Does Ath*ism have a future? NO!

[alexander]

I too have nothing but my best wishes to offer you, craig, i have had my great grandmother pass away, and we couldn't even go to her funeral (its a 12 hour flight and at the moment we were still 3 years away from actually getting a green card, and even if we could visit, i couldn't because i can't go back till i'm 27 or i might be drafted). And i had a friend OD last year, first time for a wake...

Craig, next time you are unhappy, hit me up, we'll chat, and then you'll drink because you're happy, hopefully... setup video chat over skype and go drink for drink, lol, hope you are a fan of rum :shrug:

[C1ay]

I must concede that, on average, supernaturalists are better at handling grief, and I feel more empathy toward them.

 

My experience is a little different. I've always been very much a road-of-life kind of person. My road has potholes occasionally and I go through them or around them but I always move on looking for smooth road ahead. I'm also very realistic about the fact that no amount of emotion, happy, sad, or otherwise, can change the past so again, when lifes hardest blows are dealt I move on. I lost one of my best friends last year and my wife 4 months later. For me the grieving process was very quick because I already knew that no matter how I felt I couldn't change what had happened. The only realistic option was acceptance. To accept what had happened and move on so I did.

 

OTOH, my children are effectively supernaturalists in that they believe in God, ghosts and other spirits. To this day they are still trying to come to grips with losing their mother. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to convince them that they must accept what has happened in order to move on but they resist as if some amount of sorrow will somehow, someway, some day return their mother. I hope for them they will not punish themselves forever with their grief.

[Boerseun]

Craig, you're right.

 

I'm a full-blown atheist, having made up my mind in my early teens after having gone through the whole society-induced Christianity bit. My dad taught me how to think for myself, and whilst he's still a pretty committed Christian, he's happy with my decision not to be, because I can defend my stance on the matter. If I told him I'm an atheist because, you know, like, because Christianity sucks, and that was the extent of my argument, he would have socked me one upside the head and sent me back to Sunday School. But being able to rationally argue my point, he's satisfied that I came to my conclusion after actually thinking about the problem.

 

But after my daughter was born in December last year (totally the opposite of your recent loss) I fully agree with you that "falling off the atheism bus" is not only possible, but damn easy. Holding my daughter and seeing the love and trust in her eyes can be described in many ways: the necessary bond developing between parents and children to ensure the kid's survival, etc. But the experience of that love being termed something spiritual is very alluring.

 

I'm very sorry about your loss, and have no frame of reference regarding any loss of such a close and personal nature, but I understand what you're saying. And I think in a big way, that might have contributed to the origins of religions to begin with.

[maikeru]

I was also, and episodically still am, grief stricken, often to the point of diminished ability. At such times, I’m somewhat envious of my many religious and spiritualistic friends, because it’s clear to me that their belief gives them a very useful mental technique for controlling and abating grief that I altogether lack. At times, I wonder if I could “fall off the atheist wagon” and adopt one, some, or all of the myriad variations of belief in immortal souls and joyous afterlives, the way I’ve learned mathematical techniques and martial arts moves. I don’t think I can – despite so many people apparently having it, such belief is not, it seems, something one can just learn or join. Nonetheless, the prospect is seductive to me, like booze or narcotics to an anxious person – another technique unavailable to me, as I’ve had, and continue to have a lifelong personal code against drinking or drugging when unhappy.

 

So, while I continue to feel a naturalistic worldview is best – for me, and I believe, for people able to have one – I must concede that, on average, supernaturalists are better at handling grief, and I feel more empathy toward them. (Hellfire and brimstone spewing fundamentalists excluded – they still piss me off almost to blows :lightning)

 

Craig, I'm so sorry. I cannot begin to imagine that. The closest I've felt it was when my grandmother died a few years ago, and I was present in her last moments. There are some things that only time and love can heal.

[alexander]

Oh to answer the original question about atheism having a future. I think with technology progressing and becoming more and more main stream thought direction, as was the situation with the industrial revolution, of anything, the amount of people who don't follow a religion will tend to increase. And while i agree with craig and boerseun about being able to easily fall off the atheism bus, i actually think that atheism, like religion, is a bit strict to follow, there too are defined a set of rules that disallow thinking for oneself, and while i think it is easy to fall off the atheism bus, much like you can fall off the theist bus, i think that there is a happy medium for all of those people, like myself, in pretty much staying agnostic. I don't necessarily believe in god/spirits, but i don't necessarily don't, i try to approach everything with an open mind, and with a bit of skepticism, I've argued both sides of the argument many times (with religious people, questioning god and their doctrines, with atheists questioning what they seem to claim is the truth). I think my great grandmother put it best, (and she was very old, 1907, and live-hardened, i mean she was born into a poor family of 12, a fisherman family (this is back in feudal times too, working for a lord), working with her father, fishing, since she was 7, through monarchy and communist regimes and into socialism/democracy, 2 world wars, 2 revolutions, lost her husband in WWII, never forgot, never remarried, nearly lost her son, my grandfather, when a bomb struck the house he was in, while she was at work, in Leningrad, lived through the hunger and cold of the blockade, barely escaping the city on a barge under bombardment of German artillery, through the post-war poverty and rebuilding, cold war, aand, well you get the general idea) But she once said, in the end, it doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as you live your life on the principals of good, of helping people, of making something of yourself, of being kind to others, you have not lived it in vain...

[coldcreation]

[snip] ...i actually think that atheism, like religion, is a bit strict to follow, there too are defined a set of rules that disallow thinking for oneself...[snip]

 

Funny how things can be learned every day here at Hypography.com, especially when you think you know it all. :thumbs_up

 

Alexander, could you give a couple of examples of the defined "set of rules that disallow thinking for oneself" that would apply to atheism?

 

I've never heard this before. :lightning

 

PS. I heard it's cold again in your neck of the woods (snowing again, even, nearby).

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

i actually think that atheism, like religion, is a bit strict to follow, there too are defined a set of rules that disallow thinking for oneself, and while i think it is easy to fall off the atheism bus, much like you can fall off the theist bus, i think that there is a happy medium for all of those people, like myself, in pretty much staying agnostic.

 

Not at all. Theism is a binary quality, either you are theist, and you believe in one or more deities, or you are not. Agnosticism is not a point on the axis of theism, it is about knowledge, not belief. Most people that label themselves as agnostic do so because they doubt the existence of deities and that makes them weak atheists by definition because theism requires absolute belief in one or more deities. They are different than strong atheists which claim to believe there is/are no god(s) but they are still atheists none the less. FWIW, I do view strong atheism as a position of faith much like theism is.

[coldcreation]

...Agnosticism is not a point on the axis of theism, it is about knowledge, not belief. Most people that label themselves as agnostic do so because they doubt the existence of deities and that makes them weak atheists by definition because theism requires absolute belief in one or more deities. They are different than strong atheists which claim to believe there is/are no god(s) but they are still atheists none the less. FWIW, I do view strong atheism as a position of faith much like theism is.

 

I'm rather surprized that you would write such a thing C1ay [see bold].

 

After all, in a 2008 thread you wrote:

 

There is no set of atheist beliefs. None, zero, zip, nada... The atheist label says just one thing about an individual, that they are not theist. That they do not have an affirmative belief in a deity. It does not even mean that they have an affirmative belief that there is no deity, some do, some don't.

 

Either I'm missing something related to your point (in the first quote above), or your discourse has changed since you wrote: "There is no set of atheist beliefs."

 

Are you saying, now, the belief that there is/are no god(s) is just another form of belief?

 

 

:lightning

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

Are you saying, now, the belief that there is/are no god(s) is just another form of belief?

 

Atheists can be divided into more than one lot. For one set, weak atheists, they simply lack belief. By definition it makes them atheist, not·theist, but their lack of belief is not usually one based in any faith. Another set, strong atheists, claims that there is no possible way that any deities could exist. They exhibit a belief, a claim, that the existence of a deity or supreme being is not even possible and have nothing but faith to base such an affirmative conclusion on. For this reason I classify myself as a weak atheist because I believe the very declaration that the existence of a deity is absolutely NOT possible opens the door for the demand of proof from theists, proof that simply doesn't exist.

 

This is consistent with what I posted earlier, all atheists lack belief in a deity. It does not mean that they have an affirmative belief that there is no deity, some do, some don't. I'm just saying that I think those that have an affirmative belief that there are no deities have nothing but faith to rest that conclusion on.

[coldcreation]

[snip] ...strong atheists, claims that there is no possible way that any deities could exist. They exhibit a belief, a claim, that the existence of a deity or supreme being is not even possible and have nothing but faith to base such an affirmative conclusion on. For this reason I classify myself as a weak atheist because I believe the very declaration that the existence of a deity is absolutely NOT possible opens the door for the demand of proof from theists, proof that simply doesn't exist.

 

I've never heard a strong atheist claim that the existence of a deity is absolutely NOT possible. I would think, regardless, the burden of proof that the existence of a deity is possible would fall on he/she who makes the claim. All the strong atheist needs to claim is that none have ever been observed, non has ever manifested itself (or Himself): Ditto for fairies, angels, demons and other marginal entities, and so likely do not exist. That doesn't imply that a e.g., ghosts will not manifest themselves someday. But until that happens, and until reproducibility required for scientific examination can confirm such a presence, the strong atheist will simply live life not believing in these supernatural entities. That does not make him/her a believer, nor does it place the burden of proof on him/her.

 

 

 

This is consistent with what I posted earlier, all atheists lack belief in a deity. It does not mean that they have an affirmative belief that there is no deity, some do, some don't. I'm just saying that I think those that have an affirmative belief that there are no deities have nothing but faith to rest that conclusion on.

 

That kind of reminds me of the old absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence dictum. Scientifically speaking, the absence of evidence is usually not a good sign.

 

As Paul Dirac used to teach his students in the 1930’s:

 

“That which is not observable does not exist.”

 

Sure that last statement is a little extreme, but I doubt faith is involved in the lack of belief in something that has never been observed, directly or indirectly. The statement is not any less rational than saying: 'That which is observable exists.'

 

Strong atheists know (as I think most people do) that observational or experimental confirmation of the existence of a deity is not forthcoming, and so choose (not by belief or faith) to disregard those extraordinary strange claims.

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Obviously, no one knows for a fact there is no god. Strong atheists are no exception. To know such would mean that there is evidence to support the no God scenario. That is why no one makes the claim, seriously, that is.

 

 

 

CC

[REASON]

This is consistent with what I posted earlier, all atheists lack belief in a deity. It does not mean that they have an affirmative belief that there is no deity, some do, some don't. I'm just saying that I think those that have an affirmative belief that there are no deities have nothing but faith to rest that conclusion on.

 

I used to think this way as well. But the problem is, it opens the door to say that it also requires faith to conclude there are no ghosts, purple unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies as well. It's almost as if the understanding becomes - everything we can imagine exists until proven not to, and if there is no proof or no way to prove that something does not exist, than it would therefore require faith to conlude it doesn't. That seems backward to me. It is easy to conclude something doesn't exist when there is no evidence in support of it's existance. It just becomes relagated to the category of hypothetical or imaginary.

 

I learned this perspective from you.

 

EDIT NOTE: Sorry for repeating your comments CC.

[Moontanman]

I wonder if our closet atheist friend, theatheismwars, will ever come out of the closet. I have known many rabid proselytizers like him, all the monotheistic faiths seem to breed them like excrement breeds flies (sorry i couldn't help myself :lightning)

 

In my experience they seem to be of three basic types, intelligent people who have real problems with the concept of god and feel the need to aggressively destroy those who they are tempted to join, other wise intelligent people whose thought processes while intelligent are totally inflexible and cannot allow themselves or others to think differently once their mind has settled into a track, and people who are not very intelligent and take to heart the idea that everyone has to be converted and feel it's their god appointed job to go after the people they think are trying to destroy their faith.

 

Many, if not most, of these people think that their religion holds the key to a peaceful and productive society if only everyone would believe the way they do. Of course this is a self fulfilling prophecy as anyone who misbehaves or in some way suffers it's because of the lack of belief in the correct faith as no one who believes the correct way could possibly have anything go wrong. As in the statement "God takes care of his own".

 

While i am what C1ay calls a weak atheist, religion in general does indeed interest me if for no other reason it's wise to know ones potential enemies. I have been asked by various religious people why i cannot believe in their religion. Questions like, are you a murderer, or a sex criminal, or a thief. Do you do something that breaks the ten commandments and you cannot stop? If you are not going to heaven why bother to follow moral behavior, why not do any thing you want, rape, kill, plunder, lie, be homosexual, seduce children, go naked (i do like to go naked so maybe that is a deal breaker, lol)

 

I honestly have been asked those questions when i admitted to atheism. When i answer that i am as moral as any one else the question becomes, why not believe so you immortal soul will go to heaven, For some reason they cannot understand how anyone who does not "believe" manages to not be a raving psychopath.

 

Of course this belief can be harmful, if i was accused of a crime and my atheism comes out oh say... in court and the jury is composed of 12 of the religious types who feel like anyone who does not believe has to be guilty of something then I am in trouble.

 

I have been on a jury and that sort of thing came up several times, it's sad just how strong the belief that only through the belief in God can we have morals and have a civilization. Things like honer and morality are assumed to come only from believers.

 

It's equally scary that someone who has committed a crime can garner sympathy and even lesser punishment by claiming to have found god. A local preacher or pastor (I can't remember which he claimed to be) was accused of seducing young girls in his church. He was in charge of special classes for 11 to 13 year old girls where he was supposed to be teaching them how to handle sexual urges by abstinence. It turned out he was teaching them how to do male masturbation and fellatio with himself as the male in his lessons.

 

A buddy of mines daughter was one of the girls, the preacher was doing this for quite along time before a few of the girls complained. The Church membership tried to keep it a secrete and tried their best to keep the preacher from being charged and convicted. They got their daughters to lie and claim the girls who complained were lairs.

 

it turned out he was also diddling several of the moms as well, he was eventually convicted and served a few months in jail and when he was out the church took him back! He is still preaching and still guiding young girls in the same church! He is considered a pillar of his community and the few girls who complained are now pariahs! He is after all a man of god!

 

So not only can belief in God protect true beleivers it makes criminal behavior forgiveable!

 

It's equally sad how many of these different sects believe that only they are really going to heaven and everyone else is a deluded crazy. i can't imagine how severely that belief isolates a person but the OP in this thread is IMHO a prime example of that isolation.

 

I know several pagans and I've written some poetry for them to use in rituals and I associate with them on a friendly basis and been involved in some discussions about their religion and it's roots. They are some of the most tolerant people i have ever associated with. They do not proselytize, they do not fault you if you believe different than them. As a matter of fact almost all of them seem to have core beliefs that are close to unique to that individual yet they cooperate with each other as an all inclusive group.

 

They readily admit their "scriptures" are less than accurate, that they know very little of how real pagans worshiped and that many if not most of the writings are inaccurate copies of rituals handed down by word of mouth for thousands of years or even MADE UP! the rituals are fun, emotionally satisfying to them and no attempt is made to force any one persons ideas on any one else.

 

No wonder the monotheistic religions have always persecuted them!

[C1ay]

It's almost as if the understanding becomes - everything we can imagine exists until proven not to, and if there is no proof or no way to prove that something does not exist, than it would therefore require faith to conlude it doesn't.

 

I wouldn't say that stuff exists just because we can't prove that it doesn't, only that we can't claim that it absolutely doesn't exist. I don't have a problem admitting there there is a remote possibility that leprechauns or ghouls exist. For me though it is just an extremely remote possibility, like one chance in a googolplex. :eek2:

[alexander]

Ok, ok, I'll break my rules and discuss religion...

lexander, could you give a couple of examples of the defined "set of rules that disallow thinking for oneself" that would apply to atheism?

ok, i may have misspoken when i called them rules, but what i was referring to was a set of ideas behind theoric atheism. Wiki defines it as:

Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various forms, above all ontological, gnoseological, and epistemological, but also sometimes psychological and sociological forms.

 

Now, if one defines a set of arguments for others to use, others are therefore accept and use those arguments as if they are their own, but are indeed bestowed upon them by their anti-religious doctrine, which in turn limits or prohibits one's own thinking on the matter...

 

They are different than strong atheists which claim to believe there is/are no god(s) but they are still atheists none the less. FWIW, I do view strong atheism as a position of faith much like theism is.

Semantics in terms of which camp agnostics belong to, but i too think they belong in the weak atheist camp, and to the second part of that, i absolutely agree, well hence me basically stating something similar above.

 

I've never heard a strong atheist claim that the existence of a deity is absolutely NOT possible..... snip ....... and then later on...... Obviously, no one knows for a fact there is no god. Strong atheists are no exception

Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist.

though that doesn't actually state that it's not possible, its an explicit affirmation in nonexistence of dieties or spirits, explicit affirmation means the total denial of existence or even the slightest possibility of thereof... they dont know for sure, but in their view there's not even the slightest chance...

 

Moon , commentary on your post,

I wonder if our closet atheist friend, theatheismwars, will ever come out of the closet. I have known many rabid proselytizers like him, all the monotheistic faiths seem to breed them like excrement breeds flies (sorry i couldn't help myself )

 

In my experience they seem to be of three basic types, intelligent people who have real problems with the concept of god and feel the need to aggressively destroy those who they are tempted to join, other wise intelligent people whose thought processes while intelligent are totally inflexible and cannot allow themselves or others to think differently once their mind has settled into a track, and people who are not very intelligent and take to heart the idea that everyone has to be converted and feel it's their god appointed job to go after the people they think are trying to destroy their faith.

 

I think in the second paragraph you are trying to describe theists, i think, but the context from the previous paragraph seems to convolute what you are, i think, actually describing there.

 

Many, if not most, of these people think that their religion holds the key to a peaceful and productive society if only everyone would believe the way they do. Of course this is a self fulfilling prophecy as anyone who misbehaves or in some way suffers it's because of the lack of belief in the correct faith as no one who believes the correct way could possibly have anything go wrong. As in the statement "God takes care of his own".

Agreed, though rarely do religions actually produce such societies...

 

I honestly have been asked those questions when i admitted to atheism. When i answer that i am as moral as any one else the question becomes, why not believe so you immortal soul will go to heaven, For some reason they cannot understand how anyone who does not "believe" manages to not be a raving psychopath.

Yep, it is often mind boggling to believers that someone just doesn't think that god exists... and they are not a violent sociopath who prays on people's souls and drinks blood...

 

I have been on a jury and that sort of thing came up several times, it's sad just how strong the belief that only through the belief in God can we have morals and have a civilization.

See they claim that the selection of jury makes them completely neutral, but i think since such a great percentage of people is religious, and there rarely ask you about your beliefs, i think that there is often an unintended bias in the jury, also, because the majority of religious people in the US believe in the same god, its not only bias against atheist folk, but also bias against other deity believers, this is especially true with all the misconceptions about Islam, though this doesn't even fall in that category...

 

it turned out he was also diddling several of the moms as well, he was eventually convicted and served a few months in jail and when he was out the church took him back! He is still preaching and still guiding young girls in the same church! He is considered a pillar of his community and the few girls who complained are now pariahs! He is after all a man of god!

well you have to remember how much influence the church has over the state... the whole separation of church and state ended with Truman, and look at the recent big political issues, same sex marriages, abortion, stem cell research, here's a task for anyone who thinks there is any separation there, name any argument of the opposition that was not religion-derived.

 

So not only can belief in God protect true beleivers it makes criminal behavior forgiveable!

nope, the church does though, it doesn't like getting bad publicity...

 

I know several pagans and I've written some poetry for them to use in rituals and I associate with them on a friendly basis and been involved in some discussions about their religion and it's roots. They are some of the most tolerant people i have ever associated with. They do not proselytize, they do not fault you if you believe different than them. As a matter of fact almost all of them seem to have core beliefs that are close to unique to that individual yet they cooperate with each other as an all inclusive group.

 

They readily admit their "scriptures" are less than accurate, that they know very little of how real pagans worshiped and that many if not most of the writings are inaccurate copies of rituals handed down by word of mouth for thousands of years or even MADE UP! the rituals are fun, emotionally satisfying to them and no attempt is made to force any one persons ideas on any one else.

Pagan, like wicca, and similar religions are like that, they are to oneself or a group, closed, so often unless you knew what to look for, you wouldnt even think that they practice these things, some are not even viewed as religions by the people who follow the beliefs...

[coldcreation]

Ok, ok, I'll break my rules and discuss religion...

 

Uh, we were discussing atheism, more so than religion.

 

 

ok, i may have misspoken when i called them rules, but what i was referring to was a set of ideas behind theoric atheism. Wiki defines it as:

 

Ok. Good. They are not rules.

 

They are ideas. And these ideas are described by theoric atheists. Not atheists, as you generalized above.

 

So far so good.

 

 

Now, if one defines a set of arguments for others to use, others are therefore accept and use those arguments as if they are their own, but are indeed bestowed upon them by their anti-religious doctrine, which in turn limits or prohibits one's own thinking on the matter...

 

I disagree with your assessment. These ideas are simply negations responding to common theistic arguments (that claim to prove the existence of god). The theoric atheist points out where those claims are fallacious or illogical. If other want to use the same logic to counter supernatural claims they are free to do so, or not.

 

What about arguments against the existence of gods?

 

These are nothing more than arguments that aim to show "either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them." Source: Arguments against the existence of God, Wiki

 

There are empirical arguments, deductive arguments, inductive arguments and subjective arguments. Here are just a few examples from the article linked above and below (check out the others too for interest. Oh, and be sure, in the same article, to check out the arguments in favor of god, for a good LOL):

 

Arguments against the existence of God, Wiki

 

 

 

Empirical arguments:

Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.

 

• The argument from parsimony (using Occam's Razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[30] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
   
   
  
• The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist.
  

 

Deductive arguments

Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises.

 

• The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).
   
   
  
• Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.
  

 

Inductive arguments

Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

 

• The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is espoused by Scott Adams in the book God's Debris.
  

 

 

Subjective arguments

Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general.

 

 

• The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect.
  

 

So you see, Alexander, there is nothing about these arguments that can be compared to religious arguments. Quite the contrary. If anything they are founded on science and logic. They pose more of a question as to whether the existence of gods is (or can be) known, and provide answers, to some extent (usually NO).

 

 

 

 

I've never heard a strong atheist claim that the existence of a deity is absolutely NOT possible..... snip ....... and then later on...... Obviously, no one knows for a fact there is no god. Strong atheists are no exception

 

Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist.

 

though that doesn't actually state that it's not possible, its an explicit affirmation in nonexistence of dieties or spirits, explicit affirmation means the total denial of existence or even the slightest possibility of thereof... they dont know for sure, but in their view there's not even the slightest chance...

 

There is no reference on that Wiki claim. I'd like to see where that came from (and of course the arguments for such a statement, if different than above).

 

Or maybe you have a source for your claim?

 

 

CC

[alexander]

There is no reference on that Wiki claim

it's a direct quote from wiki.... creative google search should reveal where that came from: "Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist." site:en.wikipedia.org

 

Uh, we were discussing atheism, more so than religion.

that's why i caved in

 

The theoric atheist points out where those claims are fallacious or illogical.

But they are not, and not in all cases, but most of the time i have seen, they are not one's own opinion on the matter... have you ever tried asking a strict atheist what they think after them babbling on and on about the different counter points to god existence, and counter points to religious anything? It's quite funny to see them either babble the same things, or get lost in contradicting themselves and what they were just blabbing about because their own views are different from their religious, rather religion-lacking ones. I like to do that to both sides though, religious people do the same thing, either lock up, babble the same thing nearly word for word like programmed robots, or express a different perspective contradicting themselves.

[Pyrotex]

Listen up, guys!

 

I'm an atheist, okay? I don't believe that deities or other supernatural thingies are real.

I don't give a fig whether I'm a weak or strong or moderate atheist.

I'm not going to give "proofs" that supernatural thingies aren't real.

I have no interest in proving anything.

I have little interest in convincing anyone else that I'm right.

I rarely make fun of theists.

I don't try to categorize atheists or theists.

I don't care I don't care I don't care I don't.

 

But if you try to prove to me that God exists (and loves me), I will punch you in the nose.

 

Hard. :offtopic: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

 

[EDIT] I was trying to be ironic and sarco-sardonic. My bad.

The point that I ever so miserably failed to make was, trying to discuss the different "kinds" and "flavors" of atheism is very much like the posts we make in the Nothing Thread. Get my drift?