Most Of The Atheists I Encounter Are Merely Anti-Religion
66
atheist n One who denies the existence of God.
Seldom have I heard a self-avowed atheist merely say that he/she does not believe that God exists.
What I have frequently heard them express is that they are deeply opposed to religion, especially Christianity. And I have also heard many of them spout such things as religion is at the root of most of the wars that have ever taken place; religious beliefs have motivated entire societies to wipe out or exterminate others; and religious doctrine has spawned hatred, bigotry, discrimination and racism.
Well, even though I am a devout “God-fearing Christian” the folks who call themselves atheists will get no argument from me over any of the foregoing. I, too, believe that a great many of the world’s crises, atrocities, major conflicts and serious social problems stemmed, or stems, from religion and/or religious beliefs. In fact, the enslavement of my African forebears grew largely out of various Christian tenets.
And it could be said that because of all of the negative events, occurrences and circumstances that have been engendered by religion and religious beliefs, even large numbers of “true believers” -- including those among Jews, Christians and Muslims -- are anti-religion or are opposed to organized religion.
Well, that is where the stupidity of the ones who call themselves atheists comes into play. Just about all of them are such fools that they regard religion as an “arm of God”. They are so limited intellectually that they are unaware that religion is nothing more than a collection of things that human beings dreamed up and set into motion. They do not know that religion is just as man-made as plastic and polyester are.
What I am driving at is when some dummy struts around spewing that he or she does not believe in such things as Judeo-Christian teachings and praying to God, those kinds of things alone does not make him or her an atheist.
The one-and-only thing that makes a person an atheist is absolute denial that God exists. In other words, show me an individual who embraces atheism because he or she can prove that God does not exist and I will show you a true atheist.
In summation, atheists are the biggest dummies in the world because they are so stupid they do not even realize that they are not really atheists. They are completely unaware that they are nothing but a bunch of people who are anti-religion or who are opposed to religious doctrine.
The truth is it is impossible for anyone to be an atheist, or NOT to believe in the existence of a power that is greater than human beings.
Think about it.
The Clearstone Project by Julius Hannon
 | A Thought-Provoking Political Thriller Amazon Price: $27.00 |
CommentsLoading...
Chasuk, the fact that you do not believe that God exists is just fine with me. However, you must accept the fact that your view of things is quite immature and narrow.
@feenix: Why must I accept your opinion of my beliefs as fact?
Chasuk, I can prove that God exists. Can you prove that He does not? If you can, diga me. Talk to me.
Of course I can't prove that God doesn't exist. Few atheists claim that they can. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but I don't believe in him, either.
If you can prove that God exists, I'll be thrilled. Show me the proof.
Nothing has to be proven to be false to be, indeed, false. Look up "Shifting the Burden of Proof". That's a logical fallacy.
There's no reason to believe in God NOW. In fact believing in God will handicap your country, making it score lower on the Global Peace Index.
Chapra, the fact that you are sitting there at your computer inhaling and exhaling without giving it any thought is solid proof that God, or a power greater than you, exists. Also, the fact that a tiny mustard seed transforms into a huge leafy plant is solid proof that God, or a higher power, exists.
And the fact that a great philosopher once said, "God makes little green apples and it always rains in Indianapolis in the Summertime" is also solid proof that God exists.
@Pierre: If feenix can prove that God exists, then he has, ipso facto, disproved any claim of God's nonexistence.
I'm waiting for his proof.
@feenix: Chapra?
You standard of evidence apparently isn't as rigorous as mine, but thanks for trying.
Bobby Russell was a philosopher?
Savoie, you're wrong. There are plenty of reasons to believe in God, whereas there are no reasons to give any credence to anything that you have to say about God.
Chasuk, lighten up, dude. Try to forget that you have suffered the misfortune of being an atheist and allow yourself to relax for just a little while.
@feeenix: Lighten up? I'm serious by nature. The side of me that you are encountering right now is my light side. If you get to know me better, you will learn to recognize my playful banter, which this is.
What does "Chapra" mean?
Chasuk, I apologize for the "Chapra" thing. By mistake, I called you than instead of by your name. And I'm glad that you are not uptight over any of this. And by the way, you appear to be a real nice person. I mean that.
@feenix: No problem, and thanks. :-)
How come every christian on the internet talks as if Kant never existed?
@Izombiheartzoey: Probably because most people, period, have never heard of Kant. Less-educated subsets of the general population are even less likely to have heard of him.
Wow, Izombiheartzoey and Chasuk, I'll bet you dudes got A's in Philosophy 101.
And Chasuk, it's not nice to present yourself as some kind of an elitist. And someone like you should be very careful when it comes to referring to certain types of people as "subsets". After seeing your photograph, a lot of people would categorize you as being a member of a "subset".
For the Atheist who claims the non-existance of God or any higher being, he or she need only to check their pulse to feel it beating, or hold a mirror to their face to see their breath or watch their chest rise and fall as they inhale and exhale life giving air. To add to that stand outside see the wind and its power the presipitation as it falls the heat of the sun on their face smell a flower, listen to the various birds. None of this would be possible without God a higher entity making it possible.
Amen, Dave, and thank you for joining in and adding your insightful "God-driven" comment.
@feenix: A subset is merely a group within a group. Safeway employees are a group within a group. Left-handed nuns are a group within a group. There is nothing derogatory about the term.
Why do believe that I present myself as an elitist? Those with less education do tend to be more religious, and vice-versa. I didn't make this up; it is well-documented. Note that I didn't state that the religious were less intelligent, just less educated. It is education that increases your likelihood of knowing who Immanuel Kant was, not intelligence.
@Dave: Everyone has different standards of proof. Unfortunately, I find your proof insufficient. I am an atheist, but I would be pleased to find convincing evidence of God. I don't suppose I'll ever stop looking.
Sure I got an A in every philosophy course I've taken, but that doesn't explain why you don't know who Kant is. What calling me an elitist attempts to do is discredit my question. But, since I didn't get an answer your response makes it look like your avoiding answering it.
The fundamental problem in not knowing who Kant is or what he had to say about Existence, means you wrote this post with out knowing the bare history of the question you are attempting to answer. Whether god exists or not. Kant was a Christian to his core. But he also wasn't an idiot, he knew how to talk about the existence and non-existence of things. Kant went thought all of the arguments for the existence of god, and discredited every last one of them. What Kant posed was a moral argument in place of the question of god. Ever since Kant there has been no real talk in philosophy (except alain badiou in Being and Event where he attempted to prove the Non-existence of god. But I don't understand his argument well enough to present it.) or theology about the existence of god. The only people who argue about god's existence nowadays are Christians and atheists and others who have not clue what Kant had to say.
The reason I ask about Kant, is because I order to tackle this question in a real way first you have to deal with what kant had to say.
Chasuk, impoverished, lowly-educated American Indians, blacks and whites who are often deliberately shut out from the mainstream are subsets -- groups within a group (the entire U.S. population).
And the way that you wrote your "subset" comment did come off as being derogatory towards certain groups of people -- and it made you look like one who regards himself as being intellectually superior to most others.
Izombiheartzoey, I do not base my thinking and the conclusions I reach on what the likes of Kant had to say. When it comes to philosophy and analytical thinking, I only follow the teachings of Jesus.
Kant never contradicted anything Jesus said. Jesus never made proofs for the existence of god. Neither did god. Or the bible. The problem is that there is no base for your ideas here. And even if you did, and you found proof, undeniable evidence, it would destroy the concept of faith. The point, the leap, is to believe with out knowing. If you know based upon evidence of a claim then what you have is not belief. Is not Christian. This is one of the strong differences between the biblical god and other gods, say the Golden calf, with the calf there is physical evidence. There is an actual existent thing, a golden cow shaped object. With the biblical god, this cannot be the case, because if it was the case then there would be no need for belief.
You can infer what you want, but nothing that I wrote implied any assumption on my part of intellectual superiority. I take great care to write exactly what I mean.
To reiterate:
Few people, as a percentage, know anything of Immanuel Kant. A less-educated subset of these few are even less likely to know anything of him. There is no judgment contained in those words; it is merely a statement of fact.
Izombiheartzoey, very well stated and I agree with just about everything you said. Faith is, in fact, believing in the unbelievable. Thank you for reminding me.
I do believe that, in some ways, I jumped the track by publishing this hub. But that is because I am and I always will be nothing more than a mere human who is prone to make missteps.
However, I shall let the work stand because I do believe that it tells the truth -- it is just that I could have presented it in a different way from the way I did.
Chasuk, you strike me as a real good guy who has nothing but the best intentions.
I was wrong to label you in the ways I did. Quite often, my mouth goes into operation before my brain is turned on.
@Chasuk and others...Kant isn't very popular, he is hard to read, and hard to understand. If your not a Philosophy or theology student, I don't really know how you would run into the guy. Rarely does anyone read Kant for fun (except me). But, he is extremely important to this topic.
@feenix Truth! Now, that's a whole other barrel of monkeys, I don't really have time for at the moment. (Lets not talk about truth on the internet, 'they' might hear you. Because like the poster on the l Mulder's office says, "the truth is out there" no in here. I feel extremely comfortable with the claim, if people really wanted Truth they wouldn't be on the internet."
Don't really know what your grip with 'subset' is. Its not a bias term laden with bigotry meant to offend people. He's just saying Kant isn't as popular as Britney Spears. And if we look at a subset of the entire population of Earth, this subset being anyone who checked off that they were Christian on the last census, my bet it would be a very small number compared to the people who know who Britney spears is.
Besides, you started by calling me an elite (thank you by the way) and then attack us for knowing who Kant is. So, what's the correct position? This is some shady catch-22 action. Damned if you know the guy cause your an elitist (a subset of a subset) damn if you say he's not that popular (a subset of a subset). Its not a fair position to put people in where every where they are go they are wrong because they don't agree with you.
In the end I do agree with you. Atheist and atheism doesn't exist. But for different reasons. To quote Zizek:
"We are never in a position directly to choose between theism and atheism, since the choice as such is already located within the field of belief. 'Atheism' (in the sense of deciding not to believe in God) is a miserable, pathetic stance of those who long for God but cannot find him (or who 'rebel against God'). A true atheist does not choose atheism: for him the question itself is irrelevant.-Slavjo Zizek"
Izombiheartzoey, In such a short time and in such a small space, I have learned a lot from you. As a matter of fact, I am printing out a couple of your comments for future reference.
And so far as my "gripe" with the "subset thing", I am being overly-sensitive. Because of my background, I often jump to irrational conclusions when I (initially) construe some word or statement as being biased or as being a sign of discrimination.
Intro to argumentation 101: who ever gets angry first loses by default.
Izombiheartzoey, true, very true.
@Izombiheartzoey: I read Kant for pleasure. He is actually fairly accessible. I don't read Spinoza for pleasure.
Anyway, concerning Zizek: I don't know enough about his ideas -- in context -- to comment on your quote, but I will now go educate myself.
@Chasuk Heidegger is the un-fun guy I'm dealing with at the moment. Ever heard that "Why is there something rather then noting argument?" Well, first, theres no arguement, second, it has nothing to do with creation of anything at all. Its pure ontological babble speak about existance.
Zizek is somewhat accessible, but if you don't know anything about Lacan and Hegel, its a pain. I've got hegel most of the way down, almost have Lacan down to the point were I can read the guy.
I reccomend Plague of Fantasies. But I don't think anybody really gets his whole deal on a first read.
@Izombiheartzoey: Thank you for the recommendations.
I was lucky enough that I was raised in a house where the classics -- both of literature and philosophy -- dominated the bookshelves. I moved directly from Nancy Drew to Oscar Wilde and Voltaire, probably because I didn't know any better.
I discovered Hume before I discovered Kant, which I think made Kant easier. I'm fifty now, and I still read three books a week. Fairly recently I finished Sam Harris's latest, and I'm looking for ebook versions of some of Michael Martin's works.
Take care.
i actually know a lot of atheists.. hehe so i can basically say that it is not impossible to be an atheists.. atheists are those who are really very intelligent.. did you recognize that? they are those who can reason very well.. i actually knew many atheists who are also very intelligent ^_^. and as for my case, I BELIEVE in God but the church is questionable for me :)
Arguments that Atheists can not be "real" Atheists have been shot down here. If this were a scientific journal, your Hub would be returned to you with a request to actually read the available literature on the subject. From "the horse's mouth", certainly. You can't very well criticize Atheists from a distance -- they are in charge of your communities now! No water gets purified, no telephone or Internet exchange gets laid down, no food gets grown by scientific means to yield 50x more than by ancient methods of architecture, without an Atheist getting involved somewhere.
Your opening definition is wrong, if you want a definition for atheism you need only think of the definition for theism.
A theist is someone who believes in god(s)
An atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s)
"In other words, show me an individual who embraces atheism because he or she can prove that God does not exist and I will show you a true atheist."
And you're accusing US of being stupid. First off the burden of proof is on those who make a POSITIVE claim. Unbelievers hold no burden of proof. If I decide not to believe in Bigfoot I do not have to provide you evidence that Bigfoot does not exist - THE SAME GOES FOR GOD(S). Despite this many atheists DO provide arguments and evidence against various deities This does not mean that we can disprove ALL god concepts though, just ones specific enough to be falsifiable.
"Think about it."
I'd advise you to do the same.
@Titen-Sxull, @Pierre Savoie
No, are both wrong.
First, you cannot pidgin hole any word into one definition and say "hey your not using the word the way I use the word there for you are wrong" Atheist/atheism has many definitions and has changed drastically over time. "Atheos" from the greek meant "with out gods". Socrates was an atheist even though he believed in some kind of deity.
Atheism is a false choice, and functions like the word heathen (not Christian). You can be a Christian but you cannot be an atheist, because to be an atheist means nothing. For example, I say, hey look there's a chair. Then you say, no there is no chair there. The ladder statement is a negation of the first statement. But, what can be said about the being of the person in the second statement base upon the statement of "not-chair" absolutely nothing. Atheism says nothing about an individual, it says something about other claims non-atheists have, therefore atheists do not exist. I concede that there is a person who makes the claim, and we can contribute this claim to the person, but we cannot say that based upon the "atheist claim" that an individual is an atheist. For example; If a person is a theists, most of the time they take upon themselves a specific theism (Christianity, and so on) and based upon the various tenets that are created based upon the various theistic premises various patterns of behaviour, beliefs and group identities come to be. You cannot say the same thing an atheist (unless of course they are humanists, or take on one or another ideology, but thats another story)
An atheist can say that he/she is an atheist, but they can never 'be' an atheist in the way a Christian can 'be' a Christian. There exists people who make the atheistic claim, but there does not exist atheists proper.
@Pierre Savoie, the second half of your argument is down right silly. The 'fight club' like banter of 'we are the ones who take out the trash, and secretly run everything' is wrong. Also, cannot equate Atheism with Scientism. Just because somebody knows the chemical composition of corn, does not mean they are an atheist.
@Titen-Sxull That's one of the most terrible myths of logic, and I hate that is so wide spread. The burden of proof is on anyone who makes any claim what so ever, positive and negative. The burden of proof comes into existence the instant a positive/neutral/negative claim is asserted. "All god concepts' are not falsifiable, because they cannot be subjected to the scientific method, anything that can't be subjected to it cannot be falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Concepts do not exist empirically, (like a chair)an cannot run thought the scientific method.
Savoie, as is true for people who believe that God exists, atheists are not a separate and distinct group of human beings. We are all equal, it just so happens that we do not all have the same beliefs.
If you do not believe that then you are a very biased person.
Your belief in God is not as obvious as that there is a CHAIR in the room. A chair can be seen, it's real. God is not real. If you claim there is some invisible thing, that's the province of science. ONLY science has proven and made plain to all invisible things like planets past Saturn, X-rays, or the electron. You can't very well say RELIGION has proven any invisible thing or made it plain to all people. Religion DOES NOT BRING ANY NEW KNOWLEDGE.
Protagoras really was an Atheist. In a world where it was punishable to DISbelieve in the Greek gods, he defied the authorities and said, "Of the Gods I can not say whether any gods exist or not." Of course, now we DON'T believe in the Greek gods at all. So you see, attitudes CAN change over time, and more and more people are becoming Atheist. Religion is scheduled to disappear soon in 9 modern countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1281
Atheists are a quite distinct set of beings, part of human evolution. They have broken free of the delusions of the past, born in the hallucinatory near-death experiences of cave-men elders. That's the ONLY place where religions have begun, supplemented by induced hallucinations here and there in the history of human beings.
You really have no understanding of logic if you try the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Disproof. That's a fallacy, wrong no matter what the subject. Atheists are not required to DISprove any God; it is up to the religious people to give positive proof of it. Any other thinking wastes time and enables people with other bizarre religious beliefs different from yours to claim exactly the same reasoning in supporting their views.
Science can offer no direct disproof of God -- but it doesn't have to. Furthermore, if your God is claimed to do anything more than sit billions of light-years away and do nothing, the MOMENT you make a physical claim about him, science can disprove it and therefore him. Your Christian myths claim God has produced: talking snakes, talking donkeys, a virgin birth, a rain of frogs, and science can show none of those things exist.
@Pierre Savoie There's no shift, everyone always has a burden of proof every time they make a claim. Both sides, at the same time. The burden of proof is not a hot-potato.
ITS NOT FAIR TO LUMP ALL RELIGIONS INTO ONE IDEA THAT IS A STRAW MAN FALLACY.
SCIENCE AND RELIGION produce knowledge, any activity where a person is doing things, interaction with the world and thinking produces KNOWLEDGE. DEFINE NEW KNOWLEDGE? Every thought its always new.
Pythagoras was an AGNOSTIC, that quote is an AGNOSTIC claim.
No one is required to disprove anything, disproving or proving something is a choice.
Science AND religion can both offer no disproof or proof of god.
Atheism is not science. Atheism is not BIOLOGICAL its linguistic. Atheism is not EVOLUTIONARY. Choosing atheism does not mean a non-atheist evolves into a atheist when they choose to make an atheist claim. Unless of course you are talking in Social Darwinist terms, but that doesn't have anything to do with BIOLOGICAL evolution either.
CAPSLOCKS DOESN't MAKE ANYONE SOUND RIGHT!
There is a CHAIR
There is a GOD
ARE POSITIVE CLAIMS
There is NOT a CHAIR
There is NOT a GOD
ARE NEGATIVE CLAIMS
All four claims ARE CLAIMS
All four claims have a burden of proof SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Magic Donkeys, and bunnies ARE not claims about EXISTENCE.
IF you had READ the Previous discussion you would know that I am not arguing for the Existence of GOD. But for the NON-existence of Atheists. IF you had READ the ABOVE you would have KNOWN that I accept the ATHEIST CLAIM.
Savoie, I will say it one more time, atheists are not a separate and distinct group of human beings. For example, blacks are truly a separate and distinct group of human beings because they are black (whereas others are white, brown, red, etc.)and always will be black. But when it comes to someone being atheist, he or she will not necessarily always be an atheist. In other words, being an atheist, or a Christian, for that matter, are both in the same league as being a member of a particular political party. People with liberal political views are not a distinct and separate group of human beings, nor are people with conservative views. They are merely people who hold certain views that are subject to change.
A group is not separate and distinct unless it has a characteristic or characteristics that are permanent or unchangeable.
Atheists are indeed quite separate and distinct, and since most have come from a religion, they are not going back. You must allow Atheists designational integrity.
And you continue to misconstrue the Shifting the Burden of Disproof fallacy. It is unallowable; you can't claim any form of it is valid. Here, take these university exercises on the subject:
So what's the name of the fallacy for using a fallacy when your not allowed to use a fallacy because only the person who MAKES up the fallacy rules gets to say what fallacy are?
Way to be logically dogmatic.
Listen, Izombi, it is a real thing that you can search on the Internet: Shifting the Burden of Proof is a fallacy regardless of the topic, it doesn't suddenly become "okay" if you decide to talk about such "obviously" weighty and important things as God. As IF we need a God for anything these days, and as IF we are in some crux of history where momentous battles are going on in the invisible ether for our "souls". All that is ridiculous. Don't live like a paranoid, live like a real human.
The fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof is studied in university, and now you want to claim it doesn't exist!
Savoie, I am going to make it real simple for you: God exists because I say He does. And God does not exist because you say He does not.
So, there. What we have here is a good old "Mexican standoff".
There's far more evidence of no God. Because you religious people are not content with an IDEA of a God hovering around some billions of light-years away. You want a SPECIFIC God that matches your religion, said to have done specific things, active on our actual planet Earth. However, we can tear apart the Bible (that mentions the "gates of Peor" but the Israeli archeologists found out the village of Peor never had any wall around it, so no gate. The Bible lies), we can tear apart the Qur'an (which claims the Earth does not move), we can tear anything apart.
It is much safer to be Atheist, anyway. There are only two kinds of Christians: those who clutch their guts in pain as the cyanide Kool-Aid their leader told them to drink courses through their system, and those who are too attached to their propane-fired barbecues and their computer games to show tangible commitment to their faith to clutch their guts in pain as the cyanide Kool-Aid their leader told them to drink courses through their system...
Savoie, it appears that you need to get out and start doing some fun things. You come off like you are really uptight.
The fact that a child grows in a mother's womb and becomes a living, breathing human who thinks and loves is proof that God exists. Such power could never "accidentally" happen. A big bang is just that. I can bang two huge cast iron skillets together and life is not created. But I can love my husband and life is made. God is love, love creates life. Therefore God is real.
Living, breathing and loving are ALL chemical in nature. It's not proof of any "God". If you think it couldn't "accidentally" happen, well scientists don't think so either. Evolution is not an accident, but a directed system of development based on what causes organisms to survive better. You are just too ignorant of science, in fact the religious authorities in your hillbilly state keep the science education program weak and uninteresting just so religion can keep thriving there. But it's not the same in any other country. Just about any other country has a stronger science education system than the good ol' U.S. of A. and regularly thrashes them in worldwide school science competitions.
Pierre, you have no idea of my educational level or which state I live in. So play nice.
If you think a baby is proof that God exists, is the fact that your retinas shoot out nerves from the sensing cells IN THE PATH OF ONCOMING LIGHT instead of safely back out the back of the eye a proof that a DUMB KLUTZY God exists??
Savoie, you are getting mighty close to "getting banned from this site territory". You hurled an unforgivable insult at a fellow hubber and you referred to one of the great states of the U.S.A. in a derogatory way. You had better hope that no one reports you to the authorities of HubPages.
feenix, he wants a fight. He doesn't know what to do with love. Satan is using him for hate and we are loving him for Christ. I pray his spirit is redeemed in the blood of Jesus Christ our Saviour. We know every knee shall bow and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord one day. I hope Mr. Savoie chooses Jesus rather than be one who is forced to acknowledge. One who must force the issue might be trying to convince himself. Holy Spirit of Yahweh, lead Your child home.
How does "blood" do anything to anybody? Have you ever taken a step back from all the silly stories that you learned as children, and look at the total summary? A Perfect God in full foresight makes an Imperfect Universe with sin and suffering. The only solution is NOT direct action, since human Free Will is some kind of kryptonite to God, blaming us yet again for things we had no part in making, but the only solution SOMEHOW is to cut off a piece of yourself, call it your Son, and send it down to be killed by some Romans and Jews in a silly piece of street-theater that doesn't suddenly cleanse the world in a blinding light, but the world, the Roman Empire, and weekly executions just goes on as before. There is some attempt to make the analogy to a ram's sacrifice, inexplicably, but if torturing and killing people achieved anything, the CIA would torture homeless people in its sub-basements to spiritually find out where Osama bin Laden is. Think a bit! Jesus nullified his divinity anyway by getting angry and making a whip to do violence to people with (John 2:15). He's NOT a role-model for anyone to follow.
feenix, he is just trying to initiate an argument. Jesus needs no defense. Have a great day and ignore the anger from Mr. Savoie.
I see Hyphenbird does not talk about what kind of degrees he's got or where he's actually from...I guess I hit a nerve.
Hyphenbird does not feel the need to brag or to feed an internet troll.
Savoie, is your resume and record of education posted anywhere on this site? If they are, please direct me to them. Now, I am very interested in seeing your credentials.
Well, then, how can you object to being called educated in a hillbilly state, if you won't reveal what state it is? You made a hub on Lebanon, Kansas; is THAT where you're from? The laughingstock of the world for passing bans on teaching science in school?
Savoie, if it was not for brave men from the great state of Kansas, you just might be living under either a NAZI or communist dictatorship, or else you would not have been born at all because your parents would have been evaporated in a nuclear holocaust. Remember, during World War II and the Cold War, it was the U.S. that provided most of Canada's defense.
feenix, he wants us to continue this. He gets off on it. Nothing we say will stop that. I have decided that I will never reply to anything he writes in any Hub-ever. He wants attention and will not get it from me. I answer to God, not to him. Thank you for sticking up for me. With Jesus on my side, I am doing fine. And one day I pray Mr. Savoie will thank you and me both for standing faithful to our beliefs. Our prayers may release divine intervention for him and he may one day see the truth and join us in Christ. In any regard, when Christ returns all will know Jesus is Lord and King of everything-and everyone.
Also, it is not right to allow him to highjack your beautiful Hub. It is best to ignore him like one would a toddler having a tantrum. Joy in Jesus, Hyphenbird.
Very good advice, Hyphenbird, and I will follow it.
What kind of bad, home-schooled education leads people to think there is no evolution, no science, only Jesus? Your education was not geared to prepare you for reality, but to lead you to UNreality. Jesus was an angry whipper, nothing more. You can read it right there in John 2:15. What kind of "spin" can you put on this action? He got mad, he offered violence to his fellow human being, human beings who were SUPPOSED to be there in the Temple (Deut. 14:25-27). Therefore, if he sinned with the sin of violence, he was NOT divine. So STOP believing in it. I gave you the proof right there. Only years of brainwashing in centuries of bad tradition keep you from seeing it.
Hi Feenix
I dont think a true atheist would quote scriptures from a book that he has no interest in. If he don't believe why would it matter so much to him. He would have no interest in even reading this Hub. Each to their own.
Great Hub. I agree with a lot of what you have to say.
That is my choice. It is called Faith.
Scarface1300, thank you for taking the time to read this hub for leaving a comment. Welcome to HubPages and I am looking forward to being friends with you here on the network.
This a great hub about a great debate. I personally do not know where I stand. I want to believe in a higher power, yet so many things that I wonder about and would like to explore one day are shut out by the Christianity, my religion. I want to know about aliens, dinosaurs, and space...
vinsanity, I fully understand where you are coming from. There is much to be pondered and religion does often get in the way.
Feenix, They are those ask question that if everything is created by so called god then who is the creator of god? These people are believer of eating, sleeping, mating, dying theory. They are just like animals because they don't think. If you can think you can realize that in every creation there is a prior planning. Without prior planning nothing can be shaped or designed. If you realize it with your bloody common sense then comes the question, who is the planner?
upal19, " ... believers of the eating, sleeping, mating, dying theory"? I really do like that and will remember it. It is one of the best descriptions of those who refuse to believe I have ever heard. Thank you for sending such a thoughtful and well-written comment.
feenix
Great hub, and you got a lot of comments on it.
I don't like labels for myself because I am not a follower of any group.
I am a voter, but not a party voter. I try to vote for the best candidate, although that is a choice given to us by the political party.
I don't believe in the bible or the biblical God, but that doesn't mean that there might not be a higher power than ourselves.
Neither of the events in either the Old or the New Testament has helped the world. There is no real change in the hearts of the people, either BC or AD.
Proving a negative is difficult in matters such as God. So while believers can't prove their God exists, neither cannot be proven God doesn't exist. But as I mentioned in the last paragraph, look at the world today, is it better or worse than at any other time in history?
Good job.
OpinionDuck, I respect your views and your honesty. I can already see that you are a very thoughtful person, so I have no doubt that as time goes by, I will learn a lot from -- and I am really looking forward to that.
feenix
I think that it is mutual.
Years ago, I went to school with a girl that wanted to be a nun. I told her about my doubts about God. I asked her how did she know that God really exists. She replied, "Faith."
I like to think that God does exist. I cannot conceive of a God that has a long white beard. To me, the life force energy that flows through all living things is God.
Whether people believe in God or not is their choice. I don't think it needs to be proved either way.
Sueswan, brilliant. What you said in your comment is absolutely brilliant.
Not so very long ago, I reached the conclusion that "whether people believe in God or not is their choice. I don't think it needs to proved either way".
I see old Pierre is at it again, making atheists everywhere look completely pathetic. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Not enough love in your childhood? Mom drop you on your head as a baby? Something is off, because you evidently spend all your time insulting people who disagree with your very limited and reactionary opinions on the internet. I have much less a problem with your beliefs (oops, sorry, "non-beliefs") than I do with the way you present them. Spreading hate and intolerance on Hubpages is all you seem to do Pierre. Are you really that unhappy?
jreuter, I showed Pierre's comments to a friend of mine and she suggested that I pray for him.
That's really all we can do. I've gone back and forth with him myself, and it's clear that he's got a lot of hate in his heart. I hope he can experience the love of God someday for himself, but until then, we'll just have to pray for him.
jreuter, yes, that is all we can do.
Hi! feenix
Interesting articles and attempts (both articles by you on this topic).
I went through comments also. Initially I felt oh! again! these comments are going to be slanging match for theists and atheists. Fortunately it was not just that at least some interesting points were made though not in such a pleasant style as one will wish/expect for a discussion of religion, Science or rationality. None of them generally inspire to throw mud on others. Some how it does happen, specially in USA. I wrote an article on this strange phenomena on hub pages, many others have also interesting observations about this behavior
http://hubpages.com/hub/religions-and-science-Indi
I will write separate long comment on your topic. I hope you will enjoy it.
Here are some of my views on topic of your interesting article.
When ever a discussion on this topic, I see, I remember an incident mentioned in one Einstein's biography. Einstein used to say that in his family nobody was religious, though they were quite spiritual. But one of his uncles used to go to a Synagogue, some times. So once Einstein asked him,"Do you bilieve in God?" His Uncle replied "not really". Einstein "Then why do you go to Synagogue?" Uncle replied, "well! One never knows".
What puzzles me even more is, when people belonging to faiths which originated in Middle East (Christian Muslims etc. -some times also called Abrahamic religions) or so called atheists try to prove existence/nonexistence of God. Is it not true that in these religions there is a discipline of some basic axioms which has to accept to start with, without questioning them ( some time called beliefs). I do not find much difference in these religions and a scientific theory, both start with some basic axioms and then try to develop their theory which explains phenomena occurring in world by deducing sort of propositions by rational arguments from these axioms. Only difference is that in today's style of Science (Just a few hundred years ago people did not distinguish so much between Science, Arts or relgion and they studied all aspects as part of life with pleasure), one generally also bases axioms on observable experiments which can be repeated and people in Science are ready to change axioms and whole theory if it does not explain properly what they seek. But otherwise style is same. So I do not feel why people on one side or other should feel so elated or try to throw mud on people from other side.
Now is it not true that in these religions one of the basic axiom is "God exists". When one accepts this as a basic axiom, is the act of trying to prove it not meaningless? After all building theory or religion starts only after assuming basic axioms. Similar is the case with so called atheist who assume that atheism implies nonexistence of God. Is it not for them an axiom? The why should they try to go for proving it or trying to ask others to prove this or its opposite?
As for those people who claim Science or good scientists had nothing to do with religion-- History has many examples to show that they are quite wrong.
Newton's beliefs are well known. Napier, who made basic calculations of log tables (which form a basic ingredient for today's computers) is known to have believed that by making these calculations he will prove existence of God. I live in Science world of today. I have often seen that many discoveries and inventions are done with similar faith and inspirations from religion or spiritualism in Science. A good Scientist (or religion guy) never sees world in compartmentalized by such distinctions. For him whole universe is one and any thing which enhances knowledge and understanding is interesting and respectful.
A good Scientist or religion guy always is humble and polite and does not attack others, because he knows what ever he has done or knows is very little, and lot more needs to be done/known. In India we express this by an ancient saying "All knowledge of world at a given time is just a drop in ocean and will always remain so"
Incidentally theism and atheism debate I have seen in Western world does not exist in India (I think also in China or Japan etc.). In India we have been guided since ancient times by the thought "All philosophies are parallel paths to the truth (or God or Universal knowledge what ever you like to call it) and all of them should be respected and one can choose one or more of them what ever is suitable for him/her".
I think not many in West know that Christianity ahs been contiuously practiced in India since 1st Century when St. Thomas came to India. India must be among very few countries where Christianity has been continuously practiced since so ancient times.
Parallel thoughts do include atheism also. One of the most ancient religion in India was based on philosophy which did not assume existence of God so it was atheistic. I wrote an article on ancient philosophies in India, and ideas I have mentioned here, I hope you will enjoy it.
http://hubpages.com/hub/God-is-in-the-eye-of-the-b
That is the Url to my Hub...I think it pertains to the discussion you're having here. Just to be clear, I believe that life is an infinite mystery and there are no definite answers for things of the spiritual nature; only speculations...
soumyasrajan, thank you for your very thoughtful and well-written comment. It is quite obvious that you have the gift of discerning the true nature of things.
Also, there is a theory that Jesus Himself lived in India for awhile -- for a period within the years that His life is not documented in the Holy Bible.
JohnnyZenigame, thank you for taking the time to read this hub and for your comment. And I will certainly check out your hub. It sounds like it is quite thought-provoking.
Hi! feenix
Yes! I also have heard about such stories about Jesus being in India. Though haven't heard about any methodical study of such claims.
@ Feenix,
I have so many issues with your hub writing, as well as commenting its not funny, but I will only address this one for now, in this hub.
You stated above that Atheist are not really atheist. Ummmm, are you making any sense here.
Definition is definition, you cannot create an argument that attempts to denounce a well known universal definition such as the definition of "Atheism".
What is the true definition of Atheism, lets Google it or Wikipedia it, why don't we. According to Wikipedia's broad definition: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." (Wikipedia)
Lets go to the webster's dictionary definition on it: Athesim "a disbelief in the existence of deity, the doctrine that there is no deity." (Merriam Websters)
Now these definitions are set as is, and there's no creating your own agenda to denounce them as such that they don't exist. If that's the case we can throw all the definitions out of the dictionary for that matter.
I'm starting to see a pattern here, that is making me fear what your presenting to the world, and the hubpages community. The bearer of false doctrine is something not to be taken lightly, no way no how. Good luck @ Feenix what ever it is that your attempting to do on here.
I cannot venture any further into your hubs at this point, thanks for sharing though with us all. I hope you can find a way to be more realistic though in the future, because quite frankly I've been lost by what you've been putting into action here, since the very first hub I read & this is my third and final one.
Happy New Years & maybe in 2012 you'll have a change of heart somehow, maybe try opening your mind and heart a bit, instead of being so opinionated about everything you write, because there's a great deal of love, happiness & beauty to share amongst others today.
CloudExplorer,
You wrote "I have so many issues with your hub writing ..."
My only reaction to that is, So in the hell what? I do not give a damn that you have "so many issues" with anything I write.
Now, if you are willing to pay me some real big money for writing in a style that is more to your liking, just provide me with a contract so I can have my attorneys to look it over.
I guess this is fun to you, oh well so be it. I'll leave you be. Enjoy!
Hello, CloudExplorer,
If contributing to this network were not a form of relaxation and amusement for me, I would not be a participant.
However, I am glad that you returned because I want to ask you a question: Do you want me to get banned from HubPages, or "disciplined" in some way or the other?
Lol makes me laugh when people pull out the WW2 card :)
seems like a sign of weakness or losing the arguement..
Hello, Rah128,
Please excuse my ignorance but I have no idea what the "WW2 card" is.
Anyway, though, I am glad that I gave you a good-old lol.
I think Rah, has nothing of substance to add to the conversation, so he makes an ass out of himself by trying to be witty, I have checked and WWII has never been mentioned.
The bottom line is, he is an atheist who is anti-religon, exactly who you described feenix.
and that really bothers him.
Chris
Hey, CM,
Thank you very much for weighing in.
And, yes, Rah is one of those indiviuduals who is just itching for some kind of a silly and pointless fight.
Perhaps he can entertain himself by doing some shadow boxing.
Why denial? Your super being does not exist. Atheists simply do not believe it exists. Simple. They may go one step further - as I do and express disgust at religious believers such as yourself starting fights about whether or not the majik juju is real but - that has nothing to do with me not believing in the nonsense YOU claim.
You seem to be getting the arguments and ill will you wanted. Jesus must be very proud of you lol You are a perfect example of why your religion always causes a fight.
Hello, Mark,
First, I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance. Second, I truly regret that you have such a dim view of me.
Like you and every one else on this planet, I am a mere human being. Therefore, I am prone to make mistakes and to be out of the loop on certain matters.
Furthermore, about the only thing I really do know is that I really do not know anything.
And with all due respect, don't you think you're a little too old to be sarcastic, condescending and insulting towards complete strangers.
I respectfully suggest that you try a little tenderness.
Odd - I responded in kind. I thought that is what you Christians wanted? No? Now I am confused. You write an article, claiming a certain something and write it in a disparaging tone, using false definitions and making claims about others. Then when they respond in kind - and tell you that your assertions are wrong - then you tell them how you think they should behave.
Yes - this is why religious believers such as yourself cause so many fights.
Hello, Mark,
The only thing I have to say is am nothing but a mere human being who has a whole lot of shortcomings and character flaws.
And, so far as that goes, you are nothing but a mere human being who has a whole lot of shortcomings and character flaws.
And the fact that I am a Christain, and that you are an atheist, has nothing to do with all of the imperfections that each of us is walking around with.
Thus, just as it is always quite wrong of me when I come off being sanctimonious and "holier than thou," it always quite wrong of you when you come off being sanctimonious and intellectually superior to others.
I make plenty of mistakes and often say or write things that I should not say or write -- but I always "fess up" to those things.
Can you say the same about yourself?
I am perfect thanks. Odd you feel capable of telling me what I am and am not when you have never even met me. And once again - you feel the need to tell me when I am "wrong" - all I did was reflect your hub back at you. Like you asked me to. This is why your religion causes so much ill will and hatred. People like you.
What has me making mistakes got to do with anything?
Let this one go feenix! He has nothing to add, but wanting to argue....
Of course that is only my take, and my un-asked for suggestion....sorry if I am butting in.
LOL Wanting to argue? Actually - I am trying to explain why your religion causes so many conflicts.
Name ONE intelligent response you have given in this hub regarding how religion has caused conflicts?
You have done nothing but insult, HOW does that add to anything? Other than just to argue?
I think feenix titled this hub VERY appropriatly...go back and read it....it fits you to a tee.
I pointed out that lying about what atheists are and then attacking them for not believing the nonsense Christians believe causes conflicts. Please stop attacking me when I am trying to educate you. Thanks.
CM,
You are not butting in at all. As a matter of fact, I am going to follow your advice and suspend all communications with this fellow.
I think you are guilty of your own words saying "that your assertions are wrong - then you tell them how you think they should behave."...you are saying that Christian assertions are wrong, then tell them how they shoudl behave...
I am not attacking Mark...just defending. You are on the attack.
Perhaps you should worry about educating yourself before you THINK you should tell others how to behave...
I thought you wanted to be told. Not so? You are not acting in the way you hope others will treat you? The author has asserted that I have a lot of shortcomings and flaws, and that I am behaving wrongly.
Still - now he is not talking to me because I explained that his behavior and actions causes ill will and fights.
and just what is YOUR behavior doing?
Look, Knowles, if you are going to tell lies about me, then get your lies straight.
I did not assert that you, alone, have shortcomings and flaws.
What I wrote is that every human being on this planet has shortcomings and flaws which, of course, includes both you and me.
And it is your kind of "ill will" that causes there to be wars and big fights. And that is because you found this hub, read it, didn't like what I wrote -- and went on to spew a long stream of criticisms at me while stopping just short of saying that I should be censured.
I did not seek you out. You sought me out. You are the aggressor.
This is what you said: "you are nothing but a mere human being who has a whole lot of shortcomings and character flaws"
See the YOU? Yes - that causes ill will. You know nothing and do not have the authprity to make such statements. This is why your religion causes so much ill will.
and what was his last three words in the hub..."think about it"...how exactly is that causing "ill will" as you put it?
Knowles,
In your response, you conveniently left out the part where I said that I (YEAH ME!) am nothing but a mere human being who has a whole lot of shortcomings and character flaws.
Even a fool knows that each and every member of the human race has numerous shortcomings and a load of serious character flaws.
Obviously, you don't like my style, so why don't you just go away and leave me alone.
I strongly suggest that you and I end it right here and forget that we ever made contact with each other.
In fact, I respectfully request that you cease to post comments on this page and that you back off from me altogether.
Please do that. I am begging you.
So what? You told ME that I have a whole l;ot of short comings and flaws as well - this is what causes the ill will and hatred . This is why your religion has caused so many wars and lets face it - you wrote this piece to disparage people who do not follow your belief system.
Sure - I understand - the truth hurts - this will be the last comment from me. Ciao
Chasuk Level 5 Commenter 13 months ago
I am an atheist. I don't believe that God or gods exist. There are many of us, whether you believe in us or not. How you came to your peculiar, though erroneous belief that I don't exist is a mystery.