Well, you’re not a Stalinist, are you? In any case Stalinist Soviet Union is considered a example of a atheist state.
Dubious historical ties aside, under the definition of “belief system” please show how a disbelief in an unevidenced proposal could possibly qualify.
I would still like clarification on what you are talking about here.
http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system
So here’s the problem for the atheist. If atheism is not a claim of any kind, then it is simply meaningless. On the other hand, if the atheist wishes to claim that his atheism is true, then that must mean that atheism is a claim, and claims need to be defended, evidence provided and reasons given. If atheists wish to join in the conversation and the debate—and I believe that they deserve their seat at the table of ideas as much as any other worldview—then they must recognise their belief for what it is and start behaving accordingly.
And the Catholic Church is firmly on the side of science beyond that; many priests (especially Jesuits) are solid scientists in their own right.
And they teach science in a matter of fact way; the first exposure to genetics, evolution and natural selection was from, you guessed it, the Jesuit priest who taught freshman biology when I was in high school. No mention of God, religion or controversy at all- just the facts about how the processes worked.
I suspect he’d have told you flat out that you were being an idiot if you told him that Christianity dictates that young earth creationism is the “correct” belief.
Bloviation. Bring me something of substance to argue against, something you have actual evidence for, and I will listen with an open mind, then either explore it further or tell you why I think it falls short. I have no need for a “belief system” when you have done nothing to nudge me from the default setting that already exists. Debate what? Whether “God” exists? Which “God”?
Get your act together, decide on which deity atheists should form their supposed “belief system” around and what his/her attributes supposedly are so that we might know what it is we are or are not believing, then get back to us.
I’m about as anti-Communist an atheist as you’ll ever come across.
Communists were atheists, therefore atheists were Communists…and still are.
Not the first time this slur has been flung on this board, and it probably won’t be the last.
Didn’t God invent capitalism? Or was it Jesus that turned socialism into capitalism at a wedding or something?
I have stated the first half, no one has stated the second.
Communists were atheists and had odd beliefs.
By no means do they represent all atheists , but certainly a large chunk for a good period of time.
Atheists, (see the Op for a example) are happy to brand all "Christians’ with odd beliefs, based upon the views of a minority of Christians. But when we point out the views of the single largest block of Atheists in the world, you deny that atheists have such beliefs- based on the fact that not all do so.
This is called Hypocrisy.
I know many atheists who hold nutty beliefs, but saying that the USSR is an example of typical atheist beliefs is like saying that George Orwell was a Communist because he was on the left.
Jesus turned capitalism to socialism at the wedding at Cana because he turned water into wine and shared it among the masses.
Jesus did the same thing with the loaves and fishes, too. Free food for all, at no cost, just listen to His words.
Typical? But certainly* common*, due to the large Population of the USSR.Russia and China.
Do you think your average Russian farmer knew what Lysenkoism was, let alone believed in it?
Also, many of the things you mentioned were repudiated in the Khrushchev years and later.
I did specify Stalinism.
And he tossed those money changers out on their ears, too, so definitely not down with capitalists.
There was definitely some taking-advantage-of-people-for-profit going on at the temple that day when He was there.
So your definition of capitalism is “taking advantage of people for profit”?
The former head of the Episcopal Church in the USA, Presiding Bishop Katharine Schori Jefferts, was also a scientist - her degree was in oceanography or marine biology or somesuch. In any case, TEC has absolutely no problem embracing scientific discovery including evolution.
I can know that some concepts of deities cannot exist, because they are self-contradictory. The invisible pink unicorn cannot exist, and I know that as a logical certainty.
Why, exactly? Why can’t a dismissal of something perceived to be nonsensical be meaningful? Joe claims he believes in a God that has self-contradictory characteristics. I say, “Nope; can’t have it both ways.” That is neither a “claim” nor is it meaningless.
Atheism isn’t even a counter-claim. It’s just an expression of dubiety. “Oh, yeah? Show me.” So far, no theist has ever succeeded in showing off his God.