HappySqurriel said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
So your whole point: Atheist belief system >>> Theist belief system. Yeah, ok, cool story
Still doesnt disprove what I said in the first place. You try to explain stuff that doesnt matter.
|
I'm not sure if you even read my post, I didn't compare the two points. Your actually incorrect their as well, Atheism isn't a belief system that is comparible to Theist belief systems. Apples and oranges.
The crux of a theist belief system is found through faith, in otherwords drawing conclusions for things in the absence of evidence, the reason it isn't comparible is because Atheists can't make the assumption nor it's opposite. Instead Atheists say and this is a quote, Unicorns could exist but for all that we know they do not and life goes on regardless of believing in them or not.
Again, I didn't compare them I keep saying this and this will be my last time saying it.
Stalin did kill theists for their beliefs so far as their beliefs were with effect on the ideology of the people he wished to subjugate. This was the same reason he killed everyone else which throws out the shock of value by saying he gunned down Theists because they believed in god. In the end Stalin became an arguable saint of the Russian orthodoxy so with that said it's clear he didn't care what ideology propped him up so long as he remained in power.
|
Isn't that a more agnostic approach?
Atheism would be more along the lines of "Because I haven't seen evidence supporting the existance of Unicorns they could not exist"
|
No the agnostic approach would be to say that "Unicorns could exist but for all we know they do not but they could."
An Atheist completes the argument in my opinion while an agnostic plays with the point. In the end all secular approaches will sound similar.
A great example would be Richard Dawkins' argument of the flying sphagetti monster, to sum his argument up it would sound similar to the unicorn argument I just gave. Richard Dawkins is also considered an Anti-Theist or New Atheist.