The whole point in claiming that atheism is a belief and atheism is a religion is to attempt to give it some burden of proof. The normal god argument comes from someone claiming that a god or gods exist. If someone else doesn't accept that, then it's down to the person making the initial claim to demonstrate that it's true. By suggesting that the person rejecting the argument is actually making their own claim, it shifts part of the argument onto them. You've just demonstrated it with your post above. It's a rather tedious and transparent game, honestly. "We both have a belief", "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist", and the like. Nonsense.
Did anyone say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? As for clarifying what proof is, you'd have to have a coherent claim in the first place in order for that to happen. You don't. If you told people about germs before we knew what they were, then how would they have known what proof to look for? There's plenty of things that we can demonstrate now, but that people didn't know how to demonstrate before. It's still down to those that are making the claim to show that it's correct, though.
As an atheist, I don't understand militant atheism. There is nothing to be gained by going around telling people who believe in a religion that they are wrong or that their religion is evil and they should stop believing. Especially, if one also claims to be a humanist, like many militant atheists are. Humanism has as tennants morality, altruism, and reason. Going around being a dick to religious people violates those three tennants. There is absolutely no point in "converting" people to atheism. Sure, feel free to explain why you think you're right if they ask, or in common parlance. But to go after them and trash them like Fry, or Dawkins is just being a dick.
Me being atheist has nothing to do with folk influencing me to not believe in God. That's such a backwards concept to me.
Likes of Dawkins, Harris et al are riding the Islamic fundamentalist wave more than Isis yet people claiming to be atheist hold them up as heroes. The evolution of atheism has had these characters throughout
Probably a bit different for them, though. They've experienced American culture from a position as an outsider and both have clashed with the religious over there. Fry because he's gay and Dawkins because of evolution. Fry also had quite a rant about child abuse and the Catholic church, so I don't know if that's got something to do with it.
Yep claiming. Watching a Dawkins YouTube vid doesn't make one atheist Out of curiousity Do you honestly believe someone like Dawkins is atheist?
I have lived in the US for 20+ years and I have too. One example that I find ironic. I briefly dated this one girl when I was younger whose mother was white and father black. Once her mother found out I was atheist, she forbade her daughter from seeing me. (Would have thought her mother less prone to prejudice... But oh well...) The thing is, 90% of religious people leave you alone. Yeah, there is a 10% obnoxious group, but being obnoxious back doesn't help. Lowering yourself to the same outlook as the bigoted minority isn't very productive.
The problem is that the obnoxious theists don't tend to stick to writing books, unfortunately. I thought we were getting away from it in our politics, especially when compared to the US, but then the DUP happened.
Then you suspect wrong, and then some The evolution of atheism fascinates me. Fro. Its racist roots to its fundamentalist attitudes today
