Opinions are like assholes- everybody's got one.

What I have observed from being on FB for many years is that there are some people who are entrenched in their ideas and beliefs that don't progress regardless of the evidence before them, no matter what their beliefs are. However, I will argue that the people who lean more toward science, trusting in it, and it's experts, even if they are not themselves experts, are more open to new information, tend to be left leaning, and lot's of them are non believers.

As for beliefs I can tell you that I am aware of why I believe as I do. I have clear memories of how my belief in God, and an afterlife, dissipated within me. It didn't happen overnight, but took many years of working through different aspects of my beliefs, and being willing to confront and challenge the beliefs that I wanted to have. For instance I desperately wanted to believe in reincarnation, or reintarnation as my boyfriend Big Al used to call it, but the book or two I read in opposition to that idea was more logical, and I gave up the notion as wishful thinking. I would say that there a good many people who have given up their god beliefs who are very aware why they believe as they do.

Ohferpetessake, "neither side is interested in....scientific thought"?????
You are stretching the crap outta stuff to make your dubious post/point(s)

I'm an atheist plain and simple. Do I have any proof that gods do not exist? No, and neither do you. There is no proof either way but I am also not the one making claims. P.S. Atheism is not a religion. There is nothing here that I follow. As a one time believer I point out the fallacy of theism. Meanwhile, they just keep making it all up.

There is a considerable difference between theists and non-theists. No one is born a theist. No one is born believing in the existence of deities or religious dogma. Even if someone knew nothing of science be default they would be an atheist. Religion is a falsehood taught to people. Science is based in reason and facts.

How is NOT believing in a god any type of mental aberration? That's like saying that dishonesty and truthfulness are essentially the same thing.

Sure, you're just giving an opinion but your opinion does not make any sense to me.

Maybe now I will grant that, though I would happily argue otherwise. But in the future as religion becomes more and more the resort of the criminal, the anti-social, and the anti environmental. In fact anyone who needs it, because they can not find support for their views in science, reason, politics, law or even main stream opinion, or any of the other alternatives now on offer in the world, and have therefore to turn to the one support network that has no moral or intellectual minimums built in. Then it will soon become a very different case.

We may divide into tribes because we are genetically conditioned to be combative. But it is childishly simplistic indeed, to think that all tribes are equal, and that no tribe ever advanced, grew and prospered, because they had a greater claim to moral right or objective truth. ( Some times the evil prosper, yes. )Two hundred and more years ago there were too tribes, called the abolitionists and the pro-slavers, and the second were by far the majority, claiming that morality, law, reason, economics, tradition and, yes, religion supported their claims, and that the future would always belong to the slave owners. But now, although there is still much slavery in the world, they can no longer control governments, walk with pride in the streets, boast of the achievements or claim respect from the world at large. In fact they are marginalized, despised by many, never realistically dream of being a great power in the world again, and all the while they lurk in dark corners hiding their shame, and hoping that the extinction of their way of life will not come soon.

Atheism is not a religion, nor does it have FAITH there is no god. Does not believe = non-belief, it is the absence of belief/faith, not the belief/faith in the absence of something. I have already dealt with this issue here: "If I declare that my god is real and that it's scriptures are infallible."/

Agnosticism is irrelevant. Everyone is agnostic, including theists. They, like everyone else, DO NOT KNOW definitively if a god exists, that is why agnosticism is irrelevant.

Theist: theist = belief in god
Agnostic: a = without; gnostic = knowledge
Atheist: a = without; theist = belief in god

In order to know, you must have knowledge, in order to have knowledge, you must have evidence. Believers simply believe without evidence producing knowledge. An atheist or non-believer accepts knowledge that evidence produces. Theists have NOT produced any evidence for gods.

This is why atheists demand proof in order to obtain knowledge and theists demand belief in order to sustain their faith.

A god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.

There have been innumerable myths over the centuries that are no more real or relevant than they were when the first fool believed the idiot who invented them, it would be foolish to hold onto a false legitimacy of a god until it has been proven, the believer must prove their nonsense or "truth" with evidence first.

I don't think this site is a good example to base an informed opinion on either groups one way or the other. The people here arent representative of every other non-theist, nor are the religious subjects of our scrutiny representative of every other theist. What do you mean exactly by "godless delusion"? Ive read your previous theory on religion as an evolutionary hardwire of our cognitive development. Ive also read a few articles on the matter, and it still comes across to me as a socially constructed form of conditioning. "Do this for rain", "this god makes rain", "it rained, so belief has reward". In certain aspects, I could see how it may have been helpful as we developed depth to our sapience, particularly with morality and survival amongst many adversarial tribes. Let alone the simple exploration of existence. Fear creates many advantageous inventions for escaping itself. I'm curious to know if you're looking at this from a purely scientific curiosity, or if religion has more credence to you, personally. Either way is your prerogative. And I already know you aren't concerned with anyone else's judgement.

In my opinion.
The main difference between science and religion is. Science is logic based and practical. Religion offers community support and gives comfort.

Both can be beneficial and both can be abused.

Only by being educated is it possible to get away from our biases. No one gets out alive and no one gets to be special.

The bottom line is: People ARE. That's it, people are people. All people fallible, annoying, amazing, hopelessly flawed, contrary, and essentially all of the above plus everything else; and very, very human. Belief system doesn't make us better than anyone else.

Your assessment could apply in some degree to any controversial social issue, between people who have come to their conclusions one way or another, whether from myth or science, false or true history, propaganda or facts... Republican vs Democrat, Vaxxers vs Anti-vaxxers, Pro-GMO Research vs Anti-GMO Research, Organic Farming vs Conventional Farming, Pluralistic Culturalists vs One Race Supremacists...

Anyone set in their ways by the way they were brought up, or new information / disinformation recently learned, personal research and education or loyalty to cultural background, and is happy where they are might be in a position to not want to budge, while others may continue to be open to change.

Those who still question, or are unhappy with their current stance, whether because of feeling outnumbered or wishing to be different, might be willing to hear the other side.

I suspect this holds true of the two positions generally--not just on these sites.

Well, if this all comes down to little more than preference for a different flavor of ice cream so to speak, then I would at least hope, and the comments below give me hope, that this community finds your characterization less objectionable than would that other community.

To use this site as a generalization against all atheists is delusional at best. One this site is not a very large community of people, maybe a couple hundred actives. Two the average age of this group overall is very high, so there is a generational gap in this small community. I'm not sure what believer group you frequent, but I'm sure it can't be too far off from here. To have such an opinion based on such a small group of people is a waste of time in my opinion. It's like taking a cup of water out of the ocean and believing the comparison between that cup and the ocean are one and the same.

I agree with you and have no ax to grind with believers. I just want peaceful, respectful co-existence. For them to keep the separation of church and state and for them to leave me alone with my Agnosticism. I identify as Agnostic because I have enough humility to realize that my non-belief is no more empirically proveable than their belief.

Yeah. I'm gonna have to call BS. But, like you say.. I will ignore you

To be totally objective and unbiased takes substantial effort because one must educate oneself.

Most of us on this platform are open to current scientific thought.

All you have to do is show us some science.

What you're posting is either tenuous but confirms your biases, or things you post that you've misread or haven't read at all.

You post idiotic tripe and then disappear when intelligent people call you on it.

You can also stick your "both sides are just as bad" dipshittery straight up your ass.

False equivalency is for assholes.

It is very kind of you to condescend to keep with the standards that you regard as the norm for this site.
I doubt that anyone is surprised by the first statement that you made in your post. Also, you stated that it is your earnestly held opinion, nice one! ! I’m surprised that you have not included Neils Bohr’s principle of complementarity in your post and stretched it to mean that atheists and theists just represent complementary viewpoints. Can we expect to learn that you have transcended all opposites and reached Nirvana?

“Neither side is more interested
in, or aware of, current
scientific thought.”

It seems to me that the above quote is indicative of your obdurate stance with regard to your previous post and the claim that it is based in science. A claim that you failed to prove. I see your stance/opinions as nothing more than an emotive appeal that is characteristic of a sophist, which, explains your failure to produce evidence in support of your claim.

Ever since the birth of modern science it has become increasingly popular to use the word ‘science’ , therefore, it is hardly surprising the we have ‘social science’ ‘political science’ etc etc. Some people think that by using or referring to the word ‘science’ that it lends weight to their viewpoint. After all, science is the great legitimizing force in today’s world. Marry Baker Eddy quickly cottoned on to the word ‘science’ and founded ‘Christian Science.’

To claim that your viewpoint is based in science requires more than saying it is so. Referring to numerous published papers that have no scientific data, merely compilations of opinions/viewpoints, is not science. Of course, it is perfectly understandable that some people would like their cherished beliefs to be regarded as science, after all, they may have invested a lot of time in such beliefs.

Some people would not recognize a scientific paper if it was placed held in front of them.

In a previous post you referred to stretching words where sometimes the meanings of words overlap. You may recall that I challenged you on that point and quoted the scene where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass:

“ ‘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.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’

The meanings of words exist because of tacit agreements among people. In much the same way that every game has a set of rules, the rules define the limits of the moves that can be made in any game. Without such rules no game is possible.

So, when it comes to the use of the word science you have shown that you have much in common with Humpty Dumpty. Therefore, when you refer to similar states of ignorance among theists and atheists with regard to science, you might want to think about including yourself in one of those tribal groups to which your refer in your post.

And you offer no evidence of any God or absence thereof, so how does this word salad offer any useful idea?

I have no problem with believing science when it is peer reviewed. I have no godless delusion, you can't be deluded if you lack a belief in any gods. So skado which deluded are you, god or godless?

There is no reason to work for peace between us and believers when they're working overtime to turn the world into a theocracy.

They don't want peace. They want our capitulation.

Generally, nonbelievers are better educated than believers. It's why we're nonbelievers. We're more educable because we're not hidebound by religious dogma that forbids us from accepting as facts things that are demonstrably true.

Just because we know you to be utterly full of shit doesn't mean we're uneducable or closed-minded.
There's such a thing as being so open-minded your brain falls out.

We are completely aware of why we think as we do, and will gladly explain it to you in terms even you can understand. We even have hand puppets.

I bet some of us already have explained it to you.

I've said it before. False equivalency is for assholes.

The only reason you've posted your little whine-fest is because your last few posts have been met with response by educated, intelligent people.

You are known for bullying people here. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

"Sincerely held beliefs/opinions" are bullshit.

If they can't be supported by evidence, they're without merit, no matter how sincerely-held they are.

I can sincerely hold the belief/opinion that I'm Princess of Canada, but if I can't back it up with the necessary paperwork....

Stop wasting everybody's time with your fucking nonsense.

Evolution: Religion :: Thinking: Believing