'From' and 'of 'are two different words with two different meanings. You know it and everyone else does also. If the wrong folks come to power those who claim no religion are in trouble. Better to be agnostic.

Atheism is the laziest of all religions. Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and the non-existance of a God. How convienent! But like all religions they have no proof of the existance or non-existance of God.

Atheism is base on a faith that there is no God.

I believe in quite a few things. None of those things are god, and quite a few of them are not myself.

And, atheism is not a religion any more than not believing in unicorns is a religion.

Learn to troll.
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/n...ious_troll.jpg

[QUOTE=antikristuseke;1504329]Learn to troll.


Says you. If your argument fails name calling ensuse.

'Troll' cannot save you from poor logic.

What about the analysis the the creation of the universe from a rational scientific perspective? I "believe" in that.

Not all Atheists care about the mechanics of it. But do all Christians care about the mechanics of their creation myth? When God "Created the Heavens and the Earth" was it by mechanical, physiological or telekinetic means? No they don't just as not all Atheists care whether or not the Big Bang was 0.0 x 10^00 Joules or 3.0 x 10^69 Joules or even if there was one to begin with.

The problem with that is that science doesn't try to prove that we are here by chance. Science only looks at evidence and creates postulates based on the evidence. Using science to support chance or design is no longer science, but belief.

Evolution theory is based on an appraisal of the evidence, and what it shows. Any decent scientist knows that his favorite theory might be proved wrong at any time, and most are ready to start over again should that happen.

Intelligent design is based solely on preconcieved belief based on "Sacred Scriptures", and is solely intended to back up what the Bible says. No believer in Intelligent Design is willing to admit the remotest possibility that he might be wrong. His sole purpose is to see his belief taught no matter how many times he has to change the name or how underhanded he has to be to prove his "truth". The argument presented here, as with most Intelligent Design arguments, isn't based on any real evidence, but on "proving" that the theory of Natural Origin is false. They seem to believe that if they can just do that then the only alternative left is the one they devoutly believe.

I've met (and read the works of) hardcore atheists who do indeed treat their belief as if it were a religion. They are loud but relatively rare. Most atheists are, as described, people who don't see evidence so don't believe. Show them some real evidence and they just might surprise you.

Unfortunately there isn't any.

AS it has been allready explained to you twice, no it is not, repeating the same falsehood will not make it true. Atheism is a lack of faith in a god or gods, it makes no claim that there is no god.
It is obvious that you are trolling, the only reason I am replying to your nonsense is because I have nothing better to do at work.
So far you have not even used logic in your arguments, all you have are a bunch of non sequiturs. And of course if the wrong people come to power and turn the US into a theocracy atheists will be in trouble, that goes without saying, but so will people who are the wrong denomination or religion.

And to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes:
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be God.”

Religion is about belief.
Science is about corroboration.
These are two different hobbies! :)


.

Ah religion. The oldest scare tactic of kingdoms past. Code of law for the masses. Salvation for the subservient. :yeah:

Again faith is not bound by science as atheism wants its faith to be. The original post shows how flawed the scientific model of their belief is.

When confronted with that reality denial of science ensues to be replaced by 'belief' which is also abandoned when it is pointed out religion is the same as belief.

This makes me think they are agnostic, not atheist.

I'm both, an agnostic atheist.

Sorry you cannot be both because one denies belief in a certain, if any philosophy and the other shows a belief/philosophy. That is why there are two different words.

Gnosticism and theism address different subjects.

Gnosticism addresses knowledge, theism addresses belief. You can have a gnostic or an agnostic theist, and you can have a gnostic or agnostic atheist.

I said agnostic not gnostic. Agan two different things.

Atheism is a belief/philosiphy that God doesn't exist, as such it is a religion. No less than the belief/philosiphy that God does exist is a religion.

Yes, you did. Are you familiar with the concept of root words and prefixes?

Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means without knowledge. They're related terms.

Are you really that dense, or are you just having fun?

Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. Atheism is a lack of belief that a god or gods exist. Quite different from the belief that no gods exist. (That would be gnostic atheism.)

That's not religion, that's theism. Theism comes in several flavors. Those are religions.

This argument is, on occasion, presented by my fellow Christians in an effort to devalue the scientific community, and then somehow place additional value on themselves. Really, there is no need; science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Evolution does not countermand the existence of God, and the line of discourse is antithetical to the elevation of faith.

The argument that science equates with faith is a poor one. A fundamental examination of epistemology yields a differentiation between knowledge and belief. Traditionally labeled as 'justified true belief', knowledge must be extrapolated from the observable. Belief, by contrast, relies on the existential claim for validity. As such, the two remain exclusive, as one may present the observable phenomena and hold truth in the supernatural, while another may present the same phenomena with an absence of the supernatural. Accordingly, unfaith and faith are not interchangeable nomenclature. To do so is to attempt to label standing as 'unsitting'. While superficially true, it does not account for the varia of other positions and activities that would also be relevant.

Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion. Fine, by every definition it is . I pray when you grow up you find Him.

And you want to say a fig is an olive. Claiming that two different things are the same does not make them the same.

You pray for me, I'll think for you.

Found him when I was young. Then I grew up and realized I didn't believe anymore. Then realized I didn't need to believe, either. I'm much freer now, and quite happy that way.

My point wasn't to diminish science. But that science doesn't have all the answers. Unfortunately I was attached for upholding my beliefs.

I'm glad you responded Takeda Shingen. For some reason many moderate their positions when you arrive. I don't, but many do.