It's simple - atheists don't believe in the existence of a god. What sort of proof of my lack of belief would be satisfactory to you?

If someone comes up to you and claims to be male, do you have him drop trou so you can check for yourself?

You want a reason for atheism - how about theism doesn't work?  If a machine doesn't work do you keep using it or do you find something that does?

Theism (particularly the Abrahamic versions) keeps trying the same things over and over, hoping for a different result. Last time I checked, that was a definition for insanity. 

And are you saying then that atheists don't make choices based on faith.  First you weigh the evidence and then you make a choice based on the available evidence.  To say the theists are the only ones opperating on faith is like saying that atheists know everything there is to know past, present and future.  Admit it, you have faith, admit it! 

I won't get into the "Jesus made no sacrifice" thing again. Others have done it so well.

Are you saying that Jesus died only for the Jews of his time? Or are you saying that I have to believe that he died in order to accept the love he gave? If the answer to the first question is "yes" then people living today don't need to worry. If the second question's answer is "yes", then his love is conditional.

If Jesus/God loves us whether we believe in Him or not, why is there the Hell that He will happily let us burn in for eternity?     

Well, Seth, I've been away for a couple of days and I see you're not dead yet. I guess we atheists haven't been kind enough to you.

When I was younger I so much wanted to be rational. I even thought I was or at least said I was. I lied. I am not rational. Further, I have never met someone who is and I'll bet you haven't either. What I am is reasonable and (at the risk of ending up one head shorter) I'd be willing to bet that reasonable is the best all the other people on this site can do too. (Oh boy, am I gonna hear it for this one.)

At the risk of introducing yet another computer analogy, we are not hard-wired to be rational. Too much of what we think we think is filtered through some very primative (certainly pre-logical) data buffers. I know you don't accept the theory of evolution (that is still the case, right?) but I do. Evolution tells me a whole bunch of things that fit really well. For one, when measured against some very interesting observable data, it tells me that our distant ancestors were sexually selected to be predisposed for religious belief. No, this isn't a cheap shot. Just bear with me.

Some time before 60,000 years ago, is my guess, our guy ancestors began to get sex because they 'got' the tribe's story. If they didn't understand the story then they were too dumb to be chosen to beget offspring. Now the story probably started out very simple and nebulous, "Uhg, da hunter kill animal really good, bring home meat. You like." But the story evolved along with us and "Uhg was mighty hero, live long ago. He fight many battles." There was probably a lot of pantomime with the early versions.

Predators are good for prey. The prey that survives is better and passes on its genes, yadda, yadda, yadda - zis boom baa. Well the relationship between story and story teller is very similar and soon it wasn't enough just to 'get' the story. The story had to be told by a good story teller. And guess what he got. And this is still observable today. Look at how much sexual excitement is generated by skinny little boys on a stage, tunelessly strumming a stringed instrument while yelling unintelligable words. And while I've never attended a Christian rock concert, I'll bet the responses are very similar in nature - at least just beneath the surface and with the possible exception of audience word choices. I mean, what ellicits the steamy look in that religious girl's eyes? Is it the message - the same message she's probably barely listened to the last thousand times she's heard it? Is it the message or is it the messenger?

You asked in one of your recent posts if you had to go back to school. The short answer is yes. Once you step out of faith and into the realm of thinking then you have to learn what other thinkers think. To that end I'm going to recommend a little book (and it really is little).
How Brains Think by W. H. Calvin. I thought the author's name might appeal to you. That's a joke, Seth.

You do understand the difference between faith based upon previous experience and faith as in a belief without proof, don't you?

 So where is the challenge here?

The religions I have tampered with Christianity, Wicca, Buddhism all really add up to silly superstitition but I will give budhism the upper hand for having those cool KUNG-FU THEATER ROBES, lol. 

yo Slayne, fundy's can and do screw most everything up ....

"Reincarnation" is a prime example which simply meant all enegy/matter is recycled. The word reincarnation has been dropped by many buddhists because of it's widespread miss understanding and attachment to silly superstition ..... darn fundys.   

Buddhist 'monks' are non superstitious atheists who wear robes ..... Why ?

GOOGLE "why do buddhist monks wear robes"

'The simplicity of wearing a basic robe partly symbolizes the vow they have taken to live a simple life. It is like their "uniform" in a way. A symbol of their non-status that they are no longer partake in the material aspects of society.'

this is kinda cool,

http://www.buddhanet.net/9-gqga.htm

Yes, unfortunatley there are some nuts calling themselves Buddhists ..... geezz go figure ..... 

, thats why I just call myself 100% God ! 

Einstein was a Buddha fan. Check out cool bad boy westerner Alan Watts who taught eastern ideas. He dressed in levis.

You are never going to learn with an attitude like that. You have repeatedly and falsely accused atheists of claiming to know everything which we dont. Please stop.

 Repeatedly in this post the word has been explained to you. We have also explained that there is a differance between holding a position, and having knowlege of that position and those two seperate issues apply to both the atheist and theist.

If you want to learn, then read and learn. If you want to repeat yourself you are wasting your time and ours. We want you to learn and we want you to understand and we do think it is great that theists engauge us.

Now, for the last time,

Holding a position, any position, on any issue, NOT JUST RELIGION, DOES NOT, require knowlege, it merely means you hold a position.

 "I believe in horriscopes" is stating a position. 

THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN

"I know horriscopes work" 

Now, one could also say the following in regards to horriscopes:

"I believe that horriscopes work, but I dont know how"

OR

"I know horriscopes work, and here is how".

OR,

ANOTHER EXAMPLE

"I believe that the War in Iraq is going well, although I dont know how they are succeeding"

OR

"I know that the war in Iraq is going well, and here are the specific tactics they are using to do so".

OR

"I hold the position that the war is going badly, even though I dont know why it is"

OR

"I know the war is going badly and here are the reasons" 

See the pattern? You can claim something, anything and that is merely a position you are taking. But that is a seperate issue than knowing. The same goes with theism and atheism.

Theist "I know the Christian god exists"

agnostic theist, "I believe a god exists, but I dont know anything about it or what to call it"

agnostic atheist, "I dont know if a god exists, but I see no good evidence to buy such a claim" |( this can apply to any deity claim, not just your religion)

atheist="I know that your god cannot exist, and here is why"

I myself consider myself an agnostic atheist as far as future possible evidences, but I consider myself an outright atheist as far as current and past claims. 

So, for the last time. There is a differance between holding a postition and having knowlege of that position. This is not hard logic to understand. 

The light comes on everytime I flip the switch. This is what I expect to happen, based upon quantifiable experience. The number of times when it worked are evidence that it will work again. This is faithed based upon reason. Everyone has this sort of faith.

Religious beliefs are based on faith without reason. If God physically came down to earth to bake you a pie everytime you asked, you could reasonable expect him to the next time you asked. That would be faith based upon reason. I'm guession yours is not.

 It wasn't misleading, I wrote clearly, "but not of this site" right on there.  Thanks for the hat but I think it looks better on you.  You could have asked me to change it. 

Looks to me like he did ask you - why the petulance? 

I disavow irrationality because it is irrational, not because it is affiliated with a religion. Some people (admittedly few) follow a religion as a metaphor for creative thought, expressing emotion or cultural connection, and so forth. I have no problem with that. I think symbolic, allegorical, or archetypal thought can be useful. However, where I have a problem is there the symbol is mistaken for something real. Literalism is something else entirely. 

For example, take Aesop's fable. These little tales are wonderful at simply illustrating some of the foibles of human nature. However, we don't *really* believe they happened, or that the text of Aesop's fables is the inerrant word of a mystical being.  Similarly, as a scholar of religion and history, I see great value in the myths and stories of many religions - AS myths and stories. 

 Where the understanding of these things as allegory breaks down, so too does rationality. Why does that matter? After all, what someone believes in the privacy of their own mind is their business yes? Well, yes, but also no.

Is it OK if someone believes in the privacy of their own mind that they have been instructed by God to blow up a building? Of course not. What if your belief is totally harmless, and does not cause you to interfere with anyone at all.

Say your religion has no evangelism, no judgement of those who don't believe. However, in your belief, potatoes are evil. Utterly evil and must be banished from existence. Don't you think that would affect the things you do?

You will avoid certain restaurants, perhaps try to lobby to change the menu at your child's school, favor businesses with a strict no-potato policy, regardless of whether they are otherwise ethical businesses. You will demand alternate meals be available in public forums. You will soon have formed communities, social groups around your loathing of potatoes. Because you all have that in common, you are alike. Not like those potato eaters... I mean, really, who can trust someone who eats potatoes? Do you want your children playing with potato eaters? You will vote for pubic officials who are more sympathetic to your anti-potato stance, and are willing to pass legislation making it possible for your potato free diet to be supported.

So even something this trivial has now becomes a socially divisive force, a political issue, an economic factor... all based in an purely irrational hatred of potatoes.

Yes, this is a pretty extreme hypothetical. Call it my own fable, not to be taken literally. But is it really so hard to see religion in our society in this story? That's why I will always disavow literalism, no matter the religion it comes from.

So, you're saying that an irrational belief can lead to non-harmful behavior?  By definition irrational thought is in conflict with reality.  Isn't that reason enough in itself to avoid such a thing?  Isn't being in conflict with reality harmful enough all by itself - whether or not it leads to action?  Besides, arriving at the conflict with reality is a choice and therefore it is an action.  A willfull agreement with one's self - and sometimes in concert with others - to ignore reality, this seems a path frought with danger (harm) to  me.

I'm pretty sure it isn't what I meant either.  It would have sufficed to say that the irrational is in conflict with reality.  And it's in conflict whether or not the sun rises tomorrow.  You're correct, wavefreak, thoughts are neither rational or irrational - good or bad - they're just thoughts.  It's the starting point and the ending conclusion that matter.  And whatever fun we might have along the way is just a bonus.

I'm having a tough time rebutting some of your arguments.  What usually works for me is rambling on for awhile until something clicks.  It seemed so clear to me until you muddied things up. 

Ages ago, when I was a Randite (ist?) - when I was a lot more randy - I used to agree with a lot of conservative Republican views even though to me, they arrived at those conclusions for the wrong reasons.  So I get your point.

I think all I'm really after here is the realization that choosing to remain irrational in the face of reality can lead to other nasty habits and hence, to walking down that path frought with dangers.  If I lived in Medieval Europe I might keep my knowledge of the Earth's true shape and position to myself. I'd probably think seriously before I opened my mouth.  The trouble with that is that I'm one of those Quixotic individuals and a lot of me is tied up in the maintenance of that self-image.  There would come a time when keeping silent would cost me at least as much pain as being burned at the stake.  What worries me is that there are enough irrational folks - people with real power - that I might be faced with a very similar choice in the not too distant future.  And I'm just this old guy, you know. 

You know, I really hate that line of reasoning, because it distorts the definition of the word atheist. In fact, the quote from which your line of thinking is summed up was in the signatrue of a previous poster in this topic, and I very nearly crticized it. Since you went and argued for it, I think I'll go ahead and do that now. The quote in question, of course is:

Firstly, I would point out that an atheist is defined (by most dictionaries) as one who lacks belief in a god or gods. By that definition, one cannot be an atheist toward one god and NOT an atheist toward another god. Not believing in a particular god is quite different from not believing in all gods. An atheist who believes in a god is something similar to a married bachelor - a contradiction. So the definition of atheist is misused in the quote.

Secondly, the line of reasoning is a faulty assumption. It is very possible that the reason a Christian does not believe in other gods is because her god demands that she does not. The Christian god quite frequently insists that he is the one true god. A belief in the Christian god could be used as the reasoning to reject other gods. Being that Mr. Roberts does not believe (to my knowledge) in the Christian god, he would be incorrect in asserting that the Christian's reasoning for not believing in other gods is the same as his for not believing in theirs.

So I guess what I'm really trying to say is that it's not really a very good quote, and I really do wish that people would stop using it as an argument, or as a signature for that matter.

I understand that, but the reasoning behind it is faulty. Christian's don't use evidence to form their beliefs, and the entire quote depends on them doing so. Sure, Christians will expand their rationalizations to include what they perceive as evidence if they are not challenged in doing so. But I can't imagine that you've never challenged a Christian's beliefs and had them come up with the "it's just a matter of having faith" line. Christians don't use evidence. That is why the quote fails outright. 

I think what you are missing about the quote is "...when you understand why you reject all other gods...". He is not making a false assumption here IMHO. Ask any normal theist why they don't believe in any of the old gods or any other current gods, and I would bet my life that they wouldn't say "Because my god told me not to." They would probably laugh at you and say that it is obvious that those gods are just myths. Theism is always laughable from the outside looking in, but never the inverse.

All religions are manmade and I believe in none of them.

You are welcome.  

in regards to the OP...I assure you, if Budhaist fucked with us as much as Christians, we would pay more attention to them.

 Let us begin with a brief deconstruction of the word, "atheist."  It comes from two Greek roots, the first root being, "a-" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "god."  Now that we've discovered that "atheist" means "without a god,"

 First of all I want to begin this retort with an extended for defining the definition of the word atheist to a group of...atheist.

No where in the meaning of "atheist" does one find any reference to Christianity.
 

AGREED! THANK YOU. Please remind other christians of this every day if you will please?

Which brings us to the crux of the matter.  My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally.

I thought we cleared this up in the first paragraph. Without god. Doesn't matter which god..we dont care..we dont accept any of the worlds known dieties.

as opposed to just denouncing whatever religion will make you popular.

Most of us I presume live in the U.S. And if Christians weren't trying to but into anyone and rule the free world, it wouldnt seem that we were singling you fine christian americans out. BUT that's not the case. In fact quite opposite. We seem to be in a constant struggle with christianity as a whole.  I don't need to point out why. Not our choice to go and pick on you guys but if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen..

  Let's try to maintain some ideological purity, shall we?  If you hate Christians, don't say you oppose religion. 

we dont. and we do.

Say you oppose Christianity with every moral, intellectual fiber of your being.  If the goal of atheists is to hold oneself to the standard of reason, then do so.  If you are anti-Christian, but Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age belief is fine, then admit it!  Don't, however, use a term to mean what it does not.  After all, one of the chief criticisms of religion is that it blinds the masses and encourages disinformation, correct?  Avoid such hypocrisy, then.  The irony is unbearable when an anti-Christian posing as an atheist contributes to confusion and falsehood.    

I cant speak for hinduism and new age but  buddhist dont follow a diety. in fact buddhism is more of a philosophy on life. you can be both a buddhist and christian if you like. Your ignorance is starting to show.

It's also possible to be anti christian and atheist...just wanted to point that out too.

 Thanks praetorian,  I put that in my "RRS Wisdom" folder. The freewill statement deserves it's own paragraph.    

How can a religion that tells you that the reason bad things happen to us is because pissed of alien ghosts live in our bodies, be less absurd than any other religion?

I don't believe in God, Gods, or Godesses. On the other hand, Santa did bring me presents, the Tooth Fairy and I bartered money in exchange for my teeth, and the Easter Bunny gave me candy in the form of plastic eggs, so denouncing them is a little harder, but I guess I have to say they are only as real as the person who is doing the deed of giving and attributing it to the particular being. May rationality reign supreme.

Haha - yeah, right. It just gets dicey when we start talking about the names of the ancient alien rulers who lived on them.