Can Religion & Democracy Co-Exist? w/ Author of Taming Of The Gods

maladroit studios listers in burma he is a lot of pain and god’s religion
in the market on three counts in what all right i guess the real pronunciation
relapse it sounds of a status really beautiful overcast at so it would have
what nationality that is that correct all right now i a talking about in your
guides what’s in the book well its about the the quick question where you
can uh… what were religion is a hindrance
or hope to liberal democracy i have an answer okay market yeah they’re serious enters unquestionably and arguably okay next uh… i’m not so sure that i
think it can be a hindrance that i think just released its success says it
doesn’t have to be and i would argue with that as well well one of the people in in the book group who is kind of my
guide through these things was the eighteenth-century french paris to
correct docu and he observed and i think he he had
the real point christianity in america and the speaking
as a christian myself with was actually a health in setting up free institutions because it
gave people the kind of moral bedrock in order for them to be politically free
closing secretary shins authority from state
authority you know in our idon’t understand that
argument and maybe i’m dense it’s happened before but uh… what does that
mean effort because we know historically speaking the
founders were not religious in the traditional sense that we think of it
today lot of them were dearest et cetera right so america was the first country separators
the first one thread through the world so it kinda turns up argument or fax on
its had to say always religion helped america they seem like the founding
fathers were running away from religion that auger mile an hour so what is good enough to identify their
fathers uh… widow securities is a registered
voters most people in america time work i don’t know tits argument to too far i mean and i
don’t think it’s it’s an essential component of of democracy but i think it
has to be in the way is low issue separate church and state on religious
concerns a secular authority yet not buying it that’s ok no prob unbowed but in the book easily talk about and not just that side of the question of
the other side of the equation his farm in goose three different parts the book so what’s up if i can see if it’s clear
about what the other side of the equation work to be a helpful we didn’t know any
wedding people take it go too far in removing religion from
largely returning from government well i think it should be removed from
governments whether they should be part of government but i think there are examples of celebs
secularized rations which coast violent reactions poster committed itself to this but
certainly iran on the razor sharp where people were
forced to discarded skeletons forced to shakespeare tinsel and if you set up a kind of secular
dictatorship berkeley st which mostly middle east eighties people
think middle east is run by islamists of course but far from the truth it’s run
by mostly secular restates then you get religious based reaction
which can be equally violent and so i think unit the should be room for religion as
long as it doesn’t interfere with secular government so you think this with some of the
french are going the wrong direction and with
the swiss with the banning of the minarets the front for the banning of
the burke as etcetera it goes all that’s going to do skulk more of a
religious reac yes and i think in the case of the ca
and it’s particularly misguided because say
they are very very few people who actually where for failed but his in france but if the idea is to
integrate muslims as much as possible in western society you need them to leave
their homes and get out of the open if you’d bands of their current public then you make sure there’s people
whether converts or immigrants with children uh… that you make sure that
these women never leave home which is much works i would say yeah i know i i think on this topic we
one hundred percent agree because and if you believe in freedom it’s not
just a matter of it’s a bad idea on the results which i agree with you i think
it it’s right for a number of responses in the can’t
leave the house but eight into saint believes that it was
phenomenal success of martyrdom and and victimhood et cetera and it only
encourages people quite but outside of that on a political level if you believe in freedom you should be strong enough at it’ll advocate group is actually not
banning any well i really sad actually turkeys is
perhaps the most interesting battleground for the soviet union
because as far as i’m sure you know uh…
there’s a real debate over whether to allow them yen women who availed not buttons but with its clients to him study a public universities now there is there ah secular laws in turkey and learn those that say that
this is an missus today to just in france that’s the result is that young women from villages don’t get to
go to universities and it’s truly much better society at large of those people
study in big cities and bring the secular and religious
communities closer together i think there is no reason okay man at
the time min empire was calif marvel and sleaze you’re so deeply entrenched
that he had to written ruled out and so i understand why he did but i
agree with you thing is at this juncture totally counterproductive work took
intro civil service in the history because in france who’s also to too take the roots out of the enormous power
of the catholic church which against absolute struggles with a few of the
revolution was about and you know the date of the young women
have scott’s hardly that doesn’t say a prayer the catholic church did to liberty if
the eighteenth century and look at what’s happened in turkey since you know
that movement got bottled up involve up event
idea victimhood rose up higher and higher now you have a
uh… fairly fundamentalist government that
it’s obviously most women are much more so muslim than any other coverage government since nineteen
twenty three they’ve got power and they continue to
build on that our it always backfires having said that i am ahmed dot card
secular and but i think part of the about art
secular is the second part of that clause in the
first amendment which is freedom of religion you get to have freedom of
religion no matter how much i disagree with you because my ideas on this order
then you’re right it’s that and that’s what the free market has a problem
except the problem of course is on the fair is that if religious people get too much
political power they’ll start to impose their religious bento their laws based
on religious beliefs everybody whether you believe fold-out
that of course has to be avoided it all has to be a secular enterprise well
that’s what i called for okay you know they’re right wing loves
fell of the cultural wars exhibition where left-wing group does cough force
except me okay i will come for the and so now we
do you don’t get the impose your religion on us and that goes towards my final point
which is after all this time first has to do it
the founding fathers in america with the revolution seventy seven six that had it just about exactly right in there i think so and uh… which is why i think wishes
active desperate and not pretend that actually they were very
religious in america is israeli deeply christian polity and sell them you know it’s a big
mistake and what they’re trying to prevent to text books and texas yeah i think that the press the promise
it’s around also is that and religious site doesn’t believe in
fact that’s where you are interested in the
future and i would argue the secretary not make
the same stakeout being fundamentalist like baylor right
we have to fight fact we had fight with factory a fight with out of the things that are at our
disposal like wind they’ll turn around note just so they say now they say no american founding fathers were deeply
religious and they said the sudden the question is
should where there’s a is in this minute very good friend of mine and i
think it is ready for cervical dilation margulies made the distinction between religious
politics and economics politics and other business politics he didn’t mean
to politics at the cafe finance the theological view of politics which
promises an ideal society which has an absolute
truth himself and which can comprise and economic
policy politics is about interests and you can we learned you can do you and
you can make compromises the self in your contribution back to democracy with religious politics and some eighty
lists can be as ellis as religious people they repaired i
think that was your point some part of my point and certainly what
of course meeting and i think i’d lean more towards the east side and nato does
not right of the title as it does that do
undoubtedly erotic and the one that i am fundamentalist time is being sent ok and that doesn’t mean
if he is a more nazism is the way to go it means we we’re real
free marketplace of ideas freedom of speech freedom of religion and no many intermingling of church and
state as part of what the books about it’s
called gaming the guides religion and democracy on the three
continents as examples from all over the world so he had thank you so much for
thinking i really appreciate it

  1. @MrMagneticPelican
    Agnosticism is the lack of a point of view. Saying that there is no knowing whether there's a God or not.
    Atheism is a point of view that says there is no God.

  2. Not to steer the topic away from arguing over the definition of atheism but I found this interview interesting. Christian religious values have an impact on laws in the US, think about abortions for example. Religion is a way to shape morality in a country, so while you might want to establish secular laws you also have to keep in mind the moral background of the citizens to have laws that represent the values of a society.

  3. I'm not afraid to say it outright: Atheism is objective because there is no reason (not even a hint) to believe that a god exists. I'm not close-minded on this, though. I'm open to suggestions. Bring on the arguments!

  4. @OddEye83

    Michigan and many other states have laws that are only relevant in the context of Christianity. Examples include no Sunday liquor sales, car dealerships must close on Sunday, Bars must close by 6:00 PM Christmas eve, and so forth. I had always wondered about the constitionality of such laws but the constitution clearly states that government shall have the power to regulate commerce, and commerce is what those laws regulate.

  5. Personal anecdotes don't count as evidence in my book.
    I am not aware of any phenomenon that could not by explained by purely naturalistic means. I'm an advocate of Occam's razor. Adding supernatural hogwash to the equation doesn't accomplish anything.

  6. Even if I HAD experienced something which I could not explain, there's no reason to believe that everything we know about nature, science, logic, and psychology is suddenly turned on its head. I understand that I might just have been MISTAKEN because I didn't have all the necessary information to rationalize the event.

  7. Thank you for telling us atheists what we really believe.

    The most rigorous definition of atheism is exactly what you don't want it to be: the lack of a theistic belief. According to this definition, someone who believes there is no God is an atheist(a positive atheist), someone who's undecided / apathetic is an atheist, a newborn baby is an atheist, a dog is an atheist and an ant is an atheist. If you don't have a positive belief "God exists", you are an atheist.

    That's all there is to it.

  8. @TheGiantRobot Ah, okay. So they might be justified to hold that belief. I wonder what's their explanation for the fact that so many different Gods have revealed themselves to believers.

  9. To clarify: atheists can have beliefs about god – the only thing that's common to all atheists is the lack of a positive assertion "God exists". For example, I personally have a positive belief "There is no God". I bear the burden of proof on that and I accept that, and depending on the definition of God I can often handle that burden. However, that belief is not necessary for someone to qualify as an atheist. We're not all painted with the same brush.

  10. @TheGiantRobot " In some ways it makes life less confusing, in others more." Yea, I can definitely see why it does. To me it is similarto the belief in horoscopes.

  11. Whats a fundy atheist? What doctrines or dogmas do atheists subscribe to? Who are atheist leaders? You have no point.

    Calling someone a fundy atheist is the same as calling someone a fundy non-stamp collector.

  12. The problem is the separation of church and state is largely ignored in our country.

    The perfect example is those who do not want equal rights for gays. Their is absolutely no excuse outside of religious beliefs to deny people rights.

    Yet the debate goes on, while it should be a simple decision. The founding fathers gave us the language we need, republican judges and lawmakers just ignore it.

  13. Dear god I seriously hate that retarded argument of "well the founding fathers were not religious but most people were so America was founded as a christian country". It's not even worth arguing against.

  14. Democracy and Religion can exist…if, everyone followed that one religion. However if you have a clusterfuck of ethics, morals, and point of views, then honestly it really cannot. Reasons being is because then you got people trying to force others that their god is better then another within the decisions. A perfect example is rights with sexual orientation. Hell right now it's showing it can't co-exist because of the textbook reform that some wish to do.

  15. American politics is already heavily influenced by Christian dogma, as everyone knows why they protect Israel so blindly, even when they are being slapped in the face by them. The bible.

  16. Do you disbelieve in gods?
    Do you believe that the god concept is inherently unnecessary and/or dangerous?
    Do you disbelieve in supernatural and mystical stuff?
    Do you find supernatural and mystical stuff to be just as dangerous as the god concept?
    Do you believe it'd be best if all religion was discarded?
    Do you believe moderates enable the fundies?
    So what would you label yourself?

  17. Cenk's insistence on calling himself 'agnostic' is really out of character for him. After all, saying that agnosticism is actually an intellectual position is the pussy's way out. And I agree with MrMagneticPelican. Atheism is not a belief system.

  18. yeah that makes sense in fairytale land, but in reality you can't deny that at this point in time atheism has a definite set of beliefs that are present in most atheists. I find extreme atheists to be way more annoying then extreme Christians, because the atheists are supposed to be intelligent "free thinkers" and they almost never are.

  19. Find an atheist who claims to know that there is no god. Atheism makes no necessary claims to knowledge, and neither do the the majority of atheists (including the so-called "New Atheists"). (A)theism is about claims of belief, (a)gnosticism is about claims of knowledge. That agnostic who cannot dismiss the 0.0…1% chance of a god is no less an atheist than someone who (somehow) claims that there is no chance.

    I've hammered that out, and now, I'm not actually sure that we have a real dispute..

  20. @TheGiantRobot The point has already been made. Fundamentalists are people who won't change their mind in the face of evidence and you are showing all the signs of that.

  21. @WeedGreenPowerRanger That's a silly analogy, since Atheism IS a belief in the non existence of a deity or deities. It's on the on the same plane as religiosity but on the other side of the spectrum. Agnosticism is lack of belief. You have your labels mixed up

  22. Atheist isn't a lack of a point of view. Atheists take a very obvious point of view on the existence of God.

  23. @TheLiberalOasis "atheists such as myself can believe that there hasn't been sufficient evidence presented to believe in a god" this is the agnostic position u intellectual pygmy.

  24. @logoth80 Atheism is the belief that there are are/is no god/gods. By definition it is the claim that there is none! Soo many atheists do not understand that they are really agnostic

  25. @ninjikiran "Spirituality is what humans live on" no, we live on food, and look for emotional fulfilment from friends/family/partners. we learn about the universe through scientific means, not spirituality. "and is not something you can just take away with logic" yes we can. There is no scientific basis for the concept of spirituality, ergo, it's all in your head.

  26. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "atheism

    • noun the belief that God does not exist."
    This is the Oxford English dictionary definition. It's an assertion that there is no god/gods. It's a belief in the absence of god, NOT the absence of a belief.

  27. @GabrielFane "Merriam Webster for example says "a disbelief in the existence of deity" so there you have it" LOL there u have it!?! u think u made a point!? There is NO difference between saying "there is no god/gods" to "I disbelieve in the existence of god/gods" One last time, It's a belief in the absence of god, NOT the absence of a belief. It's an assertion, not the absence of an assertion.

  28. @GabrielFane "The line between Atheist and agnostic is fuzzy" NO IT ISN'T u imbecile.


    • noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God." WHO BELIEVES THAT NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN, i.e no assertion can be made


    • noun the belief that God does not exist."

    Atheists claim to KNOW that there IS NO GOD. You really can't see the clear distinction?

  29. @GabrielFane look, i'm sorry, it's just that it's soo clear that atheists such as yourself get the damn labels mixed up between agnosticism and atheism. Arguing over the Oxford English dictionary definition of a word is possibly the most infuriating thing ever, because u look like a religious person refuting facts

  30. @GabrielFane "Its all about semantics" No it isn't! It's about your refusal to understand that atheism is "a belief in the absence of god, NOT the absence of a belief", quoting myself is a little narcissistic, but whatever.

  31. @GabrielFane "Many atheists don't claim to know there is no god. They simply don't believe in any gods" Tell me how this differs from faith, i.e. belief when in the absence of evidence

  32. @GabrielFane Good analogy, NOT. If u want to know mandarin u go to the chinese, if u want to know english u go to the english. Americans have long since bastardised the language. Bastardised is not with a Z.

  33. @MrMagneticPelican Atheism is not the lack of a belief u tard. It is the BELIEF in the absence of god, not an absence of belief. Language really isn't your strong point.

  34. @GabrielFane "FYI, languages evolve" you're being a disingenuous arse (not ass) since it didn't evolve whilst we were having this discussion. The definition is current.

  35. @MrMagneticPelican "I'm talking about the literal meaning of atheist and you're talking about the made up version that theists like to claim represents atheists" Made up version!?!? I took the definition from the Oxford English dictionary. My mouth is literally wide open u cuckoo. U atheists lack reading comprehension and take it upon yourselves to alter the definition of words which already are clearly defined. The arrogance is almost as unbelievable as religion itself

  36. @GabrielFane Sure let's go to the urbandictionary website. No, wait I think the closest thing to an authority on the English language is the Oxford English dictionary. If at first u don't succeed, change the definition of the word(s)

  37. @GabrielFane I'm not buying your assertion that there could be a plausible explanation for how fairies go about their business, since all u you're doing is hypothesising which is very different from offering evidence, ergo I need no faith to disbelieve; I only need to know that you're hypothesising in order to dismiss your claim. I am free to dismiss it until it is no longer a hypothesis. Again, no need for faith u hypocrite

  38. @GabrielFane I should do more research? Like researching into whether or not some anal clowns with no clout are debating over a word which is already clearly defined? So now you've hopefully understood that atheism is NOT the absence of a belief u seek to disregard the established meaning? What is fucking hilarious is u think I'm being silly (even trolling) by referring to the Oxford English dictionary for the definition

  39. @GabrielFane "That would be a start. Clinging to the Oxford English dictionary as the start and end of all debate is rather fundamentalist"

    "one who believes that there is no deity"
    merriam webster

    noun the belief that God does not exist."

    Oxford English dictionary.

    There is no debate. We have clear consensus. Either atheism is a belief in the absence of god (a position requiring faith) and not the absence of a belief, or the most reputable dictionaries are wrong

  40. @MrMagneticPelican The prefix negates, e.g. if i say "i believe in god, not" I am reversing my position with 'not'. I am not saying I do not have "a belief" since my belief is that there is no god. The 'A' in Atheism serves the same function as 'not' did earlier. It cannot denote lack of belief since the belief IS that there is no god, not that there is no belief. You're so caught up in the root of the word that you've slightly misinterpreted it's meaning. It's a result of being overly academic

  41. @GabrielFane "Neither the work of Newton or Einstein even referenced gods" Not true.
    "Einstein, in a telegram response, answered he believes in "Spinoza's God."[31]" excerpt from wiki
    "Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[75][76][77]" excerpt from wiki. Follow the references if u h8 wiki.

    ""Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god." Which is the same as saying there is no god(s). NO difference

  42. @GabrielFane u patronising me? well…either they had these beliefs before they set out on their amazing journey of scientific discovery or they postulated these things after observing the world and the universe. I'd like to know even if it's of no real consequence. We're straying far afied now and it's getting late for me. I just wanted to show u that they were in fact deists and had referenced god at some point in their lives

  43. @GabrielFane "did not discover any gods. That's a fact. Do you dispute that?" Of course I don't dispute that dummy. I'm more interested in their thought processes rather than anything else. Don't misconstrue my words. What I am interested in is whether or not their references to god were the result of their observances and inferences rather than just the result of indoctrination. If it's the former, then it's a single notch above tooth fairies in my book i.e. not nearly as ridiculous

  44. @GabrielFane "Why aren't gods as ridiculous as tooth fairies?" Because it is an intuitive thing to observe the complexity of the world and postulate that some kind of creator/creative force is in some way responsible, since on principle I do not believe that something can be obtained from nothing. It is slightly disingenuous to liken the tooth fairy story to that which almost everyone postulates at some point in their lives. I'm not talking about religion

  45. @GabrielFane "The fact that we don't know everything certainly isn't evidence for gods" I didn't say that just because we don't know everything we can just say "oh hey god did it let's go to sleep" I'm saying it is something that's intuitively postulated by almost everyone at some point. It's this postulation that gives rise to the conjuring up/lies of religion. This can't be denied.
    "Gods are inherently religious" No. e.g. Spinoza's conception of god

  46. @TheGiantRobot . noone asserted that tooth fairies were real? what's your point?whole cloth? what? the concept of god being likened to spaghetti? what? when u have a more coherent point i'll respond properly

  47. @TheGiantRobot I'm sorry I thought u were likening the concept of god to spaghetti. That Dawkins fellow needs a better analogy.

  48. @GabrielFane I understand it (since it's not difficult) but the man is completely lacking when it comes to persuasive argumentation. I'd rather listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson

  49. @GabrielFane "Except that no supernatural entity is inferred" let's not care about whether it's tangible or not, just that "it" is a creative force, in the same way that Spinoza describes nature as being a creative force and by extension, a "god". From a scientific perspective it behoves us to assume there is no god, but the postulation will continue to be made since we can never know everything there is to know about the universe. Without commenting on whether this is a good or bad thing

  50. @TheGiantRobot "but the argument itself has little merit" totally agree. I remember face palming when I heard it, but Dawkins holds on to it like it's his ace in the hole

  51. @TheGiantRobot I suppose we could gauge it's value by how many ppl it forced into having an epiphany. I'd wager not many

  52. There is a difference and the argument is far from trivial. You are either making a presumption or you are not, choosing your definition carefully is rather important. Why would Atheists insist on making a presumption (that there is no god) when that is precisely why religious zealots are so disliked (insisting that there is god – using it as a reason for irrational and dangerous behavior and thoughts).

  53. @BOZ11 "Spinoza's God" is nature with no personality. Einstein used the word god as an allegory to the natural world.
    Disbelief is not the same as a positive assertion that god doesn't exist. Disbelief is being unconvinced of your position.

  54. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "banning of the burkas" in France that you refer to is fallacious. I believe you are referring to a law that forbids wearing any religious symbols (muslim veils as well as christian crosses) in public schools.

  55. @GabrielFane I think I previously said I dislike Dawkins and would rather listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson. Of course each to their own. Well that was fun

  56. @jesse1018 I am the one who brought up Spinoza's god, so logically, and consequentially I am aware. "Disbelief is not the same as a positive assertion that god doesn't exist" I'm afraid it is and that u and your brethren should familiarise yourselves with a reputable dictionary.
    "Disbelieve: The act of not believing; Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception" See the key words? 'Actively denying'? Athiesm is a belief in the absence of god, not an absence of belief (requires faith)

  57. @MrMagneticPelican U CANNOT READ! The logical consequence of not having a belief is that no claim can be made. Atheists make the claim (a claim is made as a consequence of having a belief) that deities are absent. If your position cannot be accurately defined by the term "ATHEIST" according to either the Merriam Webster or Oxford English dictionary, then by definition, you are NOT an atheist, BY DEFINITION. BY D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N. You particular atheists are such fucking dullards

  58. BOZ11-

    Atheism is a lack of theistic belief, nothing more.

    There are distinctions some make such as negative or positive…also one could add a gnostic view to give more descriptive power.

  59. @1nomadic The atheist is merely counter-claiming the claim of the theist. Imagine that all theists disappeared, and the claim of god's existence with them, then naturally the atheist position becomes not just redundant, but literally meaningless.

  60. BOZ11-

    I completely agree, the term is highly contextual. I don't like the label as I find defining oneself, by what you are not, almost meaningless. This is why I seek to inform others of such.

    This term has been abused so much that is has become a pejorative, with many attributes attached, in some circles.

  61. @1nomadic Stick with established dictionary definitions from authoritative sources, and we'll always be speaking the same language

  62. @WeedGreenPowerRanger An agnostic is one who does NOT know enough to commit to a belief in the existence or non-existence of deities. Read up, stop wasting my time."Theist/Atheist refers to what one believes" YES, both theists and atheists have a belief, opposite beliefs but nevertheless, beliefs.
    "Different dictionaries have different definitions" No they don't. I've checked the ones worth checking. The dictionary thing isn't a game, it's to show u the definitions, which u all continue to deny.

  63. @WeedGreenPowerRanger You think there are 2 definitions of 'disbelief' because the definitions are numbered 1) and 2)? HAHAH. They mean the SAME thing, but are reworded for additional clarity. If I 1) "Not believe" then I'm saying that I've taken "it" to be NOT true. If I 2) "Actively deny" I am again saying that "it" is NOT true. If I say "go to the store" and on another day "travel to the store" u think I'm saying something different because my actual words have changed? Idiot

  64. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "You earlier made the assertion that agnostiicism was in fact the sentiment of lacking a belief in God." YES, and I'll elaborate, agnostics lack any belief period, whether it's belief in god or belief in the non existence of god. Atheists do not LACK "A BELIEF", only they lack belief in god, which is to DISBELIEVE AKA DENY EXISTENCE. This is a claim, and u can't make a claim without an underlying belief supporting the claim. I've fucking written this before!

  65. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "but you just admitting I'm right when you sad "They only lack belief in god"" LMFAO! Now who's being selective? The full sentence was "Atheists do not LACK "A BELIEF", only they lack belief in god, which is to DISBELIEVE AKA DENY EXISTENCE". The agnostic has no belief, which means they can make no claim. Atheists "lack belief" in what the theist is saying and proceed to make the counter claim, again, u cannot make a claim without belief. You're not very good with context.

  66. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "so quit making the assertion as though it proves itself" It does prove itself. It's axiomatic and you're fighting it. I hope for not much longer. Again, the dictionary is your best friend here. Stop pushing against the established definition with your own perceptions. If u feel the term "atheist" doesn't accurately reflect your view, then change your label.

  67. @WeedGreenPowerRanger But u were quoting me out of context and I've already laid out the error but u still insist? Tempted to let u wallow in ignorance, but I can't stand the thought of u believing you've won when nothing could be further from truth

  68. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "If you're unconvinced of a God's existence, then you are by definition the opposite of a theist".

    Theist says "there is a god", the opposite stance would be "there is no god". "Disbelief" never means "undecided" They are soo distinct since one is a decision and the other isn't. Fucking hell this is undeniably simple shit and you're probably wondering why I name call so much

  69. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "I'm saying you're excluding a definition" idiot! My entire argument is backed by the dictionary definition, it is YOU who are excluding established definitions and trying to inject the term 'uncertainty' in to the word 'Atheist' when no dictionary in the land supports this view. You could end this by referring me to the weedgreenpowerranger dictionary

  70. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "Funny how you switch to the word "Undecided" when the quote you used said "Unconvinced""

    • adjective not certain that something is true or can be relied on.

    You do not require certainty in order to disbelieve. Wrap your mind around this and it all stops

  71. @WeedGreen You said "You don't know it, but you just admitting I'm right when you sad "They only lack belief in god""

    I said "The full sentence was "Atheists do not LACK "A BELIEF", only they lack belief in god, which is to DISBELIEVE AKA DENY EXISTENCE". The agnostic has no belief, which means they can make no claim. Atheists "lack belief" in what the theist is saying and proceed to make the counter claim, again, u cannot make a claim without belief. You're not very good with context"

  72. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "I know you don't require certainty to disbelieve." If u lack certainty then you're essentially agnostic, even if u lean towards/have a propensity for later on siding with atheism.


    • noun the belief that God does not exist.

  73. @WeedGreenPowerRanger A gnostic can't know; don't confuse belief with knowledge. Believing in god merely allows u to declare that there is a god. Belief facilitates the declaration/claim. U don't need true knowledge to claim any damn thing

  74. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "Everyone is technically agnostic" lol. No they are not, since these positions aren't concerned with knowledge, only belief. The atheist denies the existence of god altogether, by definition.

    • noun the belief that God does not exist.

  75. @WeedGreenPowerRanger The definition is not incomplete, it's lacking your own embellishment. Askoxford website. It's basically the Oxford English dictionary online, albeit concise. btw the merriam webster definition is the same, only u embellish the word disbelief with uncertainty

    • noun 1 inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. 2 lack of faith.

  76. Do you know what a straw man argument is? You are trying to define a position that most atheists don't hold in order to attack it, instead of our actual opinions. It was misleading for you to say Einstein believed in Spinoza's god without referencing what that ment. For someone who loves a definition in every post, it's borderline dishonest. Oh, and dishonest: n. refusal or reluctance to believe, see also skepticism, doubt, distrust. See the key word? "Reluctance?" Sounds patronizing, right?

  77. @jesse1018 "You are trying to define a position that most atheists don't hold" If you don't hold the following position then you are not an atheist:

    • noun the belief that God does not exist.

  78. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "Agnosticism is not a word which centers around belief, but knowledge". I was talking about atheism and theism when i said "these positions are concerned with belief not knowledge"

  79. @WeedGreenPowerRanger I would say it's concise rather than abridged. The merriam webster definition is the same btw and here it is:

    Main Entry: athe·ist
    Pronunciation: ˈā-thē-ist
    Function: noun
    Date: 1551
    : one who believes that there is no deity

  80. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "And you're sitting here telling me that lack of belief does not qualify as disbelief?" It does qualify, but you're missing the context, Watson. Lacking belief *in god* IS NOT lacking a belief. You believe in your own disbelief of god. Seeing it yet? I have the patience of a saint

  81. @WeedGreenPowerRanger "Thats the most beautiful mental gymnastics" Here:
    Main Entry: dis·be·lief
    Pronunciation: ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf
    Function: noun
    Date: 1672
    : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

    Disbelief = denial. Denial is a claim of the non-existence of something. Claim requires belief. Atheists believe in the absence of god, not that they have an absence of a belief. Their belief IS that there is no god; Merriam Webster and Oxford provide the same definition

  82. @WeedGreen "How far do you want to take this cop out?"
    "WeedGreen: He means the fact that atheism is as much a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby" earlier u said that atheism is not a belief. Idiot

  83. @WeedGreen "Not believing kinda qualifies as not a belief." Not a belief in god, not that u lack belief in your assertion as was implied here "atheism is as much a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby" You were one of many!
    "MrMagneticPelican The "act" of not believing? Is not knitting a hobby? It's called logic dude you might want to try using it" This is the kind of lunacy I was having to contend with. I'm still not convinced that even one of u understand. signing off for now

  84. @TheGiantRobot Well, has a fundamentalist ever changed its mind in the face of evidence?

    If you can show me one reason to believe in your fairytales I will change my mind.

  85. It depends what the religion is, certainly not Christianity and Islam, they cannot co-exist with a democracy.

  86. Ian Buruma talks alot of sense.He is highly critical of our setup in the UK where our monarch is also the Head of the Church of England which is crazy. Thats why I am not only atheist but want to eradicate anyconnection between church and state.

  87. >Christianity cannot co-exist with democracy.
    >First and only Liberal Democracies (Not Greece, The United Kingdom, The United States, France) all Christian nations.

  88. France is a 'Christian nation'? Do you mind telling them? LOL…And we are speaking about Christianity or Islam being practiced to the fullest extent. Americans may call themselves Christian, but they cherry pick the bible and ignore many parts of it. If they were to follow the bible completely, word for word, then that would surely conflict with a democratic government.

  89. La Marseillaise mentions God 5 times. Practiced to the fullest extent? Not done anywhere, thus religion is already compromising with democracy and therefore can co-exist with it.

  90. It hasn't exactly been practiced fully. It only works because everyone ignores a lot of things like how it tells us that we should put adulterers to death and kill children that disrespect their parents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *