[Besoeker]

Well, that is your belief.

And please note that your unsupported beliefs have no impact on the reality of the situation.

I could say exactly the same about your unsupported beliefs.

[Pants-of-dog]

You could, but since we have not discussed my beliefs at all, that would be difficult.

[Besoeker]

You could, but since we have not discussed my beliefs at all, that would be difficult.

Let's have them then. I have been open about mine. How about you reciprocate?

[Pants-of-dog]

No, thanks.

And it would not illuminate anything about atheism.

[Besoeker]

No, thanks.

And it would not illuminate anything about atheism.

Now, there's a surprise.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not really, no.

I am an atheist when it comes to the Gitchi Manitou, Thor, cargo cults, the IPU, and the Christian god. But all in different ways. Because atheism is not only a simple lack of belief.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

What Philip K Dick, or Thomas the early Christian from Judea in 50 AD, said about reality (reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away) is as good a simple explanation as any as to why I don't find the Abrahamaic religions compelling, but why I find some Eastern religions, and even Western Gnosticism, fascinating. The latter allow for, and in ways demand, a gentle reflection on oneself and the nature of reality itself. It's quite a trip, man.

I believe that any worthwhile religion or spiritual persuasion needs to be more substantial than worshipping a deity, saying the correct phrases, performing specific tasks and chores, and believing the correct things.

[XogGyux]

No belief is one thing. Proclaiming the non-existence is another. An agnostic also has no belief but will not claim to know about the non-existence of a God, creator or otherwise.

Now, there may be specific gods that an agnostic will be happy to proclaim as non-existing. But a creator God would be difficult if not impossible to formally disprove because this God does not necessarily have physical properties that we would be able to point to. The watchmaker God cannot be dismissed out of hand just because you think it makes the most sense to you.


Sure, there's plenty of evidence that the FSM doesn't exist. Namely, the person who originated the FSM as an idea never actually thought that the FSM existed or wanted even to give the illusion of its existence. The FSM doesn't exist because it is satire, meant to specifically show how ridiculous it would be to advance any religious text or idea (specifically intelligent design) in the classroom. That's a fair point, to me. However, what's not a fair point is the way atheists like you use that to try to convince people who believe in God that their ideas are invalid, because you are using the FSM in a way that it cannot be used. Namely, you are using the FSM as a placeholder for other supernatural entities that people actually believed or believe in, including God. The difference is that nobody believes in the FSM, and nor was it meant to be believed, and nor was it meant to be used as an argument in the way that you are using it as an argument.

You do admit, however, that you have no evidence that God does not exist. If that's true, why proclaim God's non-existence as a matter of fact? You can't actually know that God doesn't exist, that's just an arbitrary choice about the matter you have made.

It is not a practical choice either, which is the real reason for this thread. You haven't made a practical choice, you've made a choice based on which answer you believe is right. It is not based on anything that you can actually point to, you just think you're right. And you lose the benefits that faith brings you.

So the fact that it was meant to not be believable what makes the religion false?
So by your logic, Scientology, which was made to be believable then it is a legitimate religion and it is as reasonable as any of the more traditional beliefs?
What if I make up a new religion, not as a satire, but one that is meant for people to belief is. Would that make my religion legitimate to your eyes?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

So the fact that it was meant to not be believable what makes the religion false?
So by your logic, Scientology, which was made to be believable then it is a legitimate religion and it is as reasonable as any of the more traditional beliefs?
What if I make up a new religion, not as a satire, but one that is meant for people to belief is. Would that make my religion legitimate to your eyes?

It's not a religion, it's a satirical proposition.

Scientology is a religion, but it makes a number of claims about the physical world that are pseudoscientific or false in nature, oftentimes both. Their "deity" is actually said to exist in this realm.

To throw you a bone, a number of religions make false claims about the physical world that can be said to be false as well. I don't think religions are to be without reproach. Religions are independent of a belief in God.

Well it depends if you truly intended it to be considered true.

[Besoeker]

Not really, no.

I am an atheist when it comes to the Gitchi Manitou, Thor, cargo cults, the IPU, and the Christian god. But all in different ways. Because atheism is not only a simple lack of belief.

It is and that's the point you seem to have difficulty in comprehending.
Go in peace.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Why? What's the point of peace if there is no God? Peace is a moral proposition, and moral propositions are invalid.

[Godstud]

Peace is the absence of war, not absence of god.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

So? War is good. Might makes right. Only the strong survive. Oppress who you want to oppress, kill who you want kill. As long as you can get away with it, it's alright.

[XogGyux]

It's not a religion, it's a satirical proposition.

You did not answer my question. Is it not religion because it was not meant to be believable? In other words, if tomorrow we find archaeological evidence that the first Scriptures that gave rise to judeo-christian belief system, their authors were simply trying to be satirical of other religion of their time, or their intent was not to make it believable but rather as a artistic expression (e.g. poem) would you deny those religions based on scripture their identity as a religion?

Their "deity" is actually said to exist in this realm.

How does that matter?

To throw you a bone, a number of religions make false claims about the physical world that can be said to be false as well.

They all do, actually. That's one of the many things they have in common.

Religions are independent of a belief in God.

Only if you are willing to part with the characteristics that god is "supposed" to have. Once you start giving him/her/it characteristics you are moving into the realm of religion.

Well it depends if you truly intended it to be considered true.

Does it? If when i go to bed I start dreaming with a flying Fettuccine monster. And when I wake up tomorrow I feel deep in my "soul" that this experience was far beyond an ordinary dream that i have had in the past. And then for a week I keep having the same dream and I am told in my dream instructions to create a religion. Would that make a region based on the flying fettuccine monster a real, legitimate religion under your eyes?

[Godstud]

So? War is good. Might makes right. Only the strong survive. Oppress who you want to oppress, kill who you want kill. As long as you can get away with it, it's alright.

Where do you get this shit from? No one is saying war is good, or any of that other bullshit you're peddling. Anyone who doesn't believe like you is "evil", right?

Morality is not dependent on religion. You don't need religion to be a good person. You don't need to believe in mythical unicorns of goodness to know that killing, oppressing, war, exploitation, etc. is bad for people. Your statements are either incredibly sarcastic, or incredibly delusional. Which one, today?

[XogGyux]

:eh: Where do you get this shit from? No one is saying war is good, or any of that other bullshit you're peddling. Anyone who doesn't believe like you is "evil", right?

Morality is not dependent on religion. You don't need religion to be a good person. You don't need to believe in mythical unicorns of goodness to know that killing, oppressing, war, exploitation, etc. is bad for people. Your statements are either incredibly sarcastic, or incredibly delusional. Which one, today?

Apparently religious people think that the only thing that keeps them from raping/murdering and stealing is that there is a god. So lets hope we never ever find evidence that there is non or we will all get raped and die.

[Donna]

Men of Reason consider themselves to be Christian.

[Besoeker]

Men of Reason consider themselves to be Christian.

Not sure Bertrand Russell would have agreed.

[Red Rackham]

Men of Reason consider themselves to be Christian.

I would have thought it reasonable to call professor Richard Dawkins [FRS FRSL] a man of reason. He is also an outspoken atheist.

[Red Rackham]

Since religion or the belief in a god relies on blind faith and science relies on evidence and facts, I have to ask is there a practical reason to believe in a god?

Also, in my experience the more impoverished the people the more likely they are to believe in or fear god. Wealthy educated peoples tend to be less religious than those from third world countries.