Mike Laz

It seems that darwinism / atheism is on the rise again like it was in the earlier part of this century.

Communism was the bloodiest ideology that caused more than 120 million innocent deaths in the 20th century. It was a nightmare which promised equality and justice, but which brought only bloodshed, death, torture and fear. This three-volume documentary displays the terrible savagery of communism and its underlying philosophy. From Marx to Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, discover how the materialist philosophy transforms humans into theorists of violence and masters of cruelty.

Will history repeat itself.

Two of the worlds most atheist leaders caused the most death and destruction than all religious wars combined but it wasn't their atheism that was a result of that.

But if a priest molests a child or pastor does wrong it's solely because of their beliefs.

Atheists love to draw parallels when it comes to everyone but themselves.

evangelical atheist

An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just dont talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their perogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Mostly teen angst if you ask me...

Evangelical atheist: "Hi, I'm an atheist."

Other guy: "Cool, I'm Jewish."

Atheist: "YOU FOOL! YOU PRACTICE RELIGION LOL, YOURE A DUMBASS AND IM COOL BECAUSE IM AN ATHEIST. I SHALL NOW PROCEED TO EXPLAIN WHY BLIND FAITH IS DUMB, UNLESS ITS BLIND FAITH IN ATHEISM WHICH IS A COINCIDENTAL EXCEPTION"

Other guy: "Shut it *****, you're a dumbass"

Atheist: "BUT IM AN ATHEIST, WHICH MEANS IM ALWAYS RIGHT. AND IM NOT AN INTOLERANT PRICK LIKE ALL MEMBERS OF RELIGION ARE, HURR HURR HURR.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eva...

:D

What does "lack belief in God" mean?

"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid.

Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants," but it is a meaningless statement. So? You lack believe in screaming blue ants. What about it?

If "lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it.

This would mean that it is not a purposeful chosen neutrality about something, since this is an intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing -- even if the category is called neutrality.

We lack belief in concepts we are not aware of, and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of.

If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position, but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.

However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response, whether it be emotional and/or intellectual.

Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as:

True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance.

We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as:

True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.

To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it.

If True, then positive belief is applied.

If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.

If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.

If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending, with either as the outcome.

This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible, as also is disbelief (rejection), depending on further information and analysis.

Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get, but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief.

Actions reflect belief

We act based upon what we do believe, not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something, not because I don't believe something. If I don't believe my house is on fire, then I don't do anything; but if believe it is, I get out.

In other words, if I believe my house is not on fire, then I don't need to get up and get out. It is not lack of belief that moves us, but belief.

I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them, since I am unaware of them.

I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of.

If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist.

If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non-existence since it is not necessary to do so anymore than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter.

If I believe that the existence of invisible pink unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous, but I have categorized them and believe they do not exist.

If I am unsure about the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my decision. In this, I would be agnostic about their existence.

If an atheist says he (or she) lacks belief in God, yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes God does not exist.

Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent.

Atheists who say they lack belief in God, or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs, not their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God, but attacks theistic evidences, must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical.

To say you believe there is no God has problems....

http://carm.org/lack-belief-analysis-outline

sci·ence   [sahy-uhns] Show IPA

noun

1.

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3.

any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4.

systematized knowledge in general.

5.

knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

It doesn't seem so even by definition.

Look at a lot of the language in the theory. "may have, could have, might have...etc"

Those are not facts or truths. A lot of these theories are based off what things "look like", not scientific fact... and we all know looks can be deceiving.

They can dish it but can't take it.

Lost souls only seek material pleasures and even that doesn't make them happy once they have it.

See - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZL7tcLgX8&feature...

Basically he provides evidence that humans have been around for millions of years and says the evolution theory is bs

Yes Atheist extremists. The ones that one to rid the world of religion and do away with the freedom of choice. Take kids away from religious parents and retrain them (Richard Dawkins Quote) I'm sure that would go over non violently...How about Stalin and Mao,they murdered anyone that was religious.By the way they killed more people than all the religious crusades put together.

Cant we just get along. I noticed that atheists and Christians are more alike then different in the sence that a lot of atheists seem to have generally conservative values.

The fact that our universe is so fine tuned that if any one of the many factors, like gravity were even slightly different life wouldn't be able to form. And the probability of live being able to form on its own is the same probability of nuking NY.. and having all the debris fall back down and forming the exact city. Scientists admit that. So knowing how impossible it is, they come up with patch theories like the "multiverse" infinite universes where anything and everything already happened...This is just one example there plenty of other patch theories out there.

Would a world filled with all Christians that followed the religion 100% with no deviation be safer

or

A World filled with only Atheists that followed their beliefs (self imposed morality) be 100% be safer...

Yes... its a impossible hypothetical but answer honestly.

Yeah that whole e=mc2 thing is wrong...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/87...

I just hate how some can get some arrogant and say that their "UNPROVABLE" science invalidates my beliefs..GTFOH

Since it was the humans that "killed all the neanderthals". Isn't that how evolution works.. the superior evolved being wins by natural selection.

Consider this quote from Albert Pike( Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite)

"We shall unleash the nihilist and the athiests, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in its horror will show clearly to the nations to the effect of absolute atheism, orgin o savagery and the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizen, obliged to defend themselves against the minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disullusioned with Christianity, will recieve pure light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer.. the destruction of Christianity and athiesm. Both conquered and exterminated at the same time." (Forth Reich of the Rich, Giffin pp 71,72)

HOW DNA DESTROYS EVOLUTION - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2c49ffPWvw