Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat
You are not listening to what I'm saying at all, and you're just hearing whatever you want to here. Not surprising though, you clearly don't even understand the definition of atheism. No atheist would admit to the possibility of a singular supreme being. Atheism is not the disbelief in the Christian God, or whatever other god you want to sub in him for him. It is the disbelief altogether in a singular theistic god at all.
But hey, people can't stand hearing that their OPINIONS are NOT FACT. I said atheism is becoming much like a religion in the way they PREACH their BELIEFS.
You fall back onto science which is always the atheist go to, but really what has science proven regarding existence? It has proven zero. It has given us some THEORIES, of which people have based more BELIEFS. Really we have absolutely squat for evidence either way. Lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, so neither atheism nor theistic religions have any facts to go on here. You say not exploring facts is ignorant, yet atheists refuse to accept that a God exists, or even in the possibility that he does. This is where the preachy atheist drive, and the "My beliefs are right, your beliefs are wrong" starts kicking in, and atheists become no better than say Christians or Muslims. Case in poit, someone like yourself who waves the atheist flag, yet isn't even an actual atheist.
Do I think these religions are wrong? Yes. Do I think that atheism is instantly the answer because I disagree with religious teachings? No. It really seems to me these days that both sides of the argument are playing the same stupid foolish game trying to be the one who is right and recruit more followers for their cause. Thus having atheistic beliefs, finds itself parallel to having theistic beliefs in the stupid way the believers respent their ideas.
You're both a pain in the fucking ass to listen to after a while.
|
Are you really trying to tell me what I believe? That's awesome.
If you're looking up atheist in the dictionary as the entire foundation for your argument then you are off-base. We have no idea if some kind of supreme being exists. We deny the existence of a monotheistic god and ruler. Yes, we look to science to dispute religious teachings. So far hard evidence has worked extremely well in disputing ridiculous teachings.
I'd be happy to look for evidence that a god exists. I am always open to seeing some kind of hard evidence of that. I have yet to see a shred. Again, why do people want to cling to a supreme being as the only plausible explanation? There are thousands of possible explanations (some more plausible than others). I think Hitchens said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I don't want to get into the whole burden of proof discussion but for me to believe I need to see proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."