One thing that that really get's to me is theist who think they have the right to not be offended and all people who enable this behaviour.
I find it hard to find a theist who will have an open discussion about why they believe in a personal god at all or why they think their god is real and all the other ones aren't. Yesterday I remarked on the hypocritical nature of the followers of xtianity and was met with no argument as to why what I said was wrong but that it was rude. When I asked why it was considered rude I was told that I should have respect for peoples religion. I disagree, I'll respect your right to have religion, by all means believe whatever crackpot fairy tales you like but if you are not willing to be offended and stand up for what you believe in then you need to take a serious look into why that is.
Most of the theists I know don't argue because they do not even care weather or not their god exists, they go to church on Sunday and go about their lives as if they were Atheists. But I know there are theists out there who might care but are too afraid of being offended by talking to an evil non believer so they just tell you that you are rude.
Are people just being too polite or am i really too insensitive?
There are no discrepancies between reason the christian faith. It's a hell of a lot to go into but they are complementary.
Speaking of Hell... that's one discrepancy! Many more where that came from. Your assertion that there are none says a lot.
Yes atheism does rely on science to refute god and i would like to know how christianity refutes god?
All you need to be an atheist is to NOT be a theist. People that believe the universe was created by a magic butterfly are not theists and they don't need science to disprove your god. I don't need science to disprove your god.
Athiesm and Christianity both rely solely on one primary assumption or faith regarding the existence of god.
Atheism relies on nothing. All you need to do to be an atheist is to not be a theist.
If you simply do not believe in a god but are not certain of the origins of the world then you are an Agnostic.
Sorry, it is you that is confused. Atheist means NOT a theist. Theism / atheism deals with belief and gnostic / agnostic deals with knowledge. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a theistic god... I do not know a god does not exist. You are most likely an agnostic theist.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with hell, what about it?
If all you need to be an atheist is not to be a theist, this means you must be convinced that there is no god. Because there is no way to prove that god does not exist it is therefore a belief system centered around a central unprovable belief. I will restate what i said before, atheism relies on the assertion that god does not exist, without this assertion atheism does not exist.
When i say that atheism relies on science to refute god, i am not referring explicitly to "the sciences" but to science in the traditional sense, study of all aspects of the world including reason.
I apologize, with regards to the agnostic definition i was getting ahead of myself. You are correct that being an agnostic is simply not knowing. However I don't agree with you calling yourself an agnostic atheist or suggesting that i am an agnostic theist, i understand the point you are attempting to make, but the names Christianity and Atheism immediately imply conviction in a belief system. One should not carry the name christian or atheist without being certain of their belief that god does exist or god does not exist. By calling yourself an agnostic it means that you do not know and are not convicted of any particular belief system.
This is where your fatal flaw lies, Ray - you suggested earlier that most atheists really don't understand the meaning of atheism, but I maintain that it is you, who do not. You said, "the names Christianity and Atheism immediately imply conviction in a belief system," and that, for atheism at least, is entirely false.
Atheism involves a LACK of a belief system, not a conviction in one. "But don't you BELIEVE god doesn't exist?" you would likely ask. And I would say, no, it doesn't have anything to do with belief - god simply does not exist until I can see, hear, smell touch or taste him, or until someone brings me some irrefutable evidence. I feel the same way about leprechauns. but I DO like their Lucky Charms. (They're magically delicious!)
One should not carry the name christian or atheist without being certain of their belief that god does exist or god does not exist.
While it is not an intrinsic characteristic of atheism, one of the reasons many people abandon theistic beliefs is that such certainty is impractical and intellectually dishonest.
While the 'lack of belief' sort of definition was not simply conjured out of thin air by modern atheists, the prevalence of this definition is growing in response to the way the philosophies supporting disbelief are evolving. We have the right to evolve our own philosophical positions.
The major function of the term 'atheism' is not to trap us in some brutally static philosophical construct which you happen to find convenient. The core aspect of the term is to set a category apart from theism. This is an especially useful distinction in any circumstance where religious belief is the status quo. As long as we are true that essential distinction, we really don't need you to tell us why we are here on a site named Think Atheist.
What you are doing here is akin to telling someone born and raised in Tokyo that they aren't Japanese because they don't eat with chopsticks.
It's like a warped 'no true scotsman' now that I think about it.
Oyé, Ramón - I found this specifically with you in mind:
I don't have to use science to refute a god... There is simply nothing there to suggest that there is one?
Who is to say that a 'god' is necessary for the existence of this universe? Who came up with that assumption? You can step even further back and ask. Does this universe have a cause? and then ask. What is it? There's nothing to suggest that the cause has to fall into the very vague definition of 'god'..much less a more specific and narrow version of that definition. (a particular religions definition of god)
One can easily choose not to accept ANY of the god proposals as viable explanations for our existence. Those that do not accept any of these god proposals are atheist.
This has to be a troll but anyway.
Atheism, by name, is the belief that God does not exist and because the non existence of God cannot be proven Atheism relies on an unproven assumption, a faith.
There is your first mistake Atheism by definition is simply a lack of belief in a god. It is not the belief in no god. You see the difference?
One reasoning of the existence of God that i find quite compelling is Thomas Aqunas' 5 proofs. If you are not familiar with them, i will outline them briefly. What is interesting to note is that although they rely heavily on assumptions, they are extremely diffucult to refute, the first three at least.
There are your (and Aquinis') next 5 mistakes. The first mover/first cause arguments are contradicting arguments and Question begging. To say that Atheist argue something from nothing is a straw man fallacy. Also where exactly does one make the leap to "there must be a god" from this argument? Evolution theory explains the early humans' need for the concept of god for our survival as a species until we outgrow this need intellectually. The cause for design argument is in itself wrong, why make the assumption that everything in existence has a design at all?
If you are really not a troll you have a massive pile of reading to do!
Sorry to say this is not a troll and believe me i have done my fair share of reading. I don't think you are completely understanding the point of my statements.
Saying that atheism is a lack of belief is a general statement. If you do not know whether or not a god exists then you are an agnostic. If you claim that there is no god and and do not believe that there is a god you are an atheist. The prefix "a" actually means "no" or "not".
What also needs to be clarified is that Aquinas' "proofs" are simply the first steps to recognizing that there is no scientific or reasonable explanation for the first cause of the universe. I even admitted earlier that the fourth and fifth "proofs" were no longer as consequential because they can now be explained by science, but i in no way attempt to suggest that these "proofs" explicitly prove the existence of god only leave you with a choice: To believe that a god was the cause for the universe, that there is no cause for the universe, or that the cause for the universe is incomprehensible by man at this point. Please realize that these "proofs" are not really proofs in the literal sense but are questions that must be asked when deciding whether or not there is a god.
I also find it necessary to say that we should be careful when using scientific theories , theories are essentially unproven hypotheses based on inconclusive research, these theories are by no means wrong but are at present without conclusive evidence.
If all you need to be an atheist is not to be a theist, this means you must be convinced that there is no god. Because there is no way to prove that god does not exist it is therefore a belief system centered around a central unprovable belief.
That would make you a troll... because I have explained how your definition of atheism is wrong and I've read others explaining it to you as well... but you ignore it and continue with your same failed argument.
However I don't agree with you calling yourself an agnostic atheist or suggesting that i am an agnostic theist,
I don't care if you don't agree. I am right and you are still desperately trying to label atheism as a belief system. It is not and that has been made abundantly clear to you.
Hell is proof your god does not exist. It is in clear contradiction of what your religion claims about your god. No matter how you try to spin it, your god is 100% responsible for hell and everyone that ends up there. Your god and hell make a perfect square circle.
The existence of just 1 atheist disproves the claims made about your god. Your god wants everyone to believe, and he is in 100% control of the life experience for every human on this planet. God knows exactly what life experience every person needs to lead us to him yet he only gives these experiences to some. If he gives this to some why does he not give them to all? How is it fair not to?
Your god being hidden is proof he does not exist. The claims made about your god are in direct contradiction to the fact that your god hides himself. There is no good reason to keep hidden.... if you think there is, give me your best single reason and I'll explain why you are wrong.
Haven't you heard, Ben? - god works in mysterious ways --
Ray is using an English dictionary to provide a definition of "a," to mean, "not," while my definition is directly from the original Latin, meaning, "without." When in Rome -- (If you're going to use Latin words, use Latin definitions!)
RE: "The prefix "a" actually means "no" or "not"." - Incorrect, it's from the Latin and means, "without," "sin," "sans," "ain't got no."
RE: "be careful when using scientific theories , theories are essentially unproven hypotheses based on inconclusive research, these theories are by no means wrong but are at present without conclusive evidence."
I really rolled on the floor when I read that - religion consists of guesswork, based on feelings, without any evidence whatsoever, or, as Robert A. Heinlein put it, "Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there."
RE: "Atheism relies on an unproven assumption, a faith" - not at all, Ray, you tried this on the other thread, verbatim, and it didn't fly there either.
I have no feeling one way or the other about pink unicorns, which would make me, "a-unicorn," but if someone were to come along with evidence that pink unicorns exist, I would have reason to believe in them.
"A-theist" simply means, "without (a) god," and has nothing to do with a belief or lack of belief. Newborn babies have no belief systems, but they are also atheists, and will be, until someone begins filling their little heads with religion.
All the rest is 300 BCE Aristotelian quasi-logic from days when the earth was believed flat, and has been refuted ad nauseum.
You know your third premise is BS: "Logically something must come from something, nothing cannot create something." I even posted the Lawrence Krause video, "Something From Nothing" for your education, but either you didn't watch it or you didn't learn anything from it, because here you are, posting the came crap on THIS thread.
We're all waiting for you to show us evidence for the existence of a god, as was requested on the other thread - did you think that by running to another thread, you could outrun that request?