Atheists are people who have looked at the evidence and concluded that there is no god. The difference between science and religion is that should new evidence come along, a good scientist will drop every preconception and take up the new theory. So no atheist should be absolutely 100% sure, because though we have concluded that god is so unlikely that we can safely base our actions on the assumption that he doesn't exist, we should technically still be slightly agnostic. But the difference is between 100% certainty and 99.999999999999% (in my case I would need a lot more 9s).
We'll probably agree that we can argue the semantics of faith all day, but I say it's a fair assumption to make that belief in no God is its own form of faith. There's not a way to prove God doesn't exist, many have tried but there's no way to disprove it, there's simply no proof that says God cannot exist. I've seen plenty of attempts. Now, I've noticed many atheists like to use the term reason. Case in point would be the article labeled "reason vs faith" on your blog. Simply taking one term and labeling it another seems to be the common method of operation. I reason that there is a God, you reason that there is not. I have faith that there is a God, you have faith that there is not a God.
I don't know about other atheists, but myself, I would never call humans perfect let alone omnipotent or omniscient etc. If I were to call anything god, it would have to be used in the same metaphorical sense that Einstein and Hawking use. When they say god they mean nature, and the fundamental laws that govern it. This is called Pantheism and stems from a deep reverence and admiration for the beauty and complexity of nature. But I don't use it this way because it creates confusion.
You're making an assumption that I did not make. I didn't say atheists think of themselves or humans as perfect, just they think of themselves as the higest order of the totem poll - like a god or gods. Case in point here would be this "The Secret" nonsense that we can simply will good things to happen and they will. There's a lot of this contained within this New Age. I realize this doesn't apply to the avowed atheist always, but in many areas it does begin to overlap with secular humanism.
well that’s debatable and there are lots of definitions of good and evil (its more of a philosophical question than a religious one in my opinion). But if you are implying that we are inherently immoral, I can tell you that there’s simply no evidence for that. My argument against that would be that every mentally normal person has some level of empathy that the rest of their morals stem from. If you believe that we need a god watching over us to be moral, then how are we moral people. Does this mean that if god looked away for a second, all Christians would rape and pillage? No, because we have empathy (and law)
It was not my intention to imply that all atheists are immoral beings running around wreaking havoc on the world. However, I am driving at the root of a lot of this which resides in the idea of perception. What one person perceives as evil another might see as good. That's fine and dandy until you start worrying about everyone else's perspective on everything. The perspective of a cold blooded murderer or child molestor should be considered - or at least, so we're told.
We don’t accuse Christians of being weak, or at least we shouldn’t. Atheists should assume that all Christians have had the courage to examine their beliefs and the courage to stick to them. How can we call Christians weak if this is true? Now in here in Australia it doesn’t take much courage to be an Atheist, but in America, people are cast out of society for it. I believe that any American Atheist would have to be a very strong person.
What part of America do you live in? I have friends who are not of my faith and they're not outcasts by any means. I live in what is considered the Bible belt for that matter. I'll respond to the rest with a few quotes from your blog:
We don’t accuse Christians of being weak, or at least we shouldn’t. Atheists should assume that all Christians have had the courage to examine their beliefs and the courage to stick to them. How can we call Christians weak if this is true? Now in here in Australia it doesn’t take much courage to be an Atheist, but in America, people are cast out of society for it. I believe that any American Atheist would have to be a very strong person.
This one was probably the best:
Here's the deal, you can believe the earth is flat if you are of no consequence to anyone else. That means no political positions, no celebrity status, no trying to convert anyone else, and most of all, no having children. Having children is the worst thing you can possibly do as a theist because you end up forcing your beliefs on them. Don't infringe on your children's right to form their own beleifs. Any form of faith teaches you not to think for yourself and should be avoided if you don't want to endanger your capacity for reasonable thought.
That's rationl for sure...we have no right to do what you're doing as you write this. If that's reason, I'll stick with faith.
