True, unbelief/atheism does not confer any bonus or quality.

But believing in unprovable divisive ideologies does bring a provably negative bagage.

In that sense, atheism does not make people superior to believers: they are less dangerous.

Believing in shadowy unprovable things gives free rein to credulity.

Religious groupthink induces a hateful 'us vs them' mentality.

Medieval religious dictates make life worse for everybody.


So, yes, the title of the article was plain daft.

I enjoy your grappling with words, whether you win or lose.

Theists are people who generally believe in unsubstantiated claims and hateful doctrines.

The contemplative Buddhists and the Jains might be exceptions to that.

Belief in violent bronze age superstitions is a handicap in life, not an asset.

Nor will it be until you can adequately describe the natural evidence that can test a supernatural notion.

I'll repeat: there is no burden of proof for the unprovable.

That hoary old assertion is trotted out usually when all other arguments fail.

Unprovable means you accept religions are unsubstantiated claims. Point taken.

But your assertion is still demonstrably wrong.

The claims about the supernatural are made in books: the Bible, the Quran.

These books are so full of errors and demented claims it's funny.

So try proving these books are worth killing trees to print them.

Good luck.

The known or the proven can do that. But not the unknown or the unproven

There is no evidence for any gods and there are many good arguments against gods, so disbelief has nothing to do with faith.

There is no natural evidence for beliefs regarding the supernatural.

The only rational response to the claim is to take it or leave it.

which make the following moot, the default position for random claims about the unknown is disbelief, otherwise it's a very confusing world out there. Random, evidence-free claims deserve no consideration and no faith is required to ignore such claims.

I could claim that our universe grew on a horse's pimple. That claim has no merit and can be ignored, no faith required.

(Wait, I do. PM if you want usernames.)

The one ancient and universal question is either "How did we get here?" or "Why are we here?"

That is the question(s) that remains either unknown or unproven by anyone, believer or non believer, scientist or theologian.

It remains a fair question today. The vast majority of other supernatural and religious (they are not the same thing) claims are secondary to that and are subject to natural evidence and have overwhelmingly been debunked.

Yet the paramount question remains, unanswered and unproven either way.

The problem I see, and one I think the OP suggests, is that many conclude that debunking the lesser claims, which are subject to proof, in some way answers the paramount unanswered question, which is not subject to proof. That is nonsense.

"I don't know" and "I believe" are both viable answers to the question, for a whole slew of different reasons and are, incidentally, not mutually exclusive.

Speculation is fun, though, and there's nothing wrong with that. I have my own speculations concerning our existence in this world. In my mind, my speculations are supported by logic but can never be scientifically proven.

If someone claims a god created everything, and they bring no negative religious baggage, then power to them. No harm in that, except for being wrong in my view.

We don't know what type of existence our universe came from. Random place holders for our ignorance are not very useful, whether a god, or the unfortunate claim formerly made by many scientists, that our universe came from nothing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is no evidence for either of those claims.

But I do know that the religious thought which has been held by billions of humans and developed over thousands of years is not simple speculation. I expect it is the one topic above all others that has consumed the bulk of human intellectual effort over that time. And, if one accepts its premises, it has a logical coherence to it which is far from speculation.

Or, one can simply say, "we don't know". and leave.

Either way, neither path allows its travelers to blare the trumpet of demonstrated truth to the other.

There is a burden of proof about the claims about Noah, Moses and Jesus.

There is a burden of proof when the Quran states mountains are like tent pegs.

There is a burden of proof about th ecreation myth. When did Adam live? Moses. Etc.


Science contradicts the claims of the Bible and the Quran.

Whatever beliefs in a supernatural stay pies in the sky as long as there's not a reliable doctrine about said supernatural.

It's there, just above you.

Even wishing doesn't help.

--imm

Hence, are provable. Or not.

I believe him.

Um, no. If it is, you're doing it wrong.