No rational case for God = increasingly desperate attacks on atheists

[Whateverist]

The most anyone can say factually is, we do not know.

MM

Well, we can also say factually that we do not care, provided we in fact don't.

---

Atheism is a faith. As much as there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of deities, there is none to prove the non-existence of a deities either. Taking up a position of either asserting they exist or asserting they do not exist requires a leap of faith.

Atheism is simply the response to the claim made by theists that a god exists. It is not the claim that gods do not exist.

It requires zero faith to disbelieve an unsupported claim. ZERO.

As much as theists should not fill vacuums in knowledge with their god, atheists should not fill vacuums in knowledge with the lack of a god, both are factually unsubstantiated positions unless they are prepared to accept theism and atheism are both positions of faith.

Please list examples of atheists doing this.

The most anyone can say factually is, we do not know.

The vast majority of atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god or gods do not exist.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, Simon. But I do think it is okay to criticize the minority atheist view that gods do not exist. There are plenty of 7's around and many of these seem to suffer from the same debilitating symptoms of fundamentalism as their theist counterparts.

[ManMachine]

Atheism is a faith. As much as there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of deities, there is none to prove the non-existence of a deities either. Taking up a position of either asserting they exist or asserting they do not exist requires a leap of faith.

As much as theists should not fill vacuums in knowledge with their god, atheists should not fill vacuums in knowledge with the lack of a god, both are factually unsubstantiated positions unless they are prepared to accept theism and atheism are both positions of faith.

The most anyone can say factually is, we do not know.

MM

Woah, man, that's not what atheism is. An atheist is just one who doesn't accept the proposition that "God exists". It's not the same as saying "God doesn't exist". Some atheists say that, but that's not the definition of an atheist.

Fair enough, I was using a narrower definition of atheism. Some atheists can be characterised by their assertion that god(s) do not exist which I accept is not the same as rejecting a belief in their existence.

MM

---

Atheism is a faith. As much as there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of deities, there is none to prove the non-existence of a deities either. Taking up a position of either asserting they exist or asserting they do not exist requires a leap of faith.

As much as theists should not fill vacuums in knowledge with their god, atheists should not fill vacuums in knowledge with the lack of a god, both are factually unsubstantiated positions unless they are prepared to accept theism and atheism are both positions of faith.

The most anyone can say factually is, we do not know.

MM

Is it a faith not to believe in unicorns? ----- Not believing in what there is no evidence for is not a faith. Should someone bring evidence that there are either unicorns or god, I will revise my opinion. It isn't a matter of faith.

Yes, like I just said above, I was using a narrower definition of atheism. I accept that there is a difference between rejecting the belief in the existence of deities and asserting they do not exist.

I would stand by the position that anyone specifically asserting deities do not exist (as opposed to rejecting a belief in deities) is taking a leap of faith.

MM

---

Atheism is a faith. As much as there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of deities, there is none to prove the non-existence of a deities either. Taking up a position of either asserting they exist or asserting they do not exist requires a leap of faith.

As much as theists should not fill vacuums in knowledge with their god, atheists should not fill vacuums in knowledge with the lack of a god, both are factually unsubstantiated positions unless they are prepared to accept theism and atheism are both positions of faith.

The most anyone can say factually is, we do not know.

MM

No kidding. How long have you been here without being able to pick up that most of us are agnostic atheists? We don't assert there is no God, except possibly the married bachelor versions. I know it would be convenient for your position if most atheists were strong atheists, but they just aren't.

Yes, see above.

[Minimalist]

there is none to prove the non-existence of a deities either.

Not our job, pal. You think your 'god' is real, it is up to you to provide evidence...'evidence' of that, mind you, not just your opinion. Until such time as you...or some other theist does...I'm quite comfortable rejecting all of the gods created by man.

Including yours.

[ManMachine]

Atheism is a faith. As much as there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of deities, there is none to prove the non-existence of a deities either. Taking up a position of either asserting they exist or asserting they do not exist requires a leap of faith.

I am getting less and less impressed with your critical thinking ability the more you post.

Yes, yes, see my response above.

You are entitled to express your opinion. Personally I'd prefer not to form an opinion on someone without a better understanding of their philosophy, there are often subtleties that make sense of seemingly crass comments. It takes time to grasp a persons entire personal philosophy, at least a person who has taken years to develop one. I'd be loathed to judge that based on a few internet forum posts, but then I don't assume people want to know about my judgement of them, it is, after all, irrelevant.

MM

[Jenny A]

Yes, like I just said above, I was using a narrower definition of atheism. I accept that there is a difference between rejecting the belief in the existence of deities and asserting they do not exist.

I would stand by the position that anyone specifically asserting deities do not exist (as opposed to rejecting a belief in deities) is taking a leap of faith.

MM

Hmmm. I do affirmatively assert that some particular deities don't exist because there is evidence that they do not. For example I affirmatively believe that god as described in the Bible does not exist. I think there's evidence that there isn't a god who parted the Red Sea, or flooded the earth, or created the earth in six days. But I'm more than willing to look at evidence to the contrary. That I don't think is a leap of faith.

[Anomalocaris]

One could never get direct evidence that something does not exist enywhere. Yet one can form powerfully convincing working hypothesis, equivalent to a confident, well grounded and believeable assertion, that most things that can be imagined does not in fact exist.

What is the difference between asserting something doesn't exist for which there is no direct evidence and which is overwhelmingly contrary to every expectation we can form based on everything for which we do have direct and rigorous evidence, like a moon sized 13 pedaled flower made of cryptonite that floats just beyond the reach of our most sensitive instrument for which we have no direct evidence and is contrary to every direct evidence we have of behavior of cryton gas, and asserting that god does not exist? One needn't shy from being overwhelmingly confident in a working hypothesis that a moon sized 13 pedaled flower made of cryptonite that floats just beyond the reach of our most sensitive instrument does not exist. One needn't explore every possible corner of universe to put every place in the universe within reach of our instruments to reasonably assert that such a flower does not exist. How is different from asserting any god by any specific definition yet concocted by any theist does not exist.

[Welsh cake]

Probably Christianity will fade just like Thor and Zeus followers faded, but it will take time.

I dread to think what will replace it.

o___o

[Cato]

...Christianity today is nothing like Christianity of the 5 century BCE, but they will never be 'out of people'.

Christianity in the 5th century BCE. That's a neat fucking trick.

[FatAndFaithless]

...Christianity today is nothing like Christianity of the 5 century BCE, but they will never be 'out of people'.

Christianity in the 5th century BCE. That's a neat fucking trick.

Heh, totally missed that. Nice catch!

[Dystopia]

Probably Christianity will fade just like Thor and Zeus followers faded, but it will take time.

I dread to think what will replace it.

o___o

My bet would be some sort of deism inspired in more sophisticated arguments such as the cosmological argument. Agnostic theism will also be popular, as some sort of belief in a god, while not related to any particular religion and without claims that a god exists, this is the position most of my friends take, usually inspired but the argument of 'Religions don't make any sense, but the world is just to perfect to be random and lots of people experience miracles and other paranormal events'