Atheism - alive and well in Thailand?

[Hermes100]

I respect those who say the truth " I believe ...there will be a place in heaven" is fine. I used to believe in father Christmas. Now I do not because we all know he does not exist.

We also all know that there is not a shred of real evidence of either God's ( all 2000 of them) nor heavens or hell's or vitually anything claimed by any of major relgions.

And yet, as adults we still seem to want to cling to these.

I think the word 'faith' ( accepting something without any evidence) very dangerous.

Would you book a hotel on faith?

Buy a car on faith?

Find the best doctor for your loved one on faith?

No, you would use a logic chain as you do in every other area of your life to decide.

It will be based upon rationality which would weed out who/what is viable.You would not hear '

I choose XXX just because it was written 2000 odd years ago in an old book which can be read 1001 ways, is devoid of substantial evidence, but I was told to just "have faith' so to hell with the logic I apply to everything else, i choose XXX anyway"

Religon exists because is appeals to ones ego ( you are special and loved), allays the fear of death and provides the 'feel good factor" .

Without that one could not expect to see something so utterly flawed still in existence.

A sad statement upon mankind.

Atheism is the 'faith' that the universe was created by chemical chance.

[Hermes100]

so , so wrong , athsim has nothing to with it because about beleiving the universe was created by sceincitfic chance. We often do not really beleive in chance either.We only need point holes in relgious theory- its is the one making the assertion. NOT us.

Although many athists may talk like that.That is their opinion.

This does not concern us and should not. All we point to, all we are concerned with is relgion's total and utter failure to even so much as show a shred of credibility .

Relgions lack of evidence is what concerns us.

We do not like 'faith" we like science because unlike talking snakes, virgin births,. flying chariots,etc,etc which are devoid of evidence we can demostrate all we claim.

You can show- nothing.

Its that nothing that is cauing the death of relgion.Common sense is prevailing.

[Hermes100]

Incidently Dawkins considers there to be a scale of Atheist belief, he rates himself a 10 because he is utterly convinced that there was no supernatural element in the building blocks that created earth. I would consider myself perhaps a 9 because I cannot entirely rule out some form of ' alien ' contribution. It is however a huge leap to then believe that said ' alien , billions of years on continues to guide and mould mankind. Hence I completely reject the theist concept of a God , that makes me an atheist.

'

no he never did- not even once. He rated himself 9.9.All true athists are agnostic in that we must, because we choose to go where the evidence leads us and we cannot prove there is not a god, only that its incredabley unlikely beyond all plausiblity ( which God, there are 2000, why no evidence)

And so, unlike relgius people, we must keep a tiny shred open for that.

Remember, atheist do not say " there is no god' that is anti-athiesim. We just say " based upon what we see and what you claim but are totally unable to show- we choose not to beleive in your assertion- we make none, we need show nothing'

[GuyL]

Incidently Dawkins considers there to be a scale of Atheist belief, he rates himself a 10 because he is utterly convinced that there was no supernatural element in the building blocks that created earth. I would consider myself perhaps a 9 because I cannot entirely rule out some form of ' alien ' contribution. It is however a huge leap to then believe that said ' alien , billions of years on continues to guide and mould mankind. Hence I completely reject the theist concept of a God , that makes me an atheist.

'

no he never did- not even once. He rated himself 9.9.All true athists are agnostic in that we must, because we choose to go where the evidence leads us and we cannot prove there is not a god, only that its incredabley unlikely beyond all plausiblity ( which God, there are 2000, why no evidence)

And so, unlike relgius people, we must keep a tiny shred open for that.

Remember, atheist do not say " there is no god' that is anti-athiesim. We just say " based upon what we see and what you claim but are totally unable to show- we choose not to beleive in your assertion- we make none, we need show nothing'

Actually, Dawkins proposed a continuous spectrum of probabilities between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven milestones:

1 - Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2 - De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3 - Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4 - Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5 - Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6 - De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7 - Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)

[Hermes100]

I think we are mixing 2 different issues.

1/ Is there a god / gods?

I don't believe there is, but I completely don't care that others do believe, to me it is not an issue, what does it matter?

2/ Organised religion.

Every organised religion is evil, stupid, nonsensical, based on indoctrination, backward.

Of course one could argue that believing in god(s) will inevitably lead to organised religion.

But let's be optimistic.

Stranger things have happened.

After all, is atheism not the fruit of the christian culture?

no,its not, athism existed long before and was the driving point of some main teachings.

Please check out the lectures by Fraser Clarke.

And anyone who think the debate of relgion vs athism is just " hotair" is pretty dum,, is the debate between tuth/untruth, progress/ no progress- just 'hot air'?

Relgion is the fruit,. a rotten one of the male agenda ego.

A tool needed to control idiots and at same time make then blindly follow it and..... the genius part of it, do so blindly because it offered them what the fool/backward craze for so much= feel special/valued/loved/important.

The 'fruits' of this so wretched man (male) man enity " fath" doing something because the bgig juju wants to you and has a nice little plan just for you! can be seen throughout history,,, the suppression of the female, the crusades, the inquistion,the reasons why some nations are really messed us with little hope of real progress any time soon.

[nidieunimaitre]

The history of the world is all about POWER IN HUMAN RELATIONS.

Religion, man / woman, politics, armies, economics, ....

Religion is nothing but just another tool to oppress people.

Civilisation is at best a thin layer of paint.

In the sixties I believed that the world was progressing.

I am not so sure now anymore.

But I will always stick to " ni dieu ni maitre"

[nidieunimaitre]

I googled Fraser Clarke - nothing usefull came up.

Can you give a link or more details?

[KarenBravo]

The history of the world is all about POWER IN HUMAN RELATIONS.

Religion, man / woman, politics, armies, economics, ....

Religion is nothing but just another tool to oppress people.

Civilisation is at best a thin layer of paint.

In the sixties I believed that the world was progressing.

I am not so sure now anymore.

But I will always stick to " ni dieu ni maitre"

Wrong, most of the history of mankind is about the movement of peoples and their consequences.

[nidieunimaitre]

The history of the world is all about POWER IN HUMAN RELATIONS.

Religion, man / woman, politics, armies, economics, ....

Religion is nothing but just another tool to oppress people.

Civilisation is at best a thin layer of paint.

In the sixties I believed that the world was progressing.

I am not so sure now anymore.

But I will always stick to " ni dieu ni maitre"

Wrong, most of the history of mankind is about the movement of peoples and their consequences.

movement of peoples >>> subduing the peoples who lived there before >>>> power over others

[muratremix]

The history of the world is all about POWER IN HUMAN RELATIONS.

Religion, man / woman, politics, armies, economics, ....

Religion is nothing but just another tool to oppress people.

Civilisation is at best a thin layer of paint.

In the sixties I believed that the world was progressing.

I am not so sure now anymore.

But I will always stick to " ni dieu ni maitre"

I agree with everything you just said.

[attrayant]

A good example would be aliens.

Replace fairies by aliens and see how many atheists still believe in aliens or at least don't rule out the possibility...

I don't think it's a good idea to substitute a natural thing for a supernatural one. That's the point at which most atheists draw the line.

If you mean aliens as in 'any form of life that is alien (i.e. not native) to Earth', then yes it's almost a metaphysical certainty. Organic compounds self-assemble easily under conditions that are common throughout the universe. On the other hand if you mean a technological society as we have here on Earth, then the odds are much lower. Depending on what numbers you assign to the different variables in the Drake Equation, the answer is either tens of thousands, or less than one.

But all of the above is a matter of odds and probability - it has nothing to do with belief. Even if you firmly establish the possibility of alien life at 70% (amazingly good odds), that doesn't allow you to make the subsequent leap of logic to "I believe it exists". The best you can say is "it probably exists".

Flip a coin and don't look at the result. How do you believe it landed - heads or tails? There's a 50% chance for whichever answer you pick - that's pretty good odds. But probability gives you no basis upon which to establish a belief. The best you can do is guess, and in repeat trials you'll be right half the time.

Moving back to the subject of fairies or supernatural beings, I can be atheistic about those because we know that the laws of nature work the same everywhere. I don't need to look in every spot on Earth to know that Santa Claus doesn't exist because the laws of physics simply don't permit such a being to exist. In order for me to begin to believe that such beings might possibly exist, I would first have to see evidence that supports such a conclusion. Say, for example, somebody who can magically levitate or and therefore defy established laws of physics would have me seriously reevaluating my belief system about supernatural beings. But thus far, no such evidence has been forthcoming and I therefore rest my beliefs upon what we do know (that the laws of nature don't permit the existence of magical beings) rather than what we don't know ("golly, anything's possible!").

Edited August 21, 2014 by attrayant

[manarak]

A good example would be aliens.

Replace fairies by aliens and see how many atheists still believe in aliens or at least don't rule out the possibility...

I don't think it's a good idea to substitute a natural thing for a supernatural one. That's the point at which most atheists draw the line.

If you mean aliens as in 'any form of life that is alien (i.e. not native) to Earth', then yes it's almost a metaphysical certainty. Organic compounds self-assemble easily under conditions that are common throughout the universe. On the other hand if you mean a technological society as we have here on Earth, then the odds are much lower. Depending on what numbers you assign to the different variables in the Drake Equation, the answer is either tens of thousands, or less than one.

But all of the above is a matter of odds and probability - it has nothing to do with belief. Even if you firmly establish the possibility of alien life at 70% (amazingly good odds), that doesn't allow you to make the subsequent leap of logic to "I believe it exists". The best you can say is "it probably exists".

Flip a coin and don't look at the result. How do you believe it landed - heads or tails? There's a 50% chance for whichever answer you pick - that's pretty good odds. But probability gives you no basis upon which to establish a belief. The best you can do is guess, and in repeat trials you'll be right half the time.

Moving back to the subject of fairies or supernatural beings, I can be atheistic about those because we know that the laws of nature work the same everywhere. I don't need to look in every spot on Earth to know that Santa Claus doesn't exist because the laws of physics simply don't permit such a being to exist. In order for me to begin to believe that such beings might possibly exist, I would first have to see evidence that supports such a conclusion. Say, for example, somebody who can magically levitate or and therefore defy established laws of physics would have me seriously reevaluating my belief system about supernatural beings. But thus far, no such evidence has been forthcoming and I therefore rest my beliefs upon what we do know (that the laws of nature don't permit the existence of magical beings) rather than what we don't know ("golly, anything's possible!").

from my point of view, QED.

[nidieunimaitre]

There are no scientific / logical reasons to assume that fairies or gods can exist.

BUT.

There are indeed scientific / logical reasons to assume that aliens can exist.

certainly.

but the relevant question is: do you *believe* aliens exist, without any proof or hint ?

I do not "believe" that aliens exist, but I consider it possible, even likely.

I do not "believe" god or fairies exists, and I consider it impossible, not just unlikely.

(And I have problems with the word "believe", as it is used in different meanings.)

oh dear!

Dear Pops, please explain your comment.

[Hermes100]

The Four Square Church of Atheism meets at a bar every Wednesday in Pattaya. There we sing lovely hymns such as " There is no God " and " Where Will I Go When I Die " . We all adjourn after 12 beers with a lovely wench to our little monastic cells.

I am sure this is meant in jest- and please accept my apology if it it is

if not I think any spent mocking anyone without any hint of sometime positive or an alternatiove offered, this is the true label of what the brits call a 'sad bastard'.

Most relgious people are fine, good people, and very well meaning

yes, they should slowly come to understand exactly what blind faith causes but only by polite discouse. And then after indulging in so much beer to go out and expoilting a young female simply because you benifit from living in a land which is truly backward because of the ideal's you mock quite pathietic and morally disgusting.

Atheism is about truth- the truth is 'men" like you give it a bad name.

You disgust me.

[orosee]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

Edited August 22, 2014 by orosee

[orosee]

By the way, atheism should be used in the broader sense (I've seen it from Sagan, Hitchens and of course Dawkins): Rejection of supernatural causes and effects. Because that would include non-deist religions (often wrongly labeled philosophies) such as practiced forms of Buddhism (anything that includes karma, offerings, prayers etc.) and new age rubbish.

The problem with deist arguments in discussions is generally that these arguments have been refuted many times yet tend to pop up again and again, mainly to derail and convolute an otherwise clear and clean train of thought.

[manarak]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

I don't see any problem with Pascal's wager.

His words were primarily directed at the church, at a time when being an atheist could cost one his life.

"acting as if" = make believe.

Your example about the wire is flawed. Let's say the wire is connected to a switch.

The Atheist will see the switch in the "off" position and touch the wire.

It's rather the Agnostic who will test the wire for current, because he doesn't know the switch, maybe it has been wired wrong inside, or the "on" and "off" labels are swapped.

The Agnostic will also have tested the wire tester on live current before and after the test to make sure it tests correctly.

The Agnostic knows something is not there when it has been proven that it is not there.

The Atheist will jump to conclusions.

For example, let's say the wire is not connected to anything - the atheist will trust his knowledge and touch the wire. Maybe static electricity will kill him.

Edited August 22, 2014 by manarak

[manarak]

By the way, atheism should be used in the broader sense (I've seen it from Sagan, Hitchens and of course Dawkins): Rejection of supernatural causes and effects. Because that would include non-deist religions (often wrongly labeled philosophies) such as practiced forms of Buddhism (anything that includes karma, offerings, prayers etc.) and new age rubbish.

The problem with deist arguments in discussions is generally that these arguments have been refuted many times yet tend to pop up again and again, mainly to derail and convolute an otherwise clear and clean train of thought.

There is just a problem with that:

Any science that is advanced enough will appear as magic to less developed people.

Once the allegedly supernatural has been scientifically explained, it ceases to be surpernatural, right?

What if some of today's supernatural stuff that gets dismissed today gets explained by science tomorrow? Does truth change? Is truth relative?

[wilcopops]

The history of the world is all about POWER IN HUMAN RELATIONS.

Religion, man / woman, politics, armies, economics, ....

Religion is nothing but just another tool to oppress people.

Civilisation is at best a thin layer of paint.

In the sixties I believed that the world was progressing.

I am not so sure now anymore.

But I will always stick to " ni dieu ni maitre"

Wrong, most of the history of mankind is about the movement of peoples and their consequences.

Really? Why do people move?​

[AyG]

What if some of today's supernatural stuff that gets dismissed today gets explained by science tomorrow? Does truth change? Is truth relative?

We're long past that point. There's no "today's supernatural stuff". The belief in gods and religion should have become quaint relics of the past long ago.

[wilcopops]

What if some of today's supernatural stuff that gets dismissed today gets explained by science tomorrow? Does truth change? Is truth relative?

We're long past that point. There's no "today's supernatural stuff". The belief in gods and religion should have become quaint relics of the past long ago.

That old jellybean!

The difference between Science and religion is basically that.

Science relies on demonstrable evidence.....this CHANGES CONSTANTLY as we learn more....it is based on SKEPTICISM - every theory that is put forward is ruthlessly puled apart and checked by peers.

Religion and supernatural changes little clinging to dogma, and belief. They apply the same set of "rules" to everything and constantly come up with the wrong answer.

[nidieunimaitre]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

Ah Pascal's Wager.

Suppose I am god ( silly idea, but can you prove that I am not?) - Where is the sarcasm symbol?

So I am god, and somebody decides to believe in me because if I truly were god, it would be in that person's best interest to believe in me. Now what would I think of that little egoistic smartass prick? Would I after his death feed him sweet rice with golden spoons, or give him 17 virgins?

Pascal may have been good at maths, he may have invented a programming language (....) , but he was a smartass, not a serious philosopher.

[orosee]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

Ah Pascal's Wager.

Suppose I am god ( silly idea, but can you prove that I am not?) - Where is the sarcasm symbol?

So I am god, and somebody decides to believe in me because if I truly were god, it would be in that person's best interest to believe in me. Now what would I think of that little egoistic smartass prick? Would I after his death feed him sweet rice with golden spoons, or give him 17 virgins?

Pascal may have been good at maths, he may have invented a programming language (....) , but he was a smartass, not a serious philosopher.

If you were God and could prove it, it would certainly put an end to this discussion. :-)

Although a real God would use Twitter, not ThaiVisa.

[orosee]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

I don't see any problem with Pascal's wager.

His words were primarily directed at the church, at a time when being an atheist could cost one his life.

"acting as if" = make believe.

Your example about the wire is flawed. Let's say the wire is connected to a switch.

The Atheist will see the switch in the "off" position and touch the wire.

It's rather the Agnostic who will test the wire for current, because he doesn't know the switch, maybe it has been wired wrong inside, or the "on" and "off" labels are swapped.

The Agnostic will also have tested the wire tester on live current before and after the test to make sure it tests correctly.

The Agnostic knows something is not there when it has been proven that it is not there.

The Atheist will jump to conclusions.

For example, let's say the wire is not connected to anything - the atheist will trust his knowledge and touch the wire. Maybe static electricity will kill him.

Good reply. But in your example, the agnostic would become an Atheist now, after testing.

Ah...

[manarak]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

I don't see any problem with Pascal's wager.

His words were primarily directed at the church, at a time when being an atheist could cost one his life.

"acting as if" = make believe.

Your example about the wire is flawed. Let's say the wire is connected to a switch.

The Atheist will see the switch in the "off" position and touch the wire.

It's rather the Agnostic who will test the wire for current, because he doesn't know the switch, maybe it has been wired wrong inside, or the "on" and "off" labels are swapped.

The Agnostic will also have tested the wire tester on live current before and after the test to make sure it tests correctly.

The Agnostic knows something is not there when it has been proven that it is not there.

The Atheist will jump to conclusions.

For example, let's say the wire is not connected to anything - the atheist will trust his knowledge and touch the wire. Maybe static electricity will kill him.

Good reply. But in your example, the agnostic would become an Atheist now, after testing.

Ah...

Doesn't apply.

It's about belief in a situation of incertitude. If the situation is certain, there is no belief.

[Hermes100]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

you do not understand atheism if you need to ask this question. We cannot proof there is no god.We do not say there is no god.We make no assertion.it is therefore not up to prove anything.

And we point at relgions total lack of a single shred of credible evidence and say " i choose not to belive based upon evidence, or lack of.

If you show an athesit evidence he would, or should change.

There are no real athists because if you say there is no God, you become a "anti-atheist" and must show some evidence.

Atheist like me must conceded in the possibility and that I have no idea what happens when I die ( nor any real care)- therefore in fact we're all agnostic.

Agnostics concede the possibilty.

[orosee]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

you do not understand atheism if you need to ask this question. We cannot proof there is no god.We do not say there is no god.We make no assertion.it is therefore not up to prove anything.

And we point at relgions total lack of a single shred of credible evidence and say " i choose not to belive based upon evidence, or lack of.

If you show an athesit evidence he would, or should change.

There are no real athists because if you say there is no God, you become a "anti-atheist" and must show some evidence.

Atheist like me must conceded in the possibility and that I have no idea what happens when I die ( nor any real care)- therefore in fact we're all agnostic.

Agnostics concede the possibilty.

I don't believe in gods, magic or the supernatural. I believe that the universal laws of physics prohibit the existence of such throughout the entire cosmos. Of course neither the atheist nor the anti-theist needs to supply evidence (since this negative can't be proven). Of course they are obliged to change their stance once they've been provide with irrefutable proof of the existence of such a being or force. I'm not holding my breath.

[nidieunimaitre]

"You can not prove a negative" - so you can not prove that god does not exist.

Classical reasoning, I have said it too.

But..... let me try.....

If there is a god, he is all mighty / all knowing / all powerfull / all good.

So why did he create human suffering / human weakness / human disobedience?

If the answer is: humans can defy god, then he is not all mighty, therefore he is not god

If the answer is: he enjoys this real life game, then he is not all good, therefore he is not god

Too lazy to edit, but feel free to replace god by gods /// he by she or it

[Hermes100]

I googled Fraser Clarke - nothing usefull came up.

Can you give a link or more details?

i wonder why, maybe i spelt name wrong

pls try again

best I have ever heard

he has scottish accent and his lecture " the great lie' is the single best one i have ever heard on this.

He come as close as possible in proving the utter absurdity of relgion and the real rational behind them all,

also how they are all basicly the same and why they promote what they do.

He also goes far deeper in disgussing the pagan relgions how they came into being and why they left, the differnce bettwen fake relgions and their true origin and why primate became man.

The only hard part for many on this truly great lecture is that part ( why primate became man.It was no accident in one sense and yet, certainly by no God type design. I totally accpet it because I have excpericed it)

to some it sounds so far fetched, to other like terrence mcknenna, Hawkings, and so many more, its make perfect sense espially when matched with hard evidence. Which it has.(dawkings admiting it sounded very likely possible-he says he know that they ( we) did oneday decide to walk out of the jungle and the results are us, but reserves complete agreement on the why because he is not an expert in that feild.

Fair enough.

[Hermes100]

I googled Fraser Clarke - nothing usefull came up.

Can you give a link or more details?

Fraser Clark: Monkey's Trip, A Short History of the Human Species

erocx1.blogspot.com/…er-clark-monkeys-trip-short...

Fraser Clark: Monkey's Trip, ... REVERSING THE 'BIG LIE' THE TRUE STORY OF Monkey's Marvelous Trip From The African Jungle To Inner & Outer Space.