So, if I were to

Post Reply New Topic

I was perfectly aware that the whole sentence was sexist, but I was picking the most egregious part of it. If I wasn't selective, I'd get into a pointless, ret*d debate about 'how men finding women attractive is sexist', or whatever. The part I picked was the easiest the prove as sexist.

And look, I can't be compared to a religious fanatic because I haven't told you to STFU or threatened you. Your'e free to make all the sexist comments you want and I can call you out on all of them.

Well you didn't.

Not really.

As an Atheist, I don't make any claims other than the fact that I don't consider the existence of a deity, any deity.

If you're let's say a Christian, you're not only making the claim that there is in fact a deity, something which there is 0 evidence for. You are also making the claim that all other deities do not exist.

So, the difference between you and myself, is that I've taken a more logical position among the 3 possible choices.

1. All gods are true.
2. All gods are false.
3. All gods except 1 is false.

You are at the same time a believer and a non-believer, because while you may believe in the Christian god, you do not believe in Thor, Odin, Brahma, Vishnu, or many of the others mentioned in H.L Mencken's "Where is the graveyard of dead gods" (http://nowscape.com/atheism/dead_gods.htm)

If you take the position that all gods are true, that does creates problems since the claims attributed to these gods are mutually exclusive. For instance, we have 1 world, and we would have hundreds of claims from various religions about which god was that ultimate creator. Also, you cannot claim that they are all the same god, because you cannot have a "just" and "merciful" Christian God who dressed up as Tezcatilpoca and consumed virgins on the weekends.

My position is simply that all of this is.. for the lack of a better and more descriptive word "BS". There is no evidence to support the existence of any god. I put no doctrine on display, because there is none, except non belief in deities.

The whole "Atheism is not true" is a fallacy engaged in by one William Lane Craig, or as I like to jokingly refer to him "William Lame Craig" which he should know better than to commit given his doctorate in philosophy.

In essence, I cannot refute a belief that someone holds (objectifying the belief) but I can refute everything they say about the world that is based in their belief.

Specific claims that are based in belief such as "The earth was made in 7 days", "Illness is caused by being cursed", "human beings were created "as is, no assembly required" by a deity" are all claims that can be refuted by science.

Claims about morality based in belief, can likewise be refuted on the basis of among other things philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

I think that's where the major disconnect between atheists and the religious exists.