Don’t try to pull one over on me. I used to be one of those misguided (but well-meaning) fools. You left out some of their so-called fundamentals: Hatred of the Catholic Church, denial of the salvific nature of baptism, denial of the true nature of the Holy Eucharist, adherence to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, among others.
Did you forget to take your meds?
Very funny. I notice you did not refute my claims. I would guess it because they are true.
By connotation and popular usage, a fundamentalist is someone who insists on strict adherence to basic, “original” principles. If an atheist is called fundamentalist — I hope this is what you’re talking about — this refers to his rigidity in thought and outright, predetermined dismissal of any claims contrary to his established beliefs. I’m sure this was brought about by the common comparison of Pop Atheism to a religion.
People fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up. God says “Do not murder”Atheism simply refers to those that does not have any theistic belief. That is it, no more no less!
As for why do atheists speak out against religion. I would have though that is blatantly obvious, in the name of religion…
i could go on and on. Now you may not agree with my views, but they are still my views and i have as much a right to air mine as you do yours. So that is why i speak out, and if people start doing the above in the name of the tooth fairy i will speak out against her too.
- people fly planes into buildings
- blow their self up talking as many people with them as they can
- hold bigoted views against homosexuals,
- try to get scientific theories taken out of schools (that are supported by OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE) and teach crazy nonsense in science class
- try to stop scientific research
- avoid paying tax
- speak out against condoms in HIV ridden countries
Can you even read?
I read, and you are entitled yo your opinion. But an ignorant, uninformed opinion is of little to no value. If you are as dedicated to science as you claim, you cannot be an atheist. You must be an agnostic. The existence of God can neither be confirmed, nor denied using scientific experimentation. My guess is you simply believe what Dawkins tells you to without thinking for yourself.Can you even read?
"Now you may not agree with my views, but they are still my views and i have as much a right to air mine as you do yours."
People DO kill in the name of religion
I do not believe in sin
The origin of science can be traced back to Islam. What kind of numbers do we use, who named most of the stars etc.
Condoms DRASTICALLY reduce the ones chance of contracting HIV
AND AGAIN!!!
Now you may not agree with my views, but they are still my views and i have as much a right to air mine as you do yours.
Throughout this thread you have read others posts, reading exactly what you want to read instead of what the person has actually posted. I see i am not exempt from this fine treatment. I suggest you actually READ the posts before YOU start spouting off.
Dear me. You might want to actually learn something about the subject before “spouting off”, for again you are 100% incorrect. Theism/atheism deal with belief gnosticism/agnosticism deal with knowledge.
I have forgotten more than you know kid
A thorough and intellectual rebuttal, haha
.How about this : God can be proven metaphysically.A thorough and intellectual rebuttal, haha
Hmmm fringe philosophy, not my cup of tea. I will wait for some empirical evidence if it is all the same with you. When it comes to real knowledge philosophy does not come close to “real” science.
Not everything can be explained by empirical evidence. Every question becomes metaphysical if taken far enough. I will take this as a concession that you cannot refute Thomas.
I wouldn’t even begin to try, as i have already explained this standard of evidence is NOT sufficient to satisfy me. When one makes claims about physical things like the universe, humanity, the earth etc. The ONLY evidence i will accept is empirical. Now you can accept all the wishy washy philosophy nonsense you like, just because you feel it supports your predetermined conclusion. I on the other hand happen to care that my beliefs are TRUE, and therefore will wait for REAL evidence BEFORE i form my conclusions. As we have ZERO real evidence to go on i will remain an agnostic-atheist.
Metaphysics is real. I find it ironic that you feel you know so much about me. I used to be atheist. I however am intelligent enough to realize that there is a difference between “real” and “material.” I would guess that you are so invested in your world-view that you are afraid that the theists might actually be right. And for the record, God exists whether you believe or not. He is not contingent on us. There will come a day when you will believe. I hope it isnt too late.
I agree as I wrote in post 26Atheism simply refers to those that does not have any theistic belief. That is it, no more no less!
As for why do atheists speak out against religion. I would have though that is blatantly obvious, in the name of religion…
i could go on and on. Now you may not agree with my views, but they are still my views and i have as much a right to air mine as you do yours. So that is why i speak out, and if people start doing the above in the name of the tooth fairy i will speak out against her too.
- people fly planes into buildings
- blow their self up talking as many people with them as they can
- hold bigoted views against homosexuals,
- try to get scientific theories taken out of schools (that are supported by OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE) and teach crazy nonsense in science class
- try to stop scientific research
- avoid paying tax
- speak out against condoms in HIV ridden countries
What I think that much of this board misses is that statements like
for most people is a sign of fundamentalism. I know the board has a different theological definition just like it does about the definition of “denomination” but by popular definition we have fundamentalist railing against the fundamentalist of slightly differing beliefs.
When did i say something had to be material to be real? I am taking about standards of evidence for knowledge. When it come to knowledge NOTHING comes close to science, that is a fact plane and simple, we can compare results if you like
. My world view is simple, i will not believe that for which there is ZERO supporting evidence. Its really quite simple, if you make a claim you must support it with empirical evidence, so that if i want to i can verify the said claim..So where is th research demonstrating what happens to the soul?When did i say something had to be material to be real? I am taking about standards of evidence for knowledge. When it come to knowledge NOTHING comes close to science, that is a fact plane and simple, we can compare results if you like
As for “God exists whether you believe or not.” I am afraid to be the one to break this to you, but all the evidence suggests otherwise. I am afraid to say it pretty much looks like when we die, we are dead. Look on the bright side though, the ONLY thing worse than death would be eternal life. Living FOREVER, now that is one of the scariest thoughts i could imagine. Wouldn’t mind a few thousand years though