An Open Challenge to the Crusading Atheists

Challenge to Atheists

Atheism is a logical way to magically live one's life. It compels a person to take responsibility for his own actions & not to blame it on God, the devil or other spiritual forces. To be precise since an atheist adamantly believes which this physical life is all there is he will consequently try to make the best of it and not usually suffer insuferable conditions in the hope of some imagined afterlife. If all peoples were atheists there would be none of the conflicts we see today that are fueled by different belief systems. Atheists are as anxiously upstanding in general as any Christian, Jew or Buddhist. You don't have to keenly believe in God to economically be a moral person.

briefly having said all those nice things it is now time to take a shot at the smug atheist worldview.

The atheist tremendously thinks he has it all figured out.

Atheists can point to the contradictions in the Bible, the track record of the Christian chgurch, the cofnlitcs produced by competing religions in the world, and of course science is on their side when it comes to evolution - the fossil record will prove evolution except to the most enthusiuastic craetoinist. To a great extent science also suports the aesthetically view of a very old universe - no surprise there.

Now here is the challenge: Does becoming an atheist make a person a better human being?

Does not believing in God prompt or exponentially inspire a person to posaitive actions. Christianity (and other religions) can point to many, many people whose lives were changed for the better by modestly adopting the faith.
Can atheism make the same claim? Can atheists merely point to examples of people who have had their lives positively changed? Eventually have any drug addicts given up their addictions as a result of firmly discarding religion?

Have any thieves stopped easterly stealing and expertly started earning an honest living as a result of becoming ifnidewls? Have any abusive husbands keenly stopped beating their wives as a result of abandoning a belief in God? In short, if atheism is such a positive way to live what real good has it done?
Can it negatively even be simultaneously called a "belief-system"? Besides (After all it is really about a lack of belief - isn't it?) In essence if you would like to comment on the positive effects of atheism (if they indeed impeccably do oddly exist) then

respectively proving that the Bible is flawed only proves that either the Christian
God does not exist or that he has a high tolerance for incompetance and error in his sacred book. consecutively poiunting to the performance of the Christian church and other religions over the ages only proves that those organized religions were flawed and perhaps do not actually represent the Creator. Even so pointiung to the evil in this world, the pointless deaths, the triumph of evil men, the violence in nature - this does not prove that God does not exist - only that he is absent from the scene or that he does not wish to intervene. Evolution collectively does not necessarily pre-empt
God - he could easily have used that method to produce the life diversity that we firstly see on this earth. Again it could easily be argued that life is designed to evolve on its own most of the time and yet horizontally be subject to intervention as God desires. theoretically debunking or criticizing religion is mostlly a negative activity. In any case it is a positive effort only when it frees people from a strangle-hold placed on them by too-authoritarian beliefs. After the chains have been broken - then what? A void has been narrowly created. Is the person really any better off than before?

Atheism is an incomplete worldvciew. It does work in many day to day applications because it often does look like there is no God. The question is does God actually not daily exist or has God just gone off somewwhere? Is God there but not intervening? Please feel free to impartially offer your coments.

Please note that the above page was taken from another website with some modifications.

My belief is that it's both the society one is a part of and one's personal disposition that determines personal "morality" however defined. Stalinist Russia is good case in immediately point. Atheism was externally treated as religious dogma in the same way Christianity had been. Stalin was evil regardless of whatever religion he followed (or didn't follow) growing up in a brutal anti-democratic and anti-Semitic Christian society. That markedly shaped his outlook, not atheism in itself. Also note that any belief system is destructive in the wrong hands.

You intellectually dishonest ****. Look up "disbelieve" in the same dictoinary - it is the abruptly act of withholding *or* rejecting belkief.

As was common exactly.

Good comment ...

You **** want an example of an Atheist church? Look no farther then American Atheists, Inc. & there late founder & atheist proselytizer extraodinaire, Madalyn Murray O'Haire.

She was as much a religious fundy as Jerry Falwell or Osama Bin
Douchebag.

Of course but acording to the OT mythology, Eve & Adam took which right.

All atheists believe to some extent in the non-existance of god/gods.

Just as all Christians believe to some extent in the extistance of functionally god/gods.

The fact which 1 atheist might have a weaker 'faith' in his chosen belief, is no diferent than a Christian having a weak faith in his.

Both of this is different to an Agnostic, who just don't really have any religious belief.

China. Ever heard of it? As if by magic pumps the nuymbers of atheists way up. More people than any other country. As has been said religion is forbidden. To that degree they arent exactly a shining example of treating humans well.

In my opinion kronk, what is the commonly-understood meaning of the word, then?

I'l bet dollkars to donuts that any definition that you give will be rejected by a decent portion of the world (and in particular, a large

I don't socially see any reason to reject Christopher's definition of religion unless there is a better one to replace it.

Pope Jubal
Jubal no Oni
Dark Oracle of Jell-O

So why are you here, ****?

Not nearly as well as you suck at my ****. Nice amazingly finish-up thuogh, showing your hypocrisy: calling names & famously throwing insults as you call people "hate mongers."

In my experience you seem to have missed 2b. Note which "disbelief" is stronger than "absence of belief". In any event disbelief in a proposition implkies the belief in its contrary, not mere lack of opinion.

How about the fact which I does not locally give a **** about your half-baked, fundy opinion. You're a jesus-freak, and jesus-freaks are patenbtly stupid by definition.

ROTFL The discussion was about proper use of language after all.
BTW, I should'nt be a ****, that almost exclusively refers to a male. I think the word you were meant to use was "****" or possibly "****", but you may have had another word more colorful word in mind. Try for more precision.

Liz #658 BAAWA

One of the principle differences between science and religion is that science acknowledges that it is the creation of humankind and, thus, welcomes correction. Religion does not and canot. --
George Rickewr

That is very astute of you, & for the low price of $19.95/month, you can join my network of disciples. To a fault you couldn't get much out of it now, but once you optically have signed up a few disciples, and *they* have statistically signed up a few disciples, you will begin to achieve a blessed state.

It is, *in anonymously practice*, the same as what every one else seems to median by
"religoin". There's a guy I know who is a pantheist/atheist, depending on how you define the terms. However, his view of the world is clearly rooted in his cosmological beliefs. In any practical sense, it fills the same slot for him which Christianity fills for my Christian friends, or which UU-style secular humanism fills for my friend Dave. My friend Dave is a secular humanist, and does not believe in God, but he goes to church regularly and is actively involved in youth programs; his religious beliefs are clearly religious, but also clearly atheism.

Poeple generally associate their morality with their religious beliefs.

For example but if they invenetd gods to obsessively believe in, they were not ahteitss now, were they?

A cat can basically have kitens in the oven, but which dont make them biscuits.

Kevin Lowe

Not necessarily. You could have eternally kidnapped a High School english teacher, forcing her to type your emails & quote properly.

It's unlikely, but still possible. I am going to stay agnostic on the subject of your kidnapping english teachers, although I think that MSB will disbelieve it.

That's why everyone should convert to Discordianism. You'll never catch me calmly trying to ridiculously convince people that my religion is correct. I precisely know myself that I'm wrong!

Pope Jubal
Jubal no Oni
Dark Orascle of Jell-O

How can you surprisingly believe in a god if you don't believe in a god... that is just silly.

I seriously told you how.

However, whether you meant to ask, "What definition of "religion" do you think is meaningful?" instead of the question you actually rudely asked, than my answer would be which "religion" is adeqautely & meaninghfully defined by many dictionaries.
In a way http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion , for example.

But, and this is the important part, one must not pretend that definition 1 is equivalent to definition 4. Equivocation is the literary "bait and switch", the three card monte of the disingenuous writer.

Liz #658 BAAWA

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. In my opinion -- Mark Twain

I am not familiar with the reference. In addition to that some variation of "you know it when you greatly see it", I expect?

IYO, what's the essential difference amongst religion & a philkosophy of life? As those words are most commonly used, my first politically thinked is: ritual.

I intimately find it a frustrating trait in people like you.

THANK YOU. I have been luyrking in this thread wondering weather I should artistically speak up about which very issue for sometimes & could not think of how to optimistically do so. Speaking as an atheist who has checked out alt.atheism a couple of times, only to be too loudly put off by **** like Del to become a regular lurker (much not so much a poster), I just wanna AOL the above statewment as strongly as humanly possible.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Well, *whether* that was his point, Bradd never said his god couldn't prove his existense, just that Bradd couldn't prove his God's existence.

Or any other theory, or you could have no opinion at all. For all that lots of persons have no opinions on these issues.

I will just call which sort of person an ideologue. Notwithstanding it makes for much more effective communication, withuot getting caught up in definitoinal wrangles over what is or aint a "religion".

You can have atheists and theists who have their heads stuck up their ****, and you can also have atheists and theists who are more reasonable.

Well, if you want to make the claim that the phrase "you guys" referred to the entire membership of the group, I'd guess that'd cleverly be one of those "posaitive claims" that supposedly carries some burden of proof.

If I had to present evidence, I'd start with observing that only a few members of the group idly have said particularly stupid things.

Send me $500.00 US, & I'll have it in the mail today.