You are a proud atheist aren't you? You claim to be...you certainly detest religion and put the boot in regularly. I'm trying to figure out which kind of atheist you are. Are you the Sam Harris type? I hope not.
Guilty! My methods of inquiry were definitely underhanded lol.
So...to which branch of atheism do you belong and what happens to a person who can't back up their beliefs with enough evidence for your satisfaction? Do you write them off as ignorant...or simply dismiss them with disdain...like you did with Bozo?
I'm not sure I would describe myself as a "proud" atheist. I think to claim that would imply that I hold a superiority over those who hold a religious belief and I understand that there are reasons people both look to and become involved in religion and that these reasons are human traits that I to share and am susceptible to. It also implies that I believe something, when it is the opposite. One thing I am proud of is my willingness to admit when I don't know something and I wish more of us would be proud to do the same.
I'm also not sure what types of atheists there are. Is there a list I get to choose from?
😛
As an atheist: I do not believe there is significant evidence to support the claim/s of god/s so I choose not to believe in one. For me, non belief is the default state and to change would require significant evidence.
I do not dispute the possibility that there could be a god (or many gods / creators, architects etc) as I cannot disprove anything that I cannot observe, test or research. If there was some creator which created the universe and set some grand plan into action but then did not intervene (in any way we can see) then sure I will accept this as a possibility. But I refer back to my earlier point - I don't know if that's the case and why should anyone else think differently to that?
I am willing to claim that some religions are built on lies (Mormons, Johos, Scientology) as there is plenty of evidence on their history.
There are plenty of flaws in the bible that I would dispute but I don't think there is enough evidence to disprove the overall concept of an abrahamic god (this doesn't make it true). But I would argue that if this god does exist; that they are one nasty piece of work that cares more about people doing what they are told and praying to him than their well being. They also think it's okay to spread their message and proof of their existence to only a select few of the people of earth. If I do end up meeting this god at some pearly gate he will need to do a lot of explaining for ME to want to enter.
I don't really mind what someone believes. I would consider it to be the same as my analogy involving Whisky. But when someone decides that others must share this truth or they use their beliefs to create real world consequences then I have a very big problem. It is this practice that I want to see stamped out. Imagine I started a campaign which prevented the sale of anything labeled as whiskEy or shamed the drinkers of Irish whiskey for not embracing the true whisky or did anything which reduced the availability and sale of whiskey. Would you stand up against this?
