"Gods", a concept too fuzzy to invest belief in .. either way.

[Whateverist]

Unless you are just pissed about religion, the concept of gods really isn't worth forming beliefs about, accept in a passive off-hand way. "Strong" atheists are setting themselves up to defend claims regarding 'gods', something no non-theist should ever have to do. The burden of proof sits squarely on the theist so long as he is the only one making claims about up gods. Strong atheists are the ones who give theists the opportunity to say that atheism is also a belief system about gods. It needn't be that way.

Now naturally we will all form off-hand beliefs when we hear of weird and unlikely shit like gods. Nothing wrong with that. But making claims about what hasn't even been shown to exist shifts the honus to you.

This old video breaks it down very well. Probably a good one for someone to watch who is trying to decide how best to describe their own position.

http://youtu.be/sNDZb0KtJDk

[Voltair]

Yep, everything is potentially possible if it can be verified/proven. Even if it can't be it is still possible but in the case of god(s) it is so far removed from detection that its probability isn't measurable. How likely or unlikely god(s) are is like trying to calculate the probability of bob. It just doesn't work.

Knock on wood: Just in case a God randomly decides to start detonating shit and going "I AM REAL MOTHERFUCKERS!"

[Angrboda]

Meh.

[Brian37]

The capital "G" monotheistic God/s of Abraham are a flat out myth and scientifically absurd and those books are immoral.

NOW to all the big three reading this, it sounds mean. But when I make that statement I am addressing it like a book or movie review, it is NOT a judgment on human rights.

I cannot find any claim of a deity who is absolute final power moral, that is the definition of a dictator. That morality alone is enough for me to reject such an idea. AS AN IDEA.

But all claims of God/god/entities/super natural, are broken concepts and are mere reflections of our evolutionary anthropomorphism of projecting our human desires on the world around us. They are merely our imagination.

I see no point saying "there might be" when the graveyard of the gods keeps getting filled over and over and the once unknown becomes known in the natural sense.

I don't like this well intended bone atheists throw to placate even the generic types of believers.

Once you get it in your head that there "might be" a brain that thinks that has no brain you are postulating a naked assertion. EVEN to the generic types what would be so frightening about life if you found out this was it?

It frightens me more what humans do to use politics and weapons to kill for their superstitions. I cant live in fear of nature, I cant do a damned thing about aging and eventually dying. I cant do anything about the weather or meteors.

But if I can bitch slap as Hitchens put it "The parties of god" into at least being civil, if it takes pissing them off to get peace, damned right I want to offend them.

When Islam and Jews and Christians can get to the same level of death Harry Potter causes, THAT would impress me.

[Voltair]

Oh don't get me wrong, I am an atheist regarding the Christian/Jew/Muslim gods. I also still don't think the existence of any deity has been or is going to be proven. I don't think people who claim they know no gods exist are being illogical either. That would be like me criticizing someone for not being "Agnostic" towards unicorns and fairies.

I did find though that with where I am at, how people understand words etc, Agnostic is a better definition. I would be Agnostic Atheist though but the reason I modified that is partially to shift my own perspective (hyper focusing on Christianity) and because I got tired of misunderstandings.

Agnostic Atheist/Atheist Agnostic/Agnostic could all be the same thing really. Doesn't mean I believe there is a God I am just more outright acknowledging it is an immeasurable/improvable thing based on the current evidence that is offered. Basically... its semantics in mind.

[Angrboda]

[Brian37]

Oh don't get me wrong, I am an atheist regarding the Christian/Jew/Muslim gods. I also still don't think the existence of any deity has been or is going to be proven. I don't think people who claim they know no gods exist are being illogical either. That would be like me criticizing someone for not being "Agnostic" towards unicorns and fairies.

I did find though that with where I am at, how people understand words etc, Agnostic is a better definition. I would be Agnostic Atheist though but the reason I modified that is partially to shift my own perspective (hyper focusing on Christianity) and because I got tired of misunderstandings.

Agnostic Atheist/Atheist Agnostic/Agnostic could all be the same thing really. Doesn't mean I believe there is a God I am just more outright acknowledging it is an immeasurable/improvable thing based on the current evidence that is offered. Basically... its semantics in mind.

And don't get me wrong. No one knows the future NO ONE.

But in the context of time that is the only way I am an agnostic atheist, only in the context of the future. Currently, because positions can change over time, I am CURRENTLY an outright atheist.

I see nothing RIGHT NOW that would convince me and I see nothing from the past or currently that is remotely credible.

I really can only see myself sliding backwards in a non lucid state. Psychological trauma, or brain trauma or mental illness or brain disease. I would not want anyone if it got to that point, to take anything I say seriously because I would not be lucid.

Hitchens said much the same thing, but Dawkins did not. He foolishly said he wanted his death recorded. But what if he has brain injury or is doped up on drugs?

How many people here would take someone on Bath salts seriously if they claimed they were being eaten by giant ants?

[Brian37]

Are you still pissed at me for questioning your profile statement of your personal beliefs no one forced you to submit on a website no one forced you to join?

Or am I mistaken and Kim Jong Un mandates that you respond on this website?

What part are you not getting?

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PERSON AND WHAT THEY CLAIM.

OUTSIDE the issue of the social club called labels, I LOVE MY MOM. But I do not like every thing she says or does. Same with her, I KNOW she loves me, but I know I can drive her nuts at some point.

THAT is how I view humans and evolution.

You got pissed at me because long before you came here you thought "atheists are minorities too, they wont question me"

Yet you are too sensitive and dense to understand that BOTH YOU AND I could not walk down the streets of Iran and sell our completely different positions to their citizens, and then hypocritically play victim and demand taboo from me.

Why did you come here? PLEASE do not tell me as a fan of Taoism or Hindus you did not read something from other labels and think to yourself "That is silly". You might not have said it, BUT YOU THOUGHT IT!

But you will NOT get away with painting blasphemy or questioning as evil. If our species never questioned social norms, our species never would have left the caves.

And your stupid pictures trying to paint the questioners as Lex Luthor when all they are doing is questioning is absurd.

I am a human first, you are a human first. But neither of us, not you , not me deserves a taboo.

My challenge to you RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW is to at a minimum STOP EQUATING HUMANS AS BEING THE CLAIMS THEY MAKE!

And if you really hate ME, FIGHT BACK, not physically, but with an argument. If we never agree THAT will and does happen.

I think one thing you might not know about me. I WAS BULLIED as a kid. AND IT SUCKED.

But this IS NOT bullying because YOU came here. I had on another forum a 5 year bought with a Christian 5 YEARS. Never once did he think I was Darth Vader. WE BOTH hated each others CLAIMS, but just like my mom is a Catholic, I never hated him.

SO PLEASE get over yourself, stop acting like a victim. If you think I am full of shit, say it. I won't hate you for it, YOU ARE NOT ONE CLAIM OR ONE SUBJECT.

[Faith No More]

Relax, man. I think you're reading way too much into things.

[Cyberman]

Yep, everything is potentially possible if it can be verified/proven. Even if it can't be it is still possible but in the case of god(s) it is so far removed from detection that its probability isn't measurable.

It's actually worse than that, since gods are invariably designed to be perpetually undetectable. Believers always place them just beyond the reach of any investigation, scientific or otherwise.

---

"And lo, it came to pass that St Imbo marked the second millennium with a shiny new medal. And the multitudes rejoiced, and did feast upon the beasts of the field and the birds of the air, particularly the ossifrage which was deemed by all to taste a bit like chicken. And the mead was plentiful, and the birds were well up for it, and the fornicating thereafter left nothing to the imagination I can tell you."