Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Helgoland]

Not again...
There's two ways of using the word atheism:
1) The literal sense. Only encountered when Americans debate the topic online.
2) The ordinary sense. Encountered everywhere else.
Willfully confusing the two is not productive.

[Descan]

... Uhm, did Sweden get like a Viking version of Kim Jong-Il recently or...? Pretty sure they're a fairly atheistic/irreligious nation...

[Lord Shonus]

In the strictest dictionary sense, that's true. In the most common parlance, and also in the only possible way linking that map could challenge my statement in any way, it is used to mean disbelief in all supernatural occurrences, spirits, life forces, and anything that could be defined as religion in any way. Technically one could call followers of Buddhism, Taoism, or animistic religions such as Shinto atheists, but almost the only time anyone does so is when they're trying to illustrate the differences between faiths, or when they're trying to win points in an argument.

[Descan]

If you mean in the strict Dawkins version of Atheism, then no, you're unlikely to find a nation-state or country that that is the plurality, unless Cote d'Ivorie or something just hasn't been asked and turns out to.

But I don't think that you need to go that far, a place where the populace plurality just doesn't care about religion would fit just as well :v

[Lord Shonus]

That's secularism, and I addressed that specifically earlier.

[Phmcw]

You're misuing all the concept : religion set of belief or practices.
Theism: belief in the existence of god.

You can be strictly atheist and following a religion (some budhists don't belive in god) and you can be theist and not following a religion (plenty in Europe).

peoples are pretty confused about their belief anyway. I met about any combinaison you can imagine, from catholic not believing in the trinity or recognizing the pope authority, or or theists not believing in the afterlife.

[Helgoland]

And that's not how the word atheism is commonly used, see above.
Don't pretend words have an intrinsic meaning. Words gain meaning from consensus.

[Ai Shizuka]

I commonly call myself an atheist (apatheist would be more appropriate), meaning I don't believe in the christian god, the pink unicorn, any other spiritual entity of any kind, any kind of afterlife.
Also, no such thing as fate or destiny.
I actually find the word 'atheist' not entirely appropriate, because I'm not only refusing the existence of god(s). I also refuse everything supernatural/spiritual.
So what should I call myself?

[TD1]

Atheist. It's generally accepted, where I am at least, that most people don't believe in the supernatural. The distinction would only matter if you DID believe in....say, ghosts.

[k33n]

That you're arguing with Christians—or those with knowledge on what Christians believe—seems to have escaped your thoughts.

Nice ad hom. As I have said earlier, I am an apostate. My bible is dogeared, I was faithful for a good chunk of my life.

Explain then, more thoroughly, how we have proven that Man and the world are not created; that no divine hand had any part in their formation in any way; that they formed purely by chance.

The complete narrative of creation in genesis is completely false. Humans are apes whom evolved ( as did all life ), the world was created from a gas cloud with the sun, the universe itself is billions of years old and was likely a product of exotic math. Even an acreating universe is more plausible then a being on infinite knowledge, power, and complexity acreating. The gods theory solves nothing.

Is there evidence that there is an afterlife? No, I think the opposite is true, as I have been trying to discuss.

scrdest carried this argument very well. Your response to him shows that you are assuming right of that bat that somehow we are magic that pilots the body - a claim without reason or evidence.

The human body was left imperfect after the Fall, thus its inner workings will vary, they will change, and they will break. But still the soul lives on, and is believed by the faithful to be immortal—barring a minority group which is inclined to disagree.

Theological nonsense.

I don't know; you seem to be the quantum foam expert here. Explain how this quantum foam is able to use made-up verbs to form the universe by its own will. I don't know anything about quantum foam, but I'm not inclined to believe whatever fancy-sounding words are thrown about just because they sound scientific.

Good, you don't have to:

http://io9.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-emptiness-there-is-only-quan-453814024

Christianity states that God created us perfect in His image, but that He gave us free will. Our forebears were given a choice, and made the choice to defy their nature and allow Sin to enter Mankind. Christianity is also the belief that God continued to stand by His creation, entering into a covenant with Abram to father the Jewish people, and then sending a part of Himself to the world to undergo sacrifice to wash away the sins of the believers. Christianity is also the belief that the faithful will, when the time comes, be caught up into the clouds to be in Heaven, and that they will live eternally in the New Jerusalem.

So what you are saying is that he created us sick, and then entered an agreement with a specific bronze age tribe, then sacrificed himself to himself to save the people that he made sick? Seems pretty masochistic for an all powerful entity to do, considering he could have just cast a spell and made everyone not sick in the first place.

I am honestly not sure what you are trying to say.

Christianity was basically a suicide cult that caught on in the despotism of the Roman Empire with a focus on giving up on life and waiting until you are dead to experience it.

Christ teaches generosity, humility, and peace to Man. With what do you disagree?

He also teaches hellfire, child murder, slavery, and believes that he must purposefully confuse people as to trap them in hell:

Matthew 11:20, Matthew 13:10-15, Mark 4:11-12, Mark 7:9, Luke 12:47

How can you claim to have no strong feelings against Christians when you admit to feeling repulsion at the very thought of being part of the religion? In any case, you certainly have no strong feelings against going to the Christian discussion thread to argue that certain doctrines are inherently wrong because of mostly unrelated and unexplained reasons.

Because most Christians haven't a slight clue about their religion, have no clue about the bible, and usually just go to church for the community and a vague sense of love and afterlife.

[Baffler]

As far as demography goes, this data may be more useful. It doesn't have a nice map, but it does consider countries outside of Europe. 59% of those surveyed identified as "a religious person," 23% identified as "not a religious person," while 13% replied that they were "a convinced atheist."

A plurality of the "convinced atheists" who responded are in North Asia and Western Europe. No region surveyed had a majority of "convinced atheists" or even a plurality except for China (see: overwhelming horse. I admit it is a small sample though.) The closest is Japan, with 31%.

More interesting is the "not a religious person" category. It has the %50 or greater in 5 countries: Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Turkey, Sweden, and Hong Kong, with Turkey leading at an extraordinary 73%.

The general trend, though, favors "religious persons," with percentages of 75% and above commonly seen; especially in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

I don't know; you seem to be the quantum foam expert here. Explain how this quantum foam is able to use made-up verbs to form the universe by its own will. I don't know anything about quantum foam, but I'm not inclined to believe whatever fancy-sounding words are thrown about just because they sound scientific.

Good, you don't have to:

http://io9.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-emptiness-there-is-only-quan-453814024

You're still avoiding the question. I read that article last night and didn't see how it disproves a theistic worldview. I read it again, and it's still not jumping out at me.

[k33n]

As far as demography goes, this data may be more useful. It doesn't have a nice map, but it does consider countries outside of Europe. 59% of those surveyed identified as "a religious person," 23% identified as "not a religious person," while 13% replied that they were "a convinced atheist."

A plurality of the "convinced atheists" who responded are in North Asia and Western Europe. No region surveyed had a majority of "convinced atheists" or even a plurality except for China (see: overwhelming horse. I admit it is a small sample though.) The closest is Japan, with 31%.

More interesting is the "not a religious person" category. It has the %50 or greater in 5 countries: Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Turkey, Sweden, and Hong Kong, with Turkey leading at an extraordinary 73%.

The general trend, though, favors "religious persons," with percentages of 75% and above commonly seen; especially in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

I don't know; you seem to be the quantum foam expert here. Explain how this quantum foam is able to use made-up verbs to form the universe by its own will. I don't know anything about quantum foam, but I'm not inclined to believe whatever fancy-sounding words are thrown about just because they sound scientific.

Good, you don't have to:

http://io9.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-emptiness-there-is-only-quan-453814024

You're still avoiding the question. I read that article last night and didn't see how it disproves a theistic worldview. I read it again, and it's still not jumping out at me.

Quantum foam is a boiling of reality at the smallest scale, even in a vacuum. Sub atomic particles are popping into existence from nothing and then returning to nothing constantly. While not disproving theism, it certainly lends some precedence to the idea that matter does not need to be created, but rather can create itself. This, along with evolution, biochemistry, and geology, strongly suggest that the Christian narrative was indeed the product of a confused bronze age tribe rather then an actual account of reality, and that no intelligence was needed for the existence of humanity, the earth, or the cosmos.

edit: This, in combination with the non-existence of the soul and the total irrationality of the christian definition of the 'loving god', are the nails in the coffin for Christianity being a valid description of reality.

[Orange Wizard]

You haven't actually proven anything - except possibly your own conviction. You're just saying "it's more plausible than a god, so it must be true", which isn't the way science works.

[Baffler]

There is no evidence for the source of this matter. "It created itself" is pure conjecture. Never mind that the idea is based on the equally poorly understood phenomenon of quantum tunneling.

I've heard the arguments around evolution hundreds of times, but biochemistry and geology are new ones. Care to explain? I'll also add that you cannot disprove the existence of a soul any more than I can prove its existence. It must simply be taken on faith.

[TD1]

The fact that it must be taken on faith seems to suggest that there is no soul.