We all believe in "something" when we start to ask questions that science cannot answer with direct and obvious proof.
Just an example: Atheists believe in evolution, right?
Cross species evolution requires about as much of a leap of faith as any religion, because we could only prove inner species evolution.
Not quite correct.Originally Posted by vegas82
Atheism means: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheists can very well believe in other, nonexistent or non provable stuff, as the above example highlights.
There are certainly atheists that deny evolution. There's certainly no built in jump from, "there's no gods" to "there is evolution". So, to answer your question bluntly, no, that's not an atheist belief.
On the topic of evolution, you appear to be misinformed. This chestnut you're trotting out is a creationist trope that has not a shred of merit - speciation has been observed and documented numerous times. Additionally, there is no substantially different mechanism for speciation relative to intraspecies evolution - they're the same mechanisms.
Can people stop using the word "islamophobia"? Phobia implies it's irrational...
Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rorist_attacks
Literally none of that is true.
yes, these fundamentalists who say they are doing it in the name of Islam and quoting the scripture are not real Muslims.Over and over again, from people who actually study middle eastern culture (i.e., not people like Dawkins or Harris), from people who actually profile extremists, there's a common thread: either they're not actually religious, or desperate.
Religion is a product of humanity, therefore, it is an approximation of humanity.Person A: Is religion evil?
Fundamentalism is not evil.Person B: No. Fundamentalism is evil.
The Amish are fundamentalists - Cant recall their last terror act.Religious fundamentalism is no more or less evil than secular fundamentalism or, in fact, any fundamentalism.
I pray to a god i don't believe in you are a troll.So take your "rational debate" nonsense and shove it.
So lets say I think homosexuality is sinfull and an act against god and nature. Lets also say I know a person that holds similar beliefs but also has a tendency to act on these beliefs. Not that I know for sure. But maybe I suspect. Will I actually go and talk this person out of acting on beliefs that I share?
Now lets say that by actually confronting that person I would not only risk his irre, but the scorn of people around me which would risk isolating me and deprive me of essential connections, oportunities and resources.
Would I take action or decide upon inaction and in case something happens deny any moral responsibility?
Only the 2nd option is logically consistent.
What I believe in this situation matters a lot. Because there is no such thing as not deciding. Action is derived from decision and decision is derived from what a person believes.
You might not be mowing down people on a bridge, but when someone suggested it because that might be a thing these degenerates deserve, although you'd never do it yourself, you didnt speek up.
I find it hard to understand how people have difficulty grasping that concept.
PS: Nigel, I'm not refering to you with that later part. I just quoted you because I was both refering to what you replied to and your answer.
Last edited by Runenwächter; 2017-06-04 at 10:49 PM.