2 Tenets of Atheism

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Atheism is not a system of thought. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. It stops there period.

You continued insistence that atheism is an ideology is either willful ignorance or a lack of understanding.

Atheism is much more than simply a lack of belief in gods.

When everyone agrees that "gods" do not exist, they have entered into a "system" of thought.

[cardw]

I have disagreed with your assertion about what athiesm is and explained why in my last post.

That disagreement does not automatically give you the right to claim another is "lacking intelligence", or "lying".

Which you have done here.

You might want to consider how you are addressing those that do not agree with you.

Accusing them of lying, or claiming they "lack intelligence" when they disagree, reflects poorly on you.

You call this disagreement, but you post no evidence.

If you don't post evidence than you have no basis for your definition.

Your definition of atheism is simply wrong.

If you don't research or find evidence to the contrary then you are simply speaking from your own opinion and making claims.

I didn't define atheism. It is not my definition. It is the accepted definition of atheism. There could hardly be a simpler definition than the one given for atheism.

You can assert that atheism is an ideology all you want, but it will continue to be YOUR definition.

So you are right. There are other possibilities.

Now if there is another option besides you disagree, then I'm open to hearing it.

[Twilight]

Athiesm is denial of God at its most basic level.

That "ideology" has been present for several thousand years amongst mankind.

It is a rejection of the authority of God, hidden in the absurd idea that God has not been "proven", so does not need to be accepted.

It was expressed by Pharaoh here:

Exd 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who [is] the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

Pharaoh insisted that God prove Himself.

But even when God did, Pharaoh still sought to deny Him.

Why?

Because Pharaoh wanted to be a "god", he was even worshipped as such.

Athiesm basically makes the same argument.

As they say:

Nothing new here, move along folks...

:-)

[Twilight]

And yes, Christians can also define what "Athiesm" is and is not...

We do not have to accept what "athiesm" claims it is and we have no obligation to supply any credence to its "rationalisation", or its demands to define itself.

"Athiesm" is directly opposed to God, contrary to all its claims, that is its sole guiding inherent doctrine.

[cardw]

Athiesm is denial of God at its most basic level.

No atheism is a denial of all gods or divine explanations. If you read the link I gave you you would know that ancient atheists denied the existence of Greek gods, Hindu gods and Roman gods.

The Romans considered Christians atheists.

So, again you are redefining a simple definition.

[LifeHiscost]

It seems more prideful to me to claim to know something you can produce no proof for what-so-ever than to admit that we simply don't know.

[cardw]

And yes, Christians can also define what "Athiesm" is and is not...

We do not have to accept what "athiesm" claims it is and we have no obligation to supply any credence to its "rationalisation", or its demands to define itself.

"Athiesm" is directly opposed to God, contrary to all its claims, that is its sole guiding inherent doctrine.

OK, fair enough.

Then I can define Christianity any way I want.

Is that what you really want?

What you are doing here is basically declaring that atheists have no right to define who they are because they are godless.

You complain that I may call you ignorant or unintelligent, but the continual onslaught of the dehumanization of atheists by believers is epidemic.

What is interesting is the term atheist was taken over by Christian apologists as a derogatory classification of those who didn't believe in any gods.

It was originally used to state the starting position of different ideologies during the French enlightenment.

You had atheist and theist.

Now I can call you a theist, but I have no idea what you believe, because theist would include most all of the ideologies of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hellenism, Native American beliefs, New Age beliefs, Earth God and Goddess Religions, and others.

All of these have as their starting point in theism, but theism is not an ideology in itself. It is a single idea of a belief in god or gods.

Atheist is not even a term that atheists want to call themselves because it has so little meaning about what an atheist believes as an individual.

Now you can continue to simply redefine words until they meet your belief or you can learn to communicate using the accepted definition of words.

If you can't do that then no communication will be possible.

I have posted this before and I believe it needs to studied and understood.

This link lists common fallacies used to present arguments.

List of Fallacies

You are using a form of semantic shift to make your point. If you are going to counter any argument you need to agree on common definitions of words. If you are free to redefine each term then we no longer know what each other is referring to.

Now if atheism is totalitarianism then I am no longer an atheist because I don't believe in totalitarianism. I am now a rational ethicist.

So you need to address your counters against my new definition of myself. But you won't do that. You will do some form of fallacy which states that a rational ethicist is really an atheist in disguise. So therefore rational ethicists really killed all those millions of people.

And we will continue to go around and around.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

It seems more prideful to me to claim to know something you can produce no proof for what-so-ever than to admit that we simply don't know.

Thirty two billion, or was that trillion, individual parts of the human body, all parts making a concerted effort to keep the body alive and well, and you find no evidence that there is a loving Creator Who wishes above all things to save you in His kingdom, and you still believe His life of three decades, and death of the most atrocious manner to satisfy your inability to pay for your indiscretions (sins), is foolishness, is sufficient evidence that, though you may be very intellectually astute, wisdom has yet to reveal itself along with the intellect.

No evidence? Give me a break.

[LifeHiscost]

There are atheistic religious affiliations such as unitarianism and even Christianity as a philosophy.

As you have explained your understanding of atheism, and it may have some correct ideas, your idea of what Christianity is as practiced by disciples of Christ,is totally false. There is absolutely no similarity or affinity between atheism and beliefs of practicing disciples of Christ.

Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity, the doctrine that there is no deity, UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary Bold their's LHC

Doctrine means a teaching. Of course one can always set up their own opinions as having greater credence than just a dictionary.

Christian: One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Definition from the same source.

That definition has been morphed to mean also a commendably generous and decent person, which is actually impossible to be, without intervention by God.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."James 1:17 NKJV

God Blesses!

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

There are atheistic religious affiliations such as unitarianism and even Christianity as a philosophy.

As you have explained your understanding of atheism, and it may have some correct ideas, your idea of what Christianity is as practiced by disciples of Christ,is totally false. There is absolutely no similarity or affinity between atheism and beliefs of practicing disciples of Christ.

One can appreciate the ethical philosophy of Jesus without believing that he was god or having a need of a savior.

Jesus is one of the essential sources of an ethic that moves past tribalism. And atheists that follow humanism certainly are willing to give credit to Jesus for articulating this in revolutionary ways.

An atheist who is saying they are following Jesus are certainly picking and choosing. They are following the ethics of Jesus and the philosophy and rational behind those ethics.

This is not far from the Deism of Thomas Jefferson.

Jesus does a good job of establishing a unique rationale through the use of clever parables and rhetoric.

You are certainly free to define Christianity any way you want, but you are in competition with almost 40,000 other versions. I have seen some estimates of 400,000.

To claim that yours is the only true definition seems rather presumptuous to me

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

These are simple facts. Atheists are more educated and less violent.

The point is that a belief in Christianity does not make one smart or less violent.

I know you keep claiming that "Athiests are more educated and less violent", and claiming it as a fact, but to have a "fact" you must provide evidence.

At this point, all that has happened is a claim has been made.

Here is a video about a recent Pew Institute poll on who has the most knowledge about religion.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Athiesm is denial of God at its most basic level.

No atheism is a denial of all gods or divine explanations. If you read the link I gave you you would know that ancient atheists denied the existence of Greek gods, Hindu gods and Roman gods.

The Romans considered Christians atheists.

So, again you are redefining a simple definition.

I am not accepting the definition that athiests want to apply.

Why?

Because of this simple fact:

God is real, He exists.

Therefore, the illogical position that "Athiesm is merely a denial of the existance of gods", is in fact incorrect.

Athiesm is a direct denial of truth, of the truth of God's existance.

Now, it may be that athiests want to call it something else, but that does not change what it is...

[Twilight]

You are using a form of semantic shift to make your point. If you are going to counter any argument you need to agree on common definitions of words. If you are free to redefine each term then we no longer know what each other is referring to.

Now if atheism is totalitarianism then I am no longer an atheist because I don't believe in totalitarianism. I am now a rational ethicist.

So you need to address your counters against my new definition of myself. But you won't do that. You will do some form of fallacy which states that a rational ethicist is really an atheist in disguise. So therefore rational ethicists really killed all those millions of people.

And we will continue to go around and around.

What I am doing here Cardw, is refusing to let you define the argument.

You want to tell everyone here what Athiesm is and is not, but most here do not share your foundational beliefs, so they cannot accept your worldview and also your usage of terms, that only you get to define.

And yes, you repeatedly DO define what Christianity is and is not, so your argument that I should not do the same holds no ground whatsoever.

I do not have to accept your assumptions, or your definitions.

Because I derive my own, from the Scripture, the revealed Wisdom of God.

Also, I derive my education from the great Teacher Himself, the Holy Spirit, there is no greater instructor.

And that includes all the champions of athiesm, including the head honcho himself.

As to what athiesm has meant in the past is irrelevant.

What athiesm is now, is of the utmost import.

And that is a direct attack on God.

[Twilight]

The god described in the bible is hardly a god of peace. He makes up the rules, he breaks his own rules, he kills anyone who disagrees, he issues ultimatums, he's a bully, he's jealous, he's unpredictable, he's poor communicator, he's irrational, he's inconsistent, etc. ,etc.

Indeed the God of the bible is fiercely opposed to sin and selfishness, but the rest of this assesment is totally incorrect.

That is not the God I have been reading about.

The God I read about is:

A God of peace, with loving laws, who adheres to His own laws, who has to bring judgement on those that will not turn from selfishness - removing the life He gave as a gift - due to their abuse of it, He gives commands that benefit all, He treats everyone with love, He is jealous in a good sense, He does everything for a reason.

He communicates in a way that is phenomenal, He is totally rational, He is consistent, etc etc...

But then that is all down to perspective.

Those that do not know Him, might say the things you have just said.

But those that "know" Him, know what you have stated is false.

Mark :-)

[John317]

Exactly, and agreed. His crimes cannot fairly be laid at the door of Christianity. But neither can they be fairly laid at the door of atheism.

One of the greatest influences on Hitler and on the Nazi philosophy was Neitzsche, the Father of modern atheism.

Everyone knows that all the leaders of the communist movement have been atheists: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, etc. When we study communism and revolutionary socialism, we find that this is no coincidence. It is based on dialetical materialism, and this cannot allow any place for God.

[Twilight]

One can appreciate the ethical philosophy of Jesus without believing that he was god or having a need of a savior.

That is incorrect.

It is only God Himself that can present such an ethical philosophy and actually live it out in the sight of men.

As Jesus did.

Christ's philosophy and divinity are inseperable.

[Twilight]

Here is a video about a recent Pew Institute poll on who has the most knowledge about religion.

">

[LifeHiscost]

To claim that yours is the only true definition seems rather presumptuous to me

Since my basic platform for belief in Jesus is based upon "God is Love" and He has shown this below to be true to me:

"...I the LORD thy God....shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." ,

and He is the One Who is Creator and made the promise, I find no need for presuming beyond that. Since He made no allusion to other gods, what sense would there be to wander into the unknown to try to find better than what He promises.

"And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." 2 Corinthians 12:9

NKJV

It would be presumption if I were to decide on my own the truthfulness of these promises. And since He knows that, He has provided a Guide and Comforter in order that I don't have to wander around, believing, falsely, there to be some inherent inner nebulous something to lean on.

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."John 16:7 KJV

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future."John 16:13 NLT

As one person said today, "Sometimes (one) just has to believe, without using educated guesses to destroy what is easy to accept when the Truth is presented"

BTW, there are some 2000 predictions in the Bible, some written as much as 500 years before the Man Jesus was born, that came to pass exactly as foretold, and it has been concluded it is beyond the realm of possibility for that to be coincidental. In fact the evidence is so overwhelming, it is found to be much easier to prove Jesus is all that He says He is, than to prove He is not.

God blesses!

[cardw]

What I am doing here Cardw, is refusing to let you define the argument.

You want to tell everyone here what Athiesm is and is not, but most here do not share your foundational beliefs, so they cannot accept your worldview and also your usage of terms, that only you get to define.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

One can appreciate the ethical philosophy of Jesus without believing that he was god or having a need of a savior.

That is incorrect.

It is only God Himself that can present such an ethical philosophy and actually live it out in the sight of men.

As Jesus did.

Christ's philosophy and divinity are inseperable.

Well then you will have to reject a major portion of western thinking which is based on love your neighbor as yourself.

And you will have to reject Thomas Jefferson.

You make these claims without evidence. I have no reason to believe that you know what you are talking about.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

To claim that yours is the only true definition seems rather presumptuous to me

Since my basic platform for belief in Jesus is based upon "God is Love" and He has shown this below to be true to me:

"...I the LORD thy God....shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." ,

and He is the One Who is Creator and made the promise, I find no need for presuming beyond that. Since He made no allusion to other gods, what sense would there be to wander into the unknown to try to find better than what He promises.

Well there is a lot of you in this decision making. I make no claims that god ever pointed anything out to me since I have no evidence of that. And since you aren't willing to look at any other evidence, it is pointless to have a conversation with you.

To me it simply looks like you are appealing to god as your interpreter which make what ever you post infallible. There is no argument against that since you won't even consider any other argument.

[cardw]

It's not the absolute truth. It doesn't claim to be the absolute truth. Watch the video.

There are a number of problems with generalizing the results. It is simply interesting to note how much ignorance Christians have about their own and other's religions.

It is also interesting to note that atheists were the most knowledgable about religion. I think one of the reasons is that most agnostics and atheists that I have met are former believers who took Christianity very seriously and eventually in their search for truth could no longer honestly defend Christianity as truth. We tend to collect a lot of knowledge and evidence along the way.

[Twilight]

I have no reason to believe that you know what you are talking about.

Ditto. :-)

[Twilight]

What you do not clearly understand Cardw is this:

I am a Christian.

Everything you say gets filtered through the scripture.

Everything you challenge gets filtered through the scripture.

And if you disagree with it, it is because you have no light in you, as the scripture says.

So when you want to define an argument, or even point to a definition that suits your argument, I am always going to filter that through the scripture.

Jesus proved Himself to be God.

He validated the Bible.

He revealed God's character in fullness.

That is the basis for my philosophy, worldview and definitions.

So appealing to athiestic rationalism, or secular reasoning bares no weight with me whatsoever.

My standard for truth and my educator is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Just so as you are clear on that... :-)

[cardw]

This interview with Richard Dawkins reveals why faith is such a dangerous position to hold since it allows no possible way to resolve differences between different faiths.

As revealed in that last few posts any claim that comes from what the believer claims is the Holy Spirit is unassailable by reason or evidence.

As you get farther into the video, Richard Dawkins talks about his views on the wonder of the universe and its relationship to a belief in god.