Ok...does god love you?

[Michel Foucault]

It's impossible to be a full fledged atheist.

 

[The Little Boy]

It's impossible to be a full fledged atheist.

Oh, this reminds me of "it's impossible to be completely gay or straight"!

So, why is it impossible?

 

[Michel Foucault]

Oh, this reminds me of "it's impossible to be completely gay or straight"!

So, why is it impossible?

Hmm, I don't understand the first part of your post, or why you think your example of sexuality has anything to do with my previous post.

To answer your question:

Atheism is the belief in the absence or rejection of deities. To get to the basic form of what entails in the atheistic beliefs, atheism means that everything know of in this world and our universe cannot be true or proven true. Our reality and lives do not have any meaning, value, etc. This is what the most basic form of atheism comprises of. A lot of atheists do not realize that their lack of beliefs in a deity entails much more than just the basic lack of belief. Many atheists scramble to use science to back their beliefs, but how can reasoning be done in science without their being a precursor to science and human reasoning. An atheist, with their reasoning and rationality, has to step into the theistic world to “prove” what they believe in, but their actions of reasoning and rationalizing contradict their atheistic beliefs. Anyone living today in the world cannot ever be a full fledged atheist as long as they are able to think. There is not anyway a human can think without there being something before humans and the universe to give us a "gift" of thinking that entails rationality and reasoning. Atheism is impossible because atheists are contradicting in their own "beliefs."

 

[halcyondays]

Hmm, I don't understand the first part of your post, or why you think your example of sexuality has anything to do with my previous post.

To answer your question:

Atheism is the belief in the absence or rejection of deities. To get to the basic form of what entails in the atheistic beliefs, atheism means that everything know of in this world and our universe cannot be true or proven true. Our reality and lives do not have any meaning, value, etc. This is what the most basic form of atheism comprises of. A lot of atheists do not realize that their lack of beliefs in a deity entails much more than just the basic lack of belief. Many atheists scramble to use science to back their beliefs, but how can reasoning be done in science without their being a precursor to science and human reasoning. An atheist, with their reasoning and rationality, has to step into the theistic world to “prove” what they believe in, but their actions of reasoning and rationalizing contradict their atheistic beliefs. Anyone living today in the world cannot ever be a full fledged atheist as long as they are able to think. There is not anyway a human can think without there being something before humans and the universe to give us a "gift" of thinking that entails rationality and reasoning. Atheism is impossible because atheists are contradicting in their own "beliefs."

I am 100% atheist which means I am 100% certain that all gods based in theology do not exist. There is zero evidence they exist.

I am not 100% adeist. Deists can make a statements like god is the universe or god is the central nervous system with which I cannot argue because there is 100% evidence that the universe and our central nervous systems exist. However, such deists are apostates to every theology on Earth. I don't see the need for deism or theism but that's another issue. Be careful not to conflate theism with deism.

The main problem with your argument Michael is that you conflate two meanings of the word believe. The general definition of the word believe is to accept that something is true, but one can believe something is true based on faith which requires no evidence and one can believe something is true based on evidence and reason which does.

So when I say I believe in atomic theory or the germ theory of infectious disease it's not the same as when a person of faith says they believe in a father god named Yahweh or Brahma or Thor or Zeus.

Atheists like me believe it when we see it--just like Thomas who did not accept as true the resurrection of Jesus until he saw and touched the man he thought was dead. By appearing to his disciples Jesus required zero faith of them but his disciples and the theology they created have required 100% faith from Christians ever since--especially as no one has seen Jesus since. As a child I found that insulting to basic human intelligence and reason.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

It's impossible to be a full fledged atheist.

I beg to differ.

I am thoroughly, fully, 100% without a hesitation or single doubt atheist.

You can't claim to know what is going on in the minds of those who don't think like you.

Thinking isn't a "gift". It's a part of evolution. I mean, really? Atheists can't exist because of something YOU "believe"? Da fuck ever...

 

[Fred90]

...we've used organized religion to war, and kill, and oppress.

There is some truth to that. Organized religions have also been extraordinarily generous to others. Should you be judged by only your mistakes? Neither should organized religion.

On another note, whatever sins organized religions have committed against humanity pale in comparison to what infamous, 20th century secularists did. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and many others murdered tens of millions.

 

[liquiss]

There is some truth to that. Organized religions have also been extraordinarily generous to others. Should you be judged by only your mistakes? Neither should organized religion.

On another note, whatever sins organized religions have committed against humanity pale in comparison to what infamous, 20th century secularists did. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and many others murdered tens of millions.

You've taken a segment of what I said and flipped it. I didn't say organized religion hasn't done good things, but that doesn't erase all the red in it's ledger. I don't want to be judged only by my mistakes, but I also don't think living my life as a good person, donating countless hours and dollars to great causes would eliminate mass casualties at my hand. Do you believe that?

On your final point, I disagree. You think there hasn't been tens of millions of lives lost to warring and hatred and oppression in the name of religion? You're silly.

Death toll of Christianity - RationalWiki

That's JUST Christianity, and estimates range between 82 and 107ish million. From one religion.

I disagree with your stance. Maybe religion means something to you. Maybe it empowers you to be a better person. That's great. There are good things about organized religion, but take your blinders off. You can't ignore the bad because it's done some good as well. We've stopped being able to critically think about things, and automatically go to offense and deflect mode whenever we hear something we don't like. Be better than that....

 

[Fred90]

An objective person looks at both the pros and cons of anything, including organized religions as well as secular or non-secular governments. There are examples of good and bad in both. In my opinion organized religions have done more good than bad in the world.

 

[liquiss]

An objective person looks at both the pros and cons of anything, including organized religions as well as secular or non-secular governments. There are examples of good and bad in both. In my opinion organized religions have done more good than bad in the world.

And you're entitled to your opinion. I was simply stating how I felt about organized religion in general, and you decided to centre me out by selecting 10 words out of a multi-paragraph statement and tell me why it's wrong. I'm not sure if you expected me not to defend my position, but you'll learn I don't often struggle to do that.

I'm not sure if your intent with your response was to hint that I'm not an objective person, since I have an opinion that differs from yours, but I would argue that I've looked and thought critically about the topic and posted what points I think are both the good and the bad - in the first post you decided to quote only 8% of. Why can't we recognize the good and the bad? Why do you have to perpetuate polarization? Don't we have enough of that already?

 

[windibundu]

It's impossible to be a full fledged atheist.

You probably know, there is more than one way of thinking about atheism. Some people will talk about 'hard' atheism which is a certain belief that there cannot be any god vs soft atheism which is the lack of any belief in any god. At first it might seem like a silly distinction to make but it is not at all.

I am a 'soft' atheist myself. Let me try to explain what I mean with a silly example.

If you were to tell me that an invisible teapot was orbiting Pluto right now in an there would be no way I would believe you. However at the same time, there would be no way for me to prove that you were wrong, although I think it's unlikely that there is a teapot out in space. So, although I would have to admit that there might be some tiny chance I could be wrong, without strong evidence, I would never BELIEVE you. In that since I would be an a-teapot-ist. ( Russell's teapot - Wikipedia )

In the same way, every single version of a creator that has ever been presented to me has been totally without evidence which was convincing to me. So far, I am equally unconvinced by stories of Allah, Buddah Joseph Smith, Roman Catholic Christianity, etc. Can I be sure I'm not wrong? No, in the same sense that I cant absolutely PROVE theres no teapot orbiting Pluto. But I have not BELIEVED in any god for years, therefore I am an atheist.

HTH.

 

[halcyondays]

An objective person looks at the plurality of gods and religions in the world and draws the conclusion that they're made up stories--myths--all of which are fiction.

 

[Fred90]

An objective person looks at the plurality of gods and religions in the world and draws the conclusion that they're made up stories--myths--all of which are fiction.

You obviously know nothing about "objectivity" based on this unobjective remark.

 

[Fred90]

And you're entitled to your opinion. I was simply stating how I felt about organized religion in general, and you decided to centre me out by selecting 10 words out of a multi-paragraph statement and tell me why it's wrong. I'm not sure if you expected me not to defend my position, but you'll learn I don't often struggle to do that.

I'm not sure if your intent with your response was to hint that I'm not an objective person, since I have an opinion that differs from yours, but I would argue that I've looked and thought critically about the topic and posted what points I think are both the good and the bad - in the first post you decided to quote only 8% of. Why can't we recognize the good and the bad? Why do you have to perpetuate polarization? Don't we have enough of that already?

You seem defensive. I am not your adversary.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

An objective person looks at both the pros and cons of anything, including organized religions as well as secular or non-secular governments. There are examples of good and bad in both. In my opinion organized religions have done more good than bad in the world.

I found the opposite to be true.

Personally, I would like to see religion disappear into the history books.

I truly think human kind and the rest of the creatures that inhabit this planet would be significantly better off without any of it.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Hitler was NOT an atheist. He was a good ol' Christian.

Learn your history, people.

 

[chicagosam]

Hitler was NOT an atheist. He was a good ol' Christian.

Like Donald Trump.

 

[EllieP]

Religion is defined as a human's response to a revelation. Organized religion enshrines that response and sets rules around it.

Once those rules are set no one can question the response. And if you do then you are no longer welcomed into the organization, which means you can either conform, leave and/or start your own organization with new rules.

Organized religion is man made. Hearsay keeps it alive.

Personally, I'd rather live in a society that treats each other well because of a real commitment to their fellow human being than those doing good works out of fear of failing to appease a wrathful overwatcher.

 

[chicagosam]

...I'd rather live in a society that treats each other well because of a real commitment to their fellow human beings.....

Exactly.

 

[thirteenbyseven]

Religion is defined as a human's response to a revelation. Organized religion enshrines that response and sets rules around it.

Once those rules are set no one can question the response. And if you do then you are no longer welcomed into the organization, which means you can either conform, leave and/or start your own organization with new rules.

Organized religion is man made. Hearsay keeps it alive.

Personally, I'd rather live in a society that treats each other well because of a real commitment to their fellow human being than those doing good works out of fear of failing to appease a wrathful overwatcher.

Organized religion was a means to control the masses using fear as a weapon.

 

[chicagosam]

Organized religion was a means to control the masses using fear as a weapon.

Not unlike the Cult of the Wall.