Does Ath*ism have a future? NO!

[alexander]

Pyro, nobody's trying to prove anything here, we're merely discussing various forms of atheism.... Also is that a promise about the punch and everything, I'd be totally down if you wanna drive all the way from Texas here, as long as you wanna hang out afterwards for a while

[coldcreation]

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

 

Strong atheism is NOT the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. That would require proof, or evidence. Strong atheist know that evidence (either way) does not exist.

 

I don't see any reliable source (if fact, there's not any source at all) behind those claims, neither for Wiki's or yours.

 

Anybody could have written that statement; even a die-hard religious extremist. That way they have a little something to argue against. That way they can claim that atheism is no better than a religion, "they just believe is something else."

 

Nonsense. Sounds like it was taken out of an unpublished Idiots Guide to Atheism (signed by some anonymous aka).

 

 

[...] 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.

 

 

My point is, Alexander, to consider atheism as a faith (based on a set of ideas or beliefs) as you have above, is nonsensical, unfounded.

 

Even with regards to so-called strong atheist. I've simply never heard strong atheists saying such things as God does absolutely not exist, and here is proof. All there is is evidence, or no evidence, logic or nonsense, subjective or objective approaches to the problem.

 

Basically what I'm saying, Alexander, is that your critique of atheism is unfounded. There is no parallel to be drawn between religious dogma, tenants, rules, or laws, and the arguments (or ideas) that tend to contradict such tenants.

 

All atheists (strong or week, big or small, ugly, pretty, educated or not) agree that the concept of god is irrelevant, not necessary, to explain the observed phenomena that transpires in the world. And that, neither on cosmological fronts or moral fronts.

 

The attempt to separate atheists into different compartments seems to be another failed attempt by religious groups to weaken what is perceived as a threat: its adversary.

 

Notable atheists like Richard Dawkins refuses to play that game: one that has been ongoing for centuries, and is clearly not winnable against those who believe, those who have faith in Dios.

 

He is 99.9 % atheist and does not consider himself a strong atheist. Because he knows there is no empirical evidence to prove the god-concept right or wrong, true or false, real or imaginary.

 

The god-concept is simply not present is our lives. There is no need for it: No logical or empirical reason for it.

 

The atheist does not believe in god, for various reasons, or for no reason at all.

 

That is not a belief, or faith, or anything similar, as you imply above. It is quite the opposite: No belief, no faith.

 

To suggest otherwise (and without a valid reference to top it off) seems like a petty provocation more than anything else.

 

Atheists are free-thinkers, not like robots, as you write.

 

 

I hope the record has been set straight. If not let me know, and I'll straighten it out further for you.

 

 

 

CC

[alexander]

mmk, this is definitely why i hate arguing religious topics, and makes me question my decision to break my rules, but if you wanna be like that, cc, here goes nothing

 

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

 

State your reference, because what you are stating is purely your opinion based on, as you said

I've never heard a strong atheist claim that the existence of a deity is absolutely NOT possible

So that's purely your opinion with no sources, no logical chains of deduction, not even any quantified statistics...

 

I don't see any reliable source (if fact, there's not any source at all) behind those claims, neither for Wiki's or yours.

and ofcourse doing something as simple as a search is... as is scrolling down the wiki article on atheism for their extensive sources, references and further reading section that cites quite a number of sources, including a number of definitions from various sources...

 

here are a few sources:

 

Atheism can be divided into theoretical atheism and practical atheism. Theoretical atheism is the denial of god based upon a system of thought that excludes the possibility of the existence of the Absolute. Practical atheism is the denial of god as reflected in the way one conducts his private and public life, leaving the question of God out of consideration and basing conduct solely on finite values... and then later on ... Theoretical atheism, insofar as it is a vindication of the total autonomy of man and of his absolute freedom, is also called postulated atheism in the sense that God cannot and must not exist if man is to be guaranteed freedom and responsibility for his duties and his actions.

Encyclopedia Britannica in 30 volumes, Macropedia, Volume 2, 15th edition, page 258

 

Or could that have also been written by any religious extremist as well and you would like me to list some sources they reference at the end of this article here as well...?

 

Strong atheism is the position that we should affirm the non-existence of a god or gods. It is a position about reality, that there are no referents to “god” out there

 

Strong atheism (sometimes called "positive atheism"), an type of atheism, is the absolute doctrine that God does not exist.

 

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all.

 

My point is, Alexander, to consider atheism as a faith (based on a set of ideas or beliefs) as you have above, is nonsensical, unfounded.

I didn't consider atheism as a whole as a faith, that is nonsensical and your accusation is unfounded, i considered some people's approach to atheism as that resembling a faith in that god does not exist. However i like your choice of the word faith there, you infer in that quote that atheism is not faith-based, yet you yourself argue that no atheist can claim or know for sure, or prove that god does not exist.

Faith, my friend is defined as "confidence or trust in a person or thing", so i guess what i am saying is that you should stop contradicting yourself and stick with one side, do you think that religious people can not be sure that god/deities don't exist, and thus have faith in that fact (they believe that god does not exist, and thus their views are faith based). Or are you stating that atheism is not faith based and thus it explicitly affirms that god does not exist?

 

So, stop contradicting yourself and stick with one side of the argument, stop being lazy and use that scroll wheel to scroll down to sources (they usually tend to be towards the bottom of documents/pages, usually) , stop asserting your ideas as a definitive argument and whatever you do, don't be afraid to do some research...

 

There, that feels better.

 

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

Lol, yep, it was freezing, like low 30s again over the week, i think dropping down to 20s at knight, and then the last couple of days it's also (in addition to being chilly) been windy with gusts hitting 50-55mph. And it was snowing a little bit on my way back from work, i think Monday, no accumulation or anything... So... waaiting for global warming to kick in for this weekend (supposed to be like 80-85 this Saturday, I'm so going out riding), yep, aaaany day now...

[coldcreation]

[snip]

I didn't consider atheism as a whole as a faith, that is nonsensical and your accusation is unfounded, [snip]

 

Lol, yep, it was freezing, like low 30s again over the week, i think dropping down to 20s at knight,[snip]

 

Actually, what you wrote was about atheists in general: Not theoric or strong atheism...

 

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).

 

...which I pointed out to you was false.

 

And then you changed your argument to:

 

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

 

You went from a generalization about atheists to a special case: theoric atheism (the propose of whom I'm not entirely certain).

 

 

Regardless, your initial claim, even if we're only discussing theoric (or strong) atheism is unfounded. Au contraire. Theoric atheism is not like a religion, and it is not a bit strict to follow, with a defined a set of rules that disallow thinking for oneself. See the set of arguments I posted above that give reasons why atheists (in general) dislike or disbelieve the concept of god (supernatural entities, or whatever). That's not a set of rules to follow. It's a set or arguments based on empirical evidence (e.g., to explain observed phenomena), or the lack thereof (e.g., which would support the existence of god), and logical deductions. They are not Commandments. That is not a dogma. These are no proofs. Everyone knows that. And that is what makes atheists believe supernatural entities, or god, is unfounded, i.e., does not, or do not exist, even to the extreme 'god does not exist' end of the spectrum.

 

Are there a few fringe atheist fanatics. Sure, like there are in a sectors of society. But to say that they have a belief (like a religion) is nonsensical. They have a more or less strong disbelief in god. That's all.

 

Usually, these people are free-thinkers, interdisciplinary thinkers, and they've been around some a long time, and they're often considered a critical threat to religions across the globe. Within the divers groups of atheists there are no overtones equal to (or similar to) religious censorship and infighting between community norms and liberal society.

 

Atheist simply look at tangible options in an open-minded way before coming to final conclusions. Those conclusion happen to not include a Deity.

 

Remember the saying: "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color"?

 

 

 

P.S. I was over there a couple of weeks ago. It got up to 92 degrees. I should have looked you up, we could have had some adult beverages together. Next time won't be until July. Maybe then. We could continue arguing about nothing. :phones:

 

 

CC

[alexander]

P.S. I was over there a couple of weeks ago. It got up to 92 degrees.

yeah i was so on my bike practicing circles :phones:

 

Maybe then. We could continue arguing about nothing.

We're not really arguing, at least not in a hateful arguing kind of a way, it's more of a debate over a point of view, really...

 

we could have had some adult beverages together

I'm down for that, lol, could hit up Eli Cannons in Middletown, or Dirty Truth up in Northampton, both with ample selection of 30+ beers on tap B)

 

As far as your argument on the point i made about atheism, rules, theism, closed-mindedness, etc, ok, let me expand what i meant by what i said, my wording has been known to cause arguments before when i express something and someone takes it for something completely different from what i meant to say...

 

So lets start with what i think atheism is, on one hand, atheism is mere failure to believe in god, infact traditionally "a" - without "theos" - god was a greek way to describe people who denied their gods, thus jews, egyptians, muslims, etc, were actually called atheist for some time. Then the meaning of the term got more generalized due to politicizing of religion, and change in political movements and outlook; Greece became eastern province of the Roman Empire, Constantine popularized Christianity by mixing and matching it's concepts and beliefs with roman paganism at the time to bring the empire together, immaterial to this discussion, anyways, so atheism was one who simply did not believe in god or gods, this is also the time when atheism is equated to free thinking, this is the form of atheism that promotes/encourages free thinking.

 

However since the increase in philosophic documentary, well i dont think that as a species we started thinking more philosophically, but i think we did start documenting more and more of what we think, when writing became more and more main stream. Anyways with the increase of philosophic documentary, frustration with religious authority and increase of scientific thought, post middle ages, and with the dawn of the age of reason, another kind of atheism started to emerge. Atheists that were actively atheistic, proving religion wrong and not really accepting here-say as proof. With the gradual development of this group of atheists, a different kind of an atheist face was shown, ones that actively denied any existence of god, with total denial of any possibility of thereof. But the absence of proof, is still a heavily burden on both sides of the argument, the fact that there is no evidence that there is god, is in itself not evidence against god, its part of scientific methodology, but because that kind of active atheism was firstly and i would think mostly influenced by philosophers as opposed to actual scientists, who mostly fall into the passive, or the more traditional kind of atheism, a notion that active atheists should actively deny god is itself based on an opinion, or faith, that god does not exist, and thus, like religion, is based on an assumption, rather then actual scientific argument. There is no unified doctrine as to what atheist is to think or how they are to act, but an active atheist actively believes in nonexistence of god, by which they follow a rule, not a truth, but an assumption of others. Also, theoric atheism is not the same as active atheism, and vise-versa, theoric atheism is any form of atheism that follows a theory that god does not exist, which is a rule/guideline for atheistic form of a belief. This form, as i have described above, limit's it's followers to think a certain way, in a similar matter to religion, but in no way to the same extent. The strong form of active atheism takes on a face that is even more similar to religion, infact the stronger, the form, the more it resembles a religious-type following, though maybe closer to a cult or a sect, usually with a stronger leader in charge. When you start looking into activism and active atheism, you start seeing forms of preaching, meetings, books, etc...

 

That will either confuse you more, or, hopefully, clarify what i mean and why i say it...

[prometheuspan]

That's not at all what religion was invented for, at least IMHO. Religion was initially intended to explain to people before the notion of science,

 

depends on the particulars. Christianity was crafted from inception to get jews to pay taxes.

And etc.

 

 

"how things around them worked, people turned on imagination, and bam out came the gods. But then some people realized that hey, "

 

Judaism started out trying to be a science. Then politics and paradigm entropy happened. Hard Core.

 

 

"if i can show to other people that gods favor me, and other people are all afraid of the gods, then by controlling their fear, i can control them... Before, you see, the only person who had control was the most elder of the family on the male side, person who was the most knowledgeable, the most fit, at least in his young days, and thus (for Buffy) the most experienced lover. But religious leaders realized that they could beat the system to gain power, even over the leaders, and so the religious leader not-so-secret, but for milleniah, never really questioned society took hold...."

 

Right. The problem with religion has always been that it is co-opted by people looking to get free handouts for pretending to be a middle man.

 

Decay.

 

Most religions start out with the best of intentions, but that generally only lasts the first generation.

 

Christianity was an evil religion and a cult and a death and war and control fascism game within 10 years after Yeshua died. The longest living apostle only made it two years.

 

All of the alleged disciples/ apostles who wrote the bible actually never know yeshua and that all happened a hundred years or more after he was dead.

 

Roman christianism was always roman fascism + religion, first paganism, and the judaism.

 

Christianity is one part judaism, one part roman paganism, and one part roman fascism.

[alexander]

Christianity was crafted from inception to get jews to pay taxes.

I was talking about religion in general, if you want to get into why each individual religion was created, start up another thread, lol, it would be a looooong discussion to cover the topic...

Judaism started out trying to be a science.

Another one, discussing religion in general, there are many religions that predate Judaism.

 

But to correct your mistake, Judaism did not start and try to be a science in any way, perhaps a scientific approach to religion, as in a unified set of rules of conduct for living within god's playground, maybe, but an actual science it's not. Judaism started as a way to unify other-wise chaotically-ruled religions of the time under a set of laws, both human and divine/moral, the ideal of which was expressed in the Ten Commandments, which outlined religio-ethical conduct. At the time when all major civilizations were governed by either a notion that their leader was god, and so whatever they say is the law, or a governing body of people who are near god, which much the same outcome, and because there were no limits to what god actually meant, there were many gods to please, and it just was much too complex for the simple and hard-working people; so Judaism looked past the leaders and defined laws which governed the faith and the people that could not be changed by what a particular ruler felt like, and more so, defined one god, YHWH that is to be followed... Though interestingly enough, biblically, it is not until Abraham's second encounter with YHWH that the rule for one and only one god to be recognized and worshiped was actually defined.

 

Most religions start out with the best of intentions, but that generally only lasts the first generation.

Kind of a bold statement, i'd like to see how you've arrived at that conclusion. There are many religions that hold, teach and practice the best intentions, and have always taught and practiced the best intentions, religious radicals and extremists aside, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and Sikhism just to name a few, and that accounts for over 50% of religious followers of the world.

 

note on religious followers, according to wikipedia estimations followers numbering each category is as follows:

Judaism 14-18M

Islam 1300-1600M

Hinduism 828-1200M

Buddhism 400-500M

Shinto 10-120M

Sikhism 20-24M

 

Christianity was an evil religion and a cult and a death and war and control fascism game within 10 years after Yeshua died.

I'd like to see how you arrived at that one even more, and more-so your sources... As far as i can remember, Christians were wanderers and were in some parts of the world hunted and eradicated and had to hide for a couple of hundred years (hence the biblical texts that we find hidden in caves), and it wasn't until Constantine ~380AD that they even got a nation, and even at that it wasn't until maybe 500AD until they controlled most of it politically and could even approach nationalistic ideology, because there were at least 2 Popes and an emperor, so until 476AD, they still could not fit within the fascist definition... Furthermore fascism actively rejects and resists ethic groups that are not a part of the fascist nation, and as far as i remember it wasn't until the 1100ds when the crusades and inquisitions actually happened...

 

Roman christianism was always roman fascism + religion, first paganism, and the judaism.

And i'd like some references for that as well... Roman empire was pagan until Constantine combined paganism with Chrisitanity and actively promoted it and around Theodosius I ~380AD it became the official religion of the empire.

Earlier Roman history first showed protection for Jews, then around mid 60s they fumbled around a little bit but returned them to the protected status.

Christians on the other hand were blamed for Nero's death around that time, then a short civil war gave them a rebel status, and then for the next 300 years they were on and off hunted and persecuted in the Empire.

 

Christianity is one part judaism, one part roman paganism, and one part roman fascism.

I'd like to see how you reason out the last part of that... And also there is a part you forgot, it's part Judaism, it's part Christianity (Christ fan club), part roman paganism, and i don't agree with your last part, i mean as far as i can remember the pieces that made it into Christianity in Rome were hand-picked by the rulers, but they weren't nonexistent prior to their selection by the councils, though some pieces were added and edited to fit the culture of the time (throughout the times, Christian beliefs are still modified every now and again)...

 

So, you've stated some bold things, prometheus, but since this is a science forum, you have to prove them... GO

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, nobody's trying to prove anything here, we're merely discussing various forms of atheism.... Also is that a promise about the punch and everything, I'd be totally down if you wanna drive all the way from Texas here, as long as you wanna hang out afterwards for a while ;)

Kewl (!!!) Only, I'll make it a Hawaiian Punch instead of the fisty kind. What's your address and are you free Wednesday PM? :D

 

See my edit of my original post on previous page.

[alexander]

Hey, i got the humor, Pyro, why do you think i played along with it?

 

Wednesday, yeah totally, if you leave now, you'll make it here just in time, LOL, I live about 2-2.5 hours past NYC, if traveling NE...

[Pyrotex]

Hmmm... that puts me about 30 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean.

Tricky...

 

So, let's say that lots of people collect dragons. There's folks who collect small pewter dragons, or jade Chinese dragons, or large dragons carved out of rare wood. There's all kinds of dragon collectors. Some do it for decorating their home, some do it as a speculative investment, some do it as a form of reverence and/or worship. Some guys in Brooklyn just collect T-shirts with pictures of dragons on them. Other guys in San Francisco collect plushy dragons for... well, never mind what for.

 

I don't have any dragons of any kind, shape or form. The whole subject holds no interest to me.

 

So, what's going on that so many people want to argue about "what kind of non-collector" I am?

Were my dragons stolen?

Am I defying my parents by not collecting dragons?

Am I afraid of dragons?

Am I secretly worshiping the non-existence of the dragons that I don't own?

Am I an insult and an affront to righteous dragon collectors everywhere?

Am I a menace to society?

Should I be immediately whipped, drawn and quartered in defense of dragon collecting?

Shall we call out the Dragon Guard and hunt me down with a "Kill on Sight" order?

 

Hallooo... what if I just don't care to collect anything.

Maybe I have better things to do.

Maybe all you can say is that there is an absence of dragons in my life, and that's all.

 

But there are some dragon collectors out there...

I know who you are! I see you snooping behind my fence.

It galls you to know that I don't collect dragons!

It means something! It MUST mean something!

Why ELSE would I NOT collect dragons?

It's a conspiracy of course.

I'm out to destroy your dragons!

I hate dragons! Isn't that it? It MUST be!

Keep the children away from him--he hates dragons!

Call the neighbors! Call the Dragon Guard!

Pass out the pitchforks and the torches!

Protect the purity of our children and our virgins!

 

...da-dum...

...da-dum...

...da-dum...

...da-dum-da-dum-da-dum-da-dum... ;)

[REASON]

I don't have any dragons of any kind, shape or form. The whole subject holds no interest to me.

 

So, what's going on that so many people want to argue about "what kind of non-collector" I am?

 

The only thing I can figure is if you and other folks like you can so easily reject dragon collecting, it seemingly calls into question the validity of dragon collecting in the minds of those who do. The more people there are that collect dragons, the more comforted and assured people are in the practice.

 

Not to mention, what kind of non-conforming heathen are you that can so easily reject such a common, and well established hobby like dragon collecting? :)

[Moontanman]

Pyro, maybe you should buy, a few dragons and display them prominently so the rest of the dragon collectors will feel comfortable with you in the neighborhood, then you can go about your evil agenda of destroying the purity of the children and virgins almost undetected....

[alexander]

Hmmm... that puts me about 30 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean.

Not over CT roads it doesn't... unless you are flying.

 

Hey guys, can we get back on topic, please :)

[REASON]

Hey guys, can we get back on topic, please :)

 

What makes you think we're not on topic? You don't think we're really talking about dragon collecting do you?

[coldcreation]

Ok, back on topic:

 

yeah i was so on my bike practicing circles :bouquet:

 

Well, we just had three inches of snow, believe it or not, here in Guadalajara Spain (good fossil hunting territory, when you can see the ground) this Sunday. It seems like we're headed towards another Ice Age. :)

 

 

I'm down for that, lol, could hit up Eli Cannons in Middletown, or Dirty Truth up in Northampton, both with ample selection of 30+ beers on tap

 

Never been to those places. I googled them, though. They look good to me. There's a place in Blue Back Square we should check out too (good tapas!).

 

 

We're not really arguing, at least not in a hateful arguing kind of a way, it's more of a debate over a point of view, really...

 

Yea true. I'm wondering if we'll ever agree. Even the most infamous atheists at this time in the public eye (e.g., Richard Dawkins) seem to dislike the labels and terminology used to isolate or describe the ideas of specific groups of like-minded free-thinking non-believers.

 

That is why the term Bright is used now, instead of atheist, to describe a worldview free of the supernatural, free of mystical elements and phantasmagorical associations. (It avoids all the arguing/debating about the difference between strong and week atheism).

 

 

As far as your argument on the point i made about atheism, rules, theism, closed-mindedness, etc, ok, let me expand what i meant by what i said, my wording has been known to cause arguments before when i express something and someone takes it for something completely different from what i meant to say...

 

What you meant was perfectly clear. I just happen to disagree.

 

 

[snip]

 

There is no unified doctrine as to what atheist is to think or how they are to act, but an active atheist actively believes in nonexistence of god, by which they follow a rule, not a truth, but an assumption of others. Also, theoric atheism is not the same as active atheism, and vise-versa, theoric atheism is any form of atheism that follows a theory that god does not exist, which is a rule/guideline for atheistic form of a belief. This form, as i have described above, limit's it's followers to think a certain way, in a similar matter to religion, but in no way to the same extent.

 

The misunderstandings expressed above are partly why the Brights movement (a social movement that promotes public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview) came into being. That was a good way to connect and galvanize the many individuals who were non-religious. Individuals have autonomy to speak for themselves.

 

The brights movement is not associated with any defined beliefs. The term bright extends beyond the usual secularist categories.

 

 

The strong form of active atheism takes on a face that is even more similar to religion, infact the stronger, the form, the more it resembles a religious-type following, though maybe closer to a cult or a sect, usually with a stronger leader in charge. When you start looking into activism and active atheism, you start seeing forms of preaching, meetings, books, etc...

 

That will either confuse you more, or, hopefully, clarify what i mean and why i say it...

 

The lack of belief in something is not a belief.

 

The lack of faith in something is not a faith.

 

 

 

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

(Stuart Chase)

 

 

“Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”

(Henry Louis Mencken)

 

 

“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

(Benjamin Franklin)

 

 

“I can believe anything provided it is incredible.”

(Oscar Wilde)

 

 

:(

 

CC

[C1ay]

Even the most infamous atheists at this time in the public eye (e.g., Richard Dawkins) seem to dislike the labels and terminology used to isolate or describe the ideas of specific groups of like-minded free-thinking non-believers...

The lack of belief in something is not a belief.

 

The lack of faith in something is not a faith.

 

CC

 

You omit a group of atheists that claim to "know" there is/are no god(s). Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the existence of this group in his Spectrum of Theistic Probability. Here he acknowledges at one end of the spectrum, milestone 1, that there are people who claim not just to believe in god(s) but to say they "know" there is a god. At the other end, milestone 7, there are people who claim not just a lack of belief but that they "know" there is no god. For this reason he calls himself a 6, one who believes god is improbable and lives their life as if one doesn't exist. He stops short of labeling himself a 7 as do I and I would challenge anyone that claims to be a 7 to prove how they can "know" there is no god(s) with any proof other than faith. I suspect they would have as much evidence as the guy that claims to know there is a God, none, nada, zilch. Position 7 is one of faith for it cannot be proven in any way.

[Pyrotex]

Hmmm... I've never met or seen a 7. Of course, whackos come in all flavors.

Like Dawkins, I'm a 6.

Sometimes, I'm a 3+i, where i is the square root of minus one.

 

The "3+i" atheist argument goes something like this:

 

Okay, there may be a god. For the sake of argument, let's say there IS a god. Now are you happy?!

But what has this god actually done?

He's claimed to have created the "world" and then goes about describing his deed in such a way as to make it clear to any sapient being able to read and write that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Then he writes a scripture that precisely fails to lay out a reasonable and consistent set of moral values, and portrays himself as a mass murderer with a temper like, OY!, you don't want to know.

Instead of laying down a list of consistent laws and recommendations and ethical codes, he gives us a bunch of sappy stories that coulda been written by a bunch of late Bronze Age camel jockies with way too much time on their hands. And then leaves it up to us to read about how Rocky and his brothers dismember some whores, kidnap a few Moabite virgins to use as sex toys, massacre a few towns, see flaming chariots in the sky, cure leprosy with bat ****, and nail some nebish cabinet maker to a 4-by-12 and hang him out in the sun to dry -- and from this we are to logically deduce that marijuana is wrong and capitalism is good. Yeah. Right.

 

So, what does this say about god? He's incompetent! He can't build a decent world, he can't write a decent scripture, he can't create human beings without back pain, he can't even come up with a moral code that's consistent, he raises up a bunch of prophets and messiahs and bumps them off, he tells us we can live forever if we practice ritual cannibalism, he leaves the whole planet in a spiritual mess with everybody killing in his name, and then decides it's not his problem any more!

Say what?!

 

This is god? Poor thing! If I didn't feel so sorry for him, I would go SFSFSPPTTTTT! in his face!

What a disappointment!

And I should believe in him? This god has some serious, serious issues!

OY!, you should believe in my cousin Vinnie, the worthless piece of crap who can't find a job and still owes me money! :shrug: