Whiny Theists And Just-for-the-heck-of-it Atheists! Sheesh...

[sylenzednuke 0]

I am totally sick of Theists who just say "in your heart you know I am right and you are wrong" and/or ask those same old lame questions and I am sick of Atheists who just don't know what they are speaking against, feel proud and act arrogant and so ignorant, most of them I've seen just don't know why are they even taking this stance and some don't even care, they just want to be one as they feel then they'll be considered better off! Some just say, "Believe in God, half the world lives in darkness anyways." which is equivalent to, "Don't believe in God, half the world lives in darkness anyways.". I just don't get it why is community/forum spam like this is even considered bloody debating. If there is no point to be proven and all you're going to do is whine and rant then better not call it a debate and just fight like kids over this.

 

A Theist will say God exists and an Atheist will say God doesn't exist. They both forget that I have my own brain to think and I can myself land up on conclusions and I don't need someone to tell me what's right and what's wrong when it comes to someone's existence!

Edited June 19, 2007 by sylenzednuke (see edit history)

[Reygekan 0]

The problem is that many Theist's use belief or faith as points for their opinion when belief or faith can only be gained by oneself. You can't be told to believe and you can't be forced to have faith. Atheists seem to believe that the existance of a god is impossible and oftentimes use many impossible questions or "Prove-it". You can't prove god's existance, that's why it's religious, it's about faith and belief.It's true that many religious discussions are based on rather ignorant views, but avoiding the topic is worse, religious should be something discussed, not ignored. If you're not free to discuss religion, new ideas or thoughts never get out there and that's bad, religion should be a matter of discussion, however it should be discussed in a decent and civilized manner, not used poorly to insult the beliefs of others.

[truefusion 3]

You know, some people even doubt their own existence. But i wonder what you think about the debates here at Xisto. Are some of the debates here at Xisto included in your vent? You got me curious.

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

You can't prove god's existance, that's why it's religious, it's about faith and belief.

Nor can one prove (tangibly) the inexistence of God. For this reason, atheism should be considered a religion by all.

[Reygekan 0]

You can't prove for or against the existance of god.Atheism isn't a religion, it's the lack of belief in a god. You can be a Bhuddist and still be Atheist, to say it was a religion wouldn't be an accurate term.The closest you can get to proving the inexistance of god is hypothetical loop scenarios and paradoxes.

[thejestergl 0]

I agree with what you are saying and that people shouldn't be forcing on their beliefs on whether there is a superior being or not. No one should be telling others that they are right or wrong about the topic because they can't 100% prove that they are right. Sure people say "Well how could the earth have been created? The odds are too small so someone must have done SOMETHING." And some atheists say "But there is still a chance for it all to happen. And the world was built on chance." I think that if you have the ability to think for yourself then you should think for yourself! Don't tell people what they should believe in.As for the debate whether "atheism" should be considered a religion or not, does it really matter? Whether you classify it as a religion or not people are still going to believe in what they want to.Well there are my 2 cents.

[truefusion 3]

[1]Atheism isn't a religion, it's the lack of belief in a god. [2]You can be a Bhuddist and still be Atheist, to say it was a religion wouldn't be an accurate term.

[1]Using this argument i can claim that theism is not a religion, for it is the lack of belief in no god.

[2]Buddhists are atheists—they don't believe in any god. Buddhists are just more spiritual and have (more) doctrines.

[sylenzednuke 0]

The problem is that many Theist's use belief or faith as points for their opinion when belief or faith can only be gained by oneself. You can't be told to believe and you can't be forced to have faith. Atheists seem to believe that the existance of a god is impossible and oftentimes use many impossible questions or "Prove-it". You can't prove god's existance, that's why it's religious, it's about faith and belief.

 

It's true that many religious discussions are based on rather ignorant views, but avoiding the topic is worse, religious should be something discussed, not ignored. If you're not free to discuss religion, new ideas or thoughts never get out there and that's bad, religion should be a matter of discussion, however it should be discussed in a decent and civilized manner, not used poorly to insult the beliefs of others.

I agree it should be discussed but definitely not in this way. I being an Atheist welcome healthy discussions but I can't help but blow up when all the person against me says, "in your heart you know I am right and you are wrong", all my heart actually says at that moment is, "let this idiot die"! They seem their "knowledge" of his existence is proof enough ... that's just dumb according to me.

 

You know, some people even doubt their own existence. But i wonder what you think about the debates here at Xisto. Are some of the debates here at Xisto included in your vent? You got me curious.

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

Nor can one prove (tangibly) the inexistence of God. For this reason, atheism should be considered a religion by all.

The debates here made me realize that a healthy discussion is possible on this topic. And I guess you're drawing the conclusion of Atheism being a religion 'cause it too requires belief and nothing can be proved, but that's just like taking one factor of religion. Atheism is not something we follow or anything of that sort. It's just non-belief in super-natural things.

 

I agree with what you are saying and that people shouldn't be forcing on their beliefs on whether there is a superior being or not. No one should be telling others that they are right or wrong about the topic because they can't 100% prove that they are right. Sure people say "Well how could the earth have been created? The odds are too small so someone must have done SOMETHING." And some atheists say "But there is still a chance for it all to happen. And the world was built on chance." I think that if you have the ability to think for yourself then you should think for yourself! Don't tell people what they should believe in.

Yeah, exactly. And this one guy didn't know what a "scientific theory" meant first of all, he somehow (it was funny) proved the Theory of Evolution wrong and then said that hence Creationist Theory is right, and I was like "wtf?!?"! You can't say Creationist Theory is right just by somehow in a really funny way proving Theory of Evolution is wrong! You need to prove both the theories at one time and prove that one is right and the other is wrong, proving one wrong, wait he didn't even prove it wrong, does not prove the other one as correct!

 

And it's kinda funny when people ask us for proof of non-existence of God. I mean no one has ever given the proof of existence of God, whatever "belief" and "knowledge" is there certainly doesn't satisfy us to believe so that's the reason we are skeptics, for their lack of proof and our own observations mainly. It's not 2 different sides of an argument both trying to prove their point. It's just one side not believing in what the other states due to lack of satisfying evidence. You can't prove "lack of evidence" when we have people saying "in your heart you know I am right and you are wrong".

 

[1]Using this argument i can claim that theism is not a religion, for it is the lack of belief in no god.

[2]Buddhists are atheists—they don't believe in any god. Buddhists are just more spiritual and have (more) doctrines.

I personally don't take being a Theist as a religion. I've seen Theists without a religion too, and it's completely okay for a person to be spiritual and not religious. There are some who believe in God as a "force" or "hope" that keeps them driven too! But yeah I agree that on that grounds Theism can be proved as not being a religion. Edited June 20, 2007 by sylenzednuke (see edit history)

[Mermaid711 0]

You know, some people even doubt their own existence. But i wonder what you think about the debates here at Xisto. Are some of the debates here at Xisto included in your vent? You got me curious.

Haha, i went through a phase where i doubted my own existence. And sometimes i still question it. but thats not the point.

I belive in God because things just don't come out of no where. A universe does not spontaneously forming on its own. You and me alike are sort of proof God exists.

[Reygekan 0]

As to Trufusions points...

[1] Theism in itself isn't a religion seing how Theism is divided into sects. However, Theism is a religion in the fact it's:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

-Definition of religion
Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Because Theism exists as a religion, Atheism must exist as a lack of religion seeing how for every value there's an opposite.

[2] True. Bad phrasing on my part <.<'

[dre 0]

You can't prove god's existance, that's why it's religious, it's about faith and belief.

If you can't prove that you exist yourself, then that's not saying much is it?

 

Theists and atheists shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on anybody. It's just natural that such things will get into each other's way, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do to stop it. It's just like racism, it exists no matter what. If you're atheist, hey, that's fine with me, I will treat you as any other human being and you will earn the same amount of respect from me as any other human being. However, when you start telling me that Christianity is bunk and that I should go home, then it's on, simple as that. Another thing is that although it is our job to try and turn people in the direction of Christianity, I know that I wont be able to influence every single person. I know that coming up to everyone and asking them if they believe in God would annoy them and not do any good. There are certain times where it could be useful, but it will do no good telling this to people who don't want to hear it.

 

In my experience, people don't suddenly wake up one day and decide they will be Christian, they are either born into it or experience a change (usually a meaningful even) that makes them do it.

"Well how could the earth have been created? The odds are too small so someone must have done SOMETHING." And some atheists say "But there is still a chance for it all to happen. And the world was built on chance." I think that if you have the ability to think for yourself then you should think for yourself! Don't tell people what they should believe in.

And I think that when two different views come together, there will be a debate/argument. Nobody forces you to think, except in some rare, rare occasions...

[cangor 0]

The problem is that many Theist's use belief or faith as points for their opinion when belief or faith can only be gained by oneself. You can't be told to believe and you can't be forced to have faith. Atheists seem to believe that the existance of a god is impossible and oftentimes use many impossible questions or "Prove-it". You can't prove god's existance, that's why it's religious, it's about faith and belief.
It's true that many religious discussions are based on rather ignorant views, but avoiding the topic is worse, religious should be something discussed, not ignored. If you're not free to discuss religion, new ideas or thoughts never get out there and that's bad, religion should be a matter of discussion, however it should be discussed in a decent and civilized manner, not used poorly to insult the beliefs of others.

Yeah, I definately agree with the second part. I mean, I'm religious, but I don't try to convince my atheist friends to become religious. We talk about religion sometimes and most of them can have a decent conversation without anything getting bloody. There are still those people who are just like "how can you be so dumb to believe that..." and that really pisses me off, people should at least be open to discussing different views...

[truefusion 3]

[1]The debates here made me realize that a healthy discussion is possible on this topic. [2]And I guess you're drawing the conclusion of Atheism being a religion 'cause it too requires belief and nothing can be proved, [3]but that's just like taking one factor of religion. Atheism is not something we follow or anything of that sort. [4]It's just non-belief in super-natural things.

[1]Good to hear. Or read, rather.

[2]I am.

[3][4]Theism isn't something one follows either. It's the belief in (a) supernatural being(s).

[4]Of course the vice-verse is true also: The belief in non-super-natural things. Although some say, "Seeing is believing," some people still don't believe after seeing. It's like watching a magic show (but anyone can do magic ).

 

As to Trufusions points...

 

[1] Theism in itself isn't a religion seing how Theism is divided into sects. However, Theism is a religion in the fact it's:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

-Definition of religion

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Because Theism exists as a religion, [1]Atheism must exist as a lack of religion seeing how for every value there's an opposite.

While i agree that theism within itself is not really a religion, by definition, like you mention above, it is. But the beginning and ending part of that definition can be directed to atheism as well. But definition number 6 of religion is what should clear all doubt:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

[1]Yes, but this value isn't against religion, it's against the belief in a god (big "G" or small) or gods. For the "a" infront of theis[t/m] is derived from the Greek which is in the negative of something (which one might claim means "against"). Theism's defintion is:

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

No where in the definition is the word "religion" found. Nor is it found in the other sources for the definition of "theism." Therefore, atheism is not against religion. Everyone believes in something—this is inevitable—and they of course may stick to it till the end: this is devotion in their faith; which fulfills definition number 6.

 

Also, atheism can be divided in sects as well—in a more strict sense: for example, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and of course those outside of these things, etc. But this can be said for agnostics as well, who are basically in the middle of things.

 

[1]Theists and atheists shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on anybody. [. . .] If you're atheist, hey, that's fine with me, I will treat you as any other human being and you will earn the same amount of respect from me as any other human being. [2]However, when you start telling me that Christianity is bunk and that I should go home, then it's on, simple as that. [3]Another thing is that although it is our job to try and turn people in the direction of Christianity, I know that I wont be able to influence every single person. [. . .] There are certain times where it could be useful, but it will do no good telling this to people who don't want to hear it.

[1]Indeed. I've heard stories about people who debate for a long time (finally) manage to bring people to their faith (whether it's for theism or atheism).

[2]By "it's on," i hope you mean nothing in the negative, for Christianity is known for preaching "love thy enemy," and 'enemy' can be in many senses.

[3]However, there's one problem: You won't know that they don't wanna hear it unless they tell you.

 

But, yes, although we are indeed commanded to bring people to salvation, the faith, we can also learn from Jesus' example with the rich guy (Matthew 19:16-23; Mark 10:17-24; Luke 18:18-24). Jesus didn't chase the guy down after leaving saying, "What are you doing?! You must do this!" No, Jesus let the man walk, for the man was unwilling.

[srujanlive 0]

Religion , as always is a personal choice. It should not be forced upon anyone. Atheism too is a belief that is a personal choice. It too should not be forced upon anyone. However both should be allowed to air their opinions but not force them down your throat. And if you get sick of reading or listening to them, stop doing that.

[Reygekan 0]

-Definition of religion

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Because Theism exists as a religion, [1]Atheism must exist as a lack of religion seeing how for every value there's an opposite.

While i agree that theism within itself is not really a religion, by definition, like you mention above, it is. But the beginning and ending part of that definition can be directed to atheism as well. But definition number 6 of religion is what should clear all doubt: [1]Yes, but this value isn't against religion, it's against the belief in a god (big "G" or small) or gods. For the "a" infront of theis[t/m] is derived from the Greek which is in the negative of something (which one might claim means "against"). Theism's defintion is:

No where in the definition is the word "religion" found. Nor is it found in the other sources for the definition of "theism." Therefore, atheism is not against religion. Everyone believes in something—this is inevitable—and they of course may stick to it till the end: this is devotion in their faith; which fulfills definition number 6.

 

Also, atheism can be divided in sects as well—in a more strict sense: for example, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and of course those outside of these things, etc. But this can be said for agnostics as well, who are basically in the middle of things.

[1]Gah, I suffer from poor wording disease <.<'

 

You see, the keyword in the definition of Theism is BELIEF. What's a religion? A set of BELIEFS concerning the cause and nature of creation. Just because it didn't cay "RELIGIOIN" in it doesn't mean it's not religious ^^

 

Atheism IS divided into it's own sects as it is, Agnostic beign an Atheist sect in itself, just as Theism is divided into sects. Atheism in itself is not a religion, it's the lack of theism, however Evolutionism, Darwanism, etc., are all religions- sets of belief of the cause and nature of creation.

 

Theism is always religious because it's belief in G(g)od(s)- and a belief concerning the creation of the universe or creation itself is in fact religious. Atheism on its own isn't religious simiply because it's lack of faith in a diety, however Atheists are often religious due to holding beliefs in Evolutionism, etc.,

[truefusion 3]

You see, the keyword in the definition of Theism is BELIEF. What's a religion? A set of BELIEFS concerning the cause and nature of creation. Just because it didn't cay "RELIGIOIN" in it doesn't mean it's not religious ^^

This argument is actually for my case. However, although the 'facts' in Science aren't 100% (i.e. absolute), you'd be amazed on how much of Science agrees with the Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), the parts that explain certain knowledge of the universe and everything within it.

 

[1]Theism is always religious because it's belief in G(g)od(s)- and a belief concerning the creation of the universe or creation itself is in fact religious. [2]Atheism on its own isn't religious simiply because it's lack of faith in a diety, however Atheists are often religious due to holding beliefs in Evolutionism, etc.,

[1]According to you, two requirements need be met in order for theism to be religious:

The lack of faith in the inexistence of (a) [s/s]uper-natural [b/b]eing(s).

Beliefs pertaining to the universe.

[2]And, according to you, one requirement need be met in order for atheism to be religious:

Beliefs pertaining to the universe.

Is this fair? Shouldn't the first requirement for theism be excluded?