Planet of the Atheists

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This is a very narrow view proselytizing. Richard Dawkins' book T"he God Delusion" is a form of Proselytization. As a whole, Atheists proselytize as much as Theists, if only to justify their own lack of faith.

Okay, so a harmless putz in the UK publishes a book talking doo-doo about theism. Really, although I acknowledge that Dawkins is a schlump (I love my Yiddish loan-words), The God Delusion ain't bupkes compared with the shelves full of religious literature out there.

Yes Dawkins is harmless. Opposing world views aren't inherently harmful.
More importantly, the difference between literature like "The God Delusion" vs "Religious Literature" is that 90% of Religious Literature isn't aimed at evangelism, apologetics, proselytizing, etc. It's aimed at those who are already adherents of the faith, to educate or discuss aspects of the faith. All of Atheistic literature, is geared towards discrediting expressions of religions or the existence of a God.

The problem that atheists face is that it's really very difficult to talk about it at all without insulting somebody. The entire basis of atheism is that religious, particularly theistic, beliefs are fantasies. Even though it's accurate, it's really hard to avoid the fact that it makes people angry.

A. It doesn't have to be insulting, and given your argument here it's obvious why you end up insulting people. Telling people their world view is a fantasy is no doubt insulting, especially as such a thing can't be proven.

B. That is not the basis of Atheism, that is the basis of Antitheistic atheism. Atheism comes in shades from Agnostic Atheism to Antitheistic Atheism, and that's probably a narrow way of looking at it. An agnostic leaning Atheistic doesn't say there is no God, they just don't believe in one, and generally allow that it is possible God does in fact exist. Conversely, the Antitheist Atheist claims God is not real. Difference being, saying "I don't believe in God" is a statement of one's perspective and makes no truth claims about the universe, it's a statment not an argument. Saying "God doesn't exist" is a truth claim about the universe, that makes an argument. Ironically, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, the statement, "There is no God" cannot be proven, and therefor must be taken on faith, just like a religious belief.

That's one reason that I usually identify myself as a "secular humanist" because it makes a positive statement. It makes a statement that I think that human beings are really responsible for any good that might have come of religion. I think that human compassion is behind charitable giving associated with religion. I think that human kindness is really at the heart of all proactively moral human behavior. When I take the credit away from a deity or supernatural force, that gives me hope that human beings are really capable of being a great bunch if we would just get our act together.

The idea that "God makes people better" is actually a relatively new idea in Judeo-Christan philosophy, generally associated fundamentalism or Evangelical Protestantism. Traditionally, God doesn't actually make people better, he just told us how to be better. We as people have to actively chose to be better, and as a result the world gets better. Honestly this subject alone can be discussed at length by itself.

Secular humanism isn't me saying, "God is stupid," but it's me saying, "God came from the minds of human beings." It's really a high compliment to the human race to say that we are capable of imagining such a complex and interesting set of concepts. I am continually amazed, the more I read about the world's religions and their historical roots, just how powerful and amazing human creativity really is. Human creativity has created beautiful and majestic temples, grand mosques, vast cathedrals, and many wonderful, incredible things.

Only problem here, is theres no way to prove that God is merely a fantasy. It really is a chicken egg type debate.

Some people say, "How could you look at these things and not think that there is a God?" but I, the secular humanist, say, "How could you look at these things and not just love people? How could you not love them to pieces?" When I really look at the world the human race has created, I realize that I really love the crazy bastards. I want to listen to every note of their music and taste everything that they cook. I want to see everything that they create. I cannot imagine something about them not being worth my time.

Generally, I've never seen this argument made towards the creations of man. The ingenuity of man has never been really in question. In fact, in the Abrahamic Religions, human ingenuity has been the cause of some celestial smack downs, i.e Tower of Babel. This argument is usually made towards the infinite wonders and majesty of the universe, which humans had no hand in creating.

Really, I think that genuine, old-school, intellectually driven secular humanists are still somewhat rare. We are an eccentric bunch, even among atheists.

Try being an old school intellectually driven Catholic Christian. Not only rare, but we're often considered heathens because we really don't buy into the whole touchy feely aspect of religion. That is not to say expressions of our faith do not have an emotional impact, we just don't view that as a requirement or justification of our faith.

[Mavorpen]

Ironically, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, the statement, "There is no God" cannot be substantiated, and therefor must be taken on faith, just like a religious belief.

Wrong, this is just basic application of the scientific method. We draw conclusions based off of available evidence. Current available evidence leads us to fall upon the null hypothesis, which is that there is no God, just as current available evidence leads us to fall upon the null hypothesis that magic leprechauns are not responsible for gravity.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Ironically, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, the statement, "There is no God" cannot be substantiated, and therefor must be taken on faith, just like a religious belief.

Wrong, this is just basic application of the scientific method. We draw conclusions based off of available evidence. Current available evidence leads us to fall upon the null hypothesis, which is that there is no God, just as current available evidence leads us to fall upon the null hypothesis that magic leprechauns are not responsible for gravity.

The null hypothesis is not proof of anything, it is a hypothesis derived from the concepts of Occam's Razor, however Occam's Razor is itself not a logical truth, but more of a Guidline. Science and Philosophy are in agreement that the existence of a Deity cannot be disproven, it could only ever be proven, by the deity revealing itself.


The belief that there is a God, and the belief that there is no God, are both taken certain levels of faith. Faith after all is not belief without evidence, it's merely belief without Proof.


Also last I checked we don't know why gravity exists, so it's indeed possible leprechauns are the cause, it's just not likely.

Also the Scientific Method only deals with what we can observe. It is highly possibke that the actions of God are unobservable.




Final edit: looking back, I think my word choice of substantiated was poor.

[Christiaanistan]

A. It doesn't have to be insulting, and given your argument here it's obvious why you end up insulting people. Telling people their world view is a fantasy is no doubt insulting, especially as such a thing can't be proven.

Your deity being a product of human culture is a fact that exists outside of any argument that I could present you with, and it is a conclusion that I think that you would arrive at yourself after some study of the matter.

However, if you arrive at a different conclusion after applying your powers of reasoning to the best of your ability, then we are simply at different stages in our investigation of this world, which is fine.

B. That is not the basis of Atheism, that is the basis of Antitheistic atheism. Atheism comes in shades from Agnostic Atheism to Antitheistic Atheism, and that's probably a narrow way of looking at it. An agnostic leaning Atheistic doesn't say there is no God, they just don't believe in one, and generally allow that it is possible God does in fact exist. Conversely, the Antitheist Atheist claims God is not real. Difference being, saying "I don't believe in God" is a statement of one's perspective and makes no truth claims about the universe, it's a statment not an argument. Saying "God doesn't exist" is a truth claim about the universe, that makes an argument. Ironically, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, the statement, "There is no God" cannot be substantiated, and therefor must be taken on faith, just like a religious belief.

Impressive logical acrobatics. Rather than telling you where I stand, in that context, I will leave it to you to determine where I would lie in that system of yours, based on knowing me.

The idea that "God makes people better" is actually a relatively new idea in Judeo-Christan philosophy, generally associated fundamentalism or Evangelical Protestantism. Traditionally, God doesn't actually make people better, he just told us how to be better. We as people have to actively chose to be better, and as a result the world gets better. Honestly this subject alone can be discussed at length by itself.

That is an interesting take on theology. I would be very interested to see your bases for it.

Only problem here, is theres no way to prove that God is merely a fantasy. It really is a chicken egg type debate.

I think that the human imagination is fully capable of devising such notions. It has done my heart good to study the Akkadian religion, actually. It's very interesting, and the more I study it, the more I see potential connections between it and the account related in the Bereshit.

Generally, I've never seen this argument made towards the creations of man. The ingenuity of man has never been really in question. In fact, in the Abrahamic Religions, human ingenuity has been the cause of some celestial smack downs, i.e Tower of Babel. This argument is usually made towards the infinite wonders and majesty of the universe, which humans had no hand in creating.

I think the bit on Abram is more interesting, from that chapter.

[Mavorpen]

The null hypothesis is not proof of anything, it is a hypothesis derived from the concepts of Occam's Razor, however Occam's Razor is itself not a logical truth, but more of a Guidline. Science and Philosophy are in agreement that the existence of a Deity cannot be disproven, it could only ever be proven, by the deity revealing itself.

This doesn't in any way refute my post given that I never said that it is proof of anything.

The belief that there is a God, and the belief that there is no God, are both taken certain levels of faith.

No, that entirely depends. Reaching the conclusion that there is no God per failure of any demonstrable evidence otherwise is not faith. Stating that you believe that there is no God is an entirely different matter because it means you accept that to be true, which is more than reaching a simple conclusion from given data.

Faith after all is not belief without evidence, it's merely belief without Proof.

And the conclusion that there is no God is not faith.

Also last I checked we don't know why gravity exists, so it's indeed possible leprechauns are the cause, it's just not likely.

And until we get evidence that they do cause it, we conclude that they are not the cause. This is fairly simple to understand.

Also the Scientific Method only deals with what we can observe. It is highly possibke that the actions of God are unobservable.

Which is a cop out and nothing more than an admission that God does not exist.

[Christiaanistan]

Wrong, this is just basic application of the scientific method. We draw conclusions based off of available evidence. Current available evidence leads us to fall upon the null hypothesis, which is that there is no God, just as current available evidence leads us to fall upon the null hypothesis that magic leprechauns are not responsible for gravity.

The null hypothesis is not proof of anything, it is a hypothesis derived from the concepts of Occam's Razor, however Occam's Razor is itself not a logical truth, but more of a Guidline. Science and Philosophy are in agreement that the existence of a Deity cannot be disproven, it could only ever be proven, by the deity revealing itself.

Actually, the "null hypothesis" is simply the ultimate statement of agnosticism. In courses you may take on statistics, students are taught that one should never assume that the null hypothesis is true, since it's not supposed to be a truth statement. However, one should never state anything that contradicts the null hypothesis without substantial reason to reject the null hypothesis. We never affirm the null hypothesis, under any circumstances, but we never contradict it unless we have very good reason for doing so.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The null hypothesis is not proof of anything, it is a hypothesis derived from the concepts of Occam's Razor, however Occam's Razor is itself not a logical truth, but more of a Guidline. Science and Philosophy are in agreement that the existence of a Deity cannot be disproven, it could only ever be proven, by the deity revealing itself.

This doesn't in any way refute my post given that I never said that it is proof of anything.

You held it up as proof that God does not exist, it is not.

The belief that there is a God, and the belief that there is no God, are both taken certain levels of faith.

No, that entirely depends. Reaching the conclusion that there is no God per failure of any demonstrable evidence otherwise is not faith. Stating that you believe that there is no God is an entirely different matter because it means you accept that to be true, which is more than reaching a simple conclusion from given data.

Just because you come to that conclusion, doesn't make it true. Specifically because it is conceptually impossible before data to point one way or another concerning the existence of a god. As I said, lacking a belief in God is not an expression of faith. Making a claim that God does not exist, requires a level of faith.

Faith after all is not belief without evidence, it's merely belief without Proof.

And the conclusion that there is no God is not faith.

It is because someone looking at the same "Evidence" can come to an equally opposite conclusion. Since a your conclusion cannot be proven, even beyond a reasonable doubt, it still requires a measure of faith, as you cannot know with absolute certitude. You're mistaken in that you don't appear to think of faith as a rational concept.

Also last I checked we don't know why gravity exists, so it's indeed possible leprechauns are the cause, it's just not likely.

And until we get evidence that they do cause it, we conclude that they are not the cause. This is fairly simple to understand.

. I do understand. Problem is your conclusion has no basis on actual reality, only your perception of reality. It could indeed be true, and we can't yet observe it. So even though we would conclude it to be false we'd be completely wrong. While it's a logical deduction, it too requires a measure of faith as well. Why because anything that cannot be proven to a metaphycisical certitude, requires an amount of faith, no matter how small.

Also the Scientific Method only deals with what we can observe. It is highly possibke that the actions of God are unobservable.

Which is a cop out and nothing more than an admission that God does not exist.

No it really isn't. I would say God doesn't exist if I was going to "admit" that. A lot of what people would consider to be cop outs are legitimate philosophical concepts. The limitations of human perception, coupled with the Almighty, more than accounts for the possibility that God exists and we are unable to perceive him at this present time.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The null hypothesis is not proof of anything, it is a hypothesis derived from the concepts of Occam's Razor, however Occam's Razor is itself not a logical truth, but more of a Guidline. Science and Philosophy are in agreement that the existence of a Deity cannot be disproven, it could only ever be proven, by the deity revealing itself.

Actually, the "null hypothesis" is simply the ultimate statement of agnosticism. In courses you may take on statistics, students are taught that one should never assume that the null hypothesis is true, since it's not supposed to be a truth statement. However, one should never state anything that contradicts the null hypothesis without substantial reason to reject the null hypothesis. We never affirm the null hypothesis, under any circumstances, but we never contradict it unless we have very good reason for doing so.

While I concede to your clarificstion, I'd have to argue that this subject is so muddled over time and space, that the burden of proof is not exactly clear, if one can even exist.

[Mavorpen]

You held it up as proof that God does not exist, it is not.

No, I didn't.

Just because you come to that conclusion, doesn't make it true.

Which is EXACTLY why I differentiated between the two and did not in any way state that coming to the conclusion makes it true. Did you even read my post?

Specifically because it is conceptually impossible before data to point one way or another concerning the existence of a god.

Wrong. It's entirely possible for data to point either way. However, first, you have to provide a definition of God that is falsifiable, testable, and specific. That's where theists fail. They intentionally dodge these requirements because they know that otherwise the data would explicitly go against them.

As I said, lacking a belief in God is not an expression of faith. Making a claim that God does not exist, requires a level of faith.

No, it does not. It only requires a level of understanding of the scientific method.

It is because someone looking at the same "Evidence" can come to an equally opposite conclusion.

This is the silliest standard I've seen yet. Is evolution faith because creationists look at the same evidence and come to an equally opposite conclusion?

I do understand. Problem is your conclusion has no basis on actual reality, only your perception of reality.

Yes, this is how we conduct science. Our perception of reality as humans will naturally lead to conclusions that are based on our perception of reality. This isn't a "problem" nor should this surprise you.

It could indeed be true, and we can't yet observe it. So even though we would conclude it to be false we'd be completely wrong. While it's a logical deduction, it too requires a measure of faith as well. Why because anything that cannot be proven to a metaphycisical certitude, requires an amount of faith, no matter how small.

No. Stop with this lazy and intellectually dishonest appeal to ignorance. Stop this annoying straw man that my argument is that we've PROVEN anything. Science doesn't prove anything. I have never said it does.

No it really isn't. I would say God doesn't exist I was going to "admit" that. A lot of what people would consider to be cop outs arr legitimate physical concepts. The limitations of human perception, coupled with the Almighty, more than accounts for the possibility that God exists and we are unable to perceive him at this present time.

So in other words, it's lazy a cop out.

[Camicon]

*snip*
Also last I checked we don't know why gravity exists...
*snip*

You're saying so many incorrect things, I could spend an hour correcting you, but I'll limit myself to this one.

Gravity exists because mass warps spacetime. We've known this since Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1916.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

A. It doesn't have to be insulting, and given your argument here it's obvious why you end up insulting people. Telling people their world view is a fantasy is no doubt insulting, especially as such a thing can't be proven.

Your deity being a product of human culture is a fact that exists outside of any argument that I could present you with, and it is a conclusion that I think that you would arrive at yourself after some study of the matter.

However, if you arrive at a different conclusion after applying your powers of reasoning to the best of your ability, then we are simply at different stages in our investigation of this world, which is fine.

It's not a fact nor difinitively demonstrable, it's an opinion. I looking at the samething you are, came to a different conclusion. Granted there is always more to learn, but me coming to the same conclusion as you is not an inevitability. Though not to say that it is entirely impossible. You could very well be right.

B. That is not the basis of Atheism, that is the basis of Antitheistic atheism. Atheism comes in shades from Agnostic Atheism to Antitheistic Atheism, and that's probably a narrow way of looking at it. An agnostic leaning Atheistic doesn't say there is no God, they just don't believe in one, and generally allow that it is possible God does in fact exist. Conversely, the Antitheist Atheist claims God is not real. Difference being, saying "I don't believe in God" is a statement of one's perspective and makes no truth claims about the universe, it's a statment not an argument. Saying "God doesn't exist" is a truth claim about the universe, that makes an argument. Ironically, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, the statement, "There is no God" cannot be substantiated, and therefor must be taken on faith, just like a religious belief.

Impressive logical acrobatics. Rather than telling you where I stand, in that context, I will leave it to you to determine where I would lie in that system of yours, based on knowing me.

I don't know you, but from what I've read I'd put you as an Anti-theist.

The idea that "God makes people better" is actually a relatively new idea in Judeo-Christan philosophy, generally associated fundamentalism or Evangelical Protestantism. Traditionally, God doesn't actually make people better, he just told us how to be better. We as people have to actively chose to be better, and as a result the world gets better. Honestly this subject alone can be discussed at length by itself.

That is an interesting take on theology. I would be very interested to see your bases for it.

That would be a lengthy post, when I have access to an actual PC I'll get it done for you.

Only problem here, is theres no way to prove that God is merely a fantasy. It really is a chicken egg type debate.

I think that the human imagination is fully capable of devising such notions. It has done my heart good to study the Akkadian religion, actually. It's very interesting, and the more I study it, the more I see potential connections between it and the account related in the Bereshit.

I never meant to imply that it's not possible, it most certainly is. I'm just saying you can't prove that to be the case.

Generally, I've never seen this argument made towards the creations of man. The ingenuity of man has never been really in question. In fact, in the Abrahamic Religions, human ingenuity has been the cause of some celestial smack downs, i.e Tower of Babel. This argument is usually made towards the infinite wonders and majesty of the universe, which humans had no hand in creating.

I think the bit on Abram is more interesting, from that chapter.

Ah the begats.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

*snip*
Also last I checked we don't know why gravity exists...
*snip*

You're saying so many incorrect things, I could spend an hour correcting you, but I'll limit myself to this one.

Gravity exists because mass warps spacetime. We've known this since Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1916.

No, we observe that effect, but we don't know what causes it. Source, the Astrophysicist working on this very project I spoke with last year. Unless you are suggestion she should get her money back for her PhD.

[Kelinfort]

Well, since the idea of a deity doesn't meet my standard of proof, I do not believe one exists.

[Camicon]

You're saying so many incorrect things, I could spend an hour correcting you, but I'll limit myself to this one.

Gravity exists because mass warps spacetime. We've known this since Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1916.

No, we observe that effect, but we don't know what causes it. Source, the Astrophysicist working on this very project I spoke with last year. Unless you are suggestion she should get her money back for her PhD.

Second-hand anecdotal conversations are not sources. Go find me something reputable that says we don't know how gravity works.

[Sun Wukong]

Well, since the idea of a deity doesn't meet my standard of proof, I do not believe one exists.

Indeed. Deities have to be at least 40 proof to meet my standards, and Jesus is rarely more then 8.

[Kelinfort]

Well, since the idea of a deity doesn't meet my standard of proof, I do not believe one exists.

Indeed. Deities have to be at least 40 proof to meet my standards, and Jesus is rarely more then 8.

Jesus, based on the evidence, I think, existed. Was he a deity or just a good person. I believe the latter.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You held it up as proof that God does not exist, it is not.

No, I didn't.

Just because you come to that conclusion, doesn't make it true.

Which is EXACTLY why I differentiated between the two and did not in any way state that coming to the conclusion makes it true. Did you even read my post?

Specifically because it is conceptually impossible before data to point one way or another concerning the existence of a god.

Wrong. It's entirely possible for data to point either way. However, first, you have to provide a definition of God that is falsifiable, testable, and specific. That's where theists fail. They intentionally dodge these requirements because they know that otherwise the data would explicitly go against them.

As I said, lacking a belief in God is not an expression of faith. Making a claim that God does not exist, requires a level of faith.

No, it does not. It only requires a level of understanding of the scientific method.

It is because someone looking at the same "Evidence" can come to an equally opposite conclusion.

This is the silliest standard I've seen yet. Is evolution faith because creationists look at the same evidence and come to an equally opposite conclusion?

I do understand. Problem is your conclusion has no basis on actual reality, only your perception of reality.

Yes, this is how we conduct science. Our perception of reality as humans will naturally lead to conclusions that are based on our perception of reality. This isn't a "problem" nor should this surprise you.

It could indeed be true, and we can't yet observe it. So even though we would conclude it to be false we'd be completely wrong. While it's a logical deduction, it too requires a measure of faith as well. Why because anything that cannot be proven to a metaphycisical certitude, requires an amount of faith, no matter how small.

No. Stop with this lazy and intellectually dishonest appeal to ignorance. Stop this annoying straw man that my argument is that we've PROVEN anything. Science doesn't prove anything. I have never said it does.

No it really isn't. I would say God doesn't exist I was going to "admit" that. A lot of what people would consider to be cop outs arr legitimate physical concepts. The limitations of human perception, coupled with the Almighty, more than accounts for the possibility that God exists and we are unable to perceive him at this present time.

So in other words, it's lazy a cop out.

You have a dizzying yet limiting intellect. (And I in no way mean that as an insult.) This post is too muddled for me to efficiently edit in my tablet so the following.
1. For the sake of the debate, I'll trust you know what points you were making better than me. Fine, I'll concede your first two points.
2. At this risk of being accused of moving the goal posts: the data cannot point either way, because science is limited by our own perception. The argument that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one. The existence of God isn't testable by scientific means, but that in no way means he doesn't exist. It is a question that is solely in the realm of philosophy to answer.
3. But you've admitted latter that science doesn't prove anything.
4. Exactly. At its simplest, faith is a belief that something is true with out absolute difinitive proof that it is true. Somethings require more faith than others. You can come to the conclusion that evolution is true, and I'd agree with you, but because there is not absolute difinitive proof that it is true, the conclusion is made with a small degree if faith no matter how small it may be. Because we can't know for absolute certainty, it is a belief.
5. It doesn't surprise me but it does present a certain problem of actual reality vs perceived. Take for instance warp theory, I trust you're familiar with it. In actuality, an object utilizing warp, is traveling at a sublight velocity, with the universe warping around it. However, to the outside observer, as part of the universe being warped, it would be perceived as moving at FTL velocity. Thus a conclusion, based based on what we perceive, is not necessarily true, or the whole truth.
6. I agree that science doesn't prove anything, so I don't understand your inability to grasp the concept of faith that I am presenting.
7. It's only a cop out if you limit yourself to empirical evidence being the only barometer of what's rational or not. Philosophy, or more specifically metaphysics, is no where near as limiting. For instance it's entirely possible from a metaphysical perspective that the Universe doesn't actually exist, and is all just a hallucanitory projection of your own consciousness.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No, we observe that effect, but we don't know what causes it. Source, the Astrophysicist working on this very project I spoke with last year. Unless you are suggestion she should get her money back for her PhD.

Second-hand anecdotal conversations are not sources. Go find me something reputable that says we don't know how gravity works.

To clarify we have an idea how gravity works, we just don't know how what ever it is that causes gravity works.

But these effects – where there are basically curves, hills and valleys in space — occur for reasons we can’t fully really explain.

http://www.universetoday.com/75705/wher ... come-from/

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, since the idea of a deity doesn't meet my standard of proof, I do not believe one exists.

Indeed. Deities have to be at least 40 proof to meet my standards, and Jesus is rarely more then 8.

I know a guy Jesus who can get you a lot better than 40 proof cheap.

[Sun Wukong]

Indeed. Deities have to be at least 40 proof to meet my standards, and Jesus is rarely more then 8.

I know a guy Jesus who can get you a lot better than 40 proof cheap.

And if he did, I would consider worshiping him.

[Mavorpen]

1. For the sake of the debate, I'll trust you know what points you were making better than me. Fine, I'll concede your first two points.

Kay.

2. At this risk of being accused of moving the goal posts: the data cannot point either way, because science is limited by our own perception. The argument that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one. The existence of God isn't testable by scientific means, but that in no way means he doesn't exist. It is a question that is solely in the realm of philosophy to answer.

Again, this is a lazy cop out and nothing more than a fallacious argument from ignorance. We have utterly no idea whatsoever if your claim that we cannot test for God is reasonably true. It's nothing more than a claim that you refuse to substantiate because you CAN'T substantiate. It's a claim made solely using circular logic.

A: God cannot be proven to exist or not.
B: Why?
A: Because God cannot isn't testable
B: How do you know this without testing this and reaching a conclusion?
A: Because it just is.

The thing is, if God interacts with the universe in any way, we should be able to test God. You've given NO reason why we shouldn't be able to. You've repeated this claim and it doesn't progress this discussion at all. It's just plain lazy.

3. But you've admitted latter that science doesn't prove anything.

No duh. I never claimed otherwise.

4. Exactly. At its simplest, faith is a belief that something is true with out absolute difinitive proof that it is true.

Wrong. Faith is belief that is not only without evidence, but with no regard for evidence. That's what separates it from assumptions.

Somethings require more faith than others.

Again, no. You need to learn the difference between assumptions and faith.

You can come to the conclusion that evolution is true, and I'd agree with you, but because there is not absolute difinitive proof that it is true, the conclusion is made with a small degree if faith no matter how small it may be.

Once again, this is wrong and completely and utterly makes the word faith completely fucking useless. You're arguing there is no differentiation between assumptions and faith. There is. Faith is believing something with no regards for evidence. The likelihood of an assumption being true can be reduced with new observations and evidence. Faith cannot. Faith by definition cannot change with evidence. It is something that is held to be true no matter what. Science does not rely on faith one bit since EVERYTHING in science is up for grabs to be attacked with new evidence.

Because we can't know for absolute certainty, it is a belief.

And belief=/=faith, so this is a pointless statement.

5. It doesn't surprise me but it does present a certain problem of actual reality vs perceived. Take for instance warp theory, I trust you're familiar with it. In actuality, an object utilizing warp, is traveling at a sublight velocity, with the universe warping around it. However, to the outside observer, as part of the universe being warped, it would be perceived as moving at FTL velocity. Thus a conclusion, based based on what we perceive, is not necessarily true, or the whole truth.

...What the fuck does this have to do with ANYTHING I've said? I ALREADY stated that conclusions drawn from evidence are not necessarily true. Furthermore, this analogy makes utterly NO sense BECAUSE we understand this problem. There's ALREADY evidence and observations that show that there are different interpretations depending on where you're observing from. With God, however, there is NO such evidence whatsoever. And that's the problem.

7. It's only a cop out if you limit yourself to empirical evidence being the only barometer of what's rational or not.

So then it's a cop out.

Philosophy, or more specifically metaphysics, is no where near as limiting.

Which is precisely why science is a better method of categorizing information to formulate ideas about what's true about the universe.

For instance it's entirely possible from a metaphysical perspective that the Universe doesn't actually exist, and is all just a hallucanitory projection of your own consciousness.

And it's entirely possible that the moon is made of cheese.

And? You're not posting anything productive. Shouting, "WHAT IF!!!" over and over does not bring us any closer to explaining the natural world. You need to shout "WHAT IF!!!" after you've made observations and go off of that by formulating a coherent hypothesis, testing it, draw conclusions, share your conclusions, etc.

If your point was to show that it's a GOOD thing that philosophy other than science (science is nothing more than a philosophy that's much more restrictive, and for good reason) isn't as limited as science, you've failed miserably. I couldn't care less about pointless what if statements if they don't help us at all.

WHY should we use arguments from ignorance as our method for explaining the world?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I know a guy Jesus who can get you a lot better than 40 proof cheap.

And if he did, I would consider worshiping him.

Honestly 40 proof is pretty low... 100 proof now that's some quality shit.

[Camicon]

Second-hand anecdotal conversations are not sources. Go find me something reputable that says we don't know how gravity works.

To clarify we have an idea how gravity works, we just don't know how what ever it is that causes gravity works.

But these effects – where there are basically curves, hills and valleys in space — occur for reasons we can’t fully really explain.

http://www.universetoday.com/75705/wher ... come-from/

There is a huge difference between "we don't know how gravity works", and "we don't know what exact bit of matter is responsible for gravity existing".

Saying "we don't know why gravity exists" is flat out wrong. It exists because matter warps spacetime. You should have said "we don't know what exact thing causes gravity"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think the decline in religion is the same as the decline in magical belief.

It is simply that people do not need religion to find a meaning in life any longer, plus the rising skepticism of the western cultures and the internet being a vehicle for ideas faster than anything else we have had.

We are not in the times where people got their information from the village elders or their bishops anymore; we are in a time where everyone can have tons of data at their fingertips, books are more readily available, literacy is at its highest than in any other period in history; in short we have advanced from the times when we needed a religious figure, and as such people are starting to find comfort in there perhaps not being much of an afterlife of a deity, but also in the fact they now feel part of the bigger whole of humanity.

Another big thing is the increases in medical research. People tended to resort to religion before for healing their illnesses. Healers were popular and also myths involving the church. Now with medicine being as advanced as it is there isn't so much uncertainty and we're not shifting from asking a deity to provide us with health and not let us die to relying on medicines far more.

All in all, our increase in knowledge is the reason atheism has become more acceptable and even something people embrace openly.

[Neo Industrium]

do they kill/torture people

I think we all agree r/atheism counts as torture, like many subreddits.
Carl Sagan and Bill Nye are way cool though.

Don't forget about Bill Maher