You're right. We should have let you continue your practice of racism against african-americans and continue to deny women voting and civil rights. Silly us.
In otherwords, atheists are honest. They don't claim to KNOW something that has no backing evidence. Fortunately they DO know about the origin of species, which pretty much decimates the claims of all "holy" books. The original atheist thought process was this: "It may not be said that there is no god, it may be said that there is no reason to think that there is one."
I think the leap of faith the other user would be talking about is your belief that God doesn't exist. Sure, you see evidence and believe the facts, but a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew can also see the evidence, believe the facts, and have it all be a product of their Designer. The fact is, you don't know for sure if there is a God or not, but you're taking a leap of faith in saying that God definitively doesn't exist, making for a deeper problem of where anything ever came from. A faith-adhering person takes the leap of faith in saying that God does exist, resolving the issue of where anything ever came from.
Everything you have written in this thread is completely off-based, because of your fundamental misunderstanding of atheism and even Thomas Jefferson's deism. Classical atheists do not deny the possibility of the existence of a creator, they deny that there is a reason to think there is one.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." This fits well, right here in this thread.
Does it take faith to NOT believe in fairies, boogie monster, Zeus, Thor, etc? In addition, is there a name associated with people who don't believe in those entities. The answer is NO. Only people who don't believe in religion has somehow been given that label. The reason why that word was coined because somebody had to give a certain minority a label - it is so divisive.
You can believe whatever you want and i can believe what you believe is without merit and therefore ridiculous.
I have never said that there is definitely no god or creator of some kind (some higher evolved being could have created the universe, I don't know). I also do not accept the notion that denying the existence of god somehow makes the creation of the universe less spectacular. I do, however, dismiss every religion ever created by man, from ancient Egypt to scientology. I don't think anyone has gotten it right yet. Since there is not one shred of verifiable evidence of a creator from any religion, I cannot believe any of it. Add in the supernatural stuff and I simply cannot accept it. The idea of a judgment after death is as implausible to me as Superman existing. Until there is some modicum of evidence for it existing, I will just view it like a cool story.
Um, MY practice of racism against african americans? Exactly when did *I* practice racism against black people? Or deny women voting and civil rights, for that matter? This is exactly the sort of stuff we hear out of atheists that I was talking about in my previous post. This is also the sort of senseless garbage that turns posters into red lines on my screen.
Yes, it does. You don't know crapola anymore than I do. You simply have faith that there is no God. And for the record, I have faith that there are no fairies, the boogie monster is not real, and that Thor and Zeus are not real gods.
Faith implies a lack of proof. Actually it kinda depends on it. So you are basically saying you have no proof to say that fairies don't exist, but you believe it on a basis of faith. I do not have faith that the sun will rise this morning. I know it will. I do not have faith in god. I am certain there is no Krishna, Muhammad, Christ or any other deity. I do have faith that there is far more to the universe then there appears.
I cant remember, very famous astrologist or something of that order I think, basically said if you really want to play it that way, then religion is this ever receeding power. If you're going to say, you can't explain this, therefore god must exist, well look at the sheer momentum of scientific breakthroughs, no science isn't able to explain everything, but it is increasingly able
Atheist and agnostic are not two mutually exclusive terms, in fact, in a broader sense, they are essentially talking about the same thing with atheism focuses on what we beleive and agnosicism focuses on what we know. Afterall they are artificial labels. Hope this chart would help some of you guys understand.
All I know is that I DON'T KNOW if there is a God or not because I do not have the data to suggest either choice(no Human does). But I do know one thing. If the God of one of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions is real he can go send me straight to hell because **** that God. Has someone of faith in one of those religions actually took the time to rationalize the logic behind their reward/punishment system? Think about what you are going to hell for. It's not for your immoral behavior or your lack of good "deeds" but rather that you required more evidence to jump on the train. Why does the God of Abraham love people who require little to no evidence for believing in it? Why does the God of Abraham want ETERNAL HELL FIRE for people who just want some more solid proof in order to "love" him as our creator? Why do I deserve to go to hell because I just don't just blindly believe 1000+ year old text?Why if he is omnipotent and all powerfull does he have to leave us hanging with crytpic hard to understand text that cause debates that lead to wars? Why make us play the guessing game. Raised Muslim, I was told that God can't just show himself to us or we would die of his "light"? But God is all powerful! Why can't he lower his death emitting light rays for a bit and just end the guessing game? Because it is a test? A test for what? How gullible one can be? That God surely does work in mysterious ways. Maybe I'm just a simple human that doesn't grasp the concept of how good(eternal paradise good) it is to be more gullible.
That's not true. Not believing is the default position when there's insufficient evidence. You are so confused with the difference between "not believing" and "there is no xxx."
it's because if you believe in the scientific method, then you value evidence and logical consistency and do not believe a claim unless there is sufficient evidence to support the claim
"At this point of his effort man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world. This must not be forgotten. This must be clung to because the whole consequence of a life can depend on it. The irrational, the human nostalgia, and the absurd that is born of their encounter — these are the three characters in the drama that must necessarily end with all the logic of which an existence is capable." - Albert Camus
I also like Stephen Robert's quote: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
