Saying atheism is stupid does not make it so any more than saying theism is "smart" makes it so.Maybe not. But it brings the subject into the light of discussion. No different than what Trump did with immigration, in saying our immigration policies are stupid. Trump has not changed immigration, but now that people see that taboo subjects can be talked about, changes of mind and policies are possible. The Atheists are not fighting Christians. The Christians are using the Atheist’s thinking to help their cause. The Christians are not looking at Atheists as one of their major problems, because the Atheist’s platform is not as much of a threat. Pa ray is right. Atheism is stupid. The Atheist’s need to change their platform to their own thinking or stay a pawn of the Christian thinking. Trump on the other hand not only did lip service, but he took the subject one step further than the Atheists by telling us his solution. The Atheists have no solution. A solution is required because this subject is proven by history to be a worldwide human psychological problem that has been around long before the Christians. The last man to try and fix the problem was Jesus and they stole and changed his works. Maybe not on purpose, because after the crucifixion there was nobody with Jesus’s insight that lived long enough to keep the Gnostic thinking alive. Atheism isn't a platform. There is no "cause". Nor, is there a problem.
Saying atheism is stupid does not make it so any more than saying theism is "smart" makes it so.Maybe not. But it brings the subject ........ thinking alive. Atheism isn't a platform. There is no "cause". Nor, is there a problem. And you could be totally correct for some people. Other people might feel and think differently. I am open to looking at different views. I would like to pass down our knowledge and understandings to the next generation. I see atheism as a platform for other views of thought about religion as a whole. The figure of 2% of the people are atheists has been used. An example, people who are in favor of the separation of church and state, are thought of as atheist. They may be and may not be. It seems to be a catch all slot. Another example. Our country was built by Christians and the Christian values. Many people think that is true. Yet, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has the separation of church and state. Did we have a higher percentage of Atheists back then? History has a way of changing. I would like to see the real history being passed on. Welcome aboard, looking forward to your view points.
Saying atheism is stupid does not make it so any more than saying theism is "smart" makes it so.Maybe not. But it brings the subject ........ thinking alive. Atheism isn't a platform. There is no "cause". Nor, is there a problem. And you could be totally correct for some people. Other people might feel and think differently. I am open to looking at different views. I would like to pass down our knowledge and understandings to the next generation. I see atheism as a platform for other views of thought about religion as a whole. The figure of 2% of the people are atheists has been used. An example, people who are in favor of the separation of church and state, are thought of as atheist. They may be and may not be. It seems to be a catch all slot. Apparently you do not understand the intent of the "Establishment Clause"
Another example. Our country was built by Christians and the Christian values. Many people think that is true. Yet, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has the separation of church and state. Did we have a higher percentage of Atheists back then?The founders recognized the inherent danger of a theocracy. Is that not what the earliest settlers were escaping from, religious persecution?
History has a way of changing. I would like to see the real history being passed on.What an odd thing to say. History never changes, its already fixed. However, kowledge can change the way we have always done it in history. One thing is historically clear. Theism has caused some of the bloodiest wars IN HISTORY. I think THAT history needs to be changed in the future.
Atheism is stupid, according to Carl Sagan. I agree with his view and here is the reason why. The word atheism started to gain attention in the 15th century when christian era ruled. The christian leaders at that time gave the word a negative meaning ex. evil, bad, possessed and reinforced the belief and fear by actual torture. When this word is used by the common christian, their preconditioned brain automatically shuts down their ability to reason. I use a new positive word to help in a discussion about religion and that word is "catheist". This way i get a chance to discuss and explain how my own beliefs in a god have changed without them prejudging me. It keeps the discussion going. Definition: Catheist is a person who does not know if there is a god.How does that differ from agnostic? In fact, no one on earth knows if there is a god, theists and atheists alike. Loist Lois, My objective was to get people to go back in history. All Abrahamic religions started at a time when god's seemed to be the only answer. The smartest people of the time had to explain to others what was happening in order to control the less learned. My selection of the term Catheist was my attempt to let others know me and where my thinking was coming from. The Greek's at that time in history simply put the letter A in front of the word they wanted to show the opposit view of. It would be clearer if i just put an A in front of the word catholic ex. ACATHOLIC
Anyone who makes the claim “there is no God” would be subject to the requirement of evidence to support such a claim.
If your position is “I do not believe there is enough evidence to support the existence of a God” than you do NOT have to support your position with evidence, as you are not making a claim. This is the atheist position
If your position is “I do not know if there is a God” then you ALSO do not have to support your position with evidence, as you are ALSO not making a claim. This is the agnostic position
(I personally believe there is little distinction between the two, but that is an entirely different discussion)
Therefore it should be considered impossible to make a judgment on the stupidity of the atheist position as it is not making a claim or coming to a conclusion of any kind.
If you are concluding that the people who make the claim “There is no God” are atheists and stupid then you would be misrepresenting the atheist position in order to make it easier to attack. That is known as a “straw man” fallacy.
Anyone who makes the claim "there is no God" would be subject to the requirement of evidence to support such a claim. .No, Because it is not a claim. It's a disclaimer, because the default position is that is no sentient creator. You are making that claim and it is up to you to provide the proof .
Anyone who makes the claim "there is no God" would be subject to the requirement of evidence to support such a claim. .No, Because it is not a claim. It's a disclaimer, because the default position is that is no sentient creator. You are making that claim and it is up to you to provide the proof . I'll re-word the position for clarity. The claim "There cannot be a God or God does NOT exist" is not the same as "There is no evidence for God, or there is no reason to believe in God" To say that there cannot be a God or it is a certainty that God does not exist, you would need to provide evidence for that. The lack of that evidence does not point towards its existence however as an un-falsifiable claim is a rather weak one than a strong one. I am saying that a God claim cannot be proven nor can it be disproved (tomorrow a God could simply pop into existence and submit itself for analysis and experimentation) The atheist position does not burden itself with such requirements. It simply takes the position that there is no evidence for a God. One could take the next step to then say "therefore there is no reason to believe in a God" but I believe that step to be superfluous. Atheists don't need to make this any harder than it has to be and agnostics don't need to shy away from the fact that they are essentially atheists too apprehensive to accept the label
As I said before, unless there is evidence that a god exists, the default position is that god does not exist.
Does a Flying spaghetti Monster exist? My answer to that claim would be exactly the same.
Just because theism has a long history of believers does not in any way alter the fundamental burden of proof.
It is pure hubris to make a claim without any supporting evidence, then require the person who says that this claim makes no sense to prove why it makes no sense. That’s NOT how it works my friend.
Atheists are not making this any harder than it has to be. YOU DO, by your insistence that God does exist without being able to even describe what properties God possesses, other than the Creator, which is a meaningless term unless you can explain how that could be possible and how God would have gone about this.
Words like “All Powerful” and “He Saw it was Good”, are all meaningless in the face of the physical evidence , which argues strongly against any notion of a “sentient and motivated” creation.
The theist could make it a lot easier if they just accepted the fact that only science can trace universal history back to its Origins. Theism certainly cannot. Scripture certainly can never be introduced as evidence.
Few people are aware that the Papal Academy of Sciences which, to their credit, has now agreed with science that Evolution of species is fact. Any claim to the contrary without proof is pure hubris and self serving clinging to an outdated concept.
As I said before, unless there is evidence that a god exists, the default position is that god does not exist. Does a Flying spaghetti Monster exist? My answer to that claim would be exactly the same. Just because theism has a long history of believers does not in any way alter the fundamental burden of proof. It is pure hubris to make a claim without any supporting evidence, then require the person who says that this claim makes no sense to prove why it makes no sense. That's NOT how it works my friend. Atheists are not making this any harder than it has to be. YOU DO, by your insistence that God does exist without being able to even describe what properties God possesses, other than the Creator, which is a meaningless term unless you can explain how that could be possible and how God would have gone about this. Words like "All Powerful" and "He Saw it was Good", are all meaningless in the face of the physical evidence , which argues strongly against any notion of a "sentient and motivated" creation. The theist could make it a lot easier if they just accepted the fact that only science can trace universal history back to its Origins. Theism certainly cannot. Scripture certainly can never be introduced as evidence. Few people are aware that the Papal Academy of Sciences which, to their credit, has now agreed with science that Evolution of species is fact. Any claim to the contrary without proof is pure hubris and self serving clinging to an outdated concept.Please look at my user name Let me be clear. I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. I am not making an argument in support of Gods existence. Saying that evidence is required to support the claim that God cannot exist is NOT evidence that it does exist. I am trying to illustrate how arguments work in the context of the discussion. A theist will characterize the argument against atheism by trying to alter the position to make it easier to attack. For example: How do you prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist? I'm not actually making the argument in favor of God's existence I am explaining how easy it is to get lost in the semantics and misunderstand the actual positions.
@ Atheist_Twin,
Seems we are in agreement then. It is the way you posed the question that prompted my response.
Avocatus, I did not mean to insult anyone who wants to claim to be known as an atheist. History has been revealing for me and when i found out that leaders of religions used the opportunity to alter the meaning, I asked myself why? I am growing you know. I thought the name catheist would be ideal, then history got in my way. The Greeks put an A in front of a word they wanted to disagree with it’s meaning. So I refer to myself as ACATHOLIC which tells someone a bit of my history. I personally do not have any bad memories, I just have more knowledge now.
Avocatus, I did not mean to insult anyone who wants to claim to be known as an atheist. History has been revealing for me and when i found out that leaders of religions used the opportunity to alter the meaning, I asked myself why? I am growing you know. I thought the name catheist would be ideal, then history got in my way. The Greeks put an A in front of a word they wanted to disagree with it's meaning. So I refer to myself as ACATHOLIC which tells someone a bit of my history. I personally do not have any bad memories, I just have more knowledge now.In one of my earliest posts on this forum, I proposed that what religions identify as God, is an early attempt to identify Universal Potential, a word still unknown at that time. I find it very interesting that scripture begins with "in the beginning was the Word", and then explains that this word was a causal dynamic. So, they assigned the word God to that dynamic causality. I have no problem with that. It is just a Word. But where I began to disagree with scripture was when the Word God was then defined as a sentient, motivated, and emotional being, which made conscious decisions for His pleasure. Today, in science it is called "movement in the direction of greatest physical satisfaction (comfort)", which does not require a deliberate act, but is a natural self-ordering tendency of physical things. As I mentioned before, forming a sphere exists as an abstract universal potential and it is only the restrictive environment which prevents it from becoming a perfect sphere, but not for lack of trying.