Atheism based on evidence, offers spiritual fulfillment

[Nobody]

The Collegian Article - by anurag muthyam - February 21, 2013

I think believing in something because of evidence is practical and rational. For example, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. We know this is true because we have evidence in the fossil records. There is a similar circumstance regarding the universal laws of gravitation.

According to an April 2009 New York Times article, the ranks of atheists in the United States may be increasing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released in March 2009, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only religious demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years. Nationally, the amount of people who answered “none” on the survey nearly doubled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008. In South Carolina, the amount more than tripled, from 3 percent to 10 percent. It’s worth noting, however, that not all of the people who answered “none” are committed atheists or agnostics.

[PyroManiac]

Nice picture.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I like the picture too. It shows someone intentionally tipping the scales in one direction.

[Question Mark]

It also shows which side the brain is on.

[Esquilax]

I like the picture too. It shows someone intentionally tipping the scales in one direction.

I do notice you had no problem with reason being fundamentally opposite to religion. That's interesting.

[Angrboda]

Expert's tip: If you want people to read an article concerning atheism and evidence, don't start with a quote where the person claims that we know the earth to be 4.5 billion years old based on the fossil record.

[Drew_2013]

Interesting in this article the author says...

'Well, first of all, atheism is neither good nor bad; it’s just a belief that God does not exist.'

According to Question Mark in another thread...

"How dare you tell us what it is that we believe. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god or gods, and you or anyone else assuming what we believe beyond that without consulting us as to our individual beliefs is disingenuous, and frankly I would personally say a premise for building a strawman fallacy. "

So is the author guilty of being disingenuous and creating a premise for a strawman? Shouldn't you guys set this fellow atheist straight? Apparently no one told him that atheism is a lack of belief and he didn't consult with you when defining atheism.

[Question Mark]

Interesting in this article the author says...

'Well, first of all, atheism is neither good nor bad; it’s just a belief that God does not exist.'

According to Question Mark in another thread...

"How dare you tell us what it is that we believe. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god or gods, and you or anyone else assuming what we believe beyond that without consulting us as to our individual beliefs is disingenuous, and frankly I would personally say a premise for building a strawman fallacy. "

So is the author guilty of being disingenuous and creating a premise for a strawman? Shouldn't you guys set this fellow atheist straight? Apparently no one told him that atheism is a lack of belief and he didn't consult with you when defining atheism.

There is a rather important contextual difference here.

When I said that to you, you were trying to tell us, what we believed. In this example, the person saying that is telling other people what they themselves believe.

One steps on other people's toes, whilst the other is simply a statement of personal opinion. That's what their atheism means.

[genkaus]

Interesting in this article the author says...

'Well, first of all, atheism is neither good nor bad; it’s just a belief that God does not exist.'

According to Question Mark in another thread...

"How dare you tell us what it is that we believe. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god or gods, and you or anyone else assuming what we believe beyond that without consulting us as to our individual beliefs is disingenuous, and frankly I would personally say a premise for building a strawman fallacy. "

So is the author guilty of being disingenuous and creating a premise for a strawman? Shouldn't you guys set this fellow atheist straight? Apparently no one told him that atheism is a lack of belief and he didn't consult with you when defining atheism.

What are you babbling about? The author's statement here is pretty much the same as QM's.

[Esquilax]

Interesting in this article the author says...

'Well, first of all, atheism is neither good nor bad; it’s just a belief that God does not exist.'

According to Question Mark in another thread...

"How dare you tell us what it is that we believe. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god or gods, and you or anyone else assuming what we believe beyond that without consulting us as to our individual beliefs is disingenuous, and frankly I would personally say a premise for building a strawman fallacy. "

So is the author guilty of being disingenuous and creating a premise for a strawman? Shouldn't you guys set this fellow atheist straight? Apparently no one told him that atheism is a lack of belief and he didn't consult with you when defining atheism.

Do you not get that atheism does not have a rulebook, nor is every atheist required to fit the dictionary definition? Do you not understand this yet? It's a personal belief, there's no set of criteria one must fulfill before being let into the club. Each atheist will most likely have his or her own distinct spin on the belief, which is why you dictating to us what it is we believe is both disingenuous and rude.

How are you not fucking getting this, seriously?