Misconceptions of Christianity 2

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the belief in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

You need to specify positive or negative atheism. Commonly we are talking about positive atheism. This is a belief that there is no god. Negative atheism is no belief in god (commonly referred to as agnostic). Typical atheists do have a specific belief and generally structure their morals around that belief.[/quote]

No, no no no no no and again no.

Atheism means a lack of belief in any god. Simple as that. It is not like Christianity that has a million flavours all claiming to be the one true path. Atheism means a lack of belief in any god.

A = without
Theos = god

Now in addition to being Atheist I might also believe that there is definitely no god (which I don’t) or believe that it is unlikely that there is a god based on the evidence available (my position) but that does not change the definition of atheism.[/quote]

Yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

Atheism is a broad term and not all atheists share a common belief about god. There are lots of ways to define atheism. I don’t believe in god and I believe there is no god are entirely philosophically distinct AND that distinction is critical to the discussion. YET they both fall into the broad definition of atheism. You cannot say atheism is exactly “Atheism means a lack of belief in any god” and you cannot prove this by word structure. It is much more complex. I was only asking you to be more specific. You are a negative atheist and as such I agree, it’s not much like a religion. However, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not there are a lot of positive atheists out there, and they are not much different than a theist.

[i]Positive vs. negative
Main article: Negative and positive atheism

Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[38] and Michael Martin,[30] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.[39] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[38] and in Catholic apologetics[40] since at least 1813.[41][42] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.

Main Entry: athe�·ism
Pronunciation: \Ã??Ã??-thÃ??-Ã??i-zÃ??m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French ath�©isme, from ath�©e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
   [/i]

est.[/quote]

Again no. Atheism means without god. I can be an Atheist and an antitheist. I can be an Atheist and an Agnostic. The only thing I can’t be is an Atheist and a Theist. It is in no way analogous to saying I am a Muslim or I am a Catholic or even I am a Communist. There are no fixed sets of Dogma related to Atheism. Atheism means without god.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the belief in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

You need to specify positive or negative atheism. Commonly we are talking about positive atheism. This is a belief that there is no god. Negative atheism is no belief in god (commonly referred to as agnostic). Typical atheists do have a specific belief and generally structure their morals around that belief.[/quote]

No, no no no no no and again no.

Atheism means a lack of belief in any god. Simple as that. It is not like Christianity that has a million flavours all claiming to be the one true path. Atheism means a lack of belief in any god.

A = without
Theos = god

Now in addition to being Atheist I might also believe that there is definitely no god (which I don’t) or believe that it is unlikely that there is a god based on the evidence available (my position) but that does not change the definition of atheism.[/quote]

Yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

Atheism is a broad term and not all atheists share a common belief about god. There are lots of ways to define atheism. I don’t believe in god and I believe there is no god are entirely philosophically distinct AND that distinction is critical to the discussion. YET they both fall into the broad definition of atheism. You cannot say atheism is exactly “Atheism means a lack of belief in any god” and you cannot prove this by word structure. It is much more complex. I was only asking you to be more specific. You are a negative atheist and as such I agree, it’s not much like a religion. However, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not there are a lot of positive atheists out there, and they are not much different than a theist.

[i]Positive vs. negative
Main article: Negative and positive atheism

Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[38] and Michael Martin,[30] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.[39] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[38] and in Catholic apologetics[40] since at least 1813.[41][42] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.

Main Entry: athe�?�·ism
Pronunciation: \Ã???Ã???-thÃ???-Ã???i-zÃ???m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French ath�?�©isme, from ath�?�©e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
   [/i]

est.[/quote]

Again no. Atheism means without god. I can be an Atheist and an antitheist. I can be an Atheist and an Agnostic. The only thing I can’t be is an Atheist and a Theist. It is in no way analogous to saying I am a Muslim or I am a Catholic or even I am a Communist. There are no fixed sets of Dogma related to Atheism. Atheism means without god.[/quote]

Right. Instead, they fall back on the perrenially human position: they turn themselves into a God and create a dogma supporting and explaining that position. We’re witnessing some it right here in this thread.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Yeah but Atheism is not a dogmatic belief system >>>[/quote]Another fatal characteristic of a bankrupt and worthless pseudo belief system.
[/quote]

I don’t know Trib - I agree with Chesterton that man is a dogma creating animal; he cannot not create dogma, however false.

I love this: “When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” ~G.K. Chesterton

[/quote]
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. My point was that attempting to externally proclaim the un-dogmatic nature of one’s belief system is bankrupt, worthless and false. Everybody self consciously believes in something absolutely, regardless of what erudite version of denial they may claim.

Believers have been restored in the mind of Christ (by free grace) and hence rightly observe the revelation of God in and around them. Unbelievers are all the time confronted with precisely the same revelation only their sin deceives them into believing absolutely anything except that.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the belief in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

You need to specify positive or negative atheism. Commonly we are talking about positive atheism. This is a belief that there is no god. Negative atheism is no belief in god (commonly referred to as agnostic). Typical atheists do have a specific belief and generally structure their morals around that belief.[/quote]

No, no no no no no and again no.

Atheism means a lack of belief in any god. Simple as that. It is not like Christianity that has a million flavours all claiming to be the one true path. Atheism means a lack of belief in any god.

A = without
Theos = god

Now in addition to being Atheist I might also believe that there is definitely no god (which I don’t) or believe that it is unlikely that there is a god based on the evidence available (my position) but that does not change the definition of atheism.[/quote]

Yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

Atheism is a broad term and not all atheists share a common belief about god. There are lots of ways to define atheism. I don’t believe in god and I believe there is no god are entirely philosophically distinct AND that distinction is critical to the discussion. YET they both fall into the broad definition of atheism. You cannot say atheism is exactly “Atheism means a lack of belief in any god” and you cannot prove this by word structure. It is much more complex. I was only asking you to be more specific. You are a negative atheist and as such I agree, it’s not much like a religion. However, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not there are a lot of positive atheists out there, and they are not much different than a theist.

[i]Positive vs. negative
Main article: Negative and positive atheism

Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[38] and Michael Martin,[30] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.[39] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[38] and in Catholic apologetics[40] since at least 1813.[41][42] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.

Main Entry: athe�?�·ism
Pronunciation: \Ã???Ã???-thÃ???-Ã???i-zÃ???m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French ath�?�©isme, from ath�?�©e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
   [/i]

est.[/quote]

Again no. Atheism means without god. I can be an Atheist and an antitheist. I can be an Atheist and an Agnostic. The only thing I can’t be is an Atheist and a Theist. It is in no way analogous to saying I am a Muslim or I am a Catholic or even I am a Communist. There are no fixed sets of Dogma related to Atheism. Atheism means without god.[/quote]

Sure. all those dictionaries and encyclopedias don’t know what they are talking about. And I consider myself a negative atheist/agnostic theist.

I don’t believe it’s provable or knowable, but I do believe in god. Knowing and believing are 2 separate things.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Yeah but Atheism is not a dogmatic belief system >>>[/quote]Another fatal characteristic of a bankrupt and worthless pseudo belief system.
[/quote]

I don’t know Trib - I agree with Chesterton that man is a dogma creating animal; he cannot not create dogma, however false.

I love this: “When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” ~G.K. Chesterton

[/quote]
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. My point was that attempting to externally proclaim the un-dogmatic nature of one’s belief system is bankrupt, worthless and false. Everybody self consciously believes in something absolutely, regardless of what erudite version of denial they may claim.

Believers have been restored in the mind of Christ (by free grace) and hence rightly observe the revelation of God in and around them. Unbelievers are all the time confronted with precisely the same revelation only their sin deceives them into believing absolutely anything except that.[/quote]

Very well said.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

They still worshipped a “god” of some sort. It’s inescapable. [/quote]

Evidence, please. Show me evidence that supports this assertion.
[/quote]
Every last character typed in this forum by MikeTheBear has been a sky splitting stentorian testimony to his worship of his own sinful reason and resulting logical abstractions over the God who created him and them.

You should know by now that I am fully aware of how unpersuasive this will be to you because you continue to demand that God cozy up under YOUR microscope. A thing that he will never ever do.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the beleif in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

Atheism is a belief system . . . you have merely chosen (1-between believing in God’s existence, 2-not-believing in God’s existence, or 3-not believing either of the previous options) to believe that a state of being without a firm opinion of God’s existence or non-existence is the right option for you . . .

Adding all of your belief systems together constitutes your world view. So a communist, who is also an aethesit as well as a hedonist is not defined by one aspect of his world view, but by all of them in aggregate.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the belief in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

I do not know, he may not, it is just what I learned when I was little.

Well I might take a look at it, but it was written by Christopher Hitchens, which right now I am praying for, but I’m not sure if he is a good person to be writing something like that. I mean he isn’t even respectful with the Title, so credibility just went down with that title.[/quote]

LOL, it does make me want to stand in front of you shouting Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah like in Monty Python Life of Brian.[/quote]

What? All I said was his credibility is kind of hurt with that title.[/quote]

Odd, this reply hit the wrong post. Was referring to your G-D thing.

[Sloth]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I have no idea about Hitchens’ charitable works because he doesn’t scream and shout about whether or not he does have charitable works. That is not the point. He is not religious so he doesn’t have to abide by the let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what Hitchens screams about. Simple observation tell us he doesn’t even come close to approaching Mother Teresa’s actual presence among the forgotten, opening of hundreds of houses to administer to the dying, orphans, and the poor (she didn’t run Catholic hospitals by the way, that’s a totally different mission/branch than hers) in a hundred plus different nations. Then there’s the fact that she was a major voice for peace, petitioning leaders around the world. She and her nuns provided something to people whose own citizens would rather step over them than lend a hand to a member of a lower-caste. Were you there Cockney? Was Hitchens? You dang sure weren’t were you? You, nor that juvenile trapped in a man’s body (Missionary Position?) can even begin to be taken seriously on this. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< Again no. Atheism means without god. I can be an Atheist and an antitheist. I can be an Atheist and an Agnostic. The only thing I can’t be is an Atheist and a Theist. It is in no way analogous to saying I am a Muslim or I am a Catholic or even I am a Communist. There are no fixed sets of Dogma related to Atheism. Atheism means without god.[/quote]This will sound quite a bit more sarcastic than I actually mean it, but of all the unavoidable evidence in God’s mind numbingly vast creation, guys like you do more to strengthen my faith than almost anything else.

[dmaddox]

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I’ll just cut and paste from above so we don’t miss the opportunity to address this. LOL.

It’s impossible to live without a God. Impossible. If God is not at the center of your life, then you will invariably worship any number of false “gods.” Power, money, status…or, what it often really boils down to: worshipping one’s self as a “god.” Think about it. That’s why Atheism really doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

I don’t know why I keep posting because nobody seems to listen or care about what I have to say. What evidence to you have to support your claim that all people need to worship something? I agree that for people who are very religious, there is perhaps a need to worship something, and if you removed God from their lives they would indeed worship something else. But not everyone is like this. I’ve lived without a God for over 20 years now and I’m doing just fine. As difficult as it may be for you to believe, I simply don’t feel the need to “worship” anything. I am simply without a religion and don’t feel the need to have one.

I should add here that I would very much like it if there were a God. There are days when I wish I could believe in a God. That doesn’t prove that one exists.

I don’t doubt that some atheists/agnostics worship money, power, themselves, but not all are like this. I’m not like this, and my atheist/agnostic friends are not like this. This is similar to saying that all Catholic priests are pedophiles. Even I don’t make that assertion.

BTW - I know many Christians who, despite their religion, are very much into money and worshiping themselves. I’ve met my share of selfish Christians. This is one of the reasons why I am so skeptical of the fact that religion does any good. I have no doubt that religion has a positive affect on some people and causes them to lead good lives. But I’ve seen far too many “bad” who claimed to be “good Christians.”[/quote]

I will not speak for Katz, but in my own personal life I will agree with all you have just posted. I can see why you hate Christianity because of the Christians. I almost went the same path as you do. The most hurt I have ever felt has come from Christians especially my pastors. One was a mentor who cheated on his wife. Another cared more for the money in his pocket then helping people in his congregation that were volunteering that were unemployed. God blessed me and taught me a lot in those times. There was a string of 10 years that I thought God could not exist. He has changed that thinking of mine. He blesses me daily.

I will say coming on to T-Nation actually showed me that God does exist. Having the discussions I have with every one of you on this website only encourages me to walk more with my God. I have spent more time meditating on his word, and what he wants us to be because of you all. I would like to thank all of you for what you are doing and did not even know you were doing it. God is using you all for his greater good. I am wrestling now with the tough questions. I want to hear God, and I get that in his word.

If you want to know God do this

Matthew 7:7-8 7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."

I promise if you spend some time seeking God you will find him.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I have no idea about Hitchens’ charitable works because he doesn’t scream and shout about whether or not he does have charitable works. That is not the point. He is not religious so he doesn’t have to abide by the let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what Hitchens screams about. Simple observation tell us he doesn’t even come close to approaching Mother Teresa’s actual presence among the forgotten, opening of hundreds of houses to administer to the dying, orphans, and the poor (she didn’t run Catholic hospitals by the way, that’s a totally different mission/branch than hers) in a hundred plus different nations. Then there’s the fact that she was a major voice for peace, petitioning leaders around the world. She and her nuns provided something to people whose own citizens would rather step over them than lend a hand to a member of a lower-caste. Were you there Cockney? Was Hitchens? You dang sure weren’t were you? You, nor that juvenile trapped in a man’s body (Missionary Position?) can even begin to be taken seriously on this. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[/quote]Hitchens was interviewed by a local Pastor (Paul Edwards) here with a radio show. If I had known he would come up months later like this I would have recorded it. Edwards was cordial and accommodating to him and he was obnoxious and vitriolic to Edwards. It ended with Hitchens being beeped a bunch of times and him hanging up on Edwards.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

I wouldn’t trust Hitchens with much - I certainly wouldn’t trust him on anything having to do with Christianity. He’s got a major axe to grind; and one can hear the grinding going on in the background every time he puts pen to paper or his toungue wags.

I actually feel sorry for the man; but not enough to believe much of what he says. I hope he gets well. Even more - I hope he comes to his senses; he’s doing an awful lot of damage by spreading his nonsense.

[/quote]
Read the book, he makes his sources very clear. I agree he has an axe to grind against organised religion. His book ‘God is not great’ is pretty clear on that.

His style is to be a contrarian. He looks for people who stick themselves on the pedestal as paragons of virtue then points out the other side to them.

Doesn’t mean he is wrong though.[/quote]

I like his brother, Peter Hitchens.

[/quote]

So do I, they are both very erudite though I disagree with him on a number of things.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the beleif in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

You need to specify positive or negative atheism. Commonly we are talking about positive atheism. This is a belief that there is no god. Negative atheism is no belief in god (commonly referred to as agnostic). Typical atheists do have a specific belief and generally structure their morals around that belief.[/quote]

No, no no no no no and again no.

Atheism means a lack of belief in any god. Simple as that. It is not like Christianity that has a million flavours all claiming to be the one true path. Atheism means a lack of belief in any god.

A = without
Theos = god

Now in addition to being Atheist I might also believe that there is definitely no god (which I don’t) or believe that it is unlikely that there is a god based on the evidence available (my position) but that does not change the definition of atheism.[/quote]
You might want to start a “Misconceptions of atheism” thread. I’d be happy to have the second post wherein I would include my oft cited piece from Romans 1 denying there is any such thing as true “atheism”.[/quote]

Yeah but Atheism is not a dogmatic belief system so it should be a very short thread.

Atheism means without god. The end.[/quote]

I’ll just cut and paste from above so we don’t miss the opportunity to address this. LOL.

It’s impossible to live without a God. Impossible. If God is not at the center of your life, then you will invariably worship any number of false “gods.” Power, money, status…or, what it often really boils down to: worshipping one’s self as a “god.” Think about it. That’s why Atheism really doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

People managed fine for literally millions of years before a small group of people in the middle east decided that the War god from their polytheistic religion was more powerful than the other gods and they should start to pray exclusively to that one.[/quote]

Okay, let’s say that’s true. They may have managed “fine” - I don’t really agree with that - but let’s say they did. They still worshipped a “god” of some sort. It’s inescapable. [/quote]

No it isn’t. It might be inconceivable to you due to your deep seated faith however I worship no god.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Yeah but Atheism is not a dogmatic belief system .[/quote]

False.

As we learned from the previous thread;

Atheists can’t murder

Atheism invoked in wrong doing ceases to be atheism

Despots can’t be atheists

Atheists must be capitalists

Otherwise, they’re excommunicated from the one true Atheism. Therefore, we can’t find atheists doing bad stuff! Not only that, but what appears to be atheists doing bad stuff, even in the name of atheism, is actually religion doing bad stuff![/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? Atheists can be anything except believers in God. It’s that simple. Atheism doesn’t replace religion. All the time you spend on religion an Atheist might spend on any number of things that have nothing to do with Atheism. Atheism is not complete belief system. It is one small part of someone’s beliefs.[/quote]

Huh, that’s strange. I seem to recall a whole lot of caveats being tacked on as to why despotic atheists aren’t atheists. And, as to why state atheism is actually a religion. [/quote]

No the arguments were about the specific supposed atheists that you cited. Of course an Atheist can be despotic.

Athesim is not a religion, that should not be in debate, it is logically impossible for atheism to be a religion.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Yeah but Atheism is not a dogmatic belief system >>>[/quote]Another fatal characteristic of a bankrupt and worthless pseudo belief system.
[/quote]

I don’t know Trib - I agree with Chesterton that man is a dogma creating animal; he cannot not create dogma, however false.

I love this: “When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” ~G.K. Chesterton

[/quote]
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. My point was that attempting to externally proclaim the un-dogmatic nature of one’s belief system is bankrupt, worthless and false. Everybody self consciously believes in something absolutely, regardless of what erudite version of denial they may claim.

Believers have been restored in the mind of Christ (by free grace) and hence rightly observe the revelation of God in and around them. Unbelievers are all the time confronted with precisely the same revelation only their sin deceives them into believing absolutely anything except that.[/quote]

I would challenge that. What one thing do I believe dogmatically?

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the belief in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

You need to specify positive or negative atheism. Commonly we are talking about positive atheism. This is a belief that there is no god. Negative atheism is no belief in god (commonly referred to as agnostic). Typical atheists do have a specific belief and generally structure their morals around that belief.[/quote]

No, no no no no no and again no.

Atheism means a lack of belief in any god. Simple as that. It is not like Christianity that has a million flavours all claiming to be the one true path. Atheism means a lack of belief in any god.

A = without
Theos = god

Now in addition to being Atheist I might also believe that there is definitely no god (which I don’t) or believe that it is unlikely that there is a god based on the evidence available (my position) but that does not change the definition of atheism.[/quote]

Yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

Atheism is a broad term and not all atheists share a common belief about god. There are lots of ways to define atheism. I don’t believe in god and I believe there is no god are entirely philosophically distinct AND that distinction is critical to the discussion. YET they both fall into the broad definition of atheism. You cannot say atheism is exactly “Atheism means a lack of belief in any god” and you cannot prove this by word structure. It is much more complex. I was only asking you to be more specific. You are a negative atheist and as such I agree, it’s not much like a religion. However, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not there are a lot of positive atheists out there, and they are not much different than a theist.

[i]Positive vs. negative
Main article: Negative and positive atheism

Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[38] and Michael Martin,[30] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.[39] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[38] and in Catholic apologetics[40] since at least 1813.[41][42] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.

Main Entry: athe�??�?�·ism
Pronunciation: \Ã???Ã???-thÃ???-Ã???i-zÃ???m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French ath�??�?�©isme, from ath�??�?�©e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
   [/i]

est.[/quote]

Again no. Atheism means without god. I can be an Atheist and an antitheist. I can be an Atheist and an Agnostic. The only thing I can’t be is an Atheist and a Theist. It is in no way analogous to saying I am a Muslim or I am a Catholic or even I am a Communist. There are no fixed sets of Dogma related to Atheism. Atheism means without god.[/quote]

Sure. all those dictionaries and encyclopedias don’t know what they are talking about. And I consider myself a negative atheist/agnostic theist.

I don’t believe it’s provable or knowable, but I do believe in god. Knowing and believing are 2 separate things.[/quote]

Some of the dictionaries and encyclopedias are wrong, yes. Most of them are probably right, you are just not reading them correctly.

Atheist means without god. There is other baggage that people associate with it but the word has a very clearly defined meaning.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK so recap.

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. To be a belief system it would have to be the beleif in something. It is not. It is the lack of belief in a god. You can be an atheist and a communist. Communism would be your belief system. The atheism just denotes that you don’t believe in a god. You can also be an atheist Capitalist.

Of course you can be a Catholic Communist (at certain points of his life Stalin was this, he was also clearly nuts) you can also be a Christian Socialist (Hitler, though his beliefs seem to have changed throughout his life, he clearly states in many documented conversations and writings that he believes in God.)

The one common theme for Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin is that they were all raised and educated within a religion. Could they have turned out differently were they raised to think more critically? Of course I don’t know, it would be purely speculation but it makes as much sense to blame their later killing sprees on their religious education as it does to blame it on their atheism.

@Brother Chris - Sorry, got my consonants mixed up. YHW. By the way, the whole G-D thing, do you think he really cares?

@anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a really good woman. Read the book I linked in the other post then get back to me.[/quote]

Atheism is a belief system . . . you have merely chosen (1-between believing in God’s existence, 2-not-believing in God’s existence, or 3-not believing either of the previous options) to believe that a state of being without a firm opinion of God’s existence or non-existence is the right option for you . . .

Adding all of your belief systems together constitutes your world view. So a communist, who is also an aethesit as well as a hedonist is not defined by one aspect of his world view, but by all of them in aggregate. [/quote]

Wrong, whilst you can build a belief system starting with atheism, atheism in and of itself is not a belief system it is just the state of being outside of a group of belief systems that have a god.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I have no idea about Hitchens’ charitable works because he doesn’t scream and shout about whether or not he does have charitable works. That is not the point. He is not religious so he doesn’t have to abide by the let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what Hitchens screams about. Simple observation tell us he doesn’t even come close to approaching Mother Teresa’s actual presence among the forgotten, opening of hundreds of houses to administer to the dying, orphans, and the poor (she didn’t run Catholic hospitals by the way, that’s a totally different mission/branch than hers) in a hundred plus different nations. Then there’s the fact that she was a major voice for peace, petitioning leaders around the world. She and her nuns provided something to people whose own citizens would rather step over them than lend a hand to a member of a lower-caste. Were you there Cockney? Was Hitchens? You dang sure weren’t were you? You, nor that juvenile trapped in a man’s body (Missionary Position?) can even begin to be taken seriously on this. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[/quote]

Again you are falling into the trap of accusing Hitchens of not being as good as the picture the Church and the woman herself paints of Mother Teresa and therefore discounting what he wrote (which I doubt you have actually read).

Hitchens was not there but he interviewed lots of people who were there and witnessed first hand the evil that Teresa spread and condoned. He also has the paperwork and photographs to back up his other claims.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< Again no. Atheism means without god. I can be an Atheist and an antitheist. I can be an Atheist and an Agnostic. The only thing I can’t be is an Atheist and a Theist. It is in no way analogous to saying I am a Muslim or I am a Catholic or even I am a Communist. There are no fixed sets of Dogma related to Atheism. Atheism means without god.[/quote]This will sound quite a bit more sarcastic than I actually mean it, but of all the unavoidable evidence in God’s mind numbingly vast creation, guys like you do more to strengthen my faith than almost anything else.[/quote]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know. (John Heywood 1546)

Though I am sure that you would throw the same back at me