Now that we have learned more about the term "atheism" (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58537), we can move on to the next lesson.

The meme "lack of belief" was created by a bunch of idiots.

A belief in nothing is still a belief. There is no escape.

Atheists hate to be attatched to the stigma of believing in anything.
Therefore, they come up with these ludicrous ideas about claiming they lack the belief. They cry "double negative" to justify thier nonsense.
However, this is all a farce to make them 'feel' better.

Any position one takes is a belief. The claim of nonposition is a delusion. Basically people are in denial of the truth. That they "believe" soemthing. They simply do not like to be seen as "believing" in something.
Atheists are totally irrational.

Simple proof that the Atheism RELIGION is the dumbest of all religions. Face the facts. Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is a belief. Any possible "view" that you could possibly have is a bloody belief. Stop lying to yourself. No other religion so blatantly and irrationally deceives themselves as much as atheists.

Nobody cares if you "lack the belief" or "knoooow not any God yuka yuka yuka". These are your beliefs. These are your set of beliefs. Stop faking the funk.

There is no god(s). This has been proven to anyone with a shred of an ability to admit the truth to themselves.

I guess it depends on how one defines belief:

Belief
Noun

1. Any cognitive content held as true.

2. A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

3. A vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

There is no god(s). This has been proven to anyone with a shred of an ability to admit the truth to themselves.
superliminal believes "There is no god(s). "

samcdkey believes:
I guess it depends on how one defines belief:

Belief
Noun

1. Any cognitive content held as true.

2. A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

3. A vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

I believe there is/are no god(s). Exactly. God is a fantasy of the mind. We have adequate proof of this. Time to tell it the way it really is.

superliminal believes...
Spell my name right, luxlick.

Spell my name right, luxlick.
You seem to not be one of those atheists that do not fool themselves into this gay mindset that most atheists place themselves into. I assumed you would have been as nutty as the rest of them.

I believe there is/are no god(s). Exactly. God is a fantasy of the mind. We have adequate proof of this. Time to tell it the way it really is.
What proof?

lix/skill, obviously atheism or agnosticism is a belief. however, it is not the same as religion. I can't speak for all atheists, but as far as I am concerned, I "believe" that I should not support something for which there is insufficient evidence.

I don't "believe" in string theory, and I don't "believe" in a god. I may study these things, and I may formulate opinions about them, but I will not accept them as facts until sufficient evidence has been shown.

I guess you can call that a belief and, depending on your definition, you can even call that a religion. however, for the sake of clarity, it is best not to call it a religion because religions are usually associated with positive belief in supernatural as well as rituals... which I, an atheist, do not engage in.

Hi luke,
Do you believe that I'm wearing a blue shirt?
Do you believe that I'm not wearing a blue shirt?
Or do you not hold a belief about what I'm wearing?

Atheists hate to be attatched to the stigma of believing in anything.
Sterotype. Some of the people that argue with you insist that they don't hold a belief, because they attach a stigma to the idea of religious faith. So. What.

Some people believe that God does not exist, and acknowledge it as a belief.
Some people believe that God does not exist, and do not acknowledge it as a belief.
Some people really don't hold a belief either way.

I think that most people who identify as atheists hold a practical belief that no Gods exist, in the same way that they hold a practical belief that there is no pot of gold buried in their back yard.

If they dug up a pot of gold one day, their belief would obviously change. Likewise for God. A simple unambiguous demonstration would be sufficient to change their belief.


I think that the reason for the stigma against belief is a backlash against theists claiming that this practical belief is identical to theistic faith... but it's not the same thing.

Oh... and absence of evidence is evidence of absence if an adequate search for evidence has found nothing: I believe that there is no pot of gold in my cupboard, because I've looked and found an absence of evidence.

I'm glad lixluke was here to tell us that there is no such thing as a lack of belief. Quite an astounding revelation, really.

From his composition we can readily identify there is no such thing as a lack of intelligence, a lack of cognitive skills or a lack of synthesis.

Therefore, we must accept the fact that we MUST believe he has no intelligence, cognitive skills or the ability to synthesize.

I must say, he certainly made a believer out of me.

Hi luke,
Do you believe that I'm wearing a blue shirt?
Do you believe that I'm not wearing a blue shirt?
Or do you not hold a belief about what I'm wearing?
I have no idea what color your shirt is.

Oh... and absence of evidence is evidence of absence if an adequate search for evidence has found nothing: I believe that there is no pot of gold in my cupboard, because I've looked and found an absence of evidence.
Not if some people consider the pot of gold to be something other than what you think it is, and they are consistently running into what they call a pot of gold but which you call a bag of cookies in your cupboard.

Lix,

I have no idea what color your shirt is. So you lack the belief that his shirt is blue. But that contradicts your opening statements that lack of belief doesn't exist.

Surely according to you - you must believe he is wearing a blue shirt or you believe he is not wearing a blue shirt. So which is it?

lix/skill, obviously atheism or agnosticism is a belief. however, it is not the same as religion. I can't speak for all atheists, but as far as I am concerned, I "believe" that I should not support something for which there is insufficient evidence.

I don't "believe" in string theory, and I don't "believe" in a god. I may study these things, and I may formulate opinions about them, but I will not accept them as facts until sufficient evidence has been shown.

I guess you can call that a belief and, depending on your definition, you can even call that a religion. however, for the sake of clarity, it is best not to call it a religion because religions are usually associated with positive belief in supernatural as well as rituals... which I, an atheist, do not engage in.
As difficult as it may be to not view atheism as a religion, I can give credence to those that would claim it is not a religion like marxism or whateverism.

Perhaps when they stop acting like religious fanatics, and start behaving as rationally as they claim to be.
Especially the internet proliferation of these mickymouseterms.
Should atheists really expect to be taken seriously?
Even this forum includes them in their FAQ (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679).
It's mindboggling.

So you lack the belief that his shirt is blue. But that contradicts your opening statements that lack of belief doesn't exist.

Surely according to you - you must believe he is wearing a blue shirt or you believe he is not wearing a blue shirt. So which is it?
It's an interesting example.
I have no idea whether or not his shirt is blue.
I don't run around yammering about how I lack the belief that he is wearing a blue shirt. Nor do I run around crying about how little I care about the color of his shirt. It's not a huge deal as many atheists seem to make their beliefs about God to be. They even make a huge deal out of acting like it's not a huge deal. Yet they obsess over it.
Well maybe not all of them which I am coming to find out, but many I have met anyway.

I guess what I am getting at is that when you ask me if I lack the belief that his shirt is blue, the first thing that comes to mind is that I simply do not know if his shirt is blue or not.
This is not the same type of respons I get from "lack of belief" atheists as described in my OP. I have not really heard them say as I have about the blue shirt. "I simply do not know whether God exists or not". Whats wrong with that? Why go fanatic about the whole "lack of belief" ideology?

Moreover, it gets absurd sometimes. You mention God to some of them.
"What?! God?! I do not acknowledge any God!! Bah!"
Ookay.

lixluke is actually making a good point in the end of this last post. Sometimes just mentioning the word "God" makes some professed atheists go ballistic. Some of them are right here on this forum. I won't name anyone. They'll probably make themselves known at some point.

Lix

It's an interesting example.It is more than that, it is key to your erroneous statements.

I have no idea whether or not his shirt is blue.That is not a belief, that is an absence of belief which according to you cannot exist. Choose or accept that your thread is fundamentally flawed.

I don't run around yammering about how I lack the belief that he is wearing a blue shirt. Nor do I run around crying about how little I care about the color of his shirt. This is irrelevant to your assertion that you claim there is only belief. Either you believe the shirt is blue or you believe it is not. You have implied there is no position for “don’t know”. Now you need to correct yourself.

It's not a huge deal as many atheists seem to make their beliefs about God to be. They even make a huge deal out of acting like it's not a huge deal. Yet they obsess over it.
Well maybe not all of them which I am coming to find out, but many I have met anyway.Can’t say I care. I have no idea whether gods exist or not (like you having no idea of the shirt color). How would you label me? How would you characterize my clear absence of belief? Which of course you claim doesn’t exist.

Why go fanatic about the whole "lack of belief" ideology?
It's a backlash against people describing atheism as a religion.

The position of most atheists is less like "I don't know if Pete's shirt is blue", more like "I don't know if there is a pot of gold in my backyart", and possibly even more like "I believe that there is no pot of gold in my cupboard."


The belief in practice of an atheist, based on absence of evidence that should be evident is not like the belief in practice of most (not all) theists, based on parental and peer indoctrination and/or purely subjective evidence. But it is a common argument of theists that the atheist belief is like the theist belief. When the atheist in return declares a "lack of belief", they are denying a lack of belief of the theistic kind.

There are exceptions of course. Some atheists do in fact hold a fanatical dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist. Unfortunately, this type are overrepresented in public discussions, and they will often deny their belief purely as an argumentative measure. For them, it's not about finding the truth, it's about justifying their existing belief.

I'm an atheist. I believe there is no god. So what's the big deal?

A belief in nothing is still a belief. There is no escape.

I think the thread does an adequate job of proving nothing. Therefore I believe it to be true.

...
It's not a huge deal as many atheists seem to make their beliefs about God to be. They even make a huge deal out of acting like it's not a huge deal. Yet they obsess over it.
Well maybe not all of them which I am coming to find out, but many I have met anyway.
Here's a relevant post I made in another thread:

Not all atheists are zealots. Neither are all theists.

Unfortunately, zealots (both atheist and theist) are more visible, because they are the most argumentative. The result is that most theists think that most or all atheists are zealots, and most atheists think that most or all theists are zealots. It makes productive communication very difficult, because it hides the common ground shared between most theists and atheists.

Here's a relevant post I made in another thread:

Not all atheists are zealots. Neither are all theists.

Unfortunately, zealots (both atheist and theist) are more visible, because they are the most argumentative. The result is that most theists think that most or all atheists are zealots, and most atheists think that most or all theists are zealots. It makes productive communication very difficult, because it hides the common ground shared between most theists and atheists.

What common ground? :)

I guess what I am getting at is....

Oh, pleeeease, just tell me which one the only and true religion is and I will sign up and we can shut you up. Leave the illogical nonsense....

I mean I already tried Haven's Gate, but when they wanted to castrate me, I said, noooooooooo....!!!!!!

"For a time, group members lived in a darkened house where they would simulate the experience they expected to have during their long journey in outer space. A publication produced at this time that received some press attention was titled "How to build a U.F.O." and purported to describe an interplanetary spacecraft built out of materials such as old tires."

I should apologize for blatantly violating rules time and again for the bashing of an entire religion or whatever you want to call it.

Like Jaster said, part of it is one of my best friends that is blatantly atheist, and refuses to embrace his atheism. He thinks he's a gay bright. He goes into convulsions(not literally) at the mere mention of God. Any time he watches a movie or whatever. Sometimes they say things colloquialisms such as "Oh God" and "Jesus Christ!". He starts tripping.

To top it off, I go online, and there is all this talk about "weak atheism, atheist agnostic, lack of belief, and on and on"
I just roll my eyes at this.
Either you believe in God or you do not. Or you don't know. Perhaps you don't know or don't care.

I find it funny that it has often been related to me about a flying spaghetti monster. My stance is the mofo simply doesn't exist. I believe it doesn't exist. However you would like to phrase it. There is no flipping flying spaghetti monster.

Many atheists feel the same way about God, yet for some reason, do not take any stance.

Proposition: The flying spaghetti monster does exist.
I would take the con, and say hell no.

Frankly, nobody uses phrases like "lack of belief" or "absence of belief".
Either you believe it or not or you simply don't know or could care less.
I guess this is what I am getting at in my OP.
Not necessarily that the "lack of belief" defined is invalid.
More like the "lack of belief/absence of belief" as a phrase is pointless.


Then there is the whole changing of "I do not believe" phrase. Everybody knows when I say "I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster", my intentended meaning is that "there is no such thing as a flying spaghetty monster".
Unfortunately, atheists have caviled the phrase "I do not believe" to the point of insanity.
Now you can no longer say "I do not believe" something without some nutcase walking up to you:
"You do not believe. That means it is possible that you do not not believe. It is possible that you are claiming you do not know if this monster exists. Har har har"
Get real!

Sure what the caviler says is totally accurate.
However, nobody in real life uses "I don't believe" in any other connotation than describing actually believing there is no. Leading more to the criticism of atheist fanaticism.


What I am saying is not necessary that "lack of believe" really has no meaning. It could, in fact, well have a meaning. I am simply saying that it doesn't exist because it has no relevance. There is no point in it. You believe. You don't believe. You don't know. Whatever. The term "lack of belief" is simply so nonsensical.

Oh, pleeeease, just tell me which one the only and true religion is and I will sign up and we can shut you up. Leave the illogical nonsense....

I mean I already tried Haven's Gate, but when they wanted to castrate me, I said, noooooooooo....!!!!!!

"For a time, group members lived in a darkened house where they would simulate the experience they expected to have during their long journey in outer space. A publication produced at this time that received some press attention was titled "How to build a U.F.O." and purported to describe an interplanetary spacecraft built out of materials such as old tires."
????WTF????

Yet another thread started on stupidity!

Here we are again arguing about the same old crap, as the other thread. News flash Lixnutcase has no "lackofbelief" that I have a 12"pecker! thus it's a fact, that since he can't "lackbelief" of my 12"pecker that I do have a 12"pecker! :D

Thaks Lix!

What was I saying about zealots? :rolleyes:

Yet another thread started on stupidity!

Here we are again arguing about the same old crap, as the other thread. News flash Lixnutcase has no "lackofbelief" that I have a 12"pecker! thus it's a fact, that since he can't "lackbelief" of my 12"pecker that I do have a 12"pecker! :D

Thaks Lix!
Godless is a loon. Defending his concept of lack of belief with total fanaticism.

Some atheists do in fact hold a fanatical dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist.
All atheists hold this belief.That is the very definition of atheism.
God does not exist.

How about "I don't know?" There is no evidence for God.

All atheists hold this belief.That is the very definition of atheism.
God does not exist.
Don't belive there is a God due to there is no evidence for God, like there is no evidence for hobgoblins, unicorns, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

I lack a belief in little green men on the moon, in that I don't actively disbelieve it, it's just not a thought that comes up in the course of a typical day.

I lack a belief in little green men on the moon, in that I don't actively disbelieve it, it's just not a thought that comes up in the course of a typical day.
But the thought of "God" does come up regularly for you. You're here, on this forum, right? You're obviously not ambivalent to "God", since you comment on "God" regularly. So, do you believe or disbelieve in "God"? Or, do you not know? See, although lixluke's position seems rather silly, I think I understand what he's trying to say, although I disagree with his generalizations.

You can't talk about "God" on a regular basis, claim to not believe in God, and then say it's not an active disbelief, just a lack of belief. A simple lack of belief implies ambivalence, and any atheist who posts around here and doesn't simply say "I don't know" on the question of "God" is taking an active position on the subject. If you were really ambivalent, and it was just a simple lack of belief, then you wouldn't comment. As soon as you make the decision to comment on the topic, and you say that you don't believe, then you are taking an active position. To take a passive position, someone would have to ask you. The fact is, you assert that you don't believe in "God", which means you are actively disbelieving in "God" since you've gone out of your way to write it all down without being prompted by the question. You see my point?

But the thought of "God" does come up regularly for you. You're here, on this forum, right? You're obviously not ambivalent to "God", since you comment on "God" regularly. So, do you believe or disbelieve in "God"? Or, do you not know? See, although lixluke's position seems rather silly, I think I understand what he's trying to say, although I disagree with his generalizations.

You can't talk about "God" on a regular basis, claim to not believe in God, and then say it's not an active disbelief, just a lack of belief. A simple lack of belief implies ambivalence, and any atheist who posts around here and doesn't simply say "I don't know" on the question of "God" is taking an active position on the subject. If you were really ambivalent, and it was just a simple lack of belief, then you wouldn't comment. As soon as you make the decision to comment on the topic, and you say that you don't believe, then you are taking an active position. To take a passive position, someone would have to ask you. The fact is, you assert that you don't believe in "God", which means you are actively disbelieving in "God" since you've gone out of your way to write it all down without being prompted by the question. You see my point?
The problem is that the knowledge of the concept of God is not saying that someone believes in God. Anyone can have the concept of God. You can disagree with the belief in God but know the concept. Atheist know the concept of God. Atheist just dont belive in a God due to no evidence to support the concept.

Jaster,
Personally, I actively disbelieve in God with a high degree of certainty (slightly less than 100%, to the same degree as I disbelieve in Hobbits), but I think what I described is possible, there are some people, such as stone age tribes in the Amazon, who simply lack a belief in the concept.

"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing." "Oh," says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn't it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don't." "Oh, I hadn't thought of that." says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. - Douglas Adams

I lack a belief in little green men on the moon, in that I don't actively disbelieve it, it's just not a thought that comes up in the course of a typical day.
Wrong.

The problem is that the knowledge of the concept of God is not saying that someone believes in God. Anyone can have the concept of God. You can disagree with the belief in God but know the concept. Atheist know the concept of God. Atheist just dont belive in a God due to no evidence to support the concept.
Yes, but the question of belief is what comes up most often on here. If you participate in that line of questioning, and you don't say "I don't know", then you've considered it and now your position is no longer passive. Passivity on the issue would imply ambivalence to the concept of "God", but when you take part in the discussion of whether or not "God" exists, and you say that you don't believe in "God", you've taken an active stance on belief and so you no longer "lack belief". Once you've done that, you are disbelieving in "God".

Yes, but the question of belief is what comes up most often on here. If you participate in that line of questioning, and you don't say "I don't know", then you've considered it and now your position is no longer passive. Passivity on the issue would imply ambivalence to the concept of "God", but when you take part in the discussion of whether or not "God" exists, and you say that you don't believe in "God", you've taken an active stance on belief and so you no longer "lack belief". Once you've done that, you are disbelieving in "God".
Well I don't know, but I have not seen any real evidence of a God, gods, or even the supernatural. It is more likely that (thanks to the human imagination) to come up with more things that do not exist in our corporal reality than things that do exist. So the probability of God existing is so small that I have a better chance of winning the jackpot of the lottery every time I play. Logically, rationally, empirically, morally why should we believe in God and the existence of God? I can understand it gives the concept of immortality in an afterlife but we have no evidence of an afterlife. Wouldn’t you call it blind faith? Why believe in something that has no evidence to stand on? This type of faith gives false information, information that harmful, dangerous, and sometime down right deadly. Shouldn’t we be putting that faith to better use into ourselves, each other and humanity? Even then Science has always come up with better answer than religion. If you take religion vs science in finding truth, improving human society and advancement of technology; science wins every time. Religion has not advanced us. Science has. Science uses empirical evidence. Religion uses faith. This is the core differences in the philosophies. Religion at its core is not self correcting. Science is. Science has extrapolated theories that even challenge the scientific method. Sure we have question that can’t be answered right now but that is the way science work in finding truth. It continues to research, test and share its results. This belief in God doesn’t help in the search for truth. How can you find truth when you expect to find God at the end and beginning of the string? Believing in God exist is a simile to believing the Tooth Fairy exists. It’s childish to believe in a delusion of a grand deity. I can see why the feel that the illusion of a grant deity gives people false comfort when dealing with the unknown. When you take an exalted delusion of a deity and make it the absolute truth, it goes against scientific method, rational thought, and empirical evidence. Religion use faith in an imaginary deity as evidence of reality.
Most religious people are predisposed to think faith in religion as truth since birth. We have a natural tendency, due to evolution and survival, to believe our parents without question the first years of our lives.

Almost every time religion has been brought up as the prime authoritative standard for government and society we see a depression in human rights & human culture.

Isn’t better to deal with reality as it is than to believe in illusions?

Isn’t better to deal with reality as it is than to believe in illusions?
Of course. The question is, What among all conceivable things is real? You and I can both admit that we don't really know.

It sounds preoposterous, but it really is impossible to tell whether or not there is a tooth fairy. There might be one, somewhere. That's a true statement.

but it really is impossible to tell whether or not there is a tooth fairy. There might be one, somewhere. That's a true statement.

But until such time where there is evidence to support a claim of the existence of tooth fairies, it is simple foolishness to assert that they do exist.

I wont speak for everyone, but I find many theists are utterly wrong in their assumptions that an atheist is "anti-theist". My only quarrel with god claims, (as well as leprechaun claims etc), is that the claims are not supported with evidence. Yes, tooth fairies, leprechauns, gods and floating donuts might exist, but claiming they do exist while not understanding the need for evidence is where the issue lies.

Of course. The question is, What among all conceivable things is real? You and I can both admit that we don't really know.

It sounds preoposterous, but it really is impossible to tell whether or not there is a tooth fairy. There might be one, somewhere. That's a true statement.
Isn't there a bit of pragmatism to be applied here? Physicists know that there is a probability that all of the molecules in a container of gas will momentarily all move to the left half of the container. The probabioity is so small that no physicist will spend time debating the benefits of, and uses for, this phenomenon. Sure it might happen in some part of the universe at some time or other, but there's no practical purpose in considering it.

There is the possibility that there are a set of phenomena that have completely escaped our notice that would indicate or otherwise support a universe-creator/omnipotent being/guiding intelligence in the universe. Given the current state of our understanding what is the likelyhood of a god? Why do humans insist on spending hours and lives discussing something with such a low probability factor?

This really is off-topic.

Isn't there a bit of pragmatism to be applied here? Physicists know that there is a probability that all of the molecules in a container of gas will momentarily all move to the left half of the container. The probabioity is so small that no physicist will spend time debating the benefits of, and uses for, this phenomenon. Sure it might happen in some part of the universe at some time or other, but there's no practical purpose in considering it.
For science, there really is no practical purpose in considering the existence of God. But socially, there are clear benefits, the most obvious of which would be the facilitation of group cohesion. Even if you're convinced that religion causes violence between sects, that's still better than having your own particular sect degenerate into chaos, no?

This really is off-topic.
That's all right, there are two threads.

.."I simply do not know whether God exists or not". Whats wrong with that? Why go fanatic about the whole "lack of belief" ideology?
maybe b/c lack of belief aint ideology?:)
and theists like you would like to make atheists "lack of belief" ie their "atheism" into some kind of religion for some dum reason.
look up the DEFINITION of religion and stop whining when atheists gets pissed of at you.
only reason atheists hate religion(in my case at least) is of all the EVIL done in the Name of GOD,
you dont see anyone killing torturing others,flying airplanes into buildings in the name of ATHEISM do you?
anyways Ill go one step further and I tell you that I dont believe...I KNOW your Xian God doesnt exist,(theres millions of threds on this gods disprove already so no need to repeat it)and as for the rest of them www.godchecker.com they are just as imaginary unless youd like to tell them to come down from the sky or wherever they are and SHOW us some of these gods.

Godless is a loon. Defending his concept of lack of belief with total fanaticism.

Actually the only loon here is the one who claims idiotic shit without any evidense to back it up, that prety much covers just about every theist. Including you licmynut!

For science, there really is no practical purpose in considering the existence of God. But socially, there are clear benefits, the most obvious of which would be the facilitation of group cohesion. Even if you're convinced that religion causes violence between sects, that's still better than having your own particular sect degenerate into chaos, no?

Well, could someone come up with an idea that would facilitate group cohesion without the superbeing fantasy part? The one who's motto has been "Convert or Die"?

Anyone? Anyone...?

Anyway, there is no such thing as a lack of belief. CSLL has me convinced. Believe it, or not.

Actually the only loon here is the one who claims idiotic shit without any evidense to back it up, that prety much covers just about every theist. Including you licmynut!
Far be it from me to defend teh skill, but that kind of blanket statement is exactly the same kind of blanket statement that religious fanatics make about other religions.

Far be it from me to defend teh skill, but that kind of blanket statement is exactly the same kind of blanket statement that religious fanatics make about other religions.

True huh! Till the day a theist can conjure up any evidence for their deity, I shall stand on that statement! ;) Do you believe in Zeus? or any other god? I just believe in one less, do to the lack of "evidence"

So those who make claims that can't be backed up with evidence, are prety much in the idiotic circle! Atheism makes no claims, we just await the "evidence" of such claims made by theists!

Well, could someone come up with an idea that would facilitate group cohesion without the superbeing fantasy part? The one who's motto has been "Convert or Die"?

Anyone? Anyone...?
The superbeing fantasy part is, I think, a natural result of man's propensity to see causality where there apparently is none. The "convert or die" part is the real problem.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a lack of belief. CSLL has me convinced. Believe it, or not.
Anyone with a brain knows His word is Truth. (Of course, if you don't have a brain, then you don't have a mind with which to believe...)

For science, there really is no practical purpose in considering the existence of God. But socially, there are clear benefits, the most obvious of which would be the facilitation of group cohesion. Even if you're convinced that religion causes violence between sects, that's still better than having your own particular sect degenerate into chaos, no?
Not if that cohesion prevents something better to come along. Ever heard of revolution?

True huh! Till the day a theist can conjure up any evidence for their deity, I shall stand on that statement! ;) Do you believe in Zeus? or any other god? I just believe in one less, do to the lack of "evidence"
Believe? Good sir, in the true path to enlightenment, mere proposition precedes inquiry and conclusion; and only then comes belief.

So those who make claims that can't be backed up with evidence, are prety much in the idiotic circle! Atheism makes no claims, we just await the "evidence" of such claims made by theists!
One "idiotic" belief does not a whole idiot make. Plenty of crackpots have professed atheism; plenty of intelligent people have believed in God. But if you stop questioning either, how can you really know for sure whose proposition is closer to the truth?

Not if that cohesion prevents something better to come along. Ever heard of revolution?
Revolution has been the exception, not the norm. Can you imagine if such turmoil was the usual state of affairs for a community? How could it function?

Revolution has been the exception, not the norm. Can you imagine if such turmoil was the usual state of affairs for a community? How could it function?

As it always has, the strongest wins! :rolleyes:

Always.