I'd say atheists CAN feel 100% sure a god does not exist. Most don't, I don't (I'm 99.9% sure just as I'm 99.9% sure there are no mermaids under the sea & that's as near as damn it isn't it?) But the issue of atheism is nothing at all to do with feeling sure. It's only about one thing: Belief & no atheists believe god claims. Talking about claims to knowledge as far as atheists are concerned is missing the mark just as it would be if there was such a thing as 'amermaidists' who are told they cannot be 100% certain there are none under the sea somewhere because only 1% (or whatever) of the ocean's content is known.

In a world where the vast majority of people who say there are mermaids down there somewhere (or a God up there somewhere) it's for the believers to justify their claims not for the unbelievers who don't buy it regardless of whether they feel 100% sure such claims are unfounded or just 50%. - Or would you take exception to me saying I know there are no mermaids under the sea when I'm told this isn't the case?

When facts are not clear, math dose not lie

When the earth's 1 percent mass surface is 6km deep. When humans only collectively know less then 1percent about this earth mass. How anyone claim to know physically untouched 99 percent unknown mass. My imagination guess there is no mermaids, fairies, big or Aliens on the earth. Answers are better understood somewhere between extreme atheist and the Religious.

@Castlepaloma 'When facts are not clear, math dose not lie'

No it doesn't but how does that suggest a god might exist?

'When the earth's 1 percent mass surface is 6km deep.'

OK.

'When humans only collectively know less then 1percent about this earth mass. How anyone claim to know physically untouched 99 percent unknown mass.'

Can't we make a relatively accurate educated guess from what we DO know?

'My imagination guess there is no mermaids, fairies, big or Aliens on the earth.'

Exactly.

'Answers are better understood somewhere between extreme atheist and the Religious'

Why take any notice of supernatural claims at all though? I can't see how it even a coherent concept on closer inspection. What do you think it could mean?

@Castlepaloma 'When facts are not clear, math dose not lie'

No it doesn't but how does that suggest a god might exist?

'When the earth's 1 percent mass surface is 6km deep.'

OK.

'When humans only collectively know less then 1percent about this earth mass. How anyone claim to know physically untouched 99 percent unknown mass.'

Can't we make a relatively accurate educated guess from what we DO know?

'My imagination guess there is no mermaids, fairies, big or Aliens on the earth.'

Exactly.

'Answers are better understood somewhere between extreme atheist and the Religious'

Why take any notice of supernatural claims at all though? I can't see how it even a coherent concept on closer inspection. What do you think it could mean?

When we have a US Congress that 99℅Jewish/Christian and Trump 1000℅ behind Isreal, we have a major cluster fuck.

Richard Dawkins said Nationaism is more dangerous than Religion. Makes sense because the golden rule is who own the gold, make the rules. That would be the fake Jew Zionist.

My imagination is the most God-like feature That being the subconscious more powerful than the conscious mind. Follow up shortly with math facts and logic. Where as for the greedy bastard NWO think they own everything like corrupted Gods.

Solutions confront the synthetic fearing bankers and politican and lock them up long term. Model- Iceland bankruptcy turned around to become one of the happiest countries in the world.

Yes, atheist do less crimes and marriage rate are better and last longer.

Christians claim they live longer and have better paying job and lead the country. That could be called stacking the deck in their favor.

I don't quite get your point here @godef

"Fallacies about your so called fallacies..."

Isn't that shifting the burden of evidence? Remember is a response to a claim not a claim in & of itself.

"1) It's not up to atheists to prove there isn't a god; it's logically impossible to prove something doesn't exist."

Often yes - especially with god claims so your point is...? What?

"There's no faith involved, we simply react to the fact that we have never seen anything that remotely indicates the existence of God."

Yes so you point is...?

"To the contrary, the onus is on the believer to prove God exists."

Of course it is!

"2) This is really just paraphrasing of #1... doesn't count."

It's nothing of the sort!

"3) Irrelevent. Pity those who suck on the drug of religion and waste their lives praying to Santa Claus for lack of a bad experience. Hope he brings you a lump of coal."

so how is it a fallacy fallacy?

"4) Again, this is really just paraphrasing of #1... we're down to 8 delusions."

OK I'll give you that one - it's what atheists claim in so many ways!

"Do you have mermaid nightmares?"

No. Should I?

"I have bad dreams about unicorns."

Are they worse?

"5) Irrelevent. What do believers do when they're not sinning? The same thing atheists do when they're "inappropriately behaving". We all want to do it."

'It'??? There's no such thing as sin! It's a made up crime!

"6) I believe in the New England Patriots."

OK that's you.

"I believe the sun will rise in the morning."

I believe the earth will probably keep on spinning & the sun will come into view for about 12 hours myself. Nothing actually 'rises'.

"Unlike the notion of God, I have plenty to base these "beliefs" on."

No you don't the sun isn't moving in relation to us it's visa-versa.

"The point being, belief is not synonymous with religion."

So you can be genuinely religious but not believe a supernatural claim? Errr... how?

"7) Alright, this one is just plain dumb."

They're all dumb! That's the point I'm making!

"I walked outdoors this morning and saw a bird, so I know for sure birds exist."

Unless you're in the matrix!

"Drove my car to work, so I know cars exists and that I have a job."

Unless it was a dream!

"Should I stop now?"

No feel free to continue...

"Another rerun; see #5."

Because...? Can't you explain WHY it is?

"9) There are no religious in hell, either."

What hell? Allahs? Jehovah's? There are a lot to choose from!

"Want to make a bet?"

How would it be settled?

"For every atheist in a foxhole who converted to a believer, there are hundreds of thousands of believers who have become atheist under far less peril than a foxhole."

Do you have any data to support that claim?

"10) God is only imaginary to the extent that someone else besides me wants to believe in him."

So if I want to believe in Santa Claus he's kinda real somehow yeah?

"So please don't speak for me."

Did I say I was?

"I don't sit here thinking he's imaginary, I simply don't see any evidence he exists."

You know it's perfectly possible to be both agnostic AND atheist at the same time you know? Knowledge Is A Subset Of Belief. We act on what we believe therefore that's what really matters. There's a disjunction between 'I do not believe' & 'I do not know'.

"Like most anybody else on this site, I was conditioned as a child to accept the existence of God, and I think it's a credit to each our intelligences that we've been able to see through the fairy tales."

Yes. But it should be pretty obvious shouldn't it?

"As a child, you and I both eventually stopped believing in Santa Clause. As an adult, I have stopped believing in God. Please catch up already!"

Actually I never believed in God either but I did at least try!

"All the twisted logic you present is typical of the religious."

Indeed.

"In the end, it always comes down to the same thing: YOU CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. And until you can, please spare us of all this silly nonsense. It's nothing but cheap spin."

Well I'm only agreeing it IS silly nonsense. What did you think I was saying then?

So true! This is a very frequent comment.

Kind of the same thing, but I'm often told atheists have no foundation for morals. Obviously false for the reasons you give.

Atheists don't have a monopoly on those things

Can you point me in the direction of the wild sex orgies please? (Oh & I'm right out of babies - got any to spare HF?)

Oh I wish we held regular orgies, that would be great fun, but eating babies, No way because Atheists are NOT practising/pseudo-cannibals. Whereas the Xtian sacrament taking can easily and logically classed as being an act of Pseudo-Cannibalism. I.e. the drink the blood ( pseudo blood of course) and the body ( pseudo flesh of course) of the Idol whom they worship and claim blesses and empowers them after they have eaten it, exactly the same reasoning as to why real cannibals used to devour their captive enemies.

@Triphid , Oh, don't go all serious on us, babies don't possess any power they are just tasty.

@HeathenFarmer
Many Christains think atheist are worst than rapist.
Don't you rape your babies first to tender them up for good eating.?

When sex related sins are the greatest amount of sins. I can imagine Hell would be a hot nightclub.

Religion is working on cancelling hell, because it make them sound too sicko.

I'm not so sure I can agree with what your's saying here JHeyoka. I'll explain why piecemeal.

"1,2,10: People get caught up proving or disproving god instead of defining the word. The dictionary has a very good definition of it. 'a person or thing of supreme value'"

What??! The world's largest diamond is of supreme value but it's hardly a 'god' is it? The fastest race horse is of supreme value but again it's not a god. One's child or spouse is generally of supreme value to us but neither are gods are they?

"I would go a step further in saying a 'God' is any person, place, object, concept or activity whether physical or non physical that an individual devotes an inordinate amount of time and dedication to."

No that's stretching the envelope WAY too far. People or things can certainly be said to be godlike metaphorically but a metaphor is always symbolic not literal.

"By this definition, we all have many gods."

By that definition yes but it's an inaccurate definition. There certainly are many god claims.

"Whether or not there is a powerful man in the sky who does what he wishes with the cosmos is really not important at all, is it?"

It would be if it were true. It would be of immense importance actually & this is what religious people believe which is why it's an issue because beliefs have consequences.

"He's gonna do whatever he wants."

Maybe but if he were real perhaps he can be persuaded to favor us if we ask him nicely enough! L.O.L!

"3: Yup, usually we have bad experiences with people, not 'a religion', and I agree that anyone holding onto 'atheist' tends to be angry and unexamined about it"

But I didn't say it was necessarily bad experiences with people. It's bad ideas i.e. Unsupportable claims about gods which no one has ever been able to justify which is the real problem.

"4: I'm still willing to believe mermaids exist, just like Nephilim, other dimensions and the inner earth, but I don't have proof and I wouldn't argue about anything other than possibility."

I don't believe you could actually tell yourself mermaids really might exist. In principle they might but in principle almost ANYTHING might but in practice if I told you there were actually mermaid do you seriously expect me to believe you could accept that claim as a serious proposition? Try it. Try believing mermaids exist & you will find that the harder you try the more you appreciate you're trying to kid yourself & this is precisely the dilemma atheist face when they try to believe something that rightly or wrongly they discover that they cannot.

5: True, and funny. The word 'sin' is so often used to describe disobeying someone else's rules (incorrect, oppressive) when the truth is that it means to act against your own self interest.

So we are in agreement here!

6: Nihilism is actually impossible, you can't believe in nothing because you are, things are, you do things, you experience stuff, there is a truth.

But nihilism isn't believing nothing exists, it''s having no values.

"Also 'belief' is not like a piece of clothing you can take on and off, it's serious business, when you believe its because you really believe, not because you wish."

Correct & this contradicts your claim that you could actually believe there are mermaids somewhere under the sea doesn't it?

7: That's a cool word. I think the personal experience is all that can be proven to exist, which incorporates the inner and outer world.

Again you've missed the point. It can't incorporate the outer world because solipsism is about only believing in your inner experiences but nothing about an outer reality.

8: RACIST! I mean... religionist... like is that a word? Lol.

I never used the word 'religionist' so I don't know why you are implying I did.

"9: Switching sides on your death bed is so lame. Remember that guy benny in the first Mummy movie with a symbol from each religion around his neck, begging each one to save him? Such cowardice."

I doubt it happens as often as theists claim it does if at all. - Why would it?

"---so I'm not sure if you were replying to someone else's list here, now that I've finished writing this, I just like talking about this stuff, I hope nothing was seemingly offensive"

No.

1,2,10 - When referencing "value" here, it is more on the 'of personal importance' definition, rather than the 'to be looked upon as somehow all powerful, of undeniable societal necessity, or as a wizard of some kind'. Perhaps 'Idol' would have suited your way of speaking better?

7: i was not attempting to redefine solipsism, since i have never heard the word, merely stating that i personally like the sentiment of it, as it alludes to my personal understanding that the personal experience is what can be proven, and that we must be respectful of other personal experiences

@JHeyoka thanks for your reply. I will comment on what you've said...

"1,2,10 - When referencing "value" here, it is more on the 'of personal importance' definition, rather than the 'to be looked upon as somehow all powerful, of undeniable societal necessity, or as a wizard of some kind'. Perhaps 'Idol' would have suited your way of speaking better?"

I;d say 'God-like' but being like something isn't the same as being something is it?

"7: I was not attempting to redefine solipsism, since I have never heard the word, merely stating that I personally like the sentiment of it, as it alludes to my personal understanding that the personal experience is what can be proven, and that we must be respectful of other personal experiences"

Some of them but many of them are highly toxic because people's personal experiences lead to beliefs & beliefs often sponsor inappropriate action don't they?

I agree with your view regarding sin. Sad to say I failed in one of our exams in law school concerning sin as a human right, LOL

I think morality encompasses all beliefs and all humanity

Btw, Gothrik, IF you check the Historical FACTS re-Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime you will find that Hitler was a very devout Xtian and also that the Catholic Church signed a pact with the Nazis that remained in place throughout the entire Second World War. The R.C.C. also helped numerous High Nazi Officials escape from Europe and get into Argentina, etc, to avoid capture by the Allies.

Inappropriate. Detrimental. The idea of secular humanism indicates that actions which are beneficial to human prosperity can be called "good". Actions that are detrimental will generally be considered "bad". So we can call them evil, but only by subjective human standards.

Yes I agree with everything JosephHarrison has said except "but only by subjective human standards." - Only? Suffering & happiness are intrinsically human experiences & we al know one is nice & the other isn't (do i need to say which is which?) This means they are both 'foundational' i.e. We can't really argue that they need further justification.

@JosephHarrison and @Paul: thanks for the rich vocabulary. I'm planning to go back to law school sometime next year.

Good and bad are judgments of value, they are relative and, as such, you can just use the term that works best with your own frame of reference. For a non-relative way to judge actions, you can try egoistical (which is done without taking other people into account) and altruistic (which is done while putting others' interest ahead of your own [except for Ayn Rand, but she loved to make up new definitions for every word of the dictionary]). I can't really think of other non-relative ways to judge actions at the moment.

Thanks for your reply @MarcO I will comment on each aspect:

"Good and bad are judgments of value,"

Yes, some thinks have positive value on general well being, other negative.

"they are relative and, as such, you can just use the term that works best with your own frame of reference."

'Just'? Well what if the frame of reference is general well being rather than simply yours?

"For a non-relative way to judge actions, you can try egoistical (which is done without taking other people into account) and altruistic (which is done while putting others' interest ahead of your own

Well this can be confusing because some 'self centered' actions actions are valid & not really 'selfish' as such - others can be 'all centered' (or 'you centered' & also may not be appropriate to well being if it cost you too dearly. i.e. There's more to it than simple selfishness & altruism. It's more complicated than that.

"[except for Ayn Rand, but she loved to make up new definitions for every word of the dictionary])."

I wouldn't be surprised! It's what's called Humpty Dumpty syndrome - '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"I can't really think of other non-relative ways to judge actions at the moment."

Just take a bigger view: Is there evidence this is OK if everyone acted the same way or would it end up harming in the bigger picture?