Is atheism a religion?

[Metsfanmax]

Rationality is a sign of intelligence.

I disagreed with your premise that simply recognizing an idea as irrational makes you better.

If being rational is a sign of intelligence, and we assume that being more intelligent is better, then you are contradicting yourself, because recognizing irrationality is the trait of a rational individual. Thus atheists are less rational than religious folk (because they hold an irrational belief and fail to recognize it), and thus (by your argument) are less intelligent.

As it happens, I disagree with the statement that rationality is a sign of intelligence (this is an arbitrary assertion on your part), but the contradictory nature of your stance is there either way.

Uhh no. You may hold the belief that atheists hold an irrational belief but that doesn't make it a fact. But please try and explain why atheism is irrational.

I explained this earlier in the thread. Just as there is no proof that God does exist, there is also no proof that God does not exist. Therefore, to hold the belief that there are exactly zero gods is exactly as irrational as the belief that there is one omnipotent God, because fundamentally these are just faith-based assertions. The only rational stance is to not take a stance (i.e., agnosticism).

[Neoteny]

Agnostics irritate me. They talk about their positive assertions and smugly chastise atheists for thinking they're so smart while declaring there is no evidence either way from the other side of their mouth.

Fundamentally, atheism is a rejection of the varied, inconsistent depictions of god as we recognize them on this planet. Many go farther to give the assertion that a god is not necessary to the existence of our universe, and evidence is building on that front (all we need is to figure out singularities, really). So, from the perspective that god is not necessary, and in the light of the zero evidence that any agnostic would readily admit, why is it "exactly as irrational" to reject the likelihood of a god's existence as it is to posit, not only a god, but his wants, needs, and rules? Sure, an atheist gives the positive assertion that god does not exist, but that is usually balanced against what it would take to convince them otherwise (something you'll never get from a theist), and it is coming from the perspective that the only reason the positive assertion is necessary, is because the opposite assertion is so common.

You guys like to talk about the lack of evidence, and the theist response is that lack of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. The atheist response is that a lack of evidence does not mean that the odds of existence are not skewed heavily in one direction or another (not to mention, there is plenty of evidence against the varying cults that surround these gods, and, for practical purposes, that is a lot of evidence to work with).

Russell's teapot is not just some silly metaphor (even though it will rejected by john9blue out of hand). The point is a valid one, and is central to many atheist's positive assertion against the existence of god.

[Snorri1234]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does wink suggestively towards it.

[PLAYER57832]

Agnostics irritate me. They talk about their positive assertions and smugly chastise atheists for thinking they're so smart while declaring there is no evidence either way from the other side of their mouth.

Fundamentally, atheism is a rejection of the varied, inconsistent depictions of god as we recognize them on this planet. Many go farther to give the assertion that a god is not necessary to the existence of our universe, and evidence is building on that front (all we need is to figure out singularities, really). So, from the perspective that god is not necessary, and in the light of the zero evidence that any agnostic would readily admit, why is it "exactly as irrational" to reject the likelihood of a god's existence as it is to posit, not only a god, but his wants, needs, and rules? Sure, an atheist gives the positive assertion that god does not exist, but that is usually balanced against what it would take to convince them otherwise (something you'll never get from a theist), and it is coming from the perspective that the only reason the positive assertion is necessary, is because the opposite assertion is so common.

You guys like to talk about the lack of evidence, and the theist response is that lack of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. The atheist response is that a lack of evidence does not mean that the odds of existence are not skewed heavily in one direction or another (not to mention, there is plenty of evidence against the varying cults that surround these gods, and, for practical purposes, that is a lot of evidence to work with).

Russell's teapot is not just some silly metaphor (even though it will rejected by john9blue out of hand). The point is a valid one, and is central to many atheist's positive assertion against the existence of god.

There is a huge difference between no evidence and no evidence that can be readily shown other people, evidence that is testable, etc.

This is what so many of you wish to dismiss. It's not that there is no evidence for God, its that the evidence is something more easily dismissed than scientific proofs. This does not, however, translate into a lack of logic or reasoning for those who believe God exists, any more than a lack of absolute proveable evidence means some scientific theories are definitely wrong.

Furthermore, as for absolute proof, the atheist have an almost impossible task there, because it is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. To contrast, only one piece of evidence is necessary to prove God exists. Most of us who believe have seen evidence, just not evidence that we can trot out for others to see.

You also confuse absolute proof with evidence. Proof is absolute. Evidence, however, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Few will say that there is proof of God, but most of us will say there is evidence. (and atheists say the same in reverse).

[Metsfanmax]

Agnostics irritate me. They talk about their positive assertions and smugly chastise atheists for thinking they're so smart while declaring there is no evidence either way from the other side of their mouth.

Fundamentally, atheism is a rejection of the varied, inconsistent depictions of god as we recognize them on this planet. Many go farther to give the assertion that a god is not necessary to the existence of our universe, and evidence is building on that front (all we need is to figure out singularities, really). So, from the perspective that god is not necessary, and in the light of the zero evidence that any agnostic would readily admit, why is it "exactly as irrational" to reject the likelihood of a god's existence as it is to posit, not only a god, but his wants, needs, and rules? Sure, an atheist gives the positive assertion that god does not exist, but that is usually balanced against what it would take to convince them otherwise (something you'll never get from a theist), and it is coming from the perspective that the only reason the positive assertion is necessary, is because the opposite assertion is so common.

You guys like to talk about the lack of evidence, and the theist response is that lack of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. The atheist response is that a lack of evidence does not mean that the odds of existence are not skewed heavily in one direction or another (not to mention, there is plenty of evidence against the varying cults that surround these gods, and, for practical purposes, that is a lot of evidence to work with).

Russell's teapot is not just some silly metaphor (even though it will rejected by john9blue out of hand). The point is a valid one, and is central to many atheist's positive assertion against the existence of god.

There are two main flaws with the type of argumentation you're using. The first is that you seem to trying to prove the validity of atheism by proving the lack of validity of major organized religion. This is in no way a logical proof. Christians may have it wrong, and in fact all religious people may have it wrong, but that doesn't make atheism correct.

The second, and much bigger, flaw is that you talk about the existence of God in a scientific nature, when fundamentally it is not the case that you can do so. God is, by definition, a concept that is on a higher level than humanity, and so we cannot use science to disprove or prove God's existence. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "figure out singularities;" modern science only describes the things we see, it does not (and cannot) make philosophical claims about metaphysical ideas. If there are, or are not, singularities, this has no bearing on whether God is necessary for our universe. Any quantum physicist who tries to make philosophical assertions in their papers should be ignored, because such assertions are meaningless. This is a digression, though. The point is that you could not ever prove or disprove God's existence, so the fact that we "have not yet" found any evidence for his existence is not really a compelling argument, since we never could. Choosing to believe that there is no God, though, simply because we can never find a God, is just as silly as believing that there is a God (for exactly the same reason). The only rational stance is to recognize that all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are equally irrational.

[john9blue]

I don't think I even mentioned the teapot in this thread yet...

I'm "agnostic atheist" about the teapot, because there is no evidence for why the teapot should be there. The Universe itself I feel is evidence that a God should exist, so I'm "agnostic theist" about God. The two are different.

Also Player, I disagree with your assertion that God is outside the bounds of science. Science, broadly, covers everything, even outside our own universe.

[PLAYER57832]

Also Player, I disagree with your assertion that God is outside the bounds of science. Science, broadly, covers everything, even outside our own universe.

True. I should have said outside current bounds of science. Some day, that might change.

[Juan_Bottom]

The second, and much bigger, flaw is that you talk about the existence of God in a scientific nature, when fundamentally it is not the case that you can do so. God is, by definition, a concept that is on a higher level than humanity, and so we cannot use science to disprove or prove God's existence.

OR....
and this is just me thinking out loud here.....
OR.....
this is just another easy answer to dismiss why you can in no way EVER evidence the existence of a God (except to another crazy person).
"He's Invisible"
"He's omnipresent"
"He wants you to have free will so he can't let you see him"
"You can't prove he's not"
"He speaks to believer's only, but in their heads, dummy"
"He is using evolution and universal laws to excerpt his control from behind-the-scenes, that's all that is"
"If you don't believe me you will go to hell, which is also invisible and such"

Really, it's stupid how many easy answers a pastor can give you.

[Metsfanmax]

The second, and much bigger, flaw is that you talk about the existence of God in a scientific nature, when fundamentally it is not the case that you can do so. God is, by definition, a concept that is on a higher level than humanity, and so we cannot use science to disprove or prove God's existence.

OR....
and this is just me thinking out loud here.....
OR.....
this is just another easy answer to dismiss why you can in no way EVER evidence the existence of a God (except to another crazy person).
"He's Invisible"
"He's omnipresent"
"He wants you to have free will so he can't let you see him"
"You can't prove he's not"
"He speaks to believer's only, but in their heads, dummy"
"He is using evolution and universal laws to excerpt his control from behind-the-scenes, that's all that is"
"If you don't believe me you will go to hell, which is also invisible and such"

Really, it's stupid how many easy answers a pastor can give you.

That doesn't really respond to my argument. I'm intentionally not taking a stance, simply because this is a concept that is inherently not something we can use logic to directly talk about, so there's no point in trying. You might say that it's "convenient" for religious people that we can't disprove God's existence, but the same could be said for an atheist - it is "convenient" for their stance that we could never prove God's existence. I don't understand the "logical" leap that because we cannot observe something, that means we know it isn't there. That's just a false assertion. All it means is that we can not have knowledge about whether it exists or not.

[jonesthecurl]

The same is true of anything imaginary thing that you can make up, but which would not be visible, tangible, affect the universe in any way, or leave any evidence.
The reason you can't prove it's not there is because you have set up parameters which make it impossible to do so.
The burbleburble is real and you can't prove it isn't. No, I'm not going to tell you what it's like in any testable way, but it is equally logical to believe it's there (along with a large family of burbleburlbe aunties, uncles, and cousins) as it is to believe it's not. Prove it's not so.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not defending religion. I'm simply saying that the claim that the burbleburble is real is equally as ridiculous as the claim that we can be certain that the burbleburble is not real. You're right, it's equally logical to believe it's there and believe it's not there, insofar as both claims contain zero logic.

[Juan_Bottom]

Then isn't Atheism the more logical life-choice? If someone tells me that they are a lizardman, I'm not just gonna believe them offhand. I need them to show me something to believe them. The burden of proof should be on them. And if they're not lying, they should have it... or they should have something to lead me to their conclusion. I'm not gonna spend my whole life telling people I may or may not have met a lizardman.

Agnosticism, in most of its varied existences, is just Atheism without balls... true story... I understand that this isn't always the case, but it is in general.

[Metsfanmax]

Then isn't Atheism the more logical life-choice? If someone tells me that they are a lizardman, I'm not just gonna believe them offhand. I need them to show me something to believe them. The burden of proof should be on them. And if they're not lying, they should have it... or they should have something to lead me to their conclusion. I'm not gonna spend my whole life telling people I may or may not have met a lizardman.

Agnosticism, in most of its varied existences, is just Atheism without balls... true story... I understand that this isn't always the case, but it is in general.

Both atheists and religious people are making an assertion about the state of the universe, and both have a burden of proof if they are to be believed. Therefore neither is more logical. I don't understand why atheists think that their assertion requires no proof, whereas religious people have to prove their claims.

[silvanricky]

Yes.
Next question.

Since you asked -

Why can't atheists just be comfortable with their beliefs and stop creating threads giving themselves an excuse to argue?

Dude, just let it go. If they want to believe that they're not religious let them. One of them will start a new thread about how much they can't stand God about a week or two from now.

[Symmetry]

Yes.
Next question.

Since you asked -

Why can't atheists just be comfortable with their beliefs and stop creating threads giving themselves an excuse to argue?

Dude, just let it go. If they want to believe that they're not religious let them. One of them will start a new thread about how much they can't stand God about a week or two from now.

Hey- you've got to put up with having Lionz on your side. I'll put up with a few obnoxious people calling themselves atheists. I just won't go around claiming that we share a religion.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes.
Next question.

Since you asked -

Why can't atheists just be comfortable with their beliefs and stop creating threads giving themselves an excuse to argue?

Dude, just let it go. If they want to believe that they're not religious let them. One of them will start a new thread about how much they can't stand God about a week or two from now.

Hey- you've got to put up with having Lionz on your side. I'll put up with a few obnoxious people calling themselves atheists. I just won't go around claiming that we share a religion.

I think whether anyone truly shares a religion with Lionz is highly debateable.

[Symmetry]

Yes.
Next question.

Since you asked -

Why can't atheists just be comfortable with their beliefs and stop creating threads giving themselves an excuse to argue?

Dude, just let it go. If they want to believe that they're not religious let them. One of them will start a new thread about how much they can't stand God about a week or two from now.

Hey- you've got to put up with having Lionz on your side. I'll put up with a few obnoxious people calling themselves atheists. I just won't go around claiming that we share a religion.

I think whether anyone truly shares a religion with Lionz is highly debateable.

But he has pictures to prove it!

[jonesthecurl]

Yes.
Next question.

Since you asked -

Why can't atheists just be comfortable with their beliefs and stop creating threads giving themselves an excuse to argue?

Dude, just let it go. If they want to believe that they're not religious let them. One of them will start a new thread about how much they can't stand God about a week or two from now.

Hey- you've got to put up with having Lionz on your side. I'll put up with a few obnoxious people calling themselves atheists. I just won't go around claiming that we share a religion.

I think whether anyone truly shares a religion with Lionz is highly debateable.

I think whether anyone shares the same planet is up for debate.

[Neoteny]

There is a huge difference between no evidence and no evidence that can be readily shown other people, evidence that is testable, etc.

This is what so many of you wish to dismiss. It's not that there is no evidence for God, its that the evidence is something more easily dismissed than scientific proofs. This does not, however, translate into a lack of logic or reasoning for those who believe God exists, any more than a lack of absolute proveable evidence means some scientific theories are definitely wrong.

You're right; atheists won't take as evidence how someone else feels, which is really what it often comes down to. There really isn't a good reason to, since millions (billions even) of other people feel differently. The few things that are more tangible are always better explained by simpler phenomenon (chemistry, biology, physics, cosmology). I don't necessarily think basing these things on untestable feelings is illogical, but I don't think you should expect to be taken seriously when we're talking about evidence. Is something that cannot be conveyed to another individual something that can be called evidence? Is it that theists are much more easy to convince? What key element are atheists missing?

Furthermore, as for absolute proof, the atheist have an almost impossible task there, because it is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. To contrast, only one piece of evidence is necessary to prove God exists. Most of us who believe have seen evidence, just not evidence that we can trot out for others to see.

You also confuse absolute proof with evidence. Proof is absolute. Evidence, however, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Few will say that there is proof of God, but most of us will say there is evidence. (and atheists say the same in reverse).

I'm not talking about absolute proof. Most atheists are not. We're talking about evidence. There is very little convincing evidence for even the existence of the supernatural. I'm not talking about absolute proof, but, seriously, all you can really give an atheist as evidence anymore is your word. "Trust me; god has revealed himself to me." Give me something other than the miscellany of myth and urban legend. All that I've seen would be dismissed from a court of law faster than a Charles Manson appeals request.

In before "god is beyond blah blah blah."

Oh wait, here it is.

There are two main flaws with the type of argumentation you're using. The first is that you seem to trying to prove the validity of atheism by proving the lack of validity of major organized religion. This is in no way a logical proof. Christians may have it wrong, and in fact all religious people may have it wrong, but that doesn't make atheism correct.

That was not my intent. I apologize for not communicating that appropriately. I am trying to highlight the complete lack of empirical communicability of evidence for the existence of a supernatural anything. No religion or individual has managed to get around this. When you recognize that god is not necessary (seriously, all that's left is creation, and at the rate we've been progressing, it's only a matter of time [pun intended]), the positive assertion that a god exists requires more than just assertion. Bleating about how we can never know either way is intellectually dishonest. If it is unnecessary, and cannot be demonstrated to exist, why is believing in it as rational as not believing in it. See Russell's teapot. If I assert that there is a mechanism other than evolution that explains the diversity of biology (other than a god, obviously), but then declare that it is supernatural and there's no way you can weigh the evidence to discern its merit, I would excuse your atheism with respect to my hypothesis, and I would expect you to call the agnostics irritating. Like, really, really irritating.

The second, and much bigger, flaw is that you talk about the existence of God in a scientific nature, when fundamentally it is not the case that you can do so.

So, are you agnostic? Because that's not an agnostic claim. An agnostic would say that there is no way to know if god is outside of science. If you think god is outside of science, then you are following the lead of theists (or at least just taking their word on it) by repeating such.

God is, by definition, a concept that is on a higher level than humanity, and so we cannot use science to disprove or prove God's existence.

Depends on whose god you're talking about. Some gods are men with extra powers. You're sounding more and more Abrahamic the more you type. Speaking of Abrahamic gods, if a god did such things that violate the normal universal parameters (you know, bringing people back to life, curing blindness, etc.), science would be able to observe them, and surely we could recognize that these miracles would be of supernatural origin. Perhaps god only does things when we're not looking, eh? Either way, even if that puts him outside of naturalistic inquiry perhaps, the entire point of most gods is that they are observable somehow.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "figure out singularities;" modern science only describes the things we see, it does not (and cannot) make philosophical claims about metaphysical ideas.

I'm talking about singularities, man. That's the only "great unknown" that a creator god has left to hide behind. Your religion is showing again, Mr. I'm-arguing-as-an-agnostic. I'm not making philosophical claims. If there is nothing a god contributes to our universe, what's the point in believing in a god without any evidence? See my evolution allegory.

The point is that you could not ever prove or disprove God's existence, so the fact that we "have not yet" found any evidence for his existence is not really a compelling argument, since we never could.

Well, so far you have done a terrible job of proving that god cannot be disproven. But even still, the point that a god is unnecessary, especially because s/he cannot be proven or disproven, is still damning. Why would you believe in something unnecessary that no one can give you evidence for? Why is throwing up your hands in despair more logical than rejecting such silliness?

Choosing to believe that there is no God, though, simply because we can never find a God,

You forgot the "we don't need him" part.

is just as silly as believing that there is a God (for exactly the same reason).

You keep asserting this, but really haven't been able to back it up, except by using religious rhetoric (which is not very agnostic of you).

The only rational stance is to recognize that all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are equally irrational.

Riiiiiiiggghhht... keep telling yourself that.

Well, you keep throwing your hands up, and I'm going to keep not believing in whatever random deity every random dude I meet believes in.

EDIT: Forgot to throw this in. Had it in a separate tab.

I don't think I even mentioned the teapot in this thread yet...

I'm "agnostic atheist" about the teapot, because there is no evidence for why the teapot should be there. The Universe itself I feel is evidence that a God should exist, so I'm "agnostic theist" about God. The two are different.

I threw you in there because your first post in this thread was chastising people for making comparisons. Also, you're the most irritating agnostic of them all. But at least you recognize your theistic bent. Metsfan seems to be oblivious.

[Metsfanmax]

That was not my intent. I apologize for not communicating that appropriately. I am trying to highlight the complete lack of empirical communicability of evidence for the existence of a supernatural anything. No religion or individual has managed to get around this. When you recognize that god is not necessary (seriously, all that's left is creation, and at the rate we've been progressing, it's only a matter of time [pun intended]), the positive assertion that a god exists requires more than just assertion. Bleating about how we can never know either way is intellectually dishonest. If it is unnecessary, and cannot be demonstrated to exist, why is believing in it as rational as not believing in it. See Russell's teapot. If I assert that there is a mechanism other than evolution that explains the diversity of biology (other than a god, obviously), but then declare that it is supernatural and there's no way you can weigh the evidence to discern its merit, I would excuse your atheism with respect to my hypothesis, and I would expect you to call the agnostics irritating. Like, really, really irritating.

If atheism were truly the stance of not believing in God, then I would agree. But that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the belief that no supernatural beings (at least, the ones in the traditional religious sense) exist. We could get into a semantics debate, but the definition of atheism as "rejection of theism" is trivial and not philosophically meaningful, so let's not accept that one. I am an agnostic and I believe that to mean that there is no meaningful stance on the existence or non-existence of God.

So, are you agnostic? Because that's not an agnostic claim. An agnostic would say that there is no way to know if god is outside of science. If you think god is outside of science, then you are following the lead of theists (or at least just taking their word on it) by repeating such.

Depends on whose god you're talking about. Some gods are men with extra powers. You're sounding more and more Abrahamic the more you type. Speaking of Abrahamic gods, if a god did such things that violate the normal universal parameters (you know, bringing people back to life, curing blindness, etc.), science would be able to observe them, and surely we could recognize that these miracles would be of supernatural origin. Perhaps god only does things when we're not looking, eh? Either way, even if that puts him outside of naturalistic inquiry perhaps, the entire point of most gods is that they are observable somehow.

I wasn't arguing that if God existed, this is what he should look like; I was simply arguing about the Abrahamic God because that's the one most people believe in, and using that as a reference for my argument. However, it was not a mistake. The entire point of religion is that it is faith-based. If you could prove or disprove the existence of God, then ipso facto it would no longer be religion. So we have to be debating about things of supernatural origin; there's nothing to debate about if that's not the case, because we can all agree that if science can disprove or prove something, we should just believe that.

I'm talking about singularities, man. That's the only "great unknown" that a creator god has left to hide behind. Your religion is showing again, Mr. I'm-arguing-as-an-agnostic. I'm not making philosophical claims. If there is nothing a god contributes to our universe, what's the point in believing in a god without any evidence? See my evolution allegory.

Well, so far you have done a terrible job of proving that god cannot be disproven. But even still, the point that a god is unnecessary, especially because s/he cannot be proven or disproven, is still damning. Why would you believe in something unnecessary that no one can give you evidence for? Why is throwing up your hands in despair more logical than rejecting such silliness?

Again, this goes back to how we define atheism, which I believe to be a positive assertion. In no way do I support believing in a god. I just believe there's no evidence for rejection of a god, and thus the only rational/intelligent/logical choice is simply to not take a stance. It's biased to call that "throwing your hands up in despair," because that assumes the existence of a right answer. But an agnostic, mainly by definition if nothing else, takes the stance that there is no right answer. So it's not a nihilistic point of view, it's just a statement that humans are finite and limited beings, and some knowledge is therefore outside of your bounds. Making an assertion about such knowledge is pointless.

The only rational stance is to recognize that all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are equally irrational.

Riiiiiiiggghhht... keep telling yourself that.

Well, you keep throwing your hands up, and I'm going to keep not believing in whatever random deity every random dude I meet believes in.

What is confusing about that statement? Find me exactly one logical reason to believe that exactly zero supernatural beings exist, and I'll concede the point. But if you can't, and you continue to blindly assert your atheism, then you're just as bad as the religious folk.

[Frigidus]

The only rational stance is to recognize that all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are equally irrational.

Riiiiiiiggghhht... keep telling yourself that.

Well, you keep throwing your hands up, and I'm going to keep not believing in whatever random deity every random dude I meet believes in.

What is confusing about that statement? Find me exactly one logical reason to believe that exactly zero supernatural beings exist, and I'll concede the point. But if you can't, and you continue to blindly assert your atheism, then you're just as bad as the religious folk.

There are countless mythological creatures that I don't believe in whose existences don't have proof for or against. You can't prove the non-existence of anything.

Explain to me why you aren't agnostic about hydras and I'll explain why I'm not agnostic about gods.

[PLAYER57832]

There is a huge difference between no evidence and no evidence that can be readily shown other people, evidence that is testable, etc.

This is what so many of you wish to dismiss. It's not that there is no evidence for God, its that the evidence is something more easily dismissed than scientific proofs. This does not, however, translate into a lack of logic or reasoning for those who believe God exists, any more than a lack of absolute proveable evidence means some scientific theories are definitely wrong.

You're right; atheists won't take as evidence how someone else feels, which is really what it often comes down to. There really isn't a good reason to, since millions (billions even) of other people feel differently. The few things that are more tangible are always better explained by simpler phenomenon (chemistry, biology, physics, cosmology). I don't necessarily think basing these things on untestable feelings is illogical, but I don't think you should expect to be taken seriously when we're talking about evidence. Is something that cannot be conveyed to another individual something that can be called evidence? Is it that theists are much more easy to convince? What key element are atheists missing?

Actually, on that level, just about everything, including what you (and I) call verifiable evidence is really "feeling". You use the term "feeling" as a handy way to say, again, that atheism is just "more logical" or "more based on proof". That you think this, though, only shows how little you understand of those of us who believe in God. Now, I am not saying your position is "illogical" or "stupid". I AM saying that to make that claim about others, because you don't understand, are not capable, perhaps, of understanding what we think and why is very narrow minded and, frankly, unscientific.

As for "it all can be explained by science". The idea that a miracle is only something that cannot be at all explained by science is held only by a few. I believe God made this world and while he is fully capable of violating those "rules", mostly does not.

Furthermore, as for absolute proof, the atheist have an almost impossible task there, because it is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. To contrast, only one piece of evidence is necessary to prove God exists. Most of us who believe have seen evidence, just not evidence that we can trot out for others to see.

You also confuse absolute proof with evidence. Proof is absolute. Evidence, however, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Few will say that there is proof of God, but most of us will say there is evidence. (and atheists say the same in reverse).

I'm not talking about absolute proof. Most atheists are not. We're talking about evidence. There is very little convincing evidence for even the existence of the supernatural. I'm not talking about absolute proof, but, seriously, all you can really give an atheist as evidence anymore is your word. "Trust me; god has revealed himself to me." Give me something other than the miscellany of myth and urban legend. All that I've seen would be dismissed from a court of law faster than a Charles Manson appeals request.[/quote]
You actually voiced my argument without even realizing it. "Very little evidence" is not the same as "no evidence". At any rate, again, we are talking about evidence you, yourself do not happen to see. That doesn't mean its not there. When someone presents evidence in science that cannot be replicated, it is discarded as proof, yes. However, then that person and others try to go back and find a way to prove it. In this case, the proof is not anything that can be (currently) tryly subjected to proof. It is not scientific, but it is valid. It is as valid as Leonardo's or Andy Warhol's paintings are valid representations of "art".

In before "god is beyond blah blah blah."

Oh wait, here it is.

There are two main flaws with the type of argumentation you're using. The first is that you seem to trying to prove the validity of atheism by proving the lack of validity of major organized religion. This is in no way a logical proof. Christians may have it wrong, and in fact all religious people may have it wrong, but that doesn't make atheism correct.

That was not my intent. I apologize for not communicating that appropriately. I am trying to highlight the complete lack of empirical communicability of evidence for the existence of a supernatural anything. No religion or individual has managed to get around this. When you recognize that god is not necessary (seriously, all that's left is creation, and at the rate we've been progressing, it's only a matter of time [pun intended]), the positive assertion that a god exists requires more than just assertion. Bleating about how we can never know either way is intellectually dishonest. If it is unnecessary, and cannot be demonstrated to exist, why is believing in it as rational as not believing in it.

Two reasons. First, you again try to claim that empirical, testable evidence is the only evidence there can be. Second, you cannot actually prove that God is unnecessary. All you can prove is that you don't have to acknowledge God to live on earth, etc. Sure, presence of God is a belief, and assertion, but so is belief that no God exists.

The intellectual dishonesty is the claim, again, that failure to understand theism truly, translates into a higher order of intelligence. It is convenient atheists, to believe that people who think like them are more intelligent, but simply not true, except where atheists self-define it so.[/quote]

[Timminz]

I don't believe in ghosts. It's my religion.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't believe in ghosts. It's my religion.

So you are an aspectorist? ... lol

[Metsfanmax]

The only rational stance is to recognize that all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are equally irrational.

Riiiiiiiggghhht... keep telling yourself that.

Well, you keep throwing your hands up, and I'm going to keep not believing in whatever random deity every random dude I meet believes in.

What is confusing about that statement? Find me exactly one logical reason to believe that exactly zero supernatural beings exist, and I'll concede the point. But if you can't, and you continue to blindly assert your atheism, then you're just as bad as the religious folk.

There are countless mythological creatures that I don't believe in whose existences don't have proof for or against. You can't prove the non-existence of anything.

Explain to me why you aren't agnostic about hydras and I'll explain why I'm not agnostic about gods.

I am agnostic about hydras. We have no proof that hydras do not exist.

Of course, I think we're pretty certain they don't exist on Earth simply because we've taken over most of it and haven't found them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist at all, or that they never have.