I hope I'm not being unkind when I say that you have a very faulty understanding of what the word "atheist" means. The word "faith" can not be used correctly in conjunction with the word "atheist", any more than "faith" could be used in conjunction with the observation that it is raining outside.Quote from MarketMasher:
This is the problem.
In high school and college, everybody goes through a rebellious streak - questioning everything.
So did I - I saw religion as dogmatic, often fanatical, etc, etc, etc....
So I saw some folks would gravitate to atheism. But as I assailed religion with pointed criticisms - I did not spare atheism either.
Even back then I saw its inherent contradiction. It was so basic, I wondered why no one brought it up.
Since then I sometimes would listen to Hitchens or read a Dawkins article - and nothing about it. Nada.
Maybe they had too much invested in it, emotionally, economically, whatever....
Just like....religions......
So atheists claim to approach the question of God and religion scientifically and criticize accordingly - but spare themselves that self-same criticism in evaluating their own Faith.
No thanks.
Religion has its problems, fer sur.... but atheism is a counterargument built on sand.
IMO
Dire Warning About Secular Progressivism In America
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
Quote from MarketMasher:
This is the problem.
In high school and college, everybody goes through a rebellious streak - questioning everything.
So did I - I saw religion as dogmatic, often fanatical, etc, etc, etc....
So I saw some folks would gravitate to atheism. But as I assailed religion with pointed criticisms - I did not spare atheism either.
Even back then I saw its inherent contradiction. It was so basic, I wondered why no one brought it up.
Since then I sometimes would listen to Hitchens or read a Dawkins article - and nothing about it. Nada.
Maybe they had too much invested in it, emotionally, economically, whatever....
Just like....religions......
So atheists claim to approach the question of God and religion scientifically and criticize accordingly - but spare themselves that self-same criticism in evaluating their own Faith.
No thanks.
Religion has its problems, fer sur.... but atheism is a counterargument built on sand.
IMO
Could there be a god or gods or a whole management team of gods or even a galatical corporation of gods with many levels of responsibility between them. Well yes, maybe, but probably not at least from any evidence we have. Am I going to devote my life to one narrow specific possibility of a god out of the infinite choices our imagination could come up with for god or gods? No not me. I also chose not to believe (opinion??) in leprechauns, yeti, space aliens occupying human bodies, transcendental travel all of which may be possible, I don't know, but all of which I wonât base my life on either.
If god or a leprechaun does appear to me then I reserve the right to change my mind on this, but until then...
So.....You see no evidence...yet.
I think that is called Agnosticism.....
There are no atheists....
It's impossible for an intelligent person not to have serious questions about their origin of life beliefs, period. To date, absolute certainty on the subject is not attainable by any rational person.
On the contrary - I am not simply accepting the atheist refutation of that definition simply because they say so.
They are using the same approach as those who use the word "faith" without equivocation.
Atheists do not adhere to scientific principle. As such, their conclusion is a matter of....faith....
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... even if they won't call it a duck.
Quote from MarketMasher:
On the contrary - I am not simply accepting the atheist refutation of that definition simply because they say so.
They are using the same approach as those who use the word "faith" without equivocation.
Atheists do not adhere to scientific principle. As such, their conclusion is a matter of....faith....
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... even if they won't call it a duck.
Are you the language teacher today or are you quoting Websters again?
You better narrow down that question.
I don't know - because I have no evidence....yet.