Off Topic Piers Morgan v Tommy Robinson

I wasn't referring to you as per say, I was saying in general those who purport that its nonsense that you have a logical argument not rants as to why reasonably/logically your stance is correct, cant just say all religions are this and that without having an idea about those religions and not all religions are same.

 

Indeed it does and has made RE compulsory and even allows schools to discriminate on faith grounds [in certain circumstances] Those secular states eh

 

The paramilitary wing of the Old Testament

 

You don't have to know every religious argument to not believe in any gods.
You could know none of them and still be an atheist.

 

This ^^

The belief that there is no God is simply another belief system.

 

In before Israel jokes.

 

How many times are you going to repeat that?
If someone flips a coin and says that it landed on heads without showing you, do you believe that it's tails if you don't believe them?
To simplify it even more, if someone says that A is a thing, then not accepting A doesn't mean that you accept B, instead.

 

Not necessarily true but evidence of how social attitudes change as countries develop would suggest it is likely.

And are you saying that with religion dictating law there would be no downside to being gay? Sex before marriage would be fine and blasphemy would be ignored? Along with other more liberal ways of life? Again all the evidence says the opposite.

 

Atheism is just one of the many words with the 'a' prefix like apolitical, asexual - the 'a' meaning 'showing no interest in'. I've never thought of it as anything more or less than that.

 

You're coin analogy is closest as this is an either/or situation. You either believe in the existence of a supreme being(s) or you don't.

 

Whether its atheism or what ever is fundamental you as person is who you are at the end of the day.

You are entitled to your belief as we all are, theist and atheist get on with no problems.

As for the extremist if you believe just rocking up at a Church and barracking worshippers would count as extremism then that's very simplistic view mate. Historically there has been people of no-belief persecuting people for having belief, even now it happens in China, if you want to deny that then that's your choice but doesn't make it go away or less of it being a fact.

 

I'd say it's closer to the word non, rather than no interest, but yeah.

 

AKA the masses.

And each one has a vote.

 

I know atheists who are a bit like vegans. They take every opportunity to tell you they are atheist. Argue stubbornly that you too should be an atheist and get angry if you disagree. Make everything about religion (or lack of it).

These would be your extremists I guess.

I'm an atheist myself, but I usually say "I'm not religious" rather than atheist; over here if you say you're an atheist people assume you're one of "those kind" of athiests, the kind that won't live and let live.

 

There's also a C though. The fact that God might exist, but you can neither prove or disprove it.

 

That's not C, that's notA.

 

And that's how it is generally thought of today. It's origins are from within the Christian Church though and it was intended as a slur.

 

In science, you have to prove a theory, in religion you dont, how does that work?