atheist do not have a set of rules they go by, they simply do not believe in the supernatural claims of religions. kind of like in a court setting where the prosecution has burden of proof since they are claiming guilt. the defense does not state anything other than the default position of innocence. the default position in reguard to gods is that there are no gods. there is no evidence of gods in our natural world. anecdotes about your beliefs in the supernatural have no bearing in reality
@b0nsai76 The atheists rely on thier natural eyes for the basis of thier counterpoints.If if it cannot be seen, touched, measured, or experimented or tested upon..it does not exist.
But love for example does exist and yet one cannot seen ,measure or touch it physically.
@b0nsai76 Athiests also don't believe in any purpose to our existence,nor do they believe in justice or accountabilty once we are gone.They only have the physical mortal plane to cling to..and yet they tell me you make the most of your life while you are still alive.But ultimately to what end? If there is nothing but oblivion awaits us all so again what is the purpose to our existence.The here and now? That for me is unsatisfying.That is why I find athieism illogical and foolish.
@df61660a Well that at least to me ...is an honest answer..it is natural for humans to be unsure of what is our final fate..that is quite understandable because no one can be 100% certain of what the future myself included..therefore I go on by my own faith in God and leave the future to him.
Clearly I wasn't alone in saying "Oh wow, that's bad" when she said "I'm a philosophy major!". I'm 2 weeks into a beginners course in philosophy for adult learning (a total of 4 hours!) and even we've covered enough to not be as ignorant in philosophy as her. Way to rack up student debts without actually learning basic things.
Kennedy is right; one definition of religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (Merriam-Webster). Since it has not been proven that God doesn't exist, atheism is a faith. Holding that faith with ardor makes it a religion.
@VioletVal529 atheism has no cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. you too are an atheist when it comes to thor, zeus, and other gods. atheists merely go one god further. a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims has the burden of proof. most atheists would concede that if there was proof for a supernatural entity that controlled the universe they would accept it.the odds are in favor of no god. as they are in favor of no tooth fairy, fsm, etc.
@b0nsai76 Violet is correct because they who deny the existence of God cannot prove what they claim is a fact.Therefore what the atheists claim are strictly based on thier own beliefs/opinions and faith that there is no God.Therefore atheism is a philosophy it is a religion that opposes or denies the existence of God.
@oldgordo61 Atheism is the rejection of theism. It doesn't rely on any 'faith' whatever, it rejects faith as grounds for assumptions.
The Scientific method puts burden of proof on those making the claim. What you're effectively saying is there is no evidence for this but you have to believe it until you disprove it. It's like me saying a giant sea-turtle created the universe for the lolz - it must be true until you disprove it. No. It's untrue until I provide evidence to suggest it
@MaximumSanguinello Then the burden of proof must also be placed on the athiest.Science has niether proved the existence of God nor has it proved that there is no God.And science never will because the question is a philosophical question that is outside the field of science. Therefore what atheists or theists claim is based on thier own respective faiths or beliefs.
@oldgordo61 The difficulty comes because you are categorically wrong on so many counts it's dumbfounding and difficult to correct you with only 400 characters.
First off as i've already explained the burden of proof is on the claim maker, that is the scientific method.
Secondly to dismiss the claim that God created the universe as outside of the realms of science and to separate science and philosophy as you have shows staggering lack of understanding of both science and philosophy
@oldgordo61 To suggest that God created the universe is a theory about how the universe came into existence, something which you're asserting as a physical fact therefore it should be subject to scientific scrutiny i.e. you must provide sufficient evidence for this claim, if you can't then it is dismissed.
You're right I can't disprove that there is a God but I can tangibly disprove that any theology you can name is untrue by reference to it's scriptures.
@oldgordo61 I must concede that there is at least some statistical likelihood that some deity may exist be it flying spaghetti monster or my aforementioned giant sea-turtle but it is very unlikely (who/what created the deity?) but it is very easy to disprove that any theology is the revealed word of said deity even if we make the massive assumption (which we don't because there is no evidence to suggest it) that one exists.
@oldgordo61 All you've done in your argument is say that the person who doesn't believe due to lack of evidence has to provide evidence for why he doesn't believe. This is a logical fallacy (try studying some formal logic). The unbelief is warranted by the lack of evidence itself.
As i've already asserted it's easy to disprove any theology has any use in ethics/explanation of NatSci and in fact is counter productive in both so we can unambiguously say it's silly to subscribe to them
@MaximumSanguinello Can science explain why we are even here?..or do we simply exist for the here and now for no purpose at all.We just dance to our DNA.If that is the case then niether good or evil actually exist..and the people who show kindness and do good works, they who do evil and hurt others well they simply can't help it.
Love, compassion are simply chemical reactions in our brains. Honestly can you say to your loved ones that is all it is when one says I love you?
@oldgordo61 Just because we understand that we are a result of our neurochemistry doesn't in any way detract from the subjective human experience. If I love my child because that's the way that my brain has evolved it doesn't change the fact I feel love for them.
This argument fails even more tragically because you're ascribing love and emotion to the presence of God which cheapens it only as much as ascribing it to our biochemical condition.
@MaximumSanguinello Then where did love ultimately came from? Do you tell your kid or wife that it is chemical reactions going on your brain which makes you feel love for them? Why do we cry feel sad when someone is in pain? Of feel so happy for a child who is walking for first time or reuniting with a long lost friend.?
Human emotions is much more than chemical processes in the brain.You can't measure or explain why human emotions exist and yet they exist.
@oldgordo61 Just because our lives aren't wholly important in the great scheme of the cosmos doesn't mean that they're 'worthless'. As a complex organism we can still feel pleasure and displeasure more so than any other living thing and for the most of us we get displeasure out of seeing others suffer so it's still a noble cause to minimize suffering.
Are you really telling me that you'd stop loving your children etc if I hypothetically proved to you that there is no God right now?
@MaximumSanguinello I don't have kids myself but I do know love that a parent has for a child comes from God..for all humanity are sons and daughters of God and God is the source of Love..therefore since we are the children of God it is little wonder to me why we feel love and compassion for one another even if some don't recognize the source of why they feel when they have love and compassion for thier fellow humans.
@oldgordo61 As for saying that science can't explain why we're here - Not entirely yet, maybe we'll go extinct before we actually get all the answers but just because we don't know doesn't mean that God is automatically the answer. This is called 'argument from ignorance' and is categorically a logical fallacy (again I advise you to learn some formal logic).
@MaximumSanguinello If the human species goes extinct then what is the purpose to our existence? If we are all going to cease to exist once we die and ultimately the human race and even the cosmos itself shall cease to exist to return to that state of nothingness.That even defeats the argument of living for the here and now.
@oldgordo61 This is fair enough; some people just don't have the cognitive capacity for logical thought, the only problem is that by way of democracy your invalid opinion is given the same as an intelligent person's. I wouldn't mind that people like you held these fixed delusions (look up fixed delusion disorders in the DSM and compare them to religious beliefs) if you conceded to have your opinion silenced in debates of matter.
@MaximumSanguinello Atheists cop out of this question all the time. If they are certain there is no God..then they must prove it..otherwise they are going on by mere faith.
@oldgordo61 So it's not a 'cop out' whatsoever. I've painstakingly tried to explain to you over these few comments that that is the Scientific method and logical. A theory is held to be incorrect until sufficient evidence is provided NOT vice versa.
In medicine for example if I just insisted that a vial of unnamed green liquid was the cure for all cancer would you expect anybody to buy it without evidence on the assertion that it was there responsibility to disprove it. No.
Absence of what you accept as evidence doesn't prove evidence is absent.
Just because God doesn't personally show himself to me or anyone else...doesn't mean he does not exist..the works of his hands are more than evidence enough.. this world, with its teeming populace of life and likely on many other undiscovered worlds even the whole cosmos testify that is an intelligent being who created it.
@oldgordo61 If you say there is no celestial teapot then you must prove it. Absence of what you accept as evidence doesn't prove evidence is absent.Just because the celestial teapot doesn't personally show itself to me or anyone else...doesn't mean it does not exist..the works of his spout are more than evidence enough..this world, with its teeming populace of life and likely on many other undiscovered worlds even the whole cosmos testify that is an intelligent being who created it.
@oldgordo61 But i've already explicitly said that I accept that there is at least some, if minute, statistical likelihood that there could be a Deity in the universe. I simply don't accept that there definitely is one or even likely is one if there is no evidence so you're arguing from a null point. I've also said i'm certain that no theology is correct because they are easy to dismantle as untrue so whilst I concede there is some SMALL chance there is a deity, no religion is true.
@MaximumSanguinello Religion in its purest form has been diluted and corrupted by men whose sought to interpret God's word.Especially when one considers what has largely happened to christianity almost immediatly after the Apostles were killed.
That is why I find the Book of Mormon for me personally has restored plain and precious truths which were lost from the Bible over the centuries since the time of Paul.Its teachings have been the correct form of what Jesus taught.
@oldgordo61 Also the argument that the cosmos and life are fantastic therefore an intelligent designer created it is both a logical fallacy and ridiculous. If anything complex life is proof there is no designer because any designer complex enough to create the universe would have to have evolved over time to get that complex. Rocks and inanimate planets etc are much more likely to occur out of chance.
@MaximumSanguinello And yet the odds against us even existing at all from a randomly created cosmos are incomprehensibly overwhelmingly against our existence.One scientist worked the odds against us existing are 1 in 10 to the 25 power.Those are impossible odds. And yet we exist.
But people are more likely to accept in a randomly created cosmos from literally nothing and nowhere than an intelligent designed one.
@MaximumSanguinello And yet the odds against us even existing at all from a randomly created cosmos are incomprehensibly overwhelmingly against our existence.One scientist worked the odds against us existing are 1 in 10 to the 25 power.Those are impossible odds. And yet we exist.
But people are more likely to accept in a randomly created cosmos from literally nothing and nowhere than an intelligent designed one.
@oldgordo61 If you can't understand these arguments and still go away thinking that you've made a valid argument in saying that Atheism is somehow a matter of faith as well then you're simply not intelligent or not well read enough to understand formal logic or the scientific method.
DId that most annoying of women just say that the catholic church is progressive? The catholic church still thinks that condoms are the work of Satan, so spare me the 'progressive' bullshit please.
So if I make fun of Christians it doesn't speak well of me... but when Christians fundamentally believe I am going to burn in hell for all eternity for my own beliefs, that somehow doesn't speak ill of them? What a hypocrisy!
Shouldn't a "philosopy major" know that "argumentum ad verecundiam" (or appeal to authority) is a logical fallacy in many cases, especially if you use a false premise to start?
Kennedy....still annoying bitchy loud mouth idiot after all these years. Didn't like her back in the 90s when she was on MTV. Don't like her now. Go back into obscurity you nutjob bitch. And grow some tits while your at it.
@Blackman1000ify i know so true., its like all modern fucks today, degrees that are not worth the paper there printed on, the education bubble is bout to pop, too bad all the dumb cunts who thought going to 14th grade was gonna change there lives.
I was agreeing with the majority of what kennedy was saying during this show, until she said Atheism is also a religion. If only she had said that statement earlier for Bill to utterly destroy and further shine light on the ideas of atheism.
The guy on the rt is whats wrong w our country! When did kennedy get hot. She was such a dork on mtv. She sure is vociferous. She needs a cock in her mouth.
@ivlfounder Exactly.the human genome is a perfect example of a intelligent designer.Science originated from God who created all things that are known to us, and things that are yet to be known. And God gave us an keen and curious mind to learn all we can about about his creations.It is men because of thier stubborn pride not God.... throughout the ages and even now in this day of secular "enlightened times" that have attempted to separate God from science and vice versa.
"Francis Collins aka the Christian who mapped the human genome..."
He was ONE person in the team of scientists that did that work. He was the leader of it but that does not make him the "Christian who mapped the human genome.". Furthermore, his Christianity had bugger-all to do with the science.
"FYI Collins still proves that Christianity on it's own doesn't magically stop Christians from learning new things."
No it doesn't, it shows that HE wasn't affected by it too badly. There are about 30K different Christian denominations and some of them really hinders education and are detrimental to people’s health.
Did you miss the part where Bill the smug states as fact that "religion does not allow for new information"?
Collins achievements by merely existing expose Bill's fascist grade wide brush statement for the nonsense it is and those that agree with Bill for what they are.
In a religion you have certain things that are tenets, or dogmas, those define the religion and are unchanging. Thus if you put in "new information" into the dogma you are de-facto changing the religion. From this follows that you can't allow for new information (that in any way affect these dogmas) and keep the religion as it is. OK?
Hardly. Bill stated "Religion doesn't allow for new information". He didn't state "a religious person can't get new information" which is what you are implying with the Francis Collins argument. Bill was right when he stated this, which is what I've been trying to explain to you. religion is by definition "dogmatic"
I wrote (and Bill said) "Religion doesn't allow for new information".
That is not the same as "prevent (somebody) from getting new information".
A religion isn't a person it is a belief structure based on tenets and dogma. If you allow "new information" into the dogma you are changing it and thus you are redefining that religion. In order to keep the religion, as is, then you can't allow changes to the dogma.
So if I were to explain say that condoms prevent your mother from getting AIDS, it wouldn't be the same as explaining that condoms don't allow AIDS to infect your mother?
The sentence, "Religion doesn't allow for new information"; talks about the RELIGION and that introducing new information into IT, is against its very structure.
"Religion doesn't allow Francis Collins getting new information"; speaks about a PERSON and that this persons religion would prevent HIM from getting new information.
What Bill Maher was talking about in that sentence was religion itself, not religious persons.
In regards to you analogy (not that it matters) the meanings are not exactly the same.
"Prevent" = to stop something from happening.
"not allow" = Not to give permission, not give approval etc.
There is a clear difference in your sentences. In the latter you imply that a decision is being made whether or not the AIDS virus will be permitted to infect "your mother".
Hardly. Bill stated "Religion doesn't allow for new information". He didn't state "a religious person can't get new information" which is what you are implying with the Francis Collins argument. Bill was right when he stated this, which is what I've been trying to explain to you. religion is by definition "dogmatic"
Hardly. Bill stated "Religion doesn't allow for new information". He didn't state "a religious person can't get new information" which is what you are implying with the Francis Collins argument. Bill was right when he stated this, which is what I've been trying to explain to you.
I know people who have zeal and fervor about cats, collecting coins or getting tattoos.
So now I guess those are religions too?
Maybe someone should take some history courses so she can learn that the fact that she has the right to vote in America is because of the Woman's Suffrage Movement, which had lots of zeal and fervor, but was also not a religion.
If we did not live in a theistic world, atheists would be as fervent as a-Leprechaunists.
In the NUTSHELL, the problem with those calling atheism or agnostic a religion is that they have NO IDEA about the many factors that make someone convinced there is No God or creator as described or believed throughout the ages.For ex,I was born&raised in Iran, but THX to science, and many many yrs of reading, research, traveling, thinking and just living, the more science and travel provided ALL the answers to ALL of my wonders, the more diminished religion became.That's what they don't get.
piece of shit PHILOSOPHY major....if these morons disappear tomorrow, the world could go on just FINE....philosophy started and florished when bunch of fat old white men sat on their behind wondering abt the world. Now,THANKS TO SCIENCE,we know more than we need to know or ever hoped knowing.So she needs to ZIP IT& never call atheism,which is an intelligent stage of being,a sorta stage one comes to after many many many speculations, research,experience,thinking, debating,etc.This is NO religion
People that comment on this must first learn the definiton of atheism. Once informed then post. Philosophy major or not. ANYONE CAN SAY THEY WERE A PHILOSOPHY MAJOR!
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.
There are also online churches that have been created by atheists to secure legal rights, to ordain atheist clergy to hold ceremonies, as well as for parody, education, and advocacy
Therefore by the ruling of the highest court in the land atheism is a religion.
@oldgordo61 Atheism was defining as a religion as afforded the protections of religious freedom under the American Constitution. The Supreme Court no more decides what a religion is anymore than they decide blacks were 3/5ths a person.
"In August 2005, in a case where a prison inmate was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism, the court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause."
Hmm, I thought Kennedy was kind of smart. I guess I was wrong. She proved herself an epic moron with that comment and only further sealed her own coffin by trying to justify her buffoonery by claiming, "I'm a philosophy major!" What a stupid thing to say
"If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, or not collecting stamps is a hobby." Can't take credit for either comment which has been combined together/paraphrased here, but I think they are solid statements that no rational person can deny.
Like many Christians excuse givers (apologists) these days Kennedy asserts that atheists are collectively a religion called atheism which is a ploy by all major faiths to classify others as being the same as themselves to justify their faith which is not only wrong but a very bad argument. If you don't believe I can fly like superman then you're actually Bizzaro! Let us jump out of the window together... lol.
Lisa Kennedy Montgomery is a self proclaimed Christian, Libertarian, Republican born in 1972 who received a degree in philosophy in 2005 at the age of 33.
@NBrown654500 Atheism is a belief..that there is no God.An atheist is an individual who denies the existence of God without proof that such a being exist therefore.the athiest believes there is no God based on his own beliefs.
Therefore by definition it is actually a religion.
@oldgordo61 You are defining atheism to suit your own desires. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, not a belief that there is not one. Granted there are those that say there is no god or gods, but that's like saying all Christians are against blood transfusions or pray to the Virgin Mary.
@YOURINQUIRER It is still a belief..that there is no God. Therefore by definition atheism is a religion which has its own groups and organizations that declare to the world that there is no God.Atheism has its list of secularist prophets like Dawkins,Maher, Harris and Hitchens publishing books and promoting films debunking the existence of God.
@oldgordo61 Yet AGAIN, atheism is the direct OPPOSITE of what you said. Did you even read the statement I made? Atheism IS NOT a belief there is no god. There are those that do believe that, but atheists AS A WHOLE simply lack a belief in a god or gods. The men you mentioned ALL say that what is offered as evidence of a god is extremely poor and that was the subject of their books, NOT that they believe there is no god.
Do you understand NOW or are you just doing this to keep your point alive?
@YOURINQUIRER Ok you got me I'm really an atheist;-p
*sarcastic remark*
Hey blame the dictionary not me. ..btw the worst genocides and crimes against humanity in the history of mankind were commited by despotic madmen who happened to be atheists.
@YOURINQUIRER You ever heard of Akexander Solzhenitsyn? He said this about atheism.Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
@oldgordo61 Unlike you, I don't worship Solzhenitsyn or his OPINIONS.
Russia was brought down by Communism, not atheism There were and are many Christian and theistic communists and socialists.
Non-Communist nations that are highly atheistic like Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Japan (before the accident) and others, actually tend to be more successful than religious ones.
@YOURINQUIRER I don't worship the man but I acknowledge the fact he LIVED and EXPERIENCED the hellish conditions under the soviet union..you and I have not.
And he acknowledged the calamities that befell his country and his people because they became a godless society.
btw the countries you mentioned are largely secularist if you go by the demographics of the population but they not officially atheist. Religion has not been banned from those countries which you are implying.
@oldgordo61 Apparentlyy his judgement was clouded so much so that he could not distinguish between communism and atheism.
Sweden, Norway & the Netherlands are very "godless" societies are some of the happiest on earth while "God blessed America" is crime riddeen with lower standards of living.
@YOURINQUIRER Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval.
@oldgordo61 Apparently you haven't read enough to distinguish between communism & atheism or that atheistic nations tend to fare better than religious ones.
Indeed, the nations that are suffering the worst right now in Europe (Spain, Ireland, Italy & Greece) are the most religious!
@YOURINQUIRER But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."[46]
Ummm, that's not really an explanation, much less an example of committing an atrocity in the name of atheism.
Clearly men who have not"forgotten God" are no less capable of atrocities, religious countries are no less prone to authoritarian dictatorships and disasters. (Indeed religion helps a lot if you want to be a dictator)
Lack of religion doesn't seem to have been the problem
@oldgordo61 And you would be wrong after 60 wasted (and apparently useless) years of observation, when you could have looked at the host of nations now flourishing in the absense of any invisible friends!
@YOURINQUIRER Then by all means move to Sweden my friend...but it won't be easy.They have one of the strictest immigration laws in the world. Not as exactly "free" as you might think.
@YOURINQUIRER - There are so-called "godly" cultures that have flourished or are on rise economically (the US, India, Italy, South Africa, Brazil, etc.) and so-called "atheistic" cultures that aren't (such as African "Pygmy" people, Albania, Moldova).
I put those in quotation marks because there are no truly theistic or atheistic countries since even in countries with a religious or non-religious majority there are huge religious or non-religious minorities.
@A86 The US stuggles under an econ. meltdown of it's own making while European secular nations were out some time ago. It also lags in life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, education, gender equality, homicide & infant mortality. Italy, Greece, Spain & Ireland are uniquely the most religious nations in W. Europe & the desperate applicants for EU assistance. Pygmies, Albania & Moldova are overwhelmingly animistic, Muslim & Orthodox respectively. The rest rely on Western investment.
@YOURINQUIRER - The EU is a jointly secular/religious society just the US. The EU is suffering a financial meltdown too just like the US (like Greece, Iceland, Finland, Ireland, etc.).
"[US] lags in life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, education, gender equality, homicide & infant mortality"
All true, but this has to do with Neoliberal/Neoconservative economics. Italy is just as religious of a society per capita as the US but has higher standards in those areas.
@YOURINQUIRER - "the desperate applicants for EU assistance"
So is Finland which is much less religious per capita.
My point is that how religious a society is has little causative effect on its wealth. Some of the best-off countries in the world in per capita living comfort (like Malta and Costa Rica) have a fairly high religion per capita rate.
@A86 Yet again Malta & Costa Rica are largely dependant on lthe influx of money from largely outside money.
Also, Finland is doing rather well. It s having some limited struggles due to being the only Nordic nation to go to the Euro and not having the same economic bulk of a France or Germany to absorb the decline of Greece and others I mentioned. Still, it has an excellent manufacting base.
@YOURINQUIRER - "Yet again Malta & Costa Rica are largely dependant on lthe influx of money from largely outside money"
If you wanna get that technical some prosperous EU countries are net importers reliant on produce from outside countries. So are some other majority-non-religious wealthy countries - Japan is reaching that status. It's becoming reliant on imports from South Korea (which is more religious per capita than Japan and has more economic growth than Japan these days).
@A86 Japan is an extremely poor example due to it's recent disaster which caused it to drop from second to third in world economies. Now THAT'S getting technical.
@YOURINQUIRER - Anyways, my point is that these other economic factors you keep bring up have a far more provably causative effect on wealth and prosperity than being a religious or nonreligious society. Middle-class Americans are one of the wealthiest demographics on Earth and are pretty religious per capita. Their wealth has to do with the postwar American economic boom, not their faith. Same with the nonreligious population of Sweden which has almost no poverty.
@A86 Sorry but the US is WELL behind it's secular counterparts in life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality with high rates of abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection, homicide & infant mortality.
Southern & Midwestern states with the highest levels of religiosity & opposition to evolution are especially poor in these dysfunctional indicators, while the more secular states of the Northeast conform to Western European norms.
@YOURINQUIRER - What do you mean by "secular"? All these societies are a mix of religious and secular. Italy is "religious" (by what you seem to be using to define these societies) and is ahead of the US in most of these categories.
"Southern & Midwestern states...are especially poor in these dysfunctional indictors"
Quite right, but so are some Northern and Coastal states. What does this have to do with religion? Most middle-class and wealthy Americans classify as religious.
Atheism is bit a religion and I laughed at her argument from authority. You can be religious and still be an Atheist. You can be a spiritualist or Taoist and be an Atheist.
To say it takes faith to be an Atheist is such a bullshit argument. Does it take faith to say there is no Easter Bunny?
@aarlin81 Atheists often lump the existence of God together with the Easter Bunny in thier arguement against the existence of God.But you don't see them raging against Easter Bunnies pink unicorns and FSMs as they do about God because the atheist knows in his/her heart that God in fact does exist and easter bunnies and pink unicorns actually don't.They rage against the truth that is written in thier hearts. If God is not real then athiests shouldn't have problem with God in the first place.
@oldgordo61 If someone was trying to force Easter Bunnyism down my throat like Christians try to do with their nonsense, you're damn right you'd see some rabbit railing!
@YOURINQUIRER No you wouldn't because you know easter bunnies don't exist. But you likely buy into the commercialism without realizing it of Easter that we now see.Just as we see the same commercialism christmas tied to Santa Claus.
@oldgordo61 Yes Easter Bunnies don't exist as generally Invisible Sky Daddy's don't either. As far as buying into commercialism, please don't project your difficulties on to me as you avoid answering the point I made. Would you mind attending that?
@YOURINQUIRER If God does not exist..why then you atheists react in such a defensive manner? If he really doesn't exist like the Easter Bunny as you already admited to that fact as easter bunnies really don't exist..then the idea of a supreme being which cannot exist shouldn't in the least bother atheists. And yet there this illogical animosity and hatred toward an imaginary being that doesn't exist.
@oldgordo61 Atheists do not mind any deity, may it be the christian god, the invisible pink unicorn or Brad Pitt. It is the worshippers who do a good job to make everyones life misserable by taking their irrational believes into the real world. Creationism in schools, a hate for same-sex marriage, no condoms for AIDS-ridden Africa, etc. So yes, a defensive manner is very appropriate.
@oldgordo61 Atheists do not mind any deity, may it be the christian god, the invisible pink unicorn or Brad Pitt. It is the worshippers who do a good job to make everyones life misserable by taking their irrational believes into the real world. Creationism in schools, a hate for same-sex marriage, no condoms for AIDS-ridden Africa, etc. So yes, a defensive manner is very appropriate.
@YOURINQUIRER You are fighting against the realty of your own existence by denying the being responsible for all our existences even the cosmos itself.You are the one who is being defensive my friend.No one is forcing you to accept what I am trying to say to you.Indeed.. you are an individual of free will given agency by that very being you deny to choose for yourself to believe or not to believe his existence.
I'm a philosophy major..... yea ok, you got him there.. idiot
maabreu1 4 days ago
Another inbred moron who doesn't understand what he's spouting in the form of oldgordo61;; it rea
fpsBeaTt 1 week ago
a good video to watch is 'atheism is not a religion - sam harris'
b0nsai76 3 weeks ago
atheist do not have a set of rules they go by, they simply do not believe in the supernatural claims of religions. kind of like in a court setting where the prosecution has burden of proof since they are claiming guilt. the defense does not state anything other than the default position of innocence. the default position in reguard to gods is that there are no gods. there is no evidence of gods in our natural world. anecdotes about your beliefs in the supernatural have no bearing in reality
b0nsai76 3 weeks ago
@b0nsai76 The atheists rely on thier natural eyes for the basis of thier counterpoints.If if it cannot be seen, touched, measured, or experimented or tested upon..it does not exist.
But love for example does exist and yet one cannot seen ,measure or touch it physically.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@b0nsai76 Athiests also don't believe in any purpose to our existence,nor do they believe in justice or accountabilty once we are gone.They only have the physical mortal plane to cling to..and yet they tell me you make the most of your life while you are still alive.But ultimately to what end? If there is nothing but oblivion awaits us all so again what is the purpose to our existence.The here and now? That for me is unsatisfying.That is why I find athieism illogical and foolish.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
df61660a 2 weeks ago
@oldgordo61
but at the end of the day- i must say i really don't know. maybe there is a god- maybe there is not. i'm not sure at this point.
df61660a 2 weeks ago
@df61660a Well that at least to me ...is an honest answer..it is natural for humans to be unsure of what is our final fate..that is quite understandable because no one can be 100% certain of what the future myself included..therefore I go on by my own faith in God and leave the future to him.
oldgordo61 2 weeks ago
As the saying goes "Atheism is a religion just like Off is a channel on the TV".
LordAvoc 3 weeks ago 2
Clearly I wasn't alone in saying "Oh wow, that's bad" when she said "I'm a philosophy major!". I'm 2 weeks into a beginners course in philosophy for adult learning (a total of 4 hours!) and even we've covered enough to not be as ignorant in philosophy as her. Way to rack up student debts without actually learning basic things.
SecondQuantisation 3 weeks ago
Kennedy is right; one definition of religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (Merriam-Webster). Since it has not been proven that God doesn't exist, atheism is a faith. Holding that faith with ardor makes it a religion.
VioletVal529 3 weeks ago
@VioletVal529 atheism has no cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. you too are an atheist when it comes to thor, zeus, and other gods. atheists merely go one god further. a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims has the burden of proof. most atheists would concede that if there was proof for a supernatural entity that controlled the universe they would accept it.the odds are in favor of no god. as they are in favor of no tooth fairy, fsm, etc.
b0nsai76 3 weeks ago
@b0nsai76 Violet is correct because they who deny the existence of God cannot prove what they claim is a fact.Therefore what the atheists claim are strictly based on thier own beliefs/opinions and faith that there is no God.Therefore atheism is a philosophy it is a religion that opposes or denies the existence of God.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Atheism is the rejection of theism. It doesn't rely on any 'faith' whatever, it rejects faith as grounds for assumptions.
The Scientific method puts burden of proof on those making the claim. What you're effectively saying is there is no evidence for this but you have to believe it until you disprove it. It's like me saying a giant sea-turtle created the universe for the lolz - it must be true until you disprove it. No. It's untrue until I provide evidence to suggest it
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello Then the burden of proof must also be placed on the athiest.Science has niether proved the existence of God nor has it proved that there is no God.And science never will because the question is a philosophical question that is outside the field of science. Therefore what atheists or theists claim is based on thier own respective faiths or beliefs.
Why is that difficult for atheists to accept?
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 The difficulty comes because you are categorically wrong on so many counts it's dumbfounding and difficult to correct you with only 400 characters.
First off as i've already explained the burden of proof is on the claim maker, that is the scientific method.
Secondly to dismiss the claim that God created the universe as outside of the realms of science and to separate science and philosophy as you have shows staggering lack of understanding of both science and philosophy
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldgordo61 To suggest that God created the universe is a theory about how the universe came into existence, something which you're asserting as a physical fact therefore it should be subject to scientific scrutiny i.e. you must provide sufficient evidence for this claim, if you can't then it is dismissed.
You're right I can't disprove that there is a God but I can tangibly disprove that any theology you can name is untrue by reference to it's scriptures.
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 I must concede that there is at least some statistical likelihood that some deity may exist be it flying spaghetti monster or my aforementioned giant sea-turtle but it is very unlikely (who/what created the deity?) but it is very easy to disprove that any theology is the revealed word of said deity even if we make the massive assumption (which we don't because there is no evidence to suggest it) that one exists.
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 All you've done in your argument is say that the person who doesn't believe due to lack of evidence has to provide evidence for why he doesn't believe. This is a logical fallacy (try studying some formal logic). The unbelief is warranted by the lack of evidence itself.
As i've already asserted it's easy to disprove any theology has any use in ethics/explanation of NatSci and in fact is counter productive in both so we can unambiguously say it's silly to subscribe to them
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello Can science explain why we are even here?..or do we simply exist for the here and now for no purpose at all.We just dance to our DNA.If that is the case then niether good or evil actually exist..and the people who show kindness and do good works, they who do evil and hurt others well they simply can't help it.
Love, compassion are simply chemical reactions in our brains. Honestly can you say to your loved ones that is all it is when one says I love you?
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Just because we understand that we are a result of our neurochemistry doesn't in any way detract from the subjective human experience. If I love my child because that's the way that my brain has evolved it doesn't change the fact I feel love for them.
This argument fails even more tragically because you're ascribing love and emotion to the presence of God which cheapens it only as much as ascribing it to our biochemical condition.
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello Then where did love ultimately came from? Do you tell your kid or wife that it is chemical reactions going on your brain which makes you feel love for them? Why do we cry feel sad when someone is in pain? Of feel so happy for a child who is walking for first time or reuniting with a long lost friend.?
Human emotions is much more than chemical processes in the brain.You can't measure or explain why human emotions exist and yet they exist.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Just because our lives aren't wholly important in the great scheme of the cosmos doesn't mean that they're 'worthless'. As a complex organism we can still feel pleasure and displeasure more so than any other living thing and for the most of us we get displeasure out of seeing others suffer so it's still a noble cause to minimize suffering.
Are you really telling me that you'd stop loving your children etc if I hypothetically proved to you that there is no God right now?
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello I don't have kids myself but I do know love that a parent has for a child comes from God..for all humanity are sons and daughters of God and God is the source of Love..therefore since we are the children of God it is little wonder to me why we feel love and compassion for one another even if some don't recognize the source of why they feel when they have love and compassion for thier fellow humans.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 As for saying that science can't explain why we're here - Not entirely yet, maybe we'll go extinct before we actually get all the answers but just because we don't know doesn't mean that God is automatically the answer. This is called 'argument from ignorance' and is categorically a logical fallacy (again I advise you to learn some formal logic).
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello If the human species goes extinct then what is the purpose to our existence? If we are all going to cease to exist once we die and ultimately the human race and even the cosmos itself shall cease to exist to return to that state of nothingness.That even defeats the argument of living for the here and now.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 This is fair enough; some people just don't have the cognitive capacity for logical thought, the only problem is that by way of democracy your invalid opinion is given the same as an intelligent person's. I wouldn't mind that people like you held these fixed delusions (look up fixed delusion disorders in the DSM and compare them to religious beliefs) if you conceded to have your opinion silenced in debates of matter.
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello Atheists cop out of this question all the time. If they are certain there is no God..then they must prove it..otherwise they are going on by mere faith.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 So it's not a 'cop out' whatsoever. I've painstakingly tried to explain to you over these few comments that that is the Scientific method and logical. A theory is held to be incorrect until sufficient evidence is provided NOT vice versa.
In medicine for example if I just insisted that a vial of unnamed green liquid was the cure for all cancer would you expect anybody to buy it without evidence on the assertion that it was there responsibility to disprove it. No.
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello If you say there is no God then you must prove it.
Absence of what you accept as evidence doesn't prove evidence is absent.
Just because God doesn't personally show himself to me or anyone else...doesn't mean he does not exist..the works of his hands are more than evidence enough.. this world, with its teeming populace of life and likely on many other undiscovered worlds even the whole cosmos testify that is an intelligent being who created it.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 If you say there is no celestial teapot then you must prove it. Absence of what you accept as evidence doesn't prove evidence is absent.Just because the celestial teapot doesn't personally show itself to me or anyone else...doesn't mean it does not exist..the works of his spout are more than evidence enough..this world, with its teeming populace of life and likely on many other undiscovered worlds even the whole cosmos testify that is an intelligent being who created it.
b0nsai76 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 But i've already explicitly said that I accept that there is at least some, if minute, statistical likelihood that there could be a Deity in the universe. I simply don't accept that there definitely is one or even likely is one if there is no evidence so you're arguing from a null point. I've also said i'm certain that no theology is correct because they are easy to dismantle as untrue so whilst I concede there is some SMALL chance there is a deity, no religion is true.
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello Religion in its purest form has been diluted and corrupted by men whose sought to interpret God's word.Especially when one considers what has largely happened to christianity almost immediatly after the Apostles were killed.
That is why I find the Book of Mormon for me personally has restored plain and precious truths which were lost from the Bible over the centuries since the time of Paul.Its teachings have been the correct form of what Jesus taught.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Also the argument that the cosmos and life are fantastic therefore an intelligent designer created it is both a logical fallacy and ridiculous. If anything complex life is proof there is no designer because any designer complex enough to create the universe would have to have evolved over time to get that complex. Rocks and inanimate planets etc are much more likely to occur out of chance.
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
@MaximumSanguinello And yet the odds against us even existing at all from a randomly created cosmos are incomprehensibly overwhelmingly against our existence.One scientist worked the odds against us existing are 1 in 10 to the 25 power.Those are impossible odds. And yet we exist.
But people are more likely to accept in a randomly created cosmos from literally nothing and nowhere than an intelligent designed one.
Now to me is believing in magic.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximumSanguinello And yet the odds against us even existing at all from a randomly created cosmos are incomprehensibly overwhelmingly against our existence.One scientist worked the odds against us existing are 1 in 10 to the 25 power.Those are impossible odds. And yet we exist.
But people are more likely to accept in a randomly created cosmos from literally nothing and nowhere than an intelligent designed one.
Now to me is believing in magic.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 If you can't understand these arguments and still go away thinking that you've made a valid argument in saying that Atheism is somehow a matter of faith as well then you're simply not intelligent or not well read enough to understand formal logic or the scientific method.
MaximumSanguinello 3 weeks ago
that bitch is so annoying.
AliBanana1493 3 weeks ago
I didn't know philosophy majors have the authority to make infallible declarations about what does and does not qualify as a religion.
AtheistOnTheEdge 3 weeks ago
If Atheism is a religion then Bald is a hair color.
LordMikeShoe 3 weeks ago
@LordMikeShoe Actually bald is a hair color just as white is considered a colour.
ex. eyes; brown hair; brown eyes; blue hair; bald
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
DId that most annoying of women just say that the catholic church is progressive? The catholic church still thinks that condoms are the work of Satan, so spare me the 'progressive' bullshit please.
mw2000 3 weeks ago
If Atheism is a religion, then not building model airplanes is a hobby.
kickyabutt 3 weeks ago 2
saw this episode live hahahah !!!!!!!!! like on tv !!!! it was good
jrm835 3 weeks ago
Atheism is a religion the same way invisible is a color.
BTW, I never realized until seeing this how dumb Kennedy is.
booley 3 weeks ago 6
@booley Yeah, about that... you must have missed her entire career in front of a camera. I envy you.
instereovideos 3 weeks ago
So if I make fun of Christians it doesn't speak well of me... but when Christians fundamentally believe I am going to burn in hell for all eternity for my own beliefs, that somehow doesn't speak ill of them? What a hypocrisy!
eggiex1 3 weeks ago
@eggiex1 welcome to america my friend
sagar246246 3 weeks ago
Shouldn't a "philosopy major" know that "argumentum ad verecundiam" (or appeal to authority) is a logical fallacy in many cases, especially if you use a false premise to start?
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
It's because women like this that degrees have become worthless.
12Ominous 4 weeks ago
Kennedy....still annoying bitchy loud mouth idiot after all these years. Didn't like her back in the 90s when she was on MTV. Don't like her now. Go back into obscurity you nutjob bitch. And grow some tits while your at it.
gregwi562 4 weeks ago
She forgot to add "I'm a 90's MTV VJ". She looked so foolish throughout the whole show.
Gaytheist13 4 weeks ago
hot
AliTubelog 4 weeks ago
"I'm a philosophy major." Its amazing that this chick found a job.
Blackman1000ify 4 weeks ago 15
@Blackman1000ify Her tuition fees obviously were a waste of money.
EquinoxIV 4 weeks ago in playlist Weitere Videos von arboachg
@EquinoxIV Yeah, honestly I don't even know who this lady is but I know she's a jackass.
Blackman1000ify 4 weeks ago
@Blackman1000ify i know so true., its like all modern fucks today, degrees that are not worth the paper there printed on, the education bubble is bout to pop, too bad all the dumb cunts who thought going to 14th grade was gonna change there lives.
sprookafook 3 weeks ago
@sprookafook Use of the "c" word is considered bigoted these days. It's like the "N" word. It's not fit for civilized discussion.
Honeycombe88 3 weeks ago
@Honeycombe88 get used to it white nigger, nigga is actually about to be totally allowed by all to day, feel me my nigga. bye kunt
sprookafook 3 weeks ago
@Blackman1000ify She's a horrible guest.
bushmustgo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What new information does Religion allow?"... " Go ask someone else"....WOW fail
bulletshotfromgun 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
bulletshotfromgun 4 weeks ago
I was agreeing with the majority of what kennedy was saying during this show, until she said Atheism is also a religion. If only she had said that statement earlier for Bill to utterly destroy and further shine light on the ideas of atheism.
misinglink15 4 weeks ago
The guy on the rt is whats wrong w our country! When did kennedy get hot. She was such a dork on mtv. She sure is vociferous. She needs a cock in her mouth.
nismofury 4 weeks ago
What new information does it allow?
I don't know Bill why don't you ask Francis Collins aka the Christian who mapped the human genome.
ivlfounder 4 weeks ago
@ivlfounder haha,he didn't do it on religious principles though...neither did Einstein.
klasomentas 4 weeks ago
@klasomentas
Bill the smug claimed that "religion does not allow for new information".
Dr. Collins work proves this claim is obviously not true.
ivlfounder 4 weeks ago
@ivlfounder Exactly.the human genome is a perfect example of a intelligent designer.Science originated from God who created all things that are known to us, and things that are yet to be known. And God gave us an keen and curious mind to learn all we can about about his creations.It is men because of thier stubborn pride not God.... throughout the ages and even now in this day of secular "enlightened times" that have attempted to separate God from science and vice versa.
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
@ivlfounder
"Francis Collins aka the Christian who mapped the human genome..."
He was ONE person in the team of scientists that did that work. He was the leader of it but that does not make him the "Christian who mapped the human genome.". Furthermore, his Christianity had bugger-all to do with the science.
Draugh39 4 weeks ago
@Draugh39
I guess Lewis and Clark didn't do anything of note either then.
FYI Collins still proves that Christianity on it's own doesn't magically stop Christians from learning new things.
ivlfounder 4 weeks ago
@ivlfounder
"FYI Collins still proves that Christianity on it's own doesn't magically stop Christians from learning new things."
No it doesn't, it shows that HE wasn't affected by it too badly. There are about 30K different Christian denominations and some of them really hinders education and are detrimental to people’s health.
Draugh39 4 weeks ago
@Draugh39
Did you miss the part where Bill the smug states as fact that "religion does not allow for new information"?
Collins achievements by merely existing expose Bill's fascist grade wide brush statement for the nonsense it is and those that agree with Bill for what they are.
ivlfounder 4 weeks ago
@ivlfounder
No because I understood what he meant.
In a religion you have certain things that are tenets, or dogmas, those define the religion and are unchanging. Thus if you put in "new information" into the dogma you are de-facto changing the religion. From this follows that you can't allow for new information (that in any way affect these dogmas) and keep the religion as it is. OK?
Draugh39 4 weeks ago
@Draugh39
This is one of the reasons you have over 30,000 different Christian denominations.
Draugh39 4 weeks ago
@Draugh39
"what he meant"?
You're not a mind reader you're an apologist.
ivlfounder 4 weeks ago
@ivlfounder
Hardly. Bill stated "Religion doesn't allow for new information". He didn't state "a religious person can't get new information" which is what you are implying with the Francis Collins argument. Bill was right when he stated this, which is what I've been trying to explain to you. religion is by definition "dogmatic"
Draugh39 4 weeks ago
@Draugh39
Really?
So what does religion prevent from getting knew information if not people?
ferns?
toothpicks?
ivlfounder 3 weeks ago
@ivlfounder
I wrote (and Bill said) "Religion doesn't allow for new information".
That is not the same as "prevent (somebody) from getting new information".
A religion isn't a person it is a belief structure based on tenets and dogma. If you allow "new information" into the dogma you are changing it and thus you are redefining that religion. In order to keep the religion, as is, then you can't allow changes to the dogma.
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
@Draugh39
Really?
So if I were to explain say that condoms prevent your mother from getting AIDS, it wouldn't be the same as explaining that condoms don't allow AIDS to infect your mother?
ivlfounder 3 weeks ago
@ivlfounder
Have you got problems with English?
The sentence, "Religion doesn't allow for new information"; talks about the RELIGION and that introducing new information into IT, is against its very structure.
"Religion doesn't allow Francis Collins getting new information"; speaks about a PERSON and that this persons religion would prevent HIM from getting new information.
What Bill Maher was talking about in that sentence was religion itself, not religious persons.
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
@ivlfounder
In regards to you analogy (not that it matters) the meanings are not exactly the same.
"Prevent" = to stop something from happening.
"not allow" = Not to give permission, not give approval etc.
There is a clear difference in your sentences. In the latter you imply that a decision is being made whether or not the AIDS virus will be permitted to infect "your mother".
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
@Draugh39
Yes Yes and we all know in the fourth book of Saint Pucky it is written "though shalt not engage in learning anything new".
ivlfounder 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ivlfounder
Hardly. Bill stated "Religion doesn't allow for new information". He didn't state "a religious person can't get new information" which is what you are implying with the Francis Collins argument. Bill was right when he stated this, which is what I've been trying to explain to you. religion is by definition "dogmatic"
Draugh39 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ivlfounder
Hardly. Bill stated "Religion doesn't allow for new information". He didn't state "a religious person can't get new information" which is what you are implying with the Francis Collins argument. Bill was right when he stated this, which is what I've been trying to explain to you.
Religion is by definition "dogmatic"
Draugh39 4 weeks ago
I know people who have zeal and fervor about cats, collecting coins or getting tattoos.
So now I guess those are religions too?
Maybe someone should take some history courses so she can learn that the fact that she has the right to vote in America is because of the Woman's Suffrage Movement, which had lots of zeal and fervor, but was also not a religion.
If we did not live in a theistic world, atheists would be as fervent as a-Leprechaunists.
Somebody should ask for a refund on her tuition.
kengranderson 4 weeks ago
In the NUTSHELL, the problem with those calling atheism or agnostic a religion is that they have NO IDEA about the many factors that make someone convinced there is No God or creator as described or believed throughout the ages.For ex,I was born&raised in Iran, but THX to science, and many many yrs of reading, research, traveling, thinking and just living, the more science and travel provided ALL the answers to ALL of my wonders, the more diminished religion became.That's what they don't get.
scientistrules 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
piece of shit PHILOSOPHY major....if these morons disappear tomorrow, the world could go on just FINE....philosophy started and florished when bunch of fat old white men sat on their behind wondering abt the world. Now,THANKS TO SCIENCE,we know more than we need to know or ever hoped knowing.So she needs to ZIP IT& never call atheism,which is an intelligent stage of being,a sorta stage one comes to after many many many speculations, research,experience,thinking, debating,etc.This is NO religion
scientistrules 4 weeks ago
People that comment on this must first learn the definiton of atheism. Once informed then post. Philosophy major or not. ANYONE CAN SAY THEY WERE A PHILOSOPHY MAJOR!
egby2009 4 weeks ago
Bill did his best not to hitchslap her.
shatner99 4 weeks ago
Because, you know, her being a philosophy major automatically means she's right...
What a cunt.
kfk4life 4 weeks ago
oh he just seemed offended!
girlcalledaish 4 weeks ago
Alain de Botton may disagree with Bill. He has a new book coming out called Religion for Atheists.
DannyMac44212 4 weeks ago
"I'm a philosophy major."
That's OK we'll still listen to you, but don't push it.
"Atheism is a religion."
Yes, and NOT playing baseball is a sport!
YOURINQUIRER 4 weeks ago
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.
There are also online churches that have been created by atheists to secure legal rights, to ordain atheist clergy to hold ceremonies, as well as for parody, education, and advocacy
Therefore by the ruling of the highest court in the land atheism is a religion.
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
YOURINQUIRER 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldgordo61 Atheism was defining as a religion as afforded the protections of religious freedom under the American Constitution. The Supreme Court no more decides what a religion is anymore than they decide blacks were 3/5ths a person.
Were they right?
YOURINQUIRER 4 weeks ago
"In August 2005, in a case where a prison inmate was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism, the court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause."
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
Hmm, I thought Kennedy was kind of smart. I guess I was wrong. She proved herself an epic moron with that comment and only further sealed her own coffin by trying to justify her buffoonery by claiming, "I'm a philosophy major!" What a stupid thing to say
BristolPalinsBabyDad 4 weeks ago
"If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, or not collecting stamps is a hobby." Can't take credit for either comment which has been combined together/paraphrased here, but I think they are solid statements that no rational person can deny.
GodlessCitizen 4 weeks ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
Like many Christians excuse givers (apologists) these days Kennedy asserts that atheists are collectively a religion called atheism which is a ploy by all major faiths to classify others as being the same as themselves to justify their faith which is not only wrong but a very bad argument. If you don't believe I can fly like superman then you're actually Bizzaro! Let us jump out of the window together... lol.
zoxovox 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lisa Kennedy Montgomery is a self proclaimed Christian, Libertarian, Republican born in 1972 who received a degree in philosophy in 2005 at the age of 33.
zoxovox 4 weeks ago
Hmm wouldn't claiming atheism to be a religion defeat the whole point of being an atheist?
NBrown654500 4 weeks ago 2
@NBrown654500 Atheism is a belief..that there is no God.An atheist is an individual who denies the existence of God without proof that such a being exist therefore.the athiest believes there is no God based on his own beliefs.
Therefore by definition it is actually a religion.
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 You are defining atheism to suit your own desires. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, not a belief that there is not one. Granted there are those that say there is no god or gods, but that's like saying all Christians are against blood transfusions or pray to the Virgin Mary.
Check your facts.
YOURINQUIRER 4 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER It is still a belief..that there is no God. Therefore by definition atheism is a religion which has its own groups and organizations that declare to the world that there is no God.Atheism has its list of secularist prophets like Dawkins,Maher, Harris and Hitchens publishing books and promoting films debunking the existence of God.
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Yet AGAIN, atheism is the direct OPPOSITE of what you said. Did you even read the statement I made? Atheism IS NOT a belief there is no god. There are those that do believe that, but atheists AS A WHOLE simply lack a belief in a god or gods. The men you mentioned ALL say that what is offered as evidence of a god is extremely poor and that was the subject of their books, NOT that they believe there is no god.
Do you understand NOW or are you just doing this to keep your point alive?
YOURINQUIRER 4 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
And men like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens have declared themselves to be atheists.
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 You chose a reference that has it's PRIMARY defintion of "atheism" as "ungodliness, wickedness" as an objective reference?
Would you accept a definition of christianity that started with "deniers of science, abortion clinic bombers, child molesters"?
Tell the truth: you're really an atheist posing as a believer just to make them look bad, right?
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago 2
@YOURINQUIRER Ok you got me I'm really an atheist;-p
*sarcastic remark*
Hey blame the dictionary not me. ..btw the worst genocides and crimes against humanity in the history of mankind were commited by despotic madmen who happened to be atheists.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61
“ the worst genocides and crimes against humanity in the history of mankind were commited by despotic madmen who happened to be atheists."
Let's see:
Hitler was a Catholic and 94% of Nazi-Germany where Christian.
All Axis-powers were religious.
Stalin remained Orthodox and most Soviets were Christian.
The whole of the Ustaše in Croatia was based on Catholicism as was fascist Spain.
The Christian colonisation of the Americas killed about 100 M Natives.
Draugh39 3 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draugh39
"Stalin remained Orthodox and most Soviets were Christian."
LOL oh man you are such a liar.
ivlfounder 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 How long did it take you to find a dictionary that agreed with you. I've found 5 in just a few minutes that have the proper definition.
Name me one of these men, JUST ONE who said they commited their attrocities in the name of atheism.
By your standard, every time a Christian does something wrong, it's Jesus' fault.
Hitler was a Christian, BTW.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER You ever heard of Akexander Solzhenitsyn? He said this about atheism.Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Unlike you, I don't worship Solzhenitsyn or his OPINIONS.
Russia was brought down by Communism, not atheism There were and are many Christian and theistic communists and socialists.
Non-Communist nations that are highly atheistic like Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Japan (before the accident) and others, actually tend to be more successful than religious ones.
Read up.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER I don't worship the man but I acknowledge the fact he LIVED and EXPERIENCED the hellish conditions under the soviet union..you and I have not.
And he acknowledged the calamities that befell his country and his people because they became a godless society.
btw the countries you mentioned are largely secularist if you go by the demographics of the population but they not officially atheist. Religion has not been banned from those countries which you are implying.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Apparentlyy his judgement was clouded so much so that he could not distinguish between communism and atheism.
Sweden, Norway & the Netherlands are very "godless" societies are some of the happiest on earth while "God blessed America" is crime riddeen with lower standards of living.
Gimme godless any day!!!
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER We also incarcerate more people and have higher rates of suicide and drug abuse.
braveheart1779 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Apparently you haven't read enough to distinguish between communism & atheism or that atheistic nations tend to fare better than religious ones.
Indeed, the nations that are suffering the worst right now in Europe (Spain, Ireland, Italy & Greece) are the most religious!
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."[46]
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
booley 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldgordo61 @oldgordo61 "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
Ummm, that's not really an explanation, much less an example of committing an atrocity in the name of atheism.
Clearly men who have not"forgotten God" are no less capable of atrocities, religious countries are no less prone to authoritarian dictatorships and disasters. (Indeed religion helps a lot if you want to be a dictator)
Lack of religion doesn't seem to have been the problem
booley 3 weeks ago 2
Comment removed
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldgordo61 And you would be wrong after 60 wasted (and apparently useless) years of observation, when you could have looked at the host of nations now flourishing in the absense of any invisible friends!
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 He was wrong. Atheistic cultures around the globe flourish while "godly" cultures decay.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER Then by all means move to Sweden my friend...but it won't be easy.They have one of the strictest immigration laws in the world. Not as exactly "free" as you might think.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Wow, so many people trying to flood into a "godless" nation, eh? Certainly throws a monkey wrench into your narrative, doesn't it?
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - There are so-called "godly" cultures that have flourished or are on rise economically (the US, India, Italy, South Africa, Brazil, etc.) and so-called "atheistic" cultures that aren't (such as African "Pygmy" people, Albania, Moldova).
I put those in quotation marks because there are no truly theistic or atheistic countries since even in countries with a religious or non-religious majority there are huge religious or non-religious minorities.
A86 3 weeks ago
@A86 The US stuggles under an econ. meltdown of it's own making while European secular nations were out some time ago. It also lags in life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, education, gender equality, homicide & infant mortality. Italy, Greece, Spain & Ireland are uniquely the most religious nations in W. Europe & the desperate applicants for EU assistance. Pygmies, Albania & Moldova are overwhelmingly animistic, Muslim & Orthodox respectively. The rest rely on Western investment.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - The EU is a jointly secular/religious society just the US. The EU is suffering a financial meltdown too just like the US (like Greece, Iceland, Finland, Ireland, etc.).
"[US] lags in life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, education, gender equality, homicide & infant mortality"
All true, but this has to do with Neoliberal/Neoconservative economics. Italy is just as religious of a society per capita as the US but has higher standards in those areas.
A86 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - "the desperate applicants for EU assistance"
So is Finland which is much less religious per capita.
My point is that how religious a society is has little causative effect on its wealth. Some of the best-off countries in the world in per capita living comfort (like Malta and Costa Rica) have a fairly high religion per capita rate.
A86 3 weeks ago
@A86 Yet again Malta & Costa Rica are largely dependant on lthe influx of money from largely outside money.
Also, Finland is doing rather well. It s having some limited struggles due to being the only Nordic nation to go to the Euro and not having the same economic bulk of a France or Germany to absorb the decline of Greece and others I mentioned. Still, it has an excellent manufacting base.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - "Yet again Malta & Costa Rica are largely dependant on lthe influx of money from largely outside money"
If you wanna get that technical some prosperous EU countries are net importers reliant on produce from outside countries. So are some other majority-non-religious wealthy countries - Japan is reaching that status. It's becoming reliant on imports from South Korea (which is more religious per capita than Japan and has more economic growth than Japan these days).
A86 3 weeks ago
@A86 Japan is an extremely poor example due to it's recent disaster which caused it to drop from second to third in world economies. Now THAT'S getting technical.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - Anyways, my point is that these other economic factors you keep bring up have a far more provably causative effect on wealth and prosperity than being a religious or nonreligious society. Middle-class Americans are one of the wealthiest demographics on Earth and are pretty religious per capita. Their wealth has to do with the postwar American economic boom, not their faith. Same with the nonreligious population of Sweden which has almost no poverty.
A86 3 weeks ago
@A86 Sorry but the US is WELL behind it's secular counterparts in life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality with high rates of abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection, homicide & infant mortality.
Southern & Midwestern states with the highest levels of religiosity & opposition to evolution are especially poor in these dysfunctional indicators, while the more secular states of the Northeast conform to Western European norms.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - What do you mean by "secular"? All these societies are a mix of religious and secular. Italy is "religious" (by what you seem to be using to define these societies) and is ahead of the US in most of these categories.
"Southern & Midwestern states...are especially poor in these dysfunctional indictors"
Quite right, but so are some Northern and Coastal states. What does this have to do with religion? Most middle-class and wealthy Americans classify as religious.
A86 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 Sorry, you are incorrect. These states are in general ahead of Bible Belt or traditionally "Red States".
You make my point for me. The more secular a nation is has a concurrent relationship to its prosperity.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - Japan has been going downhill economically long before 2009-Present. They've been faltering since the mid-90s.
A86 3 weeks ago
@A86 The U.S. has been going down hill since the start of the 21st Century (and with no devastating natural disaster).
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - Agreed, thanks in large part to Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism.
A86 3 weeks ago
@A86 Both supported by America's Religious Right.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER - True, but it's also supported by secular people too. Ex: Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, most corporations, etc.
A86 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YOURINQUIRER - True, but it's also supported by secular people too. Ex: Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, most corporations, etc.
A86 3 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Right like you said belief not religion. my whole point was it is not a religion but yes a belief I understand that.
NBrown654500 4 weeks ago
@NBrown654500
No there are atheistic religions, such as Jainism, and Buddhism.
A religion = "A particular system of faith and worship." (OED)
Atheism is the non-belief in gods.
There are no additional tenets or dogmas. Thus it is not a belief SYSTEM and can't be a religion, by definition.
Draugh39 4 weeks ago
Fuck!!!
aarlin81 4 weeks ago
Sorry typing on a phone. Meant to write MOT A RELIGION but it predicted some odd shit that I missed
aarlin81 4 weeks ago
Atheism is bit a religion and I laughed at her argument from authority. You can be religious and still be an Atheist. You can be a spiritualist or Taoist and be an Atheist.
To say it takes faith to be an Atheist is such a bullshit argument. Does it take faith to say there is no Easter Bunny?
aarlin81 4 weeks ago
@aarlin81 Atheists often lump the existence of God together with the Easter Bunny in thier arguement against the existence of God.But you don't see them raging against Easter Bunnies pink unicorns and FSMs as they do about God because the atheist knows in his/her heart that God in fact does exist and easter bunnies and pink unicorns actually don't.They rage against the truth that is written in thier hearts. If God is not real then athiests shouldn't have problem with God in the first place.
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 If someone was trying to force Easter Bunnyism down my throat like Christians try to do with their nonsense, you're damn right you'd see some rabbit railing!
Think before you type.
YOURINQUIRER 4 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER No you wouldn't because you know easter bunnies don't exist. But you likely buy into the commercialism without realizing it of Easter that we now see.Just as we see the same commercialism christmas tied to Santa Claus.
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Yes Easter Bunnies don't exist as generally Invisible Sky Daddy's don't either. As far as buying into commercialism, please don't project your difficulties on to me as you avoid answering the point I made. Would you mind attending that?
YOURINQUIRER 4 weeks ago
@YOURINQUIRER If God does not exist..why then you atheists react in such a defensive manner? If he really doesn't exist like the Easter Bunny as you already admited to that fact as easter bunnies really don't exist..then the idea of a supreme being which cannot exist shouldn't in the least bother atheists. And yet there this illogical animosity and hatred toward an imaginary being that doesn't exist.
oldgordo61 4 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Atheists do not mind any deity, may it be the christian god, the invisible pink unicorn or Brad Pitt. It is the worshippers who do a good job to make everyones life misserable by taking their irrational believes into the real world. Creationism in schools, a hate for same-sex marriage, no condoms for AIDS-ridden Africa, etc. So yes, a defensive manner is very appropriate.
EquinoxIV 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldgordo61 Atheists do not mind any deity, may it be the christian god, the invisible pink unicorn or Brad Pitt. It is the worshippers who do a good job to make everyones life misserable by taking their irrational believes into the real world. Creationism in schools, a hate for same-sex marriage, no condoms for AIDS-ridden Africa, etc. So yes, a defensive manner is very appropriate.
EquinoxIV 4 weeks ago
@oldgordo61 Are you reading or just skipping down to answer?
You are attacking us and other non-Christians! We are defending ourselves from your attacks!
You don't get to hit us over the head with a cross and when we break the damn thing yell "Hey, why so defensive?"
It's not your invisible friend attacking us - It's you. WE ARE FIGHTING YOU.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago 2
@YOURINQUIRER You are fighting against the realty of your own existence by denying the being responsible for all our existences even the cosmos itself.You are the one who is being defensive my friend.No one is forcing you to accept what I am trying to say to you.Indeed.. you are an individual of free will given agency by that very being you deny to choose for yourself to believe or not to believe his existence.
One day you will understand.
oldgordo61 3 weeks ago