You've got faith (ding)

189 posts / 0 new
Last post
Watchman TC's picture
You've got faith (ding)

Atheism is the religious tradition whose adherents deny their own faith. Fitting for a religion at enmity with God. Rejecting the existence of the true and living God, whose power and attributes are manifest in everyone, is nothing new.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1a).

David calls the denier of God a fool not because the denier is mindless, but because he knows better and does the wrong thing anyway. If one denies God, then one denies his sin, and if one denies his sin, then he denies the judgment to come. For a time.

The atheist's supernatural belief is in an imaginary force called Chance, which he believes brought about the universe and all life. Coupled with his self-contradicting belief in cognitive relativism -- which goes like, "I don't know the truth, and neither do you" -- he has a formula for deceiving even himself into believing he has no superstitious beliefs.

Religion doesn't require belief in deity. Take Buddhism, for example. Atheism is a pagan religion without a deity. The idols of atheism are idols to creaturely things, especially the one the atheist sees in the mirror.

The atheist can't admit that his lack of belief in God entails a whole belief system. It requires the formulation of a worldview in which existence is possible without God, and as such, he must posit a godless universe in which everything came into being naturally and now exhibits all the wonders we observe. That requires a lot of imagination, fantasy and faith.

Moreover, atheism requires an indoctrination program where kids are bathed in this faith five days a week. It's shameful and unconstitutional to allow the atheist religion to be taught in public school curriculum to the exclusion of other faiths. Either eliminate the curriculum that inculcates kids with the naturalistic-materialist worldview of atheism or allow the worldviews of a broader spectrum of faiths to be taught.

I speak as someone who was raised by unbelievers, went to public schools and an extremely liberal university, and was an atheist until age 43.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Tin-Man's picture
Bwaaaaa-haaaa-haaaaaa....!!!

Bwaaaaa-haaaa-haaaaaa....!!! Another "ex-atheist", huh?... *shaking head amusingly*... Well, THIS should be fun. The most amazing and hilarious thing to me, however, is the fact the writer of the OP obviously has no clue what atheism is. Do these particular theists honestly think we cannot see through their pathetic charades?... Bwaaa-haaaa-haaaa...!!!

Watchman TC's picture
Pure ad hominem. Try it with

Pure ad hominem. Try it with some substance next time.

Tin-Man's picture
@WatchmanTC Re: "Pure ad

@WatchmanTC Re: "Pure ad hominem. Try it with some substance next time."

THAT is what you consider to be ad hominem?... *chuckle*.... Awww, so sorry, dude. Hate to break your heart, though, but you are not worth my time nor efforts for such. Besides, why would I bother trying to insult you? You have pretty much blasted your own self out of the water just by posting your OP. Nothing left for me to do... *chuckle*...

Watchman TC's picture
You're confused about the

You're confused about the definition of ad hominem -- it simply means you're changing the subject to me and my character rather than addressing the topic in question. Ad hominem need not include angry attack, insults or mocking.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Watchman TC - ...[the atheist

Watchman TC - ...[the atheist] must posit a godless universe in which everything came into being naturally...

Why must the atheist do this?

/e Like what would happen if an atheist didn't do this? Spontaneous combustion? Or would they get bad breath?

Watchman TC's picture
If you can't establish that a

If you can't establish that a godless universe could possibly come into being naturally, then you cannot rationally sustain your godless worldview.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Watchman TC

@Watchman TC
So basically nothing happens if the atheist does not do this thing you declared they must do?

Watchman TC's picture
Correct: the godless

Correct: the godless worldview would not exist if it were not conceived.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Watchman TC - It's shameful

Watchman TC - It's shameful and unconstitutional to...

Americentrism?

Watchman TC's picture
That whole paragraph is aimed

That whole paragraph is aimed at the public school system in the US.

If you're not an American, then inculcating kids with a materialist worldview is just shameful.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Watchman TC

@ Watchman TC

inculcating kids with a materialist worldview is just shameful.

Whereas incalculating kids with the idea that they are nasty sinful creatures that must live in fear is ok?
Incalculating kids with the totally fabricated concept of a "god or gods"? That's ok in your "worldview?

How shameful you must be.

Watchman TC's picture
I favor teaching kids about

I favor teaching kids about the full range of worldviews.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Watchman

@ Watchman

Even misogynistic, infanticidal, one world law world views? And teaching them that they are the only way? Theocratic world views?

Are you in favor of that?

Watchman TC's picture
A good, unbiased start would

A good, unbiased start would be to frame all relevant curriculum around the top five most widely-held religions:

1. Christianity (33%)
2. Islam (24.1%)
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist (16%)
4. Hinduism (15%)
5. Buddhism (7%)

As it stands, only number 3 is used for framing curriculum.

Sapporo's picture
Watchman TC: A good, unbiased

Watchman TC: A good, unbiased start would be to frame all relevant curriculum around the top five most widely-held religions:

1. Christianity (33%)
2. Islam (24.1%)
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist (16%)
4. Hinduism (15%)
5. Buddhism (7%)

As it stands, only number 3 is used for framing curriculum.

Those statistics are only for this planet. Why are you being so narrow-minded?

Watchman TC's picture
"Those statistics are only

"Those statistics are only for this planet."

You believe in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

Sapporo's picture
Watchman TC:

Watchman TC:
"Those statistics are only

"Those statistics are only for this planet."

You believe in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

I don't discount the possibility. I don't see what intelligence has to do with anything.

The point is, you are saying we should include on curricula worldviews based on nothing tangible...but you only include those perspectives that you know of. If we took the universe as a whole, Christianity for example may well be held by a lot less than 33%.

Watchman TC's picture
Yes, I favor teaching kids

Yes, I favor teaching kids only what humans know of.

Your rubric for only teaching worldviews based on what's tangible is only to confess your desire to inculcate kids with your materialist faith (number 3 in that list of the five most popular religions). Way to go.

Sapporo's picture
Yes, I favor teaching kids

Yes, I favor teaching kids only what humans know of.

Your rubric for only teaching worldviews based on what's tangible is only to confess your desire to inculcate kids with your materialist faith (number 3 in that list of the five most popular religions). Way to go.

I don't have a problem with children being taught about religious beliefs. However, it would be inappropriate to treat as fact things that are contrary to what is known through observation. Believing in things proportion to the evidence is not "faith".

The difference between religion and science is that with religion, if the facts contradict your current stance, you reject the facts and carry on holding your religious beliefs, while with science, if the facts contradict your current stance, you reject your current stance and replacement it with the stance backed by the stronger evidence.

If you are teaching children about physics, it would be idiotic to spend any of your time teaching them what the solipsist perspective is. The unique aspects of religion concern themselves with metaphysical matters, not physical ones.

Watchman TC's picture
"it would be inappropriate to

"it would be inappropriate to treat as fact things that are contrary to what is known through observation"

Yet again, you're desiring to inculcate kids with your materialistic worldview. Shame on you.

Science deals with exploring the physical universe and adjusting our understanding of it over time. Religion deals with truth -- and all of them are false except the one true religion.

Before you get upset about the last part of that statement, keep in mind that I hold your faith be a religion, and that you hold it to be true.

"the solipsist perspective is"

Christianity is the opposite of solipsism because it's God-centered -- theocentric. On the other hand, you believe you're the determiner of reality -- that's solipsism.

When it comes to physics, yes, none of our worldviews ought to frame the curriculum. However, when people attempt to teach origins as if it were physics or biology, we get into trouble. That's philosophy and theology masquerading as science.

Sapporo's picture
"it would be inappropriate to

"it would be inappropriate to treat as fact things that are contrary to what is known through observation"

Yet again, you're desiring to inculcate kids with your materialistic worldview. Shame on you.

Science deals with exploring the physical universe and adjusting our understanding of it over time. Religion deals with truth -- and all of them are false except the one true religion.

Before you get upset about the last part of that statement, keep in mind that I hold your faith be a religion, and that you hold it to be true.

"the solipsist perspective is"

Christianity is the opposite of solipsism because it's God-centered -- theocentric. On the other hand, you believe you're the determiner of reality -- that's solipsism.

When it comes to physics, yes, none of our worldviews ought to frame the curriculum. However, when people attempt to teach origins as if it were physics or biology, we get into trouble. That's philosophy and theology masquerading as science.

Metaphysics is not something that can be shown to be true, so there is no reason to think that Christianity or any other religion can be considered "truth".

I don't believe I am the determiner of reality. That is impossible to prove true or false.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Watchman TC - The atheist's

Watchman TC - The atheist's supernatural belief is in an imaginary force called Chance...

Even the atheists who don't endorse chance?

Watchman TC's picture
I'd be interested in having a

I'd be interested in having a conversation with such a one.

Sapporo's picture
Watchman TC: I'd be

Watchman TC: I'd be interested in having a conversation with such a one.

Things in any system such as the universe happen according to laws, not chance.

Watchman TC's picture
So you don't believe in

So you don't believe in chance? You believe everything has been predetermined?

Sapporo's picture
Watchman TC: So you don't

Watchman TC: So you don't believe in chance? You believe everything has been predetermined?

You still haven't substantiated your OP claims.

I don't believe that anything happens according to chance within any system, which is defined by laws.

I cannot say I believe that everything has been predetermined, as that would be a teleological claim that would be impossible to determine without being outside "everything"...which would be impossible.

Watchman TC's picture
Look: If you want to bring up

Look: If you want to bring up specific claims I've made and ask me to substantiate them, I'd expect you to do so. It's tedious that you just say, "You still haven't substantiated your OP claims." I figured were already in the middle of a long process of working through my claims that you dispute.

Now then, compare these two statements of yours:

"I don't believe that anything happens according to chance within any system, which is defined by laws."

"I cannot say I believe that everything has been predetermined"

Do you see your error there? If you believe everything happens according to laws (read again: EVERYTHING, LAWS), then that logically leads to the conclusion that EVERYTHING is predetermined according to those LAWS. If you rule out chance -- that is, nothing happens outside of laws -- that leaves you with determinism.

Is it that perhaps at some point in the past some things didn't behave according to laws?

Please explain your beliefs on this, since it sounds like a contradiction to me.

Sapporo's picture
Watchman TC: Look: If you

Watchman TC: Look: If you want to bring up specific claims I've made and ask me to substantiate them, I'd expect you to do so. It's tedious that you just say, "You still haven't substantiated your OP claims." I figured were already in the middle of a long process of working through my claims that you dispute.

I have already addressed some of the assumptions you made in your OP, which include:

Watchman TC: Atheism is the religious tradition whose adherents deny their own faith. Fitting for a religion at enmity with God. Rejecting the existence of the true and living God, whose power and attributes are manifest in everyone, is nothing new.

Watchman TC: The atheist's supernatural belief is in an imaginary force called Chance, which he believes brought about the universe and all life. Coupled with his self-contradicting belief in cognitive relativism -- which goes like, "I don't know the truth, and neither do you" -- he has a formula for deceiving even himself into believing he has no superstitious beliefs.

Watchman TC:Atheism is a pagan religion without a deity. The idols of atheism are idols to creaturely things, especially the one the atheist sees in the mirror.

Watchman TC: The atheist can't admit that his lack of belief in God entails a whole belief system. It requires the formulation of a worldview in which existence is possible without God, and as such, he must posit a godless universe in which everything came into being naturally and now exhibits all the wonders we observe. That requires a lot of imagination, fantasy and faith.

Watchman TC: Moreover, atheism requires an indoctrination program where kids are bathed in this faith five days a week.

Watchman TC's picture
What you call assumptions are

What you call assumptions are assertions that you disagree with. Rather than just calling them assumptions, why don't you try to refute them? All you're doing instead is complaining and demanding.

Sapporo's picture
Watchman TC: What you call

Watchman TC: What you call assumptions are assertions that you disagree with. Rather than just calling them assumptions, why don't you try to refute them? All you're doing instead is complaining and demanding.

The onus is on the person making the claims to substantiate them, otherwise we can safely dismiss them.

You haven't said anything worthwhile in this thread. If you made claims that had some substance, maybe that would be different.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.