I think that's a faulty conclusion. What he was trying to say is that he doesn't BELIEVE there is no god, his objection being to the word "believe" and what it connotes. In that context, it is not a double negative, and it does not translate to "I believe in god."

 

I'm sure that is the case, but I'm being facetious. However, he either 'believes' that there is no God, or he has evidence that there is no God. I know he doesn't have evidence that there is no God, no more than I have evidence that there are no green swans. So he must believe there is no God. But he refutes that too. Shrugs. Can't argue with an Italian.

 

Well, I guess you can't argue with me, either, because I don't consider atheism a belief, either. If I choose not to believe in your fantasy, whatever it may be, because I see no evidence in support of it, my position is inherently rational, and yours isn't. Show me compelling evidence and I'll believe what you believe -- except that my belief will be based solely on facts, not on faith.

 

He also claims that we know Zeus DOESN'T exist because there is no religion called Azeusism. Following this logically, this means that God does exist because we DO have a religion called Christianity. And that Ganesh exists because we have a religion called Hinduism.

If you are going to get all smart-alec, and abuse other people's education you should at least try and present a sound and valid argument to back up what you are saying.

 

My fantasy? I don't believe in God. What's your point?

 

FWIW, I would agree with you that it's invalid to base a determination regarding the existence or non-existence of a supreme being on the number of people who happen to adhere to that belief.

 

Relax. I was using the word "you" in a more generic sense.

 

I guess you're talking about the second 'you' and not the first 'you', which is definitely me. As a matter of fact I'm an agnostic in terms of creation of everything. We dont know what happened before the 'Big Bang' or whatever happened at the 'beginning of time'. Maybe there was some Prime Mover, Some Creator, or some crazed alien scientist and we are all on his petri dish. The point is we don't know, so in that sense I am an agnostic. In terms of an omnipotent being who we should all pray to cos he gives a fuck about us, then I am definitely an atheist, but I don't know that I'm right, so it's a belief. On that we will have to agree to disagree. And I'm very relaxed thank you :excited:

 

I can see why people ask what happened before the Big Bang. But time is a parameter of our universe. Space-time was too part of the singularity that the universe expanded from. It is like travelling to the north pole and saying "ok whats futher north than this"

 

I'm not sure why, but that question put me in mind of the following:

 

I came to despise Ambrose Bierce because that slimy toad Philip Franks always quoted him on Countdown.

 

Aha, you mean a Brit show. In the U.S., "Countdown" is a cable show hosted by Keith Olbermann, who would also love Ambrose Bierce, if he wasn't so obsessed with James Thurber.

 

I do. I knew it would lose something in translation but ugh....the very thought of his smugness makes me want to punch the tv right now, even though its not on!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG_5l44IJrM&p=F38F07F10FDF9CC2&playnext=1&index=17

 

I'm not sure if I suggested academia, etc were somehow the center of atheist thought - never intended to, because I don't believe it. I would submit that the category highlighted aren't really athiests at all, but are anti-religion. I think that is a clear and important distinction. The only test one has to pass to give credibility to their belief system is to be able to explain (mostly to themselves) why they believe what they believe. Alot of "angry" atheists I encounter can not do this very well.

I wonder if it's possible for you to explain your idea of the realities of the universe without juxtaposing anything regarding deism? The last part of your statement seems to read like utilitarianism, and is almost as much an enemy of scientific "progress" as fundamentalist religion.

 

The theory that answers everything answers nothing. Replace god with toe jam and you end up in the exact same position. Your assertion that the evidence for your god is in everything is so puerile as to make me despise you more than a little bit for your insipid dogma.

-S-

 

Atheism. From the greek 'a' meaning without, theos, meaning god. Without god. Not a belief that there is no god. Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

-S-

 

You're fucking retarded.

-S-

 

Excellent analogy. Why is it, do you suppose, that religious people are so anxious to say that atheism is a religion too? Can they not imagine a frame of reference in which belief itself is suspect?

 

If they had any kind of imagination they would not be religious. Deity belief smacks of a supreme lack of imagination, as far as I'm concerned. I like what Carl Sagan said: God is too small.

-S-