Is Atheism a Form of Blind Faith?
Good grief, not this old chestnut again. Only the trinity threads outnumber this one.
Ditto on the "hogwash" here, too.
:- ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without' + theos ‘god
Well, there ya go, straight out of your own accepted definition: Belief in God vs. without belief in God. One is active, the other is passive.
Since you've had virtually no success in proving what you believe, you have a lot of nerve to tell others who don't believe that they actually believe in not-believing.
You're trying to making something that is passive into something that is active and you are failing at it. "Sitting" does not mean the same as "believing in not running."
:Sigh. I was adoring you, and look what you did with my adoration.
If there is a next time, please try without the put down, then.
Well, there ya go, straight out of your own accepted definition: Belief in God vs. without belief in God.
Farkel, read the definition slowly and then read what you say it says . They are not the same at all.
It doesn't say "without belief"...it says "without God". Atheism is historically the belief that the universe is without God.
Every atheist I know disagrees with you, but what do they know? You've got talking snakes and chariots of fire and talking donkeys and suns that stand still and trumpets that blow up buildings and huge rivers that instantly turn to blood and ears that get stuck back on heads on your side. Wimpy little atheists don't stand a chance against arguing with people who believe in that kind of stuff.
Now that I think of it, the entire title and theme of this thread is a loaded question to begin with:
:Is Atheism a Form of Blind Faith?
The question presupposes a "blind faith", so that must imply there is a type of faith that is NOT blind. In fact, ALL faith is "blind", or it wouldn't be faith. Faith depends on NO convincing evidence. If it depended upon convincing evidence, it would not be called faith. It would be called "fact."
Perry, the only way you can ever possibly prove a point or "win" this is if you control all definitions. I know you would like to define atheists, but don't you think it better that they define themselves?
In any case, the dictionary definition defines atheists as those who do not believe that a god exists. Thats all. The absence of god. You are adding to this for your own ad hominem purposes.
I allow you the opportunity personally to define yourself as a Christian, and do not contradict you in this. How disrespectful do you have to be of others to label others instead of listening to them?
Unplug your ears and listen. You might learn something.
@ besty - where is the empirical evidence that not believing in God, based on all of the available evidence (ie. the same evidence used to say that he does exist), is the simpler option?
A creator god is, by necessity, more complex than his work. Given that we don't know the details of the origin of the universe it makes no logical sense to add complexity by admitting a preceding variable.
The simplest answer is "I don't know" not "Well there was this bloke called God who made everything...." etc
Can you provide some examples of the evidence you refer to?
Hey no big deal to me. You guys want to turn your back on hundreds of years of accepted word definitions and re-characterize a word simply for argumentation purposes go ahead ..... you win. Be happy in your illusion. Make sure you burn all the dictionaries so no one will catch on though. But if ever any want to face facts they are these:
1. Atheism means the belief that there is no God
2. Agnostic is a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God
There is no hope for the atheist since he has placed his head in a bucket and can only discern darkness and the sound of his own voice.
The agnostic can at least listen to testimony evidence how God has revealed himself to them. And he may in time seek to ask God to reveal himself to them.
I have instructed atheists on this forum what it is that they believe so many times I've lost count.
Wow. Thanks, Perry, for instructing us on what we believe. You clearly know us better than we know ourselves.
You guys want to turn your back on hundreds of years of accepted word definitions and re-characterize a word simply for argumentation purposes go ahead
You are clearly ignorant of the difference between strong/positive and weak/negative atheism.