30 Unique And Informative Maps Shared On This Group That Might Change Your Perspective On Things (New Pics)

@Tee Witt, The Toleration Act came about in 1689, well after E1 died, and that act did not apply to Unitarians or Roman Catholics. Settlement of the Americas pre-dated that Act. See: Puritan movement, history thereof, and have a nice day.

I do think that's true of some religious people, but not the person who asked me how anyone could trust unbelievers. When I knew her she was a sweet, kind, helpful person, someone who seemed to be doing a decent job of living by Christian principles. But she was very naive, and well, not very analytical, observant, or bright.

First off, Catholics are Christian, secondly, all Christians have to ask for forgiveness, it's just that Catholics have to do so through a priest.

Catholics (as well as the Orthodox and the Coptic) ARE Christians. It's only in the US that the word Christian came to mean almost exclusively the newer, extremely militant, vocal, aggressive and bigoted shoots of Protestantism and made many uninformed to associate Christianity with religious extremism. It's like saying that the Taliban represent Islam as a religion, without even reading a page of a history book. Evangelists (tele- or what have you) do NOT represent the whole Christianity in its theology, beliefs and practices. And besides, humans used religions of all kinds to excuse or justify their own abusive behaviour.

That does help, I had not considered atheism actually being wielded as a religion in and of itself, although upon reflection it seems clear after reading your comment ^-^ perhaps why I'm a comfortable agnostic: the spiritual shrug of acknowledged ignorance 😅 (EDIT: I think in essence I naively and incorrectly considered atheism to simply be the absence of religion, with science in its stead)

I’m an atheist and I consider the masses of the world to be scaredy-cats who can’t handle the thought that it’s just us...all alone in the void...but I would never take their security blanket away from them.

Thank you. I thought so too, but I figured two things: 1. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and 2. People are complex therefore are their beliefs. It's more about your individual understanding, perception and approach to the subject matter than the label itself. Personally, I find it fascinating in a good way. Diversity is beautiful.

The trope that science and religion are not mutually exclusive I think unfortunately is false. Science is predicated strictly on evidence (that which can be seen, measured and agreed upon). Religions are based on faith (acceptance of propositions which do not require evidence to be accepted, e.g. the trinity, that Jesus walked on water, etc etc... none of which has solid evidence for it ). Since faith (accepting without evidence), and evidentialism (accepting only if evidence exists), are the opposite ends of the concept of epistemology, I'd say they're incompatible.

@ZAPanda, That only works if there's an assumption that all science is based on evidence in hand. We are taking quite a lot of quantum stuff based on... mathematical predictions, without any supporting evidence in fact. We accept that black energy/matter exists, but nobody has found it, measured it, etc. ---- we are stating it's there b/c something "must be". Which is really the foundation of faith ---- "Something must be...!" And if it turns out we're wrong, well, science will pat that on the head and shelve it. Since we can't know we're correct/incorrect about any Benign Divine (yet), then at worst it's just a nice bedtime story that keeps me from killing myself.

So you don't really know what "science" entails, cool.

Who are you speaking to that they don't know what 'science' entails, Béla Kun?

Atheism is simply the absence of religion, whoever tells you otherwise has an agenda. Btw everybody only mentions communism, but in the french revolution they used atheism as a weapon too, but that quickly devolved into a new religion. Oh and nothing takes religion's stead, that is common misconception that atheists "replace religion with science"

Interesting point. Yes, systematically, "atheism" is a kind of a religious label - the belief that there is no deities. However, I'm prone to thinking the ancient humans were closer to paganism than actual atheism. To be an atheist, you need to be even the least familiar with the concept of "god", so that you can deny the existence of such an entity. Paganism, however, bases its beliefs in the elements of nature, things we see and touch and feel wirh our most basic senses. The power of mother nature. Humans are naturally creative beings, thus having a wide fantasy, thirsty for knowledge, constantly seeking for a meaning. Nobody can say for sure, but probably the earliest humans were trying to find meaning in nature and weather occurrences. I could be wrong, though.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Atheism does not mean "I am convinced that there are no deities that is the most common misconception, it just states that we don't believe the theistic claims. Saying that I am convinced that there are no deities is an extra step further.

A question often put to atheists is "Where do you get your morals" followed by "if not from" and then followed by "the bible, the ten commandments, jesus, the koran" etc etc. So yes, I think this is the concern.

Yeah and it is the most despicable thing the religions try to do. If I use this logic I would be more disdainful in regards of theists A. Because your God allows despicable things in some cases even commands it B. A theist can do whatever they want, if they say they are sorry in the end everything would be forgiven. "One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all." Arthur C. Clarke

@Nikki Sevven, with respect, that's a great theory, but Stalin was an atheist. Ditto Mao. Hitler, meanwhile, promoted "positive Christianity". Woody Allen has stated he's atheist, and may/may not be a child molester. And I've met a couple atheists in real life, my dad among them, who were *horrible* people.

Certainly good and bad everywhere. I'd never assume goodness based on faith or lack thereof.

This is mudding the water, oh cool then, what about all the child molester priests we know that there where and are thousands of them, or the great crusades or ppl that kill in the name of religion. At least Mao and Stalin I think never said they kill in the name of atheism, while religious ppl do that constantly.

Yes, Mao and Stalin (and others) did kill millions in the name of atheism, specifically. Please read some history or watch a bunch of documentaries, there are a lot for free on YouTube.

They killed them because religion was a contester for their power, but they basically created personal religion around themselves. This is like you say Robespierre was working in the name of atheism in the French revolution, but he created a new religion Church Of Reason, which in my view is not very atheistic behavior. They where rather anti-theistic than atheistic.

Satan is a Christian god...

what????????

The only people who believe in Satan are Christians. Maybe Jews and Muslims too, I don't know much about how Satan figures in their theologies. Atheists and Pagans do not believe in Satan. Most Satanists don't even believe in Satan.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

thank you for the wonderful advice

I had no idea. (not being sarcastic)

I asked if I was right? but I have no clue. tv shows have done a lot to me

well then in that case, no, atheism does not equal Satan worship!

I deleted the comment, now no more offense can be taken. (that is 100% wrong but still)

Sorry you got flambéed corgo man. Satan is merely an "evil deity" in the hebrew mythology. His enemy is a "good deity" called Yahweh, commonly called God. If you count the massacres carried out by Satan I think there are 10 people (in Job). However God massacres the entire planet (in the flood). So actually, if mass-murder is evil, clearly Yahweh is the eviler of the two. That being said, Atheists think Yahweh is an (ugly) childish fantasy from an ancient mythology, in the same category as Zeus, Apollo, etc., who you don't believe in. So, the atheists neither believe in Yahweh nor in satan. They "go one god further" in rejecting traditional "gods". They simply believe we exist, the world exists, and everything is to be explained by science.

Yes, yes I did. but since i'm dumb, I hardly understand any of the words you said, but I understand the concept. Thenks ya very much. lmao looking through all they on this one singular thread makes it look like it was a warzone

Sorry you got roasted. Atheist: No god(s) exist. Satanism is equated with that by some Christians, but it's realistically a whole other thing, basically "anti-Christianity" in a way.

You aren't dumb corgo man, and I'm sorry you got hit hard here

I very much am lol. I've probably offended so many people in this comment thread lol

No. To not know information does not make you dumb, at all. You have demonstrated qualities like being able to see that information you have learned is flawed, you are acknowledging potential hurt caused by your comment, and you are coming across as a genuine person. Knowing facts and fancy words just means you have had more opportunities to access the right info and the right people to guide you. Many intelligent people have not had their time and chance to flourish and grow, find their interests etc. But the acknowledgement of having learned incorrect information, for me that's the biggest sign that you most certainly are not dumb

hmmm. I see your point. Therefore I shall not put myself down on this. hey-61c203...a1b3c.jpeg

Context: Corgo assumed Atheists worship Satan. Parry that, casual.

lmfao. tv does a lot to me

Try giving 'em one of these: eff-off-to...08-png.jpg

Can you cite your sources/examples?

Copy and paste the quoted parts in my response in the screenshots and you will find the source material

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

lmfao they told you that months ago??? and you still remember it lmfao

What is "TST"?

@ZAPanda : The Satanic Temple

The satanic temple

I don't see the reference to it you're talking about, but in this context I'm going to assume someone is talking about The Satanic Temple, a non-theistic organization based on reason and empathy. https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us

I did the leg work for you 🙄"Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn't know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic#:~:text=Many%20people%20are%20interested%20in,such%20a%20thing%20is%20knowable. Gnostic means you believe humans contain a little piece of god. https://www.worldhistory.org/Gnosticism/#:~:text=Gnosticism%20is%20the%20belief%20that,into%20the%20bodies%20of%20humans.&text=Those%20bodies%20and%20the%20material,inferior%20being%2C%20are%20therefore%20evil. "People who follow agnosticism are referred to as agnostics. Agnosticism is not exactly a religion, but more like a set of beliefs surrounding the absolute knowledge that a god or supreme being actually exists." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/at

Sorry, final link was cut off: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

thank you! I was more trying to debunk mewton but I didn't want to call them out directly, so I asked both parties for their sources

In a rare turn of events, Mewton is actually right this time, and didn't deserve to be downvoted into oblivion. However, I learned many years ago that it isn't worth arguing about.

John baker, can you explain what you mean or show any source material so I can understand your assertion?

@Lauren, thanks. My husband is agnostic.

Dedication

What do you presume we are wishing for?

I presumed by the use of the sing song sarcastic font that you'd prefer the opposite of separation of church and state (i.e. the combining of church and state). Not sure how else the comment could be interpreted, but apologies if I missed something.