I merely point out that your atheism is based on faith is it not? Why are you so convinced there is no God? Do you have proof?
Atheists Host Pornographic Christian Art Exhibit
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
I merely point out that your atheism is based on faith is it not? Why are you so convinced there is no God? Do you have proof?
You seem to be suffering from some confusion concerning what atheism is. www.snakeystew.com has an explanation that should help. Once you understand it you'll find your question is pointless and redundant.
Surely that would depend which one wouldn't it? If you're talking about Thor then it's unlikely that you'll put up much of a disagreement with any statement made. So, what god you talking about? It's all in the details.
Apologies Skin.
[Insult Deleted]
Last edited by a moderator:
You've got me all wrong. I'm not "convinced there is no god." I'm convinced there's no good reason to believe there is a god. There *is* a difference.
Show me a good reason, and you might have something. To date, no good reasons have been presented.
Therefore, my 'atheism' is based on faith, but it isn't the same definition of faith your superstitions are based on. I use the kind of faith that allows physics to make predictions of what the vector of force is that's being applied to a girder in a skyscraper; or the stoichiometry of a chemical reaction; or the rate of decay in an isotope; or the morphology of primate dentition that allows identification of species; etc.
These are faiths that are based in observation, testing and evidence.
The kind of faith you have is based on none of this. Not a single observation. Not a single test. Not a single bit of useful evidence. This is blind faith.
So: am I sure there's no god? Of course not. Am I an atheist? To date, I've referred to myself as an agnostic-atheist, but religious apologists have taken to making up their own definitions for atheism that don't fit my worldview, so lately I've settled on rational atheist or adeist. I'm no more sure that a god doesn't exist than I am that unicorns don't exist. I can't verify or disprove either. But I sure don't see any good reason to accept either one.
So you can go on and on with your shadowboxing about "convinced" and "proof." Those words don't apply to my worldview about your god.
Wimp.
therefore your faith is that the senses are the final last word about us in terms of discerning knowledge and that the ultimate substance of reality can be defined by materially reductionist views
aka - classical empiricism
Given that such a foundation clearly is incapable of ever coming close to complete knowledge (the senses are inherently limited, and, behind every analytical break down of the mircocosm lies another analytical break down), you will never be able to escape issues of faith.
welcome to the club
:shrug:
You don't move in the right circles.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...t=result&cd=1&q=atheist+organizations&spell=1
That sounds like the argument some Christians make about homosexuality.
I have no issue with criticizing homosexuality. I also have no issue with ridiculing it. These are matters of free speech and freethought. If the speaker or the one engaging in ridicule is wrong, they, too, get to suffer the same fate.
However, there shouldn't be legal restrictions against homosexuality and public policy shouldn't be created that discriminates based on sexual preference. I hold the same expectations for religious beliefs.
And, by "ridicule," I'm not referring to "bullying" such as singling out individuals (of either christianity *or* homosexuality) and publicly humiliating them in front of their peers or others. I'm referring to ridicule on par with political cartoons.
What is your opinion on similar issues with regard to gender and race? Ethnic differences?
Why would I seek to discourage criticism or discourse? Because these are "sensitive" issues? Personally, I might not have criticism to offer in regard to gender or race issues, but if such criticism has a logical and reasoned position, then it should be welcomed.
I suspect you're attempting to lead me down the path that results in me admitting that I've supported the complete lack of tolerance for racist hate-speech at sciforums in the past, so why shouldn't I, therefore, be in favor of similar enforcement of restrictions on speaking out against religious beliefs?
If so, don't waste your time. I'm not interested in having that debate or falling for that red herring.
I suspect you're attempting to lead me down the path that results in me admitting that I've supported the complete lack of tolerance for racist hate-speech at sciforums in the past, so why shouldn't I, therefore, be in favor of similar enforcement of restrictions on speaking out against religious beliefs?
If so, don't waste your time. I'm not interested in having that debate or falling for that red herring.
My posts are not "shadow boxing". I am genuinely interested in atheist's rationale for their beliefs. You have removed a lot of insults lately. Every one of them are from atheists, not theists. These insults are not very powerful arguments for your point of view. In fact, they suggest a lack of critical thinking and blind faith.
Your post above is the first in this thread to explain this worldview. So let me summarize to check my understanding:
Your personal view is that there could be a Creator. But since there is no scientific evidence for a Creator, you assume there must not be.
In other words, given no scientific evidence for or against a Creator, the default is no Creator.
Is this reasonably correct?
There is evidence against a creator. There just isn't any evidence for one.
I see your views are different from SkinWalker's. What evidence against a Creator do you refer to?
That would be you shadowboxing again. My position was clear, but allow me repeat it in slightly different words.
I do not rule out gods in the universe. I see no good reason to accept that they do, however. Show me legitimate evidence and you might have something worth speaking of. Until then, there's no more reason to believe in your god as anyone of the other thousands of gods humanity has created. Nor is there any more reason to believe in gods than there is to believe in unicorns, leprechauns, magical garden gnomes, ghosts, space aliens, bigfoot, or a pot of tea orbiting the next star over.
With regard to the insults I've deleted, I'm usually deleting entire posts -about even on both sides of the issue, but lately only the superstitious have complained that I'm always deleting their posts and not those of atheists. Since they've never been able to see what was deleted, I thought I might leave a trail or two to prove otherwise. No matter what I do, there is always one side of the argument that whines the loudest and consistently appeals to the role of victim.
Yes I've seen your web site. It tells me you are a "strong" atheist and SkinWalker is a "weak" atheist. Do I have it?
It still isn't obvious why both assume no Creator. Is it because there is no scientific proof of a Creator? Or is it just an opinion that belief in a Creator must be irrational?
1. Evolution.
2. Things seems to start simple and accumulate complexity, rather than begin fully formed and complex.
3. The ability of humans to create explanatory stories in the absense of evidence points to the creator myth being of the same nature.