|
Porn causes atheism? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lightspeed
Evolution and Big Bang theories are wayy more far fetched than creationism. It takes more faith to believe in alot of these ideas than it does to believe in god. The organic mechanics of all matter are too complex for them to have evolved. |
:wtf: Jesus just did a facepalm. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| I love this proposition that people hide behind their disbelief so that they can live lives of sin. It seems to me that many Christians hide behind reconciliation so that they can do the very same thing. Moreover; the hiding behind disbelief so that atheists don't fear their sinful ways (you in' heathens) really applies to persons who don't believe in the Abrahamic faiths... presuming that most atheists don't believe in any god(s) then what are they hiding from in Hinduism, Shintoism, Jainism, etc.? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
then what are they hiding from in Hinduism, Shintoism, Jainism, etc.? |
the darkies. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the darkies. |
Wouldn't most the adherents of those groups be better referred to as the tannies? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Wouldn't most the adherents of those groups be better referred to as the tannies? |
:stongue: :stongue: like most of the times we chat, i stand corrected!! |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
atheists dont need proof because they dont believe in anything. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
| quote: | | Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism. |
Be a position pro-theist or atheist, it's still pretty much stupid to claim something you can't prove. Until you have facts, it's only guessing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by boris_the_bear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Be a position pro-theist or atheist, it's still pretty much stupid to claim something you can't prove. Until you have facts, it's only guessing. |
its interesting you only bothered to read the wiki article to that line, otherwise you would have come across all this
| quote: |
Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[30] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[31] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.
...
Philosophers such as Antony Flew[35], Michael Martin[24], and William L. Rowe[36] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[37] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[35] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[38] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.
...
Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[37] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[35] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[38] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists. |
|
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
I think that there is a fine distinction to be made in the definition of what atheism is... some argue it is the assertion that there is/are no god(s), others argue it is the non-belief in god(s)... the former being an assertive definition and the latter a passive one. The problem lies in that many will make assertive arguments but rely on the passive definition. This problem is further complicated in that many view the terms atheist and secularist as one in the same... calling themselves atheist when what they are really doing is promoting secularist positions... the end result is that all these terms are fluid so that no meaningful debate is possible. Personally, I view atheism only in the assertive definition... the passive I view as either apathetic or agnostic.
FYI, I view the assertive atheist position and the assertive theist position as being equally illogical as both are inferences made from insufficient or imperfect evidence. |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
its interesting you only bothered to read the wiki article to that line, otherwise you would have come across all this |
obviously i meant "strong atheism" :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
I was at Nails' Wave Goodbye tour a week ago and I must say that screaming "GOD IS DEAD" at the top of my lungs along with 5,000 other people as storms began gathering over the amphitheatre is an experience I wouldn't trade for many things.
I don't like to speak on behalf of atheists, as I do not really identify myself as such, but I think it's interesting that if God were to come down during that show and give us all really mean looks, it would have made a believer out of me. Though if someone who believes in God were to experience an utter absence of God, for even just a moment, it likely wouldn't sway their faith a bit. I really don't know if there is anything to make of this. |
|
|
| Lightspeed |
How is what I said dumb? It was proven by a creation scientist already that more "faith" is needed to believe in Evolution then it does in creation.
Its funny how you athiests can defend the idea that a secular scientist (a normal human being) can tell us that the world is billions of years old? How can he do this? Does he have supernatual powers?
Have you guys heard of the polarnium halos law? How about intelligent design? Like I said the mechanics of all matter work like mini factories, DESIGNED FACTORIES.
Plus theres more evidence that Jesus lived then there is that Cesar ever existed at all. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lightspeed
How is what I said dumb? It was proven by a creation scientist already that more "faith" is needed to believe in Evolution then it does in creation.
Its funny how you athiests can defend the idea that a secular scientist (a normal human being) can tell us that the world is billions of years old? How can he do this? Does he have supernatual powers?
Have you guys heard of the polarnium halos law? How about intelligent design? Like I said the mechanics of all matter work like mini factories, DESIGNED FACTORIES.
Plus theres more evidence that Jesus lived then there is that Cesar ever existed at all. |
so if things were proven, then lets see this proof.
after that i wanna see the proof that everyone i fap to comes from a rib. |
|
|
|
|
