NationStates Jolt Archive

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

Extremism is stigmatised with violence on a grand scale, you're not exactly going to get Atheist suicide bombers, so I would say that they're not "extremists" in the media's (violent) sense, but they are extremists in a more literal, ideological sense.

Still, I voted 'no', as I assume you mean violent extremists.

That's like asking "Are Christian's extremists?" Some are some arent.

A big difference is that most atheists dont preach death to others, unlike alot of fundie religionists.

Some are, some aren't.

While not necessarily "extremists", I count hardcore explicit atheists as "fundamentalists" the same as literal-Bible Christians.

Its like calling all theists extreemists

Its silly you are streaching the term "Extreme" to encompas anyone

That's like asking "Are Christian's extremists?" Some are some arent.

A big difference is that most atheists dont preach death to others, unlike alot of fundie religionists.
Actually, atheists do preach. But we just say that we don't believe in God, we don't usually get into a heated debate over it. At least I don't.

Extremism is stigmatised with violence on a grand scale, you're not exactly going to get Atheist suicide bombers, so I would say that they're not "extremists" in the media's (violent) sense, but they are extremists in a more literal, ideological sense.

Still, I voted 'no', as I assume you mean violent extremists.
I meant on an ideological scale.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being.

No it's not. It's a lack of belief in God or gods. You don't have to have an "absolute, uncomprising" position that there is no God, in order to not believe in a God.

From your ignorance stems this topic.

Some are, some aren't.

While not necessarily "extremists", I count hardcore explicit atheists as "fundamentalists" the same as literal-Bible Christians.
Most atheists are hardcore explicit.

Actually, atheists do preach. But we just say that we don't believe in God, we don't usually get into a heated debate over it. At least I don't.
I said preach death, not just preach.

No it's not. It's a lack of belief in God or gods. You don't have to have an "absolute, uncomprising" position that there is no God, in order to not believe in a God.

From your ignorance stems this topic.
Well, actually, you do need an absolute uncompromising position because that's what the whole ideology is based on. You can't just say that "oh, well, there may be a god..." because that would be like a fundamentalist believer saying "well, maybe I've been wrong all this time, and there is no god."

I said preach death, not just preach.
Ok.

Most atheists are hardcore explicit.

Nah, some are. I wouldn't say most.

Nah, some are. I wouldn't say most.
Quite a few are. More often than not, they are.

Well, actually, you do need an absolute uncompromising position because that's what the whole ideology is based on. You can't just say that "oh, well, there may be a god..." because that would be like a fundamentalist believer saying "well, maybe I've been wrong all this time, and there is no god."

No, you don't. There MAY be a God, but I don't believe in any. So I am living proof that an atheist doesn't need an absolutist fundamental fanaticism.

There is not "ideology" of atheism.

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labeling the others as agnostics or simply non-theists.

There is no single ideology that all atheists share; as such, atheism is not a religion. To put it simply, some atheists use the phrase "Saying atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair color".

In order to be altheist, you need to believe for certain that there is no God. If there is a wavering, then you're merely agnostic.

EDIT: Yes, I use the narrow definition.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

In general: the angle from which they approach their conviction. Atheists tend to require evidence to be convinced, while believers will assume something to be true regardless of, or even contrary to, the evidence presented.
However, since noone has sofar actually managed to provide any evidence of the existence or worthyness of worship of God or gods I can not be certain if atheists would *truly* be swayed by it. Maybe some will explain the booming voice from the sky away as thunder for instance.

No, you don't. There MAY be a God, but I don't believe in any. So I am living proof that an atheist doesn't need an absolutist fundamental fanaticism.

There is not "ideology" of atheism.
You're an implicit atheist then.

The ideology of atheism is that there is no higher being. Simple as that.

Quite a few are. More often than not, they are.

Really? I find that that most atheists are simply atheists because they have found no evidence to convince them that there is a god. They usually remain as implicit atheists. To be an explicit atheist requires a positive assertion that there is no god.

In order to be altheist, you need to believe for certain that there is no God. If there is a wavering, then you're merely agnostic.

EDIT: Yes, I use the narrow definition.

No, another common misconception is that that agnosticism is like atheism, but for flip-floppers. Untrue.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent.

Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist).

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

Well, that is just silly. I would guess that most people who say, when asked, that they are atheists, don't think of it as an "absolute, uncompromising position", they just don't believe in God.

Would you say that all people who say they don't believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy are extremists?

Certainly, like anything else, there may be some extreme tooth fairy deniers and some atheists who are extremist, but the blanket statement that "atheists are extremists" is absurd.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

Meh. This is bullshit.

You misdefine atheism in an attempt to create a tautology.

Who says athiesm is not negotiable? Most athiests are willing to consider evidence of the existence of God. We just haven't seen any such evidence so far and our reason and experience tells us there is no such being. If our experience changed, we might be willing to change. Having a strong opinion based on available evidence does not make one's position "not negotiable."

There are copious and self-evident differences between fundamentalists and athiests. What you mean to ask is not whether they have "any difference" but whether they have any similarity.

As you admit, athiests disagree with fundamentalists in regards to "what they practice and believe in." How do you define an athiest beyond by what he or she "practice[s] and believe[s] in?

You rather crudely categorize fundamentalist as extremists. You rather crudely assume that extremism is bad. Then you crudely compare athiests to fundamentalists in order to imply that athiesm is bad.

This is shoddy thinking.

Really? I find that that most atheists are simply atheists because they have found no evidence to convince them that there is a god. They usually remain as implicit atheists. To be an explicit atheist requires a positive assertion that there is no god.
I see.

In order to be altheist, you need to believe for certain that there is no God. If there is a wavering, then you're merely agnostic.

EDIT: Yes, I use the narrow definition.

it isnt really 'narrow' it is the correct definition, there MAY be a go, maybe not, that is agnosticism

yes, most athiests are extremists, as most theists are (or should be)

In general: the angle from which they approach their conviction. Atheists tend to require evidence to be convinced, while believers will assume something to be true regardless of, or even contrary to, the evidence presented.
However, since noone has sofar actually managed to provide any evidence of the existence or worthyness of worship of God or gods I can not be certain if atheists would *truly* be swayed by it. Maybe some will explain the booming voice from the sky away as thunder for instance.

Excellent point.

Meh. This is bullshit.

You misdefine atheism in an attempt to create a tautology.

Who says athiesm is not negotiable? Most athiests are willing to consider evidence of the existence of God. We just haven't seen any such evidence so far and our reason and experience tells us there is no such being. If our experience changed, we might be willing to change. Having a strong opinion based on available evidence does not make one's position "not negotiable."

There are copious and self-evident differences between fundamentalists and athiests. What you mean to ask is not whether they have "any difference" but whether they have any similarity.

As you admit, athiests disagree with fundamentalists in regards to "what they practice and believe in." How do you define an athiest beyond by what he or she "practice[s] and believe[s] in?

You rather crudely categorize fundamentalist as extremists. You rather crudely assume that extremism is bad. Then you crudely compare athiests to fundamentalists in order to imply that athiesm is bad.

This is shoddy thinking.
I'm an atheist myself. I wasn't trying to make it seem bad, I just wanted to know other people's opinions.
Based on the available facts, are you willing to consider the existence of a higher being?
As for what we practice, we just don't observe religious holidays in any way other than not going to work and spending time with our family.

It is not fundamentalist to not believe in god, that is a personal opinion.

It's like saying someone is a fundamentalist for believing the sky is blue.

Based on the available facts, are you willing to consider the existence of a higher being?

Of course. I have considered it and, based on the available facts, ruled it out.

That I have come to a conclusion does not mean I did not deliberate.

You're an implicit atheist then.

The ideology of atheism is that there is no higher being. Simple as that.
there is not ideology of atheism that one must subscribe to in order to be an atheist

one is an atheist if one doesnt believe in god or gods. how one comes to that lack of belief varies from person to person

but atheism is no more extreme in its lack of belief in "god" than hinduism is extreme in its lack of belief in the christian "god".

if one kinda believed in god or thought their might be a god or whatever might qualify as not extreme, one would be an agnostic.

I'd say quite a few atheists ARE somewhat extreme. They call regious people idiots, and start frequent threads about Flying Speghetti Monsters. I'll admit I've never heard death threats from one, but I've never heard one from any sane Christian either (Pat Robertson isn't sane).

It is not fundamentalist to not believe in god, that is a personal opinion.

It's like saying someone is a fundamentalist for believing the sky is blue.
but how about denying the mere possibility of his existence?

there is not ideology of atheism that one must subscribe to in order to be an atheist

one is an atheist if one doesnt believe in god or gods. how one comes to that lack of belief varies from person to person

but atheism is no more extreme in its lack of belief in "god" than hinduism is extreme in its lack of belief in the christian "god".

if one kinda believed in god or thought their might be a god or whatever might qualify as not extreme, one would be an agnostic.
Atheism is the denial of the existence of a higher being. You could have all kinds of beliefs when it comes to politics, but still be an atheist.

I'd say quite a few atheists ARE somewhat extreme. They call regious people idiots, and start frequent threads about Flying Speghetti Monsters. I'll admit I've never heard death threats from one, but I've never heard one from any sane Christian either (Pat Robertson isn't sane).

Those are just the friendly local atheist Generalites. :p

I'd say quite a few atheists ARE somewhat extreme. They call regious people idiots, and start frequent threads about Flying Speghetti Monsters.
Guilty as charged:p

Label me what you want, I'm an extremist and proud of it!

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

Because we, atheists, believe this because of NO evidence to disprove us, whereas fundamentalists believe what they believe because of NO evidence to back them up...

I'd say quite a few atheists ARE somewhat extreme. They call regious people idiots, and start frequent threads about Flying Speghetti Monsters. I'll admit I've never heard death threats from one, but I've never heard one from any sane Christian either (Pat Robertson isn't sane).

Honesty ≠ extremism.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

Well, when you make up your own arbitrary definition for what atheism is like you've done here, I guess it would seem like extremism.

The fact of the matter is, atheism is not defined as "the absolute, uncompromising position that there is no higher being."

Webster's defines it as this:

"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

According to the first definition, any person or group that has disbelief (a lack of belief) in a deity is an atheist. This includes agnostics, various buddhists, etc. Now, many agnostics and atheists don't like that definition, but there it is. There are many groups that don't hold a positive belief in a deity and fit the dictionary definition for atheist. Many of these same groups also don't fit the definition you created.

I'm not going to get heavily involved in this discussion, so I'll just state how I understand athiesm as compared to agnosticism and theism and leave it here to be attacked in whatever fashion.

Athiesm, like theism, requires a belief in a thing which there is absolutely no physical evidence for or against. Arguments which call for the idea that it is rational not to believe in God because he hasn't revealed himself is negated by the theists idea of the "invisible hand of God" put forth by a multitude of different religions. Pursuing either way towards belief or non-belief is a fantastic waste of time and energy. Athiests who merely trust there is no God but remain open to the possibility of there actually being one are Agnostic to my way of thinking. Belief is a strong word and Agnostic is a stronger word than many think.

Clarence Darrow:
I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.

Scopes trial, Dayton, Tennessee, July 13, 1925

Atheism is the denial of the existence of a higher being. You could have all kinds of beliefs when it comes to politics, but still be an atheist.
uhhuh

I'd say quite a few atheists ARE somewhat extreme. They call regious people idiots, and start frequent threads about Flying Speghetti Monsters. I'll admit I've never heard death threats from one, but I've never heard one from any sane Christian either (Pat Robertson isn't sane).

While I agree that the atheists who go around abusing theists are morons I fail to see what's so offensive about the FSM.

When all theists understand the point we're trying get across by talking about ridiculous entities like the FSM then there will be no need to continue talking about them.

Well, when you make up your own arbitrary definition for what atheism is like you've done here, I guess it would seem like extremism.

The fact of the matter is, atheism is not defined as "the absolute, uncompromising position that there is no higher being."

Webster's defines it as this:

"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

According to the first definition, any person or group that has disbelief (a lack of belief) in a deity is an atheist. This includes agnostics, various buddhists, etc. Now, many agnostics and atheists don't like that definition, but there it is. There are many groups that don't hold a positive belief in a deity and fit the dictionary definition for atheist. Many of these same groups also don't fit the definition you created.
Alright then.

In general: the angle from which they approach their conviction. Atheists tend to require evidence to be convinced, while believers will assume something to be true regardless of, or even contrary to, the evidence presented.
However, since noone has sofar actually managed to provide any evidence of the existence or worthyness of worship of God or gods I can not be certain if atheists would *truly* be swayed by it. Maybe some will explain the booming voice from the sky away as thunder for instance.

To a point that's true.

Athesits require concrete proof of the existance of god/gods as they have no faith.

what religoins do is point to ancetodal evidence, or use their own myths to enforce their beleifs "Jaysus loves me becasue the bible tells me so".

A booming voice in the sky, or a burning bush, seen/heard by one person is not proof, you have to belive the teller of the tale.

An entire army on flying horsed coming out of the heavens caught on video tape by multiple reputable sources that have conflicting relgions would be concreate proof.

They may disagree what the event signifies, but nobody would be disputing the fact the event happened.

While I agree that the atheists who go around abusing theists are morons I fail to see what's so offensive about the FSM.

When all theists understand the point we're trying get across by talking about ridiculous entities like the FSM then we will stop talking about them.

^^ Correcting awful grammar.

To a point that's true.

Athesits require concrete proof of the existance of god/gods as they have no faith.

what religoins do is point to ancetodal evidence, or use their own myths to enforce their beleifs "Jaysus loves me becasue the bible tells me so".

A booming voice in the sky, or a burning bush, seen/heard by one person is not proof, you have to belive the teller of the tale.

An entire army on flying horsed coming out of the heavens caught on video tape by multiple reputable sources that have conflicting relgions would be concreate proof.

They may disagree what the event signifies, but nobody would be disputing the fact the event happened.
nah, they'd just say that the videotape was faked.

I'm an atheist myself. I wasn't trying to make it seem bad, I just wanted to know other people's opinions.
Based on the available facts, are you willing to consider the existence of a higher being?
As for what we practice, we just don't observe religious holidays in any way other than not going to work and spending time with our family.


That is kind of the point, isn't it? Atheists are the ones who look at the available facts and find none that prove the existence of a god.

So, really, atheists are the only ones (based on that criteria) who have it right.

And I don't think NOT observing religious holidays counts as a "practice". You seem to keep trying to equate atheism with religion, when they are not the same. They don't even appear on the same spectrum. Atheism is not the opposite of religion. It is merely the opposite of theism, or the belief in god. Religion is what you DO with that belief.

If atheists were to take the fact that they did not believe in god and make it into a formalized set of rules and covenents, it would become the equivalent of a religion. People who did not believe in god together could gather on, oh say, Wednesday afternoon and sing songs about how the universe happened from a big bang, and take comfort in the fact that we are the most advanced species we have ever met yet. Until that happens, it is silly to talk about atheistic practices.

I will confess I do not know anyone who is a rabid atheist, and there may be some out there. But the people I know who would be called atheists are just ordinary people for whom religion is not a part of their lives, and who simply do not believe in god. They are not a group in any other respect, they are just people who happen to have that one point of belief (well, lack of belief) in common.

I'm an atheist myself. I wasn't trying to make it seem bad, I just wanted to know other people's opinions.
Based on the available facts, are you willing to consider the existence of a higher being?
As for what we practice, we just don't observe religious holidays in any way other than not going to work and spending time with our family.


That is kind of the point, isn't it? Atheists are the ones who look at the available facts and find none that prove the existence of a god.

So, really, atheists are the only ones (based on that criteria) who have it right.

And I don't think NOT observing religious holidays counts as a "practice". You seem to keep trying to equate atheism with religion, when they are not the same. They don't even appear on the same spectrum. Atheism is not the opposite of religion. It is merely the opposite of theism, or the belief in god. Religion is what you DO with that belief.

If atheists were to take the fact that they did not believe in god and make it into a formalized set of rules and covenents, it would become the equivalent of a religion. People who did not believe in god together could gather on, oh say, Wednesday afternoon and sing songs about how the universe happened from a big bang, and take comfort in the fact that we are the most advanced species we have ever met yet. Until that happens, it is silly to talk about atheistic practices.

I will confess I do not know anyone who is a rabid atheist, and there may be some out there. But the people I know who would be called atheists are just ordinary people for whom religion is not a part of their lives, and who simply do not believe in god. They are not a group in any other respect, they are just people who happen to have that one point of belief (well, lack of belief) in common.

Also a pretty funny quote:

Quentin Crisp:
When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?"

nah, they'd just say that the videotape was faked.

The intial responce would be skeptical, and the tape(s) would doubtlessly be scrutinized, but if god decended from on high atheists would believe. Part of being an atheist is looking for truth and reliance on evidence and science. So if the great and all mighty shows up we'd believe.

Or try to shoot the bastard.

That is kind of the point, isn't it? Atheists are the ones who look at the available facts and find none that prove the existence of a god.

So, really, atheists are the only ones (based on that criteria) who have it right.

Drawing a conclusion from a lack of evidence is illogical. That is, its a logical fallacy. It commits the fallacy of the argument from absence or negative proof.

There may be good reasons for atheism, but atheism due to a lack of evidence in a deity isn't one of them, since its illogical.

nah, they'd just say that the videotape was faked.

No, we wouldn't have to worry about it because we believe that that video will never exist because these events will never occur. But, if it does occur, then there will initially be a period of speculation and investigation to be sure, then "holy shit we were wrong all along." I'm no expert, but I don't think you can tell me what I would do in a hypothetical situation. You saying that I'm an extremist because I would deny proof that I'm wrong about god is like me saying that you are evil because if someone gave you $1000 you would kill a bunch of kindergarteners.

Drawing a conclusion from a lack of evidence is illogical. That is, its a logical fallacy. It commits the fallacy of the argument from absence or negative proof.

There may be good reasons for atheism, but atheism due to a lack of evidence in a deity isn't one of them, since its illogical.

So if someone tells you there is an invisible, intangible chair in the corner of the room, is it illogical to disbelieve them as your own senses (sight, touch) provide no evidence of said chair?

but how about denying the mere possibility of his existence?

Depends. Am I looking at the available evidence and concluding that it rules out the possibility?

Or are you asking me to accept the possibility of something that is by definition not possible?

BTW, do you believe in my pooka friend Harvey? Or are you an extremist?

Well, actually, you do need an absolute uncompromising position because that's what the whole ideology is based on. You can't just say that "oh, well, there may be a god..." because that would be like a fundamentalist believer saying "well, maybe I've been wrong all this time, and there is no god."
You are thinking anti-theist

So if someone tells you there is an invisible, intangible chair in the corner of the room, is it illogical to disbelieve them as your own senses (sight, touch) provide no evidence of said chair?
That person would also have to say that when you went to touch the chair, it, through it's own glorious wooden divinity, willed you not to feel it or else it would cease to be an invisible, intangible chair.



And then the chair would probably smite you.

The intial responce would be skeptical, and the tape(s) would doubtlessly be scrutinized, but if god decended from on high atheists would believe. Part of being an atheist is looking for truth and reliance on evidence and science. So if the great and all mighty shows up we'd believe.

Or try to shoot the bastard.

Absolutly,it's not like athestis have a "relgion" based on the non-existance of god/gods as we beleive it's the non-god's truth.

It's simply a matter of not beleiving in things that have no supporting evidence. If the credible evidence showed up, it would be scrutanized and if found to be true, Athestis wouldn't be athestis anymore.

So if someone tells you there is an invisible, intangible chair in the corner of the room, is it illogical to disbelieve them as your own senses (sight, touch) provide no evidence of said chair?

Logically, the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim about invisible furniture/deities.

Prove to me God exists. PROVE IT TO ME DAMN IT OR I SHALL LIGHT YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE!

Proof? Don't have any? He doesn't exist then.

...

Ah jeez, there's not much difference. So much for an attempt to prove by example what others have said...

That person would also have to say that when you went to touch the chair, it, through it's own glorious wooden divinity, willed you not to feel it or else it would cease to be an invisible, intangible chair.



And then the chair would probably smite you.

If the chair didn't, the chair believer would burn me at the stake.

As long as it was an invisible, intangible stake, i wouldn't mind ;)

Drawing a conclusion from a lack of evidence is illogical. That is, its a logical fallacy. It commits the fallacy of the argument from absence or negative proof.

There may be good reasons for atheism, but atheism due to a lack of evidence in a deity isn't one of them, since its illogical.

If you wish to consider pure logic, then induction isn't logical either. See Hume.

If I look carefully throughout my bedroom for a giant pink rabbit and cannot find any evidence of the rabbit despite centuries of effort to find such evidence, it is not unreasonable for me to conclude there is no giant pink rabbit in my bedroom.

To the contrary, it would be illogical under those circumstances to maintain the possibility that there is a giant pink rabbit in my bedroom.

Logically, the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim about invisible furniture/deities.

Precisely. Therefore, atheism through lack of evidence is perfectly logical, and not a logical fallacy :)

So if someone tells you there is an invisible, intangible chair in the corner of the room, is it illogical to disbelieve them as your own senses (sight, touch) provide no evidence of said chair?

It would be illogical to draw the conclusion that such a thing doesn't exist based on an absence of evidence for such a thing, yes. Its a logical fallacy, as I've pointed out in the previous post.

Of course, you could probably find a dozen good reasons to doubt the existence of the chair. You just couldn't draw a logical conclusion on the chair based on a lack of evidence for the chair.

So if you disbelieve in this magical chair due to a lack of empirical import, that isn't something that can be supported with logic.

Keep in mind that logic is a very specialized field, it has its own rigid structures and rules. Often people misuse the term "logic" or use it in a layperson's way. Sometimes things that we take as common sense, or live by on a day to day basis, actually violate the principles of logic.

Precisely. Therefore, atheism through lack of evidence is perfectly logical, and not a logical fallacy :)

"Burden of proof" isn't a logical principle, its a legal one.

And assuming it were, it wouldn't change the fact that an argument from absence or negative proof are still fallacies.

In short, no positive conclusion can be drawn from a negative premises. That is syllogistic law.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?
Absolute belief in no diety is not any more or less extreme than absolute belief in a diety. If you want to say that any person who believes there IS a God is an extremist then that's up to you, and if you choose to do so then I would agree that atheists are extremists by your definition.

However, I personally don't think that every person who believes in God is automatically an extremist. I also don't believe every person who disbelieves in God is an extremist. There are theistic extremists and atheistic extremists. Meh.

Atheism, much like any other belief system, is not based on logic. No intelligent atheist can say that there is no god, because they don't know. The same applies to intelligent theists. A christian with some sense will admit that he doesn't know that there is really a god, but he'll most likely qualify that with 'But I believe there is'. Not believing in any dieties beacause there's no evidence to prove they exist might be a logical fallacy, but so is believing in them because there's no evidence that they don't exist.

Atheism isn't an ideology at all, never mind an extremist. It's nothing more than the belief that there is no God. It's no more extreme than my belief that I don't have an elephant in my living room.

If you wish to consider pure logic, then induction isn't logical either. See Hume.

If I look carefully throughout my bedroom for a giant pink rabbit and cannot find any evidence of the rabbit despite centuries of effort to find such evidence, it is not unreasonable for me to conclude there is no giant pink rabbit in my bedroom.

To the contrary, it would be illogical under those circumstances to maintain the possibility that there is a giant pink rabbit in my bedroom.
What if a man with a sly grin comes up to you with incredibly shifty eyes and says, "If you really believe that there is no pink rabbit in the room, sign this paper which damns your soul in a lifetime of pain and misery and freakish hellfire."

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter if there is a Giant Pink Rabbit in your room or not because the critter obviously isn't making a nuissance of himself if he does exist. But why is that guy grinning at you that way and making such an absurd comment and shouldn't you really be concerned in removing him from your bedroom?

To describe atheism as 'extremism' isn't exactly correct.

The great majority of theistic beliefs, for example Christianity, hold that their world-view is the only and correct one. This of course, does not mean that every single religion is therefore extremist. The same holds for atheism.

It is of course, possible to have extremist atheists of course. "Communist" regimes in the past made a point of not only making atheism official, but making the most out of trying to stamp out all forms of religion. A more moderate society might make their particular religion (or secular vision) the 'default' worldview to govern with, but will allow freedom of religious expression.

So, if you're an atheist that believes in shutting down all churches and rounding up priests for the gulag, then I suppose you could be considered extremist. Otherwise, you're no different than any one else who follows any particular worldview.

It would be illogical to draw the conclusion that such a thing doesn't exist based on an absence of evidence for such a thing, yes. Its a logical fallacy, as I've pointed out in the previous post.

Of course, you could probably find a dozen good reasons to doubt the existence of the chair. You just couldn't draw a logical conclusion on the chair based on a lack of evidence for the chair.

So if you disbelieve in this magical chair due to a lack of empirical import, that isn't something that can be supported with logic.

Keep in mind that logic is a very specialized field, it has its own rigid structures and rules. Often people misuse the term "logic" or use it in a layperson's way. Sometimes things that we take as common sense, or live by on a day to day basis, actually violate the principles of logic.

Keep playing tricks with the meaning of the word "logical." It makes you so superior.

Empiricism is inherently illogical. And untrue statements can be fully logical.

Insisting on formal logic is just weak.

Precisely. Therefore, atheism through lack of evidence is perfectly logical, and not a logical fallacy :)

That depends on whether it is implicit or explicit atheism. Someone saying, "I have no evidence of God; therefore, I do not believe God exists," is not being illogical.

Someone, on the other hand, who says, "I have no evidence of God; therefore, there is no possible way that God exists and anyone who disagrees is stupid/crazy/unthinking/etc," is not using logic. They are simply trying to back up a belief - oddly enough, in much the same way as a religious fundamentalists.

Such atheists certainly exist - and a few even frequent this forum, but I would not suggest that they are the majority of atheists.

What if a man with a sly grin comes up to you with incredibly shifty eyes and says, "If you really believe that there is no pink rabbit in the room, sign this paper which damns your soul in a lifetime of pain and misery and freakish hellfire."

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter if there is a Giant Pink Rabbit in your room or not because the critter obviously isn't making a nuissance of himself if he does exist. But why is that guy grinning at you that way and making such an absurd comment and shouldn't you really be concerned in removing him from your bedroom?

A rather weak version of Pascal's Wager. :rolleyes:

To me, extremism doesn't always include violence, and isn't always a bad thing.

So yes, Athiesm is an extremist belief. Note I didn't call it a religion - it's simply a belief on the subject of religion.

but so is believing in them because there's no evidence that they don't exist.

You seem to be suggesting that there are those out there who believe in a deity specifically because there is no evidence. I'm not aware of any philosophy that says this....

That depends on whether it is implicit or explicit atheism. Someone saying, "I have no evidence of God; therefore, I do not believe God exists," is not being illogical.

Someone, on the other hand, who says, "I have no evidence of God; therefore, there is no possible way that God exists and anyone who disagrees is stupid/crazy/unthinking/etc," is not using logic. They are simply trying to back up a belief - oddly enough, in much the same way as a religious fundamentalists.

Such atheists certainly exist - and a few even frequent this forum, but I would not suggest that they are the majority of atheists.

Oh, i don't think people who follow religions are unthinking, quite the opposite, many if not most of the greatest minds of history have been religious. And i'm not going to go round their house and tell them they are wrong. But i do believe they are wrong, yes.

Which, by your reckoning, makes me a logical atheist.

Ones religion does not affect how extreame they are.

A rather weak version of Pascal's Wager. :rolleyes:
It took me three minutes to come up with. Blaise Pascal probably gave himself a bit more time.

You seem to be suggesting that there are those out there who believe in a deity specifically because there is no evidence. I'm not aware of any philosophy that says this....

Nor am I aware of such a philosophy, but I'm confident there are at least some people like that. That may not be the core point of their beliefs but if facing a crisis of faith they might think something along the lines of 'Well of course the god I believe in exists, there's no proof to the contrary'.

Because we, atheists, believe this because of NO evidence to disprove us, whereas fundamentalists believe what they believe because of NO evidence to back them up...

Hmm, well that isn't quite what it is regarding believers. A theist does not have to have evidence to back up what he believes. Faith is what it is, a faith that there is a higher power. Evidence is not a requirement. Most "evidence" comes from within and personal experience. I don't have to have physical evidence to know there is a God, higher power, whatever you want to call it. It is just something I know from personal experience. Monotheism is a very personal experience.

Perhaps the difference is in what is required. Athiests as I see it require evidence, tangible evidence. Monotheists do not. It not because "of" no evidence to back them up, it is because it isn't necessary.

I don't have to have tangible evidence to know that love is real, but I know it exists.

Atheism requires an equally strong faith as any religion. There is not scientific evidence that proves God does not exist, just as there is no solid evidence for God's existance. This evidence of course is the type of evidence that both sides will recognize as legitimate.

I know God exists through repeated experiences of His presence. This evidence however is not compelling to an Atheist. I also see the vast improbability of this world existing as it does without God making it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the lack of belief in the possibilty of a god. If this is considered agnosticism then technically the vast majortiy of theists would also be agnostics. An agnostic does not deny the existance of a god.

Consider that it is possible of an invisible dragon under my house right now, I would consider myself an atheist in regards to said invisible dragon because I reject any truth of the invisible dragon. In the same way I would deny the existance of a god.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?
Atheism is negotiable. After all, most atheists arrived at their position through logic and reason.

Not every religious person who is certain of their faith in God is extreme either.

Atheism requires an equally strong faith as any religion. There is not scientific evidence that proves God does not exist, just as there is no solid evidence for God's existance. This evidence of course is the type of evidence that both sides will recognize as legitimate.

I know God exists through repeated experiences of His presence. This evidence however is not compelling to an Atheist. I also see the vast improbability of this world existing as it does without God making it.
I kind of agree with you except that instead of seeing a vast improbability of this world existing as it does without God making it, I see a vast improbability of this world existing as it does without us making up God.

Well, you've misdefined extremist, although your definiton of atheist is correct.

Anyway, it's quite foolish to state for certain that theres' "no evidence" of God; it depends entirely on what you'll consider to be evidence. One could argue that the fact that there's any order in the universe at all is evidence, and the fact that there are organisms crawling around on at least one planet, and a large number of those organisms can think. All this is evidence, but I admit it doesn't have any alternative answers.

And as for the argument about flying horse men appearing all the time and telling you there's a god, that doesn't prove anything. I know that if I were a deity of some sort working on a universe, I wouldn't often create avatars specifically designed for the purpose of razzle-dazzling some of the organisms I created. Rather, I'd focus mainly on just doing my job, that is to prevent as many mass-extinctions as I can.

Just my two cents.

Atheism requires an equally strong faith as any religion.
Not necessarily. Atheism is the disbelief in God/gods. Disbelief MAY mean the belief that THERE IS NO GOD, but it also may refer to a simple lack of particular belief in God. The lack of belief in God requires no faith.

It would be illogical to draw the conclusion that such a thing doesn't exist based on an absence of evidence for such a thing, yes. Its a logical fallacy, as I've pointed out in the previous post.

Of course, you could probably find a dozen good reasons to doubt the existence of the chair. You just couldn't draw a logical conclusion on the chair based on a lack of evidence for the chair.

So if you disbelieve in this magical chair due to a lack of empirical import, that isn't something that can be supported with logic.

Keep in mind that logic is a very specialized field, it has its own rigid structures and rules. Often people misuse the term "logic" or use it in a layperson's way. Sometimes things that we take as common sense, or live by on a day to day basis, actually violate the principles of logic.

The great logical positivist AJ "Freddy" Ayer was once asked "What object for you is most redolent of Paris?" to which he replied "A Road sign. Saying Paris". He was the Wykhamist Professor of Logic yanno. Pre-eminent in his field.

What evidence for me would *logically* prove the existence of God? God. As he's not around, therefore, it is *logical* to me to be an atheist. I don't care if i am misusing the word in your eyes, it's also the truth.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

It's an inapt comparison. Atheism is just a position on the nature of the universe: arrived at usually - but not always - after some considerable thought about the matter. It has nothing to do with faith.

There's nothing fundamentalist about it. It's like saying that refusing to believe in santa clause is fundamentalist. If anything, it's more like accepting evolution or quantum theory as accurate descriptions of the universe as we understand it.

Moreover, as atheists have no god, there is nothing for them to practice.

Atheism requires an equally strong faith as any religion. There is not scientific evidence that proves God does not exist, just as there is no solid evidence for God's existance. This evidence of course is the type of evidence that both sides will recognize as legitimate.

I know God exists through repeated experiences of His presence. This evidence however is not compelling to an Atheist. I also see the vast improbability of this world existing as it does without God making it.

Atheism is a complete lack of faith as far as I am concerned. I've never considered that there is a god, ever. I've never taken a leap of faith to say that I deny a god, because I've never believed in one.

I'm not being facetious here though it may sound like it, but have you ever considered that you experience of god is the product of years of conditioning.

Sceince has explained with evidence far more about the nature of the universe than religion has without evidence. I assume you're speaking about the beauty of nature, I agree nature is beautiful, but who's to say that this view isn't a result of humanity being part of nature. Would it be equally beautiful if we were unconnected to nature in this way, if it was completely alien to us as a species?

Atheism is a complete lack of faith as far as I am concerned. I've never considered that there is a god, ever. I've never taken a leap of faith to say that I deny a god, because I've never believed in one.

I'm not being facetious here though it may sound like it, but have you ever considered that you experience of god is the product of years of conditioning.

Sceince has explained with evidence far more about the nature of the universe than religion has without evidence. I assume you're speaking about the beauty of nature, I agree nature is beautiful, but who's to say that this view isn't a result of humanity being part of nature. Would it be equally beautiful if we were unconnected to nature in this way, if it was completely alien to us as a species?

Quite right. We don't need a leap of faith.

Cardiff NS general atheist eh? Big shout out from the Pontypridd NS General atheist :)

To twist a popular phrase, saying that atheism requires faith is like saying that not juggling requires skill.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?


Are Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Gays/straight people/Conservatives/Democrats/... extremists?

I'm not being facetious here though it may sound like it, but have you ever considered that you experience of god is the product of years of conditioning.

I don't know about the person you were replying to, but I have. I came to the conclusion that such a statement is not correct.

Sceince has explained with evidence far more about the nature of the universe than religion has without evidence.

Of course it has! That is the role of science - to describe and explain the nature of the universe.

What about that which is outside or not controlled by the rules of the universe? It may or may not exist - we cannot empirically measure it. Can we interact with it? Possibly, if it chooses to interact with us.

You seem to be suggesting that there are those out there who believe in a deity specifically because there is no evidence. I'm not aware of any philosophy that says this....
That basically describes my position on god, though it's not a published philosophy. :D

"Burden of proof" isn't a logical principle, its a legal one.

And assuming it were, it wouldn't change the fact that an argument from absence or negative proof are still fallacies.

In short, no positive conclusion can be drawn from a negative premises. That is syllogistic law.
logic isnt my specialty (woudnta ever guessed THAT one eh?)

does that mean that everything that cant be postively proven exists in a sort of a miasma of logical possibilty?

Cardiff NS general atheist eh? Big shout out from the Pontypridd NS General atheist :)

Thanks for reminding me, it's Ystrad Mynach now. I should update that.

Good to know there's more heathen unbelievers in the valleys. We're getting close to a majority here.

Thanks for reminding me, it's Ystrad Mynach now. I should update that.

Good to know there's more heathen unbelievers in the valleys. We're getting close to a majority here.

Ystrad Mynach? Oh you poor soul, never mind ;)

Yeah, the valleys only have two religions - "pub" and "rugby" :)

Ystrad Mynach? Oh you poor soul, never mind ;)

Yeah, the valleys only have two religions - "pub" and "rugby" :)

And "driving around Blackwood in a crappy fiesta with neons" seemingly. Or is that just philosophy?

Thanks for the sympathy though.

And "driving around Blackwood in a crappy fiesta with neons" seemingly. Or is that just philosophy?

Thanks for the sympathy though.

God, yes. Thats the current over-riding philosophy. I dunno what happened, i turned into a hermit for five years, when i came out, the place was knee deep in chavs.

Atheism, much like any other belief system, is not based on logic. No intelligent atheist can say that there is no god, because they don't know. The same applies to intelligent theists. A christian with some sense will admit that he doesn't know that there is really a god, but he'll most likely qualify that with 'But I believe there is'. Not believing in any dieties beacause there's no evidence to prove they exist might be a logical fallacy, but so is believing in them because there's no evidence that they don't exist.
hmmm

like i said, logic isnt my fortee

but i can say that no religion makes sense. that their stories of the origins of the universe, the world and humanity are absurd

i can say that there is no evidence of an "all knowing all loving all powerful eternal god"

i can say that there is no evidence of there being a god of any kind that has any day to day contact or caring of people

i can say that there is no evidence that there is a god of any kind who cares what relgion, if any, we practice.

so i guess that while that might not disprove god, i see no reason to do anything about the slight chance that such a being exists.

I think any self-respecting theist would tell you, "I am evidence that god exists."

The atheist is the one who doesn't see the evidence.

I think any self-respecting theist would tell you, "I am evidence that god exists."

The atheist is the one who doesn't see the evidence.

I see myself, I just don't feel it necessarily follows that any particular God exists.

A painting can be evidence of a painter because its established that paintings come from painters. It is presented only axiomatically that people come from Gods.

I think any self-respecting theist would tell you, "I am evidence that god exists."

The atheist is the one who doesn't see the evidence.

And the atheist would reply "I am evidence that the stork brings babies", which is exactly as valid a position.

I see no reason to contribute to the conversation intelligently, but it's nice to see that there are so many atheists here.

All hail The Holy Empire of Adam the Batlord!

I don't know about the person you were replying to, but I have. I came to the conclusion that such a statement is not correct.

Of course it has! That is the role of science - to describe and explain the nature of the universe.

What about that which is outside or not controlled by the rules of the universe? It may or may not exist - we cannot empirically measure it. Can we interact with it? Possibly, if it chooses to interact with us.

Why is it incorrect? I mean, surely people have similar experiences in all religious faiths, their experiences would not all be Christian. I mean if a Hindu says they have experienced any one of their pantheon of gods and a Christian experiences god, in specifically Hindu and Christian ways respecitively, it would mean that both incompatible belief systems are true because the experience was believed by both adherents. If you don't believe that it is as valid as your experience of god, ask a Hindu who's had the experience. 2000 years ago people were experiencing Thor, Zeus and Jupiter in the same way, this doesn't mean they were right.

The person explicitly mentioned the earth, not unmeasureable existances outside of our own conciousness.

I see myself, I just don't feel it necessarily follows that any particular God exists.

A painting can be evidence of a painter because its established that paintings come from painters. It is presented only axiomatically that people come from Gods.
The difference is that the painting is infront of your nose.

I think any self-respecting theist would tell you, "I am evidence that god exists."

The atheist is the one who doesn't see the evidence.

So a mental patient talking to a vacuum cleaner is evidence that vacuum cleaners can talk?

The theist is the one who sees what's not there perhaps.

The difference is that the painting is infront of your nose.


Not at all. The self is always quite evident, in some views, exclusively so.

The difference, rather, is that the painting can infer its creator because of its nature as the creation of a painter, a priori.

That property is absent from humans; hence, the necessity of faith for religion.

The difference is that the painting is infront of your nose.

No, just the opposite, in fact. The difference is, that if you choose to go downtown and stand in his studio, the PAINTER is in front of your nose. However, no matter which church you go to, you will never see God standing in front of you with a lump of mud doing her creative thing.

No, just the opposite, in fact. The difference is, that if you choose to go downtown and stand in his studio, the PAINTER is in front of your nose. However, no matter which church you go to, you will never see God standing in front of you with a lump of mud doing her creative thing.

Haha. Well put.

No, just the opposite, in fact. The difference is, that if you choose to go downtown and stand in his studio, the PAINTER is in front of your nose. However, no matter which church you go to, you will never see God standing in front of you with a lump of mud doing her creative thing.

Well, the technique of religion is to start from emphatic, overwhelming belief, so that when they go to the church, the crispness of the air or the sound of a baby laughing in a pew becomes "evidence of God".

Its quite effective for some, enough to keep religion in business.

I think any self-respecting theist would tell you, "I am evidence that god exists."

The atheist is the one who doesn't see the evidence.
Sorry...the existance of humans is evidence of God? And atheists just refuse to see that evidence?

Sorry...the existance of humans is evidence of God? And atheists just refuse to see that evidence?
No... I am.

First-person singular, subjective perspective. The self.

Why is it incorrect? I mean, surely people have similar experiences in all religious faiths, their experiences would not all be Christian. I mean if a Hindu says they have experienced any one of their pantheon of gods and a Christian experiences god, in specifically Hindu and Christian ways respecitively, it would mean that both incompatible belief systems are true because the experience was believed by both adherents.

No, it would mean that human beings are fallible. We experience God and then try and put a description on it - but that description is subject to our own fallible perception of something that we cannot measure.

I have no doubt that Hindus have experienced God, that Muslims, Chrisitans, Wiccans, etc. experience God. Our experiences lead us to different conclusions about that God, not that there is no God.

The person explicitly mentioned the earth, not unmeasureable existances outside of our own conciousness.

Yes, but the person seemed to be suggesting that religion must necessarily explain physical occurrences. That is not the point of religion, but it is the role of science.

The comment was much like me saying, "Mathematics has provided many more answers to algebraic equations than cooking has, so I'm going to take mathematics over cooking." It ignores the fact that the role of mathematics is solving mathematical equations, while the role of cooking is not. Thus, there is no reason that one has to take mathematics over cooking in total - just in solving mathematical equations.

No, just the opposite, in fact. The difference is, that if you choose to go downtown and stand in his studio, the PAINTER is in front of your nose. However, no matter which church you go to, you will never see God standing in front of you with a lump of mud doing her creative thing.
Atheists will only see what is infront of their nose. They're looking in the wrong place.

No... I am.

First-person singular, subjective perspective. The self.
*backs away slowly*

Alright then. I'll take myself (and the 'evidence' I refuse to see) somewhere else...

Sorry...the existance of humans is evidence of God? And atheists just refuse to see that evidence?

No... I am.

First-person singular, subjective perspective. The self.


You are God?

Atheists will only see what is infront of their nose. They're looking in the wrong place.

It's actually kinda hard to look at what's right in front of your nose, cos you have to cross your eyes. Though this has nothing to do with the analogy of God being in front of one's nose.

Atheists will only see what is infront of their nose. They're looking in the wrong place.

A thus far unsubstantiated thesis.

I will assume that by "in front of their nose" you actually mean "everywhere we are able to explore in the entire universe, from the inside of an atom to the ever expanding traces of the big bang". Where else would you like them to look?

Are Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Gays/straight people/Conservatives/Democrats/... extremists?

Christians: Some are.
Muslims: Some are.
Buddhists: Some are.
Gays: Nope.
Straights: Some are.
Cons: Some are.
Dems: Some are.

How odd that the status of "extreme-ist" is on such a metiochre level of population in pretty much every sect of humanity.

You could be christian by name only, in which case you're not extreme and barely practicing.

Same with muslim.

Same with buddhism.

To be gay means you find men attractive while being a man yourself, while at the same time not finding women sexually attractive at all or barely. The extremist version of this would have to be a gay person who was against straight people, stating that god hates straights, following straight people's funeral processions with protests, etc... and of course this doesn't happen.

Straight: opposite of a gay extremist and much more commonplace.

Cons: You could be an extremist conservative if you were borderline (jumping) ignorant on all issues, stating that everything -must- be a certain way. I.E. Business trumps social problems always, economy trumps human sacrifice always, it doesn't matter how these things get done, but that they're done. If you're an extremist conservative, you're most likely also an extremist straight, and sometimes an extremist christian.

Dems: You could be an extremist conservative if you were borderline (jumping) ignorant on all issues, stating that everything -must- be a certain way. I.E. Social problems trump businesses in all ways, money doesn't matter at all, environment trumps personal freedom on all standards, it doesn't matter how these things get done, but that they're done. If you're an extremist democrat, you might also be an extremist gay.



Anything can be extremist. It's usually a bad thing to be extreme in anything, but not always. You could be extremely kind and understanding, you could be extremely wealthy and generous, you could be extremely physically healthy and capable.

Religion usually just gets the most press with extremism.

You are God?
Nope. Again, you're looking infront of your nose.

A thus far unsubstantiated thesis.

I will assume that by "in front of their nose" you actually mean "everywhere we are able to explore in the entire universe, from the inside of an atom to the ever expanding traces of the big bang". Where else would you like them to look?
Inward.

Atheists will only see what is infront of their nose. They're looking in the wrong place.

Of course, the "right place" is home to God, this God, that God, Zeus, Brahma, body thetans, the Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the Atman, Ahura Mazda, and David Koresh. They all come from the same place, just pick the one that fits what you want.

Inward.

As in "need".

As in, "When your inward need for some kind of forgiveness, righteousness, certainty, help, knowledge of the future, and the feeling of being loved is strong enough, you will see whatever 'God' provides those things".

Its a simple dynamic.

When you want to believe something badly enough, you will.

Nope. Again, you're looking infront of your nose.

Whereas you are missing the joke...

However... Your stating that you are proof that god exists bears no weight at all. It has the same truth as the atheist saying that the fact that he exists proves that the stork brought him. Your statement must be backed up with something more than simply "I say it is true, and so it is true."

So an atheist refusing your evidence would be no different than if you refused to believe in the stork.

If you are aiming to provide actual evidence, you need to do better.

No, we don't force our beliefs down your throats on every street corner or take airplanes and slam them into buildings.

Inward.

<_> Dude...Do you know what color your optic nerves are?

I don't think it's extreme to be either an atheist or a Christian.

<_> Dude...Do you know what color your optic nerves are?

I have to assume they're red or some type of pink.

Inward.

I would hazzard the guess that most atheists have done just that, and found themselves content and happy not to believe in god, much as you are content and happy not to believe in the stork of my previous example.



Atheists will only see what is infront of their nose. They're looking in the wrong place.


So, atheists have looked inward, and at everything else in the universe... I guess that "they're looking in the wrong place" has been dealt with.

What, no more replies? I'm getting bored refreshing here. Usually threads like these spread like wildfire in a gasoline field.

Well, actually, you do need an absolute uncompromising position because that's what the whole ideology is based on. You can't just say that "oh, well, there may be a god..." because that would be like a fundamentalist believer saying "well, maybe I've been wrong all this time, and there is no god."

I think you can base an ideology on a belief that is not 100% certain, because no belief is beyond doubt. I've heard some Christians say "Well, its possible that there is no God, but I think (based on evidence or feelings or whatever) that God does exist, so I will orient my life around that belief." I think an athiest can do the same thing (although if you want to call him/her an agnostic at that point, that's probably more accurate).

When you want to believe something badly enough, you will.

That doesn't work for me.

Can't do it.

I think you can base an ideology on a belief that is not 100% certain, because no belief is beyond doubt. I've heard some Christians say "Well, its possible that there is no God, but I think (based on evidence or feelings or whatever) that God does exist, so I will orient my life around that belief." I think an athiest can do the same thing (although if you want to call him/her an agnostic at that point, that's probably more accurate).

Which reminds me! Agnostic is not between theist and atheist, it's a different philosphy...There was a good post with a quote that got ignored, one moment...

That doesn't work for me.

Can't do it.

Or maybe you believe you can't so much you can't...but you can...because you did...so you can't.

As in "need".

As in, "When your inward need for some kind of forgiveness, righteousness, certainty, help, knowledge of the future, and the feeling of being loved is strong enough, you will see whatever 'God' provides those things".

Its a simple dynamic.

When you want to believe something badly enough, you will.
No, as in "I am".

Or maybe you believe you can't so much you can't...but you can...because you did...so you can't.

That makes my brain cry.

Ah yes, here it is.
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent.

Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10842878&postcount=19

That makes my brain cry.

I tend to do that a lot >_>;;

Whereas you are missing the joke...

However... Your stating that you are proof that god exists bears no weight at all. It has the same truth as the atheist saying that the fact that he exists proves that the stork brought him. Your statement must be backed up with something more than simply "I say it is true, and so it is true."

So an atheist refusing your evidence would be no different than if you refused to believe in the stork.

If you are aiming to provide actual evidence, you need to do better.
Yes! ... no weight at all. God is immaterial, spirit. As "I am". Now you're getting there.

Sorry I missed the joke.

PS: I never mentioned "proof", just "evidence".

I have to assume they're red or some type of pink.
They might be grey. Some nerves look grey if they have a fatty myelin sheath.

I would hazzard the guess that most atheists have done just that, and found themselves content and happy not to believe in god, much as you are content and happy not to believe in the stork of my previous example.
But were they looking for god when they did? I doubt it.

Saying 'There is no higher being' is no more extreme than saying 'There is a higher being, and he wants us to live by these rules'.

So...either atheists are not extremists, or everybody except agnostics and unitarians are extremists.

That doesn't work for me.

Can't do it.

Then no religion for you.

You must satisfy yourself with facing uncertainty, dealing with doubt, finding love solely from real people, and seeking rightousness through deliberation, discipline, and introspection.

And you'll have to do all that yourself, without help from some God.

And the only reward will be the merit and virtue of your own life, a finite blink that most will never see.

But then, it won't be imaginary either...

But were they looking for god when they did? I doubt it.

Presupposing what you will find is a great way to see what you want to see.

Saying 'There is no higher being' is no more extreme than saying 'There is a higher being, and he wants us to live by these rules'.

So...either atheists are not extremists, or everybody except agnostics and unitarians are extremists.

How about, "I have no reson to believe in a higher being"? And again, agnostic is separate.

Presupposing what you will find is a great way to see what you want to see.
Believing is seeing. :D Haha.

But on the other hand, if they had no idea they would find evidence of god there, how would they know to look for it?

Believing is seeing. :D Haha.

But on the other hand, if they had no idea they would find evidence of god there, how would they know to look for it?

Your question reveals your brand of reasoning.

Many atheists, including most that I know, have "looked inward" as you put it, looking for evidence of some kind of God or other. It just wasn't there.

As I've explained, that "evidence" doesn't materialize until your need for some God causes your mind to "see" one to satisfy that need.

Then no religion for you.

You must satisfy yourself with facing uncertainty, dealing with doubt, finding love solely from real people, and seeking rightousness through deliberation, discipline, and introspection.

And you'll have to do all that yourself, without help from some God.

And the only reward will be the merit and virtue of your own life, a finite blink that most will never see.

But then, it won't be imaginary either...

Yeah. Here's the thing: I don't really think about it all that much. Not having an imaginary friend (?) threatening me about my behaviour all the time lets me just live my life from day to day. Indeed, I never have to concern myself with my immortal soul at all.

I'm a bit Skinnerish about the whole thing in fact. I don't look to the abstract for justification at all. Be nice to people, they'll be nice back and so forth. There's not really to much more to it.

Frankly, adding god - not that I could honestly do it - would only be a minus.

So I'm really okay with the whole not having god situation.

But were they looking for god when they did? I doubt it.

You are wandering somewhat far afield here. You began this particular exchange by claiming that you, yourself, standing in front of an atheist, are the proof that god exists. If that is the case, why would said atheist then jump to searching for god inside himself?

And I have to say that I find no evidence inside MYSELF to prove the existence of God. So I am not sure how you hope that one is going to work? How would a person who did not believe your claim of the existence of something because there was no actual physical proof find that something where no actual physical proof is even possible?

Extremism is stigmatised with violence on a grand scale, you're not exactly going to get Atheist suicide bombers, so I would say that they're not "extremists" in the media's (violent) sense, but they are extremists in a more literal, ideological sense.

Still, I voted 'no', as I assume you mean violent extremists.
depends on what your deffinition of 'extremists', in the media christians are somtimes called extremists but I havent heard to many wide spread acts of violence by radical christians.

Your question reveals your brand of reasoning.

Many atheists, including most that I know, have "looked inward" as you put it, looking for evidence of some kind of God or other. It just wasn't there.

As I've explained, that "evidence" doesn't materialize until your need for some God causes your mind to "see" one to satisfy that need.

How do you know?

If you have never seen such evidence, how do you know under what circumstances it can be seen?

The answer is that you don't. You assume that, because you didn't find it, those who did must simply be making it up, but you have nothing to back that up other than your own belief.

Yeah. Here's the thing: I don't really think about it all that much. Not having an imaginary friend (?) threatening me about my behaviour all the time lets me just live my life from day to day. Indeed, I never have to concern myself with my immortal soul at all.

I'm a bit Skinnerish about the whole thing in fact. I don't look to the abstract for justification at all. Be nice to people, they'll be nice back and so forth. There's not really to much more to it.

Frankly, adding god - not that I could honestly do it - would only be a minus.

So I'm really okay with the whole not having god situation.

So,when the Bishop/Pastor/Mullah/Auditor gives the order to stop/start doing this/that, you can't be counted on.

Way to ruin it for everybody, Mister "Live a reasonable and happy life without supernatural marching orders".

Believing is seeing. :D Haha.

But on the other hand, if they had no idea they would find evidence of god there, how would they know to look for it?

You sort of prove my point here... how would they know what to look for? What you TELL them is evidence of god? Now we are back to square one.

Faith is believing that witch cannot exist.

I have many friends who are, in fact, Wiccan, and they do exist. So I guess I must not have faith, because I believe that Witch can exist. :p

However, I think it is somewhat valid to bring your sig line into the discussion... what you are saying is that God cannot exist.

How do you know?

If you have never seen such evidence, how do you know under what circumstances it can be seen?

The answer is that you don't. You assume that, because you didn't find it, those who did must simply be making it up, but you have nothing to back that up other than your own belief.


Because I did "see" it once, and then saw passed it.

Are you suggesting I could be wrong? Certainly. I could be. So could you or Willamena. That's why I support people's right to practice a religion if they want to, even though I dislike religion.

I never suggested I could in any way prove that there isn't any God, Xenu, Shiva or Zeus. There could very well be one or more of them.

If I could "back up" my belief that there isn't any particular God or other, I wouldn't speak in favor of the free practice of peaceful religion.

How many subsets of religion are there that could be considered mutually exclusive?

That is to say, could Protestant Christianity and Wicca both be factually true religions?

I'm wondering, what percentage of religions are, by necessity, false, since they can't all be doctrinally "True"?

And when the practioner of one religion that they call "True" applies a line of reasoning to establish that "Truth", do they only use reasoning that would be consistent with their belief that the other religions are all False?

In short, why does looking "inward" to find Christ if you just look for him give you a real "Christ", but looking "inward" and finding the Atman isn't as real?

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?


Who cares, they're atheists.

They spend most of there time sticking there noses up in the air at decent God fearing folks and trying to get you to indulge there cuckold fantasies, that is if they're even married.

So,when the Bishop/Pastor/Mullah/Auditor gives the order to stop/start doing this/that, you can't be counted on.

Way to ruin it for everybody, Mister "Live a reasonable and happy life without supernatural marching orders".

Yes, I'm a very bad man.

Yes! ... no weight at all. God is immaterial, spirit. As "I am". Now you're getting there.

Sorry I missed the joke.

PS: I never mentioned "proof", just "evidence".


Evidence is something which stands as a proof of something else, as in "The broken glass on the floor and the ball inside the house was evidence that the kids playing outside had broken the window". It generally refers to something solid and examinable and in the case we are discussing MUST do so.

And, of course, you have disregarded my point... "no weight" referred to the point that your "evidence" was meaningless. So your assertion of the ghostly properties of god still is unbacked by anything. Which continues to be the point. There is no proof of any gods actually existing.

The answer is that you don't. You assume that, because you didn't find it, those who did must simply be making it up, but you have nothing to back that up other than your own belief.

Actually, I put it down to unreliable - and generally incoherent - hearsay.

Not worth considering. No-one has ever offered any 'real' evidence. There are merely people who have claimed to have seen it.

I suppose you want me to accept bigfoot and alien abductions too?

Actually, I put it down to unreliable - and generally incoherent - heresay.

Not worth considering. No-one has ever offered any 'real' evidence. There are merely people who have claimed to have seen it.

I suppose you want me to accept bigfoot and alien abductions too?

I think Zilam hears voices or something, he says it's God.

Who cares, they're atheists.

They spend most of there time sticking there noses up in the air at decent God fearing folks and trying to get you to indulge there cuckold fantasies, that is if they're even married.

cuckold n. A man married to an unfaithful wife.

Errr... what does that have to do with atheism? Your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

Also, is your sig trying to be funny or offensive?

You are wandering somewhat far afield here. You began this particular exchange by claiming that you, yourself, standing in front of an atheist, are the proof that god exists. If that is the case, why would said atheist then jump to searching for god inside himself?

And I have to say that I find no evidence inside MYSELF to prove the existence of God. So I am not sure how you hope that one is going to work? How would a person who did not believe your claim of the existence of something because there was no actual physical proof find that something where no actual physical proof is even possible?
No, I began this by claiming that "I am" is evidence of god. It is for the atheist, too, if he cares to see it, but most would not even look. This is, I think, why they are atheists: because they don't care to see.

I'm not saying the evidence of god is inside yourself, I'm saying it is yourself ... for you, just as myself is for me. We have no evidence that "self" exists, yet we cannot but believe in it. We only know ourselves through identity with things that we are aware of, which necessarily identifies them as things not-"self".

Here, maybe this will help: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/#3.3

Who cares, they're atheists.

They spend most of there time sticking there noses up in the air at decent God fearing folks and trying to get you to indulge there cuckold fantasies, that is if they're even married.

Wuh? What does wanting your wife to be unfaithful have to do with atheism?

Oh and God fearing=/=decent, God fearing=foolish

As I've explained, that "evidence" doesn't materialize until your need for some God causes your mind to "see" one to satisfy that need.
If you are "seeing" god that sense, then you are not seeing god at all. What you describe is no different than looking for a physical god in the outside world; it is a god created in the imagination by the person.

But I meant to only talk about evidence of god.

No, I began this by claiming that "I am" is evidence of god. It is for the atheist, too, if he cares to see it, but most would not even look. This is, I think, why they are atheists: because they don't care to see.

I'm not saying the evidence of god is inside yourself, I'm saying it is yourself ... for you, just as myself is for me. We have no evidence that "self" exists, yet we cannot but believe in it. We only know ourselves through identity with things that we are aware of, which necessarily identifies them as things not-"self".


Thing is, Christians aren't the only ones saying that "self" is evidence for an other-wordly creator. You've got Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. all claiming to hold the truth of where "self" comes from. How are we supposed to choose which is right when each offers the same evidence (Word of *insert deity here*) to support their claim?

No, I began this by claiming that "I am" is evidence of god. It is for the atheist, too, if he cares to see it, but most would not even look. This is, I think, why they are atheists: because they don't care to see.

I'm not saying the evidence of god is inside yourself, I'm saying it is yourself ... for you, just as myself is for me. We have no evidence that "self" exists, yet we cannot but believe in it. We only know ourselves through identity with things that we are aware of, which necessarily identifies them as things not-"self".

Actually - my form of atheism comes fomr my belief that My Self is merely a bunch of random nurones and electrical currents and chemicals that do their stuff. Sure it's unlikly - but somewhere in an infinetly large universe it was goign to happen at least once and form there a base organism or microbe can evolve and develop by the odd difference in the structure of it's DNA.

Scientists have done expirments recreatign what they think the conditions were for the first life on earth to appear and have seen that amino acids and protiens are products of reactions that take palce in that environment.

Until someone comes along, snaps his fingers and makes some life out of nothing I'll carry on thinking and beliveing that all life is is a 1/1*10^lots chance. And given a couple of decades and no interferacnes form religious organisations and we will be gods (in a creator sense). It's no speicla unique position - random chance or a previous chances experiment there is no one/being/thing in charge of our destiny, future or world (in a supernatural sense).

Next up - Heaven and Hell and how to get there...

Additional - You get athestic extremeists as you get extremeists in everything else. Though they will be a minority, as they are in everything else.

Evidence is something which stands as a proof of something else, as in "The broken glass on the floor and the ball inside the house was evidence that the kids playing outside had broken the window". It generally refers to something solid and examinable and in the case we are discussing MUST do so.

And, of course, you have disregarded my point... "no weight" referred to the point that your "evidence" was meaningless. So your assertion of the ghostly properties of god still is unbacked by anything. Which continues to be the point. There is no proof of any gods actually existing.
Really? I didn't know that about evidence, I thought it just pointed to a thing, as in "The broken glass on the floor and the ball inside the house points to the fact that kids playing outside had broken the window." I'm very disappointed in Sherlock Holmes, now. Gosh, darn it; it was proof all along!

I understood your meaning, but the analogy of "immaterial"/"no weight" in both contexts was not lost on me. :)

Ghostly properties... :D

I do believe you are correct. There is no proof of gods existing. Thank Brad. That's why I only mentioned evidence.

I think Zilam hears voices or something, he says it's God.

*nods*

My phone talks to me. Sometimes it tells me to buy stuff. Like credit card fraud protection.

This is ridiculous. Is anyone who is confident that they are right an extremist? If that's the case, you can only not be an extremist if you believe in the contradictory position that there is no truth or you decide to be unsure about everything. Also, many people here seem to implicate that fundamentalist Christians are extreme because they believe in things literally. They are not extreme because they take things literally, but because of what they take literally.:headbang:

No, I began this by claiming that "I am" is evidence of god. It is for the atheist, too, if he cares to see it, but most would not even look. This is, I think, why they are atheists: because they don't care to see.

I'm not saying the evidence of god is inside yourself, I'm saying it is yourself ... for you, just as myself is for me. We have no evidence that "self" exists, yet we cannot but believe in it. We only know ourselves through identity with things that we are aware of, which necessarily identifies them as things not-"self".

Here, maybe this will help: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/#3.3


OK... you were not at ALL clear earlier, then. Especially in light of the tone of the discussion prior to that point, which was very much about physical proof.

But the only god I can claim to find through the examination of myself IS myself. We can chase solipsism around the metaphysical tree for a year and not get anywhere with this one.

I think an earlier point I made stands, however, that an atheist may well do all of the searching of self and still come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist. I don't claim to be "infallible or omniscient", but can say from what I have discovered about myself, that the claim that everything springs from some all knowing spectral being is still not supported.

Wuh? What does wanting your wife to be unfaithful have to do with atheism?

Oh and God fearing=/=decent, God fearing=foolish

The fact that you know what a Cuckold fantasy is proves my point.

Perhaps my least favorite characteristic of atheists are their inability to comprehend sarcasm.

No, I began this by claiming that "I am" is evidence of god. It is for the atheist, too, if he cares to see it, but most would not even look. This is, I think, why they are atheists: because they don't care to see.

I'm not saying the evidence of god is inside yourself, I'm saying it is yourself ... for you, just as myself is for me. We have no evidence that "self" exists, yet we cannot but believe in it. We only know ourselves through identity with things that we are aware of, which necessarily identifies them as things not-"self".

Here, maybe this will help: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/#3.3

But I'm unconvinced as to whether or not we really have free will &c. I'm mean I act as if I do - and if I didn't it's not like I have any choice in the matter anyway - but no-one has yet conclusively proven to me that this 'self' actually exists.

The fact that you know what a Cuckold fantasy is proves my point.


Possibly he paid more attention than most during the 'vocabulary' portion of his education.

It's not as if 'cuckold' is a particularly esoteric word.

Occam's Razor; GG uninstall. Not uncompromising, but simply logical. Show me proof, and I shall believe. Right now, there are no reasons to believe other than to circumvent the silent apartheid against those who do not believe.

If you are "seeing" god that sense, then you are not seeing god at all. What you describe is no different than looking for a physical god in the outside world; it is a god created in the imagination by the person.

But I meant to only talk about evidence of god.

Every religion thinks every other religion has the imaginary god, and their own is the "God with Evidence".

And yet, their evidence often looks striking similar to the evidence used by other religions...

Why does your "self" constitute evidence of the god you went looking for, but somebody else's self can't be evidence of Zeus?

Because I did "see" it once, and then saw passed it.

But what reason do you have to apply your own perceptions to all human beings. If *you* only believed in a God because you felt a need for one to be there, does that mean everyone who believes in a God does so only because they feel the need for there to be one?

Are you suggesting I could be wrong? Certainly. I could be. So could you or Willamena.

Indeed. And since this is reliant upon personal perception, none of us can really characterize the perceptions and beliefs of another. You might be absolutely right that you only believed in God because you felt a need, while I might be absolutely right that I believe in God because God exists. We could both be wrong. We could both be partially right. And so on...

Actually, I put it down to unreliable - and generally incoherent - hearsay.

That's because you are relying on the perceptions of others and trying to draw empirical evidence out of it.

I suppose you want me to accept bigfoot and alien abductions too?

I've seen no evidence of either. And, since either would occur within the Universe and be bound by its rules, and yet I still have no evidence of either, then no, I wouldn't expect you to.

Of course, I don't expect you to accept God either - not based on my personal experience. Only your own experience can tell you whether or not God exists - and how to relate to God if God does exist.

This is ridiculous. Is anyone who is confident that they are right an extremist?

There is a rather large difference between confidence and absolute unquestioning belief.

Every religion thinks every other religion has the imaginary god, and their own is the "God with Evidence".

Untrue.

Really? I didn't know that about evidence, I thought it just pointed to a thing, as in "The broken glass on the floor and the ball inside the house points to the fact that kids playing outside had broken the window." I'm very disappointed in Sherlock Holmes, now. Gosh, darn it; it was proof all along!

I understood your meaning, but the analogy of "immaterial"/"no weight" in both contexts was not lost on me. :)

Ghostly properties... :D

I do believe you are correct. There is no proof of gods existing. Thank Brad. That's why I only mentioned evidence.


And how is your definition of evidence substantially different than mine? If we were to examine the evidence of the ball and the glass it would lead to the kids breaking the window... if it didn't, if it instead lead to a cannon 3 miles away firing baseballs at unsuspecting homeowners, then it would not be evidence of the kids. So if we examine evidence you propose leads to god, it should actually LEAD there or it is not good evidence. As of yet, you have not provided any connective tissue to show that your evidence has anything to do with god. Evidence in a vaccuum is meaningless, it must "stand as proof", (that is, logically, lead to a conclusion).

Untrue.

My apologies. On reflection, there may be some religion that has multiple Gods that include Gods worshipped in other religions, or who see God as sufficiently vague that they see other religions as just worshipping a different "face" or idea of God.

And the more that vagueness allowed for various doctrine and dogma to be ignored in favor of just "God as whatever you see as wonderous about existence", the less objectionable I would find that religion.

How do you know?

If you have never seen such evidence, how do you know under what circumstances it can be seen?

The answer is that you don't. You assume that, because you didn't find it, those who did must simply be making it up, but you have nothing to back that up other than your own belief.

So if I tell you that I've met Harvey and you must worship him, you must take me at my word?

You have to respect evidence that cannot be shown to you?

And how is your definition of evidence substantially different than mine? If we were to examine the evidence of the ball and the glass it would lead to the kids breaking the window... if it didn't, if it instead lead to a cannon 3 miles away firing baseballs at unsuspecting homeowners, then it would not be evidence of the kids. So if we examine evidence you propose leads to god, it should actually LEAD there or it is not good evidence. As of yet, you have not provided any connective tissue to show that your evidence has anything to do with god. Evidence in a vaccuum is meaningless, it must "stand as proof", (that is, logically, lead to a conclusion).

Sometimes, even empirically, the same evidence can equally logically lead to two different conclusions.

Now take that into the realm of personal perception, where we can never even be sure that any two people *have* the same evidence....

"Extremist" is 100% relative. From my perspective, no, atheism is not extremist.

Sometimes, even empirically, the same evidence can equally logically lead to two different conclusions.

Now take that into the realm of personal perception, where we can never even be sure that any two people *have* the same evidence....

...and you can arrive at a place where its no less or more reasonable to pray to Jesus than it is to be audited for your body thetans, sacrifice cows to Poseidon, or chant to the glory of the lotus.

The fact that you know what a Cuckold fantasy is proves my point.

Perhaps my least favorite characteristic of atheists are their inability to comprehend sarcasm.


There is a rather thick line between sarcasm and complete incomprehensibility that you seem to have crossed.

Not to mention that... oh heck... why even mention it. I should SO learn not to feed the trolls.

So if I tell you that I've met Harvey and you must worship him, you must take me at my word?

You have to respect evidence that cannot be shown to you?

Respect? Possibly, if I can give no empirical reason to discredit it. If a friend tells me that God called them to go on a trip to Indonesia, I'm not going to argue, unless I have a reason to believe my friend is unstable. Now, I'm not going to jump on a plane and go with them based on nothing more than their own perception of God, but I will respect any decisions they make based on that perception.

Believe or agree with? No, I don't. That's why I don't expect anyone to believe in God just because I say so. I have all the evidence *I* need. I cannot show it to you, so I don't expect you to care about my evidence.

Believe or agree with? No, I don't. That's why I don't expect anyone to believe in God just because I say so. I have all the evidence *I* need. I cannot show it to you, so I don't expect you to care about my evidence. Onl

Does not expecting us to care about your evidence include that you would not submit your reilgious views as impetus for public policy?

If so, I wish we had more of your religious mentality among the religious in my area...

...and you can arrive at a place where its no less or more reasonable to pray to Jesus than it is to be audited for your body thetans, sacrifice cows to Poseidon, or chant to the glory of the lotus.

Thetans are claimed to be in the physical world - within this universe. Scientologists claim to be able to measure them with physical instruments. As such, they cannot be included in a discussion of religion dealing with the supernatural. Poseidon was equally bound by the rules of the universe - albeit more powerful than human beings. Thus, Poseidon was not said to be supernatural either.

Now, if someone believes that there is some supernatural property to a lotus, there is no way to empirically measure the accuracy of that statement. If someone claims to be led by Jesus, there is no way to empirically measure the accuracy of that statement. As such, from a purely empirical standpoint, they are equally reasonable. Of course, to the person doing the perceiving, one or the other may be more reasonable, based upon their own perceptions....

Does not expecting us to care about your evidence include that you would not submit your reilgious views as impetus for public policy?

Yes. I think it is highly insulting - both to religion and the political process - to try and merge church and state. I also think it corrupts both institutions.

I do not support public policy without more empirical backing. My religious beliefs are my own. ((Just as an example, I do believe that, in nearly all cases, abortion is the wrong choice. But, from a political standpoint, I am pro-choice, because my religion is not a reason to legislate the actions of others))

If so, I wish we had more of your religious mentality among the religious in my area...

Me too.

Sometimes, even empirically, the same evidence can equally logically lead to two different conclusions.

Now take that into the realm of personal perception, where we can never even be sure that any two people *have* the same evidence....

Of course it can. Which is why we then do more tests... to attempt to find which conclusion is better supported by the evidence at hand.

The problem we seem to be having is that when discussing the evidence that will satisfy an atheist, we are in the realm of the physical, not the personal. Personal perception is never going to be satisfactory proof in this sort of a discussion. But we both knew that when we got here.

And there is, as far as I know, no empirical evidence available that leads to god and is supported by testing.

They can be (eg: those who set churches afire), but unless you want to categorize all religious people as extremists (for the absolute, uncompromising belief that there is a god), all athiests are not extremists.

The problem we seem to be having is that when discussing the evidence that will satisfy an atheist, we are in the realm of the physical, not the personal. Personal perception is never going to be satisfactory proof in this sort of a discussion. But we both knew that when we got here.

Personal perception is all there is. There can be no physical evidence of a supernatural entity.

If an atheist will (a) never deduce the existence of God from their own personal experience and/or (b) never has any personal experience that might point them to the existence of God, then an atheist will never believe in God.

And there is, as far as I know, no empirical evidence available that leads to god and is supported by testing.

Of course there isn't. Of course, that may have quite a bit to do with the fact that God, as a general rule, is said to be supernatural, which places God outside the possible realm of empirical testing. Empiricism only works in and on those things which are bound by the universe, and the rules under which it works.

You people keep going on and on about who has what evidence and whatnot when the anwser to all this atheist/religion thing is rather simple. Religion is the belief in God(s) because there is no physical evidence showing what they believe is false. Atheism is the nonbelief in God(s) because there is no physical evidence saying it's real.

Atheists are not inherently extremists neither are religous people.
Case Closed.

I've seen no evidence of either. And, since either would occur within the Universe and be bound by its rules, and yet I still have no evidence of either, then no, I wouldn't expect you to.


How can you adduce their properties, if you have seen no evidence for them? Bigfoot may very well be supernatural. As might alien abductions.

If you understand why you can dismiss those, then you can understand why I can dismiss god,

Thetans are claimed to be in the physical world - within this universe. Scientologists claim to be able to measure them with physical instruments. As such, they cannot be included in a discussion of religion dealing with the supernatural. Poseidon was equally bound by the rules of the universe - albeit more powerful than human beings. Thus, Poseidon was not said to be supernatural either.


So, Christians who believe that their God manifested in the physical world, as a messiah or a burning bush or a hand writing on a wall, or that kind of thing, are equally problematic?

I have a few Mormon friends who believe that God has a physical body, and a home planet called Kolob, and that he appeared personally to various people in the physical universe. Its things like that I find more incredulous.

"Well, actually, you do need an absolute uncompromising position because that's what the whole ideology is based on. You can't just say that "oh, well, there may be a god..." because that would be like a fundamentalist believer saying "well, maybe I've been wrong all this time, and there is no god."

No, that is not the definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism entails the whole range of behavior that you engage in as a result of your beliefs. These behaviors range from sexual repression to the kind of food that one can eat. These behaviors normally necessitate enforcing one's religion on another.

I'm chuckling at the thought of an atheist looking to a book; a guideline for the way that they should live their life. I can't remember ever telling someone that they have to avoid being gay, avoid sex before marriage or avoid eating pork. I can't remember any other atheist making such a statement either. Each atheist determines the course of their own existence, ergo they can't be labeled a fundamentalist - there is no doctrine except lack of belief (which in turn is hardly a doctrine).

Wow, this is a very stereotypical, 3-word poll. I cannot completely express my views on this subject because we are referring to atheists as a whole and under no circumstances.

I had a classmate in my religion class last semester who preached like an atheist and was very extreme over the issue of a higher deity but didn't participate in any violence conduct because of his views... however I have a friend who is an atheist aswell and he has only expressed his views to me once (lol and as I type about my friend he comes online).

So, I voted No because as a whole atheists, in what I've seen, do not go to the extreme as to the point of violence.

You people keep going on and on about who has what evidence and whatnot when the anwser to all this atheist/religion thing is rather simple. Religion is the belief in God(s) because there is no physical evidence showing what they believe is false. Atheism is the nonbelief in God(s) because there is no physical evidence saying it's real.

Atheists are not inherently extremists neither are religous people.
Case Closed.

Yes, that idea has been presented several times.

The discussion has moved to areas adjacent to the original question, as will happen in forum threads.

And while I happen to agree that neither atheists nor the religious are all extremist, my opinion or yours do not close a case.

Yes, that idea has been presented several times.

The discussion has moved to areas adjacent to the original question, as will happen in forum threads.

And while I happen to agree that neither atheists nor the religious are all extremist, my opinion or yours do not close a case.

Well said. I had begun to parse out a reply, but yours is better! :)

They can be (eg: those who set churches afire), but unless you want to categorize all religious people as extremists (for the absolute, uncompromising belief that there is a god), all athiests are not extremists.

What makes you think that all religious people have an "absolute, uncompromising belief that there is a god"? Those who are strong in their faith question it on a regular basis - only those who are weak in faith have "absolute, uncompromising" beliefs.


How can you adduce their properties, if you have seen no evidence for them?

They are attributed properties.

Bigfoot may very well be supernatural. As might alien abductions.

Only if they are outside this universe, in which case they wouldn't be measurable, and none of us can say they don't exist. Of course, I have yet to hear any account of bigfoot or alien abductions that were said to occur outside the universe.

So, Christians who believe that their God manifested in the physical world, as a messiah or a burning bush or a hand writing on a wall, or that kind of thing, are equally problematic?

No, only those whose gods are completely bound by the universe would be problematic. A God who "steps in" to the Universe, so to speak, and interacts with it is not problematic in and of itself. Obviously, an all-powerful being would have such an ability. The problem is that, from an emprical standpoint, we would measure those things as, "just the way the universe works."

But anything said to exist entirely inside the universe and be bound by its rules (ie. Thetans, Bigfoot) is natural - and thus disprovable by empirical means.

OK... you were not at ALL clear earlier, then. Especially in light of the tone of the discussion prior to that point, which was very much about physical proof.

But the only god I can claim to find through the examination of myself IS myself. We can chase solipsism around the metaphysical tree for a year and not get anywhere with this one.

I think an earlier point I made stands, however, that an atheist may well do all of the searching of self and still come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist. I don't claim to be "infallible or omniscient", but can say from what I have discovered about myself, that the claim that everything springs from some all knowing spectral being is still not supported.
Solipsism has nothing to do with it, else I'd have linked to a solipsism page.

But I'm unconvinced as to whether or not we really have free will &c. I'm mean I act as if I do - and if I didn't it's not like I have any choice in the matter anyway - but no-one has yet conclusively proven to me that this 'self' actually exists.
That's a good thing!

I'm proud of you. You shouldn't be convinced of anything until there is sufficient evidence to convince you.

No, only those whose gods are completely bound by the universe would be problematic. A God who "steps in" to the Universe, so to speak, and interacts with it is not problematic in and of itself. Obviously, an all-powerful being would have such an ability. The problem is that, from an emprical standpoint, we would measure those things as, "just the way the universe works."

But anything said to exist entirely inside the universe and be bound by its rules (ie. Thetans, Bigfoot) is natural - and thus disprovable by empirical means.

So, if the aliens created our universe and occasionally stop in to collect rent or visit, then return to whatever plane of reality they natively occupy, they would then be reasonable?

Would you say that thetans are thus not a religious belief? What if, as a matter of doctrine, scientologist claimed that thetans exist not just in our universe, but in some outer context similar to where christians might think god lives? Would thetans then become sufficiently supernatural?

I'm sure it has probably been said before, but

Atheism is implicitly a reactionary standpoint. It is difficult to be a fundamentalist reactionist. As to whether or not it is extreme, I reckon that any reactionary stance is extremist in the sense that it exists primarily in contradiction to another stance. However, the behaviour of the atheist is not in itself extreme. It is only on the matters of spirituality that Atheists take an extreme stance: that of direct opposition to any notion of Theism.

Well, I'm not an extremist. I think of an extremist as someone who gets all up in your buisness, like, "Nope, you're wrong, and I'll tell you why. Blahblahblah, you're wrong. How can you possibly be so dumb? THIS is what it's like."

Thing is, Christians aren't the only ones saying that "self" is evidence for an other-wordly creator. You've got Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. all claiming to hold the truth of where "self" comes from.
Just so.

How are we supposed to choose which is right when each offers the same evidence (Word of *insert deity here*) to support their claim?
Why do you have to choose one? Are you atheist? Doesn't that suffice?

If the evidence is the same for each, I would suggest that that indicates that there is no significant difference between them.

Actually - my form of atheism comes fomr my belief that My Self is merely a bunch of random nurones and electrical currents and chemicals that do their stuff. Sure it's unlikly - but somewhere in an infinetly large universe it was goign to happen at least once and form there a base organism or microbe can evolve and develop by the odd difference in the structure of it's DNA.

Scientists have done expirments recreatign what they think the conditions were for the first life on earth to appear and have seen that amino acids and protiens are products of reactions that take palce in that environment.

Until someone comes along, snaps his fingers and makes some life out of nothing I'll carry on thinking and beliveing that all life is is a 1/1*10^lots chance. And given a couple of decades and no interferacnes form religious organisations and we will be gods (in a creator sense). It's no speicla unique position - random chance or a previous chances experiment there is no one/being/thing in charge of our destiny, future or world (in a supernatural sense).

Next up - Heaven and Hell and how to get there...

Additional - You get athestic extremeists as you get extremeists in everything else. Though they will be a minority, as they are in everything else.
So, your religious beliefs begin with an understanding of "self"?

Just so. :D

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

A loaded and leaning question if I've ever seen one.

What makes you think that all religious people have an "absolute, uncompromising belief that there is a god"? Those who are strong in their faith question it on a regular basis - only those who are weak in faith have "absolute, uncompromising" beliefs.


And that's different from athiests? Do athiests never question their internal beliefs? Of course we do; I do all the time. But if the OP wants to say that all athiests have an "absolute, uncompromising" belief that there is no god, I guess all religious people must have the opposite.

Why does your "self" constitute evidence of the god you went looking for, but somebody else's self can't be evidence of Zeus?
Because it is my evidence. Those others must find their own evidence, if they will; I cannot find it in them for them. I cannot put it infront of their noses.

So, if the aliens created our universe and occasionally stop in to collect rent or visit, then return to whatever plane of reality they natively occupy, they would then be reasonable?

Reasonable? Only to those who had actually interacted with them.

Would you say that thetans are thus not a religious belief?

For the most part? No, they aren't. Their beliefs involve nothing that they do not claim to be bound by the universe - at least not the parts of it they let out to the public. Thus, all of their beliefs can be empirically tested - and likely disproved.

What if, as a matter of doctrine, scientologist claimed that thetans exist not just in our universe, but in some outer context similar to where christians might think god lives? Would thetans then become sufficiently supernatural?

They would be claimed to be supernatural, and, as such, we could never measure that possible aspect of them.

And that's different from athiests? Do athiests never question their internal beliefs?

Some do, some do not. (And it's "atheist" - sorry spelling pet peeve of mine)

Same as religious people. Some question, some do not.

Of course we do; I do all the time. But if the OP wants to say that all athiests have an "absolute, uncompromising" belief that there is no god, I guess all religious people must have the opposite.

The more logical step might be to suggest that the OP is wrong, at least about some atheists.

And how is your definition of evidence substantially different than mine? If we were to examine the evidence of the ball and the glass it would lead to the kids breaking the window... if it didn't, if it instead lead to a cannon 3 miles away firing baseballs at unsuspecting homeowners, then it would not be evidence of the kids. So if we examine evidence you propose leads to god, it should actually LEAD there or it is not good evidence. As of yet, you have not provided any connective tissue to show that your evidence has anything to do with god. Evidence in a vaccuum is meaningless, it must "stand as proof", (that is, logically, lead to a conclusion).
It does lead there ... for me. Of course, you are still expecting someone to hold up god infront of your nose. Evidence is not proof. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding ... or jello, if you prefer clarity. The ball on the floor and broken glass do not prove who threw the ball --it may have been a passer-by. Proof is not necessary to find god, because god is supernatural. Evidence, though, is a good starting place.

Solipsism has nothing to do with it, else I'd have linked to a solipsism page.

I referenced solipsism in my reply, so it would have been awfully prescient of you to link to that page before the reference occurred.

That's a good thing!

I'm proud of you. You shouldn't be convinced of anything until there is sufficient evidence to convince you.

Mock all you want. At least I am not a solipsist.

In any case, skeptisicm never told people to go out and slaughter heretics/infidels.

The more logical step might be to suggest that the OP is wrong, at least about some atheists.

Well, I wasn't exactly agreeing with him! I was trying to show how inane his logic was. I didn't realise Cpt. Nitpicky would be waiting in the wings to criticize my every word.

Because it is my evidence. Those others must find their own evidence, if they will; I cannot find it in them for them. I cannot put it infront of their noses.

I don't think you're addressing the question.

Suppose someone else's "nose" points at evidence of a religion that holds your religion to be false. Why is your evidence more real than theirs?

Well, I wasn't exactly agreeing with him! I was trying to show how inane his logic was. I didn't realise Cpt. Nitpicky would be waiting in the wings to criticize my every word.

I believe Dempublicents holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

Of course it can. Which is why we then do more tests... to attempt to find which conclusion is better supported by the evidence at hand.

The problem we seem to be having is that when discussing the evidence that will satisfy an atheist, we are in the realm of the physical, not the personal. Personal perception is never going to be satisfactory proof in this sort of a discussion. But we both knew that when we got here.

And there is, as far as I know, no empirical evidence available that leads to god and is supported by testing.
How objective of you! :D

Well, I wasn't exactly agreeing with him! I was trying to show how inane his logic was. I didn't realise Cpt. Nitpicky would be waiting in the wings to criticize my every word.

You didn't expect Captain Nitpicky? Are you new here?

What makes you think that all religious people have an "absolute, uncompromising belief that there is a god"? Those who are strong in their faith question it on a regular basis - only those who are weak in faith have "absolute, uncompromising" beliefs.


So your god never involves him or herself with the natural universe at all?

You didn't expect Captain Nitpicky? Are you new here?

My posts are largely ignored.

I believe Dempublicents holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

My sincere apologies.

My posts are largely ignored.

Eh, you get used to it...

Bigfoot may very well be supernatural.


im going off topic i guess but my biological anthropolgy class discussed bigfoot a few weeks ago. anthropologists have found a long history of tales of giant apemen. they have fossils of a certain species, called Gigantopithecus. heres a link if you want to to look at it. http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html Gigantopithecus lived during the same time period as human ancestors, so these stories about giant ape/humans or bigfoots my be ancient stories from our ancestors. sorry to go off topic but i thought i would mention it...:D

My posts are largely ignored.

Say something about abortion.

im going off topic i guess but my biological anthropolgy class discussed bigfoot a few weeks ago. anthropologists have found a long history of tales of giant apemen. they have fossils of a certain species, called Gigantopithecus. heres a link if you want to to look at it. http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html Gigantopithecus lived during the same time period as human ancestors, so these stories about giant ape/humans or bigfoots my be ancient stories from our ancestors. sorry to go off topic but i thought i would mention it...:D

And some of those tales describe bigfoot (or the folklore analog) as supernatural as well.

Say something about abortion.

True, that works...I don't think there's been any of that for a while...Or gun control...

My sincere apologies.

No problem; you're a member of Parliament, so you're permitted to criticize the military.

What are thetans? It's not in my dictionary.

What are thetans? It's not in my dictionary.

It's something to do with scientology.

I referenced solipsism in my reply, so it would have been awfully prescient of you to link to that page before the reference occurred.
Okay, going off-topic of what I was linking to, then. I'm okay with that.

Mock all you want. At least I am not a solipsist.

In any case, skeptisicm never told people to go out and slaughter heretics/infidels.
I wasn't mocking. I was serious. And I'm glad you're not a solipsist. I'm not either.

I don't think you're addressing the question.

Suppose someone else's "nose" points at evidence of a religion that holds your religion to be false. Why is your evidence more real than theirs?
How can it? Mine is mine, and theirs is theirs. Mine is as real as me.

My posts are largely ignored.
It's the over-sized sig. :D

I don't think you're addressing the question.

Suppose someone else's "nose" points at evidence of a religion that holds your religion to be false. Why is your evidence more real than theirs?

It isn't. I simply have no reason to accept their evidence, since it cannot be shown to me. I only have my own from which to operate.


What makes you think that all religious people have an "absolute, uncompromising belief that there is a god"? Those who are strong in their faith question it on a regular basis - only those who are weak in faith have "absolute, uncompromising" beliefs.

So your god never involves him or herself with the natural universe at all?

I'm not sure how you got that from what you quoted.

What are thetans? It's not in my dictionary.

According to scientology, they are the souls of murdered aliens who attach themselves to people and make them crazy/depressed/etc. The thing is, they *claim* to be able to measure them - to tell you how manh Thetans you have on you. Thus, they claim that Thetans are empirically measureable (and thus within the universe).

What are thetans? It's not in my dictionary.

Scientologists say that humans (and some other beings) have immortal soul-like objects called thetans. They are described as eternal and indestructible.

They believe that the thetans of many extraterrestrials are all around us, subconsciously causing us problems.

The U.S. goverment now regards this as a religious belief (after some litigation), although many European nations see it as a dangerous scam.

I'm personally more leary of it than I am of most other religions.

Atheism is the absolute, uncomprising, position that there is no higher being. What makes this any different from fundamentalist believers, other than what they practice and believe in, as both ideologies are not negotiable?

You are wrong and right. Let me explain what I believe. Athiest have an almost metaphysical attachment to their 'belief' of there being no god. It is as 'faith' based as any religion. The faith is modernist science. But christianity should not be considered the alternative to athiesm...all other religions should be. Christianity actually forms a cornerstone of modernity. In Eastern religions such as indian religions, science plays a major role in belief. There are schools of indian philosophy (the basis of all indian religions) that believe much of the 'athiest' doctrines...including the possibility of 'no god'.

The difference athiest claim will be 'we base our faith in science....in what we KNOW'. But the question of 'how you know that you know' can never be adequately answered. The other problem is 'situational'...If you are a blowfly, you live 24 hours then die. If you are born on a rainy day, and it rains the whole time you are alive, you might think that theres plenty of evidence that this is a 'wet planet'. But if you were born on a hot dry day in the dessert, you will feel certain its a 'dry planet'. Its hard to escape ones own 'mind planet'...the sytem of beliefs that exist in our heads and the structure of the system that we use to justify changes to that belief.

To be sure, I am not religious, im not an agnostic either waiting for proof. My position is that there is no need for a god. It is within human capability to live an ethical and moral life without god. Why do we bother spending so much time on this question? if god existed, he would turn up to the party, otherwise, lets just invite everyone, get the beers out, turn on the stereo, share the love and get the party started already.

I'm not sure how you got that from what you quoted.


Yah. Oops.

I meant to quote


Only if they are outside this universe, in which case they wouldn't be measurable, and none of us can say they don't exist. Of course, I have yet to hear any account of bigfoot or alien abductions that were said to occur outside the universe.

The U.S. goverment now regards this as a religious belief (after some litigation), although many European nations see it as a dangerous scam.
I think the European nations' opinion on Scientology seems to be something along the lines of
"Scam? Yes. Dangerous? No more so than any other con artists."

It's the over-sized sig. :D

What oversize sig? My sig is of a perfect size! *shifty eyes*

Yah. Oops.

I meant to quote

It still doesn't follow that God doesn't interact with the Universe. The problem with trying to measure the supernatural when it interacts with the natural is that, from a scientific and empirical point of view, the interaction would just look like the universe working as usual. If God constantly poked you in the side, from an empirical point of view, you would have no reason to believe it was a supernatural force. You would think it was simply a part of the way the universe works.

People love to cite studies for the portion of the brain that is used in religious experiences. The fact that we can stimulate these portions and cause religious-type experiences, they say, disproves actual religious experiences. But does it? What if, in some cases, it is the supernatural that stimulates those portions of the brain? How would we know? We'd have no way of measuring it? All we could measure is what part of the brain was lighting up at the time.

It does lead there ... for me. Of course, you are still expecting someone to hold up god infront of your nose. Evidence is not proof. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding ... or jello, if you prefer clarity. The ball on the floor and broken glass do not prove who threw the ball --it may have been a passer-by. Proof is not necessary to find god, because god is supernatural. Evidence, though, is a good starting place.

I personally am not expecting anything... but...

The ball may have been thrown by a passerby, in which case further examination of the evidence (finger prints, the angle at which it was thrown, etc.) will be used to determine the truth. Labelling god as supernatural and so immune to the need for proof is not answering the issue, it is simply saying "I am granting this passerby magical powers to throw balls and not get caught doing it. Why? Because I SAY he has them"

The truth here is that YOU BELIEVE god to be supernatural, the atheist does not believe that there is a god at all. It is a logjam for which the only relief would be some sort of physical proof. Your belief is just that, belief, but in reality is as meaningless as the atheist's non-belief when it comes to determining the actual truth of the existence of god.

Athiests ARE extremists!

They offer NO alternative and only serve to contradict themselves with what is surely an apathy toward humanity. It is because of the differing ideologies between religions (extremeism/fundamentalism one and the same?) that has shaped the world we live in today.

Take for example we have a middle ground, with many religions that respect and acknowledge other religions and their right to express their views. Whether or not they agree with their ideology.

To the far right we have the fundamentalist religions that absolutely do not acknowledge other religions and view these ideologies as an enemy to their way of life.

And way to the left we have the athiests who have the same views as the fundamentalists but without the baggage of having a belief system i.e a religion of their own!

What a cop out!

Athiests ARE extremists!

I think the European nations' opinion on Scientology seems to be something along the lines of
"Scam? Yes. Dangerous? No more so than any other con artists."

Ah, that seems reasonable.

I thought I had seen some statements by European judges denouncing Scientology as particularly dangerous, but I may be in error.

Labelling god as supernatural and so immune to the need for proof is not answering the issue, it is simply saying "I am granting this passerby magical powers to throw balls and not get caught doing it. Why? Because I SAY he has them"

It isn't a matter of "labelling" God that way. The minute you posit a God as the Creator of the Universe, you have already posited a supernatural being.

The question is, do you believe that there is anything other than that which exists in the Universe?

The truth here is that YOU BELIEVE god to be supernatural, the atheist does not believe that there is a god at all.

Yup. Both axiomatic statements which can be neither proven nor disproven.

It is a logjam for which the only relief would be some sort of physical proof.

...which is impossible to get.

Your belief is just that, belief, but in reality is as meaningless as the atheist's non-belief when it comes to determining the actual truth of the existence of god.

Only to an outside observer. To the theist or the atheist, the cause for their belief (or lackthereof) is as much truth as they can get.

What oversize sig? My sig is of a perfect size! *shifty eyes*

Personally, it helps me find your posts.
...
>_>
Upon review, would that really strike you as a good thing?

Athiests ARE extremists!

They offer NO alternative and only serve to contradict themselves with what is surely an apathy toward humanity. It is because of the differing ideologies between religions (extremeism/fundamentalism one and the same?) that has shaped the world we live in today.


There are many alternatives to religion, including secular belief systems that are not apathetic towards humanity.

I personally am not expecting anything... but...

The ball may have been thrown by a passerby, in which case further examination of the evidence (finger prints, the angle at which it was thrown, etc.) will be used to determine the truth. Labelling god as supernatural and so immune to the need for proof is not answering the issue, it is simply saying "I am granting this passerby magical powers to throw balls and not get caught doing it. Why? Because I SAY he has them."
*shrug* It only plays out like that if that if you are looking for the god infront of your nose.

The truth here is that YOU BELIEVE god to be supernatural, the atheist does not believe that there is a god at all. It is a logjam for which the only relief would be some sort of physical proof. Your belief is just that, belief, but in reality is as meaningless as the atheist's non-belief when it comes to determining the actual truth of the existence of god.
Yes, I believe in god. I believe god to be supernatural. I believe I said that earlier. Did I somehow stray from that position?

It's not a logjam unless you are looking for proof of god. I wouldn't presume to offer that.

Athiests ARE extremists!

They offer NO alternative and only serve to contradict themselves with what is surely an apathy toward humanity. It is because of the differing ideologies between religions (extremeism/fundamentalism one and the same?) that has shaped the world we live in today.

Take for example we have a middle ground, with many religions that respect and acknowledge other religions and their right to express their views. Whether or not they agree with their ideology.

To the far right we have the fundamentalist religions that absolutely do not acknowledge other religions and view these ideologies as an enemy to their way of life.

And way to the left we have the athiests who have the same views as the fundamentalists but without the baggage of having a belief system i.e a religion of their own!

What a cop out!

Athiests ARE extremists!

Errr... no alternative? What alternative to "I don't believe in God." do you need? That is all the atheists as a group are saying. Some go on to criticize religion, some move towards being naturalists, some go into politics and become moderate Democrats, some are champions of free speech for everyone, some (I must assume) also rob banks. The only thing they have in common, BY DEFINITION, is that they do not believe in the existence of god.

With no set of rules, no dogma, no specific agenda, atheism is NOT a religion, (nor some sort of anti-religion). One is not required to pledge eternal devotion to the cause. There IS no cause. Yes, some individuals do get extreme about it, but as a group, well... there is no "as a group". So SOME atheists may be extremists, but certainly not all, or even most.

I'm not going to get heavily involved in this discussion, so I'll just state how I understand athiesm as compared to agnosticism and theism and leave it here to be attacked in whatever fashion.

Athiesm, like theism, requires a belief in a thing which there is absolutely no physical evidence for or against. Arguments which call for the idea that it is rational not to believe in God because he hasn't revealed himself is negated by the theists idea of the "invisible hand of God" put forth by a multitude of different religions. Pursuing either way towards belief or non-belief is a fantastic waste of time and energy. Athiests who merely trust there is no God but remain open to the possibility of there actually being one are Agnostic to my way of thinking. Belief is a strong word and Agnostic is a stronger word than many think.


Athiests, like those who don't believe in unicorns, don't believe because of lack of evidence. The earth isn't flat, unicorns don't bounce around, the laws of physics and thermodynamics don't seem the change on a regular basis, and god doesn't return my calls. It isn't unreasonable to not believe in something that cannot be observed, in the same way, if there was some proof to come along, athiests, by and large, aren't the sort to deny things they see with their own eyes, LSD excepted.

Likewise, fewer athiests are likely to say, if everyone suddenly had "made by god" tattooed on them and god is real started bleeding down all windows, that they would still deny his existance. As the mysteries of the universe are slowly solved, and there are fewer and fewer unknowns to hide in, spirtual answers in a rational world seem to make less and less sense. In that sense, athiests can't really be called extremists, since it requires no effort to believe there are no gods out there. It would, for lack of anyone telling you otherwise, the position that would be easiest to adopt. If no one ever told you "God is watching over you Billy." Would you still think there might be? As a rationalist, athiesm is a very easy position to end up in.

It's difficult, as a human, to be 100% sure of anything. Everything we experience is just what our brains tell us we're experiencing anyway, but if you're 99.5% sure there isn't a god, you're an athiest. If you take a position on the matter as to if there is a god or not, you are a theist or an athiest. Only if you believe that there may or may not be a god and it isn't humanly possible to know the answer, are you agnostic.

Only if you believe that there may or may not be a god and it isn't humanly possible to know the answer, are you agnostic.

Pretty nice, till here. The only requirement for agnosticism is thinking it isn't humanly possibly to know the answer. You can believe or not believe, and still be agnostic. Thus opening the door for Agnostic Theists, Agnostic Atheists, and the Gnostic counterparts thereof. However, you're not solely agnostic...

It isn't a matter of "labelling" God that way. The minute you posit a God as the Creator of the Universe, you have already posited a supernatural being.

Well, of course. I was speaking somewhat metephorically... that labelling was done a very long time ago when gods were first being created.

The question is, do you believe that there is anything other than that which exists in the Universe?

Me? I haven't got a clue. Do I believe that there is the God of the <insert your preferred branch of religion here> out there? No. I think "gods" are all human constructs with obvious human foibles and desires and it makes no sense at all that any of the currently posited gods would be the supreme creator of the universe. Do I believe that there is nothing at all? I have no way of knowing. It is fun to play thought games and what ifs about it, but I don't have any particular BELIEF one way or the other.


To the theist or the atheist, the cause for their belief (or lackthereof) is as much truth as they can get.

I am not entirely sure. Consider that an atheist does not believe in god because there is no proof. If there were proof, that would change his belief. The theist believes in god even though there is no proof (that is, regardless of proof). If there were some proof that god did not exist, I don't know that this would change the theists point of view, but it would certainly change the whole equation of belief being all anyone has to go on.

But, as you and I agree, no such proof is possible, so the whole thing is just hypothetical anyway.

Pretty nice, till here. The only requirement for agnosticism is thinking it isn't humanly possibly to know the answer. You can believe or not believe, and still be agnostic. Thus opening the door for Agnostic Theists, Agnostic Atheists, and the Gnostic counterparts thereof. However, you're not solely agnostic...

Well, not really. agnostism is basically deciding you don't know, and it doesn't matter. If you think it does matter, then you probably fall into one or the other camps.