Willravel

Nice try. I am saying that belief in god is illogical, not that god doesn't exist. One of the worst arguments a theist can make is "you cannot disprove the existence of god". It's a stance of desperation. Agnostic atheism takes the stance that god almost certainly doesn't exist, and that belief that he/she/it does exist is totally unreasonable and illogical. In other words, we don't need to prove god doesn't exist. No evidence exists so suggest that god is real, so the burden of proof lies with the believers.
Why don't you believe in Zeus?
That's why I qualified the statement with 'in many ways'.
How is it reasonable to totally believe in something you admit is beyond your comprehension without a shred of evidence? I believe in the existence of elephants, though I've never seen one, but I have seen photographic evidence and I know people who have seen them.
When I was younger I needed very serious heart surgery. I had a coarctation of the aorta that needed immediate repair. I was sedated, turned on my side and a rib was removed. While under sedation, while the doctor was working, my heart stopped. My blood stopped pumping for around 45 seconds. I was, for all intents and purposes, dead. Did I see unicorns and fairies? Nope. Shiva? Guess again. God? I don't think so. There was nothing. No consciousness. My 'soul' didn't go anywhere or do anything. It was simply as if someone flipped a switch and I turned off. That's what happens when you die. Your body's functions cease and the person you are ceases to be. You go from alive to dead. You don't reincarnate as a mushroom or go into heaven or hell. After death, your lifeless body decomposes. Everything that evidence tells us supports that.
No. I won't know everything one day. It's possible that millions of years from now science will have progressed so far that mankind will virtually know everything, but I can't say for sure. I like how you quote me, but you argue against this "often time i hear" person. I've never said that. What I have said is that it's possible that one day we will discover conclusively that god is or isn't real based on evidence. Science will just keep trucking along either way. Living your life based on something that we may or may not prove tomorrow is illogical, though.
Which is textbook. Instead of thinking rationally about the situation, you instead use your dislike of me and/or my arguments to fuel your unreasonable beliefs. No one can prove or disprove god's existence with any certainty, and yet you believe absolutely he exists. I think that his existence is very, very, unlikely, but I cannot say that he does not exist. So you're trying to present our two stances are somehow in equilibrium on some imaginary scale is wrong. If I said, "god absolutely isn't real": I could understand your being safe in your certain faith as being directly opposed reasonably to my own. That's not the case. My argument is reasonable. Yours has long since crumbled from beneath you.

In other words, if my arguments strengthen your faith, then your faith is rather weak because instead of being inspired by the holy spirit or something, it is faith to spite me. That's childish, and I doubt I can find a place in the bible that reads: "And lo Jesus said onto you, 'Atheists are douschebags, so believe in me to piss them off. It'll be funny.'"
Yes, my experience is absolutely wrong. How could I possibly believe my own eyes when your invisible statistics speak so clearly?

Show me a census done on atheists' race, or admit you don't know what you're talking about. Frankly, I expected more from you than to try and make this a race issue. Just because I am white and you are black doesn't mean that this discussion has anything to do with race.



Ritesign, if you believe my arguments to be illogical, then by all means show me. I played devil's advocate for the first 19-20 years of my life. The nice thing about basing your perception on reason is when you find a flaw, you adapt to it. I've found flaws in my understandings before, and I've adapted and become better for them. Show me where I'm wrong, and I'll simply be right again.

I tried to cite examples. The most prevalent today are things like creationism. I think that anyone who firmly believes in Darwinism should understand that creationism at the very least is a ridiculous misinterpretation of scripture, and at most a sign of religion screwing up and stagnating science again. The problem isn't creationism itself as much as it is that it's a symptom of a systemic problem created by belief in the supernatural. The problem comes when one has to integrate the supernatural into their understanding of the universe. Most people understand that mating between species of the same kin/den/family can lead to severe problems. We know that there are millions of species of animal that covers the planet. And yet Noah had a boat with two of every animal. It's illogical to say the least. When I was a Christian, I had to reconcile things like this by either ignoring them or taking sides. Some people will take the side of science and insist that the story is a metephore. Some will say that it's absolute truth. Some will shrug their shoulders. The problem is that there is a fourth option that agnostic atheists take: Noah isn't real or true. It was an old myth. Because of that, we don't have to compromise at all on truth. It's never that simple for the faithful, because they admit to believing in the supernatural, which by definition goes against reason and science. When someone makes the decision that sometimes science doesn't count, they allow themselves to have an unexplainable perception of reality. That is a HUGE problem for scientific progress.
It may have originally been only to explain unknown phenomena, but it's use grew just as if it were a tool. It now encompasses philosophy more than physical science. If religion were only in philosophy, everything would be fine. The problem is that theists believe in the existence of god, not as a philosophical concept, but as some dude that created the universe. There is still that disconnect with reason there. The 'meta-narrative' doesn't hinder science as far as I understand, but religion isn't just the meta-narrative. That's the problem I see.