Is Atheism a religion? If not, what is?

[Dogger807]

Funny how religious people want to equate atheism with being a religion.. what do they hope to gain?

They also want to equate believing in science with believing in faith.. what do they hope to gain?

I'm sure you've all heard the quote "calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

fact 1: believing in something strongly doesn't make it a religion. Or else we could call our political parties religions.

fact 2: promoting ideas , even at a fanatical level, isn't a religion. Otherwise greenpeace would be tax free.

All atheism is is a viewpoint that no religion is true. Period. Nothing fancy.

Of course people only hear what they want to hear. If they want to make atheism as irrational as believing in a virgin birth of a supernatural being, they will over look any argument to the contrary.

There is no structure to atheism .. there is only "no god"

There are no rules to atheism... there is only "no god"

There are no priests for atheism.... there are only activists saying there is no god

To be a religion requires belief in something, not the lack of belief. And no the belief that god is a superstition is not equivalent as a believe, it is only a play on words.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Religion is the systematic belief in a supernatural deity or flying spaghetti monster.

Atheisn is disbelief in such nonsense. When white is black, hot is cold, up is down, then atheism will become a religion. Not before.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Atheists don't have an eschatology, but then neither do Buddhists, Hindus, Unitarians, and numerous other sects. Even the Jews, though expecting a Messiah yet to appear, do not share the Christian eschatology that is partly drawn from Old Testament prophecies.

The only completely unifying factor among all the religions is that they are based on their view of deity and their devotion to that belief.

Who says they don't? Just because my ponderings on the end of things isn't dictated by a diseased imaginative writer from two millenia ago doesn't mean I'm not aware that all things end.

The universe contains a finite amount of mass and energy.

The present imbalance of thermal energy is equalizing. It may take a hundred trillion years, but one day the balance will be complete. When that happens, everything dies.

The world, meaning the planet earth, has a finite beginning and a finite end. It either spirals into the photosphere of a red giant sun, or that red giant sun blows off enough mass that the earth will slip into interstellar space, where it freezes solid. As far as life is concerned, the world will end.

If eschatology requires that we believe in supernatural angels, hell-fire, judgement, and all the other trash dredged up from the sick corners of the psyche, then no, I ain't got an eschatology.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re the 'sheep' thing, if the Atheists aren't following a specific doctrine why does the 'sheep' analogy come up so often as well as the sins of Christianity over the millenia, the 'superstition' accusation, and maybe another 25 to 50 words and phrases that are as predictable on these threads as are the fact that the Atheists are drawn to them in numbers close to or exceeding the believers?

Ummm...sheep is the standard metaphor for mindless followers. It's part of the culture. Besides that, christians refer to themselves as a flock, and there's even a prayer that starts out with "the lord is my shepard...". Since you people use the metaphor of the mindless animal to describe yourselves, it's perfectly appropriate for others to employ it when seeking a metaphor to describe you.

Religion is superstition. Organized superstition, but superstition nonetheless. That being the case, it's not suprising that the word superstition is an accurate description of religion.

And when the Atheists show up on a religion thread arguing their beliefs as fervently as do the Christians et al argue theirs, then yeah, I'm going to take note of and comment on that. And point out how it mimics religion in every way. Could that be because it IS a religion?

No. It's because it's simple observed truth. Religion requires conscious self-deception.

And type 'atheists' and 'atheism' into your browser or Google it and see the hundreds of sites devoted to the promotion of, discussion of, and defense of Atheism and then tell me that you don't 'market it'. No religion probably 'markets' their beliefs in the same manner as do Christians because part of the Christian belief is Jesus's commandment to 'go into all the world and make disciples.' But the Atheists are every bit on a par with everybody else as far as displaying and promoting their belief system.

Googling .... the world's major religions, and atheism


"atheism" 5 million hits


"druidism" 0.3 million hits
"satanism" 2 million hits
"wicca" 4 million hits
"socialism" 13 million hits
"buddhism" 16 million hits
"judaism" 17 million hits
"christianity" 38 million hits
"gambling" 40 million hits
"islam" 58 million hits
"fishing" 98 million hits
"sex" 244 million hits
"religion" 244 million hits
'money" 765 million hits

Funny, fishing is a bigger religion than Jesus. Islam, too. But if it makes you guys feel better, socialism isn't as strong.

Yeah, and don't bother to tell me that the number of hits on a google search doesn't mean anything scientific. I already know this.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm sure you've all heard the quote "calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

No, but I like it.

I'm using it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Why so vindictive towards the Bible? Can you say with 100% certainty that the Bible is false. No. But you can believe it is wrong. Can I say that the Bible is 100% truth? No, but I can believe that it is.

I've read a book on microbiology (Cuz their was nothing else to read). There had to of been an outside manipulative force to get them to evolve.

Yes.

The Bible claims a flood drowned "the whole earth". The whole earth has never been drowned. So the Bible is factually incorrect.

If you argue that the story of Noah's flood is allegorical, you're conceding that the bible contains falsity.

Either way, the bible is false.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You do raise an interesting new point. Are we all born atheists?

No. Everyone born starts out as a very small child with no experience but a headful of instinctual programming, including a survival based need to understand all the new sense impressions flooding into. There's a warm giant thing that holds the baby. This giant thing has soft squishy things that give milk when sucked on. It's not a coincidence that our standard archery target with it's light outer circle and it's darker bullseye bears a strong resemblance to a view of a certain bodily part. I digress.

Babies have memories dating to the time when they had no words. Those memories are nothing but feelings, and those feelings are colored by how well his survival needs and his relevant instincts are being satisfied. These memories form the basis of most religions and why those religions find sympathetic chords in so many people.

Religion is part of our instinct. The exceptional people are able to sort out their feelings and use their minds rationally to understand them. The rest find 'god'.

In other words, religion has a mechanical explanation.

I know the agnostics and Atheists wandering in here will probably protest this, but I think one reason that so many Atheists find discussions like this fascinating and are drawn to them is because somewhere deep down they are drawn to a Deity they do not wish to acknowledge. I don't mean to imply they are being dishonest or are fully aware, but that would be one explanation for the large number of Atheists posting on religious threads.

No, some of us like arguing.

Again, it has been my observation that the truly nonreligious is completely bored and uninterested in a topic like this and doesn't care what anybody believes as it reflects on his/her beliefs not in the least.

Again, some of us find pleasure in constructing arguments, just for the sake of using our minds.

 

[tryreading]

Alright then, smarty pants. What should be written on the coins then? "Kiss My Ass Bin Laden"? I think it's fine just the way it is. What's so damn offensive about it? If you don't like it, then use a credit card!

What's wrong with 'Mind Your Business' like on Franklin's coin? I always liked 'E Pluribus Unum,' which should still be the national motto. Its descriptive of our founding, where the new motto is a prayer. Who needs prayer on their money?

 

[Thorgasm]

AlbqOwl, Yes, every single person is born an atheist. Religion is indoctrinated into most people. You have no proof that atheists posting on religious threads are drawn to a deity. What we are drawn to is the truth.

 

[oracle25]

Religion is the systematic belief in a supernatural deity or flying spaghetti monster.

I would challenge you too find one religious person who believes in a spaghetti monster.

Atheisn is disbelief in such nonsense.

Yes and I disbelieve atheist nonsense. I mean, the only way you can deny that there is a god is if you were born with a serious mental handicap.

When white is black, hot is cold, up is down, then atheism will become a religion. Not before.

Congratulations! your a religion!

 

[AlbqOwl]

Who says they don't? Just because my ponderings on the end of things isn't dictated by a diseased imaginative writer from two millenia ago doesn't mean I'm not aware that all things end.

The universe contains a finite amount of mass and energy.

The present imbalance of thermal energy is equalizing. It may take a hundred trillion years, but one day the balance will be complete. When that happens, everything dies.

The world, meaning the planet earth, has a finite beginning and a finite end. It either spirals into the photosphere of a red giant sun, or that red giant sun blows off enough mass that the earth will slip into interstellar space, where it freezes solid. As far as life is concerned, the world will end.

If eschatology requires that we believe in supernatural angels, hell-fire, judgement, and all the other trash dredged up from the sick corners of the psyche, then no, I ain't got an eschatology.

Well, I have always said that there will cease to be competition between religions when every person is a denomination numbering one. You've probably achieved that Scarecrow :smile:

I did not say that individuals do not have an eschatological belief, however. But I believe the context of eschatology here would be a prescribed doctrine furthered by an organized and recognized religious group.

 

[oracle25]

AlbqOwl, Yes, every single person is born an atheist.

No. Not one single person, ever, was born an atheist. In fact there really is no such thing as an atheist (someone who truly does not believe in a god).

Religion is indoctrinated into most people.

not true.

You have no proof that atheists posting on religious threads are drawn to a deity. What we are drawn to is the truth.

Everyone is drawn to something higher than themselves. If it's not God it's aliens, if it's not aliens it's something else. I've been around enough "atheists" to know this. But as I said there is no such thing as a true atheist. Everyone knows there is a god, but they don't want there too be.

 

[FinnMacCool]

No. Not one single person, ever, was born an atheist. In fact there really is no such thing as an atheist (someone who truly does not believe in a god).

So what am I?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I would challenge you too find one religious person who believes in a spaghetti monster.



Yes and I disbelieve atheist nonsense. I mean, the only way you can deny that there is a god is if you were born with a serious mental handicap.



Congratulations! your a religion!

Then adamant disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a religion.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Everyone is drawn to something higher than themselves. If it's not God it's aliens, if it's not aliens it's something else. I've been around enough "atheists" to know this. But as I said there is no such thing as a true atheist. Everyone knows there is a god, but they don't want there too be.

Nonsense. There's no god, and there's no god reason to pretend otherwise. Why you people feel the need to invent one I discussed earlier, but you people really should, in the interests of public health, not try so hard to spread you disease to others.

 

[tryreading]

I mean, the only way you can deny that there is a god is if you were born with a serious mental handicap.

I have not seen even the least intelligent, most bigoted people on this thread utter anything more sillly than this.

So, is everyone who believes in a God emotionally stable? Mentally sound? No, and some of them are wildly judgemental. You judge everyone without your beliefs to be sick. Pretty weird. You are a fanatic.

 

[Dogger807]

No. Not one single person, ever, was born an atheist. In fact there really is no such thing as an atheist (someone who truly does not believe in a god).

A new born has no religion so is therefore by definition an atheist. Wonder and curiosity of nature are natural. Belief in a supernatural being or beings along with sets of rules are not.
I truly do not believe in a god. Your statement is false

Everyone is drawn to something higher than themselves. If it's not God it's aliens, if it's not aliens it's something else. I've been around enough "atheists" to know this. But as I said there is no such thing as a true atheist. Everyone knows there is a god, but they don't want there too be.

No not everyone is drawn to something higher. The limitations you place on yourself are not universal. It is however a common human trait, but it is not an absolute.

I think a more accurate phrase would be " Everyone knows there is no god, but they are afraid to face the reality so they invent gods to comfort themselves."

 

[Dogger807]

I see all those insisting that atheism is a religion have all but retreated from that argument. Are you willing to conseed the point? Or shall we continue to change the subject?

 

[AlbqOwl]

A new born has no religion so is therefore by definition an atheist. Wonder and curiosity of nature are natural. Belief in a supernatural being or beings along with sets of rules are not.
I truly do not believe in a god. Your statement is false



No not everyone is drawn to something higher. The limitations you place on yourself are not universal. It is however a common human trait, but it is not an absolute.

I think a more accurate phrase would be " Everyone knows there is no god, but they are afraid to face the reality so they invent gods to comfort themselves."

Again nobody knows what cognitive resources are available to an infant as the infant does not communicate what he or she thinks or knows.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and an infant has no sense of God of any kind. That would make the infant areligious, not Atheist. The areligious or nonreligious are unaware, unconcerned, or completely disinterested in a God. The Atheist by definition professes a belief re a Deity and many Atheists are fervent and dedicated to promoting that belief. A belief about a deity or deities, no matter what that belief is, is the most basic component of a definition of religion.

Areligious people aren't even curious. Such people, at least older ones, are extremely rare. On the other hand, the concept of an invisible spirit being is not easily conveyed, but very young children, unbothered by learned prejudices and biases, grasp it quite easily.

And I note the Atheists around here anyway are still skirting the problem of whether they--less than 10% of the population--are all that superior in intelligence and insight than are all the other 90+% that is everybody else. And I note the Atheists aren't considering why ALL primitive peoples, even those most isolated and uninfluenced by other cultures, do believe in a deity or deities.

My own personal religious faith is that God is barely known, poorly understood, oft misquoted and mischaracterized, and assumed to be much that He is not, but then my own thoughts are that any God that could be comprehended or defined by humankind wouldn't be much of a God. Such a God could certainly impress His own reality into the psyche of humans nevertheless.

One of many things that affirms my beliefs is that Atheists are so driven to disprove the existence of God. Why would they do that if it was not so important to them to disprove the existence of God? And why, if there was no God, would they be so compelled to deal with it? And that I think is a religion as much as those who are so driven to prove the existence of God.

 

[Thorgasm]

Again nobody knows what cognitive resources are available to an infant as the infant does not communicate what he or she thinks or knows.

Toddlers don't bring up deities, they are taught about them.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and an infant has no sense of God of any kind. That would make the infant areligious, not Atheist. The areligious or nonreligious are unaware, unconcerned, or completely disinterested in a God. The Atheist by definition professes a belief re a Deity and many Atheists are fervent and dedicated to promoting that belief. A belief about a deity or deities, no matter what that belief is, is the most basic component of a definition of religion.

Now you are making up words? I can't find "areligious" in the dictionary. This is one of your weakest arguments yet. I know you like to use alternative defintions to fit your argument but this takes the cake!

And no, the most basic component of a definition of relgion is a belief IN (not about) a deity(s). You still haven't proven that atheists are promoting/marketing their beliefs.

Areligious people aren't even curious. Such people, at least older ones, are extremely rare. On the other hand, the concept of an invisible spirit being is not easily conveyed, but very young children, unbothered by learned prejudices and biases, grasp it quite easily.

Children grasp all hypothetical constructs. Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and the underpants gnome must be real because children can grasp these concepts as well.

And I note the Atheists around here anyway are still skirting the problem of whether they--less than 10% of the population--are all that superior in intelligence and insight than are all the other 90+% that is everybody else. And I note the Atheists aren't considering why ALL primitive peoples, even those most isolated and uninfluenced by other cultures, do believe in a deity or deities.

No, not all believe in a deity(s). Popularity doesn't make something true. Ask the world is flat society or the earth is the center of the universe congregations how that woked out for them? Voodoo does not believe in a deity. Although, I do like the freudian slip you made: "ALL primitive peoples, even those most isolated and uninfluenced by other cultures, do believe in a deity or deities." I find belief in a deity to be primitive.

My own personal religious faith is that God is barely known, poorly understood, oft misquoted and mischaracterized, and assumed to be much that He is not, but then my own thoughts are that any God that could be comprehended or defined by humankind wouldn't be much of a God. Such a God could certainly impress His own reality into the psyche of humans nevertheless.

This sounds like the kid in school who had a girlfriend, but you didn't know her because she lived in another town. Sure he did. Your god is so great that he couldn't even get his message accross in a clear, distinct, and unambiguous manner.

One of many things that affirms my beliefs is that Atheists are so driven to disprove the existence of God. Why would they do that if it was not so important to them to disprove the existence of God? And why, if there was no God, would they be so compelled to deal with it? And that I think is a religion as much as those who are so driven to prove the existence of God.

Who is disproving that god exists? You keep repeating this yet we have stated you can't prove a negative. It is quite disingenuous of you. We happen to debate this on this forum. Too bad you don't understand what a religion is.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Toddlers don't bring up deities, they are taught about them.

Not always.

Now you are making up words? I can't find "areligious" in the dictionary. This is one of your weakest arguments yet. I know you like to use alternative defintions to fit your argument but this takes the cake!

You do know that 'a' used as a suffix means without? "asexual" means without sexual desire/capability; 'acapello' means without instrumentation, 'atheist' mean no allegiance/belief/adherence to a deity, etc.

And no, the most basic component of a definition of relgion is a belief IN (not about) a deity(s). You still haven't proven that atheists are promoting/marketing their beliefs.

No, religion concerns religious things, not necessary belief IN a deity. Many relgions, such as Buddhism for instance, do not believe in a deity. All I have to do to prove Atheists market their beliefs is to point to the Atheists marketing theirs right here on this thread. :smile:

But you can also Google up hundreds of websites devoted to promoting Atheism including some that are officially chartered as not-for-profit organizations.

Children grasp all hypothetical constructs. Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and the underpants gnome must be real because children can grasp these concepts as well.

Sure they do. But they are shown pictures or images of those. The impressive understanding of who and what God is by children who have NOT been taught such concepts is quite interesting however.

No, not all believe in a deity(s). Popularity doesn't make something true. Ask the world is flat society or the earth is the center of the universe congregations how that woked out for them? Voodoo does not believe in a deity. Although, I do like the freudian slip you made: "ALL primitive peoples, even those most isolated and uninfluenced by other cultures, do believe in a deity or deities." I find belief in a deity to be primitive.

Please point me to a primitive culture that is not religious or that does not believe in some sort of deity. I've looked. I haven't been able to find one.

This sounds like the kid in school who had a girlfriend, but you didn't know her because she lived in another town. Sure he did. Your god is so great that he couldn't even get his message accross in a clear, distinct, and unambiguous manner.

Again, if you could be so certain about what God can and cannot do, He wouldn't be much of a God would He?

Who is disproving that god exists? You keep repeating this yet we have stated you can't prove a negative. It is quite disingenuous of you. We happen to debate this on this forum. Too bad you don't understand what a religion is.

Nobody is disproving that God exists, but that doesn't stop a lot of Atheists from trying. The truly nonreligious wouldn't even find the concept interesting nor are they drawn to threads like this nor do they have any compulsion to tell anybody that his/her belief in God is right, wrong, or anything else.

Believers can't prove God exists either. That of course does not mean that He doesn't. We can't prove that planets exist in other solar systems, either, but that does not mean they don't.

 

[Thorgasm]

Not always.

Give me a source if you have evidence to the contrary.

You do know that 'a' used as a suffix means without? "asexual" means without sexual desire/capability; 'acapello' means without instrumentation, 'atheist' mean no allegiance/belief/adherence to a deity, etc.

That is why "areligious" is not in the dictionary. They have a word for that already. Can you guess what it is?

No, religion concerns religious things, not necessary belief IN a deity. Many relgions, such as Buddhism for instance, do not believe in a deity. All I have to do to prove Atheists market their beliefs is to point to the Atheists marketing theirs right here on this thread. :smile:

A debate is not marketing. Superstition, regardless of whether there is a deity involved is what atheists don't believe in.

But you can also Google up hundreds of websites devoted to promoting Atheism including some that are officially chartered as not-for-profit organizations.

Being in a refernce tool is not marketing. Being in the encyclopedia doesn't make it marketing.

Sure they do. But they are shown pictures or images of those. The impressive understanding of who and what God is by children who have NOT been taught such concepts is quite interesting however.

Really? A child understands who and what God is without being taught the concept. You have no proof of this impossibility. Today's word: disingenuous.

Please point me to a primitive culture that is not religious or that does not believe in some sort of deity. I've looked. I haven't been able to find one.

You didn't get the point I was making. Belief in a deity is primitive in itself. Just becaused they have been out of touch with the outside world for a while doesn't mean that they didn't adopt civilization's first form of government and science long ago. This is not proof of existence. The flat earth society is taking applications though.

Again, if you could be so certain about what God can and cannot do, He wouldn't be much of a God would He?

Yes, he is so great he doesn't have to be perfect. Why does religion push people to reject logical thought? He's not much of a god as it is now. :roll:

Nobody is disproving that God exists, but that doesn't stop a lot of Atheists from trying. The truly nonreligious wouldn't even find the concept interesting nor are they drawn to threads like this nor do they have any compulsion to tell anybody that his/her belief in God is right, wrong, or anything else.

Believers can't prove God exists either. That of course does not mean that He doesn't. We can't prove that planets exist in other solar systems, either, but that does not mean they don't.

Yes, we can prove that other planets exist in other solar systems. And it surely doesn't prove that he exists either.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Again nobody knows what cognitive resources are available to an infant as the infant does not communicate what he or she thinks or knows.

That's dumb. Psychologists have been doing experiments in infants all of last century. Go learn something about the subject before spouting off.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and an infant has no sense of God of any kind. That would make the infant areligious, not Atheist. The areligious or nonreligious are unaware, unconcerned, or completely disinterested in a God.

True enough that the baby is non-religious. All he cares about is a clean diaper, a wam tit, and cuddling. They sleep a, too. No, they don't spend a second thinking about imaginary things. They have to learn how to do that.

The Atheist by definition professes a belief re a Deity and many Atheists are fervent and dedicated to promoting that belief. A belief about a deity or deities, no matter what that belief is, is the most basic component of a definition of religion.

This is why this thread is totally retarded. You're not allowed to invent your own definitions for words to win your argument. You have to use what's available. This "re a deity" crap is nonsense and nothing but the effort of a person who knows his cause is wrong to redefine the terms in his favor.

Areligious people aren't even curious. Such people, at least older ones, are extremely rare.

That's because the uncurious are the dead. Of course, that means the "areligious" aren't rare at all.

On the whole of it, you don't have to have schizophrenia or paranoia to find the diseases interesting.

On the other hand, the concept of an invisible spirit being is not easily conveyed, but very young children, unbothered by learned prejudices and biases, grasp it quite easily.

What you're saying here is that children trust their parents and elders to be honest with them, and thus they're easily conned. We all know this. Every kid can be taught to believe in Santa Claus, but he doesn't exist. Every kid can be taught to believe in God, but she doesn't exist, either.

And I note the Atheists around here anyway are still skirting the problem of whether they--less than 10% of the population--are all that superior in intelligence and insight than are all the other 90+% that is everybody else.

I'm sorry. I AM that superior in intelligence. Even among the atheists. And I'll note that many others here are, also, though I'll decline naming any.

And I note the Atheists aren't considering why ALL primitive peoples, even those most isolated and uninfluenced by other cultures, do believe in a deity or deities.

Nonsense, go back and read my post #57, the one you chose to ignore.

My own personal religious faith is that God is barely known, poorly understood, oft misquoted and mischaracterized, and assumed to be much that He is not, but then my own thoughts are that any God that could be comprehended or defined by humankind wouldn't be much of a God. Such a God could certainly impress His own reality into the psyche of humans nevertheless.

Nah, "God" is misunderstood because he's an invention of humanity's own subconscious instincts and we don't know enough about ourselves yet to exorcise him. Like you said, only 10% or so of us have managed to be honest about the reality of god's unreality.

One of many things that affirms my beliefs is that Atheists are so driven to disprove the existence of God. Why would they do that if it was not so important to them to disprove the existence of God?

I don't try to disprove the existence of "god". Such a feat defies logic. I simply have a hell of a lot of fun showing how human constructs of God are ****ed up. I do a pretty good job of that.

And why, if there was no God, would they be so compelled to deal with it?

Oh, we're not dealing with "god", we're dealing with the deluded fools who insist on ordering society about as if their delusions are real.

It's a matter of self-defense.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Give me a source if you have evidence to the contrary.



That is why "areligious" is not in the dictionary. They have a word for that already. Can you guess what it is?



A debate is not marketing. Superstition, regardless of whether there is a deity involved is what atheists don't believe in.



Being in a refernce tool is not marketing. Being in the encyclopedia doesn't make it marketing.



Really? A child understands who and what God is without being taught the concept. You have no proof of this impossibility. Today's word: disingenuous.




You didn't get the point I was making. Belief in a deity is primitive in itself. Just becaused they have been out of touch with the outside world for a while doesn't mean that they didn't adopt civilization's first form of government and science long ago. This is not proof of existence. The flat earth society is taking applications though.



Yes, he is so great he doesn't have to be perfect. Why does religion push people to reject logical thought? He's not much of a god as it is now. :roll:



Yes, we can prove that other planets exist in other solar systems. And it surely doesn't prove that he exists either.

And saying something IS or IS NOT without any consideration for the arguments of others or a willingness to explore concepts offered is mega boring and mega useless. So is demanding others support their opinions while ignoring requests to support your own.

To be fair, in a discussion like this where it is already agreed that nobody can prove the existence of God to another person, nor can anybody prove that God does not exist, reasoning, logic, and what empirical evidence exists are all we have to go on. Thus I think it far more useful to articulate a rationale for beliefs rather than just stating them. Otherwise I think we're just whistling in the wind and it gets really boring really fast.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And saying something IS or IS NOT without any consideration for the arguments of others or a willingness to explore concepts offered is mega boring and mega useless. So is demanding others support their opinions while ignoring requests to support your own.

To be fair, in a discussion like this where it is already agreed that nobody can prove the existence of God to another person, nor can anybody prove that God does not exist, reasoning, logic, and what empirical evidence exists are all we have to go on. Thus I think it far more useful to articulate a rationale for beliefs rather than just stating them. Otherwise I think we're just whistling in the wind and it gets really boring really fast.

Uhhh...yeaah? Logic and reasoning ARE what atheists use. There's no empirical evidence for this god fellow, you yourself admit this.

Thus logically, there's no reason to claim there is a god. People that claim there is a god, since they don't have evidence, are neither reasonable nor logical.

People who claim there is no god when there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, are being reasonable, just as people who claim there are no naturally occurring pink-and-white pinstriped turtles are being reasonable and logical.