What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Conserative Morality]

faith is certainty regardless of evidence, not desire for it to be so, believing it actually is so.
which is why it is so dangerous it can justify any act.

if theists said " gods probably don't exist but I wish they did" there would not be a problem.

Faith is strong conviction. Not absolute certainty regardless of evidence. Jesus, do you really think any act can't be justified by other ideas?

[Sociobiology]

faith is certainty regardless of evidence, not desire for it to be so, believing it actually is so.
which is why it is so dangerous it can justify any act.

if theists said " gods probably don't exist but I wish they did" there would not be a problem.

Faith is strong conviction. Not absolute certainty regardless of evidence. Jesus, do you really think any act can't be justified by other ideas?

strong conviction regardless of evidence. thats to problem part. I never used the word absolute even if their are those that do so, however they are just the tip of the iceberg.
justifying by faith, justifying by nothing other than conviction is probably the most destructive way of thinking we have ever thought up, and most religions support it.

[Conserative Morality]

strong conviction regardless of evidence. thats to problem part. I never used the word absolute even if their are those that do so, however they are just the tip of the iceberg.
justifying by faith, justifying by nothing other than conviction is probably the most destructive way of thinking we have ever thought up, and most religions support it.

I support the equality of all people regardless of evidence. I have faith, not as a fact, but as a principle. That's what real faith is. Principle. And nowhere in any definition of faith does it say 'regardless of evidence'. There are a number of Christians who believe in evidence - and a number who believe in falsified evidence.

[Grave_n_idle]

And you take those continually failing attempts; attempts that will become less common (and have a continually lesser chance of success as time passes) as years go by as a serious threat to your atheism? None of that ever passed in a time when the US was much less secular than it is now, and you're still in fear of someone bringing to bear a "ban atheism" law on you? It's never going to happen.

atheists are less likely to reciew custody of their children, lack of religion was given as the reason for this denial.
this study was done in 2006. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf

Seven states still ban atheists from holding public office.

also that not really my problem the harm religion does to people in general is the problem I have with it.

When my wife and I were looking at adopting in Georgia, we were refused because even though she's Christian, I'm not.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, I would, but I, being an actual thinking being, know that humans are stubborn shits who flock to bad habits like Republican women flock to a Kid Rock concert in the hope of harvesting dick cheese.

Banning religions would do nothing. So I'll settle with punching religion in the stomach, over and over again, until it dies.

I believe it is rhetoric like this that makes people distrust atheists.

That would be an unfortunate opinion to generalise to all atheists. Not all atheists are anti-religion.

I understand where Rich Port is coming from - there certainly is a strong argument to be made that religion is behind a lot of bad things. But Rich Port and I disagree on whether or not religion is a worthwhile thing. He thinks it's not worth the cost - I think it is.

[Grave_n_idle]

I agree. My main question to atheists who talk about millions of years and related topics would be 'were you there?'.

I will never doubt G-d again, but I also believe that the Universe is 14.7 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.5 billion (Huh. Never noticed that it's pretty similar in age before.) After all, G-d is a scientist and the ultimate engineer. A doctorate in everything.

Could he have just snapped his fingers and boom everything's here? Of course, but where's the fun in that?

Indeed. Which is more majestic, more fitting to an omnipotent and infinite god - the idea that he talked the universe into existence and then blew into a doll to make the first humans - or the idea that he started order from chaos over untold billions of years, and shaped the first humans from infinite variations multiplying from simple molecules?

I like the second idea a lot better.

[Kilobugya]

Atheism is the only rational and reasonable belief in the 21st century with all the gathered evidence we have that the universe is ruled by purely mechanical, mathematical laws, and that everything complicated, including all forms of "sentience", are the result of a huge number of tiny simple components interacting with each other following blindly, without a single misstep, those said laws. There is no room for any "god" (as a conscious/sentient being who created the universe and acts upon it) in this, and pretending the opposite is either being ignorant or being voluntarily blind.

[Dyakovo]

To be truly honest, I think it must be miserable.

It isn't.

[Dyakovo]

Is it? Faith (Not religious faith) is the root of idealism.

faith is certainty regardless of evidence, not desire for it to be so, believing it actually is so.
which is why it is so dangerous it can justify any act.

if theists said " gods probably don't exist but I wish they did" there would not be a problem.

Some of them do. Agnostic theism is a thing.

[New Socialist South Africa]

I'm an Atheist because I have seen no convincing evidence and heard no convincing arguments that a god exists, and I have heard a very wide range of arguments, including those of Thomas Aquinas.

I have no problem with religion as long as it is kept in the private sphere, in private schools, privately funded churches and on private land. Religion should be kept out of politics, out of law, off public land and should never be propped up with the taxes of a population that includes people of numerous different religions and us non-believers.

[The V O I D]

Very well-argued statement. However, I must inform you that I disagree to the fullest extent.
What you essentially said in the OP was, "Can God create a boulder even he can not lift?", and if he did so, that means he has the ability to cease omnipotence at a whim. Thus, making him allpowerful in the respect that he can cease being allpowerful anytime he wants.
Omniscience by definition means "knowing all things". Which means that asking if God can know he doesn't know something is a blatant paradox, contradicting Omniscience's nature itself. Thus, that answer is unable to be found as the question is a paradox; it doesn't make any sense.
The Omnipresent thing- well, ok, you got me there. But, I still think that older versions of the Christian Bible could have, at one point, stated he was nigh-omnipresent. Essentially, this theory states we mistranslated a bit and turned nigh-omnipresence with omnipresence. As such, if this theory were applied, that means the Bible which stated such a thing is correct absolutely. He's present everywhere, but within ourselves; only when we die and he judges us are we made apart of that omnipresence.
Now, as for the omnibenevolence, it's simple. God has a plan, but because he wants us to have free will, he's decided to make the plan's beginning and end fixed, whilst the middle and how we get to the end of God's plan is adaptable, editable by each tiny choice humans make. As for the evil in the world, due to God not wanting to intervene too much because his plan is adaptable, that means it also adapts for the evil, ever-so-subtly. While, on the other hand, miracles may not be God's direct intervention. He could simply be saddened to see a few of his children in such a state that one of his angels, to help 'cheer him up', cause a miracle, essentially causing X to happen to Y.
Now, I believe I've countered most or all of your arguments, OP. What say you to my arguments?

[Mystral]

I'm cool on Atheism as long as they don't bash religion 24/7 or they call theists stupid.

[New Socialist South Africa]

I'm cool on Atheism as long as they don't bash religion 24/7 or they call theists stupid.

I'm cool with Theism as long as they allow my gay friends to marry whoever they want.

EDIT: Oh ya, and as long as they don't discriminate against anyone for their race or sexual orientation. I couldn't care less if theists tell me I'll be tortured in hell for eternity, to be honest I'm kind of used to it by now.

[Mystral]

I'm cool on Atheism as long as they don't bash religion 24/7 or they call theists stupid.

I'm cool with Theism as long as they allow my gay friends to marry whoever they want.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I'm atheist because there is reasonable explanation behind the existence of any deity. It doesn't bother me though that people believe in a deity, as long their religious beliefs stay out of the realm of politics and aren't forced upon me against my will.

[New Socialist South Africa]

I'm cool with Theism as long as they allow my gay friends to marry whoever they want.

We're going to get along just fine.

[Sternberg]

Despite being a Christian myself, I'm generally fine with non-theists; "live and let live", after all.

Buuuut, if I might make a suggestion to both the religious-affiliated and the irreligious: can we kinda dial back a bit on the raving militancy some of the more ... outspoken of both groups seem to have taken up? I know you guys do your best to ignore or stop the radicals, but it does get kind of annoyingly loud.

[Risottia]

What are your thoughts on atheism, and why?

Atheism as in "there's no valid reason to assume that the entities traditionally called "deities" do exist or have ever existed or will ever exist"? It's the only logically sound proposition in religious affairs. Everything else requires unverifiable hypotheses.

If you are one, what convinced you to be atheist?

Nothing. I was born atheist and stayed it.

[Socialist Tera]

I am fine with people holding the view. Religion has no place in law or politics in my personal opinion.

[Sternberg]

I am fine with people holding the view. The court of law should be atheist and religion should have no place in law and politics.

Personally, I think the courts of law should be just about that - the law. Nothing else.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say, for clarifications sake, is that the law courts are and should continue to focus on the rule of law and how it can best serve both the people and the nation in question. Whether someone has religious or non-religious beliefs simply shouldn't factor in.

[Risottia]

I definitely couldn't handle going from day-to-day, not having hope in anything except one's own understanding and logic.

Understanding and logic brought us into the skies and on other celestial bodies, fought diseases and famines, heated our winters, lighted our nights, protected us from storms, gave us water during droughts and defended us from floods.
Religion did not.
I guess we can see a trend: we can have a lot more hope from understanding and logic than from religion.

I don't hate Atheists, I pity them.

Well, atheists could answer they pity those who suffer from systematic delusions. But that would be a bit condescending, wouldn't it.

[Risottia]

The court of law should be atheist and religion should have no place in law and politics.

I think you might want to reword that. It seems that you would allow only religious people in law and politics, as long as they don't talk about religion, but atheists would be barred.

[Socialist Tera]

I am fine with people holding the view. The court of law should be atheist and religion should have no place in law and politics.

Personally, I think the courts of law should be just about that - the law. Nothing else.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say, for clarifications sake, is that the law courts are and should continue to focus on the rule of law and how it can best serve both the people and the nation in question. Whether someone has religious or non-religious beliefs simply shouldn't factor in.

I agree. That is what I mean.

[New Socialist South Africa]

I am fine with people holding the view. The court of law should be atheist and religion should have no place in law and politics.

Personally, I think the courts of law should be just about that - the law. Nothing else.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say, for clarifications sake, is that the law courts are and should continue to focus on the rule of law and how it can best serve both the people and the nation in question. Whether someone has religious or non-religious beliefs simply shouldn't factor in.

What I think you are saying is that the law should be secular and that religion should not play a role in it, which is exactly what most Atheists, including myself, believe.

[Mesrane]

I believe I understand why you dismiss God, that doesn't make me any less doubtful.

which completely misses the point of the quote, and also illustrates the problem, you think doubt is a bad thing.

Doubt is a wonderful thing.