Losing my Religion

a reply to: Grimpachi

True. I missed. Finished the video and just hit reply on the thread instead of the OP. Thanks for pointing that out.

a reply to: misskat1

Hey there. Made a response a couple back to you. To add to that response, if you had knowledge, that fight wouldn't be happening. You held onto something you were told and never read to actually learn what was being said. You could have only been convinced by the arguments within the links you put forth if you never actually read the Bible. It's a very common problem. Lots of people who claim they read and that they know. Lots of people are wrong. It's sad. But it seems like you just want to leave the faith because life is hard for you. Or maybe you're just bored. Either way, if you've been going 50 years into it, then it seems either like the best or the worst time to change faith. Based on your post, I would say the latter. Good evening from my perception!

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

no, i'm saying atheists are scientific pragmatists, who devalue other people to the level of an animal, based on their usefulness to science

That's ridiculous.

If anything, as an atheist, I value people more. I'm not hung up on some doctrine that divides people.

Let's talk about Chritisn Missionaries invading countries/cultures.

Let's provide FACTS.

Atheist/atheism is a noun (no action) that means one thing only: lack of a belief in a God.

Atheist "Philosophy" is the Personal Belief of an individual who also claims atheism. The action of belief is in the Philosophy not atheism. Atheism has no action or belief.

Pragmatism is a philosophy. It is the action/belief. Atheism has no belief or action.

You can be a Pragmatic God believer as easily as one who lacks belief.

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870.[1] Pragmatism is a rejection of the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.[2] Instead, pragmatists consider thought to be a product of the interaction between organism and environment. Thus, the function of thought is as an instrument or tool for prediction, action, and problem solving. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.

Religious Tolerance

"Apatheism concerns not what you believe but how. In that respect it differs from the standard concepts used to describe religious views and people. [Strong] Atheism, for instance, is not at all like apatheism; the hot-blooded atheist cares as much about religion as does the evangelical Christian, but in the opposite direction. "Secularism" can refer to a simple absence of devoutness, but it more accurately refers to an ACLU-style disapproval of any profession of religion in public life -- a disapproval that seems puritanical and quaint to apatheists.

Terminology: The term "Apatheism" is a portmanteau 1 -- a combination of two words. They may be considered a fusing of: bullet "Apathy" and "Theism" or bullet "Apathy and "Atheism." When spoken, the emphasis is on the "pa," as in the word "apathy." Apatheism is more an attitude than a belief or belief system. An Apatheist is a person who regards the question of the existence or non-existence of a god or gods to be essentially meaningless and irrelevant. However, some define the term more broadly to refer to apathy towards all religions or belief systems, not just toward a belief in god. Unlike most Theists, Agnostics, Atheists, etc, an Apatheist doesn't really care whether it is possible to prove either the existence or non-existence of a god. Apatheism is a.k.a. pragmatic Atheism, and practical Atheism. An associated term is Apathetic Agnosticism, a.k.a. Pragmatic Agnosticism. This is the view that millennia of debate has neither proven nor disproven the existence of a god or gods. However, even if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Thus, their existence has little impact on humanity and should be of little interest.

www.religioustolerance.org...

a reply to: Annee

let's talk about this christian who is not a missionary and is not invading other countries. you keep wanting to use generalizations and every time i go there with ya, you say no no, not generalized, unique, individual. so which is it?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

let's talk about this christian who is not a missionary and is not invading other countries. you keep wanting to use generalizations and every time i go there with ya, you say no no, not generalized, unique, individual. so which is it?

So are you saying you are against generalizations? If that is the case then why do you insist on doing it to atheists? Either it is acceptable to generalize to all or none you decide.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

let's talk about this christian who is not a missionary and is not invading other countries. you keep wanting to use generalizations and every time i go there with ya, you say no no, not generalized, unique, individual. so which is it?

So are you saying you are against generalizations? If that is the case then why do you insist on doing it to atheists? Either it is acceptable to generalize to all or none you decide.

because that's the way this thread is structured. we are discussing generalizations about christianity vs. atheism, not specifics. and when specifics are discussed, they threaten to take the thread off topic. i'm just following the flow. i can go back to individual approach but the answers will all be different, as some atheists believe one part of one thing and some believe another part of another thing, which is true for everyone, regardless of world view.

so are we going to specific individuals now or are we generalizing?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

let's talk about this christian who is not a missionary and is not invading other countries. you keep wanting to use generalizations and every time i go there with ya, you say no no, not generalized, unique, individual. so which is it?

You are generalizing atheist.

Pragmatic Christan. Pragmatic Atheist.

The Philosphy is Pragmatic. With Christians you add a whole bunch more Dogma. With Atheists you add nothing.

a reply to: Annee

there are types of dogma for atheism but they aren't applicable across the board. for example, evolutionary theory is a dogmatic position of many but not all, atheists. there are also christians who believe in evolutionary theory and christians who don't, for various reasons. that's what i don't like about these kinds of threads cause they assume stuff and force others to enter the arena of assumption as well, since it's hard to respond to a generality without a generality.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

there are types of dogma for atheism

No, there isn't.

You'd have to add an adjective.

for example: 300 years ago or so, the roman catholic hierarchy enacted the inquisition. this was used primarily against protestants. today, as a protestant christian, i get blamed for the inquisition even though people who had a similar faith to my own, were the actual victims of the inquisition. generalizations are often not accurate as you are becoming aware, as well, but if you want to talk in generalizations, i can find things that are applicable to atheist positions, such as eugenics, even if you don't personally agree to it, there's sure to be high ranking atheists of infamy who have pulled that kind of rabbit outta their hat, and which you can be equally blamed for under the heading of "stereotyping"

Atheist/Atheism ---- has no action ----- has no belief.

Period.

Kinda like Cup-a-Noodles. You have to add water to make it soup.

originally posted by: Annee
Atheist/Atheism ---- has no action ----- has no belief.

Period.

Kinda like Cup-a-Noodles. You have to add water to make it soup.

so famous atheists who do bad things are not guilty of doing bad things because they're atheists, they are doing bad things because ??

a reply to: undo

That's right. Atheism does not justify nor condone people doing bad things. Atheism is just the lack of belief in gods and that is all, however some people believe that the lack of belief in gods is a bad thing and their faith does justify and condone that thought.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

so atheism as a world view, is totally bullet proof.

originally posted by: undo
well if you're so logical and intelligent, why don't you accept that these

~ Do you believe that abortion should be acceptable in society?
~ Do you believe women should be considered equal?
~ Do you believe ghosts exist?
~ Do you believe Aliens Exist?
~ Do you accept the scientific theory of evolution?

are also answered differently by different christians, even within the same denomination of christianity. lol

I'm fully aware that many Christians would answer those differently. Actually, it's one reason why I find religion so ridiculous. There are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations, yet so many members of the body of Christianity will claim that the bible is clear, true, and infallible. I would be more convinced of those traits if there were simply one distinct 'Christianity'. That is not the case.

In fact, you list the very reason why that is not the case; Individuality. Everyone views it differently because it is fallible, untrue, and most certainly blurry beyond recognition. They individually pick and choose which instances within Christianity's texts suit their own personal views of the world. Many of them even commit heinous acts against humanity and justify them through those very texts.

I find it particularly ironic that you state that individuality is not animalistic, considering that Evolution intrinsically involves non-stop individual gene pools that are never identical even within the same species, unless they are a direct clone. Biological reproduction with variation cannot exist without individuality.

I'm afraid that you are simply arguing from the wrong side. If you'd like I can elaborate on that notion?

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

Well, I can see where you would get that implication. It depends on the filter you`re viewing the context of the sentence through. When I said "Bad means good these days...Gay people...they are now accepted" ...I meant that people use to say `Well, that`s a good thing, or that's a good tattoo`, now people say...``That`s Bad man!`` or ``That`s a Bad tattoo``.
In reference to the gays not being accepted, I was simply saying that gay`s used to NOT be accepted...and now they are. There was really nothing to read into there other than the fact. If one is viewing this through a negative filter.....yes, one could imply that I was making the statement because I did not agree with gays being equal. Not the case.

Then I sincerely apologize for my accusations. From the view that I read it from it sounded as if you believed -personally- that the old view of things was the correct view, and now everything is changing.

originally posted by: undo
so atheism as a world view, is totally bullet proof.

Considering it isn't a world view, this assumption is incorrect.

The only thing that Atheism involves is the lack of belief in a god. Not sure how many times every person in this thread needs to explain that to you. It has no views on the worlds structure, or social structure because the ONLY THING that Atheism deals with is the lack of belief in a god.

Perhaps the reason why you feel as if non of your accusations and claims are making any damage to what you're arguing is because you're arguments literally have no foundation due to your misunderstanding of what Atheism - by definition - is.

There is only one thing that can disprove Atheism, and that is if a god really does exist! It's not that nothing else can touch it because we -the evil atheists- have formed this psychological barrier of impervious protection from outside information and views. It's because Atheism doesn't deal with anything other than the lack of belief of a god!

originally posted by: undo
so atheism as a world view, is totally bullet proof.

No, it just describes a lack of belief in gods.


It is pretty common with humans so they came up with a word.

doesn't that kinda make you unimpeachable because no matter what an individual atheist does, none of it can ever be blamed on their lack of belief in a god, since their lack of belief in a god, has nothing to do with their behavior? and in fact, it actually makes them superior to people who do believe in a god, because, well, humans do bad things but only people who believe in a god can be accused of doing bad things, since in their case the word "belief" is involved and atheists don't believe in anything.

man it's like the perfect defense. can't be blamed for anything but can sure as hell point out everyone else's faults. i'd say i want to sign up for the defense part, but i don't think i understand it yet.

originally posted by: undo
doesn't that kinda make you unimpeachable because no matter what an individual atheist does, none of it can ever be blamed on their lack of belief in a god, since their lack of belief in a god, has nothing to do with their behavior? and in fact, it actually makes them superior to people who do believe in a god, because, well, humans do bad things but only people who believe in a god can be accused of doing bad things, since in their case the word "belief" is involved and atheists don't believe in anything.

man it's like the perfect defense. can't be blamed for anything but can sure as hell point out everyone else's faults. i'd say i want to sign up for the defense part, but i don't think i understand it yet.

God belief has its own dogma.

Atheist does not. It's not "lack of belief", therefore I believe . . .

You have to add a descriptive/philosophy etc.