Atheists Host Pornographic Christian Art Exhibit

[SnakeLord]

It tells me you are a "strong" atheist and SkinWalker is a "weak" atheist. Do I have it?

What made you think I'm a strong atheist? I am a weak atheist in general although might be strong depending upon which god it is we are talking about at the time.

You'll find few strong atheists although once again it's specific god dependant. Indeed it is safe to say that every single theist is also strong atheist to specific gods.

It still isn't obvious why both assume no Creator. Is it because there is no scientific proof of a Creator?

The issue is with your first statement. Sure it will vary from person to person but speaking for myself I don't assume anything - I am simply aware that at this time there is insufficient evidence to suggest to me that a god exists. This leads to me having no "positive" belief but that lack of positive belief does not instantly imply negative belief, merely a lack of positive belief. The key word here is 'lack'.

It is that distinction that theists have such difficulty grasping. I urge them to try, it would save so many problems.

[edit] I shall try and put this in a way that should make it easier to understand:

You own a car showroom. A man comes in and spends some time looking at a wonderful Lamborghini Countach that you have for sale. He tells you that last Saturday he won the lottery and is currently waiting for his £50 million cheque to clear. He then asks if he can take the car on the basis that once the money clears he will pay in full.

He might very well have won the lottery, and you don't believe he's lying - you simply do not have enough evidence to believe that he has indeed won the lottery. You're not going to give him the car but it does not imply that you think he's a liar. Did that help?

 

[lightgigantic]

1. Evolution.

why does evolution suggest a creator's non-existence (do you mean abiogenesis?)

2. Things seems to start simple and accumulate complexity, rather than begin fully formed and complex.

as you indicate, this is only how things seem to be

3. The ability of humans to create explanatory stories in the absense of evidence points to the creator myth being of the same nature.

one could also raise this as being a likely foundation for everything to seemingly start simple and accumulate complexity

 

[Revolvr]

The issue is with your first statement. Sure it will vary from person to person but speaking for myself I don't assume anything - I am simply aware that at this time there is insufficient evidence to suggest to me that a god exists. This leads to me having no "positive" belief but that lack of positive belief does not instantly imply negative belief, merely a lack of positive belief. The key word here is 'lack'.

OK I think I am getting it. A Creator could exist but since there is no evidence for it there is no reason to believe it. Finally got it?

But it seems one could tip the scale just a little bit and say: A Creator could exist, and since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, one could be at least an agnostic without a huge stretch of irrationality, right?

I mean, doesn't the delusional and irrational part come in when one believes specific religious texts, like the Bible or Qur'an?

 

[SnakeLord]

But it seems one could tip the scale just a little bit and say: A Creator could exist, and since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, one could be at least an agnostic without a huge stretch of irrationality, right?

No, (this is explained on my site and indeed on this very forum). Agnosticism is with concern to whether a god is knowable or not. An agnostic theist therefore believes in a god but asserts that one cannot know whether a god exists or not.

What is unfortunately mistaken as agnostic is actually the weak atheist position.

I mean, doesn't the delusional and irrational part come in when one believes specific religious texts, like the Bible or Qur'an?

The irrational part from where I sit is someone asserting positive belief in something when they have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it exists. Sure, the thing very well might exist and then this person will walk around looking smug, but it is that moment when someone declares adamantly: "[insert thing here] exists!" while having nothing to support the declaration that is the problem.

"Don't worry" says the deaf & blind man as he crosses the motorway, "I'm certain there are no cars coming". Being honest would you not say that such an action is irrational and foolish? If however that same man got help crossing from someone else you would undoubtedly label him a smart man. There is a reason for that.

So the question then arises.. Can ancient text be considered evidence? With regard to this subject matter you must see that a serious problem is going to occur very quickly if the answer is yes. That's a long story perhaps best suited for another time or thread.

 

[Revolvr]

It would seem hard to say both a Creator is possible, but believing it is delusional. In other words you might disagree with an agnostic theist but wouldn’t call him delusional would you?

Where does one cross the line to delusional?

After all there are quite a number of brilliant scientists, even those cosmologists examining early history of the universe, who at least believe in a Creator. I wouldn’t call them delusional or irrational.

As a simple example, Dr. Arno Penzias said: “The best data we have (concerning the big bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Penzias is the co-discoverer of cosmic microwave background radiation and a 1978 Nobel Prize recipient in physics and a strong proponent of the Big Bang theory.

It is arguable that specific theistic beliefs, like a 6-day creation, or some great ancient flood, might be delusional. But a belief in a Creator, in and of itself, isn’t delusional is it?

 

[scorpius]

Never knew there was christian porn

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible4.htm