Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[Scouse]

I don't see any necessary moral construct in christianity either.

 

[nath]

Allowing for the possibility of a creator that "got the ball rolling" so to speak is all well and good, but personally I think it's a distinct LACK of imagination. Here you have this magnificent incredibly complex system and anything that we currently can't explain - "um, well, yeah God is wot dun it."

Total cop out.

 

[Scouse]

Allowing for the possibility of a creator that "got the ball rolling" so to speak is all well and good, but personally I think it's a distinct LACK of imagination. Here you have this magnificent incredibly complex system and anything that we currently can't explain - "um, well, yeah God is wot dun it."

Total cop out.

This.

The church said the earth was flat. Proved wrong. Then said the earth was the centre of the solar system (and killed people to keep it that way). Proved wrong. Yadda yadda yadda + censorship + death.

Each time the religious jumped on the "must be a god" bandwagon. Each time they've been wrong.

IIRC the big bang theory was actually a construct of a vatican scientist. It has a point of creation that we can't explain (yet) - and the church and it's dogmatic followers point at that and say "must be a god".

Religion = belief = failure of imagination / reason / humanity.

 

[nath]

The church said the earth was flat..

Agree with your post but the above is wrong. As far as I'm aware, people haven't believed the earth was flat for about 3000 years or more.

 

[ford prefect]

I don't see any necessary moral construct in christianity either.

Perhaps you don't but you do live in a judeo-christian country and have been brought up in an environment that teaches its ethics and morality and bases its laws and social structure on said construct, so those moral contructs do have a profound effect on your every day life as a result

 

[Scouse]

I agree. But christianity wasn't the original source of said morality.

And yes, I still struggle with the baseless guilt that was drummed into me in my youth and upbringing in a catholic school.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I agree. But christianity wasn't the original source of said morality.

And yes, I still struggle with the baseless guilt that was drummed into me in my youth and upbringing in a catholic school.

Well that much is evident, you're one of those problem atheists who are fighting naila and tooth any and all tiny little comparisons towards religion.

It's as blind as zealot religious folk.

If i said "Atheists and religious people are basically same as they're just humans", bet you'd have a problem with that too.

The rest of the answers to imagination don't really argue anything, just more "religion isn't good".

Evident from Scouses; "For a start, you have to be able to attribute seemingly implausibly miraculous or amazingly coincidental occurances to something other than a god", which basically contradicts itself, but is defendable by a clever use of words.

If you want to talk about believing though, how about we throw quantum physics into it.

Funny thing is though that atheism was only born due to so many people dying in the world war and people going "where the f*ck is god", or "there just can't be a god to allow this", not "I think that science shows that there is no god".

FYI; if you need to say you're an atheist/agnostic(especially agnostic), you're not.

 

[Scouse]

Agree with your post but the above is wrong. As far as I'm aware, people haven't believed the earth was flat for about 3000 years or more.

Well, you're right on that. No educated person has believed it for about that long.

In my defence, educational systems aren't that old and we've got flat-earth stories and artwork from not that long ago, so the masses may have. But...

Either way, I consider myself corrected.

 

[old.Tohtori]

In my defence, educational systems aren't that old

Yeeeah...educational systems came around in the 80s, just after the first nintendo.

In any case; you do know that in about a hundred years, maybe even 50, everything you think is fact could very well be as silly as the flat earth thing?

 

[Krazeh]

The rest of the answers to imagination don't really argue anything, just more "religion isn't good".

Evident from Scouses; "For a start, you have to be able to attribute seemingly implausibly miraculous or amazingly coincidental occurances to something other than a god", which basically contradicts itself, but is defendable by a clever use of words.

How does that contradict itself? It seems quite clear that Scouse is saying that not believing in God requires you to have a fairly good imagination to envisage and accept other explanations for natural events with odds that seem implausibly high on first consideration. Accepting it as the work of God, especially when the idea of God wil have been something most people will have been familiar with from a young age, doesn't take that much of a leap of imagination imo.

If you want to talk about believing though, how about we throw quantum physics into it.

Should we throw in the experimental and theoretical evidence for it while we're at it?

Funny thing is though that atheism was only born due to so many people dying in the world war and people going "where the f*ck is god", or "there just can't be a god to allow this", not "I think that science shows that there is no god".

No it wasn't. Atheism has been around a lot longer than the last 100 years or so. And noone is saying that atheism is saying "I think that science shows there is no god", it's just that science provides a very good framework on which to examine and understand the world once you get rid of the idea of a supernatural entitiy being responsible for it all.

FYI; if you need to say you're an atheist/agnostic(especially agnostic), you're not.

How does that work then if people ask you your views on God or religion?

In any case; you do know that in about a hundred years, maybe even 50, everything you think is fact could very well be as silly as the flat earth thing?

It's likely that some things will but the beauty of science is that it builds on itself so even if some things we currently know turn out to be wrong they'll still be important steps and likely continue to have a use.

 

[old.Tohtori]

How does that contradict itself? It seems quite clear that Scouse is saying that not believing in God requires you to have a fairly good imagination to envisage and accept other explanations for natural events with odds that seem implausibly high on first consideration. Accepting it as the work of God, especially when the idea of God wil have been something most people will have been familiar with from a young age, doesn't take that much of a leap of imagination imo.

That's a singular example and has no basis on what was said though.

If you claim that you need a larger imagination to not consider things that aren't proven facts, you've got a funny view on imagination.

How it contradicts itself doesn't really matter as the goalpost gets shifted the moment it's pointed out, and it's ok, 'cause it's not religion

Should we throw in the experimental and theoretical evidence for it while we're at it?

Why not.

No it wasn't. Atheism has been around a lot longer than the last 100 years or so. And noone is saying that atheism is saying "I think that science shows there is no god", it's just that science provides a very good framework on which to examine and understand the world once you get rid of the idea of a supernatural entitiy being responsible for it all.

The message pretty much is JUST that. You can't deny that atheism is pretty heavy on the anti-religion, when in reality it simply shouldn't care about religion at all.

How does that work then if people ask you your views on God or religion?

No comment, no opinion, nada. Plenty of ways. Why do you REQUIRE a stance on religion, isn't that a bit non-atheist of you?

It's likely that some things will but the beauty of science is that it builds on itself so even if some things we currently know turn out to be wrong they'll still be important steps and likely continue to have a use.

It was in regards of the idiotic educational argument by Scouse. People thought the world was flat because that was the current knowledge. Can't judge it based on that.

 

[Scouse]

In any case; you do know that in about a hundred years, maybe even 50, everything you think is fact could very well be as silly as the flat earth thing?

Then, quite correctly, in light of new evidence I will amend my position on the subjects.

It's simple isn't it?

Unlike religious belief - which is pretty fucking difficult to change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Still not getting it, are you?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Stop saying "still not getting it" when you don't even reference to anything that points i don't.

Do you think my religious views have stayed stagnant over the years?

Ofcourse, because you assume everything about me, which is very religious of you.

If i ask you a question, it does not...read it..does not mean that i don't get it. It means i asked you a question.

I do wonder, have you even asked one question about my beliefs, how i percieve things, how i treat evidence...or have you just assumed i'm like everyone else you so dispise(because a nun touched your bum or something).

 

[Krazeh]

That's a singular example and has no basis on what was said though.

If you claim that you need a larger imagination to not consider things that aren't proven facts, you've got a funny view on imagination.

Who said anything about the consideration of proven facts? Scouse's quote was made in the context of the many scientific advances that were made in recent times and which required, in many cases, for the scientists involved to look past the commonly held view in the supernatural and come up with new hypotheses and explanations. That is an action which requires some level of imagination.

How it contradicts itself doesn't really matter as the goalpost gets shifted the moment it's pointed out, and it's ok, 'cause it's not religion

Or perhaps it just doesn't contradict itself at all?

Why not.

In which case you have a valid basis for accepting quantum mechanics. Which makes believing in it a very different proposal to a belief in a god.

The message pretty much is JUST that. You can't deny that atheism is pretty heavy on the anti-religion, when in reality it simply shouldn't care about religion at all.

I don't think atheism necessarily does care about religion. What is more the case is that people who don't believe in a god and/or follow organised religion find the things that organised religion gets upto to be pretty distasteful and want to see a stop put to it. There's also a desire to help people learn how to critically examine and question their beliefs and to use tools such as logic and rationality when viewing the world.

No comment, no opinion, nada. Plenty of ways. Why do you REQUIRE a stance on religion, isn't that a bit non-atheist of you?

Why is having a view on religion non-atheist of me? Why would my view on the existence of gods prevent me from holding a view on religion? Is there anything else i'm not allowed to hold a view on because i'm an atheist? In a discussion about god/religion it's entirely relevant for me, or anyone else, to declare if they're an atheist or agnostic.

 

[Scouse]

Krazeh - thankyou for interpreting my post correctly. You'll get nowhere with Toht because to accept that argument would be to accept his wrongness - which he can't do.

Toht - I'm picking this bit out of your post because I've already answered everything brought up in your diatribe dozens of times in multiple threads, only for you to repeat the same old shite time and again:

The message pretty much is JUST that. You can't deny that atheism is pretty heavy on the anti-religion, when in reality it simply shouldn't care about religion at all.

Atheism doesn't care about religion. Atheism doesn't think about religion at all. That's what a lack of belief is - nothing.

I deny totally that atheism has anything to say about religion. Atheists may (and frequently do).


This is exactly the same argument that has been put to you in every thread that I've been involved in with you. My point about it being the same argument gets proven again and again, and is down to the fact that you don't get it (or aer Troll).


And Krazeh:

Why is having a view on religion non-atheist of me? Why would my view on the existence of gods prevent me from holding a view on religion? Is there anything else i'm not allowed to hold a view on because i'm an atheist? In a discussion about god/religion it's entirely relevant for me, or anyone else, to declare if they're an atheist or agnostic.

He's attempting to do the same to me in the nuclear thread - tell you what is acceptable to hold an intellectual viewpoint on.

It's what he does when he's been totally and utterly shat on, but can't accept it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Scouse, you're pretty damn vocal for someone who doesn't care.

But since you're ignoring everything again, i'll just ignore your post too. Come back when you learn to read more then one line.

Krazeh, do you answer everything with a question?

It is fun to see the regular atheist spin machine though, shame it's so generally ok to do the sme sh*t religion does as an atheist and get away with it.

If you need an example of said spin machine;

Why is having a view on religion non-atheist of me?

Check out what was quoted/asked and how that is not at all related. I ask why you need a religious stance as an atheist, they say "why can't i have one?". Regular dodging there.

Anyhoo, regarding quantum physics, the basics are the same. Something that hasn't been proven at all, just in a different message font.

If it's religion, it's batasscrazysh*t. If it's theory, it's a-ok.

FYI Scouse; in the nuclear thread, i'm not telling you what you can hold a viewpoint on, i'm telling you that you're an asshole for capitalizing on a tragedy.

 

[Krazeh]

Krazeh, do you answer everything with a question?

I do when I think the original point appears to be nonsense and am trying to gather some further information to clarify if my initial view was indeed correct.

It is fun to see the regular atheist spin machine though, shame it's so generally ok to do the sme sh*t religion does as an atheist and get away with it.

Where have I spun anything? If there's something I said you think i've spun then point it out, tell me how I've spun it and i'll do my best to clarify the point.

Anyhoo, regarding quantum physics, the basics are the same. Something that hasn't been proven at all, just in a different message font.

If it's religion, it's batasscrazysh*t. If it's theory, it's a-ok.

Who said anything about quantum mechanics being proven? Something doesn't have to be proven in order for it to be rational or logical to accept it. In the case of quantum mechanics it may not be proven but we have evidence in support of it which is what gives us a firm basis on which to accept it. The belief in a god has no such evidence to give any sort of a basis on which to accept it. Frankly the fact you think believing in god and accepting a theory are equivalent enough for you to use them in that sort of comparison makes me think you really don't grasp what it means for something to be declared a scientific theory.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually i got a bit sidetracked because of Scouses bullcrap, my bad there.

I do when I think the original point appears to be nonsense and am trying to gather some further information to clarify if my initial view was indeed correct.

Well, nothing to discuss there.

Where have I spun anything? If there's something I said you think i've spun then point it out, tell me how I've spun it and i'll do my best to clarify the point.

Added one to the earlier post. Basically switching the tone of the original question via another question that is in a lightly different track. Ergo; Do you like oranges? with Why can't i like oranges? If you see what i mean.

Might be just your way of discussing and something you don't even notice.

Who said anything about quantum mechanics being proven? Something doesn't have to be proven in order for it to be rational or logical to accept it. In the case of quantum mechanics it may not be proven but we have evidence in support of it which is what gives us a firm basis on which to accept it. The belief in a god has no such evidence to give any sort of a basis on which to accept it. Frankly the fact you think believing in god and accepting a theory are equivalent enough for you to use them in that sort of comparison makes me think you really don't grasp what it means for something to be declared a scientific theory.

Probably has to do with me not taking everything either/or in discussions. This is the zealot like anti-religion thing i was talking about, "anything that could EVER be compared, must be evil". It's a bit paranoid. If you think i don't have a grasp on it though, why don't you say what exactly is the difference in a 100% unproven theory and a 100% unproven god. Don't include blind faith/belief into it now, treat the two as default setting as possible.

You saying "Something doesn't have to be proven in order for it to be rational or logical to accept it." is a bit weird, though that is most likely Scouses doing again.

At the end, do want to point this out AGAIN;

Atheist, who evidently don't care about religion, are very vocal against religion and seem to care a whole deal.

Or is atheism not very heavy on the anti-religion bandwagon?

 

[Scouse]

Frankly the fact you think believing in god and accepting a theory are equivalent enough for you to use them in that sort of comparison makes me think you really don't grasp what it means for something to be declared a scientific theory.

This.

Or Troll.

Evidence:

Atheist, who evidently don't care about religion, are very vocal against religion and seem to care a whole deal.

Or is atheism not very heavy on the anti-religion bandwagon?

Atheism doesn't care about religion. Atheism doesn't think about religion at all. That's what a lack of belief is - nothing.

I deny totally that atheism has anything to say about religion. Atheists may (and frequently do).

I actually think can't get it AND troll.

 

[old.Tohtori]

This.

Or Troll.

*pats head*

There's a lot for you to read still.

 

[Krazeh]

Added one to the earlier post. Basically switching the tone of the original question via another question that is in a lightly different track. Ergo; Do you like oranges? with Why can't i like oranges? If you see what i mean.

Might be just your way of discussing and something you don't even notice.

Yes I noticed that you added that in so here's my response.

If you need an example of said spin machine;

Why is having a view on religion non-atheist of me?

Check out what was quoted/asked and how that is not at all related. I ask why you need a religious stance as an atheist, they say "why can't i have one?". Regular dodging there.

Let's take a look at how we got to that point.

1. You originally stated that if you're an atheist/agnostic and need to state that you are one then you're not really one at all.
2. I countered by asking what do you say if people asked what your views on god/religion were.
3. You replied to say you should say nothing or say you have no opinion. And then admittedly you did ask why I required a stance on religion and wasn't that a bit non-atheist of me?
4. I responded to ask why having a view on religion would be non-atheist of me and why a view on god would preclude me from holding a view on religion. And that in a discussion about religion it was entirely valid for an atheist or agnostic to declare themselves as such.

Now yes, I didn't respond to your question about why I require a stance on religion and for that I apologise. So here's my answer - I don't require a stance on religion, but I do have one. Now how about you answer my question about why I shouldn't have one or be able to declare myself as an atheist?

As for your claim about me changing the question via another question I disagree. It was you who did that by adding the extra requirement of why a stance on religion was required. That was above and beyond the original discussion point of your claim that atheist/agnostics are not what they claim if they declare themselves as atheist/agnostic. The case is that atheism/agnosticism is a valid viewpoint for people to hold and declare they hold in a discussion about god/religion, even if it's, for example, to simply say I don't hold a view on religion because i'm agnostic.

Probably has to do with me not taking everything either/or in discussions. This is the zealot like anti-religion thing i was talking about, "anything that could EVER be compared, must be evil". It's a bit paranoid. If you think i don't have a grasp on it though, why don't you say what exactly is the difference in a 100% unproven theory and a 100% unproven god. Don't include blind faith/belief into it now, treat the two as default setting as possible.

You keep trying to bring the issue back to one of proof when it's really not about proof, it's about evidence. Scientific theories aren't proven, they just reach a point where there's so much evidence in support of them it becomes pointless to continue to argue they may be wrong and they become accepted as the correct explanation for whatever they were trying to explain. You can't have an 100% unproven theory because for something to be declared a theory it already has to have a large amount of evidence in support of it, i.e. it has already proven itself to some degree.

In order for you question to work it would have to be a comparison between a 100% unproven idea and a 100% unproven god. And in that case there would be little difference and accepting either as true on face value would be illogical/irrational.

You saying "Something doesn't have to be proven in order for it to be rational or logical to accept it." is a bit weird, though that is most likely Scouses doing again.

I don't see how that's weird in the slightest, perhaps you'd like to expand on why it's 'weird'?

Atheist, who evidently don't care about religion, are very vocal against religion and seem to care a whole deal.

Or is atheism not very heavy on the anti-religion bandwagon?

As Scouse has already pointed out atheism is simply not believing in the existence of god, it doesn't delve further into the rights or wrongs of religion. The fact that people who identify as atheists may do so is down to them personally and is not something they're doing as a requirement of being an atheist.

 

[Scouse]

*pats head*

There's a lot for you to read still.

Rather than attempt to patronise me, answer the accusation that Krazeh has made that you don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and belief in a god.

Show Krazeh how you do actually understand what he says you don't.

Gwan. A challenge, if you like.

I'll repost:

Frankly the fact you think believing in god and accepting a theory are equivalent enough for you to use them in that sort of comparison makes me think you really don't grasp what it means for something to be declared a scientific theory.

Prove to us that you understand the difference and I'll apologise for saying you don't.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes I noticed that you added that in so here's my response.

Let's take a look at how we got to that point.

1. You originally stated that if you're an atheist/agnostic and need to state that you are one then you're not really one at all.
2. I countered by asking what do you say if people asked what your views on god/religion were.
3. You replied to say you should say nothing or say you have no opinion. And then admittedly you did ask why I required a stance on religion and wasn't that a bit non-atheist of me?
4. I responded to ask why having a view on religion would be non-atheist of me and why a view on god would preclude me from holding a view on religion. And that in a discussion about religion it was entirely valid for an atheist or agnostic to declare themselves as such.

Now yes, I didn't respond to your question about why I require a stance on religion and for that I apologise. So here's my answer - I don't require a stance on religion, but I do have one. Now how about you answer my question about why I shouldn't have one or be able to declare myself as an atheist?

As for your claim about me changing the question via another question I disagree. It was you who did that by adding the extra requirement of why a stance on religion was required. That was above and beyond the original discussion point of your claim that atheist/agnostics are not what they claim if they declare themselves as atheist/agnostic. The case is that atheism/agnosticism is a valid viewpoint for people to hold and declare they hold in a discussion about god/religion, even if it's, for example, to simply say I don't hold a view on religion because i'm agnostic.

On the point 4(your question i believe), the problem isn't in having a stance on religion, the problem is claiming atheism/agnostic when discussing said point. In other words; you should(or "i see it as", not a command on people) keep atheism/agnosti..sm..? out of it and simply discuss religion on it's own.

Claiming atheism is a crutch in many ways, basically leaning on science(it does come down to that very often) to back you up.

Now if you simply say that you're agnostic/atheist, that's fine. The discussion should pretty much be done right there. But you shouldn't use it to define yourself, as i think that goes against the very absic of it. In other words; saying you don't care because you're atheist, yet startibng a "religion is bad" rant about it.

I'm hoping that explains/answers it and yes, i should've answered it earlier, my bad.

Also you're right, the added question was the derail point so to speak.

You keep trying to bring the issue back to one of proof when it's really not about proof, it's about evidence. Scientific theories aren't proven, they just reach a point where there's so much evidence in support of them it becomes pointless to continue to argue they may be wrong and they become accepted as the correct explanation for whatever they were trying to explain. You can't have an 100% unproven theory because for something to be declared a theory it already has to have a large amount of evidence in support of it, i.e. it has already proven itself to some degree.

In order for you question to work it would have to be a comparison between a 100% unproven idea and a 100% unproven god. And in that case there would be little difference and accepting either as true on face value would be illogical/irrational.

This might actually be a problem with language then, i've always considered proof and evidence as pretty much the same. Is it a case of; all proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof? (and no, language is not an excuse here)

I don't see how that's weird in the slightest, perhaps you'd like to expand on why it's 'weird'?

As Scouse has already pointed out atheism is simply not believing in the existence of god, it doesn't delve further into the rights or wrongs of religion. The fact that people who identify as atheists may do so is down to them personally and is not something they're doing as a requirement of being an atheist.

The weird part comes, probably, from the whole "you don't need proof", when the same is used against something like believing in the possibility of a deity.(not adding mroe to keep it in a tight rail here)

At the last part; that's a new view on it, making it a problem with the person needing to identify themselves, while the concept in itself doesn't require it. You might hate this, but it's the same for many religious issues; not all wrongs and claims of religion are the claims and wrongs of all religious.(which i tried to point out earlier).

(Most likely lot of posts etc as i post this, so this was at "Today 12:43 PM
Krazeh".)

Rather than attempt to patronise me, answer the accusation that Krazeh has made that you don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and belief in a god.

Show Krazeh how you do actually understand what he says you don't.

You relly need to learn to read.

I actually think can't get it AND troll.

Actually KRazeh did point out that it's not about atheism, but about zealotty people. So congratulations, me thining atheism is about anti-religion, is simply you being so anti-religious.

Guess the question should be;

Why so damn many atheist ARE so vocal against religion(while using the atheist card), even if atheism isn't at all about it?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh and Scouse, if you -really- want to get into some fact-flinging, here's a little one for you;

- You claim to be intellectual and rational.
- You claim you find these kinds of discussions boring, waste of time, etc.
- You claim that i'm just trolling.

Yet...

You keep on posting and discussing the matter.

Notice a problem?

 

[Scouse]

I notice that you haven't manned up and shown us that you know the difference between a scientific theory and belief in a god.

In fact, you've done the opposite and repeated your ignorance, again.

Q.E.D. & /thread

 

[Krazeh]

On the point 4(your question i believe), the problem isn't in having a stance on religion, the problem is claiming atheism/agnostic when discussing said point. In other words; you should(or "i see it as", not a command on people) keep atheism/agnosti..sm..? out of it and simply discuss religion on it's own.

Claiming atheism is a crutch in many ways, basically leaning on science(it does come down to that very often) to back you up.

Now if you simply say that you're agnostic/atheist, that's fine. The discussion should pretty much be done right there. But you shouldn't use it to define yourself, as i think that goes against the very absic of it. In other words; saying you don't care because you're atheist, yet startibng a "religion is bad" rant about it.

I'm hoping that explains/answers it and yes, i should've answered it earlier, my bad.

Also you're right, the added question was the derail point so to speak.

I disagree, I think whether someone is an atheist or agnostic is likely to impact on any opinion of god/religion they may have. You can't disentangle the two and say you can discuss religion but you can't say if you're an atheist or agnostic. In my case, for example, I'm an atheist because I don't think there's any evidence to support a belief in the existence of god; now that clearly has an impact on my views on god and religion and so I think it's perfectly valid to raise it in a discussion, especially as it explains the basis of my views.

This might actually be a problem with language then, i've always considered proof and evidence as pretty much the same. Is it a case of; all proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof? (and no, language is not an excuse here)

Pretty much yes.

The weird part comes, probably, from the whole "you don't need proof", when the same is used against something like believing in the possibility of a deity.(not adding mroe to keep it in a tight rail here)

You don't need proof to believe in the possibility of the existence of a deity, I don't think anyone here has said that you do. What people have said is that you need proof, or at least some evidence, if you want to believe in the existence of a deity, i.e. take it a stop beyond believing in the possibility of it's existence.

Why so damn many atheist ARE so vocal against religion(while using the atheist card), even if atheism isn't at all about it?

As I said earlier, in many cases that fact they are an atheist influences their views so it's valid to declare that they are an atheist. It doesn't mean that atheism requires them to be against religion tho.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I notice that you haven't manned up and shown us that you know the difference between a scientific theory and belief in a god.

Already told you to learn to read, as the answer to that is right there

I disagree, I think whether someone is an atheist or agnostic is likely to impact on any opinion of god/religion they may have. You can't disentangle the two and say you can discuss religion but you can't say if you're an atheist or agnostic. In my case, for example, I'm an atheist because I don't think there's any evidence to support a belief in the existence of god; now that clearly has an impact on my views on god and religion and so I think it's perfectly valid to raise it in a discussion, especially as it explains the basis of my views.

It's most likely going to impact their views, ofcoiurse, as atheism i itself is a viewpoint(hopefully that's nonrage worthy to say), but the problem i think comes from the usage. You're an atheist, ok, there's no issue there ofcourse, but then in many cases this is used as a sort of weapon to elevate status. If you catch my drift.

Basically, because someone says they are atheist, they assume that they automatically are ore rational, intelligent and so forth. This is not ofcourse true with all, but many tangle atheism and anti-religion so badly, that you can't blame people for actually thinking atheism is pretty much anti-religion.

How to put it in simple terms(because it breaks the language barrier nicely); saying you're an atheist is all well, but it should be kept out of religion as it already is. As such, funnily enough, it shouldn't come up as it's a no point that could be said as "No belief" and be done. If then a religious person tries to label you, it's their problem, not yours.

Pretty much yes.

You don't need proof to believe in the possibility of the existence of a deity, I don't think anyone here has said that you do. What people have said is that you need proof, or at least some evidence, if you want to believe in the existence of a deity, i.e. take it a stop beyond believing in the possibility of it's existence.

Yeah that makes a lot more sense then., basically saying that the difference is;

- Religious(to keep the generalisation here) people are sure there's a fire over the hill.
- Scientific theory requires smell of smoke, or even some smoke, to theorize there's a fire.

Though at that junction i have to point out that not all religious people believe 100% in a deity.

As I said earlier, in many cases that fact they are an atheist influences their views so it's valid to declare that they are an atheist. It doesn't mean that atheism requires them to be against religion tho.

Yeap, it's who they are, not "what" they are. So to speak.

 

[Wij]

- Religious(to keep the generalisation here) people are sure there's a fire over the hill.
- Scientific theory requires smell of smoke, or even some smoke, to theorize there's a fire.

More like:

-Science: If there was a fire over that hill then we should be able to detect smoke, increased heat and carbonisation occuring. If we find these we shall call it a fire. If we don't we must conclude that there is no evidence for a fire and that there very likely is no fire.

-Religion: There's a fire. If you can't find any evidence or don't believe my 'evidence' in my holy book that a fire exists then you are at fault.

Testable is the key to a theory.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well yes, in so many words

The evidence vs proof is interesting though, i don't think there's a finnish substitute for the two(in general knowledge).

Most likely is in scientific circles, but as a general rule, the words evidence and proof are basically same. Well, learn something new in english every day.

Also interesting to find out that the possibility of a god isn't such a taboo.

 

[Septima]

Can we agree that the important point is that everyone, atheist or believer, has equals rights and no one should dictate to either side what they should believe or not believe?

And Kudos to prefect for his posts, the most sensibles ones in this thread.