America Becoming Less Christian, Survey Shows

[The Merchant Republics]

I would not call that blind faith atheism, I would call it never having been introduced to a god. It is very difficult to have blind faith atheism.

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

What evidence would that be?

Because anthropology kinda seems to disagree, what with the every ethnic group on the planet having some form of religious belief.

It's foolish to make the case though, you can only argue for atheism being the blank slate in the vacuum of any other prior beliefs. Yes, if you took a child and sealed him off from all outside influence he might never believe in a God or at least develop a coherent sense of him, but the spontaneous evolution of religion across all cultural groups on the planet, says I would argue that faith is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

[Neutraligon]

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

I think you're assuming quite a bit here.

If there is a God, I'm fairly certain atheism wouldn't be the default state of humanity.

Depends on the characteristics of the god you propose.

Is it a god that never interferes (the deist god)
Is it a god for which interference is impossible to find evidence for (ie appears like natural interference)
Is it a god for whom we can find evidence for.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I do not believe God the universe was caused, as I believe that he it is eternal. So tell me then, by your OBVIOUSLY ENLIGHTENED LOGIC, how you believe existence began if it was not created.

Doing what I said I'd do. So, where is there room for god in your argument, now? Because i'm not seeing any gaps for him to hide.

Your avoiding the question.

[Neutraligon]

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

What evidence would that be?

Because anthropology kinda seems to disagree, what with the every ethnic group on the planet having some form of religious belief.

It's foolish to make the case though, you can only argue for atheism being the blank slate in the vacuum of any other prior beliefs. Yes, if you took a child and sealed him off from all outside influence he might never believe in a God or at least develop a coherent sense of him, but the spontaneous evolution of religion across all cultural groups on the planet, says I would argue that faith is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Not all religions have a god. A more accurate way of saying this is that most if not all ethnicities formed some sort of supernatural belief.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

What evidence would that be?

Because anthropology kinda seems to disagree, what with the every ethnic group on the planet having some form of religious belief.

It's foolish to make the case though, you can only argue for atheism being the blank slate in the vacuum of any other prior beliefs. Yes, if you took a child and sealed him off from all outside influence he might never believe in a God or at least develop a coherent sense of him, but the spontaneous evolution of religion across all cultural groups on the planet, says I would argue that faith is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

So are greed and lust. What we can say about all three is that we know for a fact that they are natural processes that result from our particular psychology and mental faculties, and for those particular traits we can even point to the particular evolutionary advantage that they provided to various ancestral groups.

[Big Jim P]

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

I think you're assuming quite a bit here.

If there is a God, I'm fairly certain atheism wouldn't be the default state of humanity.

Atheism is the default state to which we are all born. We either have to be introduced to the god concept or create it ourselves. As there is no evidence of god, then the most logical assumption is that one does not exist.

[Rednekylvania]

I'm not particularly concerned about what religion Americans do or don't primarily identify with. The fact of the matter is that all post modern dogma, religious or otherwise, has failed it's adherents, and the lack of specificity in how one defines their spirituality or lack thereof is a testament to the ever growing instinctual individual self identification that has been evolving as a defense mechanism against failed institutions since the Renessaince.
When you boil it all down, those who strive to self-improve in spite of their flesh, however they define their ideology, will continue to do so. Those who live as slaves to their own flesh, however they define their ideology, will also continue to do so. Each in turn will live within the communities they deserve, and the continuing clash between the two will ensure that humanity advances itself despite itself.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Doing what I said I'd do. So, where is there room for god in your argument, now? Because i'm not seeing any gaps for him to hide.

Your avoiding the question.

I'm not. I am demonstrating that your argument is invalid, and therefore a bad argument. Your argument simply sucks, I don't have to answer your nonsense question when I can just obliterate its entire foundation. Once you realize how awful your argument was, you will realize how meaningless the questions were.

[Big Jim P]

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

What evidence would that be?

Because anthropology kinda seems to disagree, what with the every ethnic group on the planet having some form of religious belief.

It's foolish to make the case though, you can only argue for atheism being the blank slate in the vacuum of any other prior beliefs. Yes, if you took a child and sealed him off from all outside influence he might never believe in a God or at least develop a coherent sense of him, but the spontaneous evolution of religion across all cultural groups on the planet, says I would argue that faith is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Humans creating not only god, but the whole god concept.

[LaVeyan Inferno]

Further signs of the weakening influence of right hand religion.

[Neutraligon]

Doing what I said I'd do. So, where is there room for god in your argument, now? Because i'm not seeing any gaps for him to hide.

Your avoiding the question.

Since we can't seem to redirect this thread.

The best answer is to leave it at we do not know. We do not need an explanation when there is lack of evidence.
Cause and effect are limited to this iteration of this universe (if there are more iterations we do not know, if there is a multiverse we do not know). More then that the cause need not be an entity. So because we lack evidence we answer the question what "caused" the big bang as unanswered. Filling in a god because we do not know is known as god of the gaps, and as we learn more and more that god becomes less and less.

[Dyakovo]

Yes. The irrational belief in the supernatural/diefic/otherworldly is inherently a problem.

How? If one thinks about it, a higher being is inevitable. Our very existence is proof of that, due to the law of cause and effect.
Also, if everyone acted in knowing that they would be judged for what they do in the next life, do you think this world would be all that bad?

No, the existence of a "higher being" is not inevitable.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Your avoiding the question.

I'm not. I am demonstrating that your argument is invalid, and therefore a bad argument. Your argument simply sucks, I don't have to answer your nonsense question when I can just obliterate its entire foundation. Once you realize how awful your argument was, you will realize how meaningless the questions were.

oh my goodness, you are so afraid to answer that you are trying to blame me for it. A tenet of modern Christianity is being honest when you don't know, and to just have faith that your decision is right. Nothing wrong with that... we all have faith.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm not. I am demonstrating that your argument is invalid, and therefore a bad argument. Your argument simply sucks, I don't have to answer your nonsense question when I can just obliterate its entire foundation. Once you realize how awful your argument was, you will realize how meaningless the questions were.

oh my goodness, you are so afraid to answer that you are trying to blame me for it. A tenet of modern Christianity is being honest when you don't know, and to just have faith that your decision is right. Nothing wrong with that... we all have faith.

Yet atheism is the complete lack of faith in any imaginary deity.

Tell me why Christianity is more valid than, say, Ásatrú.

[Neutraligon]

I'm not. I am demonstrating that your argument is invalid, and therefore a bad argument. Your argument simply sucks, I don't have to answer your nonsense question when I can just obliterate its entire foundation. Once you realize how awful your argument was, you will realize how meaningless the questions were.

oh my goodness, you are so afraid to answer that you are trying to blame me for it. A tenet of modern Christianity is being honest when you don't know, and to just have faith that your decision is right. Nothing wrong with that... we all have faith.

...considering that many Christians use god to fill in the gap of we do not know, you are very much wrong about that.

[Dyakovo]

I am an atheist so that means I am a leftist?

Yes, because leftism relates to either the reforming of social hierarchy or the abolition of it. Atheism calls for abolition of a religious hierarchy be removing religion so it is fundamentally left wing. You can be right wing and have left wing viewpoints, and your willingness to outright declare yourself intellectually superior by way of emoticon is fairly ridiculous.

No, it doesn't. Atheism doesn't call for anything. It is not an ideology.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Imperial Esplanade]

I think you're assuming quite a bit here.

If there is a God, I'm fairly certain atheism wouldn't be the default state of humanity.

Depends on the characteristics of the god you propose.

Is it a god that never interferes (the deist god)
Is it a god for which interference is impossible to find evidence for (ie appears like natural interference)
Is it a god for whom we can find evidence for.

Eh, it's not exactly that straightforward.

Atheism, if we both are understanding it to be the denial of the existence of a God, is reliant on the existence of theism. Ever heard of Anti-sldskdjfasdfsopgfsag? It doesn't exist because there's no sldskdjfasdfsopgfsag. Atheism (if we both take it to essentially mean Anti-Theism - or the outright denial of a God) needs theism in order to exist. One could have never thought of, or heard of, God... but that doesn't necessarily make him or her an atheist, just means that he or she never really pondered on the existence of a God or has heard of anything about the existence of a God. So while in retrospect, one can say that simply because someone doesn't know of God or that they didn't really consider the existence of God, that they're atheist... it's really not the case. It's unfair to declare a monkey an atheist simply because it never had the ability nor the knowledge to determine whether there is a God or not... and thus as a result, instead of there being Christian monkeys and Islamic monkeys, there are just... monkeys... monkeying around and doing monkey stuff.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

I'm not. I am demonstrating that your argument is invalid, and therefore a bad argument. Your argument simply sucks, I don't have to answer your nonsense question when I can just obliterate its entire foundation. Once you realize how awful your argument was, you will realize how meaningless the questions were.

oh my goodness, you are so afraid to answer that you are trying to blame me for it. A tenet of modern Christianity is being honest when you don't know, and to just have faith that your decision is right. Nothing wrong with that... we all have faith.

Ask a question that isn't loaded with more than one fallacy, and i'll likely answer. When you ask something as meaningless as the fallacy orgies you posted earlier, i'm not going to bother. You don't actually want them answered, you think they are rhetorical questions. They're not, and you don't even understand why.

I also do not have faith. Don't presume you know my mind.

[The Merchant Republics]

You clearly have no concept of what either "verifiable evidence" or "close-minded" mean.

Yeah... I do.

But I'm also aware Dyakovo, that we aren't well suited to seeing things eye to eye; without simply resigning everything to naught, I'll give one attempt at a reply:

Being open-minded, I would argue requires necessarily that you are willing to consider things from viewpoints other than your own, which is impossible if you are unwilling to surrender an exclusively naturalistic worldview. Not because that's a bad thing, but because it renders it impossible to regard things from any other viewpoints, which may be just as valid.

Verifiable evidence, I had hoped I defined well enough in my original response. But in broad strokes it could be defined as something which can be rationally, logically or empirically proven repeatably and reliably sufficient to overcome doubt. Or simply put, evidence (an empirical observation) that can be verified (repeated).

And it is in reply to your claim of having both open-mindedness and a need for verifiable evidence, that I put forth my point that if you require something to be proven with empirical evidence, you are necessarily, not keeping an open-mind about it. You are only looking at it from your naturalistic world view.

[Republic of the Cristo]

oh my goodness, you are so afraid to answer that you are trying to blame me for it. A tenet of modern Christianity is being honest when you don't know, and to just have faith that your decision is right. Nothing wrong with that... we all have faith.

Yet atheism is the complete lack of faith in any imaginary deity.

Tell me why Christianity is more valid than, say, Ásatrú.

Perhaps because we were destined to bring the true religion to the people. Perhaps we were the better Darwinists. I don't know, and I accept that

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yet atheism is the complete lack of faith in any imaginary deity.

Tell me why Christianity is more valid than, say, Ásatrú.

Perhaps because we were destined to bring the true religion to the people. Perhaps we were the better Darwinists. I don't know, and I accept that

Why is Islam not just as valid? Or Buddhism? They're still going strong.

[Republic of the Cristo]

oh my goodness, you are so afraid to answer that you are trying to blame me for it. A tenet of modern Christianity is being honest when you don't know, and to just have faith that your decision is right. Nothing wrong with that... we all have faith.

...considering that many Christians use god to fill in the gap of we do not know, you are very much wrong about that.

I am not filling up a gap here. It actually says in the Bible " God created the Heavens and the Earth" This is true across all denominations. This is not a gap filler, this is a core tenet.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...considering that many Christians use god to fill in the gap of we do not know, you are very much wrong about that.

I am not filling up a gap here. It actually says in the Bible " God created the Heavens and the Earth" This is true across all denominations. This is not a gap filler, this is a core tenet.

We don't know exactly how the universe was created so it's attributed to god.

They used to do the same thing for rain and thunder and lightening.

[Neutraligon]

Depends on the characteristics of the god you propose.

Is it a god that never interferes (the deist god)
Is it a god for which interference is impossible to find evidence for (ie appears like natural interference)
Is it a god for whom we can find evidence for.

Eh, it's not exactly that straightforward.

Atheism, if we both are understanding it to be the denial of the existence of a God, is reliant on the existence of theism. Ever heard of Anti-sldskdjfasdfsopgfsag? It doesn't exist because there's no sldskdjfasdfsopgfsag. Atheism (if we both take it to essentially mean Anti-Theism - or the outright denial of a God) needs theism in order to exist. One could have never thought of, or heard of, God... but that doesn't necessarily make him or her an atheist, just means that he or she never really pondered on the existence of a God or has heard of anything about the existence of a God. So while in retrospect, one can say that simply because someone doesn't know of God or that they didn't really consider the existence of God... it's really not the case. It's unfair to declare a monkey an atheist simply because it never had the ability nor the knowledge to determine whether there is a God or not... and thus as a result, instead of there being Christian monkeys and Islamic monkeys, there are just... monkeys... monkeying around and doing monkey stuff.

No atheism is not the denial of the existance of a god. Ahteism is simply the lack of belief in a god, for whatever reason. So there can be an atheist who states that there definitely is no god, there can be the atheist who has never learned about the concept of a god, there can be the atheist who states that there is no evidence and thus no reason to think there is a god, and there can be the atheist who just does not care. As long as a person cannot claim to be a theist they are an atheist.

Most people will limit atheism to those tings capable of actual thought, but then by the same idea most children cannot be called Christian or Muslim until they too are capable of actual thought.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Yet atheism is the complete lack of faith in any imaginary deity.

Tell me why Christianity is more valid than, say, Ásatrú.

Perhaps because we were destined to bring the true religion to the people. Perhaps we were the better Darwinists. I don't know, and I accept that

"not knowing" is an honest answer. Faith is a wrong answer. I'm also confused by your "darwinists" comment. Please say something intelligible to explain further.