I’m an Atheist, and if there were a Unitarian Universalist church around I’d probably check it out. They’re non-dogmatic, surveys show an overwhelming majority of their members describe themselves as either humanist, agnostic, or atheist. Some of us Atheists actually like social gatherings (at least on occasion). We’re not all misanthropes. 
Not to belabor the definition issue but IMHO it’s a matter of degrees. If someone has no belief in deities and proceeds to live their life with that in mind while still being aware that technically speaking, they may be wrong, I’d say say they’re an atheist. That might be considered a soft atheist who, knowing they may be wrong, is not offended by others choice to believe otherwise.
If however they are someone who strongly believes there are no deities and puts an effort into promoting their belief system which contains said belief they are a hard atheist and I’d say that’s more of a belief than merely a lack of belief. It’s certainly not a religion in any way I recognize one.
It good we clarify our own working definition in discussions but I think the spectrum of atheism is wide enough so that no one size fits all.
I will interpret this as being your way of admitting that you are unable to refute it.
My contention is based on what you’ve posted in dozens of threads. The fact that you’ve started many threads of anti-Christian hatred in this forum, which the moderators were forced to move to the appropriate forum, is a simple fact. If you don’t believe it, do a search for threads started by yourself and you’ll see evidence.
This paragraph pretty much proves my point. The sum and totality of Dawkins’ argument against Christianity is to call Christians “insane”, “demented”, “mad”, and so forth, and to repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. To militant atheists, I guess this is a sound and convincing logical argument because it’s all just so true. To everyone else, Dawkins looks like a grown man behaving like a small, spoiled child.
But I digress. You asked why the rest of the planet won’t bend over backwards to cater to the prejudices of atheists. I told you why. If you choose to ignore the facts, that’s not my business.
I’d say you haven’t read any of Dawkin’s books. I’ve read The God Delusion, and as I recall, most of the book was taken up by Dawkin refuting the arguments that theists have against atheism. That doesn’t seem like the actions of a “small, spoiled child” to me.
But you don’t understand. Evidently politeness is next to correctlyness. If you use one of a set of certain not nice buzz words you are dismissed regardless of the factual and logical content of your point. OTOH if you present a less logical and less factual argument in a polite manner your chances of being right are greatly improved.
Okay, I will admit that I left myeslf open by using the words “fucking crazy”. Okay, pretend I just said: “Come now my good chap, you are a reasonable fellow, and I have often observed that your mental acuity is in no way inferior to mine. Surely you cannot believe something so patently absurd and improbable without an iota of proof, now can you?”
From this point on, he would still lower his eyes reverently, say the magic formula, “It is a matter of Faith” which is supposed to grant him immunity from criticism when he spouts absurdities for which there is no evidence, and yes, I would once again be the bad guy for not respecting his implied religious immunity.
I have often reacted to the hateful actions of Christians, especially against gays and lesbians.
But I have never, in my entire life, sought to deny Christians civil rights, equality, marriage rights or the right not to be discriminated against. I have never supported or financed a proposition to take rights away from Christians.
Since their beginning, Christians and their Churches have joined with government powers to criminalize us, impison or execute us, take children away from gay parents, fire gay teachers or generally deny us equal dignity and rights from Anita Bryant in the 70s to Proposition 8 in California, which was HEAVILY financed by Christians.
Who are the haters here?
I hate these arguments. Only on this board can most atheist freely express their lack of belief. Those who have accepted their teachings are 90 percent of the population. Most think if you don’t believe in god you are a dangerous person. Something evil has taken you over. I think it is the opposite.
I know if you express your lack of beliefs at work it will have a negative impact on your opportunities. I know that a lot of religious people will go out of their way to educate you. Atheists just listen and keep their mouths shut. It is safer.
I worked for a guy once that proudly exclaimed his born again religiosity. He also was in a position to cheat the workers out of some of their money. He did it happily. When I asked him how he reconciled his theft with his religion, he looked at me like I was nuts. Then he said"that is business". I have seen too much of that from the noisy religious people I have worked with. They talk it but do not walk it.
Of course every person who proclaims his religion on this board isn’t like that. They all live it.
I did not intend for my choice of the word *belief *to imply that atheism is a faith. I will accept the definition that atheism is the absence of belief and reword my sentence.
“A disbelief in the existence of a god is as dogmatic as a belief in a god.”
Well, I hope it is a polka doted bull. 
I am not digging the analogy. There is a huge difference between philosophical unanswered questions about the origins of existence that might lead people to believe in a faith and using observation, experience, and measurable, verifiable information to determine if an elephant is in your house. People can value and respect science but philosophically question the origins of the universe.
Just to be perfectly clear, and if I’m wrong none of the follow-up commentary will matter, but is this statement equivalent to:
“Believing there is no god is as dogmatic as believing there is one.”
If so, the statement is simply incorrect. Replace “god” with any improbable concept for which no evidence exists and counter-evidence is strongly suggested. In the case of god, as very roughly defined by JudeoChristian tradition, an entity is described that is merciful and just and all-powerful, yet performs or allows pain and suffering. The biblical description of god is rife with contradictions, hence it is not illogical to dismiss the biblical description of god. If you can present a wholly nonbiblical description of god that is free of contradictions and is supported by physical evidence, please share.
Dawkins lost me when he stated that being raised as a Catholic was, in point of fact, worse than being sexually molested by priests.
Cite: http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins
He cites with approval the following article, which is IMHO almost hysterical in its hatred of religious people:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html
BTW, I’m not Catholic, and I believe in the existence of no God. But these people are doing atheism no favours - the more I read of them, the less I like them. They are not arguing in favour of more rights for themselves, but for less rights for other people whom they happen to disapprove of. That, IMHO, is over the line - particularly when combined with absurd polemics (being raised Catholic “does less lasting damage” than being sexually molested by priests, being raised on the Bible should “not be allowed” any more that we “allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon”, etc.).
I think you’re mixing together two different “spectra” here: There’s the “soft atheist” vs. “hard atheist” spectrum (“lack of belief in God or gods” → “belief that God does not exist”), and there’s the spectrum of political or personal militancy or out-spokenness. They may sort of correlate, but they’re not the same thing. On the one hand, someone could be utterly convinced that there is no God, no way, no how, but have no particular interest in convincing others of this–as long as other people don’t actually do anything to personally affect him with their (so he would privately say) utterly delusional beliefs, he has no burning need to enlighten them.
Conversely, I’ve seen more than one thread around here where some self-proclaimed “agnostic” will barge in with some pronouncement to the effect that “atheists and theists are both equally bad; the only reasonable position is that we have no way of knowing if there’s a God or not.”
Bottom line, the various philosophical positions (“weak atheism”, “strong atheism”, and the various flavors of agnosticism) don’t perfectly correspond to any degree of personal abrasiveness or lack thereof. (Nor is personal outspokenness the same thing as personal rudeness.) Every group has its nice people and its jerks.
You’d then be saying something untrue.
Okay, we have a disagreement here. You say that Dawkins provides rebuttals. I say that Dawkins only offers juvenile insults. Perhaps we can come to an agreement that he offers “rebuttals” that actually are juvenile insults. Here are a few entirely typical quotes:
I could go on, but why bother? Just about any page of the book will cough up a similarly smarmy, nasty, anti-intellectual quote. I’ve already started a number of individual threads to deal with other lies he’s told. Dawkins says in the preface that only morons could disagree with him. I guess that sort of things counts as a solid, hard-hitting argument among most atheists, since they’ve made Dawkins their most prominent proponent. To everyone else, it’s childish.
Personally, I’d love it if some atheist author would write a book that actually argues for atheism, rather than merely calling names. I’d happily buy and read that book. But since nobody’s done it as far as I know, I can’t.
No, actually you’ve started many threads of anti-Christian hatred, and they were not reactions as you claim. Since you apparently want to continue denying this, I’ll link to thisone,
this one, and this one. All are full of insults, empty of meaningful contributions to our board, and started merely because you wanted to express hatred for Christians. Obviously that’s only three of many. As for your continued insisting that the things you say aren’t insults because they’re true, you’re not fooling anybody: not me, not the moderators. Even many of your fellow atheists wish that you’d stop embarrassing them, and they’ve said so many times.
As you’ve already stated in this thread, you’ve granted yourself a “civil right” to censor anything that’s said or done on public property if you don’t agree with it, while apparently us Christians (who pay most of the tax money, 'cause there’s more of us) have no civil right to any input whatever on that question. I further feel confident that you’re opposed to vouchers for religious schools, which means you’re opposed to millions of children getting a decent education, particularly black and Hispanic children. So please don’t lecture me about your support for civil rights.
Really? Your take on history is quite, um, unique. Here in reality, Christianity was outlawed by the government powers at its beginning, and numerous Christians were murdered, tortured, or imprisoned because of their beliefs. Christianity was not even legal until the first Christian emperor, Constantine, made religious freedom the law of the land in the fourth century. So why don’t you explain how Christians managed to oppress you with government power, even while Christianity was illegal? Please be as specific as possible. I’m honestly curious.
Another thing that’s true in reality is that atheists have been responsible for the worst persecution of homosexuals. Stalin killed them by the thousands. So did Hitler. So did Mao. Francis Galton, founder of eugenics, preached that homosexuality was a mental illness, since it obviously had no use in a Darwinian struggle for survival. Teachings like that were used to justify lobotomy and electroshock as “treatments” for homosexuality.
(I’ll mention a curious fact. Galton certainly wanted an aggressive atheist pride movement, perhaps more so than any other individual in history. He was outspoken about his belief that atheist were superior and that Christianity had to be destroyed. Moreover, he invented many of the most common lines of attack against Christianity, some of which you’ve used on this board. You’re helping to keep his legacy alive. Hope you’re proud of it.)
There is a difference between not believing in God and believing God does not exist.
Obviously, there is no evidence to support the Judeo-Christian God or any other god’s existence, and I will concede there is no way to present a reasoned argument based on empirical information to support the existence of a deity.
My only point is that you can’t prove God exists and you can’t prove God doesn’t existence; therefore, asserting either as fact is equally dogmatic.
May I place a sign on your frong lawn that says “There is no God”, or are you going to censor me?
And you are completely wrong. As Bryan Ekers has already said, there is evidence that contradicts specific belief systems such as Christianity. If the Christian God existed, the evidence against His existence would not exist. Therefore one can state with certainty that their belief is false.
Even if there wasn’t any evidence for or against either position, they still would not be equally dogmatic, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the existence of all-powerful supernatural beings is one hell of an extraordinary claim.
Agreed. I didn’t mean my examples were the only possibilities.note the last sentence. It’s a clarification worth noting. Thanks.
I agree that overall tone matters. In another thread you also mentioned Sam Harris.
Could you give an example or two of Sam resorting to childish insults? I can imagine the kind of hate mail he has gotten.
I think there comes a time where rejecting all points being made because of a few snarky comments appears to be just a dodge to avoid a valid argument. {even if that’s not the intent}
If a Christian says people who haven’t accepted Jesus as Saviour are going to hell are they being hateful and judgmental or simply stating their belief? If an atheist uses words like ridiculous or delusional in stating their honest opinion is it necessarily a childish insult?
I agree there’s a difference but consider these statements.
I believe God does not exist because there is no evidence that such a being does exist.
I believe God exists even though there is no evidence that such a being exists.
Is one statement more dogmatic than the other?