Believe:

[Kyuuketsuki]

Pip,

Firstly I don't think Dawkins is rude at all, I think he dismisses stupid ideas and with very good reason ... people don't like that because people cherish their beliefs but that doesn't make then any less stupid. Dawkins is somewhat intolerant of such stupidities and, IMO, quite rightly so.

I also believe that religion is about control.

I know my god, but I am not religious.

Sorry? You mean you associate with no particular religion? That the beliefs of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, the Aztecs, The Norse, The Roman and so are all of equal merit to you? If so I'm impressed because (despite the claims of most theists) they always seem to end up quoting extensively from one set of scriptures thus revealing their true bias.

I feel that Dawkins doesn't make the distinction clear enough, saying instead that belief is the problem, or believers are dangerous.

And the problem with that is what?

My only point, from my humble beginnings is that there is no difference in my mind between belief of god and belief that there is (or may not be) god.

Between believing there is and believing there isn't a god maybe but not in dismissing current claims which is where virtually all the atheists in this forum stand. There are very, very good reasons to dismiss your god and any other so far claimed on the simple basis that there is no evidence and as Stephen Roberts said, "once you understand why you dismiss all other gods you will understand why we dismiss yours".

The lines must be clearer.

Exactly what must be clearer?

If you 'act right' (call it cultural moral standards, or whatever) then it doesn't matter why. and if you can't 'act right' it also doesn't matter why not. Dawkins acts like an asshole, so regardless of his message I am not impressed.

I strongly disagree ... not only am I a moral relativist so don't accept there is any specific "right" way to behave but I think it's important to understand and validate your own reason for behaving the way you do. I do that and if you are acting in accordance with the will of another you are not (cannot be).

The only reason I assume that arguments in the realm of idea and not physical reality cannnot be held to the same black-and-white standards, is because of the nature of ideas. We cannot produce evidence that god does or does not exist that will be irrefutable. The argument of god is not yet fully understood. So we can't hold it to the same forensic standards...

Well you can claim that but the fact remains that no one can support such ideas so therefore I am entitled to reject such ideas and consider them idealistic fairytale hogwash.

I do my very best not too do that. Not too see the world as I would like it, since that is untrue. I try my very best to see the world as it is, aside from my wants and views. I just won't fool myself into thinking I have succeeded.

I'm sorry but I think you are deluding yourself ... the very fact that you believe in a god without evidence rather implies you ARE believing what you would like to rather than the harsh cold reality of what is. I suspect few on the rational atheist side are fooling themselves with anything, they are simply adherents of science and following where the evidence leads.

I do understand the nature of this forum, and of the many shcools of atheism. What you are describing could be more agnostic, since it is only an admitted lack of knowledge. 'We don't know,'. I am trying to debate these concepts, that is why I am questioning.

Many schools of atheism? Curious, as far as most here are concerned atheism means one thing and one thing alone ... that you don't believe in gods.

Finally, you mentioned "So if there's no evidence we can assume there is no god and pour scorn on the claims of those who do,". That, I think is where you decide. If there is no evidence FOR god, then you would be right. But I challenge that there is no evidence for NOT god either. In fact there is much in both categories, but it is all interpreted to fit what we want. Can I pour scorn on people who say there is not god? What about people who say they don't know? Or canI pour scorn on those who pour scorn on other for disagreeing?

And as I say above (and indeed as I have said to you before but you don't quite seem to get) belief that there is no god is, in principle, as illogical as belief that there isn't (although to be fair to the former that there is no evidence is a rather large clue) ... most of us here assume there is no god for the same reason we assume there is no cream cake at the Earth's core, because there is no evidence and because of the problems a creator/miracle-performing/circus-monkey god would cause for science, logic & reason.

It all comes down to whether or not you act like an asshole, regardless of creed or color. I try my best to not, and I hope to show that there is at least one theist who tries to conduct himself with respect and honor.

I agree and believing in fairytale creatures without (and often in spite of the) evidence is one step closer to being one.

Kyu