Why can't people just be honest about religion?

[sealybobo]

If your religion doesn't make sense to us, just like Islam or Mormonism or the Greek Gods don't to you, isn't it moral to speak the truth? If we think religion is a lie that holds people back, shouldn't we speak up? Look at how ISIS uses god. Its not a healthy concept. "They" use it to brainwash/control you.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to a hand ful of people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

You can say anything you like. I'm not on a message board because I expect people to shut up. But just because your particular belief as to the nature of God doesn't make any sense to you is not evidence regarding the existence of God. It just means your belief doesn't make sense.

You are free to promote your belief in god. However, your belief is absent support.

You lead your argument by deferring to "God ", a reference to a unique and partisan supernatural entity. It's just a fact that there has never been any objective evidence for any of the human inventions of gawds, past or present. And with a historical perspective, we can identify your God as merely an invention of a supernatural entity that is an accumulation of hand-me-down attributes of earlier gawds, all rolled up into a three stop shopping gawds of convenience.

It's therefore a rational and legitimate conclusion that the supernatural entities that have been distilled into the God you refer to is merely your partisan belief.

Of course my belief is absent support. Have you paid no attention to anything I have ever written? Absolutely zero support. I fully acknowledge that. What you don't accept is that your belief also has zero support. The only rational and scientific position one can take in the absolute absence of evidence is neutrality, and you are most definitely not neutral. So claiming your position is rational and scientific shows a total lack of understanding of what those words mean.

We learn about all the similarities between Christianity and the Greek Gods and we realize if the Greek Gods were made up, so too might Christianity.

Then we hear Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish and we just can't get past it. Anyone who accepts this is moving forward with gullible eyes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're telling us you have none?

Claims require evidence. The whole "extraordinary" adjective is pointless. But yes, I have none. So?

My friend can lift 100 pounds with both hands. I can show you a video of it. Those could be fake weights but you have no reason to doubt it. Or maybe you can read 10 people who all tell the story about how they all saw it. Do you doubt it? Of course you don't. No reason to doubt it.

Ok, now, I just saw a baby lift 1000 pounds with 1 hand. Can you believe it? Will you believe a video if I show you or will you believe 10 people who all say they were there and saw him do it?

Why do you need more evidence for the baby?

 

[PratchettFan]

You are not using knowledge and reason. You are using pure belief which you have convinced yourself is the same thing. Which is entirely irrational.

Pure belief about what?

Based upon the completion and utter lack of evidence for any of the past and current human configurations of gawds, I conclude gawds don't exist. In the same way, I conclude the boogeyman doesn't exist. There's no requirement for belief.

It's a simple matter for you to provide evidence for your beliefs in supernatural / magical entities: provide some evidence for them.

Consistently, you cannot.

Your conclusion is based upon an "utter lack of evidence". You just said it yourself. Any conclusion based upon an utter lack of evidence is pure belief. It can't be anything else. You admit to ignorance but act as if it is knowledge.

It is no use asking me to supply you with evidence of my beliefs. I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief. The difference between us is that I am quite willing to admit it is a belief and don't claim it to be knowledge. But my inability to prove my belief does not prove your belief. You have as much obligation to prove your position as I do mine. And since neither of us can, both of us are operating on pure belief.

The other difference between us is that I fully concede you have as much chance of being right as I do. It doesn't bother me in the least. But don't claim your position is based upon knowledge and reason when it is, in fact, based upon belief and emotion. There is nothing wrong with belief and emotion, but you should be able to recognize it when you are using it and claim it to be something it is not.

You commit a fallacy common among religionists of attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims to spirit realms, supernatural entities and partisan gawds. Therefore it's not up to me to accept your "it's true until disproved" meme. You commit another fallacy common to religionists whereby you selectively "quote" edited and parsed components of comments posted by others. That's dishonest but not unexpected.

The "utter lack of evidence" you describe is on the part of folks like you who make claims that do in fact suffer from "utter lack of evidence". I'm not responsible for disproving your claims that are void of meaningful support.

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of your simplistic argument, it is just not good enough of an argument to sway people like you from making unsupportable and outrageous claims.

I'm left to liken people such as you to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. The belief in Santa Claus is endearing in the very young, but if a child should grow to an adult with an assured belief in the existence of Santa Claus, most people would think of that person as stunted in his or her growth. We, collectively and individually, do ourselves no favors by believing in an other-worldly justice, a Great Leveler who rewards us with presents if we've been good, but hands us a cold rock if we've been bad. Justice beyond the grave is not justice, it is a balm for those left behind. How much better to create a world where justice is natural, flowing freely because each person recognizes the importance and utter rarity of those around him?

Certainly shifting the burden of proof is a common fallacy. But it is you who is trying to do it, not me.

It is interesting that this thing you claim you don't believe in is seems to be completely accepted by you. You have a very clear idea of what God is, despite the utter lack of evidence. Yet you don't operate on belief? Sure. But don't assume what you believe God is is what I believe. It isn't. That particular version is your baggage, not mine.

I'm not shifting any burden. Requiring you to support your claims (specious as they are), is just one of the rules of engagement.

I just have to find it comically tragic that you suffer such confusion. When asked for evidence of your beliefs. You respond with: "I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief." So, your belief is you have no belief! Does the question really confound you so?

I've never claimed I don't believe in gawds. Similarly, I make no assumptions about gawds. I conclude your gawds and the gawds of others don't exist, just as I conclude that Bigfoot and Leprechauns dont exist. This is where you continue to hope to shift the burden of proof. Gawds and other supernatural entities are extraordinary claims and remain absent any and all material support.

Your continued defense of your gawds while disingenuously claiming you take no position and have no evidence is more than just comical. There are, of course, many conceptions of gawds and many divisions between people. Competing religions and the gawds invented to manage those religions add to those problems, and historically they always have (and always will). Look around, and see how many people have grown to believe in so many different variations of the same theme. In certain parts of the world, these different groups make endless war upon one another, bombing each other, killing, maiming and destroying. Why do your gawds lend themselves to such barbarity? Rationalism and reason does away with almost all of that. When the standard for acceptance of reality becomes evidence and proof, everyone automatically operates from the same level playing field. With few exceptions, we now all believe the world is a globe, not flat. But it took a long time to convince people of this; it was once a cherished belief. What changed people's minds? Proof and evidence. That is the standard by which rationality and reason operates, and this paradigm helps humanity strip itself of all the unnecessary baggage that supernatural fairy tales encumbers them with.

The only claim I have made is that you are operating on pure belief. You don't use rationalism or reason. My evidence is your posts.

 

[PratchettFan]

You can say anything you like. I'm not on a message board because I expect people to shut up. But just because your particular belief as to the nature of God doesn't make any sense to you is not evidence regarding the existence of God. It just means your belief doesn't make sense.

You are free to promote your belief in god. However, your belief is absent support.

You lead your argument by deferring to "God ", a reference to a unique and partisan supernatural entity. It's just a fact that there has never been any objective evidence for any of the human inventions of gawds, past or present. And with a historical perspective, we can identify your God as merely an invention of a supernatural entity that is an accumulation of hand-me-down attributes of earlier gawds, all rolled up into a three stop shopping gawds of convenience.

It's therefore a rational and legitimate conclusion that the supernatural entities that have been distilled into the God you refer to is merely your partisan belief.

Of course my belief is absent support. Have you paid no attention to anything I have ever written? Absolutely zero support. I fully acknowledge that. What you don't accept is that your belief also has zero support. The only rational and scientific position one can take in the absolute absence of evidence is neutrality, and you are most definitely not neutral. So claiming your position is rational and scientific shows a total lack of understanding of what those words mean.

We learn about all the similarities between Christianity and the Greek Gods and we realize if the Greek Gods were made up, so too might Christianity.

Then we hear Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish and we just can't get past it. Anyone who accepts this is moving forward with gullible eyes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're telling us you have none?

Claims require evidence. The whole "extraordinary" adjective is pointless. But yes, I have none. So?

My friend can lift 100 pounds with both hands. I can show you a video of it. Those could be fake weights but you have no reason to doubt it. Or maybe you can read 10 people who all tell the story about how they all saw it. Do you doubt it? Of course you don't. No reason to doubt it.

Ok, now, I just saw a baby lift 1000 pounds with 1 hand. Can you believe it? Will you believe a video if I show you or will you believe 10 people who all say they were there and saw him do it?

Why do you need more evidence for the baby?

No, I don't need more evidence for the baby. The fact it is a baby is evidence. You are aware of that, aren't you?

I ask again.... so?

 

[hobelim]

Who the fuck said anything about zombie movies? WTF?

Erm, so you are denying posting this?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive?

Zombies.

 

[sealybobo]

If we are to be honest about religion, we should also be honest about militant atheism and acknowledge the fact that those who categorically deny the existence of God are speaking from the same sort of assumptions as those who claim absolute knowledge thereof.


As far as Religion, however, I see it as a subset of ideology, and any ideology chosen freely should be subject to all the scrutiny in the world. If it isn't chosen freely (like the vast majority of those following Islam), then it is suspect to begin with.

How freely are we choosing Christianity when we are told that if we don't believe we'll burn in hell for eternity? Or we are brainwashed from birth?

I'm an atheist and I can tell you there very well might be a god/creator. It is also possible that our universe is just one bubble in an infinite number of universes or our universe is just one of billions of universes inside the body of a creature that lives in his or her own universe and he/she too contemplates if there is a god that cares about him/her. And that person who we live inside of lives inside another creature. And so on.

We aren't assuming anything. As scientists we only "believe" what we can prove. And we "believe" in evolution and the big bang but we are open to being proven wrong. No shame in being wrong. The only shame is when you claim you have all the answers.

Long before the Abraham religions or any of the other organized religions that came before, man debated if a god existed. The people who believed in a god couldn't prove it and the people who didn't believe couldn't prove it either. But really all the believers had was that they couldn't imagine all this was created without an intelligent designer. Science has looked at the universe and where we are in the universe and it really doesn't look like we were intelligently designed by a supreme being. Then came the invention of the Egyptian and Greek gods to explain. They were very imaginative, no? So were the men who wrote the bible/koran.

 

[sealybobo]

You are free to promote your belief in god. However, your belief is absent support.

You lead your argument by deferring to "God ", a reference to a unique and partisan supernatural entity. It's just a fact that there has never been any objective evidence for any of the human inventions of gawds, past or present. And with a historical perspective, we can identify your God as merely an invention of a supernatural entity that is an accumulation of hand-me-down attributes of earlier gawds, all rolled up into a three stop shopping gawds of convenience.

It's therefore a rational and legitimate conclusion that the supernatural entities that have been distilled into the God you refer to is merely your partisan belief.

Of course my belief is absent support. Have you paid no attention to anything I have ever written? Absolutely zero support. I fully acknowledge that. What you don't accept is that your belief also has zero support. The only rational and scientific position one can take in the absolute absence of evidence is neutrality, and you are most definitely not neutral. So claiming your position is rational and scientific shows a total lack of understanding of what those words mean.

We learn about all the similarities between Christianity and the Greek Gods and we realize if the Greek Gods were made up, so too might Christianity.

Then we hear Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish and we just can't get past it. Anyone who accepts this is moving forward with gullible eyes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're telling us you have none?

Claims require evidence. The whole "extraordinary" adjective is pointless. But yes, I have none. So?

My friend can lift 100 pounds with both hands. I can show you a video of it. Those could be fake weights but you have no reason to doubt it. Or maybe you can read 10 people who all tell the story about how they all saw it. Do you doubt it? Of course you don't. No reason to doubt it.

Ok, now, I just saw a baby lift 1000 pounds with 1 hand. Can you believe it? Will you believe a video if I show you or will you believe 10 people who all say they were there and saw him do it?

Why do you need more evidence for the baby?

No, I don't need more evidence for the baby. The fact it is a baby is evidence. You are aware of that, aren't you?

I ask again.... so?

Wow it went right over your head. Ok, since you are dumb I'll use me as the test subject.

If you showed me a video of a man lifting 100 pounds, I'll believe it. No more evidence required. But if you show me a video of a baby lifting 1000 pounds, I'm going to need more proof than just the video or your testimony.

And you can't even give testimony. All you do is point to a book some ancients wrote 2000 years ago. Keep in mind that before they swallowed Christianity, they believed in the Greek gods.

If they were dumb enough to believe in the Greek gods of course Christianity was something they could swallow. I'm just amazed that humans today are still swallowing it.

And you believe in generic god? I did that too after I realized all religions are made up. Then one day I realized even god is made up. God didn't make us, we made up god. IN OUR IMAGE! Wishful thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

If we are to be honest about religion, we should also be honest about militant atheism and acknowledge the fact that those who categorically deny the existence of God are speaking from the same sort of assumptions as those who claim absolute knowledge thereof.


As far as Religion, however, I see it as a subset of ideology, and any ideology chosen freely should be subject to all the scrutiny in the world. If it isn't chosen freely (like the vast majority of those following Islam), then it is suspect to begin with.

Militant atheists are just as bad as religious ones.
No, they’re not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death,incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they areflawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How freely are we choosing Christianity when we are told that if we don't believe we'll burn in hell for eternity? Or we are brainwashed from birth?

I'm an atheist and I can tell you there very well might be a god/creator. It is also possible that our universe is just one bubble in an infinite number of universes or our universe is just one of billions of universes inside the body of a creature that lives in his or her own universe and he/she too contemplates if there is a god that cares about him/her. And that person who we live inside of lives inside another creature. And so on.

We aren't assuming anything. As scientists we only "believe" what we can prove. And we "believe" in evolution and the big bang but we are open to being proven wrong. No shame in being wrong. The only shame is when you claim you have all the answers.

Long before the Abraham religions or any of the other organized religions that came before, man debated if a god existed. The people who believed in a god couldn't prove it and the people who didn't believe couldn't prove it either. But really all the believers had was that they couldn't imagine all this was created without an intelligent designer. Science has looked at the universe and where we are in the universe and it really doesn't look like we were intelligently designed by a supreme being. Then came the invention of the Egyptian and Greek gods to explain. They were very imaginative, no? So were the men who wrote the bible/koran.

Since you have chosen atheism, and you did so without repercussions dangerous to your continued existence, then the choice is completely free.

I'm not sure why you are talking in terms of "we" rather than "I", but since I am more of an agnostic than a militant atheist, myself, I don't really see myself as needing to be part of a group in order to validate my own beliefs.

I tend to form my own rather than buying in to those of others.

 

[sealybobo]

1. There is a being who has more knowledge and power than humans? Do you have any proof of this? Seems more to me we made up this character.

I imagine you mean scientific proof, which entails being able to set up controlled experiments to observe in a laboratory setting that produces the same result over and over again?

I often wonder how many true scientists are embarrassed by people demanding physical proof of the spiritual realm? That is rather like a demand that a rock be used to prove water--so childish it causes one to cringe.

2. Who loves us and cares about us? This is wishful thinking.

Or, the experience of many down through the ages even til today. A comparison: The desert contains mirage after mirage. There are also springs of water. Stories have been told of people missing these springs, having convinced themselves all is mirage.

3. You can take out the "love god" part and just say "Love our fellowman as oneself" and then I'd agree with you. The god part isn't necessary.

Nor is an airplane necessary for one to reach the West Coast from the East Coast. But many find it the preferable way of traveling.

So you believe in magic then. That is what it all boils down to. You believe that a god came here and fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish. That must have been one very watered down soup.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapiens evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

The Greeks who passed down Christianity to us believed in the Greek Gods before they believed in Christianity. And you want us to continue worshiping their gods? Time for you to evolve.

No, I don't. That is your version of God, not mine. You are operating on belief and are limited to accepting the very beliefs you claim to have rejected. If you don't believe them, why do insist upon them being the only option?

I have told you this many times before, but you just can't seem to get your head around the concept. I am not a Christian. Not even a teeny, tiny bit.

Does it matter if I believe in god? Does this god care about you? Will he punish me for not believing? If you are not a Christian, were do you get these opinions from?

Ok so you aren't a Christian. That doesn't change my opinion that believing in god is harmful to humans. People like you who believe in generic god might be harmless but there are a lot more Christians and Muslims than there are people like you and it is obvious that their belief in gods has caused a great deal of problems in our human history. They kill people who don't believe. They use god to control us, just like slave owners used god to control their slaves. Belief in god has held back stem cell research. Belief in god makes us choose bad leaders. Belief in god makes our society treat gay people badly.

I watched a documentary on the Abolishonists the other day. Yes, it was a small number of good Christians who realized owning people was a sin. But religion since the time of Plato was ok with slavery. I just find it odd that it took religious people over 2000 years to realize slavery was bad. Maybe god should have told them that right from the beginning when he supposedly came down to earth and talked to a handful of people.

 

[hobelim]

Hobelim was taking a dig at Catholics for their celebration of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He considers us Catholics as dead, and feels he must ever proclaim the bad news.

Well, I did read somewhere in the Bible that you claim is the very word of God that the worship of anything made by human hands that has no life and is not God is a violation of divine law under penalty of death.

If scripture is true, you are dead, but apparently not as dead as someone whose head is filled with rocks.

.Not to worry! There may be some hope for you yet! I heard that at the resurrection the dead in Christ will be the first to rise.

Isn't that good news?

You have been made aware of that which causes you to stumble in thought and belief into sinful practices that have built a barrier between you and your God and make the fulfillment of your professed intentions of aspiring to eternal life impossible.

Purify your mind and be refined and you will, perhaps for the first time in your entire life, know what it is to become a living being.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Militant atheists are just as bad as religious ones.
No, they’re not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death,incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they areflawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.

I certainly said nothing about badness. You are reading far too much into my statement and reacting defensively.

The hubris of those who claim categorically that there is no God is the same of those who claim categorically they do know for certain, but that doesn't mean the resulting behaviors that spring from the hubris will be the same. The "True Believer" syndrome is well known. Heck, I read that famous book by Hoffer back in the 1960s.

When I used the term "Militant", it referred to those such as the person who submitted this thread. If you thought YOU were the target, then perhaps that speaks to some issues you are having rather than anything I actually said.

 

[sealybobo]

How freely are we choosing Christianity when we are told that if we don't believe we'll burn in hell for eternity? Or we are brainwashed from birth?

I'm an atheist and I can tell you there very well might be a god/creator. It is also possible that our universe is just one bubble in an infinite number of universes or our universe is just one of billions of universes inside the body of a creature that lives in his or her own universe and he/she too contemplates if there is a god that cares about him/her. And that person who we live inside of lives inside another creature. And so on.

We aren't assuming anything. As scientists we only "believe" what we can prove. And we "believe" in evolution and the big bang but we are open to being proven wrong. No shame in being wrong. The only shame is when you claim you have all the answers.

Long before the Abraham religions or any of the other organized religions that came before, man debated if a god existed. The people who believed in a god couldn't prove it and the people who didn't believe couldn't prove it either. But really all the believers had was that they couldn't imagine all this was created without an intelligent designer. Science has looked at the universe and where we are in the universe and it really doesn't look like we were intelligently designed by a supreme being. Then came the invention of the Egyptian and Greek gods to explain. They were very imaginative, no? So were the men who wrote the bible/koran.

Since you have chosen atheism, and you did so without repercussions dangerous to your continued existence, then the choice is completely free.

I'm not sure why you are talking in terms of "we" rather than "I", but since I am more of an agnostic than a militant atheist, myself, I don't really see myself as needing to be part of a group in order to validate my own beliefs.

I tend to form my own rather than buying in to those of others.

How did you know the word agnostic? Did you look into it? So you didn't form your own opinions completely on your own now did you? You must have read something, talked to other people. No?

So you never read a book on the subject? Your parents didn't teach you anything? Theists are constantly claiming that us atheists haven't studied the subject enough to know the truth. Now you're telling me I'm brainwashed because I have read other people's opinions on the subject?

Everyone is an agnostic. Either you are a agnostic who leans towards belief or you are an agnostic who leans towards disbelief. Anyone who tells you they are 100% sure is fooling themselves.

Atheists don't meet once a week so I don't know what group you think I belong to.

 

[sealybobo]

Militant atheists are just as bad as religious ones.
No, they’re not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death,incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they areflawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.

I certainly said nothing about badness. You are reading far too much into my statement and reacting defensively.

The hubris of those who claim categorically that there is no God is the same of those who claim categorically they do know for certain, but that doesn't mean the resulting behaviors that spring from the hubris will be the same. The "True Believer" syndrome is well known. Heck, I read that famous book by Hoffer back in the 1960s.

When I used the term "Militant", it referred to those such as the person who submitted this thread. If you thought YOU were the target, then perhaps that speaks to some issues you are having rather than anything I actually said.

I am very confident that the ancient Greek gods and Egyptian gods that were invented before the modern religions don't exist. And knowing the history of man and religion, I am fairly certain that the 3 Abraham religions are made up too. Can I be 100% sure? No. Am I sure enough that I don't want our society to be a "Jewdao Christian" society? Yes.

How sure are you that Joseph Smith didn't talk to god in 1800? Sure enough that you don't join the Mormon church, right?

Are you a Christian? Christians say if you don't convert you'll burn in hell. How sure are you they are wrong? Sure enough that you don't join, right? That's pretty sure. And the problem is, a lot of people who doubt join anyways "just to be safe".

If Islam says you'll burn in hell if you don't join, how sure are you they are wrong? And if you saw this religion was becoming popular in your society, would you militantly fight to stop it or would you be a pussy and just let it happen?

 

[Hollie]

Pure belief about what?

Based upon the completion and utter lack of evidence for any of the past and current human configurations of gawds, I conclude gawds don't exist. In the same way, I conclude the boogeyman doesn't exist. There's no requirement for belief.

It's a simple matter for you to provide evidence for your beliefs in supernatural / magical entities: provide some evidence for them.

Consistently, you cannot.

Your conclusion is based upon an "utter lack of evidence". You just said it yourself. Any conclusion based upon an utter lack of evidence is pure belief. It can't be anything else. You admit to ignorance but act as if it is knowledge.

It is no use asking me to supply you with evidence of my beliefs. I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief. The difference between us is that I am quite willing to admit it is a belief and don't claim it to be knowledge. But my inability to prove my belief does not prove your belief. You have as much obligation to prove your position as I do mine. And since neither of us can, both of us are operating on pure belief.

The other difference between us is that I fully concede you have as much chance of being right as I do. It doesn't bother me in the least. But don't claim your position is based upon knowledge and reason when it is, in fact, based upon belief and emotion. There is nothing wrong with belief and emotion, but you should be able to recognize it when you are using it and claim it to be something it is not.

You commit a fallacy common among religionists of attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims to spirit realms, supernatural entities and partisan gawds. Therefore it's not up to me to accept your "it's true until disproved" meme. You commit another fallacy common to religionists whereby you selectively "quote" edited and parsed components of comments posted by others. That's dishonest but not unexpected.

The "utter lack of evidence" you describe is on the part of folks like you who make claims that do in fact suffer from "utter lack of evidence". I'm not responsible for disproving your claims that are void of meaningful support.

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of your simplistic argument, it is just not good enough of an argument to sway people like you from making unsupportable and outrageous claims.

I'm left to liken people such as you to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. The belief in Santa Claus is endearing in the very young, but if a child should grow to an adult with an assured belief in the existence of Santa Claus, most people would think of that person as stunted in his or her growth. We, collectively and individually, do ourselves no favors by believing in an other-worldly justice, a Great Leveler who rewards us with presents if we've been good, but hands us a cold rock if we've been bad. Justice beyond the grave is not justice, it is a balm for those left behind. How much better to create a world where justice is natural, flowing freely because each person recognizes the importance and utter rarity of those around him?

Certainly shifting the burden of proof is a common fallacy. But it is you who is trying to do it, not me.

It is interesting that this thing you claim you don't believe in is seems to be completely accepted by you. You have a very clear idea of what God is, despite the utter lack of evidence. Yet you don't operate on belief? Sure. But don't assume what you believe God is is what I believe. It isn't. That particular version is your baggage, not mine.

I'm not shifting any burden. Requiring you to support your claims (specious as they are), is just one of the rules of engagement.

I just have to find it comically tragic that you suffer such confusion. When asked for evidence of your beliefs. You respond with: "I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief." So, your belief is you have no belief! Does the question really confound you so?

I've never claimed I don't believe in gawds. Similarly, I make no assumptions about gawds. I conclude your gawds and the gawds of others don't exist, just as I conclude that Bigfoot and Leprechauns dont exist. This is where you continue to hope to shift the burden of proof. Gawds and other supernatural entities are extraordinary claims and remain absent any and all material support.

Your continued defense of your gawds while disingenuously claiming you take no position and have no evidence is more than just comical. There are, of course, many conceptions of gawds and many divisions between people. Competing religions and the gawds invented to manage those religions add to those problems, and historically they always have (and always will). Look around, and see how many people have grown to believe in so many different variations of the same theme. In certain parts of the world, these different groups make endless war upon one another, bombing each other, killing, maiming and destroying. Why do your gawds lend themselves to such barbarity? Rationalism and reason does away with almost all of that. When the standard for acceptance of reality becomes evidence and proof, everyone automatically operates from the same level playing field. With few exceptions, we now all believe the world is a globe, not flat. But it took a long time to convince people of this; it was once a cherished belief. What changed people's minds? Proof and evidence. That is the standard by which rationality and reason operates, and this paradigm helps humanity strip itself of all the unnecessary baggage that supernatural fairy tales encumbers them with.

The only claim I have made is that you are operating on pure belief. You don't use rationalism or reason. My evidence is your posts.

And of course you are wrong. You still fail to identify any "belief" I hold.

Why not be honest about your agenda? You insist you have no position, yet you spend inordinate amounts of time arguing your religious position.

 

[hobelim]

I am very confident that the ancient Greek gods and Egyptian gods that were invented before the modern religions don't exist.

Of course you are right but that in itself does not mean that the stories are not based on actual events of a time when gods walked the earth, if you understand that during the times in which these stories were written it was the belief that human beings could be gods.

It is also important to note that ancient people were fond of riddles and brain teasers that only the intelligent could solve through rational thought.

 

[PratchettFan]

Your conclusion is based upon an "utter lack of evidence". You just said it yourself. Any conclusion based upon an utter lack of evidence is pure belief. It can't be anything else. You admit to ignorance but act as if it is knowledge.

It is no use asking me to supply you with evidence of my beliefs. I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief. The difference between us is that I am quite willing to admit it is a belief and don't claim it to be knowledge. But my inability to prove my belief does not prove your belief. You have as much obligation to prove your position as I do mine. And since neither of us can, both of us are operating on pure belief.

The other difference between us is that I fully concede you have as much chance of being right as I do. It doesn't bother me in the least. But don't claim your position is based upon knowledge and reason when it is, in fact, based upon belief and emotion. There is nothing wrong with belief and emotion, but you should be able to recognize it when you are using it and claim it to be something it is not.

You commit a fallacy common among religionists of attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims to spirit realms, supernatural entities and partisan gawds. Therefore it's not up to me to accept your "it's true until disproved" meme. You commit another fallacy common to religionists whereby you selectively "quote" edited and parsed components of comments posted by others. That's dishonest but not unexpected.

The "utter lack of evidence" you describe is on the part of folks like you who make claims that do in fact suffer from "utter lack of evidence". I'm not responsible for disproving your claims that are void of meaningful support.

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of your simplistic argument, it is just not good enough of an argument to sway people like you from making unsupportable and outrageous claims.

I'm left to liken people such as you to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. The belief in Santa Claus is endearing in the very young, but if a child should grow to an adult with an assured belief in the existence of Santa Claus, most people would think of that person as stunted in his or her growth. We, collectively and individually, do ourselves no favors by believing in an other-worldly justice, a Great Leveler who rewards us with presents if we've been good, but hands us a cold rock if we've been bad. Justice beyond the grave is not justice, it is a balm for those left behind. How much better to create a world where justice is natural, flowing freely because each person recognizes the importance and utter rarity of those around him?

Certainly shifting the burden of proof is a common fallacy. But it is you who is trying to do it, not me.

It is interesting that this thing you claim you don't believe in is seems to be completely accepted by you. You have a very clear idea of what God is, despite the utter lack of evidence. Yet you don't operate on belief? Sure. But don't assume what you believe God is is what I believe. It isn't. That particular version is your baggage, not mine.

I'm not shifting any burden. Requiring you to support your claims (specious as they are), is just one of the rules of engagement.

I just have to find it comically tragic that you suffer such confusion. When asked for evidence of your beliefs. You respond with: "I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief." So, your belief is you have no belief! Does the question really confound you so?

I've never claimed I don't believe in gawds. Similarly, I make no assumptions about gawds. I conclude your gawds and the gawds of others don't exist, just as I conclude that Bigfoot and Leprechauns dont exist. This is where you continue to hope to shift the burden of proof. Gawds and other supernatural entities are extraordinary claims and remain absent any and all material support.

Your continued defense of your gawds while disingenuously claiming you take no position and have no evidence is more than just comical. There are, of course, many conceptions of gawds and many divisions between people. Competing religions and the gawds invented to manage those religions add to those problems, and historically they always have (and always will). Look around, and see how many people have grown to believe in so many different variations of the same theme. In certain parts of the world, these different groups make endless war upon one another, bombing each other, killing, maiming and destroying. Why do your gawds lend themselves to such barbarity? Rationalism and reason does away with almost all of that. When the standard for acceptance of reality becomes evidence and proof, everyone automatically operates from the same level playing field. With few exceptions, we now all believe the world is a globe, not flat. But it took a long time to convince people of this; it was once a cherished belief. What changed people's minds? Proof and evidence. That is the standard by which rationality and reason operates, and this paradigm helps humanity strip itself of all the unnecessary baggage that supernatural fairy tales encumbers them with.

The only claim I have made is that you are operating on pure belief. You don't use rationalism or reason. My evidence is your posts.

And of course you are wrong. You still fail to identify any "belief" I hold.

Why not be honest about your agenda? You insist you have no position, yet you spend inordinate amounts of time arguing your religious position.

Actually, I spend no time at all arguing my religious position. We are arguing your religious position. And my only issue with your religious beliefs is your absurd and utterly false claim it is based upon knowledge and reason.

 

[Hollie]

You commit a fallacy common among religionists of attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims to spirit realms, supernatural entities and partisan gawds. Therefore it's not up to me to accept your "it's true until disproved" meme. You commit another fallacy common to religionists whereby you selectively "quote" edited and parsed components of comments posted by others. That's dishonest but not unexpected.

The "utter lack of evidence" you describe is on the part of folks like you who make claims that do in fact suffer from "utter lack of evidence". I'm not responsible for disproving your claims that are void of meaningful support.

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of your simplistic argument, it is just not good enough of an argument to sway people like you from making unsupportable and outrageous claims.

I'm left to liken people such as you to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. The belief in Santa Claus is endearing in the very young, but if a child should grow to an adult with an assured belief in the existence of Santa Claus, most people would think of that person as stunted in his or her growth. We, collectively and individually, do ourselves no favors by believing in an other-worldly justice, a Great Leveler who rewards us with presents if we've been good, but hands us a cold rock if we've been bad. Justice beyond the grave is not justice, it is a balm for those left behind. How much better to create a world where justice is natural, flowing freely because each person recognizes the importance and utter rarity of those around him?

Certainly shifting the burden of proof is a common fallacy. But it is you who is trying to do it, not me.

It is interesting that this thing you claim you don't believe in is seems to be completely accepted by you. You have a very clear idea of what God is, despite the utter lack of evidence. Yet you don't operate on belief? Sure. But don't assume what you believe God is is what I believe. It isn't. That particular version is your baggage, not mine.

I'm not shifting any burden. Requiring you to support your claims (specious as they are), is just one of the rules of engagement.

I just have to find it comically tragic that you suffer such confusion. When asked for evidence of your beliefs. You respond with: "I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief." So, your belief is you have no belief! Does the question really confound you so?

I've never claimed I don't believe in gawds. Similarly, I make no assumptions about gawds. I conclude your gawds and the gawds of others don't exist, just as I conclude that Bigfoot and Leprechauns dont exist. This is where you continue to hope to shift the burden of proof. Gawds and other supernatural entities are extraordinary claims and remain absent any and all material support.

Your continued defense of your gawds while disingenuously claiming you take no position and have no evidence is more than just comical. There are, of course, many conceptions of gawds and many divisions between people. Competing religions and the gawds invented to manage those religions add to those problems, and historically they always have (and always will). Look around, and see how many people have grown to believe in so many different variations of the same theme. In certain parts of the world, these different groups make endless war upon one another, bombing each other, killing, maiming and destroying. Why do your gawds lend themselves to such barbarity? Rationalism and reason does away with almost all of that. When the standard for acceptance of reality becomes evidence and proof, everyone automatically operates from the same level playing field. With few exceptions, we now all believe the world is a globe, not flat. But it took a long time to convince people of this; it was once a cherished belief. What changed people's minds? Proof and evidence. That is the standard by which rationality and reason operates, and this paradigm helps humanity strip itself of all the unnecessary baggage that supernatural fairy tales encumbers them with.

The only claim I have made is that you are operating on pure belief. You don't use rationalism or reason. My evidence is your posts.

And of course you are wrong. You still fail to identify any "belief" I hold.

Why not be honest about your agenda? You insist you have no position, yet you spend inordinate amounts of time arguing your religious position.

Actually, I spend no time at all arguing my religious position. We are arguing your religious position. And my only issue with your religious beliefs is your absurd and utterly false claim it is based upon knowledge and reason.

You should spend a greater amount of time paying attention to what I write out. I have no religious position.

Your real issue is your inability to defend your religious position. I can understand you take offense when your claims to gawds, spirit realms and supernatural agents are challenged, but you should also understand that posting your specious opinions on a public discussion board will draw those challenges.

 

[PratchettFan]

Certainly shifting the burden of proof is a common fallacy. But it is you who is trying to do it, not me.

It is interesting that this thing you claim you don't believe in is seems to be completely accepted by you. You have a very clear idea of what God is, despite the utter lack of evidence. Yet you don't operate on belief? Sure. But don't assume what you believe God is is what I believe. It isn't. That particular version is your baggage, not mine.

I'm not shifting any burden. Requiring you to support your claims (specious as they are), is just one of the rules of engagement.

I just have to find it comically tragic that you suffer such confusion. When asked for evidence of your beliefs. You respond with: "I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief." So, your belief is you have no belief! Does the question really confound you so?

I've never claimed I don't believe in gawds. Similarly, I make no assumptions about gawds. I conclude your gawds and the gawds of others don't exist, just as I conclude that Bigfoot and Leprechauns dont exist. This is where you continue to hope to shift the burden of proof. Gawds and other supernatural entities are extraordinary claims and remain absent any and all material support.

Your continued defense of your gawds while disingenuously claiming you take no position and have no evidence is more than just comical. There are, of course, many conceptions of gawds and many divisions between people. Competing religions and the gawds invented to manage those religions add to those problems, and historically they always have (and always will). Look around, and see how many people have grown to believe in so many different variations of the same theme. In certain parts of the world, these different groups make endless war upon one another, bombing each other, killing, maiming and destroying. Why do your gawds lend themselves to such barbarity? Rationalism and reason does away with almost all of that. When the standard for acceptance of reality becomes evidence and proof, everyone automatically operates from the same level playing field. With few exceptions, we now all believe the world is a globe, not flat. But it took a long time to convince people of this; it was once a cherished belief. What changed people's minds? Proof and evidence. That is the standard by which rationality and reason operates, and this paradigm helps humanity strip itself of all the unnecessary baggage that supernatural fairy tales encumbers them with.

The only claim I have made is that you are operating on pure belief. You don't use rationalism or reason. My evidence is your posts.

And of course you are wrong. You still fail to identify any "belief" I hold.

Why not be honest about your agenda? You insist you have no position, yet you spend inordinate amounts of time arguing your religious position.

Actually, I spend no time at all arguing my religious position. We are arguing your religious position. And my only issue with your religious beliefs is your absurd and utterly false claim it is based upon knowledge and reason.

You should spend a greater amount of time paying attention to what I write out. I have no religious position.

Your real issue is your inability to defend your religious position. I can understand you take offense when your claims to gawds, spirit realms and supernatural agents are challenged, but you should also understand that posting your specious opinions on a public discussion board will draw those challenges.

Sure you have no religious position. Just as I made all of those claims you keep saying I have made. Now you can have the last word.

 

[orogenicman]

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

Ok. So I will presume from your failure to respond that you can't tell me what it is you say does not exist or how you know it. You are just expressing a belief about a belief. You reference to knowledge and reason was pointless, because you are using neither.

I can only assume your angst derives from your indefensible position - the one you admit you're unable to defend yet you continue to defend it.

My reference to knowledge and reason is what I'm using to reach conclusions about gawds, spirit realms and other claims to supernatural objects de' art.

You, making the positive assertion that something exists, bear the burden of proof. You admit you cannot do so but then require that others must disprove what you can't be bothered to make a positive case for. That's ridiculous.

It's a rational and reasonable position to conclude that your belief system including gawds, spirit realms and claims to supernaturalism are no different than other superstitious ramblings that have plagued humanity in the past. It's evident that your belief system provides allowance for the existence of Leprachauns, Bigfoot, Nessie and all manner of takes and fables. So, tell us about your world which is haunted by all manner of spooks and goblins. According to the standards of your belief system, they must exist, right?

You are not using knowledge and reason. You are using pure belief which you have convinced yourself is the same thing. Which is entirely irrational.

Pure belief about what?

Based upon the completion and utter lack of evidence for any of the past and current human configurations of gawds, I conclude gawds don't exist. In the same way, I conclude the boogeyman doesn't exist. There's no requirement for belief.

It's a simple matter for you to provide evidence for your beliefs in supernatural / magical entities: provide some evidence for them.

Consistently, you cannot.

Your conclusion is based upon an "utter lack of evidence". You just said it yourself. Any conclusion based upon an utter lack of evidence is pure belief. It can't be anything else. You admit to ignorance but act as if it is knowledge.

It is no use asking me to supply you with evidence of my beliefs. I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief. The difference between us is that I am quite willing to admit it is a belief and don't claim it to be knowledge. But my inability to prove my belief does not prove your belief. You have as much obligation to prove your position as I do mine. And since neither of us can, both of us are operating on pure belief.

The other difference between us is that I fully concede you have as much chance of being right as I do. It doesn't bother me in the least. But don't claim your position is based upon knowledge and reason when it is, in fact, based upon belief and emotion. There is nothing wrong with belief and emotion, but you should be able to recognize it when you are using it and claim it to be something it is not.

A null hypothesis is a valid scientific principle. Look it up.

 

[orogenicman]

You tell me I am ignorant and have no idea what I am talking about (and you say this despite the fact that you don't know me much less know what I do and do not know) and then tell me that it is nothing personal. You should try that joke in Vegas. I'm sure it will get a lot of laughs. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that god exists. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the god of the bible and just about every other religion does not exist. One large bit of evidence is that every religion uses the god of the gaps argument (none more so than Christianity), the argument being that god can be found in the gaps of our knowledge. (i.e., We don't know what causes the rainbow, that must be a gift from god, or god is punishing us for our sins by striking us with that tsunami). The problem with that argument is that science keeps filling in those gaps with sound scientific explanations and principles that don't require the existence of god. And so when we look at the laws of physics, the principles of chemistry, geology, and biology, we see a universe that acts exactly as if no god exists because all these laws and principles tell us that the supernatural is not needed to explain anything. In fact, "god did it" doesn't explain anything at all.

Yes. I said you were ignorant. You are operating without any evidence at all, so ignorant is all you can be. I am saying everyone is ignorant. If you want to take that personally, that is your choice.

I assume you can't tell me what God is. You can just refer to other people's beliefs, which themselves have no basis in evidence. Yet you say you can establish as a high probability that something you can't describe, can't define and know nothing about does not exist. This is fantasy.

Your claim that the laws of physics, et al act as if no god exists assumes more knowledge you do not have. How exactly would a universe where god did exist differ from a universe where it did not? How would you tell the difference?

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

I certainly understand what you are saying. I am saying that, based upon what we know of the world around us, what you are saying is pure belief. Which makes your position no different than someone claiming there is a very high probability that the supernatural exists. Capisce?

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.