All aboard the atheist bus ....

Originally posted by rwingett
English religious advertising need not be ubiquitous for the point to remain valid. And the point is not relegated solely to England either. In the US (where religious advertising IS ubiquitous), no one thinks twice about it. Even an atheist like myself. But if someone like the FFRF puts up an "Imagine no religion" billboard, it raises plenty of eyebrows.

People tend to react to unexpected things. I am pretty sure a religious banner on a bus would get some raised eyebrows here, probably at least as much as a banner from the Humanist Association would. If it's ubiquitous, people stop to react every time they see it, but there will still be people who disagree with the practice and will discuss it from time to time (e.g. here in Norway most people probably don't normally think twice about kindergartens attending a church service before Christmas, but I have heard some heated discussions about the issue among my colleagues).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm, actually what has 'atheism', achieved, if i may be so bold to ask?

I think a better question would be not what atheism has “achieved” but rather what atheism has thankfully avoided “achieving” -it has thankfully avoided “achieving” senseless superstition and blind faith.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I think a better question would be not what atheism has “achieved” but rather what atheism has thankfully avoided “achieving” -it has thankfully avoided “achieving” senseless superstition and blind faith.

no, this is invalid as you could easily say that truth has done the same thing, (and as you and i are aware, the two are not synonymous), plus many are still following their 'faith', blindly, theists and atheists inclusive, therefore the question is relevant, and i ask it again ' not what has atheism avoided, but rather, 'what has atheism achieved''. it is a simple question, so make with the reddies!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I think a better question would be not what atheism has “achieved” but rather what atheism has thankfully avoided “achieving” -it has thankfully avoided “achieving” senseless superstition and blind faith.

Hardly. Athiests and thiests are in the same boat, neither able to prove nor disprove their belief; and in this case belief and lack thereof are the same thing.

To be sure, there are superstitions and blind faith that manifest themselves with thiests, but some of the same silliness can be expressed on the part of athiests, through intolerance and a stubborn grasp of the 'faith' (if you will) that a creator force cannot and does not exist.

Neither can be proven or disproven and yet both sides will yell their position until the end of their days. Intelligent, no?

Originally posted by Badwater
Hardly. Athiests and thiests are in the same boat, neither able to prove nor disprove their belief; and in this case belief and lack thereof are the same thing.

To be sure, there are superstitions and blind faith that manifest themselves with thiests, but some of the same silliness can be expressed on the part of athiests, through intolerance and a stubb ...[text shortened]... oven and yet both sides will yell their position until the end of their days. Intelligent, no?

thank you badwater my sentiments exactly. by the way, i read somewhere that you are a native American, if so, can i just say that it has been a childhood dream of mine to meet a native American, ever since i was a small kid i had a fascination with the culture, a hope that i still harbour, perhaps one day i may be privileged - regards Robert.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, this is invalid as you could easily say that truth has done the same thing, (and as you and i are aware, the two are not synonymous), plus many are still following their 'faith', blindly, theists and atheists inclusive, therefore the question is relevant, and i ask it again ' not what has atheism avoided, but rather, 'what has atheism achieved''. it is a simple question, so make with the reddies!

Atheism has achieved nothing because atheism doesn't strive to achieve anything. There is simply nothing for it to achieve.

Originally posted by rwingett
Atheism has achieved nothing because atheism doesn't strive to achieve anything. There is simply nothing for it to achieve.

mmm, how banal!

Originally posted by Badwater
Hardly. Athiests and thiests are in the same boat, neither able to prove nor disprove their belief; and in this case belief and lack thereof are the same thing.

To be sure, there are superstitions and blind faith that manifest themselves with thiests, but some of the same silliness can be expressed on the part of athiests, through intolerance and a stubb oven and yet both sides will yell their position until the end of their days. Intelligent, no?

This is incorrect. Atheists and theists are not in the same boat at all. The entire burden of proof rests with the theist, who is making the claim that there is a god. It is therefore up to him to provide some convincing evidence for his claim. If he cannot do so, then one should remain an atheist.

The atheist is not similarly required to 'disprove' the existence of god. He needs only point out that the theist's evidence is lacking. The complete lack of proof on the part of the theists is sufficient to warrant atheism.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, how banal!

Banal? How so? Theism is the position that a god, or gods, exists. Atheism is simply the observation that that position is unwarranted by the available evidence. What is there for it to achieve?

Originally posted by rwingett
This is incorrect. Atheists and theists are not in the same boat at all. The entire burden of proof rests with the theist, who is making the claim that there is a god. It is therefore up to him to provide some convincing evidence for his claim. If he cannot do so, then one should remain an atheist.

The atheist is not similarly required to 'disprove' the ...[text shortened]... king. The complete lack of proof on the part of the theists is sufficient to warrant atheism.

no this is also erroneous, perhaps you are confusing agnosticism with atheism, for it is the agnostic who claims that there is insufficient evidence for the proof or existence of god, the atheist declares that there is no god.

And to the theist there is abundant evidence for the existence of God, the visible universe, the inspired writings, the microcosm etc etc, infact, it is actually inexcusable to the theist that such beauty, such intelligence, order and harmony should be attributable to pure chance and a material view, that somehow, somewhere, chemicals managed to arrange themselves into the most staggering and intricate framework of patterns and kinds that we know as life, on the contrary my dear sir, the weight of evidence exists with the theist whereas the atheist must scratch their bums and hope that someday, somewhere some evidence will be found to support the claim that God does not exist !

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thank you badwater my sentiments exactly. by the way, i read somewhere that you are a native American, if so, can i just say that it has been a childhood dream of mine to meet a native American, ever since i was a small kid i had a fascination with the culture, a hope that i still harbour, perhaps one day i may be privileged - regards Robert.

I'm not native, no, that's my significant other - lostapache. 🙂

Originally posted by rwingett
Banal? How so? Theism is the position that a god, or gods, exists. Atheism is simply the observation that that position is unwarranted by the available evidence. What is there for it to achieve?

in effect, if this is true then atheism has achieved absolutely zero, center of a doughnut, zilch, heehaw!, however im not buying it! now if i may be permitted to quote a biblical verse that has some bearing on the subject, which states that, ' wisdom is proved righteous by its works', (by wisdom we mean the application of knowledge for a particular purpose, and by righteous we mean, as in the ancient Greek sense of virtue, in that something is well suited for a particular purpose, and by works we mean the result of the application of the knowledge), therefore one should be well disposed to ask, what has been the result, on individuals and the societies in which the adoption of an atheistic outlook has been prevalent, and i think you will find that it is nothing short of astonishing on how much ignorance and superstition still persists among the so called, 'enlightened', and ''educated'' atheistic.

for example , we can ask, how did life get here?, 'by evolution they will say', 'really what evidence exists for this? ummm already they are in a quandary, ' the fossil record! ', they will blurt out', really but we see whole species appear in the fossil record complete with backbone, vertebrates appear without precedence, 'there just aren't enough fossils', 'actually there are more than a hundred million extant fossils', 'well it must have been something', 'have you tried the theory of punctuated equilibrium', we may ask? and what has happened is that already they know nothing of what it is they purport to believe, it has not dispelled superstition and ignorance, i say the contrary is true, it has created more superstition and ignorance than the most ludicrous medieval religious beliefs!

Originally posted by Badwater
I'm not native, no, that's my significant other - lostapache. 🙂

awesome!

Originally posted by rwingett
This is incorrect. Atheists and theists are not in the same boat at all. The entire burden of proof rests with the theist, who is making the claim that there is a god. It is therefore up to him to provide some convincing evidence for his claim. If he cannot do so, then one should remain an atheist.

The atheist is not similarly required to 'disprove' the king. The complete lack of proof on the part of the theists is sufficient to warrant atheism.

I disagree. If one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a creator they are in the same boat. Burden of proof, or lack thereof, is not something required for one side of a theory but not the other.

It's not good enough to say that existence did not come about because of gods (or whatever label you care for) - one must come up with how in fact existence did come about or you're just wading in your own version of 'faith'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no this is also erroneous, perhaps you are confusing agnosticism with atheism, for it is the agnostic who claims that there is insufficient evidence for the proof or existence of god, the atheist declares that there is no god.

And to the theist there is abundant evidence for the existence of God, the visible universe, the inspired writings, the m ...[text shortened]... at someday, somewhere some evidence will be found to support the claim that God does not exist !

I'm afraid you're going on your own biases here, rather than with an actual definition of the term. The term 'atheism' simply means to be 'without theism', the prefix 'a' meaning 'without.' To be an atheist means to be without a belief in god. It doesn't matter how sure you are on the matter, but by definition if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

in popular usage agnosticism means that god is completely unknowable, or that the term 'god' is meaningless in itself. An agnostic therefore concludes that nothing more can be said on the issue.

An atheist says much the same thing except that he therefore concludes that the existence of god must be doubted (up to but not necessarily including claims of god's non-existence.)

I'll use one example for you, that of Richard Dawkins, one of the more famous (or infamous) atheists around. He readily concedes that god's non-existence cannot be known, but he very greatly doubts that he does exist. That is what almost all atheists will say. It is very rare to find one who actively claims to 'know' that god does not exist. Almost all knowledgeable atheists will express varying degrees of doubt about god's existence, but will stop short of making any active knowledge claims on the matter.

As it is obvious that you are a theist yourself, it seems that you've fallen victim to a bit of misrepresentation quite common to religious circles. Namely, misdefining atheists as necessarily making knowledge claims about god's non-existence (what is known as a 'hard atheist.'😉 I hope this has been useful in clearing up that error on your part.