Cliff, I don’t agree with Ken on much, but I have to agree with him on the factual of the last 100 years of mass murder.

It has been the Statists (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others who have been by far the most bloodthirsty mass murders of the last 100 years). Sorry to get facts in the way of your theory….or is it just your religion?

WOW! Viral is the word alright. Video posted two days ago and already 119 video responses and 9412 text responses.

Who is this guy?

“Imagine a world without religion.”

That would also be a world without Cliff Lyon, and MikeB302000 as well as all you goofs arguing for the corrupt scientists who faked Climate Change!

I’m a non-believer myself, but once you get by the handful of fringe churches that bash gays and bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors (what maybe 100 combined members nation wide?) I find groups that while preach stuff I don’t believe in, and maybe sometimes get a little pushy about me coming to their little parties, it’s still an amazing support group for people, an extended family, as well as an efficient charity.

Not a member, never will be, don’t like it when they try to recruit me. But after that I have a hard time getting too upset about them.

“Progressives” on the other hand….

Cliff–

Atheism is a secular religion. Its a belief in regards to deity which has direct implications upon the decision-making processes of those involved in it. This isn’t to say that it’s as violent as other religions as a general rule; like Christianity, atheism takes many forms.

Nevertheless, I must point out that the Holocaust was a result of religious complicity and the use of religious dogma (as well as methodology). Christians blame it on atheism, but it’s well-documented that Nazism was a form of state religion that blurred the boundaries between church and state, just like all forms of fascism, even atheist ones. It used those passions which may be considered “spiritual” in nature to dictate peoples’ conduct and the contents of their conscience. Modern Christian Fundamentalism does much the same thing in its attempts to dictate moral law. Atheism, when it is, in fact, aggressive, attempts to do the same, as well.

Religion is unavoidable. Everyone believes in something, even Glenn, who has utter and absolute faith in his own cleverness, and they do so with all the dictums of faith. Sorry, Cliff, but you will never have a world free of religion, even if everyone stops believing in God.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Atheism is a secular religion

A secular religion… And you Dwight seem to have a jumbo shrimp sized IQ that runs like military intelligence.

But I think that shared disbelief is insufficient to really classify Atheism as a religion.

Nonsense Glen! Shared disbelief is plenty, that is why the world is united in the single common religion of disbelief in Zeus…

Glenden–

This is largely a matter of semantics. I could classify Christianity as a shared disbelief in purely naturalistic causes for existence. I could use logical tools (if theism v ~theism then ~atheism v atheism) to show the categorical relationship. We can go into double-negatives if we want to corrupt your definition. So what we’re really talking about is origins. It may be that religion came about as a rebellion from purely naturalistic thinking, instinct, pure aesthetics, or anything else you may imagine cavemen centered their decision-making around. Just because atheism is a disbelief doesn’t mean that someday it won’t be a belief.

But I think you missed the basic point. Remember that I was responding to Cliff’s claims, not to your perspectives on atheism. “. . .the single common religion of disbelief in Zeus,” as Shane puts it, is NOT a religion because it’s not expressed. You admit yourself that there are soft, unorganized forms of atheism as well as more concentrated forms. Let me bring your attention to a real-life scenario: the Catholic who carries around a cross on his neck but commits crimes daily. Is he Christian? Is he rightly “religious?” His belief in God, not being a powerful enough motivator to commit him to action can hardly be considered in the same caliber as the theism of those who participated in the Inquisition. You would consider him religious, yet a casual atheist is not. If atheism, casual or no, commits a person to action or precedes a specific pattern for thinking, it performs equally well on the same grounds as a religion which does likewise. The broadness of atheism is like the broadness of theism; I wouldn’t dare say all atheists are the same any more than you would dare say a Christian is the same as a Buddhist. But this broadness isn’t contradictory of the principle of categorization. Shared belief in something is enough for you to categorize all religious people. Why isn’t a shared disbelief in something specific enough to categorize all atheists?

If you notice, I capitalized “Christianity,” but not “atheism.” I wasn’t attempting to comment on a specific cultural movement so much as a common perspective of reality. I apologize if I used “religion” to describe something which you may consider expressly non-religious. As I perceived it, Cliff presented religion as the precursor to specific sets of beliefs which promote perspectives which precede certain behaviors. As I perceived that the real issue was the perspectives themselves (which may spring up in a mind composed of theistic or atheistic thinking), I was commenting with the tools Cliff had prescribed. Inasmuch as atheism may operate in the same ways as religions (albeit somewhat less organized; but this is the way of most religions as well, when they are new), it fit within Cliff’s definition of “religion.” The semantics were established; I merely used them.

I appreciate your definition of religion. It seems mostly reasonable. I am, myself, an enemy of the use of religion in such things as Ann Coulter’s “Godless,” to describe non-holistic systems of belief as it dilutes the meaning. But being religiously nihilistic doesn’t preclude atheists from have formatively similar ideas as theists do any more than being apathetic precludes an individual from having a personal philosophy. For me, atheism ranks as a “secular religion” because it informs the same types of thinking as spiritual religions do, one step removed. It defers to secularism (reason, logic, science, humanism, etc.), an idea which I have no objection to, in much the same way that religion defers to authority. One deals primarily with ethics; the other with morality. The primary difference to me, in terms of their effects on their adherents, is that atheism defers to a human decision-making process, while religion defers to authority and tradition. To say that atheism cannot have similar effects on mankind as religion does is sort of like saying that gay marriage cannot embody a similar relationship as does heterosexual marriage. The two are different. But really, how different are they? (I used the gay marriage example to make a more effective point, Glenden, not to jab at you. I apologize if it offends you)

If you want to define religion as all belief systems related to creation and existence which do NOT include atheism, so be it. That’s a firm definition, useful in most instances. For the sake of this thread, however, it should be known that it wasn’t religion that created these atrocities–it was faith. It was unaltering, absolute belief in the rightness of a thing, whether that be present authority, a concept of authority, or an authoritative actionable motivator. Atheists, in their own time and through their own processes, will–not can–be equally destructive. Those forms of authority which have power to commit such deeds should be expressly agnostic–neither theistic or atheistic–in order to avoid the dictates of either belief structure’s prejudices. The demonization of religion, when it’s the motivations, processes, and faith-based acceptance that are the real problems (problems which exist outside of religious dogma, as well), is inappropriate.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Cliff–

I think you fail to notice that your logic fails on both ends–your initial logic creates the implication that if many people die as a result of something, it’s evil and should be done away with. This is an effective argument against both religious governments (the Vatican) and atheistic ones (communist Russia). Without context, your argument against religion is strong–but it condemns unreligious groups as well.

On the other end, your defensive logic is a failure. If my not being an atheist makes me utterly incapable of analyzing or understanding them, then there’s an awful lot of stuff you need to start closing your big mouth about. Are you gay? Are you heterosexual? Have you fought in a war? Are you an atheist? Are you a theist? Are you agnostic? Are you Bush? Are you Obama? Have you been President? Are you Canadian? Are you a doctor? The list goes on and on.

I’m simply commenting on the human (of which race I am a member) need for underlying belief systems. Nobody lives life willy-nilly without any basis for decision-making but children and madmen. Saying that atheism is “non-religion” is shortsighted. Atheism is anti-religion, yes, but only according to its perspective of what religion is. Some atheism, however, isn’t even that. Atheism is explicit denial of the existence of deity. Some naturalists are atheistic, some buddhists are atheistic, and so on. “. . .no God, no spirit, no other.” Are you kidding? Of course there’s “other.” There’s existence, for one thing. The questions of philosophy, those which drive our actions, are not answerable solely by mysticism and theism. Atheists still must have a source for the answers to their questions, whether it be hedonism, instinct, reason, logic, science, humanism, social consensus, government, dialectic inquiry, or whatever. We still make decisions, and the impetus for our choices has to come from somewhere. When atheists start making their decisions strictly on instinct, I will agree with you that they’re non-religious–but then mankind will be nothing but animals.

Regardless, the negative historical events you decry are still just as possible under atheistic leadership. Ever hear of scientific socialism? Eugenics? Amorality? The corporate business model is “non-religion,” too, and that’s part of the problem. Ultimately, we need an ethical basis for our actions. Religion has been a source of great good at times, of great evil at others. Atheism, despite what you think in your limited view of its great variety, does not inherently necessitate the adoption of ethical social standards. It, too, is subject to the same weaknesses, because the weaknesses of religion are human weaknesses. You think atheism’s the answer? Then how come you are so incredibly disrespectful all of the time? Where are your superior ethics?

I wish you could have lived when Christianity began, when it removed the principle that sin was to be punished by stoning, when Christians were fed to lions in spectator sports in Rome, just so you could see that religions take many forms. At the peak of Nazi power religion had reached its lowest level of influence, and where religion began as an excuse to blame the Jews, secular science finished the job, dictating the genetic inferiority of the race. FAITH was the problem–faith in a man, a leader, a way of thinking–not religion. An atheist can use the same tactics that a priest does, yet you don’t call him a priest? He can speak about hate and race and national dominance in front of thousands, commanding assent by his command of their emotions, yet he isn’t as dangerous as a false prophet? Your bias betrays you. Semantics? That’s a secondary concern. The order of greatest importance is that you, Cliff, are one of the most religiously devoted atheists I’ve ever spoken to. Your religion has convinced you absolutely that because it is supposedly free of bias and delusion, that your pronouncements and pontifications are the dicta of absolute reason. You’re so incredibly self-deluded it makes me sick.

Bottom-line: theism isn’t a curse; atheism isn’t a panacea. Cliff thinks the cure is to get rid of a broad spectrum of belief structures, which are imitable in the structure he adulates. If the religious people were gone, everything would be better, right? I, for one, think we just need better people. Our Christians need to be more Christian (humility, turn the other cheek, etc.), and our atheists need to be more humanistic.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Loved the video. An excellent combination of self-importance and anger.

I too, share a disbelief in the Great God Zeus!

Cliff–

As usual, you completely miss the point, so I’ll respond quickly: demonstrably false and institutionally evil in certain instances, just like atheism; you can’t communicate in any way without revealing preference, and therefore a perspective of superiority, so you are trying to prove something–otherwise you wouldn’t keep arguing; if there’s no “atheistic argument,” then what is it when atheists argue the position that there’s no God? Whatever forms that argument takes from person to person, it is nevertheless an argument that originates in an atheistic perspective; I didn’t suggest that you haven’t found God yet–not everything’s about YOU–I suggested that no one has found God and no one can find out whether he exists or not except by finding him. He may very well not exist (I already said that, btw), but we’ll never know for sure; it’s a frequent argument of idiots to say that a detractor doesn’t agree with them simply because he doesn’t understand them. It’s a cop-out of the first degree; you can’t disprove God’s existence, either. I know the burden of proof lies with me, which is why I take a position of logical agnosticism.

The ultimate end of my argument is to propose that religion and atheism are matters of faith, and the absolutism with which we approach them is detractory, not complimentary. Taking a logical position on either is a recipe for personal disaster. To me, an honest atheist admits that his belief is faith-based. He can’t disprove God’s existence any more than he can prove the origin of all things. He has no answer to the question of origins, any more than the Christian has sure knowledge of the Creation. The genesis of existence is so far away from our present state that ANY conclusions about it have to be assumptive, whether religious or not.

Shane–

In your zeal to oppose theism, you failed to realize that the crux of my argument is entirely agnostic.

Please reread what I said in that light.

You’ve taken my quotes out of context in multiple instances. I expected that the responses to my message would bring up the Inquisition and other instances of Christian debauchery (which, fyi, I already cited). I was simply citing multiple instances of both positive and negative use of both atheism and theism to suggest that the underlying belief systems which are used (and upon which our decision procedures reside) are more significant than their sources. A good religion is equally useful as a good “non-religion.”

You could hardly find an American Christian today who would support burning witches at the stake. It’s still being done in other countries, however, illustrating the divides that exist even within groups who derive their beliefs from identical sources. The argument that “religion causes death” is the greatest strawman being presented. Which religions? All of them? Even religious pacifism? You and Cliff’s failure to differentiate between religions and the belief systems (and, by extension, the decision procedures) they promote is largely what I’m arguing against.

For instance, when I attacked Cliff’s logic, it was his lack of context, in the first instance. Religions have caused harm, yes; but so has atheism. To clump ritualistic cannibalism in with Tibetan Buddhism–well, even you can see how ridiculous that is. But that’s the broadness of Cliff’s claim. Religion takes many forms, and each has an associated set of beliefs and behaviors it promotes. The behaviors may be promoted by many sources, not just religion. I’m arguing for an expansion of the argument into specificity.

What a novel idea. . .

I wasn’t attempting to judge the moral quality of Cliff’s argument; just the logical quality. The point is that Cliff is ignoring outright the great evils that atheistic faith has produced (faith in social and scientific leadership) just as foolishly as the Christian who claims that Army of God members don’t count, so Christianity’s hands are clean.

A belief system is not the same a decision procedure.

Of course not. It derives from a belief system, however. Christians are affectd by their belief in God; atheists by their lack of belief. Each system is linked to the decision procedures which are available and acceptable. God-authority, for example, will hardly be part of an atheist’s decision-making procedure.

I’m not concerned at present about the semantics of “religion.” I’m concerned that religion is a belief structure which affects decision-making, just as atheism is. I believe that Cliff started out having the wrong conversation; that is, he was using the word “religion” to describe negative human behavior categories. He defined religion as evil at the outset, and as such is begging the question. Inasmuch as religion has been ubiquitous throughout history, most evil can be ascribed (at least loosely) to it. Removing religion isn’t suddenly going to make people better. It can even be argued that religion was established partially to make people better–to provide compelling social rules. I’m not arguing that we need religion for that purpose anymore, I’m just making the point, once again, that religion has taken many forms, both good and bad. Religion can’t be described by a single ethical value statement–a definitive category, maybe, in a very broad sense.

there is an argument to be made that as a social animal we require general social systems and a government. . .That is not the same as an argument that we need religion, which at best is a particular social system, and at worst a tribalistic repression mechanism.

A religion is not necessary a particular social system. Many are. It’s not a necessary part of their description. Did I argue that the like possibilities under atheistic and theistic leadership was an argument that we need religion? My argument is simply an acknowledgment of the variability of the two belief systems. Our need for social systems and a government relies on neither atheism or theism. As I said, government should be agnostic.

Is this the superior ethics you meant?

I don’t claim superior ethics for theism or atheism. I’ve known good members of both. I’m one of the few Mormons who will actually argue for separation of church and state, so you’re preaching to the choir. I believe that religion in government is a terrible mess, and will likely lead to tragedy. It’s too easy to use God as a justification for evil–just as much as it’s too easy to use science and amoral reason as justifications for evil. Please don’t treat history in such a cavalier manner. There was a thousand years between the foundation of Christianity and the Inquisition. A lot can happen to a religion in that amount of time. It took a lot less time, I might add, for eugenics to be manipulated to dictate the worth of a human being. The transformation of belief can be radical or slow, and can result in good or evil–whether religious or not.

A Dwight can use the same cellular mechanics as a cockroach. Pardon my internet slang but WTF does that have to do with anything?

I apologize for my poor logical construction. Your substitution was appropriate. The point I was making was, once again, tied to behavior. It’s the behavior of manipulation that’s more crucial than the institution of which the manipulator is a part. I say that the title of “priest” is no more condemnable than “fuhrer” when the two are used for equal evils. Each title serves the same function (that of granting authority). My attack was directed at Cliff’s semantics–for the purposes of this discussion, an atheist who acts like a priest might as well be called a priest, and suffer the same criticisms.

Is that speaking as a christian or an atheist?

That is speaking as a dialectician observing a fellow dialectician’s utter lack of intellectual integrity.

I apologize for the incorrect summation of atheistic thought which I provided. As with religions, there are many fields of thought involved. My main point was that non-faith-based atheism is a non-sequiter. Atheism requires axiomatic thinking, just like theism, and in so doing, suffers similar logical problems. I requested that Cliff provide me with specific atheistic arguments specifically so I could show this principle.

The argument against a creator is pretty basic. It is the logical extension of the reason a creator is argued for in the first thing.

The argument against the first thing is not exactly an argument against a creator–it’s an argument against the first thing. It invalidates a logical proof only, not the conclusion of the logical proof (that is, that God exists). I could create an invalid logical proof to prove that you exist. Just because it’s invalid doesn’t mean that the conclusion is as well.

First of all you fail to understand the burden of proof.

As I said, I have the burden of proof that God exists. Good thing I’m not trying to prove that he does. After all, the God-question is quite complex. Many people have claimed to have contact, and the concept of faith-as-proof is even more complex. To deny that which science has not yet discovered an effective means of observing puts some of the burden on atheists. Newton didn’t believe light could travel without a medium, because he didn’t understand that light is its own medium. The inability of scientists at the time to effectively observe light didn’t make this theory true. Newton–a scientist–was limited by his incapability. The burden of proof of supernatural phenomena is more complex than simply whether a thing is measured or not–it includes whether it may yet be measured. There may come a time that science learns how to discover proof of God, the soul, or even ghosts, for heaven’s sake! We don’t know. We don’t know if God exists or not.

The burden, ultimately, lies primarily on those who have no proof. But this isn’t a question of whether God is a physical being hiding behind a rock in Moab; that’s provable, requiring few tools and little effort. God is a much greater mystery. The burden of the assumption that no conscious creative force exists anywhere (or has existed at any time) falls on atheists. Agnosticism is the only scientifically plausible conclusion, at present.

No. It claims that the iterations people argue for have been disproven.

I beg to differ. How many atheists do know who say “the Christian, Hindi, and Islamic Gods have been disproven, but there may be a God which hasn’t yet been proposed which does, in fact, exist.” No; atheism (correct me if I’m wrong) is not merely a reaction to present theories of God. It opposes any and all concepts of supernatural creation, whether it be naturalistic mysticism, polytheism, theism, or clockmaker theory.

Besides–disprove Buddha, please. Disprove Vishnu. Disprove Zuul, the fictional Sumerian God in “Ghostbusters.” For that matter, disprove the existence of demons and ghosts. Disprove that peyote causes a genuinely supernatural experience. Really, most supernatural ideas cannot be disproven OR proven. You can cite neurology all you want, but can you ever prove that no other factors are involved? As a friend of mine said, “Who’s to say that God doesn’t USE neurology as a tool?” Science can’t measure what it can’t measure. Logic resides on incomplete sets of premises and axioms. Science and logic are great tools, but these issues (and any “knowledge”) are the purview of faith first, even if it only be faith in your own existence, your senses, and your sense of reason.

It may be cop-out, but God is almost always considered to be above human understanding by nature. If you’re uncomfortable with that, that’s fine–don’t believe. Just remember that there’s inevitably going to be a huge list of things which are above your understanding–however much you tell yourself you have reasonable explanations for them.

As long as we are discussing theism, lets posit the idea that pretty much every theistic belief system is based on the idea of a creator or designer.

I’ve already stated that my belief is faith-based, and that I’m comfortable with that. I don’t have an explanation for our origins in specific. Do you? I’d love to hear how you explain it without using faith-based arguments.

you attack a version of the atheist argument that is easily refuted.

This “strawman” is somewhat more common amongst atheists than you think–many think that God has been disproven by a lack of scientific evidence. Logic has been far more successful in that department, and it’s the logical arguments against God (not against logical arguments FOR God) that I want to approach.

I accept that God exists strictly on the basis of axioms. I believe he exists because I believe he exists. I admit that, and that it’s purely faith-based. I believe that logical arguments for his existence are a lot of fun, as well as analyses of the convergence of omnipotence and omnibenevolence (and then there’s omniscience–he can know everything EXCEPT that he knows everything–another binary dichotomy). But they’re academic only. I simply want atheists (and other theists) to be equally honest about themselves and their faith.

So, please, let me know more of your proof against God. I always say that an agnostic is either a theist afraid to commit or an atheist afraid to be wrong. Show me that you’re willing to be both sure AND wrong.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Dwight, while you’re helping Cliff, I wonder if you could address the issue of Gods sexuality.

I’m not just being facitious. It seems to me, as we grapple with the notions that people’s gender is something other than ‘polar’, there would likely be some impact and rewrite of the notion that God is ‘Him’.

I only ask, because I believe your thinking on this, if you’ve even considered it, would have to have been informed by the latest revelation by the church about gayness, and all that that might mean. Is said revelation having any impact on the deeper doctrine behind that semantic? Could ‘patriarchy’ itself be at risk? What would that mean to the whole body of dogma?

Since words, clarity and logic are your accustomed medium, I suppose so. Maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the above.

Hope this doesn’t sound too trollish. Cav

even the good done in the name of God is often mitigated by the actions of those doing the good.

No doubt that’s true, although I am not prepared to concede that NOTHING systemic came of Ma Theresa’s efforts. And it would probably even be fair to say that a religion, if its nature is to look heavenward, is maybe not so focused on justice in the corporeal world. But the very idea of human rights is rooted in at least some gut religious sensibility. And I credit that conception with most if not all real-world systemic alleviation of human suffering in our century.

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that bald is a hair color.

oh, i almost forgot.

“There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.” -Gregory S Paul, sociologist

Religion, fixing “most if not all real-world systemic alleviation of human suffering in our century” on some other planet, but sure in hell not here.

The following graduate thesis is divided into sections to respond to specific authors (Cliff, Cav, Shane, and Glendon).

Cliff–

I perceive no conflict in having an agnostic approach to logic (similar to my approach to politics, generally) and a theistic approach to my personal life. I’m sorry if that presents a contradiction for you. It doesn’t for me. To me, logic and faith are independent (albeit occasionally intermingling) forms of knowledge. I’ve known faithful people who derive their faith from logical processes. I pity them, for I feel that if I did the same (and if they did as they do with any degree of intellectual integrity), I would have to deny my faith. I don’t require a logical foundation for every decision I make, and I hope you don’t, either. Some things are superior when felt rather than merely reasoned.

The burden on atheists to which I refer is similar to the burden on wrong thinkers of the past. There was a time when all available scientific tools and known methods proved the world flat. This wasn’t a failure of science, but a failure of man. I say the agnostic position is the only logically sound one because it acknowledges possibility; in examining so vast a concept as the origins of all that exist, anything that proposes to be sure must accept a vast host of axioms. Atheism is more logical than theism, somewhat less faithful, perhaps (at least for some atheists), but it’s still the product of axiomatic thinking. Anytime one says “I know” or “it can’t be that” in regards to something that is vastly beyond the present perceptive capabilities of the whole race, they accept some of the burden of proof–proof that the absolute surety of their claim is warranted. For example, if someone says that there’s no life on other planets in the whole universe, they better darn-well have an explanation for their assumption. One example of a scientific conclusion would be that no life has yet been discovered sufficient to assume that life existed elsewhere. This leaves the doors of possibility open. In slamming them shut, atheism and theism are both overreaching.

To mitigate this tendency to overrach, I say that I don’t know that God exists. I believe that he does. And that’s good enough for me. I believe that it falls on me to find the ethical reasons behind what I perceive to be God’s moral dictates. It would be wrong for me (or any theist) to proclaim my beliefs came from the mouth of God, and therefore were infallible and could be imposed on others by law simply for that reason. You will notice that I never argue that “God said so” when discussing politics. Ken probably would if it wouldn’t bite him in the butt. I choose not to because I believe that anything that I believe God said can stand up to ethical analysis. If all I have to defend my position is that “God said so”–if I don’t have an ethical reasons–it isn’t my business to impose my beliefs on anyone.

Cav–

I believe that God is male, and that he has a wife who is equal in power and (perhaps; of this I’m not sure) distinguished (but not minimized) in role. This role, I think, is so vastly different than the simplistic approaches that we have to gender that it is nothing like what most Christians would imagine. I don’t believe that God’s wife had to have played with dolls when she was little in order to be properly femenized; or that she has to have long hair; or that she is beauty while God is strength, or most of the other assumptions of modern Christian patriarchy. The farthest I will go is to say that she bears the womb of creation, and that God bears the seed (nice and metaphorically vague, dontcha think?). Both have nurturing roles, both have protective roles. Where the rest of truth about the creators lies is a mystery to me.

I think that patriarchy is a matter of personal responsibility (I shudder to use that term, with how abused it is right now by the Christian right). As for my wife and myself, patriarchy means that we make decisions together, but that I bear the burden of their success or failure. Fortunately, I have a good wife, who steps forward and helps me to deal with the failure, and whom I welcome fully to share in the success. I don’t believe that patriarchy means at any time that I can dicate the course of our family’s future. In fact, more often than not, SHE is the one who makes the pronouncements about family policy!

I’m not familiar with the church’s “latest revelation.” If you refer to their complicity with anti-discrimination policy, I will say this: first, it’s not a revelation; second, I appreciated that they did that. I don’t foresee that the church will ever accept gay marriage or remove the concept of patriarchy (at least the term will survive), but I was very glad when they stepped forward and made it clear that gay people deserve just as much of a chance to succeed as anyone else. As some of you may know, I have long argued that marriage needs to be taken out of law and handed to the churches and other social institutions. If a gay person wants to be married, let them be married! Taking it out of law won’t change the sanctity of my marriage; keeping marriage in law and restricting its access has and will undoubtedly continue to damage the sanctity of other committed relationships.

Thanks for your comments, Cav.

Shane–

Yes, the first cause argument is self-refuting. I agree. But lack of proof of something doesn’t constitute proof of a lack of something. My point was that disproving theistic logic doesn’t innately prove atheistic logic.

you are stating that you don’t have the balls to get off the fence. I have less respect for that than i do for the theist. At least she makes a claim.

Making a claim about something superfluous simply to prove you have balls is idiotic. I believe in God. Does that make you feel better? My point is that there is no way that I can be proven or disproven, and the same goes for you. This is metaphysics, not science. My belief in God resides on unprovable axioms and has no impact on you–therefore it’s irrelevant. I can make a big show of faith, but what good will that do? My faith isn’t the subject of argument, because it’s rooted in principles which can’t be effectively argued. I won’t accept your axioms, you won’t accept mine; the best we can do is admit that each of us is using axioms as a basis for belief.

Constancy is not your strongest point perhaps.

Perhaps not. Consistency is difficult to maintain. I hope you aren’t assuming that I’m inconsistent simply because I’m capable of differentiating between beliefs I apply to my personal life and as those with which I govern my social relationships. FYI, it’s my belief in the former that largely governs the latter. I consider it an ethical and moral responsibility to guard my interactions with others so as to avoid harming them by imposing my misperceptions (however well-intentioned) upon them.

The issue here is not the integrity of my personal faith, but thanks, anyway, for the red herring; it’s whether religion is dangerous while atheism is not. I’ve said myself that religion is dangerous when used outside of the realm of personal faith, and I would add to that that’s its self-contradictory when it coerces conversion. My religion is MINE. I don’t have to make it everyone else’s, or demonize whole categories of thought in order to feel satisfied with my beliefs.

To use a term I heard from Rachel Maddow, the arguments on this page are tainted with “toxic certainty.” My equivocation is a refreshing breeze in a thread burning with the fever of being too sure. Shane and Cliff–you take a few threads of an infinitely large tapestry and propose to know the color of the whole. How small you and I are compared the the body of potential knowledge, and you think you can do anything more than merely “believe” in anything? Your self-proclaimed “knowledge” is as much a liability to you as such knowing was ever a liability to the most blustering pope.

The important difference is that eugenics does not equal atheism. Christianity is in fact a religion.

Christianity’s status as a religion is a moot point. The variability within Christianity virtually guarantees that there will be some “sexist female intellectual murdering pricks.” There will likewise be compassionate, virtuous people as well. If I cite them, is that proof that the whole category of Christianity is the best thing ever created? Of course not. My eugenics point was to say that statist doctrines which resided upon positivist thinking (which is one strong root of modern atheism, at least the shallow forms) quickly assimilated scientific theory to dictate atrocious policies. The burning of witches is NOT Christian; suspicion of witchcraft (or similarly perceived phenomena) and consequent punishments are ubiquitous in world cultures. Once again, the terminological umbrella we use to define “religion” and “atheism” breaks down into human behaviors, which are promoted in a variety of ways. Which is my point, which you apparently have missed about a dozen times by now.

The danger is NOT religion, as I said, but religious thinking. I’m not about to go murder an abortion doctor, burn a witch, or prosecute sodomy, even though I’m a religous person. This is because I distance myself from the psychological patterns that dogmatic thinking so easily dominates. Consider it a form of self-protection. I said Cliff was one of the most religiously-devoted atheists I’ve ever talked to. That’s because he is SO dogmatically sure about everything he believes–he does nothing to protect himself or others from his biases. It’s THAT kind of thinking, not membership in a church, that results in holocausts and witch trials and absolute subordination to a murderous dictator. Granted, membership in a church may make some people (in some churches) more susceptible to that kind of thinking.

Science has not yet discovered a way to observe the undetectable dragon that lives in my garage.

Point well-taken. Science doesn’t need to spend any time trying to detect such a beast. Of course, if a couple billion people over the course of millenia claimed to have seen it, it might warrant some investigation. And, as each new observational tool came into existence, revisiting the place might be a good idea. Even then, God is more complex and vast a concept than the undetectable dragon. Sorry, Shane, but substitution instances, outside of simple deduction, rarely work when the issue being analyzed is so vastly different in degree than the substitution that’s provided.

The problem here, imo, is faith-as-proof. Either you can axiomatically accept that faith is a form of knowledge, or you can’t. Of course, if you can’t, then you have to deny anything and everything. Why? Well, because faith in the authenticity of human experience, existence, and logic are the axioms upon which your beliefs reside. Everything we believe, every actionable motivation beyond strict instinct requires that an assumption be made somewhere–that faith be invested in something, even if it’s only the validity of sensational experience. Furthermore, Positivism doesn’t eschew faith–it simply restricts the forms of knowledge available at any given time. Is sensation provable, repeatable, testable? Ask a schizophrenic. They’ll have a different set of tests, repetitions, and proofs than you do. They’re just in the minority, so few people consider the potential validity of their observations.

And again I will ask you to show exactly what “faith” is involved in atheism. Certainly it is possible to be an atheist on faith, but it is at no point required. The atheist claim is made based on limited proof, yes, but it is based on evidence never the less. The theist can only claim, as you have done, victory by negative proof. Like your straw-man, that is not a valid argument.

Based on evidence? What evidence? Like I said, a lack of proof is a lack of proof, not proof. An atheist can claim that God hasn’t been found anywhere on Earth–at least where he’s looking, how he’s looking. This is so limited as to hardly be a basis for conclusion. Has he looked like I have looked? Let me illustrate:

“There are tiny little creatures, too small to be seen.”
“No way.”
“Sure there is. Look through this microscope.”
“I don’t see anything.”
“You’ll have to adjust the microscope.”
“No.”
“What? Then you’ll never see them!”
“I did what you told me to do, and it failed. You must be wrong.”
“Just look again!”
“Nope.”

Atheists are using the wrong tools: they’re using their own perceptions; they’re applying mathematical thinking to a process made up of far too many variables; they’re using logic on an inherently non-logical form of knowledge. If they pray, it’s more often than not to go through the motions simply to prove that prayer doesn’t work. They’re looking in the microscope without adjusting the lens.

Of course, this is an endless argument; I can always say that atheists haven’t looked enough, and they can always say that they have. Neither of us is necessarily right.

But I have proof of God. What proof, you ask? You can’t see it. You can’t take it, repeat it, or test it. But I’ve known people who don’t believe that love exists because they’ve never experienced it. Trying to apply physics methodology to metaphysics is sticky at best, and unlikely to yield reliable results.

None of this, btw, should be construed as “proof” that God exists.

Feel free to show me the examples of how atheism requires axiomatic thinking.

1) Trust in senses.
2) Trust in human conception of logic (see challenge to Descartes “I think therefore I am” proof).
3) From the above two most arguments (atheistic or not) which are not faith-based are derived. Trust in scientific “fact” is based on trust in human computational method and mathematical theory, trust in scientific discovery is based on trust in observational methodology which is based on trust in sensation.

Some of YOUR axioms:
1) “[Atheism] is the ground state as it were.”
2) You believe in Occam’s razor. Try Chatton’s aftershave. I try to use both.
3) “The creator god posits something far more unlikely than than a slowly evolving universe created by the simple interaction of physical laws.” Simple interaction? On this point, you and I share an axiom (the method of creation). Nevertheless, just to show that it IS an axiom, consider chaos theory, Heisenberg uncertainty, and the disagreement about probability mechanics.

Glendon has a few too. I’ll address those shortly.

My turn: show me how any idea or observation has ever been based on absolute, incontrovertible, unadulterable truth. EVERYTHING resides upon at least a few basic assumptions.

“why should i believe an impossible thing with no evidence rather than an unlikely one with some evidence.”

So you know 1% of the picture and you assume that your view must be so. I don’t mind you believing in atheism. I just dislike the intolerance of religion–and, of course, the way that 1% somehow becomes 100% when an argument starts, whether theist or atheist.

I have no answer to the atheist question, but to point out that we live regardless of evidence. Experience is as complex as quantum mechanics, and has so many facets that can’t be (or have yet to be) universally shared–to deny any and all of those is negligent. You live in a socially-constructed reality. What might you believe with the “proof” of yesterday or tomorrow?

Regardless, I’m not asking you to believe in God, and I’m not intolerant of you wanting to believe otherwise.

Again, the argument from ignorance is not valid. You are right, it is a cop-out.

That’s right. It’s a cop-out and an axiom. Equally cop-outish is the argumentum ad ignorantiam that no proof constitutes anti-proof. You found an alternative to theism. Good for you. Just remember that it resides upon assumptions of what God is and a limited stream of logic. All you can ever disprove is human assumptions about God, but those are infinitely mutable.

I apologize for being so flaky about this. It’s not usually my style. I’m not trying to be obsequiously ambiguous or apologetic, but I find that because I believe that faith is a different form of knowledge than logic, logical discussions about it are always vague until they break down to specific constructs. The Bible, for instance, fails in a logical argument. But, in my view, the Bible is NOT God. Disproving a human construct isn’t quite the same as disproving the existence of deity. Logical assumptions about faith-knowledge tend to follow similar patterns.

In my statement about your understanding, I was actually referring to metaphysical phenomena, not observable phenomena. Things like emotions, gut instincts, concepts, impressions, deja vu, etc–things which are described by science with varying degrees of success, but which may never be fully described. You know that a diesel engine exists, but what do you know of its immaterial qualities? This supposing, of course, that there is such a thing as immaterial qualities.

You’re taking a very deductive approach at this. I haven’t been attempting to prove the existence of God. You’ve created a false dichotomy in assuming that proof for or against must exist and provide a sure conclusion. How many ways can I say that lack of proof for a thing doesn’t constitute proof for its antithesis? For your argument to succeed, you must assume a restriction in regards to which forms of evidence are valid, which forms of knowledge are valid, and that burden of proof is strictly polarized. You define yourself as correct.

I could introduce forms of knowledge and claim axiomatically that they are sure evidence, and we’d have a hayday. But I don’t think it’s effective to insist on a set interpretation of existence and evidence, and to believe that belief may only reside accurately on proof. Proof is so incredibly limited in its scope, as it deals only instantaneously with specific phenomena observed with specific observational methodology. Information may be extrapolated from it, but there’s so much more than merely proof and information that defines existence.

You admit that the proof of god is that you believe in god.

No, I didn’t. You just think I did, because you apparently perceive that personal beliefs have to be translated into universal fact in order to be accurate. I don’t tell anyone that God has to exist because I believe in him. I accept the burden of proof if I argue that he DOES exist on a factual or logical basis. That’s why I rarely argue that point. The proof of one thing or the other is unaquirable. It’s a faith thing. You wouldn’t understand.

Let’s try this: stop assuming that I believe in God, and that I have to prove to you that he exists. Let’s say I’m an agnostic, and that you’re trying to explain to me how you have anything more than NOT knowing something as proof that I should commit. Pretend that the stupidity of theists isn’t enough, because you’re not trying to replace my faith with doubt, but my doubt with knowledge. So tell me: what is your “some evidence?” Physical phenomena? Laws of Physics? Can you prove that the aspects of your proposed finite origins didn’t have an origin? Then where did they come from? The Planck Singularity, viewed as the origin of all, is simply a naturalistic permutation of “The First Thing.” We can find many of the same problems in it.

You ignore that surety requires a theory. You need a counterproposal, not just a denial of the opposition. It’s very easy to insist you’re right because the other guy’s wrong, but that’s a “told ya so” game, which never yields results in logic, science, or dialectic. Where would we be if the failure of a certain herb to affect a certain illness was considered proof that the illness was incurable? It’s my contention that you have nothing more convincing than “we don’t know” to back your conclusions, and that you’re translating it into false proof a la argumentum ad ignorantium. That we don’t know, and that the God-argument is more complex than can be resolved by physical evidence or logic alone is my point, exactly.

The fact that you want the atheist to admit that they fail to believe in something as a matter of faith is nonsensical.

No, I want the atheist (and the positivist) to admit that faith, axioms, and assumptiveness are necessary aspects of belief. Not belief in deity–that was your definition, and a poor one–but belief in things not evidenced–not proven. Its the absolutism of religious thinking that I dislike, not the particular belief. Both sides can be disgustingly smug (myself included).

Atheism, again, can be active or passive. Belief in the supernatural and superstition is quite natural, it seems, in most cultures. Belief in reason alone is usually developed, perhaps as a process of higher thinking. Of this I can’t be sure. Passive atheists are much closer to agnosticism, and that I don’t mind. Theirs is more of an inclination, sort of like the non-religious person who feels like there’s something out there that he’s not quite familiar with. Such people either remain agnostic or pick a side base on non-committed inclinations. It’s the active, insistent ones, who have the gall to act like the Pope and deny it. They bother me much more.

Mine isn’t a negative proof fallacy. I never claimed to have proof. This isn’t a zero-sum game; one of us doesn’t have to “win” by proving the other one completely wrong. I’m ok with being unsure. Your argument is the fallacy, for you claim to be sure only because others are wrong.

Glendon–

Your whole first paragraph presumes to place specific expectations of behavior upon God. You should know better than to make that the basis of your argument. You’ve also vastly restricted your observational methodology. Haven’t we talked about axiomatic thinking enough already?

Of course, if you look at it in terms of social science, you will find that true believers tend to rate themselves rather high on the happiness scale. You find a stronger sense of well-being, in many cases. Of course, this is self-reported, so people might just be delusional. I’ve known quite a few “happy” bitter Christians.

You’re failing in your analysis of God’s impact on the lives of men is looking for testable, repeatable hypothesis–you’re looking for a miracle with a machine. Deus ex machina? Sounds fun. Hardly constitutes proof. To a material mind, though, it’s great evidence.

The formulation of the image of the theist in this discussion is rather interesting. If I didn’t know better, I’d say you all think that Christianity has somehow survived on the backs of nothing more than slack-jawed yokels. There’s quite a few scientists (40%, in one U.S. study) who openly profess belief in God. They must just be lab assistants.

The conflict in the perception of a loving God and the horror of the real world is not quite as irreconcilable as you think. It’s the classic opposition to the concept of omnibenevolence, and there exist a wide variety of explanations (some crap, some pretty good) about why pain exists in the world despite the argument of omnibenevolence. Once again, don’t place your assumptions about God (in this place his knowledge and motives) on him. You’re arguing against your own misconceptions, and nothing more.

So if atheism resides in a disbelief in a specific construct of God (and a pre-conventional one, at that), then I would say that atheism is idiotic. Its a pan-theistic concept derived from criticism of one small category in the total variety of God-theory? You’ve got to be kidding me! If that’s the summation of atheism, I don’t need to argue any more. You guys should all recognize that its hardly a path to truth. It’s more like being lost.

As you say, disbelieving in such a God is no leap of faith–but it’s not a condemnation of God-faith, either, as faith (axiomatic thinking) is the basis of all belief and all action. See my comments to Shane on this topic.

“God of the Gaps?” Simple answer–God doesn’t need to hide from scientific explanation, or exist outside of it. Besides–do you have any idea how immense the gaps still are? What–do you think spraying pesticide on a 1/4″ square of your rug is going to get rid of all of the cockroaches in the house of your intellect? sorry, but atheists have a long way to go if they expect to fill the gaps as a means of proving that God doesn’t exist.

The “Deist Prime Mover,” or clockmaker theory, is the essence of faith. It’s the most basic form, asking, as you say, nothing of God. There’s no reason to believe it–just faith. As such, it should have no ability to affect our motivations and actions. Anyone who believes this theory and uses it as an excuse for what they do is a charlatan.

I take the position that God and religion are matters of faith, and that they may inform other forms of knowledge, but not dictate their content. The average Mormon is very weak in that he can’t differentiate between religion, culture, and politics. He lets the image of God he creates in his mind decide for him about everything, instead of using God as a source of wisdom–as a kind of living record of knowledge which may be accessed at any time. Alternately, atheism is reasonable–but it can’t fight faith, not unless that faith is so specific (at which time it’s likely not faith, but supposed knowledge) that it’s self-defeating.

building buldings and hiring pastors and so on?

I could use this same argument to criticize government; e.g. if government is there for the welfare of the people, then how come it spends so much money building town halls and hiring secretaries and so on? Criticizing administrative expense doesn’t really prove much. The excessive expenses I oppose as well, but perhaps you miss the point that many religious people believe that locations can be holy–that they can be a place of peace, or an access point to God.

If God’s mysterious ways permit suffering we humans find intolerable and if God has the power to end such suffering and chooses not to, then what good is god?

If God was a doctor or a pill, this would make a lot of sense. What good is God? He’s good for comfort. He’s good for helping people make better of themselves and to face the harsh realities of the world. So what if he doesn’t heal your cancer? Christ didn’t free the Jews from the Romans, either. The point was to save our souls, not our bodies. Once again, you’re argument imposes a strawman shell on God.

A great many religious persons claim that religion and morality are inseparable

I agree that this is nonsense. The rest of your paragraph is noteworthy, but you take quite a leap when you condemn theism. Theism is an enormous umbrella. What you’re saying is that if your brother is a degenerate so must the rest of your family be. What about the good that happens? Atheists are severely underrepresented in prison? Can you show me statistics for this, which includes differentiating between those who merely profess to believe in God and those who act like it it matters? Christianity didn’t teach the criminal to commit a crime–poverty tends to coincide with a lack of education which tends to coincide with religious upbringing with tends to coincide with crime. Which of these is the cause, which the result? I would venture that most criminals who believe in God didn’t think about that when they committed the crime–they were just being human beings. Furthermore, you imply that reason and religion are mutually exclusive. This depends upon the form religion takes.

Mother Theresa’s actions served to support an existing oppressive economic system.

And there never was an atheist who did the same–or, for that matter, created an oppressive economic system. Charitable people, religious or no, will have the same chance of having this effect. Mother Theresa didn’t approach the problem systemically because she wasn’t a politician. There’s nothing about atheism that explicitly directs its adherents to seek the wiser path. In some cases, atheism promotes a lack of caring for your fellow man. why care when it won’t matter? LeVeyan Satanism (an atheistic religion) takes such an approach.

It’s funny how all the ills of the past are blamed on religion. If I recall correctly, religion was just as prevalent when good was being done as when bad was being done. To maintain religion’s condemnation, we have to suppose that no significant good occurred–that no great thinkers came about in science, government, and philosophy–except in rebellion from theism. Is it possible that the history of the past is a human history, not just a theological one? That humans are cruel to each other? That religion is one of many tools that has been used for good and evil? The vastly greater numbers of religious people will always make it seem like religion was the cause of history’s tragedies. Sort of like how men were more intelligent than women, more virtuous than women, and more evil than women for centuries and centuries. It wasn’t the failings of women, but their lack of exposure that created this historical trend; likewise, there just haven’t been enough atheists to get any really evil work done.

I oppose any idea–any God–if it is used to destroy what I believe to be ethical. Faith and emotion intermix so easily that they are oftentimes one and the same, and that leads to gross human error. This problem is not solvable by simple logical theses, or by scientific inquiry. Human beings will be evil and they will be good, and they’ll find a lot of justifications for both.

As a product of human motivations, theism can be seen as one answer to the human need for structure–for an explanation of apparent causality. This need for causality can’t be easily ignored; the First Thing argument recognizes that time must be finite, a problem not readily approached by any of the atheism arguments I’ve heard. We can call the beginning of time “the origin.” Theism answers this by supposing that there is a creator or creative force which is independent of the demands of causality. How does atheism answer this?

I at first wanted to avoid this cliche argument, but I decided I’d better use it:
Prove to me that love exists. What are the products of love? Certainly aren’t chldren, as Glendon frequently points out that many married, loving couples never have them. Is it devotion? How is that measured? Many Christians say that they are comforted by the fact that God never leaves their side. Whatever you want to describe love as, I bet I can find an equal phenomena in religious experience. So where’s the empirical or logical proof?

Ultimately, if the world is the same with or without God, as you suggest, then belief in God is superfluous. What we’re really talking about isn’t religion at all, but large, concerted belief systems with a concept of central authority. Whether centered on God or man, systems which use faith as a theme around which to organize mob power can be dangerous.

Glendon, I appreciate your recognition of the problem of blind faith. To me, that’s what this thread is really all about.

Everyone–

Thanks for the conversation. Sorry about the dissertation. Next time I’m going to respond to a lot less, as I think I’ve made msot of the general arguments I need to make.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

the best we can do is admit that each of us is using axioms as a basis for belief.

An axiom is an already established or self evident truth. The existence of god is neither of these. You are simply wrong in this assertion. You continue to use the phrase as if you think it means that we are both basing understanding on faith. This is also simply wrong. Both definitionally, and as a reflection of my reasoning.

(the point is) whether religion is dangerous while atheism is not

Yet,

Christianity’s status as a religion is a moot point

That is an example of what I meant by inconsistency. If part of the point is a question of religions danger or lack thereof, then no, the status of christianity as a religion is not moot.

Once again, the terminological umbrella we use to define “religion” and “atheism” breaks down into human behaviors, which are promoted in a variety of ways. Which is my point, which you apparently have missed about a dozen times by now.

It was not a missed point. It is quiet simply wrong. As the quote goes, there will always be good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things, but to get good people to do bad things requires religion.

If you want to continue to redefine every term used to suit your argument rather than use them as they are commonly intended, you are not actually engaged in conversation. As several people have pointed out, you seem to want to change the meanings of various words to the point that they mean nothing at all. Exactly how does this further understanding?

Religion is defined by faith, and faith is defined as belief without reason. So long as people are willing to believe things without reason they are going to be that much easier to get to do things without reason. Your failure to understand the difference between the two systems is not the fault of the systems, but your own personal lack of comprehension.

“I accept that God exists strictly on the basis of axioms. I believe he exists because I believe he exists. I admit that, and that it’s purely faith-based.”

To this I said: “You admit that the proof of god is that you believe in god.”

To which you reply:

No, I didn’t. You just think I did, because you apparently perceive that personal beliefs have to be translated into universal fact in order to be accurate

Do you know what the term “intellectual dishonesty” means?

Tell me, if your personal beliefs are not a universal fact in order to reflect reality, what exactly are they? They accurately represent what if not reality? Your belief only?

So your belief in god means nothing more than that you believe? Your beliefs aren’t meant to reflect reality in any way? You are content to simply believe anything even if it is demonstrably wrong? Do you know the term “clinically insane”?

Let’s say I’m an agnostic, and that you’re trying to explain to me how you have anything more than NOT knowing something as proof that I should commit. Pretend that the stupidity of theists isn’t enough, because you’re not trying to replace my faith with doubt, but my doubt with knowledge

Yet again, for the Nth time, you fail to understand the burden of proof. Lets assume you are agnostic. Fine. I have no interest in replacing your doubt with knowledge. I think the position is silly, and fails to consider that the unobservable and the non-existent look so similar. But as you wish. I already made the argument. You keep responding with your assertions that I have the burden of proof. What do you wish me to do except quote Cliff again. “I dont’ know how to respond to him/her without being insulting”? It is a stupid statement. My only response after showing this multiple times is that you must be stupid or you wouldn’t keep asking.

I want the atheist (and the positivist) to admit that faith, axioms, and assumptiveness are necessary aspects of belief

You may as well want me to admit that the sky appears green to me. Faith, still, however often you have said it, has nothing to do with the claims I make as an atheist. You, despite my asking several times, have made no argument that I can see that it is otherwise. The closest you have come so far is:

1) Trust in senses.
2) Trust in human conception of logic (see challenge to Descartes “I think therefore I am” proof).

You don’t even have the most basic understanding of Descarte. Cartesian skepticism is exactly the assertion that the first example you offer is false, yet you claim they go together.

the First Thing argument recognizes that time must be finite

Must be finite? Is this assertion based on faith? Did you simply pull it out of your ass?

Mine isn’t a negative proof fallacy. I never claimed to have proof

Your full of shit.

Atheism is a secular religion

Is that not a claim? Is that not an assertion about the nature of belief, religion, and lack of belief?

Oh wait, I forgot. Your beliefs don’t have to have any actual reflection of reality in them. So whenever you speak in the future we should all simply assume that you are expressing your beliefs that have no import from reality? Very well…

In short, you offer no evidence of god despite claiming you see the burden of proof is on the theist, then spend most of your time trying to shift that burden. You claim that god is a matter of faith, which appears by your usage to mean “not based in reality in any way” and yet this is something that should “inform other forms of knowledge” as if simply believing something for no reason at all is knowledge. You also claim that atheism is based on faith, to which you appear to offer no argument except repeat assertions.

But the crowning glory certainly must be:

I at first wanted to avoid this cliche argument, but I decided I’d better use it:
Prove to me that love exists.

So god is nothing more than an internal emotion? A term for an emotional response? A linguistic utterance for a feeling?

And as a mormon you believe that is what wrote the book of mormon? An emotion?

Cheese and Rice you should have left that one alone. I was simply under the assumption that you were mislead, or simply failed to understand basic logic, but your entire argument can be summed up as “Whatever you want to describe love as, I bet I can find an equal phenomena in religious experience”???

Great, so all the bad things that religion has caused in human history are simply because people got emotional and you are a true believer in that emotion. And somehow that is “god.”

I believe in happiness, anger, frustration , love and a whole host of other personal experiences. No internal emotion can in any way shape or form be equated to be the creator of the universe.

As Matt said, “that does tend to strain the definition of theism somewhat.”

I would argue that Matt is being too kind by half. That is a definition of theism that adds up to nothing more than blind ignorance. If that is your support for being mormon you should have just taken the sage advice that it is better to be silent and thought a fool.

I think it’s important to recognize the distinction between fanaticism and theism. It’s not a belief in God that kills people, it’s a zealous belief in an irrational idea that does it. A fanatical belief in racial purity or animal rights is just as dangerous as a fanatical belief in the afterlife.

Religion, per se, is not evil and is not a killer. Unbridled emotion which overcomes reason is, and both theists and atheists are vulnerable to it.

Many of the arguments made about believing in God start with the assumptions god exists and use god to explain

A little bit off topic, but I read this earlier today, and it so perfectly captured a certain religious attitude, I just have to pass it on….

Scripture repeatedly asserts that God guided the hands of its authors. Therefore it must be true.

The bible is true, and i know it because it says it is in the bible, and since the bible is true, it must be….