Early morning religious debates. Yay.
Atheism just doesn't reject God, it rejects Religions that adhere to a God, the same God we reject. Does that make sense yet?
The rejection of religion is a by-product of the rejection of the idea of God. Atheism itself is defined by nothing other than non-belief in God.
You have said several times that atheism is a way of a thinking, a set of beliefs. It’s not really, as it doesn’t define someone’s beliefs beyond them not having any in God.
You can be an atheist and also think modern science is a load of shite. You can be an atheist and also think evolution is nonsense. Yes, it doesn’t happen often and atheists are usually evolutionists but their ‘beliefs’ about what really did happen to create human life are separate from their assertion that it definitely wasn’t created by a God.
This can lead to multiple assumptions regarding religion and religious figures from the past, but ‘atheisim’ doesn’t itself reject the notion that there were historical figures who inspired the religious texts. It merely rejects any attempts to regard them as inspired by a real God.
So, you'll take their word that Jesus even exist even though real Atheists reject the notion that a man named Jesus who believed he was the son of God, born unto the Virgin Mary. Atheists don't believe such a person exist. Nor do they believe that Moses led the Jews out of slavery, there is no real historical evidence to suggests such an even occurred at all.
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with denying certain characters from history did or did not exist. It merely rejects any suggestion that they had anything to do with a God.
Yes, it’s true that most activist atheists will reject the actual existence of Jesus, but it is not technically covered by their atheism as atheism doesn’t dictate whether there was a man called Jesus who convinced people he was magical, only that there is no God. It’s happened in modern times with people like Charles Manson, only it worked liked a dream in the first century but ends in a bloodbath in the 20th.
If you disagree with that, then fine, but we’ll have to agree to disagree because I’m right and you’re wrong.
There was never a man named Noah who built a massive boat at the request of God. The idea is not plausible. Quit taking out ideas in order to suit yourself.
I already said that. You’re arguing my points for me now. I just said there could possibly have been a man called Noah who lived through a great flooding of the earth. Of course he didn’t build a massive boat and all that crap, I covered this a couple of posts ago. My only point about it is that atheism only denies that he did all the God business. Of course, denying God pretty much takes away everything that makes Noah an important Biblical figure, but atheism itself isn’t concerned with that, only that God doesn’t exist.
Atheism’s remit ends with the acceptance that God doesn’t exist and does not speculate about anything else.
Don't give me this, "Well a man named Noah could have existed". Atheism rejects anything to do with, or in association with God.
I have a cousin called Noah in Ireland (no joke), therefore it is perfectly possible for someone called Noah to have existed. Of course he didn’t build a giant boat at the behest of a God, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t once a bloke called Noah.
That’s really fucking simple to understand, surely?
Christianity came from Judaism, and there was plenty of religious movements going on at that time involving the rise of Christianity, so it's no surprise one could come up with a story about some guy who is the son of God. It never happened. Jesus was never crucified, because he never happened.
You’re suggesting that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are completely made up (as opposed to written in genuine belief despite being untrue, like a Charles Manson worshipper writing about his magical powers when really he was a nutjob).
That’s fine, and for the most part I agree, my only point is that ‘atheism’ doesn’t actually go on to cover this, it only states there is no God and then stops stating anything.
You can admit that Jesus exists, and still call yourself Atheist though. You have any clue as to how stupid that even sounds?
I didn’t admit he exists, I just admitted that I don’t know for certain if there was a charismatic man who ‘inspired’ people to write things about him. I have only stated that I do not believe he was the son of God, if there was such a man. I don’t believe he performed miracles or came back from the dead, but that doesn’t rule out a source material for the embellished stories of the Bible.
Keep fooling yourself, and thinking that you are Atheist. Naturally you are just a fool with the notion that you know what you're talking about, but ironically enough you don't.
You want all these other things to be covered by it, but the very definition of atheism covers nothing but the rejection of the existence of a God. Yes, you can follow on and make all sorts of assumptions from that, but they are not technically covered by atheism itself.
Atheism is a singular concept. There is no God. You have proven this yourself with your googled quotes about the definition of the words atheism