Atheist!

[cloudy]

Oh I'm not confused at all. I know what I believe in. I simply don't feel that everyone must conform to my belief system or risk being called stupid, confused or any of the other names you've used so far.

You're a pompous and arrogant, self-righteous jerk. Hope you enjoy your life like that.

Indeed. In fact, I'm quite sure that attitudes like his are what drive people away from Christianity in droves.

Poor thing - Jesus will be so pissed off.

 

[3113]

I am smarter than you because Atheist think they know but know not. Believers know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

You know, it occurs to me that Socrates bad logic here--and I can't help but think you've misquoted in some way, because it's TERRIBLE logic, allows for almost anyone or anything to be smarter than anyone. For example:

Dominatrixes are smarter than Clowns because Clowns think they know but know not. Dominatrixes know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

No proof needed to show that Dominatrixes search for the truth but clowns do not. You define them that way and win the argument. This is fun. Let's try another:

Girl Scouts are smarter than Pirates because Pirates think they know but know not. Girl Scouts know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

Oh! Oh! How about this:

Squids are smarter than humans because humans think they know but know not. Squids know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

Now, admit it. You can't *PROVE* that squids aren't searching for the truth can you? I say they are, you can't offer any evidence that they are not, therefore, squids are far smarter than human beings, who I say are NOT searching for the truth, and as you can't prove that they are searching for the truth more than squids, that makes them stupider than squids.

Go Squid.

You know, most people go through a "greek philosophers are cool!" phase in high school. I think it has to do with that whole "I'm in the cave" thing. It's nice for a while, then you realize that the Socratic dialogues are all about one person presenting leading questions, and if the person Socrates had been talking to had asked smarter questions, Socrates wouldn't have sounded so smart. Kinda like Sherlock Holmes. Watson's inability to see what's important makes Sherlock seem smart. That's when Socrates and Plato and Aristotle (who believed that a heavy sphere would fall to earth faster than a light sphere, but never bothered to test it; Galileo did and proved him wrong, which goes to show that you really shouldn't believe anything that sounds logical but hasn't been tested to be true) lose some of their charm. You really should have moved on by now; Nietzsche if you're college age.

 

[3113]

My views may be not do for others, but my view of this is that "belief in God" is all belief and no proof. When one goes into needing or demanding proof, one is moving into trying to displace God, control God, and therefore "be" God.

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why is requiring proof of god to believe in god displacing or controlling, let alone "being" god? In just about every story of every god, god shows up to someone and proves that he exists. So what's the big deal? People in the Bible are always asking for proof and usually get it.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why is requiring proof of god to believe in god displacing or controlling, let alone "being" god? In just about every story of every god, god shows up to someone and proves that he exists. So what's the big deal? People in the Bible are always asking for proof and usually get it.

It's what I believe--the attempt to understand God is to seek control of whatever God represents and thus to displace God. I don't know how to explain it in clearer terms if you don't get that. And, yes, the inference is that atheists put themselves in place of a God--not looking for anything superior or ultimate beyond themselves and their own reasoning. But I don't bother to think much about that, so it's not a position I would argue--until I care about it. (I also don't condemn it, by the way--or reject it as a choice for anyone who wants to make that choice.)

On the belief angle, I've written some pretty controversial published pieces about Christian miracles needing to be taken on faith as miracles--concentrating on the message they bring rather than the mechanics--because once you try to justify how they could have happened, you are trying to control them and bring them down to earth, take the awe and majesty out of them, and make the mechanics more important than the message they bring and are working against belief.

Whenever you talk about the Bible, you start getting into circular reasoning. As I've seen posted up the line, I believe the Bible was written by people who were trying to understand, justify, and give order while mixing in a jumble of ancient stories and beliefs. I try not to cite the Bible as proof of anything other than that there is a basic moral structure going across all of humankind and down through the ages. I further believe it was written by and for folks who are seeking comfort in their life and in grasping their inevitable death--and so I say, if it gives them that comfort, that's fine with me. (It's when they start going out and telling other people what they can/should believe that they lose me.)

 

[Selena_Kitt]

My views may be not do for others, but my view of this is that "belief in God" is all belief and no proof. When one goes into needing or demanding proof, one is moving into trying to displace God, control God, and therefore "be" God.

That's really beautiful.

 

[sadangel]

It's what I believe--the attempt to understand God is to seek control of whatever God represents and thus to displace God. I don't know how to explain it in clearer terms if you don't get that. And, yes, the inference is that atheists put themselves in place of a God--not looking for anything superior or ultimate beyond themselves and their own reasoning. But I don't bother to think much about that, so it's not a position I would argue--until I care about it.

On the belief angle, I've written some pretty controversial published pieces about Christian miracles needing to be taken on faith as miracles--concentrating on the message they bring rather than the mechanics--because once you try to justify how they could have happened, you are trying to control them and bring them down to earth, take the awe and majesty out of them, and make the mechanics more important than the message they bring and are working against belief.

Whenever you talk about the Bible, you start getting into circular reasoning. As I've seen posted up the line, I believe the Bible was written by people who were trying to understand, justify, and give order while mixing in a jumble of ancient stories and beliefs. I try not to cite the Bible as proof of anything other than that there is a basic moral structure going across all of humankind and down through the ages.

Slight off topic, but coming from the statement of Miracles.

When you stand at a hospital bed of a 9 year old boy who is about to lose his leg to the type of gangrene that amputation is the only option, that no meds can cure and 12 hours later you have a doctor standing there; one that believes that miracles don't happen, that science can answer everything and he looks at you and your family and say; "There is no explanation for what you are about to see. We gave no meds, we did nothing"....and he pulls the sheet back and the once entirely black leg of the young boy is now completely healthy....well, you believe in miracles. And that Doctor, he did too. Said there was no other possible explanation as science and medicine did nothing.

So when people want to question my faith and belief, I know that I have seen what I need to see, and witnessed things that many will not. It was not the first miracle I've seen or experienced and I know it will not be the last. I don't need to shout my belief from every mountain, or to ram it down everyone's throat. I don't need to ridicule those who believe differently than I do, or don't believe at all. I see no reason why we cannot exist, with our differences. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Agnostic or whatever. We each believe or don't believe as we will. There is no reason to have to curse others, or slam their belief, or call them confused or what have you simply because you disagree.

By the same token though, when I feel that someone has done it enough, I will speak up and say just what I feel. I won't resort to nastiness, but I'll make my point through strong words. Christian or not, there is a point where you stop being a doormat and you stand up for what is right, even if you don't believe the same way as the people you are choosing to defend.

Note to sr--I quoted you for the Miracle part.....not to direct this at you at all!! just so you know!! *smiles*

 

[sr71plt]

Slight off topic, but coming from the statement of Miracles.

When you stand at a hospital bed of a 9 year old boy who is about to lose his leg to the type of gangrene that amputation is the only option, that no meds can cure and 12 hours later you have a doctor standing there; one that believes that miracles don't happen, that science can answer everything and he looks at you and your family and say; "There is no explanation for what you are about to see. We gave no meds, we did nothing"....and he pulls the sheet back and the once entirely black leg of the young boy is now completely healthy....well, you believe in miracles. And that Doctor, he did too. Said there was no other possible explanation as science and medicine did nothing.

So when people want to question my faith and belief, I know that I have seen what I need to see, and witnessed things that many will not. It was not the first miracle I've seen or experienced and I know it will not be the last. I don't need to shout my belief from every mountain, or to ram it down everyone's throat. I don't need to ridicule those who believe differently than I do, or don't believe at all. I see no reason why we cannot exist, with our differences. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Agnostic or whatever. We each believe or don't believe as we will. There is no reason to have to curse others, or slam their belief, or call them confused or what have you simply because you disagree.

By the same token though, when I feel that someone has done it enough, I will speak up and say just what I feel. I won't resort to nastiness, but I'll make my point through strong words. Christian or not, there is a point where you stop being a doormat and you stand up for what is right, even if you don't believe the same way as the people you are choosing to defend.

Note to sr--I quoted you for the Miracle part.....not to direct this at you at all!! just so you know!! *smiles*

I'm in tune on the medical miracle story. We currently have a family friend (the story's been covered nationally) whose son suffered over 80 percent burns from a barbecue grill flameout--and who is recovering. Whose lung was 50 percent seared Monday of last week and whose lung was free of burn scaring this past Sunday--without scientific explanation.

I don't try to understand that. It's beyond my comprehension (that doesn't mean I reject anyone seeking new knowledge in any field). It's just the reality that I do not, cannot understand that today. I can just appreciate that it is. I don't have to think or say that it's God's will (nor do I believe it would have been God's will if the boy had died). I don't have to try to understand it at all. I can just believe that there are things and happenings that are beyond my comprehension and that I don't need to be so self-absorbed/self-important about as to try to control and figure out. I don't mind calling it "God"--as in defining all of that that is beyond my comprehension (e.g., where does the universe begin and end and how did it get there?). And I don't mind if others choose not to call it God.

Back on the miracles. I see the "event" part as a big bang "get your attention" in order to dump a message of universal meaning. I see those trying to find where the ark is (for instance) and just where/how the Israelites crossed the Red/Reed sea as being preoccupied with the gonging of the "listen up" bell and being in grave danger of missing the message of it all. Some of my writing on this topic has been in what the message was in each of these miracles. That inevitably surprises those who were concentrating on the bell gonging.

I approach this from within the Christian Church. And I do that for environmental reasons. I was born and mostly raised where that was prevalent. I fully believe that if I'd been raised in China, I would be approaching exactly the same unknowns as a Buddhist.

 

[3113]

That's really beautiful.

Beautiful? *shug* I don't get it. Isn't he's speaking for god if he says that someone asking for proof of god is controlling or trying to be god? And if he's speaking for god...then isn't he the one who is trying to be god?

What a person is doing if they ask for "proof" of any divinity is simply asking for proof. No more, no less. If they don't believe in god without proof, then they're not trying to control anything. If I say, "I want proof of Santa Claus because I don't believe in him," then how am I controlling...Santa? Santa doesn't exist. I can't "control" what isn't there, and I certainly can't BE him if he's not there.

I can only control him if I write a story about him.

Of course, if god does exist, and any one asking for proof is doing more than asking for proof, then that's up to god to say. Isn't it?

I'm not trying to get into an argument over this, most atheists I know aren't going to ask anyone for proof. But I really feel that there's a lot of maligning going on to no good purpose. For some reason, it's okay to respect everyone's beliefs...so long as the believe. The minute it comes to the non-believer, everyone gets to insult them, not respect them, and it's *their* fault they get disrespected because *they* are the one being disrespectful...by...not believing? Crazy.

 

[wmrs2]

Oh I'm not confused at all. I know what I believe in. I simply don't feel that everyone must conform to my belief system or risk being called stupid, confused or any of the other names you've used so far.

You're a pompous and arrogant, self-righteous jerk. Hope you enjoy your life like that.

I am sorry you feel that way but I don't find anywhere that I called anybody names, especially not you. I find several places where names have been caste at me in anger. Because a strong argument for God's existence has been offered and those who object to this argument retort by calling me names, gives you no right to join in on the name calling. Please list the names that I have called anybody or please remain silent.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not trying to get into an argument over this,

Could have fooled me. You can certainly believe as you wish.

I told you what I believed. And that I believed someone demanding proof of anything is trying to control it. And before that I said that what one believes is what one believes. I don't have any obligation to make you believe what I believe--or to argue with you about it. Figure out what you believe on your own.

 

[john-the-author]

I am sorry that you are so angry. You have something against philosophy students, do you? I bet their requirement that you use well premised logic in debate makes you nervous. Is that why you don't like them?

I admit I was wrong. You're a PSYCH 101 student.

If you had philosophy 101, you know scholars recognize that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle laid the foundation for the theist religions of Christianity and Judaism and the logic of Western Civilization. These fellows would roll over in their graves if they knew you were using the absolute forms to make an argument against God. The two most noted gadflies in literature was Socrates and Jesus Christ. Their use of Aristotelian logic pissed off all the atheist too.

Where are you from originally? I'm guessing somewhere pan-Asian, but that's just a guess. (It's invariably ESL folks who make the grammatical mistakes you're demonstrating, and you'll be pleased to note that I'm not assuming you're illiterate.)

It is not my logic that you are angry with. I use the logic of the Western Civilization which atheist and communist hate. If the logic of Plato and Aristotle makes you feel less of a person. don't blame me. I don't think I shall drink your poison like Socrates did.

I just love how you seem able to ascribe all these motivations, when, in fact, you're not logical. And I think you really ought to drink the poison, kid; you'd be a martyr then and we all know how beloved of God martyrs are.

"Here's a standard of good: treating a person as if they're less than you." Your words. Real cute but false. "Treating a person (not) as if they're less than you" is a rule that Christ told the disciples to follow, more or less. The standard was "love" as in love your neighbor as yourself. Your mistake here is that you miss the point that love in the standard but treating is a result of the standard. Love could be found in Plato's forms as could beauty, mathematics, science and especially logic. All the self evident rights in the Constitution are Plato's forms. These are absolute things and their definitions do not change

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

I have no idea of where to begin on this. It's more full of shit than a Christmas goose for the positive elegance with which it's jammed together.

Your retort to my argument is fool of adjectives but these do not describe Plato's absolute forms. When you refer to Plato's forms, you simply do not know what you are saying. You can not camouflage your lack of knowledge of Plato's philosophy by using big language and adjectives.

Gee, I guess I fooled all my professors then, too.... Oh, wait, I wasn't talking about absolute forms per se. ~bzzzzt!~ You lose again, kid.

An atheist can not believe in absolute truth and it is not allowed you by the theist to do so. By using God-the Absolute- to say there is no absolute is not logical. Get it? You must stick to your own beliefs in this debate and not unlawfully take ours.

And now you'd tell me what I can and can't believe, eh? Or that I can't take 'your' beliefs? I have to say here, you've broken new ground; I'll give you that. I've met crazier Christian whackjobs and stupider Christian whackjobs and even crazier, stupider Christian whackjobs, but I don't recall anyone telling me that I wasn't allowed to have thoughts that they didn't approve of simply because they were reserved for some other religion. Bravo.

And what 'law' am I breaking? Here, how about this: I piss on your religious beliefs. You've got a right to have 'em; I'm just pissing all over them. That ought to be good enough to break your 'law.' Whatcha gon' do, kid?

You give another example of your miss use of logic in the following. You say "An atheist recognizes an ethical construct" which qualifies an eternal form which the atheist denies exist. Atheist are creatures of relativity and only try to use Western logic when their hands are called.

I do so love how you claim to know all about atheists think when you have no direct knowledge of how atheists think. I'm reminded of the specials you can see every so often on the 700 Club or other Christian fascist channels about the 'real' story behind witches that then romp off into the same level of fantasies without any basis in reality.

Well, shoot, I can't think about it, then I can't think about, I guess. So, if I become a Christian, when do I get officially allowed to think all these things I can't think now?

Your reference to Plato's good and evil is simply dumb. There can be different goods and evils in society but good and evil represent self evident truth which is an argument for God's existence.

A tautology like that is hardly proof. It's simply a tautology.

One last thing. You best not call names, like F****** philosophy students, etc. because you are not very good at this name calling. You get your subjects and adjectives mixed up and it detracts from a friendly discussion.

Who said this was a friendly discussion? I was really hoping to make my disdain for you crystal clear. I've obviously failed. And getting my subjects and adjectives mixed up? I'd love to see where. Let's see if I can make this grammatically correct and unambiguous:

You're a loser, a largely literate but not particularly functional little douchebag who seems to have latched on to the part of Christianity where you try to argue everyone into submission. It's something along the lines of "See, I am so smarter than you, therefore you're also dumb for not being a Christian like me." It's really rather pathetic, but hardly inspiring of sympathy. You're a fucking waste of life who probably spends a good deal of time being sinfully proud of your pseudo-accomplishments, which are measured in the number of people you've chased away when, in fact, you're just casually annoying. You're also a walking advertisement for why I think there are truly too many Christians running around loose and how nice it would be to teach them about the more material parts of what a commitment to your religion really means. But that's just the retired priest side of me talking: far too many laity think religion is a casual thing.

Now, you can diagram that if you like, or just fuck off; either suits me. Or you can damn me for my 'miss use' or being 'fool' of adjectives... but you really can't, because these are your faults. Hey, and my punctuation was even correct, which is far more than I can say for you.

You leaving soon? There'll be many a dry eye in the house when you're gone.

 

[wmrs2]

In my connections with biblical studies, I've found that becoming more informed about Christian beliefs has undone more people than made their faith stronger. Possibly the classic example is one of the foremost New Testament scholors of today, Bart Ehrman, chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and author of the best-seller Misquoting Jesus, whose studies have transformed him from an evangelical seminary student into an agnostic.

Just saying. Be careful what you wish for.

And, no, I don't believe that athiests turn into Christians in anything like equal numbers of the reverse.

I am not sure what your point is but it is nice to an objection raised without name calling by objective people. If you are saying that people who study the Bible do not necessarily become better Christians, I agree with you.

It has also been my experience that those who start their study with the Bible lose their faith. It is my belief that one must begin with a basic natural belief in God and deduce religion from the beginning premise of God. The only way you can go wrong is by making the incorrect deductions. You can correct that by beginning new deductions when old ones have been proven false. You can begin anew because the premise does not change.

The role of the Bible is to confirm my faith, that's all. Now what is wrong with that approach and what is dogmatic about this approach?

The point I have bee attempting to make is that the atheist has no premise on which to base his reasoning process. This seems to insult the atheist. I am sorry. I am not calling the atheist a name but only giving a fact that his belief system is weak. The atheist is used to challenging belief systems and does not appear to have learned how to accept criticism of his own system. Please note that I have found no reason to defend the Christian belief system. It must stand on its own merit and I think if viewed properly, it is very logical. If I have offended the atheist, I have not done it with purpose. I have with purpose opposed his belief system.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This guy is both weird, and boring at the same time.

And his assertion doesn't make any sense-- even though he's said it over and over, it still doesn't make any sense.

 

[sr71plt]

I am not sure what your point is but it is nice to an objection raised without name calling by objective people. If you are saying that people who study the Bible do not necessarily become better Christians, I agree with you.

No, I was saying that it has been my observation over decades of working with biblical studies that people who study the Bible a lot tend to lose their Christian faith (Jewish scholars not so much in having their own faith rocked). It's a highly contradictory text and the more you delve into the history of it, the more you pick up origins of this and that being picked up from prior paganistic religions that early Christianity was trying to subsume. And then after being hit by that wammy, you start studying what agendas and goings on were behind all of the translations along the road.

I've found that scholars who came in with hard-edged beliefs--like the evangelistic-background Ehrman--are the fastest to fall in the face of not being able to reconcile their deepening study of things biblical with the faith they came into this study with.

Since you've zeroed in on this, I'll clarify that to mean people of high intellect (as in serious biblical scholars). It's not all of these people even, by any means. Just a significant trend of people. And it's not a theory. I've counted them as distinct people doing this. I won't put a judgment to it--I'll just say that my observation is that it has happened/is happening.

It keeps me from trying to go hard edged and all know it all about what Judeo-Christianity "has to" mean to all those heathens out there.

For one instance, living overseas and trying to explain/rationalize the trinity or communion to someone not environmentally Christian is usually met with a very jolting (to both of us) "you're putting me on, aren't you" "heh, what?"

 

[sr71plt]

IThe point I have bee attempting to make is that the atheist has no premise on which to base his reasoning process. This seems to insult the atheist. I am sorry. I am not calling the atheist a name but only giving a fact that his belief system is weak. The atheist is used to challenging belief systems and does not appear to have learned how to accept criticism of his own system. Please note that I have found no reason to defend the Christian belief system. It must stand on its own merit and I think if viewed properly, it is very logical. If I have offended the atheist, I have not done it with purpose. I have with purpose opposed his belief system.

I don't see any "fundamentally flawed" irrationality in atheism at all. It's just what they believe based on a very rational construct of what they've chosen to accept as fundamental truths. *shrug*

 

[wmrs2]

You're defining yourself to victory. Allow me to redefine myself to answer you by doing the same:

I am smarter than you because Believers like you, think they know but know not. Atheists know not--that is what a scientist is, by the way, someone who doesn't say they know anything till they've got evidence to know it--and, thus they know not. That's why ATHEISTS keep searching for the truth, rather than saying, as Believers do, that they've got a book or a feeling or a faith or a voice in their head or a mythology that tells them all they need to know...and don't need to search any farther for anything.

It may be that what I have wanted to say has not been well said. I do not think I am necessarily smarter than the next person. Most of the ideas I have are given to me by some one else, I confess.

The atheist does not keep searching for the truth for in his system of thinking, truth does not exist. Notice that I said in his system truth does not exist. He may think he knows some truth but his life argument is that truth is relative, truth changes from person to person, and there is no stable premise for thinking.

A scientist does not accept truth that changes and does experimentation until the experiment can be repeated many times with the same results. The laws of science do not change either. Logic is always logic and it is always based on a premise that must not change or the references are always in error. The atheist dose not bind himself to these laws. When this is pointed out to him, the atheist deny what is said here is truth but it is nevertheless true.

I am confident that my belief system is broad minded and compassionate. It allows for different deductions from different people. It does challenge successfully irrational deductions and seems to raise the fur on a cat's back.
Play safe, have fun
wmrs2

 

[sr71plt]

The atheist does not keep searching for the truth for in his system of thinking, truth does not exist.

Where does this assertion come from? Can you cite some scholar who has actually asserted this? This is way outside anything I've read on the subject.

Or are you into circular reasoning here. To you truth is God (restricted by your personal definition of God) and therefore an atheist can't accept truth? That would certainly be false circular reasoning.

 

[john-the-author]

This guy is both weird, and boring at the same time.

And his assertion doesn't make any sense-- even though he's said it over and over, it still doesn't make any sense.

You know, Stella, you've pegged it exactly. It's the same Christian drivel that we've heard about 5,000 times too many already, wrapped in some really strange excuses for philosophical references. Boring, weird... fuck 'im.

John

 

[fieryjen]

You know, Stella, you've pegged it exactly. It's the same Christian drivel that we've heard about 5,000 times too many already, wrapped in some really strange excuses for philosophical references. Boring, weird... fuck 'im.

John

On the bright side, you've won my Hero of the Day award for making me giggle maniacally about posts that ordinarily would have done nothing but piss me off a little.

 

[wmrs2]

The existence of God is based in faith. The proof God exists is derived from "signs" based in that faith. Just because you reject an atheist's need for empirical proof does not make such a request invalid or irrelevant. Moreover, it is the burden for one claiming something to exist to prove it does. Not the other way around.



What? You might want to rephrase that.



You misunderstand. He likes having such members to stir dialogue and keep people asking the important questions.

This is much better jomar as you did not call me a single name. But you did challenge my ideas, which is good. Thank you.

I do not accept that the existence of God is based on faith. I do not know who does this either. God exist whether people have faith in him or not.Therefore, no signs based on faith are meaningful in this argument. The theist is the most empirical one of the two. He believes in self evident truths, like those in the Constitution. He believes in correct references to these truths called logic and he uses absolute truth as his premise for learning. Now top that.

The burden of proof rest with the person making the assertion. The atheist makes the assertion that there is no God. He must prove this to be logical. The theist proves with evidence the existence of God but the atheist rejects the things that are, like logic, love, science, math, laws of nature, and moral laws, as something that man made himself. Well, that is just not logical. The law of gravity would be here even if man were not. These laws are not relative to what man thinks and they do not change. That is why scientist can depend on these natural laws to discover new knowledge. You might say the epistemology stays the same with God and varies with man and atheist.

I am not interested in rephrasing anything. I would like to be able to express my thoughts better. I am improving but am not doing too bad for a sixth grade education. I have been known to read some. That is where most of my ideas come. I hope you did not find any of this insulting. That would not be my intent.
Play safe, have fun.
wmrs2

 

[wmrs2]

I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence. And as for the second, I agree as well, but along a continuum from "I don't believe and simply need proof to do so" (which is a step or two away from agnostic) to the angry (my interp) displacement end.

Just like one does not have to prove logic exist, math exist, or science exist (these have always been here) one does not have to prove God exist. If this is what you meant by faith, then I agree. Faith is a real thing, it is a substance as well as a hope.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No dude, you are the one making the big claim that a god exists.

You get to make the proof. Until you can prove to me a god exists, I can, and will, say that you are lying to yourself.

It ought to be easy for you since I'm asking you to prove a positive.

The law of gravity is verifiable, in many different ways. Gods are not verifiable at all.

 

[sr71plt]

The atheist makes the assertion that there is no God. He must prove this to be logical.

Under what circumstance must an atheist do this? Does this atheist have you up against the wall telling you you can't leave until you believe what he/she believes? If not, the atheist doesn't have to "prove" anything to you about her/his belief, does he/she? If you think otherwise, where do you get off making such a demand?

Now I would agree if the atheist is making demands on you about what you can believe (which is sort of the vibe I'm getting from 3113 up there on the response to my postings), then they aren't any better than fundamentalist superevangelist Christians trying to bludgeon other people into their line.

 

[JackLuis]

If God exists, then he/she is very much a hands off kind of God.

Man has figured out a large part of the universe and If God created this then he/she/they are way above us and probably don't care about us as individuals.

To my way of thinking Gods exist to serve their priesthoods and the priesthoods are the parasites that we need to eradicate.

If God doesn't care about me why should I care about him?

 

[cantdog]

For the same reason 'heretic' wasn't something to print on your business cards during the Inquisition, Joe. Athiesm is a denial of more than God's existence; it's a challenge to the mythology that supports the power structure: America was founded by believers seeking religious freedom; whatever else we are, we are because it's God's will.

With God's name on our currency, it's implicit that God sanctions our use of money and power. With Him directing our course, we can do all kinds of crazy things and not feel an ounce of remorse. Taking God out of the equation suggests that there ought to be a more rational, reasonable explanation for our actions as a nation than, "The Lord works in mysterious ways."

I read surveys that show Americans are almost universally religious, and I wonder how many people just parrot the answer that's socially acceptable. Either that, or a lot of us are hedging our bets. Growing up in a religioius household, some of us never outgrow the suspicion that God just might be the jealous persnikkity old coot whose wrath we were threatened with in Sunday School. Why risk answering, "No, I don't believe," when the consequence of being wrong is eternal damnation?

I suspect there are many church-going Americans for whom religion is more of a habit and a social structure than a spiritual experience. Ask them if they believe in God, and they answer yes automatically, as if you'd asked if they love their wives and Support Our Troops. It only means something when you have to back up your answer by doing something you'd rather not do.

Quite a cogent and succinct answer, She.

Americans are 85% religious, not universally so, and that is a gain for the unchurched.

Religiosity is on the decline in the States. It had a plateau through the few years before and after the millenium, but the numbers are again declining.

The latest good survey (Trinity College, 2008) shows that Christians, who still have 75%+ plurality in the country, have lost ground not to Wicca or Vedanta but to the utterly irreligious who profess no religion at all. The biggest losers were mainstream denominational Christians like Presbyterians, Methodists, and whatnot.

For me, this is hopeful. I look forward to a day when no one who desires the respect of his peers will profess any religion. As a correspondent on Facebook said to me the other day, you can forgo the benefits of science, and I the benefits of religion. I shall then be without bigotry, be engaged in no jihad or crusade. I shall be killing no one, but I shall have antibiotics, logic, mathematics, morality, freedom, and free will. I shall not be burning men and women at stakes, massacring heretics, driving airplanes into office buildings, torturing writers, nor censoring plays, books nor movies. You will be unable, unfortunately, to tell me how you are doing, since you will have no phone or anything.