The point is that those religions have nothing in common despite using recognizable labels connoting specific religious points of view. Satan may not mean the same to them as it does to you; because they are different religions that may have nothing in common, except for recognizable labels that are sometimes viewed negatively by some people of some religions. Consider that among some people of religion who may pray up to five times a day, may sometimes make moral statements to the effect that we are the great "shysters" of the world; does that imply the that a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge could be interpreted to mean the Norse god Loki (of tricksters, deceivers and hypocrites) and who's temporal and secular vicar on Earth may have been PT Barnum. We have a First Amendment for a reason; it protects a natural right that is usually considered inalienable or indefeasible in most State Constitutions. I am not sure what you are referring to concerning alleged persons of morals who may claim to subscribe to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. A simple proof that could be required is anti-hypocrisy laws to go along with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our own republic. Any religionist pot calling a religionist kettle black should be required to undergo an inquisition of any claimed morals before any further action should be taken regarding said, claimed morals. Would you like to help me petition a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists on that matter.
Actually, all you have provided is a dictionary definition of the term Atheism; and further that definition does not state a rule or code or law, etc.. just the meaning of the term, subsequently not meeting the requirements established by your statement. "To be a true atheist, one must reject ALL supernatural divinity."
All this tells me is that you have not studied any of the religions you are commenting on. Satan is not some ancient Pagan God, he's the devil. Once again, there is a reason we call him the father of lies. And none of teh following sophistry removes the simple fact that atheists are defending Satanism, while attacking Christianity. What has to go wrong with someone to the point where 'God' is an evil and terrible thing, but Satan .... what? Whatcha talking about? I suggest you read up on the faiths you both agree and disagree with. And don't be fooled by the idiots who claim that Satanism is a herald back to Sumarian religions - they worshipped Baal. Baal being one of Satan's minions. After all, Sumerian religion bears nothing like what modern Satanism preaches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_religion And these liars, who you defend, are helping you define your atheism.
"disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
Great, now all you have to do is explain to us how that is relevant to Satanists running around claiming they are atheists and attending atheist organizational meetings? Oh, you don;t think they are atheists? Neither do we slick! Why do you think shouting is going to help?
"disbelief" and "rejection" are separate activities. You can make it clearer by showing where there is a written rule, law, code of conduct, etc., which shows an obligation toward 'rejection'?
Sure, it's pretty easy: if they believe in Satan, they are not atheists. By the definition of atheist,they CAN NOT BE. You're welcome.
Fine, fine. I'll restate my position if it satisfies your semantic cravings: To be a true atheist, one must disbelieve ALL supernatural divinity. Happy? Atheism is, as I explained to our esteemed colleague Neutral, the simple absence of theism, by virtue of the prefix a- which negates the meaning of the word to which it is affixed. A- or an- means. literally, "not" or "without." Some examples for your consideration: Asexual = reproduction without sexual copulation Anaerobic = without oxygen Atypical = not typical Abiotic = without life Achromatic = without color Asymmetrical = without symmetry Adynamic = without power Akinetic = without voluntary movement Afebrile = without fever Apractic = without motor control Atheism = without theism Agnosticism = without gnosticism So there you have it, examples of the prefix a- as it applies here to rational beings on the planet Earth. Therefore, if a person believes in Satan, worships Satan, or acknowledges the existence of Satan in any way, she can not be called an atheist. It is simply an inaccurate description.
Does that mean atheists don't believe in a "best" vs worse? Some form of life has to be "best" doesn't it?
Well, you admitted error in your former use of the term 'reject'... which shows convincingly that there is the probability that you may or might be in error again with regard to other terms that you choose to use. I kind of like your use of the expression "absence of theism". If in fact there is an absence of theism (absence of belief in God or gods), then it would also stand to reason that the typical Atheist is also declaring that there is an 'absence of God' in the life of that Atheist. Is it possible to wage a war against an enemy that you retain no belief in the existence of that enemy? Would that be akin to fighting hallucinations which might appear in your mind?
If I do not share your beliefs in a god but you provoke me to take a position regarding your beliefs and you for whatever reason find that position to be hostile then how the heck does that go from being a hostility towards your beliefs to being a hostility towards the god of your beliefs?? This is the stuff that people get committed to institutions for. - "No, I am Napoleon and you hate me, so I won't take your medicine!"
Aren't you the little funny one this morning. Don't you even realize that 'hostility' does not necessarily have anything to do with 'rejection'? Aside from that issue, there is the ever present condition of emotionalism (allowing your life to be ruled by your emotions rather than by 'reason': NOT a very scientific approach for resolving problems.) Placing your final assessment in relation to your obvious emotional reaction, I would have to agree that "This is the stuff that people get committed for institutions for." ( stuff being emotional behavior that manifests in the form of hostility).
I don't care why you'd perceive anyone's lack of your beliefs as hostile, Incorporeal. It suffices to observe that you do. We've been over this in the past and it's still not valid; your god is NOT brought into existence to or by someone commenting on your beliefs in that god. Or, said with your own choice of words, your hallucinations do not become the hallucinations of someone else by commenting on them.
Don't go losing track of what is being said. at this post http://www.politicalforum.com/4280008-post113.html , you are the one who introduced 'hostility'. So you should actually care about 'hostility' as opposed to simple 'rejection'. You can absorb that blame all by yourself.. you are the one laying claim to some 'hostility', not me. On the contrary. In order for you to speak, write, draw a picture or anything else pertaining to God, then God must of necessity exist within the framework of your mind, else you could not communicate about God. Which again, bears upon the definitions of the terms 'exist', 'real', 'reality', 'is', 'be', 'perception' etc., and when using any and all of those terms pondering the question; "where is the perception of 'reality' existing?"
Satan is whatever a person who claims to be relgious says it is. Simply stereotyping to the point of special pleading does nothing to improve your argument. Why should I need to lie about Religion if I do not claim to subscribe to a particular religion?
They likely will all overlap, such as we have better manual dexterity than a cheetah but cheetahs can run faster than us, so there is no reason to suppose there must be a best-at-everything.
There was no error. The meanings of those two words are nearly identical. dis·be·lieve to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings. re·ject to refuse to accept (someone or something);to discard as useless or unsatisfactory. You'll note that the word reject is even used in the dictionary definition of the word believe. That said, I'd prefer not to engage in a semantic debate, however, so if you have something substantive to offer, I'm all ears.
Should atheists really care what some Satanist may be claiming? I agree that anyone claiming to be a Satanist may not be an atheist.
I just absolutely love it when a plan comes together. If you will notice below, I have quoted a question that was posed, and the language you presented above is the direct answer to that question. Therefore, I can safely conclude that the above is stipulating that 'definitions' are "rules, laws, codes of conduct, etc." which will govern the activity of Atheists in their requirement to 'reject' or 'disbelieve' the existence of any deity. "You can make it clearer by showing where there is a written rule, law, code of conduct, etc., which shows an obligation toward 'rejection'?" Now that we have that behind us, and now that we know one of the rules of the Atheists and the source of those rules, it will make matters a lot easier to deal with the Atheists who make claims on this forum.... claims such as the denial of a 'soul'. So; Thank you for that assistance in obtaining a source of one of the Atheistic ""rules, laws, codes of conduct, etc."
Its not about what Satanists are claiming. That is well known and largely dismissed as farcical and silly. Its about what Satanists, who call themselves atheists and are in atheists organizations, are writing about atheism .... that is actually Satanism. Again, we have had atheists right here on this forum, claim that they understood the Bible better than any of us silly Christians, and even go so far as to claim that Jesus was actually a representation of .... no God. That is pretty well known charlatanism, and was pretty much dismissed as such by all but the most miitant of atheists who stroked their chins sagely at this 19 year olds 'wisdom'. Its easy to confront and eliminate that kind of silliness because we have a Bible, doctrine, seminaries, etc. What do atheists have to prevent a Satanist from going into a forum and through charisma use atheist philosophy to justify social darwinism? There is an atheists right here in this thread that has shared that this is exactly what happened in a meeting he attended. Again, there are people who would use Christian principles to ensare and endanger others, the Church of Jesus Christ Christian (neo-Nazi church) is one example. And example that is widely denounced within the Christian community. Atheists on the other hand have Satanists overtly and covertly attending their events. They have Satanists who have an agenda that is at its basic, a belief in God - and a desire to undermine that God at all costs. Is THAT what atheism is? Undermining God at al costs? Or is it just the belief that there is no God? Feel free to disagree? As atheists produce more and more anti-religious, particularly anti-Christian propoganda .... at what point do we conclude that there are influences besides atheism at play here? Influences that atheism has no protection against?
In my opinion, Satan and his buddy Faust are a uniquely Christian problem since the term devil connotes a specific devil peculiar to that religion. Why would an atheist need to care he walks in the shadow of the valley atheism? It is only people who claim to have faith in some system of beliefs that includes Satan that need to tend to their morals to justify any spiritual reward.
