Sir Anthony Hopkins told the Catholic Herald more than a month ago that he "couldn’t live with" the certainty of being an atheist.

The actor, who was knighted in 1993, said: "Being an atheist must be like living in a closed cell with no windows".

Sir Anthony said: "I’d hate to live like that, wouldn’t you? We see them, mind you, on television today, many brilliant people who are professional atheists who say they know for a fact that it’s insanity to have a God or to believe in religion. Well, OK, God bless them for feeling that way and I hope they’re happy."

He added: "But I couldn’t live with that certainty, and I wonder about some of them: why are they protesting so much? How are they so sure of what is out there? And who am I to refute the beliefs of so many great philosophers and martyrs all the way down the years?"

Sir Anthony, who is most famous for playing the cannibal Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs, stars as Fr Lucas in The Rite, based on the experiences of American exorcist Fr Gary Thomas.


http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/02/11/sir-anthony-hopkins-i-couldnt-be-an-atheist/

So what?
Some "famous" guy makes a pronunciation on a subject he appears to know little about, while at the same time ignoring his own hypocrisy?
How, and why, is this news?

What do you mean.

He's the guy that played Hannibal for crying out loud what more do you want.

And?
So he played some guy in a film I wouldn't watch again and regret watching in the first place.
Does that give him special privileges?

Anthony Hopkins is against organized religion because he says certainty is to blame for a lot of terrors in the world, making a comparison with Stalin and Hitler.
But they where both secular terrors, they had nothing to do with religion.

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/2011/02/07/20110207anthony-hopkins-tells-piers-morgan-he-believes-god.html

So what?
Some "famous" guy makes a pronunciation on a subject he appears to know little about, while at the same time ignoring his own hypocrisy?


What do you mean by "hypocrisy" here?

Anthony Hopkins is against organized religion because he says certainty is to blame for a lot of terrors in the world, making a comparison with Stalin and Hitler.
But they where both secular terrors, they had nothing to do with religion.
And your point?


What do you mean by "hypocrisy" here?
It's quite simple: while railing against the limited number of atheists that state they "know for certain" god doesn't exist he not only fails to castigate those who state they do know that god exists and appears to subscribe to that stance with his words "Well, OK, God bless them".
Does this "certainty" not exist on both sides of the argument? And probably more so on the theist side (i.e. greater numbers). :shrug:

Hope he's happy. Our windows are the Hubble telescope and the electron microscope, which illuminates wonders not to be found in any fable.

It's quite simple: while railing against the limited number of atheists that state they "know for certain" god doesn't exist he not only fails to castigate those who state they do know that god exists and appears to subscribe to that stance with his words "Well, OK, God bless them".
Does this "certainty" not exist on both sides of the argument? And probably more so on the theist side (i.e. greater numbers).

Why should he castigate those who claim or imply to be certain that God exists?

Do you mean that the only way not to be a hypocrite is to say "Nobody knows anything for certain" -?

Why should he castigate those who claim or imply to be certain that God exists?
If you're criticising someone for certainty then surely both sides should be on the receiving end?
Or was he simply criticising them for being certain about something that he holds the opposite view on, equally certainly - and hence hypocritically.


Do you mean that the only way not to be a hypocrite is to say "Nobody knows anything for certain" -?
Apparently, from MoM's second link, that's what he is saying: while at the same time coming down, to a certain extent, on the pro-god side.

Well, Sir Anthony ought to come over to Sciforums!

Sir Anthony Hopkins told the Catholic Herald more than a month ago that he "couldn’t live with" the certainty of being an atheist.

Everyone's got an opinion, even movie actors.


The actor, who was knighted in 1993, said: "Being an atheist must be like living in a closed cell with no windows".

Anthony feels trapped by real life, apparently. He's getting up in years, so maybe religion offers him hope of an escape from his own mortality.

I'm sympathetic, but not impressed.

....making a comparison with Stalin and Hitler.
But they where both secular terrors, they had nothing to do with religion....


Stalin yes.. Hitler? No...

I'll bet he's being offered a job in an upcoming movie that has something to do with religion.

Oh, he's in a new movie about Gods ......

http://www.dogpile.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2 Faclk%3Fsa%3DL%26ai%3DCQYKicqWoTaCAE4edhQecre2wA7G ng54C8cSjvBy9ook3EAIgwU4oBVDUlOmu______8BYMnmsofco 8QQyAEBqgQeT9CtiSkIz1JuM4qVYSYb5gvyxhQX6B0o6XhHBjN X%26num%3D2%26sig%3DAGiWqtzALL3WoNTQ8YDyf-gfl_6GTHIppA%26adurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fpixel.quantser ve.com%2Fr%253Ba%253Dp-21polnngtq4f6%253Blabels%253D_click.campaign.Cast% 2C_click.publisher.google%2C_click.placement.Antho ny%252BHopkins*http%3A%2F%2Fthor.marvel.com%2F%253 Futm_source%253Dgoogle%2526utm_medium%253Dcpc%2526 utm_term%253Danthony%25252Bhopkins%2526utm_content %253DAnthony%252BHopkins%2526utm_campaign%253DCast&0=&1=0&4=99.158.30.216&5=99.158.30.216&9=aad555698d264708b7ba89bc3afbcb01&10=1&11=info.dogpl&13=search&14=245874&15=main-title&17=2&18=2&19=1&20=2&21=0&22=iHxrhfALD4k%3D&23=0&40=meAIHP%2F0xS4b6kal0sPkBQ%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true

Sir Anthony Hopkins told the Catholic Herald more than a month ago that he "couldn’t live with" the certainty of being an atheist.

Then he's not an atheist.


The actor, who was knighted in 1993, said: "Being an atheist must be like living in a closed cell with no windows".

Pot. Kettle.


Sir Anthony said: "I’d hate to live like that, wouldn’t you? We see them, mind you, on television today, many brilliant people who are professional atheists who say they know for a fact that it’s insanity to have a God or to believe in religion. Well, OK, God bless them for feeling that way and I hope they’re happy."

He should have ended with that.


He added: "But I couldn’t live with that certainty, and I wonder about some of them: why are they protesting so much? How are they so sure of what is out there? And who am I to refute the beliefs of so many great philosophers and martyrs all the way down the years?"

It's okay to refute people that are wrong, who didn't have information we have now. It's called progress.

I think it was the "why are they protesting so much" that gets me. It's the whole "shut up atheists" all over again. If you're secure in your belief system, then you should be okay with others giving their viewpoint. Maybe an education into why they do protest would help...there's a number of reasons.

Breaking News: "Bloke says he couldn't be an atheist... it just doesn't feel right to him!"

Wow. Shocker.

If the OP is an attempt, in any way, for us to accept Hopkins as an authority, then not only is it flawed in that regard (i.e. what is his authority above anyone else's?) but also in the classic fallacy of appeal to authority.

Atheist: I couldn't be Sir Anthony Hopkins.

Why should he castigate those who claim or imply to be certain that God exists?

Do you mean that the only way not to be a hypocrite is to say "Nobody knows anything for certain" -?

No. But people who says this are either: Lying, misled or insane. Not necessarily hypocrites.

Also - the OP is an obvious troll.

I had a lot of respect for Anthony Hopkins, but he doesn't realize something. BELIEFS KILL. Just like that abortion doctor that was killed. The Fort Hood Shooting. The persecution of gays. So it's not unbelievable that some Atheists think religion poisons people against reality and causes them to be hostile vs people of opposing views. Imagine the constitution without the separation of church and state. Atheists have a right, just as any religious group to say what they think and be as vocal as they want to about it.

Sir Anthony Hopkins...is a moron.

The constitution without separation of church and state would be... England.

The constitution without separation of church and state would be... England.

Actually if you think about it, if America or England for that matter actually followed the churches teachings to the letter it would be vastly different. Especially for Gays. The fact that Gays have rights is a clue that the church isn't heavily involved in matters of the state. I don't know about England and how they deal with certain issues, though.

Imagine if the 10 commandments and all the sins in the bible were the law of the land. That'd be interesting.

It would suck.

The New Commandments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_lM61aDyPg)

I live in a country with a state church (Lutheran). It's much more secular than the US. I don't really understand why we don't have seperation. I guess they want to keep the churches as museums. Some of them have very nice paintings and other art stuff.

How, and why, is this news?

"Catholic Herald"
That's why ;)

Its really the last 5 commandments that are secular.

Look at number TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

It would suck.

The New Commandments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_lM61aDyPg)

Very good.

The 30 Commandments From the 3 Tablets

1. Thou shalt have no strange gods or singing idols before Me, for I will be jealous of them.

2. Thou shalt not ever take the surname of thy Lord thy God [Dammit] in vain.

3. Remember thou to keep holy the Sabbath Day, and thus not even lift up a finger or do wholly the laundry.

4. Humor thy father and thy mother — never tell them where you’ve been!

5. Thou shalt not kill, except outlaws and in-laws.

6. Thou shalt not admit adultery.

7. Thou shalt not steal, except for office supplies and sundries from restaurants.

8. Thou shalt not bare falsies.

9. Covet Heavenly bodies and make love to thy neighbor.

10. Ever covet thy own ass — tie it to a tree.

11. Do one to others before they can do one to you.

12. I work in mysterious (crazy and insane) ways.

13. Don’t try to walk on water except during a very cold winter.

14. Fun is sin’s evil twin outside of the Sin-a-God.

15. You can have free will, but only if it matches My will.

16. Do not lie in court — let your lawyer do it for you!

17. Thou shalt only one spouse—this is called monotony! More than one spouse is called spice.

18. You are ever at fault for the sins of your ancestors.

19. Tell Me how darn great I am — or be tortured and burned in Hell forever.

20. I think I goofed — I made you in My own image!

21. Heaven is a wild place — you can do whatever you want!

22. You may commit horrible sins if you repent them.

23. I fully expect children not to touch something when I tell them not to.

24. I shall murder all mankind again anytime that I choose, but, not by flood, for I’ve promised not to, but by Earthquake!

25. Preferential treatment is given to those who beg, grovel, and ask for favors to get ahead of others.

26. I use My higher level intelligence to throw tantrums and have emotional outbursts!

27. We have had the last supper — no more free meals.

28. I crap on the just and the unjust alike.

29. If someone kisses your ass, then turn the other cheek.

30. I am in your heart — in your mind — and in your end.

Sir Anthony Hopkins told the Catholic Herald more than a month ago that he "couldn’t live with" the certainty of being an atheist.

And that is the first mistake. Nobody said ever an atheist has to be certain. An atheist can have as much doubt as he/she wants, but still choose to be a non believer.

So if Mr . Hopkins next time want to do philosphy, he should take a logic class first.

Oh yes, and why is his opinion more important than yours or mine???

The constitution without separation of church and state would be... England.While it is slightly annoying we have a state religion and no official separation of Church and State the UK is a lot more irreligious than the US. You might have conditions like "No religious test shall ever be needed for public office" but how many people could get elected if they were openly atheist? Not many.

I didn't even realise our deputy Prime Minister is an atheist until after our elections last year. If we'd been in the US it would have been plastered everywhere by the opposition about how he's not a 'godly man' and the insinuation would be therefore not moral (which is bullshit).

The UK might be religious on paper and the US might be secular on paper but the reverse is very much the case in practical reality.

Hope he's happy. Our windows are the Hubble telescope and the electron microscope, which illuminates wonders....


We have those windows too. :D


jan.

Anthony Hopkins couldn't be an atheist. No surprise, I've seen him 'act', he's always himself, no surprise he can't get inside someone else's mindset.

But anyway, he's stuffing a straw man. Atheists aren't 'certain', but does that mean he's indulging in Pascal's Wager, if he is uncertain?

And yet the reality is as long as things stay the same (barring any visitations) the farthest any human can go towards "Atheism" is Agnosticism. Less dost profess something they do not know.

Well ipof, "Atheism" is very much like being a fundamentalist. You can claim anyhting you want though. Hell i can make up my own religion...peeps be doin it often and of course i would be either delusional or a LIAR.

We can be reasonably sure that atheism is true. I will assume there are no Gods until evidence suggests this absurd claim has any basis in fact.

Everyone seems to be getting very angry about this and I'm not entirely sure why.

We can be reasonably sure that atheism is true. I will assume there are no Gods until evidence suggests this absurd claim has any basis in fact.

But I don't think there can be any evidence of a god, because no one can define the term. It's impossible to be anything other than an atheist.

We can be reasonably sure that atheism is true. I will assume there are no Gods until evidence suggests this absurd claim has any basis in fact.

LOL...look at what you are saying and see that atheism, by definition, is a fallacy.

Atheists are atheist due to proclamation of disbelief in relgions that are known here on Earth.

If i dont believe in a specific religion am i an atheist?

If i dont believe in every known religion on this planet am i an atheist?

Look at the words from your post that i highlighted. See this is where atheism loses credibility because everything in there points to agnosticism.

If aliens seeded the planet...we call them aliens because they are from another planet, wouldnt they be at least godlike?

If off earht inhabitants can manufacture living, organic, soft bodied beings with intellgence and perhaps even high intelligence would they be godlike?

And notice i sadi "if' which means i am not in any way stating these thing can or do occur.

Advanced aliens may appear godlike, but they would not be gods, they would be natural. If your concept of god claims to circumvent nature and the laws of physics, then it's not a reasonable proposition, it's absurd. One cannot believe in it because it can't be defined.

Everyone seems to be getting very angry about this and I'm not entirely sure why.

It's an argument from authority. Who is Hopkins that we should give his opinion any more merit than anyone else?

If i dont believe in a specific religion am i an atheist?
According to those who do believe in that religion, yes.

It's the believer who defines the atheist.

IF (there is but one "God" and you do not believe in mine);
THEN you are an atheist;
ENDIF;

Spidergoat,

You are going be the standards organised religions have set for "God" but those standards are not all there is becuase many have there own impression of what a god or the only god would be like or is. They can even be a part of organised religion but not go by every detail of that religion.


Advanced aliens may appear godlike, but they would not be gods, they would be natural.

Depends on how advanced they are and the natural part i really dont understand what you are saying there.


If your concept of god claims to circumvent nature and the laws of physics, then it's not a reasonable proposition, it's absurd. One cannot believe in it because it can't be defined.

That is a mistake because we dont know all the laws of physics although we may do know a lot but i have to say what we view as supernatural may be very natural.



According to those who do believe in that religion, yes.

It's the believer who defines the atheist.

IF (there is but one "God" and you do not believe in mine);
THEN you are an atheist;
ENDIF;

Actually atheism is the claim no gods exist at all...with no disclaimers or "if".

Spidergoat,
You are going be the standards organised religions have set for "God" but those standards are not all there is becuase many have there own impression of what a god or the only god would be like or is. They can even be a part of organised religion but not go by every detail of that religion.
I don't care. An impression is not enough to evaluate a concept. Therefore, the idea of god is meaningless.




Depends on how advanced they are and the natural part i really dont understand what you are saying there.
No it doesn't. It doesn't matter how advanced they are, they are still natural. If the supernatural is just a form of the natural, then the concept is meaningless.




That is a mistake because we dont know all the laws of physics although we may do know a lot but i have to say what we view as supernatural may be very natural.
No, by definition it is not natural, it's a way to avoid the limitations of known physics by suggesting something that does not and can not exist. Why? Because of one's desire to believe something, and that isn't valid way to achieve knowledge.

Actually atheism is the claim no gods exist at all...with no disclaimers or "if".
Epic fail... No - atheism is the lack of belief in God(s) - which may or may not include the belief that there is(are) no God(s).

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2335175&postcount=1

Epic fail... No - atheism is the lack of belief in God(s) - which may or may not include the belief that there is(are) no God(s).

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2335175&postcount=1

What????:confused:

What????:confused:
Reading comprehension is not your forte' is it...

Reading comprehension is not your forte' is it...

Top of my class in reading and spelling. In fact i won may spelling contests in spite of being dyslexic.

Top of my class in reading and spelling. In fact i won may spelling contests in spite of being dyslexic.
Then what doesn't make sense to you?

Lets see:


Epic fail... No - atheism is the lack of belief in God(s) - which may or may not include the belief that there is(are) no God(s).

That whole statement makes no sense to me.

You lack belief in god but that does (may or may not) not include that you lack belief there are no god(s). ???

Let's please not argue semantics. God is the idea that something made the universe, something which was not made, and which has personality and a plan. That's like saying the cause of the universe is something which is at once similar to a human king, and beyond investigation. This isn't an idea anyone should take seriously.

Lets see:

That whole statement makes no sense to me.

You lack belief in god but that does (may or may not) not include that you lack belief there are no god(s). ???
No.

Lack of belief in God(s) != belief there are no God(s).

One is a lack of belief, one is a belief.

In other words, recognizing subtle (but important) distinctions isn't his forte.

Epic fail... No - atheism is the lack of belief in God(s) - which may or may not include the belief that there is(are) no God(s).

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2335175&postcount=1

Not really, in modern popular use, and atheist is someone who believes there is no god or gods and nothing supernatural whatsoever. Please stop being a pedantic bore.

Not really, in modern popular use, an atheist is someone who believes there is no god or gods and nothing supernatural whatsoever. Please stop being a pedantic bore.

The problem is that most atheists (at least the ones that I know), when pressed, don't actually characterize their position that way. They will typically say things like "I don't believe in God" rather than "I believe that the existence of God is an absolute impossibility". They call themselves atheists but are in fact agnostic atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism), which is a term I have indirectly advocated for around here.

Being pedantic is important sometimes, if we want to be accurate.

It's not so important, since even the most ardent atheist doesn't say that it's an absolute impossibility.

It's not so important, since even the most ardent atheist doesn't say that it's an absolute impossibility.

There are those who believe that God is a logical impossibility.

The main problem is that theists often claim that atheism is just as much faith based as theism, because atheists are making the "claim" that there is no God. In response to this atheists are perpetually having to clarify their position, usually by stating that they aren't making any "claims" at all. It would be useful then, for any atheist who is not actually claiming that God is an impossibility, to characterize themselves as agnostic atheists, which would go some way towards solving the problem.

I think it's impossible to say whether it's possible or impossible because it's not a coherent concept. I have a high degree of certainty that there is no truth to it, and refuse to call myself an agnostic.

People have the false idea that we have a 3 way switch with Theist on one end, Atheist on the other and Agnostic in the middle. But this is not true, the middle setting is also Atheist.

And it amazes me how so many people have a hard time wrapping their little brains around this concept.

BTW - I will agree with you that the idea that the cause of the universe is something which is at once similar to a human king, and beyond investigation is ludicrous and not worth any serious thought. But that is not everyone's concept of "god".

Anthony feels trapped by real life, apparently. He's getting up in years, so maybe religion offers him hope of an escape from his own mortality.

I'm sympathetic, but not impressed.


A theist has no need to impress with theism unless he has revelations from God i.e. he's a prophet.

This was best covered by Russell in his 1947 essay Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?


Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

Theists are constantly trying to bait atheists into making positive claims so they can then portray us as being dogmatic.

People have the false idea that we have a 3 way switch with Theist on one end, Atheist on the other and Agnostic in the middle. But this is not true, the middle setting is also Atheist.

And it amazes me how so many people have a hard time wrapping their little brains around this concept.


Some wise theists know this.


BTW - I will agree with you that the idea that the cause of the universe is something which is at once similar to a human king, and beyond investigation is ludicrous and not worth any serious thought. But that is not everyone's concept of "god".


And the idea that the one who caused the universe is not at once similar to a human king and beyond investigation is not ludicrous and worth serious thought.

I had a lot of respect for Anthony Hopkins, but he doesn't realize something. BELIEFS KILL. Just like that abortion doctor that was killed. The Fort Hood Shooting. The persecution of gays. So it's not unbelievable that some Atheists think religion poisons people against reality and causes them to be hostile vs people of opposing views. Imagine the constitution without the separation of church and state. Atheists have a right, just as any religious group to say what they think and be as vocal as they want to about it.

Sir Anthony Hopkins...is a moron.


Do atheists realize that beliefs seem to kill because theists and athiests must share the world otherwise there would only be people killing?

According to those who do believe in that religion, yes.

It's the believer who defines the atheist.

IF (there is but one "God" and you do not believe in mine);
THEN you are an atheist;
ENDIF;


If you don't believe in God in the religious context you're a blasphemer religion never mentions atheism.

And the idea that the one who caused the universe is not at once similar to a human king and beyond investigation is not ludicrous and worth serious thought.
True - and we all have our own speculations.

If you don't believe in God in the religious context you're a blasphemer religion never mentions atheism.
Blasphemer, hmmm...

I thought you had to insult someone's god to earn that title.

It would suck.

The New Commandments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_lM61aDyPg)

I had that book when I was a teenager. "Steal this Book" by Abby Hoffman I think and who I met when I was 20 years old . He was on the lamb at the time hiding out in Venice beach California

True - and we all have our own speculations.


Which is why it's a good idea to stick to the ontological argument and reduce speculations.

Stalin yes.. Hitler? No...

Actually, that's incorrect.

Both Stalin and Hitler employed religious techniques, developed by Christianity. Just because they demanded a divergence from Christianity doesn't mean they didn't use religion's younger handmaiden, patriotism, as a substitute. And they both walk and quack like a duck: songs, chants, services, pilgrimages, oaths, prayers. All used and all offered to and in the name of the state leaders.

How else to control the minds of people after theistic nonsense began to die? Simple, substitute god worship for state worship.

Remove religion and nationalism** from human history and you suddenly see a world without the vast majority of its suffering.

~String

________________________________________________
**Loving one's country and culture; loving where one lives is significantly different than patriotic or nationalistic dedication to a governing body.

If you don't believe in God in the religious context you're a blasphemer religion never mentions atheism.

Which religion?

But I don't think there can be any evidence of a god, because no one can define the term. It's impossible to be anything other than an atheist.

I wish you'd joined in on the 'Honest Theist' thread, where JamesR took the part of a theist, and was supposed to be giving me his honest, personal definition. He ended up C&P'ing from the dictionary. After copping out a lot.

phlogistician,

Please don't tell lies in separate threads.

As I recall, you wimped out of the "Honest theist" thread. So either drop it and move on, or go back to that thread and we can continue there.

Which is why it's a good idea to stick to the ontological argument and reduce speculations.
Surely you jest...

Speculations are good. As long as you understand that until you have an idea that can actually be tested it is purely speculation.

phlogistician,

Please don't tell lies in separate threads.

As I recall, you wimped out of the "Honest theist" thread. So either drop it and move on, or go back to that thread and we can continue there.

I reported YOU for telling lies James. I'm done in that thread. I won't debate you any further because I won't sink to your level.

Surely you jest...

Speculations are good. As long as you understand that until you have an idea that can actually be tested it is purely speculation.


Speculations are only good when they lead to tests if speculations can't lead to testability they are not good.

If you don't believe in God in the religious context you're a blasphemer religion never mentions atheism.


Which religion?


Any theistic religion...

Blasphemer, hmmm...

I thought you had to insult someone's god to earn that title.



Important to note blasphemy is not necessarily equated with challenging God or God's revelations.

Any theistic religion...

In that case, for example, google vedabase.net for "atheist" and "atheism". Plenty of finds.

Speculations are only good when they lead to tests if speculations can't lead to testability they are not good.
And how does one test the ontological argument?

In that case, for example, google vedabase.net for "atheist" and "atheism". Plenty of finds.


A theistic religion that mentions atheism has contradicted itself.

And how does one test the ontological argument?


The OA does not require testing but adherence only.

I think it was the "why are they protesting so much" that gets me. It's the whole "shut up atheists" all over again. If you're secure in your belief system, then you should be okay with others giving their viewpoint. Maybe an education into why they do protest would help...there's a number of reasons.

Hopkins wasn't telling atheists to shut up. Nor was he advocating forcing them to shut up, or censoring them. He was merely expressing his view on atheists. Atheists have a right to "protest so much"; and Hopkins has a right to interpret that any way he wants. Then atheists have a right to say he's full of crap; then Hopkins has a right to say "no I'm not" -- and on and on.

I always find it interesting that atheists and Leftists (often categories that merge) interpret criticism as threats -- and when criticism is interpreted as a threat, then what is the logical response? Self-defense against "threats", which then leads to censorship?

The free speech reality is that people will disagree, and the disagreement may get heated; but that's life.

Actually atheism is the claim no gods exist at all...with no disclaimers or "if".

That is certainly one of the definitions of atheism, but it's not the only one. By far the majority of people who self-identify as atheists merely reject theism without making the statement that no god or gods exist. It's a simple thing really, all you have to do is say "show me the evidence" and when none is forthcoming(it never is) you reject their unsubstantiated assertion. To date I've only ever met one atheist who's a seven on the Dawkin's Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability) and I've only ever heard of one other(Christopher Hitchens). Even if a seven is the common definition, it's a definition that is grossly out of touch with reality.

@Hesperado --


I always find it interesting that atheists and Leftists (often categories that merge) interpret criticism as threats -- and when criticism is interpreted as a threat, then what is the logical response? Self-defense against "threats", which then leads to censorship?

Then where is this censorship? I've certainly not seen it.

And there's a damn good reason why atheists often overreact to criticism, it's because for more than five thousand years the "criticism" that was directed at us either took the form of a violent death or accompanied one. This is the first century in human history where atheists have, by and large, been able to truly speak out without having to fear retribution and death. You(theists) have held the stage and the reigns of power for well over two thousand years, I think that it's our turn now.

he's entitled to his opinion, no matter what you believe in, it's a testament of faith, even atheists have faith, not believing in a god takes as much faith as does the belief of god. we will not know till we die though.

I disagree. Not believing in God is perfectly aligned with every scientific observation. We will not know anything when we die because the brain is what does the knowing.

Oh almighty Atheismo, not this "not believing in god takes just as much faith as believing in god" crap again. I thought that this had already been laid to rest and we'd never have to see it's fallacious face ever again.

It doesn't take faith to reject a claim, and that's what atheism(at least, the atheism that some 99% of atheist profess) is. If I claimed that there was a fire breathing dragon in my garage but refused to, or couldn't, show you evidence of it, would it take any faith on your part to reject my claim? No. If I did present evidence then it would take faith to reject my claim(assuming, of course, that my evidence was independently verified), but until evidence is presented to support any claim no faith is needed to reject it.

Any claim that can be made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

There are many factless pronouncements about things that cannot be seen, such as God, astral planes, UFO abductions, OBE/NDE places, the workings of astrology, reincarnation, the soul, etheric forces, the tooth fairy, and so on.

1. Pronouncements without facts are dishonest. Fail.

2. A retreat to saying they could be and might be has the same problem, for this, too, is just a declaration. Fail.

3. Since they are not shown to have any manifestation at all by science or even to have any effect anywhere, some believers may further retreat to saying that they act invisibly; yet, this is still just a pronouncement without substance. Fail.

4. Science does not care about all these untestable hypothesis and so neither do people who require anything to to go on. Failure due to irrelevancy.

5. Believers then say to believe by reason of faith, yet ‘faith’ is defined as being about unknowns, so there is no reason or of anything known “by faith”. Fail.

6. Believers have nothing to show and yet keep on repeating the claim. This still goes nowhere. Fail.

7. All are free to have their wishes and fantasies, but do not tell us that they are truth and fact. Fail.

8. Believers cannot claim that God is GOd and thus able to be undetectable by having super power, be outside of time, and the like because God has not been proven in the first place and so these conclusion cannot be used, for they are just more factless statements.

9. It ends here, but anything that can be said against these claims is just a yet another detriment to the factless fiat.

10. Something like a God that is actually supposed to be everywhere doing everything is disproved by finding anything super, extra, or beyond anywhere. Failure to show beyond the natural.

11. And even any old kind of God is disproved because not even any complexity even as minor as an atom or a molecule cannot be First, much less some totally ultimate complex entity such as God. Fail.

12, There cannot even be a creation point for the basis of all because for it to be the all it must be eternal. Thus is had no creation and so their is no Creator. Fail.

13. There is nothing to make any of the basic things of and things cannot infinitely come from lesser things, so, it is ‘nothing’ that must be the basis of all, and nothing is certainly the opposite of God. We even see a balance of nothing in the basic nature via the opposites of pair production and the negative well of gravity’s potential energy canceling the positive kinetic energy everywhere. Failed again.

14. And there’s no 50/50 chance of God reasoning because God and not God are not at all equi-probable, the possibility of God even being zero from the disproofs. Fail.

15. Preaching then goes nowhere and is frowned upon at science forums because no basis can be shown. Fail.

16. Since there is nothing for believers to push forward with, then can then only push against science and reality, and this only clutters up the forums and the world because they run up and against the facts of science and reality.

17. Their last resort is to get angry and hurl insults, and this only shows the poverty of their position all the more. Fail.

18. In large movements wars are caused, even against other religions because their non guaranteed concepts stated as truth need to be protected against anything contrary, lest they lose credibility to themselves by the mere existence of alternatives. Anything against their concept of right is labeled ‘evil. Fail.

19. They are unreachable and unteachable and so they must get ignored and bypassed, and if doing violence then most likely they will reach a bloody end. Fail.

20. They try to overcome the separation of church and state and thus can affect everyone. Fail.

21. Their stuff doesn’t submit to being falsified nor can it be even used in science formations leading to anything useful, and this is a further demarcation of science from pseudo-science, not that they even have any science in the first place. Fail.

22. The proof is in the pudding and they have none to show and so there is nothing there to be even concerned with at all. Baking failure.

Total failure.

Well, Sir Anthony ought to come over to Sciforums!

Yes please!

That is certainly one of the definitions of atheism, but it's not the only one. By far the majority of people who self-identify as atheists merely reject theism without making the statement that no god or gods exist.

How could somebody "reject theism" while simultaneously continuing to believe that "God" exists? That looks like a contradiction. If somebody believes that 'God' exists, then he or she would seem to be a theist simply by definition.


And there's a damn good reason why atheists often overreact to criticism, it's because for more than five thousand years the "criticism" that was directed at us either took the form of a violent death or accompanied one. This is the first century in human history where atheists have, by and large, been able to truly speak out without having to fear retribution and death. You(theists) have held the stage and the reigns of power for well over two thousand years, I think that it's our turn now.

Assholism is assholism. It doesn't suddenly smell like a rose when it's an atheist asshole.

he's entitled to his opinion, no matter what you believe in

I agree. Anthony Hopkins can believe anything that he likes and express his opinion about it. I strongly support his right to do that. That doesn't mean that I need to agree with what he believes. In this case, I don't.


it's a testament of faith

Maybe, I'm not sure what it is. We also need to remember that while 'faith' is taken to be a special virtue within the Christian tradition, it might not appear quite so virtuous outside that tradition.


even atheists have faith

Sure, everybody does. But that doesn't mean that all objects of faith are equally well-justified.


not believing in a god takes as much faith as does the belief of god.

No, I don't agree with that.

Probably a lot depends on how we are interpreting the word 'God'. 'A transcendent power'? It probably doesn't take very much faith to believe in something as vague as that. 'Yahweh from the Bible' or 'Allah from the Quran'? Far more specific claims that require a lot more faith. The more conceptual details we pile on, the more faith it takes to believe that all those details are true.


we will not know till we die though.

Or not.

@Yazata --


How could somebody "reject theism" while simultaneously continuing to believe that "God" exists? That looks like a contradiction.

That's a false dichotomy, there are more than just those two options. Remaining neutral or open to evidence are two of those options you omitted.


Assholism is assholism. It doesn't suddenly smell like a rose when it's an atheist asshole.

So when theists had not only the ability to speak up but the power to rule uncontested for thousands of years they roasted us alive and chopped us to bits. Now that we finally have the ability to speak up we're suddenly the assholes? Explain to me, exactly please, how this works, because I just don't get it. All the so-called "militant" atheists have done is write a few books and give speeches. They haven't called for anyone's rights to be taken away or argued that they are inherently inferior because of their beliefs(even Hitchens doesn't go that far) and they've never called for anyone's death. How, exactly, are we being assholes?

I've seen it said Belief kills. Untrue. People who wish to kill find a reason then twist it to fit what they want to do. Religon is one of the easiest to do so with. And I am sorry to say but Atheism is a religon just as much as christianity or Hindusim. It's a set of beliefs.

And I am sorry to say but Atheism is a religon just as much as christianity or Hindusim.
Be as sorry as you like. You're also incorrect to say it.


It's a set of beliefs.
Wrong. It is, by definition, a lack of belief in god(s).
It's that simple.

@LoRaan --

Would you please point me to the set of beliefs that all atheists have in common then, because that's what would make it a religion.

he's entitled to his opinion, no matter what you believe in, it's a testament of faith, even atheists have faith, not believing in a god takes as much faith as does the belief of god. we will not know till we die though.Does it take a lot of faith on your part to not believe in Xenu? Zeus? Jesus? FSM?

Oh almighty Atheismo, not this "not believing in god takes just as much faith as believing in god" crap again. I thought that this had already been laid to rest and we'd never have to see it's fallacious face ever again.

It doesn't take faith to reject a claim, and that's what atheism(at least, the atheism that some 99% of atheist profess) is. If I claimed that there was a fire breathing dragon in my garage but refused to, or couldn't, show you evidence of it, would it take any faith on your part to reject my claim? No. If I did present evidence then it would take faith to reject my claim(assuming, of course, that my evidence was independently verified), but until evidence is presented to support any claim no faith is needed to reject it.

Any claim that can be made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Actually in the realms of Science both Theism and Atheism is nothing more than a hypothesis or Belief.

We simply do not have enough evidence to confirm atheism. First of all have you analyzed the entire universe? Hell have you even amalyzed your entire continent? Do you know absolutely everything about every being in the unvierse, let alone your own town? If you can't answer yes to every question then you claims that you have founf no evidence of a God is pointless. It's like standing in Death Valley and commenting that you find no evidence of penguins being real.

Second while there is no hard evidence of a God,, of any type. We do have anecdoctal evidence. Now again in Science unless disproven by physical evidence anecdoctal evidence does lend some credibility. Of course it is in itself not a proof of anything. So again it like claiming you know all about Penguins from watching Happy Feet.

In the end Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion. Anybody who claims otherwise better be equipped to prove they know everything about everything.

@LoRaan --


First of all have you analyzed the entire universe? Hell have you even amalyzed your entire continent? Do you know absolutely everything about every being in the unvierse, let alone your own town? If you can't answer yes to every question then you claims that you have founf no evidence of a God is pointless. It's like standing in Death Valley and commenting that you find no evidence of penguins being real.

The bullshit, it floweth like a river.

I don't need to know everything to know that something is wrong. When someone posits an omnipotent being I don't even need to look for it in order to reject it because omnipotence is an impossible trait, such a being simply can not exist in a logical universe(or even touching a logical universe). Further claims can be rejected because they are either self-refuting(a benevolent god who created evil) or are inconsistent with the world that we observe around us(every single theistic god claim can be put here).

Beyond even that though, if someone tells me that god exists and then offers up no evidence, then it is not a belief requiring faith to reject their claim. They have not fulfilled their burden of proof, and neither has the theist who uses "evidence" which has already been falsified(the efficacy of prayer) or adequately explained by science through naturalistic means(near death experiences). Again, any claim which can be made without evidence can be rejected without evidence. No faith or belief required.


We do have anecdoctal evidence.

No we don't. Every single bit of anecdotal evidence for a god not only can be countered by anecdotal evidence against god(leaving us right where we started) but they all have naturalistic explanations which are infinitely more parsimonious. Even our naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and the origin of the universe are more parsimonious than "god did it". For starters we don't have to explain god as well.

But if you think that you've got some evidence, anecdote or otherwise, that I can't give you a naturalistic explanation for then be my guest and bring them up. But I highly doubt that you do, I've been in this game a long time and it's very unlikely that you have anything I haven't seen and rebutted before. Still, I love a challenge.


Now again in Science unless disproven by physical evidence anecdoctal evidence does lend some credibility. Of course it is in itself not a proof of anything.

You know, for someone who talks about science a lot, on a science site no less, you sure don't know a lot about science.

This might be true in medical science maybe, but even that is iffy. However, in no realm of science will testimony be enough to establish an existence claim or even lend it credence, that's just not the way that science works. For an existence claim to be established nothing less than observation(direct or indirect) will suffice. All else is a fart in the wind.


Of course it is in itself not a proof of anything.

Especially not when we already have naturalistic explanations for the phenomena in question.


In the end Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion.

For some it is, though they are an almost nonexistent minority(I've only ever met one). For most atheists though this is pure tripe on a bike. It takes no belief to reject a claim for which there is no evidence, it takes pure faith to accept one. Besides, you didn't actually answer my question, what are the common beliefs that atheists share that makes them a religion. Because even if you count all atheists as having a belief in no gods(which is a gross miscalculation and mischaracterization on your part) then that's still one belief, not enough for it to be classed as a religion.

Case in point, buddhists are, by and large, atheists. They don't believe in any gods at all. There are atheists who believe that no gods exist, in spirits, ghosts, ESP, homeopathy, anti-vax BS, and all sorts of woo-woo. Literally the only trait that all atheists share is that they don't accept the claims of theism. A rare few merely take it a bit farther than that.


Anybody who claims otherwise better be equipped to prove they know everything about everything.

Again, the BS is flowing like a river here. Like I said, you don't need to know everything to know that something is wrong, applying a little logic is usually enough to figure it out. However, you do seem to be laboring under the delusion that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, and this is just incorrect. Absence of evidence is usually not evidence of absence, unless the evidence is supposed to be there, as is the case with theistic god claims.

Actually in the realms of Science both Theism and Atheism is nothing more than a hypothesis or Belief.
Wrong again.
One more time: atheism is a lack of belief.


We simply do not have enough evidence to confirm atheism.
Atheism doesn't need "confirming". It's a LACK of belief.


In the end Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion.
Wrong. What belief is involved in atheism?


Anybody who claims otherwise better be equipped to prove they know everything about everything.
As opposed to, say, you? Who appears to know nothing about anything...

Atheism doesn't need "confirming". It's a LACK of belief.

What do you desire, when you lie awake at 3AM, again, if not confirmation?

What do you desire, when you lie awake at 3AM, again, if not confirmation?
Sleep, mostly. :p
Confirmation of what?
Certainly not "confirmation" of my lack of belief in god.

The confirmation that there is no God.

The confirmation that there is no God.
Why should I want confirmation of that?
I don't exactly believe that in the first place.

Then what it is that keeps you awake, desiring sleep?

Life.

And your atheism isn't helping you with that?

It doesn't pay bills.
But, then again, I doubt that theism, in and of itself, does either.

Then what use is atheism, if it doesn't help you sleep at night and doesn't pay the bills?

(Leaving aside the possible uses of theism or lack thereof.)

Then what use is atheism, if it doesn't help you sleep at night and doesn't pay the bills?

(Leaving aside the possible uses of theism or lack thereof.)
Of what use is any stance that doesn't do the above?
Should we confine ourselves to simply earning money and not thinking about anything else?
Are you telling me that theists never lay awake at night wondering how they're going to make ends meet?

I've seen it said Belief kills. Untrue. People who wish to kill find a reason then twist it to fit what they want to do.

I agree with that pretty emphatically. History verifies it.


Religon is one of the easiest to do so with.

Yes. Religion typically symbolizes a culture's highest values. So this-worldly leaders and would-be leaders have often tried to justify their own agendas by appealing to religious principles. More recently in the secular West, wars have been justified by appeals to economic justice, human rights and things like that. Maybe it's less overtly religious than it used to be, but it's still a similar appeal to higher principle.


And I am sorry to say but Atheism is a religon just as much as christianity or Hindusim. It's a set of beliefs.

As you've witnessed, atheists HATE it when people say that.

I don't entirely agree with it myself. Part of the problem here is that just like the word 'God', the word 'religion' doesn't really have a clear and distinct definition. Different people mean different things when they use the word. It's kind of a family-resemblance deal.

But yeah, there is something to be said for your idea. Atheism does share some characteristics in common with religion. It's obviously a closely-related family of points-of-view about religious matters. It often makes ontological assertions about the reality of the transcendental objects of religious faith. And like fundamentalist religion, militant atheism is often accompanied by evangelism, by over-wrought emotional passion, by scientistic faith, by self-righteousness and by willful-ignorance about the religious traditions that they attack and dismiss.

Atheists are half way there, lol. That is if we can go so far as to say that the universe and the natural laws are invariant. I can see some common ground between the invariance of religions and nature. Atheists are half way there if the steps are 1) the God of any given religion, 2) Atheism, and 3) God is nature.

Of what use is any stance that doesn't do the above?

Not much.



Should we confine ourselves to simply earning money and not thinking about anything else?

Oh, but earning money involves so much more than just earning money!


Mark Nepo (a fancy new-age poet) says:


He quotes Mechthild of Magdeburg, a medieval mystic: ‘A fish cannot drown in water. A bird does not fall in air. Each creature God made must live in its own true nature.’

And he offers these observations of his own: ‘Part of the blessing and challenge of being human is that we must discover our own true God-given nature. This is not some noble, abstract quest but an inner necessity. For only by living in our own element can we thrive without anxiety. And since human beings are the only life form that can drown and still go to work, the only species that can fall from the sky and still fold laundry, it is imperative that we find that vital element that brings us alive … the true vitality that waits beneath all occupations for us to tap into, if we can discover what we love. If you feel energy and excitement and a sense that life is happening for the first time, you are probably near your God-given nature. Joy in what we do is not an added feature; it is a sign of deep health.’
http://threeintentions.com/2010/10/08/mark-nepo-in-o-magazine/

I disagree with him on that bolded part, even if it is a popular opinion.

I believe that human beings who have "drowned" cannot still go to work, nor can they "fall from the sky" and still fold laundry.
I don't believe it is possible for humans to become zombies - and go on living. Perhaps they can do that for a while, but not for long.



Are you telling me that theists never lay awake at night wondering how they're going to make ends meet?

I suppose they might.

I suppose they might.
Then laying awake at night would seem to be nothing to do theism/ atheism.

LoRaan:

And I am sorry to say but Atheism is a religon just as much as christianity or Hindusim. It's a set of beliefs.


In the end Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion.


@LoRaan --
Would you please point me to the set of beliefs that all atheists have in common then, because that's what would make it a religion.
I also would like to know: what beliefs are involved in atheism? I'm particularly intrigued to know what set of beliefs are involved.

Then laying awake at night would seem to be nothing to do theism/ atheism.

It has to do with something.

It has to do with something.
Or lots of somethings...
Did I pay that bill?
Have I got enough to pay the bill that's coming next week?
I've left the washing out, is it going to rain?
Should I have really said that to his face?
Why doesn't he/ she like me?
Where did I put that book?
If I cube the result will that give me a better match?
Etc.

Or lots of somethings...
Did I pay that bill?
Have I got enough to pay the bill that's coming next week?
I've left the washing out, is it going to rain?
Should I have really said that to his face?
Why doesn't he/ she like me?
Where did I put that book?
If I cube the result will that give me a better match?
Etc.

Sure. And one's life philosophy should be such that it can accomodate for any and all stress, without negative consequences.
Lying awake at night is a sign that one doesn't yet have such a philosophy.

Sure. And one's life philosophy should be such that it can accomodate for any and all stress, without negative consequences.
Lying awake at night is a sign that one doesn't yet have such a philosophy.
Hmm, unless one's philosophy is "it's bed time, bugger everything I'm not going to think about anything BUT sleep" (and one has the additional capability to stick to that), I'm not entirely convinced.
Life just throws up afterthoughts, usually at the least opportune time.

Life just throws up afterthoughts, usually at the least opportune time.

Which is why it behooves to have a philosophy (and a practice) to deal with them.

Actually in the realms of Science both Theism and Atheism is nothing more than a hypothesis or Belief.

I don't think that atheism and theism have a whole lot to do with science. (That despite the fact that atheism loves to wrap itself in science's flag.) Both are making assertions about the existence or non-existence of purported transcendental beings. And those transcendent beings are outside the scope of natural science, simply by definition.


We simply do not have enough evidence to confirm atheism.

If 'atheism' means a flat categorical denial of the existence of "God" (whatever that word means), I pretty much agree with you.

Of course, it's possible to be an atheist in a weaker sense. I would include myself in that category.

I'm basically an agnostic in epistemological terms. In other words, I don't have knowledge of transcendental things. My knowledge is restricted to this natural universe that I find myself in. I'll even go further, and make the stronger statement that I don't believe that any other human being has access to transcendental knowledge either.

So, having said that, I don't believe in any of the deities of the world's religions. I don't believe in Yahweh, in Allah, or in Vishnu.

And the fact that I don't believe in X (fill in the variable with the deity of your choice) just kind of implies that I'm going to proceed in life on the assumption that X doesn't exist. So unlike the Sciforums atheists who are trying very hard to finesse this point, I'll happily say that for people who aren't totally ignorant of the question, their lack of belief in X does seem to naturally imply that they also have some degree of disbelief in X's ontological existence.

And I'll agree with you that there's inevitably going to be a strong element of faith in that. (Using 'faith' as a synonym for 'trust' or 'confidence'.) It's a working assumption we might say, a hypothesis, and it might conceivably be mistaken.

Nevertheless, I think that it's a rational position to take. Whatever transcendent realities (if any) stand beyond this physical universe and may arguably explain and account for it, I think that I can say with quite a bit of confidence that they aren't likely to correspond very closely to the Yahweh of Hebrew mythology, the Allah of the Quran, the Krishna of the Gita, or any of the cosmic Buddhas and Boddhisattvas. I'm not convinced that these kind of mythological figures have any existent referrents at all. So in other words, I can say that I don't believe that any of these figures literally exist, ontologically speaking, as anything other than figures from mythology.

But obviously I don't absolutely know that for a fact. There's no way that I could.

I've seen it said Belief kills. Untrue. People who wish to kill find a reason then twist it to fit what they want to do. Religon is one of the easiest to do so with.
Sometimes. Perhaps there is a feud in some village in Africa, and one party accuses the other of witchcraft. It wasn't superstitious belief that caused the violence. However, you could point to other religiously motivated crimes such as the Jim Jones cult suicide and say that the belief was directly responsible for the mass death. Certainly, it was religion that divided Jews from all the Europeans that every so often tried to kill them.


And I am sorry to say but Atheism is a religon just as much as christianity or Hindusim. It's a set of beliefs.
But having a set of beliefs is not what defines a religion. Scientific belief is based on empirical evidence. Religious belief is based on faith.


Actually in the realms of Science both Theism and Atheism is nothing more than a hypothesis or Belief.

We simply do not have enough evidence to confirm atheism. First of all have you analyzed the entire universe? Hell have you even amalyzed your entire continent? Do you know absolutely everything about every being in the unvierse, let alone your own town? If you can't answer yes to every question then you claims that you have founf no evidence of a God is pointless. It's like standing in Death Valley and commenting that you find no evidence of penguins being real.

Second while there is no hard evidence of a God,, of any type. We do have anecdoctal evidence. Now again in Science unless disproven by physical evidence anecdoctal evidence does lend some credibility. Of course it is in itself not a proof of anything. So again it like claiming you know all about Penguins from watching Happy Feet.

In the end Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion. Anybody who claims otherwise better be equipped to prove they know everything about everything.

I agree with you that atheists cannot disprove every conception of God, but atheism is the default position, since it is aligned with scientific naturalism. With the failure of theists to show reliable evidence, atheism prevails. You are incorrect that anecdotal evidence becomes more compelling if it cannot be disproved. There are an infinite number of premises that cannot be disproved.

This is basically an elaborate "god of the gaps" argument, which says that we cannot know anything if we don't know everything. Obviously we do know many things without having to know everything, that's how science works, by building on previous knowledge.

We simply do not have enough evidence to confirm atheism.Someone is an atheist if they answer no to the question 'Do you believe in a god or gods?'. That is NOT the same as answering yes to 'Do you believe there are no gods or god'.

If there is insufficient evidence to believe something exists then you disbelieve the claim by default. It is the rational position, else you'd believe EVERYTHING. Bigfoot, Santa, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, pixies who steal my socks, everything.

Thus it takes less belief to be an atheist if the atheistic stance you take is the lack of a belief in a deity, rather than actively believing there is no deity.


First of all have you analyzed the entire universe? Hell have you even amalyzed your entire continent? Do you know absolutely everything about every being in the unvierse, let alone your own town? If you can't answer yes to every question then you claims that you have founf no evidence of a God is pointless. It's like standing in Death Valley and commenting that you find no evidence of penguins being real. None of that needs to be done to justifiably say "There is insufficient evidence to believe a god or gods exist therefore I don't believe such claims".


Second while there is no hard evidence of a GodThen you admit that atheism, the lack of believing the claims of god or gods, is a justified position. End of story.


We do have anecdoctal evidence.Funny how we have anecdotal evidence of contradictory gods. Thus such evidence can be dismissed.


In the end Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion. Anybody who claims otherwise better be equipped to prove they know everything about everything.No, anyone who claims otherwise should just know what atheism means. You aren't such a person.

Some of you guys have “if’s”, “maybe’s”, and “could be’s”, but these are just unsubstantiated pronouncements, too, for nothing shows that they could be.

And this is even compounding the situation after the unshown declarations of ‘God’, an obviously unethical stance of stating an unknown as truth and fact.

Then it is thought that God and His realm must be non-visible and undetectable, another unfounded position, for this has not been shown to be possible.

Then there is the testimony of human mammals via there internal states uninformed by any externals on every superstition known to human kind, many of them contradictory. These can never show anything concrete. The states of being are internally blind to the neurological states beneath.

Then we still have “maybe this” and “maybe that”, which are still doomed since there is still no showing that they can even actually be a “maybe”.

So, then, take by reason of “faith’? ‘Faith’ means an ‘unknown’ and so there can be no faith ‘by reason’. You fell for the trick of a word shortcut not actually having any substance.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other explanations for what goes on that even involve what is actually known of existence. Imagine that! No, you don’t have to imagine it, as it can be shown.

Of what use is any stance that doesn't do the above?
Should we confine ourselves to simply earning money and not thinking about anything else?
Are you telling me that theists never lay awake at night wondering how they're going to make ends meet?Not to mention what so wonderful about sleeping extremely sound at night safe in the knowledge Xenu is keeping the Intergalactic Federation of blah blah, Blah, at bay?

:)

As believers have no substance produced, any discussion is empty.

Someone is an atheist if they answer no to the question 'Do you believe in a god or gods?'. That is NOT the same as answering yes to 'Do you believe there are no gods or god'.

If there is insufficient evidence to believe something exists then you disbelieve the claim by default. It is the rational position, else you'd believe EVERYTHING. Bigfoot, Santa, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, pixies who steal my socks, everything.

Thus it takes less belief to be an atheist if the atheistic stance you take is the lack of a belief in a deity, rather than actively believing there is no deity.

We are not talking about Soft atheism here. The people who may not believe in God(s) but do not preach that that is is an impossibility.

Hard Atheism is when they outright say "God(s) is(are) an impossibility." And unfortunately this seems to be the majority of atheists speaking on the subject.


None of that needs to be done to justifiably say "There is insufficient evidence to believe a god or gods exist therefore I don't believe such claims".

Then you admit that atheism, the lack of believing the claims of god or gods, is a justified position. End of story.

Again soft stheism is a justifiable position as in all actuallity the moment any scientific proof came forward that proved them wrong they would universally and convert. Meanwhile the hardliners will have invested so much energy into their Belief system that they would not be able to adapt. Failure to belief is much difference than refusal to believe.



Funny how we have anecdotal evidence of contradictory gods. Thus such evidence can be dismissed.

Wel is A=B sure. But A (Theism) far outstrips B (Atheism) in the anecdoctal evidence scale. And since neither side has any quantifiable proof there can be no dismissal of the possiblity of Diefic figures.



No, anyone who claims otherwise should just know what atheism means. You aren't such a person.

Oh, I understand Atheism. it a religion like any other with True Believers (Hard Atheists) and loose adherants (Soft Atheists)

Superstitions cannot be shown, so they can be dismissed as being of no concern.

We are not talking about Soft atheism here.
Then you should have been more clear.


Hard Atheism is when they outright say "God(s) is(are) an impossibility." And unfortunately this seems to be the majority of atheists speaking on the subject.
Guess what. You're incorrect.


Meanwhile the hardliners will have invested so much energy into their Belief system that they would not be able to adapt.
I suspect, strongly, that you're also wrong on this.
And, one more time: what "belief system"?


Wel is A=B sure. But A (Theism) far outstrips B (Atheism) in the anecdoctal evidence scale.
Bull.


And since neither side has any quantifiable proof there can be no dismissal of the possiblity of Diefic figures.
Don't be ridiculous. How about weight of probability? Lack of evidence where there should be evidence?


Oh, I understand Atheism. it a religion like any other with True Believers (Hard Atheists) and loose adherants (Soft Atheists)
Still making stupid claims? That's two in two sentences.

Someone is an atheist if they answer no to the question 'Do you believe in a god or gods?'. That is NOT the same as answering yes to 'Do you believe there are no gods or god'.

How could somebody say that they don't believe in a god or gods without simultaneously implying that they do believe that god or gods don't exist? Presumably, the thing that they are telling us that they don't believe in is the existence of these divinities, right?

My impression is that atheists often try to insist that a distinction exists there because they believe that if they aren't making any positive assertions, then they don't need to produce any justification for their atheism. I'm skeptical about whether that move succeeds.


If there is insufficient evidence to believe something exists then you disbelieve the claim by default.

Yes, I think that an epistemological agnosticism (lack of knowledge/information about religious divinities) is in many (but not all) cases accompanied by a weak form of atheism about the ontological existence of the religious divinities. That's certainly how it is with me.

(The exceptions might arise among religious mystics who believe very strongly in the reality of their deity, but feel that the deity lies beyond cognitive knowing. These people are ontological theists and epistemological agnostics.)


Thus it takes less belief to be an atheist if the atheistic stance you take is the lack of a belief in a deity, rather than actively believing there is no deity.

That's a doubtful move in my opinion.

I would interpret both strong and weak atheism as implying a denial that "God" exists. That's what 'atheism' IS as far as I'm concerned. Atheism is an ontological position about the existence of religious deities.

To me, a 'strong atheist' flatly insists that he or she knows that "God" doesn't exist. While a 'weak atheist' treats the non-existence of "God" as more of a hypothesis, a working-assumption that could conceivably turn out to be wrong. But both strong and weak atheism are equally opinions about the existence, or more accurately the non-existence, of something. Atheism is an ontological view.

Agnosticism is an epistemological position about our knowledge, and oftentimes about the possibility of our knowing, about something. It comes in different varities as well.

In the past, I've heard atheists loudly insisting that all babies are born atheists. I don't believe that, the reason being that babies don't deny the reality of any religious entities. What babies can be better described as is a particular kind of agnostic, an agnostic-by-ignorance, you might say. They don't have any opinions about the existence of gods at all, because they have never heard of gods. They know nothing about it.

A 'weak agnostic' is somebody who does know about the idea of the divine, and doesn't believe that he or she has knowledge about it. A 'strong agnostic' is somebody who doesn't think that any human being currently has, or perhaps ever can have knowledge of the divine.

I lean towards a stronger agnosticism, myself. And towards weak (hypothetical) atheism as I've defined it.

they don't believe in is the existence of these divinities, right?

What divinities? They have no substance to be thought upon.

Then you should have been more clear.

Well most people could tell of who i referring to by inference...Well those people who can read above a sixth grade level. I will dumb it down for everyone else from now on.



Guess what. You're incorrect.

The majority of Atheists i have seen posting/speaking/writing on a topic are the hard line "There is no God" as opposed to the "I just don't believe in God." So I would be writing from that point of view and unfortunately for you I would be correct.


I suspect, strongly, that you're also wrong on this.

Actually I know the soft Atheists would convert as with proof they would not have to believe as much as they would know.


And, one more time: what "belief system"?

Mankind is a proud creature and honestly i have never come across a more stubborn animal than the Hardline Atheist. You can get some of the most Theist people in the world to admit that God might not exist in a way that we could understand or even at all. Yet an Atheist says that there is no possibility of god, when they haven't collected any more evidence than the common man has. For the hardliners it is a belief system and when a Belief is proven wrong it tends to destroy people.


Bull.

Can you really say there is as much Atheism anecdoctal evidence as there is of all the forms of religious history?


Don't be ridiculous. How about weight of probability? Lack of evidence where there should be evidence?

Weight of probability means nothing. The weight of probablity was that life would never exist on this planet, but it does. As for evidence, we have found evidence of things that match events in the Bible like the Flood.


Still making stupid claims? That's two in two sentences.

Hey just becuase you want to exist in denial, doesn't mean others won't see you for what you are.

The Hardline atheism is a BELIEF. It can only be a belief as they have no way of proving that God is an Impossibility. They have not searched the universe, hell most of them have barely left their little hometown. Soft atheists have analyzed what they have seen and heard and basically said I don't buy into the God thing, but hey if you show me proof I'll admit you're right.

This is no different that EVRY other religion, your just tradeing belief in a Deity for Belief in No Deity


And before you get on me that you cannot prove a negative. Hardliner are claiming that God is impossible whish is a positive cliam. They are claiming that in the entire universe there is no being that can fit the criteria of God, when they have not even been off this planet.

Nothing concrete about any God can be shown. Do you wish to discuss vacant words as if they actually represent something?

And before you get on me that you cannot prove a negative.

Universal negatives can be disproved by their own self-contradiction, and that is quite a bonus, and hardly needed, since the negative has no substance in the first place.

And before you get on me that you cannot prove a negative. Hardliner are claiming that God is impossible whish is a positive cliam. They are claiming that in the entire universe there is no being that can fit the criteria of God, when they have not even been off this planet.

First of all, I really don't think you are meaning to suggest that God is an entity that exists inside of the universe, as if the universe itself is ontologically primary. If you do mean to suggest it, then interesting discussions with other theists are going to be on the cards for you.

Secondly, you'd probably mistake me for a 'hardline' atheist in some of the discussions that take place in here, and that would be partly because the incessant proselytizing and evangelism has a polarizing effect. In other words, a sure-fire way to manufacture what would appear to be a 'hardline atheist' is to keep preaching at him until he finally becomes combative. I've actually seen this happen myself from your side of the fence.

The truth is, however, that no matter how much of a hard time I might give theists when it's clear that they want to engage, I have never said (and likely will never say) that the existence of God is an impossibility. I have always instead characterized myself as an agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism). Even most of the other atheists here who I would consider to be more 'hardline' than myself stop short of making the claim that God is an absolute impossibility. So it seems, then, that the atheists here (at least) choose to characterize themselves in a manner that is a little different from what you are trying to project onto them.

Finally, there is also the matter of evaluating different ideas about who and what God is, which means that it is possible for someone to be theistic, agnostic or atheistic to varying degrees based on exactly what we're talking about. There is the God of classical theism, open theism, pantheism, deism (to name a few) and there is even the idea of God as a completely unknown quantity, which could be any combination of any number of other ideas, or absolutely none of them.

How could somebody say that they don't believe in a god or gods without simultaneously implying that they do believe that god or gods don't exist?

The dichotomy

I believe that God doesn't exist.
I don't believe in God.

was discussed here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106976).

First of all, I really don't think you are meaning to suggest that God is an entity that exists inside of the universe, as if the universe itself is ontologically primary. If you do mean to suggest it, then interesting discussions with other theists are going to be on the cards for you.

I'm afraid it is sooner going to be a cold day in hell before we see theists of various denominations talk about such things ...

I wonder why they refuse to discuss this, at least at this forum.

I wonder why they refuse to discuss this, at least at this forum.

In a similar vein, although you can easily find atheists on these forums engaged in enthusiastic debate about the particulars of what some theists would controversially call the 'atheist religion' (science) you almost never find theists arguing amongst themselves about the particulars of their own beliefs, even when they differ to the point of being mutually exclusive (especially in cases where one or more of them believe that certain very specific teachings must be accepted and adhered to). When you read between the lines you can be certain that such a situation does indeed exist, and can therefore conclude that many theists are simply staying quiet on such matters for the sake of presenting a unified front to strengthen their collective position. They have a tenuous but functional temporary alliance, and if they somehow prevailed against all the unbelievers, they'd go back to arguing about who is and isn't going to what eternal destination amongst themselves, as they have done throughout the ages.

I have been making an effort to bring about such inter-theistic discussions: I posted provoking topics, sent out invitations per PM - and nothing, or only very little!

I have been making an effort to bring about such inter-theistic discussions: I posted provoking topics, sent out invitations per PM - and nothing, or only very little!

Just goes to show how right I am, not that I deserve any particular praise for being so since it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

Well most people could tell of who i referring to by inference...Well those people who can read above a sixth grade level. I will dumb it down for everyone else from now on.
Fail.


The majority of Atheists i have seen posting/speaking/writing on a topic are the hard line "There is no God" as opposed to the "I just don't believe in God."
That's an assumption.


So I would be writing from that point of view and unfortunately for you I would be correct.
Wrong.


Actually I know the soft Atheists would convert as with proof they would not have to believe as much as they would know.
As would, probably, the majority of hard atheists: since they would have the evidence required.


Mankind is a proud creature and honestly i have never come across a more stubborn animal than the Hardline Atheist.
How about hardline theists?


Yet an Atheist says that there is no possibility of god, when they haven't collected any more evidence than the common man has.
Wrong. And you haven't answered the question.


Can you really say there is as much Atheism anecdoctal evidence as there is of all the forms of religious history?
What "anecdotal evidence" is required to NOT believe?


Weight of probability means nothing. The weight of probablity was that life would never exist on this planet, but it does.
I see you fail to understand what "weight of probability" means.


As for evidence, we have found evidence of things that match events in the Bible like the Flood.
No we haven't.


Hey just becuase you want to exist in denial, doesn't mean others won't see you for what you are.
And another error.


The Hardline atheism is a BELIEF.
Correct.


This is no different that EVRY other religion, your just tradeing belief in a Deity for Belief in No Deity
False.


And before you get on me that you cannot prove a negative. Hardliner are claiming that God is impossible whish is a positive cliam. They are claiming that in the entire universe there is no being that can fit the criteria of God, when they have not even been off this planet.
And a piece of specious rubbish to finish with.

Fail.[/quite]

You're right i only dumbed it down to 9th grade.

[QUOTE]That's an assumption.

Well, when I read them posting "God in an Impossibility" or paraphrasing the above I don;t need to assume.


Wrong.

Yes you are.


As would, probably, the majority of hard atheists: since they would have the evidence required.

Actually sonsidering how hard Atheists would be stammering "But that is impossible..." over and over again while on their sedative drip we will never know.


How about hardline theists?

Well since the universe is infinite and ever expanding there will never actually come a day when we can say we investigated every possibility. Try to stick with possibilities here .


Wrong. And you haven't answered the question.

I know you are. Show me a valid question.


What "anecdotal evidence" is required to NOT believe?

To not believe, not very much to make a blanket claim that God is Impossible would have at least as much anecdoctal evidence as the sum of the Bible, the torah, The Koran, the Kama Sutraand all the written and oral traditions of religon out there.


I see you fail to understand what "weight of probability" means.

Actually i understand probabaility better than you think and using it in a argument like this is pointless.


No we haven't.

Really so finding out that the Mesopotmain river valley completely flooded at roughly the same time as the Noah inference in the Bible didn't happen. It was big news and had many people wondering some things.

Analysis of the mid atlantic rift also had a huge jump in material depostied at around the times the jews left Egypt. BTW this jump would have cuased a tidal wave that would have sucked the water out of some parts of the Red and Reed Seas giving hte appearance of parting the waters.


And another error.

If you can't correct it it must be you who is in error,



Correct.

Thank you


False.

And here is where you are again wrong.

Hardline atheism encourages prostelyzation and intolerance of other beliefs.


And a piece of specious rubbish to finish with.

Funny how you call that specious rubbish when it is the truth. Hardliners maintian Deities are an impossibility. Most of thgem have never even travels outside their own country let alone to other planets of stars. They are making a claim based off a Belief.

Well, when I read them posting "God in an Impossibility" or paraphrasing the above I don;t need to assume.
Fail again.
You're assuming that most atheists here are hard line.


Well since the universe is infinite and ever expanding there will never actually come a day when we can say we investigated every possibility. Try to stick with possibilities here .
Another fail. Try to address the point.


I know you are. Show me a valid question.
Try this (again): to what set of beliefs do atheists subscribe?


To not believe, not very much to make a blanket claim that God is Impossible would have at least as much anecdoctal evidence as the sum of the Bible, the torah, The Koran, the Kama Sutraand all the written and oral traditions of religon out there.
Also wrong. To NOT believe requires NO anecdotal evidence.


Actually i understand probabaility better than you think and using it in a argument like this is pointless.
Claiming it is "pointless" illustrates perfectly that you don't understand it.


Really so finding out that the Mesopotmain river valley completely flooded at roughly the same time as the Noah inference in the Bible didn't happen. It was big news and had many people wondering some things.
The biblical flood was supposedly over the entire world. A Mesopotamian valley is not, surprisingly, the whole world.


Analysis of the mid atlantic rift also had a huge jump in material depostied at around the times the jews left Egypt. BTW this jump would have cuased a tidal wave that would have sucked the water out of some parts of the Red and Reed Seas giving hte appearance of parting the waters.
So what?


If you can't correct it it must be you who is in error,
I see. A failure of understanding on YOUR part somehow constitutes an error on my part. How droll.


And here is where you are again wrong.
Hardline atheism encourages prostelyzation and intolerance of other beliefs.
And another failure to address the point being made.


Funny how you call that specious rubbish when it is the truth. Hardliners maintian Deities are an impossibility. Most of thgem have never even travels outside their own country let alone to other planets of stars. They are making a claim based off a Belief.
Which is not the point in question.

Try this (again): to what set of beliefs do atheists subscribe?

For example:

Happiness ought to be found without reference to God or religion.
Hardship in life should be overcome without reference to God or religion.
(for the "I do not believe in God / God does not exist" kind of atheists)

Happiness ought to be found in relation to the pursuit of science and art.
Hardship in life should be overcome with the help of science and art.
(for the "I lack belief in God" kind of atheists as well as for the above mentioned)

Fail again.
You're assuming that most atheists here are hard line.

No i specifically said a majority of the ones who post. preach. publish about Atheism seem to be hardline. Never said anything about just here.


Another fail. Try to address the point.

It's not a fail. I merely pointed out that in all reality Hardline Theists would NEVER comes to the same problem as for them there would always be that next horizon.



Try this (again): to what set of beliefs do atheists subscribe?

The belief that there is no Higher power at all


Also wrong. To NOT believe requires NO anecdotal evidence.

But to counter AQnecdoctal evidence you ned actual evidence (you have none) or anecdoctal evidence (you have none). In a real formal debate the Theist side would at least have anecdoctal evidence. Atheists got squat.



Claiming it is "pointless" illustrates perfectly that you don't understand it.

No it is pointless becuase many seemingly impossible things happen every damn day. Saying someing is Impossible becuase it is improbable is just stupid.



The biblical flood was supposedly over the entire world. A Mesopotamian valley is not, surprisingly, the whole world.

It was the known world to the people at the time. Plus you have to allow for distortion of the tale by time it spent as a oral history.


So what?

Obviously you are not connecting dots. A god who created the universe would certainly work within the boundaries of said universe to do things.
I see. A failure of understanding on YOUR part somehow constitutes an error on my part. How droll.



And another failure to address the point being made.

Those are two traits common is all religions, to one degree or another.


Which is not the point in question.

Actually that is the freaking point.

Animals do not have religion. Religion is a purely human behavior since humans are the only species that do this. As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals). This is often in conflict with those who attempt higher forms of human behavior that are characteristic of the purely human.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

Animals do not have religion. Religion is a purely human behavior since humans are the only species that do this. As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals). This is often in conflict with those who attempt higher forms of human behavior that are characteristic of the purely human.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

Catholic paedophiles and Hindu wife-beaters are examples of "purely human" people?

No i specifically said a majority of the ones who post. preach. publish about Atheism seem to be hardline.
Links please. I think you'll find that's not true. Possibly the most vociferous are hard line, but that's about it.


It's not a fail. I merely pointed out that in all reality Hardline Theists would NEVER comes to the same problem as for them there would always be that next horizon.
It is a fail. You're assuming again.


The belief that there is no Higher power at all
Oh dear. Re-read the question. Which SET of beliefs (per your claim). And, as shown, and acknowledged by you, this is not an "atheist belief".


But to counter AQnecdoctal evidence you ned actual evidence
No you don't. You simply have to not believe the eanecdotes.


In a real formal debate the Theist side would at least have anecdoctal evidence.
Two errors: belief isn;'t decided by formal debate. Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.


Atheists got squat.
Atheists don't need "squat". They simply do not believe.


No it is pointless becuase many seemingly impossible things happen every damn day.
Really? Such as?


Saying someing is Impossible becuase it is improbable is just stupid.
Oh dear. We're back, again, to lack of evidence where there should be some.


It was the known world to the people at the time.
To THOSE people. Only.


Plus you have to allow for distortion of the tale by time it spent as a oral history.
Ah, right. So now you're claiming that a local flood was, through oral repetition expanded to a world-wide flood. How much else of the bible has been expanded in a similar manner?


Obviously you are not connecting dots. A god who created the universe would certainly work within the boundaries of said universe to do things.
Nothing to do with your original statement or my comment.


I see. A failure of understanding on YOUR part somehow constitutes an error on my part. How droll.
Oops, wrong.


Those are two traits common is all religions, to one degree or another.
Also wrong.


Actually that is the freaking point.
No it's not. On the one hand you're claiming that we can't dismiss god as a possibility because we haven't explored the entire universe while, at the same time, also claiming that he's had a direct influence (on numerous occasions) right here on Earth. You can't have it both ways.

As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.
Pure nonsense.


This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals).
Really?: please outline for us some "animal behaviour" as evinced by atheists.


Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.
Bull. Shit.

Try this (again): to what set of beliefs do atheists subscribe?

Atheists typically seem to believe that the word 'God' is meaningful and that the word refers to a single object of discussion that might or might not exist. Whatever meaning and cognitive content that they give the word is usually derived from whatever theistic religious tradition is influential where they are. So theists and atheists are going to share some basic assumptions. If they didn't, then they wouldn't come into conflict.

Atheists are pretty much defined by the belief that this 'God' doesn't actually exist. They may differ quite a bit among themselves as to how strongly they weight that belief, from total certainty on one end to a hypothesis that's more akin to a guess on the other.

Atheists often express a great deal of confidence in the belief that no convincing evidence exists for the existence of this God thing. That often involves more detailed beliefs about miracles, about religious experience, about scriptural authority and so on.

Atheists often try to associate themselves with science, in the belief that science somehow supports and justifies their religious position.

And there's the thing that's often most evident to people who come into contact with atheists -- the fact that a great many atheists seem to be angry. Atheists don't just placidly lack belief in the existence of God. They viscerally dislike "religion". Hostility is an emotion more than it's a belief, but if anyone pokes it with a stick, more beliefs come boiling out -- religion is intellectually stupid, it's atavistic, it holds back progress, it brainwashes people, it's intolerant, it's responsible for wars, persecutions and violence.

Atheists often try to associate themselves with science, in the belief that science somehow supports and justifies their religious position.

There is also the kind of atheists who associate themselves with art and philosophy.
(Also prone to being emotional about religion.)
But we don't see many of that kind here.

Animals do not have religion. Religion is a purely human behavior since humans are the only species that do this. As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals). This is often in conflict with those who attempt higher forms of human behavior that are characteristic of the purely human.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

This actually made me laugh, in spite of the fact that it was clearly designed to be as insulting as possible.

I doubt Wellwisher will respond. He is too human for that! :rolleyes:

Links please. I think you'll find that's not true. Possibly the most vociferous are hard line, but that's about it.

Why should I I was just making a fucking observation from a POV. I owe you nothing becuase you have proivded nothing/



It is a fail. You're assuming again.

SO you are telling me the universe is not infinite and ever expanding?



No you don't. You simply have to not believe the eanecdotes.

As a person but as objective scientist you have to look at them an see what you can glean if cioing for a scientific argument.


Two errors: belief isn;'t decided by formal debate. Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

I was talking about in a scientific proof or debate. Learn to read.


Atheists don't need "squat". They simply do not believe.

Which means squat scientifically


Really? Such as?

How many Royal FLushes are dealt in poker. There are many many more including miracle survivals, lucky flips of the coin, and so on


Oh dear. We're back, again, to lack of evidence where there should be some.


No I just stated a fact. If it is improbably it means it could happen. Stating an improbable is impossible is stupid.


To THOSE people. Only.

Amazing that we know it now huh.


Ah, right. So now you're claiming that a local flood was, through oral repetition expanded to a world-wide flood. How much else of the bible has been expanded in a similar manner?


Local flood we are talking the Mesospaotamian river valley or pretty much the center of civilization for that part of the world at that time.


Nothing to do with your original statement or my comment.

Actually to someone with a brain...it is.



Oops, wrong.


I love how you can just say that and provide no proof.


Also wrong.

And again


No it's not. On the one hand you're claiming that we can't dismiss god as a possibility because we haven't explored the entire universe while, at the same time, also claiming that he's had a direct influence (on numerous occasions) right here on Earth. You can't have it both ways.

Actually yeah i can becuase while a creator had effect on Earth and mankind in many way the majority of these were over 2000 years ago.

Now unless you are gonna provide some proof of which you claim i say just go with your rectal cranial inversion.

Actually yeah i can becuase while a creator had effect on Earth and mankind in many way the majority of these were over 2000 years ago.

Really? So who is it that makes the Sun shine, right now?
Who is it that makes it possible that the food in your intestines gets digested, as we speak?

Why should I I was just making a fucking observation from a POV. I owe you nothing becuase you have proivded nothing/
Much like yourself. Fail again.


SO you are telling me the universe is not infinite and ever expanding?
Oh dear, missed the point.


As a person but as objective scientist you have to look at them an see what you can glean if cioing for a scientific argument.
Anecdotes do not enter into scientific argument.


I was talking about in a scientific proof or debate. Learn to read.
Got it. When you wrote "In a real formal debate" you were talking about science. :rolleyes: Science is not decided by debate. Learn something.


Which means squat scientifically
Belief is not scientific. Still flailing I see.


How many Royal FLushes are dealt in poker. There are many many more including miracle survivals, lucky flips of the coin, and so on
So what?


No I just stated a fact. If it is improbably it means it could happen. Stating an improbable is impossible is stupid.
Wrong again. Please, go look "weight of probabilities".


Amazing that we know it now huh.
What?


Local flood we are talking the Mesospaotamian river valley or pretty much the center of civilization for that part of the world at that time.
So? A local flood is not a world-wide flood.


Actually to someone with a brain...it is.
Also wrong.


Actually yeah i can becuase while a creator had effect on Earth and mankind in many way the majority of these were over 2000 years ago.
Also false. Hearsay claims these things happened. Folk tales, which you have already admitted get inflated over time.


Now unless you are gonna provide some proof of which you claim i say just go with your rectal cranial inversion.
On the contrary, the original claims were yours. And I'm still waiting for some support.
I do note however that you are becoming more and more insulting.
Feeling trapped? Backed into a corner and having to resort to invective because you can't support your claims?

Really? So who is it that makes the Sun shine, right now?
Who is it that makes it possible that the food in your intestines gets digested, as we speak?

So mankind have never created something that can self sustain on a limited basis. Turn a modern engine on and it will run utill it runs out of fuel or suffer some catstrophe. If we can create that, then just think what an omnipotent being could do.

Damn could you try to come up with a hard one.

So mankind have never created something that can self sustain on a limited basis. Turn a modern engine on and it will run utill it runs out of fuel or suffer some catstrophe. If we can create that, then just think what an omnipotent being could do.

Damn could you try to come up with a hard one.

This above is a deist stance.

Why are you presenting a deist stance?

Catholic paedophiles and Hindu wife-beaters are examples of "purely human" people?

Humans with atheistic qualities.

jan.

Humans with atheistic qualities.

And people like I are what? Animals who seem human?

And people like I are what? Animals who seem human?

How does this question tie in to my point?

jan.

Animals do not have religion. Religion is a purely human behavior since humans are the only species that do this. As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals). This is often in conflict with those who attempt higher forms of human behavior that are characteristic of the purely human.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

Animals do not own bicycles, therefore people who don't own bicycles are somewhere between human and animal.

So? A local flood is not a world-wide flood.


You are very dogmatic in your belief in the English translation of Genesis, that must take a lot of faith!

LoRaan I believe is referring to the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis uses the words kol erets for the area flooded. This combination of words is largely to refer to local land or local people not "entirety of the world" and the translation of the English Bible seems to imply. Many feel that the flood story in Genesis refers to a local flood.

You are very dogmatic in your belief in the English translation of Genesis, that must take a lot of faith!
And a failure to read:

The biblical flood was supposedly over the entire world.
Note the word "supposedly"?

LoRaan I believe is referring to the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis uses the words kol erets for the area flooded.[/QUOTE]
Sure thing:

It was the known world to the people at the time. Plus you have to allow for distortion of the tale by time it spent as a oral history.

Note the word "supposedly"?



Your attempt was to dismiss out of hand LoRann's assertion that there was evidence to support the Genesis flood by stating that the flood was "supposedly" worldwide.

My observation was to point out that the Hebrew the passage was written in probably doesn't say "worldwide" and therefore your dismissal was invalid was met with...you showing that you understood what I was saying. Thanks for the clarification.

You are very dogmatic in your belief in the English translation of Genesis, that must take a lot of faith!

LoRaan I believe is referring to the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis uses the words kol erets for the area flooded. This combination of words is largely to refer to local land or local people not "entirety of the world" and the translation of the English Bible seems to imply. Many feel that the flood story in Genesis refers to a local flood.

That's much more reasonable, but then it contradicts the whole idea of God wiping the world clean and Noah saving two of every (land) animal.

My observation was to point out that the Hebrew the passage was written in probably doesn't say "worldwide" and therefore your dismissal was invalid was met with...you showing that you understood what I was saying. Thanks for the clarification.
Oops, another failure.
Have you tried reading LoRaan's comments at all?
I understood what your point was, LoRaan didn't understand my point.

LoRaan I believe is referring to the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis uses the words kol erets for the area flooded. This combination of words is largely to refer to local land or local people not "entirety of the world" and the translation of the English Bible seems to imply. Many feel that the flood story in Genesis refers to a local flood.

If we venture into such text-critical issues, then the whole of Christianity can be dismissed as merely a local, only temporarily relevant religious doctrine!

some of you are equating faith with religion, religion isn't the creator of faith, faith is the creation of religion. Me personally, I have faith in mankind.

If we venture into such text-critical issues, then the whole of Christianity can be dismissed as merely a local, only temporarily relevant religious doctrine!

The point is before we get to english the bible was translated through several generations of Aramaic (and if you think a language stays dormant just look at english). Greek, Latin, german, then english. Many of these languages do not have direct translations. Or the trnaslations are spotty. The greeks did not have the specific fruit mention in the bible for the Tree of Knowledge, so it became the Apple. one of their most beloved fruits. Then take inot accountt hat scribes were rare, and not all of them used the same rules of spelling words. It is not like today where we have so much refence material to work with. The first Bible was a collection of men coppying ancient texts, transcribing oral traditons, and wrtint the events of the day. Most of them knew how to write but it was not their profession at all.

That's much more reasonable, but then it contradicts the whole idea of God wiping the world clean and Noah saving two of every (land) animal.

Well God was only trying to wipe out the chidren of the outsiders and the sinners. Like with Soddom and Gammorrah it might have been a localized thing.

BTW for S&G if you read it God is not so much pissed about the gays as he is the rapes and the murders. The only other place Godf even mentions a problem with gyas is mosiac law and when Christ came he claimed that he was the fulfillment of that law, and even the Sabbath was not absolute anymore.

The point is before we get to english the bible was translated through several generations of Aramaic (and if you think a language stays dormant just look at english). Greek, Latin, german, then english. Many of these languages do not have direct translations. Or the trnaslations are spotty. The greeks did not have the specific fruit mention in the bible for the Tree of Knowledge, so it became the Apple. one of their most beloved fruits. Then take inot accountt hat scribes were rare, and not all of them used the same rules of spelling words. It is not like today where we have so much refence material to work with. The first Bible was a collection of men coppying ancient texts, transcribing oral traditons, and wrtint the events of the day. Most of them knew how to write but it was not their profession at all.

How does this address my concern that if we venture into such text-critical issues, then the whole of Christianity can be dismissed as merely a local, only temporarily relevant religious doctrine?