Well you nearly snuck that by me. Here’s the problem: implied insults are still insults, and I told you to stop that. You also appear to be openly taunting people, which is only going to drive this thread off the rails. So knock if off immediately. Any more of this and you’ll start getting formal warnings.
As Richard Dawkins once said, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” 
I see what you are trying to do. You’re placing your own position on a pedestal, claiming that because it is moderate, allegedly unassuming, and capable of blithely criticizing both theists and atheists, it is somehow far more “reasonable” than others. Seize the middle ground and pretend to haughtily chuckle at everybody who actually has an opinion. Well, color me unimpressed.
Perhaps I can outline for you, by way of example, my own thoughts on the subject of god or gods. Then you can tell me what about them you think is “fervent,” “religious,” “faithful,” or otherwise unreasonable.
I am an atheist. You may fairly say that I do not believe any gods exist. I reach this conclusion through both negative and positive observations: 1) that there is no evidence that even suggests the existence of any such supernatural entity, and 2) the very concept of god or gods is quite obviously a human construction. So we have, on the one hand, no evidence for the hypothesis that God created Men; and on the other, strong historical and evolutionary evidence for the hypothesis that Men created God.
The same is true of other mythical entities like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. There is no objective reason to believe that these exist, and both are quite obviously just stories told to children by their parents. Given this information, it would be intellectually perverse to entertain the notion that Santa Claus actually exists. It is quite consistent with the evidence, in fact, to arrive at the conclusion that Santa Claus does not exist. That is the reasoning that makes me feel justified in concluding that gods do not exist. In much the same way, I feel justified in concluding that the sun will rise tomorrow at dawn, that Paris is a large city in France, and that if I follow a rainbow I won’t find a little green-suited man at the end of it guarding a pot of gold.
The kind of pointless epistemological masturbation you are indulging in would, if exercised consistently, force you to name me “religious” for believing that my car is still parked in the driveway just because that’s where I left it, and “fervent” for adamantly refusing to at least acknowledge the possibility that it is instead on, say, Mars.
Actually as a devout servant of Lord Jesus I do believe in the existence of Zeus.
Part of it is belief in the supernatural which is more a Christian belief then a Atheistic belief. I’m sure that many Christians may believe that there was, or at least may have been, a spiritual entity, such as a demon, who went by the name Zeus.
Or a Jew.
God is all around us, and creation testifies of Him. At a early point in our life we know this, we then go off to try to make it our way, we ignore and learn to ignore God. Do it often enough and you will come up with ways of justifying that God is not calling you and eventually believe it (yes Atheism is a belief system, actually IMHO a false on where one believes God is not calling you when He really is).
These things are happening today and have always happened, but we have allowed ourselves to be blinded to it. When one seeks their creator God, God will start to show them these wonders.
See above, they are still happening today, and yes anyone can see them of they seek God.
One reason is because Atheists don’t want to see these things, it would spoil their illusion as to how the world works. Also there are most likely, actually almost certain, roots that stem from some sort of resentment of God involved, the reason they tended to separate themselves from Him.
So do I
Some more then others 
Yes I would agree with that.
Actually it comes from a very basic starting premise, if there is a God or not. I personally know there is and also that the spiritual exists, and is more real then the physical which is really a just a illusion, much like Plato’s cave analogy.
One has to believe one of the 2, either way is a basis of belief system which defines reality for that person.
Missed this post earlier.
Just to clear this up in case you misunderstood my post, you realize I was being sarcastic, right? You said “An atheist has 50-50 odds. Either there is a god or there isn’t.” This is wrong.
Guess you were being sarcastic too? You realize just because there are two possible consequences to something, that doesn’t mean they both have 1/2 probability of coming to fruition, right? Otherwise I would think you would be pretty pissed about all the multi-million dollar jackpot lottery tickets you have bought and still haven’t won.
Just to be clear that I understand you: You’re saying that physical manifestations of God, of a magnitude similar to raising the dead, killing every firstborn child in egypt, rivers full of blood, plagues of locusts, darkness throughout the land, staves turning into snakes, destroyed cities and people turning into pillars of salt are happening right now, but people just can’t see them?
First of all, what strikes me as odd, is that all the events I’ve pointed out above (with the arguable exception of raising the dead), were done specifically towards those who lacked belief. The text you’re referring to simply undercuts your argument–since there, the manifestations of God weren’t things that only the faithful could see-they were specifically targeted to affect nonbelievers.
So what has changed to make these things so invisible to Atheists? (and, for that matter, most other believers?) I know plenty of religious people, and not one of them has ever even remarked that they saw any trace of any entity filling rivers with blood, turning out all the lights, or sending a plague of Schistocerca gregaria in their general direction.
Also, in my experience, many people are able to see things they don’t want to see. I don’t want to see the pile of work on my desk–but there it is, every morning. So I just don’t understand how “not wanting to see something” equals not seeing it.
Little child 1: I’m not listening to you
Little child 2: Your ugly
Little child 1: no I’m not, your ugly, and I’m still not listening to you.
Yes it’s about breaking rules.
The cite is creation itself, and the Word of God. Each person has a inner longing for their creator, it will reach them at that level IMHO.
Man has come up with theories as to how things came about, in all the research and analysis, one should keep in mind that man can be absolutely wrong.
Science is designed to evolve, in other words, science is wrong many times but that’s OK, because it’s not really wrong, just evolving. If religion was allowed to change as much as science it would have lost all creadability, but the Word of God was, is and is to come, eternal, unchanging and standing the test of time, and as the basis of faith and religions is a tested and solid foundation. The history of those coming to Jesus over time testifies to this.
Have you ever spoken to a Red Sox fan? We argue with a lot less fervor than they do.
It is often said about academic politics that people argue more and more strongly when less and less is at stake. That’s probably the case here also - except when the theists want to limit our freedom because god told them to.
Hey, Frank apsia: please respond to post 91, thanks.
On a separate note, here’s my rant on this topic from a few years back.
Yes they are happening today, both in the OT and the NT God tells us that we are blinded to the things of God. The OT is much harder to understand what the real meaning is, such as turning to a pillar of salt is a good thing, salt is what Jesus wants us to be (Matt 5:13), pillar is a good thing (Rev 3:20), Lot was following a angel, not the Lord (not good - additionally this may have been the angel that accepted worship (I’m not sure, don’t have time to check), which is very not good, angels should tell people to worship God Rev 22:9). Lot’s wife turned back as in compassion. When God wanted to come against someone in the OT He would have the earth open up and swallow them or something (which also has a not obvious meaning), not turn them into salt.
Jesus commented about this, He seemed disappointed that not many came to God due to miracles.
Have you heard the saying you define your own reality? This sort of defines the reason. If someone does not believe in ghosts, and if they experience one they will try to come up with any explanation and believe it even if it really was a ghost.
Differentiate between religion and faith, and also faith in a God that you can know and talk to as well as you can know and talk to your (flesh and blood) brother, and who loves you. Do these religious people have that type of relationship with Jesus?
Some people have that ability, others do not. It’s not not wanting to see it, it’s defining your reality early on in life to try to block things one believes may be harmful to them (if or if not it is actually harmful)
But less than a majority of the world’s population is Christian. And that’s just by my definition of “Christian”; I think your definition would be considerably stricter than mine. History shows that the vast majority of the world didn’t come to Jesus. His followers are a distinct minority.
In that case, why do you say it’s ambiguous? It’s not ambiguous at all. The fact is. it’s just not evidence.
Atheists don’t cite evidence to assert that there are no gods. No such evidence would be possible. What they can do is show evidence which disproves specific, religious claims about the universe. For instance. We can prove the earth is not 6000 years old, and that all living species were not “created” simultaneously out of thin air. This is not presented as proof of no god, but disproof of positive claims made by theists.
Atheists don’t have any burden of proof. The assmption that gods do not exits is the logical default. “You can’t prove they DON’T exist” is a shrill, pointless, desperate, sophomoric truism. It’s not an interesting or insightful or meaningful observation. If you woant somebody tio argue with you, they won’t. But that doesn’t make your sky gods any more probable or plausible.
Are you agnostic on the existence of the Easter Bunny? Yes or no.
And have you considered the possibility that you are the one living a fantasy, a “reality” you have defined for yourself? You want to believe in God, so everything you see you interpret in that light, whether it makes sense to any outside observers or not.
A wizard did it.
A potato is a religion!
Fantome - I showed you mathematically that there was only a 1/32 chance that I would answer. Of course. I was either going to answer you, or not. So there was a 1 in 2 chance that I would answer you. This, I think, proves conclusively that 1/32 = 1/2. I hope this clears things up. Of course either you understand this explanation or or you don’t. So there is a 50-50 chance that I am wasting my breath.
Am I being sarcastic? Hey, either I am or I’m not, I’ll let you figure out the odds.
I wish this was still a joke thread. Now my previous posts just look silly.
I think this can be a little stronger. To disprove those positive claims is, in some sense, to disprove the existence of gods–since the very concept of “gods” is defined by theists’ positive claims.
To broaden the definition of “gods” so far as to make the lack of evidence of them entirely irrelevant to their existence is, to me, merely an effort in making “gods” a definition without any value–since it could mean anything.
It’s not just a logical default–it’s an assumption based on observation. The lack of any sign of “gods” is evidence that weakens any affirmative claim that “gods” exist. So while the absence of any gods is in fact the logical default, it isn’t just supported by logic. It is supported by reproducible observation–at least to the extent that “gods” that interact with this planet are posited.
What is impossible is proof, beyond any doubt at all that no gods exist. But that, on its own, is a concept only of real value to philosophers and mathematicians. The same can be said about any human knowledge.
That all people will die? Can’t be “disproven”–since it’s always possible for someone born tomorrow to live forever.
That whales won’t fall from the sky? Infinite improbability drive might be invented tomorrow.
Gravity? Could be some strange, unobservable spot somewhere in the universe that doesn’t comply with the theory in a gross way (such as a planetary system where the force is defined by GMM’/r [rather than r squared]). Can’t prove it won’t go away tomorrow, can you?
So to ask a follow-up question: Frank, should we be agnostic about gravity? After all, we can’t prove it will be here in the morning.
I noticed no one had responded to this post a while back so I thought I’d give it a crack.
The first sentence is true but is such a vacuous statement that it literally has no meaning. After all, I also base my life decisions on whether or not “checking account trolls” exist who keep my funds ever-flowing as long as I have enough faith. The comparison of the government to God is interesting but ultimately inept. In general, I have no problem with your descriptive sentences but then you use the phrases “religion of the flesh” and “unspiritual religion” (huh?). It just shows that you are using some personal definition of religion that is so broad to include plenty of things that nobody would claim is a religion. After all, if I do work in formal mathematics, I have an ultimate authority in terms of the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms and logical rules to follow. Does that make it a religion?
Also, I have a slight hijack. I recently caught some flak for describing atheism as the fastest growing “religious minority”. I feel like the adjective religious is appropriate here since nonbelief is a category to be compared with Christianity, Islam, etc… Instead I was told I should just say minority, but I don’t want to be comparing the growth rate of atheism with that of homosexuality or left-handedness. Thoughts or alternative suggestions?
Actually, I really love this one. Plus, it gives me lots of hobbies. I don’t collect stamps, I don’t collect butterflies, I don’t do scrapbooking, I don’t fix old clunkers. I have so many hobbies, it’s a wonder I have time for them all!
I know you didn’t ask me, but I’m definitely anti-Easter Bunny. Heck, I put out the eggs myself for the kids to find.
On the other hand, I’m a hard agnostic when it comes to Santa. I think it’s unknowable whether or not there’s a Santa and Cecil says there may be one in a column.
Gods, though, I’m fairly sure don’t exist. At least there’s some evidence for Santa – not all the presents labeled Santa were put under the tree by me. Where did those other ones come from? It’s an unknowable mystery.
On an unrelated note, I finally figure out how to multi-quote! More evidence of a deity!