I think 'agnostic' does not imply that both camps have equal footing, it only implies that you are honest enough to not state you have knowledge of the unknowable.
Are you open to the idea that there may not be a creator too, even a little? If so, you're agnostic...sorry. If there's any doubt (meaning you leave open the possibility there's no god) that's agnostic. Gnostic is certitude in your position that god exists.

EDIT: To me, anti-theism is believing that (X) god doesn't exist, so almost everyone is an anti-theist to some extent (unless they believe in every god ever conceived). I'm not sure there is a proper term for those that 'believe' there absolutely is no god at all...or for those that think they 'know' there's no god. perhaps pan-anti-theism and anti-gnostic?

here's the thing that convinced me that I wasn't an agnostic anymore.

I am not opposed to the idea of a creator.

I *am* opposed to every single depiction of a creator that humanity has come up with so far. petty, fear-based, eternal punishment for finite crimes, constant inconsistencies in their rules, ok with slavery, and absolutely shitty morals.

Sure..individual people have a personal vision of a much more...humane and moral creator that represents a much better view of a creator. But those ideas don't get any real traction in the public scene. It's always the hateful creator, the vengeful creator, The creator that somehow plays favorites and cures cancer and other diseases but only for certain people, but has never once given an amputee their limb back. the creator that picks the winners of football teams, the creator that somehow hates how you think and behave even though he created you that way. The creator that somehow sides with one political party and not the other.

I don't know if there is a creator, and when it comes right down to it, no one does either. But what I do know is that there is absolutely no evidence of ANY religions' creator(s) And even if there were, many, if not all of these creators have created rules systems that are just demonstrably...bad or so full of holes.

So you could say I am agnostic, but that, at least to me, implies that both views have an equal footing...that somehow there is evidence for both, but you just haven't decided which is stronger.

Theists have made claims but have not provided any good evidence to support those claims. Atheism is not declaring that there is no creator, just that the theists haven't made their case. So it's pretty clear that even if you don't know if there is a creator, if you call bullshit on religion, you're an atheist, not an agnostic. Religion and whether or not a creator exists are TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

It just comes down to burden of proof and the common misconception that atheism is the declaration that there is no creator. You can't prove a negative on this scale Believing that there is absolutely no creator is anti-theism, not atheism.

That's all wrong. Wikipedia is wrong, and you are wrong. The word atheism has been abused and warped to shy away from what the word of it actually means.

A-theism - not theism.

It's not plus(theism)/minus(atheism). It's plus/zero. Atheism is the neutral; theism is active belief.

Imagine a word like anti-theism would be the opposite of the spectrum; and yet a-antitheism would also be the neutral = a-antitheism == atheism.

Perpetuating a lie doesn't make it true.

Technicalities matter; semantics matter.

There's atheism, anti-theism, agnosticism, theism, gnosticism.

Then there's assholeism...that's where Stanhope lives.

I'm sorry, I used to think that way too, but it's just not so.

You're confusing atheism with anti-theism. You're stuck in a "if you're not with me, you must be against me" binary mentality. The lack of (or being without by your definition) something is not equivalent to being opposed to something. Bald is not a hair color

As for your argument about "New Atheists," you're just creating a strawman. Never claimed anything about agnostics, especially nothing as derogatory as you seem to be implying.

It can be argued that everyone is agnostic since no one knows with certainty of the existence of a creator. People claim to have faith, but by definition, that's believing without proof so that doesn't hold up as "knowing" People also claim to "know" but their evidence never holds up beyond human conceit.

That's why I mentioned Grimm in my last post, we were talking about this subject on another sift, the mis-communication of what Atheism is. There's that tired theist claim that Atheists hate god. well you can't hate something if you don't have evidence that it exists.

An atheist is not in opposition to a creator, it's just that there is no proof and every claim out there so far can pretty much be summed up as human conceit. An atheist would probably be excited to find proof as it would expand on our understanding and thus, improve science even more.

Hopefully we can get back on topic after another ching-jacking

@Grimm, Mordhaus is a textbook example of the misunderstanding of atheism I was talking about earlier.

Atheism is the calling of bullshit on theist claims. Atheism is not "there are no gods" I'm sure there are some atheists who do believe that, but that's not atheism, that's anti-theism.

If you can prove a creator exists, an atheist will believe it. IF you can prove it, then it's no longer a myth, it's a fact and that creator becomes part of the realm of science. You really gotta remember that a creator is separate from religion. There could be a creator, but a religion can still be wrong or immoral.

There is actual nuance to this stuff. But people, in general, don't give a shit for nuance. Binary thinking at it's worst. That was the mistake @brycewi19 made earlier. Stanhope not wishing someone well is *not* the same thing as him wishing them ill

If you think religion is putting out a bunch of false claims that haven't been proven, then you're an atheist. If you're agnostic, then you're an atheist. Even if you think there could be a creator, just that you don't think any of the religions are right..that's still atheism. You're not saying no gods exist, you're just calling bullshit on their claims because they haven't proved them.

It's not left vs right, it's not the fallacious "both sides suck" idea the ching-jacker was trying to sell earlier.

Back when i thought Atheism was "there are positively no gods" I didn't didn't agree with that either.

I don't know how good this man's positions are on other topics, but when it comes to atheism and anti-theism, he spouts such a load of ignorant nonsense it makes my brain hurt. I could rant on about strawman arguments, gross misrepresentation, etc etc, but PZ Myers says it all much better than I could:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/chris_hedges_wastes_everyones.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/what_the_f_is_wrong_with_chris.php

I really wanted to * quality this because it was refreshing to see a calm and rational opposing point of view to the anti-theism movement. But I can't.

I am a harsh critic of both Sam Harris and Hitchens for many of the reasons that Hedges mentions in this video. HOWEVER, I don't believe for a moment that either one of them condones violence as a means to promoting atheism. What Hedges is suggesting about them is a gross misrepresentation of their positions. See, for example, Harris's rebuttal of Hedges's claims about the nuclear first strike here:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

I wholeheartedly agree with @dystopianfuturetoday that it doesn't serve any purpose to attack people, who ultimately have the same goal as anti-theists--a more peaceful and equitable world--simply on the grounds that those people have faith in a religion. While Greta Christina points out that anti-theists have many reasons to be angry, if that anger turns to blind fury and they begin striking out at innocent bystanders I think it'll doom their movement.

@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

Thought I'd throw in one more bit about the anti-theism comments above, like @GeeSussFreeK 's.

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

/long

I got here a little late for the long page of text to be relevant, so I defer back to the context of the video. The term "Christian" isn't really a new thing as far as history is concerned. And it hasn't only been used to unify, but for discord as well. Just the other day, I was listening to old debate of "Are Catholics really christian?". One might imagine the same conversation about eastern Orthodox Christians. Conversely, back in the first crusade, Catholics defended the Byzantines (Whom were Orthodox), then killed Catholic Christians that lived among certain Muslim comunites. The term is simple, but its use is not. Just like when you call someone black. Black means a color, but it CAN mean much more. Like, that guy talks black. Black, of course, refers to something more than just color...and likewise, the term Christian takes on many different meanings given the context. It isn't new, nor is it unique, nor is it insidious by nature; rather, it is the general nature of language itself and man wanting to group things together, even if the word itself is a poor choice to do so (see again: talking black). So, while I sympathize a lot with the heart of Peen's message, I think it isn't exactly accurate.

A MORE interesting conversation is a warping of the founding fathers as some kind of super christians. Many of them would fail the "Good Christian" tests of today, like Jefferson and his Big Black Bible Blotter, erasing all the things he thought silly. A Christian of today would find that highly dubious, even demonic (as per the warning in revelation).

I too, @shinyblurry detest this new "anti-theism" movement, or as I dub it, the Angry Atheist Alliance. While I hold that the ideas in the bible are flawed and incomplete explanation to the answers of life, I don't hold that you have to be a great asshole about it, which seems to be the modicum of the day. You aren't a good atheist, it seems, unless you are being mean spirited about all matters of disagreement. If I have offered up this attitude to you, then I am shamed and offer my apologies. I can be quite curt if I feel someone is being hostile or unreasonable, and if they weren't then I come off as being that which I detest...an irony from my own position, and a hypocrisy from others.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Well, this is only half the story. There is a certain amount of faith in science as a whole. This is because science doesn't actually prove anything:

http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

To believe in science you must have faith in empiricism, which says that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Yet there are many truths empiricism cannot account for. Science itself is predicated on a series of unprovable assumptions called "brute givens" which presume the operations of the Universe have remained constant in the past and will continue to do so. Here is a good dialog on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Please ignore the title, it was just the best clip I could find. Also, check out this conversation between a physics major and a bunch of physicists and mathematicians about him losing faith in empiricism:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

This isn't always true. For instance, the scientific community at large consider evolution to be "proven" and won't tolerate any dissent on the issue. A scientist who even breathes the words "intelligent design" will be totally ostracized, have their reputations ruined, be unable to publish scientific papers and lose their ability to get grants. It is nearly impossible to do any work on intelligent design for that reason. Evolutionary theories are the sacred cow of science, and they religiously defend it, even to the point of suppressing any debate on it, and also by propagating this view into our political and education system. They also file lawsuits to keep intelligent design from being mentioned in classrooms. This has clearly gone beyond the bounds of mere scientific inquiry. If scientists had taken this same attitude on classical mechanics, quantum mechanics may never have been discovered.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

Well, you have to realize that some of things you seem to consider facts, aren't. The Big Bang theory is not a fact, it is totally unprovable. Not only that, but the theory itself doesn't even really work..it has a number of problems, from how stars and planets form, to the lack of observable matter and energy to make it work, to what they call the smoothness problem:

"These structures must have arisen from tiny variations in the energy density in the early universe. Where the densities were greatest is, presumably, where gravity caused matter to collapse into the structures we see today.

The problem is that to explain these structures seems to require a universe that was created in an incredibly smooth non-chaotic manner. This seems extremely unlikely."''

I like the last bit. It isn't unlikely if you consider the Universe was created by an omniopotent being. The basic problem with big bang cosmology and evoltuion is that they are not real science. You can't observe and test them, they are speculation and assumption about things that happened in the past. It is mere interpretation of data, and there are many ways to interpret it. We are both looking at the same facts, but interpreting them in different ways.

Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

I don't preumse I can prove to you that Christianity is true. I can show you that there are good reasons to believe there is a God, and that there is good evidence for Christianity, but I cannot prove my experience. I can however tell you this is something you can prove to yourself. If you ask God for the evidence, He will provide it to you. You can do this by praying something like this: "Jesus, if you're real, I want to know about it. If you're God please come into my life and I will give it over to you" If you can pray those words and mean them, you will get an answer. He promised to reveal Himself to those who seek Him dilligently.

As far as the crutch thing goes, what I am speaking about is sin. Those who don't know God are in a servitude to their passions and desires. Meaning, the first priority is a fulfillment of these desires, which the intellect first assents to, and then seeks out a worldview that justifies this fulfillment. Meaning, the atheist naturally doesn't want to believe that which contradicts the fulfillment of his natural desires, and will resist believing it. Admitting that God exists also means that you have a responsibility to obey Him, which further means that you can no longer live according to fleshly desires. So, an atheist will resist the knowledge of God so they can continue to live as they please, doing that which they know by their conscience is wrong, but being unable to resist these things. It has virtually nothing to do with evidence; our sinful nature is just naturally inclined to be in rebellion against Gods authority and will continue to operate this way on any pretense that seems even remotely plausible.

>> ^Quboid:
I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.
There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.
Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.
The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.
Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.
(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

* Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.

(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

>> ^shinyblurry:

The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.

The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.

So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

>> ^bareboards2:
This is a demonstrably false statement:
@EMPIRE said Religion is NOTHING BUT bullshit, deception and complete ignorance.
I have often thought that atheists can be just as dogmatic and rigid and intellectually bankrupt as any religious person. Here is the proof of it. You have your belief and no facts are going to get in your way.
You are the holder of the One Truth. There can be no Other Truth. If someone believes otherwise, they are a Heretic and an abomination.
The world isn't perfect. It is full of flawed human beings just trying to get by, trapped by their meat puppet bodies and brains. Some need a crutch to make it through life. You would deprive them of their crutch? THEY WILL FALL DOWN.
I keep saying the same thing over and over here on the Sift. You'd think I'd learn to back out of these pissing matches. I don't though, because I know that atheists ultimately are intelligent people, open to rational thought. I wouldn't try to talk shinyblurry out of his beliefs. That is a complete waste of effort. I am enough of a Pollyanna to think a rationalist will eventually get it -- that humans are flawed, that humans have had gods since the very beginning of human consciousness, that thinking that ALL HUMANS will leave behind an evolutionary trait is a fools game.
The best we can hope for is to keep religion out of the laws as much as possible. That is where someone's evolutionary crutch needs to keep to itself and out of my life. And keep educating about rational thought, throwing a life line to people who are born into a religion and don't hear anything but their family's brand of dogma.

settle down man, I don't even find anything particularly offensive in his post... It was just totally random that he seemed to be responding to something that was never said.

in response to some of the rest of your message, anonymity on the internet isn't a reasonable excuse to be an asshole and his comment reeked of "troll fishin'". There are some good sift talks on the topic if you're interested in some thoughtful discussion (with a fair amount of name calling mixed in as usual



In reply to this comment by Matthu:
>> ^residue:

suddenly: anti-theism
I don't see any previous comments that would have prompted your inane "response"
>> ^honkeytonk73:
We obviously must thank Jesus/God that it didn't impale the driver. Because Jesus/God certainly has a magical hand in the prevention, not instigation of accidents.



Seriously. What a fucking asshole. Spreading his secular propaganda around here when clearly no one asked for it. What kind of a person would show up somewhere uninvited and preach religious truths. On top of it, this is a friggin' INTERNET FORUM. Blatantly inappropriate.

This is fucking serious business. I mean, goddamn man, you should know better. If you're going to spread the truth as you see it, do it right. Show up at a 3rd world village in Africa and tell them if they take measures to bring the HIV rate down from 25% their babies will be born without genitalia.