Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

There are 289 comments on the News24 story from May 10, 2013, titled Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism. In it, News24 reports that:

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#247 May 27, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Does Dawkins think that nothing exploded to create everything?
[/QUOTE]Why would we know someone else's thoughts? You are more than welcome to ask him, if I knew him or cared what he thought, I might ..... nah, I wouldn't. Because, really who cares?

But if you must know, I am sure that more than a few religitards have bought one of his books, maybe that is where you will find your answers. I have not read so much an a single piece that he has written, so I couldn't even begin to guess.

Someone on the evolution forum might know, and if not .... is there a Dawkin's forum? Maybe there ...

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#248 May 28, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]
You follow him don't you?
He is like your cult leader.
I love the way you atheist believe there is no God and then think nothing changed into every thing on its own.
You know that is against all of your science rules. No I guess you don't
[/QUOTE]First of all, if you meant this post for a particular poster, you should have tapped the "reply" prompt.

So .... Follow who?

And there is a cult? Do any of us, know about it? Is that another one of those things, that only those who have no clue as to who we are, knows about?

You lie! There isn't anything you love about atheist, you can't even force yourself to embrace the truth about us,(no cult, no leaders, no tenets, no dogma)see.

Seriously quit making up stuff about us. Don't we give you ammunition aplenty with our own honesty?

Atheist have no theism, we are functioning without that particular wart. We have no god claims at all, nor do we as atheist, decide for the evolutionists, what their claims might or might not be. If there were an actual god, I'd think that someone would come somewhere close to proving it, one of these century's anyway.

We as atheist, do not have any science rules, so as atheist, we would not know those things that we are unfamiliar with, but they seem to ferment only in the dark recesses of the religitards broken mind. We can't go there ... it is a question of the value of our minds, and to us, they are far too valuable to willingly flush away, in the river of feces that we see you throw yours into.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#249 May 28, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Your science has dated the universe at 13.7 billion years old. Hence it had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning has a pre beginning.
Now this Pre is a bit tricky because there was no time before the BB hence no before. So I'll state it like this. When there was no time and no matter and no energy and no space, what was there then that became our universe and all there is and all that ever existed?[/QUOTE]Our science? Oh, yeah ... sorry. I forgot, people with functional brains. You are right it is ours, even if we made none of the decisions, and we maybe don't even know what those decisions were. Does it matter, though to you? Tell the truth, not at all, right?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#250 May 28, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your science has dated the universe at 13.7 billion years old. Hence it had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning has a pre beginning.
Now this Pre is a bit tricky because there was no time before the BB hence no before. So I'll state it like this. When there was no time and no matter and no energy and no space, what was there then that became our universe and all there is and all that ever existed?
Yes, the universe itself had a beginning, that does not mean there was ever "nothing." Take some time to study basic quantum physics, this is all included in there, right now you look like some back woods hillbilly that just crawled out of the trailer park and into the local library to search for porn on the internet only to discover they have blocked those sites.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#251 May 28, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
Within your own group, I agree.
Those outside looking in, different story.
The same could be said about nearly any group. The goal should be to improve your understanding of the group, not insist that members of the group have their definition wrong.
BeHereNow wrote:
Part of the problem is that some of those outside looking in, you say must be included in your group, against their will (most or at least many, agnostics).
I think the problem comes from negative social stigma associated with the word "atheist", causing people to resist using it to describe themselves, even if it perfectly defines them. If an agnostic doesn't subscribe to a theistic religion, then they're atheist by definition. They don't need to insist that they have any knowledge about gods. They only need to lack an active, standing belief in any particular god. They only need to not be a theist.
BeHereNow wrote:
It is common for Christians to say their members worship the one true God.
Do you agree with that?
Theirs is the only path to heaven....and you agree?
These are descriptions of how Christians describe themselves.
These are SOME of the descriptions used. There are many more, and one doesn't need to look into them very far before those definitions diverge enough to cause problems.

Mormons, for example, believe all those things. Yet most other Christians will not abide including Mormonism in with Christianity.

EVERY religion has SOME kind of message saying that they claim was inspired by "true" gods and that theirs is the only path to righteousness. Atheists are just people who haven't been convinced by any of these claims. No deeper definition is needed.
BeHereNow wrote:
Shall we say that those men who take six year old children to bed for sexual purposes are showing 'true love' for these children, and that the children have a free will in these actions?
If we did, we'd need to DRASTICALLY rewrite age-of-consent laws in this country. Not just regarding consent for sex, but for purchasing alcohol, tobacco, cars and homes, as well as for gambling, voting, and joining the military.

It isn't the sex in your example that's bad, it's the age considered for consent.
BeHereNow wrote:
If I want to say I am a horse lover, and I enjoy eating horse meat three times a day, should society accept my use of the term 'horse lover'?
Most people already understand that words like "lover" have more than one meaning, and that they might need to ask for more information to get a clearer understanding.
BeHereNow wrote:
It is the nature of language that society gets to decide what meaning words carry, not individuals, not minority groups.
Yet many words bring different definitions to mind for different people. You speak of "society" as if it were a single, like-minded bloc of thinkers that can be convinced all at once. Definitions are fluid things, that's why dictionaries need new editions from time to time (or did, when they used to be printed).
BeHereNow wrote:
Currently Muslims define infidels, and decide their punishment.
If they get to define the terms of their own religion, they are justified.
Society disagrees.
Plenty of societies on Earth do NOT disagree. Again, "society" is not just ONE thing that is the same for everyone in the world. It changes as you travel.

Muslims DO get to define the terms of their own religion (though it doesn't mean they are "justified", any more than Christians are for the claims they make). An "infidel" is simply a non-believer. The word means the same to a Muslim as it does to you or I. They have not defined the term any differently, they just differ in how they TREAT infidels.
BeHereNow wrote:
Historically atheism has been considered a belief system, that denies the existence of god.
Only by people who understand it poorly. There are better definitions to familiarize yourself with these days.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#252 May 28, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
Why doesn't Einstein get decide if his own belief system is atheism, especially since it agrees with what society said/says about atheism?
Since Einstein is dead, and can't contribute to this conversation about himself, I would be cautious about presuming to ascribe any "belief system" to him. Maybe he would describe himself as "deist". Maybe he would embrace the label "atheist", if he had the same understanding of it that today's atheists do. Who knows?
BeHereNow wrote:
There has been a movement to CHANGE the meaning of the term 'atheist'.
No, there's only been a movement to change how society VIEWS atheists, and to refine (not redefine) how the word is used.

When you leaf through a dictionary, you'll see that most words have multiple definitions, labeled 1, 2, 3, etc. Just because it's always been socially acceptable to stick with #1, doesn't mean that someone isn't justified in spreading awareness of #2 or #3.
BeHereNow wrote:
This comes not from agnostics, who you would include in your group, but from certain other members, whom society has called 'atheists' due to their belief in no-god.
There are 2 basic kinds of atheist.

"Hard" atheists, who claim they DO know that there are NO gods, and "soft" atheists, who recognize that they do not possess knowledge about gods, but who also do not hold existing god-beliefs.

The first kind are the rare ones. Don't allow them to control your understanding of the larger group.
BeHereNow wrote:
You tell us we should accept your use of the term, since you are a member of the group, yet it seems to me you deny that same right to agnostics, who do not consider themselves as atheists.
They are free to call themselves whatever they want, but I think they resist the term "atheist" because so many people in society (yes, mostly religious or Christian people) have unfairly smeared the term until it is the least trusted group in the country, for no good reason.
BeHereNow wrote:
The term 'atheist' has no absolute, unchanging, undeniable meaning.
Yes, it does. It means "not a theist".
BeHereNow wrote:
It means what society says it means, and that meaning is sure to change over a period of a millennium or so.
No, how atheists are TREATED is what changes, based on the stereotypes that are spread about them. Whether atheists are lynched and hanged, or published and given awards, the word still means "not a theist".
BeHereNow wrote:
Your true position, as I see it, is that your group wants to change the meaning of the term atheist.
We want to change the PERCEPTIONS of atheists and atheism. You may need your perceptions changed as well.
BeHereNow wrote:
I can see many reasons for this, none of which is to use the word in its absolute sense, since no such absolute sense exists.
"Not a theist" is the absolute sense. The obvious public misunderstanding of the use of the word is the reason behind the movement. Too many people, possibly you included, believe that ALL atheists are the "hard" variety, when in fact most of us are the "soft" type.
BeHereNow wrote:
This attempt dumbs down language.
No, it IMPROVES language, by improving communication. Now, you have a better understanding of what makes an atheist, and how to use the term based on who you're speaking with.
BeHereNow wrote:
It takes a well defined group (those individuals who have a belief in no-god) and broadens it to such an extent that I have heard atheist say it includes dogs, trees and even rocks.
I'm sure they were playing with you, by suggesting that these things have no belief in gods (obviously). Technically, this doesn't violate the definition of the word. But these discussions are only useful when we're talking about humans.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#253 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No one thinks that, because we know there is never "nothing," the coined adage to illustrate this is "nature abhors a vacuum." Did you even open a science book at any time in your life? This is basic stuff.
Yes... very basic stuff. I learned this "starter physics" way back in Junior High....

.... meh.

(ironically, I was still pretty much a True Believer™ too... but I was always taught to have a healthy respect for science-- my eventual "fall from faith", of course... but hey...)
KJV

United States

#254 May 28, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]
You follow him don't you?
He is like your cult leader.
I love the way you atheist believe there is no God and then think nothing changed into every thing on its own.
You know that is against all of your science rules. No I guess you don't
"

First of all, if you meant this post for a particular poster, you should have tapped the "reply" prompt.

So .... Follow who?

And there is a cult? Do any of us, know about it? Is that another one of those things, that only those who have no clue as to who we are, knows about?

You lie! There isn't anything you love about atheist, you can't even force yourself to embrace the truth about us,(no cult, no leaders, no tenets, no dogma)see.

Seriously quit making up stuff about us. Don't we give you ammunition aplenty with our own honesty?

Atheist have no theism, we are functioning without that particular wart. We have no god claims at all, nor do we as atheist, decide for the evolutionists, what their claims might or might not be. If there were an actual god, I'd think that someone would come somewhere close to proving it, one of these century's anyway.

We as atheist, do not have any science rules, so as atheist, we would not know those things that we are unfamiliar with, but they seem to ferment only in the dark recesses of the religitards broken mind. We can't go there ... it is a question of the value of our minds, and to us, they are far too valuable to willingly flush away, in the river of feces that we see you throw yours into.
What did God say when Dawkins was born?

Good we needed more kindling.

:)
KJV

United States

#255 May 28, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Your science has dated the universe at 13.7 billion years old. Hence it had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning has a pre beginning.
Now this Pre is a bit tricky because there was no time before the BB hence no before. So I'll state it like this. When there was no time and no matter and no energy and no space, what was there then that became our universe and all there is and all that ever existed? "

Our science? Oh, yeah ... sorry. I forgot, people with functional brains. You are right it is ours, even if we made none of the decisions, and we maybe don't even know what those decisions were. Does it matter, though to you? Tell the truth, not at all, right?
Huh?
KJV

United States

#256 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, the universe itself had a beginning, that does not mean there was ever "nothing." Take some time to study basic quantum physics, this is all included in there, right now you look like some back woods hillbilly that just crawled out of the trailer park and into the local library to search for porn on the internet only to discover they have blocked those sites.
"back woods hillbilly that just crawled out of the trailer park and into the local library to search for porn on the internet only to discover they have blocked those sites"

Personal experience?
KJV

United States

#257 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes... very basic stuff. I learned this "starter physics" way back in Junior High....

.... meh.

(ironically, I was still pretty much a True Believer™ too... but I was always taught to have a healthy respect for science-- my eventual "fall from faith", of course... but hey...)
LOL. Says the bumbling fool who failed miserable to answer my simple question put to him.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#258 May 28, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"back woods hillbilly that just crawled out of the trailer park and into the local library to search for porn on the internet only to discover they have blocked those sites"
Personal experience?
Of course, I saw them all the time when I was in the library, it was fun when the smelly fools got kicked out of the library, repeatedly. They would always rant about your god and such.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#259 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes... very basic stuff. I learned this "starter physics" way back in Junior High....
.... meh.
(ironically, I was still pretty much a True Believer™ too... but I was always taught to have a healthy respect for science-- my eventual "fall from faith", of course... but hey...)
It's funny how few religious people who are intelligent are left these days, I'd wager even the ones I know that are still religious will give up the superstition soon as well, it's not becoming of an intelligent person to believe in ghosts and monsters.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#260 May 28, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
What did God say when Dawkins was born?
Good we needed more kindling.
:)
[/QUOTE]So actual response to the points are something you are incapable of doing? Why am I not surprised?

Your god always was a few bricks shy of a load. Bats/birds, rabbits/cud chewers, and now humans/twigs. Hell if he were any smarter, you could teach him to fetch.

BTW: Who is "Dawkins"? << Is that the correct spelling of his name? My spell checker seems to think is is wrong

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#261 May 28, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Huh?
[/QUOTE]Still using your head, to keep the rain out of your neck?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#262 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny how few religious people who are intelligent are left these days, I'd wager even the ones I know that are still religious will give up the superstition soon as well, it's not becoming of an intelligent person to believe in ghosts and monsters.
I suspect many are simply playing along with the game, the religious affiliation giving them tribal identity (but they don't really believe in the faith-crap).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#263 May 28, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Still using your head, to keep the rain out of your neck?
He ought to give that up-- rainwater down his neck, would be a healthy improvement...

... I'm just sayin' all those microbes would increase his IQ by ... alot.
True Christian witness

Slick, OK

#264 May 29, 2013
Atheists have no spiritual worth with God, so they are not accountable to God as his children, in their thinking.

The truth is, everyone alive is accountable to God for their lives, Atheists are just like everyone else who can suffer sickness or any problem affecting mankind today, they choose to have no spiritual help for their endurance.

The true Atheist would not argue with anyone that God exists, it is the rebel against God, that wants proof God exists, and that calls for faith, not proof.

(Hebrews 11:1) 11&#8194;Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#265 May 29, 2013
True Christian witness wrote:
Atheists have no spiritual worth with God, so they are not accountable to God as his children, in their thinking.
I have to wonder if you've actually ASKED any atheists about this, or if you've simply made assumptions. Because I can tell you, as an atheist myself, this is NOT my thinking. You won't learn anything truthful or valuable about people, if you're just TELLING them what their thinking is, rather than asking them.

I'm not worried about my "spiritual worth" (How does that get measured? In what units?) and I'm not worried about being accountable to anyone except myself and the people I share the world with. They're the ones who are harmed if I do wrong, so they are the ones I have to make amends with.

My thinking is this: I can't be sure there even IS a god. If there is, I don't know anything about it. I can't tell what it might want, or how it might feel about how I behave. It doesn't speak to me. It could be Yahweh, or maybe it's Zeus, or Odin, or Quetzalcoatl. Maybe there's no one there at all. But I won't PRETEND to worship and obey something that I can't even confirm. What if I start praying to the WRONG god, in the wrong way? How can YOU be sure of any of this?

The best I can do is to live my life with peace and compassion toward my fellow humans. If there is no god, I've done what I can to contribute to a more peaceful and cooperative society. If there is a god, it can judge me on my philosophy of kindness and love of humanity. If it has some other expectations of me, then I can only encourage it to contact me more directly, rather than sending other humans to deliver its message for it.
True Christian witness wrote:
The truth is, everyone alive is accountable to God for their lives, Atheists are just like everyone else who can suffer sickness or any problem affecting mankind today, they choose to have no spiritual help for their endurance.
And we do just fine without it (and so does everyone else, they just THINK they're getting help when actually they have the strength themselves).
True Christian witness wrote:
The true Atheist would not argue with anyone that God exists, it is the rebel against God, that wants proof God exists, and that calls for faith, not proof.
Why wouldn't a "true" atheist argue about the existence of a god?

Of course we want proof. Don't you want proof in all OTHER areas of your life? If someone told you that you won the lottery, would you just run out and start spending, or would you ask for proof first? If someone said they could remove your appendix, wouldn't you ask for proof that they're really a doctor?

Proof is how we confirm that our next steps will be safe ones. It helps us make decisions based on solid evidence, rather than on something unreliable like emotions. You act as if proof were a dirty word, or something to avoid. I believe it is something very valuable. Anyone can make empty claims about magic and the supernatural, but only those who can back up their claims with proof are worth listening to.
True Christian witness wrote:
(Hebrews 11:1) 11&#8194;Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
Things that are "assured" for too long, without ever being proven or delivered, are going to be subject to a great deal of doubt. There is no "demonstration" of something "not beheld". The word "demonstration" means that it CAN be beheld!

I'm sorry, but that verse is nothing but double talk, intended to discourage people from seeking proof, and make them think that their imaginations are just as reliable as physical evidence.

Proving true things is EASY. Attempts to turn people AWAY from proof is a sure sign that a claim is false. The world is too full of too many false claims to accept any of them without some method of confirmation.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#266 May 29, 2013
True Christian witness wrote:
Atheists have no spiritual worth with God, so they are not accountable to God as his children, in their thinking.
The truth is, everyone alive is accountable to God for their lives, Atheists are just like everyone else who can suffer sickness or any problem affecting mankind today, they choose to have no spiritual help for their endurance.
The true Atheist would not argue with anyone that God exists, it is the rebel against God, that wants proof God exists, and that calls for faith, not proof.
(Hebrews 11:1) 11&#8194;Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
Why would we care what your imaginary friend thinks about us?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min IB DaMann 74,842
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 min IB DaMann 6,085
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 15 min Subduction Zone 126
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 4,052
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr John 32,063
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed John 4,951
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web