You said yourself in another post that you wouldn't want to give up your imaginary friend. When we get to heaven I'll buy you a beer.
The first two Crusades were defensive wars and meet even the strictest interpretation of the Just War Doctrine
I agree that there is a very definitive distinction between athesits and agnostics. The definitions you provided were no doubt succinct and accurate and I agree that each is an appropriate definition. I guess what I am, apparently very uneloquently, trying to say is that to acknowledge disbelief of something requires that there is first belief of it by another party. In other words without believers could we have disbelievers? This is more philosophical in nature but the discussion ultimately begs the question, right? Isn't Atheism only a reaction to believers since without them it couldn't exist?
Just as religious thoughts and beliefs do not need to be delivered with arrogance and a condescending tone. What you're telling us about are not atheists, but assholes. There are plenty of assholes on both sides of the fence, brother. So you don't just take liberties in interpretation of religious texts, but Webster's as well? Which doesn't change what I said at all. Careful. You sound like an atheist.
I'm not so sure that disbelief in something requires that others believe in it. I don't believe in the Great Pumpkin and I don't believe anybody else does either. Its too bad @martin isn't around to post on this thread
This interpretation about the crusades has been in circulation for a while, particularly on conservative websites, and is boosted by Rick Santorum. It's nonsense of course. Historical revisionism at its worst.
Sure it does. If no one ever believes in something then how would anyone else know to disbelieve it? You use the Great Pumpkin analogy and I am sure you were joking, at least to some degree, but in all seriousness, you would never think to NOT believe in the Great Pumpkin unless someone else declared their belief in it. You would never consider it an object for belief or non-belief and, therefore, completely disregard the Great Pumpkin altogether. Same goes for our little God discussion here.....if not a single solitary person ever believed, what would disbelievers be disbelieving about? Atheists state that they do not believe in God. Their disbelief is rooted in the fact that someone else first believed and now they disagree. This requires no original thought or foresight by the Atheist, only their unwillingness to go along with the myths created about God in our society. No one ever says, "I don't believe in......" until someone else first states that they DO believe. I agree that Martin, at the very least, would have a colorful perspective to share.
