Moderate Muslims and Catholics-Nice But Dumb?

[Smasharoo]

If you knew for a fact you were going to die in five minutes would you be afraid? Would a small crack in your atheist armour develop?

Yes, everyone would be afraid regardless of faith, and I can't think of any reason at all an atheist would be more likely to reconsider his beliefs than anyone else. Is there going to suddenly be one single shred of evidence indicating there is any reason for anyone to believe in any sort of higher power? If not, I guess I don't understand your question.

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]

If you knew for a fact you were going to die in five minutes would you be afraid? Would a small crack in your atheist armour develop?

Yes, everyone would be afraid regardless of faith, and I can't think of any reason at all an atheist would be more likely to reconsider his beliefs than anyone else. Is there going to suddenly be one single shred of evidence indicating there is any reason for anyone to believe in any sort of higher power? If not, I guess I don't understand your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured out the problem with atheism. Atheists act as if they are 100 percent sure that something doesn't exist. People who believe in some higher power believe anywhere from 1-100 percent that it does exist. Neither side can prove their case as fact. So Atheism must be illogical because it fails to consider that God not existing hasn't been proven as fact. We can then conclude that there are some emotional reasons and not factual reasons behind the decision.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
So Atheism must be illogical because it fails to consider that God not existing hasn't been proven as fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you could prepare a list of everything whose non-existence hasn't been proven as fact. I'll start: unicorns.

[WelshMackem]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you could prepare a list of everything whose non-existence hasn't been proven as fact. I'll start: unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just being silly now, everyone knows unicorns exist, I've ridden one (admittedly there was an heroic dose of psilocybin involved, but still)

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Atheism must be illogical because it fails to consider that God not existing hasn't been proven as fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you could prepare a list of everything whose non-existence hasn't been proven as fact. I'll start: unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

You = win.

Respek: If it were as simple as believing what would make us happy, I would sooner believe that I am immortal and that I will develop magical powers in the year 2040, than that I have to die and spend eternity praising a being for creating humanity and then punishing its members for not always acting exactly as it wants.

[Piemaster]

[ QUOTE ]

I figured out the problem with atheism. Atheists act as if they are 100 percent sure that something doesn't exist. People who believe in some higher power believe anywhere from 1-100 percent that it does exist. Neither side can prove their case as fact. So Atheism must be illogical because it fails to consider that God not existing hasn't been proven as fact. We can then conclude that there are some emotional reasons and not factual reasons behind the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting argument. I guess how you define an atheist is quite important. I suppose somebody who was 50/50 on whether God existed would be labelled an Agnostic. Buy what if they were 75% sure there was no God? 90%? 99%? 99.999%? At what point does an Agnostic become an Atheist?

Personally I would call myself an Atheist. However, I am only about 95% sure there is no God. Of the remaining 5%, I would say about half is saying that one of the major religions is right (or at least on the right lines) and the other half is saying that there is a divine being, but mortals have no understanding of them.

I am sure that you don't have to be 100% sure there is no God to be an atheist. As you say, being 100% sure of anything is not terribly smart, even something that appears to be provable.

[WelshMackem]

[ QUOTE ]
As you say, being 100% sure of anything is not terribly smart, even something that appears to be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

[Piemaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As you say, being 100% sure of anything is not terribly smart, even something that appears to be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

[/ QUOTE ]

About 98% sure [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Gonzo Joker]

Adherence to any faith-based religious doctrine is pretty dumb, I wouldn't limit the field to Muslims and Catholics.

The root of the word atheism is a-theism, which literally means to be without a belief in god. Therefore, if you had never heard of the concept of a god or gods, you would, by default, be an atheist.

There is no logical need for an atheist to disprove a negative; he or she qualifies as an atheist by simply not buying into silly god beliefs.

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I figured out the problem with atheism. Atheists act as if they are 100 percent sure that something doesn't exist. People who believe in some higher power believe anywhere from 1-100 percent that it does exist. Neither side can prove their case as fact. So Atheism must be illogical because it fails to consider that God not existing hasn't been proven as fact. We can then conclude that there are some emotional reasons and not factual reasons behind the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting argument. I guess how you define an atheist is quite important. I suppose somebody who was 50/50 on whether God existed would be labelled an Agnostic. Buy what if they were 75% sure there was no God? 90%? 99%? 99.999%? At what point does an Agnostic become an Atheist?

Personally I would call myself an Atheist. However, I am only about 95% sure there is no God. Of the remaining 5%, I would say about half is saying that one of the major religions is right (or at least on the right lines) and the other half is saying that there is a divine being, but mortals have no understanding of them.

I am sure that you don't have to be 100% sure there is no God to be an atheist. As you say, being 100% sure of anything is not terribly smart, even something that appears to be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something