0
Atheism
Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1,002 Questions
Moralistic atheism is the belief that while there is no deity, one should still make attempts to be good (moral), even without the influence of some almighty creator. It's related to the term humanitarian.
Why do Atheists hate Christianity?
Atheists do not hate Christianity, or for that matter Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism or any of the other of the world's religions. What atheists do is have a confidence that there is no god or gods. Many Christians and other religions see such an attitude as an abomination and the atheists refusal to accept their "proofs" for belief as a personal slap in the face.
What does annoy atheists is the societal pressure to swear oaths for public office and coursts, participate in religious observances (Christmas, prayers before meetings etc.), government forms requesting religious affiliation, endless attempts to convert them, the general disrespect of their opinions and the blindness of the religious to their organization's problems.
Why do Atheists preach evolution when there's a missing link?
That's not really true, most all atheists believe in evolution.
Answer:
Atheists do not "preach" evolution. They view it as the most logical explanation for the plethora of different species in the world today.
As to the "missing link" this is a common misconception among people who wish to disprove evolution. It is not necessary to find every step along the path to a speces from a previous species to demonstrate its descent, any more than police must find every footprint made by a criminal from the site of the crme to the point where he is captured.
What does atheism is a projection of man's imagination mean?
It's probably meant as a response to Ludwig Feuerbach's statement that "God is a projection of Man's imagination."
Why can't dogtags say atheist?
In the USA, dog tags indicate religious preference and there is an option (usually "NO" or "NO RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE") which indicate the wearer is an atheist or no-believer.
Why do Christians believe that God sent his son down to earth to save humanity from its sins?
While Christians universally think of God as omnipotent, they also have difficulty in believing that he could simply have forgiven the sins of everyone, or at least those who believed in him.
There is little scriptural support for the belief that God sent his Son down to save humanity from its sins. The gospels say that John the Baptist was baptising for the forgiveness of sins, and arguably this should have been enough. The gospels do not say directly that the crucifixion would result in the universal forgiveness of sins, or apparently even that more forgiveness would result from it than John was already doing. The gospels credit Jesus with forgiving sins in individual cases, and say that he told his apostles to do likewise.
Who would win in a battle between an atheist an agnostic and a theist?
Answer
It depends on what knowledge they have. If they are on the same level, then probably nobody would win. Plus, usually "a win" is not a purpose in this kind of debates, but rather sharing your believes and more learn about other religions, faiths.
A discussion between an atheist, an agnostic and a theist should not be characterized as a battle. There would be no "winner" since the issue is one of belief for certain of the participants and not based on any proof or even a preponderance of evidence. They could discuss and share their various beliefs and philosophies but there could be no bond fide "winner". The problem lies in characterizing each position as an adversarial one. The question fails to acknowledge all the thousands of different systems of belief that have evolved along with humankind. None is the winner and yet they are all winners according to those people who have adopted them. However, when people think of differences as a battle there could be no winner unless someone resorts to the violence which we have seen throughout history waged by people of one religion against another.
The popular theist belief that atheists as group wander around going "There is no god, and I think that because..." or "I will keep thinking up reasons why there is no god because I'm afraid there is!". Most atheists spend no more time thinking about god and how to disprove its existence than the average adult spends on trying to disprove, debunk or disparage the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the monster under the bed.
This is not to say that some atheists, like may evangelists and theologians, make their living writing and speaking on the issue. These are the exception not the rule.
No he wasn't. He did push for sociology to be considered a science, however that does not mean a person is atheist.
It is a Latin word meaning everyone or everything.
The first examples of public transport were called "omnibus vehicles" because they carried everyone. Eventually that got shortened to "omnibus" and finally to "bus".
This is is a question with several parts:
What is the ideology of Islam? Is it for peace or for war?
The problem with asking whether Islam is a "religion of peace" is that nobody has ever tried to define it. We also do not ask if any other religion, ideology, economic system, etc. is "for peace". Some ideas of what "religion of peace" might mean are below.
- Does it mean that everyone who follows the religion is peaceful? In this case Islam is not such a religion whereas Jainism would be. There are numerous non-extremist Muslims who proudly serve in many nations' armed forces, police forces, and other apparatuses where a person is thrown into non-peaceful situations. Jains, Amish, and Quakers (for example) are not in a similar position.
- Does it mean that Islam promotes peace over violence? In that case Islam probably is a religion of peace, but so are just about all religions aside from death cults and the term becomes meaningless. This is the view taken by celebrated theologian Tariq Ramadan.
- Does it mean that when Islam becomes the dominant religion in an area, that area sees peace? In this case, the claim is demonstrably false. The Fitna Al-Kubra, for example, was a war that existed entirely within Islam. The Fatimid-Seljuk conflict was entirely between Muslims, many of the conquests of Tamerlane, which were egregiously bloody were of fellow Muslim territories, and the Almohads slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in peacetime for believing differently than them. (All of these wars occurred before European political ascendance.) Today in many Islamic countries, human rights are actively repressed and religious leaders promote the dehumanization of non-Muslims, which is expressly anti-peace.
- Does it mean that most Muslims are peaceful people? In this case, yes, Islam is a peaceful religion overall and its adherents are usually very boring people (in the sense that they are not involved in geopolitics) who go to work every weekday and love their children. Again this does not make Muslims different or special from other religious groups since nearly every religion feels this way.
Muslim Scholars typically hold that the term "religion of peace" is a partial statement. The statement in full is: To he who surrenders to the will of Allah (which in Arabic is the same as the verb to convert to Islam), he will have a religion of peace. Therefore, becoming a Muslim is what allows you to benefit from the Peace that Islam brings. Whether or not this theoretical view that conversion to Islam guarantees a person peace is justified is debatable, but there is no doubt that the Peace does not belong to anyone who prevents the Spread of Islam. Most Muslims claim that this is the "oppression exception" since Muslims under oppression have the right and the duty to fight back against those who oppress them.
Why are most of the world's terrorists Muslims?
Please see the Related Question below, somebody has answered it much better than I can.
Is it better to be an Atheist than a Muslim?
The question is the wrong question. While it is better to be moral than amoral or immoral, being Atheist or Muslim is irrelevant to being a better person.
Atheists and Muslims both can be very moral people and Atheists and Muslims both can be very immoral people. The problem with comparing the two is that Atheism does not have tenets or an ideology at all, so a person cannot be motivated to "fulfill" the tenets of Atheism. This gives Atheists a perfect cop-out Atheism's contribution to any violence a different Atheist perpetrates, i.e. Stalin and Mao were evil because they were Communists and motivated by that ideology or Than Shwe was evil because he had a Caudillo mentality. The Fear of the Divine does serve to adjust people's moral range, but it is also can encourage violent activity as well. The bottom line is that regardless of how someone believes that the world came into being, a person can be horrible or wonderful. The choice is within each person to choose to dignify his fellow man and Atheists are no better or worse at this than Muslims are.
What are the new atheists main goal?
The New Atheists, composed of such scientists and intellectuals as Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens, believe that the majority of today's mainstream scientists, including the National Academy of Science, is unduly accommodating to religion because of religions large influence in America, religions, mainly Christianity that contribute large sums of money to the advancement of science. Most of today's mainstream science recognize what is called NOMA (Non Overlapping Magesteria). This position claims that science has nothing to say about religion, that science only deals with observable physical phenomena, and religion deals with the scientifically unanswerable, and that these separate domains have no overlap. The New Atheists, however, claim that science does indeed have something to say about any purported religious metaphysical reality beyond the material. For example, the New Atheists say that if any, particularly the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic, God intervened within the physical-material universe the way the proponents of these faiths claim, it would indeed be subject to confirmation or disconfirmation through observation and scientific testing.
The New Atheists believe that religion does far more harm than good and so present their views against religion in a much less accommodating way to religion. They seek a world where reason and rationality have the preeminence.
Is it wrong for a christian to be married to an atheist?
If you truly love that person, then it shouldn't matter as long as you don't change your religion.
Answer:
The question of "wrong" implies a standard of right or wrong that cannot be determined. It is more important to find a person who you can be a partner to for the long run. The question of religion should be determined (if it seems important to either party) before getting married.
Do non-religious people care less regarding justice than religious people?
well, it depends on which religion. if you could state the question more specifically, it would be very helpful. Also, it depends on who you are.
AnswerUnless we know the person concerned, we can never say if a religious person is cares more about justice than a non-religious person or vice versa. Atheists accept people as they find them, seeing good in people where there is good, and recognising arrogance or dishonesty when these traits exist. Mahatma Gandhi is an excellent example of a religious person (Jain faith) who cared about justice, but there are many non-religious people who also care. AnswerYou don't have to believe in an invisible super being who will either reward or punish you for eternity when you die to believe in justice.How do scientists or skeptics explain Fatima apparitions?
They don't. Science does not deal with matters like folk tales, superstitions and urban legends. Science deals with hypotheses that can be tested and verified by experimentation or observation. Children claiming to have experienced a vision is not a subject of concern to scientists, any more than it is a concern of judges, chemical engineers or garbage truck drivers. Opinion:
Poor answer. There was a crowd of witnesses to the event, not simply children. Answer:
Science does study visions, hallucinations, ghosts and seeing faces in clouds to determine the causes. Some of the causes are from health problems (brain injury), extreme stress (American Aboriginal spirit quests involving heat and dehydration), mistaken identification of natural causes , a protective measure to see "tigers in the forest" to avoid threats, a natural tendency to see human faces in clouds and smudges of colour (pareidolia). They have even been able to reproduce some of the experiences by direct electromagnetic stimulation of the brain or psychoactive drugs. While some cases are marked cause unknown (pending further investigation) no peer reviewed scientific study has concluded the event to result from supernatural. Further: There are many such cases of crowds sharing (or claiming to share) a vision. It happens all over the world, with different religions, and has happened in the past as well. There is, however, no good evidence to suggest that there is a supernatural cause behind any visions. There are also simpler possible explanations, including (but not limited to):
* Collective hallucinations - where the people in a crowd all believe that they all saw something happen because they were susceptible to suggestion at the time - for example, they expected a specific religious miracle to occur. See the link for more details and examples.
* Outright fraud - magicians and conjurers have been using techniques for millenia to fool whole crowds, and some unethical people will use these techniques for purposes other than just entertainment * the "me too phenomenon" - where people want to be included in the group that can see the emperors new clothes, are possessed by the spirits, or see a ghost and so forth
What are the views of atheists and Christians on Christianity?
Atheists believe that Christianity, like all other religions, is based on false assumptions. Conversely, this means that atheists regard atheism as the only true worldview, but most atheists do not dispute with Christians over matters of faith.
What is an atheist and do they believe in a meaning to life?
An atheist is a person that disbelieves in any gods or supernatural occurences. The meaning to life is that there is no meaning. There is no afterlife; being a good person and living is its own reward.
Is it possible for a Jewish person to become an atheist?
Yes; Jews are people just like anyone else. People can make decisions to become atheists. The Torah teaches us to keep its laws (see for example Deuteronomy ch.4 and ch.5), but tells us that God has given us free-will (Deuteronomy 30:15-20) if we decide to disobey.
It goes back to the idea that Jews are ethno-religious as opposed to religious (like Christians or Muslims). Therefore, in the sense that Judaism is a cultural inheritance, a person can disdain the religion (becoming atheist) and still continue to be ethnically Jewish. Similarly a non-ethnic person can convert to become a Jew (in the religious sense).
Why care about anything if when you die nothing happens?
Opinion This life is everything. There is nothing before or after this from a persons viewpoint. So why would that person not make the best use of it as they can? It's true that when you die, you simply cease to exist, but if there's a choice between happiness and complete oblivion, one would normally choose the first. If you mean caring about things other than their own well-being, then it's simply the knowledge that their actions could help to improve the lives of other people, or people in the future. Opinion. I know of a lot of people who believe and say this; "If nothing happens after you die, then care about what you want to care about, do whatever you want. because it does not matter what you do, this world will blow up and all that man did won't matter. So just live the way you want, and don't let anybody say to you, "you can't do that!" because it won't matter. Just tell them, "life is a pointless accident, remember, so do whatever you want." Atheists or people who believe in no afterlife, live by whatever makes them happy. Opinion To answer the question, one must understand the question. "Why care about anything?" Why indeed? Well, there is the philosophical, because it is the right thing to do, and none of us lives alone on this planet. There is the practical knowledge of repercussions if what we choose to do violates the rights of others or established laws; we don't live in a void. For a community to exist, people must interact, and in that interaction, they must adapt to the presence of the others. Opinion I believe - I hope - after I die to enjoy eternal life with God. But I think that even if I did not have faith and hope in an afterlife, it would matter to me a great deal that I did all I could to make those I love as happy as possible in this life. Because love and happiness ultimately seem to be what life is all about, what makes getting up in the morning worthwhile. I have discovered that my dreams of happiness for those I love sometimes fall short: they're unhappy; they suffer. If to enjoy even a few moments of happiness with one you love is heaven on earth, then to watch someone whose happiness means the world to you, suffer, and be unable to help, is hell on earth. After living a while, the question becomes, "if caring and trying as much as I do doesn't help others as much as I wish it did, then what's the point of caring about anything here in this life?" That's where the leap of faith can come in - to be able to say, "even though I may not obtain for those I love all that I want for them in this life, I hope to see them happy with me in the next." Then I can work for their happiness - and my own - in this life, but accept in faith the possibility of seeing our hopes for happiness ulitmately fulfilled only in Heaven. Opinion To say "Why care about anything if when you die nothing happens?" to me is a selfish thing. As a Christian, I believe that something happens - that eternity is spent with my God. But even if I was an atheist, we should still care. For, as far as this earth is concerned, we are not simply inheritors of it from those who have gone before us, but we are also custodians of this planet for those who will come afterwards. Whilst we may lead selfish lives, let's not forget that our own children and grandchildren reap the benefits of what we have sown. If we pollute the planet, if we wage war, if we allow global warming to take hold, if we allow poverty and oppression to flourish then this will be the legacy left for our descendants.
OpinionWhether there is life after death or not is irrelevant. What matters is the here and now. This present life is precious and worth living. You won the lottery, so to speak, when you were born. The chances of the sperm that united with the egg that resulted in you was millions to one, and to an atheist this is an amazing fact, because the game was not rigged by some god. You won fair and square over all those millions of other sperm cells. This life is likely all you will get, so treat it as precious, and live it to the fullest. Enjoy this one life while you can in the here and now. Even if you believe in some god it is a good idea to treat this life as the only one you will get. Many people waste this life in waiting for an eternal life in the hereafter that is by no means guaranteed or certain. Live for God if you believe in Him, to the best of your ability, but not to the neglect of this life, because as said, this is likely your one shot to enjoy existence.
Although Darwin originally trained in theology and had studied the work of William Paley, he at some point rejected the Christian faith, if in fact, he ever had it. Some have attributed this to bitterness after the early death of his young daughter Annie, although there were undoubtedly other factors. It has even been suggested that Darwin wrote 'The Origin..' as a specific rebuttal of Paley's work. The idea which has circulated that Darwin 'repented on his death bed' apparently has no basis in fact.
So, to put it briefly, Darwin was not a Christian.
Another interesting perspective on this is that some of the scientists of Darwin's day, many of whom at that stage still believed the Bible to be literally true, also taught the unbiblical and unscientific idea of fixity of species. Many also taught that each species was created in-situ, even though animals were known even then, to migrate and move. Darwin may also have reacted quite rightly to this unscientific idea, and interestingly, no creation scientist promotes this today.
The fact that some have felt it necessary to promote the rumour that Darwin 'repented on his death bed' clearly indicates that although Darwin himself may have referred to a form of Christian belief in 'The Origin' it is commonly recognized both from that work itself and much other material that he wrote and his own statements that Darwin was not a Christian. He was clearly thus not just reacting to unscientific ideas promoted by others who claimed to be Christian, but rejecting the Christian faith itself.
This fact Darwin documented quite clearly himself, as well as in statements he made to a number of people on the subject. For example, he wrote In his Autobiography, 'I had gradually come by this time, (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian'. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, p. 277
Further to this Darwin rejected a number of key Christian doctrines including the idea of eternal judgment, which he evidently saw as possibly applying to himself as well as some others he knew. 'I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine'.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, p. 10, 318.
Darwin referred to his earlier religious nature as well as to his changed thinking when he said in his 1876Autobiography, 'Formerly I was led … to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, "it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind". I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. 5But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind'. (emphasis mine)
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, p. 281
Towards the end of his life in 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, 'I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God'.
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, p. 634-5
Any person who would make such a statement is clearly not a Christian in any sense. It must also be understood that this is not a statement which relates particularly to the character of Charles Darwin but to his beliefs. Answer It appears that Darwin's religious beliefs evolved over the course of his lifetime. InOrigin of Species, published in 1859, Charles Darwin identified himself as a believer in Christianity. However, by the time he had written his Autobiography, Darwin had become a professed agnostic, possibly even an atheist.
In his autobiography: "Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.""... Another source of conviction in the existence [sic] of God ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker."
Evidence of Darwin's diminishing belief in Christianity: "Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to, (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul.""I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.""But I was very unwilling to give up my belief ... Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete.""The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Darwin also displayed a strong respect for the "Hindoos", "Mahomadans" and "Buddists", showing himself to be a man of moral integrity.
Having read The Origin of Species, I can attest that there is nothing in this book to support the scuttlebutt that has arisen in recent years in an apparent attempt to suggest that he wrote the book out of spite or bitterness. Even Michael J Behe, a creationist critic of Darwin's theory, calls Charles Darwin an intellectual giant (Darwin's Black Box, 1996) and makes no attempt to impugn Darwin's character. It is clear that the book was the culmination of decades of careful research, commencing with the voyage of the Beagle, when its captain took Darwin on board in the hope that the young naturalist would find evidence to refute the growing scientific belief in evolution. It is clear that Darwin was a Christian until late in life, but gradually lost his faith and became, in his own words, an agnostic.
And so he remained. Darwin's daughter Henrietta wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922, "I was present at his deathbed. . . He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."
no . noone in afi is either.some may not be a big fan of god but no none of them are atheist and the band itself is not based on aitheism.
Theory that maggots were produced by rotting meat is what theory?
This is the theory of abiogenesis - the theory that life can spring fully formed from non-life.
Are most Jewish parents okay if their kid dates an atheist?
Yes, the majority of Jewish parents wouldn't have an issue with their children dating an atheist. More religious parents would want their children to date an atheist Jew as opposed to someone non-Jewish.
