Agnosticism
Refusing to believe in something without proof of any kind is a sign of stupidity…
Again, being an atheist only requires lacking the belief “God exists”. It certainly doesn’t require believing “God is impossible”. I’ve include the dictionary definitions below, followed by statements from prominent atheists, and my own assertion that I mean what is stated–so beyond this point there is no reason to further consider a straw man definition of atheism.LifeIsAbsurd:
There are some atheists who have red hair, and some who further believe “God doesn’t exist.”, but neither are required to be an atheist.
No. Being an atheist requires that you believe no gods exist.
Not in the least. I demand compelling evidence from all claimaints. I have argued both with people who claim “God exists” and people who claim “God does not exist.”
Correct. It is the claimant who must back-up their claims if they wish to be believed. To accept claims without compelling evidence is irrational.
If person A claims, “There’s life on Mars” and person B claims “There’s no life on Mars” and neither has evidence I would believe neither and would consider both irrational.
My mind is not closed to the possibility that one of the hundreds of proposed gods exist, it simply does not accept their existance without compelling evidence.
Because religions frequently DOES cause harm.
True enough.
This commentary is wrong on virtually every level.
Provided of how Dawkins think God is improbable, I must ask myself all the time how do people think that it is probable that from nothing we can have something, how 0+0 can become 1. Of course, any certainty must always come from faith, just as the certainty you have that you will not die today or the certainty you have that you’ll go to college. But just because everything of certainty come from faith does not mean e can’t be certain. In fact to assume doubt as a position is almost as if requiring immobility as a mean of transportation, not just that it’s silly, but it can’t bring you to anywhere.
My statement should only concern to those who are devoted to Atheism to religious level, which I have seen many have done before. I think repeatively saying that Atheism is the lack of belief does not and will not gonna improve any of your position. Even nothingness does require some belief, don’t you think?
Except when the people are ready to die for a fabricated lie which they readily know and deliberately know(the apostles, the disciples…), we beginning to see a problem with their psychological well being. Except that’s a weak claim.
CharlemagneII:
The irony–your unless underscores the fact that an atheist is not required to even do the one thing you claim they are required to do… even if many choose to do so.
No, only if your God exists, an occurence he considers highly improbable, the fate of his immortal sould depends on whether he believes or does not believe…
Based on the above, quite the opposite, he bases his life on what is probable and not on that for which no compelling evidence exists.
Can you cite the page where he makes that precise claim? I have not read his book, but I do have a copy waiting for a rainy day when I’m not absurdly busy. In any event, the point of his quote was to demonstrate that even someone who is mentioned quite a bit on this forum as a prominent atheist does not claim God is impossible. That is not required to be an atheist. By citing the above quote, I am not implying that I agree with all quotes ever by this person.
How can anyone say with a straight face that the Pope and the Church as a whole doesn’t set rules?And non-religious people claim we’re the ones obsessed with sex? Why is the first question always about sex???
You’ve misunderstood. The Church holds to a philosophy which is sees human life as a sacred gift to be valued and cherished. It also teaches that the best way to bring up children is within the confines of a loving family. There are building blocks necessary in order to properly establish this and they begin with love, respect and fidelity. Condoms do not fit into the equation.
This is not a rule so much as an opportunity to fulfil your full sexual potential.
1). No he didn’t change it!
2). It’s not interpreting the verses, it is a consistent philosophy.
No, he can, but in doing so there will be consequences —he will lack certain graces. This is the nature of life is it not? It is difficult to both have ones cake and eat it!
How can we possibly know that?
It can be easily explained if you just accept that most people are wrong. Considering the fact that the Catholic worldview also requires you to accept that people are making mistakes all the time (sinning) I don’t see how this could be a problem from an intellectual point of view.
We do not hold physical reality in contempt. In fact the whole of creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The exception is the view that physical reality is inherently evil (held by the Gnostics). As Christians, we recognize that dwelling on the physical above the spiritual is detrimental to the Christan life. Now St. Paul does make many references to “the Flesh” in a negative context, but he is talking about those desires which are counter to spiritual growth, and simply physical existence.
Because it is an illusion that often hurts people.