Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[Minimalist]

As your avatar says, you can't fix stupid, but I guess we can try to destroy it, is that possible?

Shit, son. I was happy in 2008 when we stopped electing it.

[krazedkat]

Yeah, can't wait till our idiot is out of power. Seriously, Harper, GTFO! I've been told vote ABC (anybody but conservative) and I know why, -.- when we do we get stupid ideas and stupid people elected. Harper is around 1/2 as stupid as bush so you can see our problem :|...

[Thor]

Creationists and atheists have a lot in common:

You think so? Like what?

Most dont know what they are talking about. (For a creationist, it is science, for an atheist it is theology)

I agree that most creationists have a poor understanding of science. Most atheists, however, were raised in one religion or another and have a fairly good knowledge of theology.

Both think the other side is wrong

Just like any groups that are on opposite sides of an argument...

Both think world would be better without X (For a creationist, evolution, for an atheist, God)

The world would be better off without evolution? This makes no sense. You're saying creationists think the world would be better if nothing evolved?

And you are wrong concerning "God". I would say that the vast majority of atheists don't think the world would be better without "God". We believe the world would be much better without RELIGION.

Both try to persuade people with ignoance (Refuting evolution is a prime example. The God Dellusion is another)

Yes, refuting evolution is ignorance (or just stupidity). But how is "The God Delusion" ignorance? Have you read the book? Because I have.

Both think they have truth

Creationists absolutely think they have "the truth". Atheists simply don't see any reason to believe this. The vast majority of atheists do not claim it is the truth that there is no god. We just claim that there is no evidence to back up the creationist claim.

Both are asking the other side for 'evidence'

Since creationists are making a claim, yes, we ask for evidence to support the veracity of that claim. The creationist counter to provide evidence that "God" doesn't exist is nothing more than an attempt to deflect the issue.

Both are asking the other side for unrealistic amount of evidence

It's "unrealistic" to ask for tangible, observable evidence? It's "unrealistic" to ask for empirical evidence that demonstrates Jesus actually lived? It's "unrealistic" to ask for evidence that supports Biblical tales like the story of Noah's Ark?

And since creationists can only ask atheists to prove a negative (something that is just about impossible), I would agree with you that they want an unrealistic amount of evidence.

Both of them complain about 'persecution' (Im not saying it doesnt)

What? Atheists "persecute" believers? Where? On the other hand, finding examples of believers persecuting atheists is pretty easy.

Most of them try to show other people the 'light'

Absolutely true of creationists. For the most part, atheists merely try to demonstrate how the beliefs of creationists are contradicted by observable evidence. If you think trying to get people to acknowledge the discoveries of science is "seeing the light", then I suppose you're correct.

So whats the big difference?

The difference is that the beliefs of creationists are deluded and irrational. The beliefs of atheists are supported by mountains of evidence and a few centuries of scientific research.

[downbeatplumb]

Creationists and atheists have a lot in common:

Most dont know what they are talking about. (For a creationist, it is science, for an atheist it is theology)
Both think the other side is wrong
Both think world would be better without X (For a creationist, evolution, for an atheist, God)
Both try to persuade people with ignoance (Refuting evolution is a prime example. The God Dellusion is another)
Both think they have truth
Both are asking the other side for 'evidence'
Both are asking the other side for unrealistic amount of evidence
Both of them complain about 'persecution' (Im not saying it doesnt)
Most of them try to show other people the 'light'
etc.

So whats the big difference?

The big diference is that atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

This lack of belief can be for any reason, maybe his pet pink pixies told him there were no gods.

But most atheists are atheists because of the total lack of any evidence that one exists.

We arent asking for unreasonable amounts of evidence, just some, anything, that we can look on say, 'yep only a god coulda done that' but so far nothing tangilble has been forthcoming.
Its all 'I have personal experience of god blah blah blah'

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Creationists believe what they do DESPITE the overwhelming amount of evidence.

[krazedkat]

To refuse to change your mind is to be blind in the mind.

[solja247]

I agree that most creationists have a poor understanding of science. Most atheists, however, were raised in one religion or another and have a fairly good knowledge of theology.

Exactly my point! most Christians dont even know how to read their Bible, they just assume it has to be taken litteral...

Just like any groups that are on opposite sides of an argument...

I dont think atheism is wrong, I dont think its right either. I dont have any solid evidence to say you are right/wrong. Although, I will argue that the evidence is in favour of the theist...

The world would be better off without evolution? This makes no sense. You're saying creationists think the world would be better if nothing evolved?

Funny enough, Creationists think evolution is just a big conspiracy theory...

And you are wrong concerning "God". I would say that the vast majority of atheists don't think the world would be better without "God". We believe the world would be much better without RELIGION.

Religion and God go hand in hand, unless you are a Deist, its the same thing.

It's "unrealistic" to ask for tangible, observable evidence? It's "unrealistic" to ask for empirical evidence that demonstrates Jesus actually lived? It's "unrealistic" to ask for evidence that supports Biblical tales like the story of Noah's Ark?

And since creationists can only ask atheists to prove a negative (something that is just about impossible), I would agree with you that they want an unrealistic amount of evidence.

No. Some Atheists ask God to reveal Himself or some sought of evidence which is ridiculous.

What? Atheists "persecute" believers? Where? On the other hand, finding examples of believers persecuting atheists is pretty easy.

I could start with Communist Russia (Well a few decades ago) Thankfully, not many countries hold to atheist ideaologies anymore...
You read the question wrong. I said complain about persecution...

Absolutely true of creationists. For the most part, atheists merely try to demonstrate how the beliefs of creationists are contradicted by observable evidence. If you think trying to get people to acknowledge the discoveries of science is "seeing the light", then I suppose you're correct.

Science doesnt = Atheism.
Most Atheists are missionaries at heart...

The difference is that the beliefs of creationists are deluded and irrational. The beliefs of atheists are supported by mountains of evidence and a few centuries of scientific research.

Mountains of evidence?

But most atheists are atheists because of the total lack of any evidence that one exists.

If I dont believe the holocaust is possible, any amount of evidence is not going to convince me, as I already believe the holocaust didnt happen. You have to start with a belief, before you can dismantle something objectively...

[krazedkat]

Atheism has no ideologies, learn to read definitions.
Also, I used to be a Christian and then a Jew, I've read it all, all the bullshit, and used to strongly believe it!

[solja247]

Atheism has no ideologies, learn to read definitions.

Atheism DOES have ideas and concepts

Also, I used to be a Christian and then a Jew, I've read it all, all the bullshit, and used to strongly believe it!

So what? Most Christians dont know a thing about their own Religion.
I've read it all as well. However, after reading the God Delusion, by Dawkins, I was going to become an Agnostic Deist. I hanged in there read some great books. Learnt some great arguements which nearly convinced me 100% that there had to be a God.
If I was to of become an Atheist or Agnostic, I would of no longer been a seeker of the truth and nothing out there would of convinced me about God or gods.
Here is an article I wrote, yesterday, you may be interested in it...(Its about my own experience with 'God')
http://johnn832.wordpress.com/2010/09/15...challenge/

[krazedkat]

Your arguments are pathetic.
Your belief system is pathetic and greatly flawed.
Atheism DOES NOT HAVE ANY ASSERTIONS OR DEFINITE BELIEFS THEREFORE NO IDEOLOGIES!

[solja247]

Our arguements are not pathetic. The cosmological and the fine tuning arguements are gaining more and more momentum...
Perhaps if atheists were a little more open minded, they could see that perhaps there was a God behind the universe?