Are we at risk of becoming fanatics??

[Tokamak]

You're making it look like there's a 50/50 chance god does exit.

How about this? In a galaxy far far away is a small star, with some planets. One of those planets has a moon. Is there a dust storm happening on this moon right now at this moment, or not, yes or no?

What is your answer?

Prove to me that your moon exist. Right now I have no idea which moon you're talking about.

It's the theist that believe on the basis of zero evidence and the atheists that don't believe on the basis of zero evidence. Who's more honest?

How hard can it be to simply say that the onus to provide evidence is on the ones that make the claim?

Honesty compels us to admit that all sides are making a claim, and that none are able to offer compelling evidence for their claims. I'm making a claim too, and my evidence isn't too impressive either.

It's not possible to prove theists know.

It's not possible to prove atheists know.

It's not possible to prove nobody knows.

FUBAR!

The atheist don't claim to know, it's the theists that are the believers here, not the atheists. They're basing their lives and their politics on the premise that there is a god. We're the ones pointing out that they have no evidence to back that up therefore it's unreasonable to believe in a god.

Actually, I think you already understand all this. You're just playing ignorant to keep on trolling.

If you genuinely don't understand this. Try this video, it kind of applies to your dust storm on a moon:

[Simon_Gardner]

You forgot the pink unicorn again.

[naturetalk]

Prove to me that your moon exist. Right now I have no idea which moon you're talking about.

There are likely billions of moons out there. Pick any one except one in our solar system.

The point is, how do we rate the probability of things we don't know a damn thing about? I'm not claiming a 50/50 probability that theists or atheists are right. I'm claiming none of us know what the ^%&$#@ we're talking about.

The atheist don't claim to know, it's the theists that are the believers here, not the atheists.

With respect, not trying to pick a fight, personally, just one view, I find that to be intellectually dishonest, and not at all in accordance with the evidence, which is documented in extensive detail here on the forum.

Actually, I think you already understand all this. You're just playing ignorant to keep on trolling.

I assure you I am completely sincere in my view. That doesn't make it right of course, but it is sincere.

Here's my view.

Some readers are sincerely having trouble imagining any position other than theism or atheism.

Thus they are confused by my posts. Thus I am to some degree adding something new to the forum, at least for those readers. Thus I'm doing, or trying to do, what a poster should do, add something that hasn't already been said a million times.

[Psycosmo]

Are there any good studies that compare atheist with theist upbringings with regard to outcomes related to mental and physical health, income, criminal records et cetra?

Anyone?

[aspire1670]

You're making it look like there's a 50/50 chance god does exit.

How about this? In a galaxy far far away is a small star, with some planets. One of those planets has a moon. Is there a dust storm happening on this moon right now at this moment, or not, yes or no?

What is your answer?

It's the theist that believe on the basis of zero evidence and the atheists that don't believe on the basis of zero evidence. Who's more honest?

How hard can it be to simply say that the onus to provide evidence is on the ones that make the claim?

Honesty compels us to admit that all sides are making a claim, and that none are able to offer compelling evidence for their claims. I'm making a claim too, and my evidence isn't too impressive either.

It's not possible to prove theists know.

It's not possible to prove atheists know.

It's not possible to prove nobody knows.

FUBAR!

Oh for fucks sake, you're doing it again; implying that the "belief" in the statement 'I have no belief in any gods' is equivalent to the "belief" in the theistic statement 'I believe in a god.' What is it about the statement I have no belief in any gods that you imagine requires any evidence (not proof as you persist in saying)? I'll go through it one more time and very slowly just for you: an atheist has no belief in any gods a theist makes up shit and calls it a belief. Have you got it now?

[naturetalk]

Oh for fucks sake, you're doing it again; implying that the "belief" in the statement 'I have no belief in any gods' is equivalent to the "belief" in the theistic statement 'I believe in a god.' What is it about the statement I have no belief in any gods that you imagine requires any evidence (not proof as you persist in saying)? I'll go through it one more time and very slowly just for you: an atheist has no belief in any gods a theist makes up shit and calls it a belief. Have you got it now?

If you have no position, why are you arguing?

[Tokamak]

Now you're just ignoring posts.

We do have a stance. Our stance is that the claim 'there is a god' is not valid as long as there's no evidence.

[Mononoke]

Are there any good studies that compare atheist with theist upbringings with regard to outcomes related to mental and physical health, income, criminal records et cetra?

Anyone?

What did google give you?

[naturetalk]

We do have a stance. Our stance is that the claim 'there is a god' is not valid as long as there's no evidence.

Right, you do have a stance, agreed. And that stance can be examined and challenged, like any other.

[aspire1670]

Oh for fucks sake, you're doing it again; implying that the "belief" in the statement 'I have no belief in any gods' is equivalent to the "belief" in the theistic statement 'I believe in a god.' What is it about the statement I have no belief in any gods that you imagine requires any evidence (not proof as you persist in saying)? I'll go through it one more time and very slowly just for you: an atheist has no belief in any gods a theist makes up shit and calls it a belief. Have you got it now?

If you have no position, why are you arguing?

My position is that you have problems with comprehension and that your position is untenable because it's based on a willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the atheist statement 'I have no belief in any gods'. Shall I go through it slowly for you again? Theistic belief is made up shit which lacks any evidential support. The word belief in the statement I have no belief in any gods does not require any evidential support. Any chance you might actually address this fallacy in your argument, or do you intend to keep on dodging?

[naturetalk]

The word belief in the statement I have no belief in any gods does not require any evidential support.

To me, just one view, this is a debate tactic. It's a good debate tactic, always stay on the offensive, refuse to ever defend your own position. A good debate tactic. And that's all.

[aspire1670]

We do have a stance. Our stance is that the claim 'there is a god' is not valid as long as there's no evidence.

Right, you do have a stance, agreed. And that stance can be examined and challenged, like any other.

Okay. Produce the evidence to challenge it, and you're Nobel Prize awaits you. Take your time though because you still don't comprehend the statement 'I have no belief in any gods' and I wouldn't want you to go off half cocked and look foolish.

[aspire1670]

The word belief in the statement I have no belief in any gods does not require any evidential support.

To me, just one view, this is a debate tactic. It's a good debate tactic, always stay on the offensive, refuse to ever defend your own position. A good debate tactic. And that's all.

Well. you would say that. The irony - it burns.

[naturetalk]

'I have no belief in any gods'

WHY do you have no belief in Gods?

Your reasoning, whatever it may, can be inspected just like any other reasoning.

[Tokamak]

Yet you don't.

[Mononoke]

@naturetalks: everybody admits that humans cannot make any claim without first accepting some primitives(beliefs). But they question with the belief in god is that you are committing to a very complicated entity, that is ambiguously defined(i.e: What the hell does it mean to be omnipotent). Now you cannot construct a worldview with the belief in god at it's center, but it will make little sense. for example we cannot properly define physics with an omnipotent god hanging around.

The atheist world view only commits to what we can interact with or is minimally necessary to explain our interactions. If god is truly necessary to explain the universe we will find him, although I don't know what he will look like. But he cannot be this ambiguous magic man who can just do things, because there is no way to test for that.

[Ramonda]

Are there any good studies that compare atheist with theist upbringings with regard to outcomes related to mental and physical health, income, criminal records et cetra?

Anyone?

I've mentioned in another thread something similar along this line. While it isn't a study of many, I intentionally raised my children without bringing in god other than their knowing that I was devout. I was a firm believer that it isn't religion but rather "we get what we give" that will help bring out the best in children. I was allowing them to be whatever they chose as adults. One chose atheism as his adult stand. One chose modern Christianity. The others chose agnostic theism. We just about never discuss religion but my general thoughts to them were that many people believe and some don't. That nobody knows for others the ultimate answer. That we can know for ourselves only and even then it is a growing understanding.

Anyway as I have said, while my children were and continued developing into great adults, they weren't any better or worse off than their church raised peers whom I know very well when they reached adulthood. All chose college because I don't see that as a mandate for intelligence either so they also didn't get the traditional forced parent on that and it too was a choice.

One has achieved being a millionaire but all are or were successful in the upper middle class category when it came to careers and lifestyle. One developed bipolar.

So their background was secular which is what an atheist background would also be. I have not doubt that the atheist families are loving etc. etc. but I also expect there are the fanatics who raise their kids with negatives about anything religious or what some call woo. And of course we all know there are religious fanatics who use religion and fear also as a tactic.

Like many I believed my kids had a greater chance without threats and fear from parents whether it was religion or just life in general threats. As children they did live in a very nice child focused atmosphere. But as adults they did pick up their stresses from those that their parents may have exposed them to just from living as well as from their studies and own thoughts from schools and peers and of course their own desires and failures.

They are people most people would like but so are their peers, their peers being highly intelligent college grads also who are on various scales of religious devotion.

[Tarby]

Give me Doctor Who for being scared as a child any day. It's easier to explain that kind of make believe, and there really are no Daleks or Cybermen.

Well, not yet

I'll tell you this: while I knew all about "Hellfire" (but didn't take it seriously), I had nightmares with "Ghostbusters", and all the horror movies I could see from behind the living room's door.

I can't take Simon's appeal to call this "child abuse" seriously. Perhaps his own personal story is different, but that's an anecdote. To try to generalize it to the whole of religiosity is a mistake. Fundamental jerks are marginal, not common, not "80%".

Of course, inanities like the pope saying that "hellfire" is really true does not help, at all.

Luis, it's little to do with the Pope. I'm not sure if you're aware of the mostly Xtian fundamentalist hell houses, designed to scare the crap out of the impressionable. Parents actually take their children to them. I guess if the love of Christ doesn't work it's time to resort to the fear of Hell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_house
http://www.johndavies.org/archives/2007 ... chive.html
http://www.thehappyheretic.com/06-05.htm
http://www.filteringcraig.com/2003/12/0 ... cumentary/

On Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub1GxLHh9so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDy0lY62me4

Sick stuff as far as I'm concerned.

[Luis Dias]

Luis, it's little to do with the Pope. I'm not sure if you're aware of the mostly Xtian fundamentalist hell houses, designed to scare the crap out of the impressionable. Parents actually take their children to them. I guess if the love of Christ doesn't work it's time to resort to the fear of Hell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_house
http://www.johndavies.org/archives/2007 ... chive.html
http://www.thehappyheretic.com/06-05.htm
http://www.filteringcraig.com/2003/12/0 ... cumentary/

On Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub1GxLHh9so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDy0lY62me4

Sick stuff as far as I'm concerned.

Tarby, I couldn't be in the business of denying or ignoring that kind of barbarism. What I said remains:

To try to generalize it to the whole of religiosity is a mistake. Fundamental jerks are marginal, not common, not "80%".

In my own country, a very religious one, I don't think that kind of shit even exists.

[aspire1670]

WHY do you have no belief in Gods?

The woo is strong in this one. Because I have no belief? Or to put in other terms you might understand: Lack of any credible evidence to support the existence of any gods, will that do?

Your reasoning, whatever it may, can be inspected just like any other reasoning.[/quote

Please, please be my guest and inspect the statement 'I have no belief in any gods'. Subject it to your reason (there's a first time for everything) and report back as soon as. I can hardly wait.

[Metatron]

....it turns out that pink unicorns do indeed exist, right now. In fact, there's at least one living in your house, as we speak.

Yes, good point. Thanks for the heads up naturetalk!

[Psycosmo]

Are there any good studies that compare atheist with theist upbringings with regard to outcomes related to mental and physical health, income, criminal records et cetra?

Anyone?

What did google give you?

I don't care enough to bother with Google. Since so many here are so convinced that churchgoing = child abuse, and they are people who base their beliefs on evidence, that they would be able to cite some studies to show that going to church as a child is as damaging as other forms of abuse. They have this strong belief that it's damaging child abuse, the burden of proof is on them to show me evidence.
Simon?

[Tokamak]

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%


But all in all I find it simply child abuse to let a child grow up in a life where that person waste so much time, energy and even money on a false idea.

[Psycosmo]

Im more looking for a prospective epidemiological type study (starting with equal numbers of atheists and theists matched for demographic factors), but thanks for the stats

[Tokamak]

Well all you have to do is link these stats to the percentage of atheists in the states and still be disappointed.