Deep Sight:

Don't make any assumptions. Idehn might tell you that the word "immaterial" has no definition.

Lol, then it will be very obvious at that point that he is simply in denial because I think I have bent over backwards enough to accommodate him.

Mr_Anony:

Lol, then it will be very obvious at that point that he is simply in denial because I think I have bent over backwards enough to accommodate him.

Bending over is not sufficient. You have to collapse and die. Did you not see me break my spinal chord to give him a definition of God for the purpose of discussing if such exists? I stated that it is "a being said to be the creator of the universe." I cant see any difficult words in that, but knowing him, i went as far as to produce dictionary definitions of the words "being", "creator" and "universe".

Guess what. No deal.

Our good man still says that he is yet to hear a definition which we can discuss. Incredible.

Funny thing is, he ought to know that to be an atheist in the first place, one must have knowledge of the thing that one denies, otherwise there would be no basis for denial in the first place. I cannot say that fairies don't exist without knowing what fairies are said to be. It is based on what I underdstand fairies to be, that I can conclude that such does not exist. This means that for our man to say God does not exist, he must know what we mean by the word "God".

But rather than discuss why God does not exist, he is content to feign ignorance of what the words "creator" and "universe" mean. Its unbelievable. Even Martain said clearly that of course everyone knows that God is said to be the creator of the universe. But our man claims that he does not know this. Even as a definition for purposes of discussion only, he will not allow it. Its incredible, and these are the same people who will call the religionists rigid. Have you ever seen greater rigidity than this?

I even offered that we should use any dictionary definition. No deal.

What to do then?

Mr_Anony:
You can use synonyms to mock all you want, I believe that Idehn and Kay 17 both know that by immaterial, I mean not consisting of physical matter and that is what is important for this debate.
When you start showing some maturity then perhaps I'll take you seriously.

I don't take you and your crazy beliefs seriously, so you shouldn't expect anything but mockery. Yoour god is ineed immaterial, and i mean the christian one you believe in.

Deep Sight:

Bending over is not sufficient. Did you not see me break my spinal chord to give him a definbition of God for the purpose of discussing if such exists? I stated that it sis a being said to be the creator of the universe. I cant see any difficult words in that, but knowing him,. i went as far as to produce dictionary definitions of the words "being", "creator" and "universe". Guess what. No deal. Our good man still says that he is yet to hear a definition which we can discuss. Incredible.

Lol, I read the posts, I saw it, He has denied basic definitions but for the sake of the progress of this debate I have now allowed God to be physical for him. I'll await his response and that of Kay 17. Hopefully we won't keep going round in circles.
I must confess something to you though: In my experience, I think I have seen more "faith" among atheists than among those who believe in God

Martian:

I don't take you and your crazy beliefs seriously, so you shouldn't expect anything but mockery. Yoour god is ineed immaterial, and i mean the christian one you believe in.

I have heard. You can move along now.

Mr_Anony:
I have heard. You can move along now.

Right after you bozo.

Mr_Anony:
Ok my friend we have been going round in circles - you continue to describe mechanisms instead of substance and it is becoming tiring.

The substance of the mechanism are all physical. All mechanism are just the physical objects interacting with each other. How can you get anymore substantive than that?

Mr_Anony:
For me, anything that is physical must first have a mass (I believe you agree) anything that can't be defined by a physical mass is non-physical (i.e. spiritual, virtual, abstract, extraphysical and whatever other adjective I have employed so far).

Anything physical must have mass/charge/"color"(Quantum chromodynamics) and/or energy. I should add that there are no known particles that can be said to have charge but no mass, so I usually just say mass by itself. Photons for example are mass-less(no rest mass) particles as well as gluons which also have "color". However, they do have energy(so I just say energy) and it is the interaction of these particles with charged/"colored" particles that electromagnetism and strong nuclear force are defined.

So anything without energy/mass/charge/color is what I would define as being not physical.

Mr_Anony: However for you (it seems to me) anything that can interact with physical things must be physical - material or immaterial. i.e for anything to exist for you it must be physical.

Not necessarily. If you know something that is not physical that can interact with things that are physical I am all ears. There is even a solid gold noble prize medal and €1.16 million waiting for you too .

Mr_Anony:
So that we can make some progress of sorts, let us agree with your definition and declare all things physical (not that I agree with you).

Now we know that the material and immaterial can interact with each other. we know that the realm of the immaterial can be infinite while the material cannot.

By your definition this may be true to some degree(because you would consider photons non-physical), but not by mine. We have no idea if the immaterial(non-physical) can interacts with the material. The only realm I know of is the material realm. If you know of an immaterial realm, you are going to need to account for how considering that everything that defines a human being is material. Even if you say that some parts of humans are not material, you will still need to account for what they are and how that immaterial part actually interacts with the material parts. That is something I have yet to see you do and what I have been asking for the entire time.

Mr_Anony:
Applying this to cause and effect, we know that nothing comes from nothing therefore if all matter must have an origin, then the first cause of matter must be immaterial.

Again the only causes and effects I know,and would say anyone knows, are physical. If you know of others you must account for them. Moreover, matter and energy as far as we can tell(up to the big b.ang) is immutable. There is nothing that suggest that the Universe ever came from nothing(from a scientific perspective). Also, earlier requested clarification what you meant when you said creator of the Universe.

Like I was trying to clarify from deepsight, are you saying that this thing you define as God caused the Universe to come from nothing, itself, or just reorganized a Universe that already existed. You do not need to physically define God.

Also is God physical or not physical.

Like I was trying to clarify from deepsight, are you saying that this thing you define as God caused the Universe to come from nothing, itself, or just reorganized a Universe that already existed. You do not need to physically define God. But the only things I know that can interact with physical objects like matter/energy(which makes up the Universe) is matter/energy. If you are saying that there are things that are NOT composed of matter/energy that can interact with matter/energy than show me. Otherwise, I can only conclude you are just making things up.

Also saying that the concept of cause and effect can be applied to both the material AND immaterial does not save you from this problem. Otherwise you would be saying that a material object can be either a cause and/or an effect, but immaterial objects must only be a cause. However if they interact with each other regularly(which is what you claim), then that obviously cannot be the case.

Mr_Anony:
This makes it very possible for God to exist even if you insist He must be physical*. Unless you are ready to explain immaterial things like information, intelligence, ideas, will, emotions e.t.c. (A mind) to me in basic terms of mass and velocity.

I do not insist it must be physical. I am just asking you to account for how something that is NOT physical is/can interact with something that is physical. The behavior of humans not to mention the Universe as far as we can tell is entirely defined by the physical.

Idehn:
The substance of the mechanism are all physical. All mechanism are just the physical objects interacting with each other. How can you get anymore substantive than that?



Anything physical must have mass/charge/"color"(Quantum chromodynamics) and/or energy. I should add that there are no known particles that can be said to have charge but no mass, so I usually just say mass by itself. Photons for example are mass-less(no rest mass) particles as well as gluons which also have "color". However, they do have energy(so I just say energy) and it is the interaction of these particles with charged/"colored" particles that electromagnetism and strong nuclear force are defined.

So anything without energy/mass/charge/color is what I would define as being not physical.



Not necessarily. If you know something that is not physical that can interact with things that are physical I am all ears. There is even a solid gold noble prize medal and €1.16 million waiting for you too .




By your definition this may be true to some degree(because you would consider photons non-physical), but not by mine. We have no idea if the immaterial(non-physical) can interacts with the material. The only realm I know of is the material realm. If you know of an immaterial realm, you are going to need to account for how considering that everything that defines a human being is material. Even if you say that some parts of humans are not material, you will still need to account for what they are and how that immaterial part actually interacts with the material parts. That is something I have yet to see you do and what I have been asking for the entire time.




Again the only causes and effects I know,and would say anyone knows, are physical. If you know of others you must account for them. Moreover, matter and energy as far as we can tell(up to the big b.ang) is immutable. There is nothing that suggest that the Universe ever came from nothing(from a scientific perspective). Also, earlier requested clarification what you meant when you said creator of the Universe.



Also is God physical or not physical.





Also saying that the concept of cause and effect can be applied to both the material AND immaterial does not save you from this problem. Otherwise you would be saying that a material object can be either a cause and/or an effect, but immaterial objects must only be a cause. However if they interact with each other regularly(which is what you claim), then that obviously cannot be the case.



I do not insist it must be physical. I am just asking you to account for how something that is NOT physical is/can interact with something that is physical. The behavior of humans not to mention the Universe as far as we can tell is entirely defined by the physical.

Ok so cut the long story short,

at least we both agree that for anything to be physical it must have a mass and/or velocity (all energy can be defined in terms of these two)

according to webster's dictionary: a mind is the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons

Now please how do you explain a mind objectively in terms of mass and velocity?

Mr_Anony:

Ok so cut the long story short,

at least we both agree that for anything to be physical it must have a mass and/or velocity (all energy an be defined in terms of these two)

according to webster's dictionary: a mind is the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons

Now please how do you explain a mind objectively in terms of mass and velocity?

I have answered your questions, now it is time for you to answer mine.

Idehn:

I have answered your questions, now it is time for you to answer mine.

Actually you haven't

Mr_Anony:

Actually you haven't

I have too. YOU are insisting the human brain/nervous system has a non-physical component. This was part of your definition of mind.

Mr_Anony: The mind (not the brain) is immaterial, it does not have mass, it does not occupy physical space and yet you insist it is physical. Please exactly how do you define a physical entity?

I know of no such part of the thought process much less human physiology that fits this description. Now please answer my questions.

Idehn:

I have too. YOU are insisting the human brain/nervous system has a non-physical component. This was part of your definition of mind.

I have never said that the brain/nervous system is not physical, I have insisted that the mind is not the same with the brain much in the same way that hardware is different from software


I know of no such part of the thought process much less human physiology that fits this description. Now please answer my questions.

Which question exactly?
let's have a recap; I am quite sure that I have given my explanation of God as an intelligent mind (or being) that created the universe. I have said God is not physical to which you have retorted that everything that exists must be physical and you have challenged me to show you something not physical but affects the physical. I kept telling you that the mind is not physical but you kept insisting that it was. We kept going back and forth with you defining the mind by the physical attributes that it effects while I countered that this was not the same thing as a mind in much the same way as the meaning of a written letter is not defined by the ink and paper. We continued maneuvering aimlessly until at a point I decided to allow the mind to be physical* for the sake of the argument. Then I proceeded to distinguish between the material and immaterial so as to differentiate between such things as a mind and such things as physical objects. This prodded us to define what physical means to us. having defined what is physical, I brought up the dictionary definition of a mind and asked you how that definition tallies with our definition of physical.
So what question again do you want me to answer that will not lead us right back into the same circle I want to believe we are both trying to make our way out of?

Mr_Anony:
Which question exactly?
let's have a recap; I am quite sure that I have given my explanation of God as an intelligent mind (or being) that created the universe.

Check. From our discussion, I am just going to assume "intelligent mind" has nothing to do with thought processes that physical beings like humans have. I am also going to assume that you cannot account for what it means to create a universe either.

Mr_Anony:
I have said God is not physical to which you have retorted that everything that exists must be physical and you have challenged me to show you something not physical but affects the physical. I kept telling you that the mind is not physical but you kept insisting that it was.

Check God is not physical. I never said the physical is all there is though. From our discussion, from now on I am just going to assume you cannot in anyway account how the physical interacts with the non physical.

Mr_Anony:
We kept going back and forth with you defining the mind by the physical attributes that it effects while I countered that this was not the same thing as a mind in much the same way as the meaning of a written letter is not defined by the ink and paper.

If you define the mind as some immaterial thing I will yield to your definition. But like I said earlier, I am just going to assume you cannot in anyway account how this immaterial thing you call a mind is related to human beings or the Universe. You might as well call it a soul or a spirit.

As I have said earlier, I would define information as the organization of the ink on paper as well as the desired physical response that form of communication illicit. But I will yield to your definition if you want. But I am going to assume like mind, that you cannot in anyway account from how this thing you call information is even related to human thought process. Check.

Mr_Anony:
We continued maneuvering aimlessly until at a point I decided to allow the mind to be physical* for the sake of the argument.

If you want to define mind as being immaterial so be it. But, I am not going to allow you later to borrow concepts from the physical definitions I tried to provide since you rejected it.

Mr_Anony:
Then I proceeded to distinguish between the material and immaterial so as to differentiate between such things as a mind and such things as physical objects.

If you accept my definition of what the material is, then all I can say is that I have no idea if the immaterial actually exists and I have no means of determining it. All I know about it is that it is NOT material.

Mr_Anony:

I brought up the dictionary definition of a mind and asked you how that definition tallies with our definition of physical.

No amount of physical description will ever satisfy you if this is ultimately what you think the mind is:

Mr_Anony:
The mind (not the brain) is immaterial, it does not have mass, it does not occupy physical space and yet you insist it is physical.

I can give you a physiological description of anger,sadness,excitement, and it will be meaningless because you will continue to insist that this vague "something" beyond those things. As if emotions exist beyond the physiological response. How can you be angry in any sense but the physical. Tell me, what is one way you can tell someone is angry or annoyed?

Idehn:

Check. From our discussion, I am just going to assume "intelligent mind" has nothing to do with thought processes that physical beings like humans have. I am also going to assume that you cannot account for what it means to create a universe either.



Check God is not physical. I never said the physical is all there is though. From our discussion, from now on I am just going to assume you cannot in anyway account how the physical interacts with the non physical.




If you define the mind as some immaterial thing I will yield to your definition. But like I said earlier, I am just going to assume you cannot in anyway account how this immaterial thing you call a mind is related to human beings or the Universe. You might as well call it a soul or a spirit.

As I have said earlier, I would define information as the organization of the ink on paper as well as the desired physical response that form of communication illicit. But I will yield to your definition if you want. But I am going to assume like mind, that you cannot in anyway account from how this thing you call information is even related to human thought process. Check.




If you want to define mind as being immaterial so be it. But, I am not going to allow you later to borrow concepts from the physical definitions I tried to provide since you rejected it.



If you accept my definition of what the material is, then all I can say is that I have no idea if the immaterial actually exists and I have no means of determining it. All I know about it is that it is NOT material.



No amount of physical description will ever satisfy you if this is ultimately what you think the mind is:



I can give you a physiological description of anger,sadness,excitement, and it will be meaningless because you will continue to insist that this vague "something" beyond those things. As if emotions exist beyond the physiological response. How can you be angry in any sense but the physical. Tell me, what is one way you can tell someone is angry or annoyed?

You can tell someone is angry or annoyed by observation, however a person can lie hence giving misleading information. This makes observation not to be reliable. (and yes a person can give misleading information on many different levels)

Anyway, before I proceed further; It seems we are arguing about two phenomena here the mind and the physical. So far we have succeeded in clearly defining what is physical.
Please give me a definition of mind that you consider appropriate.
This is so that we can argue on the same page without an aimless tossing back and forth.

Good grief. Even giving God a physical definition still makes no head room for this odd chap called Idehn. Magnificent! This has got to be some sort of ill conceived joke.

Well, if people - supposedly scientific people - who are aware of the age of the universe, as opposed to the age of mankind - are willing to say that time and space exist only in the human mind. . . then well - that is just the mother of all absurdities - for in that case, time and space did not exist before creatures came on the scene, and in that case we wonder how the universe existed from the point of the big b.ang.

And yet, people who can spew such gibberish dare mock the religionist as being absurd.

Magnificent.

I haven't read all of the posts in this topic because there are too many. However, I am an atheist (an agnostic atheist), and I'll make several quick points.
1) Most atheists do not say that God cannot exist, they just say that the existence of an all powerful, all knowing God has not been scientifically established. Who knows, maybe the being that created the universe killed himself in the Big Bang.
2) Atheism is not a religion. Absence of firm belief does not count. Just like it doesn't make sense for me to say that "not golfing" is one of my hobbies.
3) Even if God exists there is no proof that God sent any prophets, children, etc. Even if one supposes that there is a living Creator does not automatically mean that YOUR religion is the one true faith sent by God. To me, all religions read like mythology.
4) Do atheists have morality? Sure. The one rule that virtually all people understand is the Golden Rule: Don't do to others what you do not want done to yourself. That is necessary to establish a sense of reciprocity and trust and security for all. Don't confuse atheism with nihilism.
5) If God revealed himself to me in a fashion that could not be explained by science, and that I could witness along with several fellow atheists who saw the same thing (just so I'm not hallucinating), then I would convert to whatever belief system he demanded. But he hasn't done that. God (or angels) allegedly talking to people in the desert more than 1000+ years ago does not count.

You have made it quite clear and i like how you've articulated your points and if all atheists I've met on NL honestly said the same things, then there would be no point to argue with any of them but this is what we have here........

onetrack: I haven't read all of the posts in this topic because there are too many. However, I am an atheist (an agnostic atheist), and I'll make several quick points.
1) Most atheists do not say that God cannot exist, they just say that the existence of an all powerful, all knowing God has not been scientifically established. Who knows, maybe the being that created the universe killed himself in the Big Bang.

To this I say "fair enough as long as you don't turn around and say God does not exist as this will mean that you are sure that he doesn't and you'll have to tell how you are so sure"

2) Atheism is not a religion. Absence of firm belief does not count. Just like it doesn't make sense for me to say that "not golfing" is one of my hobbies.

Again fine as long as you don't make it your point of duty to always tell golfers that golf is a crap game and should never be played. If you do this you'll have to explain exactly why golf should never be played and be prepared to take reprisals from angry golfers

3) Even if God exists there is no proof that God sent any prophets, children, etc. Even if one supposes that there is a living Creator does not automatically mean that YOUR religion is the one true faith sent by God. To me, all religions read like mythology.

Again fair enough but if you don't believe in God why should His prophets be of any importance to you? Why should you be bothered at all about whether there is a true religion or not?

4) Do atheists have morality? Sure. The one rule that virtually all people understand is the Golden Rule: Don't do to others what you do not want done to yourself. That is necessary to establish a sense of reciprocity and trust and security for all. Don't confuse atheism with nihilism.

If you came across a religion whose creed was this golden rule, will it be the true religion for you?The question of morality is not whether there is a golden rule or not but why should the golden rule be adhered to i.e why should anyone care about the golden rule?

5) If God revealed himself to me in a fashion that could not be explained by science, and that I could witness along with several fellow atheists who saw the same thing (just so I'm not hallucinating), then I would convert to whatever belief system he demanded. But he hasn't done that. God (or angels) allegedly talking to people in the desert more than 1000+ years ago does not count.

This is exactly what we people of faith claim: that God has revealed Himself to us. Now if God can reveal himself to us, what stops Him from doing the same to people in a desert 1000+ years ago?


Now you see what my problem is with evangelist atheists is this; if you say God is meaningless to you, why bother about Him. Why do you go about seeking believers to offend?
Is this because they actually believe in God but are trying hard to deny it to themselves or is it because it just gives them some sadistic pleasure that they can't let go of.

Well, I'm not an 'evangelical atheist' however I would absolutely defend the right of such evangelical atheists to try to 'convert' others to atheism as long as Christians and Muslims are allowed to try to convert others as well. If Christians can do it, so can atheists. I think it would be inappropriate for a religious discussion among Christians to be interrupted by atheists who were not a part of the conversation, however the opposite would also be inappropriate.

Mr_Anony:
To this I say "fair enough as long as you don't turn around and say God does not exist as this will mean that you are sure that he doesn't and you'll have to tell how you are so sure"

Again fine as long as you don't make it your point of duty to always tell golfers that golf is a crap game and should never be played. If you do this you'll have to explain exactly why golf should never be played and be prepared to take reprisals from angry golfers

But would not the reverse also be true? Should atheists always be subjected to Christians saying they are going to hell?

Mr_Anony:
Again fair enough but if you don't believe in God why should His prophets be of any importance to you? Why should you be bothered at all about whether there is a true religion or not?

Many atheists were raised in a religion and often know the religion very well as a result of indoctrination. I would be one of those. Remember, many atheists actually studied religion looking for proof and found it lacking. Plus, as a result of proselytizing by various religions, atheists often have to be prepared to debate, and successful debating requires a fair amount of knowledge of the religion.

Mr_Anony: If you came across a religion whose creed was this golden rule, will it be the true religion for you?The question of morality is not whether there is a golden rule or not but why should the golden rule be adhered to i.e why should anyone care about the golden rule?

Everyone can understand the Golden Rule because everyone knows what it is like to have someone hurt them. In fact, virtually all religions and philosophies prescribe the Golden Rule. So maybe all religions are true, except that they can't agree on the theology of who are the prophets or god(s).

Mr_Anony: This is exactly what we people of faith claim: that God has revealed Himself to us. Now if God can reveal himself to us, what stops Him from doing the same to people in a desert 1000+ years ago?

That's not good enough for us. We want to witness God/miracles for ourselves, not read about it in a book. Empirical, indisputable evidence.

Mr_Anony: Now you see what my problem is with evangelist atheists is this; if you say God is meaningless to you, why bother about Him. Why do you go about seeking believers to offend?
Is this because they actually believe in God but are trying hard to deny it to themselves or is it because it just gives them some sadistic pleasure that they can't let go of.

Some atheists can be offensive in sticking their nose in religious discussions, but the reverse can just as often be true in the preaching that goes on both here and elsewhere. Certainly Christians trying to persuade atheists are not also sadistic?

onetrack:
But would not the reverse also be true? Should atheists always be subjected to Christians saying they are going to hell?

Or being called fools.

jayriginal:
Or being called fools.

Why? There is of course great and profound foolishness in atheism.

As to the Hell thing, why should the atheistr care, given that he is so certain it does not exist? He should merely laugh.

The best advice I can give to those who want to debate religion (or lack thereof), is to go to a website called reddit.com. There is a section called "debateReligion" and there are a lot of people who will debate any topic of any religion. It's a completely free website. There are a lot of other sections dealing with other topics, including Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism...etc.

www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/

onetrack: The best advice I can give to those who want to debate religion (or lack thereof), is to go to a website called reddit.com. There is a section called "debateReligion" and there are a lot of people who will debate any topic of any religion. It's a completely free website. There are a lot of other sections dealing with other topics, including Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism...etc.

www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/

lol, the atheists on reddit won't believe the arguments on this board. they would think the religious people are just trolls.There is too much collectivist thought on that site though. The hivemind.
Lately, the things being posted on this board have been flat out outrageous.

someone said, "abrogate reason and perpetrate faith"...................I don't think it can get lower than that.

Mr_Anony:
You can tell someone is angry or annoyed by observation, however a person can lie hence giving misleading information. This makes observation not to be reliable. (and yes a person can give misleading information on many different levels)

This can be true to some extent. So then, how do you know when you are are angry?

Mr_Anony:
Anyway, before I proceed further; It seems we are arguing about two phenomena here the mind and the physical. So far we have succeeded in clearly defining what is physical.
Please give me a definition of mind that you consider appropriate.
This is so that we can argue on the same page without an aimless tossing back and forth.

A good and fair question to ask. For me the mind is defined as the central mechanism by which an organism regulates/manages behaviors, such as thought, memorization,recognition, situational judgement,learning as well as direct physiological activity/responses such as walking/flight/jumping/communication etc. . .. It would be hard to tally everything the mind does though. For humans however, this mechanism is clearly the human brain. Any notion of the human mind must be in some way physically accountable/relatable to the brain. It is also true to varying degrees for most animals(96% I believe have brains).

Not saying the brain is the only kind of mechanism that can/does exist, just that it is the only one we know of and the one most animals have and use. Needless to say it is/can be physically related to the body of all organism that have it.

Deep Sight:

Why? There is of course great and profound foolishness in atheism.

What is the great and profound foolishness in atheism?

Deep Sight:
As to the Hell thing, why should the atheistr care, given that he is so certain it does not exist? He should merely laugh.

Well, atheists generally don't but it could be conceived as being a form of child abuse.

Martian:

lol, the atheists on reddit won't believe the arguments on this board. they would think the religious people are just trolls.There is too much collectivist thought on that site though. The hivemind.
Lately, the things being posted on this board have been flat out outrageous.

someone said, "abrogate reason and perpetrate faith"...................I don't think it can get lower than that.

The religion subreddits along with the atheism subreddit are circlejerks to a great extent, but there is good discussion on the debate religion subreddit with a lot of opposing viewpoints. But at least there are a lot of atheists with whom to debate instead of two or three like here.

Edit: it's amusing to see that 'circlejerk' made it past the filter here, whereas 'b-ang' will not.

If Atheism is not a religion, why do they have all their threads and topics in the religion section$ I know they used to be very intelligent but are they getting this wrong? Maybe they need to move all their threads to the science section

^^^ Per John Gray http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/09/3213725.htm

Also http://www.investigatingatheism.info/johngray.html

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody.

To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

Deep Sight:

Why? There is of course great and profound foolishness in atheism.

You are indeed entitled to your own opinion, no matter how silly.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

Evangelical atheists who want to convert the world to unbelief are copying religion at its dogmatic worst. They think human life would be vastly improved if only everyone believed as they do, when a little history shows that trying to get everyone to believe the same thing is a recipe for unending conflict.

onetrack:
Edit: it's amusing to see that 'circlejerk' made it past the filter here, whereas 'b-ang' will not.

Circle jerk indeed. Lol

Enigma: From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

Fanaticism and evangelism don't make up a religion, it would be ridiculous to suggest so.

At the end of the day, mr anony creates an artifical delineation btw physical and not physical and not material; both phrases don't positively define anything.

Also, why do you suggest the universe is created?

jayriginal:

You are indeed entitled to your own opinion, no matter how silly.

As you are to yours, no matter how nonsensical.

Such as the possibility of uncaused material things, a single example of which, is beyond you - till tomorrow.