US is the number one killers of civilians in the last century. Save maybe japan, but they mostly raped and pillaged. Was japan athiest? I don't know. I don't think so. How much thought you put into this statement? Any facts to support this? I find this thought interesting, see this thread This Thread
I agree, down with religion, up with atheism. We should group together, get organized, declare a manifesto, and promote our ideology. I nominate Honkeydick for a leader. Long Live Honkeydick. Maybe we can erect a couple statues of Honkeydick and built a couple meeting halls. Heck, I can really get into this Honkeydickism.
Athiesm is just as bad as Theism. Both groups claim that they know the "truth" yet both cannot prove this. You cannot prove there is a god yet you cannot disprove there isn't a god. The only way to go is to give both sides and accept them, accept them by admitting we do not know. Agnosticism is the way to go. "True knowledge lies in knowing that you know nothing." That is one philosophy we should all live by. We can't just look at things from one perspective anymore, we must look at all sides. That is the only way to making a better society. And to ban anything is just foolish. Nothing should be banned, or outlawed. Education is societies cure.
Stalin killed 43 million http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.STALIN.KILL.HTM Atheism was one of the major ideas behind communism, which caused the Vietnam and the Korean wars. Also systems of goverment where the ruler declares himself god and immortal should be seen has atheist since the ruler is only using his "godship" to control the people.
Cool, I second that!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The spread of organised religion is the detriment of us all. Why are churches needed? Why do they usually require so much money? What are they doing with that money? Why do they need to "spread the word"? How can they all be right? Religion looks to me like a product for profit. Another health hazard of religious faithPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My dictionaries definition of communism doesn't mention atheism! When someone claims this, how is it you know it is not the truth?
Yes. A case could be made that the early christians practiced communal living. However present day communism clearly is associated with atheism. Communism is associated with disregard for traditional religious institutions. Also Stalin was an atheist.
God is all powerful. If they do not show the attributes of God then we should not even consider them to be God.
"True knowledge lies in knowing that you know nothing"(quote by philosopher) If there's hope for an afterlife it lies with ignorance. The fact that we can never know everything gives us hope that maybe an afterlife does exist. I find life excruciatingly meaningless without a hope in some sort of higher scheme of things. The universe allows us a brief observation of it , a little teaser so to speak. I like to believe there's a bigger show down the line. Agnostic by nature
If god is to be taken as described then is not god responsible for everything? How would you know what god would and wouldn't do?
Philosopher, There are only two positions, theism and atheism, i.e. one believes there is a god (theism), and the other is where such a belief is absent (atheism). Agnostics must either be theist or atheist. There is no middle position.
Okinrus, You are quoting Christian propaganda again. Here are a few facts concerning atheism and communism. http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-atheism_communism.html Regarding Stalin - A short extract - ……….There are no elements of freethought (the foundation of atheism) in Soviet philosophy. Stalin most certainly was unfamiliar with the humanistic underpinnings of atheism; they contradicted his goal, which was to create a totalitarian state in which he became the new god, whose dictates were not to be questioned. Individual rights, so central to freethought, were unknown in Soviet Russia. The massacres of Stalin's reign were committed in the name of statism, not atheism, and statism is a by-product of the fundamentalist religious mindset. Every government since time immemorial has recognized the role religion plays in stifling dissent and keeping people quiet and submissive. Charles I of England, for example, once said "religion is the only firm foundation of power." Stalin did not want to share his power with anyone. Recognizing the church as the only significant rival to his supremacy, he attacked it. His attacks had nothing to do with ideological differences; it was a simple question of his stamping out a perceived threat. Final proof that Stalin was not acting on atheistic principles could be seen during the opening salvos of the Barbarossa campaign during World War II. Things were not going well for the Russian armies at that point and Stalin, facing a possible revolution on the home front was searching for ways to amass a broad base of support for the war effort. To achieve this, he reinstated the Orthodox Church hierarchy to serve 'Mother Russia.' This shows that Stalin was by no means averse to promoting religion if it suited his purposes to do so. Clearly, Stalin's tyranny was based on the totalitarian premises that he learned from religion: Unquestioning obedience, reverence for a deity-figure (in human form) as well as a pie-in-the-sky utopian vision. His government never tolerated freedom of thought. Stalin's policies were the antithesis of atheist philosophy…………..
_________- That's one opinion. But there are others. Atheism can be defined as the belief that there is no such thing as a God. Some people (including myself) consider atheism to be a religion entitled to protection under the US constitution. (The government cannot "establish a religion, or interfere with the free exercise thereof." So, if I choose to be an atheist, the government cannot compel me to say a Pledge including the words "Under God" because doing so would interfere with the free exercise of my right to believe as I choose.) Agnostics come in several varieties. Some agnostics believe they lack any answers about whether God exists or not, and thus are unwilling to take a stand on an issue without certain knowledge. Some agnostics believe it is impossible for humans to know whether God exists or not. If God does not exist, how would you know the difference between "no God" and "a God who created the universe but does not interfere with physical laws." So, if a theist believes God does exist, and an atheist believes there is no such thing as God, it would be possible for an agnostic to be neither theistic or atheistic, by believing it is impossible for him to know whether a God exists or not until and unless (a) God exists AND (b) God chooses to reveal himself. There definitely IS a middle position.
Religion is based on faith. My point was that faith and religion are seperate words and one doesn't always come with the other. :bugeye:
I think there is some confusion over the strong and weak definitions of atheism. http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm
What if you don't count the 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 jews Hitler killed. George W is doing GODS work in the middle east, along with a whole heap of other countries.
The BIG BANG. Evolution. It is a lot harder to prove that something that isn't there and doesn't exist, just doesn't exist. Obviously it would be hard to ban religion, but what about banning children up to a certain age? Accept nothing, especially the brain washing of the kids.
Something I'll regret tomorrow I'll bite. What about them? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ideology I would suggest you spend a little more time reading my posts before you call me feeble minded or a believer. You also need to spend a bit more time trying to understand what religion is and how it works within individuals and societies. Yours is simply a knee-jerk response that demonstrates little to no understanding of the human condition that religion does address. Religion, like pretty much every other ideology, is dangerous primarily in its declaration of absolutes. Such declarations are dangerous in that they allow no further consideration or modification. They fly in the face of reality and consequence. For the ‘faithful’ of any ideology, reality takes a back seat. Facts must be reinterpreted, ignored, or altered so that the ideology can remain constant; this can be quite nasty if you’re one of the facts that needs altering. Besides the logical flaw this institutes (the conclusion becomes the premise), it is quite simply insane (literally). Most people realize this, at least subconsciously, at some point and therefore begin to play games with translation, reinterpreting, but rarely abandoning, their ideological doctrine. Those who are the most unwilling to find some compromise between reality and ideology progress towards literal insanity. From the fanatics who are borderline (religious, political, nationalist, the brand of ideology does not matter) to those who are truly insane (Ted Kazinski, for example). ~Raithere
