• Do you really believe?

    Do you really believe...

    - That a god, who exists outside of time, could have the time to decide to create the universe? IMO that takes even MORE faith to believe than just believing that matter is eternal.

    - That all the problems in the universe, even the weeds in the ground, can be traced back to Eve eating an apple? That's what the Creation Museum says.

    - That all the animals of the world can march to the Ark, ride it for 40 days, get off, and migrate back to their original countries? Creationists try to invent a new classifications called "kinds", but it is a subjective definition and not one rooted in science.

    - That homosexuality is an "abomination"?

    - That a virgin could give birth?

    - That a loving and perfect God could make the appendix, the wisdom teeth, and the Xiphoid process? All of these parts are bad. They explode, hurt the jaw, and stab your heart, respectively.

    I've heard people saying that they believe in the Jesus story, simply because it sounds miraculous.

    "Creation science" seems to use subjective terms like "kinds" and "information", as opposed to using objective definitions. Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and all the others are biased.

    I respect your belief if it makes you happy, but you should at least consider.

  • The Opinion Is Proof Alone:

    For starters, policies in the US has nothing to do with atheism and the person posing this Opinion has demonstrated a logic ability, barely higher than a Preschooler. Atheism is based on the fact that there is no evidence for God and that there is no evidence Jesus did anything worthy of worship. Thus Atheist disbelief in God is based on verified rational examination of Evidence.
    Thus Atheism is a far more Logical position of disbelief than Christianity's position of Belief in somebody who evidently did nothing to earn that belief, save some mythical events made up decades after his death.
    Atheist Disbelief in God and Jesus is a far more logical Position.
    Thus, when comparing Christian belief and Atheist disbelief: Atheism holds all the Logic Cards.

  • Atheism has nothing to do with logic

    Many, many scientists say that it takes a far bigger leap of faith to beleive in evolution and the Big Bang that it does to beleive in creation.

    The vast majority of athiest in the 21st century and athiests due to laziness and not thinking, not due to research and study which has brought them to that conclusions.

  • Logic is neutral

    Any atheist who is not arrogant will say that logic could disproe his position. Many highly rational people, like Einstein, francis bacon, and JRR Tolkein have believed in God. It would be supremely arrogant to say that either side is entirely logical or reasonable, and you know, pride comes before the fall.

  • Only atheists think that.

    As a computer programmer, it is my job to detect and fix logical errors; and I'm good at it. However, I'm also a Christian and find the Christian religion to be 100% rational. Atheists who think they have a monopoly on logic have only one thing going for them in reality: A major superiority complex.

    Believing that atheism is the only logical path is only one of the many mechanisms they employ to suppress their inner secret yearning for God. They demand signs and wonders to believe, but would still refuse to do so if one was to be presented to them.

  • Landing on Atheists' Property...

    Atheists are on the offensive now that their agenda is gaining momentum. Whatever moral territory Christianity had in America is being bought at a corrupted price. The community chest is losing its value as it decreases in helpfulness. The fines are getting more expensive to afford. How are atheists going to lose? Faith favors the desperately poor more than the luxurious rich. It has the annoying ability to pass GO when it's on the brink of bankruptcy...

  • More to somebody than their religion

    After learning that people can be wrong about things, I don't believe that belief in a religion can be founded on clear logic. However, there is a lot out there the reason with than just religion. Just because they are stubbornly wrong about one thing doesn't mean their brain knows no logic.

  • It most certainly does not.

    There are atheists that hold illogical beliefs just like theists. For example belief in UFOs or anti-vaccers. Atheism is one position and that is the disbelief in the existence of a god. Its nothing more or nothing less, so it is entirely possible for an atheist to be illogical. They are just not illogical on the god question.

  • Logic is not defined by ones faith.

    One can be logical and yet still have faith in a higher power. For example every debater on DDO that is worth his profile and isn't an atheist can be brought up. If he has a sense of logic (and we'll assume he does if he is on this site) he refutes this opinion all by his self. One of my hobbies is programming, and that is based solely on logic. Do I have to be an atheist to be able to understand my own logical code? Do I have to be an atheist to deduct and conclude trough basic logical thinking? Is this text void of logic?

    Being logical has nothing to do with religion. It is the simple art of deduction, the ability to reach a valid conclusion by following a set of variables and the rules of validity. Logic isn't faith, and the two don't share a home.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Sagey says2014-02-22T07:31:12.423
One here wrongly claims many many scientists think Creation is more probable than Evolution, funny hoe over 95% of scientists believe in Evolution only. The list of scientists on Answers-in-Genesis that oppose evolution is less than 1 millionth of current scientists, most who disagree with them entirely. Believing in Creationism is the same as believing in a Flat Earth, there is no evidence for either belief.
Evolution has a mountain of factual evidence supporting it, while Creation has none.
So it is easy to see why at least 95% of scientists support Evolution.
Because it contains Factual Evidence!
Factual evidence is the basis of science.
Creation is only a Theological construct, it contains absolutely no Facts.
VaLoR says2014-02-22T13:54:22.107
Is this a festival of ignorance and arrogance or what?

The question is a leading one. I consider myself an atheist in the sense that I LACK belief in a God. That does not translate to a BELIEF in the non-existence of God! However, it does mean that I do NOT consider both sides equally probable, which is why I no longer affiliate with agnosticism. Yet, in spite of my position, I feel it would be fallacious of me to proclaim that my view has a monopoly on logic, even if I personally see atheism more firmly grounded in the rules of logic and reason than religious faith.

Therefore, this poll is a waste of space.
Sagey says2014-02-22T23:10:34.903
All science is based purely on a logical investigation of observations.
Thus science is pure Logic.
A scientist cannot bring subjective notions (religion and other superstitions) into their work, otherwise their work becomes corrupted and no longer scientific.
Thus all Scientific logic must be without religious influence or Atheistic.
Thus it can only follow that Only Atheism can be Scientific or hold pure Logic.
Human_Joke65 says2014-02-22T23:13:15.023
Atheism is a bias against God. Guess again, Sagey.
Sagey says2014-02-22T23:54:05.303
WRONG! HumanJoke, that is a joke, aye! Atheism is Disbelief in God, because there is no evidence for belief in God. If a god exists, it created it's own bias against itself by showing no evidence for it's existence.
Science is pure logic, so is Atheism based on pure logic. Thus Science is atheistic
Human_Joke65 says2014-02-23T00:02:36.267
Science is knowledge; knowledge isn't automatically logical. Agnostics have a better chance of being pure scientists. That is God's joke on atheists. Agnostics. Those who don't insist on knowledge of God but focusing on nature.
Sagey says2014-02-23T00:23:56.810
@ Joke: You evidently know very little about science: Science is the objective, rational investigation of everything, all phenomenon that is observable. It is not observable, then science cannot investigate it.
Thus subjective, spiritual concepts cannot be observed and cannot be investigated scientifically.
The Belief system (Agnostic, Theist) cannot ever be involved in their scientific investigation, thus it is Irrelevant.
Science is a purely Logical (Rational), empirical evidence based assessment of everything.
No spiritual or superstitious concepts are ever allowed to interfere with scientific analysis, as they produce fraudulent, irrational results.
The only human condition that has no superstitious (Theistic) influence is Atheism.
Thus science cannot ever consider spirituality nor God as part of it's process, because such influences are Magic and magic cannot be predictable, thus magic/gods cannot be part of science in any sense whatsoever.
Thus Science must be entirely free from Gods/Religion.
Thus Science must be Atheistic to be fully Logical (Rational).
The only part of Agnosticism that is applicable to Science is the Atheist part of Agnosticism.
The Theistic side cannot ever be involved in Science in any way, or the Science becomes Irrational and Unscientific.

There are many Christian scientists, but every one of them must consider their Scientific Work from an Atheistic View, or their Scientific work will be Destroyed by the Irrationality of their Theism.
Sagey says2014-02-23T00:28:53.693
As I stated: There are many Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist scientists: But, while doing their Scientific work, they must think like Atheists or not consider their God(s) while doing their Science.
So they must become Atheists while performing their scientific analysis, for their analysis to be realistic.
Human_Joke65 says2014-02-23T00:31:29.027
Your condescendence is unwarranted. Your perception of science is nothing new to me. Atheism is a sycophantic ideology that is not even encouraged by science. Like a stalker, following everything science does, craving for attention.
Sagey says2014-02-23T00:40:33.570
You are also WRONG about Atheism: That's 2 things you know so little about.
Atheism is nor any form of Ideology, there is no underlying doctrines, nor dogma in Atheism.
Atheism is purely a position of Disbelief.
It is Disbelief in a God, because there is no evidence for it. That is all Atheism is, if your God produced some evidence for itself, there would be no Atheists. It's that simple.
There is no Rational, Scientific Evidence for God, thus we have Disbelief from those who require Scientific Evidence for belief (Atheists).
That is all Atheism is, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a belief-system, nor a religion, every atheist differs in every other thought.
The reason I'm Condescending is Simple:
It appears you have never even read a Dictionary in your Life.
If you understood even a good Dictionary's description of Science and Atheism, you would realize how stupid your comments and concepts are!
Human_Joke65 says2014-02-23T00:43:44.690
Science is neutral; atheism is not. Atheism as consistently described by internet atheists: the lack of belief in a deity. At best, atheism is half-scientific since science is more open to the possibility of God than atheism. This supports agnosticism as the scientific attitude towards God, since half of science is atheism, the other half must be theism. Theism and atheism cancel each other out, leaving agnosticism. Simple math.
VaLoR says2014-02-23T00:45:43.937
Agnosticism is neutrality. It suggests equal probability of both (or all) possibilities. If I told you there was a magic teapot with a genie inside it that is currently orbiting the sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars, and furthermore, that this magic teapot is too small to be detected by earthly telescopes, or by any other means, would you consider its existence just as probable as its nonexistence?

The common theistic (mis)characterization of atheism commits the false dilemma fallacy. The existence of God is not merely an "either-or" issue. There are gradients of probability -- shades of gray -- necessary for such an incorporeal subject. Moreover, theistic arguments also happen to commit the burden of proof fallacy. As is clearly the case for the magic teapot example, the burden is not on the skeptic to disprove the claim, but for the believer to provide unambiguous supporting evidence.
Human_Joke65 says2014-02-23T00:47:19.770
The hypocrisy of atheism is this: 'humble' self-description as simple disbelief in a deity, yet convoluted sophistry in its disingenuous rhetoric. Every atheist's ideology is stemmed from their avoidance of anything religious.
VaLoR says2014-02-23T00:50:55.253
In peer reviewed science, it is standard practice to approach most applicable studies/experiments with the null hypothesis. That is, one of skepticism -- no association between two variables or no difference between the intervention and control. Only when sufficient, statistically significant evidence is acquired can the scientist reject the null hypothesis. If the evidence isn't good enough they simply "fail to reject" the null hypothesis. This is just how the burden of proof works. Skepticism (atheism) is the default mode for unbiased understanding of the world.
Sagey says2014-02-23T00:58:48.693
Again: Joke: There is no Atheist Ideology, it doesn't exist.
Most of my Atheist friends don't even know about Science nor do they bother with religion, because they don't see any reason for it.
Yet, myself, I work for Christian charities and collect money as a Christian, because I have to wear identification which states I'm representing a Christian church. I do this because I see the charities as being humanitarian and worthwhile.
Essentially I'm a Humanist, as Confucius evidently was.
I even have some spiritual Atheist friends who believe that they have evidence for ghosts, yet because they don't have evidence for a God, they don't believe in it. One of them, my ex-gf is an Atheist Psychic, she thinks a parallel spiritual world exists alongside ours and believes she has seen evidence of this, but it has no ruler, or God, so she is an Atheist.
Again: You have absolutely no idea of Atheism.
That's a FACT!
I live in an Atheist community, we have no ideologies here, every one of us is a total individual, with nothing much in common apart from we like sport.
Human_Joke65 says2014-02-23T00:59:56.543
I already know how disorganized you are.
Sagey says2014-02-23T01:01:34.573
The reason I collect for Christian charities, is that there are not enough Christians in our community to do the job.
Christians are rather rare here, we are mostly Atheists.
About 20 years ago, it was mostly Christian and no children playing in the streets on Sunday mornings, because all were at church with their parents.
Now days, Sunday mornings are full of children playing in the street, it was much quieter when the community was Christian.
Sagey says2014-02-23T01:04:32.940
Nothing wrong with my organization, I do what needs to be done.
If there is a worthy cause, I'll be in it, regardless of who orchestrated or runs it.
That's because I'm a humanist, the humanistic cause comes first, who is performing the cause is irrelevant.
Human_Joke65 says2014-02-23T01:05:50.127
That's what keeps you a pariah. People prefer unity over division. Your insistence on individuality through unique philosophy is an impediment towards a fortified stance against God. Divide and conquer doesn't favor you. Because, faith is outside your realm of comfort, expertise, and limited perception of reality.
Sagey says2014-02-23T01:11:18.217
Faith is subjective, mostly Irrational nonsense:
I have faith in validated concepts like the earth is rotating and I will see the sun rise again tomorrow.
Having faith in unsupported by evidence claims like Jesus Christ was resurrected is unsubstantiated.
Thus I prefer to believe in what has been substantiated.
Nothing Jesus Christ ever did was substantiated by evidence, so Christianity is an unsubstantiated Religion.
Nothing Moses did was ever substantiated by evidence, so Judaism and it's offshoots Christianity ans Islam are also unsubstantiated belief systems.
My disbelief is substantiated by the Lack Of Evidence for any God.

So my views are entirely Substantiated.
Yours are NOT!
It's that Simple!
Human_Joke65 says2014-02-23T01:17:04.943
Faith isn't about substantiation. That's a problem for logic. Faith is the patient trust for God to come through in time of need. God doesn't see an urgent need to intervene and crash Jesus' 'party'.
Sagey says2014-02-23T09:01:05.373
Though Christians view Jesus as god, you are making them different that is Polytheism.

If your God cannot give any empirical evidence for it's existence, then you cannot blame people for becoming Atheists.
Because essentially the Atheists are your God's fault.
They exist only because your God is giving no evidence that it exists.
Though a highly probable Scenario, and By Far The Most Likely Truth, is that God does not exist.

In that case, the Atheists are all Right ane you are Entirely Wrong.
Which is the most likely truth.
So, you definitely cannot blame Atheists for their Rationality and Logic.

They have Rationality and Logic where you have NONE!
Your concepts are Extremely Irrational and Illogical.
Sagey says2014-02-23T12:47:08.147
Fact: Science must be Logical, because of how science arrives at it's conclusions by Rational Analysis (Logic) only.
Subjective concepts are Irrational, subjectivity cannot be Analysed by Rational Analysis, thus subjective concepts (such as Religion) cannot be deemed as Logical.
Sagey says2014-02-23T12:56:49.607
Aristotle only hinted at the Scientific Method: Empirical Rational Analysis that must satisfy Occam's Razor principle.
This is why subjective influences are Banned from science.
They are destroyed when Occam's Razor principle is employed.
Why? A Scientific Conclusion/Result, according to the Occam's Razor principle, must be the simplest, most probable Conclusion or Result.
Supernatural or subjective Results/Conclusions (God Did It) are the most Complex, Least Probable (unnatural) conclusions/results, thus they are automatically thrown in the rubbish bin by Occam's Razor principle.
This is why Creationism cannot ever be considered viable by Real Scientists.
Creation Scientists are far too Dumb to realize this Fact.
Though this doesn't deter Creation Scientists, even when aware of it, because publishing Lies for Creationist funding is far more lucrative than doing real science anyway.
That is why all Creation Science is nothing but Lies!