Changing the topic Ftw!


Actually Christian Orthodox is, I forgot the reason for the split though.

EDIT: Well I tried...

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 17 2010, 7:40 pm by Wing Zero.

That's exactly what Atheists love to tell themselves, because as soon as they realize that they're doing the exact thing they shunned, they no longer are happy with those beliefs. Most atheists believe in Evolution, that new species simply evolve over time, when after years of study on fruit-flies, there has been no sign of new species to the point where they can no longer breed with the original version. It is faith that's leading this belief, not fact, and therefore atheism is a religion.

Note the "as much as [...] (or more than)".
I was responding in the context of Falkoner's post, where he was referring to the common usage of the word, not its proper usage.
Being too lazy to bother responding to the rest of your argument, I would just like to point out:
Even if you want to try the "Evolution is faith" bit (which I'm sure plenty of other people'd be happy to argue all day with you about), atheism and evolution hold no fundamental relation.

Okay then, are you implying that Atheists simply ignore the thought of the Earth's formation? Somehow they have to prove it, and it's pretty much always through Evolution.

Uh... by "Earth", do you mean "Earth's biosphere"?
If that is the case, then as I mentioned, there are plenty who'd love to argue with you on that point.
Personally, I've come to be lazy as ass over the past few months, however.
My point was that whether or not evolution is valid as a best theory, it has nothing to do with whether or not "atheism" refers to an unverified assumption.

No, the were one and the same. Prior to the schism, Christians didn't call themselves Christian Orthodox or Catholics. The schism is the reason the names exist. The Great Schism

It is not belief because the very definition of atheism is to lack belief. If you think there is faith involved then it is not atheism. You are ignoring the definition of the word. If someone says they believe that there is no god, that statement is not atheism.
You cannot believe in evolution because it is science. You know evolution. You believe in creationism.

I lol'd.

But seriously, the reason that atheists suck is because they're even worse than the christian fire and brimstone guys. So some christian guy goes out to a street corner and starts preaching fire and brimstone and pisses everyone off, so instead of ignoring him, the atheists feel for some reason that they deserve a response, so they send five or six minions to his street corner and yell and scream and make signs and question everything the fire and brimstone guy says. Not only that, but they're twice as loud, twice as rude, and because they believe they're so superior to the dumbass christian "believer," they end up becoming twice the asshole that the christian guy has been.


Obviously this doesn't apply to all atheists or all christians, but as always a small subgroup will give the larger group a bad name.

Do not use dictionary.com the second def is the correct one.

You can't say a red balloon is blue just because you redefine the word "blue." Likewise, you can't separate atheism from belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, or to put it in negative terms, the disbelief in God. It is not a fact, it is not a theory, it is neither proven nor disproven, it is fully defined and concrete. If your beliefs differ from this belief, then call yourself something other than atheist, but don't confuse everyone with your nonsense.

I lol'd again.

The definition of atheism has not changed. It might evoke personal connotations for some, such as Psalm 53 in the Bible stating they are corrupt fools who do nothing good, but the established definition has remained consistent to my above quote.

How the universe was created is not defined by atheism, nor should it be. You may have spoken with a number of atheists who accept scientific theories like the Big Bang and evolution, but failure to subscribe to these ideas does not disqualify someone as an atheists. In fact, an atheist can believe anything beyond gods and still fit the definition.

There are, in actuality, several atheistic religions -- that is, religions without gods -- such as Jainism and Buddhism. However, atheism itself is no more a religion than theism is. Both are merely terms to distinguish the belief or disbelief in gods.




Simply because religion requires faith does not mean that faith necessitates religion. I have faith in my family's love for me, but does that make it a religion? No. The correlation between religion and faith only goes in one direction, not both.

Like the word "belief", faith has multiple meanings. This can cause misinterpretations, particularly in this type of debate where religious adherents seem to favor equivocating upon the term. It should be stressed that when one definition of a word applies, it does not mean that all definitions apply or that they are freely interchangeable without regard of context. The example of faith used in the above paragraph, as a secular synonym of trust, is simple confidence based upon past experience. This brand of faith is not limitless; it should only go as far as evidence warrants. In religion, faith means far more: a belief without or in spite of evidence.

Falkoner, it would appear your goal in labeling atheism as a religion is to establish hypocrisy, wherein atheists would have no further grounds to criticize other religions. In order to accomplish this, you are twisting words like faith and appending what amount to stereotypes to the definition of atheism to suit your own purposes. This is a gross misuse of language.

---

Vrael, did you seriously just do a "Find All: belief"? I've recolored where your position was inaccurate. Why is "disbelief" a negative term, by the way? The prefix dis- just means "lack of/not."

What is important to notice here is that when multiple definitions are given in one source, they separate the lack of belief from the assertion that there are no gods. I explained the difference between the two in my previous posts.


.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Feb 18 2010, 1:47 am by Hercanic.

You are right they WERE one and the same, however after the schism the western (catholic) church changed its principles and practices while the eastern (orthodox) church didn't change anything but its name. What I'm trying to say is the eastern orthodox church is still the original Christian church albeit with a different name. This means that Roman catholicism branched off of the original religion which eventually led to other religions branching off of it.

Your arguing semantics, and you're still wrong. Disbelief just means that you don't believe. If I have disbelief in God, I don't believe in God. There's no difference. Atheism is a religion in that it is the absense of theistic beliefs. It is not an organized religion, unlike many thiestic religions. Stop arguing over a retarded minutiae.

You are sadly mistaken if you believe eastern orthodox churches are exactly the same as early churches.

Can we argue that the current version of starcraft is not really the original starcraft because Blizzard has issued patches that changed the game?

I am Agnostic, hear me


In related news, I loled at all of this because none of the flaming applies to me. I believe that, due to the nature of God, and the relation of faith to God, we can never definitively know whether God is real or not. By proving His own existence, He would make it impossible for people to follow based on faith. While sin still had not entered man's heart, He made His presence known. Now that it's here, God allows only the worthy into heaven, and those probably don't include too many people who need hard evidence to be convinced. I would propose to you a God Paradox:

Paradox time!

If God has unlimited power, can he create something that is impossible for him to move? Assume, regardless of any other belief you may have, that God has unlimited power.

1. Because God has unlimited power, He can do any task.
   
2. Because God has unlimited power, He can create an object that is impossible to move.
   
3. Because God has unlimited power, He can move any object.
   
4. God cannot move the object.
   

Assuming that God does indeed have unlimited power, lines one through three are inherently true. The fourth line stems from the fact that because the object is defined as entirely immobile (2), even God cannot move it. Regardless of line four's truth or falsehood, the first line at least is disproved.
If God failed to create an entirely immobile object, then he failed lines 1 and 2. If he succeeds in moving the object, he fails lines 1 and 2.

EDIT: I am dying to ask...what happens if we die, and we find out that everyone was wrong, and Scientology was right?

... There was a fantastic quote about that somewhere on SEN. Just because you play with words like that doesn't make it mean anything. I'm hoping Syphon (I think it's him) will come along and properly lambast you for that, poison.

Lol, dumbducky, you haven't refuted what I said. Disbelief, not believing, don't believe, and lack of belief are indeed all the same thing. You are absolutely right. What I said was different was the assertion that there are no gods, "God does not exist." If you still do not understand how they are separate or why it matters after reading my earlier posts, I will happily re-explain in another way.

There is no God is the corollary to I don't believe in God. If you agree with the latter then you believe in the former. If you believe in the former then you agree with the latter. If you do either one but not the other, you are completely illogical.

Quote from Centreri

... There was a fantastic quote about that somewhere on SEN. Just because you play with words like that doesn't make it mean anything. I'm hoping Syphon (I think it's him) will come along and properly lambast you for that, poison.

Surely he can't ...lambast... me for using logic! what does "lambast" mean? Oh, nevermind. I'm screwed. Last time I try using logic in a thread which has Syphon active in it.

As a sidenote, I was unaware that it was previously used. My sincerest apologies to the original poster.

Perhaps this is what you mean:


And Hercanic I was going to PM you this but you're out of PM space:
"Corbo, did you seriously just do a "Find All: belief"? I've recolored where your position was inaccurate. Why is "disbelief" a negative term, by the way? The prefix dis- just means "lack of/not."

What is important to notice here is that when multiple definitions are given in one source, they separate the lack of belief from the assertion that there are no gods. I explained the difference between the two in my previous posts.


. "

I'm Vrael

disbelief is the negative "dis" + belief. That's all I meant by negative. I don't understand the importance of the rest of what you've said, sorry.