Atheism: a faith based belief.

[PoPpAScience]

In this section of the forum, atheists break every rule written governing this section. They do this to put forth their faith based beliefs. As they say, they do not beleive in a God(s) which religions are built around, and feel its their science given right to set the delusional and uninformed straight. They feel it is their duty to speak the word of science, so as to bring the lost back to the light. They quote from their hand book of atheist beliefs, Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin, and the Big Band. They have faith that these prove there is no God, and must express it in every thread over and over again.

 

Now this would be ok, because it is the same thing religious people do all the time in science threads. But they don't just quote from their atheist hand book, they flood the thread with emotion, insults, and gobbledegook. You can look at every single thread in this section and it is the same scenario almost every time. Lets take a thread of 40 posts for example. In this thread the OP at the very best might make 5 posts, maybe 2 at best try to make a response in conversation, 10 posts might say prove it(show me the math), thus leaving 23 posts of emotion, insults, and gobbledegook.

 

rule 3. Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views. This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates.

 

 

How is anyone in this section suppose to have an intellectual conversation, when this rule is not inforced by the moderators. Worst yet, when one moderator is the worst infractor.

 

When a person like I, calls atheists out on their behavour, they post the same posts over and over again. Every post; makes a response to something I never said and then they take great offense that I called atheism a religion. Most posts also throw in some insults. Never, and I mean never in 10 years, have I seen any reply post any different.

 

Now Atheistism is not a cult or religion, even though it acts like one in most cases, it absolutely can be called a Faith Based Belief system.

 

Now if the atheists come in this thread to respond, they will prove my point, they can not help themselves.

 

Some atheist faith based beliefs:

 

There is no God.

 

Science shows there is no need for God.

 

Those who believe in God are delusional.

 

Those who believe in God are ignorant.

 

Basic theories and experiments like Miller-Urey experiment, and Darwin show the Universe can create without purpose or help.

 

etc...

 

As I've seen since forums where created, atheist actions in sections like this one, always sniff of faith based beliefs and little about science.

[Strange]

In this section of the forum, atheists break every rule written governing this section.

 

Then report them to the moderators.

 

They do this to put forth their faith based beliefs.

 

Except atheism is a lack of belief, not a faith-based belief. I have no idea why some many people persist in this stupid idea. Would you say not playing football is a sport-based activity?

 

As they say, they do not beleive in a God(s) which religions are built around, and feel its their science given right to set the delusional and uninformed straight.

 

I'm not sure why you (repeatedly) equate atheism and science. That is not logical.

 

They feel it is their duty to speak the word of science, so as to bring the lost back to the light.

 

That is more likely due to an interest in science than a lack of interest in gods. I have seen people who do believe in God correcting peoples errors of science and logic. So this has nothing to do with atheism.

 

They quote from their hand book of atheist beliefs, Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin, and the Big Band.

 

As the first two of those are examples of emprical science, I don't understand why you attempt to demean them by claiming they are beliefs. And god only knows what you mean by "the Big Band" - the Rolling Stones, maybe.

 

They have faith that these prove there is no God, and must express it in every thread over and over again.

 

They prove no such thing. And I don't think I have seen people claim they do. Perhaps you are being oversensitive.

 

But they don't just quote from their atheist hand book, they flood the thread with emotion, insults, and gobbledegook.

 

That seems to be your standard way of characterising any alternative opinion.

 

When a person like I, calls atheists out on their behavour, they post the same posts over and over again. Every post; makes a response to something I never said and then they take great offense that I called atheism a religion.

 

Why are you so desperate to think you are offending people? You aren't. Your endless repetition of the same statements, and refusal to engage in discussion is slightly disappointing on a discussion forum, but that is probably as strong as it gets.

 

Most posts also throw in some insults.

 

I see few insults on this forum. The moderators are quite strict about that.

 

it absolutely can be called a Faith Based Belief system.

 

That is a ridiculous claim. I might even class it as gobbledegook.

 

Now if the atheists come in this thread to respond, they will prove my point, they can not help themselves.

 

Well let's see.

 

I suspect what we will see is you dismissing all responses as emotional, insulting gobbldegook.

 

Science shows there is no need for God.

 

In general that is true. Science manages to describe things without requiring god or gods. If you think this is wrong, perhaps you can give an example of a scientific theory that requires god?

 

Basic theories and experiments like Miller-Urey experiment, and Darwin show the Universe can create without purpose or help.

 

That seems to be the case. Perhaps you could give a rational explanation as to why you think that is not the case, rather than just baseless assertions.

 

(BTW, I skipped some of the apparently "emotional and insulting" parts of your post.)

Edited March 29, 2016 by Strange

[ajb]

Now Atheistism is not a cult or religion, even though it acts like one in most cases, it absolutely can be called a Faith Based Belief system.

You will need to define your terms very very carefully.

 

What do you mean by 'faith'? Do you really mean 'trust' or 'blind faith'?

 

It is true that atheists will have trust in their philosophical view that there is no god, or at the very least that the probability of a god is very low. The only way one can argue that a philosophical point of view is 'good' is if this position has severed them well up to this point. A religious person will of course say the same thing.

 

However, if you mean blind faith then there really is a distinction. By blind faith I mean the supposition that a statement is true despite there being no evidence for the truth of the statement or even in the case where there is evidence that the statement is false.

 

This notion of blind faith is vital to all religions. It is absolutely not a part of atheism.

 

You might argue that there is no evidence that there is not a god. This is the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. This is true, but this is flipping the burden of evidence. Religious people have made the extraordinary claims and so they should provide some evidence.

 

If such evidence were to come to light, then atheists would review their position. The reverse can happen; with no evidence of the supernatural people do leave their religions. Again, there is no blind faith here and opinions can change quickly in light of new evidence. I will even say it again, just to be clear... no blind faith required.

 

 

Now, what do you mean by 'belief system'? If you just mean a philosophy, then I think we all agree on this meaning. But by 'belief' do you mean something more?

 

Atheists believe in something because of evidence or the lack of. Again, this is not to be confused with 'blind faith' or 'religious belief' which require no logical thinking or evidence. Because I believe something does not mean that I have no evidence or supporting arguments for my belief. And once more... no blind faith required.

 

At the root of atheism, or for sure my personal version, is the need for sound logic and evidence. I see that the notion of god or gods as a very artificial one that has no clear definition and for sure no objective evidence. I therefore, take the position that the likelihood of the existence of a god is infinitesimally small. Without this evidence I essentially reject the notion of a god and pass the burden of proof back to the religious community. And guess what... I do not require blind faith for this philosophical position.

Edited March 29, 2016 by ajb

[Daecon]

My favourite hobby is not collecting stamps.

[Strange]

My favourite hobby is not being interested in stamps. Although I do feel the need to intervene when people misuse them or make false claims about them ...

[Phi for All]

The OP's not going to let this go. He's not interested in being shown he's wrong. He's a preacher.

 

He uses emotional arguments all the time, and doesn't see a difference when people are telling him their arguments are based on reason instead. He thinks we're being emotional when we say we see no evidence of god(s). He has no idea what critical thought or faith-based beliefs are in the first place. It's like arguing with a child.

 

Notice that none of this is attacking him personally, just his behavior, but he will not agree. He'll argue something to the effect that his behavior and his person are one in the same, and can't be distinguished.

[studiot]

Thought I'd read through this thread and see what all the fuss was about.

 

Thanks for the entertainment, guys.

 

I have sprinkled a few +1s about to Strange and Daecon for introducing and developing a line of reasoning.

 

 

 

Except atheism is a lack of belief, not a faith-based belief. I have no idea why some many people persist in this stupid idea. Would you say not playing football is a sport-based activity?

 

I am not an atheist.

 

I'm a 'don't care'

 

Since I'm comfortable with my lifestyle and lot it makes no difference to me whether there are gods or not, I would not change anything either way.

 

Save's a lot of pointless effort that way for something more useful.

Edited March 29, 2016 by studiot

[Moontanman]

In this section of the forum, atheists break every rule written governing this section. They do this to put forth their faith based beliefs. As they say, they do not beleive in a God(s) which religions are built around, and feel its their science given right to set the delusional and uninformed straight. They feel it is their duty to speak the word of science, so as to bring the lost back to the light. They quote from their hand book of atheist beliefs, Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin, and the Big Band. They have faith that these prove there is no God, and must express it in every thread over and over again.

 

Now this would be ok, because it is the same thing religious people do all the time in science threads. But they don't just quote from their atheist hand book, they flood the thread with emotion, insults, and gobbledegook. You can look at every single thread in this section and it is the same scenario almost every time. Lets take a thread of 40 posts for example. In this thread the OP at the very best might make 5 posts, maybe 2 at best try to make a response in conversation, 10 posts might say prove it(show me the math), thus leaving 23 posts of emotion, insults, and gobbledegook.

 

 

How is anyone in this section suppose to have an intellectual conversation, when this rule is not inforced by the moderators. Worst yet, when one moderator is the worst infractor.

 

When a person like I, calls atheists out on their behavour, they post the same posts over and over again. Every post; makes a response to something I never said and then they take great offense that I called atheism a religion. Most posts also throw in some insults. Never, and I mean never in 10 years, have I seen any reply post any different.

 

Now Atheistism is not a cult or religion, even though it acts like one in most cases, it absolutely can be called a Faith Based Belief system.

 

Now if the atheists come in this thread to respond, they will prove my point, they can not help themselves.

 

Some atheist faith based beliefs:

 

There is no God.

 

Science shows there is no need for God.

 

Those who believe in God are delusional.

 

Those who believe in God are ignorant.

 

Basic theories and experiments like Miller-Urey experiment, and Darwin show the Universe can create without purpose or help.

 

etc...

 

As I've seen since forums where created, atheist actions in sections like this one, always sniff of faith based beliefs and little about science.

 

No, in fact as an atheist I cannot say if there is or isn't, so far no one has provided any real evidence for a god, so the default position is not to believe there is one. I can't prove there are no unicorns but that doesn't mean I have to believe there is until I prove there is not..

 

Science has nothing to say about god since gods cannot be tested..

 

No, I wouldn't say they are delusional, possibly misguided...

 

Nothing wrong with being ignorant, we are all ignorant about many things, no one knows everything...

 

So far the evidence does indeed suggest the universe operates by purely naturalistic means, nothing super natural required...

 

My lack of believe in gods, any gods by the way, not just your version what ever that might be, is based on lack of positive evidence, not faith. I am first and foremost a skeptic, everything else follows from that.

[Prometheus]

I'm both a Buddhist and an atheist, so where does that put me? Do i have two religions/belief systems?

 

Basic theories and experiments like Miller-Urey experiment, and Darwin show the Universe can create without purpose or help.

 

Many Hindu cosmologies have a similar view of creation. I think it would be informative to explore why a Hindu might believe this and why an atheist might believe this. It is the means by which the belief was arrived at which is pertinent here. Would you care to explore this avenue with me?

[PoPpAScience]

*Disclaimer* I was a atheist when I studied many 10's of research books on God(s) and Religion over a decade period, and if there was an internet at the time I would have been in forums like this taking it to the religious and atheist. So, I understand what it is to be an atheist totally, for I was one into my late 30's. Now I'm a true philosopher.

 

Thanks for the post ajp:

 

You will need to define your terms very very carefully.

 

 

I always do! It is hard to get others to accept the words I use, as they stand in our dictionaries. If one wants to know what I mean with a word, google it.

 

What do you mean by 'faith'? Do you really mean 'trust' or 'blind faith'?

 

 

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

 

But the knee jerk assumption always is
: belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

 

Now you have added 'blind faith' to the discussion, and I do not use the definition when talking in science forums about atheism.

 

It is true that atheists will have trust in their philosophical view that there is no god, or at the very least that the probability of a god is very low. The only way one can argue that a philosophical point of view is 'good' is if this position has severed them well up to this point. A religious person will of course say the same thing.

 

 

This statement stands as it is, even if we change the word trust, with faith. Your statement here shows why I use the word faith, it is to show that the mannerism of speech by an atheist, is on par with other faith based beliefs. Key words here; mannerism of speech.

 

However, if you mean blind faith then there really is a distinction. By blind faith I mean the supposition that a statement is true despite there being no evidence for the truth of the statement or even in the case where there is evidence that the statement is false.

 

 

As I showed above, the definition that you use for 'blind faith', is the definition for 'faith' in the dictionary.

 

This notion of blind faith is vital to all religions. It is absolutely not a part of atheism.

 

I disagree, but can only show it with rational discussion. An example would be; an atheist has read absolutely nothing on the subject of God written by many atheist researchers, then they speak as if they know what the meaning of God is, with 'blind' statements as if they were fact.

 

You might argue that there is no evidence that there is not a god. This is the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. This is true, but this is flipping the burden of evidence. Religious people have made the extraordinary claims and so they should provide some evidence.

 

What I say is, that there has been NO scientific experiments on this matter, and thus I agree with your statement, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' . Science only deals with what it can observe, and does a fantastic job of showing how it works. But it is a process, that is always lead by the abilities of the mind to push the boundaries of thought.

 

Your statement about religious people is true. The problem is that those who are not religious, but are true philosophers, are always thrown into the religious category immediately. As a true philosopher, I have, and will be immediately branded religious and vilified by atheist in every forum that I have visited.

 

If such evidence were to come to light, then atheists would review their position.

 

 

Would they?? If they can not even pull back the vails of their atheist beliefs long enough to allow their minds to even look and consider potential evidence put forth, how could they ever review their position. My experience has been that an atheist will throw a tantrum, before they would allow the vail to drop. It is hard for me to understand the level of fear that makes an atheist act this way. I can only relate it to how a religious person would respond.

 

The reverse can happen; with no evidence of the supernatural people do leave their religions. Again, there is no blind faith here and opinions can change quickly in light of new evidence. I will even say it again, just to be clear... no blind faith required.

 

 

Virtually all cases I've witnessed of religious people leaving their faith, is because their 'God of persona' does not show itself or does for them. I've never witnessed a religious person who see's God as this Universe, as shown through observation and science, turning into an atheist.

 

Now, what do you mean by 'belief system'? If you just mean a philosophy, then I think we all agree on this meaning. But by 'belief' do you mean something more?

 

 

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

 

Had to go to Dictionary.com for the knee jerk assumption
: a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith

 

Atheists believe in something because of evidence or the lack of. Again, this is not to be confused with 'blind faith' or 'religious belief' which require no logical thinking or evidence. Because I believe something does not mean that I have no evidence or supporting arguments for my belief. And once more... no blind faith required.

 

 

Again you are trying to justify what you believe(faith-see above) by adding 'blind' to faith and thinking it changes things. The faith comes into play when an atheist responds to a subject matter that they have spent no time studying on, and even worst no interest in, but make statements about evidence.

 

At the root of atheism, or for sure my personal version, is the need for sound logic and evidence. I see that the notion of god or gods as a very artificial one that has no clear definition and for sure no objective evidence.

 

 

How can there be "sound logic and evidence", if it only comes from one point of view, and a limited level of knowledge on the subject. Again this can only lead to your faith in what you know.

 

I therefore, take the position that the likelihood of the existence of a god is infinitesimally small. Without this evidence I essentially reject the notion of a god and pass the burden of proof back to the religious community. And guess what... I do not require blind faith for this philosophical position.

 

 

Again, an opinion BASED on your FAITH in what your BELIEFS are. Lack of knowledge on the subject of God, and belief that the subject of God only belongs to the religious, is not a philosophical position, it is an atheist position. A faith based belief position.

Edited March 30, 2016 by PoPpAScience

[swansont]

It is hard to get others to except the words I use, as they stand in our dictionaries. If one wants to know what I mean with a word, google it.

I believe the word you want here is "accept". Regardless, words often have multiple, somwhat distinct, definitions.

[PoPpAScience]

I'm both a Buddhist and an atheist, so where does that put me? Do i have two religions/belief systems?

 

 

 

I guess I could have asked myself the same question way back when I was studying Buddhism as an atheist. Now I personally separated the teachings of Buddha from the religion created around him. The same way I separate the teachings of Jesus from Christianity. It is their knowledge that I add to my philosophical views on matters of God and Universe.

 

Many Hindu cosmologies have a similar view of creation. I think it would be informative to explore why a Hindu might believe this and why an atheist might believe this. It is the means by which the belief was arrived at which is pertinent here. Would you care to explore this avenue with me?

 

 

The word atheism comes from Hindu traditions. The word was mostly associated with rejection of certain texts like Vedas, but also in a rejection to 'God(s) of persona', as I like to use. But rarely against there only being God(universe).

 

I would love to explore this avenue with you and others, but not in this thread. The reason for starting this thread was my observation that if I started a thread to discuss the knowledge of the ages, it would only be hijacked and flooded by atheist faith based believers, who admit they don't know or care about the subject matter, but feel its their duty to interject.

 

No offence to you.

[Phi for All]

Again, an opinion BASED on your FAITH in what your BELIEFS are. Lack of knowledge on the subject of God, and belief that the subject of God only belongs to the religious, is not a philosophical position, it is an atheist position. A faith based belief position.

 

Your definition of faith makes no sense to me. I break down my belief system into trust, faith, and wishful thinking. Explanations that have valid evidence to support them earn my trust. I don't really have to "believe" any more, I can trust that this explanation has been tested to the point where it's practically assumed to be true. Almost.

 

Faith is asking me to believe in something that has no rational basis, that has no supportive evidence. It's actually asking me to give it my strongest, most unshakable belief, based on nothing but emotional surety.

 

Wishful thinking is hoping something is true. I don't use this much either, but if it doesn't cause me to do anything life-changing, I can sometimes wish for things to be true when I know I can never know that.

 

So it's very important what you mean when you talk about belief. It's an extremely nuanced concept, and I think you treat it too lightly, favoring your faith and ignoring reality for the supernatural.

[PoPpAScience]

 

No, in fact as an atheist I cannot say if there is or isn't, so far no one has provided any real evidence for a god, so the default position is not to believe there is one. I can't prove there are no unicorns but that doesn't mean I have to believe there is until I prove there is not..

 

 

 

Key words; default position, believe.

 

Science has nothing to say about god since gods cannot be tested..

 

 

Exactly! But atheist have a lot to say on the subject.

 

No, I wouldn't say they are delusional, possibly misguided...

 

 

Atheist opinion.

 

Nothing wrong with being ignorant, we are all ignorant about many things, no one knows everything...

 

 

Exactly!

 

So far the evidence does indeed suggest the universe operates by purely naturalistic means, nothing super natural required...

 

 

This is an atheist view also. A true philosopher comes to conclusions about nature from a more knowledgeable point of view. Agree, nothing super natural needed.

 

My lack of believe in gods, any gods by the way, not just your version what ever that might be, is based on lack of positive evidence, not faith. I am first and foremost a skeptic, everything else follows from that.

 

 

 

Skeptic is great. Opinions about others beliefs based on a lack of positive evidence, comes from faith in your beliefs.

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by PoPpAScience

[Phi for All]

So the main thrust of your argument is that the "atheist opinion" isn't based on reason and reality, that it's every bit as much of a religion as any other. You state this after all the posts showing where you are wrong, and just continue to wave your hands and insist we're wrong solely because we're atheist.

 

Yours is a weird proposition. I've studied religion and religious beliefs for thirty years, and you have so little to support yourself that it's a bit embarrassing reading your posts. You don't understand when an argument comes from reason instead of emotion. You don't understand that evidential support removes the need for emotionally-based ranting. The fact that you reported half the people involved in this discussion, insisting they're all off-topic with their replies, shows me you are out of anything halfway reasonable to talk about, and you just need to discredit your detractors, because that's what preachers do.

[iNow]

I, for one, welcome our evidence-based rational and reasonable overlords.

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/526111/how-the-internet-is-taking-away-americas-religion/

Using the Internet can destroy your faith. That’s the conclusion of a study showing that the dramatic drop in religious affiliation in the U.S. since 1990 is closely mirrored by the increase in Internet use.

(snip)

Back in 1990, about 8 percent of the U.S. population had no religious preference. By 2010, this percentage had more than doubled to 18 percent. That’s a difference of about 25 million people, all of whom have somehow lost their religion.

(snip)

three factors—the drop in religious upbringing, the increase in college-level education and the increase in Internet use—together explain about 50 percent of the drop in religious affiliation.

Further, the number of those unaffiliated rose again, this time up from 18% in 2010 to 22.8% in 2014: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

 

What we're seeing from users like our OP is little more than a fruitless battle against the inevitable, a modern day social media based willfully ignorant death rasp.

[Moontanman]

Key words; default position, believe.

So until I can prove there are no fairies I should believe there are?

 

 

Exactly! But atheist have a lot to say on the subject.

I would say what is your point? Being an atheist in no way makes you correct about everything nor does it extend past not believing in gods. Atheism only addresses one subject, the belief in god.s

 

Atheist opinion.

Believing in something with out evidence would be misguided if it was about anything but your god, why should your god get a pass?

 

 

Exactly!

This would include you as well I assume?

 

 

This is an atheist view also. A true philosopher comes to conclusions about nature from a more knowledgeable point of view. Agree, nothing super natural needed.

I haven't claimed to be a philosopher, I am a skeptic...

 

Skeptic is great. Opinions about others beliefs based on a lack of positive evidence, comes from faith in your beliefs.

Faith is not evidence of anything, faith is what a bad salesman needs to instill in his mark.

[EdEarl]

Discussing atheism and science is a bit confusing and odd. According a poll reported by the Pew Research Center

 

... just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

This figure is less than the general public, but matches the position that no evidence for a god exists.

 

Seems to me the OP, who believes in God, is unloading on those who don't, and is trying to use science as a club. Unwittingly, he is unloading the scientist believers, too. I suspect no one is offended at his outburst.

 

Though, I've heard it all before, it always amazes me how some people think and emote--different from many of us on SFN as Phi said in #6. Even when people think alike, communication is difficult. When we think in different ways, heart to heart communication seems nearly impossible. I think this chasm has led to wars, and may again.

[PoPpAScience]

I like to thank all the posters, except two, for confirming my OP perfectly. That atheism being a faith based belief system, brings out the same responses that any religious person would give if their beliefs where challenged.

 

If atheism was not a faith based belief system, why are the posters posts so filled with emoitional rants, mixed with looniness. Or does it just come down to individuals who just rant as a way of being noticed. I figure they mostly rant in the religion section, because they know other like minded people hang out there and they can giggle together.

 

They always talk about rational, logical thinking, but post as if they had never had a rational thought in their lives. Or, is it only when they are exposed as phonies do they become illogical. It truely is an amazing thing to witness.

 

Even though I would perfer to not rattle their cages for my amusement, I have no choice, because what else is there to post about in this section. It should be renamed the faith based belief section for atheist, because they seem to out number the other faiths by 10 to 1.

 

Truely amazing!

[Strange]

What I say is, that there has been NO scientific experiments on this matter, and thus I agree with your statement, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' .

 

There has been some research; for example, whether prayer is effective. But there is no non-scientific evidence for gods, either.

 

But religion is not really suitable to for scientific investigation as it makes no measurable predictions. And I'm not sure why it should be. People believe in their god because they have faith, not because of evidence.

[EdEarl]

rant: to speak or declaim to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently

 

I'm sure no one is violent, passionate perhaps, but extravagant seems a bit much. However, there is obvious lack of communication.

[Strange]

Key words; default position, believe.

 

And that's all it comes down to. Some people's default position is to believe in their god or gods (even though there is no evidence) and other's default position is not to believe (even though there is no evidence).

 

You seem to think that defaulting to belief is better (more rational?) than defaulting to not believing. That raises the question of which god one should believe in by default. But maybe it doesn't matter. Do you think people should believe in a god, any god, rather than none, until there is evidence to prove that god doesn't exist?

[ajb]

So one can have faith that something is true, and in that sense believe something while remaining an atheist.

 

This is what I have gotten from this thread. Not exactly news.

 

My point that we have to be careful with meanings, whatever any dictionary says.

 

One must not confuse the notion of faith meaning 'belief in something' to mean believing something to be true without evidence or even contradictory evidence.

 

For example I have faith in Newton's universal law of gravity, subject to the usual disclaimers. I thus believe that if I drop a lead ball from my office window it will fall to the ground. In fact, I can do much better and calculate time of flight etc. Does everyone see the difference here with believing in god and religious faith?

 

 

My experience has been that an atheist will throw a tantrum, before they would allow the vail to drop.

But you do not have evidence that there is a god. So you cannot suggest that people will not become religious if offered proof. You just do not know that.

 

Nor do I really suggest that everyone would suddenly go to church. The evidence needs to be considered carefully and from there opinions can be formed.

 

Your attempts at trolling people cannot be seen as an indicator of what would happen if you had evidence!

Edited March 30, 2016 by ajb

[PoPpAScience]

 

And that's all it comes down to. Some people's default position is to believe in their god or gods (even though there is no evidence) and other's default position is not to believe (even though there is no evidence).

 

You seem to think that defaulting to belief is better (more rational?) than defaulting to not believing. That raises the question of which god one should believe in by default. But maybe it doesn't matter. Do you think people should believe in a god, any god, rather than none, until there is evidence to prove that god doesn't exist?

 

Again!! This thread is about how a atheist reacts when ever the word God is seen. It is not about if there is a God, or about what you believe. It is about how you express what you believe. My point in this thread is that I have witnessed atheist react the same way to the word God for 10 years. Atheist react as if they have very strong faith based beliefs that shall not be challenged, and to do so, one shall receive their raft. They react the same way a religious person does, if their faith is challenged.

 

Its about mannerism of actions and speech.

[ajb]

Atheist react as if they have very strong faith based beliefs that shall not be challenged, and to do so, one shall receive their raft.

The point is that atheism can be challenged. Just, no-one has yet presented evidence for the supernatural that could really challenge the minimalistic philosophy of atheism.

Edited March 30, 2016 by ajb