How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

[otherone]

Right. But once you make a positive statement that you believe the thunderbolt-throwing Zeus never existed, then you're expressing a belief concerning Zeus.

Seriously, to dispute that is just trolling.

Yes, My "religion" is that I don't believe in Zeus. Nice work. We'll see if the IRS accepts my tax-exempt status.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think a mistake that many theists make when trying to understand atheists is that they believe atheists have a positive argument for the non-existence of deities. I don't, nor do many other atheists. What we are simply saying is theists have not provided adequate proof to cultivate our belief in a deity.

To say "I don't see enough evidence yet" is a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the nature of the question.

You won't EVER "see" the evidence, because you have a pre-commitment AGAINST Christianity.

You are not neutral. You keep talking like you are. You do not yet understand the reality of the situation.

 

[eduardo89]

That's right. And all Christians must reject this because it is not Biblical.

How does it contradict or take away from anything in the Bible? Not all of God's Revelation is found within Scripture.

Unlike Sola Scriptura, it does not contradict the Bible.

 

[eduardo89]

What if they go to an Apostolic Catholic church for the Eucharist?

They won't be getting the Eucharist there. The 'churches' that call themselves Apostolic Catholic or Catholic Apostolic do not have apostolic sucession or a valid priesthood, therefore do not possess valid Sacraments. You would be getting nothing more than bread and wine there.

My mom would identify as Irish Catholic whatever that means.

It just means she's ethnically Irish and Catholic in faith. There is no difference at all between an Irish Catholic's theology to that of a Greek Catholic, or an Italian Catholic, or a Spanish Catholic, or a Zimbabwean Catholic.

She observes the Assumption also.

As have Christians since the early centuries of the Church.

I was actually raised Catholic and I still find the Mary veneration kind of confusing. I'm surprised there isn't a break off that says She is part of a Quadrinity God.

Mary is not God, we do not worship Her, but she is the most important Saint to have ever lived. She is the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, She definitely is worthy of of veneration and love. Imagine how much you love your own mother, now try to imagine how much the one Being who loves perfectly loves His own Mother.

 

[Sola_Fide]

How does it contradict or take away from anything in the Bible? Not all of God's Revelation is found within Scripture.

Unlike Sola Scriptura, it does not contradict the Bible.

Where is it IN the Bible?

 

[otherone]

You are not neutral. You keep talking like you are. You do not yet understand the reality of the situation.

Neutral or not, we atheists, remain unconvinced. What do you care, anyway? Y'all can laugh yer asses off in Paradise watching us poor philistines tortured in hell forever by your loving god, while rolling around in a big pile of all the socks you've ever lost during your time on earth.

 

[eduardo89]

Where is it IN the Bible?

Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? There is not one verse anywhere in the Bible in which it is taught, and it therefore becomes a self-refuting doctrine. The Bible also teaches that we are to accept Oral Tradition in addition to Written Tradition (Scripture). Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

 

[DamianTV]

Are you my 72 Virgins? Boy, did I get screwed!

 

[Sola_Fide]

Neutral or not, we atheists, remain unconvinced. What do you care, anyway? Y'all can laugh yer asses off in Paradise watching us poor philistines tortured in hell forever by your loving god, while rolling around in a big pile of all the socks you've ever lost during your time on earth.

Do you understand what I am saying though?

How can you say you "see no evidence" when you have a presupposition that excludes all the theistic evidence?

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

Lutheran Catholics are not Catholics. The Catholic Apostolic Church is not part of the Catholic Church, despite its name. To be Catholic means to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome and to submit to the Church's authority. Catholics must accept all the dogmas and doctrine of the Church, without exception. That's what makes the Church "catholic," which means universal. The same teachings are accepted by those in the Latin Rite, Byzantine Rite, Coptic Rite, Syriac Rites, etc.

Those "Catholics" who reject Church dogmas and doctrine, such as prohibition on the use of contraception or divorce, are not Catholics in good standing. They are in defiance of fundamental, infallible, non-negotiable Church teaching. Those Catholics may not receive the Eucharist.

Well now you are simply equivocating, or are those Catholics who claim to be such, but who stand in opposition to certain dogmas? Luther formed his church based directly on he Catholic church, but with the elimination of the practice of selling absolution, which, by the way, is no longer practiced by the Catholic church "proper" or orthodoxy(ie Roman Catholics). The Lutheran church is Catholic in all other regards, and Apostolics hold high regard for the leaders of the church proper.

The Apostolic Catholic church is Catholic, with minor modification, and holds the intended purpose of reuniting the western Roman Catholic, with the eastern Orthodox Catholic churches to for a unified singular Catholic church.

But, the thing that makes all of these churches Catholic is not to be found in their universal and absolute acceptance of dogma, doctrine and creed. But in that they all hold the same origins and are often referred to in the Nicene Creed.

What we see when we observe all these differentiations along with the original motivating factors is what amounts to an evolution taking place within the Church in only a few scant generations, till it becomes different enough that they are no longer truly compatible.

Of course, those that are incompatible, in this case, are often a matter of perspective... suggesting that they are not truly incompatible, but stubbornly avoiding intermingling, except in their common outrage(for instance, their united front against all things agnostic/atheistic).

But, all Christianity gets its birth, originally in Judaism with the Prophecies of a savior(Greek, Christos). That's right all you Christians out there... The name of your religion gets its name from Greek Orthodoxy, not from an actual last name of some character.

The main point being that this dishonest approach of yours is entirely unnecessary. Especially since it really doesn't make two shits a difference as to what Christians consider themselves Catholic, Apostolic, Lutheran, Protestant, etc. Christian is Christian, for the most part. Although, I will confess that there is a HUGE difference between those who take the Bible as 100% literal truth, and those who are far more moderate in their approach... accepting that large(vast majority) portions of the Bible are allegorical.

When I speak as an atheist, I am typically speaking about, or to those who are evangelical fundamentalists(proselytizing Biblical literalists). But, philosophically speaking, there is a lot to be said to and about allegories as well.

 

[otherone]

Do you understand what I am saying though?

How can you say you "see no evidence" when you have a presupposition that excludes all the theistic evidence?

Mea Culpa....no credible evidence.

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

No, but it is a belief about Zeus though, is it not? You do have a belief on the matter don't you? Even if your belief is that "you don't know if he existed or not".

That is not a belief. What part of "I don't know" is not a belief do you not get? Agnosticism, for instance, is not a belief, unless or until it is positively stated that things cannot be known.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, My "religion" is that I don't believe in Zeus. Nice work. We'll see if the IRS accepts my tax-exempt status.

If you had a nonprofit organization for your religion, then I assume they would accept it.

According to the definition of "religion" that you provided, your belief that Zeus does not exist is a part of your religion. Using that definition, it would be wrong for anyone who believes Zeus did not exist to claim they did not have any religion.

 

[erowe1]

That is not a belief. What part of "I don't know" is not a belief do you not get? Agnosticism, for instance, is not a belief, unless or until it is positively stated that things cannot be known.

Agnosticism itself is not a belief. But agnostics all do have beliefs that are related to their agnosticism.

 

[VIDEODROME]

To have unbelief is to believe something.

This is probably technically correct in terms of Atheists and commonly known Gods, though the argument for it still feels pointless.

I mean what if both sides here are saying essentially the same basic thing, but arguing how to properly state it?

After a while this is going to feel like the old Who's on first? skit.


Atheist Guy: Oh, yeah I don't believe God created if everything.

Theist Guy: But wait, you're unbelief is actually what you believe.

Atheist Guy: Huh, so I'm supposed to believe that my unbelief is some kind of belief system?

Theist Guy: Yes, you actually believe that there is no God to believe in which proves that you have a belief in unbelief which is a type of belief.

Atheist Guy: WTF is the point.

 

[eduardo89]

Well now you are simply equivocating, or are those Catholics who claim to be such, but who stand in opposition to certain dogmas?

No, if you are Catholic but then reject certain dogmas or doctrines of the Church you are breaking your Communion with the Church. Being Catholic is not a pick and choose situation, you either accept all the teachings of the Church and submit yourself to Her authority or you are not Catholic. It's as simple as that.

Luther formed his church based directly on he Catholic church, but with the elimination of the practice of selling absolution, which, by the way, is no longer practiced by the Catholic church "proper" or orthodoxy(ie Roman Catholics). The Lutheran church is Catholic in all other regards, and Apostolics hold high regard for the leaders of the church proper.

There are many huge differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism, indulgences is just one small part of it (and by the way, indulgences are still granted). Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, the Immaculate Conception, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, purgatory, etc.

The Apostolic Catholic church is Catholic, with minor modification, and holds the intended purpose of reuniting the western Roman Catholic, with the eastern Orthodox Catholic churches to for a unified singular Catholic church.

No, they are not Catholic. They do not have a Apostolic Succession and therefore do not have a valid priesthood or Sacraments. If you were to take communion in one of their 'churches' all you'd be eating is bread and wine, not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

 

[erowe1]

This is probably technically correct in terms of Atheists and commonly known Gods, though the argument for it still feels pointless.

I mean what if both sides here are saying essentially the same basic thing, but arguing how to properly state it?

After a while this is going to feel like the old Who's on first? skit.


Atheist Guy: Oh, yeah I don't believe God created if everything.

Theist Guy: But wait, you're unbelief is actually what you believe.

Atheist Guy: Huh, so I'm supposed to believe that my unbelief is some kind of belief system?

Theist Guy: Yes, you actually believe that there is no God to believe in which proves that you have a belief in unbelief which is a type of belief.

Atheist Guy: WTF is the point.

I agree.

Underneath all this, the atheists have an emotional aversion to admitting the sets of beliefs they have are religions.

This is related to what you mentioned before, where some people imagine that they base all their beliefs on logic and evidence, which they think distinguishes them from other people who have faith.

 

[matt0611]

That is not a belief. What part of "I don't know" is not a belief do you not get? Agnosticism, for instance, is not a belief, unless or until it is positively stated that things cannot be known.

agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience.
-encyclopedia brittanica

agnosticism - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;
-webster's dictionary

agnositicism - the doctrine or belief of an agnostic
-dictionary.com


They seem to fit these:

belief - something believed; an opinion or conviction:
-dictionary.com

belief - something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
- conviction of the truth of some statement
-webster's dictionary

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true.
-wikipedia

So I assume you would say an agnostic, by those definitions of agnosticism, does have views, opinions, conjectures, premises, beliefs

I guess these definitions are all positive statements that things cannot be known and is different from what people usually mean by agnosticism.

EDIT: So there seems to be another view referred to as "soft agnosticism" that is probably what most people mean when they use that word. I still think that position is a belief about something though...

 

[VIDEODROME]

Aight.


I will go along with the idea that the typical Atheist mindset can include elements of Belief and even Faith, but tempered with Reason and available evidence.

Beliefs can include personal philosophies and politics or even the skepticism of the supernatural.

Faith comes into play because you simply can't possess all the knowledge and evidence about everything. Even Richard Dawkins has to have faith that Lawrence Krauss understands complex Astro-Physics based on his credentials and peer review from colleagues. Dawkins still brings Evidence and Reason to situations like this though. If someone with good credentials came to debunk Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Krauss himself would listen.


As for Religion? I think that word is commonly associated with belief in supernatural agents? If you're trying to say unbelief in supernatural agents is still Religion, well, I have no idea what you're trying to prove or accomplish. I can only speculate that it would be satisfying to put Theists and Atheists on equal footing as both just being competing religious Faiths.

Anyway if you succeed, then I want Atheist organizations to get the same tax breaks as churches.

 

[Theocrat]

Atheism is Dependent Upon Theism

Of course. My worldview doesn't include talking snakes, talking bushes, virgin births, resurrection of the dead, walking on water, seas parting, sticks turning into snakes, or magic boats that can accommodate two of every animal that "somehow" were collected from the four corners of the globe, all based on an anthology collected for the purpose of creating Rome's state religion.
I don't define myself in opposition to your beliefs, no more than I define myself in regards to a paranoid-schizophrenic's claim that they have bugs crawling over their skin.

Well, I think you do define yourself in opposition to my beliefs, if you consider yourself an atheist. The reason that is the case because an atheist is one who simply does not believe in the existence of God. But in order for that to be true, atheists have to define what it is that they mean by "God," which means their definition of "God" must come from another person's worldview. In effect, atheism has to presuppose theism before atheists can make their case about the nonexistence of God.