Catholics make up 78% of free state population.👍👍👍

[J70]

People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.

This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.

Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.

But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.

Joe. I don'rt intend to join the barney going on here so I won't be hanging around but I can't let some of your comments pass without question. Firstly, in my experience women do definitely outnumber men at mass so I have no problem with that. I can only go by what I see.
However, it is also my experience that faith, the Christian dogma anyway, is under tremendous from education. Numbers that are active Christians are falling in Ireland, England, and all others we regard as first world societies eg,those who who are literate, numerate as well as articulate .

Numbers are increasing in Eastern Europe and third world countries such as the Philippines who are none of the above.  The common themes here is poverty and lack of education. Cultural self-importance is a by-product of education, pure and simple.
When Paddys and Biddys emigrated in their thousands, they carried a simple faith with them and stuck with it in the face of all difficulties they had to contend with. Nowadays, the numbers of practicing Christians are dwindling rapidly and the only major reason is the difference of the standard of education back then and now.
I'm not taking any side in the present dispute when I say that there is no evidence of any sort to suggest that the decline of Catholicism will be checked by society. if it's not being checked at present, there is little hope that it will be in some future time.

Lar I was trying to say that the dip in religion is caused by the rise of individualism. The importance of the individual seems to supercede everything else these days. and that is not linked to education, well directly at least. I believe its linked to the pyraid scheme of capitalism which will either crash or be checked (likely the latter). There's a strong consensus among Anthropologists that society thrives with religion and that it isn't going anywhere.
Some of the greatest minds that ever lived were religious, they understood things a whole lot better than the modern educated masses who really just do what their peers are doing and for the most part only come up with rubbish (like many here do) anti-theist catch phrases, but there is gaping holes in their logic, if they were better educated they would likely recognise those gaps and be alot more aware that God/spiritual/dualist realm is indeed as possible as anything else.

I am well educated, I absolutely recognize that there are gaps (and have said so plenty of times, including in this very discussion) and sure there could be a god or whatever (my receding hair could grow back next year too). But that whole deity/creator thing has been the default position for almost all of history, a given for any period, unquestioned,  including for many of these intellectual giants of the past, given that you are ludicrously dismissing modern growing lack of belief as a product of peer pressure and culture (and as if the ubiquity of religion was down to serious, in depth, considered thought on the part of each individual). Do you hold believers accountable to the same extent to the idea that there may be nothing whatsoever beyond the material and that their logic has a quite few large holes?

[J70]

Surely in the light of Stephen Fry case, Garda should be prosecuting loads of constant blasphemers on this thread and Board. Over to the Mods.

Seriously though, an absolute embarrassment for Ireland.

I hope it ends up in court after court.

[omaghjoe]

J70
If you say your not choosing to believe or disbelieve anything, then your saying you don't have freewill is that correct? Besides if your an atheist by definition you dont believe in God but what your are saying contradicts that.

Once again, I'm not getting the connection between free will and weighing evidence and coming to an honest conclusion.

J70 If you say you didnt choose your conclusion then there was no choice involved therefore no freewill? Similar to a computer running some logic? ..ie no freewill? I pretty sure tho that a computer would just say I don't know. Your in agreement tho that your arent actually an atheist since you dont believe you just conclude? Or are they the same thing?
Also didnt you choose to make the analysis yourself even if you cant admit that the conclusions you make are a choice?

You're just getting into ridiculous nitpicking now.

Yes, I guess one "chooses" the more convincing option when faced with a choice. If that it how weakly you interpret the concept of "choosing" to believe in the supernatural, then this god we are talking about is a petty, narcissistic, egomanaical arsehole for penalizing anyone who "chooses" wrongly.

No need to get so defensive J70, I just pointing it out that's all. It comes across like your trying to insult people's beliefs. But its really bordering on the ridiculous to have such venom for something that you dont believe in. But for me its even more ridiculous to assume such physical human characteristics for a being that isn't human (and that was my opinion on Mr Fry tirade also).

And....


Esm/J70

If you are forming an opinion using evidence you are choosing to believe that the evidence you have is correct.
So I will ask... how do you know you have all the evidence? And more pertinently how do you know that any of the evidence you have is correct? These questions i have asked dozens of times on here and usually I receive no answer, ad hominen (tho not from your good selfs), or on occasions I'll a completely inadequate one.

How can one EVER know they have all the evidence? That is obviously an impossibility. So one goes on what one has. For millennia, evidence of any kind was so limited and inadequate, that deities (whether single or multiple) were the default cause and origin of everything. There was so much we could not explain, that that was the starting point for what caused A-Z. We can't explain X by what we see every day, therefore there must be such and such a magical unseen being behind it. Then, especially in the past 200 years, we've been chiseling away at the causes of A-Z, and the movement from column A to B has been one way.

But even if we accept that we don't know (or ever will know) everything, we still have to come to an intellectually honest conclusion, one way or the other, based on what we do know. That conclusion is not a choice. Either you find one explanation convincing or you find the other convincing. One can cherry pick when presenting an argument, but you can't fool yourself (or, if he/she/it/they exist(s) as an omniscient, omnipotent being(s) with some kind of interest in whether you believe in them or not, gods).

I mean, what's the alternative? That you DON'T form an opinion because you can't determine if anything is valid or approaching some level of completeness allowing a judgment to be formed? Assuming that is even possible, where does that leave on when faced with the supposed judgment day?

And sorry if you consider my response inadequate. I'm obviously no philosopher.

So your aware that you dont have all the evidence but are willing to make a call on it anyway? Sounds more like a prediction than anything. Like you would make about a match in the future where there is no way to possibly know but your gonna call it anyway. If you'll allow that analogy then you'd have to say that predicting football matches is exactly that, a prediction as you never really know..

You also didnt address my more pertinent point about how you know the evidence that you do have is correct?

Also what is this evidence by the way? I've havent seen any to suggest there is no non physical realm out there. In fact the order in the universe that we experience would suggest it is made by intelligent design (computer simulation is a front runner these days), and moreover the fact that we experience it at all when there is seemingly no reason for us to also suggests there is a deeper meaning to our lives. Rehashing the God of Gaps is simply a straw man which out of interest originated as a term for those of weak faith.

You haven't seen evidence to suggest there is no non-physical realm??

Just what would evidence for OR against a non-physical realm look like?

And who is this intelligent designer with this supercomputer? And who designed him?? And who designed that designer??

And what have the intelligent design people been up to for the past 20+ years since they arrived on the scene announcing themselves and "irreducible complexity" as about to unleash a scientific revolution on a par with Newton?

As for "correctness of evidence", I have already addressed the concept. We are talking about humans forming an opinion of whether there are deities or supernatural beings or phenomena and whether there is a cost to the outcome of coming to that opinion.

In order to form the opinion, one obviously has to make assumptions that what one perceives and the evidence that accumulates and is repeatedly confirmed has some basis in reality. We do this all day, every day. And all day, every day those assumptions are either reinforced or reevaluated. (And this is what I was talking about in the "getting out of bed" bit, although I'm pretty sure you knew that).

But, as I've already said, the key is that these are the only tools we have. So why the f**k should person A be punished for coming to an honest opinion through the same process as person B who just lucked upon the "correct" conclusion?

For a start the evidence wouldnt "look" like anything, how could it, its not physical? Its actually your the one that needs the evidence so its a question for yourself really. But for me I have evidence of God by the experience of life I have all around me. The designer with the supercomputer I don't know? Its not my theory its more comes from the skeptists and solipsists, fractals in nature and the commonality with modern computer graphics are a big part of their basis for this.

But you are also assuming causality would extend to the creator of the empirical universe. Why would it? Just because its something that we see why would that also apply to the creator? And when I think about it since causality is a governed by the passing of time, and time is a part of the empirical universe, Why also would the creator of the universe be subjected to time at all?

Sorry but I must have missed the place where you addressed the correctness of evidence. Your assuming its correct is what it sounds like your telling me because you dont really know if it is our not. But I wake up everyday and feel God and experience things when there is no reason for me to do so none why should I experience smell or sight?

I'll be honest with you I dont know if God would subject someone who rejects him but has lived a wholesome honest and moral life, it would be a difficult one for him. Prehaps  he would say "WELLLL? Do you believe now? FFS everyone was telling you including your own intution only you allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise, it was an honestish mistake but your going in prugatory for a stint  just below those who take my name in vain on a regular basis (thats me by the way)

If you were using logic you would have questioned the validity of the evidence and you could only conclude there is no possible way to know if it is correct and complete and most likely it does not give us a true or accurate picture.

So therefore without belief in something (in your case your "evidence") you could not believe anything is correct.

As above, that still doesn't make one's conclusion a choice. And if the god Tony believes in is real and is the one who equipped us with our senses and intellect and perception, how can he hold us accountable for honestly coming to the wrong conclusion using the very tools he granted? Are we supposed to use our "free will" to reject, a priori, anything that leads us to the wrong conclusion? Is it a case of I'll let you do what you want, but you better arrive at this pre-determined end point or that shit is going down? Do we judge what's valid and what is not, after the fact, based on the outcome?

And once again, is the person who simply accepts the indoctrination and slides through, not challenging themselves and lucking out on the right side, in better shape than the honest, curious person who ended up being wrong? If any of us had lived 300 years ago, we'd almost to a man be unquestioning, young earth creationists. Would we be on the fast track to heaven, with no intellectual obstacles in our way?

I think I've said this before, but if you live your day to day life to the standard you espouse here, where no assumptions or perceptions are necessarily valid, I don't know how you make it out of bed!

They aren't my standards J70, they are yours, I dont live my life to them but you use them to conclude/believe/predict that the spiritual may/can/should not exist. I was wondering how rigorously you apply them to all aspects of your life? Obviously you don't as you say you wouldn't get out of bed, but if in the interests of fairness you did apply them to say a similar thing to spirituality like love... then the question would arise why get out of bed?

Em, no, they're not my standards. Everyday, run of the mill life functions just fine going by our perceptions and assumptions. Extending that outwards to bigger questions presents no problems whatsoever for me. And I suspect that's the way for almost everyone, whatever "choice" they end up making vis a vis the needy gods.

As you say we perceive and assume all day long, people of faith also do this but then somehow we are incorrect to do tie our feelings on a certain subject into this as well? At what point do you say that's not included because of x and this is because of y. Why not subject love and morality to the same rigorous examination that you have subjected God too? If you think these things are real then more power to you, this is where I find God and attribute them to, but how conclude they are real if God is not?

[omaghjoe]

People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.

This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.

Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.

But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.

Joe. I don'rt intend to join the barney going on here so I won't be hanging around but I can't let some of your comments pass without question. Firstly, in my experience women do definitely outnumber men at mass so I have no problem with that. I can only go by what I see.
However, it is also my experience that faith, the Christian dogma anyway, is under tremendous from education. Numbers that are active Christians are falling in Ireland, England, and all others we regard as first world societies eg,those who who are literate, numerate as well as articulate .

Numbers are increasing in Eastern Europe and third world countries such as the Philippines who are none of the above.  The common themes here is poverty and lack of education. Cultural self-importance is a by-product of education, pure and simple.
When Paddys and Biddys emigrated in their thousands, they carried a simple faith with them and stuck with it in the face of all difficulties they had to contend with. Nowadays, the numbers of practicing Christians are dwindling rapidly and the only major reason is the difference of the standard of education back then and now.
I'm not taking any side in the present dispute when I say that there is no evidence of any sort to suggest that the decline of Catholicism will be checked by society. if it's not being checked at present, there is little hope that it will be in some future time.

Lar I was trying to say that the dip in religion is caused by the rise of individualism. The importance of the individual seems to supercede everything else these days. and that is not linked to education, well directly at least. I believe its linked to the pyraid scheme of capitalism which will either crash or be checked (likely the latter). There's a strong consensus among Anthropologists that society thrives with religion and that it isn't going anywhere.
Some of the greatest minds that ever lived were religious, they understood things a whole lot better than the modern educated masses who really just do what their peers are doing and for the most part only come up with rubbish (like many here do) anti-theist catch phrases, but there is gaping holes in their logic, if they were better educated they would likely recognise those gaps and be alot more aware that God/spiritual/dualist realm is indeed as possible as anything else.

I am well educated, I absolutely recognize that there are gaps (and have said so plenty of times, including in this very discussion) and sure there could be a god or whatever (my receding hair could grow back next year too). But that whole deity/creator thing has been the default position for almost all of history, a given for any period, unquestioned,  including for many of these intellectual giants of the past, given that you are ludicrously dismissing modern growing lack of belief as a product of peer pressure and culture (and as if the ubiquity of religion was down to serious, in depth, considered thought on the part of each individual). Do you hold believers accountable to the same extent to the idea that there may be nothing whatsoever beyond the material and that their logic has a quite few large holes?

What are you educated in J70? If you came out of the education system in Ireland (North or South) you are more than likely educated very narrowly, and if its in a science or applied science (like myself) there is an almost dogmatic approach to its correctness. I was never taught anything on anthropology, philosophy I think ever and never taught any maths theory, history, language or literature since I was 16. It wasnt till I got older and started putting all these things together that I realised there are whole other fields of thought out there there are equally as valid or maybe even more so than prevailing one of materialism in science. God has constantly been challenged throughout history, it goes back to the Greeks (or whenever the written word began). So its hardly a new concept that's sweeping the world. And I wasnt blaming peer pressure I said people automatically do what their peers are doing there's a difference, but by even assuming thats what I meant is like a microcosm of the point I was trying to make. And that is that its a product of our society that has become more focused on the individual and the importance of self, so the self-centrism of atheism is why it appeals to people.
Do you know what faith means? Its not based on logic or anything else. How could I  possibly hold anyone accountable to it, its like these retards that prefer coffee over tea, who am I to say they don't like coffee.   

[johnneycool]

Surely in the light of Stephen Fry case, Garda should be prosecuting loads of constant blasphemers on this thread and Board. Over to the Mods.

Seriously though, an absolute embarrassment for Ireland.

I hope it ends up in court after court.

What did Fry say that was Blasphemous?

[Hardy]

He said Tony Fearon is more religious than God.

[Esmarelda]

Omaghjoe, apologies, I didn't keep up with this thread. Here, and on other threads, you've opened my eyes to other ways of seeing things. But I still don't quite get your outlook.

You're querying the information on which some of us make calls and compare it to a prediction of a football match. If you watched a football match and it ended a draw, the scoreboard said it was a draw, the reports in the paper said it was a draw, would you take it that it was a draw or would you suggest that it might not have been a draw because you're not 100% certain? Couldn't you have dreamt the whole thing?

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You say you believe in what you believe in based on life experiences. You clearly believe there's a higher power. I think I've asked before, and forgive me (figuratively) if you've answered it, but why Christianity? I have a huge number of questions but for presentation purposes I'll keep this post to this lenght.

[armaghniac]

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have. As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God. While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance. 

[Hardy]

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have.

On the contrary, I can be nothing but an atheist on the information I have because the information I have gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god - which is the definition of atheism. What information do you have that makes you a theist?

  As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God.

And as you have the correct idea of how the world started you can say there is a God? Did you make up these bizarre rules of debate?

While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.

So it's perfectly reasonable to make assertions without evidence that the rest of us are expected to accept - on pain of eternal torture according to some? But it's arrogant to reject such ... well ... arrogance?

Atheists are not making any assertions. Theists and creationists are the ones asserting that an entity for whose existence they present no supportable evidence not only exists, but created the universe, intervenes in the daily lives of all individuals, cares about being loved, exacts retribution on those who fail to adore it, etc. etc. Atheists are merely pointing out the lack of evidence for these assertions.

Why are atheists never accused of arrogance for pointing out precisely the same deficiency in assertions of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Cosmic Teapot as you would yourself? And these assertions stop at existence, leaving out all the other made up stuff about omnipotence, etc. I think the answer is obvious. The 'creator of the universe' god has more believers than the monster or the teapot. It's only a question of numbers.

Forgive the following cliché but it's accurate: we're all atheists, in that we don't accept assertions of the existence of any number of deities or imagined supernatural beings, from Buddha to Thor. I'm just atheist about one more god than you.

[Esmarelda]

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have. As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God. While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.

Incredible irony if you're a Christian. Are you saying it's impossible to be an atheist? To be  honest I've previously struggled with the atheism/agnosticism line but now I'm not bothered by the label any more. However, that doesn't make your comment any better.

What I think is arrogance is that human beings believe that this one species on this one relatively tiny planet in this one solar system in this universe, whose size we (the chosen ones) have no ability to appreciate, are the one species that the creator of the aforementioned universe wants to save and bring to his kingdom. For some reason he only created/allowed (?) this species to exist millions of years after our tiny planet came into existence and then only made himself know a couple of thousand years ago, f**king it all up for many of his now deceased people.

It's a lengthy definition, and not likely to be found in a dictionary, but arrogance beyond belief nonetheless.

[Owen Brannigan]

http://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/2017/05/09/news/first-holy-communion-less-about-worshipping-god-more-about-worshipping-money-1019842/

[omaghjoe]

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have. As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God. While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.

Incredible irony if you're a Christian. Are you saying it's impossible to be an atheist? To be  honest I've previously struggled with the atheism/agnosticism line but now I'm not bothered by the label any more. However, that doesn't make your comment any better.

What I think is arrogance is that human beings believe that this one species on this one relatively tiny planet in this one solar system in this universe, whose size we (the chosen ones) have no ability to appreciate, are the one species that the creator of the aforementioned universe wants to save and bring to his kingdom. For some reason he only created/allowed (?) this species to exist millions of years after our tiny planet came into existence and then only made himself know a couple of thousand years ago, f**king it all up for many of his now deceased people.

It's a lengthy definition, and not likely to be found in a dictionary, but arrogance beyond belief nonetheless.

Well I dont think your arrogant thats for between yourself and God But I agree with the premise of what Armaghniac is saying. Your assuming that there is only the material in the cosmos and that our senses can perceive it all. Your also making the mistake of talking about time that it also applys to a creator,  since its part of the empirical universe why would it apply to a creator?

As for the football match analogy the analogy was about the prediction not the result but I think you knew that...

I think what I was telling you before that I did have a spiritual journey before but  that Christianity is basically where I feel most comfortable, the values and faith etc, so thats pretty much where I settled, its not without its contradictions and problems I admit but the overall faith and message is one that reflects my faith fairly well

[omaghjoe]

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have.

On the contrary, I can be nothing but an atheist on the information I have because the information I have gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god - which is the definition of atheism. What information do you have that makes you a theist?

  As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God.

And as you have the correct idea of how the world started you can say there is a God? Did you make up these bizarre rules of debate?

While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.

So it's perfectly reasonable to make assertions without evidence that the rest of us are expected to accept - on pain of eternal torture according to some? But it's arrogant to reject such ... well ... arrogance?

Atheists are not making any assertions. Theists and creationists are the ones asserting that an entity for whose existence they present no supportable evidence not only exists, but created the universe, intervenes in the daily lives of all individuals, cares about being loved, exacts retribution on those who fail to adore it, etc. etc. Atheists are merely pointing out the lack of evidence for these assertions.

Why are atheists never accused of arrogance for pointing out precisely the same deficiency in assertions of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Cosmic Teapot as you would yourself? And these assertions stop at existence, leaving out all the other made up stuff about omnipotence, etc. I think the answer is obvious. The 'creator of the universe' god has more believers than the monster or the teapot. It's only a question of numbers.

Forgive the following cliché but it's accurate: we're all atheists, in that we don't accept assertions of the existence of any number of deities or imagined supernatural beings, from Buddha to Thor. I'm just atheist about one more god than you.

Atheists are making assertions, if your not making an assertion your an agnostic you need to decide.
But before going on please answer the following questions, I have been asking you for a long time on this

How do you know your evidence is correct and complete?
How do you your methods of collecting the evidence is correct ie empirical. Our senses are seemingly honed for reproducing and surviving not for giving us an accurate picture of the cosmos.
Do you assume there is only the material in this universe and if so why?
How do you know there is not a solipsistic or idealist universe? Both of which are much more logical than a materialist universe and infinitely more so than a empirical universe.
Where do you lie in all of this? A bunch of interchanging atoms? so YOU as a distinct seperate entitiy don't exist.

Lets start with a satisfactory response to those and then I will get into consciousness, freewill, morals, and God knows what else.

[Esmarelda]

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have. As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God. While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.

Incredible irony if you're a Christian. Are you saying it's impossible to be an atheist? To be  honest I've previously struggled with the atheism/agnosticism line but now I'm not bothered by the label any more. However, that doesn't make your comment any better.

What I think is arrogance is that human beings believe that this one species on this one relatively tiny planet in this one solar system in this universe, whose size we (the chosen ones) have no ability to appreciate, are the one species that the creator of the aforementioned universe wants to save and bring to his kingdom. For some reason he only created/allowed (?) this species to exist millions of years after our tiny planet came into existence and then only made himself know a couple of thousand years ago, f**king it all up for many of his now deceased people.

It's a lengthy definition, and not likely to be found in a dictionary, but arrogance beyond belief nonetheless.

Well I dont think your arrogant thats for between yourself and God But I agree with the premise of what Armaghniac is saying. Your assuming that there is only the material in the cosmos and that our senses can perceive it all. Your also making the mistake of talking about time that it also applys to a creator,  since its part of the empirical universe why would it apply to a creator?

As for the football match analogy the analogy was about the prediction not the result but I think you knew that...

I think what I was telling you before that I did have a spiritual journey before but  that Christianity is basically where I feel most comfortable, the values and faith etc, so thats pretty much where I settled, its not without its contradictions and problems I admit but the overall faith and message is one that reflects my faith fairly well

I'm not assuming anything. I'm making a judgement based on the information (and my perception of its accuracy) available. It's what I do with every other judgement that I make. I suspect it's how you make daily judgements also? That was what my football analogy was about. I wasn't trying to contradict your own analogy. Armaghniac has basically said that it's impossible to be an atheist. Surely then it's impossible to believe in a creator without the information that he says is required to be an atheist?

Back to what you say I assume. Are you assuming that there is more in the universe than we can perceive? If so, what are you suggesting there is and what relevance does it have to this discussion? If you assume there's more, might there be more still than you assume there is? Does this make any difference to what you believe or is it just a way of countering the atheist argument?

You see what I get from you is that you tell me and others of many reasons why we can't apply day to day logic when it comes to faith. There's potentially so much more out there that we don't and can't yet understand and we must consider this when we consider faith. It seems to be an argument against dismissing a deity, which is fine.

However, when pressed on the flip side, how you come to believe in a deity and a very specific one, you use vague terms like "a spiritual journey" and say that despite reservations, it's where you've come to settle. That actually sounds like you don't believe in the christian god. You say that you feel most comfortable with its message and values. So do I. They're pretty basic. Treat others how you'd like to be treated. I can sign up to that. Why the need for the rest of it. Why not take the agnostic approach? Why not say, I don't know what's out there or if there's anything out there but the christian message seems to make sense. I'll be a good person and see what happens?

Might we be very similar?

[Hardy]

 

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have.

On the contrary, I can be nothing but an atheist on the information I have because the information I have gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god - which is the definition of atheism. What information do you have that makes you a theist?

  As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God.

And as you have the correct idea of how the world started you can say there is a God? Did you make up these bizarre rules of debate?

While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.

So it's perfectly reasonable to make assertions without evidence that the rest of us are expected to accept - on pain of eternal torture according to some? But it's arrogant to reject such ... well ... arrogance?

Atheists are not making any assertions. Theists and creationists are the ones asserting that an entity for whose existence they present no supportable evidence not only exists, but created the universe, intervenes in the daily lives of all individuals, cares about being loved, exacts retribution on those who fail to adore it, etc. etc. Atheists are merely pointing out the lack of evidence for these assertions.

Why are atheists never accused of arrogance for pointing out precisely the same deficiency in assertions of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Cosmic Teapot as you would yourself? And these assertions stop at existence, leaving out all the other made up stuff about omnipotence, etc. I think the answer is obvious. The 'creator of the universe' god has more believers than the monster or the teapot. It's only a question of numbers.

Forgive the following cliché but it's accurate: we're all atheists, in that we don't accept assertions of the existence of any number of deities or imagined supernatural beings, from Buddha to Thor. I'm just atheist about one more god than you.

Atheists are making assertions, if your not making an assertion your an agnostic you need to decide.
But before going on please answer the following questions, I have been asking you for a long time on this

How do you know your evidence is correct and complete?
How do you your methods of collecting the evidence is correct ie empirical. Our senses are seemingly honed for reproducing and surviving not for giving us an accurate picture of the cosmos.
Do you assume there is only the material in this universe and if so why?
How do you know there is not a solipsistic or idealist universe? Both of which are much more logical than a materialist universe and infinitely more so than a empirical universe.
Where do you lie in all of this? A bunch of interchanging atoms? so YOU as a distinct seperate entitiy don't exist.

Lets start with a satisfactory response to those and then I will get into consciousness, freewill, morals, and God knows what else.

Joe, I'm not engaging with you other than to make the following points just once. There's no point in debating with someone who is conducting an entirely different debate of his own, the parameters of which are unfathomable and whose argument consists mostly of non sequiturs. That's not to mention the difficulty of figuring out your "your" from your "'you're".

Just to clarify - I'm not discussing solipsistic or idealist universes, nor indeed materialist or empirical universes. I'm not discussing universes at all. My point has nothing to do with consciousness, free will, morals, or your "God knows what else". I'm not interested in when or how you will get into whatever you're threatening to get into. Fire away. Just don't expect me to pay attention. I tired of the tree falling in the forest conjecture in my teens.

I was simply responding to Armaghniac's point suggesting one couldn't be an atheist (in this material universe) and outlining my definition of an atheist for the practical purposes that definitions are for.

You just enjoy yourself with wondering whether words or letters exist. Or what is ink. And if we can't decide whether ink exists, what are we to make of pixels on a screen? Never mind the meaning contained in the pixels, letters and words that construct this thread.

Most of us have figured out that if we treat every item of communication as a research project into the nature of existence or the existence of existence, we'll have missed out on what is (probably – and that's the important word in this whole post) our one and only opportunity to experience existence.