Rep. Stark applauded for atheist outlook

Legitimate Questions

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
Yes I am willfully rude.

However, that's not an insult, it is a legitimate question.

Did you even read my posts?

Do you have any idea what I'm talking about?

Can you even read?

These are also "legitimate questions", but they are unnecessarily rude.

If you think I'm wrong, that's fine. I cheerfully encourage you to point out how I'm wrong and don't feel like you have to pull punches.

Ironically, I expect many who describe themselves as Atheists to take offense to my opinions, but that's actually my point: for Atheists who declare there is no God, saying such a declaration is an act of faith is heresy.

But I'm not going to dignify rudeness in any form. We will discuss the issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect or not at all.

If the reason for my insistence is not clear, then by all means please read this.

If you're willing to challenge me in a civil manner, I'll be happy to respond in kind.

Originally posted by Majic
Atheism: The Religion That Denies Being A Religion

In the absence of proof either way, declaring there isn't a God requires just as much faith as declaring there is a God.

Such is the irony of the Atheist Religion.

If Representative Stark chooses to believe there isn't a God, good for him! Religious freedom must apply to Atheists as much as anyone else for it to truly be freedom.

But to imply that such a declaration of faith is somehow superior to other declarations of faith is nothing short of religious bigotry.

At least, that's how I see it.

Your Mileage May Vary.

I don't follow your reasoning at all. I think it falls into the category of fallacies where the burden of proof is shifted without due cause. By this argument, it takes just as much faith to disbelieve in any invisible, intangible entity for which there is not the slightest scrap of evidence as to hold such a belief not meeting the criteria of acceptance.

When theists do make testable claims (e.g. Creationism, or faith healing), they miserably fail the test. If the claim that your particular favorite deity exists is untestable, then it is just another of an infinite number of possible untestable claims. Should I believe in all of them, or just the one that you believe in? Doesn't it make far more sense to believe in none of them?

Especially, as Victor Stenger has recently argued, the universe looks just exactly as we would expect if there was no God?

Originally posted by Majic
But I'm not going to dignify rudeness in any form. We will discuss the issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect or not at all.

If the reason for my insistence is not clear, then by all means please read this.

If you're willing to challenge me in a civil manner, I'll be happy to respond in kind.

Well, there's no reason rudeness can't be part of a civil discussion. At least in my opinion.

Anyways....

Originally posted by Majic
Ironically, I expect many who describe themselves as Atheists to take offense to my opinions, but that's actually my point: for Atheists who declare there is no God, saying such a declaration is an act of faith is heresy.

Yes, making a declaration that there for certain is no God is more or less an act of faith. However, you must understand, that in general Atheists are not making such a claim at all.

As an Agnostic Atheist I do not believe in the existence of any diety. I am however not stating that no such diety can possibly exist. I can personally say with 99.95% certaintiy that the Christian God of the Bible is false. I cannot be absolutely certain (100%), because disproving a negative is impossible. It's the same with invisible pink unicorns. I cannot be completely certain they're not all around us, but with my sense of reason and logic I can say it is reasonable to assume that they do not exist. There is no logical reason to believe in invisible pink unicorns. The same goes for any other man made diety I've ever heard of.

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not using faith at all to justify my philisophical position. I'm not sure how to make it any more clear than that.

EDIT: You should also read the above post of disownedsky, he has some very good points, maybe this will help you open your eyes.

Vlad

[edit on 15-3-2007 by VladTheImpaler]

Suspension Of Disbelief

Originally posted by disownedsky
I don't follow your reasoning at all. I think it falls into the category of fallacies where the burden of proof is shifted without due cause.

My point is that for any declaration, the burden of proof is upon the person making it.

Does God exist? I don't know. Complicating the question is the rather significant issue of just what God is -- or perhaps more accurately what gods are, which I also don't know.

So I honestly claim not to know, which is a neutral position.

Many who call themselves "Atheists" actually share this position, but that really describes "Agnosticism" more accurately than doctrinal Atheism -- doctrine being what most clearly distinguishes an "-ism" in cases of semantic ambiguity.

However, the moment anyone claims "God doesn't exist", that's a declaration of faith unless some sort of logical proof is provided to support the claim.

That's my point: that declaring something doesn't exist (without proof) requires as much faith as declaring it does exist, and I see this sort of thing a lot.

It's a form of self-deception which is not based in logic or reason, and is no better than declaring the wind doesn't exist because it cannot be seen.

That's my perspective on the issue, and I could certainly be wrong, but logical fallacies won't prove me wrong.

Is what I'm sayin'.




Edit: Added the rather important "(without proof)" proviso above.

[edit on 3/15/2007 by Majic]

Originally posted by Majic
Many who call themselves "Atheists" actually share this position, but that really describes "Agnosticism" more accurately than doctrinal Atheism -- doctrine being what most clearly distinguishes an "-ism" in cases of semantic ambiguity.

I agree with a lot of the things you write, however I disagree on this spesific point.

Atheism has less to do with the question "does God exist or not?" and more to do with the question of faith. Atheism, i.e. Anti-theism, is simply a label of a person whom does not belong to any spesific religion or belief system.

Therefore, logically, I classify my self as an Agonstic Atheist. I am without belief in any direty or supernatural entity and I am also of the philisopical position that the question of God is unknowable and therefore also irrelevant to my existence.

The bottom line is that this guy shouldn't be judged poorly because of his disbelief in God. As long as his beliefs don't effect his duty to represent the people that put him in office directly then it's a moot point.

I think it's great that he has the courage to even come forward with such information without fear of being crushed by the religous machine that controlls this country, and which I might add will most likely ruin his career because it doesn't fit into their quaint little box of conformity and control.

~Anathema

I wouldn't be surprised if many politicians claiming to be religious are actually closet atheists. This would certainly explain the lack of accountability for their actions.

But really, why should people's religion or lack of one, be brought into government at all? It shouldn't I think..

Originally posted by dollmonster
I wouldn't be surprised if many politicians claiming to be religious are actually closet atheists. This would certainly explain the lack of accountability for their actions.

Way to smear atheists. Religious affiliation doesn't guarantee personal integrity.