Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief (1 Viewer)

[RR7]

Not according to the Dictionary.

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Someone earlier, I believe trip, mentioned your reading comprehension, and it shows itself again here. Where in belief there is no god or disbelief in existence does it say there is proof? I'll answer for you. Nowhere.

 

[magnifier661]

Someone earlier, I believe trip, mentioned your reading comprehension, and it shows itself again here. Where in belief there is no god or disbelief in existence does it say there is proof? I'll answer for you. Nowhere.

Do you know what doctrine is?

 

[RR7]

Do you know what doctrine is?

Please stop me when PROOF shows up. I guess the better question would be, do you?

-something that is taught
-a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
-a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
-something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
-body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject

 

[magnifier661]

Please stop me when PROOF shows up. I guess the better question would be, do you?

-something that is taught
-a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
-a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
-something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
-body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject

Exactly. When you have something that is doctrine; you have evidence or support for that "belief" you teach. Just as a religious doctrine has their word of God or rules that are incorporated to the belief.

Like if you have a political "doctrine". There is supported documentation or evidence that supports the belief in your political party.

 

[RR7]

there you go again, saying exactly, when someone disagrees with you, as if it helps or made your point. Comprehension for the win!! Where does it say anything about proof in the definition of doctrine?


Exactly!!

 

[magnifier661]

For example: if you have a conservative political stance; you would teach areas like "believe in less larger government", "supports foreign affairs", etc. Then you can use events that took place supported by that party to support the stance. Got it?

 

[magnifier661]

there you go again, saying exactly, when someone disagrees with you, as if it helps or made your point. Comprehension for the win!! Where does it say anything about proof in the definition of doctrine?


Exactly!!

I posted exactly, because I totally agree with the definition. Then I explained why it supports my stance. Why can't I agree with you?

 

[crowTrobot]

Atheism, on the other hand, claim that science has proven God does not exist.

you're doing a very convincing job of acting mentally handicapped. i'm starting to wonder. seriously.

 

[magnifier661]

you're doing a very convincing job of acting mentally handicapped. i'm starting to wonder. seriously.

Why? Just replying what many here implied before this thread existed. Do you all change your mind now?

 

[RR7]

Why? Just replying what many here implied before this thread existed. Do you all change your mind now?

NOBODY claimed it was a proven fact. In fact EVERYONE has told you that you can not prove something doesn't exist.(I believe this is 151 times now, that has been told to you). But see, you just DO NOT READ. Or comprehend. One of those two. I have no idea, but it has been repeated to you way too often for you to not have gotten it by now.

 

[magnifier661]

NOBODY claimed it was a proven fact. In fact EVERYONE has told you that you can not prove something doesn't exist.(I believe this is 151 times now, that has been told to you). But see, you just DO NOT READ. Or comprehend. One of those two. I have no idea, but it has been repeated to you way too often for you to not have gotten it by now.

Well yeah in this thread RR7. Did you ignore what I said? Maybe because in this thread; saying that would make them a fool.

LMAO! So who has a reading comprehension problem?

 

[RR7]

Well yeah in this thread RR7. Did you ignore what I said? Maybe because in this thread; saying that would make them a fool.

LMAO! So who has a reading comprehension problem?

exactly!

 

[magnifier661]

exactly!

Glad you agree. Now we can just move on.

 

[RR7]

That's my point!

 

[magnifier661]

Good point then! Unfortunately there are those that still mock "theists". So if there is still mockery, then I have every right to defend my belief. Do you agree?

 

[crowTrobot]

Why? Just replying what many here implied before this thread existed. Do you all change your mind now?

nobody ever claimed science has disproven the possibility of god. that straw man was already explained to you numerous times in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[magnifier661]

nobody ever claimed science has disproven the possibility of god. that straw man was already explained to you numerous times in this thread and elsewhere.

Oh you never said that on another thread?

 

[RR7]

Good point then! Unfortunately there are those that still mock "theists". So if there is still mockery, then I have every right to defend my belief. Do you agree?

So your defense is to START a thread, not defend in wherever you were being mocked, telling others why they are wrong. Good for you. That's all turning the other cheek and shit, right?

You've created another strawman to say people claimed evidence, and that it was disproven. You can show where that happened, or you can stop with that crap and stick to whatever your point is.

 

[magnifier661]

So your defense is to START a thread, not defend in wherever you were being mocked, telling others why they are wrong. Good for you. That's all turning the other cheek and shit, right?

You've created another strawman to say people claimed evidence, and that it was disproven. You can show where that happened, or you can stop with that crap and stick to whatever your point is.

No this thread is a sound thread. I truly don't believe that "Atheism is a sound belief". Even Atheists choose to use "Atheism", then convert to "Agnostic". It evolved because it isn't sound. It's that simple. I actually don't have a problem with "agnostics"; because they don't discount God's existence. They don't know and well, because they don't have evidence to prove they should believe in God.

An Atheist, on the other hand, don't believe in God because they "know there is no God". That is a flawed way of thinking.

 

[RR7]

they don't believe because they don't believe. Same way many religious people believe because, well, they believe. They don't sit around and wait for it to be proven or disproven to them. They believe, and then find proof in everyday life, or puppies and rainbows and shit.

 

[magnifier661]

they don't believe because they don't believe. Same way many religious people believe because, well, they believe. They don't sit around and wait for it to be proven or disproven to them. They believe, and then find proof in everyday life, or puppies and rainbows and shit.

You are taking an agnostic approach. I have already said that I have no problem with that approach. It's the true definition of atheism. I think that's why you and others debating me aren't seeing the forest through the trees. Because if you don't believe in god because you just don't isn't logical thinking. There has to be a reason. Reason equals evidence in your life or by sciince that supports that belief.

Saying your agnostic is fine. Saying your atheist isn't.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If I believe that Oden is a bust does that mean Durant is my god?

 

[RR7]

lol, it's not logical to say I don't believe because I don't believe? I have no feelings inside me that there is a god. Do you understand that? I have no belief in my body that there is a god. That's not agnostic. What it is is a complete lack of belief. I don't have to have proof to feel the way I do. And I have had many religious people tell me the same thing. They have a belief inside them, they believe. They do not need proof of it, they can "feel" god. Don't tell me what I can and can not believe, and then tell me I can not say I do not believe, I have to fall into some other shit you want to label it is. It's completely arrogant at best.

Not seeing the forest through the trees? You've seen the forest we've described, but are calling it a river. And it's can't see the forest for the trees. Not through. Maybe that's your problem, you're looking THROUGH the forest to try to see the forest.

 

[RR7]

If I believe that Oden is a bust does that mean Durant is my god?

It could mean that, but historical mis-interpretation might say you have a bust of Oden, or a religious symbol of him, which will leave you burned with those hairy tics.

 

[crowTrobot]

Because if you don't believe in god because you just don't isn't logical thinking.

 

[magnifier661]

lol, it's not logical to say I don't believe because I don't believe? I have no feelings inside me that there is a god. Do you understand that? I have no belief in my body that there is a god. That's not agnostic. What it is is a complete lack of belief. I don't have to have proof to feel the way I do. And I have had many religious people tell me the same thing. They have a belief inside them, they believe. They do not need proof of it, they can "feel" god. Don't tell me what I can and can not believe, and then tell me I can not say I do not believe, I have to fall into some other shit you want to label it is. It's completely arrogant at best.

Not seeing the forest through the trees? You've seen the forest we've described, but are calling it a river. And it's can't see the forest for the trees. Not through. Maybe that's your problem, you're looking THROUGH the forest to try to see the forest.

Okay agnostic.

 

[RR7]

Okay agnostic.

SlyPokerDog is just fucking dense. And arrogant to boot. Good for him. I'm sure you make jesus proud.

 

[magnifier661]

When I say "It's not logical", that was the same arguments that "so-called" atheists would argue in other threads. So when the tables are turned they take offense? Find that a bit hypocritical.

At least with "Theists"; they have their personal testimonies; and interpretations of their doctrine. And tossing that "unicorn" picture, tells me that even "witches and warlocks" have doctrine. What does the atheist have?

Are you saying that believing in unicorns is more sound than believe there is no God? Sure looks that way.

 

[magnifier661]

SlyPokerDog is just fucking dense. And arrogant to boot. Good for him. I'm sure you make jesus proud.

LMAO! Now you are calling me arrogant? LOL you don't even believe in Jesus. Why would you bring that up?

 

[magnifier661]

SlyPokerDog is just fucking dense. And arrogant to boot. Good for him. I'm sure you make jesus proud.

LMAO! Now you are calling me arrogant? LOL you don't even believe in Jesus. Why would you bring that up?