Three-Point News Bulletin for the Mocking Critics of Christianity

[NoGuff]

Great points.

Everyone is religious. Some people's religion is global warming. For some, it's Leftist hate-philosophy. And for others its simply self-worship as a God of their own definition.

[RestrainedNoMore]

atheists believe in the god of self and until they can prove there is NO God, they also live on faith

[2222554]

Simply wonderful... Liked this info a ton... Thank You for putting the info together for us all... Please keep making your WONDERFUL videos..

[naejimba]

1. How can "not something" be at the same time "something?" Atheists cannot be religious because atheism is not being religious.

2. We cannot be fundamentalists because atheism has no dogma we can strictly adhere to.

3. If you alter the definition of faith to what you want, then yes, you can get it to fit what you will. It is a strong belief without ANY evidence. Ours is not necessarily a strong belief, and does not carry a burden of proof to require evidence.

[vbirdieb]

1. Don't Atheists think science can answer all questions, even if it gets something wrong it will correct itself. Scienctology?

2. Atheists (fundamental) core belief is that there is no God. Right?

3. Atheists say there is no evidence of God, so your faith is in something that you believe supports that, without  ANY evidence.

[naejimba]

1. No. There are things science does not know. There are things we may never know. Scientology is a religion and has nothing to do with atheism.

2. It is a strict adherence to basic principles (often religious in nature. According to your definition, you could define any belief or lack of belief as fundamentalism. Your definition is far too broad.

3. Are you serious? That is like saying it takes faith to not believe in unicorns. We do not have the burden of proof, as we do not believe.

[naejimba]

(cont)

To elaborate, you can either believe or not believe. If you do not believe in the claim, you cannot carry burden of proof. If you believe, you do. If you can back it up with solid, empirical evidence, then it is not faith, it is a matter of fact. If such evidence is not present or cannot be presented then your belief requires faith. You cannot disprove such a negative, therefore, you cannot say I have the burden of proof.

[vbirdieb]

I'm not asking you to prove anything.

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

2. 'Dogma' by definition is "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle"(dictionary[com]). If Atheism doesn't have the beliefs of anything, than what IS Atheism?

[Cont.]

[naejimba]

@4EverLoveAmbassador, atheism is NOT believing in god.

[naejimba]

@4EverLoveAmbassador, a lack of belief. Atheism is to religion as bald is to a hair color.

[vbirdieb]

1. Dictionary definition of religion-tenet, BELIEF, dogma, faith. Atheists are of the belief that there is no God. Right?

2. Again fundamental-Basic, essential, primary. Core belief there is no God. Right?

3. There is no evidence that God doesn't exsist, and Atheists say there is no evidence that God does exsist. So you believe there is no God without evidence.?

4. Faith is a belief that is what you need to understand in this analogy. And argueing dogmaticly makes it religious.

[VeritasLiber]

vbirdieb, your not finishing your definition of religion. "belief, dogma, faith...that god exists." Since Atheists no not believe god exists, it is not a religion by definition.

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

'Religion,' by definition is, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...something one believes in and follows devotedly"(dictionary[com]). If Atheism is not a religion, then what IS it?

In no places do dictionaries(I'm assuming, as I've only looked at one dictionary) say religion is the belief in God. That would be defining a specific religion.

[Cont.]

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

[Cont.]

So, you have just taken on faith by saying that religion is a belief, dogma, faith, and that god exists. I have even taken on faith due to my assumption that all dictionaries have such a definition as the one I gave!

[VeritasLiber]

"I have even taken on faith due to my assumption that all dictionaries have such a definition as the one I gave!"

Then you would be wrong. So wrong in fact let's actually fill in the part of the definition you cited with what else it actually says. "...and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances,..."

So when does Atheism accept or act devotional to the supernatural?..(cont)...

[VeritasLiber]

...and more importantly why did you leave that out? You even claimed you had faith all other definitions lacked a reference to God when you knew the one you cited already included that same notation.

But lets try another just in case. Merriam-Webster "Religion (noun): "The service and worship of God or the supernatural."

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

(I explained why in the previous comment)

Merriam-Webster's dictionary also says, "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." If you take the word religious out(to clear confusion) and just have 'attitudes, beliefs, and practices' then 'religion' would be both ways.

In my opinion, I don't think we should be argueing whether or not 'religion' is defined or not. The real question is, "who's fundamental beliefs are true?"

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

"especially." That's why I left it out, it doesn't HAVE to be 'when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies..' It said 'especially.'

It's like the word 'Canine,' by definition, 'of or pertaining to the four pointed teeth, esp. prominent in dogs, situated one on each side of each jaw, next to the incisors.' It isn't a must, and I've seen such words used without 'especially.'

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

3. It's not an alter of the defintion, it's just a different one. There are many definitions for the word faith.

And so you think. If you take a look at 'I Don't Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST' by Geisler, Turek(ImpactApologetics[com]) then you will find out why they think that it takes more FAITH to be an ATHEIST than it does to believe that there is a God. Consider the beginning of the universe, for example. You think that the world exploded into being by nothing.

[Cont.]

[naejimba]

@4EverLoveAmbassador, atheism does not require any faith. How hard is that to get through your thick skull? We don't have the burden of proof, therefore, it cannot be faith. Again, you commit a straw man, a logical fallacy.

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

[Cont.]

But, since something cannot come from nothing, how is this plausible?

Atheists are right aboust something, though. They are right about how the universe exploded into being--we just know who caused it!

[VeritasLiber]

"Atheists are right aboust something, though. They are right about how the universe exploded into being--we just know who caused it! " But Atheism doesn't make that claim. You would have to take that up with Cosmologists or perhaps Astro Physicists.

[naejimba]

@4EverLoveAmbassador, "something coming from nothing" is merely a straw man... which is.. a logical fallacy.

[VeritasLiber]

"Don't Atheists think science can answer all questions," No. It is in no way a necessity for Atheism. Take for example the rather isolated Pirahã tribe of Brazil.

I myself became an atheist for reasons other than anything scientific.

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

Yes, you're right. The thought that science can answer all is not a necessity for Atheism.

I'm just curious here, but how did you become an Atheist?

[VeritasLiber]

It was gradual. First after examination seeing that the figure of my own faith (Christiantiy) could not be considered loving or perfect if the Bible was their best defence. If found the behaviour of the biblical god to be such that I would not tolerate it in a 5 year old. Then after looking at how all the other faiths fell into the same traps it became more and more obvious that the reason no one seemed to have the devine answer was because there wasn't one.

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

1. Atheism, by definition is, "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Theism, by definition,"belief in the existence of a god or gods." And you think Atheism isn't being religious? Theism and Atheism are just as much as being religious.

We could go off on the definition of religion, but, heck, it's happened in previous comments with other people :]

[Cont.]

[VeritasLiber]

Atheism isn't a religion the same way not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

[eatyerbeans]

@naejimba

1. Does Elvis have religious followers? Elvis was a man.

2. Doesn't the word atheism describe at least one dogma?

3. Why would the burden of proof be any different for any one group?

[naejimba]

@eatyerbeans, elvis does not have "religious" followers in that they do not worship him as a deity. You are merely toying with definitions to fit your argument. Atheism does not have any dogma, it is simply lacking belief in god. Furthermore, the burden of proof IS different for someone if they are not making a claim, and therefore, do not have the burden of proof to begin with.

[eatyerbeans]

@naejimba You are limiting definitions to suit yours. There is religious devotion to Elvis, John Lennon, and any number of persons past and present. Atheism has both a claim and a dogma; "There is no God".

[naejimba]

@eatyerbeans, wrong, wrong, and wrong. I'm sorry but reality disagrees with you. Does Elvis tell you how to live your life? Do people take there morals from Elvis? Do they meet once a week to WORSHIP him as a deity? No. It is FAR from being religious. Elvis has no dogma. Neither does atheism. You commit a straw man here. I do not, nor have ever said "there is no god" all I am saying is I don't believe in him. I'm not making any claim at all. You cannot attempt to define your opponent's (cont)

[naejimba]

(cont) position for them. When you do so erronously, as you have done, you commit a straw man. Furthermore, to elaborate on atheistic "dogma" where do you get this from? We have no book to tell us how to live our life, no moral code... it literally has no rules that come with it. All atheism is is not believing in theistic claims. That's it. Again, you cannot define your opponent's position.. especially when you do so to attempt to fit your argument. It is flawed logic, simply put.

[eatyerbeans]

@naejimba M-W Dictionary. Religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism: #1 A disbelief in the existence of a deity. #2 The doctrine that there is no deity. You either reject the existence of a deity/deities or you're not an atheist.

[naejimba]

@eatyerbeans, not neccesarily. There are two definitions there. The first is an agnostic atheist, and the second applies only to a strong atheist. They are two very different positions to hold. I personally choose the former.

[newusername01]

I know what to get you for Christmas... A dictionary. As you made a watchable video you deserve some stars.

[FreeThoughtCrime]

3. False. Faith is not belief in the absence of "complete" evidence. It is the belief in the absence of ANY evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence. We don't have "complete" evidence of how gravity governs the motion of the earth around the sun. But predicting that the sun will "rise" tomorrow requires no more faith than predicting whether I will hit the Post Comment button in 3... 2... 1...

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

Isn't 'complete' and 'any' just about the same thing? I don't think it would matter too much on word choice or the amount of evidence, just that faith is a belief that is not based on proof.

You're right, we don't have physical evidence for gravity, but we DO have the results of its effects. Because that's what you do for something you can't see(like gravity)--you observe it's effects.

[Cont.]

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

[Cont.]

Since no human is all-knowing, then all of us--even atheists--require some degree of faith to believe our religious fundamentals. Those that have more evidence for their fundamentals,

require less faith--those with less evidence need more faith.

[FreeThoughtCrime]

2. False. Not everyone is a fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is characterized by a presumption of innerancy and an unwillingness to change one's position regardless of the evidence. As an atheist, I welcome the opportunity to change my mind. But I need a reason to.

[FreeThoughtCrime]

1. False. Not everyone is religious. Having an opinion on a religious matter (i.e. "a religious position) does not make one religious. I have an opinion on leprechauns. It does not mean I believe in them.

[FlyingFree333]

1. False

2. False

3. False

Here's a bulletin, you're just as deluded as every other Christian and projecting your crap on others just as much as they do.

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

Since you have provided no compliment evidence to YOUR bulletin, I'm going to believe Turek instead!

Here is exactly what Turek is aiming for--people who are mocking, once again, Christianity!

Please, if you will, tell me why you think these three points are false?

Thanks

'There are none who are as deaf as those who do not want to hear' -Barry Leventhal