Posted on 06/04/2005 3:57:12 AM PDT by MississippiMasterpiece
Amen!
You have to have alot of faith NOT to believe in God...The Judeo-Christian God.
Art, Love. How can these things be without God?
"...atheists such as Dawkins, Miller and Wilson are neither immature nor culpable....They are doing a vital and necessary thing."
The ending of the article says it all. The arrogance, self-importance, and intolerance of atheists is breathtaking.
By the way, whatever happened to Canadians? Their national characteristic was once being jovial. But whenever I see articles like this one, I wonder if the entire nation had its sense of humor (along with its common sense) removed when I wasn't looking.
That is exactly right. "Except you become as a little child you shall not see God." There is a way that seems right to a man, but it will end in destruction" "Lean not on your own understanding"
More accurately, atheism is a religion in the same way bald is a hairstyle.
Atheism is a belief system just as the various theistic religions are belief systems. It is the only belief system that the government allows and fully subsidizes in the schools.
Atheists have this conceit that theirs is the one true belief system, and powerful atheists have show themselves quite willing to mass murder tens of millions of "infidels" to guarantee the supremacy of their belief system.
Not believing Elvis lives is a religion too. You have to have a lot of faith NOT to believe Elvis lives.
Perhaps it is God who emanates from these beautiful things, not visa versa.
You appear to adhere to two fallacies that undermine your argument:
(1) Absence of a particular belief system is itself a belief system.
(2) All belief systems have equal merit.
By your own reasoning,
(1) Not believing in the tooth fairy qualifies one as religious
(2) You SHOULD give atheism the same respect and merit as christianity. They are both just "belief systems" afterall.
Why does beauty exist? Why music? Why love?
Atheists believe there is no God. That is a belief system.
". . .instead proposing a new, modern atheism which "values religion, treats science as simply a means to an end and finds the meaning of life in art."
Interesting concept, but isn't this something like proposing a really new, really great vacuum tube?
Elvis is everywhere. There's Elvis in each and every one of us...except for one person, the evil opposite of Elvis, the Anti-Elvis. Anti-Elvis got no Elvis in him...
...Michael J. Fox has no Elvis in him...
Pleasure can stem from many things, biochemical, psychological, and intellectual. Biochemical causes, such as valuing the physical beauty in the opposite sex, tends to be more universal. Intellectual causes, such as valuing the elegance of a mathematical equation or other concept, is more strongly dependent upon the experiences of the valuer.
That doesn't contradict what I said. But since you posted the point, would you call 'not believing in a god', "atheism"?
Indeed, he says, religion itself is to be understood as "a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality and which only a child would reject for being false."
That sums up my line of thinking quite nicely. The fact that I am without faith* has never me to be hostile to those who are faithful.
*Well, except for the bit where I pray to dead squids.
Hallelujah.
So if I have no interest in baseball, I'm a baseball fan just as if I followed the Red Sox or the Yankees?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.