fail the test. No, scratch that. You are too dishonest or stupid or both to even take the test.
Son, I am disappoint.
Crom,
And yet, you failed to prove why.
All hail Kev, the mighty word twister!
Atheism = lack of belief in god, or if you prefer, I do not believe in a god.
That's a doctrine like not playing chess is a doctrine...... ... all the pi$$ing and moaning about "this means that" won't change that......
Do you ever wonder why academia doesn't come to you for definitions?
If you find that definition to be ridiculous to your own narrow POV, your narrow POV doesn't get to make the final definition.
Atheism is a 'belief" like not believing in the tooth ferry is a belief.
"It's simply lack of belief in a creator."
That's not true.
Atheism: "God does not exist"
Theism: "God exists."
Agnosticism: "There may or may not be a god."
What you did was redefine atheism to "a lack of belief in God." With your definition, atheism no longer becomes a viewpoint but a psychological state which can't be proven true or false. The absurdity of your claim can be demonstrated in the following conversation:
Julie: Congratulations Sarah, I just heard you had twins!
Sarah: Yes, thank. But, you know, it's sad...
Julie: What is?
Sarah: Well, there both atheists!
I guess that would mean my neighbor's dog is also an atheist.
The truth is that atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god.
Paul –
C'mon Paul. Redefining words and arguing semantics do no good.
To "believe there is no god." is to assume there is something not to believe in.
That is why atheist is defined as: LACK OF BELIEF in deity,
"a" =without, lack of.
"theist" = belief in deity
You may choose to define Atheism as an organized system of lack of belief if you wish.
You may self righteously proclaim; "Atheists believe in nothing!"
It really doesn't matter.
I will still lack belief in gods and so will my fellows while others of your ilk wonder at the god like nature of light bulbs and see special purpose in the design of bananas.
Your comments do serve a purpose in that anyone uncertain of their faith will, after reading your comments, jump ship and become an atheist.
"A' = lack of
"Theism" = belief in gods.
"A" + "Theism" = lack of belief in gods.
That's it, that's all.
"Atheism" is a negative statement that describes only what is NOT believed.
It is akin to describing the singer in a band as an "a-intrumentalist" – it only tells you what do not do.
We are all atheists. It is just that some of us believe in one fewer god than everyone else. 😉
Atheists BELIEVES that God never exixts.
Atheists BELIEVE that Jesus never exixts.
Atheists BELIEVE that there's no afterlife.
Atheists BELIEVE Bible is a book of fairytales.
Atheists BELIEVE that Darwin's (late) infatuation to an Urang-ontan at first sight in a zoo is anarguable fact.
Atheists BELIEVE that universe was created out of massive fart.
Atheists BELIEVE that Flying Spaghetti Monster is a powerful god when topped with chilli hot sauce and mozirilla cheese.
Thus, atheists are Bob Marlenians.
Christians BELIEVE there's some magical dude in the sky watching their every move and listening to their prayers when he's receiving millions more.
Christians BELIEVE dinosaur fossils were put on this earth to test people and real research is all a lie.
Christians BELIEVE that Cain getting married and having a family at a time when Eve was the only woman on Earth could be somehow plausible.
Christians BELIEVE that, despite their religion being fairly recent in the time scale of things and coming AFTER thousands of other religions and other Gods, that theirs is somehow "the true one".
Christians BELIEVE the Devil makes them do bad things instead of taking accountability for their own actions, decisions, and thoughts.
Christians BELIEVE that the people who wrote the book are somehow different than anyone today who hallucinates and claims to be a savior, messiah, a bringer of "god's" word, or a prophet. And make fun of them while failing to see the ridiculousness in themselves.
Christians BELIEVE that a world wide flood could actually occur after 40 days of rainfall, even though there are places on Earth that get that much rain today and don't flood on such a massive scale.
Christians BELIEVE that god created the sky out of water and that somehow their creation myth is somehow truer than the other millions of creation myths created to fill in the gaps.
Christians BELIEVE that there was a first day when there was nothing to orbit around the sun and spin on an axis, which is what makes a planet have a "day" in the first place.
Christians BELIEVE that doing good things as a result of wanting to get into heaven somehow makes them really good people, when they're only seeking a reward.
Christians also BELIEVE God came from nothing and was just always there. No parents, no birth, no nothing, was just floating in empty existence forever until he decided he wanted someone to worship him.
Christians USED to BELIEVE that the universe revolved around the Earth (guess God didn't want you to know the truth on that one), Christians USED to BELIEVE the Earth was roundish, but in a flat plate form, not spherical. And Christians ALSO used to believe that scientists questioning the church's lies were deemed worthy of killing.
Thus, all Christians are gullible idiots who question nothing as long as it comes from their 2000 year old made up book lol!
Atheists BELIEVES that God never exixts.
Atheists BELIEVE that Jesus never exixts.
Atheists BELIEVE that there's no afterlife.
Atheists BELIEVE Bible is a book of fairytales.
Atheists BELIEVE that (late) infatuation to an Urang-ontan at first sight in a zoo is an unarguable fact.
Atheists BELIEVE that universe was created out of massive fart.
Atheists BELIEVE that Flying Spaghetti Monster is a powerful god when topped with chilli hot sauce and mozirilla cheese.
Thus, atheists are Bob Marlenians.
nice1!LOL..
YES!
Christians BELIEVE there's some magical dude in the sky watching their every move and listening to their prayers when he's receiving millions more.
Christians BELIEVE dinosaur fossils were put on this earth to test people and real research is all a lie.
Christians BELIEVE that Cain getting married and having a family at a time when Eve was the only woman on Earth could be somehow plausible.
Christians BELIEVE that, despite their religion being fairly recent in the time scale of things and coming AFTER thousands of other religions and other Gods, that theirs is somehow "the true one".
Christians BELIEVE the Devil makes them do bad things instead of taking accountability for their own actions, decisions, and thoughts.
Christians BELIEVE that the people who wrote the book are somehow different than anyone today who hallucinates and claims to be a savior, messiah, a bringer of "god's" word, or a prophet. And make fun of them while failing to see the ridiculousness in themselves.
Christians BELIEVE that a world wide flood could actually occur after 40 days of rainfall, even though there are places on Earth that get that much rain today and don't flood on such a massive scale.
Christians BELIEVE that god created the sky out of water and that somehow their creation myth is somehow truer than the other millions of creation myths created to fill in the gaps.
Christians BELIEVE that there was a first day when there was nothing to orbit around the sun and spin on an axis, which is what makes a planet have a "day" in the first place.
Christians BELIEVE that doing good things as a result of wanting to get into heaven somehow makes them really good people, when they're only seeking a reward.
Christians also BELIEVE God came from nothing and was just always there. No parents, no birth, no nothing, was just floating in empty existence forever until he decided he wanted someone to worship him.
Christians USED to BELIEVE that the universe revolved around the Earth (guess God didn't want you to know the truth on that one), Christians USED to BELIEVE the Earth was roundish, but in a flat plate form, not spherical. And Christians ALSO used to believe that scientists questioning the church's lies were deemed worthy of killing.
Thus, all Christians are gullible idiots who question nothing as long as it comes from their 2000 year old made up book lol!
"From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' "
Creationists still don't get it. No, not all atheists believe that, they just reject your belief system about a creator. That doesn't mean they believe anything about ceasing to exist or reject belief in a soul / after life. I'm honestly tried of atheists getting falsely generalized by ignorant fundamentalists, who think that their their way of life is the only way. What's hilarious is that they say "thank god you're wrong", when their belief system is one of the most ridiculous concepts imaginable and has no objective evidence whatsoever in favor of it. Why are Christians so afraid to spread kindness and tolerance as Jesus would instead of attacking non believers and spreading propaganda and lies to reel in new followers? Why can't they teach folks about the positives involved with the religion such as compassion and empathy? Instead they waste money on billboard adds that essentially commercialize their religion and classify non believers wrongly, going against everything Jesus taught. There's a name for those folks. Hypochristians.
Because of the Prime Directive, aliens in Star Trek can't prove the existence of Captain Kirk, but we know he exists in the fictional universe of Star Trek.
Key word: Fiction.
I find it hard to believe that atheists are taunted by a billboard from a bunch of idiotic creationists. If anything I feel sorry for them.
It just makes me laugh, since it is a lie. They do not know if they are right or wrong, nor anyone else.
Yeah, it's always the same self righteous nonsense. These guys have huge egos and think that their way is the only way and indoctrinate their kids while they are young and impressionable, damaging them psychologically because they are so obsessed in thinking that their guess on the unknown is right. They are downright dishonest and attack atheists & scientists over it constantly.
As I pity a cashier who cannot do simple arithmetic without a calculator. Being stupid doesn't hurt the person who is stupid, it hurts those who have ability to see others struggle in their thinking. Very sad.
Does anyone else on here get a kick out of the old... "if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still having humans?" As if the Theory of Evolution ever states anythingof that nature or anyone who is familiar with Darwin would ever think this. That would be like saying a road runner is a descendent of a velociraptor, so how come velociraptors aren't having road runners pop out of their eggs?
Seriously? Unlike the creationists who say, God spit in some dirt and Wallah.. Adam. The Theory of Evolution involves centuries and centuries, eons and eons, of time and minor changes which could not be seen within anyone's lifespan oe even generations of a peron's lifespan. Difficult to believe? Easier than God snapped a rib out of Adam and Wallah! Eve.
Who made God? Blaspheme!!!! How dare you question the All Mighty?!?!
I'm pretty sure Darwin took questions.
I get a kick out of those who think because I believe in God the way I believe in a concept (like capitalism or socialism) that it means I think that this book is literal. I believe in God as a concept because I do not believe man should be man's final authority. If I believe in Free speech does it mean that I think "Free speech" is a guy with a beard named "Free speech" who hangs out in the sky? No. Guess again.
Aren't you the guy who was saying that Environmentalism didn't exist as a thing? You like that game, huh.
Just give me ONE evidence for evolution and I promise that I will NEVER go back to church again. Just one.
("and we can even go to a museum, but you must let me put these patches over my eyes")
Creationist,
1. No, it you are interested in the facts, study it yourself. It is very easy to find information.
2. Many churches accept evolution.
3. I couldn't care less if you go to church or not, just don't try to claim that your fantasies and superst.itions are facts.
* edit: if you are interested...
They are both wrong, there is no proof of a God but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
nor is absense of evidence evidence of presence
Justin here is something for you to think about. If we came from apes why are they still on the plant? If we was born from apes how come they stopped giving birth to humans.
0+0=1
If Americans came from England, then why are English people still here?
"common ancestry"
now say that to yourself a hundred times until it sinks in
"If we was born from apes how come they stopped giving birth to humans."
Good grief. Take a basic science class, for crying out loud. And and English class, too.
How about shut your mouth and smoke ANOTHER DOOBZZ loser.
No offence but apes are still giving birth to humans because humans are apes.
Nice ad hominem, Matty boy. Try again.
OMG there is no God
And you know that because?
Absence of evidence is:
a) No reason to form a hypothesis
b) No reason to assume something exists
c) No reason to decide there must be a supernatural
d) No reason to decide scientists are conspiring to conceal things
e) No reason to believe absolutes exist
f) a good thing if you have a criminal mind.
In order for us atheists to be wrong, then the creationists must have some proof hidden away somewhere that this imaginary friend of theirs who lives in the sky actually exists. Do these silly people really think it's worth wasting all that money for a billboard whose message has no foundation whatsoever? Come on here, folks! Ancient fairytales by ignorant people are not something you should follow as a guide for life. Yeesh!
Atheism is not a belief, but the absence of belief. It really should not be addressed or even discussed.
Wasting all that money? How about people like Dawkins who spend most of their lives trying to disprove other peoples beliefs, rather than forming legitimate opinions of their own?
Which of Dawkins' opinions are not legitimate?
Most of them. I love the fact that he will diminish the possibility of creationism, yet he has issues articulating he own thoughts on the beginning of life.
Um. What?
Both could save costs by sharing the costs of ONE billboard that reads: "The other guy is wrong"
Infantile.