Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[AV1611VET]

What page of atheist doctrine did you read that?

203 and 1

 

[MoonLancer]

so if i read horrible things Christians say, can I claim to have read christian doctrine?

 

[AV1611VET]

so if i read horrible things Christians say, can I claim to have read christian doctrine?

Like you guys do the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials?

Besides, how would I know if it's not doctrine?

I don't think like an atheist.

 

[gaara4158]

Atheist doctrine is really short. Those posts have too many words to fit.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Like you guys do the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials?

Besides, how would I know if it's not doctrine?

I don't think like an atheist.

You've never let not knowing about something stop you before. Why suddenly agree with an Atheist?

 

[Split Rock]

Like you guys do the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials?

Besides, how would I know if it's not doctrine?

I don't think like an atheist.

There is no such thing as "Atheist Doctrine." It is not a religion or organized society. Therefore, there is no "doctrine" for it.

 

[Split Rock]

You've never let not knowing about something stop you before. Why suddenly agree with an Atheist?

True, afterall, there is no atheist who claims to worship nature, yet AVET knows that they all do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why suddenly agree with an Atheist?

You mean like when I agree with atheists that:

1. The earth is 4.7 billion years old?
2. ID is a contradiction in terms?
3. I don't want Creationism taught in science class?
4. Creationism isn't science?
5. Micro-evolution is real?
6. There's no evidence for the Creation?
7. There's no evidence for the Flood?

Those sorts of things?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no such thing as "Atheist Doctrine." It is not a religion or organized society. Therefore, there is no "doctrine" for it.

I disagree.

 

[gaara4158]

I disagree.

Of course you do. We did a whole thread about this, IIRC, and you still didn't get it.

Here's a copy of atheist doctrine:

There's probably no god(s).

To clarify this or anything else about atheism, you must ask the atheist, not the "doctrine."

I'm being very generous and very patient here. I know the tactics you're using, they're very common in people who have no truth behind their claims.

 

[redwards]

I disagree.

No straw man for you.

 

[redwards]

I thought, according to your doctrine, we are all born atheists?

Am I wrong?

There's no such thing as an atheist 'doctrine'. The fact that we don't believe in God as we exit the birth canal is not, so far as I can tell, an attack on religion. I don't think newborns believe in evolution as the exit the birth canal either, and, similarly, do not consider such a suggestion an attack on science. The idea that newborns hold beliefs of any kind is fairly hilarious.

 

[Split Rock]

You mean like when I agree with atheists that:

1. The earth is 4.7 billion years old?
2. ID is a contradiction in terms?
3. I don't want Creationism taught in science class?
4. Creationism isn't science?
5. Micro-evolution is real?
6. There's no evidence for the Creation?
7. There's no evidence for the Flood?

Those sorts of things?

These are accepted by atheists as well as theists and agnostics. Why are you labeling these as "atheist?"

 

[Split Rock]

I disagree.

Fine. Show us this atheist "doctrine." Is it online somewhere? Where is it published? Who are the authors? How many pages is it? When was it copyrighted?

 

[MoonLancer]

Besides, how would I know if it's not doctrine?

I don't think like an atheist.

an atheist is someone who has no religion and is non theistic. That's it.

Their is NO doctrine.

I disagree.

Please stop smearing atheists with your junk theology and doctrine you made up for them.

 

[MoonLancer]

You mean like when I agree with atheists that:

1. The earth is 4.7 billion years old?

Those sorts of things?

age doesn't exist in a vacuum like you think it does.

 

[Catherineanne]

Now did I go and use a metaphor again?

Shame on me!

I certainly didn't mean to confuse anyone.

What I meant was: I was turning the pages, and these verses came within my field of vision, and I read them, and they made enough of an impression on my psyche, that I chose to write the verse numbers down for future reference here online.

That's better. That is called taking responsibility.

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm not sure about sublimity, but I'll certainly concede that not all of the contents of the bible are silly or grotesque.

Good enough.

As I said, I'm not one for ascribing thoughts or intentions to inanimate objects, but I can certainly deem a message to be a good one or a bad one (and in this case, a thoroughly inconsistent one).

The message can be bad, certainly. In which case, shoot the person who wrote it, not the messenger. The Bible is only a medium.

 

[Andreusz]

I don't think like an atheist.

The truest thing you've ever said.

 

[Catherineanne]

an atheist is someone who has no religion and is non theistic. That's it.

Their is NO doctrine.

This could equally well describe agnostics. Therefore it would seem that there is a further necessary condition to atheism. And that necessary condition is a belief.

Atheists believe there is no God. And this could be regarded as a doctrine of atheism, since it is a belief that they are happy to expound upon, and to explain to others. We could even postulate other doctrines, such as the fact that morality is not a function of religion, but of humanity. Certainly this is often the basis for atheist complaints about believers, and the malign influence of religion.

There is no proof that God exists. Similarly there is no proof that God does not exist. Science says nothing about this, either way, because science addresses that which is in creation, and does not look beyond. Science is about finding out about ourselves, our world, and our universe.

Agnostics say that we have no way of knowing either way, and that is a very commendable observation. But theists and atheists both have chosen to believe, one way or another, and both of these decisions are made equally on faith, rather than on verifiable evidence. I suspect that the same process then kicks in in each case; data is taken as meaningful if it supports the chosen world view, and discarded if it does not. So a believer will see evidence for God, and an atheist will see evidence that there is no God, sometimes from the very same datum.