I have no problem with possibility of gods existence

[newpolitics]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing whose sight was not contingent upon subjective interpretations or personal judgements about realty, but is was objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I sometimes have a problem with the corresponding actions to that belief. However, to change action, the belief must first be changed, and theists do not want to do this willingly, and understandably. Human psychology is based on core beliefs that form our identity and sense of self. Often, religious beliefs can be held at this level of core identity, in which case they are guarded with intense fury. Atheists also have core beliefs, but not tied with atheism, since it has no ontology. (My definition of atheism is "a lack of belief in god. It is NOT a belief that god doesn't exist, with certainty)

Edit: I am not going to respond to trolling, which I define as illogical emotional appeals to ridicule.

 

[editec]

I am SOME KIND OF BELIEVER.

Like you, however, I have no problem that most people are SOME OTHER KIND OF BELIEVER.

It's not until those other kinds of beleivers want to shove their religious beliefs down my throat, (ie., make their beliefs the law of the land) that I actually CARE about their beliefs.

I want to live in a SECULAR society BECAUSE I am a BELIEVER.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing that was not subjective to personal judgements about realty, but objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I have a problem with the corresponding destructive actions.

I have no problem with your position on gods. Frankly, I consider the entire question of the existence of such a being or beings to be irrelevant. I don't care if there are such things.

However, I do take exception to your position on religion. As far as I am concerned, you are treating religion as a god. You are attributing behaviors to it, assuming it has an agenda, blaming it for the actions of people. Religion does not affect the behavior of people, religion is people. Religion is nothing more than an expression of human behavior, not a cause of it. It is not a seperate entity. It does not make people self-righteous, people are self-righteous.

When you say you hate religion, all you are saying is that you hate people. At least those people who do not behave as you desire them to behave. Which is, when you get down to it, self-righteous.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am SOME KIND OF BELIEVER.

Like you, however, I have no problem that most people are SOME OTHER KIND OF BELIEVER.

It's not until those other kinds of beleivers want to shove their religious beliefs down my throat, (ie., make their beliefs the law of the land) that I actually CARE about their beliefs.

I want to live in a SECULAR society BECAUSE I am a BELIEVER.

I concur. I just don't want it shoved down my throat by either side.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing that was not subjective to personal judgements about realty, but objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I have a problem with the corresponding destructive actions.

I have no problem with your position on gods. Frankly, I consider the entire question of the existence of such a being or beings to be irrelevant. I don't care if there are such things.

However, I do take exception to your position on religion. As far as I am concerned, you are treating religion as a god. You are attributing behaviors to it, assuming it has an agenda, blaming it for the actions of people. Religion does not affect the behavior of people, religion is people. Religion is nothing more than an expression of human behavior, not a cause of it. It is not a seperate entity. It does not make people self-righteous, people are self-righteous.

When you say you hate religion, all you are saying is that you hate people. At least those people who do not behave as you desire them to behave. Which is, when you get down to it, self-righteous.

Belief informs action. Agreed? How you hold the world to be true will effect how you interact with it. It is the action I have a problem with. Therefore, it is not people I have a problem with. It is the action tied to very specific theistic beliefs.

Nor is it a problem with religion, itself, but again, people's actions as a result of subscribing to the beliefs contained in that religion. That is a choice, because skepticism is always available as a methodology. People choose to remain in the comfort of familiar or soothing beliefs, because they are familiar and soothing. However, that doesn't make those beliefs true. And if action is based on errant belief, then it the belief needs to be changed to correct the action. The goal here should be truth, not personal comfort. I have yet to meet a hell-believing theist who believes they are going to Hell. Only those who don't believe are.

 

[newpolitics]

I am SOME KIND OF BELIEVER.

Like you, however, I have no problem that most people are SOME OTHER KIND OF BELIEVER.

It's not until those other kinds of beleivers want to shove their religious beliefs down my throat, (ie., make their beliefs the law of the land) that I actually CARE about their beliefs.

I want to live in a SECULAR society BECAUSE I am a BELIEVER.

This is a very enlightened outlook!

I want people to be happy. If their belief makes them happy, cool. But someone's freedom to swing their arm ends at someone else's nose.

 

[tipofthespear]

To the Author of the OP........You certainly have the God given right not to believe.....however I would suggest that it takes far more "faith" to NOT believe in Intelligent Design ie. God than to believe. It requires a great deal of "faith" to believe that all that exists/ever existed/will exist is/was the result of some "cosmic oops." Given the highly specific "order" of the universe, and the need for that "order" to remain in place for the universe to remain........the "oops" theory is far more suspect as "truth" than "Intelligent Design" is it not?

QUOTE FROM THE OP: I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep. END QUOTE.

First, you must understand that Christianity and "religion" have little if anything in common.......once you can distinguish the difference, you will better understand Christianity.

Second, any who act as you describe in the quoted comment are not true Christians in my opinion. In fact, the type of actions/display of emotions you describe are in direct disobedience to the Commandments of Jesus Christ.

As well, those who are not Christians should refrain from expecting/demanding that Christians be "perfect." Christians are not perfect, nor will they ever be on this earth. In the life to come is when "perfection" is obtained. Just saying........as well, in my experience non-believers seize on any and every opportunity to find a fault in the life/actions of a Christian, so as to validate their own imperfect lives..........the VERY REASON Jesus came to earth was to provide a way for man to be reconciled with God, for you are completely correct.........no man, Christian or otherwise is perfect............thus Jesus had to provide atonement for the imperfections of mankind.

What I find interesting is you state that you have never seen logical/scientific proof/evidence that God exists.............and based on this, you reject His existence..........could you provide me with logical/scientific evidence that God DOES NOT exist?

As I said in another comment...........

If you are right and I am wrong, hey, no harm, no foul...........for living Christ-like is a good way for all mankind to live is it not?

However, if I am right, and you are wrong............that is ONE HELL of a mistake on your part is it not?

And there is no guarantee that you will have the opportunity to change your mind before the end comes, so don't hold out for an "epiphany moment," or you might discover you have lost........

I don't hate you, nor do I hate atheists, agnostics, however I do hate that within your grasp is everlasting life and you/they choose to reject it...........beats me why.............

God bless and keep you and yours.........and if you will ONLY BELIEVE when the Eastern Sky splits, and the Lion of Judah returns...........well, unfortunately that will be too late don't you see?

 

[editec]

I am SOME KIND OF BELIEVER.

Like you, however, I have no problem that most people are SOME OTHER KIND OF BELIEVER.

It's not until those other kinds of beleivers want to shove their religious beliefs down my throat, (ie., make their beliefs the law of the land) that I actually CARE about their beliefs.

I want to live in a SECULAR society BECAUSE I am a BELIEVER.

This is a very enlightened outlook!

Not really all that enlighted since the US CONSTITUTION has make that the law of the land since 1789, but thanks anyway.

I want people to be happy. If their belief makes them happy, cool. But someone's freedom to swing their arm ends at someone else's nose.

Yup...your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose.

That weird theory is really the very best reason to live in a CIVILIZED nation.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing that was not subjective to personal judgements about realty, but objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I sometimes have a problem with the corresponding actions to that belief. However, to change action, the belief must first be changed, and theists do not want to do this willingly, and understandably. Human psychology is based on core beliefs that form our identity and sense of self. Often, religious beliefs can be held at this level of core identity, in which case they are guarded with intense fury. Atheists also have core beliefs, but not tied with atheism, since it has no ontology. (My definition of atheism is "a lack of belief in god. It is NOT a belief that god doesn't exist, with certainty)

Edit: I am not going to respond to trolling, which I define as illogical emotional appeals to ridicule.

Stop attacking Christians and you won't look like such a God hater. As to your not having a problem with the possibility of G-ds Existance?

LOL! I can only imagine how relieved God must be to hear this news. "You don't have a problem with His existance." The level of arrogance it would take to make such a remark is so far "up there", I'm left speechless. HA!

 

[newpolitics]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing that was not subjective to personal judgements about realty, but objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I sometimes have a problem with the corresponding actions to that belief. However, to change action, the belief must first be changed, and theists do not want to do this willingly, and understandably. Human psychology is based on core beliefs that form our identity and sense of self. Often, religious beliefs can be held at this level of core identity, in which case they are guarded with intense fury. Atheists also have core beliefs, but not tied with atheism, since it has no ontology. (My definition of atheism is "a lack of belief in god. It is NOT a belief that god doesn't exist, with certainty)

Edit: I am not going to respond to trolling, which I define as illogical emotional appeals to ridicule.

Stop attacking Christians and you won't look like such a God hater. As to your not having a problem with the possibility of G-ds Existance?

LOL! I can only imagine how relieved God must be to hear this news. "You don't have a problem with His existance." The level of arrogance it would take to make such a remark is so far "up there", I'm left speechless. HA!

Where in this post did I single out Christians?

 

[Oldguy]

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing whose sight was not contingent upon subjective interpretations or personal judgements about realty, but is was objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

He did in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, you still don't believe. No, you weren't there to see it yourself, but many eyewitnesses were and have left accounts of what they saw. Yet, you don't believe them either.

If you're so open to the possibility, why not? You didn't see Aristotle either, or Napolean or Charles Darwin, yet you believe the evidence of their existence. What's the difference?

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing that was not subjective to personal judgements about realty, but objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I have a problem with the corresponding destructive actions.

I have no problem with your position on gods. Frankly, I consider the entire question of the existence of such a being or beings to be irrelevant. I don't care if there are such things.

However, I do take exception to your position on religion. As far as I am concerned, you are treating religion as a god. You are attributing behaviors to it, assuming it has an agenda, blaming it for the actions of people. Religion does not affect the behavior of people, religion is people. Religion is nothing more than an expression of human behavior, not a cause of it. It is not a seperate entity. It does not make people self-righteous, people are self-righteous.

When you say you hate religion, all you are saying is that you hate people. At least those people who do not behave as you desire them to behave. Which is, when you get down to it, self-righteous.

Belief informs action. Agreed? How you hold the world to be true will effect how you interact with it. It is the action I have a problem with. Therefore, it is not people I have a problem with. It is the action tied to very specific theistic beliefs.

Nor is it a problem with religion, itself, but again, people's actions as a result of subscribing to the beliefs contained in that religion. That is a choice, because skepticism is always available as a methodology. People choose to remain in the comfort of familiar or soothing beliefs, because they are familiar and soothing. However, that doesn't make those beliefs true. And if action is based on errant belief, then it the belief needs to be changed to correct the action. The goal here should be truth, not personal comfort. I have yet to meet a hell-believing theist who believes they are going to Hell. Only those who don't believe are.

No. Not agreed at all. At best, belief is used to justify action after the fact. There have been major instances of violence at sporting events. Do athletics cause violence?

If the goal is the truth, then let us deal with the truth. Humans are everythng you described, all on their own. They do not require any particular belief for that. Those beliefs are not the source of the behavior, the behavior is the source of the beliefs. So, what you seem to be doing is to remain in the comfort of familiar and soothing beliefs, i.e. that belief is the problem and not us. If we can just dispose of the beliefs all will be rosy and nice. The problem, however, is entirely us.

 

[Oldguy]

Wonder where the OP went?

 

[newpolitics]

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing whose sight was not contingent upon subjective interpretations or personal judgements about realty, but is was objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

He did in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, you still don't believe. No, you weren't there to see it yourself, but many eyewitnesses were and have left accounts of what they saw. Yet, you don't believe them either.

If you're so open to the possibility, why not? You didn't see Aristotle either, or Napolean or Charles Darwin, yet you believe the evidence of their existence. What's the difference?

I still don't believe because a book is not evidence. Aristotle didn't claim to be god. There is a big difference between normal claims and extraordinary ones, and we all know the quote... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan)

 

[newpolitics]

I have no problem with your position on gods. Frankly, I consider the entire question of the existence of such a being or beings to be irrelevant. I don't care if there are such things.

However, I do take exception to your position on religion. As far as I am concerned, you are treating religion as a god. You are attributing behaviors to it, assuming it has an agenda, blaming it for the actions of people. Religion does not affect the behavior of people, religion is people. Religion is nothing more than an expression of human behavior, not a cause of it. It is not a seperate entity. It does not make people self-righteous, people are self-righteous.

When you say you hate religion, all you are saying is that you hate people. At least those people who do not behave as you desire them to behave. Which is, when you get down to it, self-righteous.

Belief informs action. Agreed? How you hold the world to be true will effect how you interact with it. It is the action I have a problem with. Therefore, it is not people I have a problem with. It is the action tied to very specific theistic beliefs.

Nor is it a problem with religion, itself, but again, people's actions as a result of subscribing to the beliefs contained in that religion. That is a choice, because skepticism is always available as a methodology. People choose to remain in the comfort of familiar or soothing beliefs, because they are familiar and soothing. However, that doesn't make those beliefs true. And if action is based on errant belief, then it the belief needs to be changed to correct the action. The goal here should be truth, not personal comfort. I have yet to meet a hell-believing theist who believes they are going to Hell. Only those who don't believe are.

No. Not agreed at all. At best, belief is used to justify action after the fact. There have been major instances of violence at sporting events. Do athletics cause violence?

If the goal is the truth, then let us deal with the truth. Humans are everythng you described, all on their own. They do not require any particular belief for that. Those beliefs are not the source of the behavior, the behavior is the source of the beliefs. So, what you seem to be doing is to remain in the comfort of familiar and soothing beliefs, i.e. that belief is the problem and not us. If we can just dispose of the beliefs all will be rosy and nice. The problem, however, is entirely us.

If you think action causes belief, then we can't have a debate. You have your casual relationship reversed.

If I believe someone is a threat, based on what I believe to be evidence, I will treat them as such. My belief informs my actions and behavior, because beliefs create our perceptions.

How do you explain action without some kind of underlying belief?

 

[MaryL]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing whose sight was not contingent upon subjective interpretations or personal judgements about realty, but is was objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I sometimes have a problem with the corresponding actions to that belief. However, to change action, the belief must first be changed, and theists do not want to do this willingly, and understandably. Human psychology is based on core beliefs that form our identity and sense of self. Often, religious beliefs can be held at this level of core identity, in which case they are guarded with intense fury. Atheists also have core beliefs, but not tied with atheism, since it has no ontology. (My definition of atheism is "a lack of belief in god. It is NOT a belief that god doesn't exist, with certainty)

Edit: I am not going to respond to trolling, which I define as illogical emotional appeals to ridicule.

Personally, I don't care. Admit it. You are an agnostic. Lot of us on this board are,I am. If there was proof 1 god existed, we would all be on it. But it's just not happening. Hasn't happened since the human race strolled out from the African savanna a millennium ago. We all want a God, but it just isn't happening. But If God showed up, I would accept that too. So far: Not happening.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing whose sight was not contingent upon subjective interpretations or personal judgements about realty, but is was objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I sometimes have a problem with the corresponding actions to that belief. However, to change action, the belief must first be changed, and theists do not want to do this willingly, and understandably. Human psychology is based on core beliefs that form our identity and sense of self. Often, religious beliefs can be held at this level of core identity, in which case they are guarded with intense fury. Atheists also have core beliefs, but not tied with atheism, since it has no ontology. (My definition of atheism is "a lack of belief in god. It is NOT a belief that god doesn't exist, with certainty)

Edit: I am not going to respond to trolling, which I define as illogical emotional appeals to ridicule.

Personally, I don't care. Admit it. You are an agnostic. Lot of us on this board are,I am. If there was proof 1 god existed, we would all be on it. But it's just not happening. Hasn't happened since the human race strolled out from the African savanna a millennium ago. We all want a God, but it just isn't happening. But If God showed up, I would accept that too. So far: Not happening.

Well, I am agnostic, and atheistic. By my definitions, the two are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge, while atheism addresses belief. So, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe that god exists, but I do not know this or believe it is even knowable.

 

[jwoodie]

The problem is that, in our society, it is generally Atheists who want to prohibit any public acknowledgment of religious viewpoints. Baptists don't complain about seeing an image of Mary with a halo or a star of David, for that matter. Only the Atheists want to prohibit all (other) religions from having any public acknowledgment. And radical Muslims, of course.

 

[newpolitics]

The problem is that, in our society, it is generally Atheists who want to prohibit any public acknowledgment of religious viewpoints. Baptists don't complain about seeing an image of Mary with a halo or a star of David, for that matter. Only the Atheists want to prohibit all (other) religions from having any public acknowledgment. And radical Muslims, of course.

America is an overwhelmingly Christian country, by populous. Of course Christians aren't going to have problems with Christian religious adornments on public property, or even Jewish ones, since it is all the same god. It is similar enough to not provoke anger. The first amendment makes clear that govt shall not respect one religion over another, which implies that it can't endorse any religion by using public funds to pay for something religious. That is all atheists are saying. You are attempting to use an argument from popularity here, saying that because most people are Christian, the first amendment should be scrapped, and Christianity be respected by the state. At least, that's what it sounds like.

 

[tipofthespear]

The problem is that, in our society, it is generally Atheists who want to prohibit any public acknowledgment of religious viewpoints. Baptists don't complain about seeing an image of Mary with a halo or a star of David, for that matter. Only the Atheists want to prohibit all (other) religions from having any public acknowledgment. And radical Muslims, of course.

America is an overwhelmingly Christian country, by populous. Of course Christians aren't going to have problems with Christian religious adornments on public property, or even Jewish ones, since it is all the same god. It is similar enough to not provoke anger. The first amendment makes clear that govt shall not respect one religion over another, which implies that it can't endorse any religion by using public funds to pay for something religious. That is all atheists are saying. You are attempting to use an argument from popularity here, saying that because most people are Christian, the first amendment should be scrapped, and Christianity be respected by the state. At least, that's what it sounds like.

Actually that is a generalized misconception..........America is not an overwhelmingly Christian Nation. The majority of Americans are not Christian.......regardless of what "belief" they "identify" with. Simple truth is, one is not a Christian because they go to Church on Christmas and Easter.......nor is one a Christian because their grandmother was. Another sad truth is, the Churches across the Nation are full of non-Christians every Sunday Service.

Point two.........as for separation of Church and State, that IS NOT in the Constitution. This phrase was included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a specific Church Congregation, and he wrote the letter to assure the Pastor and Parish that the Government WOULD NOT outlaw their denomination. The 1st Amendment was crafted to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT out of the Church, it was never intended to keep Christianity out of the Government...........any reasonable review OF THE ACTUAL ACTS of the Founding Fathers makes this perfectly clear. Jefferson himself, as President, ORDERED FEDERAL BUILDINGS to REMAIN OPEN on Sundays in the D.C. area so that ALL BELIEVERS would have a PLACE TO WORSHIP THEIR GOD should they NOT HAVE a building of their own.

The US Congress and the SCOTUS begins each session with a PRAYER! Both the House and the Senate have "CHAPLAINS." The 10 Commandments appear on the walls of the Supreme Court of the United States.............

The 1st Amendment simple meant THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT "establish" ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION/DENOMINATION as the "lawful" religion/denomination of the Nation............P=E=R=I=O=D ! This Amendment has been so severely corrupted by socialist liberal activist Jurists to the point it is no longer recognizable when considering the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers.