An assumption is always, and only, an assumption.

It is not certain.

And who are you to tell us which uncertainties are valid and which are not?

It takes mammoth faith to believe whole theories built on a foundation of uncertainties.

Kay17:


Assumptions are necessary in order to create a starting point. . Assumptions build premises before conclusions can be erected. Science creates a natural cause because such cause is readily perceptible. For such purposes the assumptions are valid.

In contrast with Faith, it depends on how far the faithful is willing to stretch his faith.

Kay17:

Assumptions are necessary in order to create a starting point. . Assumptions build premises before conclusions can be erected. Science creates a natural cause because such cause is readily perceptible. For such purposes the assumptions are valid.
In contrast with Faith, it depends on how far the faithful is willing to stretch his faith.

italo:
An assumption is always, and only, an assumption.

It is not certain.

And who are you to tell us which uncertainties are valid and which are not?

It takes mammoth faith to believe whole theories built on a foundation of uncertainties.

How helpful it was to say an assumption is an assumption, such insight!

It is actually because assumptions create a certainty that is why they are useful. They are like scaffolds. For example, assuming your wife commits would you divorce her? rather than spend all the time proving and disproving her fidelity, a starting point and a contention is created for further thought. Same happens on Nairaland religion everyday, atheists assume God exists and try to prove the inconsistencies that would result. Also in budgetary estimates, assumptions are made about cashflows, revenues etc. Same happens while we project towards the future and believe the cause - effects of yesterday would happen today and tomorrow.

Faith on the other hand does not make assumptions but sees itself as an epistemological tool

mumumugu:



I admit the definition of religion itself is not very clear, but I would suggest that it is not as clear cut as you suggest. Buddhism does not have a god. “God” in Hinduism is often not even supernatural. Religion USUALLY involves “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe” and “often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs”. It seems to always involves the worship of some entity, be it personal or not, and practices that involve an element of faith. What religion accomplishes for most people, something outside of themselves to aspire to and live by, atheism accomplishes for those who choose not to believe in God. We are free to worship ourselves and our own ideas instead. The parallels between atheism and other religions I’ve listed are not perfect, but I think they do show commonalities that atheists do not realize and even take issue with when they see them in other established religions.




Ten ways atheism qualifies as a religion:


1. Atheists worship.

We are all made to regard, respect and devote our lives to something greater than ourselves, and everyone worships something. Atheists do not acknowledge worship in a traditional ‘religious’ context. But in the vacuum of a recognizable God, they give themselves to human reason, materialism, wealth, science, naturalism, communism of sorts, nihilism, or themselves, or other prominent atheists (i.e. Richard Dawkins).


2. Atheism is denominational. Just as every major religion has subdivisions with varying shades of beliefs on certain doctrines, atheists have different denominations that distinguish their beliefs in what atheism means, for instance. And of course, “gods” vary too (see #1).



3. Atheism is dogmatic. Atheists will deny this (as with most of these points), but if dogma is defined as “the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization”, atheism absolutely fits this definition. They follow ideological rules.



4. Atheism is exclusive and narrow. Atheism excludes any other possibility other than the conclusion centered on the non-belief in God, so it is no different than any other religion that makes exclusive claims.


5. Atheists seek converts. Well, some do and some don’t, just as some religions prosthelytize and some don’t. For example, the recent “We Are Atheism” movement hopes that there are closet atheists and seeks to add to their numbers by encouraging their coming


6. Atheists have holy books. Take a look at the “Letters” section of RichardDawkins.net and you’ll find scads of letters from “converts” to atheism that praise Dawkins and his book “The God Delusion”, testifying how it changed their lives and lit the way to the “truth” of atheism. They revere it as Christians do the Bible.



7. Atheists have a worldview, including ideas about ultimate origins and the place of humans in the world, their overall purpose and destiny.


8. Atheists have seen persecution. As is true with any religion, atheists have endured discrimination and persecution for their beliefs.


9. Atheism appeals to universal morality. To even argue for atheism, the atheist has to appeal to “moral law”, a sense of right and wrong that he assumes to be true for everyone. Otherwise, there would be no reason to debate. Atheists love to point out the “despicable acts” of the Old Testament God, even though doing so implies moral good and evil that ultimately cannot be explained by nature or biology.



10. Atheists have faith in the unseen. Many assert that the religious believe without evidence. Most religious people would say the same about Atheism. The evidence we all see, often the same evidence, is interpreted differently based on presuppositions. We all place faith in propositions that are not 100% empirically provable.

Gimmie a religion and I will tell you it root..Athest are very delusional set of people.

Kay17:




How helpful it was to say an assumption is an assumption, such insight!

It is actually because assumptions create a certainty that is why they are useful. They are like scaffolds. For example, assuming your wife commits would you divorce her? rather than spend all the time proving and disproving her fidelity, a starting point and a contention is created for further thought. Same happens on Nairaland religion everyday, atheists assume God exists and try to prove the inconsistencies that would result. Also in budgetary estimates, assumptions are made about cashflows, revenues etc. Same happens while we project towards the future and believe the cause - effects of yesterday would happen today and tomorrow.

Faith on the other hand does not make assumptions but sees itself as an epistemological tool

Assumptions arent certainties...and they dont create certainties.

We all just believe in one thing or the other without universally provable certainty.

We are all men of great faith. I haven't seen you nullify that point.

italo:


Assumptions arent certainties...and they dont create certainties.

We all just believe in one thing or the other without universally provable certainty.

We are all men of great faith. I haven't seen you nullify that point.

Maamin:


Gimmie a religion and I will tell you it root..Athest are very delusional set of people.

Because not accepting that a donkey and snake talked is a delusion....
Let me ask you a question,who is more likely to be detained in a psychiatric facility... one who without reservation will hold a belief that there are dragons in a closet or one who'd ask for that claim to be justified before believing?
So with that said.....a skeptic cannot be delusional for asking basic questions....the only person that you could say is delusional is the person that holds a belief as true without evidence/justification and/or refuses to change upon presentation of one....
So all you have to do is present evidence of a "god/gods" and I'll believe that indeed such things exists...

I got a very dodgy message purportedly saying that a spam robot has banned me. So I was not able to post for a while.

I e-mailed the moderators, but go no reply. So I don't really know who is responsible for this interference and "banning".

If it happens consistently, and something or someone is blocking my posts, you will know why.

Kay17:


Assumptions are necessary in order to create a starting point. . Assumptions build premises before conclusions can be erected. Science creates a natural cause because such cause is readily perceptible. For such purposes the assumptions are valid.

In contrast with Faith, it depends on how far the faithful is willing to stretch his faith.

There is no contrast. It is the same for science. That is why some scientists believe some scientific theories and some don't.

Simply labeling it "faith" when it comes to religion doesn't make it different.

This is what you, davien et. al do all along. Then you complain when asked to replace the label by a clear description.

Kay17:

How helpful it was to say an assumption is an assumption, such insight!
It is actually because assumptions create a certainty that is why they are useful. They are like scaffolds. For example, assuming your wife commits would you divorce her? rather than spend all the time proving and disproving her fidelity, a starting point and a contention is created for further thought. Same happens on Nairaland religion everyday, atheists assume God exists and try to prove the inconsistencies that would result. Also in budgetary estimates, assumptions are made about cashflows, revenues etc. Same happens while we project towards the future and believe the cause - effects of yesterday would happen today and tomorrow.
Faith on the other hand does not make assumptions but sees itself as an epistemological tool

italo:


Assumptions arent certainties...and they dont create certainties.

We all just believe in one thing or the other without universally provable certainty.

We are all men of great faith. I haven't seen you nullify that point.

Sometimes, it is people like you that overstretch conflicts by not addressing the key contentions. Who said assumptions were certainties in first place to warrant almost the entirety of your post to dwell on?! rather than address whether assumptions create certainties, you went on a frolick! Where do we disagree, do you disagree with any part of my post?!

@ the bolded, are you now a skepticist?! what universally provable uncertainty lies in your existence?!

sinequanon:

There is no contrast. It is the same for science. That is why some scientists believe some scientific theories and some don't.
Simply labeling it "faith" when it comes to religion doesn't make it different.
This is what you, davien et. al do all along. Then you complain when asked to replace the label by a clear description.

Yes Science uses assumptions. But the assumptions are scaffolds to building knowledge. One has to start somewhere, such assumptions can even be contradictory and discarded. But no one sees them as beyond assumptions.

For Christianity, the existence of God is the primary assumption upon which everything else is built. The issues of Sin, miracles, redemption would not be valuable except if God exists, right?! But what happens when atheists attack this very foundation directly? I personally think evil (as conceived by Christians) is incompatible with God's nature therefore the entire Christianity is internally inconsistent.

Kay17:
Yes Science uses assumptions. But the assumptions are scaffolds to building knowledge. One has to start somewhere, such assumptions can even be contradictory and discarded. But no one sees them as beyond assumptions.

But this is not correct.

Neither you, davien, plaetton or anyone else has faced the question of the fundamental assumption in science I posted earlier.

It may be that I had to post it so often, and that is why a spam robot kicked in. Answer it. https://www.nairaland.com/2010585/10-ways-atheism-qualify-religion#28283348

Kay17:
For Christianity, the existence of God is the primary assumption upon which everything else is built. The issues of Sin, miracles, redemption would not be valuable except if God exists, right?! But what happens when atheists attack this very foundation directly? I personally think evil (as conceived by Christians) is incompatible with God's nature therefore the entire Christianity is internally inconsistent.

Well, that is a question for Christians. Unlike atheists, many of them are happy to admit that their starting point is faith.

sinequanon:


Stop being dishonest with yourself.

I simply asked you to be explicit. If you disagree with ANY of the following, say so, and stop beating about the bush.

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

2. Science only accepts as "evidence", "proof", "rational observation" explanations that conform to this ASSUMPTION.

3. Therefore this ASSUMPTION is not falsifiable using science, and hence is not scientific.

Now, stop fooling yourself that your reticence to address the issue is anything but slavish and religious adherence to dogma and reluctance to scrutinize your beliefs and faith.

I agree with 1. only the remainder are false.

Quantum physics is an example of a field of science that challenges science's fundamental assumptions.

Kay17:


I agree with 1. only the remainder are false.

Quantum physics is an example of a field of science that challenges science's fundamental assumptions.

You don't understand that much about quantum physics do you.

You are claiming that science accepts that quantum physics may not be governed by such laws.

Give an example in quantum physics where evidence can violate 2.

sinequanon:


You don't understand that much about quantum physics do you.

You are claiming that science accepts that quantum physics may not be governed by such laws.

Give an example in quantum physics where evidence can violate 2.

Probabilistic causes. Thanks for cheering my ignorance too.

Kay17:


Probabilistic causes. Thanks for cheering my ignorance too.

Give an example of a probabilistic cause in quantum mechanics.

sinequanon:


Give an example of a probabilistic cause in quantum mechanics.

The Schrodinger cat example.

Kay17:


The Schrodinger cat example.

Do you really understand what that is about?

sinequanon:

You don't understand that much about quantum physics do you.
You are claiming that science accepts that quantum physics may not be governed by such laws.
Give an example in quantum physics where evidence can violate 2.

Kay17:

Probabilistic causes. Thanks for cheering my ignorance too.

sinequanon:

Give an example of a probabilistic cause in quantum mechanics.

Kay17:

The Schrodinger cat example.

sinequanon:


Do you really understand what that is about?

Mr, stop this merrygoround and state your case.

Kay17:
Mr, stop this merrygoround and state your case.

I take it that you don't really understand.

Let me explain it, as I see it.

At one time, matter was considered to consist of smooth paste, sitting in an ether of nothingness. This model progressed to an atomic model of hard indivisible beads, then to waves and then to quantum particles. By this time, scientists had accepted that matter was none of the above, and that models were separate from the reality, to be used to predict the reality within a domain of applicability.

Probability arises, not essentially in the context of causality, but in the context of measurement, according to latest models. The observable is considered to exist in EVERY state AT ONCE, but collapses into one state (an eigenstate) upon measurement. And that is where the probability comes in. It is not causality of the state of the observable, but interference of the measuring system to which probability is attached.

The Schródinger Cat "thought experiment" argues, using a chain reaction, that an observable existing in EVERY state AT ONCE is not confined to tiny particles. You can construct an experiment in which the same must logically follow for a large object, like a cat.

If you read up on the "quantum Zeno effect", you will see that it postulates that quantum measurements will be predictable if taken sufficiently rapidly so as to prevent the wave function of the system from representing too much external noise.

sinequanon:


You don't understand the words you are using, so you can't follow the argument.

For example, I tell you that the words "evidence" and "proof" are relative. In your case, you refer to conformance to the fundamental ASSUMPTIONS of science. For a Christian, it may be conformance to the Bible.

There is nothing further to say to you about it, because you are simply unable to address the point. Like the theists you complain about, you don't like your labels scrutinized, and crying "excessive semantics" is your method of avoidance.



See, you are psychologically stuck. "Contradiction", "clarity" and "validation" are all relative to your chosen ASSUMPTIONS.

I would say that theists are behaving MORE intelligently than you are because at least they are aware of their ASSUMPTIONS as FAITH.

You on the other hand are being played by words and don't seem to realize it.



You got that from a book, whatever that means, lol. Your approach to atheism is certainly religious.



Again, this is just rhetoric. You have no idea what "every atheist" does. How do you hope to conduct a sensible debate when you are slinging around half-baked opinions (for that is what it is).



Then you are a simpleton. It is your own word, the one you chose to use.

Apart from the fact that a deity can be anything (spirit, human, object), the wiki definition does not mention deity...

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

The point is that you have been "organized" into your way of thinking, rather than finding your own path.



And then, when they are caught, they can cry "excessive semantics".

You should fully understand religious folks. You are one yourself. Sadly, you are not yet at he point of recognizing it.



There goes your broken logic again. You think that if you can bash religion using laughter and obtuse application of your own inculcated assumptions in science, then that somehow changes whether or not your own worldview is religious. It doesn't. All it does is distract you from the fact that you are religious. But it doesn't fool me.

Abegi... What are u even saying? Are u even reading ur posts? Its Unbelievable that these could be u r response to such an inteligent post. U would have just remained silent if u have nothing to say. U must love argument for its sake.

davien:
Because not accepting that a donkey and snake talked is a delusion....
Let me ask you a question,who is more likely to be detained in a psychiatric facility... one who without reservation will hold a belief that there are dragons in a closet or one who'd ask for that claim to be justified before believing?
So with that said.....a skeptic cannot be delusional for asking basic questions....the only person that you could say is delusional is the person that holds a belief as true without evidence/justification and/or refuses to change upon presentation of one....
So all you have to do is present evidence of a "god/gods" and I'll believe that indeed such things exists...

Give me evidence that they dont exist..."that which can be ascertain without evidence can also be disregarded without evidence"

Davien hope is not bomb you are trying to mail me .. . Will reply you soon.

Mr Sinequanon,I humbly disagree with your assertion that atheists are "organized" into believing something.That they don't choose their own path.Its not only false,but laughable and ironic coming from a THEIST.haba.Atheists decide their own path-They question what's established and have independent beliefs.We all know theists are the direct opposite.Thats wrong,sir.Just my 2 cents.
Oh and just for the record:I'm not an atheist.

datopdlink:
Mr Sinequanon,I humbly disagree with your assertion that atheists are "organized" into believing something.That they don't choose their own path.Its not only false,but laughable and ironic coming from a THEIST.haba.Atheists decide their own path-They question what's established and have independent beliefs.We all know theists are the direct opposite.Thats wrong,sir.Just my 2 cents.
Oh and just for the record:I'm not an atheist.

And, for the record I am not a "theist", and I have no religion.

My posts are carefully written. Unlike you, who has made a sweeping statement about ALL atheists, you will see that I did not, if you care to read properly.

However, atheists are like the majority of humans -- most are not independent, but caught up in faith in people (clergy, scientists, philosophers etc.) whose ideas they only superficially understand.

sinequanon:


And, for the record I am not a "theist", and I have no religion.

My posts are carefully written. Unlike you, who has made a sweeping statement about ALL atheists, you will see that I did not, if you care to read properly.

However, atheists are like the majority of humans -- most are not independent, but caught up in faith in people (clergy, scientists, philosophers etc.) whose ideas they only superficially understand.

I apologise for generalizing.However,you cannot say that "most" atheists are caught up in the faiths and beliefs of others(scientists,philosophers).I humbly disagree.I do agree that they study these individuals works and reference them-and greatly respect them-but they do not base their beliefs on those works.They read them,yes,but ultimately what they believe is self determined.Its one of the reasons i greatly respect them,cos their beliefs are theirs.I am yet to meet 1 atheist who based his beliefs on anyone's work or principles.They agree with it,yes.But that didn't make them the atheists they are.I for example,greatly revere the works of Lord Herbert of Cherbury and Thomas Paine.But I will say anywhere and anytime that they did not "shape" my beliefs.My beliefs are mine,totally determined by me.I arrived at them myself,regardless of what I read or heard.A minority of atheists?maybe."Most?" I don't think so.
I apologize for calling you a theist.

datopdlink:

I apologise for generalizing.However,you cannot say that "most" atheists are caught up in the faiths and beliefs of others(scientists,philosophers).I humbly disagree.I do agree that they study these individuals works and reference them-and greatly respect them-but they do not base their beliefs on those works.They read them,yes,but ultimately what they believe is self determined.Its one of the reasons i greatly respect them,cos their beliefs are theirs.I am yet to meet 1 atheist who based his beliefs on anyone's work or principles.They agree with it,yes.But that didn't make them the atheists they are.I for example,greatly revere the works of Lord Herbert of Cherbury and Thomas Paine.But I will say anywhere and anytime that they did not "shape" my beliefs.My beliefs are mine,totally determined by me.I arrived at them myself,regardless of what I read or heard.A minority of atheists?maybe."Most?" I don't think so.
I apologize for calling you a theist.

In my experience, most atheists are caught up in dogma. I can say it, just as you can come to the conclusion that they are not.

When I see so many people repeating (nay, regurgitating) the same fundamental arguments, then it is brainwashing, as far as I am concerned. And with atheists it is a majority. The words, "jokes", cartoons, psychological frailties, and intellectual inferiority complexes etc. can usually be traced back to a few high profile materialists, who actually have scant regard for their worshipers.

I do not believe in any god. But that hasn't forced my hand into the religion of materialism.

As I said to one pastor, even if a spirit appeared to me and declared himself to be from god, it wouldn't faze me in the least, nor make me take up faith in that god. My outlook stands in its own right, and is neither religious nor materialist.

On the other hand, most of the religion bashing atheists on this forum, if faced with a similar scenario, would have their world view so badly shattered and trashed by the experience, that they would immediately crumple to their knees in terror or check themselves into a madhouse. How could someone with such a frail outlook be expected to critically appraise the vastness of life. Psychologically, they start to reason backwards to avoid their nightmare scenario, and not based on the information before them.

sinequanon:


There is no contrast. It is the same for science. That is why some scientists believe some scientific theories and some don't.

Simply labeling it "faith" when it comes to religion doesn't make it different.

This is what you, davien et. al do all along. Then you complain when asked to replace the label by a clear description.

You willfully forget that scientists accept or believe in a theory based on what they think they already know.
If a scientists knows the basic building blocks of life, their constituent elements and their chemical characteristics, then he may propose or believe a theory that tries to model how the first building blocks of life were formed billions of years ago.

The same Scientists will easily discard a or amend a theory when more knowledge is obtained about the topic.

Religious faith on the other hand is usually accepted based on what is not known , and makes no effort to know.
Religious faith is not amenable to change in whole or in parts without destroying the fundamental pillars of the faith.

If we, example, christianity were to jettison the silly fables( the talking snake, the talking donkey, etc ) of Genesis, then entire edifice of the christian faith would collapse because faith is usually built on cascades of silly fables, that once one collapses, it threatens a domino effect on the rest.

Only a highly biased, disengenous or unintelligent person would say that religion and science rely on same faith.

sinequanon:


In my experience, most atheists are caught up in dogma. I can say it, just as you can come to the conclusion that they are not.

When I see so many people repeating (nay, regurgitating) the same fundamental arguments, then it is brainwashing, as far as I am concerned. And with atheists it is a majority. The words, "jokes", cartoons, psychological frailties, and intellectual inferiority complexes etc. can usually be traced back to a few high profile materialists, who actually have scant regard for their worshipers.

I do not believe in any god. But that hasn't forced my hand into the religion of materialism.

As I said to one pastor, even if a spirit appeared to me and declared himself to be from god, it wouldn't faze me in the least, nor make me take up faith in that god. My outlook stands in its own right, and is neither religious nor materialist.

On the other hand, most of the religion bashing atheists on this forum, if faced with a similar scenario, would have their world view so badly shattered and trashed by the experience, that they would immediately crumple to their knees in terror or check themselves into a madhouse. How could someone with such a frail outlook be expected to critically appraise the vastness of life. Psychologically, they start to reason backwards to avoid their nightmare scenario, and not based on the information before them.

All right,thanks

sinequanon:


In my experience, most atheists are caught up in dogma. I can say it, just as you can come to the conclusion that they are not.

[b]When I see so many people repeating (nay, regurgitating) the same fundamental arguments, then it is brainwashing, as far as I am concerned. [/b]And with atheists it is a majority. The words, "jokes", cartoons, psychological frailties, and intellectual inferiority complexes etc. can usually be traced back to a few high profile materialists, who actually have scant regard for their worshipers.

Religious irrationality is too easy to spot and identify by anyone with common sense.
Religion is far too easy to disassemble.
Religion is too easy mock and much too out-there and tempting to avoid.

All atheist say the same things about religion because an atheist does need to be creative or is required to write a proposition against the irrationality of religion.
Religion mocks itself.
It does not require much intellectual rigor or exercise to see the hollowness of religious faith.

I began to see it at probably age 7 or 8. I stopped going to church at 16 or so, and finally divorced religion entirely as soon I finished secondary school.
My point in this is that I , like nearly all atheists, required no brainwashing. The irrationality of religious faith was out there and remains out there for everyone to see.

Like I said before, only a very dishonest religiotard who thinks that he is competing with atheism for souls on behalf of skydaddy would make these silly claims that atheists are brainwashed.

If skydaddy shows up tomorrow in the sky and explain a ot of things to us like he does to pulpit pi.m.p, then this debate about god's existence would cease.
And anyone who says that we should neither demand or expect god to show himself in public because god is mysterious, should himself check his sanity.

plaetton:


You willfully forget that scientists accept or believe in a theory based on what they [size=16pt]think[/size] they already know.
If a scientists knows the basic building blocks of life, their constituent elements and their chemical characteristics, then he may propose or believe a theory that tries to model how the first building blocks of life were formed billions of years ago.

The same Scientists will easily discard a or amend a theory when more knowledge is obtained about the topic.

Religious faith on the other hand is usually accepted based on what is not known , and makes no effort to know.

Again, you play with words. You slip in the word "think" for scientists, but don't allow the same for theists.

Both "think" they know.

Scientists think they know their fundamental, unchanging assumptions are correct.

Christians, for example, "think" they know the bible is correct.

Neither will change the fundamental belief. All that will change is the ideas flowing from them.

[size=16pt]Religious faith is not amenable to change in whole or in parts without destroying the fundamental pillars of the faith.[/size]

This is wrong.

Just recently, the Church of England allowed women to be ordained as Bishops. A while back, they allowed priests. Their various bodies, are constantly debating and reinterpreting the Bible and making changes accordingly.

What doesn't change is the fundamental belief that the Bible is the word of god.

And, as I said, scientists don't change their fundamental beliefs, either. They only change interpretations that flow from them.

plaetton:
If we, example, christianity were to jettison the silly fables( the talking snake, the talking donkey, etc ) of Genesis, then entire edifice of the christian faith would collapse because faith is usually built on cascades of silly fables, that once one collapses, it threatens a domino effect on the rest.

Only a highly biased, disengenous or unintelligent person would say that religion and science rely on same faith.

Richard Dawkins, one of the leading atheists constantly ridiculing "silly fables", said on more than one occasion (and first at a very public, high profile lecture event held yearly for scientists) that he is open to the idea that many versions of him exist in other universes, "maybe, one with a green beard and so forth".

Silly is relative. That didn't sound silly to him. So, please quit expecting these terms to further your argument.

As for the domino effect, that is precisely the problem with science, and why Dawkins found himself having to entertain his equally "ridiculous" idea -- because, without it, the fundamental assumptions of science would collapse.

Only a disingenuous or stupid person could fail to see the parallel.

plaetton:


Religious irrationality is too easy to spot and identify by anyone with common sense.
Religion is far too easy to disassemble.
Religion is too easy mock and much too out-there and tempting to avoid.

blah blah blah.

There is nothing in your post except cuckoo fashion repetition of your faith based dogma. I'll leave you to that and concentrate on those who have something insightful to contribute.

sinequanon:


In my experience, most atheists are caught up in dogma. I can say it, just as you can come to the conclusion that they are not.

When I see so many people repeating (nay, regurgitating) the same fundamental arguments, then it is brainwashing, as far as I am concerned. And with atheists it is a majority. The words, "jokes", cartoons, psychological frailties, and intellectual inferiority complexes etc. can usually be traced back to a few high profile materialists, who actually have scant regard for their worshipers.

I do not believe in any god. But that hasn't forced my hand into the religion of materialism.

As I said to one pastor, even if a spirit appeared to me and declared himself to be from god, it wouldn't faze me in the least, nor make me take up faith in that god. My outlook stands in its own right, and is neither religious nor materialist.

On the other hand, most of the religion bashing atheists on this forum, if faced with a similar scenario, would have their world view so badly shattered and trashed by the experience, that they would immediately crumple to their knees in terror or check themselves into a madhouse. How could someone with such a frail outlook be expected to critically appraise the vastness of life. Psychologically, they start to reason backwards to avoid their nightmare scenario, and not based on the information before them.

Sorry to be such a bother,but I just cant resist:You said you have no God and no religion.And I can safely say you're not an atheist.
If I may humbly ask....what is your belief,please?

sinequanon:


There is nothing in your post except cuckoo fashion repetition of your faith based dogma. I'll leave you to that and concentrate on those who have something insightful to contribute.

For someone like you who says that because I don't believe in talking snakes and unicorns, I am therefore as guilty as those who do, it's open to the public to decide who among us is really CUCKOO.