Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

Why are so many atheists dickheads who mind other people's business?

That is the more valid question.

 

[Uchip]

I feel like only atheists would ask questions

you dont expect people that already have all the answers to ask questions do you?

 

[The Albatross]

this sounds like complete bullshit
are you Bill Mahers accountant?

No, just scanning videogame forums, imgur, and reddit. Again, I think you have the one "Christianity" thread here, I've seen the one "Islam" thread, and then, what, like 10 threads a day on how religious people strangled OP's cat and think the Earth is flat.

 

[JGS]

religious people = nuts lol.

 

[Zaptruder]

I love how atheists always complain on the Internet about those with any type of faith. They always say how they're overwhelmed by the religious nuts when 1) I never see these nuts and 2) the technology / nerdier sites are almost always at least over half filled with non-religious people.

And it isn't just that. It's like atheists think they're smarter because they don't have a religion. The universe is vast. Good chance no one knows anything.

I don't think I'm smarter because I 'don't believe'. I think I'm smarter, because I don't subscribe to specious jumps in logic like this line implies.

It's pretty much the good ol', heavily mocked - "We don't know, therefore Aliens." image macros that get pasted onto these boards repeatedly.

We don't know - there fore we don't know. It's not, we don't know, therefore GOD.

 

[Pollux]

nvm it's snowing. ignore this.

 

[Puddles]

A lot of Christians truly feel something in their minds that they interpret as the voice of God. To them, this is the evidence they need.

A few years ago, I went to a Buddhist shrine at the top of a mountain and meditated for about an hour, and I began to feel something in my subconscious that was very different from anything I had felt before. I don't believe it was anything supernatural, but many people do interpret it that way. Christians who have a similar experience (during prayer) believe that they really are in touch with their creator.

To them, this is hard, irrefutable evidence that their God exists.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

George Michael?

 

[Clott]

I don't know, go read some Kierkegaard. Who is gonna waste time debating this.

 

[IceCold]

Karl Pilkington on God: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95zTiEqUXQI

 

[Air]

you dont expect people that already have all the answers to ask questions do you?

My expectations don't matter. Most of the board is atheistic, so there is a higher probability of having atheist's ask questions, not saying religious people won't, but they're less likely. So the topic can stay fruitful, one should cater the discussion in a way where you take advantage of what the majority wants.

It's just a suggestion.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I actually really like this idea...you should get on that. It would certainly help with civil discussion.

This.

However, it seems like there are people that seem much more interested in sparking fights/controversy rather than a good, honest discussion. "Just for the hell of it" types, you know.

 

[Uchip]

I love how atheists always complain on the Internet about those with any type of faith. They always say how they're overwhelmed by the religious nuts when 1) I never see these nuts and 2) the technology / nerdier sites are almost always at least over half filled with non-religious people.

And it isn't just that. It's like atheists think they're smarter because they don't have a religion. The universe is vast. Good chance no one knows anything.

not exactly

 

[echoshifting]

Here's a passage from the book I mentioned re: modern atheism. I think it applies to the OP quite nicely.

Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes its reverse mirror image. Classical Western atheism was developed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, whose ideology was essentially a response to and dictated by the theological perception of God that had developed in Europe and the United States during the modern period. The more recent atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is rather different, because it has focused exclusively on the God developed by the fundamentalisms, and all three insist that fundamentalism constitutes the essence and core of all religion. This has weakened their critique, because fundamentalism is in fact a defiantly unorthodox form of faith that frequently misrepresents the tradition it is trying to defend. But the "new atheists" command a wide readership, not only in secular Europe but even in the more conventionally religious United States. The popularity of their books suggests that many people are bewildered and even angered by the God concept they have inherited.

It is a pity that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris express themselves so intemperately, because some of their criticisms are valid. Religious people have indeed committed atrocities and crimes, and the fundamentalist theology the new atheists attack is indeed "unskillful," as the Buddhists would say. But they refuse, on principle, to dialogue with theologians who are more representative of mainstream tradition. As a result, their analysis is disappointingly shallow, because it is based on such poor theology. In fact, the new atheists are not radical enough. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians have insisted for centuries that God does not exist and that there is "nothing" out there; in making these assertions, their aim was not to deny the reality of God but to safeguard God's transcendence. In our talkative and highly opinionated society, however, we seem to have lost sight of this important tradition that could solve many of our current religious problems.

 

[JGS]

not exactly

Those stats only matter if you could do an even comparison. All they prove usually is that atheists are more intelligent because they have more schooling - schooling which literally prohibits religious teaching though unless that's your major and even then it's presented as fiction. So even if they are smarter, they're not smarter in religion or faith (Or life in general), something they seem to desperately want to either grasp or outright dismiss.

Then again, atheists could very well be mutants too...

 

[Korey]

not exactly

Cool link! Here are some quotes from it:

Studies comparing religious belief and I.Q

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that Atheists scored an average of...5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. The relationship between countries' belief in a god and average Intelligence Quotient, measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg.

Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.

Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant”.

Professor Gordon Lynch, from London's Birkbeck College, expressed concern that the study failed to take into account a complex range of social, economic and historical factors— each of which has been shown to interact with religion and IQ in different ways. Gallup surveys, for example, have found that the world's poorest countries are consistently the most religious, perhaps because religion plays a more functional role (helping people cope) in poorer nations.

Why low IQ might correlate with religiosity

Commenting on some of the above studies in The Daily Telegraph, Lynn said "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

Even at the scale of the individual, IQ may not directly cause more disbelief in God. Dr David Hardman of London Metropolitan University says: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief." On the other hand, he adds that other studies do correlate IQ with being willing or able to question beliefs. These proposed mechanisms (of skeptical thinking) are in line with a report from Harvard University. Researchers found evidence suggesting that people believe in God more when they are using intuitive thinking methods rather than methods that are more rigorous and critical. In the study, people who reported using more intuitive thinking in life were are also generally more likely to believe in God. The study controlled for personality differences and cognitive ability, suggesting the difference is in fact thinking styles - not simply IQ. In this case, that would mean IQ causes disbelief in God, not because of raw cognitive ability, but because it increases the odds of reflective thinking on the issue.

 

[cutmeamango]

No one is interested in understanding the other or learning. It's all about 'winning' so they can live in the security of being ignorant but 'correct'.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Those stats only matter if you could do an even comparison. All they prove usually is that atheists are more intelligent because they have more schooling - schooling which literally prohibits religious teaching though unless that's your major and even then it's presented as fiction. So even if they are smarter, they're not smarter in religion or faith (Or life in general), something they seem to desperately want to either grasp or outright dismiss.

Then again, atheists could very well be mutants too...

Yeah, we were lucky to be born without the "credulity gene."

 

[Lionheart1337]

Eh, well if it's answering the title question - not really. A theist who claims that his belief is based in evidence is not using critical thinking. I respect theists who understand that their beliefs are entirely based on faith and have no value in empiricism.

That's a toughie for me. On one hand you have people who genuinely and truly believe in their nonsense and then you have people who know better, but still hold faith higher than evidence.

 

[Orayn]

I'm writing up the OP for that thread right now, and will link to it once it's up. Just thought I'd let you guys know, in case someone else was about to jump on it.

 

[Korey]

Those stats only matter if you could do an even comparison. All they prove usually is that atheists are more intelligent because they have more schooling - schooling which literally prohibits religious teaching though unless that's your major and even then it's presented as fiction. So even if they are smarter, they're not smarter in religion or faith (Or life in general), something they seem to desperately want to either grasp or outright dismiss.

Then again, atheists could very well be mutants too...

Actually, if you read the analysis that goes along with "those stats", atheists are smarter because they actually think about their beliefs more, and are better at critical thinking:

Researchers found evidence suggesting that people believe in God more when they are using intuitive thinking methods rather than methods that are more rigorous and critical. In the study, people who reported using more intuitive thinking in life were are also generally more likely to believe in God. The study controlled for personality differences and cognitive ability, suggesting the difference is in fact thinking styles - not simply IQ. In this case, that would mean IQ causes disbelief in God, not because of raw cognitive ability, but because it increases the odds of reflective thinking on the issue.

In fact, your "intuition" that atheists are smarter because "they have more education and schools prohibits religious teachings" just proves their point even further.

 

[Zaptruder]

Those stats only matter if you could do an even comparison. All they prove usually is that atheists are more intelligent because they have more schooling - schooling which literally prohibits religious teaching though unless that's your major and even then it's presented as fiction. So even if they are smarter, they're not smarter in religion or faith (Or life in general), something they seem to desperately want to either grasp or outright dismiss.

Then again, atheists could very well be mutants too...

*golf claps*

Masterful obfuscation JGS. I'd expect nothing less from you.

Spoiler

You've just moved one step further up the faith ladder my friend.

 

[NonexistentK]

indoctrination. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

 

[Dice]

You dudes and your unevidenced, no support beliefs are shit. For real. My beliefs which are at least based on some iota of possibility, aren't held with conviction - they get fucking tossed if evidence comes up to the contrary. That's not faith. So stop co-opting mundane examples of tenuous belief (i.e. I believe the sun will continue 'rising', or I believe I'll be able to sleep in my bed tonight) with the term faith... which is the kind of crazy ass belief that persists even when you've got a world of evidence bearing down and crushing it out of you.

I don't think they're trying to say they are the same, they are simply saying that their personal experience of conviction is the same. Like, if a person saw the sun, but lived the rest of their life underground in a world of people telling them no such thing exists, they would still believe in the sun. Why? They experienced it. They may be told many times that it was a hallucination, and given many examples as to why it wasn't real. However, to them, they experienced it and it was real and continues to be real even when it is not being experienced.

If a person had an experience of faith it is going to be the same way. Even at times when it is explained away, even with many arguments being made against it, being compared to other things that look similar to it, even when they are not actively experiencing it, they are going to follow along with their own memory of their own conviction that they experienced something very real. Most of them take it passively, anyway. They aren't going to hold their life to a strict standard of faith and they wouldn't hold their life a strict standard of science if they didn't believe. Most people just don't want to try so hard at being right about everything and go with what feels nice to them.

Now, that isn't something you can defend. It's unobservable, unrecordable, irreplicable, indemonstrable, etc. However, that conviction is there, not just a faint memory of a possibility, the very conviction itself is actively keeping its grasp. That person may or may not be warping their view of everything else to fall in line with that conviction, although it seems more common to do so. However, the state of the situation is that they didn't choose for it to take hold and they can't choose to shake it away. I've seen athiests enjoy videos on youtube by Evid3nc3. Well if faith does work on a matrix like that, you should take that as something that happens with people and also not expect them to work hard at deconstructing their own matrix.

Whatever it is, it is a very real and incredibly common phenomenon in humanity, and people who experience it should be shown the dignity of being normal human beings and reacting to their experience as normal human beings seem to do. Perhaps you don't like it, so maybe it is like another normal thing that isn't pleasing, like anger. You can say it is not ideal, something we shouldn't follow, something we can work to change, something we can master... yet, ultimately, something that is normal for humans to feel and shouldn't be judged for if feeling it, but only for acting in damaging ways because of it.

 

[Az]

I currently feel as I am agnostic but as I read up more and more its pushing it towards atheism. But one thing that I cannot understand is the extreme "Hi, look at me I am atheist, here is more facebook posts of how stupid these theists are". I am really getting sick of it, as its the "in" thing on here, reddit, etc.

I am sure I'll get crucified for this, but I really do not care what you believe as long as you are a dencent human being.

 

[Atramental]

I'm writing up the OP for that thread right now, and will link to it once it's up. Just thought I'd let you guys know, in case someone else was about to jump on it.

Good.

Right now I'm trying to think of some questions for BuddhistGAF. That is definitely one religion that I would like to increase my knowledge on.

 

[Pollux]

That's a toughie for me. On one hand you have people who genuinely and truly believe in their nonsense and then you have people who know better, but still hold faith higher than evidence.

In your opinion, which one is worse?

 

[Air]

Good.

Right now I'm trying to think of some questions for BuddhistGAF. That is definitely one religion that I would like to increase my knowledge on.

Read Siddhartha and the Tibetan book of the dead.

 

[Pollux]

I'm writing up the OP for that thread right now, and will link to it once it's up. Just thought I'd let you guys know, in case someone else was about to jump on it.

I was about to start it, so thanks for the heads up. Look forward to participating and actually answering questions in a civil place and not have it devolve into the bickering and sniping that these religious threads usually end up as.

 

[saunderez]

I currently feel as I am agnostic but as I read up more and more its pushing it towards atheism. But one thing that I cannot understand is the extreme "Hi, look at me I am atheist, here is more facebook posts of how stupid these theists are". I am really getting sick of it, as its the "in" thing on here, reddit, etc.

I think atheists in general would be more inclined to leave theists alone if the theists didn't constantly try and force their beliefs on the whole of society. The evolution/intelligent design debate (which isn't even a debate since church and state are supposed to be separate) is a prime example of this.

While theists continue to push their beliefs onto everyone else atheists will continue to resist - and in this case resistance means pointing out the stupidity of theist beliefs.

 

[truly101]

I currently feel as I am agnostic but as I read up more and more its pushing it towards atheism. But one thing that I cannot understand is the extreme "Hi, look at me I am atheist, here is more facebook posts of how stupid these theists are". I am really getting sick of it, as its the "in" thing on here, reddit, etc.

I am sure I'll get crucified for this, but I really do not care what you believe as long as you are a dencent human being.

I believe in the Queen Spider and serve food at the local soup kitchen every other month

Spoiler

one of these is actually true

 

[Orayn]

Thread is up. Let's get enlightened!

 

[Korey]

I think atheists in general would be more inclined to leave theists alone if the theists didn't constantly try and force their beliefs on the whole of society. The evolution/intelligent design debate (which isn't even a debate since church and state are supposed to be separate) is a prime example of this.

While theists continue to push their beliefs onto everyone else atheists will continue to resist - and in this case resistance means pointing out the stupidity of theist beliefs.

Bingo

 

[EviLore]

Here's a passage from the book I mentioned re: modern atheism. I think it applies to the OP quite nicely.

Yuck.

Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes its reverse mirror image.

?? This is asserting that atheism isn't the lack of faith, but rather an anti-theist agenda targeting a specific religion. No, atheism is atheism, lack of faith, and any additional baggage is up to the individual.

It is a pity that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris express themselves so intemperately, because some of their criticisms are valid. Religious people have indeed committed atrocities and crimes, and the fundamentalist theology the new atheists attack is indeed "unskillful," as the Buddhists would say. But they refuse, on principle, to dialogue with theologians who are more representative of mainstream tradition. As a result, their analysis is disappointingly shallow, because it is based on such poor theology.

Straw man. The prominent atheists mentioned don't just discuss fundamentalist religious movements. Hitchens may have cited fundamentalism primarily (but in no way exclusively) when discussing why religion is a negative influence on humanity, but that's only one facet of one argument by one person. Wildly inaccurate to suggest that none of them have addressed mainstream religion or bothered to address theism vs atheism in a respectful tone. Calling Dawkins "intemperate" is worth a laugh, too.

 

[Pollux]

Out of curiosity how many atheists who bash religion have read any theological works by leading theologians? Or have you stuck to wikipedia or just read some Dawkins and got only one side of the debate...

 

[TheKaeptain]

Good.

Right now I'm trying to think of some questions for BuddhistGAF. That is definitely one religion that I would like to increase my knowledge on.

Read this man http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

good place to start.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Out of curiosity how many atheists who bash religion have read any theological works by leading theologians? Or have you stuck to wikipedia or just read some Dawkins and got only one side of the debate...

I have.

This is an interesting change from the usual question about reading the bible.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Out of curiosity how many atheists who bash religion have read any theological works by leading theologians? Or have you stuck to wikipedia or just read some Dawkins and got only one side of the debate...

I haven't read any Dawkins / Hitchens etc because the people who tried to get me to read them were very obnoxious. Haven't read any apologetics texts either. I've been exposed to arguments from both sides through debate though.

 

[Pollux]

I have.

This is an interesting change from the usual question about reading the bible.

If you don't mind me asking, what did you read and by who?

And yea, I'm in no way qualified to interpret the Bible to a level capable of refuting leading atheists like Dawkins or Hitchins...but people like Benedict XVI are much more knowledgable about theology than I am. Thus like Dawkins is more knowledgable about his arguments on atheist than the average person in this thread...

seems fair to compare the two or discuss the two in relation to the other...

 

[echoshifting]

Calling Dawkins "intemperate" is worth a laugh, too.

Coming from someone who coats his argument in such telling vitriol, this is meaningless. You're proving The Albatross's point.

Anyway, it's dumb to discuss religion on neogaf, not sure what I was thinking. Any theist who thinks they'll find respectful discussion in Orayn's thread really is delusional. Solid effort, though.

 

[Evolved1]

Thread is up. Let's get enlightened!

first reply is, in gaf tradition, amazing.

haha on man. good luck with that Orayn.

 

[Zaptruder]

I don't think they're trying to say they are the same, they are simply saying that their personal experience of conviction is the same. Like, if a person saw the sun, but lived the rest of their life underground in a world of people telling them no such thing exists, they would still believe in the sun. Why? They experienced it. They may be told many times that it was a hallucination, and given many examples as to why it wasn't real. However, to them, they experienced it and it was real and continues to be real even when it is not being experienced.

If a person had an experience of faith it is going to be the same way. Even at times when it is explained away, even with many arguments being made against it, being compared to other things that look similar to it, even when they are not actively experiencing it, they are going to follow along with their own memory of their own conviction that they experienced something very real. Most of them take it passively, anyway. They aren't going to hold their life to a strict standard of faith and they wouldn't hold their life a strict standard of science if they didn't believe. Most people just don't want to try so hard at being right about everything and go with what feels nice to them.

Now, that isn't something you can defend. It's unobservable, unrecordable, irreplicable, indemonstrable, etc. However, that conviction is there, not just a faint memory of a possibility, the very conviction itself is actively keeping its grasp. That person may or may not be warping their view of everything else to fall in line with that conviction, although it seems more common to do so. However, the state of the situation is that they didn't choose for it to take hold and they can't choose to shake it away. I've seen athiests enjoy videos on youtube by Evid3nc3. Well if faith does work on a matrix like that, you should take that as something that happens with people and also not expect them to work hard at deconstructing their own matrix.

Whatever it is, it is a very real and incredibly common phenomenon in humanity, and people who experience it should be shown the dignity of being normal human beings and reacting to their experience as normal human beings seem to do. Perhaps you don't like it, so maybe it is like another normal thing that isn't pleasing, like anger. You can say it is not ideal, something we shouldn't follow, something we can work to change, something we can master... yet, ultimately, something that is normal for humans to feel and shouldn't be judged for if feeling it, but only for acting in damaging ways because of it.

You're a wordy mofo you know that. Can't you just say faith is intrinsic to human nature?

To which I would respond; human nature is heavily flawed, just as it is potentially brilliant. Shouldn't stop us from wanting to better ourselves!

 

[Laughing Banana]

Out of curiosity how many atheists who bash religion have read any theological works by leading theologians? Or have you stuck to wikipedia or just read some Dawkins and got only one side of the debate...

Anecdotal circumstances, but I found that sometimes the following kind of people actually understand my religion (Islam) more than the actual believers who are born as Muslims:

1. Converts from other beliefs/atheism.
2. Critics.

I suppose this is due to most people consider their belief as something they have as granted, unlike the two kinds above who actually bothered to study Islam and its teachings.

Well, of course there are lots of Muslims outside those two types above who are very knowledgeable about Islam, though...

 

[Boogiepop]

I always have the (kind of) reverse question of why atheists (at least those I've encountered) are always claiming to be purely "scientific/logical." (To the best of my experience/knowledge atheism being the belief that no gods exist, usually coupled with a denial of all spiritual/supernatural possibilities. If there's anything wrong in there, feel free to correct/ignore, as I'm definitely not well versed in religious discussions.)

I mean, if you want to be scientific about things you should be agnostic, far as I can tell, and atheism is just as much of a "faith" as most other things.

 

[EviLore]

Coming from someone who coats his argument in such telling vitriol, this is meaningless. You're proving The Albatross's point.

Referring to my first post? It's a pretty straightforward analysis, and necessarily so. Not trying to convince theists of anything, so there's no reason to coddle.

 

[Uchip]

Out of curiosity how many atheists who bash religion have read any theological works by leading theologians? Or have you stuck to wikipedia or just read some Dawkins and got only one side of the debate...

I never thought about god because I was never brought up with the idea
when questioned if i believed in god at the age of 12 by fellow students, a few of them harassed me about it until the teacher told them that everyone has their own beliefs

its not something you need to look into to decide if its bullshit or not and this being my strongest memory regarding real life religious dispute, i cannot look back on religion in a positive light.

 

[Pollux]

I always have the (kind of) reverse question of why atheists (at least those I've encountered) are always claiming to be purely "scientific/logical." (To the best of my experience/knowledge atheism being the belief that no gods exist, usually coupled with a denial of all spiritual/supernatural possibilities. If there's anything wrong in there, feel free to correct/ignore, as I'm definitely not well versed in religious discussions.)

I mean, if you want to be scientific about things you should be agnostic, far as I can tell, and atheism is just as much of a "faith" as most other things.

Just to repost it since it goes with your last point...

Pope Benedict XVI has some good thoughts on this idea, of atheists being just as unsure as the believers...

Just as we have already recognized that the believer does not live immune to doubt but is always threatened by the plunge into the void, so now we can discern the entangled nature of human destinies and say that the nonbeliever does not lead a sealed-off, self-sufficient life, either. However vigorously he may assert that he is a pure positivist, who has long left behind him supernatural temptations and weaknesses and now accepts only what is immediately certain, he will never be free of the secret uncertainty about whether positivism really has the last word. Just as the believer is choked by the salt water of doubt constantly washed into his mouth by the ocean of uncertainty, so the nonbeliever is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole. He can never be absolutely certain of the autonomy of what he has seen and interpreted as a whole; he remains threatened by the question of whether belief is not after all the reality it claims to be. Just as the believer knows himself to be constantly threatened by unbelief, which he must experience as a continual temptation, so for the unbeliever faith remains a temptation and a threat to his apparently permanently closed world. In short, there is no escape from the dilemma of being a man. Anyone who makes up his mind to evade the uncertainty of belief will have to experience the uncertainty of unbelief, which can never finally eliminate for certain the possibility that belief may after all be the truth. It is not until belief is rejected that its unrejectability becomes evident.

 

[la flama blanca]

I would be a complete atheist if I hadn't lived the life I have lived. I have survived countless attempted murders as well as some other very trying situations. I have begged for mercy for specific things to go right in my life, and I can tell you, every single prayer and change I have asked for, has come true. I consider myself 95% atheist as I favor human kind's scientific and logical achievements, but the last 5% will never go away due to what I struggle to explain.

 

[echoshifting]

Referring to my first post? It's a pretty straightforward analysis, and necessarily so. Not trying to convince theists of anything, so there's no reason to coddle.

No, I thought your first post was fair, at least as it pertains to the type of person described in the OP. Rather, referring to one of the most well-respected theologians alive today as a "retarded person" kinda makes me throw my hands up and say...why bother? If anything I'm the retarded one for putting up a brief passage from a long and complicated argument. Either way it's a good demonstration of the sort of needless bashing that makes these discussions completely impossible.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Yuck.



?? This is asserting that atheism isn't the lack of faith, but rather an anti-theist agenda targeting a specific religion. No, atheism is atheism, lack of faith, and any additional baggage is up to the individual.

Then i can confidently say that the extra baggage is carried by 90% of the atheists on gaf, it's becoming quite pathetic to watch and am sure most of us theist are getting tired of it.