Is Atheism a Form of Blind Faith?
Passwordprotected, we could multiply invisible entities indefinitely. Why does yours have to be taken more seriously than others? Because Pink Elephants dancing on your rooftop, Purple People Eaters, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, The Great Pumpkin, and how dare I forget purple unicorns, would be taken every bit as seriously as your god if they had the following happen.
Declared the official state religion by an imperialist tyrant.
Maintain society under Dark Age conditions for a millenium.
If it weren't for the tyranny of such religions you would be worshipping Mithros or Zeus. Force is what shapes the destiny of this pathetic species including most of the gods they worship.
I can't believe I'm stooping to this level, but since reason will never work here, I'll put this in creationist logic terms.
God has AIDS, herpes, molests children, and has bad body odor. In the magical land where long hair provides strength and men can live in the oxygen-free environment of a fish's stomach, those things being true are equally as likely as them being false.
There is NO evidence whatsoever that God does not have AIDS, herpes, molests children, and has bad body odor. There is nothing even in the bible that says God does not have AIDS, herpes, that he doesn't molest children, or that he has a good odor. You are acting on "blind faith" by assuming he does not have AIDS, herpes, molests children, and has bad body odor.
But I'm not going to back up my extraordinary claims, I don't have to. YOU have to disprove it.
PS: Stupid reasoning is stupid. Are you a God-AIDS atheist?
Yes. I have never seen a shred of evidence that would support the atheist claim "there is no God". Think about it, what kind of evidence could they present?
Perry, allowing for your right to believe whatever you want, this is one of the most retarded attempts at a theistic defense to atheism I have ever read.
All this doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It means it cannot be proven that God exists. There is no need to "prove" God doesn't exist, since the ones making the claim that God does exist can't offer proof of their claim.
I agree with Farkel. The premise for this particular argument is somewhat disturbing. I am not interested in disproving that god exists. What disturbs me is that this premise starts out with the assumption that god exists, and knowing how some posters feel about their god, the next step is accepting their god.
Lets cut to the chase: If I accept that Science has proven a higher power password or perry, does this mean I am then theologically free in your view to find my own god? Or must I accept yours?
Perry, can you prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim. ALWAYS.
Now the man is talking sense! (((((Farkel))))))
Please stick to religion or lack thereof dear it's what you know best.
:Please stick to religion or lack thereof dear it's what you know best.
I know what you know best, but I'm not advising you to stick to it, because condescension is most unbecoming.
Sigh. I was adoring you, and look what you did with my adoration.
I have instructed atheists on this forum what it is that they believe so many times I've lost count. But, once again.....for hundreds of years the Oxford English Dictionary has defined atheism thusly:
• noun the belief that God does not exist.
- DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
- ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without' + theos ‘god'
For someone to even use the term atheism, they are making a claim. They could rather use the term agnostic, should they choose and sometimes they do when it suits their purposes.
But, it is dishonest to say that historically "atheist" has meant something akin to "lack of position".