have no common language. One is speaking through a lens of logic, facts, critical thinking and reason. The other is speaking through the lens of faith, belief and magical thinking (and I mean that as a clinical description, not as a slight).

In many cases with the born again Atheist and the born again Christian, the only thing they have in common is their bedrock certainty.

"prove their is a GOD" and the other states "prove their isn't"? If you truly understood the question "why do I exist" then you wouldn't have a problem with either belief. They are beliefs. What is life and consciousness? These questions are bewildering and elusive of which no one has the answer or complete truth. Knowing that you don't know is the first step. Thinking you know the answers whether you're an atheist or believe in a GOD is a suffering from the same ailment. You simply don't know.

"Prove there isn't a god?" Why do I need to? It's not a claim I make. How could I prove it if I wanted to? If I claim to be a millionaire, and we both need to know for some reason - perhaps I'm trying to buy your million dollar house for cash - is it your job to prove I'm not one? Is that even an equally valid question to my need to prove I am? (FWIW I'm not, BTW).

I get the feeling you believe atheism is limited to explicit or strong (philosophical term unrelated to potency of opinion) atheism. Of what answer do you consider atheism necessarily entails certainty?

The questions were Life and Consciousness. Same ailment.

The answer to the question of what is life and consciousness escapes you just as much as those that believe in religion. If you're an atheist you're claiming their is no GOD. You're not a millionaire or an atheist?

Do I really have to supply this for you?

Here is definition.
a·the·ism
? ?[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Notice how the word belief is used in the definition. Atheism is a BELIEF!!!! That is all it can be. Why? Because it can be proven!!!

Same ailment.

Your appeal to authority is the dictionary? Why don't you actually make a real argument? This exactly the 'shut up, that's why' we are talking about.

So Dictionary.com is an authority of the definition of words? That doesn't change? Grow up, and take another look at 2 in your supplied definition. Make an argument using your own thoughts and words.


Here is Wikipedia if you want to continue with dueling definitions to no point.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Dictionary definitions (especially general dictionaries like Websters et al) are not the best sources for word definitions. Contextual definitions, especially those by "experts," would be far superior.

How about you actually try to learn about atheists instead of just building up straw men to make yourself feel good.

I am an agnostic. If you are unable to understand what that is then maybe you should learn more about it. I would stand beside and atheist as well as a religionist (providing they weren't trying to persuade others of their beliefs) if they were being attacked. I have friends of both persuasions. What I don't like from either side is the superiority attitude of thinking one or the other is unable to grasp the true reality of life and it's meaning or lack thereof. That their way is right. I feel it should be open and taught across the board. All religions and atheism. Freedom to choose. Freedom to allow others to believe what they will. I am rarely taken well by religionists also. I live in a no mans land. What does that tell you.

on what the definition of agnostic is.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

World English Dictionary
disbelief (ˌdɪsbɪˈliːf)

— n
refusal or reluctance to believe


So how is atheism a belief again?

but wasn't going to waste my time posting it and her is why.

I'll use this "If someone came up to you and said "There is a talking, fire-breathing dragon in my garage"

Let's look at this.
I could choose to believe that there is a fire-breathing dragon in his garage

I could choose to believe that there isn't a fire-breathing dragon in his garage
I could choose to disbelieve that there is a fire-breathing dragon in his garage

Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb
1
a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2
: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3
: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>

Let's look at #3
To hold an opinion
Do you understand that?

Now

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Do you not hold the psychological state that the proposition that there are no GODS to be true?

There is a difference, which you seem not to accept or perhaps understand, between "I do not believe X" and "I believe X is false"

I do not believe in any gods. I do not believe because I have seen insufficient evidence and heard insufficient inductive argument to support the idea that they exist. I am perfectly open to evidence or argument that one exists, and if compelling evidence or argument is presented I will then happily believe in that god.

It is not my need, desire or even possibility to prove that any and all gods don't exist. Again, please try to consider the several analogies with which you have been presented. Claims made need to be supported. Claims disbelieved do not need to be disproven.

what are atheists doing that would cause the "shut up" reaction?

Atheists are making arguments that theists can't refute, so the theist says "shut up".

I got no problem with anybody believing in sky genii, or unicorns, or whatever. But when those people affect public policies with their personal ideas about unproven fantasies, it is time to oppose them. Just like I oppose repigs because of their unending hatred for America.

Or abortion? Or stem cell research? Or creationism in schools? Or Ten Commandments' monuments on government property?

Seriously, there are a LOT of examples of attempts by the religious right to legislate their version of religion into law in the U.S.

Can your god exist??

If you truly understood the question "why do I exist" then you wouldn't have a problem with either belief.

Except that is not the issue, the issue is that religious people are trying to force legislation at the schoolboard, state, and federal level to make everyone live by their beliefs. We don't want to do that and just because Christians are the majority doesn't mean they get to impose a Theocracy. The rise in the vocalism of Atheists is directly related to this, full stop. You stop trying to fuck with our lives and go back to your churches and crippling kids via homeschooling, and we will live our lives. Atheism is still not a belief no matter how many times you say it is.

All should be taught in schools. All religions, atheism etc. All beliefs. The rw's are great on changing the definition of words and phrase meanings. Oh it's a belief alright, no matter how many times you or others state that it isn't.

It's not; it's the reason I have a problem with what appears to be your belief system. You posted that I shouldn't have a problem with it and if you keep it out of the public offices I don't; I am responding to what you posted.

exactly to what are you referring to?

Perhaps someone with more patience than me could explain it to you.

there / they're / their

Please look up and review these words and when you use each. Words mean things.

Or read this, it's short and has pictures: http://www.grammarics.com/grammar-fun-oatmeal-on-their-theyre-there/

Second, if someone came up to you and said "There is a talking, fire-breathing dragon in my garage who says you need to give me $100 or he'll eat you!", would you believe that person and give them the money? Or would you ask for proof first? I mean you don't *know* there is not a dragon in their garage, do you? You're suffering from the same ailment as the dragon-believer if you deny it, right?

Now the million dollar question. Am I not able to choose to believe that their is a dragon or choose to believe their isn't a dragon? Isn't it my right to make that decision without seeing the dragon? Must I see the dragon to make that choice? Nope. Am I right to force my belief on others which ever belief I have? Nope.

They say you will get eaten by the dragon if you don't give them $100. Do you give them the money?

I would choose to believe that their isn't a dragon but would be prepared in case there was.

And the correct word to use in both spots in your sentence is "there."

I would grab my garden hose and gun and would not believe there was a dragon.

Do you give them the $100 or not? Just answer "yes" or "no."

:smile:
I'll take my chances.

How DARE you tell them what to believe!!! Your active belief in no dragon is the same thing as their rabid belief that there is one! You can't prove there isn't a dragon!

Me, I'll take my chances that there aren't any gods. Now what were you saying about nasty atheists forcing their beliefs on others?

They can believe what ever they believe and so can I. Both sides can exist harmoniously. I didn't tell them that they were wrong in their belief in a dragon. I merely stated I don't believe for sure and I will protect myself in case. Get a grip.

Tell me again how you aren't forcing your beliefs on the dragon-believer. Because you ARE.

I see a dead end here. If you believe that, it truly is the end of the discussion. So telling someone you're an atheist is forcing your beliefs on someone?

Deal with it.

It is also clear you have no answers that is why you avoid questions.

You'd be prepared in case there was? Honestly? You wouldn't consider that you'd neither seen nor heard of a fire-breathing dragon in your life? You wouldn't consider that science has never documented the existence on a fire-breathing dragon, living or extinct? You wouldn't consider the fact that there is no account of a fire-breathing dragon in any reliable historical record? You wouldn't consider the fact that there are far more lunatics in the world who may claim to have a fire-breathing dragon than there ever were fire-breathing dragons?

I think almost everybody, religious or not, would not believe that there is a dragon in the garage based on that overwhelming lack of evidence. Apply that logic to the existence of a supernatural god or gods, and you understand the perspective of an agnostic atheist.

in his garage and without knowing what it was, I would probably succumb to the Grade B movie scenario and die. I am from the Show Me state however good or bad that is. Could I believe it? Depends on the neighbor and his or hers credibility. Would I possibly believe that there was something that they didn't understand? Yes. Is it possible that it would kill me if I didn't cough up the $100 dollars. Yes. Would I believe that there was a dinosaur in their garage even though their is proof that they existed. Not likely. So it basically comes down to the here and now doesn't it? No matter what proof of a GOD existed from the past it would be "GOD doesn't exist now". GOD would have to prove to you it existed now. What would make you believe there is a GOD?

Oh and by the way, agnosticism and atheism are not the same.

...for a claim as fantastic as a fire-breathing dragon in a garage? I think most people would, but perhaps you're different than most people.

As to your question as to what would make me believe there is a god, that's easy: evidence. Good evidence, and as much as can be provided. Extraordinary claims should be supported by extraordinary evidence.

Also, allow me to familiarize you with the term "agnostic atheist".

that there was a dinosaur in his garage? You just simply can't grasp the here and now part can you?

Are you sure you're replying to the correct post?

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

a rambling non sequitur followed by complete nonsense, I'd be happy to continue the discussion. However, I'm finding you to be increasingly incoherent and difficult to communicate with.

You refuse to answer anything. That in of itself is rude and shows a failure to communicate. Why? Because you're had.

Specifically,

What would make you believe there is a GOD?

to which I answered:

As to your question as to what would make me believe there is a god, that's easy: evidence. Good evidence, and as much as can be provided. Extraordinary claims should be supported by extraordinary evidence.

To which you responded in post #58 with the nonsensical:

LOl so you would believe that there was a dinosaur in his garage? You just simply can't grasp the here and now part can you?

I would be happy to continue this discussion if you could could express yourself more clearly. Are you implying that I would believe that there was a dinosaur in this individuals garage because I cited historical evidence as precedent and there is in fact historical precedent of dinosaurs? That is the only point that I can possibly conceive of you still clinging to. That, my friend, is truly grasping at straws. I was clearly using hyperbole to demonstrate the complete lack of evidence for fire-breathing dragons in an individuals' garage, and how completely ridiculous it would be for another individual to fetch a fucking gun and the one-inch garden hose he uses to water his fucking azaleas in response to the unlikelihood of an iron-scaled fire-breathing fucking behemoth emerging from a suburban two-car garage and wreaking untold terror upon some poor asshole for lack of $100. If, sir, that is the intent of your barely comprehensible post #58, then this is my response.

dinosaur in the garage? You answer.

Not really fair, though, since you never answered the questions that I posed first, then had a little snit about me being rude for not answering the questions you never posed, then called me had (?). I'm guessing that's an ad hominem attack, but who can say for sure when one is too obtuse to understand? Wouldn't you say that tit for tat is fair game when posing questions on the internet, Reg? Then I think you owe me a few.

Anyway, as I've demonstrated to you in the past, I've never shied away from your questions, nor from answering them clearly and concisely. I would appreciate it both as a poster and a frequent reader of this forum if you would extend the same courtesy to myself and others.

To address your question, of course not. Dinosaurs currently exist only in the fossil record, and the petroleum products in my garage came from plants that were fossilized in the carboniferous period, millions of years before the dinosaurs roamed the earth, so dinosaurs exist in my garage neither in flesh, nor fossil, nor petroleum, nor purple fuzzy singing form. Clear enough?

If there's a point to this question, please make it in a clear and concise manner. If not, please let there be an end to your silliness.

Christians vastly outnumber everybody else and the majority are cool with telling the minority to shut up and sit down. That's all. No more, no less. Atheists have no power to make laws or brow beat Christians Like they do us.

When you don't have facts to back up your claim then shouting down your opponent is the only way to 'win' and when you have a vast numbers advantage that makes it easy.

they too don't have the facts to back up their isn't. Same ailment.

Then you might know why that line of thinking is nonsense. You can't infer something exists through a lack of evidence that it doesn't exist. Only the reverse is possible. Saying that it is atheists burden to prove there is no God is simply a lack of thinking skills on the part of the person making such a demand. But, while it is impossible for atheists to prove the lack of an existence of a God, it is possible to show how unlikely numerous specific religious beliefs are to be true. Religious people tend to have many thousands of pages of falsifiable claims (falsifiable meaning it's possible to test and show that claim could be false).

"Saying that it is atheists burden to prove there is no God is simply a lack of thinking skills on the part of the person making such a demand." Making a statement such as that or any other like the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" truly shows the lack of critical logical thinking. Both sides have many that suffer from the same ailment. Life and Consciousness, what is it and why it exists can't be explained and the complete truth of it all escapes man. So to help you, it's all beliefs that are unprovable. How would you prove that you're an atheist? How could someone prove they are religious? Can't be done. Everything is based on a moment in time. What is now is not the same as .000001 second of time later. Everything is changing. You me and everything around us. You're not the same as you were at 8 yrs of age. You will not be the same at 60. Perception makes up a vast portion of our consciousness. It is ever changing. Au contraire if you haven't asked or don't grapple at times with the question what is life about and why am I here, what will happen when I die, along with what is my consciousness, then you truly aren't thinking critically or logically. These are not silly questions (and no, Evolution does not explain why things exist). They are life consciousness questions. It is obvious that an atheists solution to these questions is "I don't have an answer and don't need one". Everything including myself just happens to exist, I don't know or care why, I don't think about what will happen to me after I die (but you will). If there is nothing after I die what is the purpose of living? To be or not to be that is the question? Neither side has to prove anything to the other. Both are a belief in ones own consciousness and that can change. The real question is why does one need to prove to the other that their belief is wrong? Neither can be proven. Critical thinking escapes both sides.

I'm supposed to live my life for and spend my time worshiping something that no one has evidence even exists? Why would I waste my time doing that?


But, be that as it may, that wasn't even what the OP was about. the OP was about why some Christians think it's cool to self-righteously shout down the minority and tell them to sit down and shut up.

But on the flip side I see both sides doing that. You can believe in a GOD but not spend your time worshiping. That is funny. Religion and or a disbelief in religion is a consciousness thing. You don't have to go around do anything period. Why do you have to prove to those that believe in religion that it is false?

That tells me you didn't read the linked article at all. You really should, because you are using a "Shut up, that's why" argument here.

as the religionists. Atheists are worse than the religionists. Forcing their beliefs down other people throats. Time I've been confronted by a religionist on DU, 0. Times I've been confronted by atheists, 100 and counting. Facts, definitions etc speak for themselves.

and how you immediately took this into personal attack territory. Naw, that couldn't be it!

Could you provide the 100 links to the times you've been confronted? Thanks!

Bad try.

You aren't calling anyone out, you're simply linking to posts that back up your claim.

You weren't bluffing, were you? If so, it was a really bad try.

Please show me where I said any religion is false. I don't believe I've EVER made that claim. I just said that there is no evidence that proves it's true.



Based on your argument, you, by default, believe that the entire pantheons of the Roman, Greek, Norse and Egyptian gods exist by sheer virtue of the fact that you cannot prove they don't?

I'm not sure how you reconcile that? It must be crowded in your head. If not, why do you believe that those other gods don't exist if you cannot prove they don't. Maybe you can apply that line of thinking to what an atheist thinks about the christian god. which is, less face it, only not believing in ONE more god than you don't believe in.

It is possible they didn't exist at all along with that GOD doesn't exist. That is how. You see, it escapes you that man doesn't know. I don't know for sure there is a GOD or GODS. I don't know for sure that there isn't. I don't know anything that I can unquestionably ascertain as absolute truth and force that upon someone else. Either as a religionist or an atheist.

...we agree 100%.

However it doesn't escape me that man does not know. Just the opposite. I'm more than willing to say there may, or may not, be a god as there is no proof one way or another. It's the Christians that are SO sure they know all about God, how he works, and what he wants that they are trying to force it on the rest of us.

Could you tell me the difference between "know" and "believe" and explain which one is relevant to the theism/atheism choice and why?

?w=460

It's always posted by some conservative who 1) doesn't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution; 2) incorrectly thinks that atheists have an active belief in "nothing"; 3) is grossly ignorant on the mechanisms of natural selection ; and 4) often posts links from intellectual giants like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Michael Savage.

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:07 PM - Edit history (1)

It's is not always posted by a conservative. I just proved that. 1 & 2. Atheists believe in nothing that is a fact (abiogenesis and evolution is earthly only. Good for those with a narrow and tunneled view of life without regard that it does encompasses more than earth). 3. It is the kettle calling the pot black, evolution doesn't explain why it happened. 4. Where is a link by me from those aholes?

There is no such thing as always and never.
Slander on, that is the only thing atheists know how to do.

Does this suit your taste more?

I'm sure it was nice.

I'm serious - I don't understand what the hell you're saying here.

What a crock.

I want to answer your questions, but it's really hard to follow what you're saying. Could you expand on "prove that it encompasses more that {sic} earth"? I'm not sure what "it" is referring to in your statement.

You don't need to prove it, it just is. It is the absence of the hypothesis trying to be proved. Saying that there is a god would be the hypothesis. Not believing in that god is not something that needs to be proved. And in a case like this, asking for the proof of a negative is a fallacy.

They however can believe there is a GOD individually and they have nothing to prove to anyone. The teaching of religion, evolution and atheism in schools is a social teaching. I studied many religions in eastern civilization. That doesn't mean they were trying to convert me to all the taught religions. It was education about society. Your post was quite reasonable and accurate. However, atheists can not provide the answer to how everything came into being and why. It simply isn't a question that can be answered with certainty on both sides. The "Everything just happened" is an hypothesis and that is the issue here. It, along with a "GOD" can't be proven.

But my atheism is not a position I need to prove. I don't need to prove there is no Santa, or tooth fairy, or Easter bunny, or unicorns. I do not believe they exist. If you want to make an argument that they do, have at it. But those making a positive claim (i.e. there is a god) are the ones with the burden of proof.

As to your how things came into being example? Slapping "god did it" on that question does nothing for answering it. And why would atheists need to prove how the universe came into being? I'm an English teacher for the love of Pete. What the fuck do I know about universal origins. Now if there are atheists that deal in that branch of science, I'm sure they are working on it. And I hope they aren't stopping with "god did it."

Keep your atheism to yourself. Let all be taught with no discussion just facts in schools and let the individual decide. You agree with that?

that if religion weren't shoved down my throat daily, I would never speak a word about my atheism.

How is it being shoved down your throat? I want to know so I can understand.

that can't (and doesn't need) proof?

Oh my word! Don't go there.

to argue with believers about religion. There is absolutely no point. It seems to just drive them crazy when I explain that I am perfectly happy practicing reason instead of following a god or it's creator/priests.

Who cares what they think if they aren't thinking critically. It's too bad that most of them want to force their myths and rules on everyone else but why spend a minute listening to them parroting some ancient propaganda. It's such a waste of time.

Who cares what they think if they aren't thinking critically. As an agnostic, from my point of view, both atheists and religionists do not think critically.

Could you provide an example of that?

the universe inside of it and outside of it and it's coming into being is not knowable nor provable. That little explanations of life on earth are just that, little. The bigger question still remains. What will atheists say when we are able to create life on a new world? To start the evolutionary beginnings of a new world? Will we not be the creators of that world? Are we not creating or modifying life or organisms now genetically? What an atheists proposes is closed minded and will be proven with man's own hands. Only simpletons would believe it is impossible for there to be a creator. Only simpletons would know for sure there isn't one.

The inablilty of some atheists to have a true conversation is astounding. Their ability to abscond and not answer questions is truly remarkable.

I'm done.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inside of" the universe, but the universe and its beginnings are entirely knowable - that's what science does. There are several theoretical models that give us some insight into the birth of the universe, none of which are rooted in religious thought. And every day science provides more answers - answers rooted in logic, empiricism and the scientific method.



Yep, we've already created synthetic life ourselves in a lab, and genetic engineering is a fairly well studied field. But that doesn't make us "gods" or give us supernatural powers or mean that there's "something else" out there. The term "god" sorta loses its meaning when it's a just a human being. And to ask, "what will atheists say when we are able to create life on a new world" is just odd. Are there atheists that have denied that humans could create life on another world? Will there be some mass renunciation of atheism and a movement towards a belief in god by unbelievers? I doubt that very much.



I'll ignore the fact that you called me a simpleton, and respond with this. When? When have atheists claimed that it's impossible for there to be a creator? Atheists question the idea of a divine creator, and consider it highly unlikely, but "strong atheists" are rare in the heathen community. Until there's some proof, we'll continue to consider it highly unlikely.



There are atheists in this very thread that are attempting to have a conversation with you. Several have asked questions that you haven't answered, and you're talking past many of them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inside of" the universe, but the universe and its beginnings are entirely knowable

Wrong While we can never directly "see" the whole of the universe or glimpse its farthest horizons,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/how-big-universe.html

Yep, we've already created synthetic life ourselves in a lab, and genetic engineering is a fairly well studied field. But that doesn't make us "gods" or give us supernatural powers or mean that there's "something else" out there. The term "god" sorta loses its meaning when it's a just a human being. And to ask, "what will atheists say when we are able to create life on a new world" is just odd. Are there atheists that have denied that humans could create life on another world? Will there be some mass renunciation of atheism and a movement towards a belief in god by unbelievers? I doubt that very much.

Wrong again
No one knows for sure if there is a GOD or what that GOD is. If GOD was simply an extremely advanced civilization that has capabilities beyond our comprehension the term GOD would still remain the same. It is a man made word and definition for unexplainable life experiences and observations.

I'll ignore the fact that you called me a simpleton, and respond with this. When? When have atheists claimed that it's impossible for there to be a creator? Atheists question the idea of a divine creator, and consider it highly unlikely, but "strong atheists" are rare in the heathen community. Until there's some proof, we'll continue to consider it highly unlikely.

Wrong again

The statement "there is no GOD", "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc. states unequivocally that there isn't a GOD. Don't abscond.

There are atheists in this very thread that are attempting to have a conversation with you. Several have asked questions that you haven't answered, and you're talking past many of them.

Wrong again and again

Second, if someone came up to you and said "There is a talking, dinosaur in my garage who says you need to give me $100 or he'll eat you!", would you believe that person and give them the money? Or would you ask for proof first? I mean you don't *know* there is not a dinosaur in their garage, do you? Would it make that big a difference? There were dinosaurs. We have proof of that. The fact that there is proof that dinosaurs existed would not change my mind and I would keep my $100.00. That for sure doesn't mean that I am trying to persuade him into not believing there is a dinosaur in his garage. He is trying to persuade me and I am just refusing. So, would you believe that there was a dinosaur in the garage? Since there is proof that they existed.

The whole proof thing is utter BS. I will tell you why. The proof would have to be in the here and now. You would have to see GOD, talk to GOD, touch GOD and examine GOD to begin to possibly believe that there is a GOD. The ego in atheists is so large!!! There will always be a way for you to refuse to believe. I simply understand that I don't know for sure. I don't attack religionists and say they're not critical thinkers, closed minded, idiots, dumb and on and on.

Show me the answers from these atheists to "So, would you believe that there was a dinosaur in the garage?

But I do however throw back at the atheists what they throw.

Once again I find it immature, rude and unpatriotic to not allow freedom of and from religion or to criticize someone for believing or not believing. To attack ones beliefs. That is exactly how atheists act. That doesn't mean that a politician can't say anything in reference to religion. Nor does it mean that politicians must be religionists either.

I've been very clear on the fact that all should be taught in schools. All religions, evolution and atheism. Without bias. Let the individual decide.

If atheists are wanting to control how someone else raises their children in regards to religion then they are headed down a road best avoided. It will be to their peril.

The attacks on religionists are very very bad for the Democratic party.

Just because we can't see parts of the universe don't mean they don't exist, and that we can't extrapolate what's out there. It also doesn't mean that we throw our hands up and say, "we can't see it, so I guess we'll attribute it to god."



First, you do understand atheists are saying that we don't know? You seem to have this caricature of a strong atheist, and assign motivations of all atheists to the caricature. It's disingenuous to use strawmen to make your point. Nearly every atheist I've met online and in real life is a "weak atheist" - an atheist who simply lacks a belief in a god rather than having an active belief that there isn't a deity. You should understand this point because I can't stress it enough.

Second, once you redefine the word "god" to mean anything more advanced than humanity, you remove all meaning from it. God then becomes this nebulous term that can mean anything to anyone.



I repeat again: atheists don't say "there is no god." We simply lack a belief in a deity - period. Find me an atheist who avers positively that "there is no god", and I'll find you a thousand who don't make that claim.



You seem to be continuing a conversation with another poster above. Address it there.

If you state that "you don't know for sure" that there is a god, then you have the same stance as weak atheists. Whether you apply that label to yourself is entirely up to you, but keep in mind that in practice you're an atheist.

There are a lot of religious posters in this group that can think critically. You, a self-proclaimed agnostic, are the one with a serious critical thinking problem. That evidence is abundant is this thread.



I don't know any atheists that want to restrict religious freedom. In fact, the only ones I know who claim that atheists are restricting their religious freedom are conservatives pissed off that they can't foist their own extreme religious views on the U.S. citizenry. And this is the second time in this thread that you've pushed right-wing talking points, and it's a bit tiring. Saying "this is how atheists act" is an attack, pure and simple. If you were to post that "blacks are trying to restrict the freedoms of whites", you'd be PPR'd. Not sure why the same standard isn't applied to bigots such as yourself, but it is what it is.


You'd like to teach all religions in schools? LOL, you understand how much instruction that would require? We wouldn't have time for math, reading, science, technology, art, music, etc. Equating evolution with atheism and religions is, once again, a right-wing talking point used in their arguments for allowing religion into schools.


This is the fourth time, in this post alone, that you've promoted right-wing talking points. Atheists are not out to "convert" anyone's children. You seem to mistake us for Soviet style atheists. Have you met our friend humblebum? He makes the same mistake.

You are right about one thing, Regie, there will always be a way for a non-believer to refuse to believe, and there always will be, right up until the proof is shown. Once the proof is shown to be valid, you can start to pick apart the rationalizations some may come up with. But until then, there is simply no evidence whatsoever, for "god", whatever definition you want to attribute to that. None. Zip. Nada. That lack of evidence IS the one single reason that non-believers do not believe, Regie. Evidence, Regie. Until it exists, you have not a leg to stand on.

You have a nice day, Regie.