I’m just being accurate in that most religious people are not would be Al-Qaeda murderous intolerant thugs anymore than that all socialists are Stalinists or all atheists have the morality of Marquis de Sade.
What if they didn’t? Most religious people would treat their children with love and not abuse them or force them.
There’s is no “0.1%”.
Considering that the believers are constantly asserting the truth of their claims and trying to make everyone do things their way, yes it is their job to come up with some evidence.
Faith is unnecessary; in fact, it’s destructive. And science can and has disproved all of those things as much as it can disprove anything; they are inconsistent claims, are in violation of the known laws of physics, and there is no evidence for any of them. That’s as close to “disproof” as science ever gets. And if religion was treated like just about any other belief, “disproved by science” is exactly how it would be referred to.
Do you hold to this standard those religious persons who don’t assert the truth, or the truth-for-everyone, of their religious beliefs, and don’t try to make others do things their way?
I don’t understand – what did I get wrong?
Oh, there aren’t any “sky” gods, I’m reasonably confident of that. There might be invisible extraterrestrials up there, watching our every move and occasionally inserting themselves into our lives in secret, invisible ways…but there’s no reliable evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, of that being the case.
I’m talking about things like the Universe brimming with consciousness (albeit a type of consciousness our puny human minds can never comprehend, or directly interact with.) Odd coincidences, which aren’t really coincidences. Synchronicity, as Carl Jung and Victor Mansfield describe it. Even the peculiarities of quantum mechanics, string theory, cosmology & group sociology suggest a higher system of natural law which we puny humans haven’t even scratched the surface of yet.
…or maybe, all my musings in this thread are the result of the local clinic’s recent shipment of a very fresh, very potent strain of indica from Humbolt County…yeah, come to think, that’s the most likely explanation. 
What exactly is this 0.1%? I assure you, whatever you imagine it to be is just a little bit of confusion on your part. I’ll be happy to clear it up for you.
Incorrect. It is the burden of the person making the claim to prove the claim.
No it can’t, actually. You don’t know much about scientific method or rules of evidence, do you? The tricky part with “God” is that “God” cannot be observed directly; hence, you must use other means to determine whether “God” exists or not.
[/quote]
There is no way to prove “not.” 'Not" is the null hypothesis. It’s the default assumption. If God is not proven to exist, then the assumption is that God does not exist, but the non-existence of God cannot be proven absolutely. Neither can the non-existence of Loki, smurfs or invisible, telekinetic ass goblins either, though, and all of those things have the exact same amount of evidence as sky gods.
Of course there is. 50%+49.9%+0.1%=100%. I even verified it with a calculator. 
If you’re talking about fundamentalist Christians who insist on forcing their stupid beliefs down everyone’s throats, you’ll get no argument from me there – except to say that such machinations come from a desire for control, and therefore have nothing to do with faith, belief, or whether their stupid ideas make any damn sense.
You’re talking about blind faith. “Regular” faith is different.
How has science disproved the concept of an afterlife? Or synchronicity? Or an all-encompassing universal consciousness? Science hasn’t disproven any of these things. That’s not to say it might disprove them eventually; but to assume in advance that will happen is jumping the gun, and therefore an act of faith, not logic.
Atheism is not a positive assertion that gods can’t exist, just a lack of positive belief that they do. You obviously think that agnosticism is some sort of neutral ground between believing gods exist and believing they don’t exist. It’s not. That’s weak atheism. Agnosticism is the position that it’s not currently possible to know, it’s not a statement of belief about gods in itself. It is possible to be agnostic and be simultaneously either atheistic or theistic.
It’s the indica. The universe does not actually manifest any of these things.
If I had kids, I’d hope to raise them to be smart enough to conclude atheism is the only rational choice. I wouldn’t disown them for believing stupid things, but I would be disappointed in them.
You’re inventing exceptions that don’t exist. Your faith is simply a stubborn refusal to recognise reality for what it is. It is not something to be proud of.
My daughter (BloodyL)was atheist before me, so no way would I disown her if she changed her mind. I would probably bug her a lot about the reasons why.
My youngest is not quite six and told everyone this Thanksgiving she’s grateful for the Dalai Lama, and this was not in any way coached. She is very drawn to Buddhism, esp. the Dalai Lama and I"m not sure why but I support it.
See my reply to Der Trihs.
(In a less snarky manner), I’ll concede that my personal 0.1% is equivalent to your 0.00% – that is to say, what has been disproven to your satisfaction has yet to be disproven to my satisfaction. Most likely, I’ll get to where you are someday…but for now, I’ll merely follow my own path. No spoilers are necessary. 
That logic only applies to people who attempt to change someone else’s system of faith. Since I’m doing no such thing, all I’m required to do is share my own perspective, compare notes with others, and perhaps learn a little bit more about how the world works in the process.
Oy – that’s the problem with scientific method, right there. Scientific method initializes with a default assumption that XXX does not exist. (And you know what they say about people who assume too much, right?) That’s such a downer, man.
Sorry, but I’m checking wikitionary as we speak, and your definitions aren’t correct. To wit:
atheism (plural atheisms)
agnosticism (uncountable)
[Note: Italics are mine]
The Universe does manifest indica, though. Thank God…err, I mean…thank goodness for that.
It is actually a perfectly valid analogy. I say talking jelly sandwiches exist. You say they don’t. You cite scientific evidence against the very possibility of the existence of talking jelly sandwiches. I respond that it is because you are closed minded that you have drawn an obviously false conclusion, and that you have to open your heart and have faith in the sandwich’s omnipotence, which you haven’t done, and only those who do so can hear him. I see I’m getting really close to FSMism, but I think I’ve made my point.
There’s really nothing tricky about it. Lacking any proof of existence, unobservability should not factor into the potentiality of a thing whatsoever. There’s already no reason to believe gods exist, just as there’s no reason for a belief in talking jelly sandwiches. Why is it, in the case of deities (of any religion), must we broaden the scope? Why the setting of special circumstances and allowances for one myth over another? Talking jelly sandwiches don’t exist, here’s why. Boom. Conversation over. Gods don’t exist, here’s why. Wellllll, we really should adjust our perspective, take other things into consideration, factor in the mumbo as well as the jumbo. Why?
If he doesn’t believe the former, he’s done a poor job at expressing it, especially given that he’s said that he doesn’t associate with any religious people willingly.
Your internet definitions are wrong. It’s also not a productive angle to try to argue that self-identified atheists believe something the majortity of them don’t believe.
The definition of “agnosticism” is not even debateable, by the way, since the word was coined by Thomas Huxley, and he’s the one who defined it.
Strong atheism (a positive belief that gods don’t exist) is a subset of atheism, but is not the definition of atheism. What is popularly misunderstood as “agnostic” is actually weak atheism.
I think what people don’t seem to get is that people who believe in God don’t care about there being no proof that God exists. It’s not logical but that’s the way it is for them. You could show them 1,000 Nobel prize winners with proofs there is no God and it won’t sway them.
I get that, and I’m willing to concede that true believers don’t have the ability to see it any other way, as destructive as that is for humanity, in my opinion. However, stipulating a believer’s faith, means that everything that has ever been imagined, or could be, should be considered to exist and be given the same weight and seriousness in any discussion of faith.
Disown them? No.
But I’d mock the shit out of their chosen stupidities.
I could be wrong but I think if you mock the shit out of your kids they probably won’t speak to you again - assuming they are adults. So that would be the same as disowning them.
Of course I bloody wouldn’t. She’s my daughter.
Ah, okay…I totally spaced on the fact you were referring to talking jelly sandwiches. Sorry 'bout that, my bad.
Whatever exists, exists. Doesn’t matter if we can see them or not – atoms, germs, and galactic superclusters existed long before humans obtained the technology to detect them. The same applies to the concept of deities, universal consciousness, or anything else of that nature – just because we puny humans haven’t irrefutably detected them yet, doesn’t mean we never will. There’s actually no double standard here, nor should there be one.
On the other hand, a system of faith CAN be disproven on its own merits, by examining the logical fallacies in how each faith system defines himself. For instance, here’s a quick & dirty way to disprove the existence of the Christian God:
(1) Christianity defines “God” as being: (a) omnipotent, (b) inherently kind, loving and merciful, and (c) if you don’t believe in God, your soul will burn in hell for an eternity of infinite suffering.
(2) If (a) and (b) are true, (c) cannot be true – no kind, loving & merciful God would allow such a fate to befall his children, unless:
(2a) God is NOT omnipotent, or
(2b) God is NOT inherently kind, loving & merciful.
(3) Since Christianity presumes all three must be true, this fallacy of logic proves that Christianity is, at the very least, mistaken. Therefore, no Christian God, period.
That said, I certainly wouldn’t disown my own child if he/she believed in some ridiculous fallacy like Christianity. I’d be cautiously supportive, but at the same time remind them of the dangers of blind faith & irrational logic. They might disown me, but I’d never disown them.
My grandfather disowned one of my uncles. The uncle would come over for Sunday dinner, and by the time my grandfather had finished his firsts, the uncle had polished off the seconds. Grandpa’s will was short: “I divide up my possessions four ways. I am leaving out Tim*. This is on purpose”.
Not his real name. I wouldn’t want anyone trying to figure out if there is a Tim Attack in North Dakota*
**Not North Dakota. Gotcha, ya.