[split]Atheism is based of ignorance.

[Sword of Christ]

You're an atheist born of ignorance rather than conviction. Whether that's better or worse I'm not sure.

[Minimalist]

Not ever having to listen to sniveling xtian drivel? I'm very jealous.

[Esquilax]

You're an atheist born of ignorance rather than conviction. Whether that's better or worse I'm not sure.

No atheist is an atheist born of conviction, even those who were once christians. There's no conviction because there's nothing to be convinced of: skepticism should be the default for everyone, and the only reason one should hold it regarding christianity or any other religion is the spectacular way in which those religions fail at shouldering their burden of proof. You may find atheists that feel strongly about their atheism, but the only necessity is a skeptical mindset that won't give god claims a free pass, not some conscious, constant decision to keep god claims out.

[Ryantology]

Being a member of any religion is hypocritical because it involves you making an entirely unwarranted special exception for one belief while dismissing all others.

[Zazzy]

You're an atheist born of ignorance rather than conviction. Whether that's better or worse I'm not sure.

And... more telling other people what they are/are not. You're batting 1000, Sword. Tell him he's not a REAL atheist next.

[Bad Wolf]

Being a member of any religion is hypocritical because it involves you making an entirely unwarranted special exception for one belief while dismissing all others.

Particularly so if you are a scientist. Their standard of evidence is very high with their work but with their religion.....

[Sword of Christ]

No atheist is an atheist born of conviction, even those who were once christians.

Dawkins has every bit as much conviction as the most fundamentalist of Christians or whoever else. He does have a bit of ignorance as well though he hasn't studied theology or philosophy.

There's no conviction because there's nothing to be convinced of: skepticism should be the default for everyone, and the only reason one should hold it regarding christianity or any other religion is the spectacular way in which those religions fail at shouldering their burden of proof.

There isn't a burden of proof to meet if it's a faith not a scientific hypothesis. The proof has to be internal within you kind of thing. You can't prove God with science anyway I keep saying this.

You may find atheists that feel strongly about their atheism, but the only necessity is a skeptical mindset that won't give god claims a free pass, not some conscious, constant decision to keep god claims out.

I'd call it a cynical mindset tbh. It's not like you know anything more than anyone else as to whether God exists or not you're just saying he doesn't and expect to be taken as humanities leading authority on the question.

[Esquilax]

Dawkins has every bit as much conviction as the most fundamentalist of Christians or whoever else. He does have a bit of ignorance as well though he hasn't studied theology or philosophy.

Hello, I am a 22 year old Australian writer, who is definitely not Richard Dawkins. That being out of the way, my atheism is based on an internal skepticism coupled with a study of religious claims and arguments for the existence of god, a background in university-level philosophy courses, and an understanding that one cannot prove existential things by means of theology and philosophy, no matter how deeply or piously one thinks about them.

There isn't a burden of proof to meet if it's a faith not a scientific hypothesis. The proof has to be internal within you kind of thing. You can't prove God with science anyway I keep saying this.

Okay, great! In that case, I am in no way justified in believing in your god without having that internal, faith based experience myself, and I have not. Moreover, without that experience, I cannot deem you or any other religious person to be justified in their belief either, and you need to ask yourself why your god won't grant me that experience, if this is the case.

Scientific hypotheses aren't the only things that have burdens of proof either, because that concept is not purely scientific; logic dictates that existential claims- like the ones you make about god- also require a burden of proof before anyone is logically justified in believing them. In support of this, I show merely the fact that the opposite, wherein we are required to accept every claim sans evidence, is ludicrous.

Happily, science isn't the only way you might fulfill that burden of proof; I require no scientific tests at all to have the existence of a dog proven to me.

I'd call it a cynical mindset tbh.

Yes, I imagine a reality based worldview would look that way, from your seat in candyland.

It's not like you know anything more than anyone else as to whether God exists or not you're just saying he doesn't and expect to be taken as humanities leading authority on the question.

We don't know more than anyone else? I agree. Are you then saying that you see the same complete lack of evidence for one that I do, or did you misspeak?

If you do know more than me about this subject, then you need to ask yourself why you can't convince me of the claim; I follow the facts, not any internalized role I need to fill. So does every other atheist here. Funny, how we still exist despite your presence, with your knowledge of god.

Incidentally, poisoning the well with that little "humanity's leading authority" crack won't work, because someone with even an ounce of logic in them will see immediately that the one group of people who feels that the question has no merit at all, are the atheists.

[Faith No More]

I'd call it a cynical mindset tbh. It's not like you know anything more than anyone else as to whether God exists or not you're just saying he doesn't and expect to be taken as humanities leading authority on the question.

True, we don't know anything more than anyone else about whether god exists. But no one is saying he doesn't exist and insisting on being taken as an authority. The problem is that every claim made for the existence of god is weak at best, and one doesn't have to be cynical to see that. You speak as if the attitude you receive from atheists shows arrogance and attempts to speak from authority, but in reality, the attitude you get from atheists is a result of just how flimsy of a defense your beliefs rest upon.

I don't claim to know that a god doesn't exist, but what am I supposed to believe when every argument posited for god's existence can't stand up to scrutiny?

[Ryantology]

Dawkins has every bit as much conviction as the most fundamentalist of Christians or whoever else. He does have a bit of ignorance as well though he hasn't studied theology or philosophy.

Theology is like a bunch of people sitting around and talking about Breaking Bad under the delusion that the show is a documentary.