Respect towards atheists

[Sharfan]

around the time period of the Salem Witch Trials. They did everything from turning our holiest symbol into their symbol of the devil, the pentagram, to making witches look like dark, evil beings, when the Wiccan Rede, one of the only actual rules in this religion, clearly speaks against any type of violence, using the simple sentence, "And harm ye none, then do as ye will."

A quick nitpick... Wicca has only been around since the first half of the 20th century. It certainly wasn't around during the Salem Witch trials, a historical event which had nothing to do with any modern day New Age religion (such as Wicca.)

Also, the phrase "And harm ye none, then do as ye will" was published in 1964, itself a watered down Hippy version of a philosophy espoused by Aleister Crowley at the turn of the century (who would have balked at the thought of adding "and harm ye none" to his quote, I might add.) It, also, did not exist during any historical period of Puritan persecution.

These errors are excusable I guess, since most Wiccans I know have a kind of "school yard" understanding of the religion, and have not researched it's actual history.

I was more describing the earlier pagan religions. I am a 'new age' paganist, and was simply using the rede for those nowadays that disrespect the religion. I simply agreed more with this than the originals. Although many concepts from the 'old age' pagan religions were used in the formation of wicca and the others that are relatively new. Yes, I have only been a member for six months, so my knowledge of the history of paganism is greatly limited. Mostly because I have become lazy the last couple of months, and not to mention the fact of my computer crashing. Let's not add the fact that I have a mom that would probably disown me if she knew my religion.

But, those are my problems, and have nothing to do with this discussion. I can tell that you know more than me, and I respect that. My thoughts just tend to jumble up in my head when it comes to things such as this.

[Scott Gardener]

A lot of the problem is internal context--that is, people only know particular ways of thinking. Someone who was born and raised Christian, surrounded by Christians, takes for granted that God exists and has a particular set of rules. An Atheist is a scary thing, because suddenly, here is someone who is consciously deciding to disagree with a taken-for-granted assumption, and one that carries with it an inordinately powerful compulsion to believe in it. Someone who "isn't bothered by the idea of going to Hell" must be "evil."

Those who are solidly stuck inside the context of such a mind-set cannot grasp offhand that there might be other reasons for a contrary viewpoint. And, they're likely rather intimidated by the prospect of having their assumptions challenged. Likely, they've held other assumptions in the past that had to be discarded--their parents telling them about Santa as children, or their assumption in the mid-eighties that Russians were diabolical Communists bent on world domination. The idea that God might not exist as they assumed Him to be, or might not exist at all, suddenly introduces the potential for the existentialist crisis--that existence itself would suddenly get stripped of any meaning or purpose in the presence of an abrupt and absolute end at death--as well as all kinds of other problems, such as having to re-invent reasons for ethical behavior besides a reward-and-punishment system.

While I am not myself an atheist, I respect it as a defendable viewpoint because it offers good internal consistency. Not having a God at all solves a lot of philosophical issues that the rest of us have to leave hanging. ("It's beyond human comprehension" is a cheap shortcut that really doesn't accomplish anything.) You're left with a lot of fortuitous coincidences, so you have issues with probability, but that's far easier to justify than our problems of resolving God's purpose or motivation with a directly observable world that one minute goes out of its way to show compassion or cater to our prayers and creative visualizations but the next will randomly smack our friends or loved ones with terrible hardships or whole nations with terrible catastrophes. We have to sort out why or give in to numbing our brain with "only God knows," while you get to go on with your lives.

And another thing: most athiests I've met appear to be of above average intelligence and of better than average character. Until Stalin and Mao Zedong came along, atheism had the best track record of all religions in terms of war and murder. (Those two, though, are the only two people in human history responsible for a higher body count than Hitler, so we'll just call it even.) I do grow weary of all the blather I hear from people who don't get out very often, about how terrible atheists are. I've even seen the works of atheists and found it metaphysically uplifting. Sounds like a paradox? Try watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos, available on iTunes here in the U.S. for $1.99 an episode. It's remarkably uplifting as well as enlightening. Read Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. He has some strong and powerful words, and he shows such a great appreciation for the awe and grandeur of the universe.

[Howlitzer]

For example... the Hebrew word for "day" as used in Genesis, doesn't necessarily mean "day"... The actual word used through the first 6 days literally means "a span of time" of which is typically used for a 24 hour day. Gerald Schroeder proved that if you were standing where God was at the singularity, what would have been 14 Billion years for us, would account for only 6 24 hour light year days. So in accuality, the Bible is correct.

That is certainly interesting if Genesis was, in fact, describing a more realistically long period of time.

However....forgive me for being a stickler for details...but could you clarify on what you mean by "6 24 hour light year days"?

Unless I'm missing something, a Light Year Day isn't a unit of measurement that makes any sense.

I don't think there is a simple way of explaining light year days...

One light year = one point of origin hour.

24 Light years = One point of origin day...

Creation of Earth was 6 consecutive 24 hour light year days = 14 Billion years of time in earth terms.

As you already know when you look at a star, you don't see how it is, but how it was. Distance and time in space is measured by light years. A light year is the time it takes from the light of a distant star to reach our world.

If you were able to look at the heart of the singularity you would be seeing things as they were 14 billion years ago... However, if you were looking at the earth from the Point of Origin, at the epicenter of the singularity, what to us was 14 billion years, would be only 6 days.

There is actually a HUGE mathematical equation involved with all of this, but I can not begin to caculate it or explain it.

A good book that covers this is, Gerald Schroeder's, "Science of God".

First off, those numbers still do not make any sense whatsoever the way you're presenting them.

If 1 light year = 1 point of origin hour (whatever this means)
then 24 point of origin hours = 1 point of origin day

then 14 billion light years, the distance light has traveled since the theoretical origin of the universe

... is 583333333.3 point of origin days. Not 6.

So...something's missing, or these numbers just plain don't make sense.


Ignoring that...from what it sounds, that's redefining units of measurement. A light year is a unit of distance. Using "Days" and "Hours" in the manner listed isn't days or hours at all as a unit of time....so unless you're speaking of time passing differently from different points of observation, then you're arbitrarily setting 1 light year = 1 hour

Giving this the benefit of the doubt, your reference to "point of origin" and "singularity" sounds almost as if you're suggesting that relativity is coming into play here.

If this were the case, according to relativity, an observer near the event horizon of a black hole would theoretically view time elsewhere as passing much faster than they are experiencing it. So in this case, 1 day for an observer could be 1 year for the observed.

By "point of origin", if you mean the center of the universe....there is no center. While this concept is rather awkward, the universe is expanding uniformly everywhere from current measurements, NOT from a single central point.

[Morkulv]

A lot of the problem is internal context--that is, people only know particular ways of thinking. Someone who was born and raised Christian, surrounded by Christians, takes for granted that God exists and has a particular set of rules. An Atheist is a scary thing, because suddenly, here is someone who is consciously deciding to disagree with a taken-for-granted assumption, and one that carries with it an inordinately powerful compulsion to believe in it. Someone who "isn't bothered by the idea of going to Hell" must be "evil."

Those who are solidly stuck inside the context of such a mind-set cannot grasp offhand that there might be other reasons for a contrary viewpoint. And, they're likely rather intimidated by the prospect of having their assumptions challenged. Likely, they've held other assumptions in the past that had to be discarded--their parents telling them about Santa as children, or their assumption in the mid-eighties that Russians were diabolical Communists bent on world domination. The idea that God might not exist as they assumed Him to be, or might not exist at all, suddenly introduces the potential for the existentialist crisis--that existence itself would suddenly get stripped of any meaning or purpose in the presence of an abrupt and absolute end at death--as well as all kinds of other problems, such as having to re-invent reasons for ethical behavior besides a reward-and-punishment system.

While I am not myself an atheist, I respect it as a defendable viewpoint because it offers good internal consistency. Not having a God at all solves a lot of philosophical issues that the rest of us have to leave hanging. ("It's beyond human comprehension" is a cheap shortcut that really doesn't accomplish anything.) You're left with a lot of fortuitous coincidences, so you have issues with probability, but that's far easier to justify than our problems of resolving God's purpose or motivation with a directly observable world that one minute goes out of its way to show compassion or cater to our prayers and creative visualizations but the next will randomly smack our friends or loved ones with terrible hardships or whole nations with terrible catastrophes. We have to sort out why or give in to numbing our brain with "only God knows," while you get to go on with your lives.

And another thing: most athiests I've met appear to be of above average intelligence and of better than average character. Until Stalin and Mao Zedong came along, atheism had the best track record of all religions in terms of war and murder. (Those two, though, are the only two people in human history responsible for a higher body count than Hitler, so we'll just call it even.) I do grow weary of all the blather I hear from people who don't get out very often, about how terrible atheists are. I've even seen the works of atheists and found it metaphysically uplifting. Sounds like a paradox? Try watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos, available on iTunes here in the U.S. for $1.99 an episode. It's remarkably uplifting as well as enlightening. Read Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. He has some strong and powerful words, and he shows such a great appreciation for the awe and grandeur of the universe.

Only one thing: atheism is not a religion.

[Terastas]

Only one thing: atheism is not a religion.

Oh yes it is. Not an organized religion, but still a system of belief not much different from any other.

This is why I went out of my way to specify that I'm agnostic instead of an atheist. They aren't synonyms like so many people think. Agnosticism is a lack of belief in anything, while atheism is a firm belief in nothing. Agnostics say "maybe, maybe not" while atheists say "You're all wrong!"

Atheism isn't defined by just a healthy sense of skepticism. It's by the adamant belief that there is no God, no afterlife, and no possible equivalents to such. So just because atheists don't build shrines, sing hymns, burn incense or consider it a miracle if they see Charles Darwin's likeness in a waffle, that doesn't mean it can't count as a religion.

[Howlitzer]

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

By that definition, Atheism most definitely *is* a religion in basic form. Just as Christians believe in a God, and other religions believe in other higher powers, Atheists believe in a lack of a God. It's the belief in any certainty on the question of a higher power that makes it a religion, not whether or not that belief is that a deity exists.

Both are perfectly respectable so long as the person practicing it isn't being stupid or intolerant about it.

Pulling the dictionary card again:
Agnosticism:
- The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.
- The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable.

By this definition you could also *sort of* call agnosticism a religion of uncertainty. Some may practice this by disinterest or lack of concern with belief or disbelief in a higher power, some may practice it by refusing to believe in the certainty of any one explanation for things, but rather ponder many possible explanations, scientific and otherwise.

Personally a good scientist should, to some degree, be a little bit of the latter form of agnostic, rather than extremely Atheistic or religious... since rabidly believing in the existence or lack of existence...or any knowledge of something yet unobservable is bad science. If you can't observe it, that doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist. Since knowledge is changing, at some point the spectrum of things we can observe could expand, until then belief or disbelief are equally valid.

[alphanubilus]

As touching Howlitzer...

I readily mention that I'm no genius... Gerald actually has a really cool equation to prove his point. I recently found out that they are reprinting the "Science of God" and thus I am going to purchase a new copy, as the one I borrowed from the Library is no longer available to be used. My mathematics are rather bad, to be honest, but I've always been more of a historian than I am a mathematician at any rate. Once I've restudied the book, I will start a different thread, as it will take the original conversation off topic... way off topic...

As for Atheism being a religion...

In reality, Atheism IS a religion, and it isn't anything new. In reality, Atheism follows early Greek followers of whom were called, "Humanists". Humanists, as Atheists today, did not believe in any higher power. They in fact believed that man, himself, was god. He was the writer of his own destiny, and designer of his own world. In short, the "man" was the center of the religious circle. Philosophy was their doctrine. While a lot of Christians (nowadays) bad mouth these individuals, you still have to understand that for the most part their world was ruled by Cesars of whom equated themselves to gods, such as Nero. These Humanists were relatively bright individuals, and, as it was rightly so, they saw through the many scams of the pagan world. In short they rightly understood that it was foolish to put your faith into an overpriced trinket you purchased from a two-bit crook at a market.

Today, Atheism is increasingly becoming more "religion-like" with Pro-Atheist tracks, Atheist missionaries (Yes they have them), Atheist support groups, Atheist commitees that support Atheist causes, such as the "Freedom from Religion ** while forcing everyone to adhere to yours** commitee". In fact they made recent news as they are trying to force the Post Office to stop the printing of the stamp comemorating Mother Teresa because she was Catholic. I read their report and it was absurd. They claim that the Roman Catholic Church is behind it and is forcing everyone to recognize thier religion. The US Postal Service responded that it wasn't for her religion they made the stamp, but because of her great humanitarian efforts to bring peace and help homeless children.

Being an Atheist takes as much, if not more, faith as any Christian, Jew, Muslim... Science can certainly tell us how the world and worlds were created, but it can't even begin to explain why.
The reality is, IF the existence of life was soley based upon random chance, that chance would be 1 out of 10 trillionth of a chance, or as one physicist stated, "It would be like tossing a dart across the universe and hitting a bullseye 3 meters in diameter." In short nigh impossible.

I know for a fact that despite the rejection, many scientists have trouble excepting random chance as the sole creator of the Earth, the Universe, and the Multiverse. Just watch a few nature programs, like Miracle Planet, and its alike. You constantly hear them giving credit to, "Nature, Mother Nature, Evolution, all of which are simply processes and one in the same. Evolution doesn't have a direction. It is a process to get from point A. to point B. When they say Nature or Mother Nature, these terms are actually coherent with names for Hecete, Artemis, or Diana of which were all pagan nature goddesses. While I doubt they are truly giving goddesses credit for Earth's creation... Even for the science world, it seems rather bleak, to wholely leave the creation of life to sheer random chance.

Randomness does play a role in Evolution and that is readily seen on the microscoptic level, but any Paleontologist will tell you that you see life being driven to evolve. In Christianity, it is El that is that driving force. It is El that gives life its purpose, as we see today.

[Berserker]

Humanism is the secularization of Judeo-Christian ideology anyway.

Also, I was under the impression that scientists do not believe that the development of life is dependent on random chance, but on predictable chemical and physical phenomenon. (See Hoyle's fallacy.)

[Morkulv]

[Howlitzer]

[Silent Hunter]

Personally I find a lot of people are still pissy with atheists. They cannot take their views being questioned on what is basically a public venue half the time. Some people still treat Atheism like a dirty word, even more so in more higher religious places like the USA, Latin America etc. Luckily it should start to die out.

Also why Atheism acts like a religion in some ways, I wouldn't call it one. It is a bit of a diservice to treat it like praying for magic unicorns. Atheism at least has some Scientific background going for it while religion often has situations where things cannot be proved or disproved or things we cannot see. This is rather useless though. Maybe if we ever see some proper proof then I'd be convinced to give religion more stock but at the moment there is none. I don't consider religious beleive to be bad unless they push it on others which some often do (see gay rights). It is irrational to me but nothing that will put me off you unless you go too far.

Also I am rather mixed with agnostics. A big part of me thinks it's basically the golden mean fallacy in belief form, ergo someone sees to extremes and goes for the middle one thinking that, that will be the most balanced. In politics these people can be nick named fence sitters etc. In general I like to call these people the mindless middle because thats what is can often be. I agnostics to be just as irrational as religions.

[alphanubilus]

Personally I find a lot of people are still pissy with atheists. They cannot take their views being questioned on what is basically a public venue half the time. Some people still treat Atheism like a dirty word, even more so in more higher religious places like the USA, Latin America etc. Luckily it should start to die out.

Also why Atheism acts like a religion in some ways, I wouldn't call it one. It is a bit of a diservice to treat it like praying for magic unicorns. Atheism at least has some Scientific background going for it while religion often has situations where things cannot be proved or disproved or things we cannot see. This is rather useless though. Maybe if we ever see some proper proof then I'd be convinced to give religion more stock but at the moment there is none. I don't consider religious beleive to be bad unless they push it on others which some often do (see gay rights). It is irrational to me but nothing that will put me off you unless you go too far.

Also I am rather mixed with agnostics. A big part of me thinks it's basically the golden mean fallacy in belief form, ergo someone sees to extremes and goes for the middle one thinking that, that will be the most balanced. In politics these people can be nick named fence sitters etc. In general I like to call these people the mindless middle because thats what is can often be. I agnostics to be just as irrational as religions.

However, the problem with finding "proof" is what type of proof would you need to prove the existence of God? There is a wealth of proof that could agrue in favor of God, but the reality is, most Atheists would simply deny it or explain it away. Want a physical manifestation of God... try Jesus Christ, but as we've already seen, most Atheists stand fast on the notion that Jesus was completely fictional, and no matter how much historical proof we find to state the contrary, they claim that it is either faulty, manipulated, or completely made up, as with Flavius Josephus and his testimonies of Christ. Was Flavius works tampered with... possibly, but that doesn't mean you should throw everything out, but for an Atheist it is a prized loop hole, no matter how fragile that loophole is.

[Set]

[Silent Hunter]

However, the problem with finding "proof" is what type of proof would you need to prove the existence of God?

That's the problem. It's hilariously convenient how god cannot be proven by Scientific method and people just know he is there. It lets him exist without any proof otherwise other than "I think he does" or by the words of a 2000 year old book written by people who probably had relationships with camels.

There is a wealth of proof that could agrue in favor of God, but the reality is, most Atheists would simply deny it or explain it away.

Such as?

try Jesus Christ, but as we've already seen, most Atheists stand fast on the notion that Jesus was completely fictionaL

Jesus Christ could well of existed back in those times but that just means there was someone called Jesus Christ who was at most, preaching. There is no proof on the miracles or anything and there is certainly no proof in god by him existing.

most Atheists stand fast on the notion that Jesus was completely fictional,

Nice generalization.

no matter how much historical proof we find to state the contrary, they claim that it is either faulty, manipulated, or completely made up

but for an Atheist it is a prized loop hole, no matter how fragile that loophole is.

Not really. Jesus could of existed, sure but it does not mean he was the son of god.

it depends somewhat on the dictionary you use. The American Heritage dictionary

Err I would avoid anything with the word "American" or "Heritage" in it if I were you.

[Chris]

Oh yes it is. Not an organized religion, but still a system of belief not much different from any other.

'Lack of belief in x' does not mean 'Belief in lack of x'. Agnosticism is the belief(!) that you can't prove God's existence. Atheism is simply the lack of theism (note the a- prefix, meaning The Lack Of). If you find a person that was never exposed to the idea of god and who didn't come up with such a idea on their own, that person would be an atheist (they wouldn't be agnostic as they have no concept of god, thus no opinion on whether it could be proved or not). They have no belief in god, thus no faith he exists, and also no belief he doesn't exist. The concept of god is just not there for him.

It's quite possible to be an agnostic and still believe in god (and be and agnostic and not believe in god; and be an agnostic and believe in no god).. just because god's existence can't be proven doesn't mean you can't believe he exists regardless. In fact, that's the entire basis for faith.. the belief in something despite lack of proof.

[Set]

Err I would avoid anything with the word "American" or "Heritage" in it if I were you.

If I did that I'd have to move to Canada.

[Howlitzer]

@Silent Hunter: First off, the lack of ability to prove the existence of God with the Scientific Method does not mean there is none. You likewise, by the same logic, cannot DISPROVE the existence of a God in some form.

Not being able to prove something does NOT necessarily disprove it. Likewise not being able to disprove something does NOT prove it. This is the fallacy in many arguments for AND against the existence of a God.

Also I am rather mixed with agnostics. A big part of me thinks it's basically the golden mean fallacy in belief form, ergo someone sees to extremes and goes for the middle one thinking that, that will be the most balanced. In politics these people can be nick named fence sitters etc. In general I like to call these people the mindless middle because thats what is can often be. I agnostics to be just as irrational as religions.

In response to your comments on agnosticism as being an irrational "golden mean fallacy"....I find this offensive. How is it irrational, or a fallacy, that I support logical analysis (i.e. the scientific method) of the observable universe, yet acknowledge that we cannot make conclusions of the unobservable?

If the existence of a deity outside the observable universe is unobservable currently... and remember, theoretically the currently observable universe is only the tip of the iceberg.... then you cannot prove the existence of ANYTHING in that realm by scientific method. This includes proving AND disproving the existence of any thing you could consider a higher power. Thus pretending to know either way is the irrational view if we're going to pull that card.

Secondly...

That's the problem. It's hilariously convenient how god cannot be proven by Scientific method and people just know he is there. It lets him exist without any proof otherwise other than "I think he does" or by the words of a 2000 year old book written by people who probably had relationships with camels.

Please try to not accuse religious folk of beastiality. That's just low. This is blatantly offensive, and will lead to flaming.

Lastly...

Err I would avoid anything with the word "American" or "Heritage" in it if I were you.

This comment is completely unnecessary for anything except insulting my country and instigating an argument.




This has been a very civil discussion up to this point, and you've just managed to both "matter-of-factly" and sarcastically insult multiple groups of people. This is what starts flame wars. Avoid doing it.

[alphanubilus]

However, the problem with finding "proof" is what type of proof would you need to prove the existence of God?

That's the problem. It's hilariously convenient how god cannot be proven by Scientific method and people just know he is there. It lets him exist without any proof otherwise other than "I think he does" or by the words of a 2000 year old book written by people who probably had relationships with camels.

There is a wealth of proof that could agrue in favor of God, but the reality is, most Atheists would simply deny it or explain it away.

Can love be explained using the Scientific Method? Attraction can... desire can... but can actual LOVE. So based upon your understanding of the world, love isn't real either.

What about hate? Violence is scientifically explainable on various levels.

We know love and hate are real, even though we can't see or explain it, because of its influence on us.

You didn't asnwer my question...

What proof would you need to prove God exists?

[Howlitzer]

However, the problem with finding "proof" is what type of proof would you need to prove the existence of God?

That's the problem. It's hilariously convenient how god cannot be proven by Scientific method and people just know he is there. It lets him exist without any proof otherwise other than "I think he does" or by the words of a 2000 year old book written by people who probably had relationships with camels.

There is a wealth of proof that could agrue in favor of God, but the reality is, most Atheists would simply deny it or explain it away.

Can love be explained using the Scientific Method? Attraction can... desire can... but can actual LOVE. So based upon your understanding of the world, love isn't real either.

What about hate? Violence is scientifically explainable on various levels.

We know love and hate are real, even though we can't see or explain it, because of its influence on us.

You didn't asnwer my question...

What proof would you need to prove God exists?

Let's please not get into this argument. Nobody is going to win, especially on an online forum.

[Uniform Two Six]

I agnostics to be just as irrational as religions.

So, anybody who isn't an atheist is inherently irrational?
Just because somebody is an adherent to an established religion, doesn't make those beliefs irrational. Even if you prefer to view the world from a purely scientific viewpoint, there's some room for religion. Look at the scientific method:

You have a question you want answered.
You formulate a hypothesis.
You create a framework within which that hypothesis can be explained.
You test the hypothesis.
If the hypothesis is successfully tested, then you form a theory based upon the test. Etc. etc. etc.

But, how do you get to the "formulation of hypothesis" part? You make a guess. It doesn't even have to be a good guess. People don't like to think about it, but any scientist worth his salt will tell you that one of the most important aspects of true science is just pulling stuff out of your a** (so you can test it). Friggin Einstein basically said this. Remember, science answers "how?" while religion answers "why?". Lastly, there's a whole bunch of stuff that science still cannot explain (like the micro/macro theoretical disconnect that string theorists are trying to resolve). All of this means that there is alot of wiggle room, and looking for answers in religion isn't inherently an invalid concept. Science is big on observation of phenemena to gain insight on possible solutions to certain questions. Now, most scientists would be more than a little loath to accept the rantings of "some crazy guy" on a street corner as scientifically valid "observation", but:
1. You really don't know that he's not actually able to perceive things you cannot, and
2. There's a fine line between genius and crazy. Some of the greatest scientific theoriticians were a little from column "A" and a little from column "B"... maybe just a little reminiscent of various religions' "prophets". So, in short, given how a fair number of scientific breakthroughs have come about, it's entirely rational to give credit to a little lateral thinking.

As for agnosticism... (ahem) I don't really see my viewpoint as anything of a philosophical cop-out. I'm not trying to find some kind of happy-medium so I'll be able to think of myself as middle of the road, somehow. Rather, I tend to have difficulty having faith in something I cannot see, hear, touch, or otherwise experience or perceive, simply because some dude with a bible tells me to. He might be right. Then again, if he's molesting altar boys (and the VENGEFUL HAND OF GOD doesn't SMITE him), I might become somewhat skeptical. However, just because I can't perceive any kind of supernatural presence in the world, also doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Firmly believeing that there is no God (or whatever) simply because I cannot perceive such, I feel puts me back in the position of a religious belief, namely believing in something that I cannot really know, and basically just for purely ideological reasons.

[Terastas]

Personally I find a lot of people are still pissy with atheists. They cannot take their views being questioned on what is basically a public venue half the time. Some people still treat Atheism like a dirty word, even more so in more higher religious places like the USA, Latin America etc. Luckily it should start to die out.

A big part of the problem with atheists likely being that a lot of people identify themselves as such out of spite for organized religion. The typical response from a decent and wise atheist to being asked about their religion is to answer "No comment," leaving the atheism flag being most notably flown by people who would be better described as anti-Christian or anti-establishment. Atheism is to organized religion what anarchy is to organized government; a title that could have had significant meaning, but which is tragically adopted instead as an outlet for feelings of angst or to validate any feelings of egocentricity or resentment towards order and authority.

In other words, a lot of atheists are not believers in the true absence of higher powers but instead just hold deep feelings of resentment towards organized (or even structured) religion of any kind. The very fact that we have to debate whether or not Atheism counts as a religion at all might suffice to indicate such.

And for the record, Atheism does count as a religion. Religion is a product of faith, and faith is the belief in things without proof. Christians believe in the existence of God, while Atheists believe in the lack thereof. Neither the existence nor nonexistence can be proven, therefore believing in either can only be done as an act of faith.

And if you'll permit me to be brutally honest, I have to say that there are two other similarities between Christians and Atheists which I find amusing that this thread has revealed:

1) Both Christians and Atheists will claim to have proof.
2) What they claim qualifies as proof is often a big load of nothing.

Christian "evidence" statements tend to come in one of three variations:

1) "You can't prove it isn't, therefore it is."
This makes just as much sense as suggesting that Amelia Earhart must still be alive just because nobody ever confirmed her as dead.

2) "This part can be proven as truth, therefore everything in the Bible must be the truth."
I remember a while back, this one idiot (I forget who, so if it turns out it was someone here at the Pack, I apologize in advance) tried to prove to me that the Genesis creation story was true because Leviticus had some laws concerning the proper conduct for bathing and defecating that can also be found in the average wilderness survival manual.

I'm not discrediting the Bible as a whole. On the contrary, the sections in which I believe the Bible is insightful are more numerous than the sections in which I believe it's utter crap. But just because some of it is truth does not mean all of it is truth.

That would be kind of like if I said: "Milk comes from cows and unicorns come from Cleveland," and everyone responded to it with: "Well, he was right about the milk, so he must be right about the unicorns too."

3) "It's true and I've got all this sciency stuff that I may or may not understand to back it up."
Sorry Alpha, but I can't overlook your "light year days" on this one. I can accept the possibility that the original translation may have been any span of time, but what you've basically done is tried to prove that the Genesis story is true by dividing the (unknown) age of the universe by six and identifying that (also unknown) number as the amount of time the "day" refers to. It doesn't prove anything.

The same person who tried to tell me that Genesis was true because of the Bible's hygiene instructions, I think was also the person who tried to convince me that all the dinosaur fossils scattered around the world were proof of Noah's forty-day flood. Which to me was downright stupid, as it was kind of like saying either Noah screwed up royally up and failed to get all of these animals onto the Ark, or that God screwed up royally when he gave Noah the measurements for an arc that wasn't big enough to hold them.

And the "tornado in a trailer park" statement? Biggest load of bull of all. Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't dictate that the course of evolution is determined at random. It states that the offspring of a single generation will vary, but that only the ones best suited to their environment will survive and pass on their DNA to the next generation. The cheetah didn't become the fastest land animal by chance. The slowest running cheetahs starved to death while the slowest running impala became cheetah food, leaving only those that could run at a sufficient speed to breed, in effect setting the requirements for survival higher for the next generation, so on and so forth to this very day.

I shouldn't have had to explain this since Darwinism is often paraphrased as "survival of the fittest" for just this reason, but "Christian scientists" often forget such because they depend on evolution being randomized to support their theory.

But you know what? I'm not crapping on Christianity in support of Atheists. They're "proof" that there is no God is just as bull. In fact, two of their three common catch phrases are direct counterparts:
1) "You can't prove that it is, therefore it isn't."
2) "This part of the Bible is crap (Jonah, Samson, etc.), therefore it must all be crap."
3) (See #1)

So no offense to anyone that's tried to submit proof that their side of the debate is correct in this thread, but all that's been proven to me is how much Atheism and Christianity have in common with each other.
That sure was a long way for me to make a point, but still, point made: Atheism = religion.

[Morkulv]

I decided to not debate creationists any longer, since its pretty much pointless. From a atheist standpoint, you have to convince people to at least open up their mind for scientific evidence. If they don't, its pretty much pointless to go into discussion in the first place. The reason I say this is because a lot of religious people will stick to their bibles no matter what you show them and in responce to an argument they will usually just quote some verses of the bible, which gets really tiresome because bible-quotes are not valid arguments at all in a discussion.

Usually the religious people I debate then say that I'm "cornered" and that I'm "out of arguments". The real reason ofcourse is because a discussion like that can only go on in an infinite loop, and even though I have plenty of arguments up my sleeve as to why there is no god it would just be too much of a timewaste to me.

Atheism is not a religion and it will never be, and every atheist will agree with me on that. Atheism doesn't have traditions, or rules. The disbelieve in a god is not a rule, but a personal choise. Also, atheism is not a act of faith, but a act of only choosing to trust the things that we can see and the things that we know about (which is a act of reason and logic, not faith), and we don't worship them. I actually find that most people who think of atheism as a religion don't know that much about it or either see too much behind the term atheism.

[Terastas]

Atheism is not a religion and it will never be, and every atheist will agree with me on that. Atheism doesn't have traditions, or rules. The disbelieve in a god is not a rule, but a personal choise. Also, atheism is not a act of faith, but a act of only choosing to trust the things that we can see and the things that we know about (which is a act of reason and logic, not faith), and we don't worship them. I actually find that most people who think of atheism as a religion don't know that much about it or either see too much behind the term atheism.

You're still confusing "religion" with "organized religion." You're still choosing to believe something that cannot be proven, no different from the people you are trying to distance yourself from. Belief in God is also a choice.

No traditions and no rules? Well guess what: You've just described The Church of All Worlds and several other Neopagan movements.

Atheism also is not defined by just the refusal to pray to God (Deists believe in God but dismiss praying to him as being futile). It's the BELIEF that there is no God. You call it trusting in only the things that you can see and know about, but what you've effectively declared by extension is that there is nothing that can't be seen or known about. That's quite a leap of faith if you ask me.

What also bothers me is that you tried to distinguish Atheism from everything else by saying that "disbelieve in a god is not a rule, but a personal choice." And how, pray tell, is the belief in a god not a personal choice? It's physically possible to mandate the rules and the rituals, but not the actual belief. You just made belief in God sound like a mental defect.

No offense Morkulv, but all you've effectively done is played right into my assessment that atheists tend to be more anti-establishment than believers. When I said "Atheism = religion," that wasn't supposed to be an insult.

What's more, this is your thread Morkulv. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you get no respect as an atheist because people might be getting the impression that you're using atheism to pretend you're different -- maybe even better -- than they are?

"Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"
~Matthew 7:3

You're the one who started this thread complaining that you got no respect as an atheist Morkulv. Maybe the reason you're not getting any respect is because you're not giving anyone any either.

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you."
~Matthew 7:12

[Chris]

And for the record, Atheism does count as a religion. Religion is a product of faith, and faith is the belief in things without proof. Christians believe in the existence of God, while Atheists believe in the lack thereof.

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in god, not a belief in the lack of god. It's a subtle but important difference.

It's this us-versus-them mentality that religions tend to have that causes it.. if you don't believe in god, you must believe in no god (and thus a bad person who's going to hell). Isn't it possible to not believe in god, because you have no opinion on whether he exists? This is what atheism is.. the absence of 'a belief in god'. Atheism doesn't say why you have no belief in god. It could be because you believe he doesn't exist, or because you just don't care to think about whether he exists or not. Or it could be because you were never exposed to the idea of god in the first place.

[Morkulv]

And for the record, Atheism does count as a religion. Religion is a product of faith, and faith is the belief in things without proof. Christians believe in the existence of God, while Atheists believe in the lack thereof.

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in god, not a belief in the lack of god. It's a subtle but important difference.

This is what I was trying to say.

@Terastas: the belief in god is different because religious people follow the rules that are set by the bible or koran. Why are you so quick in calling my respectless? I already said before that my gripe is not with christians or religious people in general but with the extremists, the ones that challenge atheists and basically tell us to burn in hell.