Only if you buy into the demands of the believers that THEIR beliefs be treated special. As has been said by me and others; by the standards we apply to other beliefs, atheism IS “demonstrably right”. Why should claims that God exists be treated with less derision than claims the Moon landing was a hoax? A claim that foolish as it is, is actually quite a bit more plausible than God, since at least it doesn’t require denying the laws of physics.
Heh. Somehow I don’t think so. 
Having seen enough of these discussions in the past I can say with the utmost sincerity that it would have worked out this way no matter how diligent he was in finding an example for you.
Really, these discussions are useless, they always end up the same way.
The Moon landings are demonstrable. They happened in my lifetime. I watched them on TV along with millions of others, just like any other major news story. There is existing evidence to prove they happened. Therefore, denying they happened is demonstrably wrong.
You can’t prove God or No God the same way. There is some evidence to support the notion of some pretty remarkable people existing hundred of years ago. At least two such people have inspired generations for good or ill. Maybe Jesus and Mohamed were extraordinary carnies and worked the ultimate con on the masses. Maybe they fried their brains on Ancient Acid. Or maybe they had some sort of Divine Inspiration. I don’t know, and neither do you.
That doesn’t prove anything. Maybe some Protoss warships made the whole thing up and forged all the evidence.
Of course atheists are smarter and more rational on average. The defining characteristic of an atheist is that upon facing the unknown, with a complete lack of evidence, they do not choose to fabricate an illogical, unsupported set of beliefs in response. Which is the rational thing to do.
If a theist were right, it would be sheerly essentially by coincidence. They were not brought to their position by an examination of the evidence.
Atheism and furthermore skepticism and rational thinking more generally is a belief that one comes to their conclusion based on evidence and logic. This automatically puts them ahead of people who come to beliefs not through evidence and logic. Atheism is not just another belief along the same likes that theists have, but rather a rejection of a comfortable fairy tale in the name of a commitment to rationality. They are not equivelant and atheism is clearly superior by any reasonable criteria.
Vikings and Druids as natural allies? I’m not so sure.
Anyway, bong hits for Thor, or the Dagda, for that matter, is probably as fine a Pascal’s Wager as you’re ever going to come across.
Wait! Godzilla is what now?!
So, who’d win in a fight? Godzilla, Cthulhu, or Jesus? I pick Godzilla in the third round. Hmmm, maybe I should start a poll.
Band name?
And here you are yet, believing the Cleveland Browns will someday make the Superbowl…I’d say that places you squarely amongst the hopeful theists either way…you’re either “about to be blessed” and your situation will turn around, or there’s a demonic component to your misery…
Quick! It’s not too late. Do some bong hits for Thor and love some Jesus in the process. What could it hurt? 
Gee…[toking sound]…this is just…alright…with me. OH…YEAH.
An atheist isn’t smarter because he’s an atheist; he’s an atheist because he’s smarter.
Are you trying to do a Hentor The Barbarian impression now, bringing football smack into random threads?
Also, I never said I believed the Browns would one day make the superbowl. I mean, if the NFL runs for another century, maybe…
Exactly! There seems to be some hardcore atheists who act all high and mighty about the fact they have no religious beliefs.
Granted yeah, Christian fundies can drive you nuts…but being all hardcore " this is it, and when you die you decompose" is just as bad.
You don’t KNOW that. Yes, many if not most things can be explained by Occam’s Razor, but there’s still a lot of weird stuff that can’t be explained by Occam’s Razor.
I think you got that in Reverse. Or not.
Obligatory link, broken for NSFW drug use: http: //i202. Photo and Video Storage | Photobucket
I won’t decompose because i will have been cremated. Other than that i don’t know.
Ah, the ‘Charlie the Tuna’ ploy. Ingenious.
There’s pricks in every group. They’re dwarfed by the number of people who act all high and mighty because they believe in a particular religion however
No no it’s not. They may be annoying in a conversation but they don’t go door to door and tell you all about how wonderful oblivion will be after you die. They don’t threaten you with eternal torment if you don’t believe the way they believe.
Occum’s Razor doesn’t explain anything. It’s a tool to evaluate a situation when you have less than total evidence. To refresh:
Occam’s razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
By this criteria it is more rational to conclude God is not needed for a natural universe in fact including him would make the whole system far more complicated than what is observable. If we observe more that makes god the simplest explanation supported by the facts than we’ll have to include him.
SenorBeef: You have a private message in which I give you a piece of my mind. 