Sentences with phrase «out of atheism»

Fishon, how do you know that stalin, pol pot, and mao were UNWILLING to be persuaded out of atheism?

Fishon, how do you know that stalin, pol pot, and mao were unwilling to be persuaded out of atheism?

It proves that some people make a religion out of atheism, but it doesn't prove anything about all atheists.

Not exact matches

So a Christian wakes up one morning, in his 19th year of Christianity, and comes up with a bright idea... i want to TRY out atheism, and this is considered normal!

This isn't about that though, this is more a lesson in how both religion and atheism together can be equally guilty of scamming people out of donations and book sales over trivial and distorted teachings.

I also don't think I need to point out to you that using only part of a definition fundamentally changes the word and definition itself, so to take only parts out to prove what atheism does do as «religious» is flawed and destroys your argument.

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect.

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?

«The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians: who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle.

She is fully aware of my atheism (but holds out hope).

Whereas most theological liberals remained Christian, the «Liberals» were drifting out of their churches toward a more generic theism or even atheism.

But that is actually besides the point since atheism can not be «kept out of» anything.

My purpose in this post was not to «convince» anyone that the God of the Bible is the one true God, but to point out that atheism is entirely inconsistent with every aspect of life.

Atheism used to be opting out of religion and faith.

Honey bager — just like atheism is delusional... Thinking that everything came out of nothing sounds pretty delusional to me.

He reflects that The God Delusion, which is so rabid, patronising and prejudiced as to have caused embarrassment in secular circles, may «turn out to be a monumental own goal», as it exposes the inherent intolerance of atheism.

you always got a few bad apples in atheism... etc etc.... almost lke youre throwing the baby out with the bathwater... besides... most complaints of this comes from atheists who yell separation of church and state...

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.

Since it is five steps away from atheism out of a possible six, lovers of the letter of orthodoxy who might feel inclined to attack case two as little better than atheism, or as a blasphemous or at best a crudely inept doctrine, might pause, before indulging in such judgment, long enough to consider — and I am confident they will not have done so before — what the five steps really mean.

Rather than have recourse to an unproductive apologetics when faced with contemporary atheism, we ought to concern ourselves with weeding out from Christianity what is not authentic, should even be grateful to Marx's critique of religion for the purifying function which it performs in this way.

He refuses to see atheism as the neutral default position of man because he has misspent his life chasing the coat tails of pedofiles and embezzlers and to admit now that he was wrong would just be too hard for him to bear, so he's going to ride out the wave of bullshlt and see just how far it takes him...

Atheism is so sad, so hopeless and worse evil when atheists go out of their way to belittle the beliefs of others.

If you're atheism is not based out of reason then you are susceptible to some nonsense such as this.

None is in opposition to truth absolute GOD, but hindu secular s, crook self centered by faith, they just not deny HIM, truth absolute GOD, but they consider themselves to be hindu HOTO s, ignorant goon gods, out of their idiotic atheism, stupid self center ism.

When something can be created out of nothing I will accept the religion of Atheism as being true.

and now — for the THIRD time — I point out to you that I gave multiple categories for atheistic belief (which I NEVER claimed were exhaustive, but you are rightly deducing that I am pressing out many other forms of atheism as illogical or a form of cognitive dissonance).

Your idea of atheism is so out of touch.

i pointed out that much of the above discussion includes nihilism — again, which Nietzsche & co. point out is one of the only logical conclusions of atheism.

I'd also point out to the enlightened atheists who want to bash Christianity because of what it did during the Dark Ages, that atheism, in an age of enlightenment in the 20th century, probably resulted in more mass deaths than all of human history combined.

It is extremely rare for a government with out an official state policy of atheism, to persecute religions.

Tell you what: If these ontological arguments are your «nails» in atheism's coffin, build a real - life house out of them and let's see how well it holds up.

Bishop Paulose rightly points out that there is no other aspect of Marxist ideology that has drawn the attention of Christians as much as atheism.

Hopefully, the majority of atheists hanging out here would have the intellectual honesty to recognize that the Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were no more credible representatives of atheism than the late Mr. Coots was of Christianity.

atheism is a cop - out for lazy persons who are in need of experiencing happiness and truth rather than temporal pleasures.

It is heterodox Marxist Ernst Bloch who points out that the best of atheism begins with a refusal to accept political deities.

How ironic that atheism defends itself for not having done anything out of hate and yet millions of sheep condemn people's choices and ways of living with a set of beliefs.

Silverman, who regularly calls his group the «Marines of the Freethought Movement,» is not shy in making it clear that he views his goal in calling out religion and elevating atheism.

So you finally figured out that there is no «faith» or «doctrine» of atheism, huh?

Kantian philosophy comes out of this enriched; but, in return, atheism, whenever it is recharged by the Kantian philosophy of the transcendental illusion, is stripped of another illusion — its own: the anthropological illusion.

As it was pointed out by Olof Klohr of Jena, «The atheism of Marxism is, in essence, not the «No» to religion and God, but the «Yes» to the world, the «Yes» to the conscious formation of human life.

Never did I feel out of place in my unbelief, and so, as the semesters passed, the roguish aspect of my atheism diminished.

I would like to point out that the trraditional «state religion» of progressive socialism is atheism.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the rise of atheism is an almost unprecedented phenomenon.

So I bow out of the debate and go back to the solid ground of Atheism where 2 hands working will prevail over 2 hands locked in prayer every time.

But as Novak rightly points out, «after this concession (and despite Grotius» disclaimer of any atheism on his part), it is not too difficult to understand how Kant saw theology as having validity only when it is made to serve the ultimate ends of ethics.»

Another thought: I am always dumbfounded by people who see agnosticism or atheism as arrogant — as if believing in natural processes means believing you are the top of the heap (quite the opposite, as you point out).

It is hardly relevant to point out that Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre also failed to embody the tragic heroism they thought should be the logical outcome of atheism.

By contrast, the recent atheist authors want atheism to prevail at the least possible expense to the agreeable socioeconomic circumstances out of which they sermonize.

If it were otherwise, the idea of God as purposive, or as knowing, would be ruled out and atheism established by definition.

Most converts to atheism seem to go through a couple years of trying to talk other people into what they just figured out.