Awful.  Just awful.  On so many levels.

Hey, I know!  Let's convene a panel of white folks to discuss the validity of black people's claims of discrimination.  Maybe we'll just tell them to shut up about it already.

Good lord.  This reminds me why I don't watch TV anymore.

Wow a conversation about atheists without any athiests.hmmmm

Also that porky blond is a .

MT. Vigilante wrote: Yes but, you athiests claim to dislike all religion, yet you focus your attacks on us.

Most atheists in this thread are surrounded by Christians, with nary a Hindu in sight.  Making fun of Shiva wouldn't be very productive.  Presumably things are different elsewhere.

Also, if you dont hate us, then why are their all those cartoons on the previous page that many whould call offensive.

If you look carefully, those cartoons are all mocking the same thing:  irrational beliefs.  As a group, atheists simply refuse to accord special benefits to religious beliefs that are not accorded to other superstitions.  Would it be "offensive" to have a cartoon making fun of astrology?

Which brings up another point, you athiests are all about tolerating everybody

Says who? 

And you still havn't disproved my claim that your attitude towards us is no different than a racists attitude towards a black person.

Religion = irrational belief.  Black = genetic feature.

The two do not compare (for this purpose).  The more relevant comparison is that religion is similar to Flat-Earth-ism.

MT. Vigilante wrote: So that makes it o.k. to portray us as ignorant, stupid, and uneducated?

And if a grown man told you, dead seriously, that he believes the Tooth Fairy is real, wouldn't you snicker just a little? 

And when he started providing details on exactly how the TF knows who has a tooth under their pillow, and how the TF gets around, and how the whole "Theory of Parental Tooth Rewards" is just a theory, wouldn't you roll your eyes just a little?

These debates are about as intelligent as the homosexual debates...

A:) I don't see Christian laws imposing Atheist rights, and I don't see Atheist laws imposing on Christian rights, so why stay so militant all the time? And don't blame the other side-both sides on this forum are guilty of overdramatizing the whole matter, myself included. The point is, most of the atheists here on the forum take every chance they get to point out how ignorant and silly the Christian belief is, be it through mocking sigs, avatars, or whatever, and the Christians generally respond with stupid, angry comebacks that make no sense whatsoever. The fact is, if you think you're better than someone else because of your beliefs, or you lack of beliefs, your an ass and an idiot.

B:) To say that there are idiots in Christianity...well no kidding Sherlock...there are idiots in the White House, Congress, the UN, your favorite software developer...let's face it, there are more idiots than intelligent people in the world.

C:) The blanket statements get old...there is no single representation of either group. There are smartass atheists and Christians, and there are those who think that no matter what, they're right.

D:) This conversations will never go anywhere, they're just pointless arguments. Which leads to point E...

http://imageshack.us">

Can't we all just get along?

stratoaxe wrote: Can't we all just get along?

Ask the Northern Irish...

How exactly are Christians the only ones who push their beliefs off on people who do not want them? How about the mass military movements in the name of Islam? And every religion believes it's the "supreme power", or better yet, the only one's who are right. That's the basic principle of religion-you strive your whole life believing that the set of principles you live by are the right way...otherwise, what's the point?

I still have yet to see a pointed attack that I can honestly say is a hard representative of Christianity or atheism.

BARREL BREAK wrote: stratoaxe wrote: A:) I don't see Christian laws imposing Atheist rights 1. What .Ryan said. 2. There are numerous states that have laws on the books barring atheists from holding public office. Win count on this page so far: 1. .Ryan at top. 2. TKD right above me.

Care to point those states out to me...I've been searching.

BARREL BREAK wrote: stratoaxe wrote: BARREL BREAK wrote: stratoaxe wrote: A:) I don't see Christian laws imposing Atheist rights 1. What .Ryan said. 2. There are numerous states that have laws on the books barring atheists from holding public office. Win count on this page so far: 1. .Ryan at top. 2. TKD right above me. Care to point those states out to me...I've been searching. State constitutions- http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm - 9 States

Alright, I'll concede my argument on that point, however my other points still stand, and I'd contest that not one of those laws would stand against a court case if an atheist wanted to run for office in those states. There are plenty of antiquated laws on the books that would never be stand up in a trial, much less be enforced. But on sheer points of my argument, I'll admit I was wrong there.

That doesn't detract from the original point of my post though...you can't justify ridiculing someone for their beliefs. There's no point in it...and just as I said, Christianity on a whole is not impacting your lifestyle as an atheist.

BARREL BREAK wrote: stratoaxe - How is Christianity not impacting my life? Nearly every 'Morality' based law (Obscenity standards, controlled substances, etc.) is based upon religous beliefs. Further is the stigma I gain from being an Atheist. I have no doubt in my mind that a candidate for public office higher than local level (to which I may aspire), could not win because of their (lack of) belief. As to ridiculing someone for their beliefs, why shouldn't I? Why should ones beliefs be on a different scale from, say, their clothes?

I got news for you...Christianity isn't the only belief that pushes obscenity and drug laws...there are plenty of atheists that support those things too. You're confusing morales with religion.

And religious beliefs are on a different scale. Let's use that logic...why can't I blatently use the N word, or take some cheap shots at homosexuals? Why should anyone get strikes for racism, or flaming? It's their right after all...just like the Jesus picture that just got posted. If I posted that about about a black man, or a gay man, it would be pulled, locked, and I'd probably either get a strike or guested.

And granted, political correctness and biggotry aside, it's my right to do any of those things. But what I see here on the forum is complete inequality...I can make fun of Christians all day long, but if I say you're ignorant for being an atheist (which I don't believe), I'd probably get something like this-

Stop. Posting.

Go away.

Tool.

Fail.

Because the general idealogy here is that the entirety of Christianity, or republicans, or Fox news, or whatever modern political cliche you'd like to use, are idiots. And they're lumped together.

Not that I really care, I don't come to the forum for intelligent religious debate-in fact I don't go anywhere for intelligent religious debate, because I really don't care-but I like to ruffle feathers now and then, and point out the ridiculousness of the arguments I'm seeing.

How about this-an honest discussion about religion, without blanket statements, mud slinging, or just flat out being an ass. How about both sides explain their beliefs, give facts to back those up, instead of "OMG, you're such a tool. Clark/TKD/Chewp wins." That won't happen, but until then these arguments are an excercise in egos...and benefit no-one.

But what's the difference? Either way you ridicule someone in an attempt to make them look like an idiot, what does it matter the reasoning? What you're pointing out is sheer political correctness...just because someone can't help it.

It's explaining yourself in a circle, but there's no difference. It's knitpicking to try to reason out that somehow mocking someone for reason is better than mocking that person for another.

And I was probably pretty harsh when I said there are no honest discussions, but here lately all I see are posts in some vague attempt to score some hardcore internet pointz...there are a handful of people here who will have a real discussion and use facts to back up their points, such as .Ryan or Clark, but a large portion of the forum "elite" think that coming off with quick one liners somehow justifies an argument.

Anyway, I realize that there are plenty of intelligent people here, but somehow scoring quick points with hardcore is quickly replacing an actual well thought out argument.

.Ryan wrote: Uh, philosophical disagreement and debate is much different than racist bigotry....That's why racist rants about black people will get you banned, and not this....Also, you get pwned because most of the people here disagree with you and are better debaters, I don't see this as a condemnation of this community at all. And I really don't see much of that crap you mentioned in most of these threads, including this one(especially if you ignore certain people). Besides the blanket statements, which are nearly unavoidable when discussing a ideological community....All the stuff you said against those statements should be clear and generally implied, at least in the mind of anyone with any reasonable level of intelligence and/or life experience....I would say though, that certain blanket statements are nearly accurate for 99% of the Christian community.

But you've got away from the original argument...I didn't say anything about philosophy or disagreement...I'm talking about ridicule, we've got to stay on point here.

I'm happy to see someone disagree with me...that's great, it shows a healthy criticism for life in general. But I see less disagreement, and more flat out disgust and ridicule.

And on a lighter note...I never said I got pwned . If I did get beat in an argument, I'll happily admit it, though.

.Ryan wrote: Oh crap, the first time I read that I thought you called me part of the "forum elite".... Anyway, I see what you're saying, but I caution you to be careful to not confuse disagreement with being one of those epenis-growing asses....

No, I actually consider you one of the more level headed forumers on here. Sorry for the double posts, BTW, I'm just too lazy to edit right now.

stratoaxe wrote: So you blanket religion as ignorance, and feel you have the right to attack it. That amazes me...realizing that Christianity is a lifestyle as much as a belief,

what if I went on a racist rant, or decided to start taking shots a gay guy...you'd call me a biggot. This is what I mean by thinking that somehow because you choose to believe there is no god makes you more intelligent than someone who believes there is one. I have religious beliefs...and I consider myself far from ignorant. It's a shame that such attitudes are prominent, and furthermore politically correct.

That last statement made no sense whatseover....atheism has nothing to do with science.

 Complete ignorance. Athiesm holds with science as both are based on the same thought process. That is, if you cant prove it, youre probably deluded. If I claimed I built a cold fusion reactor in my garage, I doubt any of you would believe me, and I wouldnt hold that disbelief against you. Whats more likely, that we evolved over billions of years in a process thats been scientifically proven, or that some huge god bamfed us all into existance and deliberately left no proof of his being, except a contradictory book? Occams Razor my friend.

You can pick at the Bible all day long, but you can't prove or disprove God. By sheer knowledge of the scientific method, which seeks to disprove a theory instead of prove it, you can't disprove a Being that there is no physical proof of his existence. You can disprove the traditions of a religion, but you can't disprove the religion on a whole.

 And that right there is why an intelligent person should distrust religious dogma. There is no proof for it one way or another. People lie to each other all the time for political, monetary, and personal gain. Why should I trust some guy reading from a thousand year old book thats been edited by god knows how many other people?

 Disprove the traditions of religion? What does that even mean? I cant disprove that a priest slinging holy water around doesnt have some scientifically immeasurable benefit to people. I suppose you could try and find out if being "blessed" has some placebo effect...

I agree, this thread suffers from good debate from the other side. Someone at least break out Pascals Wager, or the causality argument. Id love to tear you up over those.

-------------

Wow...it really amazes me the way that religion is this thread is presented as stupidity...racism and sexism are against the rules becuase it's not politically correct. That argument makes no sense...I can attack you based on your religion, but not on something you can't help.

However, the idea that atheism is part of science is ignorance in the highest. A belief in a god can still be retained and the scientific method still be folowed. A belief in god cannot be disproven...therefore you have no firm authority to say he doesn't exist. 

And the atheists on this forum are proving my points for me. Atheists can have the same elitist, snobby attitude that they accuse Chrstians of taking.

And Enos, you missed my point entirely. I said you can disprove the traditions of religion-I was referring to the beliefs in the Flood, or the various other traditional teachings of the old testament, but you can't disprove the God that is taught in them.

And you're flat out wrong...religion is far from the definition of stupidity. Unfortunately, some of the atheists here can't see past the end of there nose, their too busy forming "I'm teh 1337 atheizt" arguments to show any form of intellectual argument towards the other side. They simply think they're side are intelligent, scientific thinkers, so what argument need they provide, other than people with religions are idiots.

I'm tired of the mud slinging and the accusations of having a militant attitude, while I'm being told illogical and stupid by the other side. IT's prime example of why these debates go nowhere, both sides think they've reached some form of enlightenment, so they use self-absorbed rants to try to prove themselves. Way to go.

"Proving" one's personal belief system shouldn't be something that they should have to do publically.

A person's personal beliefs are just that, especially in regards to religion.

What you call ignorance, some may call piety in the face of opposition.

The definition of insanity is: "Doing the same thing over and over, expecting differnet results"

So call religious beliefs ignorant based on diction, then may also you be called insane.

I'm not a particularly religious individual myself, but It seems to me that one of the rights that we as a people are granted in this country is freedom from religious persecution....that goes for the majority religion as well as someone who may believe that his mousepad is a diety.

Calling someone ignorant and stupid based on their beliefs can be construed as religious persecution on a very basic level. I don't believe it to be much different than advertly insulting someone based on their sexual preferences.

HOWEVER:

When people see fit to tell me that my religion is wrong, and their is right, and to tell me that if I don't convert, I see THAT as religious persecution too. Having some sect of christianity come knocking on my door promising me damnation is as offensive to me as someone calling me an idiot for having belief in God.

Apparently, "Live and let live" isn't good enough a mantra for hard-line christians, nor agnostics who claim to be more intelligent than believers because their system seems to have more of a solid 'logical' base.  

Over here, as I pointed out on CNN, atheists are on the attack against religion and G-d only when Christians and Jews are involved, not when Muslims and Islam are. A Christian prayer at a public school graduation or football game? Send in the ACLU lawyers. A Muslim prayer at a high school football game in Dearbornistan? Suddenly, when the "Religion of Peace" is involved, atheists boast extreme tolerance and display ultimate deference. No lawsuits. Ever. And the Muslim prayers continue.

Interesting point....Islam is being feared in this country, because coming down on it would be viewed as discriminatory, but attacking christianity is the cool thing to do, since its not only the majority religion in the nation, it is also a bastion of evil founded on kooky ideas and based completely on moronic notions.  

Although it IS true that this woman is a lunatic.

Reb Cpl wrote: Over here, as I pointed out on CNN, atheists are on the attack against religion and G-d only when Christians and Jews are involved, not when Muslims and Islam are. A Christian prayer at a public school graduation or football game? Send in the ACLU lawyers. A Muslim prayer at a high school football game in Dearbornistan? Suddenly, when the "Religion of Peace" is involved, atheists boast extreme tolerance and display ultimate deference. No lawsuits. Ever. And the Muslim prayers continue. Interesting point....Islam is being feared in this country, because coming down on it would be viewed as discriminatory, but attacking christianity is the cool thing to do, since its not only the majority religion in the nation, it is also a bastion of evil founded on kooky ideas and based completely on moronic notions.   Although it IS true that this woman is a lunatic.

YOUR point is interesting - I'm just not convinced that that was what she was saying.  She was in full rant mode, and casually lumping together atheiests, civil libertarians, hippies, and everybody else she doesn't like.   Not to mention conveniently ignoring distinctions between issues.

This is my first encounter with this woman - and I must say lunatic indeed, and an impressive one at that.

I think stratoaxe makes some valid points, but I won't attempt to respond piecemeal, as that would probably break the quote machine. 

Instead, I'll try this (warning - long post):

1.  Religion is different from race.  One is a matter of genetics, the other a matter of belief.  Not just choice - BELIEF.  In my view it is more similar to political views than to race. 

2.  strato is correct, IMO, that it is vaguely ok/cool to pick on christians.  But the reason for this is that they are the overwhelming majority.  In the same fashion, it is more ok to pick on white people that black people.  Christians may have been discriminated against in the past, but in the US today they rule, and are not allowed to claim victim status.  Christians in the US are not victims, they are not discriminated against (largely), and they are overwhelmingly powerful. 

3.  Atheists, on the other hand, are not (as a group) powerful, and are a distinct minority, and a hated one at that - arguably the most hated of all minorities.  And while I tend to agree that those state constitutions would not survive a lawsuit, the very presence of those anti-atheist words is telling.  As similar language regarding race has long since been purged from the books.

4.  And unlike other minority groups, it IS ok to pick on atheists.   Most minority groups are afforded some social protection in the US today - it is considered rude to make fun of blacks, jews, homosexuals, mormons, muslims (even though we are busy killing them), short people, retards, whatever.  Atheists are not provided that social protection.  I would wager that there are thousands of atheists in this country who essentially live in the closet - lying to their family and friends, and often to themselves, about their beliefs, because being an atheist is so horribly shameful and utterly unacceptable.  Other than maybe homosexuals, I am hard pressed to think of another minority group that is so despised.

5.  stratoaxe is right that religion is more than just beliefs - it is also values.  Any many religious values are quite good.  The South Park Mormon episode comes to mind - even the most ridiculous beliefs can lead to good behavior.  And for this very reason I know many atheists that go to church and consider themselves "secular christians".  There are plenty of potential benefits from religion independent of faith.

6.  But that doesn't change the fundamental issue of the faith.  And religious faith is fundamentally irrational, and that is the problem.  We all have our little superstitions and irrational quirks.  Maybe we like to pick our lucky lottery numbers instead of just letting the machine pick.  Maybe we have lucky underwear, or lucky whatever.  And that's fine.  But most rational people understand that those superstitions are a bit silly and not really founded in reality.  Religion, on the other hand, takes an irrational supersition and makes it the central feature of life.  That is the real issue.

7.  I do not believe that science and atheism are the same, or even necessarily intertwined, but they are certainly related.  Both are about questioning, and not accepting.  Most importantly, both are about REASON and RATIONAL THOUGHT.  "Take it on faith" are anathema to both science and atheism, not because they are the same, but because they are both founded in rational thought.  The basic premise of atheism and science is that "irrational is bad, rational is good".

8.  Rational-centric people can't figure out why one particular set of irrational beliefs (religion) gets special treatment from all the other irrational beliefs.  I compared god to the tooth fairy before - I will continue to do so, for in my mind they are the same.  Take http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=5e8bccbd-4930-452f-86d3-d4068d20c3de - this story .  "Girl talks to angels".  This reported with a straight face.  Not a hint of humor or incredulity.  But read the story, substituting "tooth fairy" for "angel", and the story becomes an "awwww, how cute" story instead of "news".  Replace with "voices in her head" and the poor girl is headed for therapy.  Exact same facts - different name. 

Clark Kent wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: Over here, as I pointed out on CNN, atheists are on the attack against religion and G-d only when Christians and Jews are involved, not when Muslims and Islam are. A Christian prayer at a public school graduation or football game? Send in the ACLU lawyers. A Muslim prayer at a high school football game in Dearbornistan? Suddenly, when the "Religion of Peace" is involved, atheists boast extreme tolerance and display ultimate deference. No lawsuits. Ever. And the Muslim prayers continue. Interesting point....Islam is being feared in this country, because coming down on it would be viewed as discriminatory, but attacking christianity is the cool thing to do, since its not only the majority religion in the nation, it is also a bastion of evil founded on kooky ideas and based completely on moronic notions.   Although it IS true that this woman is a lunatic. YOUR point is interesting - I'm just not convinced that that was what she was saying.  She was in full rant mode, and casually lumping together atheiests, civil libertarians, hippies, and everybody else she doesn't like.   Not to mention conveniently ignoring distinctions between issues. This is my first encounter with this woman - and I must say lunatic indeed, and an impressive one at that.

I was going more for being a smart ass than trying to make a point.

Well it seems I missed quite a discussion after I logged off last night.

Anyway, all the aithiest comments so far about us Christains being ignorant are based on the belief that we just sit in Church, get shoveled information and except it without question. Well, there are many christains who do that, and it is a bad idea. Any belief needs to be solidified in reaserch and logic, and Christanity is no different. And many Christians do just that, we spend alot of time reserching and studying what we beleive in order to understand why be believe it.

And if you say that christians accept what we are told without question, some do, but that is wrong. The Bible teaches us in so many words to test our faith, and yes to question it to a degree. What I mean is that we are supposed to listen to the arguements against what we beleive, and then test them against our faith.

What I am trying to say is this; we are supposed to look at the arguements against Christainity whith a scienific approch. Science cannot prove something, it can only disprove something, so we are supposed to look at those arguements and see if they disprove Christianity. Now, does that sound like an ignorant approach to Christianity to you?

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Proving vs. Disproving is a matter of technical semantics.

Hysteria has the basics of the scientific method right, but let's drill one step deeper.

Hysteria wrote: 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

The basic way you do this is:

Design experiment.  Establish independent variable and dependent variable.  IV is what you manipulate, DV is what you measure.  You predict a certain result if your theory is correct.

Your prediction is called the Alternate Hypothesis.  Any other result is called the Null Hypothesis. 

You then run the experiment.  If statistical analysis shows a result consistent with the AH (and inconsistent with the NH) with such confidence that you are 95% sure (or more) that the result was not by chance, then you "reject" the NH. 

You have now "disproven" the Null Hypothesis.  Your Alternate Hypothesis provides a reasonable explanation for the result, but theoretically you have not "proven" the AH, but merely "disproven" one alternate explanation (the NH).

You then rinse and repeat, using different study designs to eliminate ("disprove") more and more alternate explanations.  Technically speaking, you never actually "prove" your AH.  Colloquially speaking, you are in fact "proving" your AH and your theory.

When scientists say that they have "proven" something, what they technically are saying is that they have "disproven" a number of alternate explanations, to the point where they have a high level of confidence that their theory is the correct explanation. 

^^^^^  I noticed....    *hug*

I will also watch Zahn, for the first time ever.

Agreed that Dawkins is a good guy to have in a debate, but he can also be a raging butthole, which may not give the best impression...

Since I'm just too freakin lazy to quote everybody, I'm going to break this down.

For starters (but not neccessarily in posting order)

.Ryan wrote: Also, stop attacking the opposition. Attacking argument is much more effective and makes you look like much less of a whiny idiot who has to go ad hominem to make an argument.

While I honestly have not made personal attacks geared towards any one person, I'm basically attacking to be what I consider personal insults. Most of you that have seen my posts in the past know that I'm very rarely ever nasty or pesronal in my posts...however, the arguments presented to me by many here, not neccessarily you, but just on a whole, have been basically a spit in the face to any form of religious beliefs whatsoever. Throwing in an occasional, "I never said all Christians are idiots" is like dropping a coat of wax on a pile of crap...if you'll pardon my expression...it makes it shinier, but the insult still stands. The point is that a few on here have flat out said that religion is ignorance of fact. I find that insulting...maybe it's not to everyone, but to me it is. However, for the sheer fact that I'm sure most of you are tired of reading long ass posts, and I don't want to become known as a "whiny idiot", I'll tone it down a bit and respond as such.

.Ryan wrote: Uh, racism isn't against the rules just because it's politically incorrect. It's stupid, ignorant, and offensive....And why does it not make sense to you that it is much more acceptable to "attack" someone for their choices than their genetic make up? Seems obvious to me...

You're all missing my point on this one...I'm not justifying racism in any way, I'm trying to say that the effect is the same. Either way, someone walks away insulted. To say that are areas that you can insult someone and areas that you cannot is hypocritical. I try not to insult anyone in any area of their personal life if at all possible, obviously I can't prevent that at all times, and a sense of humor requires a little bit of an emotional shell, but either way my point stands that insults are insults. It's just not PC to insult in certain way.

Tolgak wrote: Enos pointed out that ignorance in the face of truth is stupidity. I find it hard to accept that intelligent people can be blind and not consider the other side because the rest of the community tells them it is evil (with no proof of it except a book that is many centuries old). We provide plenty of arguments and beliefs to back up our claim. It is the religious people that go around claiming (with no evidence except their book) that we are the idiots.

Well no...that's far from the truth. I've only seen one religious person use the Bible in this entire thread...and besides, ignorance in the face of what truth? What you refer to as truth I refer to as a theory. Enos compared religion with stupidity, I'm calling that out as being narrow-minded. I don't care if it ruffles feathers, you can't prove that there is no God. It's impossible to prove or disprove. And few religious people actually use the Bible to back up their claims to God...they use personal experiences. As I've stated before, only the religious elitists like Pat Robertson use the Bible like a scientific handbook.

And once again...you've used a blanket statement. How do you know that most Christians don't question God. In fact, I dare say close to all Christians at some point in there life question the existence of a Deity. But they choose to believe in their personal experiences with God. This picture that the atheists are painting of Christianity is ridiculous...no "community" tells me, or the majority of Christians, what's evil. I form my own beliefs based on my knowledge of right and wrong. Blind sheep are in the minority nowadays.

Tolgak wrote: In a way, true. But the thing is; to us, the probability of a higher power is so low that we decide that we cannot believe in one. Just because we cannot go all the way in disproving god, does not mean we have to give in and believe in it. If the chances are 1.0 x 10^-432 that a higher power exists, then atheists have every right to declare it nonexistant.

I never asked you to justify atheism...that's a personal matter, I really don't care. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other if you believe God or not, it doesn't affect me at all. I'm calling out the hypocrisy that so many excercise when they constantly rag on Christianity.

Clark Kent wrote: And unlike other minority groups, it IS ok to pick on atheists.   Most minority groups are afforded some social protection in the US today - it is considered rude to make fun of blacks, jews, homosexuals, mormons, muslims (even though we are busy killing them), short people, retards, whatever.  Atheists are not provided that social protection.  I would wager that there are thousands of atheists in this country who essentially live in the closet - lying to their family and friends, and often to themselves, about their beliefs, because being an atheist is so horribly shameful and utterly unacceptable.  Other than maybe homosexuals, I am hard pressed to think of another minority group that is so despised.

If an atheist lives in the closet, that is his or choice. I have to disagree with you on this subject...I have several friends who are very vocal about their atheism. Bear in mind I live dead smack in the Bible belt...they face no opposition. But even if that's true, atheists have it no worse off than Christianity. I can't even turn on Comedy Central without having every aspect of my religion blasted. Jesus is mocked in music, movies, and in general pop culture. But if you point it out, you're called an evangelical extremist and grouped in with Bush and Pat Robertson. So in a sense, I suppose we share the same burdens do we not? Both groups face ridicule and criticism...but atheism doesn't face it in pop culture in the same mass marketing scheme that Christianity on a whole does.

I appreciate the intelligent responses in this thread, I've actually enjoyed this exchange. Nice to get a little pissed now and then...

Tolgak wrote: You commented on the authority to claim the existence/nonexistence of a higher power, I disagreed using a subject I can easily talk about. By saying that we have no firm authority to say god doesn't exist, you are saying that we cannot voice our position on the matter. I went further as to why we can claim it so you can understand what gives us the justification to say no; at the same time arguing a point that many religious people use against atheism (many claim the fact that we cannot disprove a god makes it impossible for us not to believe in one).

You gotta think about these points man...there's a large difference between authority and the right to voice a position. An authority is the last word on a subject. It's the ruling, deciding factor, which no man has. I've never questioned your right to voice your position. I stand by my original claim...but you presented it as a justification of your own beliefs, not an authority on a subject. I was simply saying that it's irrelevant to me the reason a person chooses to be an atheist-in other words, it's none of my buisness to demand an explanation of your beliefs.

For example...

"I don't believe in god." would be voicing your belief in regards to god.

"There is no god." would be voicing an authority on the subject.

I have no problem with the first, but the second is attempting to attain authority on a subject to which there is no final answer.

I'll use a fictional story to illustrate my position-

A man believes that there is life on other planets. He presents examples out of pop culture, such as crop circles to justify his belief. Now, I personally feel that his theories are silly. We know crop circles have been made by pranksters before...so I can almost firmly disprove his theory that crop circles were made by aliens. But I CANNOT disprove that the aliens themselves exist. It's the same with the existence of a Higher Power. You can knitpick the Bible all day long-there are plenty of scientific impossibilities in the Bible. But you can't disprove God. Period.

BARREL BREAK wrote: Stupid Anna Nicole, stupid Paula Zahn... They bumped it for an HOUR about Anna Nicole instead!

That was rather upsetting.

Anybody know when it will be rescheduled?

EDIT - will be on Monday, Feb 12.

MT. Vigilante wrote: However, you can argue and put forward evedence for both sides of this arguement all day long, but I don't think that science will ever prove anything about God's existance either way, God doesn't want it to. Because If it did, that whould eliminate the faith part of following God, which is the core of our beleifs. That's why we call it our faith.

All very true - but that is where FSM comes in.  As there is no rational reason why one should believe that god "A" exists and is the one and true god, while simultaneously disbelieving god "B" and god "C", and since there is no rational evidence for the existence of ANY of the gods, the rational conclusion has to be that most likely, none of the gods exist.

After all - you tend to think that Scientology is more than a little goofy, right?  The bottom line for us rationalists is that we can't tell apart the gods of Scientology, Christianity, Pastafarianism, and Toothfairyism.  They all appear equally unlikely and goofy to us.

We don't particularly (as a group) feel the need to actively DISPROVE the existence of any given god.  As you point out, that can be a difficult task, much like proving the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster.  But we still find that the current evidence only supports one rational conclusion.  Being rationalists, that could/would change with additional evidence, but we base our views on the evidence at hand, and the evidence at hand is pretty overwhelming.

MT. Vigilante wrote: Well I too base what I beleive on the evidence at hand, except the evidence I am drawing from is not scientific, or at least very little of it is.

Fair enough.

Now taking into account that fact, I caim to the conclusion that since there is no evedence that this code of human behavior is genetic, (because there is no animals that seem to express a similar code,) then something must have put that code in us, namely God.

That's a bit quick, don't you think?  That is the kind of thinking that led to the dark ages.

Curious Person:  Why does [phenomenon X] occur?

Scientist:  I don't know.  I can't explain it.

Curious Person:  Well, in that case it must have been God.

This is horrible, awful, and flat out incorrect logic.  This is the knowledge-killer.

Now that is only one thing that led to me being convinced that God exists, to name all of the factors whould take too long and to be honest I don't believe I could even think of them all.

Also fair enough and understood.

As for telling apart one beleif from another, you cannot just compair one god to another. You have to look at what each god commands of those who follow him in order to see the differences. Granted you will find some simmilarities between all of them, but you will eventually find that none of them is compatible whith another, and thus only one of them can be right.

I certainly agree that they are mostly incompatible - this to me is excellent evidence that they are ALL wrong.

...in one of your other posts you compaired God to the tooth fairy. I must say I was disapointed in you Clark, usually your post are more well thought out and based in logic. Comaring God to the tooth fairy just doesn't work, there are way too many differences to mention, but in essence, comparing God to the tooth fairy is like comparing a Fighter Pilot to Santa Clause because they both fly somthing.

I will repeat:  To me, god and the tooth fairy (and Santa Clause), and fairies, Zeus, FSM, unicorns, etc - are all the same.  Imaginary entities for whose existence there is ZERO empirical evidence, and against which there is loads of empirical evidence.