Of course not all of them are, but there's a subsect of the group that are active proselytizers. And the topic they proselytize on is religion. There's almost no difference between an atheist who constantly attacks religious concepts (and you find that commonly online, and most religious topics on Wordforge start that way) and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints that rings your doorbell and won't go away. Oh, there is a difference - that kid is likely far more polite. And while atheism is largely an ideology, I'd say that strong atheists, the ones that actively claim we've disproved the concept of the divine, are in fact are basing their claims on faith. A tenant of logic is that you can't disprove a negative. Science can't prove god doesn't exist, it only states we haven't found evidence of him yet. If you conclude that means he can't exist, then you are taking that article on personal belief, which is a form of faith. Again, I'm an agnostic apatheist. I don't believe we can prove the nature of divine and the concept of whether god exists or not, and I don't care if he exists or not. But anecdotally I'm constantly bombarded by atheists proselytizing, and almost never encounter theists doing so in this date an age. So in my personal experience the group that has fallen into the annoying asshole camp has long been weighted in the fervent atheists. I don't care that religion is visible in society. It doesn't impact me.
We don't need to prove that God doesn't exist any more than you need to prove that my magical invisible unicorn doesn't exist.
How about the existence of square circles? Most concepts of God fall into the same category as that IMO. It has nothing to do with faith.
Theres nowt wrong with debating religion. Whether it be the people, the instituations or the philosophy. Its a damn site more interesting than fucking american fucking politics
You should tell that to your fellow travelers. Because they didn't get the memo. Take a look at the front page of the Red Room to see they are indeed trying to prove that magical invisible unicorns don't exist. It's an insult to tell someone they are going to be eternally punished if you don't believe the way you do. It's also an insult to tell someone they are ignorant and stupid if they don't believe the way you do. And, of course, calling one of the most powerful forces in the history of mankind that has had billions of adherents and enormous influence over the course of society the equivalent of invisible unicorns is also insulting, and a prime example of what I'm talking about. The effect of religion on the world is real and tangible, which is the entire reason you are talking about the existence of God in the first place. Otherwise, like invisible unicorns, you wouldn't bother. Not so strong an answer.
Blowhards on most subjects are annoying. But atheism has more intellectual weight than religion. So I prefer it.
The characteristics of God as described by most believers in him are self-defeating. Omnipotence, omniscience etc.
Funny, I find atheism to have no intellectual weight at all. Philosophy does, atheism makes no statements that aren't negatives.
Religions are a powerful force, and have had many adherents. Unlike you, perhaps, I've never seen weight of numbers and mob mentality as a convincing argument for anything, whether lynching the homosexuals, voting for Obama, buying Enron stock, or believing in God. As I've said numerous times in the recent slew of topics, throughout history, man has accepted many utterly infantile ideas, not least among them, God. Barack Obama has many hundreds of millions of followers in his devoted fanbase, and obviously, enormous influence over our society, is this a convincing argument for you to bow down before Dominus Obaminus?
So the people denying man-made climate change are going on faith? They're trying to prove a negative as well. If you really believe that, then you're not paying attention.
So god can't exist because god can't create a rock that god can't lift. Yet strangely, science teaches us that light is both a wave and a particle.
Whats a more interesting question, 'does god know why he exists', or 'Is Obama a stupid nigger who will destroy America and lose the constitution down the back of the sofa' The answer to that will tell you why religious debate is vaugely interesting
Science teaches that light posesses some of the properties of both a wave and a particle, not that it is both. The ultimate nature of matter remains as yet unknown.
Sigh. Reread my answer. It has none of the qualities that you are attributing to it. The number of adherents isn't a valid reason to believe, as I strongly concur. And, of course, my argument is not at all that god is real. I leave that as an exercise to the querent.
LOL, I can certainly see that point of view. However, as someone who lives in the US, I'd posit the later question is far more direct and compelling to my daily existence. Obviously opinions vary. BTW, I'm not railing against all theological debate. Your thread is actually very good. I'm railing against scorn against the concept that theological debate is valid. After all, why talk about invisible unicorns?
The problem is some Atheist aren't just happy with just them not believing...they have to lash out at those who do..which makes me think that deep down they really do believe and are just trying to convince themselves their right by badgering true believers. Another thing about Atheist is they love to say how Religion leads to wars and death but forget that mass killers like Stalin were Atheist too..so the argument that if we were all Atheist there would be no wars is a lie...Humen's will always find a way to justify killing each other no matter what they do or don't believe in.
That entirely depends on what you classify as God. If you are talking about God as a generic undefined concept, then yes, however at that point it also becomes basically meaningless since you are using the term as a catch all and not making any claims about what it means. When it comes to specific examples as God such as the Old Testament version of God and so so, you can disprove (to the extent science can disprove anything) specific claimed qualities. For example, while you can adopt the position that science cannot disprove the concept of a hands off Christian God, I would say it has firmly disproved the existence of the God you would believe in if you adopted a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible.
I do not recall anyone ever saying that if there was no religion there would be no war. It is, however, one of a number of things which tends to lead to war.
I'd liken religion in wars to guns in human interaction. Guns aren't a reason that people kill each other, they do help though.
I've known some atheists who were very, very well-educated, very polite people. Pleasant to be around and very tolerant of Christians and other religious "nuts". I found them to be closer to "god" than some people walking the aisles of churches.
Why is anyone surprised that a group of people who sit around bitching about something they don't believe in would also be more likely to be self important assholes? People like to dress up and pretend their in starfleet. I don't believe in that either but standing outside a star trek convention and mocking those people would be just as pathetic. In fact atheist, as has been my experience spend most of their time arguing and whining over that which they don't believe in. We'd call that kind of behavior anywhere else self denial. It's sorta like those macho guys who walk around talking about homo's this and homo's that. Like we don't know you want to pack fudge their chief. You ain't foolin anyone.
And also how you classify atheist. Strawman. I can claim there is a omniscient, omnipotent being that created the universe. That certainly is a core component of Judeo-Christian-Muslim thought. That doesn't mean I have to believe that he created the Earth in 7 days or that Muhammed was his prophet. Sure, and the claim that the religion that worships said god is incorrect in their belief the bible is 100% true. But that's a claim against the religion, it makes no statements about whether the being exists. It's a minor contraindicator just like the eye witness accounts that started the religion are a minor positive indicator, but ultimately they say very little about the reality. Logic can certainly prove specific statements false, but that doesn't make any claim about the underlying assumption, as predicated above - that there's a being that created the universe that is beyond our comprehension. It's not a particularly compelling argument for it's truth, and why I don't bother with it myself, but the theological logical construct of a divine being works just fine - it's a self-enclosed argument. I personally would be very surprised if the rapture hit, but I don't rule it out as conclusive that it could never happen. It's just irrelevant to my life so I ignore the admittedly exceedingly remote possibility.
