A lot of disingenuous nonsense. Atheists talk about gods because they are confronted by believers. It is telling that he says 'they talk about god' and not 'gods' because he, in his particular case, hears them refuting the most prevalent and missionary religions surrounding him: christian religions. This essentially shows that atheists are responding to challenges by the community of the prevalent religions - and not as he falsely is making it out - by some obsession with gods. Not only that, but he is extremely disingenuous as someone who seems to occupy himself with this topic, and who is thus looking at an extremely biased section. Indeed, there would not be much to talk about - or write a book against Leprechauns, as he puts it - if no one were talking about leprechauns. Secondly: one can deplore the lack of ritual in the atheist community but what else can you use but words in order to impart a finer point? What kind of criticism is that?! Wouldn't he be the first one to accuse allegories to be 'just gods in disguise' should atheists deploy them? Also, every work of art not referring to gods, such as the painting of a landscape, every stillife, portrait, every garden or the elaborate architecture of a chateau cloud be seen as 'atheist' art - as gods are absent in those. But vis-a-vis a believer in gods, this is does not argue why they shouldn't enforce a religious law on other people - only words do. Oh, which actually reminds me: the worst offenders amongst those religious who try to push their god (yes, singular) on others are not only obsessed with words, but with scriptures. They are unable to abjure absolutely atrocious moral standards despite knowing (and claiming) better. Instead they contort themselves in absolutely hiddeous argumentations to sanction babaric events in the bible.
You're vastly overcomplicating it. Atheists have not been given enough proof or evidence of a god and so we simply dont believe in it. Until you can meet the burdon of proof, only then will you convert me, although its extremely obvious given the amount of religions and claims, that you will never do this. Its a man made concept, yet many cannot see it.
The religion of the Holy Bible is about liberty, it is a moral code for individual sovereignty, whereas an Atheist enjoys the freedom of no moral concern or sovereignty.
Steinhart spends most of his time saying "you know," "right?" and other nonsense phrases. He first needs to learn how to speak coherently and meaningfully.
Is it so absurd to believe an atheist when they say I just don't believe? do you really need to project some form of religiosity onto it. I think your attempt to relate disbelief, to belief without proof, is more an urge to infect a purist concept with deluded undertones to give weight to undefendable ideas. Atheism is a call for truth and has only one doctrine, dismiss that which cannot be shown to be true.
![ATEEZ(에이티즈) - [GOLDEN HOUR : Part.2] Preview](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4PfgRPBUVo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thats alot to extrapolate from ones position on one question.
A lot of disingenuous nonsense.
Atheists talk about gods because they are confronted by believers. It is telling that he says 'they talk about god' and not 'gods' because he, in his particular case, hears them refuting the most prevalent and missionary religions surrounding him: christian religions.
This essentially shows that atheists are responding to challenges by the community of the prevalent religions - and not as he falsely is making it out - by some obsession with gods.
Not only that, but he is extremely disingenuous as someone who seems to occupy himself with this topic, and who is thus looking at an extremely biased section. Indeed, there would not be much to talk about - or write a book against Leprechauns, as he puts it - if no one were talking about leprechauns.
Secondly: one can deplore the lack of ritual in the atheist community but what else can you use but words in order to impart a finer point? What kind of criticism is that?! Wouldn't he be the first one to accuse allegories to be 'just gods in disguise' should atheists deploy them?
Also, every work of art not referring to gods, such as the painting of a landscape, every stillife, portrait, every garden or the elaborate architecture of a chateau cloud be seen as 'atheist' art - as gods are absent in those.
But vis-a-vis a believer in gods, this is does not argue why they shouldn't enforce a religious law on other people - only words do.
Oh, which actually reminds me: the worst offenders amongst those religious who try to push their god (yes, singular) on others are not only obsessed with words, but with scriptures. They are unable to abjure absolutely atrocious moral standards despite knowing (and claiming) better. Instead they contort themselves in absolutely hiddeous argumentations to sanction babaric events in the bible.
❤🎉
I wish I could like this multiple times. Was listening passively and heard him talk about atheists preoccupation with God, and well…you said it
You're vastly overcomplicating it. Atheists have not been given enough proof or evidence of a god and so we simply dont believe in it. Until you can meet the burdon of proof, only then will you convert me, although its extremely obvious given the amount of religions and claims, that you will never do this. Its a man made concept, yet many cannot see it.
The religion of the Holy Bible is about liberty, it is a moral code for individual sovereignty, whereas an Atheist enjoys the freedom of no moral concern or sovereignty.
Interesting thesis…
Yeah, it really got me thinking when he shared it on the show 🤔
Steinhart spends most of his time saying "you know," "right?" and other nonsense phrases. He first needs to learn how to speak coherently and meaningfully.
Is it so absurd to believe an atheist when they say I just don't believe? do you really need to project some form of religiosity onto it. I think your attempt to relate disbelief, to belief without proof, is more an urge to infect a purist concept with deluded undertones to give weight to undefendable ideas. Atheism is a call for truth and has only one doctrine, dismiss that which cannot be shown to be true.