First off, I did +1 your original post before my initial response. Your intentions are good and I respect that.

You're kind of agreeing with my point (I think). I don't think it's ok to insult an individual because of their beliefs. The belief itself i.e. religion, should be viable target for counter-argument and even mockery. As a kid, I had Catholicism forced on me along with all kinds of scaremongering should I stray from the teachings so I guess I'm just rebelling.

Relax, I didn't say I agreed with it, I just threw it out there to chew on.

The thing is we don't believe in it, so it's not a belief we don't try to "prove it" it's just that it hasn't been proven to us by believers. Precisely because they have no evidence what so ever.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in any deities. No more no less. Some atheists have a belief system, some believe for sure that there aren't any deities (not even Thor!) but that's not true of all atheists.

Agnosticism is the belief that we CAN'T know if there are any deities. This is subtly different from atheism which comes to no conclusion on the subject.

The problem with that line of reasoning is it goes against the scientific method.

The theistic claim is that a god exists, by the scientific method such a claim needs evidence to back it up.
Something that you cannot prove doesn't exist also goes against the scientific method, claims need to be falsifiable.

The scientific method is usually where an atheist will come at the problem from.

I think a big part where these sorts of debates get bogged down is in the nuance between the terms 'belief' and 'faith'. These two are commonly used interchangeably when they should be separated and settled upon before debate. Generally for an atheist we have a belief, which is something we ask to be backed up by evidence. A theist has faith, this requires no evidence, indeed evidence can negate the need for faith.

I have found that a lot of the science talk us atheists use in these debates does tend to be a sort of trap, but not necessarily a bad one with the thinking behind it. It's generally refreshing to see a theist respond simply "I don't know, that's why I have faith." since this at least shows some actual faith in their faith (note: other atheists response to this will vary wildly. I tend to be rather nice and accepting in this regard, don't let someone like Aron Ra hear a theist respond like that! :P). Attempting to respond to the scientific questioning with science is the trap, it's made to show that their faith may not be all they think it is, one sort of misses the point of faith in trying to prove it scientifically.

You might want to separate atheism and agnosticism.



We could just talk to each other and ignore the religious aspect when not talking about it. Is that not relating?

I may have a grudge against religion due to, say, priests being the only ones allowed to teach and systematically beating up children speaking my country's old language for not speaking "Christian", but I'm not going to hold you personally responsible for it. Thinking that the catholic church is rotten and downright disgusting doesn't automatically make me hate every single catholic out there, and while I will think less of a Christian (consider your rep to be decreased by 3 in my heart from now on), it doesn't mean we can't get along. I also have right wing capitalistic friends and Spanish nationalistic friends, and while don't agree and we do argue when these topics are brought up, we're still friends.

That's why a tossed the line out there, for a reply like this. Thank you. :D

Now back to golf; it's not a sport and fuck anyone who says it is. Anything you can be good at drunk IS NOT A SPORT!

To answer that question I think you need to draw a line between "lack of belief" and "believing in nothing".

I associate myself more to agnostic atheism; I lack belief but I'm also under the impression it's a subject of which 'proof' is moot. The concept of intelligent design is a metaphysical issue, not scientific. How do you prove the unproveable?

I like that statement.

I did.

Either while I was writing or I missed it. Sorry if it was the second.

XD When I was in high school I briefly got way into Beckett and tried 'metaphysical questioning' but it just made life too damn hard. I'm not joking here, I wish I was. :P It would take me virtually forever to do the simplest things because I kept stopping and asking myself if I could prove I was actually here. XD

That's a lesson for you kids. If you want a hobby take up smoking or something....NOT EXISTENTIALISM!

How does a hard-core christian relate to a homosexual? How does a hard-core christian relate to someone who all his life he has been told to hate and that what he is is the worst kind of person in a tolerant way?
(Btw not saying all christian's are like that or anything of the sort.I'm just curious as to what you'll reply with EDIT: Cause it's seems like you're asking everyone to be tolerant)

There are however people who do believe that there's no god and feel the need to convince everyone around them that this belief is the one true truth of the universe. I haven't met that many, but they do exist. And the argument does apply to them. And it is still better than the "there are no atheists in foxholes" one.

It is certainly annoying to be grouped with those kinds of atheists, even more so when you're confronted with someone who appearst to think those are the only atheists in existence (people like that do tend to be pretty vocal). It could even be argued that it annoys us to be grouped with these... hardcore? atheists as it annoys religious people to be grouped with their own extremists. Then we would resort to numbers, and whatnot. Not a productive discussion.

So, what I would say to that: sure, some atheists act about their belief in non-existance just the way the religious people do. But it's a small amount and trying to argue with that is equivalent to saying "religion is bad because all religious people are murderous zealots"

You called?