Do athiests have the right to consider themselves the superior intellect?

1. Of course you do.
2. Your mindset is no different than this guy's: "Let me put my fingers in the wounds and then I'll believe..." except you can't constrain yourself to living your own life by your own lights, you gotta be out there trailing after Dawkins proselytizing.
3. That doesn't even make sense.

Frankly, Thomas was the the only character in the Bible worth a damn.

Your response to my "show me your TARDIS for breaking the barrier", is answered with my post on death.
That's the connection I made.

Consciousness is an amazing thing, and we don't know how we got it. I believe the current line of thought is that at some point there is an evolutionary leap in the brain and how it processes data. Our brains gather data, and use it to project future events; gaining the ability to anticipate not only future dangers, but also future successes may be a part of that leap. Of course, I'm just spitballing here, and that doesn't mean there was a creator in any of this. I'm actually okay with the idea that this whole thing developed on its own, over billions of years, the nature of physics adapting as it goes, and keep in mind that there may be other universes where this didn't happen, where the environment to foster life never coalesced.

How interesting that you of all people would say that.

How so?

How is it not obvious?

Said Diacanu regarding doubt:

Here's the whole quote.

Where in that did I say doubt was bad?

No, wait. If you're saying one of those qualifiers doesn't apply to what you're saying, I want to know which one, and how.

Serious question: Isn't that what you just did, quite deliberately and consciously, by posting a surrealist picture in lieu of a definition or explanation?

You have consistently allowed no room for doubt when it comes to the god concept. You can't claim otherwise at this point, it's out there. And in fact, if you have room for it, you are...

an agnostic.

So I think it's hysterical that you like Thomas.

When, exactly?

You must have twisted something somewhere, because I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Why?
The guy wanted proof.
That's what I'm asking for.
All I get is double-talk, and emotionalism.

Do you accept the concept of doubt? Yes or no?

Yeah.
Now explain to me why you think that's a fucking clincher.

I repeat my question.

When?

The problem is that atheism is often regarded by religious people as having a basis in faith the same as religious belief.

It doesn't (at least not for me and others I know). I believe that there is no God, because that's what all the evidence suggests.

Now, I also admit that evidence could emerge that would change that belief. Faith will stand strong in the face of opposing scientific evidence, whereas mere belief can change. I may not believe in God now, but if evidence was discovered that were were dropped from the arse of Galactox the Space Cow then I'd be all about trying to make friends with our bovine benefactor.

Except it will be UniCat the Malevolent.

Because atheism, like religion, requires certainty. Doubt is the defining aspect of agnosticism.

Says you.
Nothing is 100% certain.
We don't need 100% certainty for daily existence.
You dismiss things every day with less than 100% certainty.
Leprechauns, underpants gnomes, talking dancing foods in your fridge when you close the door, etc, etc.

It's not black or white, it's a probability curve, and everyone follows it.

Agreed, which is why I call myself an agnostic.

Knock yourself out.

gul, you're better than that.

Science doesn't deal with the realm of 100% certainty. All empirical truths are provisional. The defining aspect of agnosticism is a special pleading that the question of the existence of gods demands 100% certainty, unlike all other questions of existence addressed by science.

In any event, most gods are so poorly defined (god is love), so clearly internally contradictory in nature (god is omniscient and omnipotent), or defined so specifically as to be untestable (god created the universe then took a hike) that they can be dismissed with 100% certainty because such gods by definition do not exist. You don't even get to the point of testing their existence scientifically before you dismiss them if you're thinking straight. Existence demands the possibility of existence and the reality of empirical effect.

He's certainly better than a dipshit like you.

Says you. This is the whole problem with the atheism vs. agnosticism debate. Everyone tries to pigeon-hole everyone else into their preconceived notions.

This scene from the movie based on his book is still making Carl Sagan shit his (decomposing) drawers.

Now you really make it sound as if you are agnostic about elephants.

I think the real measure of a belief or conviction is not so much what people will say they believe, but how they act. Can you name any aspect of your behaviour that is the way it is because you are agnostic about God, and would be noticeably different if you were instead an atheist?

98% of the argument regards definition. Atheists are 100% sure of theirs.

Nope, you aren't getting it. Agnosticism means not giving a shit. Atheists and theists consider it highly important that they be right. The rest of us don't care, so long as things basically work.

So agnosticism is just about making different kinds of noises, and generally less, about the God you disregard for all other decisions in your life?

Nope.