Christian Vandalizes Religious Display

So you term atheism as a lack of belief... let's ignore for a moment that most dictionaries define it is the belief that no god exists.

What, according to you, is the term that is used to describe the belief that no god exists.

 

Christmas has nothing to do with Christ because, a) nobody knows when/if he was born and, b) because it's a pagan festival hi-jacked by Christians for their own use.

 

Theism is the belief that a god exists. Adding the contraction "a" to the front of it becomes the negation of that word: "without belief that a god exists".

I'm sorry, that is the way language works. Dictionaries heavily use common definitions of words not words based on their etymology.

 

I'm going to have to say you need to look up the etymology of the word you're claiming. Because you don't know what it is.
atheism:
late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’

So atheism is without god. It's only become to mean "lack of a belief in a god" recently once atheists realized that to claim a god does not exist is just as much as a belief as claiming god does exist. Which would make atheism a religion just like Christianity. So they've attempted to manipulate the meaning of atheism to weasel out of that label.

But you ignored my other question. If atheism is a lack of a belief in a god... then what is the belief that there is no god?

And I think it's hilarious when an "atheist" makes this claim. Especially when I ask them... does a god exist? So I'm asking you...

Does a god exist?

 

Antitheism.

Does a god exist? I don't know. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know whether a god exists or not, but until I am presented with definitive proof, I won't believe in one.

 

Then you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic. Which makes you just as religious as anybody else. Because you are claiming that a god COULD exist.

You can claim whatever you want but the "I don't know" category is already claimed by the agnostics.

And Antitheism, also known as militant atheism, is the belief that theism and religion are harmful to society and people, and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. Antitheism, which is often characterized as outspoken opposition to theism and religion, asserts that religious and theistic beliefs are harmful and should be discarded in favor of humanism, rationalism, and other alternatives.

You're agnostic... why do you feel the need to declare yourself an atheist?

 

I'm not claiming anything. I don't know. A god may or may not exist. I don't know if it could or not. Until I am presented evidence, I won't believe either way.

And I am an atheist. I don't believe in any gods.

Gnosticism/agnosticism addresses claims of knowledge, not beliefs. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. They are in fact highly complementary if you want to actually have a rational overall belief system.

 

That's absurd. Agnosticism is the claim that you do not know whether or not a god exists. To an agnostic a god could exist or a god could not exist. If you assert that a god does NOT exist then you are not agnostic, you are atheist.

You cannot be both. There are, in fact, only three options. Either:

You believe a god does exist. In which case you are a theist, or;
You believe a god does not exist. In which case you are an a-theist, or;
You do not know whether a god exists or not. In which case you are an agnostic.

Both atheists and agnostics do not believe that a god exists. The difference is that the agnostic acknowledges that a god COULD exist. An atheist does not.

 

Except there are people who are agnostic theists. In fact, that is the only rational stance a theist can have. They believe in a God, but they don't know that one exists. That is why it is called faith.

 

Then the argument is moot because it's still the same thing in your view... it's just that you consider all three to be agnostic. But they're still differentiated by their belief in God... meaning in your point of view there are still only three options.

All three are agnostic... but:

You believe that a god does exist but you acknowledge you could be wrong. In which case you are an agnostic theist, or;
You believe that a god does not exist but you acknowledge you could be wrong. In which case you are an agnostic atheist, or;
You do not know whether a god exists more than not. In which case you are simply an agnostic.

We're just playing semantics now...

 

No. Because there are gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. Gnostic theists claim to know that they god they believe in exists. Gnostic theists claim to know that there is no god.

Both are highly illogical positions.

"You believe that a god does not exist but you acknowledge you could be wrong. In which case you are an agnostic atheist"

That is the closest to defining me, however it is worth noting that while knowledge is a choice (you can choose to learn or be ignorant), belief is not. I will not stop being an atheist until I a presented with definitive evidence.

 

I'm going to assume you meant atheists.

But regardless, all you're doing is taking the overall category and attempting to create subcategories within each. But the simple fact of the matter is that you will ALWAYS fall under the category of one of the three... atheist, theist or agnostic.

That's simply not true. Belief is also a choice. Hence the phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes".

 

Agnosticism deals with knowledge. It does not belong as a category of belief. They are two separate issues. People are either Atheist or Theist and then independent of that they are either Gnostic or Agnostic.

I was an atheist in a foxhole. Belief is not a choice, you either believe something or you don't after you are convinced or not convinced by arguments/evidence.

Experiment: Choose right now to believe that communism is the best form of government and maintain that belief for the next week.

 

Good for her. Clearly the people who put it up wanted that reaction and they got it. Hope the guy who put it up gets run over by a car on his way to try to jail that lady.

 

That would be easy to do. People convince themselves of untruths ALL the time.

But regardless... you're still acknowledging what I said... Even in your view, you're either an atheist or a theist.

 

The SCOTUS bases its rules on past precedents and the intent of the framers of the Constitution. So here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" - James Madison

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself" - James Madison again, as President explaining why he vetoed a bill.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson

And in case you thought that this was a Christian country, here is an excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli which was Ratified by the Senate in 1797:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

It doesn't matter if there is a law or not, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this as my previous links have shown. By putting up the nativity scene, the state of Michigan is establishing a religion.

What disturbs me is that this is even an argument. The Separation of Church and State is so important to this country. Without it, any religion that gains a majority could enforce their views on you, whether you believed in them or not. Sharia law could become reality in the U.S. without the Separation of Church and State. Churches could be forced to marry homosexuals without it. Churches could be taxed without it. Separation of Church and State allows you to worship God in whatever way you deem fit without interference from the government. One would think that this would make conservatives the biggest supporters of it and actually many do. Supreme Court judge, Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by Ronald Reagan, said in the ACLU vs. Mercer County ruling, "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?".

I couldn't agree more.

 

I'm calling bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your claim that you can choose to be a communist right now.

You yourself even used the word "convince" in your statement. Being convinced of something is not a conscious process that people have control over. You are either convinced by an argument or by evidence or you are not. There is no choice involved.

And yes, you are either an atheist or you are a theist.

Then, independent of that, you are either gnostic or agnostic.

You are correct in that people are convinced of untruths all the time. After all, you were convinced by incredibly illogical arguments of Christianity.

 

Its actually about a solitary woman with self-control and respect issues. We all find them occasionally. There may even be a few beyond the reach of the 'Christian Right' and some of them may have those issues manifest in action in March and June as well.

 

I don't really care what you call bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on. People are convinced of things all the time through nothing more than force of will. A perfect example is someone who lacks confidence. They can believe they're the ugliest piece of trash on the planet one day and through nothing but force of will within a few weeks completely change his belief structure with no evidence that he was more attractive and in fact be the same butt-ugly guy he was before.

Of course it is. All it takes is force of will to change belief. Nothing more.

Then why the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you arguing with me? LoL Either you believe a god exists or you do not. But there is no third option.

The arguments of Christianity are not illogical. They are, in fact, very logical making the assumption that God exists. Your problem is that you make the assumption that god does not exist, therefore you reject any logical argument made.

Of course, given that the statistical probability that all of this could come into existence on it's own coincidentally is astronomically higher than you winning the lottery every single day for the rest of your life .... I'd say your belief is far more illogical than mine.

 

Lying to yourself and using false evidence to change your beliefs still requires convincing, which is not a conscious act.

Then prove it. For the next month convince yourself that to be a vehement supporter of homosexuality, an atheist, and a communist. I guarantee you cannot.

Correct.

And I do not believe a god exists. However that is not the same thing as believing there is not god.

That assumption is incredibly illogical. Unless you can support the existence of god with evidence, then there is no reason to believe one exists.

What evidence exactly did you use to determine said "statistical probability"?

 

If someone wants a fight why not give them one? You know that the claims made in the OT were another lame example of atheists The OT is clearly pure flame bait just like the display that was attempting to be destroyed. Try doing something like that to a Muslim shrine, death might soon follow. But Christians would not even think about killing someone for that kind of act, so its obvious that Christians are for the most part beyond tolerant. Your example also shows the length that atheists has to go to dig up some dirt on Christians! What a joke! Look, its not our fault that your world view ie atheistic paradigm is the most hated one in the world, and that you are a part of a tiny, tiny minority. So suck it up and instead of beating a dead horse try to think of ways that would make atheism more tolerant. Christianity is far too tolerant and suffers far too many fools as it is.

reva

 

I didn't dismiss it sorry you can't understand the simple words I used......I could draw pictures for you but that will take a while. But you posted a list of things that even the writer of the article, a professional victim, can't assume was vandalism for religious purposes.

 

Why is it every time we point out Christians who attack the first amendment people say things like this. Oh yeah they can't publicly acknowledge that this happens because then they have to give up their constant victimhood badge.

Actually christians make death threats all the time.

 

It's a way of thinking, whether you like it or not. It's a belief that there is no god and religion is a crock. It's the exact opposite of what religions want you to believe.

I'm sorry but atheism is and can be just as rude and annoying as religion.

 

Atheism is a belief system like bald is a hair color. There's no belief to make a system from.