Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sikander


Hey, I'm not trying to prove anything of that sort either. Easy isn't it? What I'm saying is that lack of evidence for something is not the same thing as evidence for its non-existence.

It's virtually tantamount to the same if you make such a preposterous assumption. It may not make it impossible, it just makes the probability of its truth be so close to zero as to be not worthy of any further consideration...

[Whaleboy]

Atheism seems weak logically

Really? Do explain....

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sikander
What I'm saying is that lack of evidence for something is not the same thing as evidence for its non-existence.

See the Great Green Arkelseizure Theory above.

For me, truth is about logic and science. Faith is mere speculation, and attempts to declare unverifiable speculation as truth is an affront to reason.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


It's virtually tantamount to the same if you make such a preposterous assumption. It may not make it impossible, it just makes the probability of its truth be so close to zero as to be not worthy of any further consideration...

So you're 99.999999999999999999999999999999.... percent sure that you're right, while the agnostic is 100 percent sure that he's right (for all the good it does him). Make's no difference other than the tiny chance that the atheist is wrong and the rather larger chance that he'll cheese off theists.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


See the Great Green Arkelseizure Theory above.

For me, truth is about logic and science. Faith is mere speculation, and attempts to declare unverifiable speculation as truth is an affront to reason.

Too bad no one is attempting to declare anything of the sort, except for atheists. Atheism is completely useless without a theist to argue with. In conflict with agnosticism it is ever so slightly, yet clearly inferior.

[Whaleboy]

Hey, I'm not trying to prove anything of that sort either. Easy isn't it? What I'm saying is that lack of evidence for something is not the same thing as evidence for its non-existence.

Only when you have a positive choice between the two. Without that choice, the concept of "God" just becomes some arbitrary a priori conclusion, indistinct from an infinite number of possibly figments of the human imagination!

With a positive choice "there has to either be a God, or not be a God", the atheist has to show that God does not exist; which imo can be done. Understand though that to ask the question presupposes evidence for God existing. This isn't really a sound assumption; more just a monotheistic idiosyncracy.

[Whaleboy]

Too bad no one is attempting to declare anything of the sort, except for atheists. Atheism is completely useless without a theist to argue with. In conflict with agnosticism it is ever so slightly, yet clearly inferior.

It depends on your definition between atheism and agnosticism. If you say that agreeing with a view that God does not exist on a rational (and thus, falsifiable) basis is agnosticism, then I am an agnostic; whereas you would presumably say that atheism is a belief, or rather a belief in non-belief or whatever.

Myself, I think it makes more sense to say that agnosticism is "no opinion on the matter" or "matter is irrelevant", whereas atheism is essentially a scientific view. If certain atheists then choose to define themselves by what they're not, or have faith in their argument, well that's fine by them, but that is not atheism per se.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Only when you have a positive choice between the two. Without that choice, the concept of "God" just becomes some arbitrary a priori conclusion, indistinct from an infinite number of possibly figments of the human imagination!

Which is probably exactly what it is. The difference is that we may in fact be empowering these figments through our intentions, and there may in fact be something outside ourselves in the universe that we can interact with. What is in those numerous dimensions that we can't seem to sense but whose existence seems to be indicated according to recent cosmological models? I don't know either, but it's all around us.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
With a positive choice "there has to either be a God, or not be a God", the atheist has to show that God does not exist; which imo can be done. Understand though that to ask the question presupposes evidence for God existing. This isn't really a sound assumption; more just a monotheistic idiosyncracy.

The argument, such as it is, breaks down immediately because it is the theists who set the terms of the "debate" in the first place. Atheism standing alone is ridiculous, as is anti-communism etc. Fight the tyranny of the pairs of opposites!

Rejecting various religious schema out of hand is (like most stereotypes) probably a useful shortcut most of the time, but it's important to remember that it isn't absolute. Sometimes the unlikely is true. (Though it doesn't pay to bet the farm on Armageddon regardless of Jehovah's existence or lack thereof).

[Whaleboy]

Which is probably exactly what it is. The difference is that we may in fact be empowering these figments through our intentions, and there may in fact be something outside ourselves in the universe that we can interact with. What is in those numerous dimensions that we can't seem to sense but whose existence seems to be indicated according to recent cosmological models? I don't know either, but it's all around us.

This doesn't really make an awful lot of sense. Recent cosmological models suggest the existence of extra dimensions; yes that is true but only on the quantum level. The only kind of theism you could infer out of that is a watered down form of pantheism.

Unless you're trying to say something I've missed it seems that you're just speculating here and the possibility that God might exist |= argument for existence of God.

The argument, such as it is, breaks down immediately because it is the theists who set the terms of the "debate" in the first place. Atheism standing alone is ridiculous, as is anti-communism etc. Fight the tyranny of the pairs of opposites!

Precisely my point, which was that kind of discussion presupposes the burden of proof to be on the atheist which is absurd!

Rejecting various religious schema out of hand is (like most stereotypes) probably a useful shortcut most of the time, but it's important to remember that it isn't absolute. Sometimes the unlikely is true. (Though it doesn't pay to bet the farm on Armageddon regardless of Jehovah's existence or lack thereof).

Well perhaps, I think you're tending towards Pascals wager there, but imo, believing in the unlikely "just in case" is intellectually dishonest and quite disingenuous.

Considering that God might exist is covered in atheism, since if you accept scientific method, then you accept that any theory (i.e., God does not exist) is falsifiable. It means God is on the same logical level as "the giant pixie" but an atheist should, by definition, have an open mind. It's those that don't that I (and I'm sure you) have a problem with.

[civman2000]

To me, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. An agnostic is someone who acknowledges that there can never be any evidence either way and thus dismisses the question of whether there is a god as silly and pointless. I'm both.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I just think a lot of them tend to be obnoxious, belligerent douches sometimes.

Yeah, I think it has less to do with distrust of atheism itself as it does with dislike and distrust for the complete *******s who make up most of the visible atheist population.

Which makes us different from the rest of the population how?

[DinoDoc]

Even more distrusted than commies?

[Drake Tungsten]

Which makes us different from the rest of the population how?

Hell if I know. I don't trust anybody though, so I'm not really the person to ask about that...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Even more distrusted than commies?

We're a subset of athiests.

[DinoDoc]

So other Atheists distrust you as well?