Labeling Atheism

[Acriku]

Just like Billy-Bob, who could classify black people by their commonalities after the civil war as ignorant, black, and various consequences because they are black (unseeable sunburn, curly greasy hair, able to be invisible at night, etc).

[SurlyPIG]

Doesn't anyone else see the obvious skew of results that emprworm knew almost every atheist on this board prior to making the test?

Emprworm, would you agree that atheists are less like each other than people of any religion?

[Edric O]

Don't you see anything the least bit hypocritical about your post? In it you vehemently declare all atheists fit into your little category yet denounce anyone who tries to categorically fit people from your religion anywhere

Funny. Atheists do that to Christians all the time, yet you don't seem to notice any hypocrisy THEN, do you, Ace? ::)

Thiest Staement of Faith

If you answer yes to 7 or more of these, you are a theist (Replace "Christian" with your religion.).

1. I find it perfectly logical that some supernatural being controls my destiny.

2. There is plenty of proof God exists.

3. Evolution is nonsence.

4. I don't believe in the "Big Bang"...what a load of cr*p. "Big bang". How stupid...

5. Morality, as based on the Christian faith, should be law.

6. Non-christians are going to hell. All of them, regardless of how they have spent their life.

7. The government should mandate religion; it should be a law that everyone be Christian.

8. Athiests have no morals.

9. Homosexuals are immoral.

10. Blacks are immoral.

11. Native Americans are immoral.

12. Arabs are immoral.

13. All non-Christians should be converted.

14. If they don't convert, they should be persecuted or worse.

15. If they still refuse to convert, hang the bastards.

Talk about utter stupidity! I only agree with ONE - count'em ONE - of those statements. Namely #2. And most of them are nothing but pathetic insults against theists, anyway. The only people who would ever fit them are KKK members or 15th century Inquisitors.

[emprworm]

Doesn't anyone else see the obvious skew of results that emprworm knew almost every atheist on this board prior to making the test?

Emprworm, would you agree that atheists are less like each other than people of any religion?

no, I disagree.

the sheer fact of telling me "I am an atheist", means I can tell you several things you are more likely than unlikely to believe true.

[DukeLeto]

Talk about utter stupidity! I only agree with ONE - count'em ONE - of those statements. Namely #2. And most of them are nothing but pathetic insults against theists, anyway. The only people who would ever fit them are KKK members or 15th century Inquisitors.

Now, how can you believe in both Evolution and the Big Bang yet still believe God created mankind and the universe? ::)

[Acriku]

Edric, what theists are labeled as is not relevant to this topic, which is about labeling atheists.

[Edric O]

Now, how can you believe in both Evolution and the Big Bang yet still believe God created mankind and the universe? ::)

Simple. Just like millions of other Christians do...

You know, I must have explained the logic behind it at least 10 times on this forum. That's why now I've got a copy & paste answer, which I will post as many times as it takes for some people to finally get it:

The real question is this: Why do people insist on replacing God with evolution, or the other way around? Evolution is just another scientific theory, like relativity, etc. It should NOT be a topic of religious debate!

God and evolution can perfectly co-exist. "Genesis-as-allegory" is the way I see it. This allegory was absolutely essential, because there's no way you're going to make 5th Century BC shepards believe that their ancestors were apes!

Why is there no science in the Bible? Because science constantly changes as our understanding of the world grows! The Bible was meant to last forever. So which science shall we use for it? Roman science, modern-day science or future science? Either way, you end up with a very narrow timeframe in which that science is "valid".

How do I tell which parts of the Bible are methaphors (or allegories, etc.) and which parts are facts? Simple: Everything than can be understood by people in every century is fact (e.g. Jesus went there and did that). But "sensitive" scientific subjects (like Creation) are not facts, because the actual facts cannot be understood by all the people throughout history!

Just imagine if the Bible used the scientific knowledge of the year 5000. It would look like complete jibberish to us.

[Acriku]

So according to your reasoning Edric, we have now reached an enlightenment to understand god's work?

[Edric O]

Of course not. We understand it far better than we did 2000 years ago, but to claim that we found the absolute truth is ridiculous. In 1000 years, people will probably look back on us as ignorant barbarians...

[Acriku]

We understand the laws of physics that hold the universe together, surely that counts for something.

[Edric O]

You mean we think we understand the laws of physics that hold the universe together. Remember, even the most well-established theories are subject to change.

[Acriku]

Most of the time, the minor things are changing, but not the idea behind the theory (or else the entire theory would be refuted). I think its safe to think that we understand them pretty well.

[Edric O]

Yes, I agree with that.