Why?

[fadetree]

Although it kind of dodges the original questions by redefining the term, but I don't mind, since it's reasonable. Followup : do you think it is possible to experience any kind of evidence that would convince you of a supernatural being?

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't understand why self-described atheists argue about religion. I don't believe in nor care about UFO's or little green men, and as such I don't argue about those things on internet web sites. You can consider yourself an atheist as far as traditional religions are concerned without necessarily disavowing the possibility of higher forms of intelligence or life beyond that which science can presently explain.


Danth

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides that make people really foam at each other. One block to me on the road to atheism is that 'Atheists' seem to be very hypocritical, hysterically denying that any god exists, while also claiming reason to be on their side. They don't seem to ( usually, see the above post ) realize that their position is just as faith based as a fundamental religious person's is.

[Econ]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides that make people really foam at each other. One block to me on the road to atheism is that 'Atheists' seem to be very hypocritical, hysterically denying that any god exists, while also claiming reason to be on their side. They don't seem to ( usually, see the above post ) realize that their position is just as faith based as a fundamental religious person's is.

So the position that their is absolutely zero factual evidence supporting the existence of an invisible flying man in the sky is purely based on faith alone.
Right.

[fadetree]

Yes, it is. You have to state that you know everything there is possible in the universe, and that's not one of them. That's the only way to, using reason, categorically deny it's existence. It's teh exact same argument the religious types make.

[fadetree]

meaning, if you also say that you in fact don't know everything in the universe, then you are arguing from simple belief, ie., faith.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides that make people really foam at each other. One block to me on the road to atheism is that 'Atheists' seem to be very hypocritical, hysterically denying that any god exists, while also claiming reason to be on their side. They don't seem to ( usually, see the above post ) realize that their position is just as faith based as a fundamental religious person's is.

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, it is. You have to state that you know everything there is possible in the universe, and that's not one of them. That's the only way to, using reason, categorically deny it's existence. It's teh exact same argument the religious types make.

Your posts give the impression that you are more focused on labels than on actual thought processes.

The first issue that I see is your implication that there is either atheist or agnostic when it comes to nonbelief. This is problematic because not only does it set an idea that the two aren't comparable or interchangeable depending on context, but it also ignores stances potentially separate from both, anti-theism and skepticism for example.

I apologise if this post comes off as pretentious, I don't mean to belittle you in any way. It's just that with this subject, context is everything and I honestly don't know exactly what it is that you are actually looking for.

[Samoht]

i can't tell if this guy is legit or if yall just got trolled by some confirmation biased bullshitter...

but i guess i'll bite. atheism isn't the denial of gods. atheism is the lack of belief either way because itdon'tmatterwedon'tgiveafuck. atheists don't need a book full of draconic laws or anecdotal crap to tell them how to behave. atheists are just as prone to have good morals as christians are to have bad morals (and in my experience, moreso).

what atheists *are* sure of is that there is no way in hell that there's a benevolent creator, or if there ever was one, he died a long time ago because at this point, the idea that we were created as some kind of utopia of peace and love and sex without STDs is just lol. if he saw the crapshoot his creation has become today, he would probably /wrist all over again

[Danth]

Well, some folks use faith as though it's a dirty word, but it really isn't. I take it on faith that Uzbekistan's a real place and not merely some weird conspiracy, although I've never been there and don't know anyone who has. Essentially everything you believe that hasn't been confirmed by your own direct observation is based on faith to some greater or lesser degree. Some of those leaps of faith, however, are more likely to be ultimately proven correct than others.

It bears mention that atheism is not a belief system. As such, atheists cannot be lumped together in precisely the same manner as how Mennonites or Baptists or Unitarians can. Different atheists (and agnostics) will have different opinions about things.

Danth

[paulgiamatti]

Ugh, can you guys please just go read the religion thread, all of this has been answered in 50 different ways 50 times over.

[iruinedyourday]

this is how some feel about it: http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Scientific_method