Sentences with phrase «on atheism in»

Not exact matches

No fantastical forces and beings in atheism, but religion is based on them.

Historian Paul Johnson commented on the advance of atheism in modern history:» Nietzsche wrote in 1886:» The greatest event of recent times — that God is dead, that the belief in the Christian God is no longer tenable — is beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe.»

Atheism is a belief in a non-belief there is nothing to force on people.

There is much that could be said about this, but I will stick with one thing, based on discussion at about the 2 minute mark: When atheists insist that atheism does not drive behavior, and then then campaign on behalf of atheism, ridicule religion and religious believers in the name of atheism, seek to change laws in favor of their atheistic positions, recommend the extermination of religion, and practice falsehoods like Dawkins's in support of atheism, they prove that their atheism drives their behavior and that their premise is false, disingenuous, and (as far as I can tell) useless for anything but giving atheism rhetorical cover from being implicated in atheists» atrocities.

Atheism makes no distinction on which god or gods do not exist, it is the lack of belief in any of them.

In atheism or satanism there is alot of «taking away»... taking away beliefs and ideas and so on.

Zeus on the other hand has been proven real, he said so himself and he said everyone, all the other gods in other cultures are fakes...» = > upon what are you basing your positive belief (you slipped up there in acknowledging atheism requires a positive disbelief in a diety

Atheism is just a belief position on gods, and atheist could, theoretically, believe in all manner of supernatural things, like crystals, libertarian free will, or qi.

It is what has lead me to my veiw that Atheism as a religion, the passion most Atheist have for their point of view from the start you may not fall in this category but I'm sure you know someone that does.The same applies to Christians that freak out on someone and start forcing their view on others, I see that as wrong also if someone asks or brings the debate to you then by all means debate but why be rude how does it help?

When you make the claim like that of atheists, the onus is on you to show that atheism was the REASON behind what happened, and the link is not there in most instances.

people on CNN writing anonymously proclaim atheism, but in real life, that's not the case.

If I even tell them there are things in the universe we do not understand and will never understand (this is actually scientifically proven) they think I am intruding on their atheism.

Michael «As a gay man I appreciate there efforts and support, but I think putting up this sign isn't really the best way to get through to people, all it does is create more hate, intolerance, and separation, I am not a christian but I am very spiritual, and putting up this sign implies that all gay people are atheists which is the furthest thing from the truth, I have no problem with religion, I have a problem with those who use there religions to control and hate others, same applies with atheism, if you don't want to believe in anything than fine, just don't push your non beliefs on me.»

On atheism, the universe and everything in is an accident.

Well, Christians would have melted her flesh on a stake for converting to Atheism if we still lived in the era of Church rule.

Mormons and Mormonism provides a beautiful argument for atheism, in giving a great example showing the nature of religious belief: Based on unreal fabrications, sprinkled with bizarre claims.

I asked the question to understand how (and if) it is possible to separate science from atheism in the minds of believers so we can truly discuss the concepts based on their evidentiary merits, not necessarily their philosophical implications if indeed there are any to be had.

Justin, as much as this would be a completely black & white, rational decision for you on the subject, the majority of humanity floats in a gray area on this, drifting back and forth between atheism and strong spiritual beliefs (usually rooted in the culture they were raised in).

I prophecy that sometime in the next 3 pages of comments on this blog, someone going by the handle «Atheism is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things» will post a message that comprises, in its entirety, the words «Prayer changes things.»

Those who are Buddhists will follow one set of laws, secular humanists on, Utilitarians on, Unitarian Universalists one (with a lot of variation), etc. «Atheism» in itself says nothing at all about one's ethical beliefs.

As a gay man I appreciate there efforts and support, but I think putting up this sign isn't really the best way to get through to people, all it does is create more hate, intolerance, and separation, I am not a christian but I am very spiritual, and putting up this sign implies that all gay people are atheists which is the furthest thing from the truth, I have no problem with religion, I have a problem with those who use there religions to control and hate others, same applies with atheism, if you don't want to believe in anything than fine, just don't push your non beliefs on me.

Atheism simply means NOT believing in gods... that is it... there is no «on atheism» because it has nothing to do with morality, it ONLY has to do with basic belief in gods Atheism simply means NOT believing in gods... that is it... there is no «on atheism» because it has nothing to do with morality, it ONLY has to do with basic belief in gods atheism» because it has nothing to do with morality, it ONLY has to do with basic belief in gods or not.

It is interesting that this study focused on evangelicals (in the Christians most of the five were prominent evangelicals and most of the five atheists are almost evangelical in their atheism) rather than more moderate middle of the road individuals.

tf: There is nothing «on atheism», atheism (once again) points to a singular thing - the disbelief in god... It speaks to nothing more.

The judiciary is hardly objective on certain social issues: it clearly leans in favor of atheism or agnosticism.

Strong atheism, to which I was referring, is an pro active ideology that in a nutshell rejects the possibility of the existence of God based on the presupposition that belief in such a being is logically contradictory.

While I would hesitate to engage in a full - out debate of theism vs. atheism on this forum for reasons that I have already stated, I would be interested in hearing your response to the traditional ontological and moral arguments in favor of the existence of God as well as the argument from contingency.

When Jerry DeWitt converted to Atheism and it was posted as an article here on the Belief Blog, the Faithful said the same thing you said in wondering who this guy was and why was it news worthy.

There's a full - on atheist in the film; her atheism is treated as a local secret, the kind of thing the adults know but children must be kept from hearing.

This is an aspect of the Church's teaching that has not yet been fully developed and needs to flourish in the 21st century as we ponder the message of the great Council of the Church that was held in the 20th, following two ghastly world wars and the imposition of atheism on vast tracts of the globe.

It's ironic to me how people that don't believe in Christianity hate having the views of christianity pushed on them, but are so quick to not only push atheism on others, but also to make fun of people who do believe, and make fun of Christianity as a whole.

@Karri Ann No, if you acknowledge that the existence of a deity is logically possible but the empirical facts leads you to conclude that the proposition that god exists is in fact false, you are clearly within the realm of atheism on any reasonable definition.

In addition, on atheism, there is no grounds for accusing anything of being morally good or bad.

Well, on the single word, but based on what was discussed earlier it is clear that such statement is at least not always true — especially in the case of implicit atheism.

Your atheism is nothing more than you whining and complaining because the answers aren't in a form you deem acceptable and nobody listens to your demands on what you think faith should be.

• «For the bargain - basement atheism of our day, it is not enough that there be no God: there must be only matter,» writes Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic, commenting on the assault on the philosopher Thomas Nagel.

Theism or atheism is in no way connected to one's believe on the 2nd amendment or gun laws.

I'm not sure I understand a) why atheism is mentioned in response to an article on abortion (since atheists also take both sides on this issue), and b) why there is so much fear and stereotyping about atheism in general.

- Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism.

Atheism is definitely on the upswing, but too many of us still believe in iron age nonsense.

One Atheist said: «Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang - ups people have about «religion».

And as I read through the many posts on this board many messages are made clear but none such as transparent as this one; the belief that atheism is the way of superior and thinking humans and only the moronic or evil self - serving amongst the human race believe in the existence of a deity.

The difference in the evangelism of atheism or science is that it's based on verifiable evidence to support those theories.

-- You slippery dog, There has been exactly 0 countries in the world that were ran strictly on atheism.

In order for atheism to be based on «faith» or «belief» it would have to positively assert something.

He said he was and he promoted his communist style of atheism in order to hold on to power.

========== @Chuckles» There has been exactly 0 countries in the world that were ran strictly on atheism.

George Bernard Shaw Peter L. Berger, the most eminent sociologist of religion in the world today, many of whose sociological works as Berger says «read like a treatise on atheism,» has written a mature and skeptical affirmation of Christianity in his new book Questions of Faith: A...

As one writer put it, «Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people's hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.»

You have tried to twist it to make communism and atheism mutually exclusive, but they are not, as you have clearly met me and many others on this blog and in real life who are atheist and not communist.