there is a difference between being uncertain if any possible deity exists and whether a specific deity exists...i think most of the atheists here are confident (but not certain) that a there is no god, but they are extremely confident (but not certain) that any specific revealed god (jesus, allah, ganesh) does not exist...

Because it is. To believe with certainty that there is no god, is just as irrational as to believe with certainty that there is one.

I disagree. There are is no material evidence for the existence of god. The evidence of god comes from The Bible, which needless to say is a lol-tastic book written by man to control the poor. And then I hear how when they look at the universe they see god. That isn't material evidence.

It is much easier to take a super-strong atheist position than a super-strong belief in god.

There is also no material evidense completely disproving the existence of a god either. Would you not agree?

There is material evidence that god is a concept created by humans.

Thats not what i asked though. Saying there is no god and being unable to prove it is just as ignorant as a Christian telling you there is a god.

circumstantial evidence perhaps. and not the circumstantial evidence that got OJ off the hook either.

I'm sure if anybody wanted to prove any arbitrary point, he could arrange 'material evidence' in any sort of fashion to prove it.

i say this willingly conceding that religious folk can be just as guilty as the atheistic folk when it comes to this.

So saying there is no FSM and being unable to prove it is as ignorant then? Hmm...

I think this is misleading. Though I agree that Americans are becoming less religious, it is NOT because they are becoming more educated (in this respect) and more astute. Religion is just becoming a non issue to them because they are distracted by the material world.

Lol at your average non religious American having a complex understanding of biology and cosmology.

Evolution of the concept of god throughout history seems like plenty of evidence to me.

This is false.

Illogical and irrelevant. The bearer of proof relies on you to prove the existence of something. Asking to not prove the existence of something (especially with no material evidence to this thing's existence already) is a logical fallacy.

i only partially agree. While plenty or americans might fool you into thinking they're not educated, compared to say... the Puritan times, when people were much more religious, the average american can read, has had some exposure to the basic concepts of science, have educational programs available to them on the boob tube, they have the internet. While there's no argument americans may not live up to their potential, they are certainly more educated in the concepts of biology/evolution then a few hundred years ago and this knowledge, I would suspect, grows each generation. They are exposed to new science, constant access to media, etc.

This is more or less my stance. Its been said a million times as well, although Splendour and others conveniently forget this, or simply cannot grasp the concept.

I do agree that saying there is a 100% certainty that there is no god is irrational. Although not as irrational as saying that the Christian god is 100% certain.

I would be be one of those weak atheists, but when I say I believe, rather than know, there is no god, it is with the understanding that the chance im wrong about this is almost infinitely small.
In order to avoid dogmatic thinking, and avoid claiming certainty about things that cannot be known for sure, I still say believe rather than know.
This has nothing to do with keeping a door open, it is simply a question about being earnest about what can be known.

This is not 'atheism'. If you make up your own definition for a word, then say that that definition is stupid, it doesn't make for a good discussion. 'Atheism' is the lack of belief in gods, not the 'certain belief that there is no God'.

What's your definition of a strong atheist? I acknowledge the possibility of a god. Even your particular exact description of god. But I think the possibility is so remote that I guess I'm willing to bet my very soul that he doesn't exist. Is that a weak claim? Or does that make me a strong atheist, since according to you if I'm wrong, the stakes are pretty high, aren't they?


Again, according to your doctrine, I've pretty much shut out all options, haven't I? If I'm wrong and your particular god exists, I'm frying in hell for all of eternity. How on earth do you interpret that as leaving options open 'just in case'?

A lot of good posts in here. For my two cents I will say then whether I get into (attempt) an intellectual debate, or try to show a number of programs/documentaries I have that do a good job in really breaking down the history or religion and proof against it, people who believe just won't budge. It's unfortunate cause I am always open to other sides of debate, even as far to watch 9/11 conspiracy films though I haven't been convinced on that front.

What is crazy to me is 7 years ago I was a staunch Republican and believed. That is b/c I never actually put thought into it. After years of self discovery and a journey for knowledge, the real face of the world has been shown to me. This includes things not religious but the structure of government, the power of corporations and money pumped into our system that controls it. I pay no attention to politics or anything of the sort anymore and have become 3X as happier as I ever was as a child. Many people are not willing to take this frightening journey. Just turn on John and Kate plus 8, get a Big Mac, and know Jesus is coming.

It can be quite depressing actually, but I think they will future generations will understand the systematic indoctrination of religion, our way of life, how we perceive wealth and happiness is a huge burden to overcome. The fact the we are being taught not to think but just do from day one is very hard to overcome with the masses. I believe we will have thought to done our part but that is all

Many people I talk to in confidence who "went to church because they were supposed to" have really lost interest, and many people find peer pressure too much to assert they do not believe. I think the numbers probably would really reach 25% if you had honest answers.

There is no intellectual stance more opposed to the idea of revealed religion than agnosticism, because it implies revealed religion is impossible. Strong atheism does not imply revealed religion (of the god kind) is impossible, merely that it is wrong.

In plain and clear english: Intellectually speaking there is no possible harsher stance towards Christianity than agnosticism, much more so than strong atheism.

So no, there is certainly no dishonesty. A strong atheist couldn't really claim revealed religion is impossible and absurd (as general principle) if he is to be logically consistent, a weak one however most certainly can.

Strong atheist does not mean "person who is more opposed to religion", weak atheist does not mean "person who is not completely sure there is no god" and agnostic certainly does not mean "person who thinks there might or might not be a god" - I suggest people stop debating these terms as if they do.

I'll rewrite once again in plain english because I fear my points are lost on people: Weak atheism can lead a much stronger case against revealed religion than strong atheism.

Is the lack of belief in god/gods not the same thing as you saying there isnt one/any?

If so then the lack of belief in gods, is just as irrational as saying there is gods. The only difference between the two is atheists are making a broad statement saying there are NO gods, when christians are saying "lol MY god is the real god" which is definitely more irrational.

If there is a god, its definitely not something any human would begin to be able to wrap their mind around. So the arguement on both sites is completely worthless, and hypocritical of both sides to think they are right.

Hope my thoughts dont seem like rambling, cause they might well be.

This is what's ironic. We have unprecedented access to media and information, but we use them for all the wrong reasons. We CAN read, but what do we read? There are 'educational programs' on television, but how many, what is their educational versus entertainment value, and is this really what Americans are watching? The internet is the most telling example of how Americans abuse their opportunities to educate themselves. An even more prime example would be the quality of our media.

So, with this all said, I'm sure 95+% of Americans know what evolution is and the basics behind it, but I guarantee that a very small minority can explain to you the complexities of it, moreover why it might suggest that a god does not exist. I'm sure they couldn't tell you the difference between micro and macro evolution, or explain to you how non living things evolved into living things (I seriously doubt your 'average' American can explain the process of evolution amongst living things as well).

If they lack comprehensive knowledge of science, how can they understand that 'science' suggests there is no god? Is this really even true? It seems to me what we have here is a matter of blind faith. But instead of 'blindly' trusting your priest or immam and their books, you trust the scientist's explanation, which they vaguely understand.

I agree that people who think the world is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs are merely fictional characters to test the faithful are pretty far removed from a general consensus about our universe. I agree that they should only be heard to a limited extent. However, these are the people who many atheists single out in order to make their points more valid. Perhaps because they lack the artillery to combat intelligent arguments for religion and God.

When it's all said and done, none of ushave any proof. And though many of us like to think we have a lot of information and can word them intelligently, we aren't even close to capturing the broad scope of information needed to make a valued judgment call (our gut instinct doesn't really count either). So what it comes down to is who we trust.

Personally, when it comes to matters of faith and religion, I would prefer a wise man over a smart man.

DO tell us more

Er, no, they are not similar statements at all.
One is a statement of belief, the other is an assertion of fact.

Note also that a 'lack of belief in gods' is not the same as 'a belief that gods do not exist'. I hold the latter belief.

Out of the whole post I wrote you choose this to quote me. I'm honestly shocked that you won't acknowledge that there are intelligent arguments for god and religion, seeing as how you've done extensive research and put in genuine time pondering the questions of the mysteries of life.

The scientific arguments for a god are not rare, nor are they exclusionary to evolution or other scientific discovery, and if you haven't heard of them/won't acknowledge them, then I don't know what more I can do.

That was the part that tickled me most.

It's easy - you either point me to the right link or you just tell me those "scientific arguments" yourself.

I'm lazy atm so I won't write an essay for you. This link scratches the surface for the teleological theories in favor for a god.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/te...arguments/#2.1