I see a lot of that in politics.
I think that's the reason politics are so frustrating
Bottom line, ALL religions should be crushed under the mailed fist of fascism. Religion is bunk.
They have been trying to crush religion for years. And it is still here. Now fascism has had better days.
being a christian and being a good person are two different things christianity did not invent those morals
and one more thing polititicans do care about belifes just not religous belifes
Last edited:
There are two things in this statement with which I disagree. First, atheists cannot be agnostic, no matter what some atheistic literature may claim; by definition it is impossible. If atheism is a rejection of the possibility of deities, and agnosticism remains open to the possibility, then these two philosophies are contradictory.
Second, too many things are labeled religious ideas or religious morality when, in fact, they have a basis in secular thinking. Politicians love putting this label on topics so that they can dismiss ideas without having to defend their own stance against them. Religious people make it easy for politicians to do this by latching on to those claims and making more of their own. Your assertion that being against killing is religious in nature falls into this category. Killing is wrong even if all you have is a secular belief in individual rights. By killing someone you are depriving them of their right to life. Any action which infringes another’s rights is wrong.
atheisum is not the rejection of a deity but of theisum. Where USA is theocratic in its morale and beliefs. Anti deists are the people that reject a deity.
I guess it depends on your definition of theism. If you believe it is wrong to do something and you can not form a rational argument as to why it is wrong, then that why is your god.
You are incorrect, atheisum is rejection of theisum, rejection of a deity is anti-deist. Atheists are anti-deists but they reject all things that require belief, therefore they are nihilists. If you believe things that cannot be proven, outside of theory then you are not atheist, because you have theocracy in your life, no matter the dogma.
Atheism is lack of divine belief, not rejection of the possibly. You can be an atheist and still be willing to change your mind if a god came to you directly. To reject any belief is nihilism, not atheism.
Theism is a belief that at least one deity exists. Therefore no practical difference exists between being atheist or adeity. Atheism is, in no way, a rejection of all beliefs.
Atheism in its purest form is a rejection of theism…a rejection of the existence of any deity. To be open to the possibility of a deity contradicts the definition of atheism. Being open to a possibility is far different than rejecting the possibility. It may seem like semantics, but it is important to distinguish the meaning of these words to form a baseline. In a linear chart theism would be one end and atheism would be the other…they are opposites.
Theism --------------------Atheism
True theism holds no doubt about the existence of a deity. True atheism holds no doubt that deities do not exist. Anywhere in between these two points is agnostic. Whether one is agnostic leaning towards atheism or agnostic leaning towards theism makes no difference, that person does not fit at either end of the spectrum.
Atheism in its purest form is a rejection of theism…a rejection of the existence of any deity. To be open to the possibility of a deity contradicts the definition of atheism. Being open to a possibility is far different than rejecting the possibility. It may seem like semantics, but it is important to distinguish the meaning of these words to form a baseline. In a linear chart theism would be one end and atheism would be the other…they are opposites.
Theism --------------------Atheism
True theism holds no doubt about the existence of a deity. True atheism holds no doubt that deities do not exist. Anywhere in between these two points is agnostic. Whether one is agnostic leaning towards atheism or agnostic leaning towards theism makes no difference, that person does not fit at either end of the spectrum.
Atheists have devine beliefs, mainly that it is wrong to kill people. This gose against logic, because it would certianly be logical that the world would be a better place if we killed some really bad people, or eliminate people who burden the community, yet if they were givin a gun and told to exicute say, a child in a vegitative state, they couldn't, why? Is that a form of belief?
When I talk with atheists it seems sometimes they tend to be condecending toward my faith, my hands aren't clean of any type of condecention but I can coexist, why do some atheists have what seems to be a need almost for my agreement? I know religious people can be this way too, my question is why do the opposing sides see themselves as diferent when they are so much alike
that is very well described but one thing I see different is that true all atheists do not believe in a deity, they would not believe in any theocratic ideas, if you are atheocratic than that means you don't follow any theocracy. And I don't see difference between that and nhilisum. Theocracy gave us the golden rule "treat others as you would want to be treates". If you abide by that rule, then you are not atheist, because there is no motivation other than what can be defined by the golden rule, which is a belief, not a fact.
Theism and Theocracy are two completely different things. Theism refers to a belief in a deity, whereas theocracy refers to a government run under the pretense of divine rule. You would be hard pressed to find people in Western civilization, including religious people, who would consent to be governed by a theocracy.
Nihilism refers to a belief in nothing...not just a deity, but absolutely nothing. A true nihilist does not even believe they exist. It is absurd to equate atheism with nihilism. In fact a nihilist could not possibly be an atheist because that would require a belief that a deity does not exist.
If you abide by the secular belief in individual rights then you will never infringe the rights of another person. Therefore you will be doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. Without any religious based rules (yet still with beliefs, therefore not nihilism) you can form a code of secular morality, which closely resembles religious morality, based on the concept that each individual has a right to autonomy in their life.
You seem to either have a strange agenda, are not following the logic, or have trouble putting things into context.
In no way did I bring up the subject of forcing beliefs onto other people. In no way did I mention what sort of activities certain groups perpetrate. My comments pertained to the philosophical aspects of the beliefs, and to the correct meaning of words being used in the discussion.
The section of my post to which you refer was laying out secular, non-religious logic for the concept of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule, in its phrasing and name, comes to us through religion. However, the concept behind the rule does not need to be based on religious beliefs. And that is the crux of your original statement. You claimed that you could not follow the Golden Rule without religion…I laid out logic that shows the statement is false. It is entirely possible for religious and secular thinking to overlap at times.
I think some of the posters are being unfair to atheists. Nihilists effectively believe in nothingness and are a damper at parties as a result. The atheist says that there is no room in the Big Bang and Evolution for a deity or deities and will cite Occam's razor to support his or her position. In no way does it follow that they don't believe in morality or right action; atheists just believe it can be developed and practiced without referring to a god.
Similar threads
