Is Atheism Intellectual Cowardice?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Mark is the earliest gospel, and it is dated to about 100 CE.

A propaganda specialist once told me, "Never lie in round numbers."

Indeed,for some reason prime numbers seem more credible. (at least that was the case whenever I felt obliged to invent some statistics at work).


I think Mark is usually dated at around 70CE. I think probably closer to 67 CE.

Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelo...dating.htm

[Arcturus]

Intellectually, there is not much difference between an Atheist and a Theist. As a species we have only existed for a miniscule amount of time compared to the age of the universe(~14 Billion years according to Scientists). Of this time we have only been studying Science in a rigorous sense for ~ 300 years. It is no exageration to say that, although we have learned a lot in that time, we have much to learn in the future. In fact, it is not just that we do not know everything, but we do not even know how much we don't know.

From this it follows that a claim that God does not exist can only be made on the grounds of probability, based upon current scientific knowledge. But probability is only based upon uncertainty and therefore, any claim that God does not exist must be, in the end, a belief (even if based upon the latest empirical and scientific evidence). From this perspective an Atheist and a Theist both share something in common - belief.

Atheism cannot, therefore, be ascerted based upon certain knowledge. Therefore, it follows that the truly honest position of any member of humanity is Agnostic. It is intellectual cowardice, on the part of Atheists, not to accept the rational conclusions that reason leads to - namely, that no definitive statement can be about the existence/or not of God, due to lack of knowledge.

First of all, agnosticism is not some midpoint in between atheism and theism. It lies on a different scale altogether, one that deals with the certainty of knowledge. For example, a person could be an agnostic atheist, which means that he or she does not believe in a god, but is not certain that god does not exist. For the record, most atheists are agnostic atheists, especially towards that of the deistic god. On the other hand, a person could be an agnostic theist or gnostic theist, in which case the latter is far more common.

Atheism is, by no means, the belief that no god exists. Rather, it is the nonbelief that a god exists. The difference here is subtle, but nonetheless important in understanding what atheism is. For example, I do not believe in god, as much as I disbelieve in leprechauns and unicorns. However, if I happen to see god one day, or found evidence for his existence, I would have to question my lack of belief. The universe is how we should expect if it was not designed, but we cannot be certain that it wasn't, as a god could have deliberately intended it to appear as such. However, since there is no evidence for god, nor the flying spaghetti monster, I have every reason to be an atheist.

[Atheist Jew]

Quite frankly, the difference between an atheist and a theist is this: Atheists generally believe that the most logical/the most proven position on the existance of god, and would probably become converts if god actually existed and showed off some definite miracles, while theists sit there pouting every time evidence is brought to contradict their belief and refuse to acknowledge the evidence while every time there is a shred of proof for their position, even if it has been debunked over and over and over, they jump on it and keep repeating it over and over.

[reverendjeremiah]

Is Atheism Intellectual Cowardice?

YES...umm...NO..umm..wait....What?

[tackattack]

Quite frankly, the difference between an atheist and a theist is this: Atheists generally believe that the most logical/the most proven position on the existance of god, and would probably become converts if god actually existed and showed off some definite miracles, while theists sit there pouting every time evidence is brought to contradict their belief and refuse to acknowledge the evidence while every time there is a shred of proof for their position, even if it has been debunked over and over and over, they jump on it and keep repeating it over and over.

I'm not aware of evidence that contradicts my religious beliefs. If you have some feel free to show it. I also have never off handedly refused to ackowledge and evidence that I'm aware of to date. Feel free to use me as an example and cite excatly where I've done that.

[Atheist Jew]

In general, when you reach end of a long and tedious debate with a religous person that is about the validity of their religion that is what usually happens after you restate your points.

[tackattack]

And I'm not supposing that "theists sit there pouting every time evidence is brought to contradict their belief and refuse to acknowledge the evidence while every time there is a shred of proof for their position, even if it has been debunked over and over and over, they jump on it and keep repeating it over and over" doesn't happen at all. However, my point was I'm not aware of myself ever pouting refusing to acknowledge evidence or repeatedly repeating (no pun intended) moot or invalidated points and I'm a theist. So you'll have to admit to over excuse me pointing out your unwarrented generalization, from my perspective.

[Castle]

If I look at this from the upside and downside comparing Theist and Atheist

Over all Theist intellectually down side is being COWARDICE in the sense of lacking reason, logic and science
On the other hand
Atheist downside is the spiritual understanding, in which cowardice toward the open mind for imagination of the 99% spiritual unknowns World and Universe

[Atheist Jew]

Can you please list a few defenses for religion that you consider valid?

---

Or we could debate this on another thread.

[The Magic Pudding]

Can you please list a few defenses for religion that you consider valid?

---

Or we could debate this on another thread.

Gives comfort when you lose a loved one. When people had many children and could expect to loose a few it would have helped some people. You wouldn't want the hell crap though.
It probably helps some people to be good, knowing the smiter is watching them. It's far from 100% effective obviously.
Builds a community. There might be a nice community out there somewhere that doesn't play the in group out group game.
Gives me something to laugh about, those young earthers are a hoot.
There's some good music with god in it.
Provides some good profanity word combinations.
Makes the beach a bit quieter on a Sunday morning, maybe.