I have noticed the animosity with which atheists generally, react to anything that has to do with religion. Often making a meal out of it..

Well, I won't dwell on that; I just wan to ask this question to all atheist:

Does the fact that you don't believe in God for whatever reason, rule out the POSSIBILITY of his existence and Power or influence?

If "yes", who made you the judge over what is right or wrong and am I as a religious person not entitled to my own opinion/freedom of worship?
If "no", why then do you refer to/ see religious people as gullible and also fight against the public expression of religion or religious tenets?

JEITO:
I have noticed the animosity with which atheists generally, react to anything that has to do with religion. Often making a meal out of it..

Well, I won't dwell on that; I just wan to ask this question to all atheist:

Does the fact that you don't believe in God for whatever reason, rule out the POSSIBILITY of his existence and Power or influence?

If "yes", who made you the judge over what is right or wrong and am I as a religious person not entitled to my own opinion/freedom of worship?
If "no", why then do you refer to/ see religious people as gullible and also fight against the public expression of religion or religious tenets?

brb

Pray to your God to give you wisdom to construct top notch good question because that question right there is what is termed complex question in philosophy.

Hello.

I'm agnostic-atheist (fence sitter).

JEITO: I have noticed the animosity with which atheists generally, react to anything that has to do with religion. Often making a meal out of it..

Well, I won't dwell on that; I just wan to ask this question to all atheist:

Does the fact that you don't believe in God for whatever reason, rule out the POSSIBILITY of his existence and Power or influence?

I'd say no.

If "yes", who made you the judge over what is right or wrong and am I as a religious person not entitled to my own opinion/freedom of worship?
If "no", why then do you refer to/ see religious people as gullible and also fight against the public expression of religion or religious tenets?

God is unproven. He is also not disproved. However, the current absence of evidence for his existence is exactly what would be obtainable if he did not exist. You are therefore entitled to act as if he did not exist.

Religion involves acting as if an unproven God does exist. Being unproven, God is no more than a hypothesis, at best he can be a theory. A theory is something we can jettison if we find another better theory to replace it or if we find that the evidence does not support it.

In most religions (including christianity and islam), it is never found that the evidence does not support God, instead God is redefined to accommodate the evidence. For example, God is said to be all powerful and all good but when presented with the problem of evil, especially gratuitous evil, God is implied to lack some degree of control over evil while at the same time no concession is made as to his omnipotence, or he is implied to be imcompletely good and at the same time completely good.

This is where the gullibility comes in, as one who has been shown that A is not B insists that A must be B. Usually, the motive for insisting that A is B, or for example that God is completely good, is a selfish one. The person wishes God to be good because a good God favours him. To God himself, if any, what is it to him that he is not good? It does not add to or take away anything from him. In a world of joy and suffering therefore, what is the basis of insisting that God is completely good?

Religious people tend to refuse to think such issues through, instead preferring to assume that God is one who likes anything they like. The unquestioning assumption about the nature of God makes them prone to being manipulated or to believe other incredible things.

Believing that God exists is one thing and of itself it is not a problem. It becomes a problem when one believes that the God needs him to act in a certain way and that every other person should act in that same way. There is no telling what the God might require of his believers, and knowing that the followers are very likely to obey whatever instructions they receive from him without question since they believe it to be the truth, it is dangerous to allow people to insist on global acceptance of the instructions of any God.

Maybe you think your God is reasonable, but what about every other persons God? This unreliability in religion is what is sought to be shown by religions such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Good luck disproving their God.

This is why religion, or at least the insistence on everybody obeying the instructions of any God, should not be accepted.

JEITO:
I have noticed the animosity with which atheists generally, react to anything that has to do with religion. Often making a meal out of it..

While this describes most of the atheists who are active on this section, most atheists are not like that. Most atheists just ignore religious issues.

Does the fact that you don't believe in God for whatever reason, rule out the POSSIBILITY of his existence and Power or influence?

Which God specifically? The Christian God? The Muslim God? African gods and goddesses? The Lord of Light from Game of Thrones? If you believe that there's only one God, then you are an atheist relative to all other Gods/gods and the same questions apply to you too. Does the fact that you don't believe in the Lord of Light or Allah for whatever reason rule out the possibility of their existence and power or influence?

If "no", why then do you refer to/ see religious people as gullible

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is worth spending time on. It's "possible" that father Xmas is real and lives in the north pole, but if you met an adult who truly believed that Father Xmas is real and sent 10% or his/her income to the north pole, what would you say?

and also fight against the public expression of religion or religious tenets?

Atheists in some countries fight against the imposition of religious practices on people who don't believe in the religions. That's all they fight.

aaronson:
Pray to your God to give you wisdom to construct top notch good question because that question right there is what is termed complex question in philosophy.

an example of top notch good question would be...?

JEITO:
I have noticed the animosity with which atheists generally, react to anything that has to do with religion. Often making a meal out of it..

Well, I won't dwell on that; I just wan to ask this question to all atheist:

Does the fact that you don't believe in God for whatever reason, rule out the POSSIBILITY of his existence and Power or influence?

If "yes", who made you the judge over what is right or wrong and am I as a religious person not entitled to my own opinion/freedom of worship?
If "no", why then do you refer to/ see religious people as gullible and also fight against the public expression of religion or religious tenets?

My answer is "yes". However my belief is a confirmation of my conviction, it would be a contradiction to have doubts over my convictions.

Seun:

While this describes most of the atheists who are active on this section, most atheists are not like that. Most atheists just ignore religious issues.

Which God specifically? The Christian God? The Muslim God? African gods and goddesses? The Lord of Light from Game of Thrones? If you believe that there's only one God, then you are an atheist relative to all other Gods/gods and the same questions apply to you too. Does the fact that you don't believe in the Lord of Light or Allah for whatever reason rule out the possibility of their existence and power or influence?


Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is worth spending time on. It's "possible" that father Xmas is real and lives in the north pole, but if you met an adult who truly believed that Father Xmas is real and sent 10% or his/her income to the north pole, what would you say?


Atheists in some countries fight against the imposition of religious practices on people who don't believe in the religions. That's all they fight.

are you an atheist?

Seun:

While this describes most of the atheists who are active on this section, most atheists are not like that. Most atheists just ignore religious issues.

Which God specifically? The Christian God? The Muslim God? African gods and goddesses? The Lord of Light from Game of Thrones? If you believe that there's only one God, then you are an atheist relative to all other Gods/gods and the same questions apply to you too. Does the fact that you don't believe in the Lord of Light or Allah for whatever reason rule out the possibility of their existence and power or influence?


Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is worth spending time on. It's "possible" that father Xmas is real and lives in the north pole, but if you met an adult who truly believed that Father Xmas is real and sent 10% or his/her income to the north pole, what would you say?

Atheists in some countries fight against the imposition of religious practices on people who don't believe in the religions. That's all they fight.

I beg to differ on this, especially considering what is happening in the US, where Atheist are calling for the removal of anything "God" from every of the country's national symbols. As well as from schools and public buildings. Even going as far as getting court orders to remove moulded statures with religious inclination. That doesn't sound like "ignoring" it sounds like trying to change things because you are not comfortable with it-talk of being insecure.

I know nothing of relative atheism as you put it. If you talk of monotheism or polytheism, I believe that is a different case. Atheism reject it all together.

Why rule out a possibility that you haven't proven to be false? I believe God Almighty because I know He exist.

rather you mean atheist are fighting for a change of what has been the practice of those country because they are not satisfied with it. What would you say of a teenage high school kid that was suspended for reading his bible during break on charges of public religious practice?

finofaya:
Hello.

I'm agnostic-atheist (fence sitter).



I'd say no.



God is unproven. He is also not disproved. However, the current absence of evidence for his existence is exactly what would be obtainable if he did not exist. You are therefore entitled to act as if he did not exist.

Religion involves acting as if an unproven God does exist. Being unproven, God is no more than a hypothesis, at best he can be a theory. A theory is something we can jettison if we find another better theory to replace it or if we find that the evidence does not support it.

In most religions (including christianity and islam), it is never found that the evidence does not support God, instead God is redefined to accommodate the evidence. For example, God is said to be all powerful and all good but when presented with the problem of evil, especially gratuitous evil, God is implied to lack some degree of control over evil while at the same time no concession is made as to his omnipotence, or he is implied to be imcompletely good and at the same time completely good.

This is where the gullibility comes in, as one who has been shown that A is not B insists that A must be B. Usually, the motive for insisting that A is B, or for example that God is completely good, is a selfish one. The person wishes God to be good because a good God favours him. To God himself, if any, what is it to him that he is not good? It does not add to or take away anything from him. In a world of joy and suffering therefore, what is the basis of insisting that God is completely good?

Religious people tend to refuse to think such issues through, instead preferring to assume that God is one who likes anything they like. The unquestioning assumption about the nature of God makes them prone to being manipulated or to believe other incredible things.

Believing that God exists is one thing and of itself it is not a problem. It becomes a problem when one believes that the God needs him to act in a certain way and that every other person should act in that same way. There is no telling what the God might require of his believers, and knowing that the followers are very likely to obey whatever instructions they receive from him without question since they believe it to be the truth, it is dangerous to allow people to insist on global acceptance of the instructions of any God.

Maybe you think your God is reasonable, but what about every other persons God? This unreliability in religion is what is sought to be shown by religions such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Good luck disproving their God.

This is why religion, or at least the insistence on everybody obeying the instructions of any God, should not be accepted.

hmmm I see you view religion as science! Things a philosopher would do.

I like your point, but lemme ask:

Whose responsibility is it to prove to you as an individual, that God exist since you claim his existence is unproven?

What do you need as proof of his existence? A picture?

Is your argument based on the fact that religion present God as "perfect" yet when you look around you, you see so much imperfections?

Kay17:


My answer is "yes". However my belief is a confirmation of my conviction, it would be a contradiction to have doubts over my convictions.

hmm...ok! If I could ask: is there a substance inspiring this conviction? Eg a proof of his non-existence?

charzyh2:

are you an atheist?

https://www.nairaland.com/13395/skeptics-atheists-nigeria-how-manage

https://www.nairaland.com/1404815/prayer-seun-osewa/1

@op i find it funny that "god" to you has all those qualities that most of the over 41,000 christian denomination disagrees on....all based on the same mythology and all presented with no evidence...

LETS NOT FORGET....ALL TAKEN ON BLISSFUL IGNORANCE
FAITH

JEITO: hmmm I see you view religion as science! Things a philosopher would do.

I don't see religion as science. I'm not a philosopher. I said that God, not religion, is at best a theory, and an unreliable one at that.

I like your point, but lemme ask:

Whose responsibility is it to prove to you as an individual, that God exist since you claim his existence is unproven?

Anybody that believes that God exists should have tenable reasons for holding such a belief. If he wants me to share his belief, he has to share such tenable reasons with me.

What do you need as proof of his existence? A picture

Any means of proof that is accepted as sufficient for other matters. It could be direct evidence or even by an argument.

Is your argument based on the fact that religion present God as "perfect" yet when you look

No its not. It is based on the absence of evidence for God.

finofaya:


I don't see religion as science. I'm not a philosopher. I said that God, not religion, is at best a theory, and an unreliable one at that.



Anybody that believes that God exists should have tenable reasons for holding such a belief. If he wants me to share his belief, he has to share such tenable reasons with me.




Any means of proof that is accepted as sufficient for other matters. It could be direct evidence or even by an argument.



No its not. It is based on the absence of evidence for God.

well, religion is born out of a belief in God so you can't dismiss the object and accept the subject.

Proof!! What type of proof will be tenable for you?
If I share my personal miraculous experience(s) you'll dismiss it as fabricated. If I share those of others that I heard or read, you'll say it doesn't hold water. If I talk about Divine encounters(small and big) you'll still call it myth. So what manner of proof to you want because I believe that among other things,testimonies borne out of personal experience(s) should be valid enough.

No its not. It is based on the absence of evidence for God.[/quote] let's not hold too tightly to our individual beliefs for once and let's view things from your own angle.

We were all brought up in a religious society that believe in the existence of a Divine being or divine beings, we were taught that right from time. Our fore-fathers believed it also ie it didn't start from this generation.

Now, we can't just all together dismiss this age long belief all in one day abi? So now, viewing things from your point of view, what evidence do you have to disprove the existence of a divine being other than the theory that," man thought the earth was flat, until it was later discovered to be spherical" and so man could have made the same mistake about the existence of a Divine being.

NB: let your answer not be on assumptions drawn from other similar assertions now disproved, but from tenable proofs. Thank you.

JEITO:
hmm...ok! If I could ask: is there a substance inspiring this conviction? Eg a proof of his non-existence?

I will prove it. The starting point is, who is God?

I will prove that God has no actual identity, that it is no one at all. That it is an empty term without an idea. An abstract without meaning nor basis.

JEITO:
I beg to differ on this, especially considering what is happening in the US, where Atheist are calling for the removal of anything "God" from every of the country's national symbols.

If there were references to Orunmila, Sango and Obatala in the our national anthem, pledge, constitution, etc, wouldn't you want to have them removed? As a Christian, you would not want your children to have to recite an anthem or pledge that refers to gods or Gods that you don't believe in. That's the same way that Atheists in the US feel about having references to God in their national anthems, etc. However, most atheists don't even care about these things. The people who fight these battles are militant atheists. Most atheists are mellow.

As well as from schools and public buildings. Even going as far as getting court orders to remove moulded statures with religious inclination. That doesn't sound like "ignoring" it sounds like trying to change things because you are not comfortable with it-talk of being insecure.

How would you feel if a public school financed by your taxes started building monuments to religions you don't believe in? Would you support the building of Mosques or Orunmila shrines on the premises of the school your child attends, using your money? I don't think so!

What would you say of a teenage high school kid that was suspended for reading his bible during break on charges of public religious practice?

It is wrong to suspend a student just for reading his bible during break. Most atheists would gladly defend this boy's right to read any book that he feels like reading during break. But according to the school authorities, that is not what the boy was actually suspended for. "But a spokeswoman for the Grossmont Union High School District — the district named in the suit — contends there’s much more to the story. She couldn’t elaborate, however, to KGTV because of federal privacy laws." Source. Many atheists love to read the bible.

I know nothing of relative atheism as you put it. If you talk of monotheism or polytheism, I believe that is a different case. Atheism reject it all together.

Let's say that there are 100 religions in the world. As a Christian, you believe in one religion but you don't believe in the other 99. That makes you a believer in one religion and an atheist to the 99 others. You don't believe in Islam? Me too. You don't believe in Zeus? Me too. You don't believe in the Lord of Light? me too! You don't believe in Ifa? Me too! You have more in common with atheists than you realise.

Why rule out a possibility that you haven't proven to be false? I believe God Almighty because I know He exist.

I can direct the question back to you. The existence of Allah, Ifa, Zeus, Sango, and the Lord of Light haven't been proven to be false. Why rule out the possibility that they are real? Why don't you believe in these other Gods too? Why do you think Ifa worshippers are misled?

Kay17:


I will prove it. The starting point is, who is God?

God is the source of life.

JEITO:
God is the source of life.

So also is Zeus, and other Aztec Gods, they too lay claim to being the source of life. Or are they the Gods you describe?! You are still unclear

Kay17:


So also is Zeus, and other Aztec Gods, they too lay claim to being the source of life. Or are they the Gods you describe?! You are still unclear

nah! Zeus, huitzilopochtli and all them other gods that you talked about cannot be the source of life because they represent a particular element: thunder, sun, fire, stone etc

Btw, the argument is not about different gods there are because you don't believe in any so why bother which I was refering to?

JEITO:
nah! Zeus, huitzilopochtli and all them other gods that you talked about cannot be the source of life because they represent a particular element: thunder, sun, fire, stone etc

Btw, the argument is not about different gods there are because you don't believe in any so why bother which I was refering to?

Wish u could respond to seun's reply. Stop pretendin u didn't see it

JEITO:
nah! Zeus, huitzilopochtli and all them other gods that you talked about cannot be the source of life because they represent a particular element: thunder, sun, fire, stone etc

Btw, the argument is not about different gods there are because you don't believe in any so why bother which I was refering to?

Because I know you cannot provide any. And that's my proof God does not exist.

Kay17:


Because I know you cannot provide any. And that's my proof God does not exist.

This my friend is tortuous

Sorry about the delay.

JEITO: well, religion is born out of a belief in God so you can't dismiss the object and accept the subject.

Religion clearly exists. God's existence is not equally obvious. That's why I said that God, not religion, is nothing more than a theory.

Proof!! What type of proof will be tenable for you?
If I share my personal miraculous experience(s) you'll dismiss it as fabricated. If I share those of others that I heard or read, you'll say it doesn't hold water. If I talk about Divine encounters(small and big) you'll still call it myth. So what manner of proof to you want because I believe that among other things,testimonies borne out of personal experience(s) should be valid enough.

Miracles are unreliable. They have never been replicated. They never occur where they can be recorded properly. There tends to be more reports of them where there is more hardship and lack of education. A lot miracle claims have been shown to be either false or to simply involve the happening of a statistically unlikely event. Miracles claim to involve breaking natural laws but there are no miracles that are outside the ability of man to manage, such as the growing back of limbs or resurrection of persons with extensive damage to their body. There are just so many grounds to question the truth of a miracle claim.

A personal encounter with the divine, as you may have heard before, is in the realm of psychosis and hallucinations. What are we to do with a report of an experience that only your brain perceives, sometimes even with others present around you, when almost everybody is known to have similar experiences? If I told you I fell into a trance in which I saw the ultimate proof that there is no God, would you without any skepticism accept at once that there is no God? You would prefer to put my so called proof to the test.

Attributing things to God because you don't understand them is one way of jumping to conclusions.

JEITO:




No its not. It is based on the absence of evidence for God. let's not hold too tightly to our individual beliefs for once and let's view things from your own angle.

We were all brought up in a religious society that believe in the existence of a Divine being or divine beings, we were taught that right from time. Our fore-fathers believed it also ie it didn't start from this generation.

Now, we can't just all together dismiss this age long belief all in one day abi? So now, viewing things from your point of view, what evidence do you have to disprove the existence of a divine being other than the theory that," man thought the earth was flat, until it was later discovered to be spherical" and so man could have made the same mistake about the existence of a Divine being.

NB: let your answer not be on assumptions drawn from other similar assertions now disproved, but from tenable proofs. Thank you.

Lol. How do I provide evidence that something does not exist? If a thing does not exist, there would be no evidence for it. I already said that. I never purported to have disproved a creator, anyway.

Why should we abandon age long beliefs? Our forefathers lived in different times. If you want to consider why you should have different views from them, you have to compare the era they lived in to yours. Nobody seriously disputes that we know far more about the world than they did. We have been to the moon and back. We have taken pictures of the earth from beyond Pluto (largest group selfie?). We now have the internet, cars, etc.

Our ancestors lived in a time when they considered almost everything ( eg rainfall, advanced healthcare) to be outside their control. The only way to control these things was to assume that they were in the control of divine beings whom the mortals could in turn exercise some control over, by worship. We now know what to do about rainfall in some cases (cloud seeding) and we can transplant hearts. As a result most of us (including you hopefully) have done away with those age long beliefs in the areas where we have more knowledge. You won't go to a shrine to treat Ebola, even though your forefathers would most certainly have. They would have considered it to be a sign of God's wrath.

New information should change beliefs.

You can also look at it this way. If we did something one way because we thought it was the divine way, and then we discovered another better way of doing that same thing, because of which we abandoned the divine way of doing it, what would be the use of holding on to the belief in the divine way of doing that thing?

However, letting go of such a belief will result in a diminishing of your belief in the divine as a whole. If the divine requires you to have complete belief in him, then he would be displeased at your diminished belief, and he would let you know somehow. If he has not complained, it means not all your beliefs about him are necessary and in the interest of not holding on to unnecessary beliefs, you have to keep removing belief after belief about him, until he complains.

So the moment you stop doing anything the way it was divinely instructed, and with good results, you have reason to doubt any other divine instruction.

finofaya

God is unproven. He is also not disproved. However, the current absence of evidence for his existence is exactly what would be obtainable if he did not exist. You are therefore entitled to act as if he did not exist.

You have contradicted yourself - you are saying God can't be proven yet He can be proven. The issue here is your criteria of proving God.

Religion involves acting as if an unproven God does exist. Being unproven, God is no more than a hypothesis, at best he can be a theory. A theory is something we can jettison if we find another better theory to replace it or if we find that the evidence does not support it.

Actually it is not. There are several things we all humans believe in that can't be proven nor do we have an idea what they are.

In most religions (including christianity and islam), it is never found that the evidence does not support God, instead God is redefined to accommodate the evidence. For example, God is said to be all powerful and all good but when presented with the problem of evil, especially gratuitous evil, God is implied to lack some degree of control over evil while at the same time no concession is made as to his omnipotence, or he is implied to be imcompletely good and at the same time completely good.

Another misunderstanding of the idea of God at least as He is portrayed in Christendom. God is a God of ordinance and principles; He is not arbitrary. For example, the sun will shine even if it will cause drought and all your crops will die. Will some view that as evil; most likely; does that make God any less God than He is - No!

This is where the gullibility comes in, as one who has been shown that A is not B insists that A must be B. Usually, the motive for insisting that A is B, or for example that God is completely good, is a selfish one. The person wishes God to be good because a good God favours him. To God himself, if any, what is it to him that he is not good? It does not add to or take away anything from him. In a world of joy and suffering therefore, what is the basis of insisting that God is completely good?

There are several attributes of God, depending on the circumstances and the person; we can view God as good, completely good or bad. As a judge that passes judgement on a wrong-doer; God might be classified as bad. To the person receiving the good end of the judgement; God is considered good.

Religious people tend to refuse to think such issues through, instead preferring to assume that God is one who likes anything they like. The unquestioning assumption about the nature of God makes them prone to being manipulated or to believe other incredible things.

Really? Can you be more specific on such issues?

Believing that God exists is one thing and of itself it is not a problem. It becomes a problem when one believes that the God needs him to act in a certain way and that every other person should act in that same way. There is no telling what the God might require of his believers, and knowing that the followers are very likely to obey whatever instructions they receive from him without question since they believe it to be the truth, it is dangerous to allow people to insist on global acceptance of the instructions of any God.

This is another assumption. Again, I will use the Christian God as an example. The Christian God does make it clear what He expects of His adherents so there are no arbitrary claims. These laws and expectations were directed at specific people i.e. the 10 commandments of the law of God was directed at the Jewish people - Christians do not force anyone to believe in these laws.

Maybe you think your God is reasonable, but what about every other persons God? This unreliability in religion is what is sought to be shown by religions such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Good luck disproving their God.

If the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" can raise the dead, heal the sick and atheists can play with the evidence under their micro-scope; I am sure it will not be a hard task to take this "god" seriously

This is why religion, or at least the insistence on everybody obeying the instructions of any God, should not be accepted.

It's a choice mate; you are not being compelled to believe if you don't want to. However, do not fault others that want to believe.

Seun

While this describes most of the atheists who are active on this section, most atheists are not like that. Most atheists just ignore religious issues.

Actually no. The new age atheism is becoming more challenging, condescending and even in some cases are calling for religious freedoms to be taken away. For example, atheist Lawrence M. Krauss suggested that the laws of the US and other Western countries consider child abuse if children are taught about God or religion by their parents

Which God specifically? The Christian God? The Muslim God? African gods and goddesses? The Lord of Light from Game of Thrones? If you believe that there's only one God, then you are an atheist relative to all other Gods/gods and the same questions apply to you too. Does the fact that you don't believe in the Lord of Light or Allah for whatever reason rule out the possibility of their existence and power or influence?

Let's flip it around and give you a simpler example - The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well? Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is worth spending time on. It's "possible" that father Xmas is real and lives in the north pole, but if you met an adult who truly believed that Father Xmas is real and sent 10% or his/her income to the north pole, what would you say?

Agreed. However, we can trace with relative certainty if "Father Xmas" is an actual person and if he lived at the north pole or not.

Atheists in some countries fight against the imposition of religious practices on people who don't believe in the religions. That's all they fight.

That is not an accurate statement. Some atheists have called for the banning and burning of all religious materials; that is more of a violent fight than an intellectual one. Look at what happen with Stalin and Pol Pot - a lot of dead bodies and a lot of Christians were in the dead

finofaya

Anybody that believes that God exists should have tenable reasons for holding such a belief. If he wants me to share his belief, he has to share such tenable reasons with me.

There are several reasons; the discussion will be if you consider them tenable or not . I am willing to employ simple logic and reasoning to engage you.

Any means of proof that is accepted as sufficient for other matters. It could be direct evidence or even by an argument.

Okay, let me first ask you a question - What is consciousness?

Kay17:
I will prove that God has no actual identity, that it is no one at all. That it is an empty term without an idea. An abstract without meaning nor basis.

I am sure you believe in several things that have no identity - will you say they are abstract without meaning or basis?

Seun

If there were references to Orunmila, Sango and Obatala in the our national anthem, pledge, constitution, etc, wouldn't you want to have them removed? As a Christian, you would not want your children to have to recite an anthem or pledge that refers to gods or Gods that you don't believe in. That's the same way that Atheists in the US feel about having references to God in their national anthems, etc. However, most atheists don't even care about these things. The people who fight these battles are militant atheists. Most atheists are mellow.

It's interesting you mentioned militant atheists - they are on the rise in the US. Do you know how hard it is to get a scientific grant or to have your research published if you believe in "God" in the US? The attacks are indirect and under the radar. You are made fun off if you are a Christian and it's very difficult in the universities in the US.

There are standards in nearly everything we do. Sango being on the pledge, national anthem doesn't harm me and make me any less a human being; it doesn't affect the food I eat or the water I drink. The issue here is the issue of opinions; having an opinion shouldn't be the axe to change traditions that uploads society for hundreds of years. So, what happens if it's popular opinion to say some believe in aliens 10 years from now; should we put that in the constitution and in our national anthem as well? Or should the church remove the cross because it offends others?

It is wrong to suspend a student just for reading his bible during break. Most atheists would gladly defend this boy's right to read any book that he feels like reading during break. But according to the school authorities, that is not what the boy was actually suspended for. "But a spokeswoman for the Grossmont Union High School District — the district named in the suit — contends there’s much more to the story. She couldn’t elaborate, however, to KGTV because of federal privacy laws.

Oh please - http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/persecution-of-christians-on-rise-in-u-s/

Let's say that there are 100 religions in the world. As a Christian, you believe in one religion but you don't believe in the other 99. That makes you a believer in one religion and an atheist to the 99 others. You don't believe in Islam? Me too. You don't believe in Zeus? Me too. You don't believe in the Lord of Light? me too! You don't believe in Ifa? Me too! You have more in common with atheists than you realise.

What is religion if it's not in belief of ideas and ideals. For example, Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive doesn't believe in a god or gods yet it is considered a religion. So, atheism is not mutually exclusive as it has it's own ideals, ideas and core beliefs. So, the reality of what is commonly called "atheism" has much in common with the reality of what is commonly called "religion"