Are Atheists the new outcasts?

[whiskeysteve]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

Believing that gods exist is equivalent to not believing that gods exist? Right...

While the arrival at a conclusion either way may, with some serious stretching of its meaning, be interpreted as an act of faith, there is a big difference in relying on real evidence and logic and settling for the outcome of a lifetime of indoctrination and lack of intellectual curiosity.

By your logic, a rational person is one who leaves open the possibility that Zeus is up there on Mt Olympus shooting lightning bolts. Or that the boogyman really lives under the bed. I mean, how do we really know they don't?

That is happening in one of the adjacent dimensions

Cool....can you give us a News update from there?

There's a giant doing cartwheels, a statue wearin' high heels.
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
A dinosaur Victrola list'ning to Buck Owens.
Doo, doo, doo, lookin' out my back dimension.

UPDATE

Fianna Fail still in government. Lenihan rated no. 1 finance minister in Europe by Financial Times.

It appears there is no God in this dimension.

[muppet]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

Believing that gods exist is equivalent to not believing that gods exist? Right...

While the arrival at a conclusion either way may, with some serious stretching of its meaning, be interpreted as an act of faith, there is a big difference in relying on real evidence and logic and settling for the outcome of a lifetime of indoctrination and lack of intellectual curiosity.

By your logic, a rational person is one who leaves open the possibility that Zeus is up there on Mt Olympus shooting lightning bolts. Or that the boogyman really lives under the bed. I mean, how do we really know they don't?

That is happening in one of the adjacent dimensions

Cool....can you give us a News update from there?

There's a giant doing cartwheels, a statue wearin' high heels.
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
A dinosaur Victrola list'ning to Buck Owens.
Doo, doo, doo, lookin' out my back dimension.

UPDATE

Fianna Fail still in government. Lenihan rated no. 1 finance minister in Europe by Financial Times.

It appears there is no God in this dimension.

Who won the All-Ireland?

[AbbeySider]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

I don't think so, I just have a lack of faith in any spirity, deity or anything supernatural. They all seem like fairytales. Agnostics have some faith but they are unsure of who or what is the truth. I would see Agnostics as theists without direction.

I could just say that there was an alternative Universe made of cheese and because you cannot prove or disprove it, then having some faith in that concept is more rational than not believing in it. To me God makes no more sence than the Cheese Universe.

mayogodhelpus... I have a question

Have you recently finished the God Delusion?
Some of those arguments are not so original, im wondering are you thinking for yourself 

[AbbeySider]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

I don't think so, I just have a lack of faith in any spirity, deity or anything supernatural. They all seem like fairytales. Agnostics have some faith but they are unsure of who or what is the truth. I would see Agnostics as theists without direction.

I could just say that there was an alternative Universe made of cheese and because you cannot prove or disprove it, then having some faith in that concept is more rational than not believing in it. To me God makes no more sence than the Cheese Universe.

mayogodhelpus... I have a question

Have you recently finished the God Delusion?
Some of those arguments are not so original, im wondering are you thinking for yourself 

BTW im not spiritual either, but the God Delusion Bashers annoy me as much as the Bible Bashers.
We have been through this topic so many times on this board 

[AbbeySider]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

+1

[Maguire01]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

I don't think so, I just have a lack of faith in any spirity, deity or anything supernatural. They all seem like fairytales. Agnostics have some faith but they are unsure of who or what is the truth. I would see Agnostics as theists without direction.

I could just say that there was an alternative Universe made of cheese and because you cannot prove or disprove it, then having some faith in that concept is more rational than not believing in it. To me God makes no more sence than the Cheese Universe.

mayogodhelpus... I have a question

Have you recently finished the God Delusion?
Some of those arguments are not so original, im wondering are you thinking for yourself 

BTW im not spiritual either, but the God Delusion Bashers annoy me as much as the Bible Bashers.
We have been through this topic so many times on this board 

It must be terrible to be forced to keep reading it.

[AbbeySider]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

...
Agnostics have some faith but they are unsure of who or what is the truth. I would see Agnostics as theists without direction.
...

No, Agnostics simply agree we cannot have true knowledge of God as we are totally without proof, while also not totally denying that some sort of deity exists and would also feel its impossible to prove either.

[AbbeySider]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

I don't think so, I just have a lack of faith in any spirity, deity or anything supernatural. They all seem like fairytales. Agnostics have some faith but they are unsure of who or what is the truth. I would see Agnostics as theists without direction.

I could just say that there was an alternative Universe made of cheese and because you cannot prove or disprove it, then having some faith in that concept is more rational than not believing in it. To me God makes no more sence than the Cheese Universe.

mayogodhelpus... I have a question

Have you recently finished the God Delusion?
Some of those arguments are not so original, im wondering are you thinking for yourself 

BTW im not spiritual either, but the God Delusion Bashers annoy me as much as the Bible Bashers.
We have been through this topic so many times on this board 

It must be terrible to be forced to keep reading it.

No I would still pick up both now and again for reference. 
Looking forward to Darwins origin of species, and Dawkins The Selfish Gene next

But if I read anything on this thread about a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars I will get sick... 

[Maguire01]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

I don't think so, I just have a lack of faith in any spirity, deity or anything supernatural. They all seem like fairytales. Agnostics have some faith but they are unsure of who or what is the truth. I would see Agnostics as theists without direction.

I could just say that there was an alternative Universe made of cheese and because you cannot prove or disprove it, then having some faith in that concept is more rational than not believing in it. To me God makes no more sence than the Cheese Universe.

mayogodhelpus... I have a question

Have you recently finished the God Delusion?
Some of those arguments are not so original, im wondering are you thinking for yourself 

BTW im not spiritual either, but the God Delusion Bashers annoy me as much as the Bible Bashers.
We have been through this topic so many times on this board 

It must be terrible to be forced to keep reading it.

No I would still pick up both now and again for reference. 
Looking forward to Darwins origin of species, and Dawkins The Selfish Gene next

But if I read anything on this thread about a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars I will get sick... 

I was actually referring to you having to repeatedly read about this topic on the board!
And still having enought interest to make repeated contributions.

[J70]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

I don't think so, I just have a lack of faith in any spirity, deity or anything supernatural. They all seem like fairytales. Agnostics have some faith but they are unsure of who or what is the truth. I would see Agnostics as theists without direction.

I could just say that there was an alternative Universe made of cheese and because you cannot prove or disprove it, then having some faith in that concept is more rational than not believing in it. To me God makes no more sence than the Cheese Universe.

mayogodhelpus... I have a question

Have you recently finished the God Delusion?
Some of those arguments are not so original, im wondering are you thinking for yourself 

BTW im not spiritual either, but the God Delusion Bashers annoy me as much as the Bible Bashers.
We have been through this topic so many times on this board 

It must be terrible to be forced to keep reading it.

No I would still pick up both now and again for reference. 
Looking forward to Darwins origin of species, and Dawkins The Selfish Gene next

But if I read anything on this thread about a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars I will get sick... 

Why?

Russell very eloquently illustrated the absurdity of placing the burden of proof on skeptics when it comes to supernatural, unfalsifiable claims. Its a perfect example.

And the stuff that Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and the rest of the so-called "new atheists" argue is so bleeding obvious that it stuns me that anyone with even a modicum of logic and intelligence and curiosity wouldn't independently come to the same conclusions about gods and religion. However, it is very refreshing that these people are doing their bit to promote the arguments against what has been for far too long an unchallenged hegemony.  The default position will soon cease to be that there are magical, mystical beings controlling us and everything and the sooner that day comes the better off we'll all be. If religious people are uncomfortable that the status quo is starting to be challenged, well tough shit. Respect for one's positions and claims must be earned, not demanded.

[take_yer_points]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

Believing that gods exist is equivalent to not believing that gods exist? Right...

While the arrival at a conclusion either way may, with some serious stretching of its meaning, be interpreted as an act of faith, there is a big difference in relying on real evidence and logic and settling for the outcome of a lifetime of indoctrination and lack of intellectual curiosity.

By your logic, a rational person is one who leaves open the possibility that Zeus is up there on Mt Olympus shooting lightning bolts. Or that the boogyman really lives under the bed. I mean, how do we really know they don't?

That is happening in one of the adjacent dimensions

Cool....can you give us a News update from there?

There's a giant doing cartwheels, a statue wearin' high heels.
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
A dinosaur Victrola list'ning to Buck Owens.
Doo, doo, doo, lookin' out my back dimension.

UPDATE

Fianna Fail still in government. Lenihan rated no. 1 finance minister in Europe by Financial Times.

It appears there is no God in this dimension.

Who won the All-Ireland?

Glentoran beat Linfield - 2-11 to 1-8

[AbbeySider]

...
No I would still pick up both now and again for reference. 
Looking forward to Darwins origin of species, and Dawkins The Selfish Gene next

But if I read anything on this thread about a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars I will get sick... 

Why?

Russell very eloquently illustrated the absurdity of placing the burden of proof on skeptics when it comes to supernatural, unfalsifiable claims. Its a perfect example.

And the stuff that Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and the rest of the so-called "new atheists" argue is so bleeding obvious that it stuns me that anyone with even a modicum of logic and intelligence and curiosity wouldn't independently come to the same conclusions about gods and religion. However, it is very refreshing that these people are doing their bit to promote the arguments against what has been for far too long an unchallenged hegemony.  The default position will soon cease to be that there are magical, mystical beings controlling us and everything and the sooner that day comes the better off we'll all be. If religious people are uncomfortable that the status quo is starting to be challenged, well tough shit. Respect for one's positions and claims must be earned, not demanded.

Im not spiritual, religious or uncomfortable, so who are you speaking to in that last bit? 

All im saying is that the arguments that Dawkins uses in his book are used so much that ironically it makes so called atheists mirror religions people when they quote directly from the bible.

And I have been in too many conversations and heard that stuff over and over again. 

[whiskeysteve]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

Believing that gods exist is equivalent to not believing that gods exist? Right...

While the arrival at a conclusion either way may, with some serious stretching of its meaning, be interpreted as an act of faith, there is a big difference in relying on real evidence and logic and settling for the outcome of a lifetime of indoctrination and lack of intellectual curiosity.

By your logic, a rational person is one who leaves open the possibility that Zeus is up there on Mt Olympus shooting lightning bolts. Or that the boogyman really lives under the bed. I mean, how do we really know they don't?

That is happening in one of the adjacent dimensions

Cool....can you give us a News update from there?

There's a giant doing cartwheels, a statue wearin' high heels.
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
A dinosaur Victrola list'ning to Buck Owens.
Doo, doo, doo, lookin' out my back dimension.

UPDATE

Fianna Fail still in government. Lenihan rated no. 1 finance minister in Europe by Financial Times.

It appears there is no God in this dimension.

Who won the All-Ireland?

Tyrone on 5 in a row.

As I said, no God in this dimension.

[J70]

...
No I would still pick up both now and again for reference. 
Looking forward to Darwins origin of species, and Dawkins The Selfish Gene next

But if I read anything on this thread about a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars I will get sick... 

Why?

Russell very eloquently illustrated the absurdity of placing the burden of proof on skeptics when it comes to supernatural, unfalsifiable claims. Its a perfect example.

And the stuff that Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and the rest of the so-called "new atheists" argue is so bleeding obvious that it stuns me that anyone with even a modicum of logic and intelligence and curiosity wouldn't independently come to the same conclusions about gods and religion. However, it is very refreshing that these people are doing their bit to promote the arguments against what has been for far too long an unchallenged hegemony.  The default position will soon cease to be that there are magical, mystical beings controlling us and everything and the sooner that day comes the better off we'll all be. If religious people are uncomfortable that the status quo is starting to be challenged, well tough shit. Respect for one's positions and claims must be earned, not demanded.

Im not spiritual, religious or uncomfortable, so who are you speaking to in that last bit? 

All im saying is that the arguments that Dawkins uses in his book are used so much that ironically it makes so called atheists mirror religions people when they quote directly from the bible.

And I have been in too many conversations and heard that stuff over and over again. 

And I'm saying the point is that the arguments that Dawkins uses are so bloody obvious and correct that most people, if they stopped to think about it seriously, should come with them on their own. They are just simple logic and reason. Just because someone might bring up Russell's teapot or the ludicrousness of arguing first causes while ignoring the obvious problem an omniscient, omnipotent god poses to such a defense (I've no idea whether Dawkins went into that...  I'm assuming he did), does not mean that they are merely parroting, without thought, something they read in a book. Besides, I couldn't give too fucks how people form their opinions, as long as they are informed and intellectually honest and they are able to support them. If your acquaintances are so intellectually challenged that they cannot argue their own point of view beyond shallow platitudes about teapots, then perhaps you'd better broaden your pool. It doesn't mean that the actual arguments for atheism are less potent.

The second point wasn't directed at you. It was more a general point about those who complain about the new assertiveness of the atheistic view.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Athiesm requires faith also and in that regards is similar to Religion. In the absence of proof of a God or otherwise, Agnosticism is really the only rational stance to take in these matters.

I don't think so, I just have a lack of faith in any spirity, deity or anything supernatural. They all seem like fairytales. Agnostics have some faith but they are unsure of who or what is the truth. I would see Agnostics as theists without direction.

I could just say that there was an alternative Universe made of cheese and because you cannot prove or disprove it, then having some faith in that concept is more rational than not believing in it. To me God makes no more sence than the Cheese Universe.

mayogodhelpus... I have a question

Have you recently finished the God Delusion?
Some of those arguments are not so original, im wondering are you thinking for yourself 

No I haven't I thought I picked that idea out of my own head. It sounds like a book my brother would read. There is a chance he told me about it in some drunken debate, but I'm pretty sure I came up with my ideas myself, original or not.