rockyfan4: Definition of "atheism"-

I DO favor the definition of atheism as "the belief that there is no god or gods", and so I think most atheists would probably be better identified as agnostics. ... Unless you're more interested in scoring debate points than you are in the truth, the point of these terms is to make it clear what a person's position actually is.

Definition of "faith"-

This one drives me crazy. The definition of faith is not "blind belief in the absence of evidence", no matter how many times a guy like Dawkins says that it is. Faith is simply assent to (or reliance upon) a proposition. Blind faith is called fideism, and its actually considered a heresy by the Catholic church. Theology used to be called "the queen of the sciences", and for most of its history philosophers/theologians attempted to establish the veracity of Christianity (and Islam, for that matter, and others) through rational argument.

As far as theism being intellectually lazy. It can be, but remarkably little that we believe in actually comes from examining the evidence and coming to a totally rational conclusion as a result of that examination. But anyone who thinks that theism hasn't had its fair share of very intelligent, rational defenders... well it probably isn't worth starting a conversation with that person.

pimpmonkey2382: So you're using this thread to justify "god's" genocide?

TStael: Pimpmonkey darling, up to tab 20 I did not see you post anything but a sentence of two rows at tops. If you have a position or an intelligible counter argument relating to a post, pray expand. Otherwise... may my thoughts gain me merit in heaven! :-D

Bloodygoodgames: Another atheist here :)

Sorry....missed the original post before it was deleted.

Just wanted to say, religion isn't something I even think about so it doesn't affect my life at all. Particularly here in Thailand, where around 98 percent of Thais are Buddhist, and none of them ever try to convert you :) (Although Buddhism is technically a philosophy and not a religion anyway and.......if I was forced to believe something, I'd pick Buddhism before anything else.

I like being an atheist. It's one less thing to have to worry about, and I sure as hell don't have any feelings of 'guilt' for not believing or for doing something other believers say I shouldn't be doing. I love living this way.

Other than that..........carry on where you were :)

TStael: But six righteous? Are we all lacking in this thread, really? :-D

Telika: Well, I don't know about that.

TStael: Curious, pray tell, do you think your atheism affects your position to, let's say, lèse majesté law in Thailand, i.e. the fact of people going into jail for criticizing the king? Do you think it is ok, or you oppose to it?

rockyfan4: Its true that different traditions have different takes on the subject, some Christian denominations are like night and day.

rockyfan4: But that would take actually getting into the meatier aspects of theological and philosophical proofs and such, and this thread has gone 30 pages without touching any of those issues, so...

pimpmonkey2382: It was a simple question, I'm not going to waste my time counter arguing with you as it's as hopeless as providing proof for a god. But you could answer the question anyway. Though I know most christian apologists will dodge it like you just did.

Telika: Yup. And also don't forget that religion is "being done" by people. It's actual everyday discourses, practices and feelings, in their diversity, in their self-contradictions, in their elasticity, that "are" religions, and not the official words of the scholastics or the whole Church bureaucracy, from which practitioners easily distancise themselves, reshaping, reappropriating, and filtering what fits better.

Telika: As I said, I think it's one of the most sterile and uninteresting points about religion. Whether "god exists or not", behind it all. Focusing on that can only lead to unresolved opositions and frustration. Discussing actual content (what people "make" of their belief) is way more interesting, and way more fertile in terms of mutual understanding, rapprochement and mutual prejudice debunking...

TStael: Such a poppet you are, pimpmonkey - in view that I among other things state counting myself amongst the faithless.

But let me oblige you.

Faithless as I am, I do also think that those who can live the "grace and truth" as Jesus wished to impart it, shall have a great capacity to do good unto others. And I also think that Scandinavia is not too bad off having been built upon Lutheran ethic, though moderation is typical of our region.

I treat a parable (= Sodoma and Gomorra story) - as a typical rhetorical vessel used in the Bible - as a metaphor, or a morality story that captures a fraction truth, but also many a fraction of simplification and exaggeration.

I do not factually believe that God destroyed these cities - but as to persons wanting in compassion and righteousness today, as much as then - I think the parable has a great deal of truth to it, and we can all think how to do better.

Bloodygoodgames: I oppose it.

That, however, has nothing to do with 'religion', but instead has to do with freedom of speech in a backward, third world country. (Yes, I love Thailand - but they are backward and 'third world' in many things they do.

EDIT:

Actually, lese majeste is being used as a 'political tool ' in Thailand currently, more than anything else as it's being used to silence opponents of whichever party is in power at the moment, but particularly the Democrats (they're only democrat in name, certainly NOT in any action they undertake - fascist is more like it!)

There is the occasional foreigner who gets caught up in it and sentenced to jail, but almost all cases of lese majeste in Thailand are for political reasons.

And yes, it's disgusting.

pimpmonkey2382: Ah the pick and choose where you can take your holy book choose things that you like, and those that you don't they're "metaphors". The problem is, if a god existed how do you know what he thinks, wants, etc. As his so called holy book is supposed to be 100% factual, and not "metaphors".

TStael: The probably issue from your perspective, I think, is that I actually do not mind the dogma, but rather should like to focus on how we behave amongst each other, and if we find inspiration to be generous or mean.

If I pick and choose, and find that this inspires me not to do wrong, possibly be nice even - what say you against it?

And let us say you disapprove of Christians or their apologists - how shall have this inspired you to be a better person?