Opskrifter:
Forumtråde:
Profiler:

Hvad er der galt med ateisme?

 

Filosofi, Etik & Religion

Sider: << < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>
Ulrik Smed
Forum-indlæg: 1539
Område: Århus
Dato: 15/12 2012 15:25

"Jeg tror f.eks ikke på luft, ilt, tyndekraften, eller elektrisitet. Jeg VED at de eksisterer. Så jo vi har faktisk videnskabelige metoder til at konstatere eksistensen af ting vi ikke opfatte med vores sanser"

Det var nogle dårlige eksempler, disse fire ting kan jo godt sanses. Men forstår pointen. :)
Og enig i det med negativ bevisførelse.
Linse
Forum-indlæg: 605
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Sjælland
Dato: 15/12 2012 16:25

Jeg ved ingenting.

Hvorfor skulle jeg forsøge at bevise noget? Hvad ville jeg få ud af det?

Som Jeff siger Linse, så må jeg også spørge hvad du mener med at forstå med hjertet?. Mener du at noget er rigtigt alene i kraft af at man følelsesmæssigt godt kunne tænke sig at noget er sandt? Som i gud eksisterer fordi det kunne du godt tænke dig han gjorde?


At forstå noget med hjertet betyder for mig, at man føler at noget er sandt. Og nej, det er på ingen måde objektivt. I en religiøs sammenhæng interesserer objektivitet mig ikke, for det giver ikke mening. Jeg er komplet ligeglad med om min gud er en illusion. Om mit håb er en illusion, for så snart jeg forstår det med hjertet, bliver det til en form for sandhed, noget håndgribeligt. Noget som påvirker og ændrer mit liv.
Eksempel. Ifølge bibelen er Jesus håb og håbet er Jesus. Hvis du skifter navnet Jesus ud med ordet håb er der mange tekster som pludselig giver mere mening. Lad os sige at Jesus ikke er Gud eller Krishna eller noget andet mystisk, men ganske enkelt håb .
Hvis folk begynder at tro på Jesus og finder håb i deres liv gennem denne vej, så har de håb. Lad os så antage at Gud ikke eksisterer. Gør det deres håb mindre virkeligt? Nej. Måske er det en illusion, men det er en illusion, som folk tror så stærkt på, at det føles som sandhed, en dyb fysisk følelse.
Og hvem kan ændre på det? Hvem kan tage håbet fra dem?
Hvis nogen fortalte mig at gud ikke findes (hvilket I jo gør), ville jeg så begynde at ændre mit syn på alt og min måde at leve på? Tilsyndeladende ikke.

Hvad er det så I vil have ud af denne diskussion?

Lad os sige at jeg er et naivt og skørt menneske, som lever på en illusion. - og hvad så? jeg har ingen interesse i den såkaldte "objektive sandhed"...




Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 15/12 2012 17:26

@ John
Regarding your postcard about religion: we could just as easily say "Money, politcs (and a multitude of other things) give us hope in a world torn apart by money, politics, etc..."

I consider it irrelevant to this thread, given that the topic is atheism! I also consider the second postcard irrelevant, again given that the topic is atheism, not religion, unless you want to claim atheism is your religion ;) Personally I also find it irrelevant, given that I come from a democracy, where in the line of 9 presidents, two have been protestants (in what was a predominantly non-protestant environment); one a non-practising Catholic; two women - probably the best presidents we ever had! The present one is a socialist. It could have been an homosexual as he was in the running until journalists unearhted the fact that he tried to have the sentence imposed on a former lover for raping a fifteen year old boy reduced and that he was making a case in defense of pederasty.

Nietzsche er jo ikke nihilist. Det er de KRISTNE der er nihilister ifølge ham. De fornægter alt verdsligt, og ønsker det hinsides. Men fordi det hinsides ikke FINDES, så vil de intet(heden) og fravælger/foragter alt det eksisterende.

I can´t speak for Linse, but I understood her reference to nihilism in its broadest sense given that this is a thread about ahtiesm, not Chrisitianity.

Nihilism = life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

I´d love to know how many Christians you meet who have "fornægter alt verdsligt". Are you saying they don´t have sex, eat, drink, enjoy nature, life, family, friendship, leisure, whatever? Sounds fascinating! No, I would say most Christians consider life on this earth a precious gift, to be used wisely, and for which we are accountable.

Nietzsche kommer også meget ind på hvorledes TAB af tro kan føre til umoral og håbløshed. TAB. Ikke fravær. Og det er fordi religiøse menneskers etik er totalt egoistisk, da den motiveres af trusler om straf og løfter om belønning, og fordi deres kunstigt oppustede ego ikke kan tåle at illusionen om at de er universets centrum og mening bristes. Ateisters altruisme er derimod "ren", og har ikke lignende psykologiske problemer.


Total egoists? Motivated by threats? Promises about rewards? Center of universe?

Interestingly, Ka-ching also tries to introduce the concept of fear. Of course, anyone who actually reads and meditates the Gospels in depth knows that Christianity is not about any of these things. It is about "dying to self that others might live", ie. selflessness. It is, "Do NOT be afraid". It is LOVE your neighbour - and your enemy. It is about living in union with God NOW and making the Kingdom of peace, love and justice present NOW. It means that God is the centre of the Universe and the centre of our lives. These are the things which count for any genuine Christian. Any eternal reward is simply the logical conclusion of a life and relationship begun here on earth. Love is the motivator, not reward. What you are suggesting above is downright heresy to my ears. Whoever taught you that definition of Christianity did you a great disservice, to put it mildly...


@ Ka-ching
Mht. påstanden om at fraværet af tro kan muliggøre, at folk gør hinanden fortræd, fordi de ikke er bange for at blive straffet ved dommedag, så lyder det meget logisk, men ifølge en undersøgelse så er ateister underrepræsenteret i de amerikanske fængsler, hvilket kunne tyde på at frygten for at blive straffet af en gud ikke er stor nok til at forhindre, at religiøse mennesker begår kriminalitet. Når religiøse mennesker er overrepræsenteret i fængslerne, så holder påstanden om at religion forhindrer vold ikke. Hvis jeg skulle følge Earthlings logik eller mangel på samme kunne jeg sige, at det er religionen der gør dem kriminelle, ligesom hun siger, at det er ateismen der er skyld i at kineserne slår små børn ihjel, men det ville være irrationelt, da der er mange andre faktorer der spiller ind.

You have an amazing way of twisting everything... I don´t suggest that religion necessarily stops crime, and certainly not your fear and pumishment version which is foreign to me! If it did, there would be no murders in the USA because of fear of the death penalty. Clearly there are many murders in the USA...

What I suggested was that if everyone listened to the "commandments" not to kill, lie, steal, fornicate, hate, blaspheme, etc. life would be considerably better for everyone. That is not just good advice for Christians, it is also common sense. It can also be argued out from philosphy. The only thing the survey you mention indicates is that many religious people do not meet the minimum demands of their faith. In other words, they might be only nominally religious. As far as I know, it does not specify the religion (they might be Satanists!), the degree to which they believe, what they believe, whether or not they actually practise their faith or if they only developed a religous affiliation since coming to prison. In other words, it tells us very little.

Rergarding "ateismen der er skyld i at kineserne slår små børn ihjel", what I say is that the basic premise which claims that God´s image is not to be found in the human being and that they have no indivdual worth is what lies at the heart of the One Child Policy and atheistic Commuism/Marxism. This lack of worth for the individual makes it possible to ignore and disregard the human dignity of other human beings and their basic human rights. And of course, it´s not just the children, but the sheer numbers, the discrimination (usually girl babies/children/women), the coercion, the evictions, the fines, the beatings and maimings, the social consequences, etc... I do not say this basic premise is confined to atheists in China, only that it seems particularly widesperad in these kinds of atheistic regimes.

I never claimed that some people with a religion don´t sometimes terrible things. That would be plain stupid. But this thread is NOT about religion, it IS about atheism. You started the topic. You asked a question and you got some answers. If you don´t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen!


Det mener jeg heller ikke at man kan give ateismen æren for, da der også er mange religiøse mennesker som forsøger at forstå den verden vi lever i. Når religiøse mennesker også forsøger at løse universets mysterier, må det være noget andet end religion der inspirerer dem.

I agree. It seems good that that myth is being put to rest ;) Inspiration for scienctists with a religion: the belief that science and reson are gifts from God through which he reveals himself and his universe, the thirst to understnad this God and his universe; the belief that there is order and reason to the universe, science, ect., that things like science, medicine, education, are gifts to be developed and used well for the good of humanity, of creation.



@ Jeff
The real question is whether one is also anti-theist, that is, "against theism", although the theme of this thread is almost really about being "anti-atheist".

You know me well enough to know I am not anti-athiest :) In actual fact, it seems this thread was started by an atheist, asking a question about atheism. Personally, I find it very telling that several atheists are hot under the collar because their assumptions are being challenged by one or two people, particularly when one thinks of how much drivel and myth believers have had to witness here on VK on former occasions.

My problem is with certain developements in atheism, and atheists of a certain kind... I have made that clear from the beginning. It is a legitimate claim and I fail to see why it is so difficult for you to understand. I am not into the blame game that Ka-ching is trying to impose on me. I am heartily sick of seeing certain types of atheists make a scapegoat of religion and blame it for practically all the evils in the world while being totally unwilling to see where certain types of atheism take us. I think it is patently dishonest. I am entitled to that opinion.

With that said, Earthling is running in circles. There is a clear logical distinction being made and she literally refuses to look at it. This retards discussion.

No, Jeff, what retards the discussion is your stubborn refusal to see that atheism is more than the sum of your definition, and to stop denying the active supression of religon and of human rights in atheistic regimes.

I find all this groveling at the feet of supposed deities for what it means to be me disgusting

And I find your reduction of a relationship to grovelling disgusting. It shows me how very little you actually understand about Jesus Christ. Grovelling is the last thing he wants. He is about LOVE, liberation, healing, mercy, fullnes of life.
http://vegetarkontakt.dk/?-good-question-why-christianity=98840

By the way, your evasion/ignoring of my questions regarding the explicit order from an atheist regime and about the explicit “orders” of Jesus Christ have not gone unnoticed.

And you know what, Jeff, the truth is that IF my understanding of religion was anything like what you, John, Ka-ching or Aros claim, I would also be an atheist! I can guarantee you that. Happily I know otherwise. I also agree with in good part with Richard Dawkins, "The here and now is not something to be endured... The here and now is... an inspiration to make the most of it." :)


PS: You know Hitchens is the brother of former marxist atheist, Peter Hitchens, author of "The Rage against God" about which I spoke in an earlier comment?








John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 15/12 2012 18:35

@Ka-ching
Aros
Du mener vel ikke at det er religion som er årsagen til at børn er blevet misbrugt i den katolske kirke?

Nogle ord fra Sam Harris
“But there was always more to this phenomenon that should have compelled my attention. Consider the ludicrous ideology that made it possible: The Catholic Church has spent two millennia demonizing human sexuality to a degree unmatched by any other institution, declaring the most basic, healthy, mature, and consensual behaviors taboo. Indeed, this organization still opposes the use of contraception, preferring, instead, that the poorest people on earth be blessed with the largest families and the shortest lives. As a consequence of this hallowed and incorrigible stupidity, the Church has condemned generations of decent people to shame and hypocrisy — or to Neolithic fecundity, poverty, and death by AIDS. Add to this inhumanity the artifice of cloistered celibacy, and you now have an institution — one of the wealthiest on earth — that preferentially attracts pederasts, pedophiles, and sexual sadists into its ranks, promotes them to positions of authority, and grants them privileged access to children. Finally, consider that vast numbers of children will be born out of wedlock, and their unwed mothers vilified, wherever Church teaching holds sway — leading boys and girls by the thousands to be abandoned to Church-run orphanages only to be raped and terrorized by the clergy. Here, in this ghoulish machinery set to whirling through the ages by the opposing winds of shame and sadism, we mortals can finally glimpse how strangely perfect are the ways of the Lord.

In 2009, The Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA) investigated such of these events as occurred on Irish soil. Their report runs to 2,600 pages. Having read only an oppressive fraction of this document, I can say that when thinking about the ecclesiastical abuse of children, it is best not to imagine shades of ancient Athens and the blandishments of a “love that dare not speak its name.” Yes, there have surely been polite pederasts in the priesthood, expressing anguished affection for boys who would turn 18 the next morning. But behind these indiscretions there is a continuum of abuse that terminates in utter evil. The scandal in the Catholic Church — one might now safely say the scandal that is the Catholic Church — includes the systematic rape and torture of orphaned and disabled children…

The evidence suggests that the misery of these children was facilitated and concealed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church at every level, up to and including the prefrontal cortex of the current Pope. In his former capacity as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict personally oversaw the Vatican’s response to reports of sexual abuse in the Church. What did this wise and compassionate man do upon learning that his employees were raping children by the thousands? Did he immediately alert the police and ensure that the victims would be protected from further torments? One still dares to imagine such an effulgence of basic human sanity might have been possible, even within the Church. On the contrary, repeated and increasingly desperate complaints of abuse were set aside, witnesses were pressured into silence, bishops were praised for their defiance of secular authority, and offending priests were relocated only to destroy fresh lives in unsuspecting parishes. It is no exaggeration to say that for decades (if not centuries) the Vatican has met the formal definition of a criminal organization, devoted not to gambling, prostitution, drugs, or any other venial sin, but to the sexual enslavement of children.”
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 15/12 2012 18:37

John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 15/12 2012 18:39

John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 15/12 2012 18:40 | Indlæg redigeret den: 15/12 2012 18:41

John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 15/12 2012 18:41

Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 15/12 2012 18:55 | Indlæg redigeret den: 17/12 2012 20:40

I was not evading but I was ignoring.

You should well enough know that I will bring Luke 19:11-27 into play as an example of the words of Jesus directly speaking of the slaughter of enemies in a parable, and I will remind you of the words of the same protagonist of the Matthew gospel about Mosaic law and how it was not "destroyed". This, however, will just drag us into exegesis, that is, how you think we should interpret an iron age collection of iron age writings, and it is exactly this that I wish to evade.

I am not interested in the least about what you think the right interpretation is. You could just as easily be trying to explain to me on how to read Snorri Sturluson's Edda or cast runes. The point is that in these first century stories there are commandments to obey the pronouncements of an even more barbaric earlier age, like the laws of Leviticus. There are also other places where it seems otherwise, like in the Pauline epistle to the Ephesians.

You are not on safe turf challenging me with the literal texts of the Bible, you should have realized that long ago, and you should realize that I am not interested in secondary literature on the matter, other than where it guides us in understanding the history of Christianity and own culture as a product of that long history. I am not interested in the sifting between the words of cults, be they established institutions or fringe groups.

For this reason I chose to ignore your question, hoping that you would desist.

Beyond that, when I made my thought experiment, I meant not only the words of the Bible or the Qu'ran, but also the writings and edicts and pronouncements of the religious leaders and even the opinions of groups and individuals who claim to have some revelation behind their actions (apart from the truly mentally ill, which you completely misunderstood when I mentioned it above and I am just not going to try to massage it into your understanding since I think it is rather plain what I mean by this).

I cannot tell the difference between the statements of the epistle to Romans, supposedly written by the Roman Jew, Saul/Paul, and the statements of the Italian Giovanni Pietro Carafa/Paul IV. How should I? All I care about is any evil done by followers of these words, because of the words' commandments, as presented in my thought experiment. I have no way of knowing how to discern what supposed magic lies in the one letter and not in the infamous papal bull, Cum nimis absurdum, which forced Jews into ghettos for hundreds of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_Nimis_Absurdum

As to the suppression of religion, I will mention that Jerzy Popiełuszko was a political enemy of the state and it was for his work as a dissenter that he was assassinated, not for believing in the religion of Roman Catholicism.

I still find it incredibly ludicrous for you to speak of "developments in atheism, and atheists of a certain kind" as if the writings of literally a handful of people, who by the way have professions other than non-religion, represent anything of significant magnitude compared to the hundreds of thousands of priests, the armies of missionaries, the masses of ordained ministers of every kind of denomination, the imams and mullahs and rabbis, the bible study leaders and campus crusaders.

Unless, of course, it just takes a few simple ideas, like abandoning belief in the supernatural and living in the natural world with reason as our sole compass, to make you feel uncomfortable.


By the way, what is wrong with fornication?
Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 15/12 2012 19:39 | Indlæg redigeret den: 15/12 2012 21:42

Jeff
By the way, what is wrong with fornication?
Herpes, cytomegalovirus, gonore, HPV som giver halskræft og livmoderhalskræft.

Earthling
Rergarding "ateismen der er skyld i at kineserne slår små børn ihjel", what I say is that the basic premise which claims that God´s image is not to be found in the human being and that they have no indivdual worth is what lies at the heart of the One Child Policy and atheistic Commuism/Marxism. This lack of worth for the individual makes it possible to ignore and disregard the human dignity of other human beings and their basic human rights.
Tro det eller ej men religion er ikke nødvendigt for at være overbevist om at mennesker er noget værd.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 16/12 2012 00:26

Surely you don't mean fornication is the cause of STDs?
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 16/12 2012 01:01 | Indlæg redigeret den: 16/12 2012 01:03

Whoa!

Missede Linses indlæg, der...

Hvorfor skulle jeg forsøge at bevise noget? Hvad ville jeg få ud af det?

Øh... al teknologi, medicin, du ved - den slags ting?
jeg har ingen interesse i den såkaldte "objektive sandhed"...

Vrøvl. Du spiser mad fordi du ved at ellers så dør du. Du tager til lægen når du er syg, fordi du ved at det har bedre chancer for at hjælpe dig end hvis du blot bliver hjemme og smører dig ind i syltetøj. Det er ikke et tilfælde at du vælger døren og trappen snarere end vinduet på femte sal når du skal ud.
Jeg er komplet ligeglad med om min gud er en illusion. Om mit håb er en illusion, for så snart jeg forstår det med hjertet, bliver det til en form for sandhed, noget håndgribeligt. Noget som påvirker og ændrer mit liv.

Wow...

Forstår du forskellen på følgende sætninger?

1) Jeg kan lide at lade som om gud eksisterer (fordi det er rart, det motiverer mig, osv.)
2) Jeg tror at gud rent faktisk eksisterer

???
Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 16/12 2012 13:46

Jeff
Hvis folk ventede med at have sex til de blev gift er det rimeligt at antage at de ikke ville have så mange sexpartnere og at færre mennesker ville blive smittet.

Earthling
Du har givet nogle eksempler på ateistiske kommunister, som har gjort andre fortræd. Dette er ikke nok til at sandsynliggøre, at det er ateismen der er noget galt med, da det lige så godt kan være deres kommunistiske ideologi som er årsagen til de ting de har gjort. Kan du give et eksempel hvor den onde ateist ikke har været tilhænger af kommunisme eller andre farliger ideologier? Hvis du ikke kan, så er det ikke rimeligt at give ateismen skylden for de ting der er sket.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 16/12 2012 13:48

Okay, but it is not the cause of these diseases, only a parameter in the rate of growth.
Aros
Forum-indlæg: 848
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 16/12 2012 13:56

Earthling, dine argumenter holder ikke. At det enkelte individ og individuelle rettigheder ikke tæller, er en holdning der er gældende for ALLE politiske diktaturer. Kommunistiske, nazistiske, islamiske stater osv. Og igen har du kun bevist at i den kommunistiske ideologi tæller det enkelte individ ikke. Det er jeg enig i. Men hvad har det med mig at gøre? Ja jeg er ateist, men jeg er også liberalist. Se her:

Det er nærmest det modsatte af kommunisme.

Har du et eneste argument der alene relaterer til at være ateist? Trådens titel er ikke hvad er der galt med kommunisme. Det er - hvad er der galt med ateisme.
Aros
Forum-indlæg: 848
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 16/12 2012 15:06

Linse, du har helt misforstået pointen i mit indlæg. Det jeg mente var at blot at ateisme er det naturlige udgangspunkt, så derfor er det ikke bare en overbevisning som det f,eks er at tro på gud. Det er fraværet af en sådan overbevisning. Det du mener er at både det at tro på gud eller at man ikke tror på gud er en overbevisning. Har jeg ret? Men et nyfødt barn har jo ikke noget gudsbegreb, ej heller kan de læse biblen 3 sekunder efter fødslen, men der er jo heller ikke nogen der har fortalt dem hvad ateisme er. De forstår ikke ordet. Ikke destro mindre er det jo hvad de er, før de er gamle nok til at lære om religion. Ligesom man nødvendigvis er ikke-fodboldspiller til man begynder at dyrke sporten.

John har svaret meget godt på hvad man får ud af at bevise noget, og finde ud af hvordan tingene hænger sammen. Hvis alle bare var ligeglade med sandheden tvivler jeg på at vi havde flyttet os meget siden stenalderen. Det ville måske være okay for dig, bare du havde din tro, men jeg er personligt glad for at vi har flyttet os siden dengang.

Linse: Måske er det en illusion, men det er en illusion, som folk tror så stærkt på, at det føles som sandhed, en dyb fysisk følelse.
Og hvem kan ændre på det? Hvem kan tage håbet fra dem?
Hvis nogen fortalte mig at gud ikke findes (hvilket I jo gør), ville jeg så begynde at ændre mit syn på alt og min måde at leve på? Tilsyndeladende ikke.

At føle noget som værende sandt ændrer ikke på om det er sandt eller ej. Noget er enten sandt eller også er det ikke. Hvad vi synes om det gør hverken fra eller til. Jeg kan måske føle at der her i dk lige nu burde være 30 grader varmt, og at jeg burde ligge på stranden og slappe af. Men at jeg føler sådan gør det ikke sandt eller virkeligt.

Vi har en debat. Hvem siger at der er nogen der er ude på at tage noget fra nogen?. Jeg deler bare min mening. Hvad mener du med håb?. Jeg har også håb. Ikke et håb om at komme i himlem. Men jeg har et håb om at mine venner forbliver raske og får et godt og langt liv. Jeg har et håb om at min gravide veninde får et sundt og rask barn. Jeg har håb om det vil gå mig selv godt. Og håb for en masse andet. Efter min mening er der absolut intet der tyder på at der eksisterer en gud, derfor er det den mening jeg giver udtryk for. Du må selv om hvordan du lever, så længe det ikke påvirker andre negativt, så blander jeg mig ikke. Det er en debat, og vi deler vores synspunkter. Du kaldte ateisme en tro, og talte om at der kunne være risiko for at det medførte nihilsime, håbløshed, meningsløshed osv. Det er hvad man kalder projektering, dvs fordi et liv uden religion ville være, eller føles håbløs, meningsløs osv for dig, går du ud fra det også må være tilfældet for ateister. Men vi har ikke et religiøst behov som du har. Der mangler ikke noget i mit liv, bare fordi jeg ikke "har" gud.

Men du har ret - der er ikke noget galt med ateisme som sådan

John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 16/12 2012 15:59

Hvordan kan nogen sige at det er lige meget hvad man tror?

At sandheden er værdiløs?


Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 16/12 2012 16:05

John
Du har vist misforstået noget. Emnet for tråden er ikke hvad er der galt med religion. Derfor hører meget af det du har skrevet ikke til i denne tråd!
lucifer
Forum-indlæg: 1609
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 16/12 2012 17:03

hvis man skal give et svar på trådens emne og tager ud fra wiki definition på ateisme,
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ateisme


kan man jo pege på at det er en tro som så maget andet og ikke en viden.
men om der er noget galt i det kan der jo nok komme en længer snak ud af .

vh lu
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 16/12 2012 18:20

lucifer,

What part of "det defineres også bredere som fraværet af tro på guddommeligheder eller som nonteisme" don't you understand?

Og du synes ikke at have læst mange af indlæggene her.
Sider: << < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>