Why I am not an atheist (it's not what you think ;) )

[Too Few Lions]

Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Whew. I'm glad that's out of the way. Now we can get down to solving serious problems: should the UK stay in the EU?

yeah, of course it should. I would like to be able to live somewhere warm and sunny one day!

You mean like me and Ildiko are doing right now? C'mon in the water's fine. Gorizia is inland but you might like Grado right on the coast. You'll have to brush up on your tedesco though. Living cost are considerably less than in the UK. The Adriatic is seriously underrated which is fine with me. Excellent wine region too. What else could anyone ask for. 

sunshine, sea, cheap living and good wine sounds like my idea of heaven I'm planning on taking a motorhome around Europe next year when I've sold my flat, I'll have to pop by to say hi and share a bottle of wine with you!

[Earthling]

My usage may be peculiar to me but you asked me so... "believe in" involves faith rather than reason. It is not evidence-based and the believer cannot be wrong. To "think" something is so means there exists some evidence to support that view but it could always be mistaken. The thinker (rationalist) is willing to abandon any evidence-based claim in the face of convincing counter evidence.

They like to "think" that, but I have found it not to be nearly as accurate. I will demonstrate this as you continue to espouse your propaganda.

To me though, to "believe" implies future tense. I Believe it will rain today is only somewhat more impressive coming from a meteorologist than the average Joe. To believe something means to expect it based upon the degree of knowledge and experience one has in determining it, though the degree of accuracy doesn't depend entirely upon either. It may or may not rain.

To "think" something is a present or temporal forming of opinion. You could be equally wrong. The difficulty with people who use the "rational" as a crutch is that they can become as bogged down if not more so by what they "think" is "rational." Western culture tends to lean even still upon its religious roots. They tell the student what to think rather than how to think. It is the difference between "propaganda" and education. The student comes out the other end with a world view that was dictated to him and which he proudly regurgitates. What began as religious propaganda became scientific propaganda. It is all speculation. History repeats itself.

2. As a rationalist (an evidence-based kind of guy) I freely admit I can be wrong about any evidence-based claims I make. I have referred to this as "playing with real money". I abandon theories every day when the evidence show they are wrong. A faith-based person is essentially anti-social in the sense that no argument, be it logical or empirical, will cause you to change your mind.

Playing with real money? Like gambling. You take the safe bet but are ignorant of the odds. Actually it is more like Fractional Reserve Banking. Based upon a premise unreal with nothing to back it up but opinion. That isn't rational.

Such faith-based views are entirely legitimate but given their non-empirical nature that should be kept private. You cannot have a dialogue with a "person of faith" for the reasons given. This is what I call "playing with fake money". If you want to enter the rational world, Earthling you gotta pay the entrance fee. Are you prepared to do that.

[Laughs] Have you been drinking?

Please define "militant" atheist. I am loathe to discuss poorly defined or value ladened notions. My ignosticism (check it out if you're unfamiliar with the term) is derivative rather than primary. I am a rationalist and an anarchist -- ignosticism a logical consequence of those views.

Its nonsense. The question of God is simply dismissed out of ignorance. Might as well ask the cat.

[Attila]

Post deleted. Not rising to bait.
Sorry Tank.

[Earthling]

You were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Why? It would be like trying to teach a pig to sing, ultimatly impossible and it would annoy the pig 

As impressive an argument as comparing me to an unteachable pig may seem, is it possible the kettle is calling the pig black?

[Asmodean]

As impressive an argument as comparing me to an unteachable pig may seem, is it possible the kettle is calling the pig black?

In Tank's case, it would be more like the barrel calling the pig round 

[Tank]

You were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Why? It would be like trying to teach a pig to sing, ultimatly impossible and it would annoy the pig 

As impressive an argument as comparing me to an unteachable pig may seem, is it possible the kettle is calling the pig black?

Your card is marked, I'm just accumulating evidence now.

[Tank]

As impressive an argument as comparing me to an unteachable pig may seem, is it possible the kettle is calling the pig black?

In Tank's case, it would be more like the barrel calling the pig round 

LOL that would be true 

[Tank]

They like to "think" that, but I have found it not to be nearly as accurate. I will demonstrate this as you continue to espouse your propaganda.

I think you just went a step to far. In the most polite manner that I can muster would you have the decency to go fuck yourself.

Attila, please do not rise the bait if you don't mind, it makes the staff''s job a little more complicated. Feel free to vent via a PM (to me, not Earthling).

[Earthling]

'Militant' is one of those over-used words by theists for anyone who even just mentions that they're an atheist...

Such was not my intention, as I pointed out I think the majority of "atheists" are passive rather than "militant." And to me there isn't a negative connotation in the term "militant" as I use it, quite the contrary. I think the militant atheist is the more noble of the two. I consider myself a militant theist in that I am vocal and take an active interest in the debate. 

Speaking for myself, I call myself an ignostic atheist, but the a-theist part is just meaningful to counter any theistic version of god, as in I don't see sufficient evidence to back up any theistic claim. The word 'god' is a meaningless concept, and until believers firstly define or describe what their god is, it's pointless to call myself an atheist. I don't see myself as an apatheist because...ahem...theists exist.

As much as I think terms such as these only complicate rather than clarify ones position, my favorite term, the one I see as the most accurate and intellectually honest, is the term popularized by Christopher Hitchins, who I respect a great deal for his integrity and intellectual capabilities. He knows religious history but not the Bible, unfortunately. The term is anti-theist.

And speaking of words, your usage of "believe in evolution" is wrong, IMO. There's nothing to believe in, since, as Attila said, it's not based on faith. "Accept", perhaps?

The theory of evolution is, at best, a metaphysical experiment. It has produced a plethora of observations irrelevant based upon a faulty premise.

Labels are a double-edged sword, describes a person but at the same time gives them a simplistic word or two to identify them as Not really atheist but apatheist? You make it sound like the two are incompatible...

I'm learning. I'm observing. An atheist is the antithesis of theist. A theist believes in gods. You can tack any pretext for or against to the theist. Mono, pan, a, apa, heno, etc.

The difficulty as I see it is an appalling lack of understanding on the very simple primitive meaning of the word god. It simply means anything or anyone that is thought to be mighty or is venerated. So Satan is a god. Eric Clapton is a god. God's don't have to exist to be gods. The skeptic and believer alike think of God as Jehovah, or God as Jesus, or God as exclusively supernatural and all of this is an example of the need for Ockham's Razor.

The simple definition of god negates any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy. It has nothing to do with the questioning of God's existence, which is unnecessary anyway as the definition of God implies. It doesn't matter whether the god in question actually exists unless you are specific about the God in question. The question of "do gods exist" is as moot as "do men exist."

[Earthling]

They like to "think" that, but I have found it not to be nearly as accurate. I will demonstrate this as you continue to espouse your propaganda.

I think you just went a step to far. In the most polite manner that I can muster would you have the decency to go fuck yourself.

Arrogant old fuck, aren't you. I would be happy to go and fuck myself because, the alternative of having a possible discussion with you of a meaningful nature is null.

[Earthling]

Your card is marked, I'm just accumulating evidence now.

Believe it or not I don't think anyone here, including myself, is so ignorant to not have known that was the case before I got here. Or anyone else like me.

[Earthling]

Post deleted. Not rising to bait.
Sorry Tank.

I think your position is a great deal safer than mine. I'm just a pig who should fuck off in a rolling sea of rationality waiting for lively debate and discussion.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Post deleted. Not rising to bait.
Sorry Tank.

I think your position is a great deal safer than mine. I'm just a pig who should fuck off in a rolling sea of rationality waiting for lively debate and discussion.

There is no possibility of rational debate with theists. You all believe in invisible made up fairies - that's an absolute shit starting point for rationality.

[Tank]

Your card is marked, I'm just accumulating evidence now.

Believe it or not I don't think anyone here, including myself, is so ignorant to not have known that was the case before I got here. Or anyone else like me.

I'm quite happy with Christians. My dog walking pal is the local Vicar. I supported Happy Forever a fundamentalist Muslim. My best mate is a Bosnian Muslim who lives in Bradford. How many Sufi Muslims have been to your house? My eldest daughter has a Muslim god mother (you should have seen the Vicar jump at that one!). I do have a problem with people who behave like sympathy trolls, and who join atheist forums just to preach and promote their particular brand of institutionalised superstition, who are conspiracy theorists and science deniers.

And you can cut the passive aggresive persecution complex as well, that just makes you more troll like, and it cuts no ice with me.

[Earthling]

There is no possibility of rational debate with theists. You all believe in invisible made up fairies - that's an absolute shit starting point for rationality.

The only think preventing a rational debate with theists are irrational and intolerant atheists.

Do you think it possible to have a rational discussion on the history and existence of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny? What about the possible existence of extraterrestrial beings?