What do you mean? Do you by “God” mean the christian god? If so, there is scientific evidence that he doesn’t exist. People cannot give virgin birth, the flood didn’t happen, there isn’t such a thing as a “soul”, no historic evidence of divine intervention, etc, etc. It is “proven” that he doesn’t exist, if you accept that science has “proven” anything about the world.
What are all these statements about what athiests do and don’t know or understand? I wholly understand that some people have integrated religious beliefs into an indivisible self-perception or definition, that it is a deep personal experience. That doesn’t mean that they are correct. Things felt strongly do not equate to things that are true.
That’s evidence against things he is supposed to have done, not evidence he doesn’t exist. Souls and especially divine intervention are typically defined in ways that our outside of scientific evidence anyway.
Except when miracles are used to show the faithless just how wonderful God’s works are in this universe… It’s the fallacy of picking and choosing coupled with moving the goal posts. (I am not saying you are committing the fallacy, unless you are <stewie> then I stand by it </stewie> 
)
If there is a god, but he has committed none of the actions of the christian god, then that god is not the christian god.
Maybe. I consider myself a theist and the only time I do that is when things defy explaination - why did my sister get breast cancer? - who knows (but certainly my family cares) - God is an easy place to pin the unknowables, being unknowable himself.
And sometimes answers are “because.” Some people find comfort in being able to pin the unknowns on the magical sky pixie. Some people feel better when they direct their hope and believe that someone is listening.
Some atheists around here of late seem to be fond of painting the theists with a really big brush - seems we used to hand out at least a little finer brush around here. Sure some theists are out for theocracy - and I find that offensive. And sure some theists are a little beyond what I personally find “reasonable” and and out into “dear God, help me shift into second gear” territory. But theists come in a wide spectrum. From my emotional Deism (simplistically God=Universe), or WhyNot’s agnostic paganism, to Jodi’s more dogmatic faith, to the creationists and literalists. And I don’t find being called delusional when I’m really fairly rational and functional to be a good way to win an argument. Faith isn’t rational - if it were, it wouldn’t be faith. Attacking it as being non-rational is very circular.
If we got rid of religion as a point of contention, we’d find something else. Race, nationalism, territorialism - those are easy emotional targets to start wars. Take religion out of Northern Ireland and it becomes a Nationalist problem. Religion isn’t the root cause of these problems. Nor is religion per se holding back science - its people who are afraid of change and are using religion as their defense. Take religion away, and they find another excuse - poor use of resources, unethical, “I don’t understand it, so it can’t be important.”
Maybe you are correct. But that is what these discussions invariably revolve around. Yes, it is the most popular Wester religion, but it is NOT the heart of the Atheism debate.
I use Theism as the largest category: belief in a Creator. The other beliefs you mentions are subsets of it.
If you label yourself an anti-religionist, you’re right. But I’m of the mind that Athesim actually stand for something, not just against. It is the beleif that there is no God or god, is it not. Yet we rarely see an argument for anything.
You are conflating religion with Theism. Atheism posits there is no God. Maybe you’re not an Atheist after all, merely an Anti-Religionist. In which case we are philosophically closer.
Well, it might. It all depends on 1) if there is a god, 2) is this god God, and 3) might he at some point chose to make himself known and insinuate himself in the lives of humans. Again, Atheists are stuck having to deal with Number 1. And there no better equipped to come up with the right answer than Theists.
True, but I don’t think that anyone is arguing that. I’m not. I thiink a Theistic belief is the more reasoned belief. We know a lot of stuff about the world and how it operates. And in with each and every thing or event we understand we know that there is a cause. When we turn our attention to the beginnings of the universe and how we got to be here, it seems greatly more logical to believe that causality will still hold up. To suddenly say “well, in this one instance, since we do not understand what did happen, causality must have not played its usual role” seems to be grossly un-reasoned, IMO.
Also, while disproving something does not generally prove something else, there are things that are diametrically opposed in which on OR the other is true. Either Atheism is true or Theism is. Period. So, why bother arguing against any one religion? Or religion in general? God can exist and every religion on earth be 100% wrong. Maybe the real one will be revealed tomorrow. Or maybe God believes there should be no formal religion. Is the Atheist position there is no god? Or that religions are bad/wrong? While it may embrace both, arguing against religion is the smaller arguement and, even if won, leaves the much larger issue unanswered.
Okay. But the only arguments I see are against religion, not for anything. I have as much use for fundamentalists as you, but the Atheist postiton is “without-god”. Rather than attack other’s beliefs I’d be more interested in promotiing and proving my own.
Ginist or Vodkatist? Lemonist or Olivist? Stirrist or Shakist?
If you aadhere to the first half to any of those questions you will never reach Martini nirvana.
This doesn’t appear to contradict what I said, if it was supposed to.
I know that I’d never argue that many people find it comforting. My read of Dawkins (so far, and having read approximately 3/4 of one of his books makes me by far not an expert on him) is that he does not argue that people get comfort from believing in god.
I don’t see why faith can’t be explored rationally, and I just don’t buy the “faith/emotions/whatever aren’t rational thought so my thoughts based on those things are legitimate” argument. That’s just a cop out. Here’s a little experiment - can we say that certain examples of faith just aren’t rational? How about if I said, “I have faith that George Bush will tell the truth.” Certainly an arguable position. How about if I told you that I have faith that the world will end at noon (EST) today. Wouldn’t you make some estimate of the rationality of that assertion and the faith that goes along with it, whether or not you shared it with me? If I went on to tell you why you should share that faith, you might begin to be more candid in your opinions about my faith.
Of course, unless you mean faith without a belief attached. It would be hard to argue that faith without the “in” part of such an expression means anything or can be evaluated in any way. “I have faith.” Okay, great, good for you. In what?
As a parent of a child with Type I diabetes, I feel very strongly that religion has clearly interfered with science.
This is where the sloppiness of the argument is for me. Are you arguiing against a particualr claim of a religion, religion in general, or Theism itself. Any of these is perfectly legitimate, but the arguments get conflated. For me, If I were an Atheist, I’d be making the case FOR Atheism, i.e., against Theism. It is the only debate that goes to the foundation of Atheism (withoud-god).
First, if Atheism is more than merely anti-religionism (and I believe it is) then it should have a point of view on some of the very important issues that religions and Theism attempt to answer. Mainly, how did we get here?; Where did the stars come from?; etc.
Regarding the burden that falls to Atheists, if you want top convince a Theist (religionist or not) that there is no God, isn’t it incumbent upon you to make the case. Or do you expect me to accept your position on faith? 
It hasn’t been here, but has in the past. It’s because the term Atheism means different things to differnt people who consider themselves Atheists. Some are unaware or unclear on the distinction themselves.
I think that a Strong Atheist should have to defend his position the same way a Fundamentalist Christian or a Quaker or a Buddhist or a Scientologists would have to. When in a debate with one, where we both understand the terms involved, it is not helpful when another Atheist(s) chimes in using the definition in the Weak sense. Yes, it is frustrating, and why I usually stay out of these things.
Do you leave open the possibility for another religion? Assuming there is a god, could you craft one that would be acceptable?
I don’t mean to interrupt the discussion, but could you explain what you mean, please.
Ginist, Olivist, Weak Shakist. I also belong to the Schism of Brinology.
Stem cell research holds highly promising possibilities for a cure for diabetes. Stem cell research was curtailed in America - surely one of the most research-productive countries in existence - by Bush for religious reasons.
No, I mean a Creator God that chooses to play an active role in the lives of men. The Christian God certainbly qualifies, but the concept is not restricted to Him.
As far as your proof, I’m afraid it proves nor disproves no such thing. You may successfully disprove particulars claims of the religion, and that may shake the foundation of belief the religion is built upon, but it does not disprove God.
Ginist? I thought we killed you all off. No matter, you’re doomed to an eternity of gin martinis in a place with no ice anyway.
Back in the beginning of this, all that I said was that, even if you suppose there is a first mover, that doesn’t have anything to do with the existance of any particular sky god.
I’m not trying to disprove the existance of all gods with one sweep.
The case for atheism involves the refutation of the claims of individual religions. Theoretically, each is equal, but practically in the West we only deal with the claims of Western religions. Most atheists don’t even care about the claims for religions that make no claims on us - so there is more pushback on Christianity than Judaism. If I lived in India and had to deal with Hindu nationalists I’d be worrying about different things.
Deism believes in a creator also, but it is not falsifiable by definition. At the best science can show that there is no need for a creator, it can never prove that a creator does not exist.
Notice that you correctly said belief, not a claim to knowledge. The argument for belief in no god is kind of an induction argument - if claims for religions 1 … m don’t pan out, there is no reason to believe in religion m+1. Arguments against this (the prove there is no god) seem to assume that this is a claim that we know there is no god, which is not the case.
I can’t think of a non-inductive argument myself.
And you just proved my point. Strong atheism is just the belief there is no god - it posits nothing.
If 3 can’t be shown, 1 is unknowable, and in fact the world is exactly the same whether there is a god or not. 2) isn’t very important, since God is just one instance of god - several, in fact, since Western religions can’t agree on the characteristics of God.
The real purpose of the IPU argument, by the way, is not to disprove god, but to illustrate that your 2) is of little importance. God (capital G) is of great importance to many in the west culturally, but it is just a tag for something which may not exist, and God as a tag bears no more weight than IPU as a tag. Imprisioning someone for blasphemy against the IPU is absurd, but people have been imprisoned for blasphemy against God for millennia.
And there’s the rub, in my view. I don’t have a problem with people who have *Sum ergo Deus * mentalities, as long as they don’t affect society at large. I have a huge problem, however, with those who hold to a *Sum ergo Deus * philosophy and demand that this position impact the law of the land and structure of society, thereby negatively impacting human progress.
But if we eliminated the ones who do mission work while still saving souls, I think we would drop in the total amount of mission work done.
Which would you recommend (I will at least purchase the book) - Dawkins or Harris? Who is better researched and cited, as opposed to being a rant (if we are to use a contrast effect with only two options).